HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Ute Area Downzoning.1974UTE AREA DOWNING 17 1 q
Z
•
•
r
J DURANT
z
E9
113 119
z
E 0 W
GLORY F' WATERS
iN
HOLE , W
PARK
MANDATORY
4
U T E
CEMETERY
Air,
FEBRUARY, 197*
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING RESOLUTION
UTE AVENUE PROPOSED ZONING
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
has reviewed and considered the proposal of rezoning of the
Ute Avenue area to R-6, Residential District and R-15, Resi-
dential District designations and the concomitant changes
to the Aspen Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission:
1. The Ute area should not be permanently
downzoned without a simultaneous down -
zoning of the entire community; however,
2. The downzoning proposal does incorporate:
a) the concern of the Planning and
Zoning Commission for decreased
densities in this residential area,
b) the awareness of the problems of
limited access at the end of Ute
Avenue and questionable utilities
services,
c) the concern for the need to enhance
the proposed downzonings on the
8040 elevation and adjacent county
lands,
d) the need to preserve mountain views,
e) the recognition that such rezoning
would create a natural transition
between the urban densities and
mountain open space and satisfy a
need for more residential housing,
f) the recognitions that downzoning will
take into consideration some slope and
other terrain features that limit
development; and the fact that limited
or no major transportation facilities
are planned for the area,
g) the need to implement the city's
environmental concerns, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes
to achieve these goals but, instead of requesting permanent
rezoning, request an identical amendment revision to the
map and text of Ordinance 19.
UTE AVENUE PROPOSED ZONING RESOLUTION
PAGE TWO
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Ordinance
19, text and map,
1. Be amended so as to incorporate the
specific recommendations of the Planning
Department (itemized on the attached Addendum
A) and that;
2. The City Council be requested to make such
amendments under its emergency provisions.
3. As soon as possible, similar designations
be applied, also by emergency amendment
to Ordinance 19, to the balance of the
Mixed Residential Districts described
on the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan.
C airman
ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION
DATED THIS L2-- DAY OF1974,
041110
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTE AVENUE REZONING AND
CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
1. That area (as previously described) constituting the
East End of the Ute Avenue area be rezoned from
AR-1, Accommodations Recreation to R-15 Residential.
2. That area (as previously described) constituting the
West End of the Ute Avenue area be rezoned from AR-1,
Accommodations Recreation to R-6, Residential.
3. Both such areas be designated Mandatory P.U.D. and that
then be established in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code
a procedure for designation of Mandatory P.U.D. districts,
allowing two or more dwelling units per structure in
such districts, and creating additional review criteria
for such P.U.D. review either more than two (2) dwelling
units per structure are proposed.
4. An amendment to section 24-5 (e) of the Municipal Code
increasing the minimum lot size for duplexes in the
R-6, Residential District from 3,000 square feet per
dwelling unit to 9,000 square feet.
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
L e. 6. a L. ca. ---- ---- —
ORDINANCE NO.��;?.�
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 19, SERIES OF 1973,
DESIGNATING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS OF THE ASPEN LAND
USE PLAN R-15 RESIDENTIAL AND R-6 RESIDENTIAL WITH
MANDATORY P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING AND INCREASING
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX DWELLINGS IN THE R-6
DISTRICT; AMENDING ORDINANCE 19 TO ALLOW THE DESIGNATION
OF MANDATORY P.U.D. DISTRICTS; IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
REVIEW CRITERIA IN MANDATORY P.U.D. DISTRICTS; AND
DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
wishes to adopt the recommendations of the Planning
Department and its Advisory Committee to amend the 1973
Aspen Land Use Plan and designate certain areas therein
as R-15 Residential and R-6 Residential; and to amend
the text of Ordinance 19 to allow the designation of
mandatory P.U.D. zones, with additional review criteria
in areas so designated and to increase the minimum lot
sizes for duplexes in the R-6 Residential District, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
has requested that the amendments to Ordinance 19 be
enacted with all due speed in anticipation of further
development requests in the near future.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, be amended to require
that the Minimwii Lot Area for Two Family Dwellings in all
R-6 Residential districts shall be 9000 square feet.
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM )a C. F. HOECKf I. 0. 0.. E. CO.
Section 2.
That the Aspen Land Use Plan, a component of, and
incorporated in, Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, which plan
is dated March 6, 1973, be amended by the designation
from Mixed Residential to R-15 Residential Mandatory P.U.D.
of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 TlOS, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point said point being the
southwesterly corner of Block 119 original
Aspen townsite; thence easterly along the
southerly line of Block 119 and Block 40
East Aspen townsite, said line also being
the northerly right-of-way line of Waters
Avenue, to the point of intersection with
line 1-14 of the East Aspen townsite;
thence continuing along the northerly and
easterly boundary of the Calderwood Sub-
division as recorded at Book 2A Page 264 in
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office
to the woutheasterly corner of Lot 10; thence
N 61' 27' W 83.79 feet along the southerly
lot line of Lot 10, Calderwood Subdivision
to the point of intersection with Line 8-9
of Tract 41 (B) Aspen townsite addition;
thence S 000 21' W 468.07 feet along line
(2 )
•
7
C
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C. F. NOCCRfL B. B. A C. CJ.
8-9 Tract 41 (B); thence west 183.86 feet;
thence N 50' 39' W 283.00 feet; thence
S 25' 30' W 323.42 feet more or less to the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue;
thence along the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue s 27' 04' 30" E 78.38 feet;
thence continuing along said right-of-way
S 580 28' E 511.72 feet to the point of
intersection with line 13-14 of the south
annexation to the City of Aspen; thence west
to south annexation corner No. 13; thence
N 04' 48' E 188.8 feet to south annexation
corner No. 12; thence S 60' 00' W along south
annexation line 12-11 to a point on the ground
with an elevation of 8040 feet measured from
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Bench Mark
in the Pitkin County Courthouse foundation,
elevation 7906.802; thence northwesterly along
an elevation contour of 8040 feet to a mon-
ument, stamped Elevation 8040 approximately
40 feet westerly of the most westerly part of
the Aspen Alps Road; thence easterly to the
westerly corner of Aspen Alps south condo-
minium boundary as shown at Plat Book 3,
Page 54 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Re-
corder's Office; thence S 47° 09' E 83.01
feet; thence 6.40 feet along a curve to the
(3)
•
9_
:1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 1E C. F. HIECKEL R. 0. S L. CO.
right with a radius of 30.89 feet; thence
southeasterly and northeasterly along the
northerly line of the access easement as
shown on said condominium plat to the point
of intersection with the southerly right-of-
way line of Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly
to the south corner of Lot 26 Ute Sub-
division; thence northeasterly and north-
westerly along the westerly right-of-way
line of Wagon Road and West End Street to
the southeasterly corner of Block 113
original Aspen townsite; thence south-
easterly to the point of beginning.
RPrtinn I -
That the Aspen Land Use Plan, a component of, and
incorporated in, Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, which plan
is dated March 6, 1973, be amended by the designation
from Mixed Residential to R-6 Residential Mandatory P.U.D.
of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way
line of Ute Avenue, said point being the intersection
of the southerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue
and the northwesterly line of the Aspen Alps access
easement as shown at Plat Book 3, Page 54 in the
(4)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C. F. N�CCKCL B. B. ! L. CO.
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence
southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said
access easement to the point of intersection with
the northwesterly boundary of the Aspen Alps south
condominium as shown on said condominium plat; thence
northwesterly along the northeasterly boundary of
Aspen Alps south condominium to the most northerly
corner; thence N 43' E to the point of intersection
with the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road as
constructed ans used; thence southeasterly and
northeasterly along the centerline of Aspen Mountain
Road to the point of intersection with the southerly
right-of-way line of Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly
along the southerly right-of-way of Ute Avenue to
the point of beginning.
A second parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S,
R84W of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows;
Beginning at the south corner of Lot 26 Ute
Subdivision said corner also being the inter-
section of the westerly right-of-way line of
Wagon Road with the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue; thence northwesterly along the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue to
the south corner of Lot 33 Ute Subdivision
being part of Glory Hole Park; thence along
the southeasterly boundary of Glory Hole Park
(5)
•
•
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 11 C. F. I�OECKTI. B. B.. E. CO.
to the southwesterly corner of the Little Nell
Condominium as recorded in the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office at Plat Book 3,
pages 313 and 314; thence easterly along the
southerly boundary of the Little Nell Condo-
minium to the west right-of-way line of West
End Street; thence along the westerly right-
of-way line of West End Street and Wagon Road
to the point of beginning.
Section 4.
That Section 2, I of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, be
amended by the addition of subsection F which subsection F
shall read as follows:
'T. Wherever the Aspen Land Use Plan designates a
mandatory P.U.D. district by including the letters
P.U.D. as a suffix to the classification of any
district provided by this ordinance, all develop-
ment of such areas is required to proceed according
to the provisions of Section 24-10.1 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, P.U.D. planned unit development.
In addition to any other elements of review provided
for by said section 24-10.1, et seq., in all areas
designated mandatory P.U.D. the Planning and Zoning
Commission may allow construction of more than two
dwelling units per structure. In determining the
allowable number the Commission shall consider the
following:
(6)
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM �G C. F. HOUKEL R. 0.. L. CO.
1. whether there exists sufficient water
pressure and other utilities to service
the intended development;
2. the existence of adequate roads to
insure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance;
3. the suitability of the site for
development considering the slope,
ground instability, and the possi-
bility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalance dangers;
4. the affects of the development on
the natural watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion and conse-
quent effects on water pollution;
S. the possible effects on air quality
in the area and city wide;
6. the design and location of any
proposed structure, roads, drive-
ways, or trails and their compat-
ibility with the terrain;
7. whether proposed grading will result
in the least disturbance to the ter-
rain and other natural land features;
the placement and clustering of
structures and reduction of building
height and scale to increase open
i7)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
F OHM o C. F. W �'Klt H. H I L. C1.
space and preserve the natural fea-
tures of the terrain."
Section S.
Because of the need for an immediate amendment to the
provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, to anticipate
demands for development permits in the affected areas in
the near future, it is hereby declared that an emergency
exists and that this ordinance shall take effect upon final
passage and be published within ten (10) days after final
passage, or as soon thereafter as possible.
Section 6.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the
invalid provisions or applications and to this end the
provisions or applications of this ordinance are declared
to be severable.
Section 7.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law by the City
Council of the City' of Aspen, Colorado, on the
day of 1974.
ATTEST:
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
�I'J'YtGL I'� -L lC C"tC/
�---"" City C er c
Ll
t.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM SO C. F. HUECKFL 0. 0. S L. CO.
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
/A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 19 C. F. 110FCNEL B. B. R L. C].
ORDINANCE NO._.�I.-:-
L-- /3
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS IN
THE EASTERN PART OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM AR-1
ACCOMMODATIONS RECREATION TO R-15 RESIDENTIAL AND
R-6 RESIDENTIAL WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT;
AMENDING AND INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR
DUPLEX DWELLINGS IN THE R-6 DISTRICT; AMENDING
SECTION 24-9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (SUPPLEMENTAL
REGULATIONS) TO PERMIT THE DESIGNATION OF MANDATORY
P.U.D. DISTRICTS ON THE. ZONING DISTRICT MAP; AND
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA IN MANDATORY
P.U.D. DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, although the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission has not recommended the downzoning of
certain tracts on the east periphery of the City
of Aspen and adjacent to and at the base of Aspen
Mountain for reasons specified in their Resolution
pertaining thereto, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, the negative
recommendation notwithstanding, wishes to imple-
ment said rezoning and also zoning code amendments
to permit the designation of Mandatory P.U.D. zones,
with additional review criteria in areas so desig-
nated, and to increase the minimum lot sizes for
duplexes in the R-6 Residential District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That section 24-5, subsection (e), of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM Y C. F. HOECKEL 0. B.. L. CO.
"(e) R-6 Residential: Intention -to allow
utilization of land for residential purposes
with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity with residential uses are included -
subject to approval.
Uses - Permitted
1. one -family dwelling, two-family dwelling,
accessory building and use, home occupation;
2. Farm and garden building and use --provided
that all such buildings and storage areas
are located at least 100 feet from pre-
existing dwellings on other lots;
3. Fence, hedge or wall --subject to requirements
under supplementary regulations;
4. Identification sign, directional sign, for -
sale sign --subject to requirements under
supplementary regulations.
Uses - Conditional
5. Open -use recreation site --subject to approval
of the board of adjustment;
6. School, church, hospital, public building for
administration --subject to approval of the board
of adjustment.
1. One -family dwelling . . .6,000 square feet
2. Two-family dwelling . . .37000 squarQ fQQt pQr dwell-
ing unit with a wiuiw,um
lot area of 6,000 square
fQQt 9000 SQUARE FEET
3. All other uses . . . . . 6,000 square feet
(2)
RECORD Or PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL 0. 0. 0 L. CO.
Minimum lot width . . . . . . .
. 60
feet
Minimum front yard:
1. Principal buildings . . . .
. 10
feet
2. Accessory buildings . . . .
. 15
feet
Minimum side yard . . . . . . .
. 5
feet
Minimum rear yard:
1. Principal buildings . . . .
. 15
feet
2. Accessory buildings . . . .
. 5
feet
Maximum height of buildings:
1. Principal buildings . . . .
. 25
feet
2. Accessory buildings 21 feet on the front
two-thirds of the lot
and 12 feet on the rear
one-third of the lot
Minimum off-street parking as required under supple-
mentary regulations
Distance between buildings -no accessory building shall
be constructed within ten (10) feet from a primary
building or dwelling
Performance regulations for stream margins district.
All permitted and conditional uses of this district
within 100 feet measured horizontally from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tribu-
tary streams are subject to the additional performance
regulations contained in the stream margins district
as set forth in the supplementary regulations 11-1-9
(g) (section 24-9(g)).
Standards and regulations for the FI, Historic Overlay
District. All permitted and conditional uses of this
(3)
•
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
►ORM N C. F. HUECKEL B. B. a L. CO.
district are subject to the additional standards
and regulations contained in Section (24-)9.1 of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen when all or any part of this district has
been designated as an H, Historic Overlay District,
under the provisions of Sec. 24-9.1."
Section 2.
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, dated March 6, 1967, be amended by the designa-
tion from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation to R-15 Residential
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point said point being the
southwesterly corner of Block 119 original
Aspen townsite; thence easterly along the
southerly line of Block 119 and Block 40
East Aspen townsite, said line also being
the northerly right-of-way line of Waters
Avenue, to the point of intersection with
line 1-14 of the East Aspen townsite;
thence continuing along the northerly and
easterly boundary of the Calderwood Sub-
division as recorded at Book 2A Page 264 in
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office
to the southeasterly corner of Lot 10; thence
N 610 27' W 83.79 feet along the southerly
(4 )
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM SC C. E. HOECKEL 0. 0.. L. CO.
lot line of Lot 10, Calderwood Subdivision
to the point of intersection with Line 8_9
of Tract 41 (B) Aspen townsite addition;
thence S 00' 21' W 468.07 feet along line
8-9 Tract 41 (B); thence west 183.86 feet;
thence N 50' 39' W 283.00 feet; thence
S 25' 30' W 323.42 feet more or less to the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue;
thence along the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue S 27' 04' 30" E 78.38 feet;
thence continuing along said right-of-way
S 58' 28' E 511.72 feet to the point of
intersection with line 13_14 of the south
annexation to the City of Aspen; thence west
to south annexation corner No. 13; thence
N 040 48' E 188.8 feet to south annexation
corner No. 12; thence S 60' 00' W along south
annexation line 12_11 to a point on the ground
with an elevation of 8040 feet measured from
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Bench Mark
in the Pitkin County Courthouse foundation,
elevation 7906.802; thence northwesterly along
an elevation contour of 8040 feet to a mon-
ument., stamped Elevation 8040 approximately
40 feet westerly of the most westerly part of.
the Aspen Alps Road; thence easterly to the
westerly corner of Aspen Alps south condo-
minium boundary as shown at Plat Book 3,
(5)
•
C�
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM M C. F. MOECREI 0. 0. S L. CO.
Page 54 in the Pitki_n County Clerk and Re-
corder's Office; thence S 47' 09' E 83.01
feet; thence 6.40 feet along a curve to the
right with a radius of 30.89 feet; thence
southeasterly and northeasterly along the
northerly line of the access easement as
shown on said condominium plat to the point
of intersection with the southerly right-of-
way line of Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly
to the south corner of Lot 26 Ute Sub-
division; thence northeasterly and north-
westerly along the westerly right-of-way
line of Wagon Road and West End Street to
the southeasterly corner of Block 113
original Aspen townsite; thence south-
easterly to the point of beginning.
RPntinn 3-
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, dated March 6, 1967, be amended by the designa-
tion from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation to R-6 Residential
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way
line of Ute Avenue, said point being the intersection
of the southerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue
and the northwesterly line of the Aspen Alps access
(6)
0
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM W C. F. HOECREL B. B. B L. CO.
easement as shown at Plat Book 3, Page 54 in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence
southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said
access easement to the point of intersection with
the northwesterly boundary of the Aspen Alps south
condominium as shown on said condominium plat; thence
northwesterly along the northeasterly boundary of Aspen
Alps south condominium to the most northerly corner;
thence N 43' E to the point of intersection with
the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road as constructed
and used; thence southeasterly and northeasterly along
the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road to the point of
intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of
Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly along the southerly
right-of-way line of Ute Avenue to the point of
beginning.
A second parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S,
R84W of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the south corner of Lot 26 Ute
Subdivision said corner also being the inter-
section of the westerly right-of-way line of
Wagon Road with the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue; thence northwesterly along the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue to
the south corner of Lot 33 Ute Subdivision
being part of Glory Hole Park; thence along
the southeasterly boundary of Glory Hole Park
to the southwesterly corner of the Little Nell
(7)
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM U C. F. HOFCKFL .. S.. L. CO.
Condominium as recorded in the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office at Plat Book 3,
pages 313 and 314; thence easterly along the
southerly boundary of the Little Nell Condo-
minium to the west right-of-way line of West
End Street; thence alont the westerly right-
of-way line of West End Street and Wagon Road
to the point of beginning.
Sectinn 4_
That section 24-9 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of
a new subsection (k) to read as follows:
"(k) Mandatory P.U.D. Designation. (1) Wherever
the official zoning map designates a mandatory
P.U.D. district by including the letters P.U.D.
as a suffix to the classification of any district
provided by this code, all development of such
areas is required to proceed according to the
provisions of Section 24-10.1 herein, P.U.D.
planned unit development. (2) In addition to
any other elements of review provided for by
said Section 24-10.1, in all areas designated
mandatory P.U.D. the Planning and Zoning Conunis-
sion may allow construction of more than two (2)
dwelling units per structure. In determining the
allowable number the Commission shall consider the
following:
(a) whether there exists sufficient water
pressure and other utilities to service
the intended development;
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEI B. B. 6 L. CO.
(b) the existence of adequate roads to
insure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance;
(c) the suitability of the site for
development considering the slope,
ground instability, and the possi-
bility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers;
(d) the affects of the development on
the natural watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion and conse-
quent effects on water pollution;
(e) the possible effects on air quality
in the area and city wide;
(f) the design and location of any
proposed structure, roads, drive-
ways, or trails and their compat-
ibility with the terrain;
(g) whether proposed grading will result
in the least disturbance to the ter-
rain and other natural land features;
(h) the placement and clustering of
structures and reduction of building
height and scale to increase open
space and preserve the natural fea-
tures of the terrain."
(9)
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C. F. NOECKFL R. B.. L. LO.
Section 5.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the
invalid provisions or applications and to this end the
provisions or applications of this ordinance are declared
to be severable.
RPntinn 6_
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held
pursuant to the requirements of Section 24_11(d) of the
Municipal Code on the day of , 1974,
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
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
0
0
RECORD OF* PRIOCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
R,14 -1 C. F. 046LLKrL ft. 8-
PASSED AND APPROVED this
FINALLY ADOPTED)
day of 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor -- /
ATTEST:
C er
` June 21, 1973
TO: HERB BARTEL, CITY PLANNER
MEI.BERS OF ASP'r.'N PL.'uNNING AND ZONING COM1%1ISSION
FROM: SANDRA M. STOLLER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: D. R. C. SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR PHASE 2 OF PUD
Dear Herb and Members of the P & Z:
As you are aware D. R. C. has submitted its plans for permit
issuance for phase 2 of its P.U.D., as approved. The request
for the permit, submitted approximately one year before antici-
pated, has raised 2 issues of concern to the city, both of which
merit considerable study. They are:
1. What is the effect of a phasing schedule in terms of
its enforcability by the city, and
2. Will the building permit review procedure and possible
rezoning affect the D.R.C. approved P.U.D. and subdivision.
This letter is an attempt to summarize D. R. C.'s argument (and
my reaction to them) that (1) phasing is not mandatory and, if
it is it merely affects completion dates and not ccmmencement and
(2) no interim meafures or rezoning can affect a completely approved
P. U. D. and subdivision subsequent to the time of approval,
sequential permit issuance notwithstanding.
D. R. C. Arguments and authority
1. Phasing is not mandatory. D. R. C. contends that the
------lrttter- indicating anticipated starting and completion dates is not
mandatory and was, in at least this case, merely an afterthought.
The City of Aspen has no interest in enforcing such the estimated
starting dates for the following reasons:
a, If the city is concerned about staggering impact
there is, no problem here. The second phase will not
be completed prior to the schedule. The permit for
phase 2is—being sought now only because of the time
it takes to acquire a permit and lay necessary foundations.
If in fact the city wishes to insure against use prior
to the anticipated completion date, it may do so by
refusing the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
b. The City has no utilities or other facilities to
supply to correspond with the various stages of develop-
ment; consequently there can be no argument that phasing
is necessary to allow the city time to act.
i
Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members
June 21, 19710 `
Page 2
c. Phasing is not necessary to enforce the P. U. D.
and . Subdivision Agreement (e.g. D. R. C. must seal and
Ze
chip a street section and construct an 8' Vialkway with
the first phase of construction) and guarantee perfor-
mance before issuance of a permit for commencement of,
the second phase (but agrees this may not be true for
the third) because it has alternative enforcement pro-
cedures, namely:
(1) It can deny a certificate of occupancy if
all requirements are not satisfied and
(2) It may withdraw the necessary escrowed funds
to make the designated improvements itself, as
provided. in the agreement.
2. The Permit Review Procedures or rezoning cannot, as a
matter of law, affect the intended use of the D. R. C. property.
In support of this contention. D. R. C. makes the following
agruments.
a. The P. U. D. and subdivision agreement are a contract
binding both D. R. C. and the City of Aspen and any
attempt to change uses or densities constitutes a breach
of contract.
b. D. R. C. has already relied on the P. U. D. and
subdivision approval and this reliance is evidenced by
the conveyance of interests in land to the City and
various concessions made (e. g. employee housing, view -
plane and reduced density) and which are sufficient to
estop the city from changing the intended use. j
C. Finally, a P. U. D. must be viewed as a single'
entity even if there are a series of permits issued.
In support of this argument three cases have been cited
by counsel for D. R. C.
(1) Telimar Homes, Inc. v Miller (N. Y. 1961)
concerned an approved su division with lots of a
minimum size of 10,000 sq. feet (1/4 acre). After
approval the land was divided into 4 sections (to
facilitate financing) and the map for section one
and two were approved. After approval of the first
section roads were constructed, surveys and percu-
lation tests were made, plans were prepared, model
homes were built, and grade and drainage studies
were made - all on the basis that it was a.single,
overall project. The V. A. granted site approval
Memo to Herb rtel and P Z Members
June 21, 197
Page 3
for the development as a single project. A water
company -was organized and construction of a i:ater
works was begun, geared to accommodate 500 homes
(the number that could be built on quarter acre
lots). The zoning ordinance was then changed to
require 1/2 acre lots. After this amendment plain-
tiff submitted maps for the third and fourth section,
which were denied. The court sustained plaintiff's
argument that he had a vested right to proceed as
planned saying: "It is clear from this record that
the water system, roads, drainage system, model
house construction and advertising were laid out
and designed for the benefit of all four sections
developed as a single, overall tract; that they
would have been laid out and treated on an entirely
different basis if the development of each section
were to be separate; and that prior t.o the zoning
amendment, substantial construction had been commenced
and substantial expenditures had been made in par-
tial development of sections 3 and 4, as well as
sections 1 and 2. Hence plaintiff had acquired a
vested right to a nonconforming use as to the entire
tract."
