Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Aspen Skiing Co Eames Addition.8-83F ..,Aspen Skiing Co. Eames Addition _ Rezoning #8-83 CP 1a Z � N/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES�� City 00113 - 63721 47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 47332 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 47333 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 47341 52100 SUB/CONCEPT UAL 63725 47342 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 47343 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 47350 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 47350 52100 REZONING 63729 - 47360 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB -TOTAL County 00113 63711 47331 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 47332 52200 GMP/DETAILED 63713 - 47333 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 47342 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 47343 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 47350 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 47350 52200 REZONING 63719 47360 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 09000 52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 09000 52200 ALMANAC 63062 09000 00000 GMP 63066 09000 00000 COPY FEES 63069 09000 OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL l f ( 77 . Name: 7) ��Cl�/ice-_ Phone: Address: , B7LZJV� Project: : 4i><tl>1 Check No. Date: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Rezoning of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Eames Addition DATE: April 19, 1983 Location: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Eames Addition, City of Aspen (bordered by Juan and Aspen Streets). See attached map. Zoning: Present - R-15 PUD/L. Requested - L-2. Referral Comments: The City Engineering Department points out that the development of a lodge facility on this site would require consideration of the steep grade on Aspen Street. The impacts of the approved Ruthie's Restaurant, which will operate in the summer and winter daytime hours, on the 1-A base area\has been a constant concern. This parcel is currently used for parking about 30 vehicles in the winter and as a tennis court in the summer for Lift One Condominiums. "It has also been our understanding that, should it become apparent that parking is needed to support the restau- rant operation, this parcel would be dedicated to year-round parking." The City Attorney's Office made no comment. Planning Office Review: The Aspen Skiing Company owns these lots, but does not own any additional property in the area, with the exception of the base area of Lift 1-A. The present use of the parcel is as a parking lot in the winter for employees (and other early arrivals) who are accessing Aspen Mountain via Lift 1-A. In the summer, a lease arrangement exists between the Ski Co. and Lift One Condo- miniums whereby the condominium complex uses the site as a tennis court. The applicant contends in their letter of application that an error was made in the 1970's when the property was zoned R-15 rather than L-2. The Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended, shows this area as "recreation/accommodations" with a line indicating "recreation/accommodations transition" cutting through right at the top edge of this parcel. The placement of this line would indicate that some thought went into the provision of a transition zone between the lodge uses and residential areas which ultimately became R-15 PUD/L. There are adjacent parcels to this parcel which are zoned L-2 and R-15 PUD/L, as evidenced on the enclosed map. A case could be made on either side to support consistency with surrounding zoning. The concept suggested by the applicant that the access to Aspen Street merits L-2 zoning may have some validity, but equally valid is the fact that the remainder of the block (Lots 1-6) is zoned R-15 PUD/L. This particular parcel is between two areas of L-2 zoning and therefore may not be capable of serving a transition purpose. Considering the area as a whole, there are other parcels zoned R-15 PUD/L located between intensive lodge uses and the C - Conservation zone district, for the purpose of providing a transi- tion area. The remainder of this zone in this location is adjacent to the C - Conservation zone and Shadow Mountain. If this rezoning request is granted, arguments could be made that conditions have C, • Memo: Rezoning of Eames Addition Lots Page Two April 19, 1983 changed which warrant rezoning other R-15 PUD/L parcels which are located higher up on Aspen Mountain. The suitability of the site for development is questionable as an L-2 use. The site by itself does not offer much latitude in design possibilities, parking provision, useable open space. The obvious alternative would be the acquisition of adjacent properties for an acceptable lodge development proposal, which might also be a more logical time to evaluate a request to rezone. Even though it is unlikely that the Aspen Skiing