Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19870616 fl' AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 16, 1987 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. Old city Council Chambers* 2nd Floor city Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES April 21, 1987 March 17, 1987 III. RESOLUTION A. Recommendation to city Council to Endorse Transporta- tion Element IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Mountain View StiPdivision Rezoning and street Vacations B. Mestoluna Restaurant Conditional Use V. NEW BUSINESS A. Moses 8040 Greenline Review B. Torpen Stream Margin Review VI. ADJOURN MEETING * Please note that the meeting will take place in the OLD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - -.",' CITY OF ASPEN 4w MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Planning and Development Director �� A GAXv-," ` C,l K �5 0 C . TO® Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: July 14, 1987 RE: Appeal to Board of Adjustment Attached is an request from Hans B. Cantrup to the Board of Adjustment appealing a P & Z decision. I have discussed this with Alan Richman, and this appeal does not seem to fit within Section 2-21 of the Municipal Code. Please advise if this should be forwarded to another department for proper processing. cc: Alan Richman, planning office APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Hans B. Cantrup hereby appeals from the decision of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission of June 16, 1987, refusing to further process his Mountain View GMP, Rezoning, Street Vacation and Subdivision Application and requests administrative review hearing thereon. July 13, 1987 ans B. Cantrup 01 APPEAL.HBC 71387 SCHEDULING MEMO MOUNTAIN VIEW TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ASPEN PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE PAUL TADDUNE, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: HBC INVESTMENTS DATE: JUNE 16, 1987 Dates June 15th Conference with Alan Richman and Steve Burstein on review procedures vis-a-vis ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION'S LITTLE NELL HOTEL PRO- CEDURES. June 16th P & Z meeting overview of project and of alternative possibilities - preferences expressed by P & Z members - review of parking. Interim work with staff and developer and with architects. June 30th Site specific analysis, street or date con- vacation and rezoning. venient to P & Z Interim work with staff and developer and with architects. July 14th Subdivision and conceptual or date review completion. convenient P & Z Vote. to P & Z SCHEDULING MEMO MOUNTAIN VIEW TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ASPEN PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE PAUL TADDUNE, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: HBC INVESTMENTS DATE: JUNE 16, 1987 Dates June 15th Conference with Alan Richman and Steve Burstein on review procedures vis-a-vis ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION'S LITTLE NELL HOTEL PRO- CEDURES. June 16th P & Z meeting overview of project and of alternative possibilities - preferences expressed by P & Z members - review of parking. Interim work with staff and developer and with architects. June 30th Site specific analysis, street or date con- vacation and rezoning. venient to P & Z Interim work with staff and developer and with architects. July 14th Subdivision and conceptual or date review completion. convenient P & Z Vote. to P & Z MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Douglas P. Allen, Attorney for Applicant RE: Mountain View Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and Street Vacation DATE: June 161 1987 BACKGROUND: This project has passed through the GMP process successfully, exceeding the required threshold score. In meetings with the Planning Office, the Applicant clearly has indicated a willingness to work through the above enumerated special reviews with both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission. By their very nature, these special reviews are a give -and. -take and negotiation process. The Applicant feels that very clear direction regarding planning issues was given to us by the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission at the previous hearings and various meetings with staff members. Without stipulating that the Applicant will make the changes discussed, on March 11, 1987 we submitted a list of what were thought to be concessions on our part addressing the major concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It appears that these were not totally understood or perhaps incorrectly communicated and thus Mr. Cantrup withdrew them by his letter of May 24, 1987. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Thus we have a project which has some perceived problems but one that has met the threshold and thus is okay under the GMP process. Alan Richman has expressed and is correctly quite concerned about handling the application expeditiously. We agree. The Applicant shares a like concern. The Applicant is merely seeking a fair and complete hearing on the special reviews similar to that given to all similarly situated previous applicants such as Lyle Reeder, The Ski Company and, most similarly, the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Quoting from the policy section of the Aspen Mountain Lodge approval by City Council, "Applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge agreed to defer the allocation of the 1983 lodge allotment for a reasonable period of time beyond the January 1st deadline so as to allow Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council consideration of the