Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Golf Course Subd.1985 '->'-"~~--~~"'_"'''--'.',-,c",,,,,_,,,-~,-,",,,,.,,~~_,..,, _"____ ::;..., UJ "'>> C'J :;;;;:: ~ 0= ::u::: ::om _ 0,", STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20~(~ Q~'!'.I!JLMUNICIP~~<:;'ODE O~_THJLCI'!'.Y O~~SPEN L_<:;'OLQ~DO f) {jD r- 4 crt f frtrL/ () \( C- = ;.:: ,....., = "'" -1..- ~o :;..:::;;u c..,n. ~~-, ;-<}...: I"V m <D o LO W <:> '" WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is the owner of that parcel of real property (and the improvements thereon) situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, commonly known as the "Golf Course Property" and more particularly described on that plat entitled "The Aspen Golf Course Subdivision" (hereinafter "Golf Course Plat"), considered and approved by the City Council on January 24, 1983, which plat is incorporated herein by this refer- ence; and WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City Council that although approved in full compliance with the City of Aspen subdivision regulations, said Golf Course Plat was not fully exe- cuted and recorded due to a ministerial oversight on the part of the City Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20-19(c) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the City Council may grant exceptions from the applications of the standards or requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code when the City Council, in its sole discretion and judgment, deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no public purpose and be unnecessary in relation to the land use pOlicies of the City of Aspen under the facts and circumstances presented, and, notwithstanding the exception, finds that the pro- posed subdivision will substantially comply with the design stan- dards of Chapter 24; and WHEREAS, in light of the record of proceedings with regard to the approval of the Golf Course Plat, the City Council desires to ratify its approval of the Golf Course Plat effective as of Janu- ary 24, 1983, and to except said plat and the filing thereof from the requirement of Section 20-14(e), requiring the filing and recordation within ninety (90) days, and such other regulations which would prevent the filing of the Golf Course Plat, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colo- rado, does hereby ratify and confirm its approval of said Golf Course Plat, effective as of January 24, 1983, and does hereby 80011188 ~6E400 grant an exception from the requirements of Section 20-14(e) and such other subdivision regulations which would prevent the filing and recordation of said plat, on the basis that such requirements, under the circumstances presented, would be redundant, serve no public purpose and would be unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen, inasmuch as the proposed sub- division substantially complies with all of the design standards of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. this _/2(~ day of June, 1985. Dated ~.-~ _________3~___ William L. Stirling, May I, Kathryn S. Koch, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exception was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its meeting held on_~_-1_q________ 1985, at which time the Mayor, William L. Stirling, was authorized , to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. , ' 1\' ' 'J j F (, ~M_______ Koch, City Clerk Kathryn .-.... ,..... ".~ " c. ~( ~^~.~ , " , It"ll" J MEMORAImUM TO: Aspen City Council ~ Hal Schilling, City Manage Alan Rio'man. Planning and ""opm,nt D1"oto, ~ Ratification of Golf Course Final Plat THRO: FROM: RE: DATE: June 17, ]985 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council grant subdivision exception for the purposes of ratifying the Golf Course Final Plat. As part of this approval, we recommend that you except the Plat from the limitation of Section 20-l4(e) regarding recordation of the Plat within 90 days of its approval. BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1982, the City Council granted Final Plat approval to the Gold Course Subdivision. The Engineering Department failed to record this Plat within 90 days of its approval. Therefore, on January ~.., 1983, the City Council again granted approval to the reconsideration of the Plat. We have now been informed that the Engineering Department also failed to record the reconsidered Plat. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The reconsideration of an approved plat is a ministerial matter since no new policy or procedural matters arise from such actions. The City Attorney advises us that the Council can ratify the action taken in 1983 by subdivision exception, waive the 90 day recordation requirement, since its application at this time would be redundant and serve no public purpose [see Section 20-l9(c)] and also waive the requirement that the plat first be presented to P&Z. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to grant subdivision exception for the purposes of ratifying the Golf Course Final Plat, to include exception from the requirements of Section 20-14 (e), as permitted by Section 20-l9(c)." AR.18 ~.~ ~~ S;:-~rO ,-- ....'" ~G , ~cO ~I , . I, (~'.'f. CITY OF"'ASPEN , , \ 130 south galena street aspen, colorado ,81611 303-925.-.2020 " June 13,. 1985 Mr. Richard L. Bibart Vice President Red Roof Inns, Inc. 4355 Davidson Road Hilliard, Ohio 43026-9699 Dear Mr. Bibart: Your June 7, 1985, correspondence was received by my office on June 10. My review of the matters set forth in your letter indicates that the city has materially complied with the subdivision process by City Council approvals of final plant on January 24, 1983. A copy of the City Council minutes are enclosed for your refer- ence. Further, it appears that Section l(B) is no longer operative, inasmuch as Red Roof has not notified the City within the 30-day period following eighteen months of the lease commen- cement date, which occurred on May 23, 1983. In the event that there may be construed to be an administrative deficiency with regard to the subdivision issue, the City will. pursuant to Section 19 of the lease, take immediate steps to remedy the same. Accordingly, the City considers the lease to be still in effect 'in all respects, and will take appropriate action to enforce Red Roof's obligations. Very truly yours, ~~~7' Harold L.~Schilling, City Manager , HLS:klm.129 Attachment xc: Mayor and Council City Attorney (. . I, ~~.... . " CITY OF"ASPEN 130'south galcna ~hcet aspen, colorado 81611 303-925~2020 . . June 13, 1985 . Red Roof Inns, Inc. 4355 Davidson Road Amlin, Ohio 43002 Dear Sir: Your June 7, 1985, correspondence was received by my office on June 10. My review of the matters set forth in your letter indicates, that the city has materially complied with the subdivision process by City Council approvals of final plant on January 24, 1983. A copy of the City Council minutes are enclosed for your refer- ence. Further, it appears that Section 1 (B) is no longer operative, inasmuch as Red Roof has not notified the City within the 3D-day period following eighteen months of, the lease commen- cement date, which occurred on May 23, 1983. In the event that there may be construed to be an administrative deficiency with regard to the subdivision issue, the City will, pursuant to Section 19 of the lease, take immediate steps to remedy the same. Accordingly, the City considers the lease to be still in effect in all respects, and will take appropriate action to enforce Red Roof's obligations. " ~ Harold L. Schilling, City Manager , HLS:klm.129 Attachment xc: Mayor and Council Paul Taddune, City Attorney -'--',-~'" ---- '.JL '~F' ,.' -- ~ .... ." 'I Aspen City Council ".# . Regular Meeting February 22, 1982 " -, J The RMCC. finished the Ccntenntial picture first draft and has gotten positive feedback. There is a $4500 short fall on the Centennial film project. Pouliot requested funding of $2500 to pay bills. If they pay this bill before it becomes past due, they can use a credit of $2,000 for a high quality color cameruo This camera is used for the summer program, which is college accredited. Last year there were five apprentices: they are projecting 12 for this year. The RMCC needs this equipment to make this project work. Pouliot taid Council he has discussed with KRMA the possibility of airing the Centennial film: this has expended beyond a local project. Councilwoman Michael said the Council for the Arts came in regarding arts funding and the Council set up a study session for Wednesday. Councilwoman Michael suggested returning to Council on Wednesday at this study session. Mayor Edel said with the uncertainty of this winter, the Council's ability to give a dollar answer on Wednesday will be very restrictiv~ Councilwoman Michael asked where the city would get the $2500. City Manager Chapman told Council the request from the arts groups total $98,000. The money is just not in the .Real Estate Transfer Tax. Chapman told Council the January collections were the worst on record for the collection of the RETT. The City cannot do everything the would like to do out of the RETT with renovation of the Wheeler, hiring an executive director and also funding the arts groups to $100,000. Chapman said it is too early to make a commitment out of the general fund for $100,000 for arts groups; that is a substantial amount of money. The city depart~ents are already looking at making budget cutbacks from 2-1/2 per cent to 10 per cent. Chapman told Council that December sales tax was good but Council should wait at least until they see March sales tax collections before making any decision~ ill Councilwoman .Michael said the project is a good one but if the Council cannot find money they cannot find the money. Councilman Collins said the res'ponse to this request is what it is to the other group, the Council has to defer their decisions until they see the sales tax figures. Poulit stated this is a crisis for the Rl1CC; unfortunate,ly, their crisis is happening at the same time as the Council's crisis. Mayor Edel agreed with Council they cannot make a decision tonight; the Council will have to wait until the work session with the arts groups on Wednesday. Pouliot said if the Council makes a decision Wednesday it would help them. Pouliot pointed out if they get this money, they will accept this as half their request and cancel the rest. Pouliot pointed out to Council it has only been two years they have been funding arts groups out of the RETT; it was the understanding the renovation of the Wheeler was first priority and the funding of the arts groups is out of the overage. Pouliot told Council the arts groups spend a budget of $7,000,000; the percentage of money spent in the community comes to $250,000 taxes generated. Pouliot said the arts groups are helping in'their second industry to help fill the sales tax coffers. c ~ .... , ORDINANCE f8, SERIES OF 1982 - Golf Course Rezoning Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council this is the first step towards the final plat for the golf course subdivision. The ordinance zones the golf course as P, park, and the Plum Tree and parking lot as P, park with a golf course support overlay. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor; motion carried. ORDINANCE #8 (Series of 1982) - \AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE,LAND CONTAINED WITHIN THE GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance ta, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Michael, aye~ Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCES 1, 2, 3~ SERIES OF 1982 - Aspen Mountain Park SPA and Pitkin Reserve Zoning o Alan Richman told Council these are second readings and public hearings on the ordinances that adopt the SPA for Smuggler trailer park; disconnecting 0.41 acres from the city; and zoning Pitkin Reserve R-30/PUD. Richman reminded Council these were tabled at the last meeting because staff was still working with the applicants on the subdivision agreements and final plats. Richman said the staff is comfortable the issues are solved. The staff recommends approving these ordinances on second reading. Mayor Edel said if all Council's concerns have been incorporated. City Attorney Taddune told Council he has gone over the agreements n~ney times and feels that all Council1s concerns have been addressed. There have been some very minor details and language changes. Taddune pointed out one change is what level the caretaker unit at Pitkin Reserve will be and how that will affect the park dedication fee. It was agreed the caretaker unit will be low or moderate; if it is middle, the applicant will inform the city and they will pay a park dedication fee. Councilman Parry asked if there is a time limit for the improvement to the trailer park. Richman said the agreement suggests beginning in May and ending in August. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing on Ordinance tl, Series of 1982. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman. Parry moved to adopt Ordinance '1, Series of 1982, on second reading~ seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Brooke Peterson, as public and co-applicant, addressed Council on three items. The first is a transfer fee on sale of units subsequent to this agreement was to be one-half (1/2) of one per cent (1%) \o,'as to be a topset figure, not necessarily what it has to be. Taddu': told Council in those cases where the housing office has to qualify rentors or purchaser:: there is in the agreement a percentage of the first months' rent or the sales price. Bob Hughes said the concern is that percentage is the maximum fee that could be charged but not necessarily tlle fee that is going to be charged. Peterson asked that the fce not be an absol ute onc-ha I f (1/2) of one per cent (l %) jus t a maximum. Chapman sa id thi;, could be worked out among staff and the applicants. .... _.__._..-,--,--~~._--_._-_.._..~~---_._-_._--_.~.~.-.,- ---..... ,-~~-......;.-----_._---~~-_...-~._--._.~-'-_..'..- -;?:z.G:0 . I Jim Holland explained that the golf pro resigned early in the year and he and Ted Armstrong have been trying to put together a solution to operate a pro shop. It was too late to advertise and get a pro. Holland and Armstrong have worked on an interim solution for this summer. Holland and Armstrong circulated a proposal to all sports stores in the area to run the pro shop for the summer. There was one response from the Sports Stalker. Mooney's assistant, Scott Cain, will be the PGA pro for the summer. Holland told Council the programs that Mooney established will be continued. Chapman said the interview process would be set up with the golf associations. Chapman said the city will not get 5 per cent of the golf cart rental; however, the city will not have to supply the gas, last year the city lost money on that. Armstrong requested in the future when the staff needs to negotiate things like this, the staff could work directly with the city manager and not burden Council. Aspen City Council _._--_.._~---------....._..._-- March 22, 1992 Regular Meeting ____ .,___~"""'M'"-.''''