HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.1985SPA- amendments-��'
hearing requirements
6e4tjIne,rj -Z:D/Z) ) le,
PI
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
i
THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manage
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office A-R,
RE: Municipal Code Amendments: Public Hearing Requirements
DATE: October 8, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend 2nd reading approval of the attached ordinance to make
the following code amendments with regards to public hearing require-
ments:
1. To require that public hearing notice be given for subdivision
and PUD conceptual presentation before City Council.
2. To change the public hearing notification requirements as they
apply to condominium unit owners such that instead of notice
being given to the condominium managers it would be given
directly to the owners themselves.
3. Applicants for land use reviews are required to supply the
Planning Office with the names of property owners entitled to be
notified on pre -addressed stamped envelopes.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council passed a motion on June 24, 1985
directing staff to prepare code amendments making conceptual sub-
division and PUD review by Council a public hearing (Issue 1 below) .
The condominium unit notification issue arose during the review of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge, with Council directing staff to resolve this
issue as well. On September 9, 1985, Council approved first reading
of the proposed Ordinance with some changes made.
BACKGROUND: Over the last year several issues regarding public
hearing notification have been raised. The Planning Office would like
to bring all of these issues before you at one time in order to make
the appropriate code amendments to alleviate the confusion over
public hearing notification requirements.
ISSUE 1 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Public hearing notice for subdivision and
PUD conceptual presentation before City Council.
At the end of the discussion of the amended SPA Ordinance on June 24,
1985, City Council passed a motion to direct staff to prepare code
amendments making conceptual subdivision and PUD review by Council a
public hearing. The amended SPA Ordinance requires that Council hold
a public hearing during the conceptual plan review (Section 24-7.3 (c)
of the Municipal Code) . Council felt that similar requirements for
conceptual subdivision and PUD review would be more consistent and
provide a usef ul opportunity for Council to make a more thorough
review of proposals at an early stage.
Under current code provisions no public hearing is held until a
Preliminary Plat or PUD plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. This means that an applicant undertakes the major effort
in developing a preliminary plan before adjacent property owners and
other interested parties of the public are officially involved in the
review process. This is potentially unfair to both the applicant and
members of the public. The applicant could have made a considerable
investment in the project design while unaware that members of the
public would oppose the project in part or in entirety. Conversely,
interested members of the public may feel that they were left out of
the process until the time when a project has been designed, given
initial approvals, and in a sense, gathered momentum.
ISSUES 2 AND 3 PROBLEM! DISCUSSION: Public hearing notification
requirements as they apply to condominium owners.
The following language either appears in or is referred to in six
separate sections of the Municipal Code with regards to public hearing
notification requirements:
"Owners of residential multi -family condominium units may be
served by mailing sufficient copies of any such required
notice (one for each owner) to the recorded address for
their homeowners' association."
Several condominium association managers have questioned the appro-
priateness and legality of this special provision applied to condo-
minium complexes. Their arguments are summarized below:
a. Under current code provisions, the condominium association
manager is placed in the position of 1) deciding whether an issue
is important enough to send out notices of public hearings to
condominium owners, and 2) finding the current addresses of the
condominium owners. It is argued that neither responsibility
should be delegated by local government to these individuals.
b. In the case that there is a change in management companies for a
condominium association and the new company fails to receive
notification, then all of the condominium owners would also fail
to receive notification.
C. The time and money incurred by the association manager handling
notification are alleged to be an unfair burden by some of the
managers.
d. There may be a statutory requirement for cities to notify all
property owners, not discriminating between multi -family condo-
minium owners and other property owners.
2
The Planning Office contacted some seven condominium association
managers, a title company and the County Assessor's Office to find out
if they believe the proposed code amendments would be a benefit or
diservice to the public. The majority of persons spoken with felt
that the proposed code amendment to delete the above language would
not be a public benefit. The reasons are summarized as follows:
a. Condominium associations in Aspen generally have articles of
incorporation or by-laws that define the management company's
responsibilities with respect to notification. The notification
process has worked effectively through the delegation of this
task to the management companies.
b. The ability of the condominium manager to discern which issues
really effect the interests of the condo owners and which issues
are inconsequential can save a lot of unnecessary mailing.
C. The local condo manager is more likely to perceive the signifi-
cance of a proposal and attend the public hearing than an out-of-
town condo owner.
d. The assessor's records of property owners are some times out-of-
date or inaccurate; and the condo association is in a better
position to know how to communicate with condo owners.
e. Inaccuracies in the list of addresses could invalidate the public
hearing.
f. The additional expenses and time required by the proposed
amendment would burden the applicant, the Assessor's Office and
the Planning Office. Non-compliance on the part of the applicant
could be the result.
In a memorandum dated July 30, 1985, the City Attorney reviewed State
Statutes, caselaw, and the American Law of Zoning to analyze this
issue. While he could not determine from his research that the City
is clearly required by Statute to notify all property owners, he
recommended in favor of the code amendment. He reasoned that "the
proposed Aspen Code Amendment would establish the benefit of any doubt
in favor of due process."
In a conversation with the Pitkin County Assessor on July 30, 1985 it
was stated that while the office is over -worked at the present time,
it is willing to supply the names and addresses of property owners
entitled to notification including condo owners upon request.
The Planning Office considers due process to be the most important
issue in this consideration of the code amendment. While the notifi-
cation process undoubtedly will become somewhat more complicated and
expensive than at present, the condominium owner public would not be
treated differently than other property owners, and consequently
would be more fairly served. Most of the arguments against the code
3
amendment are made in terms of convenience or the ascribed capabil-
ities of the management company to handle public notification in a
better manner than what is the general system of notification require-
ments. Neither argument should outweigh due process and statutory
requirements.
Code Amendments made pursuant to Issue 3 would require the applicant
to supply to the Planning Office the names of entitled property owners
(owners of property either adjacent to the subject property or within
300 feet, depending on the action) on pre -addressed and stamped enve-
lopes. It is felt that this is a reasonable responsibility of the
applicant; and it would reduce some of the additional work resulting
from the proposed amendments requiring notification of all condominium
owners (Issue 2) .
When Council considered this Ordinance on first reading, it was
determined that applicants should also be responsible for stamping as
well as pre -addressing the envelopes. The Ordinance has been reworded
to reflect this change.
The argument that there would be a greater chance for inaccuracies in
addresses that may invalidate the public hearing is of some concern.
The statutory language specifying the acceptable sources of names and
addresses (C.R.S. 31-23-215) is proposed to be added to the Municipal
Code to better guide the applicant in preparing valid lists of
property owners.
Furthermore, the Planning Office feels that it is important to keep
the language of all public notification requirements consistent for
the sake of simplicity. Therefore, each of the eight amended sections
would read essentially the same. There code amendments do not have a
net effect of making the Municipal Code a more wordy or complicated
document. It should be noted that the City Attorney has made some
changes to the body of the sections to be amended in an attempt to
further clarify public hearing procedures. The length of the ordi-
nance is simply the result of having the wording apply to a variety of
public hearing requirements and making sure that it is clear to all
who read the ordinance, particularly our codification service.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission held a public
hearing and recommended approval of these code amendments on August 6,
1985 by a vote of four (4) in favor, two (2) against.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
ordinance by the following motions:
"Move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 1985 on 2nd
Reading."
SB.9
4
,,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorn( qq
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Code Amendments - Notice of Public Hearings to Adjacent
Property Owners
DATE: July 22, 1985
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a code amendment on
August 6, 1985 to change public hearing notification requirements as
they apply to condominium unit owners such that instead of notice
being given to the condominium managers, it would be given directly to
the owners themselves.
A question was raised by one condominium manager, Fred Smith, whether
or not there is a statutory requirement for notification of all
property owners including condominium unit owners. I would like your
opinion on this issue in particular. Attached are two cases that may
pertain to the issue:
Glennon Heights vs. Central Bank and Trust (658 P 2nd 872) and
City of Fort. Collins vs. James T. Doonez (496 P 2nd 316) .
The other cases you suggested in out 7-18 discussion could not be
located because the volumes were out from the County Court Law Library.
They are:
Center Land Company (619 P 2nd 82)
Hallmark vs. Gunnison (650 P 2nd 556)
VcCarther B. Zabka (494 P 2nd 89)
Positive and negative aspects of this code amen6n,erit are listed as
follows:
Pros:
Cons:
1. The condominium association manager would not be the only
party responsible for the notification of condominium
owners. The manager would not be in the position to (1)
decide whether an issue is important enough to send notices
to condominium owners or (2) be responsible for finding the
current addresses of condominium owners.
2. The condominium association would incur less cost for
mailings and less time spent on public notices.
3. In the case that the condominium association management has
changed, and a new management company fails to receive
notification, the condominium owners would still receive
notification.
4. Any potential law suit challenging the current code provision
would be avoided.
1. Most condominium associations have by-laws or articles that
define the management company's responsibilities with
respect to notifications.
2. Generally the notification process has been working effectively
through the condominium manager's assumption of respon-
sibilities.
3. If the local manager of a condo association is notified, he
or she is more likely to care about the project, and more
likely to attend the public hearing.
4. The assessor's records of condominium owners addresses are
frequently inaccurate. In many cases, the association is
listed as the owner's address. Testimony to this point is
made by the large number of returned notification letters that
the Planning Office receives. A condominium management
company should be in a better position to know how to
communicate with condominium owners.
5. The additional expenses and time required from a land use
applicant, often assigned to the title company, may encourage
non-compliance with this code provision.
6. Most condominium managers surveyed in Aspen do not feel the
present mailings are an undue burden.
- 2 -
ME MORANDU M
TO: City Council
THRU: Hal Schillina. City Manace
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: [Municipal Code Amendments: Public Hearina Requirements
DATE : September 9, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Office and the Plannina and Zoning Commission
recommend 1st reading approval of the attached ordinance to make
the following code amendments with req_ards to public hearine_i require-
ments:
1. To require that public hearing notice be given for sub-
division and PUD conceptual presentation before City
Council.
2. To change the public hearing notification requirements as
they apply to condominium unit owners such that instead of
notice being given to the condominium managers it would be
given directly to the owners themselves.
3. Applicants for land use reviews are required to supply the
Planning Office with the names of property owners entitled
to be notified on pre-adc'ressed envelopes.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council passed a
motion
on June 24,
1985
directing staff to prepare code amendments
making
conceptual
sub-
division and PUD review by Council a public
hearing,
(Issue 1 below)
.
The condominium unit notification issue arose
during
the review of
the
Aspen Mountain Lodge, with Council directing staff
to resolve
this
issue as well.
BACKGROUND: Over the last year several issues regarding public
hearing notification have been raised. The Planning Office would like
to bring all of these issues before you at one time in order to make
the appropriate code amendments to alleviate the confusion over
public hearing notification requirements.
ISSUE 1 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Public hearing notice for subdivision and
PUD conceptual presentation before City Council.
At the end of the discussion of the amended SPA Ordinance on June 24,
1985, City Council passed a motion to direct staff to prepare code
amendments making conceptual subdivision. and PUD review by Council a
public hearing. The amended SPA Ordinance requires that Council hold
a public hearing during the conceptual plan review (Section 24-7.3 (c)
of the Municipal Code) . Council felt that similar requirements for
conceptual subdivision and PUD review would be more consistent and
provide a useful opnortunity for Council to make a more thoroun_ h
review of proposals at an early stage.
Under current code provisions no public hearing is held until a
Preliminary Plat or PUD plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. This means that an applicant undertakes the major effort
in developing a preliminary plan before adjacent property owners and
other interested parties of the public are officially involved in the
review process. This is potentially unfair to both the applicant and
members of the public. The applicant could have made a considerable
investment in the project design while unaware that members of the
public would oppose the project in part or in entirety. Conversely,
interested members of the public may feel that they were left out of
the process until the time when a project has been designed, given
initial approvals, and in a sense, gathered momentum.
ISSUES 2 AND 3 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Public hearing notification
requirements as they apply to condominium owners.
The following language either appears in or is referred to in eight
separate sections of the vunicipal Code with regards to public hearing_
notification requirements:
"Owners of residential multi -family condominium units may be
served by mailing sufficient copies of any such required
notice (one for each owner) to the recorded address for
their homeowners' association."
Several condominium association managers have questioned the appro-
priateness and legality of this special provision applied to condo-
minium complexes. Their arguments are summarized below:
a. Under current code provisions, the condominium association
manager is placed in the position of 1) deciding whether an
issue is important enough to send out notices of public
hearings to condominium owners. and 2) finding the current
addresses of the condominium owners. It is argued that
neither responsibility should be delegated by local govern-
ment to these individuals.
b. In the case that there is a change in management companies
for a condominium association and the new company fails to
receive notification, then all of the condominium owners
would also fail to receive notification.
C. The time and money incurred by the association manager
handling_ notification are alleged to be an unfair burden by
some of the managers.
2
d. There may be a statutory requirement for cities to notify
all property owners, not discriminating between multi -family
condominium owners and other property owners.
The Pl anni ng Office contacted some seven condominium association
managers, a title company and the County Assessor's Office to find out
if they believe the proposed code amendments would be a benefit or
di service to the public. The majority of persons spoken with felt
that the proposed code amendment to delete the above language would
not be a public benefit. The reasons are summarized as follows:
a. Condominium associations in Aspen generally have articles of
incorporation or by-laws that define the manaaement
company's responsibilities with respect to notification.
The notification process has worked effectively through the
deleaation of this task to the management companies.
b. The ability of the condominium m�.na ge r to discern which
issues really effect the interests of the condo owners and
which issues are inconsequential can save a lot of unneces-
sary mailing.
C. The local condo manager is more likely to perceive the
significance of a proposal and attend the nublic hearing
than an out-of-town condo owner.
d. The assessor's records of property owners are some times
out-of-date or inaccurate; and the condo association is in a
better position to know how to communicate with condo
owners.
e. Inaccuracies in the list of addresses could invalidate the
Public hearing.
f. The additional expenses and time required by the proposed
amendment would burden the applicant, the Assessor's Office,
and the Planning Office. Non-compliance on the part of the
applicant could be the result.
In a memorandum dated July 30, 1985, the City Attorney reviewed State
Statutes, caselaw, and the American Law of Zoning to analyze this
issue. While he could not determine from his research that the City
is clearly required by Statute to notify all property owners, he
recommended in favor of the code amendment. Fie reasoned that "the
proposed Aspen Code Amendment would establish the benefit of any doubt
in favor of due process."
In a conversation with the Pitkin County Assessor on July 30, 1985 it
was stated that while the office is over -worked at the present time,
it is willing to supply the names and addresses of property owners
entitled to notification including condo owners upon request.
N
The Planning Office considers due process to be the most important
issue in this consideration of the code amendment. While the notifi-
cation process undoubtedly will become somewhat more complicated and
expensive than at present, the condominium owner public would not be
treated differently than other property owners, and consequently
would be more fairly served. Piost of the arguments against the code
amendment are made in terms of convenience or the ascribed capabil-
ities of the management company to handle public notification in a
better manner than what is the general system of notification require-
ments. Neither argument should outweigh due process and statutory
requirements.
Code Amendments made pursuant to Issue 3 would require the applicant
to supply to the Planning Office the names of entitled property owners
(owners of property either adjacent to the subject property or within
300 feet. depending on the action) on pre -addressed stamped enve-
lopes. It is felt that this is a reasonable responsibility of the
applicant; and it would reduce some of the additional work the
proposed amendments requiring notification of all condominium owners
(Issue 2) .
