The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.8040 Greenline.1972-19746P%-Occv�-0'SO"020 C16 / . 8040 Greenline Code Amend 1972- 1974 ■ C R E C T Date / 7 Y'_ 2333 Received From- Aclr-ief Address ---- For ACCOUNT AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER HOW PAID I Dollars 8K800 K-d'i.m RECAT Date - rli 2336 Received From 4CA IscIrLet Address Dollars $ For au ACCOUNT HM PAID AM T. OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY By DUE ORDER r onuw ^--••J•••• RECAT Date J 2335 Received From-__ Address-----_ -- -_— - Dollars $ For nu h bc, hparin!r4 WA -bib Shcar,4u 4. ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY B DUE ORDER 8K900 R E C AT Date Received From Address ._ - moo! - ��-- 2337 e Dollars $ For m C c, ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. OF ACCOUNT CASH B" r AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE DUE MONEY ORDER REC0%T Date % -)- 2332 Received From_ 0 -er h &A r� 6-1 Address _________ Dollars $ For n r- I (c�mm. o123 ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT _ AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER R EC AT Date ��9 �_--- 2331 Received From t4crb Qar4�el _ Address llars For ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. OF CASH i! ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY WBy G bn --� E ORDER J BKBW Itedol w RE C XT Dated 2 9 _7q_ 2330 Received From Address Dollars $ For Pan (cimm , I�eS. ,� T1T1 �1 Af w p; ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY " N, Qn�n54Ln DUE ORDER By MOO R*dOrIN ---- --_R EC LOT Date t �g g— 2338 Received From__ Address__.__ Dollars $__ __ For 8-2 6,2- AC COUNT HOW PAID AMT. Of CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BA-A.CE MOB oY BV IV Q (1 -An/7 8K800 OFFICE OF BUILDING IN�PECTOR mff�- P.O. BOX 694 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 C 0 U *N T Y 1st 1 "otice� 2rd Notice W/J R nc� Return C/o W 1 n Jaffee Jr. Box 8 Aspen, Colo. NAME 1st Notice IV 7 1972 2nd Notice _return_-� 2 9 j �- . SF7 72-10 Mills & Rodden LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is scheduled in the District Courtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado on September 19, 1972 at 8:00 P.M. to consider changing the District Zoning Map from AF-1 to B-1 a parcel of land owned by Mills & Rodden and described as follows: A PARCEL OF 1&�No SITUATED IN LOTS 9 AND 10, SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT WHENCE THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21, AN IRON PIPE IN PLACE, BEARS S 88-51-35" W 1305.29 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WEST LINE 01' SAID LOT 9 N 01045'14" W 764.47 FEET; THENCE S 88051'35" W 213.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY R.O.W. LINE OF COLORADO STATE, HIGHWAY NO. 32; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID R.O.W. LINE N 15039'00" W 533.47 FEET; THENCE N 66007'00" E 288.56 FEET; THENCE S 87048'15" E 453.38 FEET; THENCE S 0^0°43'Ci-" E 442.00 FEET; THENCE S 01035'00" W 550.00 FEET; THENCE S 50026'00" W 303.00 FEET; THENCE S 28034'00" W 219.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LITIE OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9 S 88051'35" W 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14.903 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 01' THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 21 BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLC,WS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY R.O.W. LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY N0. 82 WHENCE THE SOUTIi 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21 BEARS S 88051'35" W 1230.00 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID R.O.W. LINE 541.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEET; THENCE N 88051'35" E 213.13 FEET; THENCE S 01045'14" E 764.47 FEET; THENCE S 88051'35" W 75.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.289 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A map is on file in the Pitkin County Building Department and may be examined during regular business hours. The hearing is scheduled as a joint meeting of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard expressing their objections or opinions. Peggy E. Miklich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Published August 1972• OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P 6. BOX 694 -- - ABPEN, EOLORADO 8161 er ...� RETUR; P _ _. - N 01 . H. Lawrence, Est Wa , . ,��1� G H Le t C \ ' Is U 1 Marine Plaza O NA V1; F , U Milwaukee, Wisc. i`- 71 EP 2 2197 Y co O�SpM _ r� U Copy W NotlC@ :.i TWO MILES SOUTH OF I Notice is hereby given that a joint Public Hearing is scheduled in the District Courtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin County- Aspen, Colorado on September 26, 1972 at 8 00 P.M. to consider changing a portion if the Pitkin County Zoning District IVap from AR-1, ACCOM. MODATION`., nad RECREATION DIS- TRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, both of whh.h are high density residential dis- tricts, and R-15, RESIDENTIAL DIISTR- ICT, a low density residential district, to AF-2, AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density residential dis- trict; also to consider changing a portion of the City of Aspen Zoning District Map from AR-1. ACCOMMODATIONS, REC- REATION-ORBAN DISTRICT, a high 'density res dential — accommodation and limited cornmercial district to AF, GRI- CULTURAL-FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density residential district. The land for which the above zone change is being considered is shown On the map identified as exhibit no. 1 and Incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The Public Hearing is scheduled as a joint hearing of the City of Aspen Plan- ning and ;:oni0g Commission, City Coun- cil, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. if you are unable to appear personally at.such hear- ing you are urged to state your views by letter. Peggy E. MiKlieh Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Lorraine Graves City Clerk, City Of Aspen PUbllsh,'d in Aspen Today, Wednesday, 1 August 73. 1977. t L pp I R I \ I \ � PROPOSED AF-2 AGRICULTURQ 6 FORESTRY DISTRICT I ZONE I 4PPLICATION BOUNDARY C I f O —. IN_DE FI ITE BOUNDARY 20 is I I �, 17 IPI EXISTING T I I ZONE TOURIST 1 ! I APPLICATION PROPOSED AF-2 I BOUNDARY INrERSECT-ON OF $040 FT I AGRICULTURE d FORESITRY DISTRICT \ EL 8040 AND THE 4LAl. EL' I SOUTH LINE SEC 19 O I ZONE I � APPLICATION I .BOUNDARY CENTERLINE OF �UTX IMITs— CASTLE CREEK P EXISTING AR-i ACCOMO_DATIONS 9RECREATION __ awl —Jt_ EXIST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ING T, TOURIST V. PROPOSED AF AGRICULTURE 9 FORESTRY O-7—EXISTING AR-1 ACCOMODATIONS B RECREATION $640 FT. rY.&L. EL. SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 12 Mt T N C 0 U jWN T y OFFICE OF BUILDINC(I)SPECTOR P.O. BOX 694 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1 I_rR Y-2)_ No No such office In not n in iDec .j Johnson eW(%V 8 4 NAspe Colo. NAME—. 1st Notice. 2nd Return Ist ce:::3EP 7 1972 2nd SEP 2 2 197Z F-- . .......... SEF ?S P?vj ............... .. ........ v qW Rezoning 72-9 Jones -Woody Creek Store LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is scheduled in the District Courtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado on September 19, 1972 at 8:00 P.M. to consider changing the District Zoning Map from AF-1 to Neighbor►iood Commercial (PUD), a parcel of land owned by +� Woody Creek Store and described as follows: This Tract of land contains 6.28 acres more or less. A tract of land beginning at the NW Corner of Lot 8, in NE4 Section 16, Tsp.9 South, Range 85 West, Thence S 1511 ft. along the quarter Section line to Corner No. 2 which is in the SW-,., NE94 of Section 16, i Tsp.9 South Range 85 WPst Thence S 60°25' E 756.96.feet to West of the 6th P.M., Thence South 60°25' E 756.96 feet to Corner No. 3, Thence along the D. & R.G. Right of Way Northwesterly to a point on the South line of lot No. 2, Sec. 16 Tsp 9 S. Range 85 W. 6th P.M., Thence West 127.5 feet to the place of beginning, less the County Road Right of Way of 2.5 acres, said tract containing 15.7 acres, more or less. Except mineral rights reserved by The State of Colorado. See deed dated October 27, 1954 recorded as Document #102308 in Book 172 at Page 365 Pitkin County Records. Less a strip of land along the North boundary of Pate Tract in Lot 8, Section 16, Township 9 South Range 85 W of the 6th P.M., 20 feet in width to C. M. Mecham by metes and bounds. See deed in Book 176 Page 298. Less 3.48 acres to James & I . Eura Vagneur less.84 acre to County Road, A right of way 20 feet wide over and across the Southerly portion of that piece of land described as Lot 12, Section 16, Township 9 South Range 85 West for purpose of Ingress and Egrees to the Roaring Fork. River from the parcel of land in NE4 of Section 16, Township 9 South Range 85 West described as Document #102308 Book 172 Page 365 of Pitkin County Records. Records and for the purpose of laying a pipeline extending from the a Roaring Fork River Across said land to the land described in Document #102308, Book 181 Page 110. Less a Tract of land deeded to Adrian containing 2.00 acres more or less see Book 199 at Page 144. Less a Tract Beginning at the NW Corner of Lot 8 in the NV4 of Section 16, Tsp 9 S, Range 85 W of the 6th P.M., Thence S. 1511 feet along the quarter Section line to Corner No. 2, which is the SW 4, NE-,, of Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Thence 8.60° 25'E 756.96 feet to Corner No. 3, Thence along the D&R.G. Right of way ; Northwesterly to a point on the South line of Lot 2, Section 16, Tsp. 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Thence W. 127.5 feet to the place i of beginning, containing 5 acres, excepting therfrom a tract containing 34 acres more or less, described in Book 178, Page 542, Pitkin County ' Records. A map of the area is on file in the Pitkin County Building Department and may be examined during regular business hours. The Hearing is scheduled as a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard expressing their objections or opinions. Peggy E. MiklicF Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Published August 1972 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR PvO. BOX Q4 "1 ASrMT,-e&LORADO 81611 C 0 U ON T Y �o p h 000000 C . A. l ly 5300 erry Kans s City, Mo. 44-110 /' /o / -� le r E 44 o 0 Oi Notice Two MILES SOUTH OF INDEFINITE BOUI • A otice is hereby given thet a joint Public earng is scheduled i,, the District ourtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin ounty, Aspen, Colorado on September S, 1972 at 8:00 P.M. to consider changing " portion of the Pitkn County Zoning (strict Map from AR-1, ACCOIA- IODATIONS nad RECFEATION DIS- I RICT and T, TOURIST CdSTRICT, both T� I which are high density residential dis- icts, and R-15, RESIDEtITIAL DIISTR- \ =T, a lovr density residential district, to r-2, AGR CULTURE and FORESTRY I ", iSTRICT, a low density residential dis- ict; also 'a consider cl- rigng a portion I the City of Aspen Zon g District Map am AR-1 ACCOMMOC ITIONS, REC- POOPQSED AF-[ EATION-I'RBAN DIST ICT, a high AGRICULTURQ 9 DISTRICT msity res iential — acc mmodation and mited col Imercial dish t to AF, GRI- �FORESTRY I, ULTURAt FORESTRY DISTRICT, a Ity residential di, -ic 1, •� or which ti above zone ' i Is I nng consider I is shown on ' e map is ntified as e> ibit no. 1 and' G corporate : herein and made a part ^reof. ie Public Hearing is heduled as a int hear,n , of the City ,f Aspen Plan- ing and Z..iirlg Commis m, City Coun- if, Pitkn county Planr g and Zoning ommissior., and the B, ,.�rd of County ummissioners, f such hcarng all per "is in interest I pear and be hea .. If you are i ZONE i a)pear personal at such hear- APPLICATION Sa rf urged to stat your views by BOUNDARY r t �1 Peggy E. Miklich Pitk in '_Ounty- Clerk & Recorder Lorraine Graves City Clerk, City of Aspr ublished in Aspen Tod. /, Wednesday, ugust 23, 1972. O _ INDEFI ITE _� BOUNDARY . 20(_ I 'EXISTING T I I I TOURIST \ I I `I PROPOSED AF-2 INTER, TION OF $040 ET I AGRICULTURE 9 FORESTRY DISTRICT EL 00 AND THE MS.L. EL. I / I SOUTH INC SEC 19 I I ZONE (1 �- APPLICATION I I BOUNDARY I UTY I ISING 4R I EXISTING _CCOMLDAT OS9CRE_ATO`_NN__- _ _I j-- —J�` EXISTING T, TOURIST, PROP07ED AF AGRICULTURE _ FORESTRY IB. -7-EXISTING AR-1 O ACCOMODATIONS B CI RECREATION 9040 PT. r 11.8.L. XNTERLINE _..--CASTLE CREEK SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 12 Y W 2 U 0 • PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION DATES ON GREENLINE REZONING PUBLIC HEARING DATES September 26, 1972 Joint hearing - City Council, City Planning & Zoning, County Commissioners and County Planning and Zoning February 26, 1973 Joint hearing - County Planning and Zoning and County Commissioners January 29, 1974 County Commissioners hearing-Greenline Rezoning including in downzoning January 14, 1974 City Council Greenline lst reading February 11, 1974 City Council Greenline public hearing (tentative) 2nd reading RESOLUTIONS DATES PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING April 4, 1973 COMMISSION RESOLUTION ASPEN -SHADOW MOUNTAIN GREEN LINE REZONING PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS March 19, 1973 8040 RESOLUTION ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING C014MISSION January 9, 1973 RESOLUTION ASPEN -SHADOW MOUNTAIN GREEN LINE REZONING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1973 RESOLUTION RESTATING RECOMMENDATION FOR GREENLINE REZONING AND ESTABLISHING PRIOR RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ORDINANCE #9, Series of 1973 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FIRM •y C F. WEIKEL 6. R. 6 1. LO. ORDINANCE N0_L_ (Series of 1974) �Qy AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASPEN ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING FROM AR-1 ACCOMMODATIONS P\ECREATIONUF,3AN DISTRICT TO AF - AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY DISTRICT ALL THAT LAND WITHIN THE SOUTH ANNEXA110N TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ABOVE 8040 FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL, SAID ELE- VATION TO BE ESTABLISHED FROM U.S.G.S. BENCH MARK IN THE WALL OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PITKIN COUNTY COURT HOUSE, ELEVATION 7906.802 FEET. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has, by its resolution dated January 9, 1973, recom- mended the rezoning of alllands in the South Annex- ation to the City of Aspen above 8040 feet mean sea level be rezoned to AF - Agricultural/Forestry, and WHEREAS, it was the finding of the Planning; and Zoning Commission that such rezoning is necessary to (1) conform to the recommendations of the Aspen Area General Plan; (2) protect the clear air drainage basin, main- tain the natural watershed, prevent acceler- ated erosion, reduce runoff and consequent sedimentation and stream pollution; (3` maintain the natural scenic beauty of Aspen Mountain to sustain our tourist based econo- my; (4) aid in reducing excessive population concen- tration, transportation problems and service demands that cannot be satisfied; (5) protect the Aspen I-Iount-ain profile with its historical - cultural significance; (6) enhance the open space investments made by RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves E:rVN •^ C. F. HOFCKEI. B. B. K L. L 1. the City and complement its efforts to "preserve a physical setting necessary for a recreation community" and WHEREAS, the City Council is in accord with the recommendation and agrees that the area of the city above the 8040 elevation line should be designated for agricultural and forestry uses so as to establish a variety of land uses within the city, contain our urban sprawl, retain the mountain in a near natural state to protect the community against geological and pollution hazards that may result from its dis- turbance, protect the city against utility and access demands that are impossible to meet, and preserve our most important natural resource, a mountain whose beauty is a center of tourist activity which consti- tutes the economic base of this community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That all that area of the South Annexation to the City of Aspen and above 8040 feet mean sea level, as established by the U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet, be rezoned from its present designation of AR-1 Accomdations Recreation -Urban District to AF - Agricultural/Forestry. Section 2. If any provision of this ordinance or the application (2 ) RECORD QE PF30CEEDINGS 100 Leaves � thereof to any person or circumstance is held in- valid, such invalidity shall not affect other pro- visions 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 3. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held pursuant to the requirements of Section 24- 11 (d) of the Municipal Code on 19743 at p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall_, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, on the day of 1974. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1974. ATTEST: 14ayor C_ty Cleik 7 r r • I June, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESTATING RECOMMENDATION FOR GREENLINE REZONING AND ESTABLISHING PRIOR RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ORDINANCE #9, Series of 1973. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did, by resolution dated January 9, 1973, entitled "Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution - Aspen -Shadow Mountain Green Line Rezoning", recommend rezoning from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation - Urban District to AF- Agri- cultural/Forestry District for the lands contained within the South Annexation and which are above 8040 mean sea level, said 8040 elevation to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did adopt as an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #9, Series of 1973, which ordinance suspends, for a period of one year, the issuance of building permits which would be prohibited under a proposed amendment to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, or to the Zoning District Map, in cases where amendment proced- ures have been properly initiated by the City and the Plann- ing and Zoning Commission has adopted a recommendation to the City Council on such proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to establish that its resolution above described is a con- tinuing recommendation which provisions come within the scope and intent of Ordinance #9, Series of 1973; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby restate its recommendation that all lands contained within the South Annexation and which are above 8040 mean sea level, said 8040 elevation to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet, be rezoned from AR -Accommodations Recreation - Urban District to AF-Agricul- tural/Forestry District; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no building permit shall issue which would be prohibited by the recommended rezoning for a period of one year from the date of the recommendation (January 9, 1973) unless an ordinance adopt- ing the proposed amendment has not been passed on second read- ing by the city council within said one year period, in which case all permits applied for during such period which otherwise conform to the existing zoning regulations shall , issue. Chairman PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dated this % day of 1973. -2- 8040 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Pitkin County has adopted a Master Plan in accordance with C.R.S. 106-2-5 entitled the Aspen -Area General Plan, and WHEREAS, the zoning code for Pitkin County, adopted prior to said Master Plan, has never been amended to bring said zoning code into conformance with said Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Pitkin County have directed the Pitkin County Planning Commission to approve, disapprove, or offer suggestions with respect to certain suggested changes in said zoning code and to suggest any other changes such planning commission deems necessary to bring said zoning code into conformance with such Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Commissioners have directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop suggested zoning districts and regulations for the currently unzoned and unincorporated areas of Pitkin County, and WHEREAS, the beauty of the Aspen area for residents and visitors alike lies largely in the beauty of Aspen's mountains, and WHEREAS, Aspen's mountains are a significant and important busi- ness attribute of the Pitkin County area, and the economics of the area being in large part dependent upon tourism and tourism being largely de- pendent upon the attractiveness and beauty of the area, and WHEREAS, there is currently under consideration comprehensive zoning of a portion of the Aspen mountains above the elevation of 8,040 feet, and WHEREAS, it appears that certain business, industrial or commercial buildings or structures are proposed to be built which might have great effect upon the appearance and beauty of the Aspen mountains above the elevation of 8,040 feet, and hence upon a significant element of the economic well-being of the area, and WHEREAS, the question of the practical availability of utility services and fire protection above the elevation of 8,040 feet is of grave concern to the Pitkin County Commissioners and at this time unresolved by them, and Page Two •y ` ~•, WHEREAS, the County Commissioners hereby find that temporary .i regulations authorized by C.R.S. 106-2-20 are required under the cir- cumstances, NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the County Commissioners of Pitkin County, 1. That it shall be unlawful to erect, construct, reconstruct, or alter any building, structure, or improvements to be used for any business, industrial or commercial -purposes to or upon any property which is within the unincorporated areas of Pitkin County being considered for rezoning under that public notice previously published, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. All building or use permit applications shall be reviewed by the Pitkin County Building Inspector under the criteria established by subsection 1 above and if the proposed building structure or improve- ment fails to meet the criteria of sub -paragraph 1 above such application shall be rejected. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately as to all buildings, structures and improvements for which no valid permit has been issued or for which, if not covered by permit, for which actual construction has not begun, and shall remain in effect for a period of six months from the date hereof unless earlier repealed in whole or in part. 4. If any portion of this Resolution shall be determined to be unlawful then that determination shall have no effect upon the remainder hereof. f� Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. Chairman PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dated this 19, day of March, 1973. t EXHIBIT "A" An area being part of Section 18, 19, and 30, Township 10 South, Range 84 West and Section 12, 13, 24 and 25, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said area is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point being the 1/4 corner common to said Section 18 and 19; thence Southerly along the North -South center line of said Sections 19 and 30 to the South 1/4 -arner of said Section 30; thence Westerly along the South line of said Sections 30 and 25 to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence Northerly along the North -South center line of said Section 25 and 24 to the common 1/4 corner of said Sections 13 and 24; thence Westerly along the South line of said Section 13 to the centerline of Castle.Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the South lire of Section 12; thence Easterly along the South line of said Section 12 to the intersection with a contour line at elevation of 8040 feet above mean sea level, (said line to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet); thence Easterly along said contour line to the intersection with the Southerly line of said Section 18; thence Westerly along said Southerly line of said Section 18 to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above description all that portion lying within the South annexation to the City of Aspen, Colorado as shown on the plat of record in Plat Book 3, Page 132 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. January 2, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ASPEN -SHADOW MOUNTAIN GREEN LINE REZONING WHEREAS, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have jointly initiated a rezoning application for portions of Aspen -Shadow Mountain, and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing of the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Commissioners and the city and county planning commissions was scheduled for, adver- tised for and held on September 26, 1972, and WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, letters and exhibits submitted, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: 1. That a reduction in population density that could be accommodated by the present zoned capa- city is necessary to encourage the most appropri- ate use of land, lessen congestion in the streets, improve safety from fire and natural hazards, to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, drainage, open space, public buil- dings and other public requirements, to avoid undue concentration of population and destruction of existing physical environment, prevent the over- crowding of land and promote the general welfare of the community. 