HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Little Nell.20A86
(
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
r ~ City of Aspen
, DATE RECEIVED: 0-3-90 '
DATE RECEIVED C MPLET : Ioh~ ~
PROJ ECl' NAME,: . ) i~~ / dJ.{I{t~(;;.
APPL lCANT:' 'CO.
Applicant ACldr
REPRES EN TAT IV E:
Representative Ad
,
.u ,e';
. ,1/- /
/1
,~ -S'lleb
1.
Type of Application:
GMPjSubdivisionjPUD
~ JJ37 ~ It). -CO - O~ I
cis E No..i2:~ W6
STAFF: .
J ; t;;;~J
I. Conceptual Submission
2. Prel imi na ry Plat
3. Final Plat
20
12
6
$2,730.00
1,640.00
820.00
II. Subdivision/PUD
l.
2.
3.
Con ce pi: ual Submi ssion 14 $1,900 .00
Pr el imi na ry Plat 9 1,220.00
Final Plat 6 820.00
"Two Step" Appl ications 11 $1,490.00
"One Step" Appl ications V' 5 $ 6 80 . 0 0
III. All
IV. All
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
(
I. Minor Appl ications
2
$
50.00
2. Major Applications
Referral Fees-
Engineering
Mino); Applications
Major Applications
5
$ 125.00
..--..... '" ,.~;":'....,;..:.I.;U.l'. .i,:,'l...!;/~:Ju!...: ~t: ~'..'.>.'
." ....- ...----- - -- -------- -- - -- ----- - -- - -'- - ---- -- - -- - - - - --- --- --- -.- ._- --......--,
. - --- - -------- -------- ------- ----- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- - - - - --- - -- - - -- - - -.---
80.00
200.00
P&Z @ MEETING DATE: .3'~ d.8 PUBLIC HEARING:' YES @
DATE REFERRED: ~ INITIALS: ~ .
=======================~==========================~=============
REFERRALS:
-;; Ci ty Atty
City Engineer
Housing bir:.
Aspen ~Iater
City Electric
Envir:. Hlth.
Aspen Consolo S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Par ks Dept.
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Roaring Fork Transit
____ School District
_ Rocky r1tn. Nat. Gas
____ State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
____ Statellwy Depl: (Gr:.Jtn)
____ Bldg: Zoningjlnspectn
Other:
_____ Roaring Fork Energy Center
(
;;=~Z=;~~;;=;7================~~;~=;~~;~~;Ai~=~:;;~;=;;;~~7~==
/ City Atty ~ City Engineer _ Building Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND Lo.CATION:fJ.!ruXf>J
Other:
- Ur-- ~~fiP ()JJuh
, eASE DISPOSITION:
,-,
,"
Reviewed by:
Aspen P&Z
G.t
~ y
,-"
council:)
~~A ~'1 ~ ~"J
"'~~ ~l~ ~~s;
\
o'^-- ~ 0 it! l~8{.
1. The appl icant shall prepare a statement of subdivision
exception, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney,
including the following items:
a. A written guarantee shall be provided that all represent-
ations made by the Aspen Skiing Company in the SPA
agreement will be binding upon both parties to this
subdivision and continue to be met following the
subdivision of the parcel.
b. The applicant shall agree that despite the subdividing
of the property, the Little Nell property, as designated
on the official City of Aspen Zoning maps, continues to
constitute a single, undivided SPA parcel for the
purposes of development review, and that no SPA plan
amendment or other development proposal may be submitted
which does not comprehensively address development of
the entire parcel and which does not have the consent
from all owners, as per Section 24-7.3(b).
2. The Aspen Skiing Company shall continue to maintain ownership
of both parcels and shall not transfer fee simple interest
in the hotel parcel to any other party.
3. The appl icant will submit an amended plat designating the
two lots, providing revised descriptions and calculating the
area and bulk requirements for each of the lots.
--__4_____0___________
---------------.------.--
,-...
