Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19870317C FD FjI'l Cl UZ-. M aj u n sir a i in e e i, G NNFA E.r'w. k$ p t. i c-1 ns IT V t L PUMfG 'A - Flcu i-,.! -Z. a i rl V w Ress, i c 1 C-1 n t i a SULtdivj— sion/Rexonins/St Peet Vacat-i'an 'public heai-ing IV . RES 0 L U T 10 INI F1 - C: C"I V (202) 92, dWOD March 16, 1987 Mr Steve Burstein Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: P & Z scheduled consideration of Mountain View on March 17, 1987 Dear Steve: This will confirm our earlier conversations regarding the scheduling conflict that has arisen as a result of continuance of the Commerce Savings foreclosure No. 87-5 and Civil Action No. 87 CV 61 in Garfield County, Colorado. These cases have been consolidated with previous Civil Action No. 86 CV 186 and 86 CV 6, all of which affect the property the subject of this application. John Roberts, Jr., Commerce Savings Association, the local Aspen attorneys, Denver attorneys and Texas attorneys representing the various parties have been ordered to appear before the Court in Glenwood Springs on Tuesday, March 17, 1987 to address all matters between the conflicting claims of these parties. As a result of this both Mr. Cantrup and myself will be required to be in attendance at these hearings which are scheduled for the entire day until they are completed. Not only will we not be able to be in attendance on Tuesday evening but will not have the time to make the necessary final preparations for such hearing. As you mentioned previously the next available date is in mid - May. Please continue this hearing until that date and defer any and all discussion which was planned for tomorrow evening until the continued and rescheduled hearing in May. This will also serve the dual purpose of conforming to your Planning Office recommendation to not act on this request until other reviews are completed. Thank you. Ve_ truly yours r ougl s Allen DPA/ m cc: Hans B. Cantrup SHAW Construction January 28, 1987 Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: MOUNTAIN VIEW Dear Mr. Anderson: It has come to my attention that Shaw Construction Company has been named contractor for the referenced project. Please be advised that we have had no discussions with Mr. Cantrup or his councel regarding this specific project. As of this time there is no agreement whatsoever between Mr. Cantrup and ourselves relative to any construction anywhere. I am writing this letter to suggest the City attempt to verify and/or enforce statements made in G.M.P. applications. I am concerned if credence is given proposals not based on fact. In this case Mr. Cantrup, without our consent, has apparently used our name and reputation to curry favor for this project. My motivation for this letter comes from my long term interest and involvement in Aspen and my desire to see the very best projects selected and built under the c Wrent Growth Management Plan. Respectfully ,;your Geroge G . Shaw sv Horizon Park Plaza 743 Horizon Court, Suite 109 Grand Junction, Colorado81506 303/242 9236 UVS ww 16 leer March 14, 1987 To: Ashen Planning and Zoning Steve Burnstein From: Mary Barbee Re: Douglas Allen letter of March 11, 1987 I was not aware that the responses of-P&Z to -a developer constituted conditi-ons for approval.- This would seem to -circumvent much of the process of public input and the general provisions for approval of projects. The absence of complete drawings for the letter make response difficult. My remarks will be directed at what I assume to be a combination of previous submissions, considerably changed and the information of the letter. - _ 1. R-educti on of --the number of -units- i s_ commendabl e. If -however the 26 one - bedroom units remain the _ same- confi gura.ti on --as -previously presented the real i-ty of only 26 units (plus 10 studios) remains questionable. A one bedroom unit designed for 2.5 persons (or whatever that exact number is) that contains two full bathrooms and entry from the living room and the bedroom onto the public hallway presents an architectural design unconvincing of a. one bedroom provision. To represent the intent of a one bedroom unit for the limited number of people appropriate a design confirming such intent is important. This is also essential with the number of parking units being provided. 7. It is suggested that the public facilities and services commitment has been reduced. That reduction is confirmed by the statement "substantially as submitted" but is not specified. Consideration -of any proposal has to be with complete information not suggested or alluded to information. If the areas remarked upon are those to be covered there is substantive information lacking . . i.e. fire protection issues etc. 8. Without full design proposal the statement of improved quality design cannot be justified. d. The neighborhood will be subject to previously cited concerns with height of buildings enhanced by moving the structures higher into the mountain site line even further impacting the view line with structures. Nice the tree got consideration. 4. The request for vacation of Juan Street has not been dropped. The developer continues to ask the city to vacate a public throughfare so the development may place buildings on the street location. As a property owner I on Juan street I oppose the vacation of the public street for this purpose and would ask that my remarks from previous communications on this topic be considered still. Juan street has provided an essential alternative road for the uphill traffic of Aspen Street. To delete this and provide for Dean as a main street creates a considerable traffic congestion at Dean and Aspen. This intersection would then have to handle all traffic created from the West on Dean Street, the parking lot traffic of Dean Street, the parking of the development_ and within very few feet the traffic of the main intersection of Durant and Aspen. One does not have to use much imagination to feature the traffic backed up Aspen f street in the late afternoon. This developer states in the opening sentences of his remarks that these proposed conditions are predicated on the "comments of the Planning Office . _ citizen comments and P&Z commission input" . I find the alterations in the road completely ignoring the issues of greatest opposition to the previous proposals that of private ownership; no addressing of the one bedroom design issues; no increased sensitivity to height and placement of the buildings etc. etc. I suggest this is so substantially changed that it can only be treated as a totally new project and should adhere to the provisions of P&Z in that -regard.