(2) Diamon v Orleans, 196 A 2d 363 (Pennsylvania,
1964) concerned a rezoning cf 1S0 acres of land
to FF and FFF zones (floating commercial zones)
following the consideration by coL.nty commissioners
of a comprehensive development plan for the whole
tract. Between the last hearing on the rezoning
issuance of the first building 'De --it the plain-
tiffs purchased the land, purchased title insurance
and signed a lease for a department store. The
first permit was issued and the installation of
sewage and electrical systems begun. A second
permit was issued. At that point a civic group
brought this action to stop the issuance of the
second and further permits, contending that the
rezoning depreciated neighboring property and con-
stituted spot zoning. The plaintiffs contend that
they had a vested right in the building permit a.d
the group is estopped, at this point in time, from
contesting the rezoning. The court agreed with the
plaintiffs, saying: "When the permit authorizing
construction of the first apartment building was
issued ..... (the group) did nothing .... (T)fie
integrated, comprehensive, staged development of
a large tract of land may ain- s iould be treated as
a single undertaking .... (I)t is made abundantly
Memo to Her*artel and P ,& Z Members
June 21, 197.)
Page 4
clear that, realistically, objection is made to
the entire comprehensive development, not merely
to the commercial... To allow a complex, compre-
hensive plan for development of as large a tract
of land as is here involved to be attacked on a
piece by piece basis would result in the greatest
of inequities to the developers. This is particu-
larly true on the facts here presented, which de-
monstrated that not only were the residents com-
pletely informed of all phases and the nature of
the development. program, but that they were also
able to and did participate in the formulation and
finalization of the development plan."
(3) Norpro Co. v Cherry Hills (Colorado Supreme
Court, December . concerned an attempt by
a landowner to construct according to a P. U. D.
so as to result in a density of 1.3 acres per site
in an area calling for 2.5 acres.. The owner argued
that the present zoning was unconstitutional as
applied to him because it (1) bore no relationship
to the public healty, morals, safety or welfare;
(2) it caused the owner substantial. hardship and
(3) it denied the owner equal protection because
there was greater densities permitted in other
adjoining areas. The court disagreed and stated
(dicta being relied on by D. R. C. to prevent
rezoning) : "The maintenance of stability in zoning
and resulting conservation of property value based
upon existing zoning regulations are prime consid-
_ -erations in denying applications for zoning changes."
(the reliance referred to is that of adjoining
similarly zoned property. owners) .
Comments on D. R. C. Contentions
1. Rebuttal of Argument that City of Aspen is estopped from
affecting D. R. C. land use. The D. R. C. Argument is essentially
one of governmental estoppel. The most comprehensive statement of this
doctrine that I have run across was stated in "Zoning Estoppel: Appli-
cation of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Righ.s
to Zoning Disputes", 1971 Urban Law Annual 63 (1971) in which the
author stated:
"A local government exercising its zoning powers will be
estopped when a property owner
(1) relying in good faith
Memo to Herblartel
June 21, 1973
Page S
and P & Z Members
16
(2) upon sole act or omission of the government
(3) has made such a substantial change of position or
incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that
it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy
the rights which he ostensibly had acquired."
At this juncture I would like to make a comment about the first
element, i. e., good faith. Concrete evidence of lack of good
f aith in this matter consists in the attempt to accelerate the
development (premature application for phase two) with the know-
ledge of possible rezoning. The crux of any litigation on this
matter would, however, center around the second and third elements
and I will center the following discussion on these.
a. Substantial change of position. The thrust of the
Telimar and other authority cited by D. R. C. is that, at this
point in time, D. R. C. has made such expenditures and changed
its position so that no rezoning can affect its intended use.
I think it worthy of note that the Telimar case IS A MINORITY
OPINION. There is no case law concerning both an approved sub-
divlion and P. U. D. but there is much case law concerning approved
subdivisions and subsequent rezoning. Rathroff in Law of Zoning
and Planning says _
"In the absence of statute, even final approval of a sub-
division plat by the planning board does not generally place
the lots shown on the plat beyond the power of zoning changes.
But, similar to the vested rights which accrue to a property
-owner whose position has been changed in reliance upon the
issuance of a building permit, vested rights may be secured
by a subdivider in a particular subdivision plat where his
position has been changed by installation fo improvements or
otherwise in reliance upon the grant of final approval thereof."
Several cases discuss when a subdivider has substantially relied
so as to create an estoppel. The mere fact that subdivision plans
were approved by a town prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance
does not create a vested right to subdivide as approved. York
Township Zoning Board v Brown 182 A 2d 706 (Penn 1962) . T i-e
issuance oi a building permit, per se, does not vest such a
property right in the owner that subsequent rezoning is ineffective
as to the property. City and County of Denver v Duffy 4S0 P2d 339.
(Colo 1969). At various stages o —actual development an owner
may be held to have acquired a veste rig t to proceed with a
.development. Some cases on this point follow:
`V
Memo to Herb rtel and P '&• 7. Members
June 21, 1979P
i
Page 6
(1) Murrell v I'Jolff 408 S. W. 2d 842 (Miss. 1966) concerned
an 11. acre eve opment. Construction of 3S multiple dwellings
had not been constructed when a rezoning occurred, but a
subdivision on shopping center had been done. The dwellings
where the third (and an integral) phase of the approved pro-
ject. At the time of rezoning the owner had graded the land,
installed a sewer main and the foundations and utilities laid
on the first of the 35 d«ellings. $71,000.00 was spent on
completing the first building. Given these facts the court
held the City estopped from rezoning so as to prevent the use
for multiple dwellings.
(2) Town of Lebanon v Woods (Conn. Sup. Ct. Err.. 1965)
215 A2d 112 concerned a rezoning affecting (increasing)
lot sizes. The subdivision consisted of 4 sections, and work
had been conmienced for 14 houses on 2 sections.. The court
held the owner to have a vested right only for those sections
for which development plans had been completed, sewage dis-
posal plans made, a water pump house constructed, storm sewers
and water system installation made, some model homes built,
and foundations excavations for the 14 homes started:
"Neither expenses incurred for improvements .,.hich would be
required irrespective of the lot size, nor commeahcement of
construction on these sections vested rights in the developer
to develop the balance of the tract in small lots."
(3) In Wood v North Salt Lake (Utah 1963) 390 P2d 858 the
court held that the city cou not increase the lot size
where "water mains and sewer lines had been laid. down in the
streets" and both systems provided connections in front of
each 60 foot lot. I
(4) Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee of Raritan Township,
39 NJI, concerned an approved suu ivision whicH was to be
developed in five sections. The owner had begun development
of section 1 when the entire area was rezoned for industrial
uses. The court determined that the developer had a vested
right in the first section but remanded the case for the
lower court's determination as to (1) the expenditures made
for sections 2-5 and (2) "the practicability and fairness of
restricting the residential development to any section or
sections less than the whole."
(5) In Virginia Construction Corporation v Fairman (1962) 39
NJ1, 187 A2d I the court made clear, in another case where lot
sizes were changed subsequent to a subdivision approval, that
these cannot be included in a calculation of expenses made
in reliance, "those made without regard to whether the tract
was developed on a one acre or two acre basis."
Memo to Herb rtel and P F,; Z Members
June 21, 197
Page 7
(6) Trans-Robles.Corporation v City of Cherry Hills Village
497 P�s3 off: is Colorado c osest case in _
point. The city rezoned establishing 2-1/2 acre minimum lots.
Prior to the enactment the developers had made arrangements
for sewer service and installed water and sewer lines and
underground utilities. In addition, there had been a consider-
able amount of street paving and installation of curbs and
gutters: all of which improvements were made to serve 1/2
acre lots. On the basis of these facts, the court found
that the effect of the 2-1/2 acre minimum zoning would be to
foreclose any reasonable use of the land in that no rational
system of lots could be laid out on the rezoned property
utilizing the then existing system of streets, curbs, gutters,
and underground utilities and water and sewer collection systems,
nor could any reasonable combination of lots be put together
allowing construction of a house on a lot of the required
area with the specified setback.
The cases seem to use one of two tests. The first is called
the quantum test which seems to require physical construction. The
second is the balancing test in which the court weighs the plain-
tiff's costs and right to use land against the community interest.
I think it fair to say as does Anderson in the American Law of
Zoning, Section 19.23, that platting itself does not give immunity
uF t relief will be given to a subdivider "whose i;,,provements were
so related to existing zoning regulations and so substantial as to
be tantamount to a commencement of use as to qualify him as a
nonconforming user."
At this time, it is my impression that D. R. C. has not
accomplished such physical construction as to satisfy the sub-
stantial reliance requirements as determined by the caselawj
The D.- R. C. counsel argue that P. U. D. approval itself
constitutes substantial reliance: The effect of P. U. D. approval
will be discussed below.
b. Acts of the City of Aspen. D. R. C. argues that several
actions of the City of Aspen preclude any rezoning affecting their
development.
(1) First, it is their argumep_t that by entering into
the P. U. D. and subdivision agreement the city is constractuatly
bound to the use as described in the final development plan. I
think it worthy of note that:
(a) The document is entirely a one way agreement,
i.e., all obligations imposed thereby are on D. R.
C. (except to accept and record the plat) and no
counter obligations rest with the City.
- i
Memo to Herb " rtel and P ; Z Members
June 21, 1974V
Page 8
(b) Paragraph 9 provides that "Notwithstanding
anything contained herein or referred to the
contrary, Subdivider, in developing the property
contained in the plat, and other improvements as
herein contained, shall fully comply with all appli-
cable rules, regulations, standards and laws of the
City and other governmental agencies and. bodies having
jurisdiction." I am not sure of.the consequences
of this provision, but it does make clear that out-
side legal ,principals are applicable. .
(c) Finally, I think it quite clear that any
governmental agency cannot by contract bind itself
in terms of future governmental functions and restrain-
ing the exercise thereof. Again, the effect of this
principal on the present situation is. unclear.
(2) Second, D. R. C. argues that the acceptance of dedi-
catddlan d by the city precludes rezoning. There is some merit in
this contention. In Ward v City of New Rochelle 204 NYS 2d 144,
168 NE 2d 821 the court hela that a an oi�ner whose subdivision.
Flat had been approved by the planning board and who in reliance
upon the agreement made, at the.time of such approval, conveyed
13.3 acres for recreation purposes had a vested right. However,
since most subdivision regulations require dedication and it did
not seem to affect the cases above cited, its con-equences are not
exactly clear.
(3) Thirdly, D. R. C. argues that the concessions made
(employee housing, viewplanes, etc.) preclude modification. This
would, I think, depend upon what uses could be made.of the land if
a rezoning occurred and the development, as planned, did not
finish. I will leave to your consideration the extent to which
these concessions and their fulfillment would affect the future
development of the land in the event of rezoning.
(4) Fourth, D. R. C. contends that the P. U. D. approval,
per se, prevents modification. This is a coptenti.on strongly pre-
sented by D. R. C. To support this concept D. R. C. cited Diamon,
supra. This case, again, like Telimar, seems to be a minority opinion.
Again, it is 'based on the extent of reliance and does not concern
a P. U. D. There are cases in which a P. U. D. is viewed as a
unit, not subject to fractionali zing, but none in point. For
example in Gary D. Lund v City of Tumcaater 472 P2d 550 (Nash 1970)
the plainti-fT petitioned to annex -1 acres and do a P. U. D. on
it and the adjoining 7-1/2 acres (already in the city). The P. U.
D•.was declared invalid for the 7-1/2 acres (for reasons net
relevant to this discussion) while the P. U. D. done simultaneously
Memo to HerbOartel.
June 21, 1973
Page 9
and P F, Z Members
with annexation was valid. However, the court held that where
3/4 of the P. U. D.- could not be accomplished within the existing
zoning, the remaining -1/4 must also be diszllowed. Jan Krasnowiechi
in "P. U. D.: A Challenge to Established T1--ory and Practice of Land
Use Control", 114 U. of Penn. Law Review 47, agrees that in the
absence of a statute or substantial. expenditures, a P. U. D. develop'er
has little protection against rezoning. In Chandler v Kroiss 190
N. W. 2nd 473 (114inn. 1971) the city, in anticipation o - adopting
a comprehensive plan, enacted a P. U. D. -act. The petitioner
had received a P. U. D. prior to the adoption of the plan. But the
plan specified that "All developments or development plans approved
by the Village Council which are not in conformity to the plan
shall be considered as amendments to the plan and shall be so
noted by the P $ Z". It was held that this provision allowed the
P. U. D. to survive any rezoning accomplished by the adoption of
the plan. Our court in Moore v Boulder 484 P2d 134 (Colo. 1971)
in discussing the nature' of o Tr.`U. D. said: "Although its intent
is to permit diversification of uses, such uses must be in harmony
with the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeopardize or reduce
zoning standards in the area and should prcaote the general
welfare of the community."
In sum, I can find little support for the contention that a
P. U. D. is any less susceptible to rezoning than an approved
subdivision. However, the factual elements of this particular
P. U. D. may require otherwise and I would like to discuss this
matter with you next week if it is of sufficient concern.
2. Rebuttal of Argument that Alternation of Commencement
Date is Discretionary with D. R. C. As I indicated_ earlier I think
-that our P. U. D. Act specifically establishes the procedures to
be followed by D. R. C. to anticipate phasing. The development
schedule is part of the final development plan pursuant to Section
24-10.1. The act further lists 4 conditions one of which must be
satisfied before an amendment to the plan can be accomplished.
The act further requires an application and hearing .
Very truly pours,
Sandra M. 5tuller
SMS:mw
t'l
0 i
April 15, 1974
MEMORANDUM
TO: HERB BARTEL
FROM: SANDY STULLER
SUBJECT: UTE DOWNZONING
Herb:
Although we have proposed an increase in the minimum
lot size for duplexes in the R-6 district from 6000 to 9000,
I thought I had better remind you that 24-9(b)4 allows non-
conforming status to lots under single ownership and allows a
"small lot" exemption so as to permit a duplex on a tract of
5000 square feet.
Please let me know if you would like this modified.
SMS:mw
SANDY:
YES WE WILL MODIFY AT TIME OF ZONE REWRITE.
HERB.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller, City Attorney
DATE: February 4, 1974
SUBJECT: Rezoning of Ute Avenue Area
I am sure that you all have questions about the viability of
the rezoning. I would like to discuss (1) whether or not the down -
zoning is supportable under the general principles of law applicable
to rezonings and (2) the possible effect on the D.R.C. Planned Unit
Development project in the area. As to the latter, please see the
attached copy of a memo dated June 21, 1973. Although the discussion
was then prompted by D.R.C.'s early submission of its plans for Phase
II (to avoid any adverse consequences of Ordinance 19), the general
principles still apply. You will probably agree with me that whether
or not D.R.C. is exempt from the effects of any change in zoning is
a question of fact (that is, the extent of their reliance at the
effective date of any rezoning ordinance), and one to which I cannot
give you a "yes" or "no" answer. I would like to turn now to the
question first posited, i.e., is the rezoning supported by general
common law principles existent in Colorado law.
General Principles
Rezoning must be grounded on the same considerations as an original
zoning enactment (i.e. comprehensive plan and necessary for health, wel-
fare, etc.). In addition, rezoning has, classically, had to be supported
by a (1) change of conditions and/or (2) showing of an original mistake.
"Change of conditions" has usually referred to actual changes in uses
of the land or adjacent property or in the installation of other improve-
ments (e.g. roads or utility). Courts will protect the right of property
owners (both of the rezoned and adjacent property) to rely on existing
zoning. Given these general principles, the end result of any litigation
is to weigh the change in conditions (or other valid considerations)
against the (1) compatibility of the changed land use with adjacent land
uses and (2) obvious damages to property owners. The burden of showing
change of conditions or mistake is on the litigant asserting the validity
of the ordinance.
Colorado Case Law
The Colorado Courts do not require a showing of original mistake,
but have consistently required a showing of change of conditions. The
character and uses of a district must have materially changed since the
last zoning; Clark v Boulder 362 P2d 160 (1961). The time period by
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 2
which neighborhood changes are measured is that between the previous
ordinance and the one affecting the change. Roosevelt v Englewood 492
P2d 65 (1971). A municipality must take into consi eration reasonable
stability in zoning regulations: property owners have the right to rely
on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material change
in the character of the neighborhood, Clark, supra. The rezoning must
be in furtherance of a comprehensive plan—, Clark, supra. Changed con-
ditions are not required, however, in a PUD rezoning, Moore v Boulder
484 P2d 134 (1971) (because a PUD project absorbs the ewes' amuses
of the zoning district).
Elements not Conclusive in Determining if Rezoning is Proper.
I approach this backward and begin with a listin—g---oT those
elements courts have held not conclusive in determining if a rezoning
is valid:
1. That the rezoning may decrease the value of the petitioner's
land or result in a limited number of nonconforming uses is not
determinative, Frankel v Denver 363 P2d 1063 (1961).
2. That adjoining properties in other districts are put to a
different and more advantageous use is not determinative, Denver v
Ruwalt, 508 P2d 789 (1973).
— 7. That the requested zoning would be an extension of an adjacent
zone is not conclusive, Clark, supra.
Elements in Determining if Change of Conditions
Without regard to t eir statements o principles, Colorado Courts
have not looked only to the property in issue to determine if a change
of conditions exists. Especially most recently, they have included
community, planning, terrain and economic elements. It must be
remembered that a community cannot usually premise zoning changes on
lack of facilities it is their obligation to furnish, but this does
not mean the Colorado Courts will allow development without considering
the community after-effects. The following have been noted as evidentiary
elements in rezoning litigation:
1. Changes in surrounding uses, traffic capacity and flow changes,
natural boundaries between the subject and adjacent properties, compati-
bility with a cc_nprehensive plan, planning patterns (in this case a
pattern of placing small commercial centers in residential districts),
and evidence that the area is in decline and rezoning would conserve
property values, Huneke v Glaspy 396 P2d 452 (1964).
2. Increase in p opu ation due to nearby high density uses,
installation of a 6 lane highway, need for particular use in the
community, and the impracticability of using the tract (from a
developer's view) for other uses, Roosevelt v Englewood 492 P2d 65
(1971).
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 3
3. The need in the community as a whole for low cost housing,
Moore, supra.
Z�. Desire of inhabitants (demonstrated by planning public improve-
ments and zoning history) to create a greenbelt, rural atmosphere Nopro
v Town of Cherry Hills 504 P2d 344 (1972).
5. Suitability of the land for the intended use, effect on the
value of surrounding property, and the absence of objections by
adjacent land owners, Denver v American Oil 374 P2d 357 (1962).
6. The fact that the whole area is in a state of change from
agricultural to suburban, U.S. v Smith 389 P2d 409 (1964).
7. The fact that the area has never been developed, while
surrounding land has, constitutes evidence in support of a rezoning,
Fort Collins v Dooney 496 P2d 316 (1972).
8. The terrain and location may support a rezoning, Board v
Simmons 494 P2d 85 (1972) (here large gully in land zoned residential).
9. That land cannot be sold as zoned is evidence, Simmons.
10. That the area is subject to flooding will support a rezoning
other than residential Madis v Higginson 434 P2d 705 (1967).
Two cases, not direct y concerning rezoning litigation but are of
some help are; Fontaine v Adams County 493 P2d 670 (1972) where the court
supported the County s refusal to rezone because incompatible with a
recently adopted master plan and Western Paving v Boulder 506 P2d 1230
(1973) in which the Court said that the technique for dealing with
"environmental concerns" is through rezoning.
Burden of Proof
Once it can be established that a rezoning ordinance was enacted
(1) pursuant to a comprehensive plan and (2) subsequent to a change in
conditions, anyone wishing to attack it must show the invalidity exists
beyond a reasonable doubt, Fanularo v Commissioners of Adams County, 505
P (Colo , Denver v Chuck Ruwa t Chevrolet, P Colo
1973).
The Ute Avenue Rezoning
In support for the suggested rezoning the Planning Department has
asserted:
1. There have been changes in the conditions of the neighborhood:
a. the city has acquired governmental land leases for open
space;
b. the city has adopted a greenway plan;
c. while originally designated as AR the
(except for D.R.C.) as a single family
d. the city has acquired and designated
a Historic site;
e. the city has established two parks in
and Ute Children's);
area has developed
area;
the cemetary area as
the area (Glory Hole
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 4
2.
process:
a. the H.P.C. has recommended Historic designation of Main
Street and the Commercial Core;
b. the View Preservation Program has received P & Z approval;
c. the Architect's Collaborative is drafting an Urban Design
Plan;
d. the city is preparing a site plan for the Rio Grande
property;
e. the trail system is being implemented;
f. Oklahoma Flats is in the process of downzoning;
g. the (golf course) entrance into Aspen is being master
planned;
h. the Thomas property purchase is being kept as open space
to maintain the open space entrance into the city;
i. the 8040 Greenline downzoning will soon be enacted
The designation is compatible with a comprehensive plan for the
city:
a. the downzoning creates a natural transition from urban to
rural ;
b. the limited access and utilities warrant reduced densities;
c. any comprehensive plan must make adequate -provision for
single family dwellings of which (arguably) our existent
zoning district map does not take sufficient cognizance;
d. the area has some slope and other terrain features that
limit possible densities;
e. the area is not designated as one for mass transit services
under the Voorhis Plan.
The designation will complement the city's environmental concerns
a. single family zoning will reduce population in the area and,
conscquently, air and water pollutants;
b. the reduced densities will complement the Greenway aspects
of the 8040 downzoning and county downzoning of adjacent
tracts.
city and
3.
entire
f. the adjacent areas are being doFmzoned by the
county (8040 Greenway and AF-10 in county);
g. the Glory Hole Viewplane has been established
The designation is compatible with a comprehensive
z on ing
I don't wish to be held to have itemized all possible elements that exist
that might arguably support (or undermine) the downzoning. See Herb's
material (previously submitted). Rather, I only hope to assure you that
when the Planning Office contacted me about the rezoning we dial discuss
the viability of the proposal and I felt it was supportable.
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 5
The foregoing is submitted so that you are prepared to discuss
the merits or demerits of the proposed downzoning with some under-
standing of the legal principles involved.
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
SMS : sd
Aspen 1-lanai-l1Cl & ZoI"llnq - 1.)cCC_TT" : C'_.
Aieeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Adams at 5:10 p.m. with Chuck Vidal,
Bruce Gillis Jack Jenkins, and Spence Schiffer. Also present Assistant City/
County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford.
Minutes Vidal stated that the minutes of December_ 4, 1973, did not
12/4/73 & reflect the fact that he was in attendance, and wished to
1.2/1.1/73 make that correction.
Jenh:ins ICacle. a motion to approve the I%l.nU.tos, of DeceIllbC:.r 4,
19 /3, as corrected and the. miI uLes or Decoi;lber 1.1. 19'/3 Its
sub',r,i Ltod. notion seconded by Schiffer. 71.11 in favor,
motion carried.
dived -Residential Stanford stated that progress is being made on the re-po�t
Evaluation for the mixed -residential area, and that the subcommittee
should have re-CoIT1111eI1datloIls ready by the middle or end of
January.
Stanford reminded those members on the committee that there
would be a meeting on Wednesday, December 19th.
PUBLIC
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing on the tree ordi•-
II1'�RING
v�i r Fe Ordinance
"AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN(, SECTION 24-9 OF CHAPTER 24 OF TILE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OI' SUBSECTION (i)
REO_UIRING A PEP14IT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY TREE WITH A TRUNK
DIAME'.T'ER OF FOUR INCHES OR MORE; PROVIDING FOR SUBMTSS1CjN
OF SITE PLAN ON SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR PERTAIT! DE-
SCRIBING THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE PERMIT; PROVIDING
FOR THE RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF TREES; PROHIBITING
CONSTRUCTION 14EAR TREES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF
AN OFFICIAL STREET LIST."
Stanford stated that this ordinance would help minimize
flood damage and minimize erosion.
Vidal questioned how this ordinance materialized and how
it could practically be adm'.nistered. Stated that he felt
this would be a nuisance in the administrative aspect.
S,''-anford stated that this will be handled through the
Building Department, and that the Parks and Recreation
Department would handle the inventory list.
Schiffer stated that he agreed with Vidal. Stated that he.
felt the spirit behind the ordinance was probably good, but
stated he did not know if you could interfere with. indi-
vidual rights as far as their property is concerned. Sta-
ted it was a poorly written piece of legislation and would
be impossible to enforce. Stated that lie felt the intent
was good, but felt there must be an al.ternritive way to
protect the trees.
