HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Ute Area Downzoning.1974 Mr,
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 DAY OF 1974
ADDENDUM "A"
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
FORM'^ C.F.N';l KLL B.8.9 L.CU.
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 Residentiai' 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 Minimum Lot Area for Two Family Dwellings in all
R-6 Residential districts shall be 9000 square feet.
a..
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C.F.HOECKFI.B.0.9 L.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 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 woutheasterly corner of Lot 10; thence
N 610 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
(2)
x
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 54 C.F.HOECKFL 0.e.6 L.CO.
8-9 Tract 41 (B) ; thence west 183 .86 feet;
thence N 50° 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 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 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 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)
w.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM SG C.F.HIECKEL B.B.B 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.
Section 3 .
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.HOECKEL B.B.8 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 430 U 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)
t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM'.0 C.F.HtECNFI.0.B.B L.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 :
"F. 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)
x
a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 4 C.F.HOECKEL R.0.a 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;
5 . 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
(7)
E
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C.F.HOFCNFI.R.R.a L.CO.
space and preserve the natural fea-
tures of the terrain. "
Section 5 .
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 212zzz Cyr , 1974 .
tacy Standley III_ �.
Mayor
ATTEST: ( __
1— City Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM to C.F.ROLCKFL B.B.9 L.Cn.
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1974 .
Stacy Stan ey III
Mayor
ATTEST:
City clerk
3
RECORD OF RROCEEDiNGS 100 Lenes
FORM 55 C.F.HOECKEL S.B.8 L.CO.
ORDINANCE NO,_]L-� ' 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 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 :
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C.F.HOECNEL B.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.
Minimum lot area:
1. One-family dwelling . . .6,000 square feet
2 . Two-family dwelling . . .31000 square 9QQt pQr dwell-
lng unit witli a Wipiw'Lam
lot area of 6,000 squ:arc
fQQt 9000 SQUARE FEET
3. All other uses . . . . . 6,000 square feet
(2)
RECORD Or PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C.F.ROECKEL B.S.8 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 H, Historic Overlay
District. All permitted and conditional uses of this
(3)
{
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 4 C.F.ROECKEL B.B.6 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)
u
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C.F.HOECNEL 8.0.8 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 000 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 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 27° 04 ' 30" E 78.38 feet;
thence continuing along said right-of-way
S 580 28' E 51.1.72 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 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 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-
Y mini_um boundary as shown at Plat Book 3,
(5)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM SG L.F.HOECNEL 8.0.@ L.CO.
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
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.
Section 3.
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, dated March 6, 19671 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)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 70 C.F.HOECNEL R.0.&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 50 L.F.HOFCKEL B.8.8 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.
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 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 50 C.F.ROECNEL B.B.d L.GO.
(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
FORM 50 C.F.HOECKEL H.S.8 L.CO.
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.
Section 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 , 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
t
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDIN!GS 100 Leaves �
F'J?N•1 C.F.ll(L�VFL P.P.Q L.CO.
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED this
l i
day of 1974.
StaC Sta dley I1.1.
i
mayor --r-
ATTEST:
i
` June 21 , 1973
r
a4
. S
TO: HERB B ARTEL, CITY PT
.,ANNER
MEivIBERS OF ASPEN PLINNNING AND ZONING COINLMISSION
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 it-s 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 measures 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
Zter- 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 2 is�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.
1
Memo to Herb Bartel and P Z Members
June 21 , 197
Page 2
c. Phasing lis not necessary to enforce the P. U. D.
and . Subdivision Agreement (e . g . D. R. C. must seal and
chip a street section and construct an 81 walkway 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 11--i-r-dT 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 .
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 artel and P Z Members
June 21, 197s
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 to 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 (Pennsylvan:ia,
1964) concerned a rezoning cf 150 acres of land
to FF and FFF zones (floating commercial zones)
following the consideration by county commissioners
of a comprehensive development plan for the whole
tract. Between the last hearing on the rezoning
_______.and issuance of the first building permit 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)he
integrated, comprehensive, staged development of
a large tract of land may anTc ^sTiould be treated as
a single undertaking . . . . (I) t is made abundantly
__ 71"
Memo to Herl 3artel 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, ecem er . 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 Rights
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
1
Memo to Herb Bartel and P Z Members
June 21, 1973
Page 5
(2) upon sore 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 cormuent 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
pol-`nt 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-
divaion 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 Zonin; Board v Brown 182 A 2d 706 (Penn 1962) . The
issuance of a buliding 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 450 P2d 339.
(Colo 1969) . At various stages of actual eve opment an owner
may be held to have acquired a vestec_right to proceed with a
Z evelopment. Some cases on this point follow:
r
Memo to Herb irtel. and P . &, 7 Members
June 21, 197
Page 6
(1) Murrell v l olff 408 S . W. 2d 842 (Miss . 1966) concerned
an 11 acre eve opment. Construction of 35 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 dwellings . $ 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-172 concerne d a rezoning affecting (increasing)
lot sizes . The subdivision consisted of 4 sections , and work
had been conL;cenced 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 Which would be
required irrespective of the lot size , nor co.nme;icement 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 he a tFiat t e 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 .
(4) Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee of Raritan Township,
39 NJ T, concerned an approved subdivision whicH was to e
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 A2J I the court made clear, in anot ier 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 "grtel and P ;; Z Members
• June 2l , 197-
Page 7
(6) Trans-Robles - Corporation v City of Cherry Hills Village
497 P2d333 o o. cA is Colorado ' s c osest case in —
point . The city rezoned establishing 2-112 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 col-lection 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
u�`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 argument that by entering into
the P. U. D. and subdivision agreement the city is constractualy
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.
Memo to Herb lartel and P , Z Members
June 21, 197,
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 landowner whose subdivision,
plat 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 consequences 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
d evelopment 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 contention strongly pre-
sented by D. R. C. To support this concept P. R. C. cited Diamon ,
supra. This case , again, . like Telimar, seems to be a minority opinion.
Again, it is 'used 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 Tumwater 472 P2d 550 (Wash. 1970)
the plaintiff 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 not
relevant to this discussion) while the P. U. D. done simultaneously
Memo to Herb Dartel. and P Z Members
June 21 , 1973
Page 9
with annexation was valid. However, the ceart held that where
3/4 of the P. U. D.- could not be accomplis ed within the existing
zoning, the remaining 1/4 must also be disz.11owed. Jan Krasnowiechi
in "P. U. D. : A Challenge to Established Tj:--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. developer
has little protection against rezoning. III Chandler v Kroiss 190
N. W. 2nd 473 (Minn . 1971) the city, in anticipation o - adoopting
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 &- elopment plans approved
by the Village Council which are not in cor'Lormity 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 a Z�.`�.�5:—said: '�Alrhough its intent
is to permit diversification of uses , such cases must be in harmony
with the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeopardize or reduce
zoning standards in the area and should prmote 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 establis:Les 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 condition; one of which must be
satisfied before an amendment to the plan can be accomplishe&.
The act further requires an application and hearing .
Very truly yours,
Sandra M. Muller
SMS :mw
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 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 y 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 pIar,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 ec�ensi ies an uses
of the zoning district) .
Elements not Conclusive in Determining if Rezoning is Proper.
I' ll approach tEis-bacT7wardanU begin with a listing o-Y 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 a&jo n� ing 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 Charge of Conditions
Wit out 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 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 popu 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.
— 4. 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 TZas never been developed, while
surrounding land has , constitutes evidence in support of a rezoning,
Fort Collins v Dooney 496 P2d 316 (1972) .
. The terrain and location may support a rezoning, Board v
Simmons 494 P2d 85 (1972) (here large gully in land zoned residential) .
'97 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 the Court said that the tec nique or ealing 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 , DeE–vervChuck 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 area has developed
(except for D.R.C. ) as a single family area;
d. the city has acquired and designated the cemetary area as
a Historic site;
e. the city has established two parks in the area (Glory Hole
and Ute Children' s) ;
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
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
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,
conscquently, 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 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
A
c War ,; '"'.}-:1I)iS .,, As':)('.'1 a l.il�; �.vi'.)_,11 1 1?
I
meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Adams at 5 : 10 p .m. with Chuck V_7_c'.al ,
Bruce Gillis Jack Jenkins, and Spence Schiffer , Also present Assistant City/
County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford.
Minutes Vidal stated that the minut=es of December 4 , 1973 , did not
12/4/73 & reflect the fact- that he was in attendance, and wished to
12/11/73 make that correction,
Jenkins r,tc'r a I,_•_ :4un to approve the r.;-1.1,,,t.:_., of DoccmUy 4 ,
1973 , as carne � i _1
�� mil_ L._., �,�;�� l_lll' 1'?l-]a.�1 Lf-'S n!� Dc ,c_i..,:-} ��'. -1 J 3973 c;-�.
submALtwd, r=ot. ann N -C•t?n eCi by Schiffer . All it favor ,
motion on car tried .
1->C'.d-Rf s1Gc_il Clal Stanford stated thvt, progress 1.3 being made on the yevovt
Evaluation for the mi ed--? e.>_t(t. !?' is l area , and that the subC;C ?1•.'"'ti&WC
should have recommendations ready by the middle or end or
January .
Stanford reminded those members on tho committee that therc=
would be a. meeting on Wednesday , December 19th.
PUBLIC Chairman Adams opened the public hearing on the tree ordi•-
It �.?:1��`C -- • nail'.;E' .
P,. cue Or.dinancc
A:.1 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24--9 OF CHAPTER 24 OF 1'L.t,
MUNICIPAL CODE OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (i)
REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY TREE WITH A TRUNK
DIAME`?'ER OF FOUR INCITES OR MOR7 ; PROVIDING FOR SUBMT SSION
OF SITE PLAN ON SUBMTSSTON OP APPLICATION FOR PERIIT• DE--
SCRIBING THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE PER•IIT; PROVIDING
FOR THE RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF TREES ; PROHIBITING
CONSTRUCTION NEAR 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 ho,.:-
it could practically be admAni-stered, Stated that he :pelt
this would be a nuisance in the administrative aspect.