The argument that there woulc be a greater chance for inaccuracies in
addresses that may invalidate the public hearing is of some concern.
The statutory language specifying the acceptable sources of names and
addresses (C.R.S. 31-23-215) is proposed to be added to the runicipal
Code to better guide the applicant in preparing valid lists of
property owners.
Furthermore, the Planning Office feels that it is important to keep
the language of all public notification requirements consistent for
the sake of simplicity. Therefore, each of the eight amended sections
would read essentially the same. It should be pointed out that these
code amendments do not have a net effect of making the Municipal Code
a more wordy or complicated document. The leno_th of the ordinance is
simply the result of having the wording apply to a variety of public
hearing requirements and making sure that it is clear to all who read
the ordinance, particularly our codification service.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission held a public
hearing an6 recommended approval of these code amendments on August 6.
1985 by a vote of four (4) in favor, two (2) against.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
ordinance by the following motions:
SB.9
"Move to read Ordinance 5.Z , Series of 1985".
"P9ove to approve Ordinance $-�, Series of 1985 on 1st reading".
4
CITY OF ASPEN
130 *uth galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 30, 1985
TO: Steve Burstein
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Code Amendments - Notice of Public Hearings to Adjacent
Property Owners
In response to your request for information in connection with the
public hearing to adjacent property owner code amendment dated
July 22, 1985, I have the following comments:
1. Although there may be some question with regard to its
applicability to a "home rule" as opposed to a "statutory city",
Section 31-23-215, C.R.S. (a copy appended for your information)
contains the following language.
Any plat submitted to the commission shall have sub-
mitted with it the names and addresses of all surface owners,
mineral owners, and lessees of mineral owners to whom notices of a
hearing shall be sent as their names may appear upon the plats or
records in the County Clerk and Recorder's office and as their
most recent address may appear in a telephone or other directory
of general use in the area of the property or on the tax records
of the municipality or the county. No plat shall be acted on by
the commission without affording a hearing thereon. Notice of the
time and place of such hearing shall be sent t_o_said _persons_�y_
registered mail _
_less than five (5)_daysbefore_the _date fixed_
therefor." � -- — -- ----- ---
Assuming for the purposes of argument that this section
applies, a determination would have to be made from a review of
the plats or records in the County Clerk and Recorder's office as
to whether the condominium owners may be defined as "surface
owners".
2. In the case of zoning, and to the extent that it is applic-
able to a home rule city, I refer you to Section 31-23-304, copy
appended, which provides as follows:
Memorandum to Steve Burstein
July 30, 1985
Page Two
However, no such regulation, restriction or bundary
shall become effective until a public hearing thereon at which
parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of the time and place
of such hearing shall be published in an official paper or a paper
of general circulation in such municipality."
It does not appear that this section requires direct notice.
3. The Glen_n_o_n Heights and Fort Collins cases appended to your
memo do not clearly answer the notice question. The Fort Collins
case is not on point, but the Glenno_nHeights case observes that
some jurisdictions have held that state or federal constitutional
due process provisions require "public notice and a 'nearing prior
to the enactment or amendment of municipal zoning ordinances". In
zoning, as opposed to subdivision, matters, the Colorado courts do
not seem to have addressed the question of whether the federal and
state due process provisions require individual notice beyond the
notice by publication currently required by statute. For your
information, I am appending a copy of Sections 4-11 through 4-13,
of Anderson, American Law_ of Zoning, which generally discusses
notice and hearing requirements. This text is cited in the
Glenno_n_H_eights case, and I note a reference to the Illinois case
of National Boulevard Bankv. County of will, 445 NH2d 891 (1983),
holding that due process does not require that an owner of land
adjacent to land subject to a proposed zoning amendment be "per-
sonally notified" of a hearing on the amendment. This case may
contain a discussion of the issues being considered. Certainly,
the proposed Aspen code amendment requiring mailed notice directly
to condo owners would establish the benefit of any doubt in favor
of due process and, unless clearly impracticable, it is recom-
mended by my office.
PJT/mc
L�
31-23-214 Government - Municipal
658
31-23-214. Subdivision regulations. (1) Before any commission exercises
the powers set forth in section 31-23-213, it shall adopt regulations governing
the Subdivision of land within its jurisdiction and shall publish the same in
pamphlet form, which shall be available for public distribution, or, at the
election of the commission, the regulations may be published once each week
for three consecutive weeks in the official paper of the municipality or county
in which such subdivisions. or any part thereof, are located. Such regulations
may provide for the proper arrangement of streets in relation to other existing
or planned streets and to the master plan, for adequate and convenient open
spaces for traffic, utilities, access of fire fighting apparatus, recreation, light,
and air, and for the avoidance of congestion of population, including mini-
mum area and width of lots. In the territory subject to Subdivision jurisdiction
beyond the municipal limits, the regulations shall provide only for conform-
ance with the major street plan.
(2) Before the adoption of the regulations referred to in this section, it
public hearing shall be held thereon in the county in which said territory,
or any part thereof, is situated. A copy of such regulations shall be certified
by the commission to the county clerk and recorders of the counties in which
the municipality and territory are located.
Source: R R RE, L. 75, p. 1150. § 1.
Cross reference. For registration of subdivi- La" review. t.. "Subdivision Regu-
%ion developers. see part 4 of article 61 of title lotions and Con,lass.,vey Dedications see 39
12. Dicta 299 (1962).
31-23-215. Procedure - legal effect. (1) The commission shall approve or
disapprove a plat within thirty days after said plat has been submitted to
it, otherwise Such plat shall be deemed approved and a certificate to that
effect shall be issued by the commission on demand unless the applicant for
the commission's approval waives this requirement and consents to an exten-
sion of such period. The ground of disapproval of any plat shall be stated
upon the records of the commission. Any plat submitted to the commission
shall contain the name and address of it person to whom notice of a hearing
shall be sent. No plat shall be acted on by the commission without affording
it hearing thereon. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be sent
to said address by registered mail not less than five days before the date
fixed therefor. Similar notice shall be mailed to the owners of land immedi-
ately adjoining the platted land, as their names appear upon the plats in the
COMM clerk and recorder's office or upon records in the county assessor's
office and as their addresses appear in the directory of the municipality or
on the tax records of the municipality or county.
(_') Every plat approved by the commission, by virtue of such approval,
shall be deemed to be an amendment or an addition to or a detail of the
municipal plan and it part thereof. Approval of it plat shall not constitute
or effect an acceptance by the public of any street or other open space shown
upon the plat. From time to time. the commission may recommend to the
governing body amendments of the zoning ordinance or map or additions
thereto to conform to the commission's recommendations for the zoning regu-
lations of the territory comprised within approved subdivisions. The commis-
..L G I --�
659 Planning and Zoning 31-23-217
lion has the power to impose use, height, area, or bulk requirements or
restrictions governing buildings and premises within the subdivision if such
requirements or restrictions do not authorize the violation of the then effec-
tive zoning ordinance of the municipality. Such requirements or restrictions
shall he stated upon the plat prior to the approval and recording thereof,
shall have the force of law, and shall be enforceable in the same manner
and \6th the same sanctions and penalties and subject to the same powers
of amendment or repeal as though set out as it part of the zoning ordinance
ur map of the municipality. No action taken under this section shall be bind-
ing for and purpose until such action has been approved by the governmental
hody of the territory affected or any part thereof.
Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1 15o. § 1.
C.J.S. See 101 C.I.S.- Zoning. § 87.
31-23-216. Penalties for sales in unapproved subdivisions. Whoever, being
the' owner or agent of the owner of any land located within it subdivision,
transfers or sells, agrees to sell, or negotiates to sell any land by reference
to or exhibition of or by use of it plat of it subdivision before such plat has
been approved by the commission and recorded or filed in the office of the
appropi-ML . 'y clerk and recorder shall p;iy ;i pcnalt\ of unC 1111ndrCd
dollars to tne numicipalit\ fur r;tch lot or parcel so transferred, or sold, or
agreed ur ncgotiatal to be sold. The description of such lot or parcel by metes
and hounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the proc-
ess of selling or transferring shall not exempt the transaction from such pen-
alties or from the remedies provided in this section. The municipality may
enjoin such transfer or sale or agreement by action for injunction brought
in any court of competent jurisdiction and may recover the penalty by civil
action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1151, § 1.
Cross reference. For the requirements of Am. Jur. See H' \m..lur 'd. /.caning ;uiil
monumentalion of external boundaries of all Planning. § 148.
suhdi%kions prior to recording of ;i plat, see CA.S. See 101 C'.J.S..'Z.oning. § 417.
§
31-23-217. Acceptance and improvement of streets. (1) The municipality
shall not accept, lay out, open, improve, grade, pave, curb, or light any street
or lay or authorize water mains or sewers or connections to be laid in any
street within any portion of it territory for which the commission has adopted
it major street plan unless such street: ,
(a) Has been accepted or opened as or otherwise has received the legal
status of a public street prior to the adoption of such plan; or
(b) Corresponds with it street shown on the official master plan or with
it street on it subdivision plat approved by the planning commission or with
it street on it street plat made by and adopted by the commission. However,
the governing body may accept any street not shown on or not corresponding
with it street on the official master plan or on any approved subdivision plat
or an approved street plat if the ordinance or other measure accepting such 1
street is first submitted to the commission for its approval and, if approved
I
I
Planning and oRing�y�l, f5
264 $5
vacancies subdivision of land within its jurisdiction and shall publish the same in
�phlet form, which shall be available for public distribution, or, at the
fiction of the commission, the regulations may be published once each week
jor three consecutive weeks in the official paper of the municipality or county
0 which such subdivisions, or any part thereof, are located. Such regulations
of of the pay provide for the proper arrangement of streets in relation to other existing
a zoning or planned streets and to the master plan, for adequate and convenient open
ces; hoµ•. spaces for traffic, utilities, access of fire fighting apparatus, recreation, light,
'• size of Ind air, and for the avoidance of congestion of population, including mini-
ind other Mum area and width of lots. The regulations may also provide for waivers
r d oche- from subdivision requirements and may establish different requirements
applicable to subdivisions of different sizes, densities, or types of dwelling
units. In the territory subject to subdivision jurisdiction beyond the municipal
limits, the regulations shall provide only for conformance with the major
street plan.
ory of the (1.5) Subdivision regulations adopted under provisions of this section may
zBenge the protect and assure access to sunlight for solar energy devices by considering
s V. City of in subdivision development plans the use of restrictive covenants or solar
e yard
setback
s, street
Court, 638
orientation and gwidth requirements, d, or otherpermiss permissible forms of land use
controls.
commis (2) Before the adoption of the regulations referred to in this section, a
u
present P� gyring shall be held thereon in the municipality. A copy of such re g -
its rela lations shall be certified by the commission to the county clerk and recorders
of the counties in which the municipality and territory are located.
purpose
s devel
ice with Source: (1.5) added, L. 79, p. 1163, § 12; (1) amended, L. 81, p. 1512,
conven- 4 2; (2) amended, L. 83, p. 1262, § 1.
conomy
e provi- 31-23-214.1. Subdivision plan or plat - access to public highways. No person
id other may submit an application for subdivision approval to a local authority unless
iful and the subdivision plan or plat provides, pursuant to section 43-2-147, C.R.S.,
ign and that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to the
)motion state highway system in conformance with the state highway access code.
ies and
Source: Added, L. 80, p. 796, § 59; amended, L. 82, p. 627, § 35.
31-23-215. Procedure - legal effect. (1) The commission shall approve or
>urt, 638 disapprove a plat within thirty days after said plat has been submitted to
it; otherwise such plat shall be deemed approved and a certificate to that
effect shall be issued by the commission on demand unless the applicant for
the commission's approval waives this requirement and consents to an exten-
sion of such period. The ground of disapproval of any plat shall be stated
�rendum upon the records of the commission. Any plat submitted to the commission
Vohs V. shall have submitted with it the names and addresses of all surface owners,
►. mineral owners, and lessees of mineral owners to whom notices of a hearing
shall be sent as their names may appear upon the plats or records in the
!rcises county clerk and recorder's office and as their most recent addresses may
erring appear in a telephone or other directory of general use in the area of the
Planning and Zo
31-23-216.5 Government - Municipal 266'
of yards, courts, and other open sl
'I property or on the tax records of the municipality or county. No plat chat/
size
height and location of trees and other ;
be acted on by the commission without affording a hearing thereon. Notice
buildings, structures, and land for trt;
of the time.and place of such hearing shall be sent to said persons by regis,.
of
Regulations and restrictions of tb
tered mail not less than five days before the date fixed therefor.
ses.
beight and location of trees and other v,
Source: Amended, L. 79, p. 1167, § 3. •
buildings, structures, trees, or vegetatio
tion. Such regulations shall provide
ine and vary their application in hat
31-23-216.5. Additional enforcement - fine or imprisonment - abatement or
intent and in accordance with general c
of s
removal. (1) In addition to any other remedies, the governing body of any
lations. Subject to the provisions
may be si
municipality may provide by ordinance that it is unlawful to erect, construct,
the end that adequate safety
R . reconstruct, use, or alter any building or structure or to use any land in viola-
body
power to establish, regulate, restrict,
runoff channel ore
tion of any municipal subdivision regulation, and the governing ma%
storm or floodwater
basin has been designat
enforce obedience to such ordinance by fine or imprisonment as providcd
ff channel or
in to less;
in section 31-16-101.
(2) In case any building or structure is or is proposed to be erected, con-
,ter conservation board, order
damage to property resulting from
strutted, reconstructed, altered, or used or any land is or is proposed to be
,odwaters. Any ordinance enacted and
thereof any buil
used in violation of any municipal subdivision regulation, the municipality,
institute
mpt from the operation
to the board u
in addition to other remedies provided by law, may an appropriate
Cory proof is presented
action to prevent, enjoin, abate, or remove the violation to prevent the occu-
posed situation of such building or stri
the public.
panty of the building, structure, or land or to prevent any illegal act or use
convenience or welfare of
in or on such premises.
Source: Amended, L. 79, p• 1163, § 13.
Source: Added, L. 81, p. 1513, § 3.
.
pass references. As to licensing and regu-
of group homes for the developmentally aka
Major activity notice.
ed, see § 27-10.5-133. e.
Cross reference: For duties of the state geologist upon receipt of a notice, see § 34-1-1030a.
VR reviews.
For comment, "Regionalism or th
Ii
31-23-227. Allocation of powers or duties. The governing body of a munici
hialism: The Land Use Planner's
a", see 48 U. Colo. L. Rev. 575 (1977). (1
pality may, by ordinance, assume and exercise any power granted to or duty
by this 2 and may, by
article, "Cumulative Impact Assessment
western Energy Development: Will it n
placed upon the municipal planning commission part
ordinance, delegate to the municipal planning commission or other appropn-
n?" see 51 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 0980). f
see 11 s
ate municipal body any power granted to or duty placed upon the municipal
uncle, "Winning the Rezoning",
Law. 634 (1982). For article, "The Y
governing body by this part 2, providing that the right to appeal to the munici
ng Relationship Between Environ- e
a
pal governing body is retained in any such delegation; except that the power
►al Regulations and Colorado Water
", Colo. L. Rev. 597 (1982). For U
to impose fines and penalties may not be delegated.
see 53 U.