Company would choose to develop a lodge on a 6-lot parcel, there is a speculative aspect inherent in an upzoning action as requested. The elimination of parking on this parcel will be impactive on the neighborhood, and unless replaced by the Skiing Company in another location, could translate into a fiscal impact upon the community. This parking lot is often at capacity by 9:00 a.m. during the ski season, which must indicate a certain need. More importantly, in the reviews and approvals of Ruthie's Restaurant in the past year, representations were made by the Ski Co. and conditioned as such by the Board of County Commis- sioners that, if the base area was impacted by the operation of Ruthie's Restaurant, the winter parking lot would not convert to a tennis court in summer. (Minutes and Resolution are attached.) A criteria by which to review rezoning requests, outlined in Section 24-12.5(d)(4) is: "Analysis of the community need for the proposed rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of overall community balance." The Short Term Accommodations Report prepared in April, 1982 by the Planning Office states that "the analysis of existing conditions in the Aspen Metropolitan area and the BMML analysis of Snowmass show a current situation of balance between skiing capacity, skiing utilization and tourist accommodations." The report takes the finding a step further in recommending appro- priate actions consistent with the concept which include the formation of the L-3 zone and re-evaluation in the lodge quota available (both of which have been accomplished) and "future short-term accommodations in the metro area should be confined to the existing locations of these facilities and areas zoned for tourist accommodations which are vacant or not yet fully built out." "We do not believe that a need exists for a sub- stantial rezoning to meet the short-term accommodation needs of the community." Since areas currently zoned L-1 and L-2 have a buildout potential of about 850 units, and the L-3 zone has an added potential for about 225 units, we believe that the existing lodge zones are adequate to provide for future growth in short-term accommodations. In essence, the Planning Office feels that this rezoning request is untimely. There has been no change in the surrounding area which merits a change in zoning. In the absence of a specific development proposal, it is speculative and unnecessary to rezone a small parcel of six lots for lodge use. The site may be suitable for lodge development in terms of surrounding uses, but may be unsuitable for such development as an isolated LJ 11 Memo: Rezoning of Eames Addition Lots Page Three April 19, 1983 parcel. Furthermore, by taking this parcel at the transition zone and placing it within the lodge development area, we may be starting a chain reaction which will undercut the intent of our land use plan by elimination of a transition zone. Finally, the need does not exist for rezoning these lots to meet the long-term tourist accommodations requirement of the community at this time. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that you recommend denial of this application to the City Council based on the reasons outlined in this memo. '•� I.A t. K � l h ° c d�ftg I o cQ r' V PO/ 3 � it N ; WAGNER cn ( D,T,H,) .�.�..:. v 1 a PARK I z I t• �rrr,,,.....1 � wn P t !1 N 11213141516171E I 5 6 T 1 2 3 4 8 9 i II ..sDzAN aST. 3 1 2 3 E55 T 8 9 1011 4 �. 5 � r R �„i 6 121 14t5161718192 21^ 7 (D I't nl 8 JUAN C A--.gv�m, No Mau 4 2 5 8 3 6 4 9 5 9• 10 i0 6 II 7 8 12 22 20 I I I t 19 I8 I 16 e" 15 �� r. "! j aw 4 t�+ 41_j 29 9, 40 30 31 _ram 3 2 C �ti LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET GIDEON I. KAUFMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN February 10, 1983 Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-6166 Re: Aspen Skiing Company/Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Eames Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Alan, Please consider this letter an application on behalf of the Aspen Skiing Company for the rezoning of its property located on South Aspen Street, more particularly described as Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Eames Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The subject property is presently zoned R-15 PUD/L but is surrounded by L-2 zoning. We feel that this particular property should be zoned L-2. The subject property has direct access to South Aspen Street just as the other properties zoned L-2 in the neighborhood. There is a nearby parcel adjacent to Shadow Mountain zoned R-15 PUD/L which may be appropriate because that parcel is next to Shadow Mountain. Because that parcel is adjacent to Shadow Mountain and does not have direct access to South Aspen Street it is clearly distinguishable from our property. We believe an error was made when the zoning changes of the 1970's took place and the Skiing Company's property was zoned R-15. The R-15 designation was installed on this parcel not by logical planning decisions but rather only because the property was vacant at that particular time. I think an examination of this specific property and the surrounding lodges dictates that this property should be zoned L-2 as opposed to R-15. A residential designation for this property at the base of Aspen Mountain surrounded by other lodges is not consistent with the City's policy and master plan to provide lodge facilities at the base of the mountains. The Aspen community now realizes that new first class lodging facilities are necessary and to preclude potential lodge development on this parcel makes no sense. 