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Alan.Richman,P1anning..Office
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, Public services~
November 20, 1986
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Little Nell Exception Plat and Statement of Exception
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the statement of exception and plat for the
Little Nell subdivision exception, I would offer the following
comments:
1. Statement of Exception - I have no particular concerns
regarding the statement of exception. It would appear to be
responsive to the conditions of approval and the exception plat
adequately reflects the conditions as well.
2. Exception Plat - The plat should be amended to include the
following:
a. The exception plat should reference the prior plat and
SPA plan recorded at book 518, page 464, indicating that it
supplements the prior SPA plan.
b. Include a certificate of title for signature by the
ti tIe insuror.
c. The applicant should be required to obtain formal
vacation of easements that are shown on the plat and f il e
revised easements for relocated utilities on separate forms
acceptable to the City Attorney and this office.
JHlco/LittleNellExcpPlat
~.
i-'
,.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~
Little Nell Subdivision Exception
August 6, 1986
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
==================================================================
SUMMARY: The Planning Office neeas to obtain feedback from
Council as to the land use concerns identified herein, and
whether the proposed conditions of the staff adequately address
the long term interests of the City. If Council finds the
conditions to satisfactorily address the issue, we recommend that
you grant the requested subdivision exception.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council granted sm Precise Plan
approval to the Aspen Skiing Company for a 92 unit hotel and base
area development plan on April 14, 1986.
BACKGROUND: The attached letter from Gideon KaUfman, representing
the Aspen Skiing Company, succinctly sunnnarizes the applicant's
request as follows:
"As A.SC has begun to examine future options for the new
hotel it has become apparent that a need exists to separate
the hotel portion of the property from the rest of the base
-area as well as the rest of the mountain ownership.. ASC is
considering ei ther a partnership arrangement for the construc-
tion of the hotel or a long-term lease with a partnership
enti ty. Under Section 20-3, both options are deemed to be
subdivisions~ We would therefore ask for an exception from
the full subdivision process."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The appl icant requests Council' sexpedi ted
review of this application (i.e., without a prior recommendation
from the P&Z) under Section 20-l9(c) of the Code. This section
provides for subdivision exceptions when the Council finds that
certain requirements (i. e., the added steps in the review process)
would be redundant, serve no public purpose and be unnecessary in
relation to the land use policies of the City. Since the appli-
cant's request does not constitute a development proposal, but is
instead a question of ownership, we concur that it is not necessary
for the Planning Commission to consider this application prior to
your action.
The proposed subdivision line separates the hotel from the
,.,....,
,.,....,
remainder of the base area in the approximate vicinity of the
eastern edge of Hunter street thereby separating the hotel from the
"west wing". The appl icant explains to us that the reasons for
parceling the site are as follows:
o The partnership or other financial entity which is
created to construct the hotel should be kept separate
from the remainder of Aspen Mountain in the event of
financial difficulties for the hotel.
o The partnership or other financial enti ty may need to
demonstrate land ownership to secure the financing it
requires.
Our concerns with this application do not relate to the financial
aspects of the proposed partnership.. Instead, our concerns are
limited to the potential land use impacts of the proposed sub-
division on the Community, and whether the proposal is in the
best long term interests of the City. Quite simply, given the
sensi tivi ty of this parcel and the time which has gone into its
planning, we want to make sure that actually parcelling the site
into two lots is the best way to accomplish the applicant's
objectives. In our discussions with the applicant, we have asked
that it be demonstrated to you that all reasonable alternatives
to land parcelling have been explored. For example, condominium-
ization is one way of creating separate interests in property
without breaking apart the land area beneath the units. We feel
that you should have the applicant explore options which fall
short of land parcelling because of the following three land use
concerns.
The principal concern of the Planning Office, as echoed by
referrals from the City Attorney and Director of Public Services
is that the sm agreement for the approved development makes the
Aspeii Skiing Company responsible-for meeting all of the obligations
with respect to the proj ect. By separating the hotel from the
remainder of the base area and from the mountain, we open up the
possibility that some of the obligations will not be met by
either responsible entity. Staff recommends that any subdivision
be contingent upon both parties giving assurances that all
representations made by the original applicants will continue to
be met after the subdivision is granted.