Stanford 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, b0i
stated he did not know if you could interfere with indi-
vidual rights as far as their property is concerned. 5ta--
ted it was a poorly written piece of legislation and would
be impossible to enforce . Stated that he felt the intent
was good, but felt there must- be an alternoti.ve way to
protect the trees .
Gillis stated that he agreed. with Vidal_ and Schiffer , bui-
would still like to see the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment. do the inventory list..
Chairman Adams stated that he agreed . just felt_ t_hat.
people should by madr to realize that trous> are a vale--
abl e col mnd iy.
Ed DelDur.a , Assistant. City Engineer , stated thnL he dis-
agreed wi-t-h the sizing stated in the ordinance . StaLod
. _ e Continued. Meeting Aspen City Council April 24, 1974
Councilwoman Markav-aas moved to adopt Resolution 410, Series ,f 1974. Seconded by
CouncilmanB
Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
i
UTE AVENUE AREA DOWN-ZONING fir'
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:
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.
2. Tn respu"Z, to the ihvw at ponV3 by the U',. City pith •... ,
we quickly . a: ;ii. tad - pinn to th.. B.._idin; l; _ etc..
for 41 apa_rzarnt "nil; (Parksid tur`nlntsn It _s 0ur
opinion that this sw ,iittal is still valid nod that .._
could build these tpaU ricnts if we desire. Since the
Parkside Qu marls ._ n cl"Lckly des_ gncd and not the
type of devel 2ment .. .th ,ahi_.. Gish to n,socjit.cd,
we decide to design �: mura re:uous_,,1� ero� c; and
process it uad ei Ordinance 19.
3. After considering alternative land uses, d• wided to
process a condominlar project with a . simnlac- p,ol ,
therapy pool and tennis court. We hired n I,:anaiaq Fir:a
to design a site plan For the proioct. Atter Actailod
site studies, we came to the conclusion Lha! tho 46 unito
permitted under existing zoning wan not prop. inre anA
that due to the constraints %posed on the sir: (view,
corridor, donations to the City- set hack;, heiga`
limitations, etc.) a plan of 36 units may a bet yr
solution. We vulun.toci.ly eliminated i0 units and pro-
cooded wits it a 36 unit. concCOL.
d. On October 15 1973, a site plan was suhnittcd to the
Building Inspector and a building permit roe o;' si ms.;
was paid. The Clarendon project was scheduled For cun-
cep r review before PLZ under Ordinance 19 on November 20,
1973.
5. Novembu, 13 1973. One week prior to the ;chcJuled
meeting, we presented a booklet rclAtinq to th; ha;ic
issues and summarizing the results of a project impart
study. S1nce complex issues . Free address& , those
matvrials were presented in writren Farm prior to the
meeting to permit study by the PAZ members. Thes_:
materials are: available at the Planning OFFice For
your review and consideration.
G. Novembee 20, 1975. Due to a scheWinj error, the
Clnrenden has nut included on rho agenda. We ware
rescheduled to Dorm her 11 , 1973.
7. On Decemhor 11, 197A, our concept presont.atiun was
maK, It was over two hours long and addrrs:ed all
of the issues associated with the project. The major
points made in our pre;entatinn are summarised below:
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 24, 1174
r
a. Site location
li. S.E. quarter of City
ii. Near tourist oriented facilities: ski lift
and downtown
iii. Convenient to City Market and Post Office
II iv. Conclusion: Site location will minimize the
use and dependency on the automobile• it
ii is an appropriate location for a pe..estri.aa- !
oriented, tourist-related use.
b. Site area I
i. 1,627 acres or 70,875.98 sq ft. i
ii. Under AR-1 zoning, 47 units mould be pornitzed.
C. Site characteristics
�i
i. Plat, developable site
ii. Little cegitatinn uNccpt on Ute.
iii. Heavy concentration of condominiums o,i I�
surrounding properties.
i
d. Existing Neighborhood land Use Stud,, �
i
i. In the n0ghborhood 80% of units are toa_i_;t jl
ii., In the nolghhorhood 57; of the acrvago is in I�
tourist use. P
e. Condominium V n:r;hip
f
i. Ovrr 11`, of all condo units in tiro city are
used es ycrmanevo ,esidenzes.
ii. Tha Clat -. don will not _ttin:. against
pernaaenr reside:._ buyers.
f. Existing, ZoVa,,, i
i. 47 unlimited units or 91 studios or .._ .el
rnela ara n'_91ZOed l =Orin.
ii . Oaly 36 ur__ pnoposaa, A 23: rolocti_..
had been mach.
iii.. 39 parsing Spaces For thn 35
9. Aspen IntarLm Wad Uso
1. Site lies in Mixal
Li . Project. .. rand by nc_ .: .>r.t
auc_' tuuoists. T' u nfor, 1., a truy :.,...:.1
re;idant nl c;_, (Ori ionl 000ait_o .. OF
mixed rusiOwitial did not preclude 'ouri;,
alnow: . .;;ion:;.,
h. Ownnrs cowmii...'.r•t_.
i. COIIlmitm..nt: included: doa bons to r.
vast Qn! dedization Fur possible sir.- -
extension, a trail eas_m,en: pr_,ervation
of two SO' spruce truce landscaping, L.,•r
:
preservation, s_o:^t d±ai;t' .,e tr. sc
best shown graphically in 'our pi-cs6atntion.
i. Design Constraints I
i
i. A drawing summarizing the design oron(em was
preseated.
ii. Only 420 of site is useablo after Wy and
owner constraints.
j. Schematic Site Plan
i. 30 two-bedruom units and d three bedroom unitn.
ii. A tennis court swimming pool and Lherapy pn ,l.
ii.i.? An underground parking structure und. r the
tennis courts.
k. Site Plan and Sections
II
i. Renderings of propo;r•d project were• pry,;•n;c,!,
1. Project Impact
i. All utilities exist and are adequate.
W . Transportation: Tahl: of walking time . ::t
miles/huar walk. I
,i
!' - to Little Noll 3.S min. jl
d - to City Marhot 4.5 rain. I(
- to Post Office 6,5 min. (i
- to Bus Center 7.2 min.
to Galena L
Hyman corner 9.2 min.
U
The site is pedestrian orionrel, r1njwi_in:
potential use of the automobile.
c:ontinuect meeting Aspen city council April Zn, lyra
iii. Economic study conclusions:
- fiscally, the tourist is very b -icin! sKen compared to permanent residents. 'his area
is complex and we would like to claboratc more
on this iF given the opportunity.
After the presentation, the Commission requestui that the
applicant withdraw: for 90 drys during which time the
Plana ng DZFice and the to.ba.hirod City Economist .could
perform additional studies For the City.
We questioned the Commission on exactly what they prop000d
to come up resist is the 90 days and further questioncd thz
Commission on what more would be roquired of the ::Ali!icaat
that wo Lave not already submit cod. It his not ctcnr .:hat.
the Commis.,-on c.esirrd, nind it is interescinj to rote that
since thl, request in U,combar, very lithe: ac_fit'ioaal
punning and anaLysiy has occurred to d: t. .
The disru:siun was _,u'_.nucd to the n-st mowtiAg-
S.
janu2r; 2, 1971,- The Planning Office r,cawn,Jad conccgt
nnur". with co•sdf.o,.no as folic•". .
�.. Co,._,..., d _eta to . -strict reacal to pc. ,o;,_A u;
less tl.a A months.
b. Phase t;._ �._vvl ml^ht
C. Eliminate on-site plr'.in
d. Rua- ., all Kruplaces
our respo ise, in sumnac , to each of these Con.lirions
l•;z.; that:
A ._ __:Ctivo ;o•• 2nanC is nat o pr,opci..n_ :inc he
sits tourist orinnt_d duo to its i. at100 and
;urr .•,l_ prefer to lot Na irwo _.a:.,__
do k i- ,tL_ P'—;astne ,- , ar_
go mo i i.7 'von . po _-.d cut 1..3t _hie,
, . _ o ro,u;st by the CLcy might be
b. to P5130 th^
! 001 ,.. . .. _
parkin; lot at a futura date when the :ranslt systall
was in Upe:00"a.
!nPy quint i _ - :rn rA 1n th. j .udy 00_ vvc.-
ny1i.._..., U , uS01 4 CaKS p_r .;c ._,. ,- a:,
is i to 1,21 _r Cason? We P: Ot .i ni.'
rh%i: th i ,w Cclorado Air Pollution Cnal col
firsyl'..._, i., m_ua...__n of ..so; . .sto reel
polLution _ utrcu in Aspen in tho autor!.t Ai i_., t:o
significant bancEit can ba ackjaved by bcnniag
new eirepluces. This issue is covered is _great
detail in our presentation.
Much disc:ission _o1Low-d, ,end P& did not vote ua the
project. Tho meatiag was continued.
D. January 10, L974. Under Ordnance l9, the Co!miision had
to mako a docision by this date (30 days fro:! submission).
Aura issues were brought_ up nad discuss^d. Mijor nn_.:
heing:
f a. At the previous menting, it was suggcsted that low
or mc;o ..,_ cost housing For omployces should ho
constructed on the Clarendon site. A pco,Arntariva
of dcnsitio5 which made such a u_o cco !omicalJv
feasible was mudo. PF,Z cuncludcd that such
denhi,i^., in that area were not acc•eptabN and
abn1don• d Ihr idea of log.; cost housing on the
site.
b. The applicant agreed to extend the duadlin: for
the I'F!'_ Commission doci•'.ion Or approximately 1.5 +
days so that rho Piannin•, and inning Cnami .;tan 1
watts have thy• Planning staf.F vuview and recumme!:d
a definition of mix"J resitAv".tint. j
C. At unr net:; m—riar with the Plannini nut! oniw_;
Cunmi scion at which time we wore expect in ; to
have a comprchenni� . d Knition of mixed
residential , the Pinnnin staff preAented i
proposal for down:uniug the 11tc Avon", are,. Tai
was a surprise to the nppLiccntt turd appearoA to b_•
a surprise to the Planning and Vninj ConomliOnn.