, "Referendum and Rezoning", see 53 U.
Source: Added, L. 83, p. 1263, § 1.
ab. L. Rev. 745 (1982). !
General assembly has power to legislate
regulations applicable to statutory cities,
distinguished from home rule cities.
K mon Heights, Inc. v. Cental Bank & Trust,
# PART 3
4 P.2d 872 (Colo. 1983).
Subsection (4) constitutes a legitimate
citation the legislative powers delegated
ZONING
on
statutory cities. Glennon Heights, Inc. v.
658 P.2d 872 (Colo.
31-23-301. Grant of power. (1) Except as otherwise provided in section
the
) 1 Bank &Trust,
34-1-305, C.R.S., for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or
Stale has authority to enact legislation for the
general welfare of the community, including energy conservation and the pro-
a of developmentally disabled citizens
r its Glennon Heights, Inc.
motion of solar energy utilization, the governing body of each municipality
size
police powers.
Central Bank & Trust, 658 P.2d 872 (Colo.
is empowered to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and
lot that may be occupied-
)
of buildings and other structures, the percentage of
669 Planning and Zoning 31-23-304
district. This section is specifically not to be construed to permit violation
of the provisions of any zoning ordinance or resolution with respect to height,
setbacks, area, lot coverage or external signage or to permit architectural
designs substantially inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. This section is also not to be construed to permit conducting
of the ministerial activities of any private or public organization or agency
or to permit types of treatment activities or the rendering of services in a
manner substantially inconsistent with the activities otherwise permitted in
the particular zoning district. If reasonably related to the requirements of
it particular home. a local zoning or other development regulations may, with-
out violating the provisions of this section, also attach specific location
requirements to the approval of the group home, including the availability
of such services and facilities its convenience stores, commercial services,
transportation, and public recreation facilities.
Source: R & RE. L. 75. pp. 1156, 934. § § I. 58: L. 76. p. 695, § 2
Am. Jur. See 82 Am. Jur.'_'d. Zoning and
Planning. § § 38. 39. 41. 42. 44-46. 69.
C.J.S. See 62 C.J.S.. Municipal Corpora-
tions. §'_'_'6(l): 101 C.J.S.. Zoning. §'-.
Annotator's note. Since § 31-23-303 is simi-
lar to § 31-23-203 before the 1975 recodifica-
tion of this title. relevant cases have been
included under this section.
Law review. For note. "The Effect of
Land Use Legislation of upon tatw of
Nuisance in Urban Areas , see 36 Dicta 414
(1959). For article. "Recent Developments in
Zoning Law in Colorado", see 39 Dicta 211
(196'-).
Implicit in this authorization of zoning power
is a broad legislative discretion of how to
achieve the declared objectives, and as long as
the zoning provisions are within the author-
ized purposes and conform to statutory guide-
lines, mere disagreement with zoning classifi-
cations and district regulations will not suffice
as it reason to set them aside. Nopro Co. v.
Town of Cherry Hills Village. 180 Colo. 217
504 P.2d 344 (1972).
Reasonable means must be used to terminate
nonconforming uses. Comprehensive zoning
contemplates the existence of nonconforming
uses and, to ultimately and effectively
accomplish the end sought to he accom-
plished. it is inherent that reasonable means
must he afforded to terminate nonconforming
uses. Service Oil Co. v. Rhodos, 179 Colo.
335. 500 P.2d 807 (1972).
Specific authority necessary for city agency
to expand nonconforming use. A nonconform-
ing use cannot he expanded by the issuance of
a license or permit or by an order from any
city agency unless the agency is given specific
authority to countermand or override the
terms of the zoning ordinance by the charter
or within the provisions of the zoning ordi-
nance. City of Greeley v. Ells, 186 Colo. 352.
527 P.2d 528 (1974).
31-23-304. Method'of procedure. The governing body of such municipality
shall provide for the manner in which such regulations and restrictions and
the boundaries of such districts are determined, established, enforced, and,
from time to time, amended. supplemented, or changed. However, no such
regulation, restriction. or boundary shall become effective until after a public
hearing thereon at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard. At least fifteen days' notice of the time and place of
such hearing shall be published in an official paper or a paper of general
circulation in such municipality.
Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1156. § I.
Am. Jur. See 82 Am. Jur.2d. "Zoning and Quasi-judicial function subject to certiorari
Planning. § § 49-54. review. Enactment of it rezoning ordinance by
C.J.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corpora- the legislative body of a city, governed by
lions. § 226(11): 101 C.J.S., Zoning. § 11. both state zoning statutes as well as the
268
Planning and
Zoning �_1-23-307
A facility. Adam
i Citizens, Inc.
permitted in residential neighborhoods as a
group home -on the single family characteris-
v.
=olo. 79, 580 P.24
tter of statewide concern. Roundup
dation, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 626
tics of the neighborhood or on the peace and
quiet of the neighborhood, in addition to the
.Id 1154 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980).
attitude of general hostility in the neighbor -
ay regulate certain
location. The gen.
the general assembly, by enacting this
ection and section 31-23-301 intended that
hood towards this proposes facility. Adams
reserved to manic.
Croup homes for the developmentally disabled
County Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v.
City of Westminster, 196 Colo. 79, 580 P.2d
several aspects of
xconsidered a residential use of property and
1246 (1978).
in of group homes
ist they be permitted in all residential zones,
pacts on the neigh.
gecifically including those zoned for single
Applied in Wood Bros. Homes v. City of
fulation is not lan-
wily dwellings. It is inconsistent with this
Colorado Springs, 42 Colo. App. 15, 592 P.2d
uch homes within
dent for a city council to base its denial of a
1336 (1978); Glennon Heights, Inc. v. Central
uton Heights, Inc,
gecial use permit on the adverse effects of the
Bank & Trust, 658 P.2d 872 (Colo. 1983).
i8 P?d 872 (Colo.
31-23-304. Method of procedure.
tted. The poHcn
y this section and
This section expressly applies only to amend-
Cory city may provide that property being
odious enough to
ants made by municipalities of their own ordi-
rezoned may not be used until the plat of the
ety and aesthetic
°nces, and not to enactments of the general
rezoned property is approved, it may not pro-
imber and type of
usembly. Glennon Heights, Inc. v. Central
vide for automatic rezoning to the prior classi-
zoning districts.
dank & Trust, 658 P.2d 872 (Colo. 1983).
fication if the plat is not approved. Spiker v.
Unlimited Assn.
statutory city may not provide for automatic
City of Lakewood, 198 Colo. 528,603 P.2d 130
awning when plat not approved. While a statu-
(1979).
e'View. Since the
not specify a time
0-day time frame
pplicable. Norby
231, 577 P.2d 277
comes v. City of
15, 592 P.2d 1336
be made in
:ongestion in
.her dangers;
it and air; to
on of popu-
quate provi-
ather public
tnsideration,
eculiar suit -
of buildings
7 municipal-
31-23-305. Ch...i6.a. Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may
from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or
repealed. In case, however, of a protest against changes in regulations or
restrictions, or changes in the zone district applicable to particular land,
which protest is filed with the municipal clerk at least twenty-four hours prior
to the governing body's vote on the change and is signed by the owners of
twenty percent or more of the area of land which is subject to the proposed
change or twenty percent or more of the area of land extending a radius
of one hundred feet from the land which is subject to the proposed change,
6sregarding intervening public streets and alleys, such changes shall not
become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of all the mem-
bers of the governing body of the municipality. The provisions of section
31-23-304 relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply equally
to all changes or amendments.
Source: Amended, L. 81, p. 1513, § 4.
This section expressly applies only to amend-
ments made by municipalities of their own ordi-
nances, and not to enactments of the general
31-23-306. Zoning commission.
Law reviews. For article, "Winning the
Rezoning", see 11 Colo. Law. 634 (1982).
assembly. Glennon Heights, Inc. v. Central
Bank & Trust, 658 P.2d 872 (Colo. 1983).
r31-23-307.Board of adjustment. (1) The governing body shall provide for
nt of a board of adjustment consisting of five members, each
ted for three years, unless the governing body by ordinance
ddential neigh- different number of members or term of office. The governing
wncern. Group vide by ordinance for filling vacancies on the board, for desig-
abled persons rnate members, and for removal of members for inefficiency,
§ 4.10 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
no requirement of a planning review is imposed by the enabling
statute or a local charter or ordinance.72
D. NOTICE AND HEARING
§ 4.11. Generally.
A hearing on a proposed legislative act may have a variety of
objectives. Its prime purpose may be to inform the legislators
concerning the merits of the proposal. It may be intended to
inform the public and to sound out public opinion. But in the
usual case, the legislative hearing has no relation to the ulti-
mate validity of the legislative action.73
A legislative hearing preliminary to the enactment of a zoning
ordinance may serve to inform the legislators and to provide a
forum for the expression of public opinion, but it serves an
additional purpose. It affords to persons who own land which
will be affected by the proposed ordinance an opportunity f,
mally to protest," and to appear and present testimony and
72. Lebanon v Woods, 153 Conn
182, 215 A2d 112 (1965).
A state statute authorizing the es-
tablishment of a metropolitan plan-
ning commission with power to re-
view proposed zoning amendments
and recommending appropriate action
does not subtract from the authority
of a county legislature to adopt and
amend zoning regulations. Abrams v
Legbandt, 312 NE2d 113 (1974, Ind
App)•
Where, as a whole, the zoning ena-
bling act under consideration evinces
a legislative intent to place the rec-
ommending and legislative functions
in separate municipal bodies as to
original zoning by-laws, and where, as
in the instant case, the town meeting
divested the planning board of the
recommending function and placed
that function in a board of its own
creation, the town meeting failed to
follow with strict compliance the re-
quired procedures, which is the rule if
a governing authority is to have the
right to exercise zoning power. Can-
ton v Bruno, 361 Mass 598, 282 NE2d
87 (1972); citing 1 and 3 Anderson,
198
American Law of Zoning §§ 4.10 and
17.18 (1968).
73. A zoning ordinance will not be
declared invalid solely on the ground
that there was insufficient evidence
adduced at the hearing before the
legislative body to support the mea-
sure. A hearing on a proposed zoning
ordinance is legislative in character.
Following the hearing, the legislative
body may consider matters not
brought up at the hearing in deter-
mining what legislation will serve the
public interest. Charlestown Home-
owners Asso. v La Coke, 507 SW2d
876, error ref n r e (1974, Tex Civ
App)•
74. Where notice of a public hear-
ing on a proposed county comprehen-
sive plan was calculated to inform
any interested citizens of the need to
be present if they wish to inform
themselves or to express their views
relative to the plan, it was adequate.
Washington County Taxpayers Asso.
v Board of County Comrs., 269 Md
454, 306 A2d 539 (1973). § 4.33, infra.
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.11
argument against the adoption of the proposed measure. Unlike
the usual legislative hearing, the public hearing on a proposed
zoning ordinance or amendment is required by law .7S A notice of
hearing to a property owner may be required by the due process
clauses of the state and federal constitutions.71 An enabling act"
or an ordinance which does not require notice and hearing may
be held to deprive a landowner of his property without due
process of law.7B While the legislative authority has the power to
enact or amend zoning regulations, affected property owners
have the right to be heard on the specific matter under consider-
ation. Failure of the legislative body to conduct an appropriate
hearing, after notice which affords a fair opportunity to be
heard, will render the regulation invalid.711 A zoning ordinance
75. The Adirondack Park Agency
may deny an application for an
amendment to the land use map with-
out a hearing, but the issues of fact
may be tried de novo by a reviewing
court. Saggolf Corp. :nce, 82
Misc 2d 100, 367 NYS2a no-i (1975).
Procedural amendments to a zoning
ordinance may be adopted without
prior notice and hearing. CEEED v
California Coastal Zone Conservation
Com., 43 Cal App 3d 306, 118 Cal
Rptr 315 (1974).
See § 4.03, supra.
See generally Symposium on New
England Zoning, Zoning in New Eng-
land, 36 BU L Rev p 331 (1956).
Harris, Zoning, 21 U of Miami L
Rev 195 (1966).
76. Due process and equal protec-
tion require only an opportunity to be
heard prior to a law's enactment. F.
P. Plaza, Inc. v Waite, 230 Ga 161,
196 SE2d 141 (1973), cert den 414 US
825, 38 L Ed 2d 59, 94 S Ct 129; Bell v
Studdard, 220 Ga 756, 141 SE2d 536
(1965).
77. Gilbert v Stockton Port Dist. 7
Cal 2d 384, 60 P2d 847 (1936).
While most enabling acts mandate
a notice and hearing prior to enact-
ment (see, for example, Idaho Code
§ 50-404), some require no legislative
hearing after the zoning commission
has reported (see, for example, Kan
Gen Stat § 12-708).
Annotation: Validity and construc-
tion of statutory notice requirements
prerequisite to adoption or amend-
ment of zoning ordinance or amend-
ment. 96 ALR2d 449.
78. Masters v Pruce, 290 Ala 56,
274 So 2d 33 (1973), citing Anderson,
American Law of Zoning Vol. 1
§§ 4.03 and 4.11 (1968); Dahman v
Ballwin, 483 SW2d 605 (1972, Mo
App).
The practice of holding monthly
hearings does not rise to the level of
arbitrariness or constitute a violation
of due process. Higginbotham v Bar-
rett, 473 F2d 745 (1973, CA5 Ga).
79. Pima County v Clapp, 23 Ariz
App 86, 530 P2d 1119 (1975); CEEED
v California Coastal Zone Conserva-
tion Com., 43 Cal App 3d 306, 118 Cal
Rptr 315 (1974); Allen v Donovan, 43
Del Ch 512, 239 A2d 227 (1968, Sup);
State ex rel. Stephens v Jacksonville,
103 Fla 177, 137 So 149 (1931); Pend -
ley v Lake Harbin Civic Asso., 230 Ga
631, 198 SE2d 503 (1973); Bowen v
Story County Board of Supervisors,
209 NW2d 569 (1973, Iowa); Kirk v
Hillcrest, 15 111 App 3d 415, 304 NE2d
452 (1973); Citizens for Better Govern-
ment v County of Valley, 95 Idaho
199
§ 4.11 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
adopted after a public hearing may be declared invalid if the
notice required by statute was not given in an appropriate
manner,BO was not timely,81 or was insufficient to apprise the
public of the nature and scope of the regulation which was
finally adopted.82 Even compliance with statutorily required
modes of notice may not be "sufficient notice." An Illinois court
has held that where the name and address of the owner of a
parcel which was the subject of a rezoning hearing are known to
the city, actual notice is required by due process considerations,
even where the state required only notice by publication.&9
A zoning amendment is not invalid simply because the legisla-
tive authority received additional information after the close of
the public hearing relating to such amendment.84
In some jurisdictions an applicant for a zone change has a
right to insist that the agency in which zoning authority is
320, 508 P2d 550 (1973); Bowling
Green -Warren County Airport Board
v Long, 364 SW2d 167 (1962, Ky);
Baltimore v Mano Swartz, Inc., 268
Md 79, 299 A2d 828 (1973); State ex
rel. Spiros v Payne, 131 Conn 647, 41
A2d 908 (1945), noted, 44 Mich L Rev
p 522 (1945); Gordon v Warren Plan-
ning & Urban Renewal Com. 388
Mich 82, 199 NW2d 465 (1972); Kra-
jenke Buick Sales v Kopkowski, 322
Mich 250, 33 NW2d 781 (1948); WiP-
pler v Hohn, 341 Mo 780, 110 SW2d
409 (1937); Pyramid Corp. v De Soto
County Board of Supervisors, 366 F
Supp 1299 (1973, DC Miss); Bryant
Development Asso. v Dag el, 531 P2d
1320 (1975, Mont); Lima v Robert Slo-
cum Enterprises, Inc. 38 App Div 2d
503, 331 NYS2d 51 (1972); Es8 9 r26k
v Chamberlain, 240 App Div
NYS 425 (1933), affd 240 App
1006, 268 NYS 1015; Schierloh v
Wood, 230 App Div 788, 244 NYS 651
(1930); Keiger v Winston-Salem Board
of Adjustment, 281 NC 715, 190 SE2d
175 (1972); citing 3 Anderson, Ameri-
can Law of Zoning § 21.22 35 968);
Wintersville v Argo SalesCo., 88, 299
Ohio
St 2d 148, 64 Ohio Ops
NE2d 269 (1973); Brookings v Martin-
son, 61 SD 168, 246 NW 916 (1933);
Flanders Lumber & Bldg. Supply Co.