2. An original error was made in the 1955 county zoning and an error repeated in 1967 when the city - 2 - zoning was applied with the South Annexation; land use forecast was inaccurate since the appli- cation area was not considered developable and investigation on the physical conditions of the area was restricted because of the limited infor- mation available at the time of the 1955 and 1967 zoning. 3. That change in conditions has occurred making the present zoning incorrect and it is necessary to change the existing zoning to prevent various harms from being created against the community. 4. The proposed change of zoning was preceded by careful study, is in compliance with a basic plan for land use and is made in accordance with an adopted plan which considered the needs of the community as a whole; the adopted Aspen Area General Plan is on file with the County Clerk and Recorder and has represented a meaningful advance notice of the intended land use policies and development pat- terns of the City of Aspen. 5. That the climatic and meteorological conditions of the application area justify a change in zoning to protect the clear air drainage basin for Aspen necessary to maintain quality air standards; that alteration of soil and vegetative cover to the ex- tent that will result from presently allowed land development activities would drastically upset the natural watershed, greatly accelerate erosion, - 3 - decrease quality of runoff because of increased sedimentation, increase quantity of runoff, and create excess costs of water filtering to avoid stream pollution. 6. Maintaining the natural scenic beauty of the mountain landscape has become an increasingly important zoning consideration for Aspen because of its dependence on tourism and the need to protect the city sales tax base generated largely by visitors to the Aspen area; maintaining the natural scenic beauty therefore is not a matter of luxury, individual preference or judgement but a necessity since a reliable recreation industry is essential for the economic, cultural and general welfare of the community. 7. That it is important to protect the profile of the historically significant Silver Queen to maintain Aspen's position as a historical -cultural center. 8. The City of Aspen is expending $7,680,023.95 in public funds for the acquisition of open space lands to preserve a physical setting necessary for a recreation community; this investment must be protected, and no other alternatives exist with the exception of complementary zoning to adequately protect the investment. 9. The City of Aspen is preparing to make a sub- stantial public expenditure on transportation, and - 4 - this expenditure should not be jeopardized by allowing land uses which will create a trans- portation demand that exceeds the system's planned capacity. 10. The present zoning has not successfully dealt with one of its principal aims, control- ling the demand for public facilities and the burden of future taxes by changing zoning on lands which have not yet been developed. 11. That the impairment to property values which would result from the zone change is accom- panied by benefits to the public and protection afforded to others. 12. That the physical conditions vary along the proposed zone boundary between the AR-1 Accommodation Recreation and AF-Agricultural/ Forestry zoned districts and a separate site re- view and consideration of the rights land owners have previously established will be necessary for action on each development proposal along above said proposed zone district boundary. NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends rezoning from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation - Urban District to AF- Agri- cultural/Forestry District for the lands contained within the South Annexation and which are above 8040 mean sea level, said 8040 elevation to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench - 5 - Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Aspen shall have established on the the ground the above said zone district boundary of 8040 elevation. Chai n Planning & Zoning Commission Dated this day of 1973. ZL-81-8 ZI NO1103S !0 3NI-1 N1nOS -" .13- 1! OtD. 1 NOIlV321038 9 SNOIIVOONIOOOV S I-bV 9N11SIX3- Ab1S3bO 9 a 3bnlln Olb'JV dV 03podoba 1518n01 'l ONI1SIX3-'-_ NOI1V3H03tf 9 SNOI IVOOYYOo:V 7 X3380 311SV0 ~ + I � SS11W1 AllO i0 3NIlb31N30 Ab VONn08 1 1 � NOIIVOIIddV 3NOZ 1 1 � I 13 "lilll 61 33S 3N11 N1no$, I 1012d1S10 ANI'S380d 18 38n1Ihn01N9V Y3 0►08 I 3N1 ONV OeOB l3 N01103S831NI AbVONn08 I Z-AV 03SOdO8d -40 NO11V011ddV I 1 i 1 1SIbn01 3NOZ I i 1 ONIISIX3, 1 81 [I I oz A2lVONn08 311 1j3ON1 % o S� r ' :J AbVONnoB NO11V3IlddV 3NOZ I 101a1S10 AHIS380d\ a 98n1lnowev -jv 03S6dO}d ' I r NnOB 31INIA30NI !O HLnOS S3 TWO A'L ES SOUTH OF 'NUr FINICI' AOUNDAR� ►�e�o+�.�i�r �.as•�eirc:�.roc>•ls�a�a'.Rraaeoa� r � P\ � PROPQSZD AF AGRIC:ILTURQ FA,FORESTRY DISTRICT ZONE APPLICATION BOUNDARY r 3 _ h I . Q .-_ . IN EF; -1 -- ti ' - SCJNDARY 2C •9 1 —17 St ... ".. I ! I - .EXISTING T I I I TOURIST I I PROPOSED AF-2 INTERStCT,ON J: -9040 FT i AGRICJLTJRE IN FORESTRY DISTRICT f L 8000 ANC THE A�L1I. EL. ; ! �SOJIH L-NE SEC 19 I I ZONE 1 ` APPLICATION BOUNDARY CITY IMPS '� ! / 7'' .. o•=fir -EXISTING 44-I ! A_CCOMCL4TICNS 5 RR�C9EATICN__1 EXIS '_. ING T, TOURIST . -ROP0'IED AF AGR;C'JLTURE ' B FORESTRY �.�-EXISTING AR-1 4CV"JCOAT ONS w RECREA7;ON I � � CENTERLINE OF' CLSTLF. CREEK SJu'N L:NF SEC' ON 12 AN .>,,.-.- .._,...�..rw.....Io..�-.-.r..,�..r+e. nl�er� .,.,er^�.w.,.--..r..�-.�..now-�.s�nn,.�wwwenv+..+•.+mwr...e--..++oewaw�r..s+w�.�, ...... r.. .. r.w.r.. -. ., .-rr.... .... ....«�y.a..r .. -a. ,w. 0 Ile YLY. R'�srsb� <;d1ifM P. O. Box BB Aspen, Colorado B 1611 1303) 925-4066 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) Copof yNotice ss. County of Pitkin ) ...........d----------------------------------- do solemnly swear that 1 am the _ 1tors....i'_ r1Pf e_r of ASPEN TODAY; that the same �s� LE4s�aivY. is a weekly • newspaper printed, in whole or part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation Notice is hereby given that a ioint Public therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and un- Hearing is scheduled me Dlsiri_t Courtroom, County Courr thouse, Pitkin interruptedly in said County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty- County, Aspen, Colorado on September 26, 197t a;8:00 P.M, to consider changing two consecutive weeks next prior to the Hirst publication of the a port,on of line to County Zonlrg District Map from AR-1, ACCOM. annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been MODATIONS nad RECREATION DIS- TRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, bo'h admitted to the United States mails as second -glass matter under the of which are high density residential dis- tricts, and R-15, RESIDENTIAL DIISTR provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, ICT, a low density residential district, to AF-2, AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for DISTRICT, a low density residential cis- - trict; also to consider changing a portion legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of the of the City of Aspen Zoning District Map AR ACCOMMODATIONS, REC. publishing laws of the State of Colorado, from 'I, REATION-URBAN DISTRICT, a hgn density residential — accommodation and ' limited commercial district to AF, GRI- CULTURAL -FORESTRY DISTRICT, a That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in low density residential district, The land for which the above zone the and entire issue of every number of said weekly news- change is being corsidered is shown on regular the map identified as exhibit no. I :and incorporated herein and made 9 part hereof. paper for the period of ......... 1--------------- consecutive insertions; and that The Public Hearing is scheduled as a joilt hearing of the City Aspen Plan - the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper on, City 000n- nino and Zonirtg Commis on, cil, Pitkin County Planning and Zonirg ' Commission, and the Board of County �7 dated _. n.�'. �. _+_-_.-1f_----1--1--2----- A,D., 19------------- Commissioners. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and he heard. If you are ' unable to appear personally at such near- ing you are urged to state your views by letter. Peggy E, Miklich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Lorraine Graves City Clerk, City of Aspen 10!ished in Aspen Today, Wednesday, \August 23, 1972. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this _ ----- --__ ------ -------------- day of A.D., 19-_-----------see attached Notary Public I My commission expires ------------------------------- --- ---- ------...--- Rezoning - 73-4 Pitkin County & City of Aspen Mountain Greenlin.e Legal Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that a joint Pu.hlic Hearing of the Board of the Pitkin County Commissioners and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled in the County Commissioners' meeting room, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado, on February '0, 1_973 at 8:00 P.M. to consider an amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning District Map from AR-1, ACCOMMODATIONS and RECREATION DISTRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, both of which are high density residential districts, to AF-2, AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density 1. residential district. The land for which the above amend- ment to the Pitkin County Zoning District Map is being con- sidered is described as follows: (see attachment) The Pitkin County Zoning Resolution and Zoning District Maps may be examined in the office of the Pitkin County Building Department, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado during usual business hours. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. If you are unable to appear person- ally at such hearing you.are urged to state your views by letter. All information previously submitted on this matter at the September 26, 1972 hearing shall be resubmitted for the record by the Planning Office. Peggy E. Miklich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Piibli shed Rezoning - 72-14 Pitkin County & City of Aspen Mountain Greenline Legal Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that a joint Public Hearing of the Board of the Pitkin County Commissioners and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled in the County Commissioners' meeting room, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado, on December 18, 1972 at 4:00 P.M. to consider an amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning District Map from AR-1, ACCOMMODATIONS and RECREATION DISTRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, both of which are high density residential districts, and R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, a low density residential district, to AF-2. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density residential district. The land for which the above amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning District Map is being considered is described as follows: (see attachment) The Pitkin County Zoning Resolution and Zoning District Maps may be examined in the office of the Pitkin County Building Department, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado during usual business hours. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. If you are unable to appear personally at such hearing you are urged to state your views by letter. All information previously submitted on this matter at the September 26 hearing mus-t be resubmitted for the record by the Planning Office. Peggy E. Miklich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Published -�w-� -. - ;��- - Y«-� �J �..7 �'"►.,t ..i, -ii: = �'��X _:�`a: CtJ.,.k♦ a. .. ,u�,-. - .�r .�f ll��}� {�. x • � - Rezoning - 72-14 Pitkin County & City of Aspen Mountain Greenline Legal -Notice - Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that a joint Public Hearing is scheduled in the District Courtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado on September 26, 1972 at 8:00 P.M. to consider changing a portion of the Pitkin County Zoning District Map from AR-1, ACCOMODATIONS and RECREATION DISTRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, both of which are high density residential districts, and R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, a low density residential district, to AF-2, AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density residential district; also to consider changing a portion of the City of Aspen Zoning District Map from AR-1, ACCOMODATIONS, RECREATION -URBAN DISTRICT, a high density residential - accomodation and limited commercial district to AF, AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density residential district. The land for which the above zone change is being considered is shown on the map identified as exhibit no. 1 and incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The Public Hearing is scheduled as a joint hearing of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. If you are unable to appear personally at such hearing you are urged to state your views by lerter. Peggy E . Mirilich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Published August 23, 1972 Lorraine Graves City Clerk, City of Aspen TO: FROM Ll HERB BARTEL SANDY STULLER November 5, 1973 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: 8040 GREENLINE: BEYER V PALO ALTO Herb: In response to a request to the City of Palo Alto I received a copy of the full case file of Beyer v Palo Alto, the first case to unsucessfully challenge the Palo Alto greenline ordinance. Please advise if you would like to read it. The city had, in its comprehensive plan, designated 5912 acres of foothills "Open Space, Conservation and/or Park Use." The land included both privately and publically owned property. The-110-S" zoning required a 10 acre minimum lot size and permitted agricultural uses, wildlife sanctuaries and conservatorties, and single family dwellings. The planning and legal considerations used to support the zoning district were (1) earthquake hazards (San Andreas fault), (2) fire hazards,(3) earthslide and erosion problems, (4) ecological preservation, (5) watershed preservation, (6) flood control, and (7) retention of open space (prevent urban sprawl). As to the latter, California has a Constitutional amendment declaring a public interest in conserving open space. In addition, state law requires every California city, statutory or charter (Palo Alto is a charter city), to adopt open space zoning ordinances by June 30, 1973. Beyers contested the ordinance declaring it (1) unconstitu- tional per se and as applied to his property; (2) confiscatory; (3) and an illegal attempt to reduce the value of his land in preparation for condemnation by the city for park purposes. The city demurrered (moved to dismiss) and the complaint was dismissed. Unfortunately the court did not specify its reasons for granting the dismissal. It is my understanding that the ordinance is again under challenge. I have asked for a copy of the ordinance from the city attorney's office. It might prove interesting and useful. 4� CITY 5 PEEN aspen,colo aadio,ai6tf box v Memo To: Steven Ware, Attorney From: Herb Bartel, City/County Planner Re: republication of notice of public hearing for Aspen Mountain rezoning Date: October 26, 1972 Please review the enclosed description of the application area and contact me regarding the republication of the notice of public hearing for the Aspen Mountain rezoning, kp-hand delivered / TPA CITY OT ASPEN aspen,color ado, mif box v Memo To: William Carney, Attorney From: Herb Bartel, City/County Planner Re: republication of notice of public hearing for Aspen Mountain rezoning Date: October 26, 1972 Please review the enclosed description of the application area and contact me regarding the republication of the notice of public hearing for the Aspen Mountain rezoning. kp-hand delivered OOHNSON-LONGFELLOW and ASSOCIA*` SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS Aspen — Snowmass-at-Aspen P. O. Box 5547 — West Village Annex Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 923-3496 October 25, 1972 GREEN LINE ZONING An area being part of Section 18, 19, and 30, Township 10 South, Range 84 West and Section 12, 13, 24 and 25, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said area is rare fully described as follows: Beginning at a point being the 1/4 corner common to said Section 18 and 19; thence Southerly along the North -South center line of said Sections 19 and 30 to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 30; thence Westerly along the South line of said Sections 30 and 25 to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence Northerly along the North -South center line of said Section 25 and 24 to the common 1/4 corner of said Sections 13 and 24; thence Westerly along the South line of said Section 13 to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the South line of Section 12; thence Easterly along the South line of said Section 12 to the intersection with a contour line at elevation of 8040 feet above mean sea level, (said line to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet); thence Easterly along said contour line to the intersection with the Southerly line of said Section 18; thence Westerly along said Southerly line of said Section 18 to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above description all that portion lying within the South annexation to the City of Aspen, Colorado as shown on the plat of record in Plat Book 3, Page 132 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. TRI-CO Martgement, Inc.* Planning • Design • Surveying • Engineering • Construction and Management of Land September 17, 1973 Dave Ellis City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 8040 Line Dear Dave: This is in answer to your request for explanation of the basis and methods we used for establishing the 8040 line on Aspen Mountain. The basis of elevation used was a value of 7906.802 on "BM 7909", a brass cap set in the courthouse wall. This elevation of 7906.802 was established by the U.S.C.&G.S. and is generally accepted as correct. Differential elevations were run in closed loops from the bench mark to elevation 8040.0 and brass caps stamped "El. 8040" were set in concrete at some 17 points along the 8040 line within the City limits of Aspen. I believe these brass caps are within 0.10 feet of the elevation noted. Sincerely yours, {Fe l ... Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 a 4f�" / e S rO 34 n nk d ye, A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation • Offices thrlughout the West TRI-CO N/iianagE...mnent,Inc. Planning • Design • Surveying • Engineering • Construction and Management of Land July 25, 1973 Dave Ellis City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 8040 Line Dear Dave: My suggestion for monumenting the 8040 line on Aspen Mountain is to put monuments in at random which are intervisible but -bear no particular relationship to property boundaries. My estimate of the cost to monument the line in this manner is as follows: - Run Levels - 3 days $1000.001 - set concrete monuments, 2 hours each @ $72.00, say 20 monuments $1440.00 TOTAL $2440.00 This is my best estimate of the costs, but please keep in mind that this does not represent a bid or a top figure. If you require further information please call. Sincerely yours, 1 James F. Reser dob Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 R WIL1.IAM J. CAR\EY AITPKVEY AT L.AW MEMORANDUM THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. P. O. SOX 3130 ASPEN. COLORADO 8 16 1 1 (303) 02G-192- 3 TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Pitkin County Commissioners, Pitkin County Attorney and Aspen City Attorney FROM: William J. Carney DATE: February 7, 1973 RE: Legality of Proposed Rezoning of Aspen Mountain FACTS I represent Spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company, a Colorado limited partnership ("Spar"). Spar is the successor in interest to three groups - two corporations called "Spar Consolidated *lines Company" and "Percy LaSalle Mines Company", and the personal holdings of the Brown Family. The present members of the partnership have a cash investment of over $1,600,000, plus interests in the predecessor corporations. The cash contributions of the limited partners can be verified in the Certificate of Limited Partnership recorded in Book 260 at page 835 in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. A financing statement is on file with the Colorado Secretary of State evidencing the investment of Electro-Care-Industries, Inc. These investments were paid largely to long-term Aspen residents. The properties purchased by Spar have been acquired within the pas several years. Spar's properties fall into two basic categories - lode claims on Aspen Mountain and placer claims on Castle Creek. i Memorandum Page 2 It is estimated that approximately 253 acres of land owned by Spar are under lease to Aspen Skiing Corporation. That lease leases the surface to Aspen Skiing Corporation for skiing purposes, and if Aspen ceases to use any ski run for two con- secutive years, rights revert to Spar. In addition, the lease reserves to Spar the right to conduct surface mining operations on the entire property,. except for a narrow strip along each lift line. Spar owns .approximately 335 acres on Castle Creek. Spar's property on Aspen Mountain is located in both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, while its Castle Creek properties are located in the County. Existing Zoning Pattern: The land in the City of Aspen is zoned AR-1, Accomodations and Recreation. The land in Pitkin County is currently zoned T, Tourist , and AR-1, Accomodations and Recreation, on .Aspen Mountain, and T, Tourist,, and R-15, Residential, along Castle Creek. Because of the huge number of claims owned in whole or in party by Spar, it: is extremely difficult to calculate the maximum possible density .available to Spar. The natter is_ complicated somewhat, by the ski lease and the fact that some terrain is not suitable for building. Nevertheless, some observations are possible. For example, approximately 135 acres are wholly owned by Spar under the ski lease, and approximately 11 acres are not subject to the ski lease. 