--''' .-~.~..,--~- --- ..--.-..-----..... ..---.....-..... _..o-~__ THE ONGOING SAGA OF ASPEN'S 18 HOLE CHA11PIONSHIP GOLF COURSE :J Councilman Knecht moved to approve the memorandum of March 4, that Council accept the items in the memorandum, and in the following year Armstrong and Holland negotiate through, the City Manager; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. I:: ARCHITECTURAL AGREEMENT - Pro Shop . , City Manager Chapman explained the lessees will provide this to the inside wall and rough in the plumbing. The city has to provide finishing, furnishings, interior separations. This architecture agreement would only be for the cityls aspect of the pro shop. The ., upset limit on this is $5,000. Councilman Knecht moved to authroize the city manager to enter into an agreement with i Hagman Yaw architects, Ltd. for architectural services on the golf clubhouse/pro sho ~ facility limiting this to a topset of $5,000: seconded by Counc~lman Parry All ~n favor 'j . motion carried. ' .' ',: 'ORDINANCE fa, SERIES OF 1992 - Golf Course rezoning Mayor Pro Tern Michael opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tern .; Michael closed the public hearing. ! Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance 18, Series of 1982, on second reading: seconde~: by Councilman Parry. ~, Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council they had initiated this rezoning for the i! golf course. The land associated with the Plum Tree is zoned park with a golf course support overlay as is the parking lot. l Roll call vote: Councilmernber Knecht, aye: Collins, aye: .Parry, aye: Mayor Pro Tern M~chael aye. Motion carried. ' { FINAL PLAT - Golf Course Subdivision I Richman told Council this goes along with the rezoning. The engineering department notes ~! all corrections on the plat have been made. The attorney's concerns have been accommodated in the final plat. The attorney indicated a subdivision agreement was not needed because .I there are no particular improvements to be made. ~ Councilman Knecht moved to approve the golf course final plat, subject to the following I: condition: the plat is signed and sealed by the surveyor and approved by the city engineer:; as to form prior to recordation; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion ~ carried. I RESOLUTION 19, SERIES OF 1982 - Appointing William R. Jordan Deputy Municipal Judge , COuncilman Collins moved to read Resolution #9, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ] RESOLUTION #9 (Series of 1982) WHEREAS, William R. Jordan III is an attory-at-1aw licensed in the State of Colorado (Reg. No. 2761) and practicing law in Aspen, pitkin County, Colorado, WHEREAS, said Nilliam R. Jordan III has requested a one-day appointment by the City Council of the City of Aspen as a Deputy Municipal Judge in order to officiate at a weddling in Pitkin County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the City Council has the power to make such an appointment, pursuant to Section 7.2(b) of the Charter of the City of Aspen: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED 'BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COJ.ORADO: Section 1 That said William R. Jordan III be and hereby is appointed a Deputy Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Aspen, Colorado, without compensation, for the day of March 27, 1982, for the sole purpose of officiating at the marriage of James J. Mollica and Sharon Boucher was read by the city clerk ~nd 'I ~ Councilman Knecht moved to approve Resolution #9, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried~ I"b ;1 " .. .( , I V VENDING CONTRACT - Peppermint Patti's popsicle Palace Monroe Summers told Council this is the annual renewal for th:is vending contract. Patti has been doing this for cleven years. This is basically the same contract with two changes. Summers explained he has made this a five year contract with four extendable one-year options at the discretion of Council. Patti will notify the city 60 days before the contract cxplres in writing. If Conncil elects not to challenge the contract within that 60 day period, it is automatically renewed. The other change came from the city attorneys office, is jn Section f and addresses litigation and attorney1s fee. '-, ,,r ~'(;' . Regular Meeting ------- Aspen ~~!y~~~! November 22. 1982 .....-----.-----.... L-3. Two may want to be rezoned elL rather than L-3. Richman said the planning office feels this is in thc city's best intercst and will be compatible with surrounding zone districts. P & Z was unanimously in favor of this approach. Richman said any lodge owners that wants to be removed from the L-3 category will submit this request in writing. I Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance 168. Series of 1982, seconded by councilman! Parry. Roll call vote: Councilmember Michael, aye: Parry, aye: Collins, nay: Mayor Edel, I' aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 169. SERIES OF 1982 - Golf Course Final Plat Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance '69, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. J ORDINANCE 169 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE ADDING A PUD DESIGNATION TO THE ZONING FOR THE GOLF COURSE . SUBDIVISION was read by the city clerk Richman told Council P & Z requested a PUD designation on the golf course when they were considering the preliminary plat. The conditions of this approval were that the Council epprove a PUD and that the city submit a PUD plan identifying the existing improvements and short term development plans. The staff has no problems with this request as long ;1 as it does not delay the final approval of the plat. Richman said the staff will work on Ii the PUD submission. ~ I Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #69, Series of 1982: seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Parry, aye: Collins, aye, Michael, aye: Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. I ORDINANCE 158. SERIES OF 1982 - Thomas Property Annexation II I , I I i i I Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. .public hearing. II Councilman COllins moved to adopt Ordinance #58, Series of 1982, on second reading: seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmernbers Michael, aye: Collins, aye: Parry, ;; aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. There were nO comments. Mayor Edel closed the ORDINANCE 159. SERIES OF 1982 - Thomas Property Rezoning Councilman Parry moved by Councilman Collins. aye: Mayor Edel, aye. Mayor Ede1 closed the ' , ~ to adopt Ordinance 159, Series of 1982, on second reading: secondedtl Roll call vote ~ Councilmembers Collins, aye: Michael, aye: Parry, j! Motion carried. There were no comments. l ../ Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. public hearing. 1983 CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS City Manager Chapman said the report is self-explanatory. Chapman suggested the city I begin to get good community discussion going about financing mechanisms. Council has h decided these projects need to be done: what Council needs is public input on financing Ii and timing. Councilwoman Michael agreed it is critical to get community confidence. ~I Mayor Eclel suggested Council come up with a list of names to be on a committee and submit 'I these to Chapman. TEN MONTI! FINANCIAL REPORT , Finance Director Sheree Sonfield pointed out the ten month financial report and in the general fund, it is 4 per cent under budget, in expenditures. If this trend continues, I the $250,000 fund balance projected at the beginning of the year will hold and may add I'; to the favorable financial position between $100,000 and $150,000. t-1s. Sonfield told :1 Council in the other funds, if there is a negative, there is a positive to offset it with ,- the exception of the Ice Garden, which is being worked on. City Hanager Chapman said it II is reasonable to expect by the end of 1982, the end of year balance will be $1,250,000. !i Council thanked Ms. Sonfield for the report and said it is much better than the old reports. ORDINANCE #70, SERIES OF 1982 - Appropriations Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #70, Series of 1982: seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. AN OROINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE OF $13.616, TRANSFERRING $13.616 FROM THE MALL/TRANSPORTATION FUND TO TilE GENERAL FUND, APPROPRIATING LAND FUND EXPENDITURES OF $14.200, APPROPRIATING NATER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $506, RECOGNIZING WATER FUND REVENUES OF $506, APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND EXPENDITURES ,OF $99.900; APPROPRIATING RETIREHENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $360,000 was read by the city clerk r Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #70, Series of 1982, on first reading: seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Michael, aye; collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. -'.- I.. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Environmental Health Director Tom Dunlop requested that Little Annic.s be taken off the list and conditionally approved based on his health inspection. II Councilwoman 1-1ichael moved to approve Little Annie's conditioned upon a successful health 11 inspection repcrt: sc-condcd by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. 'II Ii " I: ....--.------.- . .".__.'..--_.,-_.._----_._...~_.. --.-...-- -..- ----- ,I')') ..t-'~ , , , ~ __!leg_u_~~ E_!1~_~~2:..~~_...___. ASI'.,,':._C~.tx _~".\lr'_Gi 1 December 27, 1982 ~-_._..--_._--_._-_......_--- ORDINANCE *76, SERIES OF 1982 - Setting the Election Precinct Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the pUblic hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #76, Series of 1982, on second reading: seconded by Councilman Collins. Ro.ll call vote; Councilmernbers Collins, aye: Knecht, aye: Parry, aye: Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 177, SERIES OF 1982 - Authorizing Campaign Expenditures Councilman Knecht moved to Read Ordinance Collins. All in favor, motion carried. I i77, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman ORDINANCE 117 7 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COmlCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DECLARING ISSUES OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF FEBRUARY 15, 1983, TO BE ISSUES IN WHICH TilE CITY HAS AN OFFICIAL CONCERN, APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO BE SPENT IN A PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN RELATING TO THESE ISSUES. AUTHORIZING CITY EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE DURING WORKING HOURS ON SAID PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A STATE CAMPIAGN REFORM ACT REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID CAMPAIGN was read by the city clerk Mayor Edel said he would wants this campaign or informational material subject to Council approval. Mayor Edel said it should not be left up to staff to come out with informational statement without Councills knowledge. Councilman Knecht agreed because he did not think the information on the Wheeler was precise or explained well. Council agreed this clause should be added to the ordinance. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #77, Series of 1982, as amended on first reading: seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote: Council members Parry, aye; Collins, aye: Knecht, aye: Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE *66. SERIES OF 1982 - V. Mark Rezoning Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this parcel had two different zonings. The southern portion was zoned R-l5/PUD and the rest was zoned L-2. The applicant requested rezoning to L-2. This was approved at first reading with an L-2 and the applicant agreed to amend his application to deed restrict the use of the parcel and the size of the FAR. The planning office recommends approval on second reading. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of,1982, as amended on second read- ing1 seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Michael, aye: Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, aye7 Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 168. SERIES OF 1982 - L-3 Rezoning Alan Richman, planning office, told Council the only issue from first reading are which lodges are part of the L-3 group. Richman received four letters from people who did not want to be part of the L-3 group for various reason. These are the Swiss Chalet, Alpina Haus, Buckhorn Lodge and the Ullr Lodse. One has an application for residential develop- ment, one has both commercial and lodge uses and might want to be rezoned C/L; one would like to keep the office uses. Richman said 26 out 30 lodges contacted expressed interest: the planning office already has two applications for lodge upgrading. Richman recommended striking 2, 5, 26, and 30 from the list. ' Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the pUblic hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #68, series of amended: seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Michael, aye; Knecht,aye~ Collins, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. 1982, on second reading: as Councilmembers Parry, aye~ Motion carried. ORDINANCE 169, SERIES OF 1982 - Golf Course PUD ~an Richman told Council this ordinance adds a puo to the golf course. The staff has been working on putting together a PUD submission. Richman said he has seen the landscaping plan, and it looks like a good job. The PUD work has been done by the engineering depart- ment and Hagman Yaw. Mayor E4el opened the pUblic hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the pUblic hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance .69, Series of 1982~ seconded by Councilman Knecht. Councilman Knecht asked when the plans would be ready. city Manager Chapman said he expected to get them in January. Cou~cilman Knecht said he would like review process for Council. Councilman Knecht said he would like the landscaping at the parks department and along highway 82 incorporated into these plans. Chapman said the city does not have a funding co~nitment for doing that landscaping. Chapman said it doesn't take much money for a plan: this landscaping can be funded through an overal: capital improvements program. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye. Michael, aye: Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ~, _.~._.~.__._-_.._---_.-._-~-..__.~_.._----- .._.,,_...~... _. -.. . l , ,. \ . ~'-~-... 12S , , . _<:o.,!!"i,nue.<!. Me,et.ing A.~ p.~_S_i.!: y._t;o_u_"-c,i 1 .o!_al}\J~rL12.1._!~8] _',_'~~_U ORDINANCE !77, SERIES OF 1983 - Campaign Expenditures Monroe Summers said if Council passes this ordinance, they should delete any reference to the election question of Rubey Park because it is not relevant at this point. Bil Dunaway said there is only one ballot question, and it is being presented by the citizens and not the City and tax monies should not be spent on the election. Councilman Knecht agreed it is the responsibility of the resort association to push their question. Mayor Eclcl agreed that in promoting a question, the city should not take part in. Education of the electorate is another thing. Councilman Knecht suggested that the proponents go to the League of Women Voters for promotion for this issue. , 1 There was no motion to approve the ordinance. RUBEY PARK VISITOR CENTER PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS Monroe Summers reminded Council he had brought this resolution to them in December and their wishes were that the project hsould be sufficiently through the review process in order to give the public a clear picture of what the city plans to do. Summers told Council the updated plans make significant adjustment to the issues. Summers said he cannot get to P & Z before February 1, and requested that the election question be post- poned. 0 Councilman Knecht moved to postpone the Rubey Park election question; seconded by Council- man Parry. All in favor, motion carried. <; 'GOLF COURSE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Jim Holland, parks director, told Council he has come up with a first draft of a site plan which he will take to P & Z. This is for the parking lot area. The berming will be smoothed off, and blue grass planted. Holland said the landscaping will cost about $44,000. Chapman told Council the city has the cash for this part; the rest of the parking lot and landscaping is around $120,000 PITKIN RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT Bob Hughes told Council this is an amendment which requires the Mayor's signature. This project has approval for twelve units. There are no objections from the planning office. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve this subject to the conditions cn page 2 of the January 10th memorandum from the planning office; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 1983 GOLF FEES I Jim Holland, oarks director, told Council he has discussed these f~es with the golf associations,. both men's and women's. There are very minor changes from last year. This year the city will be offering a full unrestricted season pass. , I ) Councilman Parry moved to approve the golf fees according to Jim Hollandls memorandum of December 22, 1982; seconded by Councilnan Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE il, SERIES OF 1983 - Regulation of Satellite Dishes Alan Richman, planning office, said the staff has been lOOking at satellite dishes, and held a work session with P & Z and the HPC to develop information and understand what the problem is, and determine whethere there is a need for regulation. In the city's codes, there is no regulation of these dish structures. This is to amend the city's building code to bring satelitte dishes within the purview of the building department so that they can make sure the dishes are installed in a safe way. , Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #l (Series of 1983) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDICATION, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, AS STRUCTURE REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT, SATELLITE RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNAL RECEPTION A~D TRANSMISSION DEVICES; SETTING FORTH A DEFINITION OF SUCH DEVICES; AND EXPRESSLY ADOPTING PENALTY PROVISIONS was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye: Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tern Michael aye. Motion carried. (Mayor Edel abstained due to a conflict of interest). RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 1983 - Urging Federal Antitrust exemption for Local Governments City Attorney Taddune told Council before the Boulder case, everyone assumed that municipalities were exempt under the provisions of the federal anti trust laws. Over the past two years, this has not been the case. Municipalities are now finding themselves exposed to anti trust liabilities. The Colorado Municipal League has requested each municipality to adopt. a resolution and direct that resolution to various elected official. '. Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #2, Series of 1983: seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. . RESOLUTION il, SERIES OF 1983 - 1983 Pay Schedule and Classification Plan City Manager Chapman told Council this implements the 3 per cent general wage adjustment as of January 1, 1983. Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. - ..-...---,.'_--0- ~._~....._..._._o__ '~O'._'" .. ____.___ , ....... '^ l.~ .' r .~. -'"-'''''''-'0'' ~.., , . Regular Meeting Aspen City Council .-----.- January_?~~, 19~~_,_, . l I f I I GOLF COURSE FIN~L PL~T I ~ Councilwoman Michael moved to grant approval to the golf cour.e final plat; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ",~\: t ORDtN~NCE 13, SERIES OF 19~) - water Rate Increase . . city Manager Chapman said this ordinance i. earlier than anticipated.' This i. for th.'LO per cent increase the staff and Council have always planned on as part of the water manage- ment plan. Chapman said tased on the 1982 water sale. and new customers, it i. possible that in 1984 the increase ~ight have to be higher than ~O per cent. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance 13, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE t3' (Series of 1983) 1.N ORDINANCE I\MENDI~IG DIVISION 3 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY or ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER RATES ~ND CHARGES" (AND THEREBY I\MEIlDING O?.JINANCE NO. 21-1982) AND ORDINANCE NO. 34-1977) BY INCREASING CERTAIN WATER RAT~S AND CHARGES' CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN EARLIER CODIFICATION OF O?,~I:'ANCES BY RE-AFFIRHING AND RECOOIFYING SECTION 23-102 (d) THAT PROVIDES A S';?cP.ARGE FOR THOSES METERED CUSTOMERS SERVED BY PUMPING STATIONS; AND SEI:::'G FORTH A PROVISION FOR DEALING WITH HARDSHIP CASES BY ADMINIS~RATIVE ME~:S was read by the city clerk Chapman pointed out that this ordinance does increase the flat rate surcharge to 100 per cent. Councilman Knecht said he was concerned about senior citizens and hardship cases. and would like to see so~ething addressing that in the ordinance. Councilman Knecht Councilman Parry. Mayor Edel, aye. moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1983, as amended: seconded by Roll call vote; Councilrnembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Motio:'\ carried. 1982 FINANCIAL PERFORW8Co REPORT Sheree Sonfield, finance director presented the financial report of the city for twelve months ending December 31, 1982. There is also a five year plan for all the funds. This report is not final beea"se it is not audited yet, and the city is still paying bills and receiving money through the end of February. Ms. sonfield pointed out that Assistant City Manager Mitchell has put together financial forecast indicators, and the finance department has tried to incorporate these. . CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Knecht moved t~ approve the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman parry. Thes items are (1) Liquor License Renewals - The Arya, poppie's Bistro Cafe, (2) Board of Adju.tment Appointments _ Francis Whitaker, (3) Board of Appeals and Examiners - Don Westerlind, Gene Bishop, Oon Kopf, and John Kockx. All in favor, motion carried. ~~Lqfe~erk Re ular Meetin Council Februar 14, 1983 JOINT,MEETING WITH COr~TY COMMISSIONERS CommissiOner Madsen called the meeting to order at 4.10 p.m. wlth Ce~".ssloners Chlld, Kinsley, Blake and Klanderud and councilmemmbers Knecht, Michael, parry, collins and Mayor Edel present. 1. Solid Waste Center. Bud Eylar, public works director, is asking Council to authorize the transfer by quit ela:~ deed the city's interest in the dump to pitkin County. Eylar said this is a consolid~tion issue. Eylar told the Boards that a contract is being written .and reviewed by the county staff; it will then be given to the City Attorney for review. 'Eylar said the County is doing all the'management of the dump itself. Mayor Ed.:, sadi eventually this land will have value, and the city needs to look into this. council- man Knecht said he would like a report from city staff before he takes any action. Eylar said this is just to let the Boards know this is in the works. 2. Transportation Consolidation Report. Commissioner Madscn said this is a very importac issue and has been d.,~~ssed for a long time, Eve Homeyer, chairwoman of the transporta- , tion committee told the soards this group has met weekly since December and presented a report of their find;.",;S. fls. Homeyer said they wanted to present this conceptual report to the Boards to make s~re they arc on the right track, The group has heard report. fro~ various entities in the valley. The proposed schedule for the remainder of the.yea: is in February get conce~tual city and county approval for a transportation consOlldatlon pl to be reviewed by the soard council and Town of snowmass. In flarch get final approval 0' the plan, finalize funding sources, and determine the necessity of an election to provide the funds. April preF,re for an election, and M~y review the election results. Ms. Homeyer said after the election, the Task Force wo~ld propose the establishment of permanent Transit Authority Board, create and implement an operational plan.fOr the consolidated system ,nd review participation of other entities. The consolldated SYSti would be operotionul in January 1984. .--.-.-...-.---. ...------ . __.____...--.. .R_.___.__' .._._.,.,.._~ _.._ ,.._.....__-...___.R.................. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman RE: Reconsideration of Golf Course Final Plat DATE: January 17, 1983 /D Approved as to form /~L~ Introduction Late in 1982 the Planning Office was notified by the Engineering Department that they had failed to record the plat for the Golf Course Subdivision (approved by City Council on March 22, 1982) within the 90 days after its final approval by City Council. According to Section 20-14(e) of the Municipal Code, failure on the part of the subdivider to record the plat within 90 days of its approval renders the plat invalid and requires reconsideration and approval of the preliminary and final plat by P&Z and Council, respectively. Review Process Typically, the reconsideration and approval of a previously approved plat would be a simple matter, since all of the necessary reviews have already taken place. However, as you are aware, when we brought the plat back to P&Z for its reconsideration on October 19, 1982, the item became a matter of some controversy. P&Z used the review opportunity to comment to you on the location of the pro shop and to request your designation of the Golf Course as a PUD. They indicated their willingness to approve the pre- liminary plat at such time as Council moved to initiate the PUD rezoning. Theyalso asked that you not take action on the final plat until such time as an actual PUD submission was made to the Planning Office. The P&Z approved the reconsideration of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat on November 2 after you initiated the PUD rezoning. This rezoning was completed by the adoption of Ordinance 69, Series of 1982 on December 27. Subsequently, on January 10, 1983, you were presented a conceptual PUD plan for the Red Roof Inn/Pro Shop/ parking lot area to which you gave your unanimous support. We were given the remainder of the PUD submission by the Engineering Department on the same date which completes the submission re- quirements to permit review of the proposal by P&Z. We anticipate P&Z review of this item in February or March. Since the PUD is now a complete submission, we feel comfortable bringing forward to you the reconsideration of the final plat, There are no conditions to be attached to the approval of this item since no review agency had any negative comments whatsoever as regards its reconsideration. Council Motion "Move to grant approval to the reconsideration of the Golf Course Final Plat." ,"'''''''- ....", MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Addition of PUD to Golf Course Zoning DATE: December 27, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~..:L .h~ At a meeting last month we informed you that P&Z had given Preliminary Plat approval to the reconsideration of the Golf Course Subdivision. As part of their approval they asked you to add a PUD designation to the zoning at the Golf Course and to withhold your action on the Final Plat until such time that a PUD submission has been made to the Planning Office. You agreed to these conditions and gave first reading approval to Ordinance 69 at your meeting on November 22 which adds the PUD designation. Therefore, to finalize this action tonight you need only grant second reading approval to Ordinance 69. We should be returning to you with the Golf Course Final Plat in the near future as progress is being made by the Engineering and Parks Departments in developing a PUD submission for the P&Z. The appropriate motion on this item is as follows: "Move to adopt Ordinance 69, Series of 1982." .?'''