A related concern is that the purpose of having the SPA Overlay
on this site is to insure its unified planning and development..
By creating two separate parcels, we increase the likelihood that
its future owners will pursue separate paths in using the property.
Therefore, in order to insure that future plans beyond those
already approved are conceived of in a unified manner, we recommend
that the applicant agree that the site.will continue to be viewed
as a single parcel for the purposes of development review and
that any SPA amendment or other development proposal be submitted
2
.1""",
~
.
by all owners and address all relevant issues for the entire site.
A final land use concern is whether by subdividing the property
into two parcels, we will increase the likelihood that additional
development will occur on the sit.e.. While it seems quite desirable
to insure that a financial prohl em for the hotel (a possibil ity
that ASC freely admits could occur) will not become a burden on
the ski area, it is hard to predict whether having a second
interest involved will increase the pressure on the City to
consider addi tional development. We can suggest the following
strategies to offset the effects of the subdivision in this regard:
o We could require that a deed restriction be placed on
the property prohibiting future development (this
condi tion was prev iously recommended by the Planning
Office and rejected by Council).
o We could require that ASC retain ownership of the land
under the hotel and establish a long term lea se with
the financing entity, rather than transfer title in fee
simple..
ALTERNATIVES :
The choices availabl e to Council are:
1. Approve the subdivision exception as requested, with appro-
priate conditions.
2.. Deny the subdivision exception as not being in the best long
term interests of the Ci ty..
3.. Table the subdivision exception until such time as the
Council is convinced that all other reasonable options have
- - been-explored and that the proposal is oonsistent with City
plans and policies for the site.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
In summary, we find that the applicant has presented adequate
justification for the granting of a subdivision exception.
However, we are not fUlly comfortable with the form of the
exception request, and recommend that Council explo re with the
applicant all options which fall short of actually parcelling the
property but which create the necessary separate interests.
Should Council reach the conclusion that the subdivision exception
shOUld be granted as requested, following is our recommended motion:
"Move to grant subdivision exception to the applicant for
the requested parcelling of the Little Nell property,
subj ect to th e follow ing co ndi tions:
3
I""".
1"""..
.
1.
The appl icant shall prepare a statement of subdiv ision
exception, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney,
including the follOwing items:
a. A written guarantee shall be provided that all represent-
ations made by the Aspen Skiing Company in the SPA
agreement will be binding upon both parties to this
subdivision and continue to be met fOllowing the
subdivision of the parcel.
b.. The applicant shall agree that despite the sUbdividing
of the property, the Little Nell property, as designated
on the official City of Aspen Zoning maps, oontinues to
constitute a singl e, undivided SPA parcel for the
purposes of development review, and that no SPA plan
amendment or other development proposal may be submitted
which does not oomprehensively address development of
the entire parcel and which does not have the oonsent
from all owners, as per Section 24-7.3(b).
2. The Aspen Skiing Company shall oontinue to maintain ownership
of both parcels and shall not transfer fee simple interest
in the hotel parcel to any other party.
3. The applicant will submit an amended plat deSignating the
two lots, providing revised descriptions and calculating the
area and bulk requirements for each of the lots.
AR.722
4
"""'"
.~
PEN
130
asp
reet
611
ME MJRANDU M
DATE: July 7, 1986
TO: Steve Burstein
FRCM: City Attorney
RE: Little Nell Subdivision Exception
We have prev iously advised the Cbunc il and theappl icant of the
necessity of obtaining subdivision approval to accomplish the
Skiing Company's financing objectives. Otherwise, we have no
additional comments at this time.
P JT/mc
~.
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ci ty Attorney
City Engineer
FROM:
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Little Nell Subdivision Excemption
Parcel ID#2737-182-00-03l Case No. 020A-86
RE:
DATE:
June 19, 1986
-------------------------------------------~--------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Gideon
Kaufman on behalf of the Aspen Skiing Company, requesting
subdivision exception approval for the purpose of forming a
partnership arrangemnet fo thte construction of the hotel or a
long-term 1 ease wi th a partner ship enti ty. Under Section 20-3,
both options are deemed to be subdivisions.