4* • • Alan Richman February 10, 1983 Page Two This property located at the base of Aspen Mountain, very close to the 1-A lift is a logical place for lodge development. In light of the surrounding L-2 zoning, the community's needs and the apparent error in the original zoning, the L-2 designation is appropriate. Enclosed for your review is a map of the area. The name and address of the owner of real property in the area of the proposed change is the Aspen Skiing Company. Also enclosed is a list of the names and addresses of all owners of real property within three hundred feet (300') of the area. By signing this letter, the Aspen Skiing Company has complied with the requirement of a petition signed by one hundred percent (1000) of the owners of property affected by the zoning change. Enclosed is a check to cover publication costs and to cover the processing of this application. I look forward to discussing this matter with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDE014 I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By Gideon fman GK kw ` enclosures cc: Peter Forsch ASPEN SKIING COMPANY By 0, - • nK 43J Muc. l 50 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, c COLO�TADO 'O o N LA$=C _ W Xb GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPROVAL ..J C=11 FOR THE OPERATION OF RUTHIE'S RESTAURANT o r rn 5- n a C) x .-I DURING SUMMER DAYTIME HOURS z 0 x v � Resolution No. 83 - 8 `-`' W WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado did grant to Frank Lerner, as concessionaire for the Aspen Skiing Company, special . review approval for the construction of Ruthie's Restaurant at the upper ter- minus of Lift 1-A on Aspen Mountain on May 17, 1982, and WHEREAS, a justification for the approval of this restaurant in the AF-1 zone was that the facility was determined to be an accessory to the outdoor recreational use of the ski area on the mountain, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Board on December 27, 1982, and continued until January 10, 1983, at which time an amendment to the approval submitted by Frank Lerner and the Aspen Skiing Company was discussed which included requests for nighttime use in the winter, and summer use, and WHEREAS, during the hearing the Board did determine that the mountain also offers summer recreational activities for which the restaurant would be an amenity, and WHEREAS, the proposal includes operation of the 1-A chairlift for hikers, restaurant patrons, picnickers, or view catchers, and WHEREAS, the Colorado State Tramway Board is empowered with review of the chairlift operation to assure safe conditions, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Jeep Club distributes keys to individuals for access to the road up the mountain by 4-wheel drive vehicles and licensed off - road motorcycles, and WHEREAS, parking will be necessary for users of the road who choose to stop at Ruthie's, but will be limited due to constraints of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that amendment of the special review approval is hereby given for the operation of Ruthie's Restaurant as an accessory facility to the summertime recreational activities on Aspen Mountain under the following conditions: • -2- WV430 ? l I. The Aspen Skiing Company be required to notify the State Tramway Board of the expansion of chairlift use into the summer season. 2. Use of the road will continue to be limited to members of the Environmental Jeep Club and they will be subject to the rules imposed by the Club. 3. Employees living on -site will be required to conform with the limitations of the Environmental Jeep Club. 4. A parking area will be provided for no more than 20-30 cars and its location and configuration will be approved by the County Engineer's Office and Planning Office prior to its construction. This parking area will be reviewed by the Board just prior to Building Plan review. 5. Hours of operation of the restaurant during the summer shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. until that point in time consistent with legal tramway use by exiting patrons without artificial lighting. 6. Lighting on the exterior shall be kept to the minimum necessary for the safety of the employees and screened from view to the degree which is possible, and will be reviewed by the Board just prior to building plan review. 