Gillis.stated that he agreed with Vidal and Schiffer, but
would still like to see the Parks and Recreation 1)epar_t--
ment do the inventory list.
Chairman 11,dams slated that he agreed. Just felt that
people should he mado to realize that trees arU a valu-•
able co111111odi t:y.
Ed DelDuca, Assistant City Engineer, stated that he di.s--
agreed with the sizing stated in the ordinance. Stated
Continued. Meeting _ _ _ Aspen City Council April 24, 1974 _
Councilwoman Mark. as moved to adopt Resolution A10, Seri 1974. Seconded by
CouncilmanB
Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
UTE AVENUE AREA DOWN -ZONING
opow
Mayor Standley reconvened the hearing which was continued from April 22nd Council meeting
Attorney James Moran submitted the following and request be made a part of the record of
the hearing:
"TO: City Council Members
FROM: Real Estate Affiliates Inc.
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance #13 and Clarendon
This coming Monday evening you will be holding a public hearing on the Ute Avenue down -
zoning (Ordinance 13). Because the only project materially affected by this Ordinance
is Clarendon, we feel that you should understand this proposed project, the procedures
and reviews that have been completed before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
(P & Z) to date and the issues that have been resolved through good faith negotiations
with the City P&Z.
As a practical matter, the proposed downzoning only affects the Clarendon project.
The City Attorney has provieded you with her opinion that Ordinance 12 (modification
of the Ordinance 19 map) does not affect the Clarendon project since Clarendon is a
prior application under Ordinance 19. Also, she has expressed the opinion that
downzoning as stated in the proposed Ordinance 13 would affect the pending Clarendon
project. Ordinance 12 (modification of the Ordinance 19 map) effectively "downzones"
allproperty in the Ute Area other than Clarendon; therefore, the downzoning (Ordinance
13) has an effect only on this specific project.
Therefore, we believe that next Monday night you will not be hearing a general zoning
issue, but you will specifically and exclusively be considering an ordinance affect-
ing only one project. Siknce this is the case and the Council might be assuming the
total decision powers relating to this project, we feel that you should have the benefit
of all the facts already presented to the P & Z Commission, and we ask to be permitted
to make a presentation and to discuss with you all the issues of this project that
have been considered to date.
A brief summary of the events to date as well as some of the basic issues is presented
below:
i
1. March 30, 1973, Brewer, Inc., exercised an option to acquire the Clarendon site. The
site was purchased with the expectation of construction 47 condominium units (existing
AR-1 zoning). Shortly after exercise of the option, the Ute City Protection agency
petitioned to downzone the Ute area.
In resprnt:-r to thv threat hn.;^d I:y tilt, 11?, City neti"'nn,
the qu.iCk nI nit..ti :i I,l•t: t�? th, SuiIdin; I > _ctoc
for 46 apa:tovnt i.tnit., (Parknidc Apartrr:•nt::). It is our
opiuiOn tit,'t t!ti:; .,..";littal is ;till rnlid alit! titat e:_
Could hui.id these ;(psrtmvnts if we so dc::iru. Since tiro
Psricsida A,,a:_mer:ts ,ern quickly dcsig;ir•Q ai:tl :!,t tiir
type of d8:'(•:on:ner:t with „hiclt t.0 t:isil to he a;;ocittod,
we decided to dusi;,n a iuura respjnsible rro;cct a-nd
process it ttadei• drdiaance 19.
3. After considering) attornativo land it.os, we d••_ided to
process a condnmini;u^ project with a si.iirnf;i;• ,o1,
therapy pool ,nil tennis court. i';c Lived a !::;t;;ai,t" rir;n
to do. -;in a site plan for the pvajuct. After ciatailud
site sttidi=s, we cane ',o the conClu>ion that tL: ii; unit::
permitted under existin•; _on:utg was not a;rtnop:iatc and
that due to the constraints impOs:d on riic sit;: (view,
corridor, donations to the City, set backs, heigit'
limitatiuns, etc.) a plan of 36 units wac; a bent r
solution. liv volur.tvrily eliminated to units and pro-
coodi:d with a 36 unit. concept.
4. Oil Octoher 15, 1973, a site plan was suhinittctl to th,:
Building Inspector aT:d a building permit Coe of 51,965.7.5
was Paid. The Clarendon project wan scheduled For con-
cept ravieu boForc PSZ under Ordinance 19 on `docemher _o,
1973.
S. Novembe, 13, 1973. One wvek prior to the sC11-1-tled
ieeeting, we pres(•i1tC(1 hookle! rclarin,• to rho ha.iic
issues and cummari_inl, the results of a pvojcct impnrt
%turfy. S!fire coniplex issttos ware odd ru :; :; r.d, t!tc5c
materials wt•rc presci;rcd in written forte prior to the
mectinl; to permit stady by the 11F7 members. Theca
materials are ay.til:thlc at the Ilanning Offiec for
your review and consideration.
6. Novenhc: 20, 1973. Doe to a scho,luting error, the
Clarendon was not included an the agenda. Wo ,;; re
raschvdulc(I to Uece.nlive 11. 197.i.
7. On Ilecembor 11, 197.;, our caneupt presontatit•ll was
made. It wan vVvr tires hours Long and addron-;ed all
Of tiv: issues aS:;0Li:it0d With t!ie proiuct. The major
points made in our pre;entation are summari_ed below:
Continued meeting Aspen City Council April 21, 1)?4
• a. Site location •
i. S.E. quarter of City
ii. Near tourist oriented facilities: ski lift
and downtown
iii. Convenient to City Market and Post Office
iv. Conclusion: Site location will minimize the
use and dependency on the automobile. It
is an appropriate location for a pedestrian -
oriented, tourist -related use.
b. Site area
�I
i. 1.627 acres or 70,875.98 sq ft.
ii. Under AR-1 zoning, 47 units would be parnit:_d.
C. Site characteristics
i. Flat, duvelupablo sit_
ii, Ltttlu vey tatLon uxcupt on Uto.
"envy coucentrntion of conlominiums o,l
surrounding properties.
d. Existing Neighborhood Lan•1 Use Stud,,
i. In thn ncighborhood 801 of unit; are tourist
ii.. Tn the ncighborhund 57% of the new go is in
tourist use.
e. Condominium O%n,rship
i. Over Ilt of all condo units in th2 cicy are
used :s yc-nanavt residences.
ii. The Clarvrien wili nut dinarLminata against
pernaneat reshdent buyers.
f. Existing Zonln
i. 47 unlicitad units or 91 studiai or hotel
room are parsicted .,......_ AR-t _anir.
li, Only 36 units were , oto ed, A 231 , dactL-,1
had been marl...
iii.. 39 parking spasus naz _rncid-_d for the 35 uul_,.
9. Aspen Interim Laad Use
L. Site lies in Mixad Rests ntLal.
Li. Project ha usyd by oe:.}..ar,t ._ .....r
and ro•uc sts. Ther^fare true• of _w.1
residen:taL c:_. (Ori 0nL doelnLtior, of
mixed rvQ02 itial did not preclude :ourist
.ice::0 i:1:.�:... .. 1•)a::, �
h. Owners COMMi Laent:
i. Commito"o is included: d%n}tions to City
Kest Ea3 dedication fur possible sr.rc::
extensluu, a traLl casrwa nt, pre-ervatioa
of two 50' spruce trees, landscupLng viow
presorcatiun, storm drnLn:ge, etc, These ,_
best shown graphically in our pras6ata tion,
i. Design Constraints
i. A drawing summarizing the dasign problem was
presented.
ii. Only 42% of site is useable after City and
owner constraints.
J. Schematic Site flan
1. 30 two-bedruom units and 6 three budroum whits.
ii. A tennis court, swimming pool and therapy pnal.
fii.t An underground parking, structure und.r the
tennis courts.
k. Site Plan and Sections
i. Renderings of propospd project wcr" prusented.
1. Project Impact
i. All utilities exist and are adoquarv.
ii. Trnnsportation: Table of walking time.. "r 1,5
miles/hour walk.
- to Little Nall 3.5 min.
to City ti.hrhat 4.5 Mtn.
- to Post Office 6.5 min.
- to Bus Center 7.2 min,
to Galena L
Hyman corner 9.3 min.
1
The site in pcde•>trian ori:•ntcl, rtniWi:Lnl
potential use of the automobile.
iii. Economic study conclusions:
Fiscally, the tourist is. very b icial 0,en
j • compared to permanent residents. his ar,a
is complex and we would like to elaborate more
on this if given the opportunity.
After the presentation, the Commission requested that tha
applicant withdraw for 90 days Burin; which time the
Planning O;fics and the to-b•a-hired City Economist would
perform additional studies for the City.
We questioned the Commission on exactly what they proposed
to come up with in the 90 day,, and further questioned the
Commission on what more would be required of tho anpLicaat
that we have not already s"hmitted. It ..as not cluar what
the Commission duA rod, and it is intores0 n;; to note that
since rhi, raqucst in Uecomb•_r, very IitLLa additional
planning and analysis has occurred to dato.
The discussiun was continued to the nest moutia;g,
ju nuar 1971. The Planning Office r:cummunded cuncept
sppvnvn l , ith co%d i r Kns Fol low, :
a. Coe,nna ; denis to restrict reucal to periods K'
le;; iha: A months.
b. Phase the ere torment
C. Eliminate on -site p%rl.ing
d. llediva all fireplaces
Our response, in summary, to each of these cnnJ!ziun?
tni thtlt:
a. A`_-cctLve :orenunt is not appropriate sinze the
size is tourist ortentud due to its loc,rioo and
surrounding Gsys. to prefer cu lot CA! Zrca marz=L
de_uvniae the to:.. st/permanent nix rathar than a:-
gavv-,stat inr -ven. It was poin_:d cut ..at t` K;
type ofrCqU_st by the City mig:it be discrininate
b. Vy a' .21 to phase the
.. IC_ 4grzoi to sh, proN...ono to slit.....-- Oka.....,
parkin; lot at 3 future data when the .ransit systam
wis to upe..._i ,n.
noisy quantlzAcivo w7rors in the ..iuly that ovcr-
esii, •-i rlizo�' pir
puLl"ilin xcu:y us& 2r cr ,on u:•
t;�_nt.^.-- + ...a? cc... 'raps 4n . ac LUal U:a%y
isi to 1,21 cards per season!. AC poi.n.tc.l ot.i
thai. the A?n Colorado Ai, Pnllun: a Cnav-c&
firepl_.s is mountain ain or resu. .. _ ..a'.
... The :c l
poll_tiaA _.nrce in Asnan in th! "utomikilo. No
significant banNit can be acid _..•.] by h; nn. ae
now firepluco;. This issue is uuveved La ,r_at
detail in our prasentatLun.
Much discassloa TolLusod, and PF•Z did not vote uo the
project. The necKag was continued.
9. .January 10, 1974. Linder Ordinance 19, the Commji.;ion had
to make n decision by this date (30 days f•rua submission).
Mura issues were brought up and discus;id. Nnjor nnib
he Log:
a. AL the previous meeting, it watt suggested that low
or Moonrara cost housing For amployces should bn
constructed on the Clarendon site. A proyntatlu❑
of densities which made such a uc.e ecoilumically
fensibl; was mude P$Z concluded that such
dunsi.LKS in that area wore not acceptable and
abandoned the Idea of law cost housing on the
site.
b. The applicant agreed to extend thu deadliao for
the I'$'_ Commis ion deci,ion for approximately 15
days so than the Plannin•+ and n inr Cuumi%,Nn
could have the Planning staff rcviuw and recommend
u definition of Ksod ren4vu.tial.
C. At oar near ri—riap with the Planning and lonin:,
CunAinsiun at which time we w�ro expecrin; to
have a comprrhensi+•o d rinLtiuu of mixed
residential, the Vintning staff p w anted a
proposal fnr down_uning the llte Avenue are,. ThL:
was .t surprise to the npplic.int and appearad to b:
a surprise to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To this date the Planning staff his not presented
any 01ittinil tafot:sati•,n or r_zomm-nlatiuni to
the Plinninj 4 =onine Commission on definition or
clarification of mixed resid::ltral.
No decision was made. The p&Z.q11ycj to ke a decision on
the project February 5,
1974,
u (:,)nmission's r<1.tLlZ,
mootkng.
lo. January 29, 1974. PIZ held a public hearing to consider
the dowpzunLng propos"I initiated by the Planning Office
for W Uto Avonue area. At a later meeting, they
decided to reaummoul to City Council oJifIcation of the
Ordinance 19 Lana Use Map rather than rezoning.
11, February 1, 1974, Aster a Long discussion on tho pros an -I
cons of Clarendon, the issue was distil Led to that OF
density. PAZ felt that c�en at 36 "nits there "Ove too
many unit::, tun qany cars, and too many PenplQ, Fn order
to solve Ws basic problem and to continue through the
process K nn ottompt to ma%v this sumNir''.
,,Lldi .. ...sun,0gpund to coustr"ct only 24 units.
This aas wozYcablaw� to,':; nuA the Clarendon yalasl
concept appeoW.
11, Urdluanca L2. Agly-in, ulth the recommondatloq or m,
....... d an Orlinanco [1,)r?LYan,C L& to
modify' ch.: ordWi"- Q 1-11A Use M- yht; was pan_-d
on first rut,101, o public h2j0h; was hold, in
passed on second. , , d it becane law.
13. April 2, 1974, Th• Clacandou gained Vrulinkniry cab -
division vporowul From PI Z for n 24-unit zownhjus_�
project. A number of technical rocommanidulOal "Mc
We by the City Engineer and all issues wure WO"
upon or rovolvud-
Ordinaw" !!. AEcor passing Ordinance 12 mat law,
DHnl13 on firrel:hh1s'-,
Zhu Cuu,chk panau&i
wnuLd dthuto area' Nutt yanjly thz 0lc Uearlvn a this Ordinanzv is being held.
Lye summary, WV ask you to :0101W the fIllowing poi. z.;
hir-co )oq Kali ictIP1 "n OcKla%wo 13!
L.
The Oro 1 nanZe be Fore . a is not 0 com1roWns : t - :On!
ordinance jqnjrtyd by a Ma5t3r Plan. it is
spot zonLA'.
2. The prapnild ordinance L3 nplr m1tarialLY apf"Vt; nne
jyi: prn)eCr whilh is a orle: ap"llrat'On
,i stir, nw foraintnz, Ln PiA rho rrY
rt i. p,won im"t;nnn. a: >'
at a specific proj,ut onl could be Ktcc2rct,d a- sp,,:
zonin7.
3. The Clarendon plan, npornvvd conaeptualJy, K an,
d2trislotal to ;h" aecn. It is rcsljltial to CNI:rCt.:-
consisting -C :4 l:G-ahooya units. 1C is a qoAj plan % ..
is the risuLt of good Faich nogaHaolovs wilh City P0.
4. Ordinance 13 will still permit 16 unit'
on rhu s"Ajact
property. The approved Clarendon plan is for only 24.
Only &Aht units are the issue.
S. Since only this one pzojuct is arFnstud, we rcqnv5t th—,
you allow us to mak, n n—snntat ion to you so that yoit
are as informed is the V6: Comall5sion that WA g!vvn u:;
concept approval and preliminary suhlivislua nryruval.
No are preparad to do this Noaday night or it a sub-
sequant study sussioa convenient to yen.
We than% you far your time and would appreciate considprnzioil
of the nppnrt"n1zy to discuss our project with you 1H !PtaLL.
Mr. Charles Vidal submitted for consideration an outline of a PUD project including
three parcels of land that are not contiguous. These parcels and/or projects being
the Clarendon, Ute Village and Mountainedge. Mr. Vidal reviewed with council the
outline of densities etc., as attached to these minutes. (See Page 1565)
•
ICI
I
�
v
:a
r�
O
O
O
v
o
o
C
U
O
A
ni
ro
o
o
m
w o
o
o 00
0
i
\ N ^J
N
on -+
u
{ u
n �
>
>
v u
o o :! w
+
0.
uI
•--�
O
N
U
Ol
.Ni
Q
N
U
6
I
M
pl
aC
i
7 G
'
n N
•O
Q
Q
}
z
z
{ I
I
I I
N
I
O
O 1
U =
I
O
O I
• .� p
O
O O
I u
o
o
(
}
V
G O^
•ti G
h
N
N O
Q
C O
a N
N
1
(
�
v
O r
N
y
> O O U
> O O O
V
A V
P O LI O
{
Q
o
N oP
M
N
ti
.p
.p
Q N U1
r
.
p
i
M O�
N M W
1
.Mi
W
1
w
0
c.7
0
W
=
F
continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 24, 1974
Vidal pointed out the downzoning propose applies to two of the parcels outlined.
This proposal would remove the possible litigations and bring more land into control
�i of the City and taking it out of development. Mountainedge is planned to include a
full service hotel which is about the only land left available for this purpose.
Certain stipulations would be requested: extension of Garmisch Street; Juan be
vacated; would request the 4% requirement under subdivision regujlations be calculated
on the total package; would need road access int the Ute Village area; reconsider-
ation of the drainage catch basin in the Mountainedge plan.
Request if the proposal is an accepable alternative, Council so indicate this
date. Would like to work and cooperate with the City on this proposal and would
ask as a stipulation there be no hazzels.
Planner, Herb Bartel stated from a planning standpoint a strong link would have to
be established between the proposed hotel and transit line. The regulations on
drainage are not that flexible. Would like to pursue this concept but would
need time to review the problems connected with it and gain imput from the City
Attorney and other city departments. There is no conflict between this proposal and
the proposed downzoning presently under consideration.
Councilman Breasted stated he would like to see this concept investigated further
by the City.
Councilman Behrendt questioned if the densities were flexible from one element to
another. Mr. Vidal stated he wanted to live with the proposal as submitted; certain
limitations on design have already been included and to change that would have to
consider the value of trade offs.
Question was raised by Councilwoman Markalunas as to whether the PUD ordinance covers
a PUD project where land is not contiguous.
Mayor Standley questioned if this proposal is in fact contract zoning.
Mr. Vidal stated the project would begin with the Clarendon and end with the Mountain -
edge development.
Councilman Breasted stated he would like the applicant to consider what the trade-
offs would be if the Clarendon property were left vacant.
Mr. Vidal stated Council should look at a model of the maximum to understand fully
what is being proposed. Time slot buyers, as found from a market survey for the
hotel complex, is very popular. People do not have to put out such a large amount
of money for utilizining the unit for short periods of time. Unit would be utilized
most of the year and not left vacant. Asking Council for the equivalent of concept
approval of densities and land use patterns.
Janet Landry commenting as a citizen of the community, stated she liked the concept
and would like to see it pursued. Bryan Johnson also commented as a citizen, that
this concept should be encouraged but cautioned Council against taking a function
away from P & Z in giving any concrete approvals this evening.
All Council members stated they liked the concept and it should be pursued, one
member stating concern with contract zoning.
mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #13, Series of 1974 on second reading.
Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS IN THE
EASTERN PART OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM AR-1 ACCOMMODATIONS RECREATION TO R-15 RESIDENT-
IAL AND R-6 RESIDENTIAL WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING AND INCREASING
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX DWELLINGS IN THE R-6 DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 24-9
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS) TO PERMIT THE DESIGNATION OF
MANDATORY P.U.D. DISTRICTS ON THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP; AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
REVIEW CRITERIA IN MANDATORY P.U.D. DISTRICTS was read by title by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 1974 on second reading.
Seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote - Councilmembers Walls nay;
Pedersen aye; DeGregorio aye; Breasted aye; Markalunas nay; Behrendt aye; Mayor
Standley aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Walls moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
All in favor, meetirlg adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
�48rr-aine Graves, City Clerk
0
Study Session
Aspen City Council
April 24, 1974
Meeting commenced at 6:45 p.m. with Mayor Standley, Councilmembers Walls,
Pedersen, Markalunas, DeGregorio, Breasted, Behrendt, City Attorney
Stuller, City Manager Dr. Mahoney and City/County Planner Herb Bartel.
Mr. Bartel reported the first step in the total downzoning will be pre-
sented to the P & i. Commission on Thursday which is the zoning of public
lands . This proposal was reviewed with Council. Mr. Bartel pointed
out public lands are significant in setting land use patterns; categories
designated included park, park with transportation and drainage or park
with transportation or park with drainage and also trails. Streets
closed, vacated and some dead end streets were included in this review.
In reviewing the over-all plan, it is evident that a need exists for
play areas.
Mayor Standley informed Planning PARK recently received land in the
Little Nell lift area and they should be approached as relates to this
land for Park designation.
Council raised the question of the trail designation thru the Rio Grande
property which would lessen flexibility for site planning of the area.
Bartel pointed out the trail could be over the development, it is
flexible.
Mr. Bartel stated the Planning Office is at the point of wcrking up
legal arguments for the downzoning and will need contingency funds
for additional legal assistance. City Attorney Stuller recommended
Attorney Joseph Edwards be retained as he has the qualifications and
is familiar with the downzoning proposal. Council request this appear
on the next agenda.
Mr. Bartel reviewed with the Council the different areas in the over-
all downzoning proposal and then briefly reviewed the zoning classificat-
ions for each area. Major changes are in the transition areas and along
the mountain.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
�_l rraine Graves, City Clerk
L•J0U
Regular Meeting _ Aspen City Council April 22, 1974
d. Chart House, Inc. transfer of liquor license. All forms with the exception of
fingerprint reports were submitted by Attorney Kern.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the transfer contingent upon no adverse
comments on fingerprint reports. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion.
carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1974 - DOWN ZONING
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing.
Chart House
Liq. Transfer
Ute Area down -
zoning
City/County Planner Herb Bartel submitted entire proposal as a part of the file.
Reviewed with Council maps showing present zoning in the area including adjacent County zoning
and the proposed zoning. Reported the Planning Office took into consideration the
following criteria which resulted in the Ute Avenue Plan proposed: (1) ownership
patterns, (2) project trends, (3) field information submitted by the subcommittee.
Further considered establishment of a transition in zoning from County to City,
retention of the open space characteristics, impacts on transportation and the
circulation in the area, character of the area would be such that existing residences
would remain, encourage construction of single family and fourplexes, consistency
with densities and land uses adjacent in the County. Lot area requirements were
changed for duplexes with provisions to vary from two units in a structure by the
PUD process. Also under R-15 number of units can vary within a structure by the PUD
process.
Aspen Alps was not included in this proposal as it was felt this complex made a
good boundary line in considering the transition in zoning from one area to another.
Planning and Zoning in February did recommend to Council that the Ordinance #19
land use map be amended to include this proposal. It was felt at that time a
full view of the total city proposed zoning should be reviewed prior to recommending
down -zoning for this specific area. Mr. Bartel submitted on the walls of the
Chambers, complete proposal (maps) of the entire City proposed zoning excluding
the institutional zoning. State P & Z would be considering these areas in study
sessions over the next two weeks. Hearing on these areas has not been determined
at this time.
Attorney James Moran was present representing the Clarendon presently at preliminary
stage before the P & Z. Mr. Moran submitted letter outlining relationship between
the Clarendon and Ordinance #19. Questioned Councils action in reviving old
Ordinance :�12-A (under consideration at this time as Ordinance #13, 1974.) Can
see the only purpose as a stopping of the Clarendon project. Mr. Bartels reasons
for the down -zoning are not the prime reason. Prime reason being the large number
of applications for projects in the proposed area and the down -zoning was proposed
in response to those applications. Original application by the Clarendon was made
prior to ordinance 419. applicant did agree to review under Ordinance 419 when it
was enacted. Original application for 36 units. Ordinance 4119 was amended to
include density and impact considerations. Following the amendment applicant
eliminated one building and came back with 24 units. At this time believe this to
be the only project application in this area. Do not understand the Councils action
to go with the down -zoning at this time when previous action by Council (Ord. ;12)
agreed to amend Ordinance #19 land use map incorporating this proposal. Applicant
has agreed to everything requested by P & Z - no access off of Ute Avenue, view
corridor designed to fit Glory Hole Park. If the down -zoning is not aimed at
this project, question if Council would eliminate the pending application from
the down -zoning. This project started last October and is now in the preliminary
stage before P & Z.
Mr. Charles Vidal also representing the Clarendon request Council postpone
final adoption of the ordinance for one week, at which time will have a proposal
for Council to consider. Feel flexibility has been left out of this proposal.
Council agreed to continue the meeting and hearing to Wednesday, April 24th at 5:00 p.m.
