The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Skico Little NellAspen Skiing Co., Little Nell Extension of SPA �! �/e ms ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE . 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 47331 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 - 47332 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 47342 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 47343 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 - 47350 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 47350 52100 REZONING 63729 47360 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 47332 52200 GMP/DETAILED 63713 47333 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 47341 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 47342 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 47343 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 47350 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 47350 52200 REZONING 63719 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 09000 52200 63063 09000 52200 63062 09000 00000 63066 09000 00000 63069 09000 SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC GMP COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL 1'i iecr- I. 1'auf^ �,,, Name: Phone: Address: 'X 6 L I al n Project: "Z �' L1' :0 t �*1 Check No. Date: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: .00 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE . 44. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 52100 63722 47332 - 52100 63723 47333 52100 63724 47341 52100 63725 47342 52100 63726 47343 52100 63727 47350 52100 63728 47350 52100 63729 - 47360 52100 County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 63712 47332 52200 63713 - 47333 52200 63714 47341 52200 63715 47342 52200 63716 47343 52200 63717 47350 52200 63718 47350 52200 63719 47360 52200 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 09000 52200 63063 09000 52200 63062 09000 00000 63066 09000 00000 63069 09000 Name: _ Address: Check No. Additional Billing: GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL EXCEPT/EXEMPTION REZONING SPECIAL REVIEW SUB -TOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAI LED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL SPECIAL REVIEW REZONING SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC GMP COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Date: No. of Hours: • GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 February 10, 1983 Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 jo TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Re: Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA Designation Dear Sunny, Pursuant to our conversations and meetings, I write this letter on behalf of my client the Aspen Skiing Company to request an extension of the SPA designation to encompass all of the Skiing Company property at Little Nell as shown on the enclosed map. The SPA designation is intended to provide the developer with flexibility and the City with project review. We believe the entire Little Nell parcel requires SPA designation so that any development plan can be prepared and reviewed at one time as a whole and not in a piece -meal fashion. Although we have no intention to develop the property all the way up the mountain, we feel that for flexibility, convenience and efficient planning, it would benefit both the City and the applicant if the whole parcel were designated SPA. By designating it SPA the City is not committing to any development prior to the approval of an SPA plan. We are not asking for any underlying zoning for the additional parcel, merely SPA designation. This designation would not create any development rights; it is just for housekeeping purposes to keep options open for when the time comes to develop the property. It is necessary "to do this housekeeping now to eliminate questions that might arise in the context of future GMP applications. The enclosed map depicts the additional area to be designated SPA. I have also enclosed a copy of the names and addresses of all owners of real property within three hundred feet (300') of the area. t Sunny Vann February 10, 1983 Page Two The Skiing Company is the owner of all the property that is sought to be designated SPA and they have consented to this designation by signing this letter. I have also included a check to cover publication or processing costs for this particular application. I look forward to discussing this matter with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By J /� ��, ideon KAhfman GK kw enclosures cc: Peter Forsch ASPEN SKIING COMPANY By 1] MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Location: Zoning: Aspen City Council Colette Penne, Planning Office". Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA Designation June 271 3.983 Applicant's Request: Referral.. Comments: Planning Office APPROVED AS TO FORM: Little Nell Base Area (more specifically described in Exhibit 1) . C - Conservation. L-1. The applicant requests extension of the SPA overlay on the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. Zhe parcel which is presently occupied by the Little Nell building, the Ski School building, maintenance building and Lift #4 access is presently zoned CC with an SPA overlay. The City Attorney's Office made no comment. The City Engineering Department is concerned with possible impacts relative to parking, utilities and siting in the event of future development. Any SPA plan proposed for the parcel must take into account the several easements traversing the site. Of particular concern are the large diameter water mains which supply the water tanks to the southwest. Review: This issue has raised a great deal of neighborhood and community concern. In the expression of this concern, some statements have been made that indicate misunderstanding of the implications of the extension of the SPA designation on the remainder of the Skiing Company's property at the base of Little Nell. The Planning Office position is that the SPA is not a zone category, rather it is an overlay (much the same as a PUD) and is a review mechanism. The under- lying zones of C - conservation and L-1 will remain on the property. For development to be possible that is not consistent with these underlying zones, the parcels will either have to be rezoned or the use evaluated as part of the SPA process using the rezoning criteria. The advantages to the applicant are the removal of the question of ability to submit an application for a GMP allotment. This ability to compete should not, in our opinion, be denied. The SPA designation will allow flexibility in the site design of the dcvelopmerit, which will hopefully result in a better development-. We doubt that the Skiing Company would consider the extension of development on more than a small percentage of this parcel. Also, the SPA overlay over the entire area will allow for its redevelopment as a whole, rather than incrementally. Memo: Little Nell SPA Page Two June 27, 1983 This application of an SPA overlay has been compared to a project in the SCI zone and statements have been made that once an SPA exists, it is very difficult to deny a proposal because the review criteria are so broad. The fundamental difference between the proposed development in the SCI zone and this possible proposal is that the project in the SCI zone was a request for a permitted use and the correct zoning is in place. In this case, the underlying C - conservation zone will be considered. The ability to deny a subsequent SPA plan certainly exists. The advantages to the City are that the SPA overlay adds a layer of