To this date the Planain; staff his not presented
any a.lditi.tr,.il to OWAtWn or r_.omminlationi to
the Plnnninj r", =onin; ComO ssinn on definition or
clarification of mixed residential.
it No dzcision was Nadu, The NZ ' ed to P�kv a decision 07,
the project February 5, 1974, a le Cxmi,lion
's rvoul",
ncatkng.
in, january 29. 1974. V&Z held a public hearing to worn,L,12r
the dowvzonl-ng propos"l initiated by the plaaning offico
for th) Uco Avenue aria. At a later meeting, they
decided to rccuwmenl to City Council modification of the
Ordinance 19 Land Hie Map rnther than rezoning.
ii . February 1, 1974, Alter a loop 4iscus,ion an the proi and
cons of CLarunAun, the issu, was distilled to that 0`.
density. PC_ felt th" o"n at 36 "Ins there ""o too
many uaits, too many cars, and too many vonpl• . In oruer
to solve this ha0• problun and to continuc thrO •Y. the
.......1 ....... in an ttempt to maku this sulnp,r'',
buLldinq beason, w- pgcow to construct only 74 Wns.
This aas vowopznbl� 10 PIZ N''d the ",Q don ya!Aol
conc.pr IppCOVII.
IA, Widillanc, 12. Al -n-Inj ul-Ch the recOOm"N"on 0[
Cit, C,-n ua� jl prop -cd an Orlinance (Uri'i ,vn"O 12) tn
yod!Fy in , OcAL . 1 l'--, "�) IJ:— !"p- �'as pi; ,-d
an first rovdinj, a pohlic I ld, i:
passed on second runding, PQ it bezwn2 10'
13, April 2, 1971, Th, Clacondon gained Prelininary
division wpyrowal rrow PAZ for a 21-uno !oWa>1Uq-'
,,,j,,t , A n",rhor of tochnicil Vwc
mado by the Civy vaqineyr and all issues Wors wgroc'l
upon or royolvud.
ordWaW4 K. Apcor passing Ordinance 12 nuxh"4 it 12",
DroiGince 11 on 07n!
until U-Wllvn� thv uto area, Nalt Wonjly IQ 7��Kc
Hsarlpv 'n :Yj ordinunz, is Wing 1._..
K uDmary, Ya ask Yon to :0""r cbe following Pol -:s
bj�' Yn )00 nqan ac0al 'n 0'a� 1 3 1W 0 13:
L. The Oriinanzv 00"OvO Y-1 '0 not a co''Pruhnnsit '
,,d 1..... hy a lantor Plin. Rin fuc,;:1-yz,
jP01
2. The p-nppq-Q Ord'_ ..-., 2 H nrlY n'tIO!''lly
P
AY114'' : "Alls is 4 prior 7n)
Fo-r�- � 'W W Va i a �7 r
hs) . It i
at a speciflu pwaj -st �nl ,jld b, Wtocyrat,d sp—i
z 0 n 1 n 1.
3. The Clarendon plan, 4parovyd conceptual]) , In an,
d2Lr11Vnzjl to :J "Y ,, It LA lV01,1ti, i� ch 1:7,1
consischa; V 21 tq,ah...I unit.- 1C is N ADIA pign "
is
ti:a risvic of good Taich nwgn: 1a03vs .11.;:h City P!:-
4. Ordinance 13 will still perW 16 units on rho >"bj2c-t
property. The appwovoa Clarondoa plan is For caly )1.
Only eQAT units are the ii,a,.
S. Sinch only thi-, ono p2o>ct is orKated, wo roqw,st that_
you aL1?W,Ws to oak, a —,,entation to you s" rkat. yo,t
are as incownid is i4v P6: Commission that ha, niven u.�
coHocp appioval an& preliminary subliviuWa nppcu` ll-
Wo are preparsa I- d, thts Walay -igic or 1L a gub-
scquont study sonslog co"ve"jo"t tu Y,,.
wu than% you for your time and would apprcciate coQsTarra:10n
of rho npVorLqWzy to dlicus, our project with you in Aota, t-
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 locing
the Clarendon, Ute Village and Mountainedge. Mr. Vidal reviewed with Council the
Outline of densities etc., as attached to these minutes- (See Page 1565)
it
lil:IiltER Mt11,-P1-S1•tri P. u. D.
Density in process _— New P.U.D. Pr_onossl
M Units 0 or under Proposed
Site Total Acres 29 un/ac. consideration Down Zoning Acres Use ( Land to City_ACTes j
CLARENDON 1.63 47 24 16 I .91 6 Un P.U.D. I 72
100. developable i ! i
UTE VILLAGE 7.65 222 77 44 3.15 9 un P.U.D. 4.50
100°% developable
MOUNTAINEDGE 13.34 275 Club lodge/hotel
r 3.S5 Ii
3.8S above 150,000-175,OOO8040 275,000° - 200,0000 - 250,000° N.A. 9.49 max. excluding above 5040
9.49 below 300,000° parking
8040 —
TOTAL 22.62 I � I
3.8S above 101 units
8040 544 + N. A. 13,55 15 un + 175,000 ! 9.07
18.77 below 200,000' - 250,0000, I
8040
� I
I
I
i ,
I .
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 24, 1974
Mr. Vidal pointed out the downzoning proposal applies to two of the parcels outlined.
This proposal would remove the possible litigations and bring more land into control
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 p-oposal 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 a^cunt
of money for utilizining the unit for short periods of time. Unit would b2 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 1113, Series of 1974 on second reading.
Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1.3, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE REZCNING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS IN THE
EASTERN PART OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM AR-1 ACCCMMODATIONS RECREATION TO R-15 RESIDENT-
. IAL AND R-6 RESIDENTIAL WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING AND INCRE•1SING
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, meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Lorraine Graves, City Clerk
I.
fl '
Study Session
Aspen City Council
April 24, 1974
Meeting commenced at 5:45 p.m. with Mayor Standley, Councilmembers Walls,
Pedersen, Markal.unas, 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 & Z Commission Cin Thursdav 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 Dark, 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 states, 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.
,__ orraine Graves, City Clerk
JJU
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 22, 1974
d. Chart House, Inc. transfer of liquor license. All forms with the exception of Chart House
fingerprint reports were submitted by Attorney Kern. Liq. Transfer
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
Ute Area down-
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. zoning
City/County Planner Herb Bartel submitted entire proposal as a part of the file. �J
Reviewed with Council maps showing present zoning in the area including adjacent County zoning j
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 413, 1974.) Can
see the only purpose as a stopping of the Clarendon project. Mr. Bartels reasons 1
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 #19 when it
was enacted. Original application for 36 units. Ordinance #19 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 Woerndle Annex.
will require adjustments to conform (improper signatures) . ,
V
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.
Council, 3/25/74, continued. Council, 3✓25/74, continued.
ORD I NANCI REZONING CERTAIN DES-
#13, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE REZON
P.ES1j'_l.;TIr,!. 67, SEPTES OF 1974 CRIB111 ,ARRAS TN T11F EAST11PN, OF T11F CITY OF ASPEN FRI'M AR-1
tP A(.COMMoDATIONS RECREATION Trl I\ESIDENTLA, ANO Iv
moved to read R,solution #7, Series of 1974.
Councilman DeGregorio WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. F)EVELOPMENT; -'0:FNDI'.C, AN,) IN*1:F_AS;J'
in fivor, motion carried. SE,T
Sec. �1,N
.,,y LOT SIZI,* FOR DUPLEX DWELI,INGS IN THE R-L, L11
24-9 OF THE M(TNTCIPAL CODF (SUPPl,FMFNTAL RFC,','!,A7:0\SI 7O F-IF-M-17 THE
1,LSrjLT;T1()N 47 DESI.GNATION 01' MANDATORY P.U.D. DISTRICTS -,IN THE Z-ONIN.; D-ZTR:C-
SEPIES OF1974 AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA IN MANDATORY F.U.D. DISTRICTS
Z w1l.q read by title by the City Clerk.
W.HEREAS", the State DC_ujrtlT,,_-Tit of llighways has
traffic signal Systems study Councilman Breasted moved to approve Ordinance *13, Series of 1974
conducted, in 1913, a L Roll call vote-
-or ;�.szen, at thr� completion Of which it was on first reading. Seconded by Councilman DeGregorio.
rec-,:-7,enlld that 11) the 5chooi -
be discon- Councilmcnibers Breasted aye; DeGregorio aye; Markalunas nay, Walls
a ne., 319r,,al be installed at the corner aye. Motion carried.
nay, Behrendt aye; Mayor Standley
and' Xain Streets and (2) a left turn phase
-or traffic be adde d to the light at Councilman Walls moved to adiourn at 9:45 P.M., seconded t-v Council-an
of Mill and Main, jnd DeCreclor in. All in favor, meeting adjourned.
WHEPEI,5, the As-en City Council wishes to
recommend these changes and encourage their im-
plernentation at the earliest possible date, Aspen City Council
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY Study Session
CONCH OF :F.E CITY OF ASPE' COLOP1,DO: March 25, 1974
1. That the Colorado State Department of
Highways, Division of Highways, be., and hereby is,its 1975 fiscal budget re,4uested to provide, in Mcetinq began at 4:25 pm to consider down zoning prol-rsal for the Ute
(if unable to act sooner), appropriations so as to: Avenue area.
a. provide a left turn phase for cast- Herb Bartel, City/County Planner submitted and stated he would review
sently installed at the corner of Mill
bound traffic for the traffic light pre- with Council. the information presented to P & Z on t!ie_r c,-crcsal.
and Main Strc•et_7, and Part of th;th Jnlorinatioll 101atill", to the County's zonino prozress and
b. remove__ the present school signal on how it relates to this down zoning proposal.