WOERNDLE ANNEXATION PETITION
Petition and plats were submitted. City Attorney informed Council the petition
will require adjustments to conform (improper signatures).
Applicant stated the area consists of 3.2 acres and annexation has been in the mill
for about two years. County zoning is R-15 PUD. City Engineer reported that water
could not be extended to this area until the marolt line is constructed. Area
planned for seven single family dwellings, 1/3 of the area will be open space and
there will be five common areas. The area is adjacent to the City and logical should
be a part of the City. City P & Z recommended annexation in November 1972.
Mr. Bartel stated the way to influence development of the area is by annexation.
Economist Yank Mojo stated the City would lose revenue on the PIF fee. Mr. Wm.
Dunaway stated the loss in revenue from PIF would be compensated by the 4% dedication
requirement under subdivision regulations. Also Aspen Grove to the east may want
to annex but cannot until this area becomes a part of the City.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved that the petition conform with statutory requirements
with up-to-date signatures. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion
carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved to accept the petition for annexation upon conformance.
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Woerndle Annex.
0
V
•
�J
. �••^-��1►�'•R'swr• • ,•wr�•�'[I'r J1w+'rr�^••�•w�•���• •I..W r {,A:i wM,�.��•4'.i..^~�'i1.J�.•�� ,'.JV• 4:.[r/Y�Y�I.JN.',.. -.Lir. �•\i�Vl. .w w :.2"- .... _.. lY r•• - .`L •ww.rr••t•. .r..^a. ...
4
N G
C a •.•t O 4
m e
3 Rf U' .•. A U' u• C L Y F CA.O U N U a Y
^) I: ). • > a -•a ✓ N C W N a y yp C 1: fa• V N 1 .0 d 7 f: t) U A V V
I • 7 r r a l• (1'. t` •� U 'J •ti A N N N t• •a A G 'n N A•a A JI •- V J: • Y I) t!. 4 -•a N
t!! is I • F• I• O, •••1 .� C: - 4 N In N fl. i .a t: A.'(: N G fY :) - 4: .••• V N A •n Y• r)
W ^•• •� J I IJ N rt ,•� A 7 N N ^+ a '1 :. : 1!. A (; •-I f' A U 1 • ! N f: 1 W .ti N ••I i 1. U l: 1: J:
Ct 1 1 • 111 Wr. ra H q 'j O f: N A a to m to % U A -• ai G.0 Y 1 a �• 1. 1 •+ Y• A V •.. N •1 el ••a a
l4 V. :I: •)! y ff. O w U V Y a y ••1 I- R7 N U n j a d R) 1. •• C d N I O tl N J' I. s 'I ••t
'J. !., t.l F 1!. {• p ti U N Y• I. T {: Y d U A l: •h V G ••+ N •'. Ya �; a Y V U a
f! 'i (J r!! • •a •• 4 • I.. 11• A •-a !!1 V f' ^. 4 N d I• -1 N •+ A f) (: tl U. ,• A - t'
•7 U I tl .-a 1, N ••t U 4 r, J: 7 U t: 1: .Ni '•• 1: 'L W G
f• •) '/.:: ra Il d O c \• U N L�-1 l: G .• t/ N A b y U x d • • A -•! b 4 N N U 'I '•a
(f, f4 :.1 .• !! f. :J ••a tY. R) ,s {,. U. Y! U J) V U, tI t: t: J: l: U U t: Y Y (. U .• n tJ V N A 1• tJ
W W (4 U, % (. •5 L. a N .r Y. •1 N •., •l !� Y N a 4 O V m IJ .N C 1-.ti {: •.I A .V, ti :..
V .L L� V. N IV 7 'O 'Q A N 4 O• A at U, U .,a Y • O •^1 f: Y N 0 a •-a 4 ^• RJ .,a .,. r). •.a ;: ' R7 > U N
f. I•! .+ V, C W Cu, t •t t: '. 4 N m Y. CJ :s V ) Y• G Y• d w 4 Y! t. . N G U A a) b f:
C7W I fl. O:•� O C N•• t+Nu,R7 :7 C ^J U4U 'U VUa •+yT yI'; Ya J:Y
1. IL IJ % i (tE •.••1 ^a L. u t.. N J: f' ;S A N N W i. W U. G �•+ •. C .H J •^a a .+
H V. % •• i t l 7 M 4 A 4 d G d Y G 4 V 1: V N 7 ^. •r :.. U a• J: ' W a rnti N V U u+ U N •�
V. 2 C. H (. H F •'. O •� m a 1! C! G Y Y• -ti w j N
C, V. J t+ W ^C s rr 4 U L A G C i' ••+ O U: Q• t: ' .Y Y V U -•a U •a YI 'Q A C IJ i A u N
N W /., f '-• /•. ^' n N A Y U W U .� ro 0 4+ t: m Y G A --t C -+ U t- 'Q 4 .+ U A 4 ^I X [•.
w G " U.] F% N 4 T. C T a^. U i.. O x N 'Q^+.a C U w q
N ++ Y UJ: f:0. 4.U•+++ L 4E Nu y4--+myw CR74N
OVI •• 0 0
'Ci '-Ga 'U N m N C N A V m N i• w Y N A N-• f7 G u G A G N 4 N
Wh -. 14� mO NY 0.N C C',C E.CN W•� ••+d 4d-�•A ax•.1 'C7CmN Y^�G Y YOa to 'p
V HF:�Gk 7 C O C O A : 4Y a A - x dG GY: m :1 N4 C .0N
7. U% r•. y H --I C q i U1 4 N 0. G •-! O d M r N C Y Y Y -.a a •n Y 7 E N t O d •^I C 4 a
'O10 s7 'Q V A w04K70.)C N7N W•-aNOO
^.; J Z N E O •• o G aI O W C Y fL ' -a 0-
m w r -n •Q U m N •-1 w A � ^, a E a 4 4.
H C .. L.:L E"• H H O -"I •+ or •n f y Y U O --/ C 4 L r7 f) •^a - U N C Y •.1 d 4 v..^I Y Cr G G 7 7 C N O
O H 'f, % [t K •� 4 N 'O G y rJ. -•+ C N a w O m t N Rf m 4 S. u V N N V m C U •+ :f c N
t]: W ;.7 U: F W N U O >• u m 'Q -^a 'O +) G ••+ O :L 4 O N ;f N W u G a b m m N C 4 4 C CL
O W :✓ -' -J! F x > C I. 4 m E N N m N '^t 0. Q' i nl m a K7 RJ U N '^+ i W Y b > Y a x
4 f, Y !, U. U U .0 O W N C Y •7 R7 C C -•'� d ry C:
C G b 7 G a. •-I G d 0 W G in G d Y•
K E- -+ % '!. L U •� 0. V C7 N 4 .w 'C W N tT +) mar- : p .0 -H Q• W m C to C C G Y a C •• G [L 0 0 Y
0. V 0. G ^� 7 y •• u: ': G W 4 m - m •-I Y --1 G O m U O '^I •-1 4 '7 c 'n w Y E
I_ 'L .•. :. G 3 m G •O O N a 4 N c .+ .•. Y C7 f- G U N d m •� Y Y W N i•, U --a w R) m '� •+ m N N :! m
• I v 4 4 'n V. W li C . Cl G a) N •.� c Y C N O N m E: +) a C m 4 V V G m 4^ RJ J� > a C U 'O x E
t` jG'. --�H u O •-m 'O E G C 0.+- O A 6: .-1 In G yO Uyx YL m•^+
•p 1 Q Z ['" 'L-. y b :) Y m '� G r N u G y N W Tr 3 U 4 G V i Y C 4 C ^� •-' %+ a 0 Y I.1 ^+ Y
N -•. C W -r L' ` W U N in m C •-+ W' >. Y m O C I •ti E 3 4 U N G •ti O r O O Y y A
:I Z- 'O 'O A 0 4 O •� O G G m m y y ^"• -+ la'C '-• tT ro O .-.� d G L i U 'Q u H : •++ '7 L
C 6• d d C 4 a+ o •- 4 .a W G m : c ••+ c Lo •) 0. Y >• N 0 :• G 0 0 N -� 3
^+ O V.-G-..,USr•7L > 017 O > Y O 0L W 01- G•nY r, ".^. t,' v, mY 3 N K7 '7 m .LKS t 7 E
O U J 'O m E r. m^ 'O Q' 4 m (10, m O G Y C` > N C E C U C Y O :1 Y O n7 +.
c' LA Y i O .7 F z E at Y 1p N w ... ++ G O N -•+ N N W '•I 4 R) ••+ r. Y ..+ .-+ t .-+ O r, •N 7 N G U l 'A .ti m m y% m C
G W ':: C r< O >• V1 a S > r c •. a RJ L 0. N G Y m W V. Q+ Y c 4 w 0 1] 3 Q+ ^ -•' == ^
U H C_ /. L '.] H 9 7 C c r. G +• •••! •^I U m G E Q C O O Y ••+ U O -= G C,
Z E. 4) •• E .,y "I G .a : -a ^ 1 y a c 4 •.a 0.0 C U'• W ro N u W N 'O m y ... E^! m •.a .0 _ >t
• .-7 L: < H C/ y L N •• U C•_ Y W a 4 •-I Y L 0 0 to Y u `� r; > O^ S Y L
v Er F 5 L :. ^ <^ O •-• In pr m T V1 -i ^r v \ •a ' N m c Y N Y x :) u O m C Y m c C N J v u it b 0._ '^J •^I
r Z •' 7_ C] Y m C m ^+'-+ ••� >• G C 'Q 3 U a x m U 4 i •+ 3 C '-� u N n 'O :+ ^S` 4 s Y ti V
. �• !: ' G' 4 •-• N •^t a -•1 < U .' a) N '- Y U y 01 N G W G ++ y i. O j 0. U U 4 •-• Qi m- C r f N +) y
z K 2 G ++ 4 'Q 4 Y t^, C r, c S d 0: ••a y H m -^a 3 4): G ., •-. m Q: U E = G 0
N� HV. ..C-'• 0 co fo C. 3 a v V.).^. V. 0 0317
s< -+ F G .= 2 Z N Q C O c l- C G .c Y Oa :f C m E V: +) m 0 E N -+ W G 'Q w U m N^ - 'D a: m O ••+ ;:.,t -•� 7
r+• •. =- I .:. - C U O T r . -y - N - N �• m .:J N -^i W - C -• < •.I U C _ c 4✓ N ;L •� Y Y Y C
W 5 i^ �- .. N m 4 • .� O O N U O L •••! i. U N U? :'` O C Kf C •^ G J) : a :. C U
:. <= 7 = 0 'C y E - >• W U C b 'J = •-' ^. a+ H 4 C O G .fl >. rr h 4 N Y G• O 13 C = O m E c N •'J_ 0 •-t
G< 1 4< 0. m u) O Y a- 4 y C- u E) : m C T._ O Y 3: U •-• .•+ Y N O C L. > -+ m >• m^:_ N
G Z S G 4 7. .•• U to m 4: 4 u N- Q•'"a - •-a +J 4 C .: W 3 U r ••+ G•+ C <- +. •IJ E O •J (1l Y
H L U •. V U U) N ^ O `•- 4> N ••. m o -•• L tr'0 - 0 y N 'p = -: 2 a •-+ .� O 5.5
a \
C C w C •. C 4 G d G U G Y m •-t t` W"a O 1^ C O -+ C N t: d U N C a = m c � .•+
7 G - E- - '1. O !< : >• ^ ' c >..0 .� O •-'I m y � 1, /y •'+ Y U = r, � c _ N 04 u C L 4 -r 3 >' V : U ++ • '-, 4 .-+ •`
O C= G c_ Z m O C^ t: G :J U 'O U •) A L Y A •� Y Y 4 V m •� C --. Y G Vi C ++ d •� ti^ 7 G O ++
V GC.<3-LNC43 V 0Uc UO 0.:4 GC 4Y43 maan cU C J :'G 3'0- N'7mc3TJ07y8 U
In Y m C. > ' --+ ' O 4 N c L: N O m 4 C 0 0 0 c I.. G Y c w m 3 aj z 0 G O ••+ G C G
<U)i << S3:-t 24••+Y E-^Y Z rr FY•.+V NYtim r_m 0m0 37^+E a+:u UEY c•^+Y
Y
G $ ? m
U) rn z x w •- 4 c
a U -•I b m ..I :z OO HaS v f: ^J `^ 0.m 1-w...
r•,. Oq -i w O = rEc ODU �04
a c 3 tr .•1 ai U t••
•� 4 v 4 4 2 -' O O :J U) t7: C •� .^• N :n x C C
4 '6 m
w U � 0 It 'z Q> O C z< U L J N O w O U
o. ,T S 'O Y m W 7 ,< C P. a 0 w C E) .� '^t 0 'n1
.•t d C Ia f U J '"- W C < 2 i• 0: m 4 L Y Y c
a 0 m•Q I N m -• � "'zFW F< 0 :)YO v: 0.0
N
oc a> 4a In a0i 1 4 - ym
1.2 L : C C C ••a I N C •-1 w 17 'Q W £ RJ C, 4 H ,< N H '- a U •- C: ••• :E C N •••
y Wy 4.•1 0- 4 O N at m c U 4 C: CH�gF N N
4 C` a s U O a Y O E F W >• :J m LO f1 ^� m a: O y 4 G m V: m O CL. Z U) C -'• 1 %' n 4. 4 N
N T W U c m Y -•+ H O m -^a •-I a. C a a 10 m :) O 4 C: 4 m
y ro a W•. 4 U U T. O U Y E m y 4 .,Uj 4 N l'J J Q N- Z N O -T" C7 Z {n L a> m J L
y 4: W c G G O
V 3 Q1 3 L y r= Q1 -^I CI w C al �. 4 OrY Or-.1 U 4 N 4 4 3 4 .^•� j Q^ ..: 2 Y 0 •r m e • y
G'll Q+ L N11 C)L.-• Cw .I 0 a N VN) Em C.�•� CI �- 7-CiFii:J
.. a Y .a Y .-+ W )c a E' E ^I .-. 3 c c N a c
T,.ti y w .. ,•. y 'Q •• y 'O ro 0 4 a L 4) a 0 O N a` a 3 7: O G+ y 4
C W N •� m CI ^J 3 >• O 4 C U .- U t) N •'! m Y E N C 4 G E S< 0.
w .c m '� a' C N al W O m m In 41 a •.1 C o N r .a 0 y: Ci c �. IJ .a H Z E ;] m• C H> J>' J
c J •� V G K7 .c m •� QI'a •� C •-+ m m �. 4 p y y +...a 7 0 U m W<^ ti H N U N .^
my mnca -w•^I a 0 L V) 0 U E ^+UC CwmHH7 •'J U >. "7. -•t C AY
: a• C .-+ -+ - U 14 W J G y 4 0. ro U U a C C I O J L,
^•t -, C tr 3 W •-' ^ 0 C C: m> a Jf Ut C. 4 a W Jl y 0 7 E W C T> :: fL •� J y +'' 4 m ^+ •C
,:' -+ A NY ••+ 7 0 1n .] O u r- O c y N Y J: 0 •-+ 0- Gt Cl L m N .J r V W W F C' c 0 a ^..7 3
Wv v Kaw.y Y^ ro000L1VY -P44 c y... QrN YU..y 4-E Ow ^. ton W JU.. ...CmY t"'va �, •~
0 0 to ^J x U c fL V) m W -^ 0.: N Y 10 C ^+ W H F z !-I :n V K7 C .� •'
tY s pl 4 U O C^ N N W ` J1 \ 0. y J: c CI C ••�+ y •7•t C> N •� -• .� ro ,-Gj 3O. O w u. F U O : 4 m J H t
C .c -a C ^J 0 \ Y R: ': U) m N. A Y Y m a ••� VJ 0 : .0 'Q � ••t 4 C C •-!
'O In W 0. w 0 C` T Kf C it '0 N W 3 Y y A N U W W O N y C C 4 6' O :: C ^^_ U) '-' +) W m m •� al 7 G :^
:! w •-+ U.` m m •+ C N F 0. O L -^I - W 1+ - 4 -••a C x N m U .-a O: m 4 -+ H w H Y Y m �: U C 4 ti •�
d C q m V .: V! U m --a H In Kf fT .- S! O K7 in O. K7 w .,a 4 a C Y N U O U ^+ :: 4 V) O F L` C
N' V a' ^+ •� - m ••• C 4 .+ w al y C w A N : •• > a7 U O< ': F ••� 'Y :') C 7 m c : C, .> i• :
w y Y + f C` O+ C a 4 W 4 c- a N -+ N m m E + y - m N c y a 1 W 9= �` m 4 O^
0•J .]H y LL a',^ " •. a`S roNW O cm U^+C,L 4 U 0.V Al to t w0 -WmfL •-C •]+= m4• •+ 4 m : N•7
>: 0, rn at 0- w 0 m 4110 0 x C N O ••. v Rt v V V F +)
t` 4 N W 4J O -- rn Y .^ W r 0 0 C, O 0 w Y y y C :� •Q 4 O U :J V
••, •p W N N ri Lr •-• •. N w w /. A N W ?• U ^ W 'O w W C7 '' N '. m Y ro m \K7 Y W c 0 01 > -, m C." - H H ,] Y m \':
N w O t a H c 7 .1 m e N ro x 110
^+ o z ti O .-• ^I :: %i aK fL f. A .-, •. c Z. N >:
•ti al v - G •Q ,9 ..+ E 7 H O H :J .O T •.1 m - 4
> ,U r a` :. m 4, U ✓ O • C1 0 Y > 4 --+ .: (l $4 r U O CI U m :t
G W O: 't U O 1' [_ J) t EI y C 'Q 0 C y 4. :C W F -) Jl ?• C' : m > C to
•^I O E n Y .--t Y T �� m .� l y N Y l•� y W 4 A N 1 .7 �� W 4 Q. d A C ..a - C^ LL • O N O ri a: 4 H 0. i •-•
c :. -• W ro (L w -+ y 0..O W i 'Q C• m u o •, ,\ m- '^ a N E 0 •�-t .) b >'
G Ln C? - C +` ., V -„ - al W Z: y> 0 C y C O ^t y d U Y (? E W V m v) c ro lA L !• C^ [+ `• "! E L^ O
p W .• V1 •-I m m K• Lr Ill J.: C :1: t• m .•+ 0 y : 1: '0 --I w :t W N - I•: .� .E-•'1 ka IHA w i•i •1 d y a K..''s.
U H 4 -+ •: Kt I: •t •, K Y O F J' O al LI N C ro W �•, O -"! 'O . a! ••+ H C, \
in lq •.-I W FN N m A a m ?' m O A E ••+ N a, d, 'Q a m --• ,: w •a n a: ^: H ,U •+ 4 .' •): �' . 1 ^a
a o.I iv �2�°q �N0.by u0 - v4441 w xu wc)H � t ,lLILn w v,)In uA
1.1 al a, qt 1: ,• wl w C A 'C a ! I.' '•+ tn 1 N 4 y Y to 4 C Vl In 14 W :..l UI u N K^ V) W 4 .' t:.i
l- 4 '+ :C y )• ar 1, la a' :i' a! y LJ ra �. Y m 1 .•! p }' \ N U .Z U _q W ?� m •^ O - 41 Kt YI , :"7
- Ln ;L (! in 1; Kl ), m 1: t t= (::: H .•1 A a C . • n tL ^C k • f•. •� 1 a` Il m al .0 L^ 0 a
U1 r al C' .� •L' I. JI a JI --� l� N U 3 N: W m U m 4 N V N r In C .. 4 CI •- V rn II 'L/ 1: •` U N
N (] Kt L^ :� •i O i• N tU l) -1 1» al •l t
4
4 u+ r. .A A C N
O 41 U N J lr p•w C 1 t: V O .0 • m >. r .� t F r� :' ` r , ti I; ..1
to •• C A 0 a,.. YI 0 .d N .� O•+ f". +) a t� H
C^ m U 0 4 V O \! Y 4 0. U :>: M -^ m a m al m la L� W 4. W In �• ^ ,0 1) la m JI .a Y
H F: qt 'Q r K7 Y •'� G U Y ! \ U .t '0 C r O :' X Ll 1 • -C :: 1: T •C1 \ U 1J 11)4. t: ,+• al �i
.-1 F .-t 11 q .•� a, K/ .a ,: N -+.:t .y in •� i` ii �i .t. t,) ..a Kt a >: .y •.I
U :i (1 -ti.• 4 U % N :i V N •a v U �: I . w IL .) : l^ :a I • U t` I: U
t' O M •i U �i
7 l7 7 t['1 a : tl .[:'Q : YI .-1 A /l '• lr tj n. 1.1 . W to H H :^ ll al
U 0. UN 3 Uinm 4 V 4-C W U UV) ICJ V):J (11]OUw VU)t0 4 IU Lb -4 0 CI In
Page 2, Council. 3!1- — . , ccr.ti nucd. •
_,,'3} did nor- f I l within c-c;-irn of
Plan ='- Herb Bartel r%Olrltc_' t ^. ! !%1 -T ^€fi.0 CC�:
denial t.ecause 41 t is '_.e record_ thac ..�- soi.ethinq
other than a page and book namlt,>,=y si.c.ti rc% (:,wn rship pattc-iris - official
maps to show how the land is `cirg d_-_?i.ce.d; #2 ease,�.-ients dedicated
should be platted; 13 subdivision regu.latic-is require that no lo;.
1 t, , i" • J r i � J� r jjl 4 t h e
1incCS shall be chanced �h�ltl.:i���. �j%�::� �l__Ui.1Cil CC.O rErulat _:, t`t � 4
4% dedication would apply; #5 lets should front upcn a street.
Mr. Molny informed Council he has to have the present old houses cff
the'site by April 15th. This project would have no impact which is
the intent of the subdivis"on ;-egulations, the whole premise is tc:
get two houses off the river bank. Density of this project will !
half of what is allowed. As relates to proper platting and recorc.ing
there are many properties that are similarly divided and not platted.
Stream margin easements are not recorded on the plan and have arreeC
to the granting of a trail easement that is in excess of the required
4% dedication. Access will be provided to the back lot. It was
pointed out, a variance would have to be approved by the Board of
Adjustment as relates to the requirement of fronting upon a street.
City Attorney Stuller pointed out 2 reasons for considering exemptions
or exceptions. Number 1 the impact of the development and #2 the
design requirements are such that the subdivision requirements can be
satisfied.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to grant the exemption conditioned upon
the easement being dedicated. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All
in favor with exception of Councilman j•Jalls who voted nay. Motion
carried.
UTE AREA DOWN -ZONING PROPOSAL
Mayor Standley pointed out there are three ways the City can go, 41-
down-zo7,ie at all, #2 - follow P & Z recommendation and amend Ordinance
#19 or #3 - down zone the area now.
Mr. Bartel reviewed with Council the map showing the area in question
which was published prior to the P & Z public hearing. Area under
consideration contains 32 acres including approximately 40 plus
ownerships. Majority of the ownerships are in the R-15 zone. Mr.
Bartel pointed out the reasons for proposing the down zoning are as
follows: design considerations are such that the Planning office
felt were important in that area at this time and limiting population:
which is a Council goal. Mr. Bartel enlarged upon those reasons by
stating that until the Gant there were no tourist accommodations in
this area. As relates to density were concerned about heavy traffic
in the neighborhood, the impacts upon the City in general, pressures
upon City facilities with existing zoning, environmental concerns and
planning with existing zoning around an unsafe area. The proposed..
density will be consistent with the efforts of the County in this
area.
Question was raised on the statement in the P & Z resolution, "As
soon as possible, similar designations be applied to the balance of
the mixed residential districts:. Mr. Bartel assured Council the
planning office would not be recommending the same proposal of today
to all of the remaining mixed residential areas. Criteria used in
examination of each area are: existing land use patterns, ownerships,
and influences on the neighborhood.
Mr. Bartel explained the square footage in the R-6 zone was changed
from 6,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. because of the unsightliness of
12 to 14 duplexes on an acre of land. Mr. Bartel stated there is
justification for down zoning at this time if Council desires to
follow that route. Mr. Schiffer stated the recommendation from P & Z
to amend Ordinance #19 by emergency ordinance rather than permanent
down zoning at this time was so the P & Z could look at the total
picture following future re -zonings and considerations under Ordinance
#19.
Councilwoman Markallinas stated hor ; trono, coric::�rns for the old timers -
in this neighborhood who will he sacrificing value of their NropF!rty
by making this a residential area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
it.qul.ar Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974
Schiffer questioned how long it would take to get the
golf course in shape.