review which precludes any development occuring in the area until a precise plan is adopted. Even those uses permitted by the underlying zone cannot be built without the adoption of a precise plan. Again, extending the SPA as requested by this application does not give the applicant any new development rights, in fact, it limits those rights inherent in the current zoning. The City is assuring by this action that any development of this area must first meet their approval through the SPA process. Further, the flexibility afforded by the SPA process facilitates producing the best site plan possible within the constraints of the area. To summarize the meaning of extending the SPA designation, we outline the following: What Does It Allow? - The applicant can ask, for greater density and FAR. The ability to submit a GMP application for the entire parcel. (Allows a proposal to be eva'- hated in its entirety, rather than in a piece- meal fashion.) The uses on the C - conservation parcel can be varied. Part of the development can be on this parcel if the specific plan is approved. Flexibility in the design of the site, so that it can be limited height, etc. The City to review and proposal for development, nothing can be built without the approval of a specific plan. What Does It Not Allow? The right to a use not allowed by the underlying zones without evaluation of the proposed use in light of the rezoning criteria. (These are specific conditions.) It does not close off_ future options - rather the future Council will have a mechanism with which to fully evaluate a project. An automatic allowance for lodge uses outside the base parcel which is zoned for the use. Since a lodge development would not require a subdivision action, the SPA will provide a better review mechanism. Memo: Littlo Nell SPA Page Three June 27, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission and ' Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that you extend the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels zoned CC, C and L-1, owned by the Aspen Skiing Company in the Little Nell Base Area as shown on the submitted map. The Planning and Zoning Commission added the following conditions to their recommendation of approval: ]. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. ��. Any variance in allowed use of the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning. 3. If Council does not accept Conditions 1 and 2, the recommendation of the P&Z would change to a recommendation for denial. Council Action: The appropriate motion is: . "I move to adopt Ordinance 26, Series of 1983." Conditions of this approval shall be: 1. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. 2. Any requested variance(s) in allowed use of the underlying zone or requested increase(s) in permissible density of FAR will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning. 3. �0 C1 ZV1 Cal 4 \, - (� CSL �'1.0� ✓ C C Cl- vN a�ro V Qd, 4 co �`�;+► lt --add �►�s EX111BIT "1" A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen and in Section 18, Township 10S, Range 84W of the 6th P.m. being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Block 102 in said City of Aspen; thence S. 75°09'11" E. 220.00 feet along the north line of said block 102 to a point 10.00 feet east of the Northwest Corner of Lot H of said Block 102; thence S.14°50'49" W. 263.26 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen; thence No. 38035140" �4. 53.53 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 21; thence S. 45021'00" W. 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 221 to a point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite; Thence S. 10006'00" W. 262.94 feet; Thence N. 80°30'00" W. 395.06 feet to the East line of Tipple Woods Subdivision as recorded 3-23-59 in Ditch Book 2A Page 250 as Reception No. V.17798; Thence N. 15°30'00" E. 510.29 feet along the Easterly line of Tipple Woods Subdivision to a point on Line 8-9 of the Aspen Townsite; Thence along line 8-9 N. 74°23'00" 41.77 feet to Corner No. 9 of the Aspen Townsite; Thence along Line 1-9 of the Aspen Townsite 39057'22" E. 52.02 feet; Thence S. 75°09'11" E. 4.92 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot K Block 98 City and Townsite of Aspen; Thence along the West line of Lot R, Block 98 N.14°50'49" E. feet to a point on the South line of Dean Avenue; thence S. 75°09'11" E. 60.24 feet along said South line to a point on the West line of vat,ated Hunter Street; thence N.14050'49" E. 50.00 feet along said west line to the SW corner of Lot I Block 97;thence S. 75°09'11" E. 37.50 feet to a point on the :enter line of said vacated Hunter Street;thenee N. 14°50'49" E. 100.00 feet along said center line; thence S. 75°09'11" E. 37.50 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, a tract of land, comprising 0.14 at-res, more or less, more parti-ularly des,-ribed as follows: The Easterly one-half (E1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly line of durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one half (E1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded in the public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at page 101. Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado _ . -7 • TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension DATE: May 23, 1�83 APPROVED AS TO FORM SPA D/e/sign ti on Location: Little Nell Base Area (more specifically describ in Exhibit 1 Zoning: C - Conservation. L-1. Applicant's Request: The applicant requests extension of the SPA overlay on the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. The parcel which is presently occupied by the Little Nell building, the Ski School building, maintenance building and Lift #4 access is presently zoned CC with an SPA overlay. Referral Comments: The City Attorney's office made no comment. The City Engineering Department feels the application should be reviewed in light of the potentially greater development right that may occur through elimination of the Conservation zone on the parcel. Possible impacts relative to parking, utilities, and siting could be significant. Any SPA plan proposed for the parcel must take into account the several easements traversing the site. Of particular concern are the large diameter water mains which supply the water tanks to the southwest. Planning Office Review: This application is unique in that it is not, technically, a rezoning application. Rather, the action requested is for extension of the SPA which exists on the front section of the property, over the remainder of the Ski Company's property. The underlying zones will remain CC on the front parcel and C - conservation on the area to be designated SPA. The advantages of this action benefit the applicant by offering optimum flexibility in the uses, area and bulk requirements, dimensions and siting of structures, etc. The SPA overlay will allow an application to be made for a use that the conservation zone would not normally provide. The SPA overlay over the entire area owned by the Ski Company at the Little Nell base area will allow for its redevelopment as a whole, rather than incrementally. The advantages to the City are that the SPA overlay adds a layer of review which precludes any development occuring in the area until a precise plan is adopted for the area. Even those uses permitted by the underlying zone cannot be built without the adoption of a precise plan. Extending the SPA as requested by this application does not give the applicant any new develop- ment rights, in fact, it limits those rights inherent in the current zoning. Memo: Little Nell Property Page Two May 23,