146 acres contain over 6 million square feet. If we assume all of this acreage is available to be built on at the lowest density available now on Aspen mountain the County's AR-1 classification, one unlimited unit could be built for each 1,500 square feet of lot area, or 4,000 unlimited units. Similar figures can be applied to the land on Castle Creek now zoned Tourist. The potential value of these holdings is considerable. For example, approximately 11 acres near the base of the mountain contain over 479,000 square feet. If a value of $6 per square foot is used for these sites alone, they are currently worth $2,874,000. These values obviously justify high development costs for water, sewer transportation, landscaping, erosion control and beautification. i ,Memorandum Page 3 The proposed rezoning would drastically reduce available develop- ment opportunities. For example, the 479,000 square feet at the base of the mountain which are excepted from the ski lease are presently zoned AR-1 in the City of Aspen and T in Pitkin County. With the exception of part of the Chance Claim (above Ute Avenue), nearly all of this would be rezoned AF in Aspen and AF-2 in Pitkin County. Perhaps 2.5 acres of the Chance would remain zoned AR-1 in Aspen. The loss of available density is roughly as follows: Maximum Value (at _Present Zoning No. Units* $5,000 per unit) Claims Excepted from Ski Lease: Aspen AR-1 (90%) 431,000 sq.ft. 287 $1,435,000 Pitkin County T (100) 48,000 sq.ft. 32 160,000 i_9 $1, 595, 000 Proposed Maximum Value (at Zoning No. Units $5,000 per unit) Aspen AR-1 110,000 sq.ft. 73 '$ 365,000* Aspen A & F 321,000 sq.ft. 4 170,000 Pitkin County AF-2 48,000 sq.ft. 0 -0- _ Ti - $ 535, 000 . Net Loss: 242 $1,060,000 *based on unlimited units, and assumption that applicable height .and set -back requirements can be complied with. **single family lots valued at $35,000 each for two -acre sites. A survey of all of Spar's properties is now under way. Without complete site studies it is impossible to predict site development costs. Preliminary review of site development costs for the single- family home sites under the proposed zoning indicates costs will exceed the maximum selling price of the sites, leaving little or no value for the land. Most of the balance of Spar's land is subject to the ski lease. Recent reviews of these holdings (which include the 11 acres pre- viously discussed) show the following totals for the Aspen Mountain Area: Acreage leased for skiing Acreage not under ski lease Total. Subtotal Less acreage discussed above .11 253.05 359.25 612.30 11.00 601.30 "t 0 memorandum Page 4 This acreage is now zoned either T or AR-1 by Pitkin County, and is proposed to be rezoned AF-2. Assuming for the moment that only the land not under the ski lease can be built upon, 348 acres (359 less 11) are available for development. The values which can be realized by building at available densities only at the most suitable sites are obviously quite high. Such values obviously justify sophisticated solutions to the transportation problems presented by the terrain of Aspen Mountain. The density can also be utilized where the terrain and access permit, and a return of investment seems probable. Planned Unit Development is available. on the other hand, if the property is zoned AF-2, the minimum lot size is two zcres, and maximum density is one two --family dwelling, for a total density of 348 units, or a reduction of 960. Planned Unit Development is not available, so that many sites would be rendered useless because of terrain or access problems. Worse, AF zoning encourages subdivision sprawl, which maximizes the visual impact of development. The cost of site development for the sites which appear useful under AF-2 will either equal or exceed the price which could be obtained for the sites, thus rendering the property itself valueless. ARGUMENT The proposed zoning is illegal. It violates the purposes of the city and county zoning rules and it deprives the property of any beneficial use. It bears no reasonable relation to protection or promotion of the public health, safety, and morals recognized by the courts and it is arbitrary as applied to the property in question. While it is true that each zoning enactment must stand or fall after consideration of many factors, several general rules applicable to the present situation make clear that the proposed zoning could not withstand judicial scrutiny. "For a landowner to prove that a zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to his property, he must show either that the zoning ordinance is not substan- tially related to the public health, safety, or welfare, or that the zoning ordinance precludes the use of his property for any purpose to which it can be reasonably adapted. village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); Huneke v. Glaspy, 155 Colo. 593, 396 P.2d 453 (1964); Baum V. City and County of Denver, 147 Colo. 104, 363 P.2d 688 (1961); City of Englewood v. Apostolic Christian Church, 146 Colo. 374, 362 P.2d 172 (1961)." (Board of County Com'rs of Jefferson Co. v. Simmons, Colo. , 494 P.2d 85 (1972) Erickson, dissenting opinion.) i Memorandum Page 5 The first ground, the general challenge to the exercise of the police power, subsumes attacks on arbitrary zoning as well as objections to zoning where the "public benefit" is negligible, subjective, speculative or disproportionate to the value taken from the individual landowner. The other independent ground precludes restrictions on property which decrease its value past a certain point regardless of public benefit. THE REZONING P??OPOSAL DEPRIVES SPAR OF ANY REASONABLE USE OF IND AND THUS IS CONFISCATORY AND VOID Colorado follows the general rules various state and federal courts have formulated to balance the police power of zoning against individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and similar pro- visions in state constitutions. The earliest case in the area antedates judicial approval of,zoning laws. In Quintini. v. Mayor of City of Bay St. Louis, 64 Miss. 483, 1 So. 625 (1887), the court invalidated an "ocean view" ordinance which prohibited all building on the ocean side of a highway, noting that the purpose of the ordinance was solely beautification, and holding'it confisca- tory. Colorado authority is in accord: "Under no circumstances could an ordinance amending the zoning map in a way that would deprive the owner_ of all economic use be upheld. Colo. Const. Art. II, §15; U.S. Const. Amend. V." (City of Fort Collins v. Dooney, Colo. 496 P.2d 316 (1972)) The basic test of confiscation was set out in a practical, if vague manner by the Supreme Court at an early date. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S.Ct. 158, 159, 67 L.Ed. 322, 325, Justice Holmes said: "Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law. As long recognized some values * * * must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits or the contract and due process clauses are gone. One fact for consideration in deter- mining such limits is the extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act." i Memorandum Page 6 Little Colorado law exists in this area, beyond City ana Cow of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc. 141_ Colo 121, 347 P.2d 919 (1960) where a requirement of off-street parking confiscatory and invalid. Thus it becomes necessary to look to other jurisdictions for guidance. In Harrington Glen, Inc. v. Municipal Bd. of Adjustment, 243 A.2d 233, (N.J. 1968)the court spoke to the problem Mr. Justice Holmes raised,collecting authority. Quite simply, a restraint on all practical use goes beyond the boundary between zoning and eminent domain; it cannot be sustained as zoning. "The only distinction between such zoning restriction and an actual taking by the municipality is that the restriction leaves the owner with the burden of paying taxes on the property, while the outright taking relieves him of that burden. Ordinarily restraint upon all practical use, such as that which would follow from denial of a variance, is spoken of in terms of confis- cation. Morris Cnty. Land, etc. v. Parsippany -Trod Hills Twp., 40 N.J. 539, 554-557, 193 A.2d 232 (1963); KozeBnik v. Montgomery Twp_', 24-N.J. 154, 162, 131 A.2d 1 (1957); Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd., 97 N.J. Super. 306, 315, 235 A.2d 51 (Law Di.v. 1967); M.ischiara v. Board of Adjust. of Piscataway Twp., 77 N.J. Super. 288, 292, 186 A.2d 141 (Law Div.y1962); Kryscnski v. Shenkin, 53 N.J. Super. 590, 597, 148 A.2d 58 (A iv.), certification denied, 29 N.J. 465, 149 A.2d 859 (1959); Burke v. Borough of Spring Lake Bd. of Adjust., 52 N.J. Super. 498, 503, 145 A.2d 790 (App.Div .1958); Robyns v. City of Dearborn, 341 Mich. 495, 67 N.W.2d 718 (1954); Ritenour v. Dearborn Twp., 326 Mich. 242, 40 N.W.2d 137 1949); Arverne Bay Const. Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.2d 587, 592, 117 A.L.R. 1110 (1938); Bexson v. Board of Zoning & Appeals, Town of Hempstead, 28 A.D.2d 848, 281 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1967); Saravo Bros. Const. Co. v__ Zoning Bd. of Review, Town of Johnston, R.I., 231 A.2 9 (1967) ; Kent Cnty. Land Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Revie�,,, City of Warwick, R.I., 216 A.2d 51-I (1966); Denton v. 7,oning Bd. of Review, City of Warwick, 86 R.I. 219, 133 A.2d 718 (1957); Annotation 117 A.L.R. 1.117, 1129 (1938). (243 A.2d 233, 237) N Memorandum Paqe 7 Denying all practical use does not mean denying all use. "...regulations which so restrict the use of the particular land as to render it valueless, to leave the owner with the right to use the land for purposes which are not economically feasible or to permit the owner only uses which are highly improbable or practically impossible under the circumstances have no reasonable tendency to serve the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. This is a taking of property without due process of law and amounts to confiscation. See 58 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Zoning, Section 92. (Dusi v. Wilhelm, 266 N.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct.C.Pl.Ohio 1970), emphasis added) Economic feasibility and thus the right to practical use depends upon the circumstances in each individual situation. See, Francis v. City and County of Denver, 160 Colo. 440, 418 P.2d *45 1966 . "A property owner may also be unconstitutionally - deprived of any beneficial use of his property due to the topography or other physical features of his land which either entirely precludes the use of. the land for any permitted use or, by reason of the cost of site development or low yield of lots for residential development, makes it economically unfeasible to use the land therefor. (Voelcker v. City of Glen Cove, 212 N.Y.S.2d 835; McConnell, et al. v. Incorporated Village of Tuckahoe, 25 App.Div.2d 441, 266 N.Y.S.2d 821; Tarrant v. Inc_orporated Village of Roslyn, 1.87 N.Y.S.2d 821,19 Misc.2d 238, aff'd 10 App.Div.2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.2d 317, aff'd 8 N.Y.2d 783, 201 N.Y.S.2d 796; Hyde v. Incorporated Village of Baxter Estates, 140 N.Y.S.2d 890, aff'd 2 App.Div.2d 889, 156 N.Y.S.2d 378, aff'd 3 N.Y.2d 873, 166 N.Y.S.2d 314; Spanich v. City of Livonia (Mich.) , 94 N.W.2d 62; I•?orris County Land Co. v. Parsippany -Troy Hills Township, 40 N.J. 539; Wildlife Preserves, Inc. v. Poole (N.J. Super. App.Div. 1964), 201 A.2d 377.)" Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 1, 1971 Cum.Supp., p. 65, emphasis added) McConnell, et al. v. Incorporated Village of Tucka hoe, 266 N.Y.S.2d 821 (App.Div. ) involved a fact situation strikingly similar to the situation at hand. The court struck down the zoning change. "The main thrust of plaintiffs' claim is that they were unconstitutionally deprived of any beneficial use of the property by this zoning change due to the unusual topography of the site. 01 0 • Memorandum Page 8 "Plaintiffs paid $10,000 to acquire the rights of the buyer at the auction sale; the bid price was $25,000. The experts who testified for plaintiffs agreed that the property could not be feasibly developed for any uses included in Residence B. One expert, with the aid of topographical surveys and other exhibits, described the slope of this parcel which ascended in its slightly more than 100 foot depth from level 155 feet at one point on the street to level 198 feet at one point in the rear_. This expert then analyzed that the cost of site development alone to build four houses there would range from a low of $16,800 per plot to a high of $35,500 per plot, these high costs being due to the deep excavation work and to construction of extensive concrete retaining walls that would be necessary. "Two-family dwellings on this site and in this neighbor- hood would not sell for :pore than $25, 000 to. $33, 000 and, since the site development without a constructed house would in many instances exceed the sales price, .lack of feasihility is demonstrated..." (2.66 N.Y.S.2d 821, 823, emphasis added) In the present situation the topography of the area under consideration for rezoning is such that the cost of development, particularly the construction of access roads and the instal- lation of adequate water and sewage facilities, makes the cost of two -acre plots family homesites exceed their sale value. This in effect reduces the value of the land to zero. Further, it must be obvious that the land in question is virtually useless for agricultural purposes. This "zero value" situation arose in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 57 N.Y.S.2d 377, 385, where the court held the zoning invalid as confiscatory, saying; "The court finds that the entire value of the buildings would be destroyed and that the value of the land would be more than offset by the cost of demolishing the buildings and of making the improvements to the land to fit if for residential_ use, for which it is not now and will not in the now foreseeable future be adapted." (emphasis added) M Memorandum Page 9 In Barney & Casey Co. v. Town of Milton, 324 Mass. 440, 87 N.E. 2d 9 (1949) marsh land along a river front which had formerly been used as a coal storage yard and a lumber yard was zoned residential. The court noted that industrial and commercial uses would give the wrong impression at the entrance to the town, and would impair the view of the river for some residences on nearby heights. The court noted that placing footings and found- ations for residences would be extremely difficult and costly, and struck down the zoning. The court dealt directly with the problem of aesthetics: "Aesthetic considerations may not be disregarded in determining the validity of a zoning by-law but they do not alone justify restrictions upon private property merely for the purpose of preserving the beauty of a neighborhood or town. The decision itself_ plainly demonstrates that the judge in reaching his conclusion relied principally upon the fact that the elimination of these residential restrictions upon the.petitioner's land would be likely to give one entering the town from Boston along Granite Avenue a wrong impression of the attractiveness of the town as a residential community and also that the removal of the restrictions might result in interfering with the panorama of river and marsh .now enjoyed by those.living on elevated land some distance away. A piece of marsh land which was formerly occupied by a lumber company and which was useless for residence purposes could not properly -be zoned for such -purposes where it appeared that one-of:the primary reasons for the enactment of the zoning by-law was that, 9.f the premises were used for the drilling of oil, the masts and dericks would be visible from residences* locat.ecT. upon a nearby bluff. North Muskegon v. Miller, 249 Mich:. 52., 227 N.W. 743. A by-law adopted for the purpose of providing for a beautiful and dignified village frontage along a public way in order that those passing along the way would be impressed with its desirability as a residential community was not a sufficient basis for the existance of the by-law. Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221, 230, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642. Undue weight must not be given to aesthetic considerations which can only play an incidental or insulary role and some real, substantial and sufficient basis for the imposition of zoning restrictions. Regard for the preservation of natural beauty of a neighborhood makes the enactment of a zoning regulation desirable but does not itself give vitality to the regulation (citations oinitted)." 87 N.E.2d at 14-15 An almost identical factual situation arose in Cooper Lumber Co. v. Dammers, 2 N.J. Misc. 289, 125 A. 325 (1924) where lumber 0 L Memorandum Page 10 yard property along a river was rezoned residential. In striking down the ordinance, the court stated: "The purpose of the placing of this property in a residential section is, as we infer from the testimony and briefs, for the purpose of beautifying in time this portion of the bank of the Plassaic River. in other words, the purpose of prohibiting this particular piece of property from being used for the purpose for which it is best fitted is aesthetic. As was stated by Mr. Justice Swayze in the case of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting Co. . . . 62 A. 267 . . . : '_i esthetic considerations are a matter of luxury and indulgence rather than of necessity, and it is necessity alone which justifies the exercise of the police power to take private property without compensation'." 125 A. at 327 Topography and feasability of use were the crucial considera- tions in Tarrant v.Incorporated Village of Roslyn, 187 N.Y..S. 2d 133, 19 Misc.2d 238; affirmed 10 App. Div. 2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.7.d 317; affirmed 8 N.Y.2d 782, 168 N.L.2d 134, 201 N.Y.S. 2d 796. There the court struck down single family residential zoning of a parcel of land topographically unsuited for homes, where an access road could not be built to serve homes and the property surrounding it on three sides contained apartments. On Aspen Mountain, apartments are only on one side but property toward Independence Pass is zoned AR-1, as well. Zoning out all uses except uses regarded as beautiful and desirable by the community did not originate witli the current "greenline" proposal. The judicial response has been that these uses are commendable, but must be achieved by the eminent domain power, not the police power. In Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Fairfield, 197 A. 2d 770 (Conn., 1964), ^the town of Fairfield rezoned property which had been previously zoned residential to a zone called flood plain district. The area was along Long Island Sound, and contained a tidal. stream where the sea ran inland during high tides. Permitted uses in the flood plain district included parks, playgrounds, marinas, boathouses, landings and docks, clubhouses, wildlife sanctuaries, farming, truck and nursery gardening and motor vehicle parking. The court noted that the effect of the rezoning was to freeze the area into a practically unusable state. It noted that most of the uses were of a town or governmental nature, and that farming and marinas were impos- sible. The court stated: "There can be no doubt of that, from the standpoint of private ownership, the change of a zone to flood plain district froze the area into a practically unusable state. it t Memorandum Page 11 The uses which are presently permitted in the new zone place such limitations on the area that the enforcement of the regulation amounts, in effect, to a practical confiscation of the land. (cites omitted) Further, although the objective of. the Fairfield Flood and Erosion Control Board is a laudable one and although we have no reason to doubt the high purpose of their action, these factors cannot overcome Constitutional principles. The plaintiffs have been deprived by the change of zone of any worthwhile rights or benefits in their land. Where most of the value of a persons property has to be sacrificed so that community welfare may be servecl, and where the owner does not directly benefit from the evil avoided (see, eg, the Old Smoke Nuisance cases such as'State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 92, 147 A. 294), the occasion is appropriate for the exercise of eminent domain." 197 A.2.d at 773--774 In finding this zoning unconstitutional and confiscatory, the court cited Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121. In Iiager V. Louisville, 261 S.W.2d 619 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953) a desigtion naof land on a master plan as a "ponding area" for flood control was held confiscatory and invalid, In Morris County Land Improvement Co, v. Township of Parsippany - Troy Hills, n0 N.J. 539, 193 A.2d 232 (1963), rezoning of a wetland was declared invalid. The plaintiff owned 66 acres in a swampy area called Troy Meadows. The swampy area was largly owned -by a non-profit corporation which was holding it as a wild- life sanctuary and nature study refuge. The swamp also served as a holding basin for runoff into the Passiac River, which reduced the effect of floods in the remainder of the township. Plaintiff's land lay along a public road, and the plaintiff owned land on the other side of the road in another township which was zoned industrial. The meadow would have required substantial land filling operations before it could be used. The area in question was rezoned in a 'meadows development zone" which allowed only agricultural uses, raising of aquatic plants, fish and fish food, outdoor recreational uses operated by government agencies, conservation uses including drainage control, wildlife sanctuaries, hunting and fishing preserves, and various other facility uses such as transmission lines, towers, etc. The zoning ordinance also prohibited land fill operations except by special permit which would establish that no impairment of present use of adjacent properties would occur. The plaintiff applied for a permit for land fill, and this was denied, and suit was brought to challenge the zoning ordinance. The court, in holding the ordinance invalid, noted that the primary object of the zoning regulation was to retain the land substantially in its natural state, and that this was done in part by prohibiting land fill, which, due to the unstable nature of the land prohibited effectively any building upon it. The court then noted that many of the permitted uses were quasi -public .01 Memorandum Page 12 or public in nature, and that the only practical use which could be made of the property is as a hunting or fishing preserve or wildlife sanctuary, which the court did not consider productive. The court noted that the main purpose of enacting the regulations was for a public benefit - use of the area as a water detention basin in aid of flood control, and preservation of the land . . as open space for the benefits would accrue to the local public from an undeveloped area such as this. .-The.Court quoted from the opinion of Mr_. Justice Holmes iri Pennsylvariia Cole Company v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.C. 158, 160, 67 L. Ed. 322, 326 (1922) supra: "The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. ***We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the Con- stitutional way of paying for the change." 193 A.2d at 241. The court's opinion went on: "While the issue of regulation as against taking is always a matter of degree, there can be no question but that the line has been crossed with the purpose and practical effect of -the regulation is to appropriate private property for a flood water detention basin or open space. These are laudable public purposes and we do not doubt the high-mindedness of their motivation. But such factors cannot cure basic unconstitutionality. Nor is the situation saved because the owner of most of the land in the zone, justifiably desirous of preserv- ing an appropriate area in its natural state as.a wetland wildlife sanctuary, supports the regulations. Both public uses are necessarily so all -encompassing as practically to prevent the exercise by a private owner of any worthwhile rights or benefits in the land. So' public acquisition rather than regulation is required." 193 A. 2d at 241-242 To the same effect, see State of Maine v. Johnson,265 A.2d 711 (Me. 1970)(State Wetlands Act prohibiting practical use held invalid). It is significant that many of the goals of the rezoning in the last two cases are quite similar to those expressed by the planning office at the September, 1972 public hearing - preservation of areas of natural beauty, wildlife, flood control, etc. And, like here, the permitted uses were either public in nature or not feasible. Surely no one would argue that forestry or agriculture are economically viable uses for the Aspen Mountain and Castle Creek areas. There are no agricultural operations in the area, and no timber operations.. The only other use allowed. in the City of Aspen under the AF zone is nurseries and green- houses. Surely no one suggests that all of the acreage within t Memorandum Page 13 the City limits proposed to be rezoned can support such a use in this small community. Aspen is not the first community to attempt to zone property as residential in an attempt to keep the property open. The result generally in such cases has been invalidation of the zoning as confiscation, where the residential use is not feasible. In Eaton v. Sweeney, 257 N.Y. 176, 177 N.E. 412 (1931) property he. Ci in tty of a Sratoga Springs was zoned residential and hotel, but was surrounded.by commercial uses rendering residential and hotel use unsuitable. Note that building residences was not impossible; it would merely have been economically foolish to develop for residential use. The Court of Appeals discerned the real. reason for the zoning classification, and struck it down, saying: "Eaton cannot be deprived of his property for the benefit of the city park or to advance the State's interest in the development of Saratoga. These, of course, are worthy and magnificent causes which do not seek to progress by depriving private citizens of their_ property without compensation. If the City of Saratoga Springs desires to beautify the property adjoining its park and its entrances thereto, it cannot do so by the mere zoning process, if this results in rendering private property val.ueless:" 177 N.E. at 414 The New York Court of Appeals grappled with another problem of aesthetics at the same time in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642 (1931). There a small quiet town was zoned entirely residential, including land on a street used for commercial purposes on the edge of the town. In a thoughtful opinion by Mr. Justice Lehman, the court in- validated the residential zoning with respect to this property, even though a variance procedure was available in hardship cases, saying: "The inference is reasonable that the property fronting on Middle Neck Road has been included in the residence district primarily for the purpose of providing a beautiful and dignified village frontage on the public throughfare. Aesthetic considerations are, fortunately, not wholly without weight within a practical world. Perhaps such considerations need not be disregarded in the formulation of regulations to promote the public welfare. (citation omitted) 'Public welfare' is a concept which in recent years has been widened to include many matters which r 0 Memorandum 0 Page 14 in other times were regarded as outside the limits of governmental concern. As yet, at least, no judicial definition has been formulated which is wide enough to include purely aesthetic considerations. Certainly an ordinance is unreasonable which restricts property upon the boundary of the Village to a use for which the property is not adapted, and thereby destroys the greater part of its value in order that the beauty of the Village as a whole may be enhanced. In such case the owner of the property cannot be required to ask. as a special privilege for a variation of the restriction. The restriction itself constitutes an invasion of his property rights." 