Applicant's Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision Application; and 1 WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Lodge application has been revised in response to various .concerns identified by the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission....." That resolution goes on further to state that in a project of that magnitude certain additional approvals are required and that study sessions and regular meetings were required and will be required to complete the process. All this Applicant is requesting is the same opportunity extended to other, similarly situated applicants to enter into a dialogue, spend an appropriate amount of time and bring this project to the stage of final plat approval and construction in accordance with legitimate concerns of City of Aspen officials on behalf of the citizens. We believe that it is incorrectly stated in Steve Burstein's Memo of June 9, 1987 that the Mountain View plan is a major departure from the density and character of the immediate area. What we have with the small finger of land zoned R-15 is truly "spot zoning". Spot zoning is legally defined as "granting of a zoning classification to a piece of land that differs from that of the other land in the immediate area. Term refers to zoning which singles out an area for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land and which cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan." The Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1973 which has been alluded to on many occasions includes a transition zone which does not even start until further up the hill from the site sought to be rezoned. Even so, within the transition zone, the majority of the land is zoned L-2, presumably with the intention of development pursuant to such zoning. We further have historical background as to City policy in City Council Resolution 84-11 granting allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge in that one of their specifically stated considerations in approving that allocation and application states that the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the recreation/accommodations area as "the most appropriate location for the development of new short-term accommodations." Contrary to the statement in the Planning Office memo the density and bulk of Mountain View does not exceed that of developed surrounding projects. Certainly it exceeds that of single family residences, but the land on three sides is zoned L-2 and all of the land to the north has density presently existing which is well in excess of that requested for Mountain View. As Steve states in paragraph 3 of his Problem Discussion, other projects have recently been approved. However, they do not meet the same target market as they are lodge approvals for units without kitchens and not multi -family approvals for units with kitchens. We do take issue with the statement that Mountain View is a lodge project. In addition, of all of the approved units, only the Hotel Jerome addition has been built. Referring to paragraph 4, Mountain View will not be using any of the steep portion of South Aspen Street with its entrance at the Dean Drive level which is the least steep portion of South Aspen Street. Referring to paragraph 5, as has been previously mentioned this site is not within the transition area or zone. Statements to the contrary notwithstanding, this is an urban site with similarly dense property available further up the mountain and a project with density of less than 1:1 is certainly consistent with the planned use for this area. Referring to paragraph 6, the relocating of Juan Street by merging it with and expanding Dean Drive facilitates and improves public access for not only the project but for the neighbors and does not result in elimination of the current Timber Ridge parking. Quite to the contrary, it allows the Timber Ridge parking to remain and by eliminating a very steep portion of the access certainly improves access especially during snowy conditions. REQUESTED ACTION: That the Scheduling Memo for Mountain View attached to this Memorandum be followed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, resulting in (1) Rezoning (2) Relocating Juan Street to the new Dean Drive (3) Approving requested conceptual subdivision. K3 SCHEDULING MEMO MOUNTAIN VIEW TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ASPEN PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE PAUL TADDUNE, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: HBC INVESTMENTS DATE: JUNE 16, 1987 Dates June 15th Conference with Alan Richman and Steve Burstein on review procedures vis-a-vis ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION'S LITTLE NELL HOTEL PRO- CEDURES. June 16th P & Z meeting overview of project and of alternative possibilities - preferences expressed by P & Z members - review of parking. June 30th or date con- venient to P & Z July 14th or date convenient to P & Z Site specific analysis, street vacation and rezoning. Subdivision and conceptual review completion. P & Z Vote. Interim work with staff.and developer and with architects. Interim work with staff and developer and with architects. June 16, 1987 HAND DELIVERED CASEo Members of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Mountain View Application Dear Members: I wrote you about this matter last year and my views are even stronger now. I have unit 1E at Timberidge Condominiums. The Timberidge and Lift One people will be much better off with the well planned Mountain View proposal - vacating Juan Street and rezoning the Skiing Company parking lot - which allows the building to be well away from us - 150' and will ultimately enhance