200
v Milton, 128 Vt 38, 258 A2d 884
(1969); Barrie v Kitsap y,
Wash 2d 579, 527 P2d 1377 (1974);
Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v Conrad, 83
Wash 2d 707, 521 P2d 11"' "^74);
Edelbeck v Theresa, 57 W.� -- L72,
203 NW2d 694 (1973).
80. § 4.13, infra.
See also, Edelbeck v Theresa, 57
Wis 2d 172, 203 NW2d 694 (1973).
81. § 4.12, infra.
82. § 4.14, infra.
Whether notice of a proposed Zon-
ing ordinance is sufficient under the
applicable statute is a pure issue of
law and not fact. Federal Bldg 1 2
Development Corp.
RI 478, 312 A2d 586 (1973).
83. "Therefore, where as here the
names and addresses are actually
known to defendant, and legally pro-
tected interest of property owners are
at stake, due process mandates actual
notice to the parties." American Oil
Corp. v Chicago, 29 Ill App 3d 988,
331 NE2d 67 (1975).
84. Hawkes v Town Plan & Zoning
Com. 156 Conn 207, 240 A2d 914
(1968).
RU
vested dispose of lia
at the hearing. A
court review, on;-t
record of the legi,
much the same n
hearing, where t
introduced."
§ 4.12. Timelineal
The Standard
notice of hearilM
hearing on a prc
statutes of the se
time which must
all impose some t
Where the enti
between notice a
ordinance invalii
85. Louisville &
Planning & Zoning
SW2d 861 (1964,
Board of County Oc
219 A2d 58 (1966).
But denial of a ,D
upheld if it is rea
although the recur
such a change.
Comrs. v Farr, 24:
923 (1966); Sander
249 Miss 656, 1634
Where the zori
void at inception
compliance, the 13
precluded from ma
by his failure to rr
of the board's acti
De Soto County E
366 F Supp 1299 (
A zoning ordin
clared invalid sc
that there was 'r
adduced at the
legislative body t
sure. A hearing
ordinance is leg
Following the h,
body may cc'
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.12
vested dispose of his application on the basis of evidence adduced
at the hearing. A refusal to reclassify land may be subject to
court review, on the record.° Where this situation obtains, the
record of the legislative hearing is dealt with by the courts in
much the same manner as any record of an administrative
hearing, where the decision must be based upon testimony
introduced."
§ 4.12. Timeliness of notice.
The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act requires that a
notice of hearing be published at least 15 days before the
hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance is held. The enabling
statutes of the several states vary with respect to the minimum
time which must elapse between notice and hearing, but nearly
all impose some notice requirement.
Where the enabling act prescribes the time which must elapse
between notice and hearing, failure to comply renders a zoning
ordinance invalid."' The requirement is str" " ^onstrued,88 even
85. Louisville & Jefferson County
Planning & Zoning Com. v Coin, 382
SW2d 861 (1964, Ky); Strickler v
Board of County Comrs. 242 Md 290,
219 A2d 58 (1966).
But denial of a zone change will be
upheld if it is reasonably debatable,
although the record would support
such a change. Board of County
Comrs. v Farr, 242 Md 315, 218 A2d
923 (1966); Sanderson v Hattiesburg,
249 Miss 656, 163 So 2d 739 (1964).
Where the zoning ordinance was
void at inception for statutory non-
compliance, the challenger was not
precluded from maintaining an action
by his failure to make a timely appeal
of the board's action. Pyramid Corp. v
De Soto County Board of Supervisors,
366 F Supp 1299 (1973, DC Miss).
A zoning ordinance will not be de-
clared invalid solely on the ground
that there was insufficient evidence
adduced at the hearing before the
legislative body to support the mea-
sure. A hearing on a proposed zoning
ordinance is legislative in character.
Following the hearing, the legislative
body may consider matters not
brought up at the hearing in deter-
mining what legislation will serve the
public interest. Charlestown Home-
owners Asso. v La Coke, 507 SW2d
876, error ref n r e (1974, Tex Civ
App).
86. Zoning commission improperly
rezoned area from residential to com-
mercial, where applicant for the
change offered no testimony, where
evidence relied upon came from a
prior ex parte meeting by the commis-
sioners whose minutes were not intro-
duced, and where the basis for the
decision was unclear. Kloter v Zoning
Com. of Vernon, Fire Dist. 26 Conn
Supp 495, 227 A2d 563 (1967); Dade
County v Carmichael, 165 So 2d 227
(1964, Fla App); Montgomery County
Council v Kaslow, 235 Md 45, 200
A2d 184 (1964); Hedin v Board of
County Comrs. 209 Md 224, 120 A2d
663 (1956); Temmink v Board of Zon-
ing Appeals, 205 Md 489, 109 A2d 85
(1954).
87. National Transp. Co. v Toquet,
123 Conn 468, 196 A 344 (1937).
Where a statute requires that a
201
§ 4.12 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
where prejudice to a property owner is not shown."s Four days'
notice is not sufficient where 5 days are required;90 14 days'
notice fails to comply with a provision for 15 days' notices'
In computing the time between notice and hearing, the courts
of Connecticut" and Delaware"' have held that neither the date
of publication nor the date of hearing may be included. Presum-
ably, this rule will not obtain if a different local rule of construc-
tion requires that the day of publication be ignored but that the
day of hearing be included.
If the hearing is not held on the day set forth in the published
notice, a new notice apparently is required. Thus, where a
hearing was scheduled and a notice published in 1953, but the
hearing was not held until 1954, the subject ordinance was
invalid for failure to meet the notice requirement."'
On the other hand, failure to publish a timely notice due to an
error may be corrected through a rescheduling of the hearing."
Where a city ordinance imposes a more stringent notice require-
ment than is prescribed by the city charter, compliance with the
charter is sufficient.ss -
A municipal or,__..,ce which incorporates by reference the
thing be done "at least" or "not less
than" so many days before a fixed
time, it is meant that the given num-
ber of days must elapse between the
two terminal days and is applicable to
notice of change under zoning laws.
Carson v McDowell, 203 Kan 40, 452
P2d 828 (1969); Brown v Sperry, 23
Ohio App 2d 163, 52 Ohio Ops 2d 205,
261 NE2d 351 (1970).
Where ordinance requires notice of
a proposed zoning amendment to be
sent not more than 20 or less than 10
days before the hearing, to all land-
owners within 250 feet of the prem-
ises to be rezoned, failure to comply
renders the amendment inapplicable
to the complaining landowner. Si-
barco Stations, Inc. v Town Board of
Vestal, 29 App Div 2d 907, 288
NYS2d 8 (1968), app dismd 22 NY2d
668, 291 NYS2d 362, 238 NE2d 751,
revd on other grounds 24 NY2d 900,
301 NYS2d 637, 249 NE2d 478; Tru-
man v Irwin, 488 SW2d 907 (1972,
Tex Civ App).
202
88. See generally § 4.05, supra.
89. Kelly v Philadelphia, 382 Pa
439, 115 A2d 238 (1955).
90. Alderman v West Haven, 124
Conn 391, 200 A 330 (1938).
91. Island Park v J. E. B. Associ-
ates, Inc. 21 Misc 2d 249, 190 NYS2d
77 (1959).
92. Alderman v West Haven, 124
Conn 391, 200 A 330 (1938).
93. Ullman v Santow, 39 Del Ch
130, 160 A2d 582 (1960), remanded 39
Del Ch 427, 166 A2d 135 (Sup).
94. Taylor v Shetzen, 212 Ga 101,
90 SE2d 572 (1955).
95. Kershaw v Upper Merion Tp.,
26 Pa D & C2d 243, 79 Montg Co LR
50961).
96. Kelly v Philadelphia, 382 Pa
439, 115 A2d 238 (1955).
notice provision!
rates subsequen
tion of the notix
tion of the notie
ordinance passe
upheld."'
§ 4.13. Publicat
Nearly all of
ment that a ni
ordinance be p
general circuldi
more than onei
notice be main
concerned with
the state has r%
city, at least a
addresses of afl
actual n,
97. 2525 East A
33 Misc 2d 102E
(1962), affd 17 Al
NYS2d 759.
See also Old W*
Misc 47, 83 NYSA
98. See general]
sweig, Planning,;
a summary of sta
States, Chart No:.
See Northern
Ramapo, 26 NYt
286, 259 NE2d 72
99. Helms v Ch
122 SE2d 817, 96.
Where the st:
"notice . . . shall
of a legal adverti
a newspaper .. .
lication in each c
different dates '
Acres, Inc. v L
Hartford, 163 Cc
(1972).
1. A Texas S
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.13
notice provisions of the State Zoning Enabling Act also incorpo-
rates subsequent amendments to such act. Accordingly, a reduc-
tion of the notice period imposed by statute will effect a reduc-
tion of the notice period required by the ordinance, and a zoning
ordinance passed after statutory notice has been given will be
upheld.97
§ 4.13. Publication or service of notice.
Nearly all of the state zoning enabling acts include a require-
ment that a notice of a public hearing on a proposed zoning
ordinance be published in an official paper or a newspaper of
general circulation in the municipality.98 Some statutes require
more than one publication." Statutes in some states require that
notice be mailed to property owners,' or to municipal officials
concerned with the measure under consideration .2 Even where
the state has required only notice by publication be given by the
city, at least one court has held that where the names and
addresses of affected lands. are known, "due process man-
dates actual notice to the parties.3 In addition, some enabling
97. 2525 East Ave., Inc. v Brighton,
33 Misc 2d 1029, 228 NYS2d 209
(1962), affd 17 App Div 2d 908, 233
NYS2d 759.
See also Old Westbury v Foster, 193
Misc 47, 83 NYS2d 148 (1948).
98. See generally Anderson and Ro-
sweig, Planning, Zoning, Subdivision:
a summary of statutory law in the 50
States, Chart No. 2 p 186 (1966).
See Northern Operating Corp. v
Ramapo, 26 NY2d 404, 311 NYS2d
286, 259 NE2d 723 (1970).
99. Helms v Charlotte, 255 NC 647,
122 SE2d 817, 96 ALR2d 439 (1961).
Where the statute provided that
"notice . .. shall be given in the form
of a legal advertisement appearing in
a newspaper ... at least twice," pub
lication in each of two newspapers on
different dates is sufficient. Jarvis
Acres, Inc. v Zoning Com. of East
Hartford, 163 Conti 41, 301 A2d 244
(1972)
requires that notice of hearing be
mailed to property owners within 200
feet of a proposed zone change. Ver-
non Tex Anno Rev Civ Stat § 101lf.
Lawton v Austin, 404 SW2d 648
(1966, Tex Civ App), error ref n r e.
Where the legislative intent was to
give each voter in the municipality an
opportunity to study the proposed
zoning plan before voting on it, mail-
ing a single copy to "Mr. and Mrs." in
the case of husband and wife was
substantial compliance with the stat-
ute which required an individual let-
ter to each voter. Milton v Le Claire,
129 Vt 495, 282 A2d 834 (1971).
See also Wanamaker v El Monte,
200 Cal App 2d 453, 19 Cal Rptr 554
(1962); Dent v Kansas City, 214 Kan
257, 519 P2d 704 (1974).
2. Bohan v Southampton, 227
NYS2d 712 (1962, Sup).
3. American Oil Corp. v Chicago, 29
1. A Texas statute, for example, Ill App 3d 988, 331 NE2d 67 (1975).
203
I
§ 4.13 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
acts require that the subject land be posted.' Personal service of
notice upon affected property owners usually is not required.'
And where a statute required a mailing as well as a, publication
of notice to parties affected by the proposed ordinance, the
former was held to apply only to ordinances of limited applica-
tion, not to those affecting the entire municipality."
As is true of procedural requirements generally,' the require-
ments for publication, service, and posting are mandatory; fail-
ure substantially to comply with them results in an invalid
ordinance." Commenting on a statutory requirement that notice
be given in a specific manner, an Arizona court said: "Such a
rule is no mere `legal technicality,' rather it is a fundamental
safeguard assuring each citizen that he will be afforded due
process of law.
A requirement that notice be published in a newspaper is not
met by informal news items which inform readers of the hear-
ing, where no paid legal notices are published.10 The legislative
authority of a municipality will be regarded as having satisfied
the requirement that notice be pu r a. where its minutes
disclose that notice was published in its official organ." Publica-
tion in a newspaper, rather than in an official organ of the
municipality, is adequate, and an enabling act which permits
4. Barrett v Daffron, 126 Ga App
601, 191 SE2d 494 (1972); Baker v
Montgomery County Council, 241 Md
178, 215 A2d 831 (1966); Lima v Rob-
ert Slocum Enterprises, Inc. 38 App
Div 2d 503, 331 NYS2d 51 (1972).
Where posting in lieu of publication
is authorized by the enabling act, an
ordinance is valid without publica-
tion, the notice of hearing having
been posted in three places. Medina v
Rose, 69 Wash 2d 448, 418 P2d 462
(1966), amd 422 P2d 822 (Wash).
5. Elgar v S. H. Kress & Co. 280
App Div 621, 116 NYS2d 527 (1952),
app dismd 308 NY 767, 125 NE2d
115, vacated 308 NY 773, 125 NE2d
162, reed on other grounds 308 NY
533, 127 NE2d 325; Cohen v Valley
Stream, 23 Misc 2d 1017, 189 NYS2d
110 (1959).
204
6. Wanamaker v City Cou Cil of El
Cal
Monte, 200 Cal App
d
Rptr 554 (1962).
7. § 4.03, supra.
8. Gendron v Naugatuck, 21 Conn
Supp 78, 144 A2d 818 (1958); Bal
Harbour Village v Sete' 299 den So So
611 (1974, Fla App),
2d 670 (Fla); Addis v Smith, 226 Ga
894, 178 SE2d 191 (1970); Carson v
McDowell, 203 Kan 40, 452 P2d 828
(1969); Bowling Green -Warren County
Airport Board v Long, 364
(1962, Ky)•
9. Hart v Bayless Invest. & Trading
Co. 86 Ariz 379, 346 P2d 1101 (19519).