177 N.E. at 430. And see Chusud Realty Corp. v. Kensington, 40 Misc. 2d 259, 243TN.Y.S. 2d 149 (1963). The rejection of the variance procedure is particularly relevant to the current proposal, where vague references have been made to "special review" to ameliorate the confiscation which is apparently obvious even to the Planning Office. Mr. Justice Lehman rejected a variance procedure as saving the ordinance, because it required an application to develop the property, while the owner might wish to sell rather than to build, in which case he would be penalized since a buyer would assume that it could not be used for any purpose except residential. In testing whether a zoning ordinance is confiscatory the llolmesian approach to measuring the value of the property before and after is, often used. The'magnitude of'the restriction which is- permissible under the police power is not clear in Colorado. There is some language which indicated that an ordinance becomes confiscatory when there is no reasonable use to which an owner can put his property. In Cam_ and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121, 347 P. 2.d 919 (1960), supra, that point was apparently reached when parking was required of landowners in a business district, even though parking lots are obviously a common use in such areas. The Colorado court has not yet used the Holmesi.an approach of measuring the dollar value of the loss, but many other jurisdictions have done so. The New York courts have repeatedly used such a test, as have other states, and a brief summary of the magnitude of value reductions considered may provide some rough guidelines in this area. In Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383, affirmed 237 N.Y. 611, 143 N.E. 765 (1923) residential zoning was held confiscatory where the property was worth $15,000 for residential use and $55,000 for business use, a relationship of approximately the same mac:. i_tude as Spar anticipates for its . property. n L 0 Memorandum Page 15 In Ilestwood Forest Estates, I_nc. v. Village of South Nyack, 23 N.Y.2d 424, 297 N.Y.S.2d 1.29.,.244 N.E.2d 700 1969), rezoning from apartment use to single family residential was invalidated where the value of land was $125,000 for apartment use and between $10,000 and $42,500 for single-family residence use, depending on which witness was believed. In Helms v. City of Charlotte., 122 S.E.2d 817 (N.C. 1961), the court struck doi%,n residential zoning where it was shown that "upon completion of a residence upon The lot, the market value of the house and lot would be less than the cost of constructing the residence.. 122 S.E.2d at 824 In National Land & Investment Co. v. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597 (1965), suburban zoning into four -acre residential zoning vlas held invalid where if used as one --acre home sites the land was worth $260,000, and its value as rezoned was only $175,000. In McConnell v. Village of Tuckahoe, 25 App. Div.2d 441, 266 N. Y. S. 2d 821, where site development costs for four lots would range from $16,800 to $35,500 per plot, and two-family dwellings in the neighborhood could not be sold for more than $25,000 to $33,000, the court held the zoning confiscatory. In Dusi v. Wilhelm, 25 Ohio Misc. 111, 266 N.E.2d 280 (1970), the court found residential zoning confiscatory where property could be sold for $3,500 for single family residence sites and for a, net profit of $68,.400 if. sold as. mobile home sites. But see Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 A.2d 700 (;-Sd. 1.969), where rezoning which reduced values from a range of $3,500 to $8,00 an acre to a range of $2,000 to $3,500 an acre was sustained. The general rule of these cases is stated in Rathkopf, "The Law of Zoning and Planning" 6-6: "The ordinance, therefore, is not to be held unconstitutional merely because property may not be put to its most profit -- able use. The mere diminution of profits or the increased costs of operating a business caused by the restrictions of the ordinance are not sufficient to render an ordinance void. But where property values are extensively reduced by restrictions and the corresponding gain to the public is slight, the ordinance will be held invalid as confis- catory. Also, if the incursion into private property rights is sufficiently great the ordinance will be held confiscatory irrespective of any corresponding gain to the public. This result occurs when the ordinance restricts property to uses for which it is not reasonably adapted. The reason for this is that doubtlessly that in such cases :-.he owner's 'share in the common consideration to compensate him for the great loss suffered. A necessity for monetary compensation.for loss suffered i Memorandum Page 16 • L arises when to create a public harm. restrictions are placed on property in order public benefit rather than to prevent a it That the police power can be exercised through zoning only to protect the public welfare, rather than -to advance it, is, apparently the rationale of many of the leading cases. In Isenbar.th v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383 (1923), affirmed 237 N.Y. 617, 143 N.E. 765, the court stated: "There can be no doubt that this action was a yielding to the idea of preserving the vista of this private park by restricting petitioners',,property to a use which the development of the rest of the street and neighborhood had rendered obsolete. The Court of Appeals in Peale_ Exrel Sheldon v. Board of Appeals, 234 N.Y. 484, 138 N.E. 41.6, has lately dealt with the factors which would justify zoning a neighborhood as 'Business'. These factors have been sacrificed to the purely aesthetic purpose of preserving a vista to private property, which is a matter to be secured so far as it may by -private covenant, without the backing of the police power. In People Exr.el Lankton v. Roberts, Misc. 439, 440, 1.53 N.Y.S. 143, affirmed 171 App. Div. 890, 155 N.Y.S. 1133, the Court quoted with approval Judge Dilon's treatise on Municipal Corporations (5th Ed. Section 695), giving that jurists opinion that the police report cannot, for aesthetic pur- poses, be used to deprive the owner of property of its full beneficial use, and that, in short, zoning or similar legislation is not to be exercised for purposes other than the health, safety,: convience, and public welfare of the people at large. "It might add to the general .attractiveness of the City to preserve its private vista, but, if so, such would seem to be a matter to be governed by the eminent domain principle, with compensation to the owner, rather than the zoning practice, with loss to him. At common law, a fine vista was not a property right, either publically or privately, Coke says that an easement of prospect was 'a matter of delight only', and not of necessity, and therefore no action would lie for its impairment 19 Corp. Jur. 902." 201 N.Y.S. at 386 It is because improving the beauty of an area is not protecting the welfare of the people that it is generally not held to be a permissible exercise of the police power. The courts do not disapprove of municipalities taking action to beautify their areas; it is rather that in such activities they are no longer protecting one property owner from another but are benefiting all in a positive way. Professor Allison Dunham puts it thus: 0 : 1 0 Memorandum Page 17 "But to compel a particular owner to undertake an activity to benefit the public, even if in the form of a restriction, is to compel one person to assume the cost of a benefit conferred on others without hope for recoup- ment of the cost. An owner is compelled to furnish a public benefit just as much when his land is taken for the runway of an -airport as when he is prevented from building upon his land so that airplanes may approach the runway. In the former the landowner is paid without question; in the latter there is an attempt from time to time to compel the landowner to furnish the easement of flight without compensation by restricting building. The evil of the latter system is that there is no approxima- tion of equal sharing of cost or of sharing according to capacity to pay as there is where a public benefit is obtained by subsidy or expenditure of public funds. The accident of ownership of a particular location determines the persons in the community bearing the cost of increasing the general welfare. A further consequence of an attempt to obtain a benefit by means of.a restriction is that the full cost of the public benefit is thereby concealed from those in our democratic society who are given the power of deciding whether or not they want to obtain a benefit." Dunham, "A Legal and Economic Basis for City Planning," 58 COLUI-4. L. REV. 650, 665. The rule, as stated by Professor Dunhairk, is that the state can impose restrictions on land owners to keep them from imposing costs on others but must compensate the landowner in order to obtain a public bcriefit. 'Many of the cases, 'as this memo' will demonstrate, take the rule one step further and hold that the restrictions must be reasonably related to the costs imposed - that the zoning must not be arbitrary. "'Thus it has been held unconstitutional to compel an owner, without compensation, to leave his land vacant in order to obtain the advantages of open land for the public or in order to save the land for future park purchase, but it is within the constitutional power to compel an owner to leave a portion of his land vacant where building would be harmful to the use and enjoyment of other land (e.g., set -back lines). It is unconstitutional to compel an owner to commit his land to park use in order to meet the public desire for a park, but an owner may be compelled to furnish a portion of his land for a park where the need for a park results primarily from activity on other land of the owner. It is unconstitutional to compel him to use his land as a parking lot in order to obtain a parking lot for the community but it is within constitutional power to compel an owner to provide Memorandum Page 18 a parking lot for the parking needs of activities on his own land. (But see Denver Buick, supra) It is improper to compel a railroad to install grade -crossings for highways in order to promote the convenience of highway users, but it is permissible to compel the rail- road to install grade -crossings so as to eliminate danger and hazards from the railroad's use of its Own property. It is not permissible to compel an owner to hold land in reserve for industrial purposes by restrict- ing his use to industrial purposes only, but it is permissible to exclude industrial development from districts where such development will harm other uses in the district. It is beyond state power to compel an owner without compensation to set aside or give land to the public for a street or highway, but it is within that power to compel him to do so where the need for the streets is related to the traffic generated by the owner's use of his other land. Likewise the state may compel an owner to furnish other community facilities such as water and sewer lines at his own expense where the need for such .facilities results in part at lease from activities on his other land." Ibid at 666.. While appraisals have not yet been made to determine the exact magnitude of the loss to Spar from the proposed rezoning there can be no'doubt that it will be large, where some of the land now has a fair market value of over $250,000 per acre, as currently zoned. There can be little doubt that if rezoned A-F, it will not sell for $500,000 per two -acre homesite, or even a fraction of that amount. It is clear from its very title, as well as from the Planning office's presentation at the September public hearing, that the purpose of this rezoning proposal is to prevent development by making it economically unfeasible, not to control it in a fashion compatible with neighboring land. This is confiscation. The power_ to zone is not the po,�•?er to, confiscate, directly or indi- rectly. This the court said in Tears v. Woolhiser, 185 N.E. 827 (Ill. 1933) forthrightly: "Zoning which admittedly limits property to a use which cannot reasonably be made of it cannot be said to set aside such property to a use but constitutes the taking of such property without just compensation. Use of property is an element of ownership therein. Regardless of the opinion of zealots that property may properly, by zoning, be utterly destroyed without compensation, such principle finds no support in the genius.of our govern- ment nor in the principles of justice as we know them. Such a doctrine shocks the sense of justice. If it be of public benefit that property remain open and unused, then certainly the public, and not private individuals, should bear the cost of reasonable compensation for such property under the rules of law governing the condem- nation of private property for public use." i 9 Memorandum Page '19 See, City and Count_�f _Denver. v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919, 923-24 (1960). THE REZONING IS NOT SUBSTTNTIALLY RELATED TO ITS STILTED PURPOSES AND IS THUS ARBITRARY. In addition to being confiscatory, the proposed- zoning change goes beyond the limits of the police power on several counts. Zoning is arbitrary and invalid if it does not effectuate the purposes of the zoning rules under_ which it is enacted. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Simmons, supra, 494 P.2 85, , and cases cited. The Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and the Pitkin County Zoning Resolution both provide that the purpose of zoning enacted pursuant to them is, inter_ alia, to encourage the most appro- priate use of land. (Code Sec. 24-1, Resolution Subsec. 1.2) Proponents of the zoning change will be hard pressed to argue convincingly that houses on two -acre plots on the subject property (or any of the other uses permitted) are better land use than multiple unit dwellings on any objective grounds. Determining an appropriate use involves consideration of private as well as public rights. "We said in Buff v. Board. of Zoning Appeals, 214 Md. 48, 58, 59, 133 A.2d 83, that a comprehensive plan should seek to accomplish, as far as possible, the most.appro- priate uses of land, consistent not only with the public interest but also with safeguarding of the interests of the individual property ovner." (Board of County Com'rs. v. Oak Hill, -Farms,' Inc.; 192 A.2d 761 C.A. Md. 1963 ). A. The Zoning is Inconsistent With Surrounding Uses. The area in question takes -its character from the area surroun- ding it to the north, all of which is currently developed with hotels, lodges, and multiple unit d�Tellings. To suggest that land immediately adjacent to it is best suited for farming or ranching uses, or the rural residential use allowed in the A-F zone is obviously wrong. Tourist traffic, summer and winter would interfere with these uses, and the timber stands are insufficient for lumber operations. Indeed, such uses within city limits seem highly incongruous.' In addition, if the County failed to adopt such zoning and the City adopted it, the result would be a small pasture surrounded by condominiums, in short, spot zoning. 1111here property is so zoned at variance with existing conditionsin the surrounding area that the objects of the enabling act are not and cannot be advanced by such restrictions, the imposition of such restrictions is' arbitrary with respect to the particular property involved." (Ruthkopf, The Law of 'Zoning and Planning, Vol. 1, p. 5-1, citing Gordon v. City of Wheaton, 12 I11. 2d. 284, 146 N.E. 2d 37, 39 H .. in • Memorandum Page 20 While no two cases involving zoning to a use inconsistent with existing uses in the area are identical, some illustrations of the rule will demonstrate that a radical. shift from high -density tourist lodging to a pastoral use is arbitrary and void. It should be noted that the proposed rezoning could create several_ non -conforming uses - Shadow Mountain Condominiums, the upper unit of the Aspen Alps, and the city water tank, all of which appear to be at least partially above the 8040 line. Rezoning which creates substantial non -conforming uses is always suspect as void. See Bogert v. Vlashi.ngton Two., 25 N.J. 57; and Colvin v. Village of Skokie, 203 N.E.2d 457 (ILL. Ct. App. 1964). These cases holding zoning arbitrary where uses in the area are inconsis- tent with the permitted uses under the rezoning are really a gradation of the confiscation cases because the court is con- cluding that the permitted uses are not reasonable in view of surrounding uses. In Eaton v. Sweeney, 257 N.Y. 176, 177 N.E. 412 (1931), property zoned for residences and hotels was surrounded by commercial uses,and the zoning was declared invalid. In Isenbarth v. Bart - nett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383, (1923), affirmed 237 N.Y. 617, 143 N.E. 765, the property in question was near a private park,, and was zoned residential for four blocks along a busy street where all recent improvements had been commercial. Similarly, in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257, N.Y. 221, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642 C193l), all of a village was zoned residential, including land along a border of the village on a busy street where all neighboring property was zoned for commercial and apartment uses. The court.held .the ordinance invalid. In Tarrant v. Incorporated Village of Roslyn, 1.87 N.Y.S.2.d 133, 19 Misc. 2d 238, affirmed, 10 App. Div.2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.2d 31.7, affirmed 8 N.Y.2d 782, 168 N.E.2d 134, 201 N.Y.S.2d, the court invalidated single-family zoning for property surrounded on three sides by apartments, and the topography was unsuitable for residences. In Stevens v. Town of Huntington, 20 N.Y.2d 352, 283 N.Y.S.2d 16, property on a busy street was zoned residential to protect the character of a side street on which the property also abutted and the zoning was invalidated. Other cases holding zoning arbitrary and void because of nearby land uses include: Hedgcock v. People ex rel. Arden Realty and Investment Co., 98 Colo. 522, 57 P.2d 891 (1936) - property on block used mostly for commercial uses was zoned residential. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. City of Detroit, 40 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 1949) -- property along railroad right of way in a blighted area zoned residential. • Memorandum Page 21 Schiffer v. Village of wilmette, 245 N.E.2d 143 (Ill. 1969) - property zoned residential where �-.11 other uses on busy street were commercial, except for one residence. Dusi_ V. Willie lm, 25 Ohio Misc. 111, 266 N.E.2d. 280 (1970) - residential zoning allowed only one mobile home per lot, where there were several trailer courts within a few blocks, including an existing one (a non-confonnity use) on the rear of the lot in question. In the present case, Aspen Mountain serves over 2,500 skiers per day on peak days, all of whom are transported to the base of the mountain. In addition, a transportation proposal calls for utilization of the old railroad right of way along the base of the mountain for a narrow gauage railroad as part of a mass transporta- tion system, which will create more traffic at the base of the mountain. These facts, in addition to the large number of condo- miniums bordering on the land to be rezoned, cast grave doubts on the validity of the zoning. ,B.The Zoninq Fails to Achieve Permissible Purposes, An examination of the stated purposes of the rezoning will demonstrate that the rezoning accomplishes none of them. Population Reduction. Whether__government can outlaw population, rather than serve it, as an exercise of the police power, is a debatable concept. Nevertheless, assuming population reduction is a permissible goal, this rezoning is hardly the appropriate way to accomplish it. Both in the city and the county there are tremendous amounts of undeveloped land in a variety of zoning classifications., Rezoning the land in question cannot stop growth, or even slow it significantly. Rezoning the entire city and county, or reducing allowable densities in all zoning classes, might accomplish these purposes, but rezoning one parcel will not. Reduce Street Congestion. Comments about population reduction also apply here. In fact, if there is to be any development in Pitkin County or Aspen, the least street congestion will be caused by development at the base -of -Aspen Mountain, where cars are least required by visitors. In winter season peaks, the primary activity centers are the ski slopes and the shops and restaurants in downtown Aspen. In the case of Aspen Mountain, they are only a few blocks apart, and walking between them is easier than attempting to park in downtown Aspen. Improvement of Safety from Fire and Natural Hazards. While this is a laudable goal, no showing has been made that this rezoning will accomplish. it. There is no evidence that water pressure stops at the 8040' elevation. In fact, Chief Clapper has told another landowner with plans .for development above 8040' that water pressure is adequate for fire protection. Aspen has a water tank above 8150' elevation. Furthermore, there are large 01 Memorandum Page 22 ground water resources available under Aspen Mountain, as evidenced by the flooding of some of the :nine tunnels in the past. With respect to natural hazards, U.S.G.S. maps show areas of avalanche hazard, steep slopes, a variety of rock and soil conditions on Aspen Mountain. The same showings could be made on any mountain in Pitkin County, including some currently under development. The avalanche danger is at least slightly exaggerated, since it is shown on large parts of Aspen liountain which are used by the public for. skiing. Most importantly, the proposed rezoning does nothing to solve any problems that may exist from natural hazards. Here the zoning is on the horns of a dilemma; if it prevents all. development above 8040' it is confiscatory; if it does not, there is nothing to prevent homes from being built on the most dangerous parts of two -acre sites. Other methods are obviously more appropriate to protect from natural hazards, such as defining standards for mountain building, including permissible soils, slopes, and special review for avalanche conditions. Facilitate Adequate Provision for Transportation, [eater, Sewage, Drainage, Open Space.and Public Buildings. General comments about population reduction also apply here. So do continents about street congestion. No evidence has been presented to show -how this rezoning will solve the general growth -related problems of transportation, water and sewage. The reference to public buildings is incomprehensible. No evidence has been presented that the rezoning will have a significant effect on drainage problems. As mentioned before, the rezoning will not legally prevent all development if it does so as a practical matter_ it -is void as confiscatory.. But if development is possible, it will. be in two -acre homesites which will require many miles of roads and utility cuts, which will aggravate drainage problems far more than well -planned development concentrated at the base of the mountain, or on other appropriate sites on Castle Creek. Well - planned development, with proper grading and planting, can actually improve drainage situations. Again, drainage is a county -wide problem, to be solved by standards which apply uniformly throughout the city and county. Provision of Open Space. This is the real reason for the rezoning. If the zoning accomplishes this, it is confiscatory and void. If it does not, it is arbitrary. For example, if building upon two - acre home sites is possible, development may be scattered over the mountain, rather than limited to concentrated development on the most desirable sites. Avoiding Undue Concentration of Population. Withouting