Armstrong stated that would depend on how much funding
was available. Pointed out that there would be people
who would donate labor and trees.
Schiffer stated that he felt a really good golf course
would be valuable. Expressed concern that this might
not be a really good golf course. Felt that $280,000
does not appear to be much money.
Armstrong stated that he thought, after discussing the
matter with City Manager Mahoney, that they would starl
breaking ground in the spring.
Schiffer stated he would like to see it laid out so
there would be more options.
Armstrong pointed out that the driving range would be
300 yards.
Gillis stated that he felt there were higher prioritieE
in the community without recommending that the City
Council spend a lot of money on this project.
Armstrong stated that he was not asking for funding
right away. Stated that if the plan was adopted,
could start without any money. .
Gillis stated that he felt the donated labor could do
better things for the community.
Vidal made a motion to approve the plan in concept,
but to recommend holding back approval on money to be
spent. Motion seconded Johnson. All in favor, motion
carried.
Geri Vagneur expressed reservations on the priority of
` this project.
UTE AVENUE REZONING O Chairman Gillis stated that no new evidence could be
put into this discussionsince the public hearing has
already been held.
Vagneur stated that she felt the public in general,
the concerned citizens, the Councilmembers, have no
idea what sort of soul-searching a decision which
might be made at this meeting involved. Stated that
a great deal of time and effort had been involved in
drawing a conclusion from the discussions. Stated
that the members have concerned themselves with the
fairness to everybody, the possible position they
might be putting the City in, the position they might
be putting the public in. Stated it was difficult
to come up with a decision, and feel that a former
Commission may have put this Commission in a position
of making a decision here tonight which might affect
one project mostly. Felt that the new members feel
very strongly that they have been put in a terrible
position.
Schiffer stated that he was a very strong advocate of
extremely limited growth for Aspen. Stated he liked
-10-
l
RECORD' QF PROCEED!"IGS U !_e;��� 'S
rygN •.a C F. N )[CKEI A. A. A
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 1.9, 1974
the recommendation for the rezoning of Ute Avenue, per
se. Stated that he was not prepared to say that that
is the solution without taking a look at what the re-
zoning is going to be for the entire City. Would like;
to see the entire mixed residential area zoned the
way the proposed rezoning is for that particular area.;
Stated that he did not believe in zoning on a neigh-
borhood by neighborhood basis. Stated he felt this
would be the first step in that direction. Feel that
what the Commission must do is go ahead and complete
the studies on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis
and when they have taken a look at the entire City
from a rezoning point of view then put together a
comprehensive rezoning ordinance, have hearings on it,
etc... Would recommend and would like to see the Com-
mission do would be to take the proposed rezoning for
the Ute Avenue area and instead of recommending to the
City Council that we adopt that as permanent rezoning,
take that and recommend that they amend the 1973 Land
Use Plan in conjunction with Ordinance #19 specifically
for that Ute Avenue area, so as to implement those
specific recommendations under Ordinance #19 rather
than under the heading of permanent rezoning. Feel
that the Commission has enough information to do that
now and would suggest that the City Council do that
through the emergency provisions of the Municipal Code.
Schiffer stated that he would like to emphasize that
he does like the rezoning proposal conceptually, but
do not feel that it can be done on a neighborhood by
neighborhood basis. Suggest that once this is taken
care of, the City amend the Land Use Plan for the en-
tire mixed residential area under Ordinance #19 when
there is sufficient information to do that.
Vagneur made a motion that: (1) the permanent re-
zoning not be adopted; (2) that the Planning Office
draft a resolution that the Ordinance #19 Land Use
Map be amended so as to incorporate specific recom-
mendations of the Planning Department; (3) that the
amendments be done under emergency provisions of the
Municipal Code. Motion seconded by Schiffer.
Roll call vote - Gillis, aye; Vidal, abstain; Johnson,
aye; Jenkins, aye; Schiffer, aye; Vagneur, aye;
Landry, abstain. Motion carried.
Gillis stated that the meeting would be continued at
5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 21st.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Casey imsti:onr' Secret�a,-y"
0. ,o
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ftlP..f C. F. N %FCKF'. 0. B. R L. CO.
Continued Meetin _ Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974
PROGRESS
REPORT Bartel stated that he and Stanford had been working on
the total mixed residential problem. Stated he would
like to present what they feel are some very important
additions. Stated that these are really separate from
the land use recommendations.
Stated that these are specific things which they feel
should happen to upgrade the area.
Stanford submitted map shoeing existing conditions in
the north section of the mixed residential area.
Showed quite a mix of uses.
Stanford stated that they had also done an analysis of
the density distribution and the resident to tourist
mix. Shows a diversity in this area and mixture.
Stated that by evaluating these items, have come up
with their suggestions for a plan for the area. Be-
cause of this diversity and the existing development,
which is almost total in the area, very little that
they can do in the way of recommendations on the land
use plan.
Stanford stated that their program for this area would
be of primarily public actions which would include the
trail system throughout the area which ties with the
area -wide trail plan. Would include bicycle path a-
long Cooper. Have also shown on the entrance to Aspen
a tree planting program. Stated that the first phase
of this would occur in this area - from the highway
at the City limits on into town and leading perhaps to
the municipal parking lot.
Stanford stated that included in this would be an -in-
tersection. design at Original and Cooper. Stated that
this would be done by the Highway Department. Stated
that the intent of redesigning this intersection would
be to discourage traffic, particularly tourist traffic,
from going straight into the downtown area. Would pre-
fer to have them directed to the municipal parking lot.
Stanford stated that they also have proposed, planned
by the Bureau of Outdoor recreation, a footbridge going
across the Roaring Fork at the end of Hopkins Street.
Have also recommended at the end of Hyman and Hopkins
Streets a small vest-pocket park, which would also be
connected along the Roaring Fork River with a trail
system. Stated that they would like to come out with
some type of possible street lighting that v,ould, in
addition to being street lighting for safety purposes,
would perhaps be utilized in some way esthetically.
Schiffer asked how resident units were distinguished
from tourist units.
Stanford stated that this
Vagneur made, depending on
on a year around basis.
was based on an est:i.rnate that:
if they were living there
Bartel pointed out a section of river frontage which S.;
in the flood plain. Stated that the application for
the footbridge is in process and there will not be an
Ago
• •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 103 Lemn
Frw4 C F.2- Rf 2. B. h 1. C1
Continued Meetinq Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974
answer on that probably until April or. May.
Bartel stated that they did not feel the answer was in
totally building more streets, in fact concerned about
that because of what it would do to the intersection
at Glory Hole Park.
Bartel stated that they hoped, with some conceptual
approval of a plan for the Rio Grande, that they would
connect substantially all of this area on the north
side of Main Street. Stated that the next time they
meet on this with the Commission, would like to meet
about conceptual plan on the Rio Grande.
Vidal questioned if, relative -- to that, do they have
a format established to where if they had other bodies
that they could help, or does it have to be done by
Stanford.
Bartel stated that they have placed the inventory bur-
den on the Subcommittee.
Ms. Maddalone stated that since she lived in that area
was interested to know what kind of concerns that the
Planning Office has for the people who live over there
Questioned if they concern themselves with the fact:
that practically all of the single family residents in
that area are now owned by people who have lived there
for more than 40 years and almost all of these people
are over 60 years old.
Vagneur stated that she brings this up frequently since.
her deep concern is that Aspen is a town, not just a
resort area.
Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded
by Schiffer. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:15
p.m.
Z-
Casey ��rmstrong,�Secr :iary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Lcz-:ve.,
=-_-
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning _ January S, 1.974
Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:40 p.m. with
Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins and Spence Schiffer. Also present
City/County Planner herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John
Stanford.
Johnson made a motion to send a recommendation to City Council asking for a
Resolution commending Jim Adams for the time and effort he has spent on the
Commission during it's most difficult times. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All
in favor, motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS Gillis stated that there had been a decision to go
Vill of Aspen, v' through the procedure of a potential reversing of the
Phase II vote on the Villa. Stated that a motion to that affect
Rehearing would have to be made by a member who had voted in fa-
vor of the project the last time.
Schiffer made a motion to re -hold the procedure, secon-
ded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried.
Attorney .Tim Moran, representing Attorney Art Daily, was
present and stated that he would like to preserve for
Mr. Daily, at such time as the Conn-aission does rehear
the matter, the privilege of argument that rehearing
is not appropriate or within the jurisdiction of the
Commission. Would like to preserve the point for fur-
ther argument that what the Commission has just done
is erroneous and not within their jurisdiction.
City Attorney Sandra Stuller stated that she had no
objections to that proposal.
Schiffer made a motion to hold the meeting for the re-
hearing at the earliest possible date, seconded by John-
son. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting date set
for January 22nd.
View Plane Memo Bartel stated that the Planning Office had written a
memo on the View Plane preservation, and wanted the
members to review that before the meeting of the 15th.
Stated that a study session had been held, and they
had the ordinance on the view preservation, and what it
does specifically is provide for PUD options where the
height limit as set by the view preservation is less
than that allowed by the existing zoning..
Grant -In -Aid Bartel stated that the County had made application for
Application - a grant-in-aid for open space for the land adjacent to
County the hospital, and stated that there was a letter con-
cerning that for the Commission's consideration.
Bartel stated that the Commission By -Laws would be in-
cluded in the packet for the next meeting.
Rezoning of Ute Bartel stated that he and Stanford had worked on a plan
Avenue area and requested the Commission set a public hearing to
consider a change in zoning from the area south of
Waters and generally centered along Ute Avenue. Bartel
stated that the point that that raises is whether or
not the Commission would like to review these items
with the applicant or whether they would like to do
the Mixed Residential part of the agenda first. Stated
that he felt Vidal should have precedent in this matter.
Bartel stated that he did not want to get into discus-
RIrCORD OF PROCEEDINGS 10(" E_eaves
Regular Meeting _ Aspen Planninq & Zoning January i) , _ 1974
sion of the Clarendon project asking for Planning Of-
fice comments when the Planning Office will be making
the request of the Commission this evening to set a
public hearing to change the zoning of the project.
Schiffer questioned if the Commission must take action
at this meeting on the Clarendon.
Bartel. stated that at this point, it was strictly pro-
cedural, whether or not the Commission would rather go
through the project first or whether they would like
to hear the report from the Planning Office on Mixed
Residential.
Schiffer stated that he would like to hear the report
first.
Gillis stated that he, too, would like to hear the re-
port first.
Moran questioned if this report was to clarify the
meaning of Mixed Residentiai, or if it was, in fact, a
rezoning proposition.
Bartel stated that the Planning Office would be asking
the Commission to set a public hearing to consider re-
zoning and to amend the Zoning Code in the Mixed Resi-
dential area.
Moran questioned Bartel if it was the Planning Office's
contention that the proposed rezoning of that area with
the present application in process has some affect on
that present application.
Bartel stated that it does. Stated that it was the re-
finement of the plan in the Mixed -Residential area and
the zone change that the Planning Office is requesting
the Commission to set the public hearing for will have
an affect on that application.
Planning Office Bartel stated that they were requesting the Commission
Report- to set a public hearing for a change in zoning to the
Mixed Residential area south of eaters Avenue and extending centering
Land Use Category generally on Ute Avenue. Stated that the legal des-
criptions have been prepared by the Engineering Office
and the map and legal notice is ready for publication.
Request the meeting be on January 29th, 1974.
Bartel also request the Commission call a study session
this week to go through the proposal in detail.
Stanford submitted diagram of location of proposed re-
zoning. Stated that the subcommittee had worked on
the land use in that area.
Stanford stated that they were proposing four resident-
ial categories: (1) single family; (2) duplex; (3) three,
and four family; and (4) multi -family. i
Stanford pointed out the public areas indicated on the
map and also designated a conservation area.
The next illustration which Stanford submitted showed
development trends in the study area. Stated that at
—2—
41 s
RECORD OF PROCEEDiNGS
100 Lolves
::1`Y •: G. f. olE'(f 1. !. N. n L. CI. _ --- — —_ --�=_—__ _«_
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & 'Zoning January_ S, 1974
sion of the Clarendon project asking for Planning Of-
fice comments when the Planning Office will be rlaking
the request of the Commission this evening to set a
public hearing to change the zoning of the project.
Schiffer questioned if the Commission must take action
at this meeting on the Clarendon.
Bartel stated that at this point, it was strictly pro-
cedural, whether or not the Commission would rather go
through the project first or whether they would like
to hear the report from the Planning Office on :-fixed
Residential.
Schiffer stated that he would like to hear the report
first.
Gillis stated that he, too, would like to hear the re-
port first.
Moran questioned if this report was to clarify the
meaning of Mixed Residential, or if it was, in fact, a
rezoning proposition.
Bartel stated that the Planning Office would be asking
the Commission to set a public hearing to consider re-
zoning and to amend the Zoning Code in the Mixed Resi-
dential area.
Moran questioned Bartel if it was the Planning Office's
contention that the proposed rezon:�ng of that area with
the present application in process has some affect on
that present application.
Bartel stated that it does. Stated that it was the re-
finement of the plan in the Mixed -Residential area and
the zone change that. the Planning Office is requesting
the Commission to set the public hearing for will have
an affect on that application.
Planning Office Bartel stated that they were requesting the Commission
Report- to set a public hearing for a change in zoning to the
Mixed Residential area south of Waters Avenue and extending centering
Land Use Category generally on Ute Avenue. Stated that the legal des-
criptions have been prepared by the Engineering Office
and the map and legal notice is ready for publication.
Request the meeting be on January 29th, 1974.
Bartel also request the Commission call a study session
this week to go through the proposal in detail.
Stanford submitted diagram of location of proposed re-
zoning. Stated that the subcommittee had worked on
the land use in that area.
Stanford stated that they were proposing four resident-
ial categories: (1) single family; (2) duplex; (3) three
and four family; and (4) multi -family.
Stanford pointed out the public areas indicated on the
map and also designated a conservation area.
The next illustration which Stanford submitted showed
development trends in the study area. Stated that at
-2-
r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
. .., C c r. AIR,L B. B. 1 1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 8, 1_974
' 1
v present they have posted here 236 units proposed which
have come through the Planning Office.
Stanford stated that the plan was comprised of single-
family, duplex, and three and four. Stated that it
would be at the density of the present R-15 zoning.
Stated the multi -family would be at the density of the
present R-6 zone.
Stanford further stated that the plan included a rural
category, and designated that area on the map. Also
proposing a new historic landmark designation which
would be the Durant Mine. Further, have a proposed
drainage easement which would handle water coming from
the mountain, which instead of going through the town,
it will be going into the Roaring Fork River. Plan
also includes the trail system.
Stanford stated that another factor, that contributed to
the development of this plan was a number of public ac-
tions, including the Ute Cemetary Court Case and desig-
nation of the Cemetary as an historic landmark, and she
Parks & Recreation developments. Would be a general
transition of densities from the core area out. Pointed
out the view preservation corridor.
Jenkins made a motion to set a public hearing for the
proposed rezoning for January 29, 1974, seconder: by
Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
Concensus of the Commission was to have a study session
-on the proposed rezoning for Thursday, January loth at
5:00 P.M.
Moran questioned the use of the designations "rural" and
"conservation" for zoning.
CLARENDON Gillis pointed out to the Commission that this meeting
CONDOMINIUMS was the deadline, and the Commission could approve, dis-
approve or the applicant could withdraw from the con-
ceptual stage pending further information.
Attorney Jim Moran, representing the Clarendon, ques-
tioned the Commission on what additional information
they would require.
Schiffer stated that he could see none.
Moran stated that any rezoning that was accomplished
could not affect the existing application. Stated that
there is a pre -Ordinance #19 building permit appli-
cation. Further stated that they had reduced there
density had been reduced by 25% from the allowable den-
sity in the AR-1 zone.
Ms. Baer stated that the recorimendation was not based
on this plan, that it was made prior to the .iull de-
velopment of this plan.
Concensus of the Commission was to continue the meet-
ing after the study session on Thursday.
Moran stated that they would voluntarily extend the time
for the decision of the Commission to some point beyond
-3-
I
=
•a
u
� r-I
#0
N
Esc d, c`35c o�6� >c
c
a, > �
rn
wa
ca
CA
gi c W" a3i 3^S cd��
O^ �w.� w a
L. ?n o u c, ^ J CO o eD a 3
C5 c o y o ui � N cs .B r S n
Cc CL Cc
O(� V L. .� OJ ".e N c cs un C
�{ y w rn
d o cn Ly
rn CC
it ccr y M
(!a y
CA
3 o y o C �Y c ccu...`ti°n
`S c�c�Y :�v cwC6�• 3 y O.n'i.
S u ca >, L
�'$Fc¢ 3 � °yy _, use aa•�y v"� c •� cGp"' •w� �.`c�
U Lv'• •O 6J O V' N ... O �L
flC rn �j Eyy e > a� o ca v � w 3 � y �y � E tIg
Rf U :i '•' 6, C S a a. p' c ¢ V w .; a f,J' �^
p
O� 'L7 3 c C a) Aq =. y� U Y O �
.. y,•y y
tZ
Z •+ >�C• y °�, a,W T..D� M co rRn c_° `l7, 7 O p c3r'
O p cq V ,G � c6 �q Cc tcF3„.pc �pFa, 0.0 u0V
rn m
3 E
-:Gc"
Ig may+ _ i W W gig
Y O L C
cn �a a�
vw; r.��� CZ V y y 3
l3 C �, C Q+ y L. C 't'a w y..
TS.
ca O �r o, g vL rn.^ 3 c 3 a, a ° Ow
—,a.- y U �% Z U "' cC
aCg �a°iu- y�Y Sm Ix 3 •o x va
C o... a,s• �„� con rn5 � a�rnm a, za
cz
�N
a s C i > 9 Cwjm cc
43)
c u t 003 o co �� a
Le tio
ca
6 �3ln�8 E w'S �u ° u
oQ CU
c c'a 8 pp u 3 e
ri. 'd ►+' 3 C, U°> y S C >,.+ ND O 5
�C' arp.75
al
d eao
rA
c.c re ut- ca 'w
go +r G ° t�j,� cCy p ca yM(.1''C.>'. 0w .�C
300E0 >yo ro i y«
orb 3 u S c o� o W �� `°• p'c�
•u " Z 'S = Vf o c4 C1. O 'C 71 C -••. N c7 Co i0 O
gg C ti
CgW 6:v c a a� CJ c o g a as `� a �u
c.a, ai�jacsv+vuc a+C4�Gc.� �zs j�nsEc
AGG3cd
ayi���` 3Qo•'�C„Ir�rn�+v`vCNI���
o cc .'.a 3-a u co c o, c, •o.9
0.c q�poc"0 u 'sc�uxs°1» u`8�xy5b a>'y
cc o cti'us y ccd5�A V W44
� �,npx��Pp
dysw��
I • a u3 M= m w aa, I=—
01 a2,1..6i `IZ y3.jet4j`.Sepsaupa BepoZ uads{r �,J
! N
• 1660 Linr:oin ;greet, S.
12U`i: i;.• ! li_ i, _i L 1 t T -1corpc; .:r%Ud
t-. 1 ,'f:, .t' l .'i� i iiaoc-, I -i and C1 Z:.r0Ti)1U.'!
DATL•: April 18, 1.974
This coming idonduy evenins; you will be holding a public 110ar.ini,
on the Ute Avenue down-oning (Ordinance 1.3). Because the only
project materially affected by this Ordinance is Clarendo?1, we
feel tl?at y-otl should understand this proposed project, the pro-
cedures and r;;v lows that have been corlplete(l })afore the Aspen
P.lann.i.no and ZoninC.
g Commissi.ol? (PFTZ) to cute and the issues
that have been resolved through good faith negotiations with tale
City P&Z.
As a practical matter, the proposed downzoning only affects the
Clarendon project. The City Attorney has provided ded you 4; i. t}l her
opinion that Ordinance 12 (l:.odifi.cation of' the Ordinance 19 r)ap)
does not aF:`ecr_ thc� Clarendon project since Clarendon is a
applicationIAill: i l:ruir, nc � 19. Als
o, she h2s Xpress^ci rli:.
P :.o�:'r! -;.�;: i.n as s ;:�� ted in tI?c; p is ollo;e,a Ordinance 13
lvo(1 d of Sect :he Per_d =:lti Cla-er.don project. Ordinance 12
(modification of the Ordinance 19 map) effectively IrclownZo) es"
all property in the Ute Area other than Clarendor_; therefore,
the dot•;zzo-nine (Ordinance 13) has an effect only on this
specific projo'ct.
Therefore, w-- believe that next Monday- ni<ht you will not b:
hearing a 5G'i?Grai Zoning issue, but -,Oil fill Spu-ci :ically cad
exclusi.v^ly be considering an ordinance affecting only one
project. Since this is the case and the Council might be
assuming the total decision powers relating to this project,we
feel that you should have the benefit of all the facts already
preser)tcd to I-, PFTZ Commi�sioil, and we ash: to be permitted
to make a presentation and to discuss with you all the issues
of this project that have been considered to date.
A brief summary of the events to date as well as some of the
basic issues is presented below:
1. March 30, 1973, Brewer, Inc., exercised an option to
acquire the Clarendon site. The site was purchased with
the expectation of construction 47 condominium units
(existing AR-1 zoning). Shortly after exercise of the
option, the Ute City Protection agency petitioned to
downzone the Ute area.
• 0
City Council Members
Apri a 1S, 197/1
P::a"c two
[il the thrE' ([10.5C6 1)" r'ho Utl'o City i)C`.. _iC)n,
P
we Ruic!,:y a. Plan to the Guildin?, In ,pe.:t.or
Th�S fR.,%-t for 46 apartment un.izs (Parks ide Apartment ,) . IC is our
�oka.n NOT opinion that this subiiii ttal is still valid and that we
ISSUE Bc�uug-e_ could bu; Id c;le;e r�partmonts if we so desire. Since the
'rlfE SuQue.� Parks ide Arp-irtments were; quickly designed and not the
wRs �nKo2e« .type of development with which we wish to be associated,
SITE p�,pu we decided to design a more responsible project and
Slkexueo rRoPc�ty process it under Ordinance 19.
I�IoT owNc a ey
'fME UYT. After considering alternative land uses, we decided to
process a condominium project with a swimming pool,
therapy pool and tennis court. We hired a planning firm
to design a site plan for the project. After detailed
site studies, we came to the conclusion that the 46 units
permitted under existing zoning was not appropriate and
that due to the constraints imposed on the site (view,
corridor, donations to the City, set backs, height
limitations, etc.) a plan of 36 units was a better
solution. v,e voluntarily clirlinated 10 units and pro-
ceeded wish 'i 36 ul.'it concept.
4. On October 1S, 1973, a site plan was sub;aitted to the
Building inspector and a building permit .fee of $1,968.75
was paid. The Clarendon project was scheduled for con-
cept review before P$Z under Ordinance 19 on November 20,
1973.
5. November 13, 1973. One waek prior to the scheduled
meeting, w3 presented a booklet relating to thin basic
issues and summarizing the results of a project impact
study. Since complex issues were addressed, these
materials were presented in written form prior to the
meeting to permit study by the P&Z members. These
materials are available at the Planning Office for
your review and consideration.
6. November 20, 1973. Due to a scheduling error, the
Clarendon was not included on the agenda. We were
rescheduled to December 11, 1973.
7. On December 11, 1973, our concept presentation was
made. It was over two hours long and addressed all
of the issues associated with the project. The major
points made in our presentation are summarized below:
City Council Members
April 18, 1974 �
Page three
a. Site io(.:tt io::
quartor u ` city
ii. :scar tourist ori:nt ed fa;:iIities: ski lift
and downtolrn
Conver.ient to City 'larket ar.d 1,ost Office
iv. Conclusion; Site locatio-I ,rill minimize the
use and dependency on the automobile. It
is ar. appropriate location for a pedestrian -
oriented, tourist -related use.
b• Site area
1• 1.627 acres or 70,875.98 sq ft.
ii. Under AR-1 zoning, 47 units would be permitted.
C. Site characteristics
i• Flat, devpionable situ
ii. Little vegetation except on Ute.