10. Gendron v Naugatuck, 21 Conn
Supp 78, 144 A2d 818 (1958).
11. Old Westbury v Foster, 193 Misc
47, 83 NYS2d 148 (1948).
such publicati
process of lav
tion in the r
circulation is
the municipd'
Failure to 9
official may }
ordinance. 'Il
legislative aj
enabling act
by proposedz
Where the
been met, th
because son
hearing.16 At
act are met
may be regi
although th,
§ 4.14. Corit
A notice
12. Notice t
lative of due i,,
v Waite, 230
(1973), cert d)
2d 59, 94 S G
Realty Co. 2:
(1956).
Statutory 1
notice of the
ing on any F
or repeal a a
by publicatix
eral circul9'
week for th7
to the date (
be interprd
weeks to in
of the firs
change in
date of the
of the notiO
the three o
the hearing
v Faria, l)
(1973).
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.14
such publication does not deny to affected property owners due
process of law." Publication in a newspaper of general circula-
tion in the municipality is sufficient even though the paper's
circulation is small in relation to the total number of persons in
the municipality."
Failure to give required notice to a municipality or municipal
official may be regarded as fatal to the validity of a zoning
ordinance. Thus, a zoning ordinance wath ldprovision where
the
he
legislative authority did not comply
enabling act that municipalities wnotifithin 500 feet of land affected
by proposed zone changes be
Where the publication requirements of the enabling act have
been met, the resulting ordinance will not be. held invalid simply
because some of the property owners failed to learn of the
hearing.'s And if the mandatory requirements of the enabling
act are met, additional directory,uiremenand an ordinancedby ordinance
may be upheld
may be regarded a
although the local requirements were not met."
§ 4.14. Contents of notice.
A notice of hearing will be reviewed not only to determine
12. Notice by publication is not vio-
lative of due process. F. P. Plaza, Inc.
v Waite, 230 Ga 161, 196 SE2d 141
den 414 US B 2d 59, 94 SCt 129; Orrv H peville
Realty Co. 212 Ga 649, 94 SE2d 682
(1956).
Statutory language requiring that
notice of the time and place of hear-
ing on any petition to enact, amend
or repeal a zoning ordinance be given
by publication in a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation at least once each
week for three successive weeks prior
to the date of such hearing, is not to
be interpreted as requiring three
weeks to intervene between the date
of the first notice of a proposed
change in zoning ordinance and the
date of the hearing. One appearance
of the notice of the hearing in each of
the three calendar weeks preceding
the hearing date is sufficient. Sullivan
v Faria, 112 RI 132, 308 A2d 473
(1973).
13. Corpus Christi v Jones, 144
SW2d 388 (1940, Tex Civ App), error
dismd.
14. Bohan v Southampton,
2
NYS2d 712 (1962, Sup); Marcus v
v
Spring Valley, 24 App
Div 265 NYS2d 985 (1965).
Where the city gave 17 days notice
prior to the enactment of a compre-
hensive zoning code and subsequent
ordinance, which reenacted several
previous ordinances, the publisheno-
tice of hearing cure n
the previous zoning ordinances.Wil-
liam
s
Murray Builders, Inc. v Jackson-
ville, 254 So 2d 364 (1971, Fla App).
15. Braden v Much, 403 I11 507, 87
NE2d 620 (1949); Helms v Charlotte,
255 NC 647, 122 SE2d 817, 96 ALR2d
439 (1961); Blankenship v Richmond,
188 Va 97, 49 SE2d 321 (1948).
16. Pumo v Norristown Borough,
404 Pa 475, 172 A2d 828 (1961).
205
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.11
,as al- as to zoning is left to the legislature. Houston v Board of City
Vosal Comrs., 218 Kan 323, 543 P2d 1010 (1975).
A2d A municipal ordinance giving a city council authority to pass
a zoning regulation without planning board approval was con -
the trolling notwithstanding an ordinance requiring planning board
pears approval of proposed rezonings prior to submission to the city
1980 council. Szyszkoski v Lansing, 64 Mich App 94, 235 NW2d 72
(1975).
Where state statute relegates the city planning commission to
wring an advisory capacity, legislative acts of the commission are
!ct to annulled. Thus amending an ordinance and granting a condi-
ive a tional use permit were acts not within the power of the planning
of a commission. Link v Coos Bay, 23 Or App 648, 543 P2d 1082
the (1975).
P2d "The purpose of requiring submission to the planning commis-
sion is to give the legislative body the advantage of the commis-
!e of sion's expertise on land use planning with respect to the pro-
f of • posal that it must either adopt or reject." Wilgus v Murfrees-
tion boro, 532 SW2d 50 (1975, Tenn App).
Ga Under Texas law a municipality may not delegate its legisla-
tive power to amend a zoning ordina-- - - ` a planning commis-
sion. Thus an ordinance requiring a ,,,,.tee -fourths vote by the
city council to override a planning commission recommendation
is an invalid delegation of power and also places an undue
burden upon property owners. San Antonio v Lanier, 542 SW2d
232 (1976, Tex Civ App).
The Planning Commission's role is often advisory in nature
on and the legislative body is not required to follow its recommen-
he dations. In such schemes, the purpose for Planning Commission
►es review and report is . to provide the legislative body with the
,w benefit of expert planning opinion and once this opinion has
48 been given, there is no need to refer a proposal back to the
commission where the legislative decision is adverse to its rec-
ommendations. Pruden v Trabits, 370 NE2d 959 (1977, Ind App).
A statute which requires a local legislature to submit its
initial comprehensive zoning ordinance to a planning board for
.s recommendation, applies equally to a subsequent comprehensive
o revision of the ordinance. George v Edenton (1978) 294 NC 679,
9 242 SE2d 877.
e D. NOTICE AND HEARING
P
§ 4.11. Generally.
1 A public hearing required prior to enactment of a zoning
105
§ 4.11 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
REPEAL OF
amendment "provides a forum for the expression of public
building at 415 N. Venice
opinion and also affords to persons who own land which will be
content to comply with 1
affected by the proposal an opportunity formally to protest and
due process requirements
to appear and present their views against the adoption of the
thereby put on inquiry a
proposed measure." Schaus v Town Board of Clifton Park, 83
Kennedy v South Coast
Misc 2d 726, 372 NYS2d 952 (1975); citing Anderson, American
Com., 68 Cal App 3d 660,1
Law of Zoning § 4.11 (1968).
The notice provisions of
Revamping of zoning legislation meets the requirements of
the notice be published in
due process if adequate notice of a public hearing on the specific
the notice only to utilitil
changes is given. Golden Gate Corp. v Narragansett, 359 A2d
enia o ue process or ec
321 (1976, RI).
7Fi' App 188, 254 NW
Restriction on parties to presentation of direct and rebuttal
A statewide planning i,
evidence before the county board of commissioners in a proceed-
public hearings precedinj
ing to amend the county's comprehensive plan satisfied proce-
plans and implementatio
dural due process requirements. South of Sunnyside Neighbor-
retroactively to invalidat
hood League v Board of Comrs., 559 P2d 512 (1977, Or App);
zoning ordinance. Schmi8
citing, Anderson, American Law of Zoning.
Com., 29 Or App 665, 564
"[A] zoning ordinance which does not comply with the zoning
A zoning ordinance ait
requirements is void." Southside Civic Asso. v Guaranty Say.
by the submission of a sae
Assur. Co., 329 So 2d 767 (1976, La revd (La) 339 So 2d
Department and the Cit
323.
authorized to impose ogn
An amendment is invalid if the notice requirements were not
the uses specified and tle
substantially met notwithstanding that a hearing was held and
I was required to be entm
that several hundred people attended it. Melville v Salt Lake
that where a landowner c
County, 536 P2d 133 (1975, Utah).
( construct 83 condominiu
Failure of notice was fundamental error cognizable on appeal
units was a zone chang
notice and hearing. Nesh
despite the parties' failurQto-raise it_.Skaggs-v-Ke_v West, 312 So
2d 549 (1975, Fla A
P2d 1340.
eq
Where the hearing reg
a
resolution of the zoning commission declaring a mora rium
more stringent the
on the acceptance of zoning permit applications was illegal and
Municipalities Planning
of no effect since the resolution was adopted without noti e to
controlling. Swinehart v
e public and without a hearing. St ex rel. Brodie v owers,
1 n 147 362 A2d 884 (1975
405 (1976).
The section of a zonin
Pursuant to city ordinance, authority of Planning and Zoning
and a new hearing for st
Board exceeds that of a recommendatory body; due process
ment were held inapplic
under city charter and ordinance requires that Board grant
sion in a proposed zoni
notice and opportunity to be heard, to an affected landowner, of
ready present during th
a hearing to consider rezoning of property. Gulf & Eastern
was amended. Fassman
Development Corp. v Ft. Lauderdale, 354 So 2d 57 (1978, Fla).
336.
A Notice for a public hearing in response to a request for a
City ordinances estab
special permit "to permit construction of an 8-unit apartment
were invalid and could r
106
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.11
' public
building at 415 N. Venice Boulevard" was deemed sufficient in
will be
content to comply with the statutory requirement. It satisfied
,est and
due process requirements since the recipient of such notice was
� of the
thereby put on inquiry as to any further information needed.
ark, 83
Kennedy v South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation
nerican
Com., 68 Cal App 3d 660, 137 Cal Rptr 396 (1977).
The notice provisions of the state enabling act, requiring that
ents of
the notice be published in a newspaper, and reauidpg-mailing of
specific
the notice only to utilities and railroads, did not constitute a
59 A2d
enia o ue process or equa protection. Karpenko v Southfield,
7 h'App 188, 254 NW2d 839 (1977).
,ebuttal
A statewide planning goal adopted in 1974 which required
iroceed-
public hearings preceding governmental adoption of land use
proce-
plans and implementation of ordinances could not be applied
ighbor-
retroactively to invalidate decisions made under the 1968 city
r App);
zoning ordinance. Schmidt v Land Conservation & Development
Com., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977).
zoning
A zoning ordinanc `.'-iorized the creation of SU-1 districts
,y Say.
by the submission of a specific development plan to the Planning
So 2d
Department and the City Commission. The Commission was
authorized to impose conditions; the landowner was limited to
ire not
the uses specified and the conditions imposed; the district change
!ld and
was required to be entered on the zoning map. The court held
t Lake
that where a landowner obtained a change to an SU-1 district to
construct 83 condominiums, a change to permit 287 apartment
appeal
units was a zone change subject to statutory requirements of
notice and hearing. Nesbit v Albuquerque (1977) 91 NM 455, 575
312 So
P2d 1340.
Where the hearing requirements for a zoning amendment are
riurn
more stringent in the local ordinance than in the Pennsylvania
al and
ti
Municipalities Planning Code, the provisions of the latter are
-i I to �
controlling. Swinehart v Borough of Pottstown, 1 Pa D & C3d
405 (1976).
The section of a zoning ordinance which required new notice
mooning
and a new hearing for substantial changes in a proposed amend-
)rocess
ment were held inapplicable where the change involved a provi-
grant I
sion in a proposed zoning ordinance and the plaintiff was al-
ter, of
ready present during the public meeting at which the proposal
astern
was amended. Fassman v Skrocki (1978, Pa Cmwlth) 390 A2d
[a)'
336.
for a
City ordinances establishing supplemental floodway districts
tment
were invalid and could not be enforced against property owners
107
§ 4.11 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
conducting landfill operations due to the fact that the city did
not follow statutory notice requirements. Morland Development
Co. v Tulsa (1979, Okla) 596 P2d 1255.
It was improper for the city council to rezone land from
residential to industrial without giving public notice of the
hearing. Cowan v Gulf City Fisheries, Inc. (1980, Miss) 379 So 2d
524.
A town board may convene in executive session to discuss
pending legislation, but such a session must be called by a
resolution identifying the subject matter, and passed by a major-
ity of the membership. Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., Cobleskill
(1981) 111 Misc 2d 303, 444 NYS2d 44.
The proposed amendment to change plaintiffs district from
"commercial and residential" use to "commercial and indus-
trial" use is invalid due to the towns failure to meet the
statutory requirement of holding at least one public hearing
prior to final action. Kalakowski v Clarendon (1981) 139 Vt 519,
431 A2d 478.
Notice and hearing requirements of the Planning Enabling
Act do not apply to emergency zoning measures designed to
preserve the status quo pending the adoption of or amendments
to comprehensive zoning plans. Jablinske v Snohomish County
(1981) 28 Wash App 848, 626 P2d 543.
Where notice provisions of a county zoning resolution are
more stringent than those prescribed by due process the county
provisions must be followed. Therefore, a governmental agency
in rezoning must strictly comply with the notice requirements in
the zoning ordinances. South Jonesboro Civic Asso. v Thornton
(1981) 248 Ga 65, 281 SE2d 507.
Ordinance rezoning property owners' parcel from commercial
to residential adopted by the city was invalid where the property
owners' timely and specifically objected to the notice as being
inadequate and showed prejudice in being unable to prepare,
verify, and file a counterpetition. Ft. Pierce v Davis (1981, Fla
App D4) 400 So 2d 1242.
The city's failure to give notice or hold any public hearing
before receiving the ordinance and having its first reading
rendered the ordinance invalid as a matter of law. Grady v St.
Albans, 297 SE2d 424 (1982, W Va).
"California views zoning ordinances as legislative while vari-
ances and subdivision map approvals are adjudicative; therefore,
adequate protection under state and federal constitutional re-
108
REPEAL(
quirements is fulfilled*
by the provisions for tl
ing•" Gilliland v County
Cal Rptr 73 (1981, 2d D
Ct 2227.
Failure to give prol
reclassification of land i
may be challenged in a
tory appeal. Cavallaro
A2d 1042 (1983).
A provision in a tow
to adopt emergency M,
effective date of ordin
permit the Council to
and hearing r qu SE2�
Falcun Corp.,
306 An ordinance is ins
was not adoptP(i aftO
provisions of
Pa Cmwlth 122, 456 A
Under county code }
ing, county council n
sectional or district zz
the record produced
plan. JMC Constr. G
456 A2d 931 (1983).
§ 4.12. Timeliness of
Where ordinance
published in a new
notice was first publi
failure to comply w
rezoning. TimelinesE
requirement which i
to landowner is sho
SE 2d 695 (1976); c
§ 4.12.
