HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19870120
NO AGENDA AVAILABLE FOR 01/20/1987 MEETING
205 EAST DURANT, #SP - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Southpoint Condominium Association
William Dunn, President and the Board of Managers on behalf
of the owners
RE: Mountain View Project
January 1987
The Southpoint Condominium Association objects to the
Mountain View project as presented. Our major concerns are
described be -low. We ask that you consider this memo for the GMP
allocation hearing and for the continuation of the hearing on
rezoning.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is a primary concern to
the residents. a) If the Garmisch Circle alternative is
considered to be the only viable alternative offered, serious
questions are raised about the set -backs and open space on the
southeast building as shown on the site design. b)The
intersection of Garmisch, Aspen. and Juan streets will be an off
set intersection. This raises concerns about safety and ease of
traffic flow. c) Serious traffic problems now occur at the
coiner of Aspen and Durant. Additional personal and commerical
traffic from the Mt. View project will aggravate the situation.
PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is now a problem during peak holiday
periods, World Cup, and on powder mornings. The City has.had
under review major changes (possible ski club and ski museum) to
the Willoughby Park area between Monarch and Aspen on Dean which
would eliminate most of parking currently there.
While the Mountain View project lists parking spaces in
excess of those required by code, the impact of the proposed
relocation of the Ski Company -parking lot is not addressed. From
a map it would appear that such a relocation would dispi�,,ce
current tenant parking at the Mine Dump units, and possibly some
structures currently used"as employee housing.
REQUEST FOR REZONING A PARCEL FROM R15L(PUD) TO L2 if grau.-ited
would increase the maximum allowable density and height allowed
on the parcel. While this might be justified along Aspen Street
the m-�s7cern end of the property is a transistional zone and
should be maintained as R15 against tAe mountain. The rezoning
changes would not be compatible with the neighborhood as it now
exists.
Scoring for the allocation of GMP units requires careful
evaluation to protect the intent of the GMP and the planning
process. Is it in the best interests of the community and fair
to other applicants holding clear title to ignore the problems of
confused ownership and the tangled legal status of a piece of
prop --.rty 1--,,(--ing cva1u,-,9tr-,d?
Thank you for your attention.
�, If Ell
Ec
o
2 0 19� .� /F Alf
(�C%,�%' C',,_ ram•-`=-.'�--�� - �- � � l
1 L
c- /, z� "z" el
��G!/lt���2- V / t�`�-L��"'� �'�(/_/�'�Ci1i'�--�`ZliI�2G�•,,-..-t� G�%�'•-�.-GC� �G�/
tLZA'
�'�s�•"C �L'�v�f �i�^--0..'l ..�C...C_�LG'�1-� �L,.L�-'C.L�-C.-� � (X/��Jy-..��� LJ� /'7'�r�L� f�lii�-L S��Zs�
W
0
January 20, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
Dear Steve:
I personally have spent hundreds of hours and my client together
with his architect have spent literally thousands of hours in the
evolution of the above application to its present state. The
give and take necessary to address the rezoning, subdivision and
street vacation of a project of this complexity cannot be
addressed in the few minutes allocated in your recent memo for
such purpose. In addition, the logical progression of the GMP
process is to initially score all projects based on the
assumption that all related approvals are in place.
I do not see how it is possible for the Planning and Zoning
Commission in their quasi-judicial capacity of scoring the
projects in which they act like judge and jury in a court case to
totally disregard the results of rezoning, subdivision and street
vacation should those be adverse to the applicant. It would be
virtually impossible for P & Z to totally forget those results
and thus the scoring process would be flawed to that extent.
The procedure of allowing the applicant to be scored under the
GMP process first is exactly in conformity with the desired
procedure stated by Alan Richman in connection with last year's
GMP process. If you recall, his instructions to the members of P
& Z were that they were to only consider the GMP criteria in
connection with the scoring process and then to later address any
other developmental approvals that might be required.
In the event any other related and required approvals were not
achieved then we would be required to follow the procedure of 24-
11.7(b) regarding amendment of the approved application.