-, , / '+._'#' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Reconsideration of Golf Course Q DATE: November 22, 1982 At a meeting last month it was brought to your attention that the As en Pla and Zoning Commission was reconsidering the Golf Course Prelimina Plat du to the fact the the originally approved plat had not been recorded within 90 days. At that time, P & Z had indicated that it would withold action on the plat until such time as you had initiated a rezoning of the property, to place a "PUD" designation on the subdivision, and until you considered whether or not to move the pro shop. At your meeting on October 26 you unanimously agreed to initiate the rezoning but not to move the pro shop. Based on the signal you gave P & Z, they approved the Golf Course Preliminary Plat on November 2. P & Z set two conditions on their approval, these being that Council add a PUD designation to the property and that the City would submit a PUD plan identifying the existing improvements and short-term development plans at the Golf Course before final approval is given to the Golf Course Subdivision Final Plat. The intent of P & Z in setting this condition was that they might have an opportunity to comment upon the landscaping and other final site design activities which will take place in the near future. It wasnot the intent of P & Z to continue to pursue the recommendation that the pro shop be moved. I have discussed this matter with the City Manager who informed me that he sees no problem in complying with P & Z's condition as long as it does not delay the final approval of the subdivision plat beyond the terms set out in the lease with Red Roof Inns. Wayne suggested that it would have been necessary anyway to do a landscape plan and I added that our subdivision materials need only slight modification to meet the requirements of the PUD. Since it should not take too long for us to put together a PUD submission and since we have 18 months from the date of the approval of the Red Roof Inns lease to obtain subdivision approval (approved on November 23, 1981, meaning that we have until May 23, 1983 to get final approval) there should be no problem in meeting P & Z's condition. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Planning Office recommends that you approve the attached ordinance, on first reading, adding a PUD designation to the Golf Course. Staff will move ahead with the preparation of a PUD submission and will return to you at such time as the submission has been made to obtain final plat approval for the Golf Course Subdivision. Should you concur with this approach, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to read Ordinance 6$-, Series of 1982." "Move to approve, on fi rs t readi ng, Ordi nance 4' Series of 1982." .""" ."...... ...... j' MEMORANDUM TO: Lou Buettner FROM: Alan Richman RE: Golf Course Final Plat and PUD DATE: November 24, 1982 At recent meetings of P&Z and City Council concerning the Golf Course Subdivision, the subject property has been rezoned to add a PUD to the other existing zone designations. Coucil has agreed that it will not consider the Golf Course Final Plat until such time as a PUD submission is made for the Golf Course. The purpose of the PUD is twofold: 1. To identify all of the exisitng improvements on the entire Golf Course, including lots 1 & 2 of the subdivision. 2. To provide P&Z with the ability to review the plans for landscaping and access in the vicinity of the Red Roof Inn and parking lot. While you were away, a meeting was held with myself, Wayne, Jim Holland and Paul to discuss the PUD submission. The following conclusions were reached at the meeting: 1. Jim will hire a landscape architect to provide a rendering of the landscaping and access to the pro shop and parking lot and landscaping of the corner of Cemetary Lane and Highway 82. 2. The subdivision plat should be updated to include the pro shop abd golf cart maintenance buildings, as well as the Parks Department buildings and any other improvements on the property. This update should be the responsibility of the Engineering Department and should meet the standards for conceptual PUD. 3. The Planning Office sees no reason that the PUD submission could not be exempted from mandatory PUD review at P&Z, meaning that the process will end following P&Z conceptual review. Therefore, the submission should contain adequate information to address all potential issues which might be raised by P&Z or which are required by the zoning code. Based on our lease obligations with the Red Roof Inn, it is essential that a PUD submission be made as soon as possible. Wayne set March 1st as an absolute final date for such an application, although we hope to have a complete submission well in advance of this date. I suggest that you talk to Jim about when he expects to have a complete rendering and try to aim for the same time frame for your work. Please also let me know if any additional infor- mation needs to be put on the final subdivision plat before it goes to Council so that when the PUD is ready there are no addi- tional hitches prior to obtaining final plat approval. Don't hesitate to call myself, Jim or Wayne if you need further guidance. cc: Wayne Chapman Jim Holland Dan McArthur Paul Taddune Sunny Vann "" ... ~ ......"'i " j' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Reconsideration of Golf Course Subdivision DATE: October 26, 1982 Attached is a copy of the resolution you adopted unanimously at your last meeting concerning the reconsideration of the Golf Course Subdivision and the location of the pro shop building. I took this resolution forward to Council at their meeting on October 25, at which time they unanimously made the following decisions: 1. They agreed to initiate the zoning action to place a mandatory PUD designation on the property. 2. They agreed to consider the possibility of adopting the 200 foot setback from Highway 82 at the entrances into Aspen. 3. They refused to permit the moving of the pro shop building. Council was presented with a likely cost of about $50,000 - $60,000 to move the building, including a new foundation and utilities. It was determined that taxpayer money would be better spent in land- scaping the pro shop and improving the parking lot. The City Manager has indicated to me that he would like to involve you in the plans for landscaping this facility and welcomes your comments in this regard. The Planning Office believes that City Council has provided you with the signal you are looking for regarding any future actions which may take place on this important piece of public property. Furthermore, information obtained from the City Attorney indicates that the City is subject to substantial financial penalties within the terms of the lease with the Red Roof Inn if we are unable to comply with our own subdivision regulations. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you grant approval to the reconsideration of the Golf Course Subdivision and recommend that City Council add a mandatory PUD designation to this property as part of its review of the subdivision. . .., ,.,q...... '-' ">""...... RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONCERNING THE RECONSIDERATION OF HIE GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRO SHOP ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 82 Resolution No. 82 - 13 '~EAS, as a result of the failure to record the Golf Course Subdivision Plat within 90 days after its final approval, the City of Aspen has found it necessary to resubmit the Golf Course Subdivision Preliminary Plat for considera- tion by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and WHEREAS, prior to and apart from its reconsideration of the Golf Course Subdivision Preliminary Plat the Planning and Zoning Commission has expressed its displeasure with the location of the construction of the pro shop along Highway 82 has received substantial negative public comment about that building, and WHEREAS, during its original consideration of the Golf Course Subdivision, the planning and Zoning Commission concurred with the Planning Office that a PUD review for any development of the property which was to be leased to the Red Roof Inns was in the best interest of the community, and WHEREAS, the City Council did not adopt the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation that the Golf Course Support Overlay zone district have its area and bulk requirements set by PUD review, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission believes that the 200 foot setback of buildings from Highway 82 is a most important land use policy in Pitkin County, and one which should be adopted by the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot, in good conscience, act upon the Golf Course Subdivision Preliminary Plat until such time as this property has been designated as a mandatory PUD area, which will provide a review mechanism to evaluate the location of the pro shop. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado: 1, That it does hereby request that City Council initiate a rezoning of the Golf Course property to designate it as an area of mandatory PUD. The Commission does hereby indicate to the City Council that it will withold action upon the reconsideration of the Golf Course Subdivision Preliminary Plat until such time as this rezoning is completed. 2. That it does hereby provide the City Council with notice that it does intend to recommend that the pro shop b~ilding be moved outside of the 200 foot setback from Highway 82. ., ~ / ~, ~ 3. That it does wish to implement the 200 foot setback from Highway 82 as a general land use policy in Aspen and hereby directs the Planning Office to examine the feasibility of its implementation at both the east and west entrances to Aspen. Adopted unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado at their regular meeting on October 19, 1982. ,-~ ~ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST: Virginia Beall, Deputy City Clerk ~: Welton -- ?, , / PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Reconsideration of Golf Course Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing for the Reconsideration of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat Subdivision. continued to a date uncertain. will take place on November 2. 1982 at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in the City Council Chambers. At this time. Planning and Zoning will also be considering a City Council initiated action to place a mandatory "PUD" on the Golf Course property. For further information. contact the Planning Office. 130 S. Galena Street. Aspen. 925-2020. ext. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 28. 1982. City of Aspen account. r '''' """'I ....,; MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Aspen City Council Alan Richman, Planning Office P & Z Recommendation Re: Pro Shop DATE: October 20, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: The Planning Office has requested a slot on your agenda to provide you with some information regarding a P & Z recommendation concerning the Golf Course Pro Shop. The action by P & Z was a result of two separate circumstances: 1. The failure to record the previously approved Golf Course Subdivision Plat within the required time resulting in the need to reconsider the preliminary and final plat by P & Z and Council, respectively. 2. The concern of P & Z that the Pro Shop is being built adjacent to Highway 82 and that this location was not reviewed by P & Z prior to its construction. P & Z unanimously adopted the attached Resolution 82-13 at their meeting on October 19, which contains the following recommendations to you: 1. P & Z requests that you initiate a rezoning of the Golf Course property to add a PUD designation to the existing Park and Golf Course Support zone districts. 2. P & Z indicates to you its intent to recommend that as a result of pun review the Pro Shop building be moved. 3. P & Z suggests that it would be appropriate for the City of Aspen to adopt the Pitkin County land use policy concerning the 200 foot setback from Highway 82. P & Z also tabled action on the Golf Course Subdivision Preliminary Plat pending a rezoning of the property to pun. I have referred this matter to the City Attorney's office to determine if this delay has any effect upon your lease agreement with the Red Roof Inn. I have also included in this packet of information a memo we sent to P & Z which traced the history of the prior approval of the Golf Course Subdivision and Golf Course Support Overlay zone district. A memo from Wayne providing his recollection of this process is also included. The Planning Office is bringing this item to your attention on short notice so that you can minimize the time delay associated with the Golf Course Subdi- vision. We recommend that you initiate a rezoning of the property to add a PUD designation to the existing Park and Golf Course Support zones. Should you concur with this recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to initiate a rezoning of the Golf Course to add a PUD designation to the existing Park and Golf Course Support zones." ...-..... ." " , . . - " lst and 2nd Lease Years $200,000,00 per year 3rd through 5th Lease Years $250,000,00 per year Renewal Term (6th through lOth Lease Years) $300,000,00 per year During the first and second Lease Years, the annual rental shall be payable in advance in equal quarterly installments on the first day of each quarter of the Lease Year, and in no event not later than March 20, June 20, September 20, and December 20 of the first and second lease years, During the third through the fifth Lease Years and during any Lease Year of the renewal term, the annual rental shall be payable in advance and in equal monthly install- ments, commencing on the anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date and not later than the same date of each consecutive month there- after, All rental payments which are not paid when due shall, as a late charge, accrue interest at the rate of two percent (2%) above the prime lending rate for the period said payments are due and owing as established by the Chase Manhatten Bank in New York City, which shall be paid by Lessee, All rental payments to Les- sor shall be payable and sent to Lessor at its address as herein- below set forth, or at such other place as Lessor may from time to time direct in writing, The term "Lease Year" as used in this Lease shall be the period of one-year's duration commencing on the Rent Con~encement Date and each successive period of one- year's duration commencing on the anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date, Section 4, Renovation and Construction to be Performed by Lessee, (A) Lessor and Lessee hereby acknowledge the overall archi- tectural program and architectural design devised for the renovation of the Premises and the construction of the Pro Shop building by Lessee for the benefit of Les- sor on the adjoining property owned by Lessor, which architectural program is set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and which architectural design is depicted in the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit "E", ----- -~ ~ 6 " - '-" '-' c' both of which are incorporated here~ Within eighteen (18) months after the Rent Cooonencement Date, Lessee, at its cost and expense, shall perform that part of the renovation set forth and depicted in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto with respect to the Improvements, at