Zoning ordinance
of public hearing v
town zoning ordinz
SE2d 695 (1976) cer
A statute that rF
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.12
is ty uncil
nacted by the land ohear-
the city did
quirements is fulfilled
foor the landownershen zoning
f tohave notice
)evelopment
by the provisions
ing•" Gilliland v County of Los Angeles,Cal 3d 610, 179
1262 L Edp2d d 6 , S
land from
Cal Rptr 73 (1981, 2d Dist) app
)tice of the
s) 379 So 2d
Ct 2227. proposed
Failure to give proper notice of a hearing on a
esulting action
reclassification oeaa ri asseparatelactionl withoutRtaking a statu-
be challeng Conn 746, 462
e to discuss
may
tory appeal. Cavallaro v Town of Durham, 190
called by a
by a major-
A2d 1042 (1983).
in a town charter which enabled a Town Council
�., Cobleskill
A provision the
res was limited to acceleration
measunot
d
istrict from
to adopt emergency
effective date of ordinances. The emergency provisions
to adopt ordinances without following notice
and indus-
permit the Council
and hearing requirements as prescribed in the charter. Vinton v
meet the
o hearing
Falcun Corp., 306 SE2d 867 (1983, Va).
is invalid which regulates the use of land, but
139 Vt �� Q
An ordinance
was not adopted
608 sand c Edgeworthompliance wv Mace notice
609ntial
PaCfter
of PM §§
ig Enabling
designed to
provisions
Pa Cmwlth 122, 456 A2d 682 (1983).
as part of comprehensive reoove
amendments
Under county code provisions,
ing, county council may, with or without modification, app
the evidence of
nish County
sectional or district zoning amendments based on
of approval of the master
volution are
the record produced in the process
plan. JMC Constr. Corp. v Montgomery County, 54 Md App 1,
the county
456 A2d 931 (1983).
!ntal agency
zirements in
v Thornton
§ 4.12. Timeliness of notice. to be
required notice of publlichearing
commercial (
Where ordinance and the
published in a newspapehearings
r 15 days prior
12 days before the Town's
the hearing,
first
the property ►
Ice as being (
notice was published
failure to comply with the notice requirement invalidated the
is a mandatory
to prepare, {
Fla
rezoning. Timeliness of notice in zoning matters
requirement which is strictly construed even where no raj ice
NC App 30
s (1981,
to landowner is shown. George v Edenton, 31
American Law of Zoning
blic hearing
SE 2d 695 (1976); citing 1 Anderson,
xst reading
Grady v St.
§ 4.12.
Zoning ordinance held invalid because only twelve days notice
hearing was given instead of fifteen as requir6ed b48,
of public App 230
town zoning de
while vari-
e; therefore,
76cert 92rNC 2 4, 233 SE2d 391.
SE2d 695 (19 ) gr 2
to give ten days
itutional re- i
A statute that required the plan commission
109
§ 4.12 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
REPEAL OF X
prior notice of a public hearing considering a petition for reclas-
enacted without In
I
sification did not require that the reclassification petition and
nances
ribed regulations are
Markets v Dorn
preliminary plans be filed ten days prior to the public hearing.
Schererville g
Vavrus
iant Super
385 So 2d 274.
v (1979, Ind App) 389 NE2d 346.
Cert den (La)
where county planning
§ 4.13. Publication or service of notice.
notice of a hearing on prom
Where four publications of notice are required, a single publi-
other than county seat, in a
but faile
cation is not substantial compliance. Melville v Salt Lake
the county seat,
of general circd
County, 536 P2d 133 (1975, Utah).
newspaper
void. Mclnty,
The notice provisions of the state enabling act requiring that
changes are
the notice be published in a newspaper and re requiring mailing of
pq g
317, 620 P2d 696.
the notice only to utilities and railroads, did not constitute a
c
City ordinance prohibit
of designP
denial of due process or equal protection. Karpenko v Southfield,
outside
dwelling ordin
75 Mich App 188, 254 NW2d 839 (1977).
provided that every
newsp
The requirement that written notice of a proposed zoning
time in the official
Wichita
amendment be given to the clerk of an adjoining town under
never published.
Tex Civ App 2d Dig
certain circumstances is mandatory. Substantial compliance is
(1980,
ordinance wift
not effected by written notice directed generally to the town.
A zoning
in writing ant
Atiyeh v North Hills, 91 Misc 2d 365) 398 NYS2,i 1-05 (1977).
was not
was not publidc!
An amendment to a city zoning ordinance vc______ extended the
ordinance
Associates, T
city's zoning authority one mile beyond the city limits was
M. Freeman
invalid because the ordinance was not amended in compliance
Sup)•
amendment iito
with the enabling statutes in that: 1) the notice of the amend-
A zoning
of heari>!l.
ment did not give any warning to landowners outside the city
post notice
residents ok.
limits what the subject of the proposed amendment was; 2) the
me
that some
So 2d 1`t
boundries of the newly zoned areas were inadequately described
Marksville,
and; 3) time limits for posting notice of hearings were not
Due process oes not nE
to a pr qr-
complied with. Sellers v Asheville, 33 NC App 544, 236 SE2d 283
land subject
hearing "
(1977).
notified of a
County of Will,
Where defendant did not give any notice to plaintiff that it
Bank v
891 (1983).
was changing zoning nor did it hold a hearing to consider
2d
advisibility of such a change, adoption of general annual zoning
b defendant
of noti
notice Y g
village five months after purported reverter
§ 4.14. Contents
did not operate to reclassify plaintiff's property, even though
A notice that there %%
ordinance included an official zoning map showing that property
a less restrictive md'
was rezoned. Kamysz v Wheeling (978) 65 Ill App 3d 629, 22 Ill
Dec 29, 382 NE2d
where the property in
classificaf;
349.
multi -family
Before rezoning a tract of land by amendment, notice must be
sification. Southside Ci
given to the adjoining landowners as required by an ordinance.
So 2d 767 (1976, La Ali
I
Lee v Simpson (1980, NC App) 261 SE2d 295.
A notice of heari,T
Where comprehensive zoning ordinance requires public notice
disclose some of the ii
of proposed changes to be published at specified intervals, ordi-
posed amendment an
110
REPEAL OF ZONING ORDINANCES § 4.14
nances enacted without prior public notice pursuant to the
prescribed regulations are not Donelon (1980, Lae. Schwegmann App) 383 So 2dB
Giant Super Markets v 433,
cert den (La) 385 So 2d 274. and zoning commission published
Where county planning changes affecting an area
notice of a hearing on proposed zoning
other than county seat, in a newspaper of general circulation in
the county seatbut failed to publish a general notice in a
, the area
newspaper of general circ 1tv M affected
Mohave Countyy(1980) 127 Ariz
changes are void. McIntyre
3171 620 P2d 696.
City ordinance prohibiting the use of a mobile home as a
dwelling outside of designatedordinance shall be published at t
y charter
provided that every ord least one
time in the official newspaper of the city and such notice was
never published. Wichita Dalls607 Sv L. J. & Frances Streetman
(1980, Tex Civ App 2d Dist)
A zoning ordinance was invalid
notification proposed
the ordinance
was not in writingers. Carl
ordinance was not published in all the county newspap
or Freeman Associates, Inc. v Green, 447 A2d 1179 (1982, Del
led
Sup).
A zoning amendment is invalid where the municipality
unotwithstanding
icfai
to post notires residents hearing
obtained required
by publication. Tassin v
that some
Marksville, 411 So 2d 1240 1982 La A
Due process oes not require that an owner of land adersonall
land subject to a proposed zoning amendment be personally
notified of a hearing on the Amen amendment.
68 Ill Dec 247Boulevard44
Bank v County of Will, 112 I PP
NF.2d 891 (1983).
§ 4.14. Contents of notice.
A notice that there wOUld be famil a classification change from awasg inadequate
a less restrictive multle-family to
i Ythe
where the property in question we amorenre tractive clas-
multi-family classification was therefora
sification. Southside Civic Ass . v Guaranty
n 2d ay. Assur. Co., 32
So 2d 767 (1976, La App), revd
A notice of hearing is fatally defective where it fails r o
disclose some of the property which will be sff ected b matter
posed amendment and does not accurately i l l
l
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Municipal Code Amendments: Public Hearing Requirements
DATE: August 6, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recc vends-t+mrt�-the Planning and Zoning
Commission to recommend that City 'ouncil t=a approve the following
code amendments:
1. To require that public hearing notice be given for sub-
division and PUD conceptual presentation before City
Council.
2. To change the public hearing notification requirements as
they apply to condominium unit owners such that instead of
notice being given to the condominium managers it would be
given directly to the owners themselves.
3. Applicants for land use reviews are required to supply the
Planning Office with the names of property owners entitled
to be notified on pre -addressed envelopes.
BACKGROUND: Over the last year several issues regarding public
hearing notification have been raised. The Planning Office would like
to bring all of these issues before you at one time in order to make
the appropriate code amendments to alleviate the confusion over
public hearing notification requirements.
ISSUE 1 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Public hearing notice for subdivision and
PUD conceptual presentation before City Council.
At the end of the discussion of the amended SPA Ordinance on June 24,
1985, City Council passed a motion to direct staff to prepare code
amendments making conceptual subdivision and PUD review by Council a
public hearing. The amended SPA Ordinance requires that Council hold
a public hearing during the concep ial plan review (Section 24-7.3 (c)
of the Municipal Code). Council Alt that similar requirements for
conceptual subdivision and PUD i.:view woulc be more consistent and
provide a useful opportunity for Council to make a more thorough
review of proposals at an early stage.
Under current code provisions no public hearing is held until a
Preliminary Plat or PUD plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. This means that an applicant undertakes the major effort
in developing a preliminary plan before adjacent property owners and
other interested parties, of the public are officially involved in the
review process. This is potentially unfair to both the applicant and
members of the public. The applicant could have made a considerable
investment in the project design while unaware that members of the
public would oppose the project in part or in entirety. Conversely,
interested members of the public may feel that they were left out of
the process until the time when a project has been designed, given
initial approvals, and in a sense, gathered momentum.
ISSUE 1 RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A. "Move to recommend that City Council amend the first
sentence of Section 20-10 (d) to read as follows: (new
language is bolded, old language is crossed out).
t
"Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
Planning Commission recommendation and at a
��� eec�t���r--meetrrrg public hearing noticed according
to the standards of Section 20-13, the City
Council shall approve, conceptual presentation."
B. "Move to recommend that City Council amend the first
sentence of Section 24-8.8 to read as follows: (new language
is bolded, old language is crossed out)
"Section 24--8. S Conc:ept val presentation -- City
Council revi-eve public hearing.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
planning commission recommendation and at a
>`egt�l-a-r--nr�c�rrrg public hearing noticed according
to the standards nf Section 24-8.10, the city
council shall apprc disapprove, or approve with
modifications the c ceptual presentation.
ISSUES 2 AND 3 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Public hearing notification
requirements as they apply to condominium owners.
The following language either appears in or is referred to in seven
separate sections of the Municipal Code with regards to public hearing
notification requirements:
"Owners of residential multi -family condominium units may be
served by mailing sufficient copies of any such required
notice (one for each owner) to the recorded address for
Sh v their homeowners' association."
Q�
Several condominium association managers have questioned the appro-
priateness and legality of this special provision applied to condo-
minium complexes. Their arguments are summarized below:
a. Under current code provisions, the condominium association
manager is placed in the position of 1) deciding whether an
Lr };#,44c•, issue is important enough to send out notices of public
hearings to condominium owners, and 2) finding the current
P addresses of the condominium owners. It is argued that
�PA-64 p+rst neither responsibility should be delegated by local govern-
ment to these individuals.
P.tb. In the case that there is a change in management companies
for a condominium association and the new company fails to
•�'�;�vie ►„P receive notification, '-hen all of the condominium owners
would also fail to recei ! notification.
C. The time and money incurred by the association manager
handling notification are alleged to be an unfair burden by
some of the managers.
d. There may be a statutory requirement for cities to notify
L-Ryi1AI all property owners, not discriminating between multi -family
condominium owners and other property owners.
The Planning Office contacted some seven condominium association
managers, a title company and the County Assessor's Office to find out
if they believe the proposed code amendments would be a benefit or
diservice to the public. The majority of persons spoken with felt
that the proposed code amendment to delete the above language would
not be a public benefit. The reasons are summarized as follows:
a. Condominium associations in Aspen generally have articles of
incorporation or by-law: tbz,t c?efi.ri(, the management
company's responsibilities with respect to notification.
The notification process has worked effectively through the
delegation of this task to the management companies.
b. The ability of the condominium manager to discern which
issues really effect the interests of the condo owners and
which issues are inconsequential can save a lot of unneces-
E
2
sary mailing.
c. The local condo manager is more likely to perceive the
significance of a proposal and attend the public hearing
than an out-of-town condo owner.
d. The assessor's records of property owners are some times
out-of-date or inaccurate; and the condo association is in a
better position to know how to communicate with condo
owners.
e. Inaccuracies in the list of addresses could invalidate the
public hearing.
f. The additional expenses and time required by the proposed
amendment would burden the applicant, the Assessor's Office,
and the Planning Office. Non-compliance on the part of the
applicant could be the result.
In a memorandum dated July 30, 1985, the City Attorney reviewed State
Statutes, caselaw, and the American Law of Zoning to analyze this
issue. while he could not determine from his research that the City
is clearly required by Statute to notify all property owners, he
recommended in favor of the code amendment. He reasoned that "the
proposed Aspen Code Amendment woul establish the benefit of any doubt
in favor of due process."
In a conversation with the Pitkin County Assessor on July 30, 1985 it
was stated that while the office is over -worked at the present time,
it is willing to supply the names and addresses of property owners
entitled to notification including condo owners upon request.
The Planning Office considers due process to be the most important
issue in this consideration of thE� code amendment. while the notifi-
cation process undoubtedly will become somewhat more complicated and
expensive than at present, the condominium owner public would not be
treated differently than other property owners, and consequently
would be more fairly served. Most of the arguments against the code
amendment are made in terms of convenience or the ascribed capabil-
ities of the management company to handle public notification in a
better manner than what is the general system of notification require-
ments. Neither argument should outweigh due process and statutory
requirements.
Code Amendment 3 would require the applicant to supply to the Planning
Office the names of entitled property owners (owners of property
either adjacent to the subject property or within 300 feet, depending
on, the action) on pre -addressed at_a 7 envelopes, w;th the r - urn
e_ It is felt
that tIds is a reasonable responsibility of the applicant; and it
would reduce some of the additional work created by Code Amendment 2.
The argument that there would be a greater chance for inaccuracies in
addresses that may invalidate the public hearing is of some concern.
The statutory language specifying ie acceptable sources of names and
addresses (C. R. S. 31-23-215) is pi posed to be added to the Municipal
Code to better guide the applicant in preparing valid lists of
property owners.
Furthermore, the Planning Office feels that it is important to keep
the language of all public notification requirements consistent for
the sake of simplicity. Therefore, each of the five amended sections
would read the same in this respect.
ISSUES 2 AND 3 RECOMMENDATION: The following language should replace
the existing language regarding public notice to property owners
adjacent to or within 300 feet of the subject property:
"A list of names and addresses of all property owners (adjacent
Lk"��"5t d`' to/within 300 feet of the property shall be supplied as they
3
__ I
appear upon plats or records in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office and as their most recent addresses; may al:pear
in a telephone or other directory of general use or the tax
records of Fitkir, 1%1 licants shall supply these names to
the Planning Office on pre add ressedR -pe-d envelopes.w4t-
P A P l +az� i n �r !� f t �.n r r.�� �� r •+ � A r3_r. p ��,r ,"
L
This new language would appear in the following sections of the Code:
• Section 20-13 (a) Preliminary Plat Public Hearing (adjacent
property owners) .
• Section 24-8.10 (a) Preliminary PUD Plan Public Hearing
(adjacent property owners) .
• Section 24-7.5 (b) Precise SPA Development Plan Public
Hearing (property owners within 300 feet) .
• Section 2-22 (c) (1) and (2) Use and Non -Use Variance
Public Hearings (property owners within 300 feet) .
• Section 24-12.3 (c) (2) Zoning Code Amendment Public
Hearing (property owners within 300 feet) .
Noted in parenthesis above are the groups of property owners entitled
to public hearing notification for each section of the Municipal Code.