13
Mr. Steve Burstein
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
January 20, 1987
Page Two
----------------------------------
In summation, the Mountain View project is a significant
development that does impact the town, we think very favorably,
and we need a town meeting type environment to fully explore all
of its ramifications. This should take place after the scoring
and thus I respectfully request that the zoning, subdivision and
street vacation procedures be continued until after the GMP
scoring process is completed on January 27, 1987.
/Vey truly yours .�
2 -� --
Dougl P. Allen
DPA/pkm
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Allen, Representing "Mountain View"
Gideon Kaufman, Representing "1010 Ute Avenue"
Sunny Vann, Representing "700 E. Hyman Condominiums"
Joe Wells, Representing "1001"
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: 1986 Residential GMP Submissions
DATE: December 5, 1986
This is to acknowledge receipt of your residential development
application and to inform you that it has been sent forward into
the agency referral process. Sending the application out for
comments does not necessarily mean that we have all the informa-
tion we may need throughout the process, but simply that we are
initiating review by our referral agencies. As we dig more
deeply into the applications, we will contact you if we need
clarification.
Following is a summary of the review schedule for the projects.
The P&Z will begin its consideration of the applications on
January 20. Based on an agreement reached with P&Z, their review
will begin with the subdivision, zoning and special review issues
and not the GMP scoring. Therefore, on January 20, all four
projects will be considered only for the subdivision, zoning and
special review portions of their application. Please plan on
spending no more than about 45 minutes considering each appli-
cation, including staff presentations, applicant's presentation,
P&Z questions and action. At this meeting, only the Mountain
View project will be subject to public hearing due to its
rezoning application. As soon as possible, we must receive
stamped envelopes made out to all owners within 300 feet of this
site in order that we may properly notice this hearing.
On January 27, P&Z will score all four projects at a public
hearing. It is assumed that due to the thorough review conducted
by P&Z of the subdivision application, the GMP review can proceed
much more smoothly. Therefore, each project should anticipate no
more than 30 minutes for the presentations, questions, and public
comments. At the close of the hearing, the projects will be
scored and a ranking established.
Council's review is expected to occur in February. Public
hearings will be required of each of the projects for conceptual
subdivision review. This will likely take place at Council's
meeting of February 23. Please note that before these hearings
can be set, we must obtain from you stamped envelopes made out to
every property owner adjacent to your development site. Those
projects which receive all necessary conceptual approvals from
Council and have met the applicable thresholds in scoring will be
considered for an allotment. Before the allotments are granted,
appeals, if submitted, will be heard.
I know that each of you is concerned with the number of allot-
ments available this year. As you know, the annual residential
quota is 39 units a year, reduced by any development which has
taken place via exemptions in 1986 and increased by any carryover
of unused quota from prior years, expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions which took place in 1986.
Following is an estimate of the quota which is likely to be
available (final calculations will not be done until January when
the December building report arrives) :
Annual Quota = 39 units
Expiration (Gor don) = 3 units
Additions = approximately 25 units
Demolitions - -8 units
Approx. 25 units
35 units available for carryover (discretionary review by
Council)
Likely potential quota = minimum of 20-25 units
maximum of 55-60 units
The requests by the four applicants are as follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
10 Ol = 4 units
Total 82 units
As you can see, it will be a competitive and interesting process!
Incidentally, we will have two planners handling the cases this
year. Glenn Horn will have 1010 Ute Avenue and 1001 assigned to
him; Steve Burstein will have Mountain View and 700 E. Hyman
assigned to him. Please contact them directly if you have any
questions.
cc: Project Files
Paul Taddune
Concerning the captioned rezoning
as being strongly opposed to the granting of a hearing to be held In this conneetion, I should like to go on record
be built on South aspen Street.
-Vihile a change In zoning from R-1-5 may not
be objectionable
G r
, the e anticipated density goes against the grain
of the "Aspouff philosophy, FUrthermore, the
f
w, � infrastructure i
Streetthe area including the Durant
highly undesirable from the standpoint of neighboring Townhouse traffic would deteriorate and is
of which I am an i
r:, y� you take ac,my remonstrance
.NW 131987 '
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Hallie Barbee Rugheimer
Dated: January 9, 1987
Concerning input and objections to the proposed Mountainview
development I have the following comments to submit. I reserve the
right to add additional comments in future letters if the situation
warrants.