a cost of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000,00), to be evidenced by a cost certificate to be verified by Lessee and Lessee's architect, On or about April IS, 1982, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, Lessee, at its cost and expense, shall begin and complete within a reasonable time thereafter the construction of the shell of the Pro Shop building iden- tified in Exhbits "D" and DE" on Lessor's adjoining pro- perty, on a site to be specifically determined by Les- sor, Lessee's construction of the shell of the Pro Shop building shall be of good quality and performed in a good and workmanlike manner, and such construction shall consist of: (i) completion of the exterior of the buildin,:!, (ii) roughing in the plumbing, (iii) providing electricity to the perimeter of the building, (iv) pro- viding heating equipment in place (not ducted), (v) pro- viding a drywall perimeter, if desired by Lessor, (vi) extending a four (4) inch PVC sewer line at a maximum depth pursuant to applicable building codes and regula- i tions for a distance of not greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the perimeter of the building to the existing City gravity sewer line, and connect the same if the existing gravity sewer line is within said distance, (vii) extending a one (1) inch water service line from the perimeter of the building to the existing City water line adjacent to the west side of the pro- posed Pro Shop at a distance of not greater than fifty (50) feet, and connect the same if the existing City 7 - "-" ....,..,..... " ..II' EXIlI13I'L' 0 TO: Jim Hughes FROM: Hagman Yaw Ar.chitects GENERAL The ar.chitectur.al concept guiding the r.enovation hleasur.es pr.oposed for. the Plum Tr.ee Inn is based on cr.eatin':j a quality lodging and r.,ecr.eational exper. ience by a complete upgrad ing of both the phys i-. cal and oper.ational aspects of the existing facility and its r.elated site amenities, Because the site location of the Plum Tree complex constitutes it as one of, the impor.tant physical definitions of "entry" to Aspen as well as being central to one of Aspen's most impor.tant r.ecr.ea- tional assets, we feel the low under.stated building form should be retained and tur.ned to advantage by the. enr.ichment of its ar.chi- tectural sur.faces with natural Hlater.ials and detailin':J sympathetic to both the site and the way the building should be per.ceived and used at all scales of refer.ence, Add itionally impor.tant to the des ign concept is the creation of passive outdoor spaces completely separated fr.om vehicular move- ment that both functionally relate to the public services of the lodye and encourage the interaction of people and mor.e passive activ ities on an infor.mal bas is, [;s depicted in Exhib it" E" this is accomplished and defined architecturally by tne aOQltlon of a new Golf Pro Shop building betweeri''the-'slte ent:ry cUld the restau rant-RQrtion_.Qf the existing hllildinlJ- Tr1~r-1Q]t-',.,n tn prnvidinq .i:.he~ se ar.ation of edestri movement and the 0 or- tunity for a new en e consolidated r.o s 0 loca- tlOn permits more efficient nr~r~tion and ~nntrol of the golf cour.se, ~ The major. areas of site and building fa.cility improveiaent measur.es as depicted in Exhibit "E" included in this proposal ar.e descr.ibed as follows: Site Entry In addition to complete landscaping and sodding of yr.ounds, areas alony the entry r.oad will be resur.faced with bitUlainous paving, As well as improving the visual quality of ar.r.ival this will reduce dust and noise and per.mit better. winter. maintenance. An entr.y "gateway" to be constr.l1cted of stone and wood is also pro- ~ ,i '.~~" . .,.:-...." _ c, "'.-.'7"1- '1: 11 :t ;j~ , . ,~-. -'!'"'::' . .-. -7"~'r ., ~;_~._ .'''c.'''':' " ","''''''''' , . '~ . . ~ . r. ( '" . ". . I , , \ . " " , . ' , ...... i, ~,. " : \ ., ., \ ; - "- " '" posed in conjunction with the landscape to upgrade entrance iden- tity. Tennis Court Area The ground surfaces around all tennis courts, which are currently overgrown with weeds and in a state of disrepair, will be land- scaped, sodded and maintained as finished site amenities, Swimming Pool The temporary fenc ing surround in;) the pool area will be removed, the pool deck enlar':jed and surrounded by a "soft barrier" of low stone wall and earth berming, In addition to making the pool and sunning deck more useful and private, the enlar;)ed area will per- mit outdoor eating and organized evening activities, Parking Area The public parkin;) area will be separated from the entry road by means of earth bermin;) with defined entry and exit points to insure efficient and safe vehicular movement, Golf Pro Shop A new pro shop build ing will be constructed' and located as por- trayed in Exhioit liD" annexed hereto for optimum public and guest access as well as visual control of the golf activity, The build- ing will include a shop space of approximately 1,250 s,f. in addi- tion - to covered outdoor space, The build ing also becomes a site element which defines entry character and clarifies site use and movement. Energy Efficiency The building insulation and architectural elements will be up- graded to compliance with the Colorado Ener':lY Code and Pitkin County Energy Standards, Exterior Building Surfaces All exterior surfaces, including fascia trim, window trim, soffits and balcony railings will be removed and replaced with new cedar siding and redwood to be stained a low key natural color, Exist- ing elements to be retained, such as beams, will be ref inished and stained, 2 .. . .".....~'~ - '[.,....,--. ,- ~ -,'~.-i"''''.''":''-. ":--".'-:--'- ~..~,.. ':' .-,." ", ;." '-0 r-".~ . . ' --"1"7 .. ....".-.... ....rr--,..:- .,_.,?'-""'!"~~"'''' , ----.-1" . ,., L , . :~ n .~ ", ~:l !.!: -." ~ , " . , " "". ", ! . ~:~. '~,'I . . " I \ , . .. ,. , " .' .' "1 ., . ....-.. '" 1"[ " , . , , " J , , '.1 ,..... ", I t -,-" TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, by a unanimous action of 9 regular and alternate members attending its meeting on October 19, 1982, wishes to go on record with the following statement regarding the Pro Shop at the Golf Course: 1. The Commission wishes to express its concern and disappoint- ment at the violation of the Pitkin County policy that all build- ings be set back 200 feet from Highway 82. 2. The Commission feels that of all the areas in planning for the community where there might possibly be conflicting objectives between the City and County, that there should never be incon- sistency regarding the Highway setback. 3. The Commission recognizes the original efforts made by the Aspen P&Z and the Planning Office to have review power over the location of the Pro Shop and agrees with that approach as having been proper and appropriate. 4. The Commission has established a historic precedent of con- sistency in its actions in the corridor and has never waived the application of the setback, regardless of the community objective which conflicts with this policy. 5. The Commission would advocate whatever steps which would re- lieve the current situation regarding the setback, specifically to include the removal of the building even at this late date. Such actions have been taken by the City of Aspen in the face of past violations of City policy by private interests and appear to be justified in the case at hand. I"""- ........, '"'" -...,.,,,,1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Alan Richman, Planning Office Reconsideration of Golf Course Preliminary Plat DATE: October 8, 1982 Introduction The Planning Office was recently notified by the Engineering Department that they had failed to record the plat for the Golf Course Subdivision within gO days after its final approval by City Council. According to Section 20-14(e) of the Municipal Code, failure on the part of the subdivider to record the final plat within 90 days of its approval renders the plat invalid and requires reconsideration and approval of the preliminary and final plat by P & Z and Council, respectively. Planning Office Review Typically, the reconsideration and approval of a previously approved plat would be a simple matter, since all of the necessary reviews have already taken place. The review of the Golf Course Subdivision Plat ought to be particularly straightforward, since the only condition which was placed on final plat approval was that the plat be signed and sealed by the surveyor and approved as to form by the City Engineer prior to its recordation. However, as we are all aware, no review is ever as simple as it seems and the Golf Course Preliminary 'Plat is no exception. At a recent meeting of the City Council and at your last meeting we were questioned about the location of the pro shop which is being built next to the Red Roof Inn. Subsequently, we have had calls about this matter from several citizens and have seen it covered extensively in the local newspaper. In the interest of providing you with all of the facts concerning this issue, we intend to provide you a complete recap of the prior review of the Golf Course Subdivision. The Golf Course Subdivision was reviewed in six distinct steps by P & Z and/or City Council. Following is a description of the major discussions which took place at that time. 1. P & Z Conceptual Review/Code Amendment - September 28, 1981. This step consisted of two interrelated reviews. You were asked to act upon a resolution by City Council which initiated the Golf Course Support Overlay zone district. You were also asked to grant conceptual approval to a four-lot subdivision, including the Golf Course, Plum Tree Inn and two employee housing sites. Our recommendation to you was that since Council's resolution concerning the Golf Course Subdivision overlay contained no area and bulk requirements, you should recommend that these be set by PUD development plans. Our memo dated September 1, 1981 stated that "this approach would provide P & Z and Council with a mechanism by which any proposal to develop the Plum Tree Inn site could be reviewed as to architecture, site design and landscaping." We also recommended that you approve the two employee housing sites which would be used for housing key City employees. You made two substantive recommendations to Council at this review. First, by your Resolution 81-13 you strongly recommended that the two employee housing sites be eliminated from the plat and the land be retained as open space. Also, you recommended that Council amend the Golf Course Subdivision overlay proposal by requiring the setting of area and bulk requirements in this zone by PUD development plan. ,.... .~, '-' ~ Memo: Reconsideration of Golf Course Preliminary Plat Page Two October 8, 1982 2. Council - 1st Reading - October 13, 1981. This step consisted only of the first reading of the ordinance creating the Golf Course Support Overlay zone district. In a memo dated October 6 we transmitted your recommendation to Council which accompanied Ordinance #68. This version of the ordinance required that the area and bulk requirements of the Golf Course Support overlay zone be set by PUD plan. At the meeting, Council commented that if the PUD requirements would delay the renovation of the Plum Tree Inn such that the terms of the proposed lease of this facility could not be met then they wanted the PUD provision eliminated. We were asked to determine what effect the PUD provision would have and if necessary, to return at second reading with a revised ordinance. 3. Council - 2nd Reading/Conceptual Review - November 9, 1981. At this step Council first considered your recommendations concerning this subdivision. They totally concurred with you that it was inappropriate to put employee housing on land purchased as open space and agreed to eliminate those two lots from the subdivision. In a memorandum dated November 2, we also presented our analysis of the effect of the PUD requirement on the timing of the lease with Red Roof Inn. Our comments on this subject were as follows: "We have also spoken with the City Manager to determine how the proposed PUD area and bulk requirement review would impact the anticipated development program for the Plum Tree Inn. It is clear that the present plans for renovating the structure and adding certain new facilities, including a relocated pro shop, would invoke the PUD review provision. The Planning Office believes that it is most important that we provide you and P & Z with a review mechanism to consider such variables as the architecture, landscaping, height, mass and setbacks of any building which will be highly visible due to its location within the Highway 82 scenic corridor. However, we also recognize that the time delay of a full PUD review at this time would not be acceptable and that the terms of the lease currently being negotiated provide one method of review to protect the City's interest, although without public participation in the review of the plans." Based on Council's position that no delay in the renovation would be acceptable we deleted the Planning Commission's recommendation from Ordinance #68. At this point, the City Attorney recommended that we revise the ordinance to be consistent with other overlay zones by setting the permitted uses for the Golf Course Support overlay but to have its area and bulk requirements be those of the underlying zone district. In this case, we recognized that this revision would provide for no review of changes to the Plum Tree Inn, since all potential uses of this site were listed as "permitted" in the Golf Course Support overlay zone and since the Park zone has no standards for area and bulk requirements. However, we were told that the lease provided for review by the City Manager and City Attorney and also asked that the Planning Office be included as a staff level input. Finally, we suggested that when the time constraint no longer exists, that a second look at the Golf Course Support overlay be taken to re-evaluate the desirability of having a PUD review mechanism incorporated into the process. 4. P & Z Preliminary Plat/Rezoning - February 2, 1982. This step consisted of the subdivision of the Golf Course into two parcels, the Plum Tree Inn and the park itself, and zoning these parcels to P with a Golf Course Support overlay and P, respectively. The Planning Office identified no substantive issues at this time and you concurred by recommending approval as requested, with only minor conditions associated with Plat recording. - """ ,~ ~ ........ . H ' -;. , '1< i' ~.,1 ,_." Ii ,','/ )1( q ,11'1 TO: ASPEN PLANN~~G1AND ZONING FROM: i. '~~:Y~~V,--eHMl:r.v.N ~~~E\~ fL~~~(/r;~2 SHOP ._-~, t n~ ~--- ::, MEMORANDUM COMMISSION ~ Si~~. L will be out of town the week of October 17, 1982 and unable ~ - ~j,,' ~) , to attend tne'"Planning-and Zoning Commission meeting I thought it important to write a memo concerning the Golf Course Pro Shop. The plans for the facilities at the Golf Course were prepared by Hagman Yaw architects and submitted on behalf of Red Roof Inns. The design and location of the Pro Shop were part of the plans and were reviewed and approved by the City Council in the process of entering into an agreement with Red Roof Inns. In fact the design and site are incorporated into the lease with Red Roof Inns as an exhibit. Further, the design of the facilities, with the design and current site of the Pro Shop clearly shown, was submitted in a colored rendering by the architect many months ago and was posted on the bulletin board in the City Council Chambers for approximately 10 days. Thus the City Council reserved to itself the authority to review and approve the plans thus making a PUD with further architectural reviews redundant. Further, during Spring of 1982 approximately 3 to 4 months before construction of the Pro Shop began, I accompanied a member of the staff of the Planning Department to the Golf. Course. At that time the Director of Parks and myself showed him the site for the Pro Shop. We were informed at that time that if the site were in the County there would be a problem due to the 200 foot setback but since the site was in the City there was no legal problem because there is no 200 foot setback requirement. Very frankly, after that site visit I do not recall ever hearing again over the next three to four months the subject of the 200 foot setback - at City Council meetings or any other time. Based on the foregoing it seems that a reasonable person would conclude that there was no obstacle to proceeding with the Pro Shop as designed and situated. There were several reasons for selecting the current site for the Pro Shop. First, we needed a site which could control access to both the first and tenth tees. The site of the old Pro Shop controls the first tee but does not provide a line of sight to the tenth tee. In addition it was our understanding that when the site of the old Pro Shop was approved it was done so under the condition that it was temporary and that a different site would be used. Also, we could not use a site that was directly in line with the' Inn because of conflicts with de- liveries and trash removal for the Inn. Further, we felt that from a design point of view such an alignment would be less aesthetically pleasing for both buildings. Finally we did not want to locate the Pro Shop anywhere in the parking lot. In summary, the Pro Shop design and site were neither glossed over in some back room nor made subservient to'a developers desire to "save a few weeks time". The plans were reviewed and approved by , , , TWO ,S - '- ,r"~-,\ ....",; IJYthe City Council, the elected representatives of the citizens of , Aspen. They were prepared by a reputable architect. The plans have been public for many months and the site was known to the Planning Department staff for many months. If there is dissatisfaction with the result that is regrettable. However any suggestion that the decision-making process was anything less than public, proper, or was motivated by a desire to save time flies in the face of the facts. We intend to do 'extensive landscaping of the area around the Pro Shop next season. If anyone care to make suggest~ons regarding landscaping of the Pro Shop we would welcome them. cc: Aspen City Council Sunny Vann lc ,.... I"",..i , , ,,/ MEMORANDUM TO: Allan Richman, Planning and Zoning Louis Buettner, Engineering Departme~ FROM: DATE: September 23, 1982 RE: Golf Course Subdivision Please accept this as a request for re-submission of the Golf Course Subdivision, per Section 20-14(e) of the Municipal Code. The original approval of the subdivision expired before the documents could be recorded. Sheet 3 of the original submission has a addition of a power easement, this being the only change made to any plats. A copy of Sheet 3 is attached with the easement accented. I would like to start the re-consideration as soon as possible. Thank you. LB/co Enclosure cc: Paul Taddune Wayne Chapman Dan McArthur . - " ~ v , ,:1 MEMORANDUM ..,~'h .'1 .J I: ,."-<,, SEP 2 ~ 1982 I-.SF'f}J / :>: ':jt:\ r','", TO: Planning and Zoning PU\:,,:;<'yi~G t\,.:ri FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department DATE: September 21, 1982 RE: City Golf Course Subdivision As the Golf Course Subdivision was not recorded within the ninety (90) day period required per the Municipal Code, reconsideration of the subdivision is required before recording of the plat. I would like to know what documents you require and the number for the reconsideration. Your prompt attention to this resubmittion is requested as the City wishes to record before December. LB/co cc: Dan McArthur Wayne Chapman Ron Mitchell Paul Taddune .' .. '. , 4, '''to, .. ..r . . ... , " ,<11"':-., '1".,,/ .. .~.... . , /..,:.- --.-. ".. CITY OF ASPEN () MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN i . ~ '. G '^ >. i .. : . . . ' 0..~ ~'-.._ L.c>' ''-' l.e") \. ~ ~ , ~\~~ ,<, "'O~ ~-o ,~.~ ....' ~''''" <;. " &.0. "\ "::. .,., e "'-".. ~ "R.. L- 0 "".. ~ \ ",JL ~~~ ~ \~\'_\_""\ ...~ ~'''''Do!\ ~\"'"~ \, Q~2- I'\~ ~ c..-,-~\ ,.......~\.'""~ . , I' ~..........._~""'\ \..\.0"'" ""L .,...~ '-'''-...''O'~ P.4~\",): o~ v..Q..& o~~ Co t\ o~ ~ ~\Ilc"," ~-& ", ~~P,tV;'>L"" L (.A.l~ w\....c\". '-A,\ \......."L ~ Q..~~~ j>.<, G'^':;' c::,~ ~ ~,-..-t . ~ ~"-" v..\. Q~ (.€<:;<;. ~Y- ~ ~ . l.-'--""{f"> \:r. v..J () ~ ,-,,,,..3. ~ ~u.. ~ ~ A-\: ~-\ ~ A",,\ ",Jl -~ ,,\OJ.(L ~..~...d.. ~~ --.J...1.9- ~~>L ~ ~ <.o~ ~ , ! .. . I', , I 'I . 'j l ./ '---.. ; I I -.. I- t 1 . , f .. 1 , j 1 " ~j ,i II .Ii' f " ! i ,~ ~! ""." ';', . CERTIFICATE OF MAILING see I hereby certify that on this below day of October. 1982, a t;rue " and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Reconsideration of Golf Course Subdivision - Preliminary Plat was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: See attached 1ist--those with an asterisk next to their name (*) were mailed on October 4, 1982; those without were mailed on October 5, 1982. AI)(/.J.L1:M lU1At/ j~ ) Martha' Eichelberger , r' ~J ,-~ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ' Reconsideration of Golf Course Subdivision - Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to review a proposal to reconsider the preliminary plat for the Golf Course Subdivision which was previously approved but not reported within the 90-day deadline required by the Aspen Municipal Code. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925.2020, ext. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 30, 1982. City of Aspen account. .., ".-, CERTIFICATE OF f'1AILlNG I hereby certify that on this See attached list. ~\t~ 1;;,...G..~ Signature " " day of December, 1981, a ,1""."" 1".., " ,; -f; Ie PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Golf Course Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Request NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 19, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the Preliminary Plat application for the Golf Course Subdivision proposed by the City of Aspen. The subdivision will separate the golf course itself from its support facility. This application is also a rezoning request to zone land adjacent to the golf course as P -- Park with a Golf Course Support Overlay. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/'Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 31,1981 City of Aspen Account I""" '-' :) 1'~ The Aspen Golf Course Subdivision The following is a list of adjacent property owners names and mailing addresses, as shown in the pitkin County Assessor's office and Treasurer's office, as of March 24,198l: 1. Montgomery H.W. Ritchie paloduro Route Clarendon, Texas 79226 2. Paula M. MosIe and Sara Meredith 3471 Locke Lane Houston, Texas 77027 Castle Creek Subdivision 3. Lot 1 Sarah R. (Werner) Gulick 477 Section, Guemes IsI. Anocartes, Washington 98221 4. Lot 2 Martha H. Grewal 580 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 Mills Subdivision 5. Lot 1 Stewart A. and Lorraine J. Moss Box 9429 Aspen, Co. 81612 6. Lot 2 Stewart A. and Lorraine J. Moss Shirley Berland Box 9429 Aspen, Co. 81612 Aspen Employee Housing No. 1 7. Lot I Daniel A. McArthur 705 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 Robert A. McClung 707 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 8. Lot 2 wayne Chapman 715 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 C6/efle !tnne) cA.!.I, PrccrcJ G/cn I) /-IC (I) 717 Cemetery Lane ,'" ,I Aspen, Co. 81612 PI/a ''-<''I:'' 9. James Hall Box 3161 Aspen, Co. 81612 c '"' -,.,; Page 2 West Aspen Subdivision Filing #1 10. Lot I Jay R. Kuhne and Charles G. Weaver, Jr. Box 2477 Aspen, Co. 81612 II. Lot 2 Sam's Condominium * James and Mary Hokanson Box 189 Reedsburg, Wisconsin 53959 * Ore Bucket Associates 717 17th St. Suite 2440 Denver, Co. 80202 12. Lot 3 Joseph M. and Judith L. Zanin Box 1408 Aspen, Co. 81612 13. Lot 4 * Robert P. Winchester 405 S. Hunter Aspen, Co. 81612 * Joachim J. and Renate F. Weimann 775 Cemetery Ln. Aspen, Co. 81612 14. Lot 5 Henry L. and Ellen H. Goldsmith 793 Cemetery Ln. Aspen, Co. 81612 15. Lot 6 *Horan Condominiums Stephen P. and Nancy Horan 805 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 16. Lot 7 Elizabeth E. Grindlay Box 2154 Aspen, Co. 81612 17. Lot 8 Lot 8 West Aspen Subdivision * Ann Amabile 845 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Co. 81612 Condominiums *Marilyn C. Beer 845 Cemetery Ln. Aspen, Co. 81612 18. Lot 22 *The King's Chalet Robert C. Roosen 6120 St. John's Drive Eden prairie, Minnesota 55343 ,...... '- """ ~ Page 3 19. Lot 23 * Peter A. Brinkmann Box 96 Bear Valley, Ca. 95223 * Robert K. and Judith S. Adams Trustees V/T/D 107 S. Cedros C-2 Solona Beach, Ca. 92075 20. Lot 24 George W. and Barbara S. Nelson 4658 E, Shadowrock Rd. Phoenix, Arizona 85028 21. Lot 25 Lot 25 West Aspen Subdivision * George and Terry Parry * Box 177 Aspen, Co. 81612 Condominiums John S. Cant and Charles H. Burt Box 177 Aspen, Co. 81612 22. Lot 28 Donald B. Helmich Box 2382 Aspen, Co. 81612 23. Lot 29 Sierra Vista Condominiums * David and Ellen Walbert Box 2152 Aspen, Co. 81612 * Sandra D. Ochs l425B Sierra Vista Dr. Aspen, Co. 81612 ,24. Lot 30 * Jean M. Greiner 1435 Sierra Vista Dr. Aspen, Co. 81612 * William W. and Constance M. Owen 1435 Sierra vista Dr. Aspen, Co. 81612 v25. Lot 31 Sierra vista Duplex Condominium *Mary K. Egan c/o Dr. Donald Egan 600 S. Cherry Suite 1002 Denver, Co. 80222 26. Lot 32 Charles Frederic and 3601 East Cove Point Salt Lake City, Utah pamaly Drive 84109 Hopkins 27. Lot 33 R.P, and Sally Ann Fitsgerald 520 E. Cooper Aspen, Co. 81612 c :) Page 4 28. Lots 34 and 35 Claude M. and Claudine M. Conner Box 345 Aspen, Co. 81612 29. Lot 36 Alexander D. and Donna Marie Henderson 2800 N.E. 30th Ave. Lighthouse Point, Fla. 33064 30. Lot 37 Koji and Sara Sue Katoka Box 790 Aspen, Co. 81612 .?l. Lot 38 Golf Course Condominium *Nikolaus Christ Box 4947 Aspen, Co. 81612 * S. Michaele Dunsdon and David A. Borkenhagen Box 3395 Aspen, Co. 81612 32. Lot 39 Gary R. Thurnau Box 660 Aspen, Co. 81612 33. Lot 40 Larry P. Melnick 3574 South Poplar Denver, Co. 80237 34 . Lot 41 Rusudan Gabliani 2500 Payson Road R.R. #9 Quincy, II. 62301 West Aspen Subdivision Filing #2 v 35. Lot 3 * Duchess Corporation c/o John J. Pavell 4100 W. Vegas Dr, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 36. Lot 4 Frank and Isabella Segl 1475 Silver King Drive Aspen, Co. 81612 I"'" "" - - Page 5 37. Lot 5 Richard B. and Cora C. Kelly c/o Kelly Properties, Inc. 409 E. Durant Aspen, Co. 81612 38. Lot 14 Charles P. Lyons and Edeltraud Holzner Box 1696 Aspen, Co. 81612 39. Lot IS Aaron and Paula Sherman 219 2nd Avenue N.E. Austin, Minnesota 55912 40. Lot 16 Neil and Ronni L. Ross Box 2075 Aspen, Co. 81612 41. Lot 17 Robert F. Stifter 12510 S. 80th Avenue Palos Park, Illinois 60464 42. Lot 18 Manuel G. and Renee Ruiz 1570 Homestake Dr. Aspen, Co. 81612 43. Lot 19 Floyd C. and Josephine S. Mann 1020 Fifteenth Street Apt. 32A Denver, Co. 80202 44. Lot 20 Joan Frensley Smith and Stephen B. Smith 4028 Windsor Dallas, Texas 75205 45. Lot 21 James W. Patterson 1500 Homestake Dr. Aspen, Co. 81612 West Aspen Subdivision Filing #3 46. Lot 1 Harold K. and Constance Harvey Box 199 Aspen, Co. 81612 c - , - Page 6 47. Lot 2 Edward D. and Sondra J. Fram Box 3259 Aspen, Co. 81612 48. Lot 3 Michael C. 0060 Garry Box 11749 Aspen, Co. and Linda H. Niven Drive 81612 49. Lot 4 Richard A. Box 2711 Aspen, Co. and Pat Finley Fallin 81612 50. Lot 5 Bruno A. and Sallie S. Pasquinelli Box 503 Lansing, Illinois 60438 51. Lot 6 Gerta Walls c/o Fred Lane Box 597 Aspen, Co. 81612 52. Lot 7 Albert S. Lowe, III c/o Oates, Austin, McGrath, and Jordan 600 E. Hopkins Aspen, Co. 81612 53. Constance M. and Dr. Harold K. Harvey Box 199 Aspen, Co. 81612 54. Samuel J. and Joy Caudill Box FF Aspen, Co. 81612 v55. *Zoline Foundation % Joseph T. Zoline 624 N. Canon Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 ,,56. * Parcel A and B Aspen Tennis Club Area United Bank of Denver, Trustee 1740 Broadway Denver, Co. 80202 Page 7 c :) Clasen- pecjak Subdivision 1/57. Lot I *Kenneth and Wendy Larson 0022 Road A Aspen, Co. 81612 Iselin Subdivision 58. V 59. v' 60. \..<' Lot I Rodger V. Lyons Box 4808 Aspen, Co. 81612 Lot 2 *Golf Course Properties Associates A Colorado General Partnership Box 4170 Aspen, Co. 81612 James E, and Alberta L. Moore Box 707 Aspen, Co. 81612 ,.fi 1. *Ci ty of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81612 ,v62. *Pitkin County 506 E. Main Aspen, Co. 81612 63. Jl4. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 8l6l2 *Marolt Associates A Colorado General Parnership % 300 Equitable Building 730 Seventeenth Street Denver, Co. BlCH~ 7 ~ . ""', ,....'., ;I)....... ) " ......, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Reconsideration of Golf Course Subdivision - Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at a , meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Cay Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to review a proposal to reconsider the preliminary plat for the Golf Course Subdivision which was previously approved but not reported within the 90-day deadline required by the Aspen Municipal Code. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext.. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning 'Conunission Published in the Aspen Times on September 3D, 1982. City of Aspen account. > " ~tl:Icil+:l,.!lll 1ii Il "".s 8 ;9~~~~ la~~~ ~'~ ~f~ o ~ -= ~.6 IA "';9';;;9~ ., Ol",.....~ I - :gaJ~ot .... 6gg~1 _.. ~:.