7. A review of the summer operation shall occur by public review with the Board of County Commissioners in October -of the first year following a season of operation to consider the addition or deletion of conditions. 8. In al 1 other -ces,pec.ts, the . appl i can.t_ wi 11 conform to _.the_a.dopted ._ s andards and regulations. of the Pitkin-- Count-y Land Use.and other.. Codes and will meet the conditions and representations which have been made during the public review of the original Ruthie's special, review as well as the amen.dmen to that approval. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado at their regular meeting on January 24, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 02 Lewis Scanlan, Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: es Light, ounty rney. sen, Chairman • • PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF CCMMISSIONERS PECIAL MEETING 7 MARCH, 1983 RESENT: GEORGE MADSEN, THCMAS BLAKE, ROBERT W CHILD, HELEN KLANDERUD, MICHAEL KINSLEY ublic The Board convened a special meeting to continue the public hearing on Ruthie's earing en't: Restaurant. Discussion was continued from the previous regular meeting, at the request athie' s of the applicant, to allow for a presentation before the entire Board. Colette Penne of the Planning Office explained that the applicant has requested approval for the nighttime operation of the restaurant, both during the winterand summer months; daytime winter and summer approval was granted during the past several months. The applicant has proposed to institute a required reservation system and provide all access to and from the facility. The Planning Office expressed some concern with visual. impacts, as the facility would be visible from town, and with the housing requirements; the Housing Director has indicated that fifteen (15) employees must be housed, whereas the applicant has only agreed to house seven (7). A more important consideration, however, concerns the Code; the facility can only be approved if found to be accessory to the principal recreational use of the subject area, as restaurants are otherwise prohibited in the AF-1 zone. Although such a finding was made with respect to daytime operations, the Planning Office was unable to find that the nighttime use of the restaurant would be accessory, and recommended denial on this basis. Assistant Planning Director Alan Richman explained that the City.Engineer has expressed some concern with parking in the base area during _the months. He has requested an opportunity to discuss parking with the applicant, so as to ensure that adequate facilities are provided. It has been suggested that a tennis court owned by the applicant and utilized for parking in the winter, remain as a parking area during the summer months also. Lennie Oates, representing the applicant, agreed to resolve this i n'unction with the City Engineer. Fie also noted that the applicant would agree to execute an agreement with the County that would allow for the enforcement of the required reservation/transportation system proposed by the applicant. Kinsley explained that he was supportive of the daytime use of the proposed facility mtissionrr.'s Akx�t.in`3 7 Wirrli, 198"1 - impacts with respect to employee housing. Peter Forsch, also representing the applicant, noted that, at the time that the employee housing requirements were established for the winter use of the facility, it was felt that fall/summer use would not necessitate additional housing as housing for employees at this time of the year was not as critical as during the winter months. Forsch agreed that summer operations would not result in any additional housing impacts. Hamilton noted that the Code requires the housing of all employees generated by the development, or, that one (1) employee be housed for each three hundred (300) square feet of leasable floor area. The Code is quite specific in this regard, and unless some other innovative method can be devised, Hamilton did not feel that the application could be approved without meeting those requirements. Klanderud noted that the summer operation would not add another use, rather, it would represent an extension of the winter use, in which case it was not known why additonal housing for restaurant employees would be required. Child suggested that snowcat and lift operators be included in determining the housing requirements for the winter operation. The Board generally agreed that the applicant should resolve the housing requirements in conjunction with the Housing Director. rRichman noted that the Board should also consider parking facilities for the proposed facility, as well as access, including a determination as to whether access should be r estrictedd to the lift alone. Oates noted that seven (7) employees would be housed on 1 site and that adequate parking would be provided for them. The applicant will designate a parking facility on the mountain for those who access the restaurant by jeep, and will cooperate with the County on this issue. Oates did not feel, however, that parking in the