If the applicant perceives that the p and z committee's
greatest concern will be with neighborhood compatibility and con-
cerns, as a contiguous property owner, my main input is to just
that area.
On PAGE 4.2,the architects mention "Through an agreement with
the adjacent property owner, the use of an unutiliz,ed access strip
will allow for the addition of a proposed transit stop and relo-
cation . . N The assumption made in this statement is without
substance. No established agreement has been made either verbally
or in writing. The Barbee family owns the strip of land between.
Block 11 where Garmisch Circle is drawn.
The closure of Juan Street upon which this development depends
is objectionable. This is a viable city street serving not only
this immediate neighborhood but it is a connecting access with a
less severe grade than Aspen St., serving Lift 1 area. This public
road should not be replaced with a private road owned and main-
tained by private intesests. Although there is no mention in the
text, maps show changes and realignment to Garmisch St. not just
the closure of Juan Street. Again, landowners to the west side of
Garmisch St. are the Barbee family members. The applicant is
restricting, by his vacation proposal and his tacit Garmisch St.
realignment, total access from the Barbee property and existing
house via either road. We feel this is not in our best interest.
Any granting of Juan St. vacation and consideration of a privately
owned and maintained road makes all of the Barbee property reliant
on this access which is not publicly controlled.
A story from personal experience here in Montana seems to be
appropriate when mentioning rights of maintenance. The City of
Bozeman has an access road across our ranch property to service
a city water reservoir. The deed states the city has "the right
to maintain and upkeep this access road". The road gives access
to the higher acreage of our property and it is used every day by
personnel servicing the reservoir and by us during ranch operations
throughout the year. Their "right to maintain" this road is also
their "right to ignor maintanence " of same. We're fortunate if
a city snowplow comes out once a year to remove snow. Summer
maintenance is so limited as to be practically non existent. When
there of complaints of financial crunch on the city, this road
definitely gets ignored.
I can see a similar situation with the Garmische Circle under
private control. Right to maintain puts us landowners at a distinct
disadvantage for use now or for further development of the property.
It also appears that the Mountain view development itself does not
depend on Garmisch Circle but on Dean St. for all its services.
:This point plus the fact the proposed Garmisch Circle intrudes
across preperty it does not own, should be enough to deny the
proposal. Its only presence is to justify the closure of Juan St.
We don't think closure of a public street in trade for a privately
controlled road is in the public's interest. We know its not in
our best interest.
On the issue of rezoning, the proposed boundary line of the
L2/R15 is delineated on the same 20 foot strip of land between Block
11. I wanted to let the committee know the status of the area
under consideration.- As the city's application form indicates,
the applicant must supply proof of ownership of lands under issue
for rezoning. Again, there is no agreement on this tract of land.
It is under Barbee ownership.
The logic stated in PARAGRAPH (6) PAGE 14 I believe is not
valid. The impact of the proposed project will not necessarily
alleviate congestion in any other area. If this were really the
case, every new development would be resented by every other
development already in existence. This new business will just be
adding to lodge zone congestion. The statement saying this
"luxury short-term tourist type accomodations " seems to be
in conflict with the applicant's proposal for condominium -type
development. Removing LittleNell's congestion isn't going to
happen if according to earlier arguments in the proposal that
additional occupants for this "housing project" would help Aspen's
economy.
The whole development proposal resembles the previously
submitted 601 Aspen project. It seems the applicant considers
material from the last proposal be taken into consideration for
this proposal, note Pearson and Associates letter dated 12/02/85.
My input from the 601 Aspen project of last year is equally valid
for this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
gheime 14 llie Barbee Ru
f �4telotl
Date: 01/08/87
TO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONIN8 COMMISSION
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81
FROM: John W. Barb
REF: MOUNTAIN VIEW~Submission,
In the interests
process, I would \
proposed rezoning\
I will try to iden
(hereafter referre,
specifically as thm
\
� Commission's review
formation, deal with the
n summarize my position.