-"Eia ..a............ ~..d Q> Q..u __ ~ =",u.@ G1>0 5 IA . ~ >. p- v, iJl]4l ~ts ~aH' a " U1~ '8, i."".,' I ~ 8 ~:.:l,Sl 11 ,'gJ, .. "" .", 0 I aJ" "0......,:::;,.. , ~~ iM''''' i" ..c:: ]'g]~': IA ~"" =1ii "I, 'f v, aU;9 f .' ."" ..- ' o tU~lti a,l ~ E.s~al~~<..J"";"- ~ ]....~~,~5\.,. ' . ~ 81 .. ~ ffi '}~'/" t r-4.!1ll. = o:c~1t:~' ~~~:1!'~ ' Cb ln3~ ,.. '" = l:l IS fA Q)~Q).2.... ., .c-ll~~ I - i ~al8.t ... cSa..c- ~ ~,- tlOl W ~U~ 8 '+- - r' ! 'f '" ~ '" .f. ~ i E ~ -!!! (.) -.. ,,' .... 1i _.. 8b N co '" - t3 ""." ..... I Q) '''0 ~;9 ~2l o2~" t:C:UP~ dPo E' g.>..g rn ~ ,f.9 ~ .s .. 13, ~ "" u.c.... IZI 0'''''' d '" 0-l3 0.. Il := ~ >..c e .2....::l &l '" <;;) ",::=" ~a~"Jl ;9 N .10 ~ 0 >,IJ}Q)~ ~.!!~'5=.S ~=s'o~ ..d 0 f- ~~(J}!l =..1313 :I 0 Q) 1lI l!3C:= 8 cC ~ "'. ~:a ~ f~ bO'... .iII :s 6 .~ ai 8 .... Q)....."i t)..d'c.1"t ~ =+l'Uu..... ..~ IIrEl tit';S"'g.Ott:l -= IZI >>"'-= o Co::l +:l Q) OO( t .c , "'.. ~ I. I . i M . '" tf ~ . E E ;:: c 8- ~ en ..: . .s:: >- --- N U <D '" --- ,,' ..... ..8 --- {J b 0 ~ --- ..... en 8- ..c: en e Q.. Q) ~ :) 8 "+- - - 0 C) - I .. .... , I IV '''CI 1iloS ~ ~ O~>=I" "::J .. t:=Cl.l:5. ~~ ~ g I ciS!! ~.5 I S! s'~ e, ~"t..c.~ rn 0....""" c:: (J) C,)bO,,~ =.~~-ti ""I _<;>>=1;::" '" o ~.- e CLl ,,!i~ .:;1 oSN'=~"1 >,C1)CP~ ... ~ CLJ.... c:: ClI_"C >..... I a; tl:l 01 ~,.!IIl ...t"O-5] ] ~~~] +01,..9.........0 iloe....~ blJS::: 0 EttJ ~ <<l 0.::1 ClI I .... ;1- btI " Po. e t... Q,l.... I g -".5-"11 -+Jc:I...... CIS t.Q s..lo-o..... "dCll+OlOCLlI "3~~c::9 OJ:; 0 CLl a:l ~ '.:; U E g ..c: Q,) 0. u III u 8..9 ::I ~ ::s.... Q.l 0 ~ t UJ..,;l > ~ - ~CLl"C' CLl"~'''2'"'O -"t:l.....>.CLl..cCLl.CLl~''''O .. -5~~ ~.~fot~~E ~~~~~~~~.~@~~~] lo-o~(J)=>Oc:lCLl ~..cEo ~ CLl=~"'" "OClI ~CLl"2..8 o:::sccooCLlg.c::e CLlcdc:l-..c"C-5~2'o<Et"'O-+-l I u .~ ~ u ..c ......c '"' ClI U Q) s.. == ... =.... 1:0 't:: blJ t:: be cr:l rf.l I CLl~ClI~ =SCLl"CI+Olo.ECLl =>~a'~ClI~CLl~CCLlc:lOO S :a'~" ",~" e S '" >,.c "e 11 i< "" ~ E "oS e '2"E e" e e =~i:~ "t:l"CI~ClIwc:l~'" ....1:0_= ~~ oo=::s CLlCLl "OCLlCLl;> f.~os:::goov~:: ~.scCll~"C'3"g~.!..cEEe "0 ..... c:: e CLl ..c 0 .... co >.-"" 0 _,_ (1) = C" S e..;le "" "'.cCLl ?:>... ... CI:l ... C. "'C'" btJ.... ..... CLl .... - ~ e ........ - .... -..... ..c blJ ..... <0-0 s::: ~ a: ~ c u U 1:0 _'''' 1-0 cu'''' CLl.cCLl...........c..c "C blJ s::: 00 0'.1 0 ''''e III '= C '"' C "C,:: c. - ~ s::..... u v ..... ... "'3 ..... .... :a gC O'J = 8:& ClI .s:s ~ =..9 ~ c. Q.l 6 a ::.. ~ ~ :; ~ "'0 oaJ~ c~ c~o .~8Q.l~8~guc~'~~~c ~ _ g-ss;.aasu > >~OQ)~:: ~ ~~Q)Q) tI} "'0 S as bO Q"........" ~ ..... -d ~ ;~~ ~ U.z ." ~'"O :t _ ~ c ~~~~ .S"'OQ)~~o.o~~ uQ)~Q)~~Q)~Q)p..~~Q) o ~~ >c~~.s~ ....CQ)~~~kOasp..Q).S"'O.~~~ :;; ~ "i '::2 as ~ bO Q" 0 Q) U.'; ~.~ ~ 6:'~ rn Q.l,.,g ~ f as fl:l -E.! ~ ~ ]: ~ (l)~ g go 6 ~:~ c.r ~ ~ Q) g. E -: ~ r ~ ~ ~ $< tI} ~.!l ~.!l 5. ~ -:3..a 'oLe as ~ Po.:t.z.~ S -:S~ as .5.'>'0 >. Q) <<I <<I . == Q):-" ~..l. "'0 C c.,!. as ~ ~ Q) '~ -"'O...c.:1 C"I 'as .. Q.l , ~~~k~Q ~c':~~ Q)oSo ~:t~~ec,~.~oo~c~fg~~ ~ .. ~ Q) bOO E 9 Q) 0 C ~ bO fl:l:t (l) ~ <<I (I) ::3 <<I ~ .s >.p:._ 00 Q) u <<10 ~_~"'O'~~ o8~Q)<<I~ "'OSf.Q) =] ktOO:t <<I Q)~~~~~ e~i,;"'O ~ ~~1! ~-55:~ ~~ ~s ~ J~~:E.~ ~ ~~t~~C"I..~'g ~~ ~~~~~<<I<<I'E~~~Q>~c~C~ ~ ~~ ~ ._~:tkbOobOC .r;~~isi~s~~~~~'~J'~'~ .~i~8~i~~~'~c~'~:~'1 !i 'i: e ~ 0 gj 0 "'''I' "I' 11 ., ~ 'S: - '2 1il <'J """ Po. S ".~-".:!l oS": S " "oS::E e N ~ a 0 ~ (7J "'0 <<I eRe ~ l:; p.. <<I c.!: "'0 E -5 Q) >. > :: .. ~ ~ .. >..= f ~ c g S ~ ~ ... ~ 8. ~ Q) E t p.."'O E .s -a'2 ~ ;.~ U} ~ ~ >.] 8 ~ Z rJj C.~ ~ ~ffi~~:;;~~~~~E]~~o~8 CaO::3a<<l~~~~~~"'O~]~~ ~Q)~kO~J~'_~ e~~o~cN~.2~ee~(I)._o,-~tcSQ)~~e Q)U"'O ~ oo~ Q)OC- ~Q)~.~~_(I)~UQ)p..tI}...c 0 <<I~~'~ '" C <<I p.. 0 I-o....c ~.... > E--- S "'0 C ~ .~ Q) Q) - <<I..!:t:: C U ~ "'O'~ C ;> <<I ~ ~-== ~~! ~ ~~ 1-0 ~~ .(1) E a.ab~~:t' E-g;t ~J".3Y< 0 ~e"i g, ~~~~~gg<2~~~~ ~~~t~r~~~'5]~a~~~i~Et] ob(l)~~o E:t~c= l-o~s8 .z5.'>>~~~_~cE 860 e:Q)~~ u...:~ p....c g ~ _ s e s'''' >. ~,,"'.8;;~1;lee~ Q)UlES~"'OQ)Ee~ c ~ 0 Q) l1.l ';; -5 8 ~ .~ Q)okE<<If~Q)l1.l"= -5 u~ Q)"":>.O e Q).s ~ =: a S'u 1: ~ ~ ~ <<I ootl}~3~-Q, U~ e "".t) . 0 g'~ 11 " " .- tI} U Q) > ~...c .~ Q) ~ "i "'0 ..c:.~ l1.l"+J ~..c: ;::.- >.c:...= Q).c ~~ uS'o Cd b<<l~~.s b ~ "'0 0 ~ ~ g ~.;:: ~ rn as IV- >.A .....c " " " t:: l1.l ~ U ..c: = o p.. ="~'Il:Q) E ~ ~"ti ~ U]f. ~e~30o l1.l ~.....<l.ioi ~ Su >,(l)~"'O~~ ~~=.c(l) ~$~"'O,,~~ ==~~ "'S.~ Q c: 0 bD ~ ~ as ~ ......~ Q).c 3 ~ ~ft C ~ ~ ~ > 0 ~ 0 c: -..c k ~ U Ul .... c: ......-;> = Ul t U >.~;.a ~ ~ ~ bO ro Q) .".;, - :"I 0 Q) ~ ~.- ~rn~.!l.u~ >.~>.g ~-5~'QEe ~R':~~; CUlc~:.a~ -5e:;c"i ~~ogtl}"'a (i;iO::,,=;aS~ 15.E ::s.... U (l) .".;, ~ ::3 (I) ro ~ 0 u.cQ) s.. "'0 ~ - ~ V 8~k0:5 <<IIoe t::~~~~~ ~Q)=~, ~g -~= ~g~3 <<I~<<I~s..Q) ~~~~~ .n.....~~~o "'O~~u ~c=~~l1.l -~.~gQ) ~~~..c~"'O s~~e ~.~.~..c:l1.l"'O ]=1u- .s~ .~~Q) <<I~~~ .~~~~C~ _aS~.c"8_ ocC~ ~ u~-(/J 0 =~<<IC o~_ .~ 0 .S ~ ~ ~ ;.a c"C -" .. ~ .~ ~ p. ~ c2:t; ~ ~ ~"";'I-oce C'-~'- .~=8~ Q) 0_..0<<1 ! aSQ)~~ .....~cu>.><<I "'O"is.. ~CQ)"'O~ .... c:g C 0 Q C...c'''''@ t <<I Q,) E ~ = > Po. = ft ~ ~- 3.9"O'~ 0 8.,3 ~ :t 1: e :t..:t~~ g <<I 0 c: '2 ~ ~ !'u o Ul ~.~$l1.l ~r:a t1}.~ sf ttJ"'O~ 5.] o~ 3"'0 <<l~ ~8eu~] ~e8~_8;.a~~:t~ 8a~.s J t J I J . I I I ~ 1 o - editol:'aI hasty council action \ spoils scenic- corridor I The hazards of hasty council action to circumvent the full planning process are now apparent in the pro shop under construction at the golf course, Although the county has maintained a 200-foot set- back from the highway to enhance the approach to Aspen for over two decades, the city has broken that tradition and allowed the pro shop to violate the setback. This week several council members expressed concern with the encroachment and appeared surprised when told they had approved the plans. But it was their thoughtless attempt to hasten the development process on city property for a private developer which made the infraction possible. In their hurry to speed the approval process for a pros- pective lessee they rejected recommendations from their professional planners and from their planning commis- sion to impose PUD (planned unit development) restric- tions on the tract when it was rezoned to Golf Course Overlay last November. I They were told that the PZ commission "felt it was important to create a review mechanism and therefore followed the planning office recommendation that this be done"," by creation of a PUD, Council membersfwere also told in a planning office memo that "it is most important that we provide you and P&Z a review mechanism to consider such variables as the architecture, landscaping, height, mass and setbacks 1 of any building whiCh will be highly visible due to its location within the Highway 82 scenic corridor." I However, the council in its wisdom chose to listen to the advice of its administrative staff, which had negotiated the lease deal, rather than its planners, decid. ing that expediency was more important than planning, and had the PUD controls omitted from the zoning ordi- nance, thus eliminating future PZ or planning office review. Twenty years ago a determined board of county com- missioners fought hard to persuade property owners that a 200-foot setback from the highway was necessary to create an open scenic corridor into the city. That corridor and the absence of all billboards are direct benefits to Aspen and everyone who lives here, It is deplorable that this 20-year effort by the county to preserve green space along the highway should be cor- rupted by an ill-conceived desire to bypass the planning process, The council and its staff may have saved the developer a few weeks time, but the result will be an eyesore forever. - - '"' '-" At~~" :It!j~G ~U$V ~ MEMORANDUM ~ TO: FROM: DATE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JIM HOLLAND, Director of parks~ January 24, 1983 RE: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN GOLF COURSE P.U.D. As a supplement to the Conceptual Site Plan depicting the Golf Course Entrance, Parking, and Pro Shop areas which I have submitted for your review, I offer the following comments concerning these areas as well as the entire Highway 82 frontage. First of all, it has been expressed to me in many meetings with Council, that it is their wish that the entire Golf Course frontage from Maroon Creek Bridge to Castle Creek Bridge be fully developed to a standard of landscaping consistent with the rest of the Golf Course. It is at their direction and that of the City Manager then, that I have begun to compile cost estimates and conceptual site plans for developing the entire greenbelt area along the highway, so that this area between the highway's edge and the irrigated bluegrass fairways of the Golf Course will in fact become a "GREENbelt". While extending the course irrigation system and manicured turf clear over to the edge of the highway is certainly no simple nor inexpensive project, it will have a substantial visual impact on our entrance into the City. This area is currently unmaintainable rocks and weeds, and is detrimental to the overall appearance of the Golf Course. Although it's development means increased costs for ongoing maintenance, I heartily welcome the change. HIGHWAY 82 & MAROON CREEK . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925,9425 - '-J ...... - As a starting point, the area of most immediate need for develop- mental funding is naturally the area that is used most. As our new Pro Shop opens for operation this spring, we will in fact be in the process of landscaping that area. Funds have been approved by Council which will enable us to curb and asphalt the Golf Course entranceway road as well as complete all pond construction, irrigation installation, sodding, trees, and cart paths in the immediate area of the Pro Shop (e~st of the new entrance road alignment). Further funding may also be available this summer for landscaping in the area of the 'old Pro Shop building after it is removed from its location. The parking lot itself and the area south of it to the highway then become the next target areas for funding. Consideration is currently being given to the possibility of floating a bond issue which would in- clude this phase of Golf Course development, as well as allocating monies for all greenbelt improvements eastward along the highway to Cemetary Lane, and to include elimination of the small parking area at that intersection. So that you might understand better what sort of end product we're striving for in each of the areas, I offer the following comments. The existing berms around the parking lot will be feathered out, reshaped as illustrated on the plan, and covered with topsoil. All new slopes will be mowab1e. The raw water irrigation system of the Golf Course will be extended into this area and into the parking lot islands so bluegrass turf can be established and trees can be planted throughout the entire area. The parking lot itself will be curbed and paved eliminating the dust and pothole problems we presently tolerate. Although on a busy day, due to golf traffic and P1umtree ballfield use, we would often come close to running out of parking space, we feel the addition of the landscaped islands within the parking area will be well worth the sacrifice of a few spaces because of their aesthetic contribution. Because of its size and proximity to the highway, this parking area must be broken up through the use of plant material in order to present the type of attractive appearance we're hoping for. 1"''' '-' ,...., - The landscaping of the strip eastward along the highway offers us the opportunity to present a much cleaner, "finished" appearance to the Golf Course, while at the same time enhancing the attractiveness of this area for the bikers and joggers who frequent this section of the trails system. The buck-pole fencing should be replaced with cedar split-rail. Where you have livestock to graze around this type of fence, it works just fine, but if you have to maintain under and around it with mowing equipment, it's not very practical. While there are a couple of locations within this greenbelt that are quite attractive, well-established native areas of sage and scrub oak that will be preserved as such, the majority of the entire strip will be converted to irrigated bluegrass turf. The contrast of these areas will serve to enhance one another and help break up the greenbelt. The parking lot at the intersection of Highway 82 and Cemetary Lane, as stated before, will be eliminated. This entire area will also be fully irrigated and landscaped to a standard consistent with the remainder of the Golf Course. While not everyone is going to be pleased with the elim- ination of this parking area (it is heavily used by x-country skiers, joggers, and as a commuter intercept lot), the decision was officially approved by Council at the recommendation of various interest groups including the Pitkin County Parks'Association and P & Z. Whatever the repercussions, development of this area will undoubtedly help to present a more attractive entranceway into Aspen. I hope this has helped to answer some of your questions regarding further improvements of the Aspen Golf Course property. We've come a long way from the little, insignificant 9-hole operation which we were only a short time ago. And, as you can see, we've got a long way yet to go. I hope some of these things get you as excited as I am about the future of this public facility. I really think we've got something about which we should be excited and proud. .'.7 I'll be available for questions when this plan comes to you for review, or give me a call at ext. 302 if I can help in any way. - ."""\ ....." -" I ~lu~ I , ~ I , , l- I j I fc;=:- ~ e , , , I 1 ~ ~ --= ..~ f I ~ -'.- .. 1 r . I d . j J a: I I I I ~ I I , ~ i j I ~ ! j I j I I U I I 7' I I "'- I I d. :._:i+l'- +. " I t:..- .... I I \ I I I I I I \ I I I 1 I \ . " ~ .....,,,, ......." Memo: Reconsideration of Golf Course Preliminary Plat Page Three October 8, 1982 Though no comments were included in the memo concerning the Council action regarding the PUD requirement, we believe that the issue was discussed during the public hearing. Unfortunately, we have been unable to locate the minutes from this meeting in the City Clerk's office and cannot positively report to you as to whether or not we were negligent in our discussion of this issue. However, at the time you indicated no concern with the nature of the subdivision and rezoning and your approval passed the issue along to City Council. You should recognize, though, that the plat you reviewed did not show the location of the pro shop and therefore you would have been unaware of its potential existence. The Planning Office did perform a site inspection of the proposed location of this building during this time period. The City Manager and Director of Parks showed us the location and orientation of the proposed building and solicited our comments at that time. 5. City Council 1st Reading - February 22, 1982. At this meeting the Council gave its first reading approval to the request to zone the Golf Course P and the Plum Tree Inn P with a Golf Course Support overlay. 