HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.620 E Hyman.010-84
.~.,.-:. :'..~-:"'-.-'. ....d.-'.: .:. .....'1' .,.t..='/"',::....,".. ......H_.....~:_"~,:.~::.:..;<!...:...~:"':;:'":..~'~C..l""'-..-"'"
= ..-,. ~.................,""_.-e.~4~:~ ...:.......... .. .""'......,<._. '. ,.~:.__..~..~.._~~ ~..... ~lt,~~_ .. ~'-::~.."l.~,,;..,....,..._::,..'!"'.~.~..,..._.;...~..~"''..-.. 9'"'" ~. 1",8(;
. :'
. .~... .~-....-... _.....~...."W- ~ ....' '''_"....
-_.
-?
- -
. .
-.
.
-.
- ~ROrICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 84-10
BEFORE THE CITY. OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
..
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a
public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said B~ard of Adjustment requesting _
authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.
yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,
as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to
grant or deny the request for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the reque~ted variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
Thursday, May 24, 1984
4:00.p.m.
;
Location:
Descri1>tion:
.
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Appellant:
Paul RUbin, Environdesign
P..O. Box 968
Basalt, Colorado 81621
Location or description of property:
Abetone Ristorante
620 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Name:
Address:
Owner:
Arch. Dan Surin and Ermano Masini
620 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
Variance Reques ted: Applicant is seeking reversal of Building Department 's
decision regarding the following: The building ~s a nonconforming structure as
it exceeds the FAR requirements in the C-1 zone category. Section 24-3.4 (area
and bulk requirements). Section 24-13.3 (a): no nonconforming structure may be
enlarged or altered in a way which increases itsnorrccnformity. Applicant appearE
b'lIr~1:1fc,nn1,et V'-arvfln~~~ce M.llsdeUC!roOj;noJf'adW~) Section 24-3.4 (area and bulk) .
~
Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY Remo Lavagnino, Chairman
Barbara Norri.s, Deputy City Clerk
-
.
...
--
ASPEN.PITKH..... REGIONAL BUILI:...-NG OEPARTMENT
'.
g lj-/!J
MEMORANDUl1
roo Gary Esary, Asst. City Attorney
FRm1:
Bill'Drueding, Zoning Enforcement
IJAfO
DATE: November 11, 1983
RE: Abetones - GMP Exem?tion
Per the request of P&Z to determine whether the outdoor cQurtyard had
been counted as F.A.R. at the time of the original permit, I have
reviewed our files.
At the time of building permit issuance there was a definition to
calculate floor area. This department has calculated the floor area
twice using tha.t definition and cannot see that the courtyard could
have been counted as floor area. Also, files indicated that Clayton
Meyring's calculation done at the time of the original permit did not
include the courtyard as floor area. However, it appears that he
may have counted the courtyard and seating to determ,j.l}e occupancy
load for the restaurant. I have made these files available to Mr.
Paul Rubin.
On November 7, 1983, I spoke with Cl.ayton Meyring ViCl. telephone"
Clayton recalled the building and stated "that he would not have
counted the courtyard as floor area. It was just a yard, not a
building". He further stated "he may have counted the courtyard
In occupancy calculations because people sitting out there would have
to get up those steps".
The building currently has a 1.83:1 F.A.R. and as indicated in Jim
Wilson's letter of October 13, 1983, iB non-conforming in that
respect. Section 24-13.3 states that a non~conformlng structure
cannot be enlarged in such a way that increases its non-conformity.
BD/ar
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-
.
-,
CITY Of
^SPErl
Rbi'
7" ill
/Viii 1
}(J ,
DA TE 4/24/84
,-,
APPEllMlT lATJL RUBIN/ENVIRODESIGN,.'
ArteI.I~~E6~ .~R. ',' '.~#..;J" .': .
ABETONE RISTORANTE' ','
\ I'..' "....," .
. ,
CASE 110.
'?1~ It?
'-
ADDIlESS pa BOX 9'68, BASALT, CO 81621
PHOIIE9~ 3636
ADDRESS 620 E. Hyman
Aspen, cq .8l6n
O~III[R
DAN SURIN/ERMANO MASINI
LdcnTIOII OF PROPERTY
620 E. HYMAN ST
.
.-:
. ASPEN CO 8l6n
lStreet. & ~lumber of Subdlvlslon Blk.' & lot No.)
. .-
Bul1din~ Per:mit' Application and prints or any other pertinent
_ data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
CASE NO.
..
, THE Bl)A?D HILL RETURN THIS .APPlICATlON' IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN'
AL~ THE fACTS IN QUESTION.
DE~RIPTIOil 'QF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHH1G' JUSTIFICATInI'lS:
.
'.
SEE ArTAOOED .
.
. ,
I',
. ..
, .
"
Will you be ~epresented by couqsel
~..,.
? Yes V N ... " L
SIGlIED: . ~ jU
Appellant
, ,
.
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDH/AIKE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO qORWARD TKIS APPLICATION TO rHE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ANDREASON
FOR NO,l GRANT! NG: Applicant is seeking l'eversa,'l 9f.'Building Dept. d~cision regarding ,
the fol1owing: ' ~e building is a non-conforming st,ru~tur"e, as it, exceed-s rhe F.A.R., requiY'ements
in th?,C-l,z,one category.' ,S~ction 24-3.4 (area and.fm'l!;' riguireme\lts): Sectio'n24-13.3(a)
no non:~con.for;"ing structur~ may be enl'arged or alierl'd in <t way ,which ,in'creases' its non-' ' .. '
conformity. Applicant appears to also, ne~ 'a variance' to reduce, op,m space" ,Section 2403~'4'
(area and bulk): ' ',,'
" .-....,:.-
.
"
'.
'.
.
. ,
.
..
" .
',{
....
" '
'-,
&1'~~~P :
'StatlJls ,. ,
, "
. " .
IEf:HIT REJECTED, DATE.51( /Pt
. f. /
\rrLiCr,1l0N .FILED
,
." .~
,. .
DECISION , DATE
-
DATE IF IIEAIlIUG
I^Il(O
J
.
.
. SECIlETA!lV__
,
.
.
fif 11'
AN APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
Date: April 24, 1984
Case No.
Applicant:
Abetone Ristorante
Dan SurinlErmano Masini
Represented By:
Paul Rubin
Envirodesign
P. O. Box 968
Basalt, CO 81621
927-3636
Location of Property:
620 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Introduction:
The responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment are set
out in Section 2-21 of the Aspen Municipal Code. There are two
separate distinct powers of the Board. The first (~2-21(1)) is:
"To hear and decide appeals from and review any
order, requirement, decision, or determination
made by any administrative official charged with
the enforcement of the regulations established by
the zoning laws."
The second power (~2-21(3)) is to:
"Where there are practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out
the strict letter of the zoning laws, in passing
upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of
these regulations and provisions relating to the
use, construction or alteration of buildings or
structures, or the use of land, so that spirit of
the ordinance will be observed, public safety and
welfare secured, and substantial justice done."
This second area of responsibility, i.e., the granting of
variances, was recently expanded upon by amendment to state
statutes. In C.R.S. 1973, ~ 31-23-207 the General Assembly, in
1981, and for the purpose of enhancing and encouraging the
development and use of solar energy, provided that:
"Where feasible, the board of adjustment may vary
or modify the application of the (zoning)
regulation for the purpose of considering access
to sunlight for solar energy devices.'
The request being brought to you for your consideration by this
application is authorization for the issuance of a building
,-,
permit for the purpose of enclosing an area of approximately 445
regulation feet (115 feet of landscaping; 330 feet of dining
area) of the existing patio area of Abetone Ristorante. We seek,
in the alternative:
1. A reversal of the Building Inspector's
determination that the construction would be an
illegal expansion of a nonconforming use; or
2. A variance to construct the improvements under the
authority to do the same for the purpose of
incorporating a solar energy device into the
existing structure.
The two distinct requests will be presented separately.
Reversal of Building Inspector's Decision
For those of you not familiar with the land use
regulatory history of the City, in 1973 the City Planning &
Zoning Commission adopted the Aspen General Land Use Plan which
included recommended changes to the City's zoning map and text.
In order to prevent construction inconsistent with the
recommendations pending adopting of code and map changes, the
City adopted Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, which set a building
permit review procedure to allow for issuances of permits only if
consistent with the plan pending adoption of the proposed
amendments. The original plans for the 620 Hyman Street Building
received approval under Ordinance 19. However, the owner then
appeared before the City Council with an improved design which he
wished to proceed with but which was inconsistent with the
pending changes (including area and bulk requirements) to the
Code subsequently enacted as Ordinance 11, 1975. Consequently,
the Council adopted Ordinance 50, 1974 which exempted the project
from the application of the Ordinance 11, 1975. Later, again,
the owner presented a new design which the Council preferred and
the Council adopted Ordinance 25, 1975, which extended the
exemption originally granted by Ordinance 50, 1974, for 90 days.
As conditions of approval, the applicant would have to (a) build
according to the plans reviewed by the City Council in March of
1975; (b) comply with zoning code provisions in existence prior
to the recent amendments; ~nd (c) comply with any conditions of
approval imposed by the p & Z pursuant to the earlier Ordinance
19 review. The area and bulk requirements in effect prior to
Ordinance 11, 1975, allowed a 2:1 FAR with provisions for
additional square footage when a project offered public arcade
space at ground level or open space in excess of that required.
No specific FAR calculations were made at the time of building
permit issuance for the 620 Hyman Building inasmuch as none need
have been done under the circumstances. The building inspector
has taken the position that (a) the patio was never included with
the FAR of the building; (b) the building has a current FAR of
1.83:1; (c) existing regulations establish a 1:1 FAR; (d) the
-2-
<"""'~
structure is now nonconforming and therefore cannot be expanded.
The applicant petitions the Board to reverse this decision and in
support of this request we offer the following arguments:
1. The building permit issued in 1975 did include
occupancy load calculations which clearly included the space the
applicant is requesting a permit to enclose.
2. The area has always been included within the area
leased by the applicant, as well as within the liquor licensed
area of the restaurant.
3. There is a statement made by Commissioner Johnsonl
at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 7, 1974,
t~at he "felt the garden level should be included in the floor
area ratio."
4. Ordinance 11 (Series of 1975) states that "in
measuring floor area for the purpose of calculating floor area
ratio, there shall be included that area within the surrounding
exterior walls . . . The floor area of a building or portion
thereof not surrounded by exterior walls shall include any usable
area under a horizontal projection of a roof or floor above."
An interpretation of these statements leads to the conclusion
that this area was counted if the wall at the sidewalk was
considered to be the exterior wall (even though the space was not
roofed) .
5. Further, the Ordinance states that "for purposes of
calculated floor area ratio, there shall be included basement
(but not sub-basement) areas except any such basement area
devoted to underground off-street parking." Since this area
could not be considered to be s~rrounded by exterior walls and
does not qualify as open space, it may have been calculated as
floor area by being included in the basement (or garden) level.
6. The area is clearly not open space for two reasons:
(a) Open space cannot be more than ten (10)feet
below the existing grade of the street which abuts
said open space. (This space is 10.3 feet below
grade. )
(b) The open space must be continuous and not
obstructed with building appurtenances and
appendages. Stairways will be considered
obstructions. (This space is accessed by a
stairway from the sidewalk.)
1
2
During the Ordinance 19 review.
See paragraph 6.
-3-
,'" ,
7. The area is only accessible by going through the
restaurant and then through the sliding glass door.
8. The (then) acting assistant City Attorney, Gary
Esary, acknowledged at a meeting before the Planning & Zoning
Commission on December 20, 1983 that the record is unclear
such that no one can definitely determine if the area was
intended to be included in FAR.
9. None of the purposes for which the FAR regulations
have been promulgated (impacts) would be defeated by issuance of
the permit. The Planning Office has said (Memo to the p&Z dated
October 11, 1983):
(a) "The applicant submits that no new employees will,
be needed as a result of this expansion. *** [o]f the
445 square feet of area, 115 sq. ft. will be
landscaping and 330 sq. ft. dining area. This same
space has historically been used for a summer season
outdoor eating area. The space accommodates
approximately four tables. Considering that this space
has been used for dining and waiters have been serving
in the bar area when this new space is available for
winter use, we believe the case for no new employees is
justified. "
(b) "The Engineering Department agrees with the
applicant concerning parking and considers that any new
generated parking need is not significant. Also,
because of operation only in the evening, there is no
conflict with the daytime activity of most of the
surrounding area."
(c) "The question of visual impact is not a
consideration in this case. First of all, the
restaurant is on the lower level and this roof will not
be visible at street level. Secondly, if the addition
is visible, it is considered by this office to be a
positive element and not one that would be a negative
neighborhood impact."
(d) "This incremental addition will have no effect on
existing levels of services. It will have a positive
effect on the runoff situation at the site, and will
add a passive solar element for the heating and cooling
of the interior space. The project architect will be
present at the meeting, to discuss the operation of the
glazed roof in site drainage and to answer the concerns
of the Engineering Department."
11. No other buildings were exempted from Ordinance
11, 1975, and the grant of the requested approval would not be
precedent setting.
-4-
.".....
12. The construction of the improvements will improve
the structure by eliminating an area which, in the winter,
accumulates snow and trash; and in the spring, standing water
(with resultant drainage surge).
For all of the above reasons the applicant requests
that you reverse the decision of the Building Inspector and
authorize issuance of the permit.
Variance: Solar Elements
In the alternative, the applicant requests the issuance
of a variance from the FAR requirements for the construction of a
solar device. The building code1
"encourages minimum fossil fuel consumption by
establishing minimum thermal insulation standards for
all occupancies and the use of innovative energy
conservation techniques in buildings.:
The Applicant has submitted its drawings the ASHRAE
methods and U factors of a solar system which will have
the following results:2
1. Solar gain (January 21)....455,000 BTU/day.
2. Thermal load (January 21) (no moveable
insulation) ....360,000 BTU/day.
3. Thermal load (January 21) (with moveable
insulation) ....223,000 BTU/day.
The existing restaurant's ceiling return air duct
system will then be able to reduce the existing structures need
by either 95,000 BTU/day or 232,000 BTU/day depending on the
preferred design solution.
The Applicant submits that the proposed improvements
fall directly under the statutory provision cited on page 1 and
we request the Board to exercise its power to carry out the law's
purpose accordingly.
1
Chapter 53, Section 5301.
2ca1culations do not include elimination of heat loss from
removal of sliding doors (massive infiltration), which clearly
enhance the thermal comfort as well as substantially increases
the net gain of the solar system.
-5-
"....
. .
~~'o(-........"..._...."':~--L..._>>.~.,~ ......:-~:...-;.~ -~.,,~ .'...---.~.,:~ .,~......,.;:.~-~
..,
ABETONE RISTORANTE
620 E. Hyman
638 E..HYman - Patio Building
.....
, '
."...:_...__..,_~...-.....".__.~._.~ _..__.~~~.".;..,._":':"~-.....o..- .lr.;.l
rPI- /0
c-
~
~
____,__ 1 !
,/) ~
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Jack S. & Gesine Crandall
PO Box 1066
Aspen, CO 81612
301 S. Spring St
. ."
Mountain States Communications Inc.
PO Box 2238
Aspen, CO. 81612
633 E. Hyman
Boris M. & Dora L. Lemos and
Donald M. & Jeannie M. Lemos
PO Box 321
Aspen, CO 81612
616 E. Hyman
E. Norris Taylor & Goodrich H. Taylor
# 1 602 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
610 E. Hyman
Patricia Moore
610 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
E. Hopkins - Lots mE - Vacant
Leslie Jean Smith
PO Box 1645
Aspen, CO 81612
623 E. Hopkins
Ann E. Chapman
PO Box 3150
Aspen, CO 81612
629 E. Hopkins
W. R. Walton
PO Box 665
Aspen, CO 81612
.
"
I
,
.
!'
i'
,
,
.,
,
:,
,
Ii
I
I'
i
J
,.
i,
--~
t
'"
.->,..",
j
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'011." e.'.tll){eIHlll.e.a l.t;).
Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Adjustment
February 9, 1984
-2-
CASE ~84-2/ABETONE RISTORANTE
'Head said he spoke with Paul Taddune, city attorney, last week and discussed
a possible conflict of interest with ,respect to this application. He is
in another partnership with the owner of the building of the application.
Taddune suggested that Head raise this issue before the Board. Whitaker
advised Head if there is any conflict of interest, he should withdraw. It
is the safest way. There are five members present, the action of the Board
is not hampered by this. Head stepped down.
Whitaker introduced case ~84-2, Abetone Ristorante. The application is
a variance request: "the building is a nonconforming structure as it
exceeds the FAR requirement in the C-l zone category, section 24-3.4 (area
and bulk requirements); Section 24-l3.3(a) no nonconforming structure
may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity: appli-
cant appears to also need a variance to reduce open space; Section
24-3.4 (area and bulk)."
Paul Rubin, representative for Abetone, said the building was originally
passed under Ordinance 50, then Ordinance 25, which exempted it from
Ordinance 11. It was approved under Ordinance 19, the right to build the
building. At that time there was no open space requirement. His rationale
for applying for the variance is under code 2.21, number one. There is no
documentation to support the space in question was in fact included under
FAR. There is no clear documentation that it wasn't. According to the
City of Aspen's codes, the area in question cannot be open space in that
it has always been obstructed by appurtenances and it has only access
from a dining room. It is more than 10' below grade, it is 10.3' below
grade. The main contention is that it, has never been open space. There
was no calculation at that time. The building department approved it with-
out that criteria.
In the memo from the planning office dated December 20, 1983, the confusion
is pointed out in the planning office's recommendation. It states in the
last paragraph that planning office was unable to reach a conclusion as to
whether it ever was FAR or whether it wasn't. Under today's regulation
the enclosure of the, space will increase the degree of nonconformity of
the building in terms of FAR. If the space had been included in FAR, it
in no way increased the nonconformity. This was Colette penne's, planning
office, contention. At that time, Gary Esary, city attorney, recommended
to the applicant to present these points in front of the Board of Adjust-
ment.
In all the documentation, the only calculation of floor ,area was done by
the building department. The occupancy load included it in the square
footage of the building. It has been included in all leases. It has
been included for liquor licenses. At no time is there any place in the
documents that show it was not included.
Rubin continued. In the minutes when the building was originally approved,
Councilman Johnson stated that the dining area obviously should be in-
cluded in the floor area ratio. That was never acted upon. There is no
documenting that the space in fact was included in FAR. The confusion
continues. ,',
The confusion creates a hardship for the client. Under the state of
Colorado law, solar energy applications should not be inhibited by zon-
ing and building regulations. It is appropriate that it be reviewed.
Rubin approached the county Board of Appeals several times to improv8 the
thermal efficiency of the building as well as the thermal comfort.'
Re<,ular Meeting
'''card of Zoning Adjusc:ncnt,~,
Febru2cy 9, 1984
There is a hardship. The space collects trash in the winter, and standing
water in the spring. It was never, an open space. The client proposes to
cut forty seats in the restaurant. The client proposes a green space
all year round. Rubin asked for a variance so he can return to P&Z.
would then be procedural for the client to enclose the dining space.
concluded his introductory remarks.
It
Rubin
Josephine Mann thought the records needed to show how much of a variance
the applicant is requesting. What is the square footage. Austin said
330 square feet.
Rubin said there is no place where he can find how the FAR of that building
was calculated in the past. Part of what he wants to build is over an
overhang. The app1ir.ant is enclosing a part which is certainly in the
FAR; anything under ~n overhang is included in FAR. He went to four or
five different people, including Drueding. Everyone calculated a different
figure. At that time ~ubin went back through the original building permits.
The only calculations were done for the occupancy load. He is not sure
how much variance he is requesting. He said there will be no more waiters.
The entry will remain as is. There is a portion by t~e sliding glass doors
included already in FAR. It would only be the balance. It is not more
than 500 square feeL
Mann again said when the Board makes a motion, it has to say something
about the amount it is granting or denying. Austin referred again to
the memorandum from the planning office dated October 18, 1983, page
two, first paragraph: 115 square feet of landscaping, 330 square feet of
dining area. Mann said those are approximate figures. Rubin suggested
using the language "plus," or "minus," or "not to exceed." He would sub-
mit detailed plans. RUDin reiterated it is less than 500 square feet.
Paterson referred to the drawings. He commeuted there are parameters:
window mullions, the stairwell, etc. Rubin noted the addition will be
under the FAR with the overhang. The space was not included in FAR, but it
should have been included. It is not open space.
'j
Austin questioned when the building was built. She questioned when the
requirement for the 10' depth came into effect with respect to open space.
Rubin explained the building was originally passed in 1975 under Ordinance
50; then Ordinance 25, an extension of Ordinance 50 which exempted it
from Ordinance 11. There was no calculation of open space because there
was no open space requirement for the building. The 10' depth came
into effect soon after that. He has no conflict with the 10' or the 10.3'.
The conflict is that the space has an appurtenance, it is blocked, it has
no access, and the city code strictly states that open space cannot be
blocked as such. ADstin questioned when the code was'written; after the
building was completed. She recalled when the building was originally done,
the area was not closed off from the stairwell, it was open. Rubin said
no. Penne said she reviewed the old codes to see if they divided open
space the same as today. At the time the building was built, the FAR was
2:1. It allowed any area to be considered open space. She believed
the 10' requirement was not defined. For everyone square foot of open
space, two more square feet abmethe 2:1 ratio in the FAR was allowed.
It was a very generous FAR at the time. The building was certainly not
nonconforming when it was built. The building's ratio is about 1.87:1.
Someone corrected it to 1.83:1.
Austin was curious about the intent of the space when it was built.
Was it to be open space even though it does not conform now to open space.
penne said because of the stairway and the depth of 10.3', it is in the
applicant's favor that itwasnot defined as open space. She agreed it is
not usable public open space. She would not take lunch there. Penne's
opinion was that the space does not fit the definition of usable open
space; because of the measurements and because the space is not continuous
and is obstructed with the stairway, the landing, and ,another stairway.
The question of FAR is a separate question. The space is below grade.
The applicant is proposing an open roof. She is not sure how that is going
to add to the perceived bulk of the building, the thrust of the concern
of FAR.
Penne presented background as to the reason for the memos. Rubin came
with a public inqu'.ry to her office when h~ started thinking about the
addition to Abetone and wanted to know if it was possible. Pennc informed
him that there was a GMP exemption allowed in the code. She reviewed the
,,,,",,
_J
"
-.
r"'",",-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'011.." t.,. lIn[CII:rL ~. a. II L. co.
Regular Meeting
Board ,of Zoning Adjustment
February 9, 1984
-3-
I
j
I
I
j
I
I
I
the case, wrote a memo, and suggested P&Z recommend or approve the G~P
exemption. The planning office went along for a few weeks assuming it
could be built. The building department said it was over allowable FAR.
She proceeded then to check the history of the case. The particular
hardship for the building is the inability to pin down any particular
document or calculation that indicates that indeed the space was couated
or not counted in FAR. It has not been conclusively shown either way.
Whitaker said it is unclear as to the status. But, it is clear that accord-
ing to the building department the floor area ratio is 1.83:1 instead of
1:1. The Board is constantly dealing with nonconforming situations which
have been created by the passages of new ordinances. The Board has to
consider the situations in light of the existing ordinance. Penne noted
there is possible bonus. Whitaker said the floor area ratio is 1:1 in the
C-l zone. The fact the building was built under a diffferent ordinance
does create a problem. A good percent of the buildings in town are
nonconforming because of the ordinances.
Rubin agreed. He reiterated his point. If the space was not included
in FAR origianlly, it should have been. The only access was through glass
doors in the dining room. It is clear in the original plans that the space
was a dining area. A councilman saw that. It was in the first lease.
There is no document stating the space was not included. The applicant
is not increasing the nonconformity.
Edwards questioned if in the original plans there was a fence. Rubin
said that the original plans did not show the fence. The original did
show the landscape break. Edwards asked if there is something that divides
the walkway from that space. Rubin said the only access was through the
sliding glass doors. Edwards asked if anything in the documentation
granted a subdivision or condominiumization. Is the building deed-
restricted? Is the open space deed-restricted? Penne said there is no
evidence. It was an Ordinance 19, when the GMP was added. There are
no deed-restrictions of any kind specifying employee housing or open
space. There is nothing in the documentation. Rubin said it is stated in
the ordinance that was passed that the 620 Hyman Building construction
project shall be permitted to proceed under the conditions here and after
enumerated on the ordinance that was passed series, and Ordinance 11 of
1975, on the contrary and not withstanding. Open space was not a require-
ment for that building. Edwards asked if the applicant would not be increas-
ing the nonconformity of the FAR. Rubin said no. Edwards asked if the
open space was in the original lease. Rubin said in the original lease
of the building it was included in the Bacchanal's,lease as dining room
space. Edwards asked if it was 'in Abetone's lease. Rubin said yes. It
was in the building permit. It was included in the original permit for
occupancy load. It was commercial space. He had the documents.