SB . 9
4
%6 .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
RE: Lee Miller Letter
DATE: June 24, 1985
INTRODUCTION
Please reference my May 7, 1985 memorandum addressing two bills from
Lee Miller. I received a call from Lee Miller today inquiring about
the status of the attached bills.
BAC RG ROUND
I spoke with Lee Miller at the end of April concerning procedures for
public notice. At that time I indicated to Lee it was likely that the
City would be considering a code amendment to change the existing
public notice procedures. Lee was very upset with the existing
procedures due to the costs incurred by his property management office
for delivering public notices.
During my discussions with Lee he indicated to me that Bill Stirling
had led him to believe that the City of Aspen would reimburse him for
his mailing costs. I discussed Lee's comments with Bill Stirling.
Bill said that he would like to reimburse Lee and would try to work
something out when we received a statement from Lee.
On May 7, 1985 I forwarded Lee's statements to Mayor Stirling request-
ing advise concerning the matter. I have not heard anything from Bill
yet. Today Lee Miller called to inquire about the status of the
unpaid bills.
It appears that we have placed ourselves in an awkward position based
upon the public hearing procedures in the City of Aspen Municipal
Code. Section 20-13 of the Code indicates that "owners of multi-
family condominium units may be served by mailing sufficient copies of
such required notice to the record address of their Homeowners
Association fifteen days (15) prior to the hearing date. " The
Planning Office always notifies condominium management companies of
impending public hearings. Generally, the management company is the
only legal address of multi -family units provided to our office by
applicants. There is no authority given within the Code to reimburse
one management company for their notification costs and not others.
Janet Raczak made a few phone calls to management companies in the
Aspen area in order to determine whether or not the public notice
requests made of property management companies are unreasonable.
Attached is a memorandum from Janet documenting the results of her
survey. Based upon Janet's limited research, it does not appear that
other management companies in the community find the public notice
system to be as burdensome as Lee Miller.
CONCLUSION
Lee Miller is sometimes very difficult to deal with. So far, I have a
cordial relationship with him. However, based upon his discussions
with Bill Stirling he anticipates the City to reimburse him for two
public notice mailings. Please advise me on how the Planning Office
should handle this matter.
GH.13
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn
FROM: Janet Raczak
RE: Public Notice Requirements in City of Aspen
DATE: June 25, 1985
I did a telephone survey with the following condominium manage-
ment companies in order to see whether any of the management companies
felt the current policies regarding public notices were unfair,
unreasonable or a hastle. Following are the results of that telephone
survey:
1. Aspen Alps - I spoke with Sandra, a front desk clerk at the
Aspen Alps. She explained that it was no trouble to send
out the notices and that they merely placed the notices in
the Owners' Statement which goes out mid -month each month.
I also spoke to Pam who explained that if the notice comes and
does not coincide with the Owners' Statement, she mails them out
individually. She said it does cost time, office supplies and
postage, but that they have a computerized list of addresses so
it isn't that much trouble. She mentioned that she would prefer
not to have to do it, but since the legal address is in care of
their management operation, there is not much of a choice. It is
their responsibility to notify owners.
2. The Gant - I spoke to Molly Campbell. Molly gets the notices,
and makes a decision, as the manager of the complex, whether she
feels it is mandatory to notify each individual owner in the
complex. For example, if she receives notice of the neighbors
making a small addition to their deck, she would monitor on
behalf of the owners and would not notify them individually.
Should she receive a notice of a new ski area development (e.g.,
Little Annie), she would notify the owners immediately. Depend-
ing on the importance and significance of the development, she
determines whether the notices should mailed out immediately or
if it the notices can be enclosed with the Owners' Statement.
Molly did not feel that it was; particularly inconvenient to her
to notify the owners but, instead, felt it was her responsibility
as the manager to notify the owners. She explained that her
Association budgets for postage and mailings and if she must mail
the notices out separately, the cost comes out of the postage
budget. It she goes over budget because of the mailings, she
felt it is a small price to pay considering the possible affects
of a major development on the owners property.
3. Coates,' Reid & Waldron - John Howard explained to me that
he had never received notices of the sort. He went on to
explain to me that he felt that he, as a manager of condo-
minium complexes, had been hired by the Board of Managers or
Board of Directors of each complex, to manage their complex,
which would include notifying them of any public process that may
affect their units. He said that is the purpose of a management
body. Should he receive these notices, he would send them out,
as he felt it was his responsibility as the manager.
4. Aspen Club Condominiums - Teresa Fairbanks, of the Aspen Club
Condominium management operation, explained that she sends the
notices out with their owners' statements and therefore does not
spend extra time or postage.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bill
Stirling, Mayor
FROM:
Glenn
horn, Planning Office
THRU :
Hal
Schilling, City Tanager
RE:
Lee
Miller Letter
DATE:
May
7, 1985
As ycu requestd, I are forwar6ing copies of the bills that Lee Miller
sent us for public notice. I am not sure how you want to deal with
this issue. Please advise.
CC: Alan Richman
CONDOMINIUM RENTAL IVIANAO�IJIENT, INC.
747 South Goleno Street Nfonoging Agent for
Aspen. Cokxodo 81611 • Fosching Hous • Rtth Avenue
(303) 925-2260 • Alpenblk:k • Tipple Inn
• Duront • Tipple lodge
May 1, 1985
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
130 S. Galena St. h1AY - 2 1985
Aspen, CO 81611 Ii?i
Attn: Glen
RE: Public Notice
Dear Glen,
Here is another notice that was sent to our Owners.
Below is a break -down of our charges:
1) Xeroxing 150 copies @ 15¢ each $ 22.50
2) Printing of Mail Labels - 150 @ 3� ea 4.50
3) Envelopes @ 3¢ ea 4.50
4) PGstage @ 22f ea 33.00
5) Labor - Stuffing Envelopes
Affixing Mail Labels
Posting - 1 hour 18.00
6) Lee's coordinating time 15.00
BALANCE DUE $ 97.50
Than ou for your attention and assistance.
Sin er lX
Lee L. Miller ,
Manager
LLM:go
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision - Residential
and Lodge Components
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be reopened at
a Special Meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, on
April 30, 1985, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to reconsider all elements
of the preliminary PUD/Subdivision submission for the residential and
lodge components of the Aspen Mountain PUD which is generally bounded
by Galena Street to the east; Monarch Avenue to the west; Durant
Street to the north; and the base of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area to
the south. Included within the Aspen Mountain PUD are the following
projects: (1) Aspen Mountain Lodge; (2) Top of Mill; (3) 700 South
Galena; and (4) Summit Place.
For further information contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on April 11, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
CONDvi\AINIUM
747 South Goleno Street
Aspen, Coloaodo 81611
(303)925-2260
April 26, 1985
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
ATTN: Glen
Dear Glen,
RENTAL MANAGL, RENT, INC.
N5onoging Agent for
• Fosching Hous • Fifth Avenue
• Alpenblick • Tipple Inn
• Duront • Tipple Lodge
p 1R61Ead� n
MAY -IR6b it
J
RE: Notices sent to our Owners
Thank you for taking the time to call me this week concerning
the Notices that we have sent to our owners. Below is a
break -down of our charges:
1) Xeroxing 150 copies @ 15¢ each $ 22.50
2) Printing of Mail Labels - 150 @ 3¢ ea 4.50
3) Envelopes @ 3¢ ea 4.50
4) Postage @ 22¢ ea 33.00
5) Labor - Stuffing Envelopes
Affixing Mail Labels
Posting - 1 hour 18.00
6) Lee's coordinating time 15.00
BALANCE DUE $ 97.50
Thank you for your attention and assistance.
Sinc e
Lee i l ll r
Manager
LLM:ss
BEFORE TIIE CI OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUST? C
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, Colorado,
(or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider
an application filed with the said Board 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 your 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
,,,het -her to Grant or deny the request for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeti.ng:
Date:May 2, 1985
Time : 4 : 00P1.1
Owner for variance:
t;a.me: Aspen Joint Venture
Address: P.O. Box CC
Aspen, CO 81612
Location: Aspen Mountain Lodge Project
Description:
Hensel Phelps Construction
P . 0. Box 0
Greeley, CO
Variance Requested: to utilize a 6 foot chain link fence with upper rail,
to surround and secure all limits of construction and construction staging
areas. Sturdy permanent gates shall be erected throughout the fence as
needed to allow access. This fence structure should o� create the visibility
concerns while providing for project safety and security, Section 7-141 (c) (2) ,
On corner lots no fence,retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction
shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on
corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstru-
ction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42)
inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the lot
corner. (AMC) Section 24-3 7 (j), Fences, .�hedges or walls shall be permitted
providing that they shall not exceed six (6) feet above grade. Fences
visable from the street shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron
or masonry. Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and
height shall be presented to the building inspector before a permit is
issued.
Duration of Varian _P- Temporary
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
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, Colorado,
(or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider
an application filed with the said Board 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 your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such
variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to
the opinions of surroundinc property owners and others affected in deciding
:rhether to grant or deny the request for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time gf Meet D_g_
Date:May 2, 1985
Time:4:00PM
Owner for Variance:
Name: Aspen Joint Venture
Address: P.O. Box CC
Aspen, CO 81612
Location: Aspen Mountain Lodge Project
Description:
Hensel Phelps Construction
P.O. Box 0
Greeley, CO
Variance Requested: to utilize a 6 foot chain link fence with upper rail,
to surround and secure all limits of construction and construction staging
areas. Sturdy permanent gates shall be erected throughout the fence as
needed to allow access. This fence structure should ag-t create the visibility
concerns while providing for project safety and security. Section 7-141 (a) (2) ,
On corner lots no fence,retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction
shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on
corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstru-
ction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42)
inches, measured from street arade, within thirty (30) feet from the lot
corner. (AMC) Section 24-3 7 (c), Fences, hedges or walls shall be permitted
providing that they shall not exceed six (6) feet above grade. Fences
visable from the street shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron
or masonry. Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and
height shall be presented to the building inspector before a permit is
issued.
Duration of Variance- Temporary
Aspen/Pi1
130 s
aspe
�l
,IAwiing
;galenstreet
)'of a d�5' 8 16 11
July 12, 1985
Mr. Lee Miller
Condominium Rental Management Inc.
747 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Lee:
Of f ice
As you know, pursuant to your letters of April 26 and May 1, 1985, I
have been investigating the possibility of the City of Aspen reimbursing
you for public notice costs incurred by your management company. I
have discussed this matter with Hal Schilling, City Manager and Paul
Taddune, City Attorney. Despite any representations made to you by
other city officials, there is no way that we can find to reimburse
you for your expenses. To do so, the City of Aspen would be extending
favored treatment to your management company as compared to other
local management companies which incur similar expenses.
We are sorry that we cannot reimburse you for your past costs.
Fortunatel} e City of Aspen is capable of amending the City '" .cipal
Code to change the public notice procedures which now require homeowner's
associations to forward notices to property owners. Although you have
experienced frustrations in the past regarding the public notice
process, it will be changed.
The Planning Office has scheduled the consideration of a code amendment
intended to change public notice procedures for the August 6, 1985
City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Steve Burstein of the
Planning Office is the planner responsible for preparing the code
amendment. He is well aware of your concerns. Please feel free to
call Steve in the next few weeks to discuss the proposed code revision.
I encourage you to attend the public meetings to insure that the code
amendment which is ultimately adopted is acceptable to you.
We regret that the City of Aspen cannot do anymore to address this
matter.
Sincerely,
Glenn Horn, AICP
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
GH/nec
Cc: Hal Schilling
Paul Taddune
Alan Richman
Steve Burstein
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Acting Planning Director
Glenn Horn, Senior Planner
FROM: Janet Raczak, Planning Administrative Assistant
RE: Code Amendment - Notification Requirements
DATE: May 28, 1985
In the past, I have been able to keep fairly good track of public
notices, but it appears that the system has been breaking down a bit
more often than it used to. I believe this is primarily due to the
amount of other work we have been accomplishing other than caseload
and code amendments.
In order to relieve the Planning Office of the burden and responsibi-
lity for possibly mis-noticing or not -noticing, I would like to
propose an alternate system for incorporation into and amending the
codes.
After a short conversation with Cindy about the system that Garfield
County Planning uses, I would like to propose that we amend the code
to follow the same type of system. Following is an explanation of how
their system works with a few modifications which I have incorporated
to fit our needs.
The applicant is required to publish public notice and is also
responsible for notice to adjacent property owners. At the time the
application is received the applicant is sent a letter as follows:
Dear _ ,
I am writing to inform you that your application for has
been scheduled for review before the ____ on ___ at
Enclosed is a copy of the notification requirements. This case
will be noticed when the application goes before _________.
(After review by the P&Z, please call the Planning Office to
schedule a time and date for the public hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners.)
If you have any questions, please contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
Afication requi nents would be as follows.
1. Copies of the Public Notice must be mailed by the applicant
to all (adjoining property owners) (property owners within
300 feet) of the subject property by certified return
receipt mail at least (fifteen [ 15 ]) (thirty [ 30 ]) days
prior to the date of the public hearing. Receipts must be
submitted at the public hearing.
2. A Public Notice must be pubhlshed once in a newspsper of
general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior the
date of the public hearing. The Planning Office will
provide the Public Notice form which must be signed by the
Planning Director before it is submitted to the newspaper.
The Proof of Publication which will be sent to you along
with your bill, must be submitted at the public hearing.
3. A sign (24 " x 36") must be posted on the property, in a
conspicuous place on the premises for which application has
been made, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing
date. The Planning Office has a mylar for blueline reprodu-
ction (charge is $3.00) for use by applicant (if they wish
to use it) for posting on property.
The appropriate notice information for the type of application would
be sent to the applicant.
Please give me some feedback.
1
4 1
Copies of the lic Notice must be sent by the a lica
all adjoining property owners and—propert pp nt to
feed of the subject property �"� h�-
at least five (5) days Y by certified return receipt mail
submitted at the prior to the hearing. Receipts must be
Public hearing.
I5. A Public Notice must be published once in.a
circulation at least fifteen 15 ne►,spaper of oeneral
)prior to Planning Department will provide theYPublic NoticeeformrihiheaThe
be signed by the Planning Director before it is submittedtch must
newspaper. The Proof of Publication which will be sent to o the
along with your bill., must -be public
submitted at theyou
hearing.
THE CANTRUP ESTATE
POST OFFICE Box 7955
ASPEN. COLORADO 61612
SPENCER F. SCNIFFER
CHIEF ExECUTIVE OFFICER
December 10, 1984
HAND DELIVEFED
Aspen City Council
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 29
Series of 1984
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
(303) 925-9038
(3031 925-9513
The Cantrup Estate, owner of the Aspen Meadows property, protests the
public hearing on, and objects to, the proposed Ordinance No. 29, Series of
1984 for the reasons set forth herein. On behalf of the Estate I request
that this letter be made a part of the record of the public hearings held
in connection with that proposed Ordinance.
As I stated at the public hearing on first reading held on October 22,
1984, it would be error for the City to proceed with the hearings or to take
any action with respect to th --)osed Ordinance since the City had failed
to give adequate notice of the public hearings before the Planning and
Zoning Commission as well as the City Council to the owners of property
which would be affected by the proposal. Section 24-12.3 (c) provides
that a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on proposed
amendments to the Zoning Code or Zoning District Map may only be held when
notice of such he
is given as follows:
"1. Notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least 15 days prior to the hearing
date.