6. City Council 2nd Reading/Final Plat - March 22, 1982. At this meeting Council gave its final approval to the rezoning and subdivision with no changes having occurred since the preliminary plat review by P & z. Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office hopes that this rather lengthy synopsis of the prior review process helps in your understanding of how the pro shop has come to be built without any review by P & Z. Based on the many comments we have received from the public and consistent with our earlier suggestion to City Council that we look at this matter again when time is not a concern, we recommend that you recommend to City Council that they rezone the land now zoned P with a Golf Course Support overlay to P with GLS and PUD overlays. We also recommend that you approve the reconsideration of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat, with no conditions attached to this approval. - """ '" - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Alan Richman, Planning Office Golf Course Conceptual PUD March 22, 1983 As you may recall, you decided to table the Golf Course PUD submission at your meeting on March 8 so that additional information could be submitted. Specifically, you asked Jim Holland to prepare an elevation study of the entrance to the Red Roof Inn property to show the relationships between the highway, the trail and the proposed beams. It is my understanding that the appropriate drawing is being prepared and will be available for your meeting tonight. The Planning Office continues to believe that it is appropriate to exempt the proposed landscaping of the golf course entrance from mandatory compliance with the provisions of PUD. Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The only development which is proposed is landscaping and road work; no buildings are to be constructed. 2. Council has already considered the plan before you and gave it a unanimous endorsement at their meeting on January 10. 3. The review and recording of this PUD plan ensures that all develop- ment of the Golf Course be consistent with these plans and that any future plans for the Golf Course, including areas for which no conceptual plans have been submitted, be subject to your review of a PUD plan amendment. The Planning Office recommends that you grant the Golf Course Conceptual Site Plan an exemption from Mandatory PUD, subject to the condition that any development of the property be consistent with the plans submitted to you, and that any development proposals for which plans have not been submitted be subject to review by P&Z and Council as an amendment to this PUD. ~-"~. ""_"_"--'._~--,- ,.,".", ""',,'" MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineering PLANNER: Alan Richman RE: Golf Course Subdivision - Exemption from Mandatory PUD DATE: February 15, 1983 Attached is an application for the Golf Course PUD Conceptual Site Plan. Since the application consists of only a landscaping plan for the golf course, and no construction will be taking place, exemption from mandatory PUD will be recommended. Please look the application and site plan over and return your comments to the Planning Office no later than February 25, as the matter is scheduled for the first City P&Z meeting in March. Thank you. .', ~. --... ..",.... ....._'~,,<-~~---.....-..--.,..._--_.__. , "..J"" '.~", CITY 13 0 soc..i~;'i~ asp e n ,co.t'ii't... . 303-925~20tO PEN MEMORANDUM fIl1~rr:l~\mr:1m1I- "" "'<fi-", ' r;> ;.0 l \.. ,,_ ,,' 10,.. ..... r;,_,.J1 ,-- "'.' '. r.!/::J'.:,.,.;......,' ':..:! '. ltl , . ,; t <',' rl,~"R 1 .,,'(; ":;l , ..,.. .-' I (~~-,.. - .j;",::"" A<.t'tN / ;", ;,;\;,J CO. " PlANNiNG OffICE, / DATE: February 17, 1983 TO: Alan Richman FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Golf Course Subdivision - Exemption from Mandatory PUD We have no comments with regard to this application, PJT/mc /,''''- '-."",i ......,., ....,/ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: RE: Alan Richman, Planning Office Golf Course Conceptual PUD DATE: March 8, 1983 Introduction Late in 1982 you were presented with the Golf Course Subdivision preliminary plat for your reconsideration to permit its recordation. At that time, P&Z indicated its displeasure with the recent construction of the Golf Pro Shop adjacent to Highway 82 and expressed its interest in obtaining a mechanism to review any future activities which might affect this parcel. P&Z therefore recommended that City Council rezone the Golf Course to add a "PUD" designation to the "Park" and "Golf Course Support Overlay" zones which were already in place. Council concurred with your recommendation and by Ordinance 69, Series of 1982, made development on the Golf Course subject to a mandatory PUD. In accord with your request, the City has put together a PUD application which accomplishes the following: 1. Establishes for the record the facilities which currently exist on the Golf Course property by the creation of a plat, prepared by the Engineering Department. 2. Proposes a program for the immediate improvement of the entrance to the Golf Course in the vicinity of the Red Roof Inn, to include landscaping, irrigation, paving and curbing, prepared by the Parks Department with the assistance of Hagman/Yaw Architects. 3. Identifies the anticipated long term improvement program for the remainder of the Golf Course, including the parking lot, the frontage along Highway 82 and the intersection of the Highway with Cemetary Lane. No formal PUD plan has been submitted for these areas. Planning Office Review The Attorney's Office and Engineering Department had no comments concerning this application, although we anticipate that verbal comments may be raised at the meeting. The Planning Office wholeheartedly supports the plans to finish off and beautify the entrance to the Red Roof Inn. We particularly approve of the plans to screen the pro shop, soften the access road while also paving and curbing it, remove the old pro shop, and break up the large parking lot. We believe that these plans merit your support. According to Section 24-8.13, Mandatory PUD, "whenever the zoning district map designates a mandatory planned unit development district by including the letters PUD as a suffix to the classification of any district, all development shall proceed according to this Article VIII as a planned unit development unless the planning and Zoning Commission shall determine that the proposed development meets the objectives of planned unit development and therefore compliance with this article is not necessary." We believe that it is appropriate for you to award this proposal an exemption from mandatory PUD for the following reasons: 1. The only development which is proposed is landscaping and road work; no buildings are to be constructed. 2. Council has already considered the plan before you and gave it a unanimous endorsement at their meeting on January 10, 1983. 3. No purpose would be served by subjecting this proposal to the remalnlng steps of the review process. The essential objective of the PUD designation has been met, this being the development of a plan of "" """" - ...., Memo: Golf Course Conceptual PUO Page Two Ma rc h 8, 1 983 existing and proposed improvements to the Golf Course. We can now require that all development of the property be consistent with these plans and that any future plans for the Golf Course, including areas for which no conceptual plans have been formall submitted, be subject to your review of a PUO plan amendment. Such plans will become particularly important if at some point in the future plans move forward to four-lane Highway 82 in that there would be a need to coordinate the landscape plans with those for the road's design. Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that you grant the Golf Course Conceptual Site Plan an exemption from mandatory PUO, subject to the condition that any develop- ment to the property be consistent with the plans submitted to you, and that any development proposals for which plans have not been submitted be subject to review by P&Z and City Council as an amendment to this PUO. : - '.J' - ~.. ~' >'~ ,Juv- ~.a;; "..fIr "..$ V ~ MEMORANDUM :::-- TO: FROM: DATE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JIM HOLLAND, Director of parks~ January 24, 1983 RE: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN GOLF COURSE P.U.D. As a supplement to the Conceptual Site Plan depicting the Golf Course Entrance, Parking, and Pro Shop areas which I have submitted for your review, I offer the following comments concerning these areas as well as the entire Highway 82 frontage. First of all, it has been expressed to me in many meetings with Council, that it is their wish that the entire Golf Course frontage from Maroon Creek Bridge to Castle Creek Bridge be fully developed to a standard of landscaping consistent with the rest of the Golf Course. It is at their direction and that of the City Manager then, that I have begun to compile cost estimates and conceptual site plans for developing the entire greenbelt area along the highway, so that this area between the highway's edge and the irrigated bluegrass fairways of the Golf Course will in fact become a "GREENbelt". While extending the course irrigation system and manicured turf clear over to the edge of the highway is certainly no simple nor inexpensive project, it will have a substantial visual impact on our entrance into the City. This area is currently unmaintainable rocks and weeds, and is detrimental to the overall appearance of the Golf Course. Although it's development means increased costs for ongoing maintenance, I heartily welcome the change. .' HIGHWAY 82 & MAROON CREEK . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925,9425 ....,"'., -. "..... -- As a starting point, the area of most immediate need for develop- mental funding is naturally the area that is used most. As our new Pro Shop opens for operation this spring, we will in fact be in the process of landscaping that area. Funds have been approved by Council which will enable us to curb and asphalt the Golf Course entranceway road as well as complete all pond construction, irrigation installation, sodding, trees, and cart paths in the immediate area of the Pro Shop (e?st of the new entrance road alignment). Further funding may also be available this summer for landscaping in the area of the old Pro Shop building after it is removed from its location. The parking lot itself and the area south of it to the highway then become the next target areas for funding. Consideration is currently being given to the possibility of floating a bond issue which would in- clude this phase of Golf Course development, as well as allocating monies for all greenbelt improvements eastward along the highway to Cemetary Lane, and to include elimination of the small parking area at that intersection. So that you might understand better what sort of end product we're striving for in each of the areas, I offer the following comments. The existing berms around the parking lot will be feathered out, reshaped as illustrated on the plan, and covered with topsoil. All new slopes will be mowable. The raw water irrigation system of the Golf Course will be extended into this area and into the parking lot islands so bluegrass turf can be established and trees can be planted throughout the entire area. The parking lot itself will be curbed and paved eliminating the dust and pothole problems we presently tolerate. Although on a busy day, due to golf traffic and Plumtree ballfield use, we would often come close to running out of parking space, we feel the addition of the landscaped islands within the parking area will be well worth the sacrifice of a few spaces because of their aesthetic contribution. Because of its size and proximity to the highway, this parking area must be broken up through the use of plant material in order to present the type of attractive appearance we're hoping for. ,- ''"-' '.... """ The landscaping of the strip eastward along the highway offers us the opportunity to present a much cleaner, "finished" appearance to the Golf Course, while at the same time enhancing the attractiveness of this area for the bikers and joggers who frequent this section of the trails system. The buck-pole fencing should be replaced with cedar split-rail. Where you have livestock to graze around this type of fence, it works just fine, but if you have to maintain under and around it with mowing equipment, it's not very practical. While there are a couple of locations within this greenbelt that are quite attractive, well-established native areas of sage and scrub oak that will be preserved as such, the majority of the entire strip will be converted to irrigated bluegrass turf. The contrast of these areas will serve to enhance one another and help break up the greenbelt. The parking lot at the intersection of Highway 82 and Cemetary Lane, as stated before, will be eliminated. This entire area will also be fully irrigated and landscaped to a standard consistent with the remainder of the Golf Course. While not everyone.is going to be pleased with the elim- ination of this parking area (it is heavily used by x-country skiers, joggers, and as a commuter intercept lot), the decision was officially approved by Council at the recommendation of various interest groups including the Pitkin County Parks'Association and P & Z. Whatever the repercussions, development of this area will undoubtedly help to present a more attractive entranceway into Aspen. I hope this has helped to answer some of your questions regarding further improvements of the Aspen Golf Course property. We've come a long way from the little, insignificant 9-hole operation which we were only a short time ago. And, as you can see, we've got a long way yet to go, I hope some of these things get you as excited as I am about the future of this public facility. I really think we've got something about which we should be excited and proud. .-i I'll be available for questions when this plan comes to you for review, or give me a call at ext. 302 if I can help in any way. - ,",,/ -. ...." I I I I e I I I ci j I a: I I ~ I I 2 I ~ I .. .' ~ I I I ~ J I. .... ~ I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I (;)l I I j , i' , - 1 _ ~d~ CEEW