reducing the densities allowable in the Tourist and A-R zones throughout the City and County, it is obvious that this rezoning merely shifts and concentrates population density, rather than reducing it. What is meant by destruction of physical environment in this context is not the least bit clear. If it means that build- ing destroys open space, that much is obvious, but it is difficult to stop such destruction short of stopping all building - an impermissible goal. .11 • Memorandum • Page 23 Prevent the Overcrowding of Land and General Welfare of the Com- munity. That this rezoning only prevents crowding of some land, and does not solve the "problem" with respect to many other parcels zoned for high density use must by now be obvious. Further, by reducing -densities within and at the border of Aspen, a land scarcity is created which may drive development to two -acre sites scattered all over the county, creating one massive subdivision, which would leave no natural open space. Thus the ultimate effect of this rezoning may be the opposite of what is desired. Error in Earlier Planning. There was no error. It makes plan- ning sense to place tourist housing near the activity centers, reducing traffic and transportation.problems; and the reliance on automobiles. Furthermore, this zoning has been in effect for over 1.7 years. The 1966 Master Plan designated this area as "Public and Institutional", and included among the permitted uses "public and private schools, churches and related residential uses, lodges, clubs, etc." (emphasis added.) "Aspen Area General Plan, Final Report 1.966", p.B. Thus property owners and purchasers have had a reasonable right to rely on th'e zoning, and govern- mental officials are cstopped from changing their minds, absent a change of circumstances on the property. In fact, development has proceeded as expected, intensifying as it proceeds tolard the mountain. Prevention of Air and .water Pollution and Soil Erosion. To suggest that development of this area would cause air pollution is ridiculous. The primary causes of air pollution in Aspen are wood=burning fireplaces and the automobile., It is a simple matter to outlaw wood -burning fireplaces. As pointed out previous- ly, development of. Aspen Mountain would cause less increase in automobile traffic than any area in the County or City. Finally, the zoning assumes that alteration of Aspen Mountain would adversely affect erosion and water. quality. It should be pointed out that Aspen Mountain is constantly being cut with new roads by four- wheel drive vehicles which are free to drive anywhere they want, and that the Mountain is a mass of scars and tailings from mining days. Proper development can provide terracing and other devices to prevent erosion, and new planting to improve ground cover. Proper safeguards against unreasonable scarring can be imposed as part of the building code, if the Planning Office wished to protect the. watershed throughout the valley. As long as no safeguards exist elsewhere in the area, it is absurd to think that singling out this one area will have a material affect on either water_ or air pollution. Maintaining Natural Scenic Beauty. If Pitkin County and Aspen want a park, Spar is willing to sell. But zoning cannot be used for this purpose. Furthermore, as long as Smuggler and Red Mountains are being developed, this zoning will not achieve the goal of maintaining a natural valley surrounding Aspen. Protecting the Profile of the Silver Queen. This is in the same category as maintaining natural scenic beauty - a park use. i 0- I* Is Memorandum Page 24 Complementing and Proi; Ling Aspen's Purchased Open Space, for Which no Alternative Exists. This means Aspen has run out of green space acquisition funds, and now wishes to acquire more space by zoning. Restraining Growth Not to Exceed the Capacity of the Transporta- tion System which is Planned. This relates.to population reduction previously discussed. Further_, tourists housed in this area would create the least demand for public transportation, being within walking distance of major activity centers. Controlling Demand for Future Public Facilities -and the Burden of Future Taxes. This relates again to population reduction, previously commented on. The impairment of property values is accompanied by benefits to the public and protection afforded to others. This is a self-serving legal conclusion not borne out by the foregoing analysis. In short, all of the proper zoning goals have been recited, but no attempt has been made to relate them to specific problems arising from the land sought to be rezoned. The real reason for the proposal is found in its title - a green line, or open space, and all the rest is merely window dressing in an attempt to add some legal justification to the proposal. Numerous cases; mostly in eastern states facing population growth pressures, have dealt with attempts of areas to shut off growth in an attempt to preserve a -rural atmosphere, the "character" of a community, to avoid increasing public facilities, or, in some cases, to zone out economic groups thought "undesirable". The latter is often described as "snob" or "exclusionary" zoning, and is the subject of a substantial literature. A recent such case is Appeal of Girsh, 437 Pa. 237, 263 A.2d 395 (1970), which challenged a township zoning ordinance which made no previsions for apartment use, though the town had a population of 13,000. In invalidating the ordinance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: "In refusing to allow apartment development as part of its zoning scheme, appellee has in effect decided to zone out the people who would be able to live in the township if apartments were available." 263 A.2d at 397. A similar New York case grappled with the same problem, where the community justified a prohilhition of all new construction of multiple family dwellings (7 the basis of an inadequate sewage plant which was allegedly 1;..�i_luting the Hudson River. The court noted that this was a problem which could not be shifted to property owners who had not yet developed their property, noting a heavy diminution in value, saying: 11 0 Memorandum u Page 25 "A municipality has, of course, the power to take appropriate steps to deal with sanitation problems, including those created by inadequate biological treatment of sewage. The instant sanitation problem is, however, general to the community and not caused by the nature of the plaintiff's land (citation omitted). It is, therefore, impermissible to single out this plaintiff to bear_ a heavy financial burden because of a general. condition in the community (citation omitted)." 244 N.E.2d at 702. A rezoning of Fairfax County, Virginia, a part of the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area, bears a strong resemblance to the proposed zoning not only because of the attempt to deal with all of the problems related to growth, but also because the rezoning concentrated on a part of the county, rather than all of it. Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Carper, 200 Va. 53, 107 S.E.2d 390 (1959). Paarfa��County doubled its population between 1950 and 1957, and was the fastest growing county in the United States. The eastern one-third of the county contained 90% of the population, while the western two --thirds consisted of a few established towns and wooded and agricultural land, land divided into three acre tracts and over, and land sub -divided into one-half acre lots. The population growth created problems of obtaining adequate sewer_, water, fire protection and schools. While the eastern one --third of the county was served with public water and a county sewer system, this was not true in the western two-thirds. Under the rezoning, the eastern one-third of the county was zoned for lots running from one -fifth of an acre to one acre. The western two-thirds of the county was zoned for agriculture, with development on minimum lots of two acres, and around the settled communities the minimum lot size was one acre in the western portion of the county. In invalidating the zoning, the Virginia Supreme Court first noted the justification for it: "Evidence was stated on behalf of the appellant to show that the purpose and effect of the amendment were to prevent an exhaustion of ground water supplies by subdivision of less than two -acre lots in the western two-thirds of the county; that it abolished the threat to public health b;, prohibiting the develop- ment of subdivisions of less than two -acre lots, using septic fields or private sewer systems; that it continued in effect existing and predicted land uses in both the eastern one-third and western two-thirds of the county; that property values in the western two-thirds had increased to some extent since its adoption; that it bolstered the precarious economic condition of the county and reduced the waste of physical and economic resources; that schools could be built in the eastern portion at much less cost than in the western area; that it would not prevent use of the land for agriculture; that it had achieved i Memorandum Page 26 a reasonable plan of orderly coiiununity development; that in some areas the two -acre requirement f- r lots was necessary to protect the character of the neighborhood; and that it had prevented extensive commercial development in the western two-thirds of the county and channeled it back into the eastern portion, where water and sewage were available, all in the interest of the general welfare." 107 S.E. 2d at 394. Having noted the problems, the court then noted that there were other solutions for many of them, as they are here:. "The evidence offered on behalf of the appellees shows that sufficient ground water supplies are available in the western area for lots of less than two acres; that public service companies could supply water if the demand justifies: it; .that proper sewer facilities could be provided by the use of septic tanks or small sewage disposal systems without endangering the health of the inhabitants; that the health and safety of the county were and are protected by the sanitation ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, the subdivision control ordinance, and set -back requirements of. the 1941 Zoning Ordinance as amended; that there was a demand for houses to be built on land of less than two acres in the western area; that the effect of the '.Freehil.l Amendment' has been to prevent use of the land for subdivision development in the western area:..." 107 S.E. 2d at 394. In holding the ordinance invalid, the court stated: "The practical effect of the amendment is to prevent people in the low imcome bracket from living in the western area and forcing them into the eastern area, thereby reserving the western area for those who could afford to build houses on two acres or more. This would serve private rather than public interest. Such an intentional and exclusionary purpose would bear no relation to the health, safety, morals, prosperity and general welfare." The court held that zoning could not be used to set up a barrier against respectable citizens wishing to build homes for the purpose of protecting large estates. Perhaps the same comment could be made of zoning in Aspen which,.in an area of high land costs, zones out multiple family dwellings. - In Aronson v. Town of Sharon, 195 N.E. 2d 341 (1964) a Poston suburb attempted to ease its growth pangs by zoning one district for minimum lot sizes of 1000,000 square feet. The court, in holding the zoning invalid, stated: • Memorandum • Page 27 "The respondent argues: 'The physical characteristics of the district, considered in conjunction with those of the 'town, a town of residences, large camps, a retreat house, fish and game clubs, a wildlife sanctuary, and.a large recreation and conservation area, indicate that all that has made Sharon beautiful**''will best be maintained by the lot size requiremcr!ts of its zoning by-law. The zoning in question wou.' i encourage Leaving land in the natural state, which wi'L provide the inhabitants, and those who come to Sharon, with community which has the living and recreational amend that are fundamental to mental and physical health.' 'i resembled the finding as to the second basis of plan, namely, 'to initiate a positive program o4 id acquisition for the tom itself' and the f:ind:i that the separation of the rural resident area helped create a.n opportunity to cause land in it to be kept and used for conservation purposes. We cannot resist the conclusion that, however worthy the objectives, the by-law attempts to achieve a result which properly should be the subject of eminent domain. "In Simon v. Needhan, 311 Mass. 560, 563, 42 N.E.2d 516, quoted supra, are enumerated certain possible advantages of living upon an acre lot as compared with one of ten thousand square feet. While initially an increase in lot size might have the effects there noted, the law of dimini.shing.returns will set in at some point. As applied to the petitioners' property, the a`tainment of such advantages does not reasonably require lots of one hundred thousand square feet. Nor would they be attained by keeping the rural. district undeveloped, even though this might contribute to the welfare of each inhabitant. Granting value on recreational areas to the community as a whole, the burden of providing them should not be borne by the individual property owner unless he is compensated." 195 N.E.2d at 345. National Land and Investment Company v. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597 (165), involved an attempt by a Philadelphia suburb to restrict growth by zoning the township into one, two and four acre home sites. Because the case, which invalidat- ed the zoning with respect to a parcel in the 4-acre zone, involved so many of the issues present in the greenline proposal - roads, traffic, open space, preservation of historic sites, and preservation of rural character, the opinion will be quoted at length. In dealing with the problem of pollution as a justification, the court noted the statutory power of townships to establish sanitary regulations, and that percolation tests could determine if lots were .large enough to handle sewage, r 61 • Memorandum • Page 28 and held that a blanket four acre regulation was not a reasonable or necessary solution to pollution. The township noted that some of its roads were already being used at peak capacity, and that the present network would be at full capacity by 1972, which would make providing fire protection difficult: "It can be seen, therefore, that the restriction. to four acre Lots, so far as traffic is concerned, is based upon possible future conditions. Zoning is a tool in the hands of governmental bodies which enables them to more effectively meet the demands of evolving and growing communities. It must not and cannot be used by those officials as an instrument by which they may shirk their responsibilities. Zoning is a means by which a governmental body can plan for the future - it may not be used as a means to deny the future. The evidence on record indicates that for the present and the immediate future the road system of East Town Township is adequate to handle the traffic load. It is also quite convincing that the roads will become increasingly inadequate as time goes by and that improvements and additions will eventually have.to be made. Zoning provisions may not be used, however, to avoid the increased responsibilities and economic burden which time and natural growth invaribly bring." 215 A.2d at 609-610. The court then dealt with -the justif_i.cation that the zoning was necessary to preserve the "character" of the area, which was an area of great beauty containing old homes surrounded by bedutiful'pasture, farms and woodland: "Involved in preserving East Town's 'character' are four aspects of concern which the to%.,nship gives for desiring four acre minimum zoning. First, they cite the preserva- tion of open space.and the creation of a 'green belt' which, as most present day commentators impress upon us, are worthy goals. While in full agreement, with these goals, we are convinced that four acre minimum zoning does not achieve the creation of a green belt in its technical sense, and, to the limited extent that open space is so preserved, such zoning as is here involved is not a permissible means to that end. By suggesting that the creation of a green belt is a purpose behind this zoning, appellants betray their arguments that there is a ready market for four acre plots. Only if there is no market for four acre lots will the land continue to be open and undeveloped and a green belt created. This, however would amount to confiscation of the property of East Town landowners'for which they must be compensated. If the preservation of open spaces is the township objective, there are means by which this can be accomplished which include authorization for "cluster zoning' or condemnation of develdpment rights with • Memorandum E Page 29 compensation paid for that minimum acreage requirement by which the stated end can at 610-611. which is taken. A four acre is not a.reasonable method be achieved." 215 A. 2d The court then went on to reject the argument that.this zoning was needed to preserve historic sites in their proper setting. It noted that the sites in question were surrounded by land to protect them, and concluded: "In any event, beautification of several structures of minor historical significance either calls for nor legit- imatizes the imposition of low density zoning of the magnitude here contemplated upon 30% of the township." 215 A.2d at 61.1. Certainly that characterization suits the "Silver Queen" profile, which cannot even be seen from the City of Aspen and is virtually unknown to visitors. It might also be remembered that during the silver boom a whole town existed on the mountain, in Tourtelotte Park. The courts opinion then went on to treat the issue of preserving the "setting" of handsome old homes in the area: "Closely related to the goal.of protecting historic monuments is the expressed desire to protect the 'setting' for a numner of old homes in East Town, some dating back to the early days of our common wealth. Appellants denominate this goal as falling, within the ambit of promoting the 'general welfare.' Unfortunately, the concept of the general welfare defies meaningful capsuled description and constitutes an exceedingly difficult standard against which to test the validity of legislation. 1?ow.ever, it must always be ascertained that the outset whether., in fact, it is the public welfare which is being benefited or whether disguised as legislation for the public welfare, a zoning ordinance actually serves purely private interests. "There is no doubt that many of the residents of this area are highly desirous of keeping it the way it is, preferring quite naturally, to look out upon land in its natural state, rather than on other homes. These desires, however_, do not rise to the level of public welfare. This is purely a matter of private desire which zoning regulations may not be employed to effectuate,." 215 A.2d at 611. The court went on to note that if home owners desired to protect their settings, that they were free to acquire such land as was rj,essary for that purpose. i 11 Memorandum Page 30 "The fourth argument advanced by appellants, and one closely analagous to the preceding one, is that the rural character of the area must be preserved. If the township were developed on the basis of this zoning, however, it could not be seriously contended that the land would retain its rural character. - it c•.Jould simply be dotted with larger homes on larger lots." 216 A.2d at 611-612. "The township's brief raises (but unfortunately, does not attempt to answer) the interesting issue of the township's responsibility to those who do not yet live in the township, but who are part, or may become part, of the population expansion of the suburbs. Four acre zoning represents Fast Town's position that it does not desire to accomodate those who are pressing for admittance to the toy -reship unless such admittance will not create any additional burdens upon governmental functions and services. The question posed is whether_ the township can stand in the way of the natural forces which send our growing population into hitherto undeveloped areas in search of a comfortable place to live. We have concluded not. A zoning ordinance whose primary purpose is to prevent the entrance of new comers in order to avoid future burdens, economic and otherwise, upon the administration of public services and facilities, cannot be held valid." 215 A.2d at 612. Several other Pennsylvania cases deal with problems of land uses which place pressures on community facilities. In re O'Ha.ra's Appeal, 389 Pa. 35, 131 A.2d 587 (1957) was an appeal from a denial of an application by the Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia for a "special. exception" to build a high school within an "AA" residential district. This district provided for educational uses only with the consent of the Board of Adjustment. That consent was denied and the lower court sustained the Board's decision. The evidence showed that the neighborhood in question was one of fine suburban homes, with relatively narrow streets not equipped to handle heavy traffic, and that building a school there would have a slight effect on property values, and would burden the community with increased costs of improving streets etc. In dealing with the problem of increased costs for the community the court stated: "The court found that the proposed use would increase traffic, which under the circumstances, would create dangers and hazards and would be . adverse to public safety. Any traffic increase with its attendant noises,dirt, danger and hazards is unpleasant, yet, such increase is one of the 'inevitable accompaniments of suburban progress n 11 Memorandum Page 31 and of our constantly expanding population' which, standing alone, does not constitute a sufficient reason to refuse a property owner the legitimate use of his land: (citation omitted). It is not any anticipated increase in traffic which will justify the refusal of a 'special exception' in a zoning case. The anticipated increase in traffic must be of such a character that it bears a substantial relation to the health and safety of the community. A prediction of the effect of such an increase in traffic must indicate that not only is there a likelihood but a high degree of probability that it will affect the safety and heal-th of the community, and such prediction must be based on evidence sufficient for the purpose. Until such strong degree of probability is evidenced by legally sufficient testimony no court should act in such a way as to deprive a landowner of the otherwise legitimate use of his land. An examination of the instant record fails to reveal evidence sufficient to justify a finding that the anticipated increase in traffic bears any substantial relation to the health and safety of this community or the requisite high degree of probability that such an increase will affect adversely the health and safety of the community. The record merely indicates an anticipated minimal increase of traffic. "The (lower) court further found that the contemplated use will 'change the quiet residential character of the neighborhood and will. have a slight damaging effect on real estate values and•the end riri e neighborhood' (emphasis ours). What we said in Medinger's Appeal, supra, 377 ,Pa. at p. 266, 104 A.2d at p. 122, is particularly opposite: 'we therefore hold that neither aesthetic reasons or conservation of property values or the stabilization of economic values on a township are, singly or combined, sufficient to promote the health or the morals or the safety or the general welfare of the township or -its inhabitants or property owners, within the meaning of the enabling Act of 1931, as amended, or under the Con- stitution of_ Pennsylvania'. 131 A.2d at 596-597. The court then dealt.with the cost of community facilities: "The court finds also that the expense which would be occasioned to the township by reason of the consequent widening of streets, placement of sidewalks and street: whiting, is a factor to be considered. What relationship this factor bears to the standards set forth for granting or refusing a special exception - the health, morals and safety of the community - is beyond comprehension. Any use of this site would affect consequentially the toi�rnship in that it would require the widening of streets, etc. As a matter of fact, appellant has offered of record to Memorandum • Page 32 is assume part of any attendant expense by widening at least a portion of Royal Avenue at its own expense, providing - for off -highway parking and placing sidewalks along the main artery of traffic. This reason bears no relationship to the only standards which must guide the Board of the court in their exercise of discretion." 