Heavy concentration of condominiil, on
surrOundi:! gropecties,
d. Existing NOighborhood Land Use Study
i. In the neighborhood 800' of units are tourist
ii. In the neighborhood 57% of the acreage
tourist use. o is in
e. Condominium Ownership
i. Over 11% of all condo units in the city are
used as permanent residences.
ii. The Clarendon will not discriminate against
permanent resident buyers.
f. Existing Zoning
i. 47 unlimited units or 94 studios or hotel
room Lure permitted under AR-1 zoning.
ii. Only 36 units were proposed. A 231'a, reduction
had been made,
iii. 39 parking spaces are provided for the 36 units.
g. Aspen Interim Land Use
i. Site lies in Mixed Residential,
ii. Project to be used by permanent residents
and tourists. Therefore is a true mixed
residential use. (Original definition of
N
C i ty Counc.i 1 Members
April I-t, 19 l
Mi. Ud r.F�sidf:ntja, did lot T,r.Clud. tourist
acco:.aii:)d- t io1,3 J
h. Owners Commitments
i. Comm;tmeats included: donZLtions to City,
West End dedication for possible street
extension, a trail easement, preservation
of two Sol spruce trees, landscaping, view
preservation, storm drainage, etc. These are
best shown graphically in our presentation.
i. Design Constraints
i. A drawing summarizing the design problem was
presented.
ii. Only 4215 of site is useable after City and
owner constraints.
j. Scnem.atiZ Site Plan
i. 30 two -bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units.
ii. A tennis court, swimming pool and therapy pool.
iii_. An underground parking structure under the
tennis courts.
k. Site Plan and Sections
i. Renderings of proposed project :were presented.
1. Project Impact
i. All utilities exist and are adequate.
ii. Transportation: Table of wal::ing times at 2.5
miles/hour walk.
- to Little Nell 3.5 min.
- to City Market 4.5 min.
- to Post Office 6.5 min.
- to Bus Center 7.2 min.
- to Galena &
Hyman corner 9.2 min.
T}ie sit-- is pedestrian oriented, minimizing
potential use of the automobile.
City Council ~Members
Apri L 1S, 19714
P.,c' i vtl
Fi:'Caliy, '.:o'ir1SC -i•; very ban-;ficlal 1V11i:i1
cUi-iipar:'•d to permanent resideili_S. This area
is complex ri�ld we would 1i';. to
cla1)orate more
on this if given the opportunity.
After the presentation, the Commission requested that the
applicant withdraw for 90 days during which time the
Planning Office and the to -be -hired City Economist would
perform additional studies for the City.
We questioned the Commission on exactly what theyproposed
to come up with in the 90 days, and further questioned the
Commission on what more would be required of the applicant
that we have not already submitted. It was not clear what
the Commission desired, and it is interesting to note that
since this request in December, very little additional
planning and analysis has occurred to date.
The discussion was continued to the next meeting.
8! / January 8, 1974. The Planning Of:Eice recommended concept
6Kl 4 approval with conditions as Eollows: L
OM-f, R JAM 0
AM0 uce P, wA Q Vat
TH6#few HAS Red#z Covenant deeds to restrict rental to periods of
fQ«tNTEP,, - k& .P.p• mpaFless than 6 months.
pN jA00%T1e►>4l. b. Phase the development
fee6*% f&)Pt�10 C. Eliminate on -site parking.
-76 Tb
ApoPt FE � N«"-�
Ad. Remove all fireplaces
zoutK6 r AepP _4 IROT
� 1Ti 7MC Our response, in summary, to each of these conditions
p�osecT. was that:
a. A restrictive covenant is not appropriate since the
site is tourist oriented due to its location and
surrounding uses. We prefer to let the free market
determine the tourist/permanent mix rather than have
government intervene. It was pointed out that this
type of request by the City might be discriminatory.
b. lie agreed to please the development.
C. We agreed to make provisions to eliminate the surface
parking lot at a future date when the transit system
was in operation.
d. We challenged the validity of the Air Pollution
Control Division's air quality study. There were
1
•
Citv Council Members
April 1S, 1974
Page six
l{�.'.iiTlti%`iC C."rors lit tl;r' :tulle Hint C11''i •
t.':!: f1.rt2T, 1:e,' cof! tribution to air
u 11u i. 011 ( i:11e S ail j Use d -r C 0 r d 3 T,)C 1 s:'U30n a
the rate or wood consumpt-i- on While at:tual urea-e
is 1 to t.2, cords pe-r 5E_ _,011) . We pointed out
that the r.e:: Colorado Air Pollution Control
OrdinancL: writt;-n by the s:.i:ne. Cu?uni sion permitted
fireplaces in mountain or resort areas. The real
pollution source in Aspen in the automolOile. No
significant benefit can be achieved by banning
new fireplaces. This issue is covered in great
detail in our presentation.
Much discussion followed, and P4Z did not vote on the
project. The meeting was continued.
9. January 10, 1974. tinder Ordinance 19, the Commission had
to rnal:e a decision b•y this date (30 days from submission).
Mo_-e issues were brougit up and discussed. ;Major ones
being:
a, At thv previous meeting, it was suggested that low
or moderate cost housing for employees should be
constructed on the Clarendon site. A presentation
of densities w1lich made such a use economically
feasible was made. P&Z concluded that such
densities in that area were not acceptable and
abandoned the idea of low cost housing on the
site.
b. The applicant agreed to extend the deadline for
the P&Z Commission decision for approximately 15
days so that the Planning and Zoning Commission
could have the Planning staff review and recommend
a definition of mixed residential.
C. At our next meeting with the Planning and Zoning
Commission at which time we were expecting to
have a comprehensive definition of mixed
residential, the Planning staff presented a
proposal for downzoning the Ute Avenue area. This
was a surprise to the applicant and appeared to be
a surprise to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To this date the Planning staff has not presented
any additional information or recommendations to
the Planning & Zoning Commission on definition or
clarification of mixed residential.
•
0
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Pave. seven
No Jecisior w8S m:do. '1';le Pi'7 ?tl'es'd to ma1;e a dc`cision on
the project February 5, 1�,74, at thQ CQm1iii3sion's regular
ineetin,,.
10. .January 29, 1974. PF,7 held a public hearing to consider
the downzoining proposal initiated by the PlannLog Office
for the Ute Avenue a:ea. At a later meeting, they
decided to recommend to City Council modification of the
Ordinance 19 Land Use Map rather than rezoning.
1.1. February 3), 1974. After a long discussion on the pros and
cons of Clarendon, the issue was distilled to that of
density. P&Z felt that even at 36 units there were too
many units, too many cars, and too many people. In order
to solve this basic problem and to continue through the
approval process in an attempt to make this summer's
building season, we agreed to construct only 24 units..
This was acceptable to P€TZ and the Clarendon gained
concept approval.
12. Ordinance 12. Agreeing with the recommendation of P&Z,
City Council proposed an Ordinance (Ordinance 12) to
modify the Ordinance 19 Land Use ,slap. This was passed
on first reading, a public hearing was held, it was
Bypassed on second reading, and it became law.
April 2, 1974. The Clarendon gained Preliminary Sub-
division approval from P$Z for a 24-unit townhouse
project. A number of technical recommendations were
made by the City Engineer and all issues were agreed
upon or resolved.
14. Ordinace 13. After passing Ordinance 12 making it law,
the Council passed Ordinance 13 on first reading, which
would downzone the Ute area. Next Monday the Public
Hearing on this Ordinance is being held.
In summary, we ask you to consider the following points
before you take action on Or.dina-ace 13:
1. The Ordinance before you is not a comprehensive zoning
ordinance suppor`ed by a Master Plan. It is fragmented,
spot zoning.
The proposed Ordinance 13 only materially affects one
spec.i project which is a prior application under
former exi s t.in j law (Ordinance 19 and tha previous
PCOWOT4 LxvUc2,ct4(1P HAS A(OT Bee-0 eeSoL_UC D .
flre(Z0uAL L)(fs cec) 0(71 ON Eb 611).
0xu1Uc9sh1L'P of A
o f -Tt'6 W ppatj -rmoeLk- Qu ieT. i AC-tly�
0 12 e SO I.0 I N (p 01'S PZLT Eta e) Lv tJ t e_ 1 -1 k 1P (V' e crt{
OF A SP-enJ (61b"
SITE Jkl41) )S -tCL (E'C, TD AeCwS( OIU dC ff NAIWL(�
t-ioV Du-r earner . J j
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page k:i�ht
*1.,1atiiOil a.ii 11
at a spc.`clt:lc pro;e '� and COuld b7,' a5 Spot
z u n int
3.
The C 1 arendoa plan, approved conce tuaL ly, is not
der:.rizizenta_ to the arr.c:. It is ri..,iuenti c.i .in ciia.ract^.r
consisting of 24 tOwnh0C1SC units. It is a good plan and
is the result of good faith negotiations with City P$Z.
4.
Ordinance 13 will still permit 16 units on the subject /
�b LkPJ17S - 78'
;,)
prperty. The app roved Clarendon plan is for only _4.�/
`fO(YAy ei;ht units are the issue.
`,l � ua ► TS =
5.
Since only this one project is affected, we request that
you allow us to make a presentation to you so that you
are as informed as the P&Z Commission that has given us
-concept annroval and preliminary subdiv1.sion approval.
W, are prepared to do t%is Moaday night or at a sub-
sequent study session convenient to you.
.'+a thank you for your time and would appreciate consideration
of the opportunity to :discuss our project with you in detail.
1
1/14/74
Platted on a working map ownerships in the area of Ute
Ave proposed for rezoning. Information from Warren Conner,
Pitkin County Assessors office.
DB
v 1, Le
2.
3,
5,
8,
-9 `\r
1
10,
"IJ -I)
12,
16,
►-"I7 ;
✓?8 , C
19. S' i-,u&4.\
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
Public Hearing Exhibit Items for the Ute Avenue Proposed Zoning
January 29, 1974
T'PVM
MTnfTZrA
City of Aspen Zoning District Map 1
The Ute City Protection Association information
sheet 2
Copy of Aspen Today article on Ute Avenue
development - March 21, 1973 3
Copy of Aspen Times article on Rezoning
Request of Ute Area - April 5, 1973 4
Development History - The Gant
1-24-74
5
Development History - Blue Sky Condominiums
1-22-74 6
Development History - Ute Avenue
1-24-74
7
Resolution from Planning and Zoning to Council
recommending major review of the densities and
density distributions suggested by the 1966
General Plan dated March 8, 1973 8
Proposed City Ordinance rezoning certain areas
in easter part of City from AR-1 to R-15 & R-6
1974 9
Legal Notice of Public Hearing dates and Legal
description 10
Map of Ute Avenue Proposed Zoning 11
Memo from Finance Department on City's Committ-
ment on Golf Course and Thomas Property - 1-10-74 12
Memo from Finance Department on City's Committ-
ment on Trueman Property 13
List of Property Owners in Ute Avenue Area 14
Public Hearing Exhibit Items
Ute Avenue Proposed Zoning
Page Two
ITEM NUMBER
List of Plans & Studies for the City
and County 15
Proposed Ute Avenue Plan - 1-29-74 16
11
0
THE UTE CITY PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
The Ute City Protection Association was formed by residents
of the Ute Avenue area as a response to the application in
the winter of 1973 by Destination Resort Corp. for a 143
unit condominium project (The Gant) on Ute Avenue. The group
made representations to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and to the City Council throughout the Gant PUD procedure,
opposing the project on the following grounds: general impact
of high density on a residential neighborhood and the community
resulting in traffic and circulation problems, additional air
pollution from fireplaces and unacceptable costs of community
services. In one of the City Council meetings considering
the Gant, the Ute Avenue group, ". . . called upon the City
Council to declare the present zoning inapplicable and in
excess of the growth goals, and to commit to immediately
undertake a revision of the zoning. . ." (G. J. Daily Sentinal,
3/16/73). The Aspen Times (3/15/73) reports of one councilman
at that meeting, ". . . he promised that the Council would
work to review the master plan and amend zoning to reduce
density."
At its meeting to approve the final PUD plan for the DRC project,
the mayor, ". . . indicated that the Council was forced to make
a 'melancholy' decision," and that it was, "Recognized that
residents wish to reduce the density, but the city continues
to approve projects without changing the zoning. the fault
lies with us not the project."
A councilman stated his concern about "unanswered ra.�.ificatiors
of the project on the community involving increases in popula-
tion, traffic and air pollution."
SG
ZONING DISTRICT MAP �,.+
L--J
_IQ
gas
r -Sr
L--j
Lj
L--j
L---j
r
-j
�G
X W -W- 10130
.ka, 4000M430306 X-5 13000
XW�E`MFD30
LE LEND
6 RESIDENTIAL.
T I 0L='-T
BUSINESS
UNRESTRICTED
07
SCALF 1": 400'
page 2
An other councilman,"addressing those who were displeased
with the proposed project and disappointed with the council's
decision, indicated that citizens could expect action on the
part of the city in regard to amending zoning in the master
plan to reduce density."
(All above quotations are from Aspen Today, 3/21/73.)
On March 8, 1973 the Planning & Zoning Commission passed a
resolution acknowledging: 1) the need to update and revise
the master plan, 2) to better balance densities between
Aspen and outlying activity centers, 3) that traffic and
people congestion is being a threat to the resort character
and economically viability of the Aspen Community, and 4)
the climatic and geologic conditions are such that the
the air pollution problem requires a reanalysis,•and resolving:
That the Aspen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council authorize a major
review of the densities and density dis-
tributions suggested by the 1966 General
Plan.
In April, 1973 the Ute City Protection Association submitted
an initiative ordinance calling for rezoning of the entire
Ute Avenue area from AR-1 to R-15. (350 signatures were secured
in 1 day.) In a special City Council meeting of April 6 repre-
sentatives of the UCPA stated that they were not content with
progress being made by the City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission to bring densities into line with citizen demand.
The initiative petitions were later found insufficient within
the required time limit"and the initiative was not placed on
the ballot at the general election in May.
1/25/74
DB
.c
O
alb
a
CL
Lt
w ro S y 'O rye .+ 41) 3.5 � � .
sp o� >5o
s 0
V
�p `0 *�
U U]iL w yy-• +Q, O ° d y CY.N ..�7 Cy ro • '� ''� 'O
Co OCL
:. V row y +' .0 "'' CL
y ro J C E L L Z CO C c3 _ 'Z
to 3 "5 o d F ro Q.
�c3� 3y��,-oC ova o`S2
aivti3 m�� rood "oo
u a 'L:' �'� = q.5 ro ro ua z
0 0 •5 er c -•� y �
>Qc�
Q G O L• j y w y y•= rJ'
.i .ii Q' G0. ro _ , �yC 7 O cc
Lc7 cbo .d _:^" G0 o.$ cy.b d c Cx 3 >,r.
>;
y
Gy0
b
O tC .�.J" y CC a.•^ 7 � •C U � 67 y '' � 'U C � 116...J.,, ��',. � FL �
ro-CC 4 c9
y ro c °' ro y p t u n
S�toz u_�c�cwry
k►►°�'rno c °e�rvii�}. rop`�� w
y c�0
v .OW b>oc>. ,roc=t"�'3ro�-'—E rrou
t. °
��y°J �Cy�°x=ti�oo�ybyQa�oG \
Gc�cc.toroccyc°Aa
o r. oy.°a„y >O ycon egaoa 3.c et;ubE co
..
cc to
c"d cz .p+ y 7 41 ;� '?ll! Cc
�e
�Sco cc
O •cc t�•. O
cu
+.+ � O C a+ c � Gl ty. O � .°+ .'' 7' "� G: w �1 •
3� s= B cn v a
aU our y'O— 0 ro EL d>+== S u p x .� y a
9� uU O �•y `� a SA 0 t. � v a. C v kLA
C y c�0 W C 6>7 V b p co y ccz
G cc
O C ° C V 6 p W C! ro
.m
' U C e0 u C1D 3 O bC y O y O En
.�
° 9' eC3L1 a0 3UTJ e� y c y EdbL
ci
y �"
`� aroi E
.r ar ro +.+ C ro y o y O O
�3a=5��sro o8 -SA p RU�you 3
ts.�+3�c^ ya
>c��a : r ,mo
> �
>, OQp ro cw3
EL
8 Iwo
cn
c:� oa«
co-O u ry- `3� o vpi$� c°� W� y3 v CE a3
.0 '-A�pO8 .aC5°r3j '37��'33 •S�mu�'yt°.' rop��, �wff" a. ^$Q3l..3y��'QO -oci•••a6ro .a c3 c,
Co
A`i�w�� Yro
CQQw T
CJ.h �E '
0 .o ro CiE t�w
-0>b,cU.
-e aa-
yw ro C G.:Oro
O cu u yEbOro
se
d•9 � � 8C7L y � �b3 �
c us c ro aw c� U� Pi, �O'c
0'3� ao ro W
£L61 `iZ ga,eyW `,CgpsaupaM ,Sepoy uadsd
U
n
to
O_
E
G
d
Q
a�
M
1\
0)
In
Q
• v d 3 a� - �, �yc v no �s v .
T�•pO pO C c4 C��+rJ" y�
C w Qi C ^+ C 3 p 'L7 �� J •
C M. .�
Cn
a" CI
�rW=7 C yto
�+\ Q :• C 'fl V 61 E� .
C' f Mod e3 M E w 67 p- u V
O �.v V •- rn .., 1 C C
V G V y Ww� y 0 O
AINO V O O V
U y O H v V�
i uG
t 'e�EC = �
Cc
/•�� p 1.
6!
wcLV.�uEL°��."
'L
0
n, Cz
a� gi c
.. - E In
^,,a d 6 V C •LS C O "� y y V G G d C k W n W C CD v c0 .0. C 'C L y O O C
UV .O �+ L .- .G O M .- p U V ........0 Ca c c0 y 0�
.^ ✓ 7 ,`7 cc 1] T. _ "' VI y t C -S3 t% ."7 C .+ O -, Ol ..+ •D C Q i,,•, C O c4 S]G V
�.lr •E ..+ V C .� U ul V C y C c6 VJ ,,, a .+ i. w Li0 C tD CJ C 3
3 .O w O' Q C F C C -�" 7 U O C O C V V G top y y C Cu �,' . C O O •c.. •"' •� L •N 67 V '�
`�'+t.. ,,7 •U E V tD V C •v'C.+ .a G G s y O • .— G. w v�
ca O c0 C V C. L V E ,,, > s. C w 8 y O x O .2 CJ .r C cV„ w
v p> C M p, C 'C O $ 3 V y V 3 O C..E C> 'b c4 ti 'O Q =Vv. U CC ..+ V V 7 .LL'
O in >>' cQ 'O 4! O "'
^` o•a� � C� yuE �� c � to•3 C ���•� o� t° `'�> C ��'° �$' o��� L d� �_y �� coQ
C V fJ U O E V 'C. C tG.0 .-. 2 p T V O '� v N V V t 0 Rf cti 'WO •- V V rn a C V O V . h
o >'c �,Q. r.c9� �v G G �� L �: os o as u L cZ LL c_ o N v tDV au o °Io
...•�:,� C v� •0 7 C) V L .�-. L p L ^p :..— a•.+ > 67 V 'Q G O G O w cGC •E C > u' `•
q�u y. �o...•v�a��y� :�� oc_ia=�3:.L oyLua E•d cc a 0g- ��
1 7 30t•!rO=3 O EILIT VhW "' .�yC� 0...C4)r.= 000Cd
M >T yr C `� ai V a ° ° C r `° s = � Cu CJ � = G - Q .0 M C s N _ 'O V 0 � L
C C f3 C`= 7 L` coy Y ',]. U p J' J $ 3 C w O p E :S3 '. j o •� p Lp __ w
>.O`or,ro4 Cu tD_�jtO�OV = `r^c
_o__r✓
•�_ u - G V T �_ U: O J C v V O i, v, _ f .D V _ _ _ �•• - >,
.0 ^� y = = ^' •� V L !
• _ .. LL c, Q ^ .: v1 E �, 4 ^ .. :i CCd -0 > L.rr1" •.p. :d O c4
}3 4� � w y •UL.+ O �_+
Qt^ c, Rom¢ aE
e--•. 'E •E 3 g. E o s
� cc
ri
� ` m•- ue 1
C c t_L� oar
un U i
w qt•!7 Ifs .
�+C O `" C M +�•'
73
.•LSl C 4)
y V L V .
U cC
�� v w•p���d 3 In .
-§EoCd
to 4 � al
cic
_ L L t0
0 •
TLM O,A\TT
Development History
In January; 1973 Destination Resort Corp. presented a pro-
posal for 153 tourist condominium units on 52 acres on
Ute Avenue; the project is now knowA)as the Gant Condominiums.
Between January, 1973 and approval of a subdivision plat in March
and of a PUD plan by the City Council on 4/23/73 there were
7 meetings with the P & Z, 3 with the Council and numerous
informal meetings with the planning office, engineering
department and city attorney. These efforts were the result
of an attempt by the city to secure the best possible
site plan without being able to set density.
The product of these negotiations, in addition to subdivision
requirements, was a plan that provided a view corridor to
Independence Pass; a 30% reduction in parking space to be
subtituted by 2 project operated shuttle buses; 3 employee
housing units; removal of 1 building group to provide useable
common open area; access from Waters Avenue rather than Ute
Avenue; landscaping to shield adjoining residence; phasing
of the development over 3 years. The ruling principle in all
of these considerations was an effort to modify the impact of
density allowed by existing zoning.
Later in April, DRC submitted building plans for the first
phase of the project. The building permit application was
made for 58 unlimited units, but upon examination of the plains
the building inspector determined that the actual unit count
was 58 unlimited and 70 limited units or a total of 128.
The building inspector required the removal of pocket doors
ti
•
•
- 2 -
and partitions at interior stairs, sound retardant bedroom
door construction and inter unit wall construction in order to
correct the excessive density resulting from the "door game."
The required changes were made and the plans resubmitted.
0
1/24/74
DB
BLUE S-KY _C_0 F))--I",Ly:1L'?'IS
Developin��nt history
On March 20, 1973, P & z first heard a PUD and Preliminary
Subdivision Plat for 24 condominium units on Lot 3, Hoag
Subdivision, south of Ute Avenue and south west of Ute
Cemetery, containing 133, 129 sq. ft. or 3 + acres. In
terms of current zoning a site of that size could theoretically
accommodate a density of approximately 88 unlimited units
or 176 limited or lodge units.
Site problems due to steep topography (averaging 40-45%
slope) were noted as was their effect on drainage, slope
stability, water service and grade of access road. Plat
was approved subject to several conditions, for the most
part related to site problems.
The project :aas tabled on April 23rd as a result of avalanche
activity experienced on the site.
In June the applicant presented a revised site plan based
on an investigation of the 2 avalanche paths on the site.
The revised plan consisted of 8 units or 1/3 of the number
originally requested. Additional expert opinion was obtained
relative to avalanche conditions, and the new preliminary
plat was approved in October, 1973 subject again to several
conditions, most of which,including adequate access for fire
protection,result from the difficult topography of the area.
1/22/74
DB
In Sept, 1973 a corporation, Site Finders, Inc., made
application for subdivision and Ordinance 19 review
for 14 condominium units at 851 Ute Ave (lots 11, 12, 13
and an unsubdivided parcel to the south). The subject site
contained 23,975 sq. ft.
P & Z Commission heard preliminary plat and Ordinance 19
presentations. On 10/16/73 P & Z found new tourist units
to be incompatible with recommended uses for Mixed Resi-
dential District and denied the application.
On 11/12/73 the planning office received a request under
Ordinance 19 by the owner of lot 11, Ute Subdivision to
improve an existing residence at that site. The owner,
Mr. G. Gleason, maintained that he was not aware of a formal
application for development located partially on his land.
His request for building permit approval was granted by P & Z.
1/24/74
DB
February 20, 1973
,ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
1966 ASPEN AREA GENERAL PLAN REVIEW, UPDATE & REVISION
WHEREAS, the master plan for any area must
consider the current thinking and desires of the citizens
it represents, and
WHEREAS, as a general rule, a master plan should
be reviewed and updated on a yearly basis and revised on
a major scale every five years to maintain its validity, and
I
WHEREAS, the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan has
not been systematically reviewed, updated or revised since
its adoption, and
WHEREAS, Pitkin County has authorized review of
the 1966 Plan recommendation for the Buttermilk area and
any revision forthcoming will mandate review and possible
revision by the City in order that the density balance bet-
ween Aspen and outlying activity centers intended by the Plan
is maintained, and
WHEREAS, the findings of the transportation
study conclude that it would be impractical from an economic
standpoint at peak periods to move the amount of people
allowed by the densities recommended by the 1966 Plan, and
WHEREAS, traffic and people congestion is becoming
a threat to the resort character and economic viability of
the Aspen community, and
WHEREAS, the climatic and geologic conditions
are such that the air pollution problem requires a reanalysis
of the land use recommendations put forth by the 1966 General
Plan,
/ Master Plan Review
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize
a major review of the densities and density distributions
suggested by the 1966 General Plan,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Com-
mission hereby requests council policy direction with re-
gard to these matters.