7AIN VIEW Submission
�h I am speaking as
I. GENERAL: / ~
\ \ (
In several pla� // U ference made to
�� v
agreement(s) ne t /��� ` / - -'-- ---- ^~
, go « �ween the owners of
the Barbee Property referred to as the
"Developer").te emphatically that
there is no past, cur ^� �otiation or
understanding between / �� / i the Developer
regarding this develo / / .r zncludes premises
relevant to this devel - "eveloper has referred to those
parcels in the Proposa - .,as shown that he has apparent plans to
either use and/or impact them significantly through the plans laid out
in the Proposal. Again, there is no agreem nt, formal or informal,
explicit or implicit between the Barbee Property owners and the
Developer. This Proposal incorporates in its text, data, and maps
portions of our property over which the Developer has no authority,
control nor right to use, occupy, develop or encumber in any manner.
I agree very much that neighborhood compatibility is essential and that
apprehensiveness on the part of neighbors is extant and is a major
concern (Hyatt, SOM, ltr. 12/01/86).
II. REZONING & STREET VACATION(S)
A. Rezoning
[Page 12,
(1.
at bottom)]
In the copy of the Proposal
which I
received
I see
no
proof of ownership by Developer.
[Page 13,
(1)]
Developer
states "It appears that
when
the zone
districts
were
created that in
this this particular
situation
tiff... land
was zoned
by ownership
rather
than as part of a comprehensive
plan ..."
(sic>.
This contention
is not
valid, as the lots in
Block
11 have been
under
separate
ownership
(1 &
2 - Barbee, 3, 4, 5 &
6 - Pechnik,
7 thru
P & Z letter ((,-,:ont'd.}
Page 2
12 - Ski Corp.), yet are all R-15. If the commission deems that 1 2
� zoning is appropriate for the proposed property, then it is certainly
appropriate for adjacent and very similar properties.
[Page 13, (2) & (3)] There is no evidence provided that increased
population and increased tax base leads to increased fiscal condition of
a special community such as Aspen. The "dirt" which the Developer
refers to is a mystery to this reader. The current cover on the land in
question is natural, indigenous vegetation similar or identical to that
on all of the nearby "Shadow Mountain" hillsides. There is no evidence
which I am aware of regarding adverse impacts on air quality from the
property referred to. To claim improved air quality as a result of a
condominium development here is fatuous and probably irrelevant to the
rezoning proposed.
It is my contention that 1 2 zoning is probably appropriate for the area
of Aspen and Pitkin County located between the commercial core and
Shadow Mountain and lift 1. Given the lodge and other high -density uses
throughout this area, it would make sense to rezone this area to the
same L-2 use/density which have existed for years there. However, the
present Proposal deals with a small piece of property and sounds like a
request for "spot re -zoning" which, I'm sure, the Commission would like
to avoid. On the other hand, I believe granting of L-2 status for this
piece sets a precedent for the adjacent R-15 zoned areas, and that this
should be considered in the decision.
� B. Street Vacation(s)
�
The Developer
deals only with the
yacaIn- ion of Juan
St. It
appears
clear that the Proposal
also requires
the vacation of at
least a
portion
of Dean St. and of
the portion of S. Garmisch
Str. from
Dean St.
to the
Juan St. corner, in
order to accommodate
theproposed "Garmisch
Circle".
Since Garmisch Circle
is to be privately
owned by the Developer
and
subsequent project
owners, S. Garmisch
would have to be
vacated
and
ceded to the property
owners on both sides.
The Barbee
Property
abuts
S. Garmisch on the
west in this area.
[Page 15, (2)] The map enclosed by the Developer shows Juan St.
ending at the border between lots 2 & ON of Block 11. The street
actually extends, through its corner to the western border of lot 1,
Block 11. The house on the Barbee Property [p. 11-4] is situated on
lots 1 & 2, and has 611 Juan St. as its address. I do not wish for us
to abandon our rights, as residents of Juan St., to the present public
ownership, maintenance and access.
[Page 15 (6)] It is my opinion as a Barbee Property owner that the
proposed vacation does not offer an improved or "superior
neighborhood -sensitive land use plan". Quite the contrary, it offers
increased congestion and private control of the proposed replacement(s).
While Juan St. has not yet been fully utilized to the extent of the
In. owned right of way, over the years we have seen it and other
streets grow wider as the demand and need of the user publics grew.