131 A.2d at 597. The court them summarized the justifications for denial of the application: "An analysis of the reasons advanced by the (lower) court for denying this application indicates that the court erred in refusing to allow the proposed use. Three reasons assigned by the court - the cost to the township, the availability of another site, the inadequacy of the present site - bear no relationship to the only standards which must guide the court in the exercise of its discretion and therefore the court clearly exceeded its powers and abused its discretion in this respect. The fourth reason - the effect on the character of the neighborhood has already been ruled by this court insufficient: Medinger's Appeal, supra. The fifth reason - the anticipated increase in traffic - fails by reason of the fact that the evidence is insufficient to show a high degree of probability at the anticipated increase in traffic will adversely_ affect the health or safety of the community." 131 A.2d at 598. "The language of Mr. Justice Bell in Medinger's Appeal, supra, 377 Pa. at p. 225, 104 A.2d at p. 122, is particular- ly applicable: 'the natural or_,zealous desire of many zoning boards to protect, irnprove and develop their community, to plan a city or a township or a coruuunity that is both practical and beautiful, and to conserve the property values as well as the 'tone' of that community is commendable. But they must remember that property owners have certain rights which are ordained, protected and preserved in our Constitution in which neither zeal nor_ worthwhile objectives can impinge upon or abolish'." 131 A.2d at 598-99. The court held that the application to bui.ld a school should have been granted. And in Appeal of Manns, 3 Pa. Commonwealth 242, 281 A.2d 355 (1971), a Pennsylvania Court had to deal with an application for a stone quarry in a rural residential area. Again the court: kept the permissible goals of zoning and the police power in mind, and subjected the rejection of the quarry application to tests of reasonableness, finding the denial of a special exception arbitrary, since the legitimate concerns, of the community could be met through other means, as they can in the present situation. r; Memorandum • Page 33 "In denying the application for special exception the ZoiAng Hearing Board found that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest for five general reasons. These reasons were, (1) the effect of the quarry on land value and on the future development: of the township; (2) the effect of the quarry on the need for future public services; ( 3 ) the effect of the quarry with regard to water, air_ and noise pollution; (4) the effect of the quarry on the water table as that affects both wells and septic systems; and (5) the effect of the quarry operation with relation to the present traffic pattern in the area. Although there is support in the record for these findings we are of the opinion that taken either collectively or individually they are insufficient in law to sustain the denial of this application for a special exception." 21 A.2d at 359-3G0. "The Board found that the quarry in existence would tend to depress residential land value within the immediate area, finding of fact no. 37, and that the introduction of the quarry, in finding no. 43, would retard future residential development within that surrounding area where the quarry would be seen, smelled, heard, felt or where dust would settle. Little elaboration is necessary upon the basic premise that a change in the character of the residential area or a slight damaging effect on real estate values cannot justify a denial of a special exception (citation omitted) neither aesthetic reasons, nor the conservation of property values or the stabilization of economic values in a township are, singly or combined, sufficient to promote the health, morals or safety of the community (citations omitted)." -281 A.2d at. 360. The court noted that the Board also found that the proposed use would be economically disadvantageous to the township, since it would require more services than it would produce in revenue. The court noted that there was little evidence in the record .-to support this and said: "Be that as it may, however, and even accepting this finding we do not believe that this con- sideration is a justification for a denial to its property owner of the lawful use of his land. It is now clear that zoning may not be used to avoid the increased responsibilities and economic burdens which time and natural growth invariably bring. (citations omitted). Admittedly, the use of this land for the proposed purpose will r MemorandLmi Page 34 require increased police protection, will impose a somewhat heavier burden on the road network, and will. require an increase in all of the municipal services over what is now necessary for the support of what is primarily vacant and unused ground. However, any use of this qround would impose some increased burden upon the municipality but to deny the lawful use of the land on this basis would be a palpable invasion of: the rights of the property holder and a clearl�, arbitrary use of discretion.The power to regulate the use of property does not extend to an -arbitrary, unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with private ownership of property even though such act may be labeled for the preservation of health, safety and general welfare. The exercise must have some substantial relation to the public good within the spheres held proper. It must not be from an arbitrary desire to resist the natural operation of economic laws or for purely aesthetic considerations (citation omitted)." 281 A.2d at 360-361. The Board also found that the quarry operation would pollute a stream in the area. There was some evidence that occasionally some of the machinery might leak oil and that perhaps some of L this might find its way into the stream. The court noted that this would be an infinitesimal amount, and noted that there was very little evidence that the quarry's dust suppression system would place polluted water in the stream. The court also commented: "In any event, even if there were some possible 'danger- of pollution' this could be controled by conditions imposed upon the grant of the application and if not complied with controlled through the remedial provisions of the zoning ordinance or in a court of: equity of actual pollution occurred." 281 A.2d at 361. The Board also found that the quarry operation would produce dust and air pollution. The court.noted that the zoning ordinance provided for the amount of dust allowable in a quarry operation, and that the Board could insist upon compliance with those standards. The Board also found an adverse public effect by virtue of the traffic to be generated by the quarry. Trucks to be used by the quarry were quite large, although within permissible standards allowed by Pennsylvania law. It was undisputed that some of the roads in the area are presently inadequate to handle such trucks, and that changes would be required at intersections, widening of some roads etc. In rejecting this problem as a reason for denying the exception the court stated: Memorandum Page 35 "Where the use applied for is allowable by special exception, it mast be contemplated that the use would cause some increase in traffic. However, in order to find that an increase in traffic can justify denial of a special exception, it must be shoran that the increase is of such character_ as to bear_ a substantial relation �o the health and safety of the community, or a high degree of probability that such an increase would adversely effect the health and safety of the community (citation omitt.ed). Recognizing that the application will result in some increased traffic, noise, dust and other similar inconviences, that factor alone cannot deny the use contemplated because many of the allowable and contemplated uses within the zoning district obviously contemplate increased traffic and these other noted inconviences (citation omitted). Of course there are situations where an increase in traffic will justify the refusal of a special. exception. However, such increase must be of such a character as to bear_ substantial relation to the health and safety of the community. It must be recognized that many of the permitted uses not requiring special exception would have the effect of increase in traffic as well (citation omitted). Although there may be an increase in traffic, there must be a high degree of probability of causing a serious detriment to the community. In contemporary society development and progress are likely to bring with them increased traffic, -but this, standing alone, is not - sufficient to justify the refusal of an otherwise lawful. use of property (citation omitted) ." 281 A. 2d at 363. The court held that the special exception should be granted. In the present instance the rezoning is a change of an isolated parcel and as such may be invalidated as arbitrary where a more general rezoning might stand. In Schiffer v. Village of Wilmette, 245 N.E.2d 143, 1.47 (App.Ct.Ill.1963) the court quoted from another case with approval: "'...And although a zoning ordinance may be valid in its general aspects, yet in some circumstances involving a particular piece of property it may be so clearly arbi- trary and unreasonable as to result in confiscation in violation of the constitutional rights of the owner. (Petr.opoulos v. City of Chicago, 5 Ill.2d 270, 125 N.E.2d 522). In determining whether or not a zoning ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious in its application to a given parcel of land, among the factors to be taken into consideration are the character of the neighborhood, existing uses and zoning of nearby property, the amount by which property values are de- creased, the extent to which the diminution in value promotes the public health, safety, morals or welfare, the relative gain to the public as compared with the 01 r: Memorandum Page 36 hardship imposed upon the individual property owner, the suitability of the subject: property for the purpose for which it is zoned, and the length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land develop.nerit in the area. (Myers v. City of Elmhurst, 12 Ill.2d 537, 147 N.E.2d 3067.." The proposed change must fall under each of the criteria; a consideration of all is cu lulati.ve. Distinguisab'le from the pure confiscation discussed above, is the "balancing" standard. In the present circumstance the re- zoning deprives the property of any beneficial use; but, even if Mr. Justice Holmes' boundary in dirnunition of value were not reached, the zoning would still be invalid under the "balancing" standard. No substantial decrease can be upheld where the classification bears no substantial relationship to the public welfare. Westwood Meat Market v. McLucas, 146 Colo. 453, 361 P.2d 776 (19G1). Exchange Nat'l. Bank of Chicago v. Villaqe of Skokie, 229 N.E.2d 552 (App.Ct.Ill.1967) and Stevens v. Toren of Iiuntington, 229 N.E.2d 591 (Ct.App.N.Y.1967) . The most obvious zoninq which bears no relation to the public wel- fare is aesthetic zoning. Scenery alone is not justification for zoning. "It may be conceded that, in implementing the plan apparently contemplated by the framers of this ordinance, aesthetics may be a valid consideration; but such consi- deration must be merely an incident and not the moving factor. Wolverine Siq_ n Works v. City of Bloomfield Hills (1937) , 279 �c�I h. 205, 271 N.W. 823; _H_itchman v. Township_ of Oakland (1951) , 329 Mich. 331, 45 N.W.2d 306. While we are not insensitive to the disruptive and un- sightly effect which the proposed towers and lines may have upon the scenic beauty of the Wixom area, we cannot sustain the ordinance for purely aesthetic reasons or unsupported fears of.the City planners. The ordinance to the extent that it is predicated upon an exclusive aesthetic basis is held to be invalid." (I)etroit'Edison Company v. City of Wixom, 172 N.13. 2d 382 (!Iich.1965?) . (emphasis added) See also Kenyon Peck, Inc. v. Kennel, 168 S.E.2d 117 Va. 1969) and De Maria v. Enfield Zoning & Planning .Comm'n., 271 A.2d 105, 108 (Conn.1970). �` Here the cost of beauty and open space, previously borne by bond. issues has been.shifted to a few landowners. Whore considerations other than aesthetic are advanced, the gain to the public must be balanced against the cost to the landowner. Where property values are extensively reduced by the zoning and the gain to the public is slight, the zoning is invalid. Rathkopf, The Law of Planning and Zoning, p. 6-6 supplemented in footnote 8 to the text, 1971 Cum. Supp. pp. 70-71; Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, r • ' Memorandum Page 37 72 L.Ed.842; Brehmer v. City of Re.r_rvville (Ct.Civ.App.Tex.1959), 320 S.W. 2d 193; County of La; e v. _Neal (Sup. Ct. I11.1962) , 181 N.E. 2d 85, 90. And see Weitli.nq v. County of du Page (Sup.Ct.Ill.1962) 186 N.E.2d 291, in which t}ie cau.rt said; 'The rule is well established that if the gain to the public is small when compared with the hard- ship imposed upon individual property ov1ners, no valid basis for an exercise of the police power exists (County ofLake v. MclNeal, 24 I11.2d 253, 181 N.E.2d 8_5). .Tt is not the owner's loss of value alone that is significant but, the fact that the public welfare does not require the restriction and the resulting loss. Where, as here, it is shown that no reasonable basis of public welfare requires the restriction and resulting loss, the ordinance must fall and in determining whether a sufficient hardship_ on the individual has been shown the law does not require that his property be totally unsuitable for the purpose classified. It is sufficient that a substantial decrease in value results from a classification bearing no substantial relation to the public welfare.' To the same effect, see Gr_a.nEi�,r_ v. Board of Adjustment of Cif of DeMoines (Iowa), 44 N.W.2d 299; Forbes v. Hubbard, 348 Ill. 166, 180 N.E.2d 67; First National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Evanston (App.Ct.Ill.-1964), 203.N:L.2d 6, -8-,-.and cases cited; Colvin v. Village of Skokie. -(I11_.-) ,. - 2a3 N.£. 2d 457, in which the .court stated that the evidence must show that the restrictions bear a real and substantial relationship to'the public hcal_th, safety, morals or general welfare; Bright v. City of Evanston, 206 N.E.2d 765.; Wehrmeister v. du Page County, 141. N.i:.2d 26; Hebser v. Zoni.nc; Board of Appeals of Peoria County, 193 N.E.2d 325; Sch-tidt V. Board of Adjustment of Clty of 9 N.J. 405,88 A.2d 607; Goldstein V. Zoning Board of Review of City of Warwick "(Sup. R.I. 1967), 227 A.2d 195 197. "And see Shepard v. Vibe of Skaneateles, 300'N.Y. 115, 89 N.E.2d 619; Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 N.Y.2d 553, 176 N.Y.S.2d 598,602, 152 N.E.2d 42; Chusud Realtv Corp. v. Village of Kensing- ton, 40 Misc.2d 259,243 N.Y.S.2d 149, aff'd 255 N'.Y.S.411,22 A.D. 2d 895; New York Trap Rock Coro. v. Town of Clarkstown,149N.Y.S. 2d 290 and by implication, Dov,7sey v. Village of Kensinqton, 257 N.Y. 221; Eaton v. Sweenv, 257 N.Y. 176, 1"77 N.E. 412, and Vernon Park Rlealty Corp. V. City of Mount Vernon, 307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517, in all of which the uses of property surrounding the subject parcel were such that, as a practical matter, the imposition of the restrictions on the subject parcel did not serve the purposes evidenced by the zoning plan..." r i Memorandum Page 38 The Michigan Supreme Court might have been speaking to the present situation in Lincolnho_1_ v. Village of Shoreham, 118 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Mich.-1�1. 62) . N "A zoning ordinance which restricts property to a use for which it is not adapted and thereby destroys the greater part of its value in order that the beauty pf the municipality may be enhanced is unreasonable. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. City of Detroit, 326 Mich. 387,, 40 N.W.2d 1,95. See, also, City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, 255 N.W. 371, wherein this Court ruled an ordinance is unreasonable which restricts property upon a boundary line of a village to a use for which the property is not adapted. Also, see Spanich v. Cityof Livonia, 355 Mich 252, 94 N.W.2d 62.T No debatable question as to reasonableness of the ordinance as applied to plaintiffs' property is presented here..." In addition to the cases cited above which deal with problems of growth and beauty much like those present in the Aspen area, many other cases have held that aesthetics alone are not a sufficient basis for zoning. These cases are collected in an annotation at 21 ALT;3d 1.22.2, which NAl_1 not be dealt with here in detail. It is worth noting that the issue first arose in a series of billboard cases, where the courts ultimately found a variety of justifications under the police power for zoning billboards out of residential areas. It is worth noting however, that the ultimate solution to the billboard problem has not been throuc;h zoning but through acquisition under the federal highway beautification program. If appropriate local officials are interested in such acquisitions, at least Spar is interested in working out a feasible program. C. 'rhe City and County Are Estopned f_rora Revising the _Zoning Isere. _ That the proposed rezoning is not even related validly to its stated objectives other than aesthetics can be documented from the analysis of Mr. Dale Moberg, presented by Spar.and Smuggler -- Durant Mining Company. Nor can the proposal be related to the 1966 Master Plan. The Master Plan has been honored over the past seven years by a total failure of either city or county to take. any affirmative action to rezone in compliance with the plan with the single exception of this current attempt. Thus property owners who have purchased land over the past five years or more have had every right to assume: that the Master Plan was a dead letter, and that government officials would take no action to implement it. During that period, Spar's owners bought their existing holdings at prices reflecting existing zoning. City and County Officials had several years prior to that within which to imple- ment the Master Plan, and did nothing. 01 Memorandum Page 39 Colorado courts have long recognized that z government may become equitably estopped from changing its zoning where landowners have taken actions in reliance on the existing zoning to their detriment. For example in Crav,for_d v. r.!c.Laughli.n, 172 Colo. =366, 473 P.2d 725 (1970), prior to enactment of an ordinance restricting the height of apartment buildings, the landowner_ had acquired land at a price twice what it would have been worth had the height restrictions been in effect, and had employed architects to design a building. A11 of these factors were significant in leading the Colorado Supreme Court to hold that the City of Denver could not later_ restrict the height of a building through what was denominated a "mountain view" ordinance. And see Denver v. Stockhouse, 135 Colo'. 289, 310 P.2d296 (1957), where, when a landowner relied upon a building permit, the city was held estopped to later complain that the building was in the wrong zoning classification, and the permit issued by mistake, where the landowner had spent $18,000 in reliance on the issuance of the permit. Here the landowners have spent nearly 100 times that sum in reliance on the existing zoning classifications. Next, it is now too late to begin rezoning to implement a 1966 Master Plan. Its Trafton Bean stated at the. September public hearing, conditions in Pitkin County have changed considerably in just the past five years, so that the 1966 Master Plan is now obsolete, and needs replacement. Attempts to rely on it at this date are the same as relying on no plan at all. Finally, several of the zones proposed do not allow mining as a permitted use, except by special_ review, where no legal standards have been set. To the extent that these ordinances interfere with federal grants of mineral rights, they are invalid. Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 52 Fed. 859, affirmed 163 U.S. 445, 16 S.Ct. 1101, 41 L.Ld.221 (1892) and Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 125, 25 S.Ct. 212, 49 L.Ed. 409, 412 (1904) CONCLUSION Spar's land will be rendered essentially useless by the proposed rezoning. In addition, it should be obvious now that the proposed rezoning is arbitrary, since it does not solve the purported evils of growth for the area, and imposes a tremendous cost on one land area which should properly be borne by.the community at large, either through purchase or a reduction of densities in all zoning classifications, which xti7ould equally burden all lands which cause problems related to growth. 0 TO L Consultation OCITY OF ASPEN 0 aspen,colorado,mn box v I SHIP TO: PURCHASE ORDER NO. 01090 THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL SHIPMENTS, INVOICES 8 CORRESPONDENCE. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Box V Aspen, Colo. 81611 DATE REQUISITION NO. DEPARTMENT OR FUND PER YOUR QUOTATION CONFIRMATION 12 / 2 9 / 7 2 01 191 623 YES ❑ NO PHONE QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL Trafton Bean's Green Line Consultation Fee (City's Share) 400.00 IF OVER $1,000.00 ADVISE PRICE. DO NOT SHIP UNTIL CONFIRMED. THE CITY OF ASPEN IS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES. PREPAY ALL SHIPMENT N ESS OTHEhWISE INDICATED. RECEIVED i DATE RECEIVED PURCHASING AGENT 0 VENDOR COPY 0 *CITY OF ASPEN • aspen,colorado,amn box v PURCHASE ORDER NO. 01090 THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL SHIPMENTS, INVOICES & CORRESPONDENCE. TO: F SHIP TO: Consultation City of Aspen Planning (', Zoning Box V L Aspen, Colo. 81611 DATE REQUISITION NO. DEPARTMENT OR FUND PER YOUR QUOTATION CONFIRMATION 12/29/72 01 191 623 YES NO ❑ PHONE QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL Trafton Bean's Green Line Consultation Fee (City's Share) 400.00 17777iZ- Cory t��US; CE RETURNED TO THE FINAf RECEIVE w ttj YOU TWF MS ORDERED. IF OVER $1,000.00 ADVISE PRICE. DO NOT SHIP UNTIL CONFIRMED. THE CITY OF ASPEN IS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES. PREPAY ALL SHIPMENT UN ESS OTHE WISE INDICATED. RECEIVED DATE RECEIVED i PURCHASING AGENT \ 4PREQUISITIONING DEPT. 49 TP Consultation CITY OF ASPEN aspen,colorado,mii box v SHIP TO: PURCHASE ORDER NO. 01090 THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL SHIPMENTS, INVOICES & CORRESPONDENCE. City of Ashen Planning :, Zoning Box V Aspen, Colo. 81611 DATE REQUISITION NO. DEPARTMENT OR FUND PER YOUR QUOTATION CONFIRMATION 12/2)/72 U-1 191t.`J2 1 1 ! YES ❑ NO ❑ PHONE❑ QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL Trafton Bean's Green Line Consultation Fee (City's Share) 400.00 IF OVER $1,000.00 ADVISE PRICE. DO NOT SHIP UNTIL CONFIRMED. THE CITY OF ASPEN IS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES. PREPAY ALL SHIPMENTS UNLESS OTH WISE INDICATED. RECEIVED i DATE RECEIVED i i PURCHASING AGENT t 0 REQUISITIONING DEPT. 0 September 26, 1972 Mr. R.S. Whaley, Assoc. Dean College of Forestry & Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mr. Whaley: I would like to extend my appreciation for your assistance with the Aspen and Shadow Mountain rezoning application. Your comments regarding the zone change will prove valuable in the forthcoming hearing and evaluation of the community's need to protect the natural appearance and character of Aspen. I have enjoyed working with you. Again, many thanks. Cotdially, Herb Bartel City/County Planner HB /kp • TO: City of Aspen & Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Herb Bartel, City/County Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning Application: Mountain Greenline DATE: September 26, 1972 LOCATION: Aspen Mountain and Shadow Mountain APPROXIMATE ACREAGE: 2080 acres PRESENT USE: Aspen Music School, Condominiums & Lodges, Skiing, Scenic Area, Clear Air Drainage, Water Shed Protection, Wildlife Habitat PRESENT ZONING: Pitkin County Zoning District: AR-1, Accommodations and Recreation District; T, Tourist District; and R-15, Residential District. City of Aspen Zoning District: AR-1, Accommodations and Recreation -Urban District. ZONING HISTORY: The area was originally zoned T, Tourist and OF Agricultural/Forestry in June of 1955 by Pitkin County initiated action. Present county AR-1 zoning was applied by Pitkin County action and present city AR-1 zoning was applied in conjunction with the south side annexation by the City of Aspen in 1967. COMMENTS: I. Conclusions A comprehensive analysis indicates that a justification for rezoning of the application area exists for the following reasons: 1) Mr. Trafton Bean, Planning Consultant for Pitkin County at the time that the existing zoning was applied to the application area, has substantiated by letter that an original error was made in approving the existing zoning and that conditions have changed justifying rezoning. 