base area would be adversely impacted; there are two (2)_mark;na 1c,ts �n the base area in addition to several side streets, and the applicant has addressed the issue with the City of Aspen. The Commercial Core Lodge Committee, for instance, did not feel that the restaurant, if not a primary use, would generate the need for additional parking. Jay Hammond, an assistant to the City Engineer, explained that the City was somewhat concerned that the proposed development may exacerbate parking in the base area. One (1) of the Company's major parking areas in the winter is utilized as a tennis court during the sturmer months, and the existing parking facilities may not be able to accoinodate a new development in this area. Hammond was not aware that the City had conpleted a specific parking plan with respect to Riithie's, and suggested that the Skiing Company retain the above referenced major parking area for simmer use in addition to winter use. Sachs noted that the facility received approval forodaytimc summer use, and asked Cr11171114R1CVl(�Y'4 \�eOi lticl 27 I M — '� The motion initiated by Blake passed with opposition from Kinsley and Madsen. uhlic Kirk Holloman, representing the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation, introduced xrment discussion on an application for helicopter skiing at the Highlands. An application was recently submitted under Section 3-8.9 of the Code requesting an exemption as an outfitter guide; the,Code allows the Planning Office to exempt permits for outfitter guides and photography purposes. Snowmobile, snowcat, jeep and other uses can be exempted under this Section, and it was felt that helicopter skiing should be considered a similar use and, therefore, similarly exempted. The request for exemption was denied by the Planning Office. Holloman noted that a test flight was planned for this Friday, 14 January, at 9:00 a.m.; the flight was scheduled to leave from the Holiday Inn and would include staff from the Division of Wildlife. The aircraft would traverse the proposed flight path by flying along Highway 82, south along Brush Creek Road, and subsequently access the Highlands bowl to the east. This particular flight path was devised in an effort to avoid the more populous areas, and Holloman invited the Board to attend the flight. The Planning Office denial of the application would necessitate the special review process, a procedure considered unduly burdensome and one which would not allow for the proposed operation this ski season. The Corporation requests a temporary permit under the outfitter guide regulations to allow for the proposed operation pending completion of the special review process. Child noted that the special review process may be valuable as there is a significant amount of public interest; a similar proposal was made a few years ago and there was a substantial amount of opposition at that time. He also suggested that the applicant publicize the proposed flight path. Holloman agreed to do so. Colette Penne of the Planning Office noted that the application has been scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on their 18 January agenda; should the Board desire to consider a temporary permit, such could be considered on the subsequent Board agenda. Klanderud agreed to schedule the temporary permit for Board review, either during a special meeting or by the subsequent regular Board meeting, and to advise the applicant accordingly. 'ublic The Board continued the public hearing on Ruthie's Restaurant, to consider the sLumier fearing 'on't: daytime operation of the proposed facility. Colette Penne noted that discussion was !uthie's continued from the previous meeting to allow for a more thorough review of access to the facility, parking, engineering safety factors, lighting and the proposed hours of operation. Those issues have been addressed by the Planning Office as follows: Yx-enisMonor' , rl4lt ini 1 10 Jiln i,1rv, 10R1 - ! ' - access: use of the chairlift should be considered the primary access, and the applicant should consider an incentive program encouraging the use of the lift, perhaps by not charging for its use. The jeep road should only be considered a secondary access to the facility, the use of which is limitedto mim- bers of the Envirormiental Jeep Club. The Club has established various rules for membership, and limits access to four-wheel drive vehicles and licensed off -road motorcycles only. The seven (7) employees to be housed at Ruthie's should be required to become members of the Club and abide by its regulations; deliveries to the facility should be made only by four-wheel drive vehicle, and the Skiing Company should maintain the road - parking: the maze area for Lift Eight (8) has been proposed as a parking area for employees and patrons alike. The applicant has indicated that such could accomodate approximately one hundred (100) vehicles, whereas the County Engineer has indicated that such could only accomodate approximately twenty (20). The Code would