Please review this application and return your referral comments
to the Planning Office no later than July 7, 1986, in order to
aHCM us adequate time to prepare for its. presentation before
Council. '
Thank you.
M.3
,-.,
.~
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
414 North Mill Street
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303 925 2688
May 29, 1986
86-17
Aspen Ski Co. Little Nell
Hotel Subd. Exception
DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P. M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 102,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO;
THENCE S 75009'11" E 220.00 FEET;
THENCE S 14050'49" W 263.52 FEET;
THENCE N 38035'40" W 53.51 FEET;
THENCE S 45021'00" W 124.28 FEET;
THENCE N 75009'11" W 50.00 FEET;
THENCE N 14050'49 E 51.30 FEET;
THENCE N 30009'11 W 34.00 FEET;
THENCE N 75009'l1 W 53.89 FEET;
THENCE N 14050'49 E 163.39 FEET;
THENCE S 75009'11 E 14.00 FEET;
THENCE N 14050'49 E 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.49 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
,
,.-,
~
.
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAl. CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,SUITE 305
ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81611
May 29, 1986
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Subdivision Exception for the Little Nell Hotel
Dear Alan:
Please consider this letter an application on behalf of
the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter "ASC") for an exception
from the strict application of the provisions of Chapter 20,
an exception from the full subdivision procedures in Section
20. An exception is appropriate where there are special
circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property
such that the strict application of the provisions of this
chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
his land. The exception we are seeking is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
and the granting of this exception will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area
in which the subject property is situated.
As you know, the Little Nell base area went through very
rigorous review processes for both the adoption of the SPA
precise plan and the GMP allocation. We have now received
approval for the development of a hotel, retail space and
gondola at the base of the area. As ASC has begun to examine
future options for the new hotel it has become apparent that
a need exists to separate the hotel portion of the property
from the rest of the base area as well as the rest of the
mountain ownership. ASC is considering either a partnership
arrangement for the construction of the hotel or a long-term
lease with a partnership entity. Under Section 20-3, both
options are deemed to be subdivisions. We would therefore
ask for an exception from the full subdivision process.
Due to the exception standard stated above and the
tremendous amount of review just completed, we feel it would
be repetitive and inappropriate to place us through a
four-step subdivision process. The contemplated subdivision
will enable us to place independent deeds of trust on the
property and will enable us to enter into appropriate finan-
cial arrangements or long-term lease arrangements whereby ASC
i"
;-\
will not be relieved from its present liabilities under the
SPA agreement.
We would appreciate this matter being placed on the next
available City Council agenda, as it is important that this
matter be resolved as soon as possible. If you have any
addi tional questions, please feel free to contact me. A
legal description of the property seeking the subdivision
exception is enclosed. Also enclosed is a check in the
amount of $680.00 for subdivision fees. If you have any
questions, or if I can be of any help, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Prof ional Corporation
;;
By
and
ASP
oject Director
ING
By
GK/bw
Enclosures
1"""\
""*".
~~.
MEMORANDUM
D [g@ [g D~rgJ~,
; .I
&28. ~
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
Jay Hammond, Director of Public Services ~
FROM:
DATE:
Jay 23, 1986
RE:
Little Nell Subdivision Exception
==============================================================
Having reviewed the above application for Subdivision Exception,
the Engineering Department would offer the following comments:
I. Exception approval would require submission of an amended
plat showing the designation of the newly created parcels (i.e. lots
I & 2) as well as revised descriptions and revised use area and
bulk criteria for the separated parcels.
2. We are concerned over how this effective subdivision affects
commitments by the project to mitigate certain impacts. A
specific example would be that parking provided within the
project for ski company administrative offices and commercial
employees in the "gondola" parcel is prOvided within the "hotel"
parcel. Any subdivision between those interests should be
conditioned on the continued interrelationship between the
parcels for satisfaction of approval conditions.
JH/CO/LittleNellsubdExcep