With the proposed Garmisch Circle, all that the user public has is a 24'
wide road, period -- no possibility of expanding with growing needs.
P & Z letter ((:::ont'd.}
[Page 15 (8)] There is no evidence to support the contention that
the proposed Garmisch Circle would better serve the general
neighborhood. I submit that it is not in the best interests of this
neighborhood to vacate a 100 year old street to accommodate the interest
of one developer.
In essence, the Proposal asks Aspen citizens to abdicate ownership
rights and public responsibility to three city streets. Dean, Juan and
S. Garmisch (then called S. Center) have existed on maps of Aspen and
have been used since the 1890's. They are shown clearly on the Willetts
map as published in the ASPEN TIMES, 1893. Juan St. has been in
constant use for public, utility and fire access as well as serving the
purpose of guest access to the Aspen Mountain lift 41.1. While the
Developer does propose a replacement for the vacated streets, the
proposed solutions involve loss of public supervision, maintenance and
responsibility for the continued service which these streets must
provide. I believe that neither the general public nor the neighborhood
is well served by the proposed and implied street vacations.
[Page 25,
2. d.] In my view,
the narrow character
and private
maintenace and
responsibility would result
in reduced
access for fire
protection and
intervention via the
proposed
Garmisch
Circle. As a
Barbee Property
owner, I am also
concerned
about future
access to that
� property and the
buildings which
may be developed
in the
future.
[Page 30, f.] The "specific commitment of the applicant." is cited
as the reason that the road plans in the Proposal would result in
general improvement to the area. The Developer proposes a location for
Garmisch Circle which on the south aligns with Gilbert St. and the
Woonerf trail on the sooutheast and with Dean and S. Garmisch Str. on the
northwest. Since the Barbee Property lying between Block 11 and what
the Developer describes as the "Mine Dumps" property, the alignment with
Gilbert/Woonerf is not possible. The proposed privately owned Garmisch
Circle northwest alignment at Dean & S. Garmisch would have to be
located substantially further east than represented on the Developer's
maps, since the "private" ownership would require that S. Garmisch be
vacated and returned to the property owners on both sides, necessitating
that the Garmisch Circle 24' road plus 12' ski/walking trail plus 5'
min. setback from Barbee property boundary (41' min. total) would extend
at least 29' further to the east than described and shown in the
Proposal. The present maps provided by the developer show the proposed
12' trail going onto Barbee Property for approx. 50' - 100' before
joining the Koch trailhead.
The "transit dropoff" proposed by the developer is situated on
Barbee Property not owned/optioned/occupied by the Developer. The
Proposal claims that the proposed Garmisch Circle road would have at
grade of 7% - 8%. However, using the data and maps provided in the
Proposal, my calculations show that, from Dean St., the Garmisch Circle
road has an average grade of slightly over 9%, with Aspen St. having an
average grade of slightly over 10%.
P & Z letter ((:::ont'd.)
Page A.
[Page
31,
c.] As a
Barbee
Property owner,
I have
not and do not
� support nor
endorse
the
proposed
alignment. The
proposed
alignment, in
my view, would
restrict
access to our premises,
both present
and
potential.
[Page 31, d.] I see no evidence of cooperation with the LID, Lift
One and Timberridge by the applicant. Applicant, by his own admission,
is not even an LID member.
[Page 32, g.]
The perpetual easement for public use proposed by the
Developer
is not described
adequately, so I
am assuming it
is for 24'
road
and 12' path,
a toal of 36' for both.
I regard this
as inadequate
for
even a public
street without at side path
and therefore
inadequate
for
a private "public
use easement".
[Page 32, j.] I question the motivation and the ability of the
Developer and the future owners of the proposed premises to maintain the
proposed privately owned streets adequately for reliable public access.
[Page 32, l.] The site of the transit dropoff on Garmisch Circle
proposed elsewhere by the Developer is not on his property, but on
premises belonging to the Barbees.
[Page
33]
Because of the configuration and size of the units (2
baths, easily
split/mo(Aified
design) I believe that
it is expectable
that the units
will actually
be split and rented on
at 2:1 basis. This
& could lead
�
to
much more occupancy
and traffic than
is projected. I
consider this
an expectable outcome due to the design
of the units
portrayed
in the
Proposal.