Main Street, and, in its stead, install
a four-way traffic light at the corner Mr. Bartel showed slide of statistical inforration. Traffic -lizures
an are:ace
or Asp•-�n and Main Streets. relative to the west hichwa) entrance into the City were cn.
in 1972, 10,800 cars per day. Based on present avera.es t-Y 19-9
was read in full by the City Clerk. that figure would increase to 27,70C per day. Pointed cut 13nd use
must balance with transportation. First phase of the airrcrt ex7ansicn
Councilman walls moved to adopt Resolution #7, Series of 1974 ($5,500,000) began in 1971. Because of the lack of sufficient ca=ital
to really handle the transportatio problem, t .e Cit _inzil can best
Seconded by Councilwcman Markalunas. Councilmembers DeGregorio, n y Cc-
Councilmembers Breasted, Markalunas handle the balance by doing something al,,cut land uses. one rea'.11,
Be'-rendt and Mayor Standlf�y nay; great problem is to maintain quality while keeping up with crcwth.
and Walls. aye., dies, tie vote.
Councilman Breasted mov,-d to have the resolution re-drafted deleting The County is working at u;7-dating the master Plan in the areas aicna
ond,�trl by Councilwoman Markalunas. the highway to the east and west sides of the City iin:ts. The Changes
reference to corner sigr.als. See r
All ir, favor with exception of Councilman DeGregorio arid Mayor in land use are very significant and certainly not piece real. 7te
Sta n dl e y who voted nay. Motion carried. Coqnty's resolutions giving reasons and justification for the down
zoning were many and the sar•e reasons and justifications could be applied
-12, SEPIF-S OF 1974 to the City's down zoning,. City needs to take another look at the
down zoning in all economic w.iy considering viabil;.t%. of the .-.unity
Co'-,nc-1• nian Markalunas moved to read Ordinance #12, Series of 1974. and relationship to transportation.
Seconded '7 Councilman i7ilis. All in favor, ir,o1.1_1111 carried.
IV -112, sE,,IFs IjF 1974, AN ORDII;A::CE AMEliDING OimtNAN (amending Ordinance Present zoning classification of the area under ccrsider3t4cn is Park
CE #11), and AR-I. Adjacent County area is 2 acre minimum district. In S.,;t-
Sr?:rS ��F 1373, CESIGNATV;r CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS OF THE ASPEN LAND stance no difference between Ordinance 412 ,endinz Or, n
E-- (down zoning). The difference fails in i.-Llerentation
R-I5;�E:SIrE1;-,TAL AND R-r RESIDENTIAL WITH MANDATORY P.U.D. and Ordinance #13
A!:D 1 ;CPEASTN(G THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX of the Ordinance.
_5 1'; THE R-6 DISTRICT TO; AME14DING ORDINANCE 19 ALLOW THE
DISTRICTS; IMPOSING ADDITIONAL REVIEW Waters Avenue made a good boundary line as it borders s4nc:le family D-S1-�1;;%T1-,'; OF v ()
;�!;DA, PY P.U.D. years �A--Ilv. The AND UL(A.APING THAT AN EME'RGENCY dwellill'Is tile IL12JI 11,1.1 d0%'010j'V1i OVOV the
CPI-IL1111 this clFC-1 as MiNed residential; the t�!e
I, I'; MA.;1�AT1,RY 1 .U-U-
EZISTS ;,�s r,�,,d 1,y tltll- k,Y tyff� City Clerk. use map shows
mol, was to make reviews and revisions to the r-a!' as each area care up for
Council-.an Breasted r,1,,,jed to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 1974. Study. Based on the high costs for transportation, services, etc.,
5e c 0 7'ded Markalunas. Roll call vote - councilmviribers the City must take a hard look at the number of accc-17c4aticns in the
Breasted aye; DeGregorio aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Behrendt community.
aye; Mayor Zta..1111.Y aYe- x-,tiOrl carried. Councilman Walls pointed out the previous intent was to 'seep the acZc:n-
Cp
C- modations along the base of the mountain in order to save SERIES rjj, 1974 tion. Questioned what the trade offs were as relates to a crcwth rate
m,,vcd to rr_.Onsider Ordinance #13, Series of and further stated he would like to know or see hcw the fits
1574. y by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor with exception into the entire City and what may be proposed. Feel the City is aettina-
of Walls and Markalunas who voted nay. Motion carried. too restrictive.
t,, ✓rdirivjnc(,- 413, Series of 1974. Meeting adjourned 5:00 pm.
Seconded by co•lncj_i-ari Breasted. All in favor with exception of
't;allls ar,�! Markalunej:; who voted nay. Motion carried. t
7
Pa.zie 2 , Council , 3/1 74 , cr-nti ni_?,ad .
Planr_ei Ferb Bartel 1oirit._7c!
-T
de-nial hecause -#-_1 t7c tha;
ri JL L
r than a page an c' 1,-ok
othe P n at 1Z,_1 1 is ci if f J
maps to show how the land i,; #2 easements dedicated
-,! a Ions require that no lot:
should be platted; #33 subdiv'lsioki reg-1 tti
19 F'
�; , 17
lines shall be chan,,-�ed without �Tc_; ,- the regulat;
4% dedication would apply; 45 lots should front upon a street.
Mr. Molny informed Council he has to have the present old houses c f
the' site by April 15th. This project would have no impact which is
the intent of the subdivision regulations, the whole premise is to
get two houses off the river bank. Density of this project will
half of what is allowed. As relates to proper platting and recor,'f-ing
there are many properties that are similarly divided and not platt-�d-
Stream margin easements are not recorded on the plan and have agrees
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 Walls who voted nay. Motion
carried.
UTE AREA DOWN-ZONING PROPOSAL
Mayor Standley pointed out there are three ways the City can go, #I-
down-zo7iie 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 land.
.,
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 recormuendation from P & Z
to amend Ordinance #19 by emergency ordinance rather than permanent
down zoning at this time was so the P & r", could look at the total
picture following future re-zonings and considerations under ordinance
#19 .
4 Councilwoman Marka"Lunas stated hor z�,_--rong coric3rnC for tl-..e old timers
in this neighborhood who will he sa-crificing value of their property
by making this a residential area .
RECORP") OF 100 Leave";
-Meeting -- Aspen Planning Zoning __'.Fe]:).ruaj-y 19 , 1974
Schiffer ques to get the
tioned how long it would take
golf course in shape.
Armstrong stated that would depend on how much funcling
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 star-
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 priorities
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 REZONINGLO'40"" 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 L,.-i, 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 miqht 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-
RECOPID CIDAI:
F R4 C F.
EIKU S.6.1 L.C).
Planning & Zoning Februar,'.' 1.9 , 1974
the recommendation for the rezo..J.ng of Ute pc r
SOL- Stated that he was not prepared to say that that
is the solution without taking a lock at what, the re--
zoning is going to be for the entire City . 'Y-17ould 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 tie 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 conceptuall% , 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) tnat 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 7\;_mstronrj , Secret:.,
REG01"I4_l 01"
C.I -F 8 E,E L'
Continued Mectinc
Aspen Planning & Fehrii&ry 7 , 1.974
P P"0 G 1,11,11 S
Bartell- stated that he ar)d Lanford worlcirici on
the. total miy.cA problejT.1. ita1C.ed he wou-16
like to prc.,,eiit- wh&L th }„,, feel. are so-.nt(_! very import-ant
additions . Stated that th��sc are really separate from
the land use recomumen(JE.,,tioj'is .
Stated that these are spec-ific things which they feel
should happen to upgrade the area.
Stanford submitted map sho:ing existing conditions in
the north section of the Liixed 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 those items , have come up
with their suggestions for a plan for the c".rea. Be-
cause of this diversity and the existing development,
which is almost total in the carea, 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 act.ions which would include th-r.
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 pr�-
fer to have them directed to the municipal parking lot.
Stanford stated that they also have proposed, planned
by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, �L 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 Joe
connected along the Roaring Fork River with a trail
system. Stated that they would like to come out with
some type of possible street liqlat-Anq that �,:c_ild . -in
addition to being street lighting for SCIEC"U_y purposest
would perhaps be utilized in some, way
Schiffer asked how resident units were distinguished
from tourist units .
Stanford stated th.--it this was based on an estimat-c th<" L
Vagneur made , depending on if they were living there
on a year around L.,asis .
Bartel point_o(l out, a section of rjv(z)- frontiige t,,Iiicl
in the flood 1A11-1i.n . that th(, a 1 �C Ct 1.i.(-)I) I'_C_'1'
the footA_))-'jA(.Je _i .”' in process and thu,:,o wi .1-j- not. he r_jji
--14-
REC01'11--) OF J,
C F.1 2 L CI
Continuod Mleeting, Aspen Planning & Zoning Fe b r"":a).-Y 7 , 197 `,
answer on that probably until April, or May .
Bartel stated that they did not feel the a.risvior
.' 1 t
totally building more streets , in fact conc,-!rn, �' -, -)1
that because of what it would do to the intersect4 oj-".
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 concep'L--t)-al 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-
d(-,.n on the Subco=ittee.
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 those people
are over 60 years old.
Vagneur stated that she brings this up frequently sinc
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.
Casey /-,rinstrong, .Sect c,-ary
FIECORD OF 1111-1,00ZEDINIGS 100 Leavr ,
Raqular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January S , J-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
V-1-1T—of Aspen, ✓ 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 Jim Moran, representing Attorney Art Daily, was
present and stated that he would like to preserve for
Mr. Daily, at such time as the CoraiL.ission does rehear
the matter, the privilege of argument that rehearing
is not appropriate or within the jurisdiction of the
Commission. Would like to preserve the point for fur-
ther argument that what tie 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 ng 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 Countv 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 v/ 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-
RIE-CORD OF PROCEEDINGS
r W'r'KF L 0,8.