require thirty (30) parking spaces; the subject site should be re-evaluated for a more accurate assessment of its capability and circulation, and adequate screening.should be provided. Parking at the base of Lift_1-A should be adequate for summer -use, although, in the event_it is not, the Company may consider not converting the lot to a tennis court during the' summer: mbnths. -'the hours of operation should be specified, with the suggested hours being from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The final chairlift ride should be posted at the bottom of the lift and restaurant patrons should be advised accordingly - the proposed facility should be screened to the maximum, and exterior lighting should be minimized. The chairlift itself should not have any lighting required The Planning Office recommended the following conditions if approved: - The Aspen Skiing Company be required to notify the State Tramway Board of the expansion of chairlift use into sung season - the Aspen Skiing Company maintain the access road in safe condition - use of the road will continue to be limited to members of the Environmental Jeep Club and they will -be subject to the rules in -posed by the Club - Employees living on -site will be required to conform with the limitations of the Environmental Jeep Club - a parking area will be provided for twenty (20) to thirty (30) cars and its location and configuration will be approved by the County Engineer's Office and Planning Office prior to its construction - hours of operation of the restaurant during the summer shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. - lighting on the exterior shall be kept to the minimum necessary for the safety of the employees and screened from view to the degree which is possible - a review of the summer operation shall oQcur_..i.n.-_Cctober_of. the first year following a season of operation to discuss the addition or deletion of conditions Jerry Blann, representing the applicant, objected to the condition requiring' maintenance of the road by the Skiing Company, and requested its deletion. Kinsley did not consider it appropriate that the road be maintained by the County, and suggested that the conditions of approval indicate such, as well as include an indemnification clause in favor of the County. It was also suggested that the hours of operation be within the limits of dawn to dusk, as it was felt that the Tramway Safety Board would identify more appropriate hours of operation. Finally, with respect to parking and lighting, it was suggested that the applicant provide a specific program for the lighting of the facility and identify specific incentives for the use of the lift while creating a disincentive to vehicular access. Concessionaire Frank Lerner noted that, unlike the snowmaking facility, the restaurant would face the mountain, in which case light impacts would not be a significant problem. The seating capacity of the facility would approximate eighty (80) individuals, and use of the chairlift would be encouraged; the dining experience, for instance, might be restricted to users of the lift. The concessionaire may also provide a foul --wheel drive shuttle service. Lerner understood the concerns of the C. • i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IOKM •I C. I. Mf1CCK EL B. B. S 1. C'1. __.- Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 i -7- not to be afraid to give the applicant the opportunity to come in with a plan. Harvey said the approval of this SPA overlay is only doing that. Harvey said from all comments, the applicant should get a feeling of the fears and reactions. Harvey said he is not afraid of the Board's ability to con- sider any further plans and act in the best interests of the community. Harvey said he is in favor of this action. Hunt moved to recommend to Council the expansion of the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels zoned C, CC and L-1 owned by the Aspen Skiing Company and the Little Nell base area as shown on the submitted map, conditioned on (1) existing zones are maintained with the respect to each area; (2) any change in zone area will consitute rezoning subject to those proce- dures; (3) if the two previous conditions are not maintained, the Commission recommends denial of the application. Hunt changed condition (2) to read any variance in the allowed use in the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and rezoning criteria, and (3) if Council doesn't approve the first two conditions, the Commission recommends denial of the application; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Eames Addition Rezoning Colette Penne, planning office, told P & Z these lots are on Lots 7 - 12 Aspen street down from lift lA across from the Skier's Chalet. Block @ They are presently zoned R-15-L/PUD; this is a transition zone to relieve the density from the L-2 zone to the residen- tial zone. The applicant contends this particular parcel is the only one fronting on Aspen street which is not zoned L-2, and