[Page 38] The Barbee Property owners have neither been informed of
the Deyeloper's plans nor allowed input other than in an extremely
limited and ad hoc manner. Our first knowledge of the Developer's plans
was received in late November, 1986, via an informal discussion with one
of the Barbee family members. The claim of "extensive input" and other
implied formal interchanges with the Barbee Property owners is
misrepresentation on the part of the Developer. I do not wish to have
Juan St. vacated and consider the compatibility of this project with our
neighborhood as poor.
[Page 40, b.] I believe
that the
height and size of the proposed
buildings will have
negative
impact on
the horizon of Aspen compared to
the existing buildings.
The
baseline
chosen will make this at very
visible development
if it is
approved,
financed and completed.
[Page 41, c.] Developer has no
apparent solar applications nor use
of ground
effects
(other than in parking
areas under the buildings>, no
earth
birming to
buffer temperature
drop
variations. A less height,
lower
profile design incorporating
more ground effects would have been
more
appropriate
than the maximum height
profile chosen by the
Developer.
, P & Z letter (cont'd.) Page 5
[Page 42, d.] The promised easement for, or actual nordic trail
� promised by the Developer is shown on his maps to be on Barbee Property
in at least two places. The Developer has never mentioned his needs,
nor requested easements for nordic trail(s) from the Barbees. The
wording "...insofar as they (trail easements) can be provided on
applicant's property..." communicates the tentative nature of the
Developer's planning for trail(s). [Page 433 There is the implication
that there is an agreement or negotiation between the Developer and the
Barbee Property owners regarding easements and/or purchase of the "20'
strip" which lies between the Mine Dumps property and Block 11. In
fact, there is no negotiation nor agreement between us and the
Developer. The proposed 12' nordic trail would have to allow vehicular
access to the Barbee house and also to future potential developments on
Barbee Property to the west from Garmisch Circle (if approved). The
future possible developments on the Barbee Property, including the
inclusion of nordic trail and skier access is not germaine to this GMP.
To include them, through reference, implication or whimsy is
inappropriate and irrelevant. The Proposal must stand on its own
merits, not on mythical innuendo. The maps provided by the Developer
are misleading regarding the trails, in that they are no close to scale
in showing a specified 12' width. I have stated that the proposed
Garmisch Circle -adjacent trail is apparently being planned on Barbee
Prooertv in at least two locations (see in,, orevious comments relatinq to
page 30, f. of the Proposal}.
[Page 50, 5.] I see little or no evidence of the Proposal being
� "...designed to be well -oriented to the needs of both residents and
�
tourists.", nor that the visual quality of this portion of town will be
improved by this proposed project. I have spoken of my disscouragement
with the lack of neighborhood involvement and incompatibility of many of
the elements of the proposal, especially the street vacations dealt with
and not dealt with and the proposed privately administered narrow roads
unabashedly presented as viable and better alternative than platted
public streets. Portions of Dean St. and S. Garmisch would obviously
have to be vacated in addition to Juan St. -- why are those areas not
represented in the Developer's Proposal and calculations?
IV. SUMMARY COMMENTS
This seems to be a hurriedly developed and poorly conceived attempt to
get something approved for development on the property, whether owned by
the Developer or not. Much is re -treaded material from the 601 Aspen
proposal of last year. Four of the eight letters of support included in
the Proposal are responses to the 601 Aspen proposal which was rejected.
In my comments I have spoken to some of the apparent discrepancies of
fact and opinion which I found in the Proposal. However, there are also
claims and promises made which are difficult to evaluate, since they
fall in the area of quality, ability, future performance and
responsibility in general and specific.