R�o,qLilar Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Januir 1974
V 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 sE:t 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 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 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 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-
RECORD OF PROCEEDHNGS
1.F.11 _4 F 8 �J I
Regular�,,Iar 11,1ejetijcj Aspen Planning & Zoning January 974
sion of the Clarendon project asking for Planning Of-
fice comments when the Planning Office will be YJaking
the request of the Commission this evening to set a
public hearing to change the zoning of 1--he. 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 111-lixed
f
Resident- al .
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-Lng 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 Off-ice 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- f 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-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
.Kt L 9.B.1 L.C.1. .....
Reg Tar Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 8 , 1974
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 land-nark 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 the
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 , seconded by
Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
Concensus of the Commission was to have a study session
on the proposed rezoning for Thursday, January 10th at
5:00 p.m.
Moran questioned the use of the designations "rural" and
"conservation" for zoning.
CLARENDON J 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 reconunendation was not based
on this plan, that it was made prior to the full 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—
°. City Council
a E 140- Unit Co n co rs n� u � Complex
Approval
a 60 foot right of way and extension of West End Avcrn.
u By SANDY CULLEN Therefore the council agreed to adopt both ipphc itions if certain coalitions
A PUD (xitline development plan and final subdivision plat presented by Desti- were met by the developers. The final sutxli roil PLO �va� a ;broved subject to
nation Resort Corporation for a proposed 140-unit condominium complex at the the extension of West End Avenue to an a,i. .;tfa(.e %v;d n1,h the approval of
co corner of West Ei.i and Ute Avenues were approved by Aspen's City Council fol- the City Enf ineer.
lowing a continued meeting Monday. The subdivision ag cement was approval subject to file inclusion of price de
.� Before reaching their decision the aldermen confronted the developers with tailsby the City Engineer.
se,,oral questions. Councilman Francis Whitaker asked what assurance the city The PUD outline development plari was xt+lr:ovecl IU , 't to the review of
r, ha3 that the shuAle bus system will operate on a continued basis to adequately parking in tha thud phase oi' building, th adjustirrtnt on file right of way,
ae•.r-omiar)(t 1,.!Pc3ple without automobiles. and the agreeni it on the shuttl bus op r atiOE'
F, Bob Lowe, a representative of Destination Resort Corporation, responded that Alt,irlgh Eve ifurney r_indip l.cd tr i. tt council was i reed to make a
there would be at least two shuttle vans traveling back and forth between As- "rne anc;G;� dc,J'si(,,A an+is :Vliit«ke; r ;{ t l n�c;i e �t'u:listically. "1 think
9. pen and the airport during the peak summer and winter seasons, and that this that`we vz. ..rnry Lviral things conccr;u tr rs pl t l developers have
requirement could be incorporated into the PUD outlnie development plan as a inewpi;i atcd a reduction of density from 1 ' !o t< ; , ,.is, i i uoc:tion of parking
part of the -ondominium declaration along with already existing provision for spaces by ?o nt cvnt, all,. ern alt:rati n of c,l i„ to c a view corr.cloi
landscaping aril snow removal. from Glory i,,,e to inie nlenee lass ei 3; iu,c 'nt p' _ he said, "and
When questioned about the legality of the proposed project, City-County Plan- that's ouitc.an iccorrn0hshn7enl "
.ier Herb B:.irtei pointed out that it complies with local ordinances as well as Jim Breasted addressing those who weir disl�l a tid with flies proposed proj-
the recommendations of the Punning and Zoning Commission. tic t arnl disappointed with the council's decision, indic:atou that citizens could
part of the city in reg
"The thing that bathers me is not that the developers are e• ai-d to "nieridirir; coning in the mar
legally correct," expect action on th
Councilman Y;xs Griffin said, "but that there are unanswered ramifications of ter plan to reduce density.
the project ,- i.= c;)rrtmrmity involving increases in population, traffic, and a;: n other business° Art Dail3 announ�e l 1.� resign., a part-time Clay At-
ru,'futon."
torney due to an ethical cuufliet. It is;t.i.i in ri Eion to rem zt.r 13ri private practice
"Exactly." a;'or Eve Homeyer said. Recognizing that '_residents wish to re- and continue his professional career with .l�l► nrr . a Ii i;e council is now
;;e t hp?, duns t,_ :iut that the city continues to approve projects without searching tar a full-time City Attorney, ,lino will rr_e� tc tirivaI i.lry ire t!g ns; i`s:_ _ <g, she added, "Arid the fault lies with us, not the project." the range of $20,t u i,
r ouncllm in j-icic Walls suggested opening West Eta Avenue at both ends to The aldei'm�n also agreed to put Pesr l.rt- �i vo uti o ; .r:g the city to pair
permit an 'temate direction of traffic rather than closing it to all except timer- chase IP4- au is of the 'l; , ,rr '' ,t= ;e i ra i i yeards for $1.75
gC"cytiCi' =�s million, on the <tgen 1, lot- tl.. n,wt r_;,.tt .,' r. ti„r t,iia , rrh2,
Herb Ba t>:l :curl-M-ted that this would :rear_ a considerable right of way
and realignment of property.
Supporting Jack Walls's suggestion, C.Wuncilmen Francis Whitaker and Jim_
Breasted indicated that they would like to see the final subdivision plat reflect
166U tinny:i!!_o, I .
I)CIt�-er,CulJr.0..0 Wio
City Co,.;;l:.
b
UATIE; April
This coming Monday evening you will he holding a puhl:i_c iT...caring
on the Ute Avenue downzoning (Ordinance 13) . Because the only
project materially affected by this Ordinance is Clarendon , we
feel that you shouid understand this proposed project , the pro-
cedures and r::v i-ews that have been completed bo fore the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Covmission (p&Z) to plate and the issues
that have been resolved through good .faith negotiations with the
City P&Z .
As a practical matter , the ?proposed jownzoning only affects the
Clarendon project . The City Attorney has provided you with filer
opinion that Ordinance 12 (T;:,'difi cation of the Ordinance 19 map)
does not aF e . �. he C1 e endon project since Clarendon is '"'
c
aPPlicL on : t_.o:r i ;nca 19 , Also , she 'has ,'.xpre- spl il -
•
opinion ` jown7onLnq swtud in the j , O )U: d OrC1' «iC _ 15
would df. Ct 00 pending 1Za r e? aon project , Ordinance 1
)
(modlficaZion of the Ordinance 19 map) effectively "downzones"
all property in the rite Area other than Clarendon ; therefor 3 ,
the dowazo Iing (Ordinance; 13) has an effect oil!y on this
specific proj ct .
Therefore , ws W HOM that next WnGa - night you
hearing a genwrai zon'nf issue , but You will specifically and
exclusively be considering an ordinance affecting only one
project . Since this is the case and the Council might bu
assuming the tOt`al decision powers relating to this project ,we
feel that yom should li.a7e the benefit of all tho fuels already
presented to t._o P(E commission , e nd 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 zoning) .AR- 1 z .
a Shortly after exercise of the
option, the Ute City Protection agency petitioned to
downzone the Ute area.
I
s
1
M 1
t
T
t
3
7
city council Members
April LS , 197A
P 1;C t W o - - - -
fn ru ponnv ru the Fhr. "Y p0soj 51 POP U O CitY Pvzlc ion ,
• o quicii; qnhmvutnd a plan to thu Auilding Inqpeolur
166 WIMAO for 4 ) apartment units (Forksida Npartmvnts) . f L is Uur
crono Nor opinion thaL this submittal is still valid and that we
ac ect a-"4- could 5011 chcso apaTtments it we so desire . Since the
'77H Park0da Apnrtmwatj .were quickly designed any not the
GUAS IN(oiZeec-T, type of development with which we wish to be associated ,
oil e exonj we decided to design a more responsible project and
"Hen;, eL) fatKi�'Tj process it under Ordinance 19 .
go-(
(gC
3 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 zoniag 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 bettor
solution . We YoLantarily clininated 10 units and pro-
ceeded 00 a 36 V"iz concept .
4 . on Octobw2 1S , 1973 , a site plan was submitted to the
Building ins?ector 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 ,
t
1913 .
S . Novembso ll , 1973 . On wook prior to the scheduled
meeting , we presented a booklet relating to ths 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 Me-171bers
1974
P' Se three
rp
17
an iliti,:;s : ski lift
d
C,-,11 v e 1!i C i J, a i-k e
L c e
C S Site C a Cj-I ni III i Z e the
use and dependency C),, the it
automobile .
Is an appropriate location for a pedestrian-
oriented , tourist-related US-, .
b . Site area
i . 1 . 627 acres or 70 , 875 . 98 sq ft .
ii . Under AR-1 zoning , 47 units would be permitted.
C . Site characteristics
fi
I Flat , C1O1.'.0-)LL'D ! e
site
Little ve,-eta' tion except on Ute .
heavy co acentration of con(lominiums 0-.1
s Ur 1'0 7ri', "
ert a-s
d .
Enlisting Land Use Study
i . In the neighborhood 80.1 of units are tourist
In the p--.
5 0 a7'1 0()d o t h e Icreage is in
tourist use .
e. Condominium Ownership
i . Over of all condo units in the city are
used as permanent residences .
The Clarendon will not disc-riminate •against
permanent resident buyers .
f. Existing Zoning
i . 47 unlimited units or 94 studios or hotel
ro,,-),,i -re permitted under zoni.-
ii . LIP-its were �A ng .
propose,1. A _23'a reduction
had been made .
iii . 39 parking spaces are provided for the 36 units . .
9 - Aspen Interim Land Use
i . Site lies in Mixed Residential .
Project
to be used by permanent residents
and tourists . T
.1 e r__fo I-e ; s a true mixed
residential use . (Original definition of
tl
i.
