Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.39551 Hwy 82.1979-CU-5MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Pro Shop - Conditional Use DATE: August 31, 1979 On Tuesday, you will consider a conditional use application from the City of Aspen to locate a golf course pro shop at the Plum Tree Golf Course. Recreation buildings and sport shops are listed as conditional uses in the Park district which is the zoning pertaining to the area around the Plum Tree. As you can see from the attached map, the pro shop location is proposed to be immediately north of the existing parking area to the west of the tennis courts and adjacent to the Number One Tee. It is designed to be located so that it is visible from both the First and Tenth Tees facilitating golfer registration, retail sales for golf equipment, golf cart rentals, driving range control and business office for the golf professional. Located next to the parking lot, it is easily accessible by arriving golfers who may not be familiar with the area. As you may know, the building formerly housing Aspen Dairy is proposed to be the structure housing this use. The structure has been moved because of construction taking place behind the Jerome and has temporarily been located on the parking lot awaiting your consideration. We would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission members to visit the site over the weekend if you have a chance. The location of the proposed structure is, we understand, staked out at the Plum Tree site and you can have a chance to look at the building. Sometime ago the City of Aspen also applied, along with the Plum Tree management, for permission to build a tennis pro shop immediately adjacent to the tennis courts behind the Plum Tree in itself. P and Z approved that as a conditional use for a park site because of its limited scale and limited activities. We have similar feelings about this proposal. Given the limited scale of activity and the appropriateness of the site for activities related to the golf recreation use, we recommend its approval. We do suggest that you condition your recommendation on every attempt being made to locate the structure and to landscape and paint it in a manner that makes it compatible with the park setting in which it will reside. In this regard we recommend that the painting be subtle colors which will blend in with not only the surrounding greenspace but also with the existing predominant color (not trim) of the Plum Tree Inn building. We also recommend that the uses be limited to those specified in the August 27, 1979 memorandum from Jim Holland to myself. I U. 0� I Waww� • `� • 1� ~� A� 1 ` # z 1 < c� �1 1 c F 0 z L Z MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director RE: Report to Planning Commission DATE: April 2, 1980 There are several items which the Planning Office would like to report on this meeting. In order to shorten the meeting, we will try to summarize in this memo. The first item is a progress report on the pro shop at the golf course. I reported to you several weeks ago that the Parks Department was reviewing the adequacy of the allocated budget to make improvements and put the house on the foundation as represented to you several months ago. Because you had based your approval on several considerations regarding painting the building a color compatible with the Plum Tree and landscaping the facility, we were concerned that the budgetary constraints would prevent compliance with your conditions. The Parks Director, Jim Holland, was reviewing alternative sites, including the expansion of the Plum Tree building itself for a small pro shop. He has recently advised me that he believes the budgetary provisions will now become adequate to make the improvements you specified. In fact, he is planning to initiate those improvements as soon as possible this spring. We will schedule a further progress report sometime this spring after there has been a chance to observe and evaluate the improvements. The second item that we must report to you about involves the Plum Tree again, specifically the police impound lot there. As you will recall, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended and Council approved an ordinance placing a Transportation designation on the Park zone at the Plum Tree. This was for the specific purpose of accommodating longer term storage for the police impound activities and for accommodating intercept parking if necessary. The resolution adopted by Council had an expiration date of April 15, 1980. I believe that was Council's suggestion in order that we might review alternative sites for the police impound lot. At the time then City Manager H. J. Stalf had recommended that we review placement on the Rio Grande in a zone which would now permit it (i.e., a transportation and parking use zone). City Staff has since reviewed several alternatives, none of which are ideal. They include the Airport, the corner of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82, the existing site on the Rio Grande, and the Aspen Sanitation District site at the base of Mill Street. Both the Rio Grande and the Aspen Sanitation sites are of questionable suitability. First of all the Rio Grande site is to be used for Mill Street fill for the improvements schedule this year. We have not been able to squeeze in a new site in the zones on the Rio Grande that would permit it. Finally, with the master planning process taking place on the Rio Grande, the site is surely not a good long