2) The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan recommendation of Agricultural/ Forestry is correct for the application area based on the following considerations: a) Goals and objectives concerning, in part, uncontrolled growth, a reliable recreation industry and stable economy, rate of tax increases, preservation of natural resources and the community's historical -cultural heritage. b) Population level and a rate of growth which protects against overcrowding and congestion that can be served without over- loading of public facilities and resulting serious burden on the tax base. Research on the perception of overcrowding in the tourist industry is still in its infancy but must be considered for highly popular areas such as Aspen. c) The level of public services, particularly fire protection, which can be reasonably provided. • -2- d) That the size of Aspen is important to maintain its atmosphere and character as a special place which is essential to avoid sheer busyness, noise, confusion, and impersonality that can destroy a recreation economy. e) Permitted land uses which can best avoid potential geologic hazards and physical dangers of the area including but not limited to mud flow, rock fall, avalanche and unstable slopes. f) The capability of the land, water and air to absorb the impacts resulting from the land uses allowed by the Agricultural/ Forestry District. g) The Agricultural/Forestry land uses produce the lowest potential for air and water pollution and result in the lowest potential disturbance because of the requirements for site excavation and grading, and vegetation removal. h) A low potential for increasing surface runoff results because of the limited amount of impervious surfaces created. i) Physical characteristics of the application area, particularly soil, slope and climatic conditions, which produce a high vulnerability for resource damage and an inability to restore and maintain a balance of natural processes after disturbance. j) Examination of the adjacent private lands now zoned Agricultural/Forestry indicates similar physical conditions to those of the lands within the application area. k) Provides the greatest compatibility with adjacent public lands. 1) Preservation of the historic, cultural and urban design significant of Aspen and Shadow Mountains. m) Land uses which can occur without creating aesthetic nuisances and damage to the scenic resources of the area including its natural and open appearance. It is important to emphasize that this recommended zoning change from T, Tourist and AR, Accommodations Recreation to Agricultural/ Forestry is a first phase of the steps now necessary for protection of Aspen's general welfare. The second phase is to apply mandatory review requirements for all development at the base of Aspen Mountain and in the application area because of its unique characteristics such as steep slopes, potential soil and vegetation damage, existing geologic hazards and the need to provide for urban design considerations in the application area. II. Overcrowding- of Public and Private Facilities Existing public facilities are being overcrowded as the result of the rapid growth which has occurred in the Aspen area. The costs for expanding these facilities will be the responsibility of the public and will place a burden on the tax base of the community. This demonstrates that present zoning has not successfully dealt with one of its principal aims, that of controlling the demand for public facilities and the burden on taxes that this demand creates. The following list, prepared by the City/County Planning Office, represents only a portion of the costs that have been incurred to the public as a result of the rapid growth in the Aspen area. Not included, for example, are state costs for reconstruction of Highway 82, local costs for insuring the preservation of open space, and the necessity to provide tertiary sewer treatment facilities to insure that the quality of the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries is maintained. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN PUBLIC FACILITIES Public Facilit Surface water runoff, sedimentation ponds, and storm drainage systems Sewage treatment works Hospital expansion Aspen Central Area Transportation Plan Airport Transportation Center, transit system linking Aspen, the airport and Snowmass Airport terminal total Capital Cost $ 350,000 *1 $ 358,000 *2 $3,000,000 *3 $ 6 , 000 , 000 *4 $4,000,000 *5 $ 650,000 *6 $14,358,000 *1 Capital Improvements Program presented in conjunction with 1972 Annual Budget for the City of Aspen *2 Expansion of Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation Treatment Plant increasing the capacity from .72 million to 2 million gallons per day. Cost estimates are not available at this time for tertiary treatment but are being prepared by the District because of concern for maintenance of the quality of the Roaring Fc:-k River. -4- *3 Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan and narrative, June 1972-- Medical Planning Associates %',4 Aspen Central Area Transportation Plan- Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. *5 Regional Transit Feasibility Study- Aspen/Pitkin County-- Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. *6 Preliminary Cost Estimates- Terminal only Population projections used in the planning for these facilities were taken primarily from the 1966 Aspen Area General_ Plan which does not recommend the existing high density zoning in the subject application area. Therefore, without consideration of the zoning recommendation by the 1966 Plan serious overcrowding of public facilities will result and people demands will be incurred that result in serious damage to the character of Aspen which makes it a special place. Conservation of the area's natural resource heritage and the man- made environment was considered in developing a plan for the area transportation system. The transportation plan envisions an implementation sequence beginning with the Aspen central area. The plan recommends solutions for parking, establishment of malls, a mall shuttle and a central area bus system. This portion of the plan is not by itself a final solution to central area transportation problems. After 1976, the number of cars entering Aspen will be higher than can be reasonably and economically accommodated. A transportation center outside of Aspen will be needed to intercept air, bus, and auto passengers, and a transit system provided to substitute for the auto. Should the application area be developed according to the existing zoning serious overloading of the trans- portation system, if implemented with its planned capacity, would result jeopardizing the public investment in that system, and the public welfare, including increasing air pollution. Also it is not economical to simply design a transit system with a higher peak hour capacity capable of moving additional skiers from Aspen �_o outlying ski areas, because of the difficulty in funding the system -5- as presently planned. It is obvious even to the layman that the present parking and street system in the central area cannot support additional demands which would be created by development of high density in the application area. The transportation plan for the central area cannot merely be expanded to accommodate a higher capacity because of limited financial capabilities of Aspen and because of damage to the resource base, particularly that resulting from air pollution and congestion that would result from transpor- tation planning designed to accommodate more cars in Aspen. Another public facility which must be provided, is a sedimentation pond to avoid pollution of the Roaring Fork River and insure protection of the river and fishing as a resource essential to the recreation economy of Aspen. The major private facility which must be considered is skiing and the quality of the skiing capacity on Aspen Mountain. Because the lodging capacity in Aspen has already exceeded the skiing capacity of Aspen Mountain, a serious problem will arise in the future with continued high density development as a result of the inability of the transportation system to move skiers fio the outlying ski areas. III. Natural resources of the application area which provide a basis, in part, for reconsideration of existing zoning. The intensity of development which the existing zoning allows would damage soil, vegetation, wildlife and resources of the area, and would produce harmful air and water pollution because of the unique physical characteristics of said application area. Natural scenic beauty is important to the recreation economy of Aspen and to maintenance of Aspen's competitive position as a quality mountain resort. Although Aspen Mountain did und.--go substantial physical alteration during the mining era, the-a:::iral beauty of the mountain has been restored and major visual aialities must now be protected to preserve the unique physical environment upon which -ti- the economic well-being of the community depends. Obviously if the scenic beauty is to be preserved we must avoid long term visible scars from road construction and utility extension that are occurring on the other mountains in the vicinity. We also must conserve those natural elements that make up the scenic beauty such as the natural vegetation, dominance of the natural setting and theopen character of the mountain which would be extensively changed and disturbed by the bulk and scale of buildings now allowed by the existing zoning. In the case of the subject application, aesthetics most certainly does relate to the economic, general and cultural welfare of Aspen since a major portion of the revenue used to provide governmental services is derived from sales tax paid in large by tourism. The existing zoning, because of the range of uses permitted and density allowed, would not protect the profile of the historically significant Silver Queen on Shadow Mountain, since a hotel or restaurant could be built on the ridge line. The natural character of Aspen Mountain and Shadow Mountain play an important part in establishing the unique setting which is essential for Aspen's position as a cultural center. A slope, soils and vegetation report has been prepared by the Soil Conservation Service which indicates that generally, soils in the application area have severe limitations for development and excavation, are shallow, have a low water holding cape -city, a high erosion potential yielding a great amount of sediment and, when disturbed, are difficult to revegetate. The stability of the soil, the consequences of soil disturbance and the predominance of slopes 30-45 per cent and over 45 per cent in the area indicate an incapability of the soils to support the density allowed by the existing zoning. The natural vegetation of the application area plays an important role in establishing the scenic beauty of the mountain landscape, provides critical wildlife habitat and forage, and reduces surface -7- water runoffs which would produce soil displacement and erosion resulting in stream pollution from sedimentation. The natural vegetation also performs a vital function in preventing landslides, mud flow, rock fall and avalanches because of the steep slopes. One has only to observe the bulk and scale of buildings now constructed in the areas along the top of Monarch, Mill and Galena Streets to establish the extent of disturbance of the natural vegetation that would result from development of the existing zoning. Opportunity to observe elk is limited and their preservation must have a high priority because of this, and the fact that they add variety to the visual quality of the recreation experience. As was indicated above allowable densities and related man activities would damage the natural vegetation which is essential for wildlife habitat and forage. Land use must therefore consider wildlife movements, and needs, and not conflict with them because of the importance of wildlife resource. The most reasonable way to control urban air pollution and maintain quality air standards is by curbing air pollution at the source. It must be recognized that to accomplish this, limitations on growth may be required in certain areas, and that growth may be directed to other areas where physical conditions are not likely to produce air pollution. The Aspen Townsite is especially susceptible to the development of air pollution problems because of the following climatic and meteorological conditions: 1) Mountain air drainage patterns in which the colder, heavier air slides down the mountain carrying with it the pollution of development. 2) Common occurrance of temperature inversions during winter months when pollution emissions are high because of population increases and extensive use of fireplaces. 3) High altitude conditions which affect increases in pollution levels. 4) High per capita number of cars not tuned for Aspen altitude and high per capita use of fireplaces and dining out. JOHN A. LOVE ci"r Governor N M COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 254 COLUMBINE BUILDING — 1845 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE 892-2611 Mr. Herb Bartle City -County Planner Pitkin County Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bartle: Sept. 19, 1972 JOHN W. ROLD Director With reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday about the new series of interpretive geologic maps of the Aspen quadrangle by Bruce Bryant of the USGS--upon inquiry I discovered that these have not yet been distributed to the various outlets for sale. Since your need for such information is urgent we are mailing the six that you requested from our own preprint folio. Please consider these as a loan and when the single prints become available we will let you know. There is a brief text and explanation with each map which should be carefully read before evaluating the information in any particular context. Geologic in- formation of this scale is best used in general planning and feasibility studies, and for any specific development more detailed geologic and engineering site investigations should be made. We will still plan on dropping by your office when we are in that area. If we can be of further assistance, please call or write to us. Your very truly, William P. Rogers��_ Engineering Geologist Colorado Geological Survey C-� 0 Memo To: Trafton Bean From: Herb Bartel, City/County Planner Date: September 18, 1972 Re: Aspen Mountain Rezoning Application I have enclosed information regarding Aspen Mountain skier popillation, and ski lift and tourist accommodations for your review. I will have the city and county aoning codes available to you when we meet next, as we have no extra copies in the office at present. • • Memo Date: September 12, 1972 To: Trafton Bean From: Herb Bartel, Planning Office Re: Rezoning: Aspen Mountain and Shadow Mountain Enclosed is the outline of the written material intended to be the written file for the rezoning application. Please check it over and let me know if you feel some of the information is unnecessary or that additional information is needed in some areas. I could use some help in an outline of additional law cases to be submitted to demonstrate to the officials that down zoning has been done in other places. Also I an sending the letters that have already been submitted as examples of the type of information intended to build the file. At the Public Hearing itself, it is the intention to merely submit the information and not reed the material. Will have a slide presentation however, hopefully to make the application more familiar to the public. August 30, 1972 Mr. John 14. Marr, Ecologist Professor of Biology University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80302 Dear Mr. Marr: I would like to extend my appreciation for your assistance with information on Aspen Mountain vegetation. I am sure it will be helpful evidence for the September rezoning hearing. I will keen in touch with you as to progress on the Mountain Greenline hearing and the River Plan adoption. I have enjoyed working with you . Again, many thanks. Cordially, Herb Bartel City/County Planner HB /kp i 0 * \ a-Cl' 1 aCA T r�, SC� (,? n rd • • �� ► � .lam � .c ..____W A3 -''`� S ' !• �L E� —" A# Adc,�'E.caJ '�'c -- uPTik—ftgcjd:,A*,tLoh3 s,wftt ,N;t,AI cecW"4c, IV 111-16 47, S/ER 14f VA - No. — -r _N i.NsZfiu_- -al-b T -sA_ _ ---of�o owT %#ME wkhhtR, \ yC Q- lQSi — Ne. S Lik 61fu- hw. 1 &r) 045TeW4pD yLA 2 19 Sq--- ---- S) Eft R Rlo l — WO, 1 Ltf-T -- REP L ik n , j �ft to fw 4\ & 4-&k CA" L Arn No • 1 1-,�T RC- P LA C&0 L'�T►+ _sit 9aTER tiJCW ___---CAcPAc.Tc.� Lt� Loc�.>E1Z ��._14oJ�fl �lPet►LL. 369994"1t To Re,&A E %-AkD Wi, C,03 b" T &oAJ. tj ovoPKEic.17 a� -ram, it �� is �.� Ci3ETLua-Q CP J pl� uwTS Huck 3 3 - uNo ]S 4---3 - `—la u��Z$ Du(�i4�.TL 'i- OLb - � I.W TS tP 16JO - I - ao-_��S VIAkL �s � macs- �� uN•� —So - ' TO 1Ay-TI�4 ►u C, tEati - 3 � t� GS ' _�c�� ? IPPL4: 1-0566, - 3Lb C. - 9 .tS BwE s'acF ITS -- -- ----- . H-oL4a.1►9 _titot�SE � � (��D (, - 3 c ua � � j ----- �, o,�,,t�_H�-tJ 4Ts — 3 macs • ao uN,TS -- — t 7 Page 2-A The Aspen Times August 10, 1 0 The ASPEN TIMES PwARo OLORADO- COLORADO L DRESS ASSOCIATION PRESS GENERAL EXCELLENCE19,71 /NN�� PWARO William R. Dunaway. . . .: : Editor and Publisher COLORADO George W. Madsen, Jr. . .Associate Editor PRESS Su Lum. ....................Advertising Manager TYPOGRAPHY 3 PRESS WORK Sally Barlow ............................. Reporter 1971 Nick Pabst .............................. Reporter /NNE Bryant Ricker ................ Production Manager Vivian Crum Ewing .............. Business Manager LJOI�ARO- OLORADO PRESS PHOTO RNALISM 1971 N�j Second Class postage paid at Aspen, Colorado. Subscriptions $7.00 a year in Pitkin County, 512.00 outside. Send orders for subscriptions, change of address, or undeliverable copies to THE ASPEN TIMES, BOX E, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. editorial keep the mountain green Although zoning has been in effect in Aspen and the neighboring county area for 17 years, the dangers of large- scale tourist development on Aspen Mountain were not recognized until last month when a special city -council committee began studying measures to up date the 1966 master plan. Of course, when the original zoning was adopted in 1955, relegating much of Aspen Mountain to tourist classification, neither the local economy nor technology was conducive to construction on the steep slopes of Ajax. Since then conditions have changed. The pressure of demand has driven up the price of land to the point where any tract, no matter how steep, arid or inaccessible, faces development. And technology has advanced enough to permit construction on sites which would have discouraged builders when Aspen was first formed. So it is inevitable, unless the zoning is changed, the blight of condominiums, now lapping at the lower slopes, will soon sprawl up the hillside. This prospect frightened the committee. It felt one of Aspen's major assets was its remaining green, uncluttered mountain sides, slashed here and there by a ski lift or old mine, but as yet uncut by the urban cancer of roads and buildings. What could happen to Aspen Mountain was apparent by turning to gaze northward at Red Mountain and replacing each house with a multi unit condominium. Once the committee reported its fears both city and county planning and zoning commissions were quick to react. They agreed a joint city -county public hearing should be scheduled on September 26 to consider rezoning the 2300 acres on Aspen Mountain, some of which is in the city, but most of which is in the county. The recom- mendation was to rezone a strip from 8000 to 8200 feet in r Ai�tN rMcs•t9'�2 'it C0VQZt CgZ LOVE SAyS IT'S OKv elevation from AR, Accomodations and Recreation, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the remainder above 8200 feet to AF-1, Agriculture and Forestry. As with any zoning, the proposal would not stop con- struction on Aspen Mountain, but it would limit the number and type of buildings in the AF-1 district and permit control in the PUD district by necessitating PZ approval of all development plans. Although the Board of County Commissioners has yet to zone the remainder of Pitkin County, as recommended by the Master Plan, we hope it can recognize the dangers tourist development on Aspen Mountain poses and will join the City of Aspen to rezone the slopes as suggested by their committee. Arts, craft fair to benefit Touchstone ri^.;•�aF�•. 1*�}v.'sc �$L�'�'+�C�++ef+-.��••�,p'L'�P�rJx�,w�.h,ef�iarraw.•.7�acsu-,.a�a+�«.rw.+�^IlvarrssR.x•:ri•:,�[.,,. ¢ oo cs.,;w C"W>.^ N V G S d u .VC E C. ccramcos so,EG.� a v •� o o ar .N >. a d �6Li ••fin 06 E E ' C`C 6. � o 5� Qi"' _•''�J .J d L1D Q� 0: C V O O O' O• N cJ c>Lc m is O°a n !)) �aEON t C0.Y r. U. c4 i V C .V O G .O V N ° C �•= ti `� c Esq in ^ L c oca ow 1.. C •5 u C yG�, G 5 5 S IIz V M a a, m S c co O 6r O •� V � c0 ^ � 'vC O 'do .V C c. % C C C .0 cCp c4 .� L R " O i1 O c0 L i E! fC a. c co E y N 6 Q•Cac s •- '^' L G' N X E E O V O L •C V V C� .- aJ � C C Q N E"'•Cw q O.to V + Y o u a iro ,� a r ^. o 3x0 0 "wi l U Q (j ..-i OD a coo O LL CL w =c L N 00 O. `••• y CS C cu G C cc C V C C 7 O O �� cs^: c6 EaaEo o`oso N c It- >` L•' N O C �L 3 cu in 3> o. c .n U Y O O w O c o Q C ^J Vf •O E a)►a GJ > G .-. N F �� O cCOi= wavyp°Cycc t�•�ai�i3 m E c E E a ova o c`a fl s C N V Es ¢ O N LLNF. c6 N oia c�y.:� C E C C� -3L. u°Ra0. u cgo G A O asd E o oQ oc y iaF c =°� 3 p cn _ F` E �a cos �`p� N v o� to.r +- 'n U 3 E °D y�°v°,�$r:o�'o¢ yLuc E E 4 �z _CO¢ O L O . 4f 41 m W Y 3a,�-uci�Ecy c i2dcEoyy>3�sa'.zc�� c`oF. C]ia C.C'O C O C > OGO•': 0) es .�o�cc cca3N =is 5: o °¢ _ C 3 N CL r- > u •p .� � � y fS. CQ d ..Cc M fi -s L10 ` 4 V -8 K O � V L L .rJ cc N ��'. �;0 d 'y E Q. X y V cQ ^ �/ •p "'' �/] O V w y wEtv•u o6Es, c .� Qj N o°arcrc u.ti4 c°a'oco L °N�=iLc°oC _ C V V O O E 2 y O C y iI� 4i �`� ° E� Q L ^�. � O� A w V rz oc�Du=�¢. EocE C n'�°°oc°'3ta � ac.aS� E E�Eo vo ..s Q; w•• E-�Nv�� s�' °EC�c. Page 16-D The Aspen Times July 27, 1972 Aspen mountain retuning considered Tourist zoned land on Aspen Mountain above a certain line may become the subject of a public hearing in September to consider rezoning to agriculture and forestry use. This was the tentative decision made by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday morning after a joint study session with the Board of County Commissioners. $185,000 Hotel and Motel with Dining, Lounge with Game Room. On Main Street in Basalt. Minutes to Aspen and Lake Ruedi. Income records available to qual- ified buyer. Expansion possible. $50,000 down. DAN TSCH"AT CO. REAL ESTATE Aspen — Box 1022 — 526 East Hyman — 925-7880 A recommendation for rezoning approximately 2300 acres of T and AR-1 land on Aspen Mountain to AF-1 was received by the PZ from the Master Plan Study Group. According to the recom- mendation, the rezoning was one of the suggestions made by the 1966 Master Plan and should be carried out before roads are cut or development occurs. City -County Planner Herb Bartel explained that he would like the hearing and rezoning action to be taken jointly by the county and city to ensure cooperation. Line above which the land on Aspen Mountain should be rezoned would be the one above which city water can not be provided by gravity without additional pum- ping, he said. + In other business the two groups discussed the PZ Com- mission's recommendation to deny rezoning at the present time on the 226-acre Top of Aspen project for the McCulloch Properties, Inc. An application for the rezoning to permit 400-plus units of con- dominiums was subject of a public hearing last February and discussed at several PZ and county commissioners meetings since then. No action was taken at Wednesday's study session. Also discussed was the future need for a regional sewage treatment plant and it was suggested that the county com- missioners budget funds for land acquisition or a new study. Whithtr the Wtalthtr?? THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 27 —We're now in a period of greater probability for afternoon and evening showers, but the forecast is for a return to normalcy for the weekend, according to the National Weather Service. That means that Aspen is due for its consistent summer amount of sun and that there will be usual chance of scattered afternoon and evening precipitation. In short, there's really nothing new in the local weather picture, except that we've had a few more light showers in the past week than was the case in earlier days of July, and the high daytime temperatures were slightly lower than the norm for this time of year. According to the West Aspen Weather Reporting Station, Aspen received about .12 inch of rain in the past seven days (.03 last night); the low nighttime temperature has ranged from 43 to 54 degrees (Sunday night's 54 is the hottest of the summer); and the daytime high temperatures have been from 77 to 83 degrees. Page 2 R�-z_oning 72-4 McCullough All portions of the following described mining claims lying northerly and eastcrl_ of the Della S. - Smuggler compromise line as the same is described in Book 97, Page 77 of the Records of Pitkin County, to wit, Smuggler USMS 1656 General Jackson USMS 3941 Glendale USMS 6859 Arkansas USMS 8394 Chatfield USMS 1462 Part of Chatfield USMS 1462 J. C. Johnson USMS 1436 Excluding that tract described in Book 177, Page 378 of the Records of Pitkin County. Parcel 1 contains 199.4 acres more or less. Parcel II- That part of the Brown Placer, M.S. No. 15047 , containi.n�, 10.041 acres, more or less, described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 9, M.S. Nol. 15047, Thence running N 002.8' W 1215 feet to a point; thence N 89°59' W 120 feet to a point; Thence S 21009' W 1302.6 feet to a point; Thence S 89°59' E 600 feet to said corner No. 9, the place of beginning. Parcel I.II-That part of the Emma Lode, M.S. 2120, The Mollie Gibson Lode, M.S. 4281 and the Lone Pine Lode, M.S. 1910 described in Book 234 at Page 48; that parcel. described in Book 219 at Page 271; and that part of the N.