HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.039-84RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
C. F ECI((L 9. B. B L
RESOLUTION N0.
(Series of 1984
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CGUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN DIRECTING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE AN APPEAL IN THE MATTER OF PARKER
QUILLEN AND JOAN QUILLEN V THE PLANNING AND ZONING CnMMTRCrnni~
m
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the opinion
of the Colorado Court of Appeals in the matter of Parker
Quillen
illen v. The Plannin and Zonin Commission of the Ci
of Aspen, et al., wherein the Court reversed the judgment of Dis-
trict Court Judge Gavin D. Litwiller and remanded the cause with
directions to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, having considered the Court's opinion, the City
Council suspects that the Court overlooked and misapprehended
various provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, the underlying
facts, and the intent of the City Council with regard to Resolu-
tion No. 12 (Series of 1981), specifically as follows:
1. Certain statements in the opinion relfect a misapprehen-
Sion of the underlying facts.
2. The Court erroneously concluded that in passing Resolu-
tion No. 12 (Series of 1981), the City Council was deciding that
all of the subdivision regulations had been met by the Quillens'
conceptual presentation.
3. The Court erroneously overlooked the provisions set
forth in Section 20-7 of the Municipal Code which provides that
conceptual approval shall only authorize further study on the pro-
ject or activity, and shall not be considered a guaranty of final
approval, nor shall the commission or council be estopped to deny
final approval by reason thereof.
4. The Court erroneously overlooked the provisions of Sec-
tion 20-13 of the Municipal Code which provides for a public hear-
ing in the preliminary plat stage. The requirement for public
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
raga =o .a ecnE~ v. e. s i
notice and hearing serve to elicit information and argument from
the public concerning an application's compliance with subdivision
standards. Therefore, the Court mistakenly concluded it was the
City Council's intent to approve the Quillens' conceptual presen-
tation, rather than to refer the determination of compliance to
the Planning and Zoning Commission to ascertain whether "the
application complies with existing subdivision regulations."
5. The Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section
20-5(d) of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Having read and considered the opinion of the Colorado Court
of Appeals in the matter of Parker Quillen and Joan Quillen v. The
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, et al ,
(Colorado Court of Appeals No. 82 CA 1300) and being fully advised
of the legal effect of said opinion, and having determined that
the Court has overlooked or misapprehended various points of law
and fact which are relevant, the City Attorney is hereby directed
to file a petition for a rehearing and, in the event said petition
for rehearing is denied, the City Attorney is directed to file a
petition for writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, in
order to seek a reinstatement of the judgment rendered by District
Court Judge Gavin D. Litwiller.
Dated: _ 7 ~'~-~-rr~ (~tZ~ ~~. 1984.
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting Cit~Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
,~AM ., ~ . ~~E~.E~ a. a. e
that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held ~Y,k-z~~ b~' /~- 1984.
~'at~tryn S ~~Koc~h, City Clerk
~~ ~~ ~~~