Chairman
Aspen Planning Commission
Dated this ,',day of `��.� ���i�/ 1973.
yr
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ;JO Leuves
MO4M f1 C. F. HOECKEL B. 9. 4 V. CO.
41
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS IN
THE EASTERN PART OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM AR-1
ACCOMMODATIONS RECREATION TO R-15 RESIDENTIAL AND
R-6 RESIDENTIAL WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT;
AMEIv'DING AND INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR
DUPLEX DWELLINGS IN THE R.-6 DISTRICT; AMENDING
SECTION 24-9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (SUPPLEMENTAL
REGULATIONS) TO PERL,= THE DESIGNATION OF MANDATORY
P.U.D. DISTRICTS ON THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP; AND
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA IN MANDATORY
P.U.D. DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
has recommendec': the downzoning of certain tracts on
the east periphery of the City Aspen and adjacent
to and at the base of Aspen Mountain for reasons
specified in their Resolution pertaining thereto, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has also requested code
amendments to permit the designatizn of Mandatory P.U.D.
zones, with additional review criteria in areas so
designated, and to increase the minimum lot sizes for
duplexes in the R-6 Residential District, both of which
recommendations City Council supports and wishes to
provide for.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That section 24-5, subsection (e), of the Municipal
code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
"(e) R-6 Residential: Intention -to allow
utilization of land for residential purposes
with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity with residential uses are included
subject to approval.
Uses - Permitted
1. one family dwelling, two-family dwelling,
` accessory building and use, home occupation;
2. Farm and garden building and use --provided
that all such buildings and storage areas
are located at least 100 feet from pre-
existing dwellings on other lots;
?. Fence, hedge or wall --subject to requirements
under supplementary regulations;
4. Identification sign, directional sign, for -
sale sign --subject to requirements under
supplementary regulations.
Uses - Conditional
5. Open -use recreation site --subject to approval
of the board of adjustment;
t
6. School, church, hospital, public building for
f administration --subject to approval of the board
of adjustment.
Minimum lot area:
1. One -family dwelling . . .6,000 square feet
2. .Two-family dwelling . . .3.y000 aquare feet per dwell-
ing unit with a wiaimum
lot area of 6.7000 square
feet 9000 SQUARE FEET
3. All other uses . . . . . 6,000 square feet
i2)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FCR. •C C. F. H, E,:KEL B. B. 9 L. CJ.---
1
Minimum lot width . . . . . . . . 60 feet
i
# Minimum front yard:
1. Principal buildings . 10 feet
2. Accessory buildings . . . . . 15 feet
Minimum side yard . . . . . . . . 5 feet
Minimum rear yard:
1. Principal buildings . . . . . 15 feet
4
1 2. Accessory buildings . . . . . 5 feet
Maximum height of buildings:
1. Principal buildings . . . . . 25 feet
2. Accessory buildings . . . . . 21 feet on the front
two-thirds of the lot
and 12 feet on the rear
one-third of the lot
Minimum off-street parking as required under supple-
mentary regulations
Distance between buildings -no accessory building shall
be constructed within ten (10) feet from a primary
building or dwelling
Performance regulations for stream margins district.
All permitted and conditional uses of this district
within 100 feet measured horizontally from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tribu-
tary streams are subject to the additional performance
regulations contained in the stream margins district
as set forth in the supplementary regulations 11-1-9
(g) (section 24-9(g)).
Standards and regulations for the H, Historic Overlay
District. All permitted and conditional uses of this
(3)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
F OFY •a C. F. —UKEL B. B. a L. LO.—__-----
district are subject to the additional standards
and regulations contained in Section (24-)9.1 of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen when all or any part of this district has
been designated as an H. Historic Overlay District,
under the provisions of Sec. 24-9.1."
Section 2.
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, dated March 6, 1967, be amended by the designa-
tion from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation to R-15 Residential
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point said point being the
southwesterly corner of Block 119 original
Aspen townsite; thence easterly along the
southerly line of Block 1_9 and Block 40
East Aspen townsite, said line also being
•
the northerly right-of-way line of Waters
Avenue, to the point of intersection with
line 1-14 of the East Aspen townsite;
thence continuing along the northerly and
easterly boundary of the Calderwood Sub-
division as recorded at Book 2A Page 264 in
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office
to the southeasterly corner of Lot 10; thence
N 610 27' W 83.79 feet along the southerly
(4)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
f ORM 14 C. F. W0FrV EL 8. 8.. L. C1.
n
lot line of Lot 10, Calderwood Subdivision
to the point of intersection with Line 8_9
of Tract 41 (B) Aspen townsite addition;
thence S 00' 21' W 468.07 feet along line
8_9 Tract 41 (B);.thence west 183.86 feet;
thence N 50° 39' W 283.00 feet; thence
S 25° 30' W 323.42 feet more or less to the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue;
thence along the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue S 270 04' 30" E 78.38 feet;
thence continuing along said right-of-way
S 580 28' E 511.72 feet tc the point of
intersection with line 13_14 of the south
annexation to the City of Aspen; thence west
to south annexation corner No. 13; thence
N 040 48' E 188.8 feet to south annexation
corner No. 12 ; thence S 60° 00' W along south
annexation line 12_11 to a point on tile ground
i
with an elevation of 8040 feet measured from
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Bench Mark
in the Pitkin County Courthouse foundation,
elevation 7906.802; thence northwesterly along
i
an elevation contour of 8040 feet to a mon-
ument, stamped Elevation 8040 approximately
40 feet westerly of the most westerly part of
the Aspen Alps Road; thence easterly to the
westerly corner of Aspen Alps south condo-
minium boundary as shown at Plat Book 3,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
C. F. M IECKEL S. B. 9 L. II
Page 54 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Re-
corder's Office; thence S 47' 09' E 83.01
feet; thence 6.40 feet along a curve to the
right with a radius of 30.89 feet; thence
southeasterly and northeasterly along the
northerly line of the access easement as
shown on said condominium plat to the point
100 Leaves
of intersection with the southerly right-of-
way line of Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly
to the south corner of Lot 26 Ute Sub-
division; thence northeasterly and north-
westerly alo-:b the westerly right-of-way
line of Wagon Road anr? West End Street to
the southeasterly corner of Block 113
original Aspen townsite; thence south-
easterly to the point of beginning.
Section 3.
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, dated March 6, 1967, be amended by the designa-
tion from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation to R-6 Residential
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 T10S, R84W
of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way
line of Ute Avenue, said point being the intersection
of the southerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue
and the northwesterly line of the Aspen Alps access
t
(6)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
easement as shown at Plat Book 3, Page 54 in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence
southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said
access easement to the point of intersection with
the northwesterly boundary of the Aspen Alps south
condominium as shown on said condominium plat; thence
northwesterly along the northeasterly boundary of Aspen
Alps south condominium to the most northerly corner;
thence N 430 E to the point of intersection with
the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road as constructed'
and used; thence southeasterly and northeasterly along
the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road to the point of
intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of
Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly along the southerly
right-of-way line of Ute Avenue to the point of
beginning.
A second parcel. of land located in Section 18 T10S,
R84W of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows;
Beginning at the south corner of Lot 26 Ute
Subdivision said corner also being the inter-
section of the westerly right-of-way line of
Wagon Road with the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue; thence northwesterly along the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue to
the south corner of Lot 33 Ute Subdivision
being part of Glory Hole Park; thence along
the southeasterly boundary of Glory Hole Park
to the southwesterly corner of the Little Nell
(7)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
c )VM '4 C. F �•'EIKFL R. H. 9
Condominium as recorded in the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office at Plat Book 3,
pages 313 and 314; thence easterly along the
southerly boundary of the Little Nell Condo-
minium to the west right-of-way line of West
End Street; thence alont the westerly right-
of-way line of West End Street and Wagon Road
to the point of beginning.
Section 4.
That section 24-9 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of
a new subsection (k) to read as follows:
"(k) Mandatory P.U.D. Designation. (1) Wherever
the official zoning map designates a mandatory
P.U.D. district by including the letters P.U.D.
as a suffix to the classification of any district
provided by this code, all development of such
areas is required to proceed according to the
provisions of Section 24-10.1 herein, P.U.D.
planned unit development. (2) In addition to
any other elements of review provided for by
said Section 24-10.1, in all areas designated
mandatory P.U.D. the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion may allow construction of more than two (2)
dwelling units per structure. In determining the
allowable number the Commission shall consider the
following:
(a) whether there exists sufficient water
pressure and other utilities to service
the intended development;
Y
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
i)aM 0 C F. HOECKEL 9. 6. n i . � i.
(b) the existence of adequate roads to
insure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance;
(c) the suitability of the site for
development considering the slope,
ground instability, and the possi-
bility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers;
(d) the affects of the development on
the natural watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion and conse-
quent effects on water pollution;
(e) the possible effects on air quality
in the area and city wide;
(f) the design and location of any
proposed structure, roads, drive-
ways, or trails and their compat-
ibility with the terrain;
(g) whether proposed grading will result
in the least disturbance to the ter-
rain and other natural land features;
(h) the placement and clustering of
structures and reduction of building
height and scale to increase open
space and preserve the natural fea-
tures of the terrain,"
(9)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
�(PM •n C. F...ECKE'- @. S.
Section 5.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the
invalid provisions or applications and to this end the
provisions or applications of this ordinance are declared
to be severable.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held
pursuant to the requirements of Section 24_11(d) of the
Municipal Code on the day of , 197411
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
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
•
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
fORM 'A f. F. HOECKEI S. B. Q L. LJ.
*FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1974.
Stacy Stanaley III
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a Planning and Zoning Commission
Pub Pub` Hearing is scheduled to be held 'in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, in January
291 1974 at 5:00 P.M. to consider several amendments to the
Zoning Code of the City of Aspen (Chapter 24 Municipal. Code)
as follows:
1. An amendment to Section 24-5 (e) R-6 Residential,
increasing the minimum lot area for a two family
(duplex) dwelling from 6000 to 9000 square feet.
2. An amendment to the Code by the addition of a new
section authorizing the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission to designate areas of the Zoning District
p as mandatory Planned Unit Development with
additional authorization to review development on
certain slopes and to designate the number of
dwelling units per structure.
At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard.
If you are unable to appear in person as such time you are
urged to state your views by addressing them to Chairman,
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, P.O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado,
81611, on or before January 28, 1974.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a Planning and Zoning
Commission Public Hearing is scheduled to be held
in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, on January
29, 1974, at 5:00 P.M. to consider changes to the
Zoning District Map, City of Aspen,Colorado to be
considered are:
1. Change from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation
to R-15 Residential and designation as
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following
described tracts located in the City
of Aspen, Pitk_in County, Colorado:
(SEE EXHIBIT "A")
2. Change from AR-1 Accommodations Recreation
to R-6 Residential and designation as
Mandatory P.U.D. of the following
described tracts located in the City of
Aspen, Pitki.n County, Colorado:
(SEE EXHIBIT "B")
At such hearing all persons in interest may appear
and be heard. If you are unable to appear in person
at such time you are urged to state your views by
addressing them to Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zon-
ing Commission, P.O. Boy. V, Aspen, Colorado, 81611,
on or before January 28, 1974.
/s/ Lerraine Graves
City Clerk
January
R _ 5 MA^:DATOPY Pt?D
WXHIBIT "A"
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 18 TIOS, R84W OF THE
6th P.M. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT SAID POINT BEING THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 119 ORIGINAL
ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 119 AND BLOCK 40
EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING
THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WATERS
AVENUE, TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
LINE 1-14 OF THE EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CALDERWOOD SUB-
DIVISION AS RECORDED AT BOOK 2A PAGE 264 IN
THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE
TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 10; THENCE
N 6f 27' W 83.79 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
LOT LINE OF LOT 10, CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION
TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH LINE 8-9
OF TRACT 41 (B) ASPEN TOWNSITE ADDITION,
THENCE S 00' 21' W 468.07 FEET ALONG LINE
8-9 TRACT 41(B); THENCE WEST 183.86 FEET;
THENCE N 500 39' W 283.00 FEET; THENCE
S 250 30' W 323.42 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF UTE AVENUE S 270 04' 30" E 78.38 FEET;
THENCE.CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
R-15 MANDATOAP PUD
Jartuary 8, 1974
Page Two
S 580 28' E 511.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH LINE 13-14 of THE SOUTH
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE WEST
TO SOUTH ANNEXATION CORNER NO. 13; THENCE
N 040 48' E 188.8 FEET TO SOUTH ANNEXATION
CORNER NO. 12; THENCE S 600 00' W ALONG SOUTH
ANNEXATION LINE 12-11 TO A POINT ON THE GROUND
WITH AN ELEVATION OF 8040 FEET MEASURED FROM
THE U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY BENCH K,RK
IN THE PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE FOUNDATION,
ELEVATION 7906.802; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
AN ELEVATION CONTOUR OF 8040 FEET TO A MON-
UMENT, STAMPED ELEVATION 8040 APPROXIMATELY
40 FEET WESTERLY OF THE MOST WESTERLY PART OF
THE ASPEN ALPS ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY TO THE
WESTERLY CORNER OF ASPEN ALPS SOUTH CONDO-
MINIUM BOUNDARY AS SHOWN AT PLAT BOOK 3,
PAGE 5A IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RE-
CORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S 4 �P 09' E 83.01
FEET; THENCE 6.40 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT AS
SHOWN ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAT TO THE POINT
OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
TO THE SOUTH CORNER OF LOT 26 UTE SUB-
DIVISION; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTH-
WESTERLY ALONG THE WES'I.'ERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF WAGON ROAD AND WEST END STREET TO
THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 113
R-15 MANDATORY PUD
January 8, 1* I •
Page Three
ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE SOUTH-
EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
;.; 7::-:�
7
January 8, 1971+ EXHIBIT ''i3"
R-6 MANDATU.-,Y PUD
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 18 TIOS, R84W OF THE
6th P.M. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEIN(S MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE. SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF UTE AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION
OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE
AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE ASPEN ALPS ACCESS
EASEMENT AS SHOWN AT PLAT BOOK 3, Page 54 IN THE
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE ASPEN ALPS SOUTH
CONDOMINIUM AS SHOWN ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAT; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF ASPEN
ALPS SOUTH CONDOMINIUM TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER;
THENCE N 439 E TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE CENTERLINE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD AS CONSTRUCTED
AND USED; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-14AY LINE OF
UTE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
' '' January 8, 1974
• 0 EXHIBIT "f3"
R-6 MANDATORY Pi; D
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 18 TIOS, R84W OF THE
6th P.M. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH CORIIER OF LOT 26 UTE
SUBDIVISION SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE INTER-
SECTION OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
WAGON ROAD WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHIT-OF-WAY LINE
OF UTE AVENUE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE
TO THE SOUTH CORNER OF LOT 33 UTE SUB-
DIVISION BEING PART OF GLORY HOLE PARK; THENCE
ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY Or GLORY
HOLE PARK TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE
LITTLE NELL CONDOMINIUM AS RECORDED IN THE
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFrICE AT
PLAT BOOK 3, PAGES 313 and 314; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE
LITTLE NELL CONDOMINIUM TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF WEST END STREET; THENCE ALONG THE
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST END STREET
AND WAGON ROAD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Herb Bartel
FROM: Finance Department
SUBJECT: City's Committment on Golf Course & Thomas Property
DATE: January 10, 1974
John asked that I get this information to you. If I
can be of any other help please contact me.
Sally Glenn
1) Golf Course:
Refunding & Acquisition Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
City of Aspen, Pitkin County
Series A
Series B
TOTAL
$5,957,242
1,722,786
$7,680,028
2) Thomas Property ------------------ $320,093
Roughly 16% of City of Aspen, Pitkin County
Gen. Obligation Water Extension & Improvement Bonds
Series 1972.
A
E
Iu1D u It ZE\ 1 )VI
TO: Herb Bartel
FROM: Finance Department - Sally Glenn
SUBJECT: City's Committment on Trueman Property
DATE: January 10, 1974
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds; Series July 1, 1973
$1,750,000
Total Payments: $2,729,397
Interest payments are 36% of this figure.
6
•
BLOCK 41 EAST ASPEN
DAVIS, JOHN C. & COROLYN
210 AHWAHNEE ROAD
LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60045
GAUDINO, SUSAN H.
P.O. BOX 2237
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HOLSTEIN, PHILLIP M. JR.
P.O. BOX 2747
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CAMPBELL, KENNETH & BARBARA
4417 SOUTH SOTO STREET
VERNON, CALIF. 90058
BLOCK 120 ASPEN
JAY, NELSON D. & MARY B.
P.O. BOX 178
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LEWIS, ROBERT 7 BARBARA
P.O. BOX 262
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COTE, BROWNLEE B.
BOX 4929
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
EPLER, ROBE 7RT H.
(SOLD TO GREGG, MARY JOSEPHINE
P.O. BOX 1565
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DESTINATION RESORT CORP.
1801 CENTURY PARK WEST
LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90067
CALDERWOOD
LARKIN, THOMAS J. & HARRIET A.
382 HILLDALE DRIVE
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48106
CHALMERS, ELIZABETH M.
BOX 1123
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOT
A,B,C
D, E,
F, G,
M/B
A,B
C,D,E
F, G,
H, I ,
K THRU 2
M/B
1
2
• •
CALDERWOOD CONTINUED...
GANZ, LANDECKER, PLATOFF
3
GANZ, WALTER H. & RUTH;
LANDECKER, FRED & EVA;
PLATOFF, ROBERT & SUZANNE
131 EAST HAMILTON AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY 07631
GAUDINO, WILLIAM J.
4
P.O. BOX 2237
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
SIMPSON, THOMAS A. & EILEEN L.
5
P.O. BOX 1LF56
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HEARST, JAMES S. & MARY L.
6
C/O HANS GRAMIGER
P.O. BOX 67
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COLORADO REAL PROPERTY HOLDING
7
C/O LEDINGHAM, NORMA L. (OWNES 25 )
3795 30TH STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92101
HOYT, HENRY S. & JUDITH V
8
144 LOGAN ROAD
NEW CANAAN, CONNECTICUT 06840
PRESTON, LINDA SOULE
9
P.O. BOX 1LE6
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
OTT, ELIZABETH MARIE
10
BOX P
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
MC CLAIN, NORMA J.
11
P.O. BOX 279
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
POSCHMAN, JANE ELIZABETH
12
P.O. BOX 2046
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PATERSON, F70NDA DENNE
13
BOX 253
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GEARY, WILL.IAM J. & RENEE M. 14
4800 SOUTH ALBION
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80120
•
El
UTE SUBDIVISION
ANDERSON, CARL & KATHLEEN
1 (EXCEPT W'LY 13')
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
7280 IRVING STREET
WESTMINISTER, COLORADO 80030
EDWARDS, LINDA D.
2 & W 13 LOT 1
NOW LINDA EDWARDS WOERNER
990 VAN NUYS STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92109
SPAR CONSOLIDATED MINING & DELV.
P.O. BOX 4298
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
BILLINGS, DEANE
14,15,E 1/2 OF 3
P.O. BOX 293
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JACKSON, RALPH
5
P.O. BOX 42
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GLEASON, GEORGE & MARY
SITE FINDERS, INC.
BILLINGS, DALE 16, 17
4710 CENTRALIA STREET
LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90808
ASPEN ALPS COND. ALL TR. OR LOT 21
P.O. BOX 1228
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ASPEN SKIING CORP. 22 + LODGES
P.O. BOX 1248
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DESTINATION RESORT COPR.
SHAREHOLDERS RECREATION PROGRAM INC. PART 40, LOT 26 TO
P.O. BOX 2946 32 & 41 (EXCEPT
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PORT. LOT 32)
CITY OF ASPEN
HYDE, ARTHUR, & MARY ANN PORT.OF LOTS 34,
P.O. BOX 2087 35, 29 M/B
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
•
HOAG SUBDIVISION
BENEDICT, FREDRIC A. & LARKIN, FRED C.
1 (& OTHER LAND)
P.O. BOX 40
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
HOLT, ROBERT H.
2
P.O. BOX 1434
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
BLUE SKY CORP.
3
BOX 469
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
LOUGHRIDGE, CHARLES & ANN H.;
4
POGLIANO, FELIX
JR. & LENORE L.
P.O. BOX 1678
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
BLANNING, JAMES
C. JR.
5
P.O. BOX 43
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
9
•
PLANS AND STUDIES
October, 1973
Update 10-17-73
10-24-73
01-28-74
•
October., 1973
Update 10-17-73,
O1-28-74
TITLE
10-24-73
PLANS
Aspen Area General Plan Inventory Report 1965
Leo A. Daly Co. -Planners, Architects and
Engineers
Aspen Area General Plan Final Report 1966
Leo A. Daly Co. -Planners, Architects
and Engineers
Trails System Plan
Planning Office
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan Aspen,
Colorado
University of Colorado
The Aspen Land Use Plan - July 1973 and
Ordinance No. 19 (Series of. 1973)
Planning Office
Urban Runoff Management Plan
Wright -McLaughlin Engineers
Regional Transportation Plan, City of
Aspen and Pitkin County
Alan M. Voorhees and Associates
Preliminary Report Master Plan Study
Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Aspen, Colorado
Isbill Associates, Inc.
Proposed Amendments Aspen Area General Plan
1966 as applicable to the buttermilk area
and roaring fork east area
Harman O'Donnell & Henninger Associates, Inc.
DATE SUBMITTED
February, 1966
March 1973
April, 1973
July, 1973
August, 1973
September, 1973
September, 1973
October, 1973
PLANS
Page Two
TITLE
Capitol/Snowmass Creeks Lana Use Concepts
Recommendations Prepared by Mountain
Valley Citizens Association
Summary of Aspen Master Plan Stud
Greg Isbill and Associates
Pro o,sed Ute Avenue Plan
City County Planning Office
DATE SUBMITTED
December, 1973
January, 1974
January, 1974
•
STUDIES
October, 1973
Update 10-17-73, 10-24-73
01-28-74
TITLE
_Colorado Population Trends
Division of Planning, State of Colorado
The Use of Mountain Recreational Resources:
A Comparison of Recreation and Tourism in
the Colorado Rockies and the Swiss Alps
Phyllis T. Thompson, Dept. of Geography
State Univ. College of Arts and Science
Geneseo, New York
Transportation Report - Aspen Central Area
Bus System
Transportation Committee and Planning Office
Noise Zones and Land Use Criteria Sardy Field
Aspen Colorado
Isbill Associates, Inc.
Goals Task Force - Programs and Objectives
Goals Task Force
A Proposal for An Urban Design Supplement to
the Historic and Zoning Ordinances
Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee
Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential
Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle,
Pitkin County, Colorado
Published by the U.S. Geological Survey
Colorado: Options for the Future
Final Report of the Colorado Environmental
Commission
DATE SUBMITTED
Copyright- 1971 by the
Business Research
Division, Univ. of Colo.
January, 1971
March, 1971
October, 1971
December, 1971
1972
March, 1972
STUDIES •
Page Two
TITLE. DATE SUBMITTED
County Action Program January, 1.973
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County
_Policy Analysis for Rural Development and March, 1973
Growth Management in Colorado
John S. Gilmore and Mary K. Duff
Pitkin County Subdivision Analysis May, 1973
COPE Project
Master Plan Revision Committee Resort Spring, 1973
Employee Housing in Pitkin County_
Stacy Standley
Pitkin County Air Quality Impact Report August, 1973
Colorado Department of Health, Air
Pollution Control Division
Flood Plain Information Roaring Fork August, 1973
River and Castle and Hunter Creeks_
Department of the Army, Sacramento
District Corps of Engineers, Sac-
ramento, California
A Report on Public Airport Transportation September, 1973
Service for Sardy Field Pitkin County,
Colorado
P.G. Anderson
Traffic Signal Systewts Study -City of Aspen September, 1973
State Department of Highways - State of
Colorado
Aspen Water System Report October, 1973
Briscoe Management Services, Inc.