it should be zoned L-2. Ms. Penne pointed out this six lot parcel is the only one owned by the Skiing Company in this area except for the base at lift 1A. There is no development proposal; it is a small parcel for L-2 zone. Ms. Penne pointed out rezoning to L-2 would increase the value of the lot, and the planning staff does not feel this is an appropriate action. The planning staff does not support upzoning in the absence of any develop- ment proposal and no idea of what will be proposed. Ms. Penne told P & Z this is the Ski Company's employee park- ing area at the base of the mountain, and the planning office does not support removal of parking at the base of the mountain. Ms. Penne said the applicant has just gotten approval from the county for a winter and summer use at Ruthie's restaurant and this area will be needed for parking in the summer. Ms. Penne said the short term accommodations report indicated the L-3 zoning action and the lodge quoat in the GMP is adequate to meet lodging needs based on skier use and lifts. Ms. Penne said part of a rezoning action is that there has bee some change in the area which merits rezoning. There has not been a change in this neighborhood. The planning office recommends denial of this rezoning request for the reasons outlined in the memorandum of April 19, 1983. Gideon Kaufman, representing the Skiing Company, said they are not asking to create something different but for somethingr that is logical and was intended in the first place. Kaufman Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 went over the surrounding zones on a map. The R-15 PUD makes this zone different from the surrounding zones and creates an enclave which conflicts with the land use plan. Kaufman stated they are not asking for substantial rezoning. Kaufman said he felt this R-15PUD/L zoning is a mistake. Kaufman said from -the land use plan, the maps, the short term accommodation report and logic indicate this parcel should be L-2: Harvey opened the public hearing. Vann said the issue here is whether this parcel should be I upzoned in the absence of a specific development proposal. Vann agreed that the zoning line may not be appropriate, and the planning office is not saying this parcel should not be rezoned. Consideration -for rezoning should be made with a specific proposal. Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company, said the applicant cannot think of a plan without the appropriate zoning. c Anderson asked about the parking issue for Ruthie's restaurant., Kaufman said there were no conditions in the approval for the restaurant for this property to be a parking lot.- Forsch said the applicant did not represent in the restaurant approval` that this would be parking. White said the -county Commission minutes indicate there is a specific parking plan with the city; White said he would like to see that plan. Kaufman said this property is not zoned for parking. This parcel was given a zone designation with the ability to develop. .-__ Ms. Penne told the P & Z there will be a review of Ruthie's.-- after one year of operation. The applicant said if there is a need for the parking lot to remain, they will do what they can to make that happen. Harvey asked if the P & Z could I condition any rezoning upon the applicant providing an adequate' alternate site for parking. Forsch said he was not sure there ; is an alternate site. Harvey said the county minutes indicate this parking issue will be resolved. Harvey said the impact of the parking is on the city, and the P & Z may require an alternate plan for parking in this approval. Hunt said he would want to see the plan before giving any approval. Ms.- Penne said the R-15 PUD/L is a transition zone, and if the P & Z wants to chip away at it, there should be a i good reason. The purpose of this zone is an R-15 density that can be short termed. Esary said the applicant has the burden to show that the zoning is improper. Anderson stated he is ambivalent about an L-2 designation. Hunt said he is not in favor without seeing_a proposal. The Skiing Company has a major burden in this area in automobile use, and if they eliminate the parking lot,_it will put that burden on the city. Hunt said he sees no_ benefit in increas- ing the zoning until there is a proposal before P & Z. Hunt stated he is not willing to say L-2 is appropriate for this proposal. Ms. Fallin agreed this is not appropriate for L-2 at this time. White said the parking problem should be solved first. Harvey said he felt there were representations made to the = county regarding Ruthie's and the use of this for parking. That issue has to be resolved bofore.this parcel should be rezoned L-2. Harvey said it makes -sense that this property should be zoned L-2. Harvey said there has to clarification on the parking issue and the impact of Ruthie's. Harvey would also like to see the impact of a lodge on this parcel. I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM V C. F. MOECKFL B. B. R L. LO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 -9- Hunt moved to table this application upon request of the applicant to a date uncertain with the provision that there be renotice of the public hearing; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to table consideration of Rubey Park to Tuesday, April 26, 1983; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Fallin All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, JCitZyC�lerk� MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer PLANNER: Colette Penne RE. Applications for Rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation; Aspen Skiing Co. Eames Addition Rezoning; and Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning DATE: March 2, 1983 Attached you will find three applications for rezoning, referenced above. The first is requesting an SPA designation for the entire Little Nell parcel, with the intent that any future development plan can be prepared and reviewed at one time as a whole. The second is requesting Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Eames Addition to be zoned L-2 from its current R-15 PUD/L. The final rezoning application for the Buckhorn Lodge requests a change from its present "0", Office to C-L, commercial -lodge zoning. Please review the applications and return your comments to the Planning Office no later than April 5, so that we may adequately prepare for our presentation before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on �' 19� a true and correct -copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: 1 VWV �Nadl-C Martha Eichelberger PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Skiing Company Eames Addition Rezoning NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider a rezoning of Aspen Skiing Company's property located on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Eames Addition, City of Aspen from R-15 PUD/L to L-2 (Lodge-2). For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: s/Perry Harvey, Chairman Published in the Aspen Times on City of Aspen account. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering t _ DATE: April 1, 1983 .� RE: Aspen Skiing Company Rezoning Request Eames Addition ----------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application by the Aspen Skiing Company to rezone lots in the Eames Addition from R-15 PUD-L to L-2, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The parcel for which the Skiing Company is requesting rezoning is currently used as a tennis court in the summer and parking for about 30 vehicles in the winter. Approvals have been obtained toward creation of a year- round restaurant facility on Aspen Mountain. It has been a constant concern of this office that operation of the restaurant could create adverse impacts around lift 1-A in terms of parking and pedestrian use. It has also been our understanding that, should it become apparent that parking is needed to support the restaurant operation, this parcel would be dedicated to year-round parking. 2. Development of a lodge facility on this site would require consideration of the steep grade on Aspen Street. JH/co The following are all the owners within three hundred (300) feet of the following described parcel: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 11 Eames Addition Hans B. Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, CO 81612 The City of Aspen 500 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Howard B. Awrey P.O. Box 248 Aspen, CO 81612 Alpen Blick Townhouses c/o Lee Miller 747 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fasching Haus East Condominiums "c/o Lee Miller 747 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fasching Haus Condominiums P.O. Box 8606 Aspen, CO 81612 Shadow Mountain Condominiums P.O. Box DD Aspen, CO 81612 John Dolinsek Frank Dolinsek, Jr. P.O. Box 275 Aspen, CO 81612 Jacobus Andriaga dePagter Johanna Suzanne Margaratha dePagter P.O. Box 182 Aspen, CO 81612 K&E 19 1134 5-00 MC934. IN ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LOTS 7-12 EAMES ADDN. L - 2 J U A N L - 2 S T. 0 NORZH 0 5 10 20 30 40 0 1 SCAL.F I 10' BASIS JFBEARING: FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. 0 0 a L — 2 3URV EYOR' QQER.7T1FEQATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON JANUARY 24 1983 OF LOTS 7 -12, BLOCK 1 1, EAMES ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. ALPINE SURVEYS by: JAMES F RESER JANUAR(Y 27,1983 L.S. 9184 s NOTICE nanydmgtocOloradohissur surveyaw you must commence eryou regaiaction ve, Alpine Surveys Surveyed 24 JAN. 1983 PB Revisions based upon any defect In this survey within six years after you first discover so ch defect. In no event may any acpon based upon any defect In this survey m e of certification shown Drafted 27 J A N. 1983 D Mc be commenced more than ten years from the date the Post Office Box 1730 Aspen. Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 Title BOUNDARY SURVEY LOTS 7 o 12 B L®�1K Ill EAMES ADDN. CCE°IC'Y OF ASPEN Job No 83- 4 Client ASPEN SKIING CO.