City Council Members
C! t o u r t
h Owner C 0 7,iA i L.1'1?n t 3
i Comm -C-".e a t S included : d o n a t i 0 n 5 to City
West End dedication for possible street
ext,eTIS1011 , a trail easement , preservation
of two Sol spruce trees ,
landscaping , view
preservation , storm drainage , etc . These are
best shown graphically -,;.n our presentation .
i . Design Constraints
i . A drawing summarizing the design problem was
presented .
ii . Only 42'a of site is useable after City and
owner constraints .
j . Schematiz Sit-o Pian
i . 30 -tiio -1)edroom 1_,114tS and 6 three bed-room units .
ii . A tennis court , swimming pool and therapy pool .
iii . An under-round parkinry structure, under the
0 ✓
tennis cou--rl't-s .
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 wall-ling times at 2 . 5
miles/hour walk .
to Little Nell 3 . 5 min .
+o City Market 5 r:1 4
I -n.
to Post 011fico 6 . 5 i!i in .
to Bus Centor 7 . 2 min.
to Galena &
Hy-man corner 9 . 2 min .
The site is padostrian oriented , i-,ilninizlng
potential use of the automobile .
t
City Council Members
I-- L
C i a 1
r 0 i d S a r a
LS co;nple-,- -1,!1 ela'oor'LLe
on tills _J 4: given th ' oppo rt Lill L ty.
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 they proposed
to come up with in the 90 days , and further questioned the
Commission on what more >,ioula be required of the applicant
that we have not already sub-HiitteL 1. It was not clear iv';at
the Commission des il_-3d , and it is interesting to note that
since this request in Dacemluer , very little additional
planning and analysis has occurred to date .
The discussion ..ias continued to the next meeting .
January 3 , 1974 . The Of
:rice-
Planning fice rcco-Mmendod concept
4 approval with conditions as follows :
kAMU EKFe 4)),A/J f:(IfZ,
j-H,efeet+ iiae Re&z Covenant deeds to restrict rental to periods of
foe�-4_'T(R, Ikt -9-0 thADC-less than 6 months .
b. Phase the development
C Eliminate on-site parking.
P-4-& -rb d. Remove all fireplaces
A V01 7W- PCLL_%
7�()VtN 6 4 Aet)�_4 I H T
,,V,,JTI rV -rHrc- Our response , in summary , to each of these conditions
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 tnL' S
type of request by the City might be discriminatory .
b . Ll~r=ed to please the day.elopment .
C . ',V e 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 Divi�;ionls air quality study. The-re were
t.
ti
City Council Neml_)°rs
April IS , 1974
Page six
a i V l 0 1.
ti'at
J O U
U o;i U.; 1A
s, j o i I J.s
1
-i- wood n s i_;;1-j) ri iv 11 i U Z L!cl 1 ,1
15 l t 0, It 5 COYJ r s L I io j i TI
U out
Chat t-h Air 11c) 1 1 i-,t J o n C,o 11 t-r o I
Or'? w r n by tl'i,? sj;ne Co-,1 al 0 ri T)_r ra i t. e d
L' re D lac 5 lit 1110 L11 n- t tL -11 0 -20SO
_ f- a,l'^.?s Tile, real
Pollution sourc,- in Aspen in the au t o ITI o,)i I a . No
significant benefit Can be achieved by banning
new fireplaces . This issue is cove-red In great
detail in our presentation .
Much discussion followed , and PETZ did not vote on the
project . 1"he meeting was continued .
9 . January 10 , 197d .
Under Ordinance 19 , the Commission had
to a this date (30 dllrs- from s
MO i_:;SUeS Were brouz,'I� up and discussed . Major ones
bein,T
a. At tli_ jrl vicus meetin- , it was suggested that low
or moderate cost housing for employees should be
constructed on the Clarendon site . A -oresentation
of de�,sizies w,iich made such a use econom-Lca .ily
Peasi!)le rras made . Pql'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 IS
days so that the Planning and Zoning Commission
could have the Plannin.- staff review and recommend
a definition of mixed residential .
C. At our nest meeting with the Planning and Zoning
Commission at which time we were expecting to
have a comprehensive definition of mix-ad
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 .
Iro 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 .
City Council Members
April 18 , 1974
Pago seven
Sri_, tor 7q 7, m 0 0 r_1 1-o a C ;L o n 71
t 11 r;1;j J I
5 7 .1 J: thL, Curii7ii ; _�sion s r� a r
t
10 . .1 a n ua r:,/ 29 , 11-174 . 1) Z� held i p u 11)1 4L c: I i i r i-n g to o o i i:i e r
the dotvnzoain� proposal _initiated by the 11_1 ,.;nniog 0 -E-11:1ce
0
for the Ute Avenue At a later they
decided to recommend to City Council modiFication of the
Ordinance 19 Land Use tklap 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&-] felt that -even at 36 units there were too
many units , too many cars , and too many people . In order
to solve this basic problein and to continue th-rOL11(y1i the
approval process in an attempt to make this summer ' s
buiidtnu season , ive agreed to construct only 24 units .,
This was acceptable to llf2,7 and the Clarendon gained
concept approval .
12 . Ordinance 12 . AgreeLnc," with the ra_-onmr-.ndatlon of P Z ,
City Council proposed an Ordinance (Ordinance 12) to
modify the Ordinance 19 Land Use "!a-P. This was passed
on _first -1--oadinu Z' a public hearing was hold , it was - - - - -
Y a -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
passed 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 . Ordinzace 13 . After passing Ordinance 12 making it law,
1 0
the Council passed Ordinance 13 on first reading , which
would downzone the Utte area. Next Monday the Public
'Hearing on this Ordinance is beina, held.
In summary , we ask you to consider the following points
before you t,-11-,e 1-ic- _ioii on Ordinaiice 13 :
1 . Tile 0rdinanc� before you is not a comprehensive zoning
ordinance ;u �r,cr `ed by a illaster Plan . It is fragmented ,
r 7 C)1-1 :1
ii� proposed Ordinance 15 only materially affects one
Spe(- L T-1—C P-,7r) lect IvIlic."I IS a prior appi ication under
latv (Ord inance 19 and the previoits
C1 V I 't 4 V Mk, At U 'Ti Ce 0
A i- LL)f}S ('04_1 n. 7 t ON k K.-) e,e`
W br v I tz 4 D ki 1A
'-Tti C t.V(-OTJ -n4 L1_ T 1, I AC-T 16
t: 43 1 ZL T t-3 C Cv,:'C 12 S t-1 ct-11 0(-T�
1,J
7)I-r c &
City Council Members
April 18 , 1974
Pagu eight
at a spavi0a yro ; ecr and couid h� i" to -promd as vpoL
J . The Qa7andoa plan , nppr3ved concursuaLly , is not
(ice nri2ontal to the arou . L t -1 ;; -1,;- ;-;, d -,,it �, --i-L JL n (-ao.r a c t or
consisting of 24 townhouse 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
pr1q)erty . T%e approved Clarendon plan is for only 24 .0/
P4�"My eight units are the issue .
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 inEormad as the P&Z Commission that has given us
' concept Pp7raval and pTeliminary subdivision approval .
No are prepare! to do thhs Monday night or at a sub-
Sequent study session convenient to you.
We thank you for your time and would oppreciate consideration
of the opportunity to Ascuss our project with you in detail .
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
s
SPEAKERS
Lau
2,
3.
5.
>� COW
8.
c�
10.
,.•-i1, r�v.-
12,
C�k �-
�k4 4
16,
20,
21.
22 .
23.
24.
25,
26,
Public Hearing Exhibit Items for the Ute Avenue Proposed Zoning
January 29 , 1974
ITEM NUMBER
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
}
;i
ZONING
' , ,A'9kiHl I I 1 - - � i•
•J
r u
r ' _
77,
iL
-Mr 4:303EN
• f _ s ..
1
LEGEND 1
>- c
f 1 �
;�• RESIDENTIAL
BUSINESS N - -
U UNRESTRICTED
1
f
-• � I �� a's�ry
1
scALe 1": goo'
�� a
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-mifications
of the project on the community involving increases in popula-
tion, traffic and air pollution. "
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
City Council
M
• Complex r. pp� va1.40 Unit Condominium t
N a 60 foot right of way and extension of West End Avenue.
u By SANDY CULLEN lberefore the council agreed to adopt both applications if certain coalitions
A PUD outline development plan and final subdivision plat presented by Desti- were met by the developers. The final subdi\i:;inn plat was al,l,roved subject to
T nation Resort Corporation for a proposed 140-unit condominium complex at the the extension of West End Avenue to an act:'quate �ycdth with the approval of
a corner of West End and Ute Avenues were approved by Aspen's City Council fol- the City Enginer.r.
The subdivision agreement was approved object to the i��eiusion of price de
� lowing a continued meeting Monday. 6
Before reaching their decision the aldermen confronted the developers with tailsby the City Engineer.
PC several questions. Councilman Francis Whitaker asked what assurance the city The PUD outline development plan was i -.oVv ,1 subject to the review of
3, has that the shuttle bus system will operate on a continued basis to t�lequately parking in the third phase of building, the t��ilustraEf,nt on uie right of way,
accommodate people without automobiles. and the agreement on the >huttle bus operatio i.