all surrounding property values. I believe a lot of thought has gone into this. Please give this your careful review - it is as important to our town as the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Little Nell Hotel. Yours truly, Barry Lefkowitz BLL:ejm 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET ® ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925-9500 PIW COOASPEN SKI TOURS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSSION: Mountain View Develo mp ent As a Timberidge owner I was suprised to learn in the Aspen Times of January 22 of the opposing stand taken by Dave Ellis, unit owner and President of the Timberidge Condo Association giving the commission members the perhaps unintended but nevertheless misleading appearance of representing the view of Timberidge owners as a whole. Dave Ellis has never contacted us regarding the Mt. View proposal and certainly has no authority to make any statements before you on our behalf. Please be advised.by the submission of this letter into the record that we have carefully reviewed the Mt. View developement proposal before you including the Garmisch Circle alternative (pa ge67) and the Dean Drive extension. We find the whole layout extraordinarily responsive to this immediate neighborhood and major'. ajor upgrading gofthis a L-2 area. For years now we have been concerned aboutdevelopment in this property completely blocking our views, especially on the lowest floor of the Timberidge. The PUD type proposal within the height restrictions of the code presented by the architects allowing the buildings to be positioned in the center of the site with the Garmisch Circle realignment and 150 feet of park -like space and Dean Drive extension located between Timberidge/Lift 1 and the project, the proposed project in our view represents probably the ideal design solution for this site, this statement coming from one affected more than any other neighboring property because all Timberidge units are oriented south, toward the proposed development site. In our view an unbiased appraisal of the proposed development and a strong support for the design solution presented are in the best interest of the Timberidge owners as well as Lift 1 owners. We strongly m urge you to help pave the way for what we feel is an e plan. The requested zoning correction and realignment of of Juan Street appear to us as making emminent sense in a context where e end result of a far more desirable design layout serves the public interest in a PUD mode. We further urge you during the detailed review for this project to have Dean Drive fully maintained by city services already prov.'-led +.. +-hA taxpayers. Ir w 0 CD a zr m rn r D 0 m z z n w 0 0 0 CD CD CD 0 0 a 0 0 0 CD w w zb N (J� Cn 0 0 We also propose a minor readjustment of the green islands between parking spaces in front of the Timberidge on Dean Drive so as to increase the angle parking from 8 to 11 or 12 spaces there. Respectfully submitted, S & L Travel Partners, Inc. 4by ��6 BarAy Lefkowitz, Secretary CHATEAU ASPEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION c/o ASPEN CHATEAUX COMPANY 731 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 June 11, 1987 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Metsoluna Restaurant Conditional Use of Restaurant in C-1 District Dear P&Z Commission, The owners of the Hunter Plaza Building have advised us that they intend to place a restaurant in the east wing of the Hunter Plaza Building adjacent to the Chateau Aspen Condominium. It was represented to us that this restau- rant desires to stay open until 2:00 a.m, for late night restaurant operations and that they do not intend to have loud amplified music or disco dancing but only background mood music on their stereo system or unamplified live music such as a piano bar. Based on those representations, we, as the adjacent property owners, would support such application for the conditional use of the restaurant and the extended hours, provided that the approval by your commission specifically incorporates these limitations on sound and dancing in the license for the conditional use of the restaurant and for the extended hours. Very 1tru y yours, W Iliam C. King President 1 l June 15, 1987 HAND DELIVERED Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen Ladies & Gentlemen: The undersigned is an owner with Leonard Weinglass of the new building presently being, constructed where the Shaft was located at the corner of Cooper and Hunter in Aspen. It has come to my attention that an application has been tendered by the Mezzaluna Restaurant for permission to stay open until 2:00a.m. Said restaurant is to be located in the Hun'ter Plaza Building which is being constructed across the I street from our building. For myself and my partner, I hereby support the application of Mezzaluna and request that your body allow said restaurant to stay open until 2:00 a.m. very truly yours, Sandy Cohen sc "co SCANDINAVIAN DESIGN 607 EAST COOPER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-7299 SLO C- a:til C-C � � S CP itome 611 E. Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners, June 12, 1987 We, the owners and operators of Epitome, 611 East Cooper, Aspen, support the application of IvIezzaluna Restaurant. We understand the plans for the restaurant include operation until 2:00 AM, but .feel that the character of the restaurant will minimize any impact on the early morning tranquility of the area. We further expect that the rest- aurant will make a significant contribution to the economic viability of the area. Yours truly, �ick and Jane Kelley owners, Epitome Fine Jewelry, Porcelain, Crystal (303) 925-7966