STUDIES
Page Three
TITLE
Road Network Analysis - Pitki.n County,
Colorado
Briscoe/Maphis, Inc., Management Services
Environmental Assessment for Master Plan for
Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (Sardy Field)
Aspen, Colorado
Greg Isbill and Associates
Aspen-Snowmass Transit System - A Study
of Equipment, Guidance and Route Con-
siderations
David M. Wallace, P.E., San Antonio, Tex.
Aspen -Colorado, Light Railway an Equipment
Survey
Presented by Paul V. Class, Gales Creek
Enterprises of Oregon, Ltd.
DATE SUBMITTED
October, 1973
January, 1974
January, 1974
January, 1974
PROPOSED UTE AVENUE PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC BEARING JANUARY 29, 1974 BY THE CITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
1
LOGIC FOR STUDYING THE EAST MIXED
RESIDENTIAL AREA IN TWO SECTIONS 2
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 3
LAND USE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE
THE DESIGN PLAN 5
DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN 6
POPULATION LIMITATION CONSIDERATIONS 8
GOVHRNMLNTGNCPLANS WHICH INFLUENCE 10
OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PLAN 13
ACTIONS 15
-i-
•
0
PLANNING AND ZONING ALSTORY
July, 1956 Original Aspen Zoning, T-Tourist
(uses approximate the present AR-1)
December, 1961 Calderwood Subdivision filed: present
development: 70% Single-family
29% Duplex
1% Four-plex
1960-1970 Waters Avenue (South Side), 100%
Single-family development
1966 Aspen Area General Plan
April, 1969 Council acts to limit development
densities by doubling lot area requirements
January, 1973 D.R.C. (Gant) Application for 158 units
January, 1973 Formation of Ute City Protection Association
(U.C.P.A.)
March, 1973 Planning and Zoning Resoultuion recommends
major review of densities suggested by
1966 Plan.
April, 1973 U.C.P.A. Files for Rezoning by initiative
(Petition found insufficient)
July, 1973 City Council adopts Ordinance 19 and Map
April -December, 1973 Applications for 227 Units in Ute Avenue
Area
December, 1973 Planning and Zoning Subcommittee studies
Ordinance 19, Mixed Residential AReas
January, 1974 Planning and Zoning Reviews Ute Avenue
Rezoning Proposal
That portion of the area not included in the original Aspen
townsite was zoned T-tourist by Pitkin County in 1955, the
time of the first zoning. The first zoning in the City was in
1956 when the area which was part of the original townsite was
zoned tourist. The South Side annexation occurred in 1967 and the
entire area was zoned AR-1 Accommodations Recreation - Urban which
is the present zoning.
-1-
w
LOGIC1; STUDYING THE EAST MIXED1._RIL
AREA IN TWO SECTIONS
• Ownership patterns differ dramatically; the
southern section is characterized by larger
tracts under single ownership - ownership
patterns in the northern section is an
average of about three (3) townlots.
• Land use and character of development in the
northern section is more diverse and of a
smaller scale that the developments proposed
for the southern section.
• Vacant tracts in the northern section are
smaller than the vacant tracts in the south-
ern section.
Development pressures and the resulting
impact to which Planning and Zoning *nust
address itself, are greater in the southern
section than in the northern section.
-2-
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
• Present residential development in the area
totals approximately 102 units with known
plans to construct and additional 227 units
in the near future. These units do not re-
flect plans for all developable properties in
the area.
• Of the 227 proposed units 218 are located in
multi -family developments (5 or more units
per structure) and the remaining 9 units are
in structures with 4 or less units.
• The resulting unit composition be as foll.owsk:
UNITS TODAY FUTURF.
Single-family to 4 units 45 53
Multi -family 57 311
TOTAL 102 364
* based on no change in existing units.
-3-
c'
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUMMARY
i 227 Units
Clarendon Condominiums
36 units 78 bedrooms
Ute Village Condominiums
77 units 188 bedrooms
685 Bedrooms
6 units 12 bedrooms
Blue Sky Condominiums
8 units 16 bedrooms (est.)
mt A -- .-
143 units
(built) 57 units 142 bedrooms
(proposed) 86 units 214 bedrooms (est.)
Ute Avenue Condominiums
14 units 35 bedrooms (est.)
Based on the 32 acres (excluding streets) ultimate
development would result as follows:
Existing Development
102
units
306
bedrooms*
Proposed Development
227
units
685
bedrooms
Remaining Developable
Land
123
units**
369
bedrooms*
TOTAL
452
units
1360
bedrooms
Average of three (3) bedrooms per unit as
represented by proposed developments.
* Based on a ratio of 12.6 units per acre.
—4—
C
• Single-family to four -family units total 45
compared with 57 multi -family units all of which
were constructed in the last year. For example,
the 14 lots in the Calderwood Subdivision range
from 7,000 to 16,000 square feet.
• Estimated resident -tourist occupancy mix:
RESIDENT TOURIST
Single-family to 4 units 41 4
Multi -family units 6 51
TOTAL 47 55
* based on estimate of the Planning and Zoning
sub -committee.
• Glory Hole Park which is located near the urban
core is developed as an urban park; Ute Cemetery
and Ute Children's Park are more rustic and
natural.
• A large part of the area is still undeveloped.
-5-
C�
Im l
• Housing Concept - a residential area comprised
of a variety of housing types ranging from
single-family detached dwellings to apartment
structures as designated by review.
• Density Concept - a gradual transition from
the high density nearest the core area to
low density in proximity to the limit of
urban development.
• Development Concept - all development proposals
to be reviewed by Planning and Zoning in order
to respect existing urban and natural features.
The reveiw will be concerned with the number
of units per structure in order to control
building size, building location and site coverage.
1) Maintain the character of openness.
2) Greater flexibility in design by fitting
development to the physical features
of the site and preservation of unique
features such as forested areas and
avoiding unnecessary hazards such as
avalanches.
I Me
I
\J
•
DESIGN ELEMENTS continued...
3) Location and shape of development
integrated with the 8040 Greenway
line and the B.L.M. open space
acquisition of the City.
4) Provision for agreements governing
the continued maintenance of develop-
ment and common open spaces.
-7-
•
POPULATI-ON LIMITATION1 i ;: 1
• Provide protection against heavy traffic
conjestion and the noise and busyness which
result from the presence of large numbers of
people.
• Establish a density pattern which minimizes the
impact on public facilities and services
particularly transportation from the impact
that would result from present development trends.
• Avoid potential geologic hazards to a greater
extent than is possible with the density pro-
jected by existing development trends resulting
from the existing zoning.
• Provide greater compatibility with Glory Hole
Park, Ute Childrens Park and Ute Cemetery
historic landmark by:
1) Preventing damage to Ute Childrens Park and
Ute Cemetery resulting from over utilization
by adjacent high density areas.
2) Preventing any taking of Glory Hole Park
land for street widening necessary for
improvement to the Ute Avenue, Original Street
intersection.
M
9
11
POPULATION LIMITATION continued...
i Reduce the potential for air pollution from
that which would result from land use and
density recommendations of the Aspen Area
General Plan Final Report 1966.
• Hold the rate of growth to a level substantially
below that experienced since the late sixties.
The intent of this limitation is to insure
that growth which does occur is in keeping
with Aspen's ability to provide public services
and governmental actions and policies with respect
to preserving Aspen's natural beauty and
character.
v Establish a population density which is con-
sistent with ongoing planning efforts by Pitkin
County for the surrounding area.
No
0
0
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH I NFLUENCETHE DESIGN PLAN
• Eight million in public funds have been spent
for land acquisition to preserve the open
character at the West entrance to Aspen.
• Three million in public funds have been spent
on land acquisition for providing public
parking, relieving traffic conjestion, and
preserving the open character of Aspen.
• Implemented the first phase of a public trans-
portation system and purchased special design
buses at a cost of $135,500 for the city and
$130,000 for the county.
• 1. Submitted a grant to the National Endowment .for
the Arts to construct bus shelters that will
complement and support the public transit system.
Design criteria will be developed to consider
the compatibility with adjacent development and
historic districts.
• Constructed pedestrian trail to Aspen High
School, Middle School, and Islin Park.
-10-
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS continued...
• Designation of landmark public buildings as
Historic structures.
• Request that the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission include the City of Aspen and its
environs in the complex sources regulations.
• Lease of B.L.M. land - located south of Ute
Cemetery and Ute Childrens Park as a measure
to provide undeveloped open space.
• Ute Cemetery Acquisition - and designation as
a historic landmark to preserve the rural
character of the site.
• Park and Recreation developments
Non-Urban-Ute Cemetery, Ute Childrens Park
Urban -Glory Hole Park
Recreation-Ute Avenue trail
• 8040 Greenline zoning which was recommended
by the City and County Planning and Zoning
Commission in order to respect the development
constraints along the base of the mountains.
• View Preservation Corridor - which was adopted
-11-
0
E
N
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS continued...
to protect the view towards Independence Pass
from Glory Hole Park.
-12-
0
C1
t`.
• The Plan promotes preservation of historic
sites and landmarks.
• The Plan establishes a land use pattern which
defines the boundary between town and country-
side.
• The Plan maintains a social balance by helping
small property owners, local employees and
long-time residents in the area resist economic
pressures to move which are stimulated by high
density and higher land cost resulting from
zoning allowing tourist condominium.
• The Plan considers long run public interests
and preserve the areas natural. beauty.
• The Plan provides the opportunity for single--
family, duplex and four-plex residential
development without competing with high density
development.
• The Plan encourages residential development
which is at a scale and density that is
consistent with the "small town" scale and
character of Aspen's residential neighborhoods.
-13-
N
OBJECTIVES continued...
6 The Plan promotes the "small town" atmosphere
of Aspen as a significant ingredient and
economic asset in the appeal of the area as
a resort.
-14-
AICTI 0KS
• Add Planning and Zoning Commission authority
to designate areas on the Zoning District maps
as mandatory Planned Unit Development only.
• Designate the area under consideration for
mandatory Planned Unit Development with a
density transition beginning at Glory Hole Park
of 6,000 sq. ft. per single family dwelling and
9,000 sq. ft. per two-family dwelling to 15,000
sq. ft. per single family or two-family dwelling.
I
-15-
ACTIONS continued... t;!
Density Impact (32 acres excluding streets)
Based on proposed zoning
ZONE UNITS (BEDROOMS)
R-6 29 ( 87)*
R-15 54 (162)*
Existing 102 (306)*
TOTAL 185 (555)*
Based on existing trends
Existing Dev.
102
(306)*
Proposed Dev.
227
(685)
Remaining Devel-
opable Land
123**
(369)*
TOTAL
452
(1360)
* Average of three (3) bedrooms per unit as
represented by proposed developments.
** Based on a ratio of 12.6 units per acre.
• Allow more than two dwelling units per structure
in mandatory Planned Unit Development areas based
on a Planning and Zoning Commission review.
• Amend the R-6 Residential District, increasing the
minimum lot area for a two-family dwelling from
6,000 to 9,000 square feet.
-16-
ACTIONS continued...
0 The area above 8,040 feet elevation should be
designated as a minimum building area, with
average density of one -family dwelling per ten
acres.
0 A Planning and Zoning Commission building
permit review criteria should be applied to all
development above the 8,040 greenline.
The technique of dealing with environmental
concerns, population density, and orderly
development of a rapidly growing area is
through rezoning. The above zoning actions
are based on a comprehensive planning program,
and meet the desires expressed by the neigh-
borhood during the public hearings on the
D.R.C. subdivision and P.U.D. plan.
-17-
.. , a
L _ I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller, City Attorney
DATE: March 20, 1974
RE: Downzoning of Ute Area
Members of Council:
I have been informed that you wish to consider the down_
zoning of the Ute Area at a special session at 4 P.M. Monday.
If you are interested in the legal foundation for such a
rezoning, I am attaching a copy of the memo previously
submitted to the P & Z on the matter for your reading prior
to the Monday session.
SMS : sd
M
L7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller, City Attorney
DATE: February 4, 1974
SUBJECT: Rezoning of Ute Avenue Area
I am sure that you all have questions about the viability of
the rezoning. I would like to discuss (1) whether or not the down -
zoning is supportable under the general principles of law applicable
to rezonings and (2) the possible effect on the D.R.C. Planned Unit
Development project in the area. As to the latter, please see the
attached copy of a memo dated June 21, 1973. Although the discussion
was then prompted by D.R.C.'s early submission of its plans for Phase
II (to avoid any adverse consequences of Ordinance 19), the general
principles still apply. You will probably agree with me that whether
or not. D.R.C. is exempt from the effects of any change in zoning is
a question of fact (that is, the extent of their reliance at the
effective date of any rezoning ordinance), and one to which I cannot
give you a "yes" or "no" answer. I would like to turn now to the
question first posited, i.e., is the rezoning supported by general
common law principles existent in Colorado law.
General Principles
Rezoning must be grounded on the same considerations as an original
zoning enactment (i.e. comprehensive plan and necessary for heaith, wel-
fare, etc.). In addition, rezoning has, classically, had to be supported
by a (1) change of conditions and/or (2) showing of an original mistake.
"Change of conditions" has usually referred to actual changes in uses
of the land or adjacent property or in the installation of other improve-
ments (e.g. roads -or utility). Courts will protect the right of property
owners (both of the rezoned and adjacent property) to rely on existing
zoning. Given these.general principles, the end result of any litigation
is to weigh the change in conditions (or other valid considerations)
against the (1) compatibility of the changed land use with adjacent land
uses and (2) obvious damages to property owners. The burden of showing
change of conditions or mistake is on the litigant asserting the validity
of the ordinance.
Colorado Case Law
The Co ora o Courts do not require a showing of original mistake,
but have consistently required a showing of change of conditions. The
character and uses of a district must have materially changed since the
last zoning; Clark v Boulder 362 P2d 160 (1961). The time period by
a N
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 2
which neighborhood changes are measured is that between the previous
ordinance and the one affecting the change. Roosevelt v Englewood 492
P2d 65 (1971). A municipality must take into consideration reasonable
stability in zoning regulations: property owners have the right to rely
on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material change
in the character of the neighborhood, Clark, supra. The rezoning must
be in furtherance of a comprehensive plan, Clark, supra. Changed con-
ditions are not required, however, in a PUD rezoning, Moore v Boulder
484 P2d 134 (1971) (because a PUD project absorbs the e3 nsirtie- and uses
of the zoning district).
Elements not Conclusive in Determining if Rezoning is Proper.
I approach this backward and begin with a listing oT those
elements courts have held not conclusive in determining if a rezoning
is valid:
1. That the rezoning may decrease the value of the petitioner's
land or.result in a limited number of nonconforming uses is not
determinative, Frankel v Denver 363 P2d 1063 (1961).
2. That adjoining properties in other districts are put to a
different and more advantageous use is not determinative, Denver v
Ruwalt, 508 P2d 789 (1973).
—7. That the requested zoning would be an extension of an adjacent
zone is not conclusive, Clark, supra.
Elements in Determining if Change of Conditions
Without regard to their statements of principles, Colorado Courts
have not looked only to the property in issue to determine if a change
of conditions exists. Especially most recently, they have included
community, planning, terrain and economic elements. It must be
remembered that a community cannot usually premise.zoning changes on .
lack of facilities'it is their obligation to furnish, but this does
not mean the Colorado Courts will allow development without considering
the community after-effects. The following have been noted as evidentiary
elements in rezoning litigation:
1. Changes in surrounding uses, traffic capacity and flow changes,
natural boundaries between the subject and adjacent properties, compati-
bility with a comprehensive plan, planning patterns (in this case a
pattern of placing small commercial centers in residential districts),
and evidence that the area is in decline and rezoning would conserve
property values, Huneke v Glaspy 396 P2d 452 (1964).
2. Increase in population due to nearby high density uses,
installation of a 6 lane highway, need for particular use in the
community, and the impracticability of using the tract (from a
developer's view) for other uses, Roosevelt v Englewood 492 P2d 65
(1971).
40 a
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 3
3. The need in the community as a whole for low cost housing,
Moore, supra.
— T. Desire of inhabitants (demonstrated by planning public improve-
ments and zoning history) to create a greenbelt, rural atmosphere Nopro
v Town of Cherry Hills 504 P2d 344 (1972).
5. Suitability of the land for the intended use, effect on the
value of surrounding property, and the absence of objections by
adjacent land owners, Denver v American Oil 374 P2d 357 (1962).
6. The fact that the whole area is in a state of change from
agricultural to suburban, U.S. v Smith 389 P2d 409 (1964).
7. The fact that the area has never been developed, while
surrounding land has, constitutes evidence in support of a rezoning,
Fort Collins v Dooney 496 P2d 31.6 (1972).
8. The terrain and location may support a rezoning, Board v
Simmons 494 P2d 85 (1972) (here large gully in land zoned resice tial).
-7 That land cannot be sold as zoned is evidence, Simmons.
10. That the area is subject to flooding will support a rezoning
other than residential Madis v Higginson 434 P2d 705 (1967).
Two cases, not directly concerning rezoning litigation but are of
some help are: Fontaine v Adams County 493 P2d 670 (1972) where the court
supported the County s refusal to rezone because incompatible with a
recently adopted master plan and Western Paving v Boulder 506 P2d 1230
(1973) in which Lhe Court said that the technique for dealing with
"environmental concerns" is through rezoning.
Burden of Proof
Once it can be established that a rezoning ordinance was enacted
(1) pursuant to a comprehensive plan and (2) subsequent to a change in
conditions, anyone wishing to attack it must show the invalidity exists
beyond.a reasonable doubt, Fanularo v Commissioners of Adams County, 505
P Co o , Denver v Chuck Ruwa t Chevrolet, P Colo
1973).
The Ute Avenue Rezoning
In support for the suggested rezoning the Planning Department has
asserted:
1. There have been changes in the conditions of the neighborhood:
a. the city has acquired governmental land leases for open
space;
b. the city has adopted a greenway plan;
c. while originally designated as AR the
(except for D.R.C.) as a single family
d. the city has acquired and designated
a Historic site;
e. the city has established two parks in
and Ute Children's);
area has developed
area;
the cemetary area as
the area (Glory Hole
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 4
f. the adjacent areas are being downzoned by the city and
county (8040 Greenway and AF-10 in county);
g.
the Glory Hole Viewplane has been established
2.
The
designation is compatible with a comprehensive zoning
process:
a.
the H.P.C. has recommended Historic designation of Main
Street and the Commercial Core;
b.
the View Preservation Program has received P & Z approval;
c.
the Architect's Collaborative is drafting an Urban Design
Plan;
d.
the city is preparing a site plan for the Rio Grande
property;
e.
the trail system is being implemented;
f.
Oklahoma Flats is in the process of downzoning;
g.
the (golf course) entrance into Aspen is being master
p 1anned ;
h.
the Thomas property purchase is being kept as open space
to maintain the open space entrance into the city;
i.
the 8040 Greenline downzoning will soon be enacted
3.
The
designation is compatible with a comprehensive plan for the
entire city:
a.
the downzoning creates a natural transition from urban to
rural ;
b.
the limited access and utilities warrant reduced densities;
c.
any comprehensive plan must make adequate provision for
single family dwellings of which (arguably) our existent
zoning district map does not take sufficient cognizance;
d.
the area has some slope and other terrain features that
limit possible densities;
e,
the area is not designated as one for mass transit services
under the Voorhis Plan.
4.
The
designation will complement the city's environmental concerns
a.
single family zoning will reduce population in the area and,
consequently, air and water pollutants;
b.
the reduced densities will complement the Greenway aspects
of the 8040 downzoning and county downzoning of adjacent
tracts.
I don't wish to be held to have itemized all possible elements that exist
that might arguably support (or undermine) the downzoning. See Herb's
material (previously submitted). Rather, I only hope to assure you that
when the Planning Office contacted me about the rezoning we did discuss
the viability of the proposal and I felt it was supportable.
40
40
Memo to P & Z Members
February 4, 1974
Page 5
The foregoing is submitted so that you are prepared to discuss
the merits or demerits of the proposed downzoning with some under-
standing of the legal principles involved.
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
SMS : sd
FEBRUA.RY, 1974 • �� ���
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING RESOLUTION
UTE AVENUE PROPOSED ZONING
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
has reviewed and considered the proposal of rezoning of the
Ute Avenue area to R-6, Residential District and R-15, Resi-
dential District designations and the concomitant changes
to the Aspen Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission:
1. The Ute area should not be permanently
downzoned without a simultaneous down -
zoning of the entire community; however,
2. The downzoning proposal does incorporate:
a) the concern of the Planning and
Zoning Commission for decreased
densities in this residential area,
b) the awareness of the problems of
limited access at the end of Ute
Avenue and questionable utilities
services,
c) the concern for the need to enhance
the proposed downzonings on the
8040 elevation and adjacent county
lands,
d) the need to preserve mountain views,
e) the recognition that such rezoning
would create a natural transition
between the urban densities and
mountain open space and satisfy a
need for more residential housing,
f) the recognitions that downzoning will
take into consideration some slope and
other terrain features that limit
development; and the fact that limited
or no major transportation facilities
are planned for the area,
g) the need to implement the city's
environmental concerns, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes
to achieve these goals but, instead of requesting permanent
rezoning, request an identical amendment revision to the
map and text of Ordinance 19.
UTE AVENUE PROPOSED ZONING RESOLUTION
PAGE TWO
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ordinance
19, text and map,
1. Be amended so as to incorporate the
specific recommendations of the Planning
Department (itemized on the attached Addendum
A) and that;
2. The City Council be requested to make such
amendments under its emergency provisions.
3. As soon as possible, similar designations
be applied, also by emergency amendment
to Ordinance 19, to the balance of the
Mixed Residential Districts described
on the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan.
C airman
ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION
DATED THIS DAY OF J �� 1974,
R10114911 W
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTE AVENUE REZONING AND
CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
1. That area (as previously described) constituting the
East End of the Ute Avenue area be rezoned from
AR-1, Accommodations Recreation to R-15 Residential.
2. That area (as previously described) constituting the
West End of the Ute Avenue area be rezoned from AR-1,
Accommodations Recreation to R-6, Residential.
3. Both such areas be designated Mandatory P.U.D. and that
then be established in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code
a procedure for designation of Mandatory P.U.D. districts,
allowing two or more dwelling units per structure in
such districts, and creating additional review criteria
for such P.U.D. review either more than two (2) dwelling
units per structure are proposed.
4. An amendment to section 24-5 (e) of the Municipal Code
increasing the minimum lot size for duplexes in the
R-6, Residential District from 3,000 square feet per
i dwelling unit � 9,000 square feet.
,:�4, / 3 /
•
•
Aspen City Council
Study Session
March 25, 1974
Meeting began at 4:25 pm to consider down zoning proposal for the Ute
Avenue area.
Herb Bartel, City/County Planner submitted and stated he would review
with Council the information presented to P & Z on their proposal.
Part of that information relating to the County's zoning progress and
how it relates to this down zoning proposal.
Mr. Bartel showed slide of statistical information. Traffic figures
relative to the west highway entrance into the City were on an average
in 1972, 10,800 cars per day. Based on present averages by 1978
that figure would increase to 27,700 per day. Pointed out land use
must balance with transportation. First phase of the airport expansion
($5,500,000) began in 1971. Because of the lack of sufficient capital
to really handle the transportation problem, the City Council can best
handle the balance by doing something about land uses. One really
great problem is to maintain quality while keeping up with growth.
The County is working at up -dating the Master Plan in the areas along
the highway to the east and west sides of the City limits. The changes
in land use are very significant and certainly not piece meal. The
County's resolutions giving reasons and justification for the down
zoning were many and the same reasons and justifications could be applied
to the City's down zoning. City needs to take another look at the
down zoning in an economic way considering viability of the community
and relationship to transportation.
Present zoning classification of the area under consideration is Park
and AR-1. Adjacent County area is 2 acre minimum district. In sub-
stance no difference between Ordinance #12 (amending Ordinance #19)
and Ordinance #13 (down zoning). The difference falls in implementation
of the Ordinance.
Waters Avenue made a good boundary line as it borders single family
dwellings the area has developed over the years as single family. The
land use map shows this area as mixed residential; the intent of the
map was to make reviews and revisions to the map as each area came up for
study. Based on the high costs for transportation, services, etc.,
the City must take a hard look at the number of accommodations in the
community.
Councilman Walls pointed out the previous intent was to keep the accom-
modations along the base of the mountain in order to save on transporta-
tion. Questioned what the trade offs were as relates to a growth rate
and further stated he would like to know or see how the proposal fits
into the entire City and what may be proposed. Feel the City is getting
too restrictive.
Meeting adjourned 5:00 pm.