2. A written notice of said hearing shall be sent by first class
mail at least 15 days prior to the hearing date to property
owners within the area of the proposed change and within 300
feet thereof. Owners of residential multi -family condominium
units may be served by mailing sufficient copies of any such
required notice (one for each owner) to the record address of
their home owner's association."
The proposed Ordinance No. 29 clearly purports to amend Section 24-2.1
and Section 24-3.4 as well as change through repeal and reenactment Article
7 of Chapter 24. Beyond the specific relevant provisions of the Municipal
Code and the other objections and concerns raised herein and mentioned in my
appearance before the Council, I believe it is a well settled axiom in zoning
and land use law that whenever a municipality undertakes to change, modify,
December 10, 1984
Page 2
or in any way affect zoning of property, at a minimum, the property owners
must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither the Cantrup
Estate nor the Aspen Institute, beneficial owner of a portion of the Meadows
property, had been given any notice prior to any of the public hearings
which were held on the proposed ordinance. As a consequence, I believe that
the proposed Ordinance, if adopted, would be fatally defective.
At the October 22nd public hearing I also stated my opinion, which I
reiterate here, that there is a substantial question as to the jurisdiction
of the City to take any action with respect to the zoning of the Aspen Meadows
property, including the academic parcel, during the pendency of the litigation
in the Pitkin County District Court between the Aspen Institute and the City.
I have written to the City Attorney and conferred with him regarding the legal
issues with respect to notice and the pending litigation and would respectfully
suggest that you obtain an opinion from him regarding those issues before
proceeding with the public hearing.
With respect to the specific provisions of the Ordinance itself, I
believe that Section 24-7.2 (c) effectively eliminates the standards
purportedly intended to be implemented as part of the Ordinance and gives,
both the Planning Commission and the City Council too much latitude to
restrict or limit an applicant's ability to develop its property. It is my
view that the language contained in that subsection could have a significantly
deleterious effect on the \. of any property subject to the Ordinance and
could be construed to be tantamount to the taking of property or property
rights without just compensation.
Subparagraph (d) seems to indicate that the Aspen Meadows, which would
eoim within the purview of this proposed Ordinance, would be subject to the
growth management quota system. The report of the Aspen Meadows Advisory
Board to the City of Aspen dated September 11, 1981 recommends that
development of the Aspen Meadows property be exempt from the Growth Management
Plan. Thus, unless a specific exemption is stated in the proposed Ordinance,
the recommendation would seem to be implicitly if not explicitly rejected.
Since that issue has apparently not been discussed in previous public hearings
prior to my bringing it to the Council and P & Z's attention at the last
study session on Monday, December 3, 1984, I would suggest that it be
specifically addressed in the Ordinance before final adoption.
Incetrr
uly yours
F. Schiffer
S FS : mvb
cc: James B. Holden, Esq.
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Paul J. Taddune, Esq.
Charles D. Brandt, Esq.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CHANGES IN PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
July 23, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider amendments to Sections 2-22(c)(2), 20-
13 (a) , 24-7. 5 (b) , 24-8.10 (a) , and 24-12. 5 (c) (2) of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which would change the
public hearing notification requiremetns as they apply to
condominium unit owners such that instead of notice being given
to the condominium managers, it would be given directly to the
owners themselves.
For further information, contact Planning Office, 130
S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223.
ssi
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CHANGES IN PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
August 6, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider amendments to Sections 20-10 (d) and 24-8.8
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which would
require public hearing notice to be given for subdivision and PUD
conceptual presentations before City Council.
For further information, contact Planning Office, 130
S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223.
S1Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 18, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Initiation of Code Amendments
DATE: June 25, 1985
Based on Council's motion at the end of the SPA discussion on 6/24, I
would like you to take forward the following Code amendments to P&Z at
your earliest convenience.
1. Amend Section 20-10(d) to read as follows: (new language is
bolded, old language is crossed out)
"(d) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the planning
commission recommendation and at a r-Sit1-ar-meeting
public hearing noticed according to the standards
of Section 20-13, the city council shall approve,
disapprove, or approve with modifications the
conceptual presentation. Failure of the city
council to act within thirty (30) days shall be
deemed approval except that the city council may
delay action for lack of sufficient informa-
tion upon which to make a decision until such
information is made available. If the plan
is disapproved, reasons for such disapproval
shall be stated in the minutes. If the recommend-
ation is for approval subject to modifications,
the nature of the required modifications shall
also be indicated in the minutes."
2. Amend Section 24-8.8 to read as follows: (new language is
bolded, old language is crossed out)
"Sec. 24-8.8 Conceptual presentation -- City
council re +ew public hearing.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the planning
commission recommendation and at a requ-1-a-r--meet nq
public hearing noticed according to the standards of
Section 24-8.10, the city council shall approve,
disapprove, or approve with modifications the concep-
tual presentation. Failure of the city council to act
within thirty (30) days shall be deemed approval except
that the city council may delay action for lack of
sufficient information upon which to make a decision
until such information is made available. If the plan
is disapproved, reasons for such disapproval shall be
stated in the minutes. If the recommendation is for
approval subject to modifications, the nature of the
required modifications shall also be indicated in the
minutes. Approval by the city council shall lapse
unless a preliminary plan is submitted pursuant to the
provisions of section 24-8.11 within six (6) months of
final conceptual approval (Ord. No. 71-1975, Section
1)"
I expect you to develop a memo explaining these changes, as well as to
insure that the P&Z review is noticed in the paper fifteen (15) days
in advance of their consideration of these proposals. Please see me
if you have any questions.
cc: Hal Schilling
Paul Taddune
AR. 26
§ Q LI-0 ),,,I( I' SPA rvwmc f I Drky,Aw-f e�v���/ � rrsolu+iDm,,
m
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein
FROM: Alan Richman T"INN IN
RE: Initiation of Code Amendment
DATE: July 1, 1985
At the instruction of the City Manager and the City Council we should
initiate a code amendment as soon as possible. The purpose of the
amendment would be to eliminate the following sentence from the Code:
"Owners of residential multi -family condominium units may be
served by mailing sufficient copies of any such required notice
(one for each owner) to the record address of their homeowners'
association fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date." This
sentence appears in the following sections of the Code:
0 2-22 (c ) (2)
0 20-le (a)
0 24-7.5 (b)
0 24-8.10 (a)
0 24-12.5 (c) (2)
We need to evaluate whether the elimination of this provision will
have a positive or negative effect on our public notice provisions
in the following areas:
1. Accuracy of assessor's records regarding addresses of
condominium owners versus records of the secretary of state for
record address of homeowners' association .
2. Janet and Glenn have surveyed some condominium managers and
found that they do not believe the mailings are an undue burden.
We should contact more such people to find if taking responsi-
bility away from them would be a disservice or a benefit to the
public they serve.
3. Cost of additional mailings,
and
who should pay for
the
additional staff time and resources.
We
should also talk to
the
title insurance companies to find
out
whether providing these
names will substantially increase
the
cost to applicants
of
providing adjacent ownership lists.
I suggest that you contact Glenn and Janet before proceeding to
the
P&Z review of this item. Please see me
for
additional background
on
the origin of this issue.
cc: Hal Schilling
Bill Stirling
Paul Taddune
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: ' Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance 20 - SPA
DATE: June 24, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends 2nd reading approval of
Ordinance 20, amending Section 24-7 regarding Specially Planned Areas.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council tabled action. on Ordinance 20 at the
meeting on May 28 so that this item could be finally decided by the
newly elected members.
BACKGROUND: At your meeting on May 28th, we reviewed a series of very
minor changes to the Ordinance made jointly by myself and the City
Attorney based on your directions. Additionally, several sections of
the Ordinance were discussed where more substantive revisions were
made. These sections, which are underlined in the attached ordinance,
are as follows:
1.
Page 3, top, Section 24-7.1(c) - Council agreed at the prior
meeting to add the underlined language to insure that
construction or substantial modification of storage build-
ings, ski lifts and the like require SPA review.
2.
Page 4, top, Section 24-7.3(c) - Council directed the
Planning Office to add language making conceptual SPA review
before Council a public hearing. The appropriate language
has been added for your consideration. If adopted,----w-e
recommend that Council direct staff to prepare Code amend-
ments making conceptual subdivision and PUD review by
pAPUO,t
Council a public hearing as well.
Sa.as-�OMU 3.
Page 6, bottom, Section 24-7.7 (b) - This section was
originally discussed at our work session on May 9, and staff
was directed to make changes to the language. Our proposal
did not totally satisfy Council, and so we have modified the
language sliohtly to state that the adverse effects of the
proposal be minimized rather than mitigated. In all other
respects, this language is identical to that reviewed on May
28.
4.
Page 7, top, Section 24-7..9 - Council agreed that the
underlined language accurately reflected its intention with
respect to review of minor activities on sites where no SPA
plan has yet been filed.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has identified no further
problems with respect to the proposed Ordinance. However, in our
discussions with potential applicants, we have found one problem to
bring to your attention.
As you know, the proposed Ordinance requires applicants to go through
a conceptual plan review process prior to submission of a precise
plan. Further, the Ordinance requires that growth management allot-
ment applications be submitted in conjunction with precise plan
applications. Therefore, a concern has been raised' about the date of
the commercial (August 1) and lodge (October 1) competition submission
c�•k� `' deadlines.
Historically, the Planning Office has supported postponement of the
G MP submission dates when the City is revising its own regulations and
applicants are uncertain of the submission rules. In the case at
hand, the SPA regulations have only recently come into clear focus,
and the procedures for submitting an SPA and GNP application at the
same time will only be certain upon passage of Ordinance 20. There-
fore, applicants have been unable to process their conceptual plans
and cannot move forward into the precise plan/GRIP submission phase in
a timely manner.
Based on the above considerations, the Planning Office supports the
.postponement of the commercial allotment submission date for the
CC/C-1 zone districts and the lodge allotment submission date for all
zone districts except the L-3. However, we defer to the City Attorney
for a final opinion on this matter. Should he and the Council agree
with our conclusion, a reasonable date for these submission would be
December 1.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The P&Z Resolution No. 85-2, which was sent
to you earlier, recommended unanimously in favor of the SPA Code
revisions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"Move to adopt Ordinance 20, Series of 1985."
"Move to postpone the submission date for commercial development
applications in the CC/C-1 zone districts and lodge development
�Jr, applications in all zone districts, except the L-3 zone district,
for th.e year 1985 only frog August 1. and October 1, 1985,
AR.12
respectively to December 1, 1985."
2
A nDf�IfrV�SrIn��P
ND+�
PULVI, c,(
r)A+ 6efoyr
jov
��, „,,tb Pez?
n P W
-
a - Z?, lb (a)
PNJ47U� 4Z40 P0-0
(Pdz )
�CC)
SPA
�c,)
Coot,pj✓aj SPAP4�,
(cc)
rep +-oZu—►3
(41
CtWep V41 J,/Wwl�oan ( (,� � �
(cc)
(a)
Prek� 'J,1^vy Pal
(� ��)
j� 11YJ.',{
—)--q-3
p
URIC
i
`i n
Ce Lf �p
L rA1�41.-d, 6 vhar), h
If ho eioiJ rn:,.tj, f ee
�Aphl►we
` Ptivl ij �m�hwl�e � S�i�?,J �p�cfiJ
3oi /1�hy n v l�sJI11c,7 nut)14
o� Drilo���ysp • ad
c J9 �T l�otin�� �j9� �Zl�34
�Imon N,�y��� ��� c. ��, �1 �3,��� �s S r23 �-72
5 I-2 3- -3 o
1-13— -}Or
v91,1 pr'ItL — 113'A 4,,1N
I'";A
Pf " j,
6°F 1 wnn m cv Oh ( '��`' n �"�` b Ik V j Ark ( I
Pnvl �l 1M G .nQ1Dn1n-) 40 V4- NA B t�- T�„n �' M V+� f�1i1� ' ��� MS 1� 1JN h►Y �' ��
w"t { UU �/ plx� npi �11ti�
by hh Calf "�--I')-? S
�drati AS30") Apv- bb-I 44,4 6A
+ti,n4s- oort t frl,,",IV o thr�
All�� �-en l)e /hcrty /)v
�Y' ✓LDJ7l�IG� �/D���fi ".t�/—%L/7/�.In�,yU�n ShD�✓i�76S3
rt PoVye `Toll f'f — �o���rn/J ��ti All,
ljklgw�i,+rr
5 �,r r�k MI, L,, ) t -olu
f4k,, 4, T; 4 It
it 111��r�rl(�.� -f'hl� �'{� ���3 � G��) � �1 Ph � �'���) titi. a �%ssf✓� �vL, rr�w��w
prt��`� MJrrq lH
A
q 1,�Qln C I J � C,'Dv� d o j ` r r
11 g j,
Cbkp�tt,
Q VYA�'
Tr
R A1A )-f4 cpt) ov]ci yf 5,f �
-T)�h NO►4!„�,� ,� m�����n)
( Z) c✓k-oi #,,
all tohjD owrlf►i
wo r.4jf� �4{ �b.� /�I �/j�l r �1 IqV
V
U'►wYY . if r"��is
11 ,�I� L�-��- On
W4` 6� �'� A ajA A
7�1111(% +4V A 5t4tJtVky ��� �P - h5r�, ,,. �, Tlt,-
(jet I;pl
Mti f4tikoo C� Ands fit (�-�4,,,, t+�►',s1' hW e A
x wr tt 4-tfe toy S M„��►�� s n �,
rt'f /,tM tv l p►e. �. A�tw+' ti G�-�tj '-ab
tri
p
n.j W- b �,,* �4ura► 'V,,,„r,(j , Not) ; 4
lfl--------------------------------------------------------
�b5
b f � i,, V)wkt,�,
4 *1 " --f A��e)sb-!) jrvt 9-vffj�z
V
GUI
��j«Ce�fi enl7�
V5, 4 e c .
-i Aq .vti, 41 no &I TD
U
I� . +
GOSt, ►tes�l.��i �n� �� �b1i �I01 n P'TB,ti,} 1 L 5<o0,1f''
A,i'j
Yce�l�104 wCj��l �'r�JnfY I17��ICb1N{'A►+If�
�etCrmi►in� CO�r ���7ln'AY
—f ��5nsor', of�i,� w?���I r �h Sr, cl,�{ �vy {y• c
., e�V1);SON Why '�'� La;✓n �, I� ��p� ���
y16I{va
�� h `'� � � � � •�w1 7�" �"P°7'� � �;a�tiv,�/l,c,�, � /�'v �,.Rt�/ �+U P✓�p/ra�
C Z 0� *ov'A . i 1, f3 . , I v G , ">Ai r
a4k� 4r� � JIA-4 �#,, 4 ,,.4 � lh4UU�
Dsd, L-1 I -'+o 4w" D 0,-A q��
�i�Ms�oveyl��ii�, IS nT1 1;ottl��r�i� d ���V�• r;l �7� �brhoi,f��l'�'Vt, wQ h�-�1
p ),�4 14 of
Dona — due pYDIf, ss� c�
— C Ah k�i� kof�y rrAhA)ryh., o
W�dS{,o�li Air,m, u„� w'�a ryvn ir-,-�� ?�►�r�yferutMMl
�ub�a ti�3ai. �ha N