Bob Howe, a r ,resentative of Destination Resort Corporation, responded that Although Eve Homeyer indicated that t1w council w is forced to make a
a there would be at least two shuttle vans traveling back and forth between As- "melancholy del-ision, Fr Ar�cis Whitaker rt ,deli rrnt:-c opti,uistically. "I think
q. pen and the airport during the peak summer and winter seasons, and that this th,j we've t-r sired several things concerns thi; project i'hc developers have
d requirement could be incorporated into the PUD outline development plan as a• incorporated a rulr�etion of density fron, 1 3 to llo m6 Li, � r,�ciuction of parking
part of the condominium declaration along with already existing provision for spaces by 30 t„_r cent, and an alteration of roof lutes to create a view corridor
andscaping and snow removal. i p, ua:>,” he said, "and
from Glory Hole to lndcpe�f'xler.ce Pass in t,e current
When questioned about the legality of the proposed project, City-County Plan- that's quite an accornplish"writ."
ner Herb Bartel pointed out that it complies with local ordinances as well as Jim Breasted, addressing those who were displeased with the proposed proj
the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. ect and disappointed with the council's deck,on, indicatrrd that citizens could
"The thing that bothers me is not that the developers are legally correct," expect action on the part of the city in regard to amending zoning in the mas-
Councilman Ross Griffin said, "but that there are unanswered ramifications of ter plan to rt.lucedensity.
At-
the project on the community involving increases in population, c,•affic, and air In other business Art Daily annourc(d his resit iataon as part-time City At-
pollution." torney due to an ethical cadliet. It is his ir+t�uti„n to r<<nacn t„ private practice
"Exactly," Mayor Eve Homeyer said. Recognizing that 'residents wish to re- and continu c his �t„fc t_m ti career with I+ '�.a i Ana 1� t the council is now
annual :Mary i
duce the density, but that the city continues to approve projects without searchio- to a full-bin C,ty Atto.ney, ,a. �:oll <<'';t� :i< in
changing th `ng, she added, "And the fault lies with us, not the project." the ranee(}f L' ,t.*!u.
Councilm in Jack Walls suggested opening West End Avenue at both ends to The alde<rnon al',n af-ii ec`J to put Resr.lut ''; i` �. .�utt a ,'i the city to pur-
permit an alternate direction of traffic rather than closing it to all except emer- chase 1P. acres of the Tf uernau pt opet ty an tno alit r ails ,,_d yeards for $1.75
gtncy vehicles. million, on th,� agerxia for l
s ,e next i rguiz,r nl-,eiin it°_.)i:dav March 26.
Herb Bartel commented that this would mean a considerable right of way
and realignment of property.
Supporting Jack Walls's suggestion, Councilmen Francis Whitaker and Jim
Breasted indicated that they would like to see the final subdivision plat reflect
t
April 5, 1973 The Aspen Times Page 7-C
a"` S
z :_. F s y i.. F # (i i Y �.l Ju L� iii I�t
N;�pressmg discontent ith N,, ,i,dav and si?brnitted to the organization known as the Ute City submitted the City Clerk has 10 According to attorneys for the
fas made tsy the City Coe,n-il City C1crk this morning. Prop-ction Association which days to certify its sufficiency. petition sponsors, if the council
;;z ravising zoning density, a pr-ip AIse sO--1niifcd were written recently opposed approval by the After this is done the City Council considers the proposed ordinance
-idtm+s submitted an initi;wve st;itenownts fror13 two aldern,len, ccruu<it of subdivision and PUD must adopt or reject the ordinance. at its specraI .oeeting tomorrow
*dinan.re this morning calling for It-u:;; Griffin and Jim Sr+-a,,ted, Mani& for it 140-unit condominium it the proposed ordinance is and decides to reject it, the
rzo?ing the southeast :section of asking for a special meeting of the coin(lei at the corner of Ute rejected by the council it must be measure can be placed on the May
the city now zoned AR-1. City Council tomorrow, April G. Avenue and West End Street. submitted to the voters not less 8 city ballot.. If not, a special
The petition, with over 350 Sponsors of the petition They are Jony Poschman, .Janet than 30 days or more than 90 after election would be required.
wignatures, was circulated represent a community Landry, Barbara Allen, Debbis the council vote. Petition sponsors told the Aspen
Elias, and William Gaudino. A Although no time limit is set by 'Mmes that they would like to have
spokesman told the Aspen Times the charter for council con- the matter placed on the May 8
01,11 lhov. rr�gUeFfed the ordinance, ridc,ration of the ordinance, it ballot if it is not accepted by the,
bc.car::;c they were not content with states that this must be done council, thus saving the city the
the progress being made by the "promptly." cost of a special election.
PHoiang and 'Zoning Commission
or ncc City Council with promised
rc
The spokesman pointed out that
despite a PZ resolution, which bad
l een accepted by the council,
ci lliwS for work to begin on
` revisi,;rt of zoning density. much of
the dir.usinn at a recent council
str;dy scssion had been devoted to
whether such density
redu-.Aion was wise.
In calling for rezoning the Ute
City area, the requested ordinance
contends that the area "is in
danger of overcrowding in
violr.,tion of the provisions of the
regional master plan." •
The, ordinance also points out I
that cknsities specified in the plan
for 1985 has already been ex-
cecded. It. also maintains that the
area isalso primarily developed as
a residential neighborhood..."
Area to be included in the
proposed ordinance is that portion
of the city falling southeast, of the
intorse(Lion of Cooperand Original
Streets which is zoned AR-1, Ac-
commodations and Recreation, a
tnuri�;l type zoning.
According to the City Charter,to
be valid the petition for an
initiative ordinance must be signed
by 15 per cert of the electors
regi,;tered to vote at the last
goneral city election. According to
the City Clerk,255 signatures were
needed.
Once the petition has been
THE GANT
Development t%istory
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 residences ; 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 plans
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
2 -
and partitions at interior stairs , sound retardant bedro,:,,.r.
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.
1/24/74
DB
f
B LU E S I:�Y' C O ;
On March 20". 1973 , P & Z first heard a PUG 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 appro-:.imately 88 unlimited units
or 176 limited or lodge snits .
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 :-;as 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
I
TT-1"
In Sept, 1973 a corporation, Site Finders , Inc . , made
application for subdivision and Ordinanc e 19
review
1 Ave dots 11 12 13
condominium units at 85 Ute A
for 14 condoms ( >
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 inIcompatible 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
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 .
II
x f .
Chairman
Aspen Planning Commission
M1
Dated this , day of �:�yY�-' 1973.
i
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS X00 Leaves
a.a.N L.1
n
i
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS IN
THE EASTERN PART OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM AR-1
ACCO 'MODAT'IONS 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 TIT: 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 an,! Zoning Commission
has recommender' the downzoning of certain tracts on
the east periphery of the City cli� 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 designati=n 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
H' -,KF.3.B.d
"(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;
6. School, church, hospital, public building for
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,j000 square feet per dwell-
ing u2it with a Wilaimum
s lot area of 61000 square
feet 9000 SQUARE FEET
3. All other uses . . . . . 6,000 square feet
(2)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Fr.RM=r C.F.HI ECKEL B.B.&L.Ca. - ---
1
Minimum lot width . . . . . . 60 feet
4 Minimum front yard:
I
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 let
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
i
District. All permitted and conditional uses of this
(3)
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FOFM or, F.11()F.::ri EL B.8.&L.CO.
1
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 61° 27 ' W 83.79 feet along the southerly
(4)
• E
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
F pPN=u f. AOUREL 9.R.!k L.Cl.
lot line of Lot 10, Calderwood Subdivision
k
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 250 30' W 323 .42 feet more or less to the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue ;
E
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 58° 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 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
i
an elevation contour of 8040 feet to a mon-
ument,, stamped Elevation 8040 approximately
40 feet westerly of the most westerly part of
A
the Aspen Alps Road; thence easterly to the
westerly corner of Aspen Alps south condo-
minium boundary as shown at Plat Book 3,
i
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
F'>NM io C F.NJECKEL S.B.8 L.CJ.
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
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.
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
(6)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 200 Leaves
FARM. t C.F.HOECKEL 8.B.&L.C).
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;
i
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 :
E
Beginning at the south corner of Lot 26 Ute
f
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
i
to the southwesterly corner of the Little Nell
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
:)4M'J C.17.N-JECKEL B.B.9 L.C7.
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;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
nvk :• C.F.HOECNEL B.B.8 L.CC.
(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
S
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
f
height and scale to increase open
space and preserve the natural fea-
tures of the terrain."
(9)
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
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
x
to be severable.
Section 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 1974.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
t
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FIRM'^ F.H J.0.
,FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1974,
Stacy Stanaley TH
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
t
t
LEGAL 1\410TICE
Notice is hereby given that a Planning �-iad Z1�ninl-, Co l,.,7,lissl.on
I u!j lic Hearing is schedutled to be held in CitI,, Coi-i,nci.l
City Hall, 130 South galena SL---o�-t , Asp-en, Colorado, in JanuLiry
29, 1974 at 5: 00 P.Mt. to consid �r sever;Eil- ai-m-,j.)d file-i t's, to t-1-"c
Zoning Code of the City of Aspen (Chapter 24
as follows,:
1. An amendment to Section 24-5 (e) R-6 Resident-1-al,
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
ap as mandatory Planned Unit Development with
additional authorization to review development on
certain slopes and to designate the number oF
dwelling units per striuctLire.
At such h,?aring all persons in interest may appear and be heard .
If you arc- unable to appear 4
..n percon as such time you are
u.rgcd to 1-3tat-- your vie �-js by addressing them to Chairman,
Aspen Planning & Zoning Com,114.1 S sion, P.O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado,
816115 on or before January 28 , 1974.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a Planning and Zoning
Commission Public Hearin- is scheduled to be held
in the City Council Chzmber_s , CilLy 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, Pitkin 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 Mate your views by
addressing them to Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zon-
ing Commission, P.O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado, 81611,
on or before January 28, 197-1;*.