� Obviously, many of the representations in this (or any) proposal must be
-~ taken on faith and trust. Trust, that the Developer is being honest and
straightforward in his intent and promises, and that he is operating in
° P & Z letter (cont'(.A.) Page 6
good faith. Clearly not every single detail can be tied down with
� evidentiary proof, and even if it were possible, it would not be
feasible to enforce every item promised if a developer chose to deal in
bad faith. As in all transactions, we have to make hard decisions about
who we can and will trust. We do it based on experience, be it positive
or bitter, with any given individual or organization. I would urge you
as a Commission to do just that in evaluating the otherwise
non -quantifiable claims of any proposal. Base your, judgement on the
track record of the individual/organization; has the party behaved as a
responsible citizen in the past in transactions similar to the ones
proposed -- dealing with the City, County, investors and the public; has
the party developed properties in the quality and character promised.
Relevant past performance is an acceptable and appropriate criterion in
many fields of organizational and individual endeavor. I believe that
the track record of this and any developer is critical to the decisions
which you make.
Certainly this current Proposal shows some responsiveness by the
developer to feedback from earlier proposals (601 Aspen), and to some
degree those issues have been addressed. However, the closure of public
streets and replacement by limited private drives allowing public access
is not in anyone's best interest, including the potential owners of
Mountain View condominium units. The Proposal leaves many loose ends
and questions unanswered, including the trails, suspicious unit design,
road vacations, etc.
� I am not anti -growth or anti -development in my orientation. I believe
�
that quality projects are necessary and needed for Aspen to retain its
prime standing as a quality and unique place to visit or live. Some
recent projects in Aspen have shown us that high quality is possible and
is appreciated by us all. I would like to see more quality assurance
and performance in Aspen's future.
To: Aspen Plann!�4g
From: Mary K. Barb
Re: Mountain View
Date: January 12, 1986
Zoing Commission Members
d Development
uU�6�JPN 131987
The proposed development raises many questions and contradictions of information
in maps and text. I object to several aspects of the proposal but wish to cite
specifically:
JUAN STREET VACATION
1. Developer does not own 100% of the property on both sides of Juan street
as the proposal asserts.
2. The project will not improve traffic circulation and safety to adjacent
property owners in that the proposed Garmisch Circle will be a private
road, not public.
3. Snow removal, parking and other safety and convenience aspects of the
proposed Garmisch Circle will not be in public domain, thereby relegating
adjacent property owners to dependency on private ownership.
Expanded text attached.
To: Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission Members
From: Mary K. Barb
Re: Mountain View
Date: December 30, 1986
This memo will address objections to the proposed Mountain View development
generally, and specifically:
1. Closure and abdication of two public streets
2. References to and inferences regarding Barbee participation in proposal
This document will refer to the proposal and offer summary consideration remarks.
PAGE 13 (1) The suggestion that "It appears that when the zone districts were
created that in this particular situation the land was zoned by ownership rather
than as a part of a comprehensive plan . . . " has no validity. Although the
land to the north and south of lots 7-12 of Block 11 were zoned L-2, that is not
the case with lots 3-6 of Block 11. The property South and West of those lots is
R-15. There was no single owner of all these lots. They were owned by three
seperate owners. If L-2 zoning is appropriate in this location for the reason
cited by the applicant, then all adjacent property is equally appropriate for L-2
zoning.
PAGE 13 (2) (3) There no evidence that increased population (though increasing
the tax base as cited) does not also provide additional fiscal responsibility to
a community. Increased vegetation would be difficult to accomplish on areas that
have retained their natural vegetation. Aspen street is already paved as necessary
and Juan and Garmisch in their current condition do not provide distressful
"particulate matter" in the air. Certainly paved streets in Aspen provide dust
in the area. One only has to witness the days of winter when the streets are
not covered with snow to acknowledge this. There is no particular advantage
provided by these developmental aspects of the project.
STREET VACATION
Essentially, this proposal asks the City/citizens to abdicate their rights to
two city streets which have been esistant on maps of Aspen since the 1890s and
are reflected on the Willetts map as published in the Aspen Times, 1893. Juan
Street has been in constant service, has maintained travel and usage and served
as a fire access to the properties it serves and houses sewer and water lines
serving the property in this area since the Eames Addition was platted and
settled in the 1880s. Further, this proposal takes from the supervision of the
citizens and places in private ownership the maintainance and essentially the
determination of the currently publicly owned streets. To take from the public
domain and give to the private is contrary to the interests of adjacent property
owners and the public at large.
PAGE 15 (2) "Both sides of the vacated street are in Applicant's ownership.