term site for this activity. Even in the short term, it is not totally consistent with the existing SPA plan objectives. The site at the corner of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82 will have objections from surrounding neighborhoods though it might be possible to berm the site and hide cars and it is closer to the City. There may be some limited storage possibilities at the Airport but the site will not accommodate full needs of the City Police Department. The City has also looked at the County dump site but it is so far distant that costs of transportation to and from are prohibitive. The Plum Tree site has not been utilized as an intercept parking lot because that did not become necessary this year for either weather or atmospheric conditions. That is not to say that the purpose is invalid for the future. City Staff will meet again this week to review alternative possibilities. However the picture is not great and we look to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any suggestions you may have. In the meantime, approval will expire within the month and the P and Z might consider recommending that Council extend the Transportation designation at the Plum Tree site. The experience has been that few cars have been placed there and only those which have had to be stored for a long time. The Planning Office believes it is also valid and may become more apparently so in the future that an intercept parking opportunity is necessary in that area should any emergency circumstances arise. Memo to Aspen P and Re: Progress Report April 2, 1980 Page Two The third item that we wish to make a report to you on has actually come as a request from Hans Graminger. Hans Graminger has, as you know, made pre- sentations to the City Council regarding the Highway alignment alternatives particularly as those relate to the Marolt development plan. While we do not have the new development plan from the Marolt land owners, there is progress toward the development of that plan. Hans, in short, believes that we should seize this opportunity for reserving a right -of -way along Main Street extended for the purpose of a four lane approach to town, two of which lanes could be used for busway. Curt Stewart, County Transportation Director, has been reviewing the same problem and in fact is initiating the planning program with the State Highway Department to review entrance to Aspen alternatives. I have asked him to give a progress report on that work. In the annexation agreement for Marolt, you should be aware, it does contain language that the developer shall reserve right -of -way sufficient to accommodate the two alternative approaches to town (that is along Main Street extended or along the Midland right -of -way). Specific width designations were omitted for tax reasons. However, the developer seems very willing to work with the City and'County to reserve the most appropriate route or routes. ir Mom fAN rAv--. ldu gttiv p,. 4u M t, AM ry s �► if tiWFA5 e�f) Peow-z A&T - P) PAUlAl� s�T� IT 1S FZ5.��� CITI 130 s aspen M E M O R A N D U M TO: Karen Smith FROM: Jim Holland, Director Of Parks DATE: August 27, 79' RE: GOLF COURSE PRO SHOP PEN reet 1611 As an informational item for P. &.Z., the proposed location for the Golf Pro Shop is presently staked on site, adjacent to The Plum Tree parking lot (see attached sketch). Its location is one of few that affords the necessary visual contact between Pro Shop and #1 & #10 tees. The basic function of the proposed Pro Shop is that of golfer registration, retail sales for golf equipment, golf cart rental, driving range control, and business office for the Golf Professional himself. If I may be of any further assistance, or personally show the area to anyone not familiar with the site, please let me know. I will also be at the meeting on Sept.4 should any questions arise. Thank Your `. MEMORANDUM TO: H.J. Stalf, City Manager FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Pro Shop DATE: August 17, 1979 I have just learned that the golf course pro shop item scheduled for the August 21, 1979 P and Z meeting was never submitted as a formal application and therefore, never published according to the public notice requirements of 15 days notice to land owners within 300 feet of the property in question. Since we did not have the usual site plan and text describing the application before us, we did not determine that it required such. notice within the proper time frame. I understand .: the urgency of the matter, but I am afraid there is no other alternative at this point in time than to notice the matter correctly. I had assumed that the application was being submitted from your office and did not know until today that none had been submitted. If you can furnish us the material by Monday, August 20, 1979, we can try to get this proper notices out in Monday's mail which will be adequate notice for the September 4, 1979 meeting. The only other alternative would be to request a determination from Ron Stock that no notice is required because the site is not within 300 feet of any adjacent properties. Again without an application before is it is difficult to make any determinations. I regret being in this position, but I think it is important that we are totally above board when reviewing any application submitted by either the City or the County. As ;you might imagine, we are in an awkward position being the reviewer as well as being employed by the applicant. Please call me as soon as you get in. Thank you.