/s/ Lcrraine Graves
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
A PARCEL OF LANLF) LOCATED IN SECTION 18 TLOS , RG"-,4k� OF THE
6th P.M. PITKIN C0t_lN'_fY , COLCCADO lk PA P I C 1:1 LA R.1
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 017 BLOCK 119 AND BLOCK 40
EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING
THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Ol;_j,T Y LINE OF WATERS
AVENUE, TO TIP] POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
LINE 1-14 OF THE EAST ASPEN TO1,111,11SIll EP ;
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 000 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. CONTINUIN-C]l ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-1111AY
R-15 MANDATORY PUD
January 8, 1974
Page Two
S 580 28' E 511. 7' FEET T 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 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 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 WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF WAGON ROAD AND WEST END STREET TO
THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 113
R-15 t4NDA'T, ', PUD
January 8, is
Page Three
ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE SOUTH--
EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
January ` ,
E;:IIBIT i3"
R-r
A PARCEL, OF 1�,\ND LOCATE11 IN SEC"A'110 N iu TIOS , R3'�W OF Tll
6th P.M. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORAD-J BEI l(S MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEERLY 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 NORTF5q`ESTERLY 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-WAY LINE OF
UTE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF UTE AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
January 8, 10,74
EXHIBIT °tIi`1
T /_ I'A 7'
TSri 1 N-'N •T
iS,"'EJ i"v.-S1V IJL`S Ti-
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 COMTER 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-�4AY 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 OFFICE AT
PLAT BOOK 3, PAGES 313 and 314; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TILT_
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 $5 ,957 , 242
Series B 1 , 722 , 786
TOTAL $7 , 680 , 028
2) Thomas Property ------------------ $320, 093
Roughly 16% of City of Aspen, Pitkin County
Gen. Obligation Water Extension & Improvement Bonds
Series 1972 .
MEMORANDUM
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, 7291397
Interest payments are 36% of this figure.
BLOCK 41 EAST ASPEN
LOT
DAVIS, JOHN C . & COROLYN A, B, C
210 AHWAHNEE ROAD
LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60045
GAUDINO, SUSAN H. D, E,
P . O. BOX 2237
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HOLSTEIN, PHILLIP M. JR . F, G,
P. O. BOX 2747
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CAMPBELL, KENNETH & BARBARA M/B
441 SOUTH S T
7 SOU SO TO STREET
VERNON CALI F 00 5 8
9
BLOCK 120 ASPEN
JAY, NELSON D. & MARY B . A, B
P. O. BOX 178
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LEWIS, ROBERT 7 BARBARA C, D, E
P. O. BOX 262
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COTE, BROWNLEE B. F,G,
BOX 4929
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
EPLER, ROBERT H. H, I ,
(SOLD TO GREGG, MARY JOSEPHINE
P.O. BOX 1565
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DESTINATION RESORT CORP . K THRU 2
1801 CENTURY PARK WEST M/B
LOS ANGELES, CALIF . 90067
CALDERWOOD
LARKIN, THOMAS J . & HARRIET A. 1
382 HILLDALE DRIVE
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48106
CHALMERS, ELIZABETH M. 2
BOX 1123
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
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 1456
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 250)
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 146
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, FONDA DENNE 13
BOX 253
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GEARY, WILLIAM J . & RENEE M. 14
4800 SOUTH ALBION
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80120
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 C& 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
PLANS AND STUDIES
October, 1973
Update 10-17-73
10-24-73
01-28-74
PLANS
October, 1973
Update 10-17-73, 10-24-73
01-28-74
TITLE DATE SUBMITTED
Aspen Area General Plan Inventory Report 1965
Leo A. Daly Co. -Planners , Architects and
Engineers
Aspen Area General Plan Final Report 1966 February, 1966
Leo A. Daly Co.-Planners , Architects
and Engineers
Trails System Plan March 1973
Planning Office
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan Aspen, April, 1973
Colorado
University of Colorado
The Aspen Land Use Plan - July 1973 and July, 1973
Ordinance No. 19 (Series of 1973)
Planning Office
Urban Runoff Management Plan August, 1973
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers
Regional Transportation Plan, City of September, 1973
Aspen and Pitkin County
Alan M. Voorhees and Associates
Preliminary Report Master Plan Study September, 1973
Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Aspen, Colorado
Isbill Associates , Inc.
Proposed Amendments Aspen Area General Plan October, 1973
1966 as applicable to the buttermilk area
and roaring fork east area
Harman O' Donnell & Henninger associates , Inc.
PLANS
Page Two
TITLE DATA.. SUB11TTTED
Capitol/Snowmass Creeks Lan- Use Concepts December,, 1973
Recommendations Prepared by Mountain
Valley Citizens Association
Summary of Aspen Master Plan Stuff January, 1974
Greg Isbill and Associates
Proposed Ute Avenue Plan January, 1974
City County Planning Office
STUDIES
October, 1973
Update 10-17-73 , 10-24-73
01-28-74
TITLE DATE SUBMITTED
Colorado Population Trends
Division of Planning, State of Colorado
The Use of Mountain Recreational Resources : Copyright 1971 by the
A Comparison of Recreation and Tourism in Business Research
the Colorado Rockies and the Swiss Alps Division, Univ. of Colo.
Phyllis T. Thompson, Dept. of Geography
State Univ. College of Arts and Science
Geneseo, New York
Transportation Report - Aspen Central Area January, 1971
Bus System
Transportation Committee and Planning Office
Noise Zones and Land Use Criteria Sardy Field March, 1971
Aspen Colorado
Isbill Associates , Inc.
Goals _Task Force - Programs and Objectives October, 1971
Goals Task Force
A Proposal for An Urban Design Supplement to December, 1971
the Historic and Zoning Ordinances
Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee
Map Showing Areas of Selected Potentia=l = 1972
Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle,
Pitkin County, Colorado
Published by the U.S . Geological Survey
Colorado: Options for the Future March, 1972
Final Report of the Colorado Environmental
Commission
STUDIES
Page Two
TITLE DATE SUBMITTED
County ction 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 Report Spring, 1973
Em 1p oyee Housing in Pitkin County
Stacy Standley
Pitkin County Air Quality Impact Regort 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 r'ield Pitkin County,
Colorado
P.G. Anderson
Traffic Signal Systems 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 DATE SUBMITTED
Road Network Analysis - Pitkin Coup October, 1973
Colorado
Briscoe/Maphis , Inc . , Management Services
Environmental Assessment for Master Plan for January, 1974
Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (Sardy Field_
Aspen, Colorado
Greg Is bill and Associates
Aspen-Snowmass Transit System - A Study January, 1974
of Equipment , Guidance and Route Con-
siderations
David M. Wallace, P .E . , San Antonio, Tex.
Aspen-Colorado, Light Railway an Equipment January, 1974
Survey
Presented by Paul V. Class , Gales Creek
Enterprises of Oregon, Ltd.
f-t
PROPOSED UTE AVENUE PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 29, 1974 BY THE CITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE NUMBER
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 S
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH INFLUENCE
THE DESIGN PLAN 10
OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PLAN 13
ACTIONS 15
-i-
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
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-
LOGIC FOR STUDYING THE EAST MIXED RESIDENTIAL
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 *rust
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 follows*:
UNITS TODAY FUTURE
Single-family to 4 units 45 53
Multi-family 57 311
TOTAL 102 364
based on no change in existing units .
-3-
i
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUMMARY
® 227 Units 685 Bedrooms
Clarendon Condominiums
36 units 78 bedrooms
Ute Village Condominiums
77 units 188 bedrooms
Tree House
6 units 12 bedrooms
Blue Sky Condominiums
8 units 16 bedrooms (est . )
The Gant
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-
:r^
LAND USE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE DESIGN PLAN
• 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: k
RESIDENT TOURIST
Single-family to 4 units 41 4
Multi-family units 6 51
TOTAL 47 55
A 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-
DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE FLAN
® 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 .
-6-
i
X
1!
DESIGN ELEMENTS continued. . .
3) Location and shape of development
i
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 .
i
POPULATION LIMITATION CONSIDERATIONS
0 Provide protection against heavy traffic
conjestion and the noise and busyness which
result from the presence of large numbers of
people.
0 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 .
0 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.
0 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.
POPULATION LIMITATION continued. . .
® 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.
® Establish a population density which is con-
sistent with ongoing planning efforts by Pitkin
County for the surrounding area.
-9-
GOVERNMENT ACT I OINS WHICH INFLUENCE THE DESIGN PLAN
• Eight million in public funds have been spent
for land acquisition to preserve the open
character at the West entrance -to_ Aspen.
0 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.
• 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-
f er„
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS continued. . .
• Designation of landmark public buildings as
Historic structures .
0 Request that the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission include the City of Aspen and its
environs in the complex sources regulations .
0 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-
4`
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS continued. . .
to protect the view towards Independence Pass
from Glory Hole Park.
-12-
i
OBJECTIVES OF THE DESjf p N
® 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.
a ,
® 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.
A 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.
0 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-
i
OBJECTIVES continued. . .
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-
T
t:
ACT I0R S
® 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.
J DURANT
J
J n 173 a J�19JT__� �
Q W�_-_I
GLORY F' WATERS
HOLE W \.
PARK
Q ,
MANDATORY
SO DUD MANDA Y 1\
PU j
LITE ,
CEMETERY
-15-
ACTIONS continued. . . F
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-
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
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 net 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 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
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.ceration 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—, 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 ecns'irties� and uses
of the zoning district) .
Elements not Conclusive in Determining if Rezoning is Proper.
I approach this backward and begin with a listing of 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) .
— U. 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 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 pzemise. 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 popu 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.
�. 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— azT 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 re— sic -ntial) .
*97 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 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 Co o , Denver v Chuck Ruwa t Chevrolet, P2d 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 area has .developed
(except for D.R.C. ) as a single family area;
d. the city has acquired and designated the cemetary area as
a Historic site;
e. the city has established two parks in the area (Glory Hole
and Ute Children' s) ;
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
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
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 mu---,t 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 .
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 :s d
q.
FEBRUARY, 1974
ix
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.
t
Chairman
ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION
7 _ .
DATED THIS 1 DAY OF � ` � , 1974.
ADDENDUM—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
dwelling unit nd 9 , 000 square feet .
i
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 s
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.