This is in error. Lots 1,2, Block 11 (Lot 2 solely, Lot 1 borders the corner
of Juan and Garmisch) are on Juan Street and they are owned by the Barbee family,
not the Mountain View developers. These owners do not choose to abdicate their
rights to Juan Street in its current configuration for transportation, service
and safety purposes. The official address of the Barbee house is 611 Juan.
PAGE 15 (6) It is not the opinion of the Barbee property that the proposed
vacation offers an improved "superior neighborhood -sensitive land use plan"
Quite the contrary, it offers increased congestion, private not public control
of the proposed street. It is not in the best interest of the surrounding
property to the proposed development to vacate Juan -Street. Although I am not
a property owner directly on Dean, I do not believe it in the best interest of
the public to vacate Dean street to private ownership and control either.
PAGE 15 (7) It is every taxpayers right to have public control over the roads
servicing their property. Private ownership and maintenance is inappropriate.
PAGE 15 (8) There is no evidence to support the contention that Garmisch Circle
would better serve the general neighborhood. As a member of the primary portion
of the neighborhood I submit that it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood
to close a nearly one hundred year old street site and relocate it in any way.
PAGE 31 c. The developer approached to consider the Garmisch
Circle configuration. It was the determination of the family (and notice to the
developer prior to the submission date) that the family did not support the
vacation of Juan, nor any aspect of the proposed Garmisch Circle. We protest
the inference of "appears to be endorsing this alignment".
Further the Barbee property does not agree with
the declaration of improved access to its' property and reaffirms its declaration
of support that Juan not be vacated, citing Juan as adequate and well proven
access to the property. It is presumptious of the developer to suggest what is
advantageous for the Barbee property, i.e. "a shorter walking distance to Lift. 1-A
for potential residents of the greater Barbee tract." This is no advantage to the
Barbee property and inappropriate inclusion.
PAGE 32 g. Private maintenance of a road subjects the public and adjacent property
owners to the will of private owners. Public access is best served by public
ownership and maintenance. The Barbee property would be seriously vulnerable
were it to be dependent on private maintenance. It is inappropriate to subject
a property owner to private roadways and deny the current public access through
vacation.
PAGE 38 Paragraph 3 and 4 The Barbee property owners unanimously rejected the
proposal, any participation in it and objects to the development proposal. We
do not coose to have Juan vacated. We do not support the Garmisch Circle concept.
The developer knew this position prior to the December 1, 1986 submission date.
PAGE 39 Without a submitted, approved, committed plan for reconstruction
of the Mine Dumps parcel, any consideration is purely speculative.
PAGE 40 The heights and size of the proposed buildings will be substantive
on the horizon of Aspen compared to existing buildings. The extent of this
impact is difficult to discern from the submission.
PAGE 42 There are no Barbee "wishes" reflected in this document.
PAGE 56 Portions of Dean Street are being vacated. That square footage should
be represented. In that Dean Street will be private, essentially all of it is
a vacation.
I
OWEC�22GG-GL2 �
1
4
it t
JAN 19 1987 ` za:
E �,tlz
Fi
t:
i
�id f
THOMAS J. LARKIN s
315 INLET WAY
PALM BEACH SHORES, FLORIDA 33404
(305) 848-0092
/I -
ZKL--P-k , r-tt-' k,,, -X �-' � I
JAN 2 0 198Y
IRA S. LILLICK (1875-1967)
CABLES "IRALILLICK"
4TERNATIONAL TELEX-4720401
TELECOPIER (213) 629-1033
WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(213) 488-7111
LI LLICK McHOSE & CHARLES
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
72S SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2513
TELEPHONE (213) 488-7100
January 15, 1987
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: MOUNTAIN VIEW !REZONING
Gentlemen:
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
TELEPHONE (415) 421-4600
101 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1800
SAN DI EGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE (619) 234-5000
300 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1590
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE (916) 442-6800
21 DUPONT CIRCLE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
TELEPHONE (202) 78S-3288
Please send me a copy of the application and staff
report• Thanks.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth R. Chiate
1��6U
0 W1 Es,
.YII20198, 'U
ram
v
to
-Alleel-� d4411-
R