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 4 described in Book 218 at Page 471 that lies northerly and easterly of the centerline of the Salvation Ditch, all in Pitkin County, Colorado, containing 16.88 acres, more or less. All of the above described parcel III is situated in the south _ of Section 7, T.10S., R.84 W. of the 6tn P.M. from R-15 Residential and R-30 Residential to AR-2 Accomodati.ons and Recreation as indicated on a map on file in the office of the Pitkin County Building Depz:rtment. The Map may be examined during regular business hour_ s . The Hearing is scheduled as a joint hearing of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. At such Public Hearing, all persons in interest may appear and be heard expressing their objections or. opinions.M]klich ,•r Recorder h, �J jQ - �.._..._.._-. i Qry ol �2 31 (iT,h�/��L2Z� f____•G%=E iZ/Sl�� :'�,��,r_�e! i�//G�L1L�/�j--.�I '.i �—'C� alf��. nXt I! 414 c ��-- n -- �, i 1 , Ell i Jol >ej ! 'a G y • S (a copy of the) OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE - ASPEN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 1954 AND 1955 • • Aspen, Colorado July 27,1954 The Board of County Co- 'ssioners Pit'kin County Aspen, Colorado Attention: Yr. Orest Gerbaz, Chairrian. Dear Crest: On Friday afternoon, July 23rd, the follavring members of the recently appointed Regional Planning Corsrission net here at ny home: Fred Glidden Fritz Benedict Sam Caudill Henry Stein 7,e studied the proposed county resolution, copy of -*ich I shall include with this letter. TIe further discussed the application of this resolution to our Lmmediate progm7 and reached conclusions rich I -Trill atte-�pt to out- line in this letter in the fora of reco- mendati.ons which -T;e now present to the county comissioners for imediate legal action: -1 - Ue urgently suggest that all of Pitk.n County be zoned by adoption of this resolution form and the overlapping districts classified as Residential and Agricultural. This clearly indicates that the resolution intact, as it appears, should be adopted through Section 5. The sections dealing with commercial and industrial zoninz we feel do not need consic'eration at this time nor do we need a forest and nineral classification. Our idea is that by classifying the entire county areas as combined residential and agricultural arq develop- ment outside of these t•.;o would then_ become an e .cention. As e :ception it would automatically require official approval before being, allowed. Thus the normal develop_:.ents which would core under the classifications of Presidential or Agricultural ,could require no scrutiny or official action and only such iz'2 • • development of a co:- nercial or industrial, and so forth nature would need attention. Thus, if a rancher sold a snail piece of his land to a man who ex— pected to build a filling station, or garage, befo-^e the ne:°r filling station, or garage, could be built approval by the planning cormfission mould be necessary. R ther on in this letter I ;rill suggest how we thought this should work. —2— The -recomnencation of our group is for the mediate adoption, bf the county cormssioners, of a resolution, or law. making all roadside advertising signs within Pitkin County illegal. HQ7ever, since we are focusing upon Aspen at the present time we suggest the resolution that roadside signs along HiglT;ray 82 between Basalt and Independence Pass be banned, and also signs along county roads connecting with Higl-rmy 82. The immediate exceptions are of course traffic warnings and directional signs and of course the actual signs of pro— prietors'Up at the location of a place of business. Here again the sane p-i nciple of exception should apply. Any individual rrho night find the ban on sio s mould result in great hardship could ..lake written application for spedial permission and be granted by our group per -fission to install some acceptable type of sign. Our group mould not care to ta'-ce the initative in suggesting a form of roadside directory but believes that any persons ;rhose signs .rill be removed may rash to combine their roadside advertising into some attractive uniform presentation that could be displayed in some designated location outside of each entrance to the to;ni. If there is interest in this directory development our group suggests that those wishing to participate combine their ideas and money for the purpose through the Aspen Chamber of Co -coerce Office and effort can be made to obtain location, and suitable design for a higlTaay advertising directory. As this project develops our planning cor-maission would then cooperate by granting ;f3 exception for the particular combined directory structure and could probably be helpful in obtaining; correct roadside location for such an installation. —3— rend the follo-rin-ec?ianism for adr. LL - ste i ng the resolution in guest;_on. Any individual, or business planrLin� construction, or development which does not co-ne :rithin the definitions of the Presidential and Agricultural description outlined by Sections 1 through 5, should make a written application for a hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission in turn will advise the County Commi_ssionars to grant, or not to grant, the necessary permission. A small standard fee should be charged for this service. In case the planning co,r3ssion refuses per_ri.ssion the county co,�i ssioners should constitute themselves as a board of appeal, if this is legal. Thus every development outside o=' the Residential or Agricultural classification iiould be subject to scrutiny by bot1h. the planning cormaission and the county co=ssioners and the decision of those two bodies to grant, or not to ;rant, the er:ception i-muld be final. IMM :7e reconmsend that the legm al adoption of the resolutions be made kno to the Aspen City Council so that they in turn may also adopt the principles to apply to their present zoning structure, and their future development of further zoning restrictions. -5- -7e strongly recormend, as part of the county resolution, the adopting intact of the recent City of Aspen Ordinance relative to mi_nimun floor space per per— son, and plumbing facilities, etc. By county ruling the benefits of this tits regulation would control standards of lodgings both in aril out of Aspen. e Irish to further study the matter of a building code regulat .on to apply to county and city, ho-.°:ever, we realize that a regulation involvinS a co:-o-ehensive ,pl • 0 building code will roquire the e..plo ament of a building inspector to administer the code. We do not believe Tre are at this time ready for this additional public office, bit hope to have the mechanism prepared when the time is in— dicated. ffe also rill Nish to reco=,end at that time a legal means by VILich unsafe and unsightly structures may be condemned for razing, both within the citrr of Aspen and Fi.tiin County. It is not completely clear to our group ha^r the enclosed resolution becomes legal. If there are public notices or if hearings Trill be needed, our group will be glad to do the :zork necessary. We hope that it w:M be possible for the county co.-=issioners to announce the adoption of this resolution including the ban on roadside signs at an early date. ale suggest notice in the paper to this effect and a standard written notice to the o,-mer of every sign affected giving some reasonable time allowance for its ramoval. Our group will be glad to undertake this operation if we have proper legal. sanction. Very truly yours hls/s Establishment of an Aspen Regional Planning Commission In on effort to coordinate the City and County zoning and Planning programs, an Aspen Regional Planning Commission was created Friday, July 16, 1954, at a joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County and the Aspen City Council. Mem- bers already named to the Pitkin County Planning Commission were to constitute the reg- ional planning commission. The group was empowered to recommend zoning regulations for the area in Pitkin County surrounding Aspen and to submit master plan information as a guide for development of this area. Adoption of a regional plan was suggested for long needed direction and control of areas where ill -planned building and development is threatening the existing property values. The proposed plan would not be a threat to existing structures. The future other regional studies might be made for the Fryingpon and Crystal River regions. Countywide zoning was suggested to prevent unsightly roadside buildings. Members of the Regional Planning Commission, as originally appointed, were: Orest Gerbez, Chairman; Fritz Benedict, Harry Stein, Sam Caudill, Fred Glidden, and Herbert Bayer. 0 • Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission Meeting on August 11, 1954 Members Fred Glidden, Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission at 1:00p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 1954. Subjects discussed at this meeting included the need for a street and highway plan to provide improved traffic flow through the region, parking as a major problem within the city, the need to combine school and recreational areas, and various land use conflicts involving skiing, commercial areas, industrial areas, and the location of the Court House. Secretary Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on January 13, 1955 Members Harry Stein, Fred Glidden, Herbert Bayer, Sam Caudill and Fritz Benedict, and planning consultant Trafton Bean met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission at 4 p.m. on Thursday, January 13, 1955 at the Chamber of Commerce office, Aspen, Colorado. The consultant described background information which he had obtained from a review of the past four years of the local newspaper. He discussed the advantages of planning for better Iota=- tion of State Highway routes in the region, for park and street improvement programs, and to en- courage sound business development. Organizational matters, such as regular meeting times, the release of publicity, and the keeping of records and minutes were discussed. Consultant Bean was requested to keep the records of the regional planning commission meetings. Display maps and the keeping of planning records in looseleaf booklet form were discussed. Importance of following State Statutes with regard to the adoption of zoning in the unincorporated areas of Pitkin County was emphasized. In particular, sending a copy of zoning recommendations to the State Planning Commission, providing at least 30 days notice before a public hearing, and the need for relating zoning to a comprehensive plan were mentioned. Members of the regional planning commission were requested to obtain certain local basic data which might be available to them. Also, a copy of the Aspen city zoning law was to be obtained from the City Clerk. The need for an industrial zone in Pitkin County was considered. Jim Perry of the Glory Hole Motel discussed the matter of motel signs. Secretary Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on January 27, 1955 Members Harry Stein, Fritz Benedict, Fred Glidden and Herbert Boyer, and planning consultant Trafton Bean and his associate, Lloyd Hyden, met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission at 4p.m. on Thursday, January 27, 1955 at the Chamber of Commerce office, Aspen, Colorcdo. Discussion took place concerning base maps, the existing land use survey, and State Highway routing. The proposed first draft of the text for a zoning resolution for use in Pitkin County was presented to the members for their study. Following a brief introduction of the terms of this resolution, members were asked to review the content of the proposal in detail so that revisions could be made at the next regular meeting. Discussion took place concerning a city directory sign for location on the State Highway 082 approach to Aspen in order to indicate available points of interest and accommodations within the region. S cretary Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on February 10, 1955 Members Fred Glidden, Fritz Benedict, Herbert Bayer and Sam Caudill. met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission at 4 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 1955 in the County Commissioner's room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado. Others present included County Commissioners Tom Sardi and Clarence Quam; County As- sessor Warren Conner; County Surveyor "Ruch" Buchanan; and, planning consultants Trafton Bean and Lloyd Hyden. Principal discussion at this meeting involved the proposed Riverside Subdivision, the proposed Castle Creek Subdivision, and the Bealmear Subdivision. Persons present agreed that subdivision regulations were needed and that subdivisions now pending in the region should be carefully re- viewed. ecretary Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on February 11, 1955 Members Fred Glidden, Fritz Benedict and Sam Caudill, and planning consultants Trafton Bean and Lloyd Hyden met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission at 3p.m. on Friday, February 11, 1955 in the County Commissioner's room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado. The consultant described the completion of a new County base map and presented a preliminary draft of the proposed County zoning map for the Aspen region. He mentioned that aerials of the Aspen region had been ordered and explained that USGS maps of the area were quite old. A large scale base map of the City of Aspen and its immediate environs was to be started. Also, an existing land use survey of the entire area was described as being undertaken. Major sections of the proposed zoning text were discussed in detail. Persons present also considered the need for a City ordinance regulating trailer camps. Further discussion also took place concerning the Castle Creek subdivision, the Riverside subdivision, the Bealmear subdivision and a proposed subdivision in the Mills area west of the City. Secretary • Minutes of the Aspen Regiona Planning Commission on February 18, 1955 Members Fred Glidden, Herbert Bayer, Orest Gerbez and Sam Caudill met for a regular meeting of. the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on Friday, February 18, 1955 in the County Commis- sioners room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado. Others present included County Commissioners Tom Sardy and Clarence Quam; planning consultant Trafton Bean; Clint Stewart, attorney; and, Mrs. Mills. The consultant described the completion of the base map and the existing land use survey for the region. He described his work on the basic data and preliminary plans and explained that pro- posed subdivision regulations would be presented for further study. Members present discussed the 3rd draft of the proposed zoning text with minor adjustments made. A suggested ordinance for regulating trailers within the city was also considered and recommended to the City Council for further processing. Members of the Board and others present discussed the proposed Mills Subdivision to be located north of State Highway No. 82 in the area between Maroon Creek and Castle Creek. After consideration of how this subdivision would be related to other community interests, the the Board approved the preliminary plat as presented showing a combination golf course and residential lot development with lots approximately 20,000 square feet in area; and, in addi- tion, the Board recommended that the subdivision be zoned as an R15 District in accordance with the 3rd Draft of the proposed Pitkin County Zoning Resolution. (motion by Glidden, second by Caudill, Vote: unanimous) In voting to approve the preliminary plat for the Mills Subdivision the Board emphasized the following: 1 . A sound development of this area would benefit the entire Aspen region and should be encouraged. 2. Although the general plan is approved in preliminary form and should give the developer as in going ahead with more detailed studies, if subdivision design standards are later adopted by Pitkin County such standards should apply wherever possible to all subsequent final plats. In this instance, the Board believes that such requirements would not conflict with overall utility and road plans now being formulated. 3. After part of the Mills area has been recorded in a final plat, the Board assumes that actual development of such area will justify additional final plats for adjoining lands prior to their presentation. ' Secretary Minutes of the Aspen Region+lanning Commission on March 10, �5 Members Orest Gerbez, Harry Stein, Fred Glidden and Sam Caudill and planning consultant Trafton Bean met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on Thursday, March 10, 1955 in the County Commissioners room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colo- rado. Discussion involved details of the proposed third draft of the Pitkin County zoning text and the recommended zoning maps for the Aspen region. After further discussion, the amended third draft and proposed zoning maps for the Aspen area were approved, certified, and recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for their adoption. Members discussed having ten copies of the proposed zoning text and maps available in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk. Ten copies of the proposed zoning text and maps were also to be left in the office of the Aspen Chamber of Commerce for distribution to members of the regional planning commission who • were not present at the meeting and for general public use. Secretary 9 PUBLIC II'AP.IING on Proposed 2it;:i n County, Colorado, Zoning; Pesolution Hotel Jerome Aspen, Colorado April 16, 1955 At a special neeting held at 10:00 L. E., Nonday, 1_pril 18, 1955, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, net for the purpose of having a public hearing on the proposed PitI:in County Zoning Resolution as certified by the Pitkin County Planning Commission on Harch 10, 1955. Neeting Place Due to conflict with a session of the District Court, the meeting was transferred to the Hotel Jerome after giving proper notice at the Court House. ;,ttendance County Coniiissioners: Tor? Sardy, Orest Gerbaz, Clarence A. Ouam Planning Conmission r.ienbers: Fred Glidden, Sari Candill, Fritz Benedict, Herbert Boyer County Cfficials: .'arren Conner (Assessor), :Tilliam Stapleton (C1erh_ 2obert -Delaney (Attorney) Interested Residents: L pproximately seventy other persons Introduction After official opening of the meeting, Trafton Bean, planning advisor, described the proposed zoning resolution in detail, and invited as much conment as possible. Discussion The hearing continued from 10:00 A. lei. to 12:30 P. I:., in the first session, with a special adjourned session held between lt30 P. i:. and 4:30 P. N,. During the discussion, many conments were rude and questions asked with the principal iteris as follows: • ;1_r. :.filler, :,ast of -sren) Ceneral cticstion on o_)eratio_Z of ,oar(! of ".d jttst.ient ar-(' its procedure on abater.-.ent of nuisances. (itrnel of 1:illside Lod- e) ,tiestion of trailer ca:tlj in tot_rist district. Stated lie felt that trailer shaalz be excluOed because of dar:raging property values on surrounding property. (John Deremeu, :Iealtor) General question on effectiveness oy penalties answered by Delaney on procedure used. Latter questioned lighting; of motel, cabins, and resort identification signs in L, F i. T districts. Stated he felt lighting should be allowed these uses, but should not include other signs. (;:rs. Phillips, Ranch 10 railes 11. T-T. of Asnen) Desires to build cabins on 3 acre site in A-F District. Opposed to zoning in general and particularly in regard to her own property. (I:r. Lowen, owns 3.9 acres) States he owns 3.9' acres in A-F District. IIe is opposed to zoning on grounds he would be unable to sell lots under regulations. (lir. Swan, Snorri,rass) Considerable discussion with I:r. Strap. First stated he'felt Snowmass area should be excluded fron zoning. Latter discussion said that U )istrict frola County -TAne to iToody Creel: cutoff would be --satis- factory. fatter said that T--istrict night be acceptable. 1A conclusion, it was decided that I:r. Swan would act as spol:esrian and contact people in his area as to their desires and would then nalce recoi riendations to County Planning Co.-ndission. Llso suggested more objectionable uses be added in U District. (Shaer) General question on city limits and would zoning apply to city. (I4rs. Poindexter) She supported zoning and stated she mould like to see all of highway zoned. (Sane Hornell, R 30 District) '.uestinn on building fees and what he could build without obtaining a pernit. IIe was inf orne d of $100 minimum. (:_r. Vroom) Asked of possibility of obtaining B District in Castle Creek -,Subdivision. Ile was asked to define exact area, but stated plans were in beginning stage, and the exact area had not been decided on. -Tas as!-ed to write letter to conr.:ission when plans were determined. (fir. Diomi) Stated he was opposed to any zoning within 5 niles of Snorrnas s . -2- • (:Iran'.; Sparovic, �'_esort and Trailer Canp ::ast of Aspen) Stated lie believed that his property was in wrong district (a-310) . Firs tgranted change to T District - or exclusion fron regulations. batter indicated that change to P. 15 District would be satisfactory to hire (--11ie Iielluund) Stated she would like area' along Castle Creel; west of Gth Street and fron I:irhtray 02 south 15001 chanr-ed frori T ::istrict to P. -------- ------ General discussion indicated possible exclusion of cabins and resorts from area requirements. ilillouchby) Lsked for inclusion of raining as a permitted use in T District on Aspen t-iountaih. (firs. Bradshaw, P-30 District) She asked for' change frogs -30 to R-15-for all of Williams Addition and Grounds north of hospital. General Discussion indicated that 5 acre area requirement in t'he A-T District was too high and should be lowered. r d Journir,ent The neeting adjourned at 4:00 P. M. -J- 0 • Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on September 29, 1955 Members Fred Glidden, Sam Caudill, Orest Gerbez, Harry Stein, Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict met for a regular meeting of the Aspen. Regional Planning Commission on September 29, 1955 in the County Commissioners room at the Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colo- rado. County Commissioner Clarence Quam, County Clerk William Stapleton, County Attor- ney Robert Delaney, County Building Inspector John Doremus, and planning consultant Trafton Bean were also present. Various amendments in the adopted Pitkin County zoning resolution,- in particular, the side and rear yard requirements, were discussed. The need for County building standards was also considered. Secretary • 0 Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on November 30, 1955 Members Harry Stein, Fred Glidden, Fritz Benedict and Sam Caudill met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on November 30, 1955 in the County Commissioners room, County Court House, Aspen, Colorcdo. Others present included City Planning Commis- sion members Mrs. Willoughby and Mr. Ringle, City Attorney Stewart, and planning consultant Trafton Bean. Members present agreed unanimously to recommend a policy of not requiring alleys in new sub- divisions and that where alleys are to be vacated in existing areas, all abutting property owners approve of such vacation and that utility easements be provided where alleys are vacated. ties Secretary • • Minutes of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on December 12, 1955 Members Fred Glidden, Harry Stein, Sam Caudill and Fritz Benedict met for a regular meeting of the Aspen Regional Planning Commission on December 12, 1955 in the County Commissioners room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado. Mayor Robinson, City Planning Commission member Mrs. Willoughby, and planning consultant Trafton Bean were also present. Members discussed City planning needs, particularly requirements for parks, the location of a State highway through Aspen, and the need for additional off-street parking area. Secretary