Bill Drueding, building department, explained the issue is the current
1:1 FAR and 25% open space. He presented to Whitaker a letter he wrote
to the city attorney after P&Z requested him to determine whether the
area was open space or counted as open space by the building department.
The letter is addressed to Gary Esary. Druedinghadothers calculate the
open space by the existing FAR ordinance at the time. There is no way
that space can be counted as FAR. He telephoned Clayton Meyring on
November 11, 1983, and asked him what he remembered. He reported that
Meyring said he would not have counted it as floor area, it was just a
yard. Meyring may have counted it in the occupancy load because people
were sitting out there. Drueding presented his notes, from the telephone
call. There is no doubt in Drueding's mind that the space was not counted
as floor area, and it would not be counted today.
Regular Meeting
,..'
Board of Zoning Ad:ustmcnt
February 9, 1984
Drueding noted there are six restaurants in town with the same type of
court yard problem. They are exceeding their FAR now or open space, and
could ask for the same request: Toro's, pablo's, etc.
Drueding addressed open space. There may have not been any open space
requirement then, but there is now, 25%. The .3' (the difference bet~een
10' and 10.3') is minimal. The open space cannot be reduced less than
25%. If open space is reduced, it is not conforming. That is why the
applicant needs a variance for open space.
Whitaker expressed the purpose of open space. Generally, it has to be
fronting the street, which means a setback. It has to be open to the
sky. It is to reduce the bulk of the building. It is to provide more
light and open space. He is inclined to overlook the .3' also. He
quoted from the guidelines for the Board.
"It is not merely enough to state the difficulties
and hardships at present, the applicant must present
facts that prove such difficulties and.hardships. The
Board rarely finds practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship for the applicant whose appeal is a matter of
aesthetics, or design, or economics."
Rubin said Drueding alluded that the area is open space. It cannot be.
Again, it is blocked. The code states that open space cannot be obstructed
by appurtenances. And when the building was passed it was very clear there
was no open space requirement. The applicant proposes a glass enclosure
that will improve the open space. It will provide a year round green
space. It will eliminate the collection and standing water area. Rubin
does not argue that the space was or was not included in FAR. Meyring
included it in the occupancy load. Meyring recognized that it was a
commercial dining area. The initial liquor license recognized that. There
is a hardship. The applicant is not increasing the nonconformity by
law. The applicant is not asking the Board to go beyond its appointed
rights. The addition meets all criteria that the community wants with
regards to the current laws. It enhances the property. It enhances
the open sapce. It enhances a fine establishment that supports the com-
munity. It does not impact at all. There are no legal grounds to stop
the Board from granting a variance. There is no precedence. There is no
other restaurant that was rassed under Ordinance 19 and exempted from
open space. The applicant does not want to set any precedents. Rubin
asked Edwards to addre~s this.
Whitaker was under the impression that in 1975 there was an open space
requirement in the C-l zone. The open space which is being asked to be
enclosed may have been required. Rubin again said it was exempted from
the ordinance. Drueding said even if it was not, it is a requirement now.
There is open space whether the applicant built it because he was suppose
to, or whether he just happened to have it there. When one begins to
reduce the 25%, one is nonconforming. The applicant is increasing the
nonconformity. Drueding read that fences, pathways, fountains, and
landscaping are not considered obstructions.
Mann supported what Whitaker stated about the purpose and the intent of
open space. In a case like this in which there is confusion, the Board
has to look at the intent. What was the city trying to do. The Board
must look at this application in terms of current open space and FAR.
Rubin concurred. The addition improves a very bad situation all winter
long. It makes it visually wonderful. It has no less access than it has
now. The general public cannot get down there. Open space can be viewed
year round, rather than standing water, trash, and snow.
Paterson pointed out that when the Aspen Athletic Building was built it
enclosed open space. It was not open to the sky. The entire court yard
in the front caught the sun with that glass. It was considered public
open space. Consider that.
Whitaker recalled another situationi the revision of the Cowenhaveri
Building. That was an existing building. 1'he alterations and improve-
ments were allowed on condition that the court yard be open space. There
were gates across it at first. Now there are doors. It is still open
space. Open space does not have to be directly accessible to the public.
..c-,.
j
-
,/
i
I
I
,
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fORM 'I C.,. 1l0rCI!:fl 8. 8. III l. C~.
.j
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Adjustment
February 9, 1984
-4-
In this application open space serves a function. It opens to the sky. It
is unfortunate that the zoning ordinance has been changed so drastically,
from 2:1 to 1:1. The zoning ordinances were changed to not repeat the nega-
tive effects of structures like the potential Aspen Mountain Lodge. Rubin
emphasized the addition beautifies a bad situation. Whitaker said the space
will not be open space if it is enclosed. Itstil1 will not be accessible to
the public except through the restaurant. Rubin said ~t would be enclosed
open space.
Rubin noted P&Z approved the request on Dr. Carlson's Building to prevent
the build up of snow recently. This application is the same thing as that.
Austin responded that it was the only access to that building. It was danger-
ous. Austin said this applicant is closing the area, and again, it is
accessible only from within the restaurant. The cases are not similar.
Whitaker asked if there are any letters in favor or
Norris, the secretary, said no. Whitaker asked for
Whitaker closed the publ~c portion of the hearing.
members' comments. He reopened the hearing.
against this case.
audience comment.
Whitaker asked for
Whitaker asked the perspective drawing be clarified. Explain what the
height is in relation to the present building and wall. Rubin said the
highest point of the glass roof is the planters in front of Nature Store-
house. Rubin repeated that the applicant would have no more than four
tables there. The area will be green and planted.It will be an atrium space.
The client will cut back forty seats. The design will make use of glazing.
It would be open in the summer. The initial idea was that horizontal
panels would move under a cJrved panel. The concrete walls would be kept.
The addition would be a glass extension of the existing building.
Whitaker asked Paterson if there should be elevations and cross sections to
articulate the relatlon to the building, not just an architectural perspec-
tive drawing. Pater~;on noted the issue is whether the client has a hard-
ship or practical difficulty. The Board cannot grant a variance on
aesthetics. Conceptually the Board can see what the applicant is attempting
to do. The Board can tell whether the applicant has a practical difficulty
or not.
.~ ;
Whitaker closed the public hearing. He asked for members' comments.
John Herz questioned if the area is open space. He did not know if it should
be considered open space. Herz said every case the Board considers is
different. With Dickerson's Building, the Board enclosed the stairwell for
his hardship and practical difficulty with weather, snow and loitering
people. The hardship and practical difficulty in this case seems to be
I that the city does not know whether the area, was considered open space or
not. The building is 1.83:1 now. It already received one variance for
the atrium. Herz sald he does not think that the area will be impacted.
The applicant has cut. down the number of tables. The applicant is not impact-
ing the area with employees. The applicant is making the space more open. '
Herz cannot suggest the practical difficulty. Maybe it,is the people or
the snow or the collected water. Herz is inclined to favor granting the
variance.
"
,
Mann thinks the applicant has stated clearly that his hardship was the con-
fusion in the FAR an~ the open space, She agrees there is confusion. She
does not agree that because there is confusion that the Board needs to
grant a variance, it is just the opposite. There are times when that would
be alright, other times not. This is a time that she believes the
Board would not do a service to the city in granting the variance. The
present FAR she wants to respect and defend. The same is true for open
"
Regular Meeting
~, Board of Zoning Adjustme~
February J, 1984
space however one defines it. She would not be in favor of the variance.
Paterson concurred with Mann that there is a hardship in the confusion.
He likes the project. He would like to see the space enclosed. He would
like to look at it that it is bettering the public safety and welfare.
He feels it is similar to the Athletic Building, the enclosing glass.
It is a solar sink. It is beneficial to the tenants. It is not harmful
to the surrounding. There are no objections from any of the neighbors.
However, there does not seem to be enough evidence to support the variance
will relieve a hardship that exists that is so serious that the a?plicant
cannot live without it; in other words, to alleviate a real difficult
problem. The situation has been there for Thany years. It has been handled.
Paterson has a problem with the degree of the hardship. The hardship is
mostly due to the confusion with FAR, the 10.3' v.s. the 10', the question
of open space.
Austin agreed with Mann. She does not see how this helps public safety.
The stairs will remain open. Only the dining area will be enclosed.
It will set a dangerous precedent. The Crandall Building, Toro's, and
Pablo's all may want to enclose their patios. She likes the aesthetic
idea of everything not being built right to the street. There is more of
a problem with granting the variance than not.
Whitaker asked Drueding what the floor area ratio would be if the area is
allowed to be covered. How much would it increase it from 1.83:1.
Drueding said he did not know. Austin asked if the entire building is
taken into consideration. Drueding said yes. Edwards said it would
increase the FAR.
Whitaker believed it would increase the FAR which is already well beyond what
is allowed in the code now. The hardship and practical difficulty is often
hard to differentiate between the applicant's convenience and desire to
make improvements. Reasons for granting variances are that the special
conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant.
It is very clear that the action of the applicant created this situation.
Whitaker does not want to see the loss of open space. The open space and
the setbacks are terribly important to the community. He does not like
to set the precedent of covering open space and increasing floor area ratio.
Whitaker reopened the publ:c hearing.
Rubin said he spoke witn his attorney and client this afternoon. He has
the ability to return to P&Z. They only tabled his request. He thinks
given the feeling of the Board he wants to withdraw the application rather
than have it denied. He will return to P&Z. They have the right to deter-
mine that the addition does enhance the space. He does not want the judge-
ment read that it eliminates open space.
Whitaker noted that the applicant has withdrawn. He does not know if P&Z
has the authority to grant variances in the floor area ratio. Rubin said it
would not be a variance, it would be a decision that it the area should have
been included in FAR.
Whitaker asked Rubin to provide an affadavit and photograph of the public
notification of the case.
In light of the fact that the applicant is going back to P&Z, Whitaker asked
if the Board felt that the planning commission should have the benefit of its
thoughts in the same way the Board had the benefit of the planning commis-
sion's thoughts. He entertained a motion that a copy of the minutes of this
meeting be sent to the planning co~~ission. Austin moved to approve
the motion; seconded by Mann. Mann said it was very important for the
members to have the minutes from the P&Z, it made the meeting go faster.
If the Board's minutes will help P&Z, she supports sending them. All in
favor, motion carried.
Paterson moved to adJourn the meeting at 5:15 p.m.; seconded by Mann.
All in favor, motion carried.
t~/,,~t:"d ~"~.lt'd
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
.
,I
,....
130
asp
SPEN
CITY
'.,":~
June 4, 1984
Attention: Members of the Board of Adjustment
Please find enclosed some historical information which
might assist you in evaluating the Abetone Ristorante
case, #84-10, scheduled for your next meeting on June 7th.
Good day,
~"A:..--'
Barbara Norris
Deputy City Clerk
~ ~.
. " \
'*:' i-1< I '
i \'Ii': 1'ON H
W'S I-' I-'.;:J
;:;::: : ro 0> OJ N
:0 1:oJ ;:J ro ro
.,~ I-{
- i 0 1-"
,'-' , H> J::
,X ,!!l .~"
:N ~ ~ '"
',:.' '1:j
I, 1'1 " N
~ I ,I ,0.. 0
:0:0 O>;:J
,I-{ II-{ rt 1-"
i::" p, 5'~
;w f-J OQ
t'~ N~
10 I;j
iUl Ul ;:J
ro ro 1-" 0
:1-{ 11 I ;:J;:J
'I-" 1-" OQ ro
1m (0
j tn (I)
10 0
:t-i) . H)
II-' il-'
I~ I~
Icrl
!- !
'0 I
~i
.. '
t;-1
'../>,1
! I
I j
_J
<\
If) '<
'0 ro
! p.. Q)
,m ti
i
'0> 0..
;:J J::
0..1-{
0>
Ie rt
,fij 1-"
't/l 0
.rt ;:J
'ro
,I-{ 0.. ,
I J::
I I-{
1-"
;:J
OQ
!
:t
, ""
~
:>:>
t:I
H
~
Z
o
M
1"""""
"""",,",,
~
I-'
\0
w
(f)
M
:>:>
H'
M
(f)
o
'>:I
I-'
\0
"
W
~~OPIES6F THE STARRED AND CHECKED
ORDINANCES ARE ENCLOSED IN THIS
PACKET.
..
.
OPEN SPAC)'
'0
Requirements ror open space at grade
lA Ordinance #67, Serres of 1975 ,-tVtJT 1t!iI/f'jE!)
Ordinance #34,1976-amendment
O d ~4 1976 - commercial use of op. sp.
r . ,) ,
_'_~___'_"~~_.''"~'''''''''----_~"?11' -...--..,....-~---r-'"
~ ..--_.,~, ~_-:... ~-'-- ~_.......----'-'-'~ ~._.
.. ......_~_~"--'..ii.'"~
\ OP~~nS~ACE ~_ _.__ ____
I--o-r' .d__J'27-Ser.ies oLI970.",_GolLCourse Property
\--'- . 1t -, t1 11 II
:_ Oxd._tf1Z,.,197 1 ,:_bond S ..-----/,-----j;------.
'lOrd. tfr23, 197.L::.~Q.l1Jng____
I~~~d~if~~ ,~1973--.Clarify:-open Space. R~qu:hment-
I _______________________ unde;-__:?;o}~}r,g____._
\ ------
,- ------- ------ --------
-----~-_.
--.----.-----.
I _~_ ___________._~.____
f=-=~=--=- -------------=~~==_===::
,~----------_c--'--..----------
.,~_~-:~=~~==_~:~-,,;~~~=.:~-]~.~-~ ~~.X==..-:-~r:.'..=_---:-:.7-.- ~~~~=_:::=..~~~~.:~~.~:~~~,,-'":.J
I -
1___.Ji2Q_ HYMAN..13lJ:ILDI.NG_________,___ .. ----
.'~Ordin:ance #25, Series of 1975 (extending
7\-- the exemption for the 620 Hyman Building)
I
1
1__ ~~~,.-_"- ---..-,..,-'---.,-~'----~~'" a
t/k ORDINANCE if 50, Series of 1974
j
.
H ...__ ___._
,
----~'""".'_:.~.:":,~':'l'"~:Ef~
code
Exemptions from the new zoning
Woods Bldg. Remodel
RBH Bldg.
620 Hyman
Stevens-Ginn B1dg~
- -.--"....---,......p -_._'..'_...~.._.. ,.- .-. "'_.._~'-.,~.~
-,",
"".""
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 LEAVES
ORDINANCE NO. /b
(Series of 19~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7 OF CHAPTER Z4 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY
REPEALING THE "OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT" PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTIONS (a), (b) AND (c) THEREOF l THE C-l COM~IERCIAL
C-C COMMERCIAL CORE, AND C-Z COMMERCIAL SUBSECTIONS]
AND ADDING TO EACH OF SAID SUBSECTIONS (a), (bj AND (c)
THEREOF NEW, "ETTER-DEFINED "OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT"
PROVISIONS.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
following public hearing, has recommended that the language
of the open space ~'equirements in the C-l, C-C and C-Z zoned
districts of the City of Aspen be modified so as to increase
the effectiveness of such requirements in accomplishing their
intended purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and is in
agreement with such recommendations, and recognizes the need
for lessening traffic congestion in high-density areas of the
City and for providing adequate light, air and space in such
areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
, Section 1.
, 'Purp'ose: The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote
the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Aspen,
Colorado, by: the lessening of congestion in the streets and
roads; securing safety from fire and other dangers; providing
adequate light, air and space, classification of land uses and
the distribution of land development and utilization; protection
of the tax base; securing economy in governmental expenditures;
and the protection of urban and non-urban development.
".....
''',..t
RECORD OF PFiOCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
HlRll~ C.r,''''HHL B.8./I L. '0.
Section 2.
Authority: This Ordinance amendment is authorized by
Article 60, Cha~ter 139 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1963,
as amended, and is hereby declared to he in accordance with all
provisions of these statutes.
Section 3.
The "open space requirement" provisions of subsections
(a), (b) and (c) of Section 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, are hereby repealed in their
entirety" and are hereby replaced and superceded wi th new "open
space requirEcment" provisions which shall read as follows:
"Open space requirement - All construction shall be
required to have not less than twenty-five per cent (25%)
of the building site for open space [as defined in Section
24-2(00)], subject to the following:
1. The minimum frontage of the open space which is open
to a street shall be one-half (1/2) of the dimension of
that side of the building site, or one hundred (100)
feet, whichever is less.
2. The minimum depth of the open space which is open
to a street shall be ten (10) feet measured at right
angles from the front lot line.
3. Required open space shall not be more than four (4)
feet above nor more than ten (10) feet below the existing
,grade of the street which abuts said open space.
4. The open space shall be continuous and not obstructed
with building appurtenances and appendages. Stairways and
overhead walkways will be considered obstructions.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the City
-2-
... ,. ......-...-_.,,'..,....., .....'.~.c.'" "c-"'-.- -. .....,.-.~. -
"""
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 LEAVIZS
Building Inspector shall require site plans and drawings
of any required open space, including a landscaping plan,
in order to ensure compliance with this section."
Section 4.
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 provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance
are declared to be severable.
Section 5.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on
m7c29 , 1973, at 7/:'0-0 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall Building, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado on the ~
M7-
, 1973.
day of '
ATTEST:
~d-c::, eM
~ '
-tJ 1"1t~W/
v / Mayor
md7/,
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED This ~~day of
1973.
ATTEST: ? '
"" '~-X';';<_'/~'Y J
, - lty C erk
'.~~/7
Ac9, /
./
Mayor-
I
I
I
I
-3-
,....
I
,
STATE OF COLO&\DO)
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read by title, and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on
May 14
, 1971-, and published in the AspenToday
.
a weekly n~wspaper of general circulation, published in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of Mv~ lh
, 197-3.."
and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the City Council on May 2q
, 197-l, and ordered
, Series of 197~,., of
published as Orjinance No. 16
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 29th
day of
May
, 197..,2.
~.4~
~rra~ne Graves, City Clerk
-,
._=~--_.._--~~--_.."........~-,:.,........
)
. .\
'I
/
RECOliu OF PROCEEDlhiGS
100 Leaves
'0RI0!~ t.r.llorCHlh. P.Ill. co.
ORDINANCE NO. 19
(Series of 1973)
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MANDATORY BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
PROCEDURES PENDING ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND
NEW ZONING DISTRICT ~IAP; DESIGNATING USES EXCEPTED FROM REVIEW;
ESTABLISHING REVIEW CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION OF
ADDITIONAL F.XCEPTED USES AND REVIEW CRITERIA; .AND SETTING A
TERMINATION DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Planning Commission pursuant to its
authority granted in Section 139-59-1, et seq., of the Colorado
Revised Statutes has presented to the Aspen City Council the
1973 Aspen Gpneral Land Use Plan, consisting of a land use map
and text, and incorporating its recommendations for amendments
to Aspen's Zoning Code and its zoning district map; and
WHEREAS, the adoption by the City of Aspen of these recom-
mendations will contribute toward the control of growth, will
balance and correlate land uses and transportation facilities,
will provide residential areas for permanent residents, broaden
the economic base of the community, accomplish a harmonious
i
I
,I
I
'I
I
,
,
. ,
J
I
j
>1
j
,
I
i
development of the city in accordance with present and future
needs and promote the health, safety, convenience, prosperity,
and general welfare of the community, and
WHEREAS, the objectives and purposes of the anticipated
land use changes will be defeated if building permits issue for
future structures and uses inconsistent with the commission
recommendations prior to adoption of a new zoning code and
zoning district map; and the issuance of permits only in
accordance with anticipated changes will aid in the orderly
and efficient adoption of a new code and map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
RECORD
0...
v.
PROCEEDlfJGS
100 Leaves '
'01111 \~ c.,. 1l0ECK (l H. b. ... L. co.
Section 1.
Purposes. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the
health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general wel-
fare of the residents of the City of Aspen by establishing a
building permit review procedure which will a.llow the issuance
of permits for structures and uses consistent with the land use
changes recommended to the City of Aspen by the Aspen City
Planning Commission, which building ,permit review procedure is
to remain in effect for a period of time sufficient,to incor-
porate the recommendations into the Aspen Zoning Code and Zoning
District Map.
Section 2.
I. Building Permit Review Procedure. No building permit shall
issue from the effective date of this ordinance, for other than
excepted uses, until the following review procedure has been
complied with and approval granted all as provided herein:
.
A. All plans for development shall be submitted to the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval
as follows:
1. Conceptual presentation: All applicants for a
building must first make to the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission a conceptual oj sketch plan presentation
describing the objectives of the proposed development.
Such presentation shall be in writing, with an accom-
panying oral presentatio~ at the election of the
applicant. The applicant shall include a site plan,
state the number of units to be developed, and
describe how the intended development complies with
tlte use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General
L~nd Use Plan and'satisfies all review criteria
pertaining to the land use category in which the
development will take place.
(2)
-)
__J"
RECORD OF PROCEEDIrJGS
100 Leaves
'OII"~ c. F.HOHKrLg.O.8 l. Cll.
2. Preliminary design presentation: After approval
of the concept is given, applicants shall make a
'preliminary design presentation consisting of a
final site plan, schematic design drawings, preliminary
elevations, and, at the election of the applicant
or at the request of the Commission, a building moJel.
3. Final presentation: Upon approval of the pre-
liminary design, all development plans and drawings
must be submitted for final approval prior to sub-
mission to the building inspector's office of wo~king
drawings for issuance of a building permit.
4. Any applicant may simuitaneously make a Preliminary
design presentation and a Final presentation, provided,
however, that all applicants must make a conceptual
i
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
_ i
j
I
I
!
presentation prior to a Preliminary design presentation
and Final presentation, and independent thereof.
B. Prior to any presentation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applicants must pay an estimated building
permit fee, which fee shall not be refundable, except as follows:
I. If the development is disapproved at or after
the conceptual presentation but prior to the prelimi-
nary design presentation, 75% of any estimated building
permit fee paid shall be refunded.
2. If the development is disapproved at or subsequent
to the preliminary design presentation but prior to
the final presentation, 50% of any estimated building
permit fee paid shall be refunded.
3. If the development is disapproved at or subsequent
to the final presentation, 25% of any estimated building
permit fee shall be refunned.
(3)
''')
-'
RECORD OF PROCEEOINGS
100 Leu"es
ro"..\! C.f,IHlECHLB.D.&L.CO.
C. Prior to the Preliminary design presentation the appli-
cant shall obtain written comment fr0m the following agencies:
1. From the water, electric and gas utilities and
sewer districts concerning the availability of these
"
utilities and services;
2. From the Aspen fire department concerning the
feasibility of supplying ~dequate fire protection
services to the development;
3. From the city engineer concerning access, cir-
culation, the necessity of street improvements and
utility easements, drainage, and other engineering
considerations;
4. From the local school authorities describing the
probable impact on enrollment by the development.
Provided, however, that none of the above information is required
if the applicant is subject to subdivision regulation.
D. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve or
disapprove (or approve subject to conditions) the intended
,
,
I
I
I
!
'1
1
development after each presentation or plan submission and within
30 days of each such presentation or plan submission. Approval,
conditional approval or disapproval shall be in accordance
with the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General Land
Use Plan, consisting of a map and text which, for purposes of
the review procedures, are hereby made a part of this ordinance,
and with the review criteria hereby established or additions or
amendments thereto. Approval at any stage shall not preclude
disapproval at any later stage of the review procedure provided,
howevei, 'that approval of development plans and drawings will be
final.
(4)
"
.'
RECORD OF PROCEED.NGS
100 Leaves
ronN \0 c,.. 1.')~LK(l B. ~. " l. lO.
E. In the event of disapproval the reasons for disapproval
shall be given in writing to the applicant by the building
inspector who must then deny any bui.lding permit application
made for such development. An applicant may not reapply
without demonstrating a substantial change in the development
proposal or in the uses permitted in the land use category in
which the development will occur.
II. Pending Applications. Any application for a bui.lding per-
mit pending at the effective date of this ordinance shall be
exempt from the provisions of this ordinance providing that
a permit is ultimately issued on said application. Provided,
,
, ,
further, that an application shall not be deemed to be pending
for the purposes of this ordinance if the applicant is subject
to subdivision regulation and such subdivision has not received
final approval and the subdivision plat has not been recorded
on the effective date of this ordinance.
III. Excepted Uses and Review Criteria. These are hereby
designated excepted uses to which the building permit review
procedures above described shall not apply nor shall a permit
be denied under this ordinance for said uses. There are hereby
further adopted review criteria and considerations which, with
the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General Land Use Plan,
shall be applied in the review procedures established by this
ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized
to recommend the adoption of additional excepted uses and
review criteria, or modifications to those herein contained,
for application in the review procedure, provided, however, that
such additional excepted us~s and review criteria must, prior to
their application, be approved by the City Council by ordinance.
(5)
....-..'..'-",.....-.".- .,........"..,_.
r
,..C,''',,"
)
REccno or PROCEE!]!NGS
100 Lcav,es
'ORI( W c. F.110ECMn. R. i.lll. to.
A. Central Area: within that area designated on the
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Central Area":
1. The following uses shall be: exempt from revie~,
(except in those areas between Garmisch and Monarch
Streets and Hunter and Original Streets):antique shop,
appliance store, restaurants, art supply store,
art gallery, bakery, bookstore, camera shop, candy,
tobacco or cigarette store, catalogue store, clothing
store, decorator shop, florist shop, furniture store,
gift shop, hobby shop, jewelry shop, job printing
shop, key shop, pet shop, photography shop and
sporting goods store.
2. Proyided, however, that all lot and yard require-
ments and building heights are subject to review
during which the following factors are to be considered:
the preservation of views of Aspen and Shadow mountains;
the reduction of building bulk and lot coverage, with
allowances for greater height in exchange for reduced
lot coverage; and providing for plazas.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to plac~ment and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site, and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area and the availability of
public transportation, both existent and planned.
4. It is the purpose of the review procedure to
encourage the following:
(a) the preservation of those buildings and
sites recommended by the Aspen Historic Preser-
vation committee for lIistoric Designation:
(6)
,......,
)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fORM \1 c, r.llOtcKEL a. 8. a L co.
(b) that tourist re18ted use~ be located in
the existent pedestrian mall or extensions
thereof;
(c) the placement of professional office '
buildings in the fringe of the ~entral Area;
(d) the mixing of land uses resulting in the
integration of compat~ble uses that result in
constant activity in the Central Area;
(e) the preservation of views of Aspen and
Shadow mountains and Jndependence Pass;
(f) the development of the Central Area as a
pedestrian dominant rather than auto oriented
area.
B. Recreations/Accommodations: within that area designated
on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "Recreations/Accom-
modations":
1. The following uses are exempt from review: single
family detached residences with 6,000 square feet or
greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regu-
lation are subject to review of the following con-
siderations:
(a) access - the width of the street, its
grade, intersection safety, visibility and lot
entrance must be such as to provide adequate
access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
(7)
,11"-"'.'..
/ '~
'-')
j
RECORD OF PROCEEOII~GS
100 Leaves
'OIIM<I c.r.IlOlCI(H.O.6.fll. co.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of sp,:ces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site and io ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walki~g
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
4. The allowable density of the development is sub-
ject to modification as determined by:
(a) the physi~al conditions ot the development
site, i.e., slope, access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features
(b) the impact resulting from the development,
i.e., potential for stream and air pollution,
the feasibility of snow removal, the availability
of public transportation, and other public and
private services.
C. Recreation/Accommodations Transition: within that area
designated on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "Recreation/
Accommodations Transition":
1. The following uses are exempt from review: single
family detached residences with 15,000 square feet or
,greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
(8)
,"'"'
"".-----..
)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 00 Leavps
1'''''''!~ t. f. HOECK[L D. 9. II l. to.
. .
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations:
(a) access - the width of the street, its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
,
:i
~
~
must be such as to provide adequate access.
.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances for
reduced lot coverage is encouraged.
(e) exterior color and building material must
be in harmony with and blend into the natural
.
mountain setting.
3. Off street parking requirements 'are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the develop-
ment site and to ensure adequate off street parking
as determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
4. The allowable density of the development is subject
to modification as determined by;
(a) the physical conditions of the development
site, i.e., slope, access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features.
(9)
".._,......,...".~n..... ,"___ ~__.~.__...~..,_........_..O'__'_ "..._._~~.
,...
/.<;.,
\,)
RECO~D or PROCEE[l!!'!GS
100 Leaves
Hl~" \1 C. f. HO}rCKrl B. B. ~ l. to.
(b) the impact resulting from the development,
i.e., potential for stream and air pollution,
the feasibility of snow removal, the availability
of public transportation and other public and
private services.
5. Restaurants and professional offices are prohib-
ited in this area.
6. Buildings are not to exceed 2,500 square feet
in floor space nor 25 feet in height.
7. Because of the high visibility of this area,
access and utility construction must produce no
scars upon the 1 ands cape.
D. Multiple' Family: within that area designated on the
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Multiple Family":
1. The following uses shall be exempt from review:
single family r~sidences with 6,000 square feet or
,greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
2., All buildings not subject to subdivision regu-
>
,;
,
lation are subject to review of the following con-
siderations:
(a) access - width of the street, its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
(10)
-
"
\)
RECORD OF PROCEED:NGS
1 00 LC~'/2S
I
I
I
I
FOAIIlII c. LHOH.KEt U. 6. II. LtO.
(d) building bulk and height - the redtiction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the develop-
ment site and to ensure adequate off street parking
as determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
4. The allowable density of the development is sub-
ject to modification ,as determined by:
(a) the physical conditions of the development
site, i.e., slope, access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features.
(b) the impact resulting from the development,
i.e., potential for stream and air pollution,
the feasibility of snow removal, the availability
of public transportation and other public and
private services.
E. Mixed Residential: within that area designated on
the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "Mixed Residential":
1. The following uses are exempt from review: single
family detached residences with 6,000 square feet or
,greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
2. The remodelling of existing lodges is not subject
to review where such construction will not result in
an increase in gucst capacity.
(11)
~.,-...,~_. .-. "_. .....--.,....-.
.....'.,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
100 Leaves
fon'" 11 c. r.HO[f~n O. B.1!t L Lll.
3.
All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerati8ns:
(a) access - the width of the street, its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and ensure
adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
4. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability of
public transportation, both existent and planned.
5. Restaurants and tea rooms are prohibited.
6. Office uses in those residences abutting the
south side of Main Street which have been recommended
by the Historic Preservation Committee for historic
designation is encouraged.
.'
(12)
-...___..,.., ..,>. n'__, ~~""""'T"~_.._..___..._,....,._,___."",""",_
r
"..'....
....-.../
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fOflM.. e. r. ';n('""E~ S, 9. ~ t. co.
F. R~sidential: within that area designated on the
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Residential":
1. The following uses are exempt from review: single
family detached residences when the lot area meets the
minimum lot requirements of the existing zone district;
accessory buildings, fences and signs.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations:
(a) access - the width of the street, its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
. :
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
,
. i
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
i
, i
I
,
i
i
I
!
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction
of building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off'street parking requir~ments are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of
spaces required, to better suit the terrain of the
development site and to ensure adequate off street
parking as determined by the use of the property, the
walking distance to the downtown area, and the avail-
ability of public transportation, both existent and
planned.
(13)
,....
,-,
\
,'.
{
"
~
"t;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 00 Leaves
,
!
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
'-
t
1,
,
;:
'!;'.<
.f
'ii
"
I
I
i
,,<--
4. Office uses in those residences abutting the north
side of Main Street which have been recommended by
the Historic Preservation Committee for historic
designation is encouraged.
G. Neighborhood Commercial/Limited Industrial: within that
l
f
t
e,
i
Jfea designated on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as
"\eighborhood Commercial/Limited Indus trial":
1. The following uses shall be exempt from review:
C-PND Commercial Planned Neighborhood Development
Districts in the existing commercial zones and which
:~
are subject to and satisfy the requirements of Chapter
,i
,.
24, Section 24-10.1 PUD Planned Unit Development of
the Aspen Municipal Code; appliance sales and repair
;-J.
shops, office machine sales and repair shops, furniture
stores, carpet and rug stores, paint and wall paper
stor~s, furniture upholstery and repair shops, hard-
ware stores, garden supply centers, 'printing shops,
rental stores, lumber yards, shop craft industries,
plumbing shops, electrical and heating supply shops,
cabinet shops, wholesale establishments, warehousing,
offices accessory to any of the above listed uses,
and residences for employees of the Neighborhood
Commercial/Limited Industrial District.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regu-
lation are subject to review of the following con-
siderations:
~
.J
"
~
,
'~',
#
,
t:
.f!:-
'i
"
(a) access - width of the street, its grade,
intersection safety, visibility, lot entrance,
and integration with the public streets and, public
transportation facilities must be such as to pro-
vide adequate access.
(14 )
""'
~"
',-..,/
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS'
100 Leaves
'ORMIO c.r"l(I(CKfl9.0.11l.I:Q.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply the commercial and
domestic use and ensure adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk qnd,height - the reduction
of building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of tte property, the walking
distance to th~ downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
H. Institutional: within those areas designated on the
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Institutional", all uses
shown on an Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved
plan for institutional lands are exempt from review.
I. Public: within those areas designated on the 1973 Aspen
I
,
1
j
I
,general land use map as "Public", all uses shown on a Planning
and Zoning Commission approved plan for public lands are exempt
from review.
IV. Termination Date. The provisions of this ordinance shall
terminate one year from its effective date, provided, however,
that termination will occur prior to that time upon the adoption
of a new zoning code and zoning district map by the City of
Aspen.
(15)
;,,-..
, )
'-'
RECORD OF PROCEEOI'\IGS
100 Leaves
fO>lM II c. LIl(IHK.l o.~. to L ~o.
V. Inconsistent Provision. All provisions of the Aspen
Zoning Code and District Zoning Map, not inconsistent here-
,
,.,.
with, shall continue in full force and effect and shall
supplement the provisions of this ordinance.
Section 3.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
"j
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall noi 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.
Sectie>n 4.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on June
11, 1973, at 4:00 p. m. in the City Council Chambers, City
Hall Building, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by
law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its
regular meeting held at the City of Aspen, Colorado, on the
14th day of May, 1973.
i
j
I
ATTEST:
~-,tI-J
1. ty Cler
~
- ~
- _z.c-___ ~
Eve HOmeY~ayor
//
C
~1ENDED ORDINANCE PROCEEDINGS
A public hearing on the amended ordinance shall be held
on July 9, 1973, at 4:00 p, m. in the City Council Chambers,
City Hall Building, Aspen, Colorado.
(16)
/
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
100 Leaves
fORilI\! C.f.HorCKELO.O./lL.CO.
---.--
, INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as amended as
provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
City of Aspen,
Colorado~ at its regular meeting held at the
Colorado, on the dd
day of . fx1:-
Od---'-
/
, 19 7~i
" ~?/
, - -c -~'--~r
' ~~r--. ;--
p-'-
ATTEST:
~~fi~~
lty C er
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen- at its continued
regular meeting held at the City of Aspen, Colorado, on the
16th day of July, 1973.
L,
'~
~c _ __
''''1....- -~
Stacy
; i7;:'M~y; ~C'
,?
~"t~
ATTEST:
~~~
lty Cler
. ...- .-.--1'."."....--.- .__._...,__,_.~~~_., '.....,.""",.-..,,_'_':"."'...~ .~.
........
THE ASPEN LAND USE PLAN
July 1973
It shall be the function and duty of the
[planning') commission to make and adopt a master
plan for the physical development of the munic-
ipality, including any areas outside of its bound-
aries, subject to the approval of the legislative
or governing body having jurisdiction thereof,
which in the commission's judgment, bear relation
to the planning of such municipali ty. ,Such plan,
with the accompanying maps, plats, charts and
descriptive matter, shall show the commission's
recommendations for the development of said
territory. . .,
As the work of making the whcle master plan
progresses, the commission may fro~ time to time
adopt and publish a part or parts thereof, any
such part to cover one or more ma'jor' sections or
divisions of the municipality or one or more of
the foregoing or other functional matters to be
included in the plan. The commission may amend,
extend, or add to the plan from time to time.
The plan shall be made with the general
purpose of guiding and accomplishing a co-
ordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development
of the municipality and its environs, which will,
in accordance with present and future needs, best
promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity, and general welfare, as well as ef-
ficiency and economy in the process of development.
Excerpts, Chapter 139 "Towns & Cities",
Colorado Revised Statues
INTRODUCTION
The Aspen Land Use Plan is a revision of the land use
concept included within the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan.
The updated Plan is an attempt to reflect current attitudes
and objectives of the community with regard to growth poten~
tial and land use. Recently adopted amendments to the 1966
Plan concerning transportation, trail systems and a Roaring
Fork Greenway proposal have been incorporated with revised
land use concepts into the updated Aspen Land Use Plan.
Housing for low income residents, ~dequate circulation
and preservation of natural resources a~d historic structures
are considerations that are addressed by the Plan. It
emphasizes what needs to be done to assure- maximum public
amenities in the future for. Aspen.
THE AS PC;,
~ND
.,' ',"
PLAN
/"",
Page Two
The Plan is to serve as a guide to the Aspen Planning
Commission in reviewing applications for building permits
until a new zcning code and a new zoning district map are
adopted. The land use recommendations shown hereon will be
interrelated: with urban design proposals and density limits
to complete the basis for the evolving form and character of
the community.
Certain planning considerations and policies have been
established upon which the Plan is based. It is not a
zoning map which details rigid guidelines (setbacks, building
heights, parking requirements or the like) but constit~tes
a general design for future land use and is a continuing
step in effectively responding to the challenge of building
,a quality environment in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The following considerations represent circumstances
that provide the 'framework for the Aspen Land Use Plan.
I. Aspen will continue to attract visitors and
new residents because of its position as a
quality ski resort and its natural setting.
2. Skiing will continue as the primary economic
base for the community.
3. Aspen will remain as the major tourist and
commercial center for the Upper Roaring Fork
Valley.
4. The community will continue in the attempt to
control growth and prevent surburban sprawl.
5. Emphasis shall be placed on preserving the
natural environment where new development
occurs.
,...
.'....
\
I
THE ASPEN LAND USE PLAN
Page Three
POLICIES
This Plan consists of a set of policy statements supporterl
by general land use designations which are to be used in
guiding and controlling future development in Aspen until a
new zoning 'code and zoning district map can be adopted.~,The
Goals Task Force, a group of citizens from various organi-
zations, and the Aspen Planning Commission have formulated
the following policies as interpretive input for the map
shown hereon.
1. Preserve those buildings and sites recommended
by the Historic Preservation Committee for
historic designation.
2. Preserve and create scenic views of the surround-
ing mountains from public places within the
community.
3. Increase the number of housing units construct-
ed for permanent employees.
4. Provide neighborhood shopping establishments to
serve the daily needs of surrounding population
and to complement but not compete with central
Aspen.
5. Hold the rate of growth to a level substantially
below that experienced since the 1a te sixties
and ensure the growth that does occur is in
keeping with these same policies and the
Land Use Plan.
6. Strengthen the community's economic base in
harmony with tourist activities and encourage
diversification of quality recreational and
cultural pursuits.
,--
THE ASPEN LAND _3E PLAN
Page Four
7. Implement a transportation system within the
community.which places primary emphasis on
pedestrian and maSh transit modes and de-emphasizes
the automobile.
8. Expand public facilities in I' manner consistent
with these policy statements and a pay as, the
community grows program.
9. Preserve the community's wealth of natural re-
sources by preventing damage to air quality,
controlling runoff and maintaining a pleasant
aesthetic appearance by allowing only well
designed and considered development.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
The land use categories as shown on the Aspen Land Use
Plan have the following as their intent and purpose.
Central Area - To allow the primary use of
land for tourist commercial activity that is
essential to the community's economic vitality
in an area that relates well to the proposed
public transportation system, the ski area and
existing tourist oriented businesses. Ordered
'yet diversified land uses, such as resident re-
lated commercial, residential and professional
office uses, should be located on the fringe of the
central area. Urban design consideration is an
essential element of future development or're-
development of the central area and is necessary
to take advantage of the unusual opportunities
presented by its historic heritage and the relat-
ionship of the central area and Aspen Mountain.
This design element includes as primary concerns
the preservation of historic
T ~ iE i\~~ P
L.i\:; ~'.>SE r.'I.,,;\:'
Page Five
sites, structures and mountain views, implementation
of tree rlanting programs, as well as expansion of
the pedestrian ori~nted mall area.
Recreati.on/Accommodations - To allow for the re-
creation and accommodation needs of the visitor
to Aspen in an area that is especially suited for
this because of its unity with, and identity to, the
proposed transportation system, the ski area and
the central area. Site plan rev~ew for significant
development is essential to permit consideration of
the impact that will result and the crucial issues
relating to adequacy of public facilities.
Recreation/Accommodations Transition - To permit
recreation and accommodation development of limited
height, bulk and scale to occur in an area that
relates well physically to the ski area. The con-
cept of construction should provide for a suitable
physical and aesthetic transition between the in-
tensive re~reation/accommodation areas to the north
and the slopes of the mountain on the south. The
primary role of this area should be to provide for
a rural scale and design for hillside development
by regulating development intensity, building
height and bulk and requiring adequate open space.
Residential/Multiple Family - To allow for utili-
zation of the land so designated for more intensive
residential use by permanent residents because of its
location near employment centers, contemplated
neighborhood commercial establishments and ex-
isting high density residential areas. These
areas should be a source of housing for low
THE: r\S L .~ :.t\:. D_"j)S2 Pl..AN'
Page Six
income residents.
Residential/Mixed - To allow for a'mix of residen-
tial uses interspersed with limited amounts of
professional office and visitor accommodation
uses in areas where these conditions presently
intensity uses of the central area and the more
rural areas surrounding the community.
Neighborhood Commercial and Limited Industrial - To
allow the land designated as neighborhood commercial
to be used for a limited amount of commercial square
footage in kee~ing with the neighborhood concept.
Those areas where limited industrial use is indicated
shall provide for non-polluting light industrial
and service commercial needs of the community.
Institutional - To allm, land:owned~bycultural cUl.:,,'al
and educational organizations to develop according to
approved site plans in areas where these activities
now exist.
l' liE A~
LAND ;.r'<;E PL\N
..."-"
Page Seven
Public - To allow for utilization uf these lands by
the public sector in areas where appropriate expansion
of community ~acilities, including those for medical
care, transportation, public administration and similar
facilities, are necessary.
Open Space - To reserve the lands necessary to preserve
and enhance the natural heritage and environment of
the community, an asset which is vitally important to
the continued success of Aspen as a resort people
wish to visit, and to protect and ensure future public
access to outstanding natural features such as the
river and the surrounding mountains. Open space
elements shown on the Land Use Plan such as.trails,
footbridges and the river greenway will be used as
guides in the ,future development of this portion of
the Plan and should not be construed as representing
existing systems or rights-of-way.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Aspen Land Use Plan constitutes a major revision
and update of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan. Within a
one year period certain specific technical checks will be
made to substantiate or supplement the conclusions and
validity of this Plan with regard to natural resources
including air quality, transportation, urban economics
and public facilities. Specific methods of implementation
include the use of new density standards, the neighborhood
commercial concept, an ongoing open space program, historic
heritage and view protection regulations, a transportation
system and- the adoption of a new zoning code, zoning district
map and subdivision regulations.
I ~f,,. ~l c. r. 01".,,;;. c. '<. O. II L. ":0.
-
)
'..,,~
'''"",
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS'
1 00 Leaves
ORDINANCE NO. /01/
(Series of 1974)
--ci
I
I
I
I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 19, SERIES OF 1973,
DESIGNATING CERTAIN DESCRIBED AREAS OF THE ASPEN LAND
USE PLAN R-1S 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.D.D. DISTRICTS; IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
REVIEW CRITERIA IN'MANDATORY P.D.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-IS Residential and R-6 Residential; and to amend
the text of Ordinance 19 to allow the designation of
mandatory P.U.D. zones, with additional review criteria
in areas so designated and to increase the minimum lot
sizes for duplexes in the R-6 Residential District, and
i
,
1-
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.
... - ,,~......-<.-.' . .-..~., ...~..- -.".'-". ...
...-.
..-,
., )
..,.-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
"uR~. ", c. L nJll"'.I, D. o. IJo l. ~O.
Section 2.
That the Aspen Land Use Plan, a component of, and
inco~porated 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.
0f 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
Aspeh 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 000 2l' W 468.07 feet along line
(2 )
/',-.... .P,""
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ro"'~" c. f. IlOrC~[l 8. n. .. l. co.
..
8-9 Tract 41 (B); thence west 183.86 feet;
thence N 500 39' W 283.00 feet; thence
S 250 30' W 323.42 feet more or less to the
northerly right-of-way line of Ute Avenue;
thence along the northerly right-of-way line
of Ute Avenue s 270 04' 30" E 78.38 feet;
thence continuing along said right-of_way
.j
i
I
S 580 28' E 511.72 feet to the point of
intersection with line l3-14 of the south
annexation to the City of Aspen; ,thence west
to south annexation corner No. 13; thence
~
N 040 48' E 18S.8 feet to south annexation
corner No. 12; thence S 600 00' W along south
annexation line 12-ll to a point on the ground
with an elevation of 8040 feet measured from
,the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Bench Mark
I
,
J
, !
in the Pitkin County Courthouse foundation,
elevation 7906.802; thence northwesterly along
an elevation contour of 8040 feet to a mon-
,I
'j
,
ument, stamped Elevation 8040 approximately
40 feet westerly of the most westerly part of
i
,
"
,
1
j
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 470 09' E 83.01
feet; thence 6.40 feet along a curve to the
(3)
..,..".........,...--... '~..,~,.. _.~..,....'~ .--. .-.-."..,~""-,-.-.T
...."'-,
(J
, ,J
RECORD OF PROCEEDIIIIGS
100 Leaves
rOIl"'!l C.f.HnHMfl.e.A,lI 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.
1
j
i
1
-1
I
,
i
.
I
,\
That the Aspen Land Use Plan, a component of, and
incorporated in, Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, which plan
is dated March 6, 1973, be amended by the designation
from Mixed Residential to R-6 Residential Mandatory P.U.D.
of the following:
A parcel of land located in Section 18 TIOS, R84W
I
I
:1
I
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
(II)
,.._,.~..- -
.
" '
""","..,,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
100 Leaves
rO~rol'l c. f,tWrCKH. B. B. B t. co.
..--....-..-.
._-- --
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence
southwesterly along tbe northwesterly line of said
access, easement to the poi?t 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 condom~nium to the most northerly
corner; thence N 430 E to the point of intersection
with the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road as
constructed ans used; thence southeasterly and
"
northeasterly along the centerline of Aspen Mountain
Road to the point of intersection with the southerly
right-of-way line of Ute Avenue; thence southeasterly
along the southerly right-of-way of Ute Avenue to
the point of beginning.
A second parcel of land located in Section 18 TIOS,
, i
;
I
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)
. ..........'..., '.. -~-""'''-'~-''''''''-~~.~''''-~- .'...,......,........~-_..
,...
,....,.
-')
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fOR.. \! C. F. lI"["~LL 8. 8. lit L C~.
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)
- ._.._-.--.....'...._._'.~ -".~~.., '.-'--'-~-
-
"
j
RECORD OF PROCEED: NGS
100 Leaves
ro"'~" t. r. Iln[o<rl ~. D. II. 1. 1;0.
I. whether there exists sufficient water
pressure and other utiiities to service
the intended development;
I
2. the exist~nce 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
I the natural watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion and conse_
quent effects on water pollution;
i
,
i
I
_J
I
.1
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-
i
1
j
1
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)
'.~-~"'_.'-''''''---'.'-"'^.' ~.",-,,",----,.,,,,,:,......,~,.
""'-,.
./
RECORD OF PROCErolNGS
100 Leaves
., ~ORM 11 C. ~ I'OltKH l~ n, ~ I, Cr,
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 (IO) 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 ordinarlce 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 ~;I
day of .?77 a~.J
, 1// /~0/
/ vf--=-q/~-~ ,> (;;/ c~/
~~;~r St'andley 1/;:(, I
{ c--/ J
ATTEST:
~~
-- J
~er( ~
, -- .~.,- '.C.'-' '~"""""'......-.-"-~'-~.~"'-'~_,'~,:''i'I:'
,"
)
" .
RECORD OF PROCEElJ!l\JGS
100 Lcav.es
,o~O\ ~ c. f. HOEtKH. 8. B. fI- l. CO.
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDERED
,)
PUBLISHED thisr;;:Z-':;- day of -2.?f~ 1974.
,/
,t~/ . ....>..__,.. ,-~;7 r'~
-/ - -' .' ...,'-.-'/
A~.~.~. _,,' ./~//-,,-,..~...~/
. ',,--. .'~ .-.....,,/ -z~---"......-/ /'
/
I
,..
ATTEST:
~,d~
. C~ty C erk
._.._,......',.__........,.~_...".,-,..-
-
.-"'..,
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk,of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read by title, and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of
March 11
the City Council of the City of Aspen on
4 A Times
197 'and published in the spen
, -'
a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of
March 14
, 197,.,.!,
and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the City Council on'
Mrlrroh ?t;
, 197~, and ordered
published as Ordinance No.
12
, Series of 19l__, of
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,' I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this
26th
day of
'March
, 197~.
/J;:::__~J
~;;aine Graves, C~ty ClerK
'-
'-"---~---~--.~---' .
."....,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 00 Leaves ,
'01111 ~ C. f. II~rCK[l B. B. " l. '0.
ORDINANCE NO. ~3 ~
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE PROVISION OF ORDINANCE
19, SERIES OF 1973, (AND AMENDMENTS THERETO) UNTIL
OCTOBER 31, 1974, AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY
EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, the city Council is apprised that the
provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, will expire
on or after July 23, 1974, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of Ordinance 19, Series of
1973, was to prevent the issuance of building permits
in derogation of intended changes to the Aspen Municipal
Code, more specifically, the zoning code and district
map incorporated therein, and
WHEREAS, the procedures for adoption of such code
and map have been initiated by the City Council and
Planning and zoning Commission but will not be completed
prior to October, 1974, and
.
WHRREAS, it is the desire of the As~en city Council
to extend the effect of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973,
and amendments thereto, for a period sufficient to allow
the adoption of the new proposed zoning code and zoning
district map, and to provide for such extension prior
to the expiration of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That the termination dates of Ordinance 19, Series
of 1973, Ordinance 34, Series of 1973, and Ordinance 12,
Series of 1974, be and hereby are extended to October 31,
1974, and all provisions of said ordinance by this
f""-
/"',
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
.. 'DIIM It C., "f'~CKrl!. e. II L. co.
reference be readopted for such period as completely
as if incorporated herein in full.
Section 2.
Inasmuch as the provisions of Ordinance 19, Series
of 1973, (and amendments thereto) lapse on July 23, 1974,
and that the intents and purposes of saiq Ordinance 19,
Series of 1973, would be defeated if said ordinance be
permitted to lapse without the prior adoption of a new
zoning code and zoning district,map, it is hereby declared
that an emergency exists and that this ordinanc~ be
adopted as an emergency measure, that neither a public
hearing nor first publication be required, and that said
ordinance become effective immediately upon final passage
and be published within 10 days thereof or as soon there-
after as possible.
Section 3.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
such invalidity shall not effect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect
"1
without the invalid provisions or applications and to
'I
this end the provisions or applications of this ordinance
are declared to be severable.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED at the regular meeting
of the Aspen City Council
in the City Council Chamb
;v'
, 1974,
Building, Aspen,
Colorado.
/~
ATTEST:
, q~?~,d~J
___-city Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
100 Leaves
rot/II III c. r. HotCKfL ~. '0 a l. co.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided
by law for the enactment of an emergency ordinance by
City of Aspen at its special
, 1974, in the
meeting
City of
ATTEST:
~
~/ ~..
./ ;;0
~":j
~--+---~ -
Stacy
Mayor
(!ley
I II '---
_?6t:
~-P
"
~~7~' 4~H<)
L...---City Clerk
.._,....",'
\,
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read by title, and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council o~ the City of Aspen on
July 22
, 197~,~~~3tt~kMMxt~x~~~x~~xxxxx ,
::ax~~~l)X~~~~r:xeff~~NKt15tl'fX15tllSl1~~~~~X~JHX}{:~
~~Nx~x~X~~~X~X~~X~~~~~X~~XXXXXXXXXXXXXX~X~~ ,
special
and was finally adopted and approved at a K~gM*fix meeting of
the City Council on
July 23
, 197~, and ordered
published as Ordinance No.
32
, Series of 197-!, of
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 26th
day of
July
, 197 4.
SEA L
;7
Published in the Aspen Times August 1, 1974
I ' ". ...
'Onlll \l c. '.II~rClrn, 8. 8. ~ l. t:n.
RECORD OF PROCEEL INGS 100 Leaves
ORDINANCE NO, 610
(Series of 19m-
AN ORDINANCE EXEMPTING FROM THE RECOMMENDED OR
ADOPTED NEW ZONING CODE AND DIS'l'RICTMAP THOSE
ORDINANCE 19 APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICANTS
WHO SHALL SUBMIT THEIR FINAL PLANS ON OR BEFORE
DECEMBER 31, 1974; WHO SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER
BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND SHALL ON ISSUANCE OF
THE PERMIT PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCT10N OF EXEMPTED
PROJECTS WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning' Commission, pursuant to
its authority granted in Section 139-59-1, et seq., C.R.S.
1963, as amended, did present to the Aspen City Council the
1973 Aspen General Land Use Plan, incorpor~ting its reCOlli-
mendations for amendments to Aspen's Zoning Code and its
Zoning District Map, and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the City Council that
the objectives and purposes of the anticipated land use changes
would be defeated if building permits issue for structures
and uses inconsistent with 'the Commission recommendations
prior to adoption of a new zoning code and district map,
and the issuance of permits only in accordance with the
anticipated changes would aid in the orderly and efficient
adoption of a new code and map, and
WHEREAS, to effectuate this transition the City
Council, did, by Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, direct the
review of all building permit applications by the Commission
with the authority to allow or deny the same according to
the criteria stated in said Ordinance 19, and
WHEREAS, the Commissj,on has, by its Resolution
dated October 8, 1974, recommended to the City Council a
zoning code 'and district map for the Council's consideration
-,
, ,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FOIl" ~~ c, r. IIO( r~ fl D. B. ,\ l. '0
---.-.- -
and Council has initiated its review of the same, and
WHE,REAS, pursuant to Ordinance 19 review several
projects have received Planning and Zoning Commission
approval but the applicants therefore have not submitted
final plans nor received a valid building permit, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 45, Series of 1974, provides
that whenever the Planning and Zoning Commission has
properly initiated proceedings to amend the text of Chapter
24 or the Zoning District Map pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 24, and the Commission has, subsequent to public
hearing, adopted a Resolution recommending to the City
Council approval of such amendment, no building permits shall
be issued by the City Building Inspector which would be
prohibited by the proposed amendment for a period of one (1)
year following the date of such Commission Resolution, and
'WHEREAS, the Common Law of the State of Colorado
provides that an amendment to a zoning ordinance applies
to all landowners unless they have procured a valid build-
ing permit and acted in reliance on the same, in which
event they shall be allowed to proceed with their original
application even though in conflict with the change, Michael
Saul' v The County Commissioners of Larimer County (Colo. Sup.
Ct. August 13, ,1974), County of Denver v Denver Buick, 141
Colo. 121, 347 P2d 919, Cline v City of Boulder, 168 Colo.
112, 450 P2d 335, Crawford v McLaughlin, 172 Colo. 366,
473 P2d 725, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for
those applicants who have received final approval (under
Ordinance 19) from the Commission to proceed, for a limited
period of time, with their applications even though said
applications may be in derogation of, or in conflict with
-2-
/ ,
RECORD OF PROCEElJINGS '
100 Loaves
'011"" c. F. ~orcltn a, R.1I l. co.
the specific provisions of the proposed or adopted zoning
code and district map, and
WHEREAS, such authorization should be made with
the same degree of formality as those provisions mandating
different zoning criteria, namely, by ordinance fully adopted
and and approved,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the following construct:ion projects shall be
permitted to proceed, under the conditions hereinafter
enumerated, the provisions of Ordinance 45, Series of 1974,
and any zoning code and district map modifications herein-
after enacted, to the contrary notwithstanding:
(a) The Woods Building Remodel
(b) The RBH Office Building
(c) The 620 Hyman Office Building
(d) The Stevens-Ginn Building
Section 2
That as conditions for such grant:
(a) All permit applications must be submitted, in
their entirety, and permit fees paid, on or
before December 31, 1974.
(b) The Building Inspector shall issue all permits
hereinabove provided for on April 15, 1975,
unless the plan check is completed and approved
and a permit requested by the applicant prior
to April 15.
-3-
:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINCS
100 Leaves
'~RII 'j c. r. IIIlEtKrl H. R. II- l, ~Il
(c) All applications shall fully comply with the
Zoning Commission reco~~endation (unless a
~i
"
!
~
~
,
1
I
,
.
.
;'
zoning code and distrjct map provisions in
existence prior to the pending Planning and
variance has been granted by the Board of
Adjustment); with the reqJirements of the
.
Planning and Zoning Commission imposed under
Ordinance 19; with the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Electric Code, Uniform Housing Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical
Code, as adopted and approved, or may be
adopted or approved by the City of Aspen
(unless a variance shall be granted by the
Board of Examiners and Appeals).
(d) All applications shall be identical to those
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
under Ordinance 19 Review but any applicant may
amend his application in limited particulars
to conform with the recommended zoning prior
to its adoption by the City Council (and to the
fully adopted code and map after Council
adoption) and still enjoy the immunity of this
,Ordinance. In the event an application shall
completely conform to the proposed code pending
adoption and later to the adopted zoning code
and district map, permits shall issue as if a
new application and the limitations of this
Ordinance shall be deemed of no further force
and effect to said application.
-4-
)
'<
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
1011... 'I c. r. 1l0[!KH. ~. R. ft I. t~,
(e) There shall be made no extensions or exceptions
of this Ordinance for the benefit of the above
or any other applicant, and it shall be of
no consequence that financing or other obstruc-
tions to the progress of the development, beyond
the control of the City of Aspen, have occurred
subsequent to this grant.
(f) Every permit issued pursuant to the provisions
of this Ordinance shall expire by limitation and
become null and void if the building or work
authorized by such permit is not commenced within
120 days from the date of such permit or if
the building or work authorized by such permit
is suspended or abandoned at any time after the
work is commenced for a period of 120 days. If
such permit shall expire for failure to so proceed,
no new permit shall issue except in conformance
with any then pending or fully adopted zoning
code provision.
Section 3
,
If any provisions 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 4
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held pn
'''-7/o-'-l.?,tLJ
II
, 1974, at 5 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
-5-
, ,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
H"I" 'I c. r.I"'H.Kl.l~. B. & l. (n.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided
by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
on the
"-:;?9
day of
@,-~~
, 1974.
ATTEST:
,/,/ ~) .
// /' //,// /?.r;'/
~~ ~,<,,-'C-.~ ~//
~..----i-~--,. ),'..~-_. .:,_. .._ -;..--.4::'-L'~~-'"
Stag tandley III
Mr <CM_
~~-<w ~~,~~
L----- orra~ne Graves
City Clerk
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED this
of )1/!-l~#~ , 1974.
// day
~
~~:~_ .~~/ .,-c
~ ~'-"'" ~---=--
Stacy Standley III
Mayo
ATTEST:
-lil
, )~dk /
~' '.r~.-.-, ./C-C'l.cK,J
Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
,
.
STATE Of COLORADO)
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance ,vas
introduced, read by title, and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on
.
October 29
, 197~, and published in the Aspen Times,
0"
a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of October 31
197,1-,
and ,,,as finaJly adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the City Council on November 11
, 197JL, and ordered
published as Ordinance No.
, Series of 197-A' of
so
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 1:::>rn
day of
November
, 197 4.
SEA L
-"~'-:J~~~4~
L----/t;orraineGraves, City Clerk
-,
~
l.
I
i
I
I
I
I:
I:
I.
I
I:
Ii
r ~
~ l
,
1
.i
~ ~
;!
!l
"
I
;1
:!
I
q
I
:i
II
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
,
,r'. ,
)
.-.'
RECORD cr PROC[ED:NGS
100 Lea:ves
r01l1l \l c. t. HC[CKfL~,~. a l. co.
ORDINANCE NO. ~~
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE EXEI-lPTION FOR THE 620 Hn1AN BUILDING
FROI-l THE NEW ZONING CODE, ORDINANCE 11, SERIES OF 1975, ALL AS
ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE 50, SERIES OF 1974; PROVIDED
THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT SUBSTITUTE BUILDING PLANS ON OR
BEFORE JUNE 15, 1975; SHALL OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER
BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND SHALL, ON ISSVANCE OF A BUILDING PER-
MIT, PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE F.XEMPTED PROJECT l-nTH
REASONABLE DILIGENCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance 50,
Series of 1974, the 620 Hyman construction project received
exemption from the recommended recodificati"n of 'the City of
Aspen zoning code and district map, contained in Ordinance ll,
Series of 1975, and
WHEREAS, the developer of the project has proposed a
substitute building presenting an exterior design acceptable to
the City Council and prefer~bie to that of the exempted project,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public
welfare would be enhanced if the newly proposed structure was
built in lieu of the earlier exempted project, and
.'
W1EREAS, the Common Law of the State of Colorado pro-
vides that an amendment to a zoning ordinance applies to all land-
owners unless they have procured a valid building permit and
,i
acted in reliance on the same, in which event they shall be allowed,
to proceed with their original application even though in conflict
with the change, Hichael Saur v. The County commissioners of Larimer
county, (COlO. Sup. Ct. August 13, 1974), County of Denver v. Denver
Buick, 141 Colo. 121, 347 P2d 919, Cline v. City of Boulder, 168
.........
,
)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fortll ~ e, r. MOECKrL B. B. a L. co.
Colo. 112, 450 P2d 335, Crawford v. ~'!cLaugh1in, 172 Colo. 366,
473 P2d 725, and
~mEREAS, the City Council wishes to extend the exempLion
of Ordinance 50, Series of 1974, for a period of approximately
ninety (90) days to allow resubmission of plans and issuance of a
permit, and thus to grant immunity from any zoning code changes
that may be adopted in the interim,
~mw, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the 620 Hyman Building construction project shall
be permitted to proceed, under the conditions hereinafter enumerated,
the provisions of Ordinance 45, Series of 1974, Ordinance 50, Series
of 1974, and Ordinance 11, 1975, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Section 2
That as conditions for such grant:
'a)
\,
The permit application for the substitute
structure must be submitted, in its entirety, and permit
fees paid, on or before June 15, 1975. The permit applic-
at ion shall substantially conform to the working drawings
submitted by the developer to the Aspen City council at
its continued meeting held March 13, 1975.
(b) The Building Inspector shall issue the permit
hereinabove provided for on July 15, 1975, unless the
plan check is completed and approved, and a permit re-
quested by the applicant prior to July 15, 1975,
-/."
,-.
/ ""'.
'>
REeOiiD Ot PR0CEElJii,jGS
100 Leaves
'0I11ol\. C.f.MO[CKEl.n. B.ll. t,Cll.
(c) The application shall fully comply with the
zoning code ,and district map provisions in existence
prior to the pending Planning and ,Zoning commission
recommendation (unless a variance has been granted by
the Board of Adjustment); ',lith the requirements of the
Planning and zoning commission imposed under Ordinance
19 r Series of 1973; ',vith the Uliiform Building Code,
Uniform Electric Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code, as adopted
and approved, or may be adoptetl or approved by the
City of Aspen.
(d) There shall be made no extensions or exceptions
of this Ordinance for the benefit of the above, and it
shall be of no consequence that financing or other
obstructions to the progress of the development, beyond
the control of the City of Aspen, have occurred subsequent
to this grant.
(e) The permit issued pursuant to the provisions
of this Ordinance shall expire by limitation and become
null and void if the building or work authorized by such
permit is not commenced within one hundred twenty (120l
days from the date of such permit, or if the building
or work authorized by such permit is suspended or
abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a
period of one hundred twenty (120) days. If such permit
shall expire for failure to so proceed, no new permit
shall issue except in conformance with any then pending
or fully adopted zoning code provisions.
Section 3
If any provision of this Ordinance of the applicatioll
-3-
, ,
'"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 00 Leaves
fCM"'" c.r,UO[CKHB.S.&t.CO.
..-----~--
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such in-
validity shall not affect other provisions ,or applications of
the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid pro-
visions or, applications and to this end the provisions or applic-
ations of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 4
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the
~S" day of O~:J.-<...~ .i..;) , 1975, at 5 P.~'l. in the City CounciJ
(/
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by
law by the city Council of the City of Aspen, at its regular meet-
ing held (]/J4i!...o /1, 1975.
, I
ATTEST:
-j~
dZ..
FINALLY ADOPTED AND APPROVED ON
~~ .02~
1975.
Stacy Stnadley III, Mayor
ATTEST:
far1~)
Kathryn Ha ter,
#~
City Clerk
-4-
, ,
'.......
'i
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss
)
CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I, Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read in full, and passed on ~
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Aspen on
~:L ~/ , 1970, and publish-
ed in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circul-
ation, published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its
issue of (.Z.-~ '/"'7 , 197_2> , and 'vas finally adopted
, /
and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on.
~"L o?%
197~, and ordered published as
Ordinance No. =?S-
Series of 1976 , of said City, as
provided by law.
IN WITNESS WlillREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this c:2 ~
day of 7'nar
, 197::J .
~L.b/<.A~) /d 4'",--<-...ZeA. /
Kathryn S. auter, City Clerk
..
"
^ ,,JJ(~/~I' 1b
l/ it> - ,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fORM'" C.:. H.1E~I(Et 8. O. I!. l C~.
(Series of 1976)
"
~,
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCF. ]~lENDING SECTION 24-3.7(d) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE (THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREHENTS OF THE ZONING CODE) PROHIBITING
THE USE OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY (UNLESS AS AN
ADJUNCT TO USE OF AN ABUTTING RIG~T-OF-';lAY)
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council is of the opinion that the
intents and purposes of the open space requirements of the zoning
code will be better satisfied if open air commercial acitivities are
prohibited within required open space areas,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COBNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPZN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a subsection to Section 24-3.7(d) which
said subsection reads as follows:
(8) Anything hereinabove to the contrary notwith-
standing, no area of a building site designated as
required open space under this section shall be used
for any commercial activity, including, but not by
way of limitation, the storage, display and merchandis-
ing of goods; Jrovided, however, that'the prohibitions
of this subsection shall not apply when such use is in
conjunction with permitted commercial activity on an
abutting right-of-way.
Section 2
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 3
That a public hearing on this ordinance be held on the
day of
, 1976, at 5:00 P.!l. in the City Council
Chambers, ,:\spen city Hall, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of
)
RECOF;D OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
rOROl ~ c. r. ~Ol:CIl.[L B. R. a L. co.
general circulation in the City of Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, ry~AD AND ORDERED published as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held
, 1976.
STACY STANDLEY, III, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KATHRYN S. HAUTER, CITY CLERK
FINAI,LY ADOPTED AND APPROVED ON
, 1976.
ATTEST:
STACY STANDLEY, :':11, 'IAYOR
KATHRYN S. HAUTER, CITY CLERK
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1, ,,'.
i.j (
Aspen City Council May 14, 1973
...~.~.~-...- -",-,._-"~-,-..,.,...-......-~~~~~--~"",,",..,..,,..,,..,.~~-~---,---~--,-,..~~----_.- -..
Regular Meeting
<,.~.~,,-----,,-'--"7-"-"__
.~~-
{ 117,
, 1973
,1'
.'t H8,
. :1' 1973
,ft'! nq,
:1 1973
,
I Courts
. Fork
~11gn
~ :tct
~
I
,
councilwoman Markalunas moved to read on first reading Ordin~~ce #17, Series of lQ73. Se-
conded by Councilman Nystrom. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE 1117, SERIES OF lG73, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-9 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE'
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (h) RESTRICT-
ING HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES WITHIN AREAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE MOUNTAIN VIEWS", was read by
title by the City Clerk. II
Councilman Nystrom moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 1973 on first reading. seconded.i
by Councilwoman Markalunas. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom, aye,: Breasted, aye:
Griffin, aye; Markalunas, .aye; Mayor) Homeyer, aye. Mot5,on carried.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to read on first reading Ordinance #18, Series of 1973. Se-
conded by Councilman Nystrom. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE 1118, SERIES OF 1973, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIlE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THF, CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DATED APRIL 3, 1967, AS AMENDED, DESIGNATING ALL OF BLOCK 23, EXCEPT
LarS H & I, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE STALLARD HOUSE SITUATED THEREON,
AS AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT", was read by title by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 1973 on first reading.
Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Roll call vote - Councilmen Markalunas, aye; Griffin, aye:
Breasted, aye; Nystrom, aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried.
Council agreed to establish the public hearings for Ordinances #16, #17, and #18 for May
29th, at 4:00 p,m.
COuncilman Griffin moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 1973,on first reading, Seconded
by Councilman Nystrom. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE 1119; SERIES OF 1973, ,. AN'ORDINANCE PROVIDINC FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PEND-
ING ADOPTION OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE" was read by title by the City Clerk.
Council agreed to establish the public hearing on (Ordinance 1/19, Series of 1973 fOrL.l.-..~~
June 11th. ~,'. <..: )",dcJ
Mayor Homeyer informed Council Mr. Armstrong, Parks and Recreation Director, has reauested
Council authorization to proceed with the 2 tennis courts at Iselin Park utilizi.ng the
$10,000 in the City Budget and tae $10,000 from the school. Matching funds not available,
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to proceed
as proposed. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom.
Councilman Breasted stnted he is against increasing utlization of thls park due to the
traffic and pedestrian problems.
Roll call vote ~ Councilman Nystrom, aye; Breasted, 'nay; Griffin, aye; Markalunas, aye:
Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried.
Council reQuest a personal letter be drafted to the students'-;of the University of Colorado
for the comnendable work they did on the mall designs.
Councilwoman Markalunas reQuest a report on the progres~ of the bikeways and why the back-
stop has not been moved from the golf course area as reauested by Council a year ago.
.:
.,
"
1
II
Ii
il
'1
II
Nys trom. Ii
i:
Ii
I
Ii
ii
II
il
"
I!
II
Councilman Breasted suggest a foot bridge be constructed across Castle Creek for better
pedestrian access to the recreational area at Iselin Park.'
Council request the City Attorney draft a resolution to go to the ungraded students for
the commendable job done on the Highway 82 pick-up.
Councilman Griffin moved to adjourn into executive session, seconded by Councilman
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Nystrom moved to reconvene into regular session and adjourri, seconded by Coun-
cilman Breasted. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
"1 ,..':
C::ig' ,d,
. ~':'L.~ .,1.-1'1/
Lorraine Graves, City Clerk
!." ,.
~
C'~''-
.
f;
,
,
t,
t
(
f
I
[~;
~
,
l.
},;
;
.
~.
':.i ,';..
,
,
,
,
r.
Ie
f'"
io
t'"
,1 b
F~_.
h'
I
,
r~
,
~.
'!""-'
,
.
1448
,.R~_9\..tla.f~l;!~e.tJng ASp~.n_,..C.J~L_CQ,u[l..sA~___~".;....,.___.--.._............_J,Ufle 11
.,. -,_.... ..' .' - " ,... ..... .,.. -- '. ., 1;17~
-II Meet:ng was called to order by Mayor Eve Homeyer at 4:05 p.m. with counci~:::--:'m'-
;;ROSS Griffin, Ramona MarkalunaQ, City Attorlley S~mara Stuller and City Manager RU~: t~rp'~~l, :
, . Cdl't l't:.,
!!correspondence from Councilman Francis.Whitaker was read by Mayor Homeyer stating his
': regrets and absence from this meeting.
Ii Councilman Griffin moved to approve the minutes of May 29th as prepared and mailed
" ~
;;the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
!i
::Councilrnan Jack Walls arrived.
li',.f;
{
.
'Y
II Form required by the State for extension 'of Liquor licensed
~Council and City Attorney repo~ted all was in order.
I' '
!Councilman Griffin moved to approve extension of
'!Seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote
:: Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye.
premises was submitted to
~.j. ~ :...
,
the liq,;-or licensed premises as. submitt-e1
- Councl.lmen Breasted, aye; Griffin ','"
Motion carried. ' a~cl
)i Mayor Homeyer opened 'the pUblic hearing. .
Ii City/County Planner Herb Bartel stated the ordinance has been am~nded to provide and
making it specific that the Planning and zoning Commission adopt a building permit rcvi~
criteria. The Commission does not, at this time, have the specifics, therefore, aSkinqlW
that only the public hearing be held today and second reading of t1le ordinance be at the
next regular meeting.
I
IMr. Bartel explained the intent of the ordinance is to provide the Planning and Zoning
ICommission the tool to review building permits during and for one year while the zoning
I co~e and master plan up-dating proced,;-res are going on. If these procedu~es are accompl i ~~:..,.,~
'Iprl.or to the end of the one year, Ordl.nance #19 would no longer be effectl.ve. This oruir.-
lance will require a great deal of additional work for the P & Z Commission and in additio:i
I they may turn something down that is part of a current plan and th~re is the potential of
! lawsuits. Building permits are about 2~ million above what they were at this time last
j year. This ordinance will provide the time; a lot can happen in this o~e year that may be
I: in conflict with general pOlicies.
II
iThe elements for the basis of review are as follows: (1) land use plan; (2) building
!;permit criteria; The Planning and Zoning Commission desires to interject into the plan
'11 design concepts i.e. view control, historic designations, etc. Further they want to addrE~~
,!the problem of rate of growth; they are saying the second home market needs to be analizcd.
'lIThe transportation and land uses need to be reviewed relating to serving the ~and uses by
ia transit system. There is the social problem of housing. We are not getting any perman-
lent housing which is in competition with the second home market. Finally need to consoli-
I date all that has happened to date and compile the information into a single document.
I
'[ The first basic change. in the land use map is the AR zone into single family residences.
Generally P & Z feels the lodges, motels should be in the central area for better trans-
,I portation and pedestrian movement. .'.:.
Mr. Bartel stated the Planning & Zoning Commission was split 2 to 2 on the criteria. Main
controversy oVe~',vhether a minimum density figure should be set as the basis for review
or should all building permits be reviewed. The review process will include parking,
,historic designation, listing the uses and those that will be exempt from review and those
11 that would require review. Additions would come under review, remodeling would not.
lcouncilman Walls questioned the advisability.of the tourist accommodation uses becoming
I non-conforming uses following. the adoption of the revised land use plan. Further questioned
1 what is the definition of permanent housing.
. ~;
~ 1. f...
ti!!
.
i!'.:. d
,
..t,
fl
~
.~ ~. ~';
.=l!;;
, ,
Mr. Bartel explained they have talked about se~ting a time limit somewhere around 6 month
leases and may have to have an inspector. Ski Corporation has stated they intend to limit
the number of skiiers on the mountain, the skiing industry and the land uses should be
compatable. Any uses that are not listed would automatically corne under review.
Mr. Steen Gantzel, owner of the Christiana Lodge on West Main submitted to Council a
i letter outlining his objections to the ordinance and suggestions. Mr. Gantzel suggested
lthe lodges that presently exist, large portion have been in operation for many years,
Ibe allowed to finalize their growth and business. Present homes should not be allowed.to
I revert to lodges but must remain as permanent housing. Do not feel tourist accornmodatlons
I should be limited to the downtown area. Not as concerned about Ordinance #19 as with the
rezoning that will be the result of this ordinance. The entire west end will be rezoned.
I Feel residential and motels are a compatible arrangement.
Mr. Bartel stated existing uses are a difficult problem and at this' time do not have the
I answer. Planning and Zoning will have to recognize this as a part of the total plan.
Presently feel existing uses would corne under special review. To deal with the problems
ijPeOple ~ant the City to deal with requires s~me strong legislation. _
II Mr. Gantze1 stated no one will be able to afford to do anything for a year ,because they
:jwill not know what the zoning will be one year' from now. When the rezoning of the west
i end takes place as generally proposed today, there will be 15 lodges that will be non-
i conforming uses.
'Ih,'!'
: 1; f
f
~
."." "
Mr. James Adams, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission stated what the commission
is saying is they do not want to see any further tourist businesses in the west end of town~
Two alternatives were open to the P & z, (1) call a rnoritorium or (2) allow some growt~
to occur.
': !-; r:
(next page)
'I
II
liTra;; ,
isubd:
I;Rc9u.:.:.
I ^"er,,:
There being no further comments, Mayor Homeyer closed the pUblic hearing.
"'.......,.,.~....,~,..~":'''''.''=....'~~,''''.,..,....",.,~>.,~,,':~~'''''':~.~
-'
!
; '-,-)
J.1".J.:.,.,
f.......,
.~~~Reg\ll~LMeetin" A~~C;i..tLCQ.UJ;1.>:it~ .,.:(\ln~~2.~~1973..
f ~:~~~:~ ;:~e~:~~~dJ;~~~r~;~a:~e~:O~e~~mDe~~e~~~~~,S~:~~n:~~~~~:iu~;;: ;;~~ ~~;~~~l~~~haOi
I Hehrendt, City Attorney Sandra Stuller and City Manager Russ .Campbell.
Councilman Breasted moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 6, and 11th as prepared
mailed by the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman DeGregorio. All in favor, motion
and
carried.
I
Mr. Wolfe From Garmisch request a letter from Council indicating a welcome committee of
some sort will be on hand to receive visitors fram Garmisch under the sister
Also setting up travel arrangements for people from Aspen to visit Garmisch.
agreed to have Mayor Standley send a letter to the BurgeDmeister of Garmisch
visitors to Aspen from Garmisch.
city program.
Council
inviting
Mr. James Grinnel submitted and read letter relating to Ordinance #19. (See full text
during public hearing in these minutes). i Or.
r
Mountain Queen, Final Plat - City Engineer submitted a memorandum to Council stating a
request to table this item d~e to problem of fire protection for this subdivision.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to table this ite~. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1973 _ City / County planner Herb Bartel stated at the last
meeting, the intent of the ordinance was ~iscussed. Since that time, the Planning and
Zoning Commission has reviewed the criteria which is now before the Council for approval.
Further pointed out that in addition to the criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission
will be using the interim land use plan. . Within the next couple of weeks will be working
at getting copies of the map out and then will proceed with the up_dating of the criteria.
Will be asking for market feasibility studies for offices to find how large an activity
this is. Further need to relate second home market to professional offices. Planning and
Zoning will be continually amending the criteria as time goes on. List of building
permits pending now before the Building Inspector was submitted; list not including
single family dwellings.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to re-open the public hearing on Ordinance #19, seconded by
Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried.
I
Councilman Walls read the following correspondence and ~equested they be made a part of th~
record:
"Dear Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
The Aspen Board of Realtors is deeply concerned about the pending enactment of Ordinance
No. 19. While we are generally in favor of the proposed revisions to the MAster Plan
and corresponding zoning changes as required to imple~ent the revised Plan, we believe
that Ordinance No. 19 is not a well advised step toward the accomplishment of community
goals. Our concern mny be su~rized as follows:
Enforcement of the ordinance is keyed to planning and zoning commission (P&Z) approval
or disapproval pf proposed development "in accordance with the amended general land use
map and accompanying text". Although the map has been available for inspection in the
Planning Office, the text of the review criteria remBins, by and large. a mystery to the
general public. Neither the ~p nor the test has been widely disseminated. As a result,
the public has been "shortchanged" of any real opportunity to give thoughtful analysis
and reflection to this comment to the City Council.
The so-called "review criteria II that we have recently seen do not contain objective
standards for P&Z to apply. Instead P, & Z is clothed with almost absolute discretion to
make subjective decisions.
Finally, we doubt very much that restricting tourist accommodations by rezoning from AR-l
to residential will in fact "provide residential areas for permanent resident~, (and)
broaden the economic base of the community" as stated in the preamble to the ordinance.
It is unwise to merely assume that these desired social and economic benefits will
result from the amended general land use map now proposed. Without definitive studies
to guide and justify both Council and the community in their efforts to enhance the
quality of life in Aspen, wholesale rezoning on nothing more than a hope and a prayer
approaches irresponsibility.
We would now like to expand on each of the three points made in the ,foregoing su~ry.
A. The public has not been adeQuately informed.
Ordinance No. 19 was first read on May 14 and was published two days. later. It was not
until May, 21 that Council got its first look at the amended map. On that .occasion Mayor
Homeyer was fluoted as saying that she IIhad a terri.ble feeling there's a lot we donlt k~ow
I about this map so we really donlt know what Questions to ask.1I City Planner Bartel sald
the new plan was as significant as the original general plan and added "Itls just too big
I to try and soft .pedal."
II
II
"........--..-..~,"'.~,...,..."'!"'I""'~,.,'':;:..,,'-''''''-,--~-:'':''~-.--'~
, ..,... ... 1
i:
!:
Ii
r
' '
s;. .
c; ~ "
Pt,,!
~-",gul
_.~_.....
1 ,i
II BY ~\,
, rev.l..-t.:
I Ii comml
, \ con tr
,
, I and'
,
i ! in Ci
I ~, sign i
I
I 1\ sec,:'
\
, It bel]!.
, \\ and ~
I I l1\l"
co..,
B.
The
I I The
,
i "Ap:
i aCC.
thi'
I
! t1Th
f cri
use
, \i ~~t
,
!
i \ aV~
. th"
1
t di
Th
"0
on
n
I kr
\ aJ
\ ~.
I t
118
t ~
I; (
Ii,
1\ l
I', I
II
II
ii,
,
\'
Ii
Ht
S,. ,
....'.
0,-
B!:j
Rt' '.'.
~
i
t
~.
~
~
,
......~...~.
,,"'"
~
.,~
,
"
~.
(
,
f
t
;
t
i
I
I
.
i
,
i
1
~
.
J
'"
'~,
........~,.,;...c_~~,_:.__ ..... ._.____c..
.,.-'
r"
145=3
"
,
~&ulJlr M~eting (cQnt.1.
I
Aspen City ~~Sil
June 25. 1973
By the time the public hearing came along on Jlm~ 11, P & Z had .till not decided 00 specifc
review criteria and it was reported that only one member of the genera~ public App~ared to J
comment on the ordinance. This should not be read as Rn indication of apathy. On the I
contrary, it truly reveals the almost total lack of public information as to the significan e
and far reaching effects of the ordinance. Simply making the map available for inspection I'
in City Hall is less than the full and adequate public disclosure that a chRnge of this
significance should warrant. There is a substantial difference between not keeping it a
secret and really taking it to the public on a full information basis. We sincerely
believe that the public has been "short changed"; that Council should rectify thllt situatio
and should not enact Ordinance No. 19 in the absence of informed public discussion and
comment.
j
}
id
"
.
I
,
B. There are no objective review criteria.
The scheme of Ordinance No. 19 calls for P & Z review of practically all building permits.
The really significant language of the ordinance is as follows:
"Approval or disapproval shall be in accordance with the amended general land use IMp and
accompanying text which, for purposes of the review procedure, are hereby msde 8 part of
this ordinance. 11
"
! ~
i'
:j
II
"
"The Planning & Zoning Commission is further authorized to establish additionRl review
criteria for application in the review procedure. provided, however, that such excepted ,
uses and review criteria must, prior to their application, be approved by the City CounciL"
I
!'
Until the review criteria are established, the ordinance is incomplete and no one knows how
it will be applied. Within the last week so-called review criteria have been made
available but unfortunately they shed no light on whllt is going to happen. Such bRSic
things as building bulk and height, parking and density are committed to the total
discretion of P & Z without any objective legislative stand"rds. Take density for exa~ple.
The "Criterionll is:
L'
rl
, I,
;
"Density set by Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of building permit review, bRsed
on site plan review physical conditions of site, ~mpact resulting from the development."
Thi~ standard, if it is a standard, is so vague that neither the, landowner nor P & Z can
know what it means. How does one measure "impact" unless there are some objective stand- ..
ards. It is difficult to imagine a grant of more arbitrary and unlimited discretion. How II
can the landowner have any plans drawn if he hasn't the slightest idea of permitted de~sitYii
or of acceptable building bulk and height? Moreover, P & Z customarily relies heRvily on ,I
the recommendations of the Planning Staff. We cannot believe that Council would willingly ii'
abdicate its responsibilities to provide a~equate legislative standards for this community. ,
Yet Ordinance No. 19 in its present form does exactly that by concentrating Rbsolute i,
discretion in P & Z and, through it, in the Planning Department. Until objective criteriR II
are developed and adopted, Ordinance No. 19 is defective from every standpoint. Small wonder
the general public has been unable to air its views to the City Council. ~
C. The social and economic conseQuences of Ordinance No. 19 are unknown. I
I
I
I
't
Ordinance No. 19 seems premised on the notion that reducing the proportion of tourist
accommodations to total capacity will necessarily increase permanent resident housing,
benefit the economy by broadening its base, and alleviate certain transportation problems.
We seriously question this premise and strongly suggest that there is an almost total
absence of reliable study information to underpin this thesis.
",
Tourism is
tourists.
community.
own or the
the basis of this community. All business activity is dependent upon securing
The wide variety of housing available to tourists is an integral part of the
Future concentration in a "holding pen" enclave is not in keeping with our
tourists' best interest.
i
".;
,i
>,
Concentration will have a deteriorating affect on the tourist and the City. The tradition-I
a1 (3-6 month) summer visitors rent condominiums 8S lodges and private homes CRnnot h~ndle
this type of semi-resident. Summer visitor growth is increasing at a greater r~te than
winter visitor growth. They do not use the mountain and the proposed future concentration
of summer visitors would suit neither visitor nor resident as a large majority of summer
activities are located at the Music Tent and Institute.
'.,j
There is a continuing myth that we have an employee housing shortage. We do h~ve 8
cheap housing shortage, but the proposed rezoning will not alleviate that problem. The
current land cost in the AR-l District is approximately $7 per snuare foot, or $10,500
per building unit for apartments. In the existing R-6 District the going price is about
$40,000 for 6,000 sQuare feet of single family or duplex building lot. No amount of re-
zoning or density reduction will reduce these prices. They may falter in their infla-
tionary trend but" they won 't reverse the trend. Three years 8g0 the density in AR-l w~s
cut in half, at that time AR-l land was selling for $4.50-$5.00 per snuare foot Rnd the
average land cost per apartment unit was $3500-$3700.
I
,
'I
II ~
II
,
I
I ;~
I ~ i
~ "
:'i
!
!i
n,',.'.~c'r .~~.~~~":"""7""'''''':'''''''''''''--''''''''~
. ~ . -' ,_,~,,"....,;:><,~c '" '. ._,.._.,.J
r-,~~~',.~ .~
~'r-
.~~ "'. ~ -
'.~i" "",~,
i
v
f.
~..
, '
\
;
. f.~"
~' ,.
~.,.
(.~
>,""
:/~
!'-~
L
h
;~~
."~,>,",-",,.,_....,.-:;\j>..~
~~F''''..J.A..A''''
,'ou .,'.,~""."" .....~., ..._
"'-.~~.~".:';;"';'i................~~",'-""'-'~"'':-'''~''~c.-.:...,
'..
',..,.....:.~
1454
Regular Meetin~n.t.)Aspen City C"uncil June 25, 1973
)= :
"""~l~:ducin~ density and encouraging permanent type housing building activity in' :he manner
' II
I.. proposed will have the following affect if recent history is our guide to the future:
I'
II The average land cost per apartment unit will be approximately $20,000 in two-three years
II in the Mixed-Residential area-about 6 times the cost in the 1968-69 era. This will
i~encourage permanent housing construction?
II Even if land COStS per unit stayed the same as today, simple economics would show that it
ii is not feasible to build rental units for permanent housing unless the rental charges
ilwere in the $600~$800 per month range if the developer were to get an average return on
!ihis investment. How many units of this type have been built in the AR-I District and how
!imany single family homes have been built in the AR-l District in recent years? Very few!
:'Changing to a Mixed-Residential classification and reducing density will not accomplish
il the proposed objective. '
! The fine balance 'that e~ists 'between higher income visitors (a 1970 Chamber survey indicate
: that 49% of the winter tourists had incomes of $25,000 a year or higher) and medium income
I] residents and the continuing inter-relationship beCween the two deserves very cautious
iistudy before any major changes are executed.
~ ' '
'iThe economic quality of life of'the average resident is a major consideration.
[!Until we know fo; sure what so~ial and economic consequences will flow from the proposed
Ii transition in land use and zoning it is unwise to institute 8 rr~jor change. We need to
!!know and, by proper studies can ascertain, whether or not the proposed change in zoning
:idensity and use would destroy tourist ~uality; would increase the residential base only
:: for the very wealthy; might decrease the economic Quality of life for the average resident..
j:We believe that social and economic studies should be undertaken immediately to give us
! the answers to these questions and that Ordinance No~ 19 should not be enacted until the
if results of such studies are ava ilable.
Ii Isl The Aspen Board of Realtors
Ii William Mason President" -=--
:1 "Dear Mr. Mayor & Members -tkfity ,Council:
I! The Pitkin County Constructidft"'A9S0~ion offers this letter as an endorsement to the
"
'. document prepared by the Aspen Board of Realtors.
II
::Further, we feel, as we think most residents do, that an improved, up-dated zoning
,; ordinance is necessary. However, we feel that Ordinance No. 19 is inadetluate, iCnot
II dsngerous.
II Will Ordinance No. 19, as written, stand up under subse~uent attsck?
'iWas it properly presented to the public, or can it be broken by some technicality.
II
il Can it be broken by some lega lity? ,
j'Is it sound. constitutionality?
II If it can be broken, wha tare t\1e implica tions to the community?
Ilwe strongly urge delaying passage of Ordinance No. 19 if any of these questions are
Ii unanswered Bnd until presentations are made to the various community groups and organizatio s.
II
I'; Is I Pitkin County Contractors Association President."
I '
IIMr. Amos Jordan, representing the Aspen Institute, request an exemption from the building
:! permit review based on the following reason: Aspen Institute filed 8 master plan for their
holdings in the west end of the City in April of 1971. The Plafining and Zoning Commission
did approve the master plan. Within the master plan is a chalet and a work shop building:
, application for building permit will be filed within the next two weeks. Further there
Iii is a lack of guidance since institutional zoning has not come t~ pass at this time..
,I Mr. Bartel stated the Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning office feel this would
it qualify as an exception since a master plan was approved some .time ago, as long as the
Ii buildings are in compliance with the plan as filed. Council agreed with the exemption.
II Letter from Mr. William Kirwin, Jr. was read by Mayor Stanll1ey as follows:
Ij
II
Ii "Dear Mr. Mayor and Ladies and Gentlemen,of tha Council:
t il
I;;
IIi
III
I!
>1
, Ii
I'.
,
; I
",,'
~ ;
II
" ~
~ :
~:
Ii
i
.
,
i
il
H
~!
f
Ii,
\
t
'f
II
,.
~
~
"
f
@
"\
~
,
I refer to the letter of this date
Ordinance No. 19. The Aspen Board
letter, the reasons.
written to you by the Aspen Board
of Realtors opposes the ordinance
of Realtors concerni
and states, in that
I am a real estate broker and a member of the Aspen Board of Realtors. I did not, however
vote to support the position taken by the Board, and by this letter I would like to
, register my dissent.
\
............~ .....- ~. .~----..
14;)5
~!'EuJcar M~ting _~ cont. ~
.~.~',':_'...'..'~ .----..,...'"'
~~n City Council
June 251 1973
..-
~""--"'.=~ -.~
I believe in the intent of the Ordi~ance No. 19. I aloc believe that the ordinance j;
cC!l.teins serious flaws \vhich must be corrected. However" I would rather work from the basi
of the philosophy of land USe presented in the ordinance, and to try by study and adjusting I
and modifying the methodology or the mechanics of implemen~ing the ordinance, than to See I
it delayed or defeated. We have had the opportunity for the past five years to do volun_
tarily what is proposed in the ordinance, and we have failed so far to do it.
I favor the passage of the Ordinance No. 19 but strongly urge that the City planners invite
the advice of the Realtors, the architects, and the builders in the area in a joint effort !I
to refine many of the vague and seemingly unnecessarily arbitrary sections of the ordinance~
I would encourage the City to immediately appoint a representative group to work, on a II
"crash project" basis (at this 11th hour), with the planning office, to refine and define, I'
so that the ordinance can be used as ~ firm and positive guide rather than a statement of
arbitrary concept.
/s/ William H. Kirwin, Jr., Broker"
"Dear Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
This letter is to express my agreement with the letter to the Council from the Aspen Board
of Realtors dated June 25, 1973 with respect to Ordinance No. 19. I
!J
Ji
"
As a concerned citizen and professional involved daily with problems of planning and
environmental design I feel the most effective way of arriving at solutions to Aspen's
planning problems is through careful study by qualified individuals. Decisions made with
undue haste tend to cultivate proble~s for the future without solving the problems of the
present.
i/
II
II
Robin Molny questioned Page 3, 4(c) as to whether it relates to building area or lot area. '
Ii
Mr. Bartel reported this section relates to bUilding bulk and the reason for that section
was to eliminate building bulk as you progress up the mountain, it relates to living area.
/s/ Larry Windes"
Further questioned review by the P & Z being at the time of obtaining a building permit.
This would require the individual 'to have complete drawings prior to review by the p & Z
and could be expensive. Suggest sketch or preliminary drawings be acceptable at the time
of review. Mr. Bartel stated he would agree to that.
'I
I,
II
,.
"
"
II
Ii
as
I
Mr. Donald Helmich, Realtor, stated a lot of the realtors in the community are in agreement,!
with what the City is trying to do. By changing the zoning and the uses, this will not II
affect the real estate values. Realtors are close to the problem as every day are in Ii
contact with the individual looking for an $150.00 apartment to the millionaire who wants !;
to make an investment. This ordinance envisions taking certain areas and making them i:
tourist. The ordinance does not take into account supply and demand. This zoning actuallY~i
makes the area more desirable, you can't drive out of town people with money out. The Ii
guy from Texas will be the only one who can afford to buy and live here ,you 'redriving the :1
local people out. Within the next five years would guarantee the Summer business will be
over what the winter business is. Already the summer rates at lodges are going up.
Mr. Moloy further stated he did not feel Ordinance #19 goes far enough, feel a moritorium
should be called. Also people should realize this is only a one year proposal. Feel the
community is passed the point of committees and studies. Impact zoning is a new and
modern method and this ordinance empowers the p & Z to do that. Each project is reviewed
it relates to impact on the community. Feel it is an important step forward.
Councilman Walls questioned what studies will, be done over the next year. Mr. Bartel
stated there are two areas - environmental and planned investment fee. The legislature
says air quality shall be preserved and one of the considerations in the plan is to estab_
lish a land Use pattern that compliments the transportation plan. Under the plant inves_
tment schedule must consider that the City is in a position with current growth rates to
fin:d itself at a deficit to provide service. Will simply not be ahle to afford to provide
the services.
;/
II
I'
II
I
Councilman Behrendt stated the 1970 census had Aspen as the number one in the country J
with the fastest rate of growth. Councilman Walls suggested the ordinance be tabled at this
time for second, reading and a work session with the Plannint; and 'oning Commission be held ;;
along with the public so that people will understand what the criteria is saying. ii
'I
d I,
an ~:
the
Mr. Bartel explained the criteria is separate from the ordinance and it .can be changed
will be as th~ studies go on throughout the year. Councilwoman Markalunas' pointed out
I ordinance is only the framework, the meat of the ordinance is the criteria.
.I
~
~~., ".1
I
,
i
r t
II, I
,
,
i I
I t
,
I
i
I'
i"
'I
I ~
;j
,
.
,,,.
1
!
I
_c!
"
'~
i
!
~-i I
; ,
II
I,. !
t
t.! :
!II.
~r
II
i;d
f.'~ 'it,.
1:;'
" i
h
~ ~'
~l
iiI'
HI
i
11,
~,' ji
~ 11
U
0)1
~T
U
\.i .
~{ ~
';' t
~.~,:Ir
;..., J
'j
::
Ii
11
.-,
'. .~.-,-,,-;:;,~"_..~,_..;':';~, ~:~..~~~ ..:,t;;~",""':",.,>';;';....J.;;;:""-__'""':~;'~
.,.,.' ,.,.....,--.,-"'.
..-----=--'"""-..-<<~
..a.'_~,,~_,';.'... . }.:. ...
_ _ _ _ _ _ .-.~.",,: ,,:;,,;:>,,,, ':";"'" I:r:..."_.___;...... .
--.::; .-....,.
~
1456
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 25, 1973
'~.'--
Council:;
.,. .--
~-.----- .
previous meetings held by the P & Z and
il Discussed attendance by the citizens of the
I when or~inance #19 was being considered.
! Mr. Whitiney Miller of the Aspen Valley Improvement Association stated citizens are unin':,)
I formed as to what Ordinance #19 is all about. Everyone is asking for planning and an ex_
j planation of the ordinance should be :given that the citizens can understand.
I
I
I
I
Mr. Don Piper stated he has made efforts over the last few weeks to see and obtain copies
of the map and criteria' and they were not available. It was Thursday of last week before
this material was available. As relates to the figures mentioned earlier relating to the
census, the rate of growth of permanent residents vs tourist beds should be considered.
Pat Maddalone questioned if it were possible to call a two_week moritorium while the cri_
teria is put into shape so that it can, be understood.
Mayor Standley stated the additional time will not solve the problem, people react only
I in a crisis situation.
II Ms. Harland stated many people present this evening are involved on different boards and'
il commissions and cannot make every single mee~ing, sometimes its only when there is a
! crisis and you make time.
Dunaway suggested council adopt the ordinance, the criteria can be changed.
; Attorney Jim Moran stated to Council, the Council is passing the buch to the P & Z. The
II real problem is the Council does not know how to reglate bulk, heights, etc., If the
~ City wants to be honest they should call a moritorium. The ordinance in its present state
11 is a bad ordinance and fear that some developer, who has a lot of money tied up, will X
II Ordinance 1119 because it is incc,"plete. The criteria is the key to the ordinance and is
1'1. a part of the ordinance as well as the map. If they were not publicshed, the citizens
I don't really know what the ordinance is all about. The view plane ordinance is very dis_
:1 tressing in that the pla ne is established and the only time the neighbors know about it
il is when they read about it in the newspaper. There is no provision to notify the people
I who are located adjacent or in a view plane or dorridor.
d City Attorney Stuller stated the ordinance does refer to the map but does not refer to the
!i criteria. The criteria comes into paly after the ordinance is adopted. The criteria re_
ii lates to standards and they will be changing although this year of review. The end result
1'1 will be a new zoning ordinance and zning map which will follow the standard.procedures. for
II' adoption.
, Mr. Moran further stated the P & Z WIl be going on with what should be taking place wirh
ji the Council, the ordinance is not definitive enough i.e. density shall be established by,
: the P & Z based on physical examination, character, its impact etc.
I Attorney Ralph Brendes pointed out the Council retains the final approval of the criteria.
! Attorney Stuller pointed out the map and criteria are not definitive at th~ time, the map
Ii is only an interim zoning map to be utilized, changed, etc., during this yar of review
I and the same hol~s true for the crite~ia as well.
I Mr. Bartel stated due to the expense, it will take a month to get the map in reproducable
II f>rm. Did not want to spend the money' ($1500) until it was found the ordinance would pass.
. It was pointed out by Jim Grinnell that lots purchased by the City in the west Aspen Sub.
Ii dvison should be coded as open space.
!I Councilman DeGregorio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Breasted.
I All in favor, motion carried.
I,
"
"
'I
II
Councilman Walls moved that the reading of Ordinance #19 Series of 1973 be tabled till
next Monday at 5:00 and during the week a public work session be held with the planning
and Zoning so that the ordinance is understood on all aspect of the ordinance and the
criteria that goes with ,the ordinance. Seanded by Councilwoman Markalunas.Roll call
vote _ Councilmen Behrendt, aye; Walls, aye; Markaunas, aye; Pedersen, aye; Breasted, aye;
DeGregorio, nay; Mayor Standley, nay. Mtion carried.
Council agreed to hold a study session with P & Z and citizens on Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to read Ordinance #21, Series of 1973. Seconded by councilm
Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
(lRl)I:<'''''
#11.
SERIES ,"
191)
ORDINANCE 1/21, SERIES OF 1973, "AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED 'CIGARE'ITE TAX' AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING
il IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT" was read by title by the City Clerk.
!:
,
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance 1'21, Series of 1973. Seconded by Council-
man Breasted. Roll call vote _ Councilmen DeGregorio, aye; Markalunas, aye; Breasted, aye
Walls, aye; Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Mayot "
Deed
Deed submitted by the City CLerk and reported by the City Attor~ey to be in order. Thomas
O'Brien and Diana Ellsworth for east ~ of Lot p, all of Lots Q, R, & S, Block 69, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
" ".)
lit,.;."
,
~_~R~~~~~~~~. Me~.!:J,11K.~
_AsPl!Jl_!<J tX~Co!JIl!;.tL~,
~i Meeting was reconvened by Mayor Standley at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmen
i Pete DeGregorio, James Breasted, Jack Walls, Michael Behrendt, City
, and City Manager Russ Campbell.
JUly,,2.,1973
ORDINANCE 1119, SERIES OF 1973 _ BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
Jenifer Pedersen,
Attorney Sandra StUller '
,
City Attorney submitted Ordinance with major amendments.
; 01 ~
1 '
i
I
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance 1/19, Sedesof 1973 as amended on first
reading. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
Councilwoman Ramona Markalunas arrived.?
Roll call vote - Councilmen Pedersen aye; Breasted aye; DeGregorio aye; Markalunas aye;
Walls aye; Behrendt aye; Mayor Standley aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1973 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MANDATORY BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
PROCEDURES, PENDING ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND NEW DISTRICT ZONING MAP;
PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION"OF USES EXCEPTED FROM REVIEW; ESTABLISHING REVIEW CRITERIA'
AND SETTING A TERMINATION DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE was read by title by ,
the City Clerk,
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of.197] and schedule a hearing
on same for July 9th. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote _ Councilmen
Pedersen aye; Breasted aye; DeGregorio aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Behrendt aye; Mayor
Standley aye. Motion carried.
I Mr, Yaw representing the Aspen Architects Collaboration which is comprised of architects
and planners stated to Council the organization would like to offer their services \
'I (evaluate and recommend) to the City in relation to their concerns of the physical '
I environment of the community and its relationship to legislation along these lines.
"
I': Alternate Members, Boards & Commissions - Discussed the pros and cons and the following
I points were made: the position would have to be worthwhile; legal problem as relates to
I; .voting privileges; would facilitate a quorum; delegation of authority.
II Council reques~ a schedule and function chart from P & Z as relates to implementation 'of
I .
It Ordwance 1119.
I) Forest Service - Letter from the Forest Service was read by Mayor Standley asking that the """
'j City agree in concept and the Forest Service involvement, as relates to growth, of mountain :,<<, "
capacities and employee housing.
'I! ; " , ,,~.
~.{ -1, ,,~,
~,.... ~ .'. .
("'''1" ,.
Councilman Breasted moved that the City agree in concept of the Forest Service concerns,
their involvement of these concerns and the City work with the Forest Service. Seconded
' by Councilwoman Pedersen, Roll call vote - Councilmen Behrendt aye; Walls aye; Markalunas
aye; DeGregorio aye; Breasted aye; Pedersen aye; Mayor Standley aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Walls moved to adjourn at 5:45 p.m.) seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All
in favor, motion. carried, and meeting adjourned.
,..".~,~~
~orraine Graves, C1ty Clerk
",.....-~"'"'
f' .."'!
to"""
,
l
I
f
i
,
,
i ....
. ~.. '.;'
( "'
;.
"
'. \
!
,
f
}
i
.
i
. '.1
.'
,
,
I"""
I
i
!
I
I
r
1
!
,
1
f
i
:
~
,
;~
'\
Ii
1;
l,{
"'i
~
:i
\ 'j
(\1
)i II
II
ill
:l :
"
H 'i
'~,._~'........~",.-~.. '. .....";.,.:_~..,,. .'-'0.4.~,,-,~ c""."'" . ,^,-~.~........_",~...':"~ ....-i.. ~~".,,-~,~,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,-:,~,,",";',_,,~,,,,,;,:,,,,,"''';'''',,..L,.''' ':...-...._.._.~,'';..<.-.,..;..~.-~Q..,,~~...".~_......:...~.~..~.,,'''---''-c.<.
It!6G
~~~~Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
July 9, 1973
~
Roll call vote _ Councilmen Pedersen, aye; Breasted, abstain; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. .
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing on Ordinance #19, 'Series of 1973.'
City/Count y Planner Herb Bartel submitted to Council a flow chart outlining, the review
procedures.
B
R.
01
1/
Citizen stated he felt to en~ourage resident housing and control growth would be incon_
sistent.
Mr. Gene Ingham questioned- Councii as to the ordinance accomplishing 'what the preamble
says the ordinance will do. Feel if Council wants to control growth, why not cut the
densities in half.
Mr. 8artel explained the plan proposes a land use pattern that could be served by the
transit system. The objective is so that the visitor can come into the community with_
out a car. As related to resident housing) the price of land is determined by the zoning.
Relating to an economic base) we are now dependent upon the.ski industry in the winter
time) tourist and construction in the summer. What we are saying is that the economic
base must be broader than that. Do not have all the answers at this time) thus the
reason for an urban economist. ' '
Mr. Bartel stated the prime objective for the review process is to protect the public
sector of the community.
There being no further comments, Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Ms. Dasko stated the lease form has been approved by the State, leases will be with the
property owner.
M,
;i Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the lease form as recommended by the Mall Committee.
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Rdll call vote _ Councilmen Behrendt) aye; Walls, aye;
Markalunas) aye; Breaste9, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor Standley) aye. Motion carried.
I
Councilwoman Markalunas moved that a petition be prepared calling for mail delivery and a M~
survey be conduc.ted to indicate resul-ts relating to business, home and rural delivery. DE
Seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll c~ vote _ Councilmen Pedersen) aye; Breasted, aye;
Markalunas, aye; Walls) aye; Behrendt) aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Manager Campbell stated'there has been requests
sociation for a leash law'over the entire City.
i;
in~luding the West Side Improvement As- Dc
, II ~:
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1973 _ Councilman Walls moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 197
, on first reading by title. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. Roll call vote - Coun_
I: ,cilmen Pedersen) aye; Breasted) aye; Markalunas, aye; Walls) aye; Behrendt). aye; Mayor
Standley) aye. Mo~ion carried.
, '
II
! r
ORDINANCE 1/23, SERIES OF 1973, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC. 5-30 OF TIlE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE EXTENDING TO ALL AREAS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TIlE DOG LEASH REQUIREMENTS; DEFINING
WHEN A DOG SHALL BE DEEMED RUNNING AT LARGE; AND DESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE" was read
by title by the City Clerk.
, I
! !
,
I!
,
:i
Councilman Walls moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 1973 on first reading by title and
schedule hearing on same for July 23. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. Roll call vot
.' Councilmen Behrendt) aye; Walls, aye; Markalunas) aye; Breasted) aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor
i Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Breasted moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 1973 by title. SEconded by 10Rl
Councilman Walls. Roll call vote _ Councilmen Pedersen) aye; Breasted) aye; Markalunas) SEF
aye; Walls) aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. ~Motion carried.
!
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1973, '~N ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUAijCE OF SALES TAX RE-
VENUE BONDS, SERIES OF JULY 1, 1973, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN THE AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,750,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, TO
BE USED FOR PARKING AND OTHER MUNICIPAL PURPOSES, LOCATED IN T,ill CITY OF ASPEN; PRE-
SCRIBING THE FORM OF SAID BONDS AND INTEREST COUPONS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SAID BONDS FROM THE REVENUES OF THE ONE PER CENT MUNICIPAL
SALES TAX ESTABLISHED, . AUTHORIZED AND IMPOSED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE #15a, SERIES OF 1972,
AND APPROVED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 1972, AND FROM CERTAIN
OTHER LIMITEO SALES TAX REVENUES; PRESCRIBING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PRO-
VIDING FOR THE USE, DISPOSITiON AND HANDLING OF THE PROCEEDS OF SAID BONDS AND SAID SALES
TAX REVENUES, INCLUDING THE CREATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY" was read by title by the City Clerk.
Councilman Walls moved to ddopt Ordinance tf2t;, ~'-:~:.cs of 1973 on first reading. S:~conded
by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote - Councilmen Breasted, aye; Behrendt) aye; Mar-
kaluilas) aye; Walls) ay~; Pedersen) aye; Mayor Standll.ey) aye. Motion carried.
,....
'-,,/
""'"
, '-"';
::::::~
RECESSED MEETING
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
JULY 16,1973
,dg, ,
IVie..
lDlt;
.9, ~:
,973
Meeting was reconvened at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Stacy Standley with Councilmen Jenifer Pedersen,
James Breasted, Jack Wall~, Michael Behrendt, City Attorney Sandra Stuller and City Manager
Russ Campbell. .
" ORDINANCE 119, SERIES OF 1973
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1973 - Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of
1973 on second reading by title. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE 119, SERIES OF 1973, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MANDATORY BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
NEW ZONING DISTRICT MAP; DESIGNATING USES EXCEPTED FROM REVIEW; ESTABLISHING REVIEW
'19 CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL EXCEPTED USES AND REVIEW CRITERIA; AND
~~E 1973iSETTING A TERMINATION DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE was read by title by the
~~ City Clerk.
.
City/County Planner Bartel pointed .out changes made in the text of the land use plan.
Policy on increasing housing was changed to reflect employee housing; light industrial uses,
actually talking about non-polluting industry: natural resources should include air quality
and in the ordinance it has been changed to reflect the P & Z's intent that in the fringe
area of the commercial area would be.for offices, do not want to encourage full range retail
uses.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to
conded by Councilman Breasted.
Walls aye: Behrendt aye; Mayor
adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 1973 on second reading. Se-
Roll call vote - Councilmen Pedersen aye: Breasted aye:
Standley aye. Motion carried.
:
~
I
MOUNTAIN QUEEN SUBDIVISION
11 U,
,-fEN
,::iSlON
Mountain Queen Subdivision - City Enginner Ellis s~bmitted additional data relating the use
of water for this subdivision. Stated the opinion o~ the engineering office is that the
system will provide pressure flows for fire protection an~ domestic water. There will be
an 8" line that in affect will be a reservoir for the project.
Chief Willard Clapper of the Fire Department stated they are still concerned as to \tho will
be responsible for the plowing of the access.
II
live:-
~ngineer Ellis stated an easement has been given by the Ski Corporation and they will do
the plowing and bill Mt. Queen. Plowing will be to the specifications of the fire depart-
ment.
~ Lfl
lINg
lIES
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision agreement and accept the subdivision
plat. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Roll call vote - Councilmen Pedersen aye;
Breasted abstain; Walls aye; Behrendt aye; Mayor Standley aye. Motion carried.
ACTING FINANCE DIRECTOR
!~
Councilman Breasted moved to appoint Karen Anderson Acting Finance Director. Seconded by
l; FINANCEI,Councilwoman Pedersen~ All in favor, motion carried.
::'lR
BICYCLE RACES
':l RACES
Bicycle Races - Mr. Bert Bidwell request authorization from the Council to close those
streets that would be affected by the races to be held on July 21st, from 7:00 a.m. to
10:30 a.m. and again on Sunday when the racers return to town. Next year the national
races may be held here.
Councilman Breasted moved to approve the barricades as requested and Mr. Bidwell work with
the Chief of Police on this request. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor,
motion carried.
GASOLINE SHORTAGE
,NA.'i:' ':~E
ES 7' ~',~e
Gasoline Shortage - Council discussed what could be done to advertise that the gasoline
Shortages are acute in the Denver area and not over the remainder of the State,' tourism is
down. Discussed Mayor Standley sending letters and telegrams to John Love, Club 20, State
Energy Counsel in Colorado, radio and TV stations auto clubs, etc..
Councilman Behrendt moved to Authorize Mayor Standley to write such a document. Seconded
by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
'1; CREEK
IHUNTER CREEK AREA
[Hunter Creek -' Councilman Breasted suggested' the Council once again send a resolution en-
couraging the purchase of Hunter Creek area by the Forest Service from McCullough. Council
iagreed to have a strong resolution be prepared and Mayor Standley send same to the proper
Iparties, i.e. Chief of the Forest Service, Senators, Representatives, etc..
I~ouncilman Brea~ted moved to adj~Urn at 6:15 p.m., seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in
Ilfavor, meeting adjourned.
,
I
l
C) /. d
\. J'.__
~_. ../'~..~
\ ~orraine Graves, City Clerk
~,-
.!
l'"
''"--
.Y'''~:..,~';;T~:..:
~""""""'-~'f
____.__."" ...,So.._....__.__"
"-."'>"""",'4Jo<"~;',,,,
-~',':"":.
".--.,,,-~,~';~'.
;.".J!"<~~f"~'}~''?7'.~ ....~:.
~;1 1,
,',.t'i
-It
-1
),
,I
:\it:J
I'..'.'.',
!!' .,
,
,;~\
~;,
~,I
I',,""-'j !
~"".'
F" ;
:;; l
l,~."
','"
1.""1
,'!!. ,I
~,'i ' ':'
,~i 1
t.'..' I
It!
ff] ~
~iH
;11 ~
'~l "
ralj
~'\'! '
i;~ \ j
,\,1 !
Ill' 'I
',,\. 'I'
'''I
~
~~ !
"" 1
;; I'
i ~! '
i,t I
~
II
-,,' I
,'i!:
li
~ ~"
;..~
[,if
~I
f,
,'J.:
"; Il,1
~.~. .'
HI
i I
)1
"11 ~
~t : I
i
t 1
1;:1, Ii
1il i
j
,
,
'i'
,
]'
':! , "
,
~ I ! I]
,I
I
\
-,-""~-:.,,~.,~.,,
.....';~..
,')'"""y,...:."~,;...~.-,,,. C;':;!;':;;"~~~A.too...-..."....~'::'e~'~~~'~~' ~..,,",,,,",,,
14.;;;__
,,,,,,"<,~~.~.,...
.....~ <',.~
1508
,Regul_ar Meeti".&-
, AS12~~J;<lllru:i.J
Novembpr ,'~, '97,
-'''''''-.,
--
r
II C 'I d
Ii ounc~ woman pe ersen
i man Brea'sted. All in
I ried.
!i COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
,ila. Council questioned the hold-up on reviews under Ordinance #i9. Planner Bartel explain-
!Ied economic impact studies are needed which there is not criteria for. Acting Manager Ma-
'Ihoney stated it would take longer than 30 days to come up with the criteria. Suggest the
Ii council retain an economist under a contract basis tlL review these projects. ,
'I Councilwoman Pedersen moved that the City authorize the Acting Manager to proceed with the
!Ihiring of an economist. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
I. b, City Clerk questioned Council as to what date to establish as tie cut-off date on ap-
:1' plications for City Manager. Council reported December 10th.
I' ,
'c. Council request the Acting Manager check on additional sites for dumping of the snow
II from the streets.
I '
Id. Councilman Breasted moved to authorize the City Attorney to draw up a trash container
Ii ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Council concern that dumpsters are on City
II right-of-way. Motion Nor CARRIED - all nays.
Council request the City Engineer, City,Attorney and Vic Goodhard submit solutions to the
'I problem to Council.
!Ie. High School Representative-
, student to sit on Council as an
il' All in favor, motion carried.
! f. Councilman Behrendt moved the City Engineer study and make recommendations for a side- , urant 51
II.walk district on Durant Street. Seconded by. Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion :sd.dewalk
] carried.
I '
: Councilman Breasted moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Councilman Walls. All in
'I' favor, meeting adjourned. /~)~ ~
L-..-I;orraine.Graves, City Clerk,
moved to adopt Resolution #29, Series of
favor with exception of Councilman Walls
1973. Seconded by Council-
who voted nay. Motion car-
COUNCIL
MEMBER'
C-
-~
Ordinancl
Cut-Off
Sites fo
ing of S
Trash Co
Ordin
Councilman Behrendt moved the City authorize a high school
ex-officio member. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas.
High Sch
Repres
ii Spec1al Meet1nq
II
II
II
Aspen City Counc11
December 3, 1973
Meeting was called by entir~ City Council to review remaining liquor license renewals..
Mayor Stacy Standley at
Pete DeGregorio, Ramona
Stuller and Acting City
4:00 p.m. wit~ Councilmembers Jen-
Markalunas, Jack Walls,Michael
Manager Mick Mahoney..
Meeting was called to order by
,i ifer Pedersen, James Bl!easted,
:1 Behrendt, City Attorney Sandra
!I
'I
:;
stated he had inspected:the premises
Wo~ld recommend approval of the liq-
Hotel Jerome - Sanitarian Jim Rourke was present and
on Friday and found corrections to be 85% complete.
, uar renewal..
I!
ii
I:
HOTEL J1
Oiscussed present enforcement of the prov1s1on of the liquor code requirinq the serving
of food in connection with a liquor license.
Sanitarian Rourke pOinted out four inspections should be made each year of all restaurants
Stated he is working in the county and Mr. Ki~kland is handling the City'S needs. Report-
eo the State Liquor Inspector has asked that the cease and desist order issued by the Stat
H~alth Department on the Hotel Jerome be lifted prior to issuing the renewal application.
City Attorney Stuller informed Council, the State Inspector Mr. Eller, will be requesting
consideration of revocation of the liquor license at the Hotel Jerome - based on summer
activity relating to the Design.Conference. Presently waiting for Mr. Gilmore to return t
meet with Mr. Eller and.City A~torney prior to meeting with the Council.
Councilman Behrendt moved to
and State Liquor Inspector.
ried.
give approval conditioned upon clearance from the Sanitarian
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion car~
AL AIl!l
sHAFT
HOLIDJ
CRYSTI
pAl
following: Al Aban,
Club and La Bodega.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the renewal applications for the
Shaft, Holiday House, Crysta~ Palace, Aspen Pizza Company, Aspen Alps
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, moti~n carried..
Carl's Pharmacy - Sanitarian Kirkland reported he had just made an ilispection of the pre-
mises and the only problems that' remain are with the old counter - Mr. Bergman has agreed
to re-do this old counter within the next 60 days..
ASPEN
CO!
Councilman Walls moved to approve the renewal application for Carl's Pharmacy.
by Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried.
Seconded
credi t I
ASPEN
LA B01
MAGIC
~Jic Pan, Inc. - Council questioned the difference in ownerships in comparing the
ri':)Qrt and the renewal application. City Clerk to check out.
CeJlncilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the renewal subjec~ to clarification on wwnership.
Se~nded by Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried..
CARL'j
,
~
1 G:i f)
,;;
.~
:i
;~, 'J
:'~1
"j
r.,!
r~ ~;
~"
~
(
,
t<..~~.
l :
!'
i
J
~ .
I
~
;;1,.
'i
fi.
l~
t,:j
..
N
a
"""
f3
t$
~;;.;
1''/1
\"
"
.,.~
c~
"j I
,""','
.
~~~
,~
'.~
,i
1
!
,
1
:t
:1
.
'1
:t
J;
{
,
,
j
1
I.
t
!
1
4
1
~
1
1
,'I
1
i
t
J
"
,
,
,
!'I;
;.:
J
I
"
I
,
i~'
. ,,,
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
October 29, 1974,
""-"~~-:::=-.
,
ANNEXATION INVESTIGATION
Councilman Behrendt moved to request the administrative staff
pros and cons of annexation of the u~banized areas contiguous
during the winter months. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
motion carried.
look into the
to the City
All in favor,
AnneXilt
William Dunaway questioned why the economic studies have not been submitted
that were requested to be submitted along with the new zoning code. City
Manager reported the information is being obtained, but is not in publication
form at this time.
HOLY CROSS NEGOTIATIONS
City Manager' request an executive study session with Council prior to November
22nd which is the next meeting with Holy Cross. Council agreed to meet on
Wednesday, November 13th at 7:00 p.m. in executive session.
Holy C",
Neg. .
ELECTRIC RATE STRUCTURE
Large report was submitted for Council review. Report was copywrited.
lee. p",,_
DAY CARE CENTER
Ms. Phyllis Bergen was p~esent to request the use of the Lift No. I building
from the City and the amount of their starting budget in order to get the
project of a day care center off the ground. Feel the facility wwould be
self-sustaining within a year. Ms. Bergen stated she felt their was a great
need for such a facility in Aspen, it would be run on a non-profit basis which
would allow for grants and funding. Fees would bebased on a sliding scale based
on eligibility to pay. Facility would be state licensed, would use highschool
students as aids and also involve senior citizens.
Day Ca:\
Majority of Council~erebers stated
not complete and also premature.
need should be submitted.
they felt the information submitted was
Further stated further investigation as to
Councilman Walls moved to table this request until additional information is
supplied. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas.
Council request the Human Resource Counsel be involved in this.
All in favor, motion carried.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN AIRWAYS, WATER TAP
City Manager Mahoney request confirmation from Council on a water tap
to Rocky Mountain Airways which he had granted. The need for the tap
the winter season only.
(temporary)
is f~r
a ter T~;
t. Air-.;
Question was raised as to whether the tap was for the County or Rocky Mt.
Councilman Breasted moved to add this item to the agenda. Seconded by Council-
man Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Pedersen reported she did not agree with granting exceptions when
a policy has been established.
Council request the Manager bring back to Council fu 11 details for consid-
eration.
RECORDING & SOUND SYSTEM, COUNCIL CHfu~BERS
City Manager reported an estimate had been received to redesign the sound
system for more volume in the amount of $892.00.
counCl:
ChafU..~:'
Councilman Breasted moved to approve a supplemental appropriation for this
expenditure. Seconded by Councilman Walls.
City Manager ~eported the accounts payable are now 60 days in arrears. Members
of Council stated their concern for this expenditure at this time.
Councilmembers Pedersen, Markalunas and Beh~endt nay; Councilmembers Walls,
Breasted and. Mayor Standley aye. Motion dies.
HIGHWAY REQUESTS TO COG
Councilman Walls moved to approve the requests as submitted. Seconded by
Councilwoman'Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried.
" ORDINANCE ~50, SERIES OF '1974
Jliq:"lo'
R~~,I'
Report was submitted by th~ City Attorney outlining those projects having
Ordinanc~ #19 approval, also corrections were made to the report.
.,)
ord.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to read on first reading, Ordinance #50, Series
of 1974. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor with exception of
Councilman Walls who abstained. Motion carried.
~,.~.,
",.,.~......q"
'~,:,r'.: J J '
Hel,.
!i.o::,.
~'.lc"<:, 1.
[:./
'..",t"r
tH. .'l,
I.'.; ,
\""'"
.. ..."
.'
""f
.
;''h
l:i
f.f
"
~,l
ft
1"
t.~
!j~
!(t);:l.
'-;.:\(;
.~..J t: ,l?!
'<'~' ~'."'-'-':_~',.", " ,.. ..~.,' .,,". .;.....:;" '-'.:,,..... .<.-.0:..>-' _ .-".<.-_,....>_"-~~..,.'--.,','_,~... -'- ...~,~,..~';;;.;.'~....h'_"
J
Regular Neetlng
Aspen City Council
October 29, 1974
- --=- -
-- - - ----~--=- --- ~-"--'--~--
,
ORDIN~NCE #50, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE EXEMPTING FROM THE RECOMMENDED OR
ADOPTED NEW ZONING CODE AND DISTRICT MAP THOSE ORDINANCE 19 APPROVED BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICANTS WHO SHALL SUBMIT THEIR FINAL PLANS ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31,
1974; WIIO SHALL COMPLY W1'rH ALL OTHER BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND SHALL ON
ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT PROCEED IHTH CONSTRUCTION OF EXEMPTED PROJECTS WITH
REASONABLE DILIGENCE was read by title by the City Clerk.
councilwoman Markalunas moved to approve Ordinance #50, Series of 1974 on first
reading.. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote - Councilmembers
Pedersen aye; Markalunas aye; Breasted aye; Behrendt aye; Walls abstain; Mayor
Standley aye. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #35 & ORDINANCE #51
city Attorney discussed with Council the configuration of the proposed annexation
and the problem of the land under dispute between Thomas and Marolt which lies
in the center of the proposed annexation.
council request the City Attorney and Engineering Department review the property
as relates to contiguity, problem,of further annexations in that area, and
bring back to Council an Ordinance and Resolution to annex a reasonable portion
of the land.
councilwoman Markalunas moved to table consideration of Resolution #35 and
Ordinance #51 at this time. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #52, SERIES OF 1974
councilwoman Markalunas moved to read on first reading Ordinance #52, Series
.,....j.J of 1974. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried.
. ~ 'J
.,,;<:
ORDINANCE #52, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE, 1973 EDITION (EXCEPTING SECTION 203 THEREIN); AMENDING CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF SAID CODE; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SAID CODE; AND
REPEALING SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH was read by
title by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to-adopt Ordinance #52, Series of 1974 on first
reading. Seconded by Council~an Walls. Roll call vote -Councilmembers Walls
aye; Behrendt aye; Breasted aye; Markalunas aye; Pedersen aye; Mayor Standley
aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #53, SERIES OF 1974
Councilman Walls moved to read on first reading Ordinance #53, Series of 1974.
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #53, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE, 1973 EDITION; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF SAID
CODE; AND REPEALING SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH was
read by title by the City Clerk.
Councilwoma-' Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #53, Series of 1974 on second
reading. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote - Councilmembers
Behrendt aye; Brp.asted aye; Markalunas aye; Pedersen aye; Walls aye; Mayor
Standley aye. Motion carried.
Council request the next agenda include an item entitled Enforcement of Codes.
Councilman Walls moved to adjourn at 9;00 p.m., seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All i~ favor, meeting adjourned.
'~A ,'C' ~
"/>~~-A
L--::"Lorraine Graves, ity Clerk
ROCKY MOUNTAIN AIRWAYS, WATER TAP RESOLUTION
The general concensus of the council was that exceptions should not be made to PIF
PO~icies especially when the estimated cost of the 3/4" water tap was $1200. The
solution suggested and h9ped for was th?t the tap fee be paid by the landowner, the
COunty, with 'that amount credited to them when the eventual final taps installed at
the airport.
City Manager Mahoney would take these directives and would return to council with
Word of the final solution.
~lOUNTAINEDGE
councilmember Mark:11unas I comments for the record: "I have to take exception with ~
~;m. I think that when Chuck Vidal carne to ~s in ~he spring of the year, right aftE
,10, r<lther sudden downzoning of Ute Avenue, he gav.~ us the proposal with the antici-
,\~t~o~ that we were all working together in the best interest of this community. Ii
S~CTflS to me thZlt. 15 .::;...:;rc& vf v~.)CII "jp.-:lce i,l this OV~l' all project that he is discuss:
ti' u substantial amount of open space forever for the community. I also feel
~.lat this council's integrity and responsLbility is on the line. We indicated to tl
<In that WP I,U'O"l -. - ~ every effort to wOl:k with him where we have not done so in
om think of. He has repeatedly come back to us with various
ltives. \'lith saying what do you want, what is it you want and
! down to the wire n0W. Itls a yes or no thing based on a
....T".,
1"1
, 1
~..'>
Ii,l
Jl"j
~~
.~.,
.,~-- ..
!.I:',,:ct
f$
;1
\l:
""~
.~'
, :~',j
q
t,;:
-"
I.:
..des i:
.".,
,.._ ,'C._ ~.,. ;___ _--' ......:,~,.. _ ."",-~.._,.....-...'__....,.. _.'
if
.-~_~,:~~::.ar .:!'!eet~~g:=",-~=-=::: ~__._~~._A,~~:?:"
!i--
II
I
II
Ci ty_,Col.mcil~_...._ _~_;~",_~__,c_~_"""'~'=',~,_~ Navember.~4_l97 4,--".__.-
=--_._~--,-.-_.. ~~-_'-=-.--,--~,~""'-",,,-'~~-~----'
A hand was given for resigning City Clerk Lorraine Graves.
REPORT ON ANCHORAGE (UNIT 2B) FLOOR AREA USE
No one was present from the Anchorage to give a report.
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
Lieutenant R, W. Smith of the police department was present to answer questions and
expound on the police reports for the liquor licensed establishments in the city.
councilman Behrendt asked if there was a noticeable difference between the current
list, the last time the list was gone over with Council and since the.bar people
has founded their association and attempted better communication. Lieutenant
smith noted there had been better cooperation with the bars recently.
There was a discussion why Andre's and the Gallery had more incidents than the
othe~s. Lieutenant Smith pointed out they were group hangouts and the problem
was somewhat a function of their physical location.
Mayor Standley asked if there were any negative comments on the six licenses
being renewed at this meeting. Lieutenant Smith hpd no negative comments. Bill
Caille, Fire Marshall, had no negative cornm~nts on these establishments.
councilman DeGregorio moved to give blanket approval for 1975 liquor licenses for
the following: Al Aban, the Grop Shop, Tom's Market, Red Onion, Aspen Drug, and
La cocinai seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING AND HOUSING CODES
Clayton Meyring, Bill Caille, and Evan Gull of the Building Department were present.
Councilman Behrendt opened the discussion by noting the building department was
doing an excellent job enforcing the codes as far as people remodelling without
permits but that a re-inspection policy was not being carried out. Some buildings
do not correspond at all to the original building permits. Council noted concern
that change in use of structure, the housing and sign code have not been enforced.
The housing code should be enforced on dwelling units with more people living
there than intended. Chief Building Inspector Clayton Meyring said they had been
enforcing the housing code on a complaint basis and inspecting shacks along the
alleys. Meyring asked for Council's direction in the enforcement of the housing
code.
Meyring stated the Building' Department's policy in regards to signs was to advise
people they must obtain a sign permit and outlined the restrictions in the sign
ordinance. Most of the signs in town conform to the sign ordinance..
Councilman Behrendt brought up the change of use for ~ structure. Councilman
Walls asked if you had to get a building permit to change usei City Attorney
Stuller read Section 24-12 from the Municipal Code. Meyring stated th~s ordinance
was not general knowledge. Councilman Breasted asked if a zoning administrator
was needed. Meyring said if all ordinances and codes were to be enforced
strictly one 'would be needed.
Council .Behrendt sald he felt many people were being crowded into questionable
units and suggested a slow re-inspection system for the whole city to see (a) if
the buildings correspond reasonably closely with the documents in the building
inspector's office and (b) if the fire and housing codes are being enforced.
Caille pointed out this action might clo~e 50 per cer.t of the housing in Aspen.
Councilman Behrendt moved that the building department corne back to the next
council meeting with a program outlined for either uFgrading the existing codes
and requirements to an enforceable level they feel is reasonable or with a
program to achieve the ends the he had spoken to today. Seconded by Councilman
Walls. Councilmembers Markalunas, Behrendt and Walls aye; Councilmembers
DeGregorio, Pedersen, Breasted and Mayor Standley nay; motion NOT carried.
~ ORDINANCE #50, NEW ZONING EXEMPTIONS, PUBLIC HEARING & SECOND READING
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Councilman Walls left the Council table
to join the audience due to a conflict of interest. John Stanford and Yank Mojo
of the Planning department subrnitted a memorandum to Council relating to the
five projects in this ordinance.
Councilwoman Markalunas questioned the building department on the time it normally
takes to check a set of plans for a building permit. Chief Building Inspector
Clayton Meyring said under Ordinance 19 this procedure was quite lengthy.
Councilwoman Markalunas asked why the procedure is different or longer for one
Set of plans than for another, using the Stevens-Ginn building as an example.
Council then discussed the procedures involved from the time of approval in the
P~anning and Zoning Commission and the actual issuance of a building permit.
Dlscussion on the Stevens-Ginn building followed. Councilman Breasted noted he
w~uld not like to 'accept these buildings, but if it could be implied that the
Cl~y ,,:,as negligent in holding up the building permits, they could build the
b\llldlngs if they sued for them. Councilwoman Markalunas said we have set up
rcg~lations, if the buildings have conformed with all regulations they are
;,'I~l.Llcd to issuance of building permits yet the building permits were not issued.
Ihl~ makes the city look ridiculous. If the buildings were approved under
Ord~nancc 19, it should be a matter of form to approve them under the new ordinance.
"-- :..--~-~,~ ~-=- .~.'--'~.~ ~
'...'~. "'";~_''',^,'':r.~:........'
c.~______,
"'.
!O
_ ,B~qt,l;t,~X_M~~.t-!.ng.~.,...""
_~_ A.!:?_E~n _r; i, ty,~C_O!J,DG_-t.l,_. _~_. _~_~=_~_~---..,-
_NQvernber_~l, ,197,<L
--- ------
~
,
Mayor Standley stated if the 620 Hyman B~ilding, the Woods building, the Stevens-
Ginn building did in fact supply working drawings and have gone on record and made
attempts to completely comply with Ordinance 19, they should be included in Ordinance
50. Perhaps the Law Fourplex and the RBII building, if they haven't supplied working
drawings, should not be included. Councilwoma~ Markalunas pointed out the RBH
building was given final approval of Ordinance 19 on October 22. Jack Walls,
representing the RBH building, said that project had spent much time in the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Mayor Standley asked the Council if they felt all five
buildings should be exclud~d from inclusion in Ordinance 50. Councilwoman Pedersen
noted the Law Fourplex should be excluded because of the time element and the lack
of supplying working drawings. There was no one present to speak for the Law Four-
plex. Mayor Standley said the ordinance should be amended to include h, c, d, and
e, and exclude the Law Fourplex. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
councilwoman Markalunas made the motion to read Ordinance #50, Series of 1974,
amending it to include the ,Woods Building, RBH building, 620 Hyman and the Stevens-
Ginn building but to exclude the. Law Fourplex; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
,
ORDINANCE NO. SO
(Series of 1974)
AN ORDINANCE EXEMPTING FROM THE RECOMMENDED OR ADOPTED NEW ZONING
CODE AND DISTRICT MAP THOSE ORDINANCE 19 APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATIONS WHO SHALL SUBMIT THEIR FINAL PLANS ON OR BEFORE
DECEMBER 31, 1974, WHO SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER BUILDING
REGULATIONS, AND SHALL ON ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT PROCEED WITH
CONSTRUCTION OF EXEMPTED PROJECTS WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE.
was read by title by City Attorney Stuller.
Councilwoman Markalunas made a motion to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 1974, as
amended; seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeGregorio,
aye; Walls, abstain; Behrendt, no; Breasted, yes; Markalunas, yes; Pedersen, yes;
Mayor Standley, yes. Motion carried.
,
',,-!
ero
1"1~.:~nt
,
,
,
l'
.
,
,
i
t
,
..
j
{
i
J
Mayor Standley gave Council a five minute recess. Councilman Walls returned to Council.
DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II - HISTORIC DISTRICT PUBLIC HEAPING I H-Histo:
I zone, C:<:.1-
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing on Designation of Commercial Core H - Historic!. cia! CC.~1
District, John Stanford of the Planning department discussed with Council what a
Historic District is and the procedures to designate a district H - Historic. The
Historic Preservation Committee had set forth guidelines for the Historic District.
Lary Groen of the Historic Preservation Committee gave a report on the Committee's
feelings and findings in their study of the Commercial Core. Groen pointed out
that the guidelines were just that, guidelines, and not meant to be incorporated
as law and inflexible. The Committee feels very strongly and has worked hard to
protect Aspen history.
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Councilman Walls questioned the recourse
an application for a building permit woulct have if denied, why did ~he applicant
go to Council rather than the Board of Adjustment. Councilman Walls ask~d if relief
was not given by the City Council, what was the next step. City Attorney Stuller
said District Court. The Board of Adjustment could grant variances but not any
type of relief to th~ land owners. One s:ep of review is appropriate.
A citizen questioned the guidelines, perhilps they would force only pseudo-Victorian
architecture in the Historic District. Lary Groen said the guidelines were not meant
to stifle human ingenuity and not to interpret them in that context. Councilman
Breasted said there was nothing to object to in the guidelines, they were GO general
in nature and one should be able to work within those parameters. Mayor Standley
closed, the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to place Ordinance #49, Series of 1974,
for the next council meeting, seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas.
motion carried.
on the agenda
All in favor,
GREAT GORGE LIQUOR APPLICATION
Alan Gordon of the Great Gorge appeared before Council and stated in view of the
Council's question at the last meeting they had decided to amend their application
to a transfer of a beer and wine license from La Bodega to the Great Gorge. City
Attorney Stuller asked if Gordon had evidEnce that La Bodega would surrende~ their
license. The license had never been transferred to the Divine Sarah. Mayor Standley
read into the records a letter from a lessee in the Brand Building.
To the Mayor and Members of the, City Council:
In view of the fact that the recent disturbances concerning destruction
of property and blatant vandalism in the Brand Building, I Donald McGovern,
a lessee and resident hereby acknOWledge my opposition to a continued
transfer of a beer and wine license to the Great Gorge.
Also the fact
tv the public
undesirables.
not contingent
another saloon
that the upstairs section of the Bra.:-:o Btlilding being ope.1
further encourages the late 'light transient flow of
I seriously question the ad'isability of a tran~fer if
upon a food operation, mean Lng I do not think w~ need
in that immediate area.
Sine ,rely
Don :',cGovern
~
.i
{
t
1
I ,
I ~
I ) 't:
,
I , "'!ttc
J
I .:I
<1.
1
I V 1
i Great I ,
ii LiquOr I
II i
I
!
i J
I
I
,
!
I'
!
I
:'; I
~
1;;:' ;j
,. "
'i
."..,.,.,,;;......_.,~~,_..~"~.o.._" _......:~,..."..,
. ~~...._"~_;t-........~
-.
"''''''q,~,
.if;.
1698
Regu 1 dr:_ r>,lee ti.ng",.,..-. "C,<C--"~ =~,."o~~-""~-.,..-.-_,~,--,,,,,,,"
_~S2~!1_.,S;:, ~,ty_ S9Q!lc; ~ I.
. ~,~~f.ebr:_lJ?;(Y ,1Q,. 1~75
._".=.~.~~_."'".,=.'-"-'-'-"- '--.' ---'-~-~.-
- - - --- ~ '-'-_.--=----=-=.~~....._'- "'-...-'--"" -..',-".,~~,~-
The ~eeting was called to order by t!3yor Standley at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers
De Gregorio, Markalunas, Pedersen, City Manager rlahoney and City Attorney Stuller present.
MINUTES
I
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the minutes from. January 27, 1975~ as submitted;
seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the Accounts Payable for January; seconded by
Councilwoman Markalunas. Councilman De Gregorio asked if the ski racks for the minibuses
had gone out for bid. City Manager Mahoney answered that the work was done in-house
as much as possible, that they had not been left for bid. Mahoney also said he would
ask Transportation Director Dick Parker why they had not been bid. All in favor, motion
carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Don Fleisher approached Council about his project, the 620 Hyman Building, that had {~620 H
been approved under Ordinance 19. Fleisher told Council he had had second thoughts abou iiBUild~~'
the quality of the project, would like to scrap the project and start with a new design U 1o.'i
and new architect. Fleisher was aSking for Council cooperation to be able to do this. '
Mayor Standley asked if the project was designed with off-street parking; Fleisher said
6 or 7 spaces.
There seemed to be some confusion as to exactly what Fleisher wanted from the Council.
Fleisher replied that the Council permit him to re-design the building.
Councilman Walls came in.
Mayor Standley told Council that the project ~s it stood had been approved by Ordinance
50. Yank Mojo told Council the only problem he could foresee was the Floor Area Ratio
which would change under the new zcning code. Mayor Standley suggested Fleisher work
under the idea of no off-street parking and give more open space to the project.
Councilwoman Harkalunas asked if the Floor Area Ratio of the new building would be the
same as the old project.
Councilman De Gregorio said that as this was not an agenda item, he would like to hear
from the Planning Department when th8Y were better prepared. He didn't want to move
on ~his item until there was more information. Mayor Standley suggested that the 620
Hyman Building be put on the next agenda so that_they had time to work with the Planning
Office.
1
2. Robert Grueter representing Dr. Oden's building asked to be put on the agenda.
Cou~cilwoman Markalunas moved to consider this project as an agenda iteffii seconded by ~
Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor with the exception of Councilwoman Pedersen,
motion carried.
Oden
Bull,:, '
:1
II
:i
Ii
"
,
,:
i
I
Grueter told Council ox aden owns 26,000 square feet which sits right behind the First
National Bank, The land is now zoned 0, Office. Dr. Oden would like to have it 7.oned
C-l. Grueter brought up four points: (1) the land is right next to the City parking
lot, (2) they want to put an athletic club on the lower level of 16,000 square feet
and upstairs of 26,000 square feet. This would take the building over the Floor Area
Ratio of 0, (3) they would like to have some uses that arc not allowed under 0 zoning,
like office supplies and possibly a financial institution. The logical category to
affect all Dr. Oden wants to do is C-l. Grueter said previous discussion with Council
had brought up the possibilities of going to C-l zoning and restricting-the uses or
remaining in 0 zoning and allowing the building some leeway.
Grueter pointed out that the land'was'right next to the City parking lot and if granted
C-l uses the people could all park there. Also the history of the building is that
four times ~r. aden started to build something and didn't do it at the planning
department's request. One of the ceasons for this is that Bleeker street was goi~g to
be an entrance to the parking lot dnd now is not.
Hayor Standley indicated he felt thtit there might have been an inequity to Dr. orten but
Yank Mojo of the Planning Department told Council he couldn't speak for the first three
tirres but the last meeting with regard to the building nothing about a Floor Area Ratio
above 1:1 was discussed. Grueter said they had reached an agreement of a FAR of 1.5:1.
Mojo stated at no tlme was Office/MlIlti-family zone designated to be anything but a FAR
of 1: 1.
Councilwoman Pedersen said she felt very strongly that the Council was working on a
zoning code that was going to have the first reading in two' weeks. The Council han had
enumerable assaults on the code already. Councilwoman Pedersen stated she was going to
vote against this proposal because whe couldn't see the constant nibbling away at the
code.
Councilman De Gregorio said he felt the opposite of Councilwoman Pedersen. councilman
De Gregorio indicated he felt Council was really restricting the C-l areas. Rents in
the current areas have gone up so high ano people are having -to drop out of there and
De GrGgorio felt the City needed more C-l areas and the athletic club interested him
because it was a use that the City didn't have. The Council should be flexible before
the zoning code is finalized. .
,....
'~.\-
" J
~t
}.
~
~
'<j
ij flU' ;if
!:
i
,
l';'
\II'
,
1 <.;";,,,
IV,.', ,
Ce.
It",
C'.
~,;
,
:;;:. ,
K', ,
t
,
l.
i
I
>
f,
>
. . I
.. ,
,.1 ,
i
.
1
i
,
f
,.?, "
,......~ -".
:'1
f
~
.*,
,
t
'i.
j
i
,
,
l
-
''''''~'='''0IL,""",'~~,,''i/l
~~",~~':li.~~.~_,:,"""-"-,...-....-~~,.,..,;-~.""<""~",~....~.i"'~-'.1;.;"';'"""""-",,,,,,,,,~;,,,:..,~
, ,
171~
en city council Regular Meeting
ASP __"",,"~,-='=.~",:---""~~--'.,. :'--:~~~~:":::
March 10, 1975
.---.---'-~~==-","~="."....--,-~==~=
--'.-~=
, MA.A. would offer to spend $10,000 to renovate the basement and to pay $3,500 per
1he r providing whatever is spent for renovation is credited against the rent. The
5ummAe is also asking for a minimum of a three year lease.
!<,A. .
d Armstrong, Parks and Recreation Direction, said there was a soda fountain in the
Te ment and the space is just bar~ly adequate to install some type of kitchen which
~as~d feed that amount of people. Mayor Standley questioned the ventilation and electric
~OUtem. Armstrong told council some ventilation and storage for foods would have to
s~5installed. Mayor Standley asked if there was sufficient capacity to femthat many
be pIe. Edgar Stern said not everyone ate at 'once. Mayor Standley mentioned that Gras~~
~eOtS was wi~ling to move their office space upstairs. Councilwoman Markalunas asked
:~~t would happen to the recreation program down in the basement. Armstrong said they
could make ot~er arrangements.
councilwoman Markalunas moved to lease the basement of the Wheeler Opera House, or that
'~ortion under the control o~ the city, to the M.A.A. for three years as per their memo-
~andum submitted dated March 10, 1975, and to move Grassroots upstairs; seconded by
councilwoman Pedersen.
councilman Behrendt suggested a rent of $1 per year plus their share of the utilities.
Edgar Stern said the M.A.A. planned on paying their utilities as they would only use the sp
.or nine weeks.. Mayor Standley told Council the city could use the space at other times.
:rmstrong asked if other civic gr~ups already using that space could still have it when
~hC M.A.A. wasn't using it.. Edgar Stern said the M.A.A. would prefer to keep it under
their control but perhaps something could be worked out for after 8 p.m. and the MA.A.A
could lock up the kitchen.
councilman De Gregorio suggested the motion be amended to include the fact that the City
can use the space after 8 p.m. councilwoman Markalunas amended her motion so to read.
All in favor, motion carried.
. .~H ASPEN VILLAS - Final Subdivision
Yank Mojo, Planning Department, presented the final plat to council. Be also told council
that the Vill~s were drawing up an agreement to prohibit us~ of the basements in the
villas for bedroom purposes. Mojo mentioned to Council the property was valued at one-
quarter million dollars for cash dedication purposes. The cash dedication to the City
will be $10,000.
;,
M~yor Standley asked where the public trail will be. Mojo told Council it was on the
western boundary and will be paved in concrete. ~here will be accesses to this meandering
path from Seventh and Hallam. The bike path will not go on Seventh and Hallam because
that is too dangerous. Mayor Standley asked if the bike path could be marked as such.
~lojo said yes, it could.
City Attorney Stuller said this agreement was directing that the subdivision agreement
be recorded and the City was accepting the cash dedication.
Councilwoman Markalunas said it was her understanding that there were to be ~o parking
i;igns along Hallam from the bridge to the corner. That hasn't been done. In the sununer
the bike trail is obstructed with parked cars. Mojo told Council it was up to the City
to post the signs. Also, there are to be no curb cuts off Hallam street except one.
Councilman De Gregorio made a motion to approve the final plan for subidivision; seconded
bi' Councilwoman Pedersen.
Art paily, representing t~e Villas, pointed out to Council the figure on pages 4 and 5
of the subdivision agreement for escrow arrangements should be $67,256..
nll in favor of the motion, except Councilman Behrendt and Mayor Standley. Motion carried
I h20 HYMAN BUILDING
Uon Fle1sher presented two models to Council for his proposed building site that he felt
:re both better than the bu~lding approved under Ordinances #19 and #50, Series of 1974.
.he f1rst model had three levels above grade and the roof line fits into the scheme of the
~lock. The second model had one floor below grade. Fleisher pointed out to Council that
lI~~se are n01; final design schemes but to demonstrate how mass and density can work and
~~lll take into account the rest of the block. Both of these plans have the same amount
:.open space but it has been distributed differently. Fleisher also mentioned they are
s~lll studying which one they liked best.
Councilman ~ehrendt moved the council vote in favor of the two story model.
Coun '1
r C1 man Breasted asked if the two story scheme had all been worked out. Jerry McCarth'
~~rresenting Tom Wells who is the architect for the projecL, told Council some of the
al~ct plans may vary, but he could live with the two story project. The two story scheme
th~oWs.them.the most square footage and has the lowest profile. Fleisher told Council
ey wanted to go ahead.with one design.
COuncilman Behrendt called h1' s' '1 'd d
mot~on~ CounC1 man De Gregor1o secon e .
Council
Vot d ~oma~ Pedersen asked if Fleisher still had to come back April 15 if the Council
'WOIl~t On th1S project. Fleisher said Council would vote on one of these schemes and he
idea com~ back again or Council could vote to let them re-design the project on their
Brf'Lls, E1ther result would be a synthesis of the two projects and ideas. Councilman.
cou~S~~d aSked what ran~c 0f subtlety Lhey we~e talking about in changing of their desig~
tlidn;~ man Breasted said he felt all this should be made very cl~ar so that Fleisher
that th~pe~d ~oney and time unnecessarily in a misunderstanding. Fleisher answered
this 1s 1S Just a model which shows a concept. and not a design. If the Council approvE
Concept then he will desgin it.
, ~,
~
r'
)
..,~'.~ ~ ~
"- _.._- --,.,-~ i--
.
t718
Regu~:.::. .Meeting
Aspen City Council
March 10, 1975
,~,.,'=-r-=~_
--=- ."
--'--~.=""~'~
Councilwoman Markalunas mentioned she liked the three story concept better because it
didn't make bhe block look like such a pancake. Jerry McCarthy told Council they needed
direction so that they could pursue a'design. Mayor Standley said Council could accept
conceptual idea of the two story model but Fleisher will have to do some more work on
the design and bring it back to Council for final approval. The Council is reserving
final approval.
All in favor of the motion e~cept Councilmembers Markalunas and Pedersen; motion carried.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
planner John Stanford presented a map to Council and told them that the County had a
work program scheduled this summer with regards to work on the trails and suggested some
trails the City could get involved in if they wished.
The first was a paved trail from the Rio Grande trail down through Castle Creek and
connecting with the existing underpass under the bridge down to the music school. Stanfor
told Council this is a tentative part of developing a loop system around the City.
Another trail could be the Ute Avenue trail link through the Benedict property to Highway
82. Another possibility is a trail in the general alignment of the Salvation Ditch from
Highway 82 to behind Silver King. There is also the possibility of going from where the
Rio Grande trail ends by the Hunter Creek and Roaring Fork bridge down to Mill Street
on the old Rio Grande right-of-way.
Stanford also pointed out the City could construct a trail from Bleeker to Main to
Seventh in order to allow bikes to avoid Main Street. Stanford mentioned the opportunity
of demonstrating how urban trails could be incorporated by building a path from the
bridge the City just built on East Hopkins to Park Circle.
Councilwoman Markalunas asked about using penaprime which is much less expensive than
paving. Penaprime might be adequate for bicycles.
John Stanford also said the Rio Grande trail link could go from Main Street through the
Rio Grande property and connect most likely at Mill Street. This would get the people
walking from Silver King off Mill Street.
councilman Breasted indicated he would rather see a very strong pedestrian link made from
the parking lot to town than from Silver King. He believed this is a higher priority.
Stanford answered that that could be incorporated into the Rio Grande trail element.
to see if the City would like to
The County trail system will cost
Stanford told Council he was presenting th~se choices
go any further with trial implementation this summer.
around $5.00 per lineal foot not including labor.
Mayor Standley affirmed all County trails in the City limits will require City approval
first. The City will look at all their en~ineering plans. The City is taking flak for
the County trails built last summer because citizens think they are ours and because
the trails did not stand up over the winter.
Councilman Breasted asked if there would be recommendations for the signing of trails.
Stanford said the County has developed a trail signing program and perhaps the City may
want to look at them. Councilman Breasted indicated he meant something al~ng the lines
of an overall trails c'ystem map. City Manager Mahoney told Council the Mall Commission
was addressing a tra.il~~, system map.
John Stanford asked City Manager Mahoney to address the budget in terms of trail
implimentation. City Manager Mahoney told Council that the City could incorporate some
of this with the water preservation we need to do and go down the end of Galena Street
with steps into the parking lot. The City has three ditches that we must preserve this
summer, we can enlarge the ditches and use beneficially. The City can apply the water
to Ute Children's Park, dump the water back over the ridge below the cemetery, down
through the Gant area and Glory Hole park, through our storm sewer run off and come off
near the Courthouse; and have the water cascading down Galena Street and into the Rio
Grande parking lot, apply it either to ponds or some other beneficial use. City Manager
Mahoney said he would like to incorporate a trail to serve the Rio Grande parking lot
with this water system. .
Councilwoman Markalunas pointed out the steps would be nothing but trouble in the winter-
time. Perhaps a meandering path would be better. Planner Stanford said the path
already meandered somewhat and the Planning Department would like to provide a more
direct access to the parking lot.
Mayor Standley said Council didn't budget any money for trails in 1975. John Stanford
said the link between Bleeker and Main Street would cost around $1,500. Councilwoman
Markalunas suggested using chip and seal as the Villas are doing. This would cost
1/3 as much and it would be a good experiment to see if chip and seal were adequate for
bike paths.
Councilman Breasted said he would rather see the Council pursuing a separate crossing of
Castle Creek.
Mayor Standley told Council this was not an appropriate way to be attacking the trail
system. COQncilwoman Markalunas asked the City Manager to see what the budget can s~and d
and have this subject brought back at the next meeting. Councilwoman MBrkalunas ind1cate
~he felt Council was pretty much in favor of these two links (Rio Grande and Bleeker).
I.. __ ,_.
~ ~~
.~:-::-
._...:,~~
Trail'
opment" ~.
,; opera
..;>'
Castle
I Ute AVt:.
Bleekt-:
:!ice
Rio Gr~' ,
Trail ,
Watcor ...
trail'
~. ':'I.lj
-
~ ~ ,..,.'
~~,>"-
,,"'.r ....
...J'J'.;:.J
........- ,.'v"" ';.ck".~~' ,~~ ~..,
~-'
"' - ".."............
...........
.....~~._-~-._.
(28
special Meetin_?
~~~~:::--..---~~ - -~ -~ - .......==
Aspen City Council
March 18, 1975
- --=.=- -~=-
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Standley at 7:00 p.m. with Councilrnembers Behrendt,
De Gregorio, Markalunas,City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present..
,
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 1975
I
I
,
special meeting was called to read Ordinance #16, Series of 1975, for a second reading.
councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #16, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman
De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE U6
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REDISTRICTING THE CITY OF ASPEN; ESTABLISHING THREE (3) VOTING
PRECINCTS WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING THAT NO PRECINCT CONTAIN MORE THAN
1,200 ELECTORS; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE
ENACTMENT
i
r
was read by the Deputy City Clerk.
~
councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 1975; on second reading;
seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye;
Markalunas, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Mayor Standley,.aye. All in favor, motion carried4
Councilman De Gregorio moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas.
favor, motion adjourned at 7:20 p.m4
All in
li!4~tlJt. ~lJ:"a',h-;'~~l-Y City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
March 24, 1975
Mayor Standley called the regular Council meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Councilmembers
Behrendt, Breasted, De Gregorio, Markalunas, Pedersen, city Manager Mahnney, and City
Attorney Stuller were present.
MINUTES
CounciLman De Gregorio moved to approve the minutes of March 10, and the spec~l meeting
of March 18, 1975, as submitted; seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion
carried.
...~---
/
.'~,
-=",=
-:--~-~~-
Ord. I:,
Redist.
City"
, ,ath
1.< ~'JS
, '
c~ssion
"
: rail
:ecnt
"Sl.'
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
~l) Don Fleisher, of the 620 Hyman Building, told Council he had the working drawings t 620'H~w" iJ
ready. He requested to appear at the next study session to discuss the problem of time \
with the Council on his re-design project. Council decided to set a date for the study
session later on in the meeting.
2) Hans Gramiger told Council he had an offer to buy 18 European ele .tric trolley buses, Troll'1'~
and that General Motors had 50 American Trolley buses. These buses can be charged
with a battery pack so they can be without wires. There is a good chance they can be
pollution free. Hans Gramiger told Council he was opposed to fixed rail on one count,
he believes in flexibility.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1) Councilmember Breasted asked. if there was any interest on Council's part in re-
considering the post office, as the post office seems inflexible in its position.
Council~an De Gregorio confirmed his interest. Councilman Breasted pointec out the City
would have a continuing hassle and a facility may appear in the City for the post office
where it is not desirable. City Manager Mahoney told Council he had just gotten word
from Don Piper that they were still interested in the land trade.
Councilman Breasted said he realized the post office was inflexible but the City had the
choice of giving them a facility and getting delivery to the neighborhoods. If the city
is interested in reducing the impact of the automobile, it seems this compromise is
the way to go. If the City doesn1t do this, it will be an ac~ of a public body in
contradiction of wanting to reduce the impact of the automobile. Councilman Breasted
also said he felt it should be made clear to the public that the City was turning down
better mail service, not mail service we wa~t, but better mail service.
Mayor Standley said the post office had to give the City some service whether we let
them have land to build a. post office on or not.
Councilman Breasted moved to put the post office on the agenda~ seconded by Councilman
De Gregorio. All in favor, Councilman Walls abstained; motion carried. Mayor Standley
said this item would be put under City Manager.
2) Councilman Breasted told Council that with the zoning code up for adoption and the
provision f~r off-street parking in the commercial core deleted, he felt the Council
should take a very aggressive stand in regard to a parking facility either at the Rio
Gr~nd7 or under Wagner Park. It whould be up to the Council to announce a po11cy that
the C~ty can pursue in the very near future.
.,
Post l.
pnrk1rl,_
f.ellIl
/"...,,-
~,
-
'""'
1745
Re~lar Me~tiI!'2~
Aspe~Cit~ Council
April 14, 1975
o~_____.,. _ __~,...
"
-'~reay Gorge
~ 'luor lie.
j 3~.,l'Y'
J
J
,
620 Hyman
building
:]
Alan Gordon told Council the Great Gorge was a full service restaurant with breakfast,
lunch and dinner. They art:: opeu from 7:00 a.nlo to 11:00 p.m. Gordon considered full
service restaurant not only serving three meals but also serving beverages that. patrons
might require. Mayor Standley asked what the seating capacity of the bar would be;
Gordon answered presently eight and at maximum would be 14.
Councilwoman Markalunas questioned Gordon holding three offices of the corporation. City.
Attorney Stuller said that only three offices were obligatory and only the treasurer and
secretary could not be the same.
There were no opponents to the issuance of the liquor license. Mayor Stanley closed the
public hearing.
Ii
I'
.1
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the liquor license for the Great Grage restaurant;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilman De Gregorio questioned whether the needs of the neighborhood have not been
meet, it is his feeling that they-have. Councilwoman Markalunas agreed and' said there was
no proof tonight to show Council that the needs had not been met and this is one of the
obligations of the applicant. .
Councilman Behrendt pointed out this particular party is not applying for. a bar license
but a restaurant which wants to serve drinks to its clients. In this sophisticated town,
one must serve drinks with dinner in a good restaurant. Councilman Behrendt questioned if
the needs of the neighborhood had been met in terms of good dining. Mayor Standley agreed
and added that the Council's role was to more or less protect the citizens of the
community from questionable operators coming in and to question whether the constraints
established by the state are being fulfilled. Mayor Standley said he felt that Gordon
had shown that he could run a good restaurant and been conscience and Gordon deserves to
compete on the same basis as all the other "good" restaurants in town.
City Attorney Stuller pointed out that the needs of a restaurant are not the criteria, it
is the needs of the neighborhood. City Attorney Stuller said the Council must start
making demands of the applicant to establish that the needs have not been satisfied or the
time will corne when the Council will want to start denying and will have no basis. A
precedent has been set for an open ended policy. Mayor Standley said a work session on
the liquor licensing policy and how to establish criteria has been in order for a long
time.
Councilman Walls said past Council met with the State liquor people in order to set up
guidelines. The Council can set up the needs of the neighborhood very easily by having
the state liquor people run a survey on these needs. With some fifty-odd outlets in the
proximity of the Great Gorge, Councilman Walls said it was ludicrous to think the needs
of the neighboIh0od had not been met.
Alan Gordon said it seemed to him that there would never be a definitive answer to what
the "reasonable requirements of the neighborhood" are. Gordon pointed out that sig-
natures on a petition could be gotten for any project.
Councilman Behrendt asked Gordon if he did in fact have petitions and how many signatures
were on these. Gordon answered yes, and in excess of 800 signatures.
City Attoreny Stuller said Council can not establish a maximum number of liquor licenses
to be issued, that the needs have not been satisfied. This is an affirmative requirement.
It is not established by Showing lack of protest. Because people1s need for a drink can
be satisfied off premises, the Great Gorge defeats the argument that the needs of the
neighborhood has not been satisfied. City Attoreny Stuller told Council that they must
get more stringent in their analysis of liquor license applications.
Councilman Behrendt said that due to the Council's inconsistent policy of issuing liquor
licenses they had in effect given a monopoly to a certain number of peopl in town. This
applicant has proven what they can do with a restaurant and they should be allowed the
right to complete. If the Council wishes to establish a policy it should be done in the
future.
Councilrnembers Behrendt, Breasted, Mayor Standley in favor of the motion; Councilmernbers
Pedersen, Markalunas, De Gregorio, Walls opposed. Motion NOT carried.
I'
I.
.,
I:
Ii
Ii
620 HYMAN BUILDING
City Attorney Stuller told Council that the condition of the grant of Ordinance #25,
Series of 1975, were that the applicant comply with all recommendations of the P & z
under Ordinance #19, Series of 1974. This presents some problems because there is a
change of use in the basement.
'.
Don Fleisher told Council under Ordinance #19, Series of 1974, a restaurant was approved.
for the basement, his new design has put a theatre in the basement. Mayor Standley
asked the relative number of seating difference. Fleisher said he thought a restaurant
would have about 150 seats and a theatre 400 seats. Planner john Stanford said a theatre
would generate more traffic. Mayor Standley said based on the leeway the Council had
given given this project, Fleisher told Council this was not a new theatre but was a trans-
.fer of the Wheeler Opera House. Stanford told Council that theatres were not allowed in
the C-I zone, nor were restaurants, but the P & Z had approved a restaurant use in the
basement. Councilman De Gregorio said he would rather see a restaurant use here. City
Attorney Stuller told Council that under this Ordinance #25, Series of 1975, Fleisher
was bound to the uses as approved by the P & Z under Ordinance #19, Series of 1974, review.'
Fleisher brought up that the minutes reflect a restaurant use in the basement and offices
on the top two floors. He said that was inaccurate ~s they were to have retail ~n the
ground level, which in on the sidewalk grade, and office on the top. City Attorney
Stuller asked Fleisher if he would put the C-I uses as they exist in the zoning code
now. Fleisher said he wanted the flexibility the desgination "retail" gave him under
Ordinance #19, Series of 1974, review. Mayor Standley said that the Council was going
to make this building comply with the zoning. City Attorney Stuller reiterated the
-.-,-.----..--...----". _...._---~._.._~-..-_.
,r
-
1746 .
i
.
I
Regular Meeting
.-
April 14., 1975
1) City Manager Mahoney addressed the Council on the offer from Aspen One to the Mayor to
trade their property. The offer was made on Friday and discussed at lunch. City Manager
Mahoney suggested sCheduling a work session to discuss the proposal. City Attorney
Stuller told Council the ownership of the land was under question and there was a lis
pendens on our property~ A work session was scheduled for Monday, April 21, 1975 at
5:00 p.m.
2} City Manager Mahoney told Council he had inquired into underground parking. Fritz I underground
Benedict had written Mahoney, "We would like to withdraw our name from the feasibility !I parking _
study of underground parking. We do not have the necessary dat~ base to do a proper Ii Piz=agalli
study." ~
City Manager Mahoney presented an agreement with Pi,zzagalli to do a feasibility study on ~ -__
underground parking. Councilman Behrendt said it was unappropriate to have the person tha~
would benefit most from building such a structure do the feasibility study. Councilman ~
Breasted agreed and said the City should look into engineering firms to assist. ~
City Manager Mahoney told Council this agreement for the feasibility study was for $2,000 I!
for just the first go round. Perhaps when the feasibility study was done, the City would II
decide to bring somebody else in. Mayor Standley told Mahoney to get a confirmaiton
from Pizzagalli that they would do the study for $2,000.
Aspen City Council
,.-- -,.-.=,--=~--
restaurant is allowed, even though it's not a C-l use, ~hc offices are allow~d, but the
retail uses will not be all expansive, they will be limited to the C-l uses listed in the
new code.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Ordinance #25, Series of 1975; seconded by Council-
woman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 1975, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote, Pedersen, nay; Walls, nay; Motion
carried.
SOLID WASTE CENTER
George Ochs, County Engineer, presented some Changes ot the Council regarding running the
dump, (1) extending the hours (2) free Sunday (3) consulting with Bishop. Bishop said
he would take over the operation for $3,950.00 per month with salvage right or $4,100.00
per month without salvage rights. Mayor Standley indicated he felt a free Sunday was
really im~ortant as there had been evidence of. dry gulching.
Mayor Standley mentioned he felt salvage rights should be for anybody who wanted to
salvage. The dump should be a resourceful place and it does belong to the people. George
Ochs asked Council if they wanted to go to a private contractor and not give the contractor!1
the salvage rights. Councilwoman Markalunas mentioned she would like to see the dump
have a free Saturday, also.
Councilman De Gregroio moved to re-negotiate with a private contractor to take over the
dump; seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to retain the salvage rights for the people and to have
Saturdays and Sundays as free days at the dump; seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. All
in favor, motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
Councilman Behrendt said he was worried about the market demand factor. City Manager
Mahoney pointed out the City could create that demand. An interest has been generated by
merchants in the downtown area that want to have closer access to the automobile. City
Manager Mahoney also pointed out that without a feasibility study, the City doesn't know
how many cars can be put in the areas considered or how much steel and concrete would be
needed. Councilman Behrendt suggested have an in-house study. Councilman De Gregorio
said he didn't think an in-house study could be done for $2,000.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to accept the proposal from Pizzagalli as outlined, if it
truly is $2,000; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilman Behrendt said there was nothing in the contract which holds Pizzagalli to
producing figures which conform to reality. Councilman Breasted pointed out someone
working for his own self-interest would not want to build and operate an underground
garage unless they were sure the site selection was right and would satiSfy customers.
Councilmembers Pedersen, Breasted, De Gregorio, Mayor Standley in favor; Councilrnembers
Walls, Markalunas, Behrendt opposed, motion carried.
3) GREENS FEES
Ted Armstrong, Parks and REcreation Director, presented a proposal to Council for increas- I
ing the greens fees. He did not increase any rates of the season pass, 50 as not to tax I
the local people. The new proposed fees are $3.00 for 9 holes and $5.00 for 18 holes and
$.25 a round to go back into the construction holding fund.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to approve the greens fees; seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
4) City Manager Mahoney told Council he needed them to offer $5,000 as a reward for the
return of the Silver Queen. This is a request of the HPC and the Centennial Committee in
conjunction with the Centennial celebration.
Councilman Behrendt moved to offer $5,000 reward for the return of the Silver Queen to
Aspen; seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
-- -'-- -... -'--~_.~'._------"-,,,--~-,,,~-._...._. ~_"".'._..e,'" "_,.~.___._~_'.,~.___.'"...~_ __..'..__._~..__ _.~. '_"__ _._.__,___~
u
Solid waste
cen,er
!I changes
,
Ii Aspen One
.i property
['
I
rl.
W"
,
Golf course -
greens fees
C'
Silver QueeQ
reward
j
.. /'
I
I""
...
c.,;..,_.........<~,..;;-"~.
. \
"-.-'---
.......
\
17411762
II
'ii'
il
Re: Regular Meeting
.' 1i:'.~-=-",,- ," 7'~-~.T>-_-~~
,:, I
rei' I Councilman De Gregorio moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1975: seconded by Council-
! r~,:: I man Behrendt.
ne
I councilwoman Markalunas requested that a copy of this Qrdinance be sent to Mary Martin
CG. ,I of the Centennial/Bicentennial Conunitte to call her attention to the provisions of the
WC;~. 1'\ money.
cd Roll call vote; Councilmembers Walls, aye: Pedersen, aye: Markalunas, aye: Behrendt, aye;
s ~pedersen, aye: De Gregorio, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried.
c I
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1975
S
I I Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
G' II the public hearing.
, ,
d r I
h '! 'Councilman Behrendt made a motion to read ordinance #25, Series of 1975; seconded by
p(i Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried.
r(:
i
M','
s
O.
d
hi Ii
c, I
:1
s...
ii
I
(I
,
Ki
H
4 , I
!
I
t
t
t
"f
H
,1
'I
..
"
~ ~
~!
:~
f:
I:
~'
Aspen City council
Arpil 28, 19,75
'-.-.
--.,,':-.
ORDINANCE #25
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE EXEMPTION FOR THE 620 HYMAN BUILDING FROM THE NEW
ZONING CODE, ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1975. ALL IS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY
ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 1974; PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT
SUBSTITUTE BUILDING PLANS ON OR BEFORE JUNE 15, 1975; SHALL OTHERWISE COMPLY
WITH ALL OTHER BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND SHALL, ON ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT, PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXEMPTED PROJECT WITH REASONALBE
DILIGENCE
was read by the City Clerk.
1
C
~
councilman Behrendt made a motion to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman De Gregorio. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, nay; Markalunas, aye;
De Gregorio, aye; Walls, nay; Breasted, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye.
Motion Carried.
I
lord. II,
Saab 1u\III
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 1975
Mayor Standley closed
I'
,
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing.
the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Councilwoman Pedersen made a motion to read Ordinance #26, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion, carried.
ORDINANCE #26
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE RATIF Y I NG A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND
PANSING PONTIAC FOR THE USE OF FOUR (4) SAAB VEHICLES BY THE ASPEN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A RENTAL OF SIXTY-FIVE ($65.00)
DOLLARS PER MONTH PER VEHICLE; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR A RENTAL PERIOD
OF ONE (1) YEAR
was read by the City Clerk.
councilwoman Pedersen made a motion to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 1975; seconded
\' by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen,
.' aye; Walls, aye; Markalunas, aye; Breasted, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye.
All in favor, motion carried.
Ii
ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1975.
I,:
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
i: the public hearing.
II Councilwoman Pedersen made a motion to read Ordinance #28, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried.
ord. :1
TO"l~:
[I
;,'
,
ORDINANCE 128
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ENTRY INTO AN AGREEMENT BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
WITH THE AIRPORT AUTO'CENTER FOR THE PROVISION OF TOWING SERVICES; REQUIRING
TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOUR' TOW S~RVICE BEGINNING APRIL 14, 1975, REQUIRING
ITEMIZATION OF BILLING; PRESCRIBING CHARGES TO BE ,ASSESSED; REQUIRING
INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY AGAINST CLAIMS FOR LOSSES INCURRED AS A RESULT
OF THE SERVICES RENDERED
was read by the city Clerk..
,:1
Councilman Behrendt made a motion to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilwoman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Walls, aye; Pedersen, aye:
, Mqrkalunas, aye; De GregoriO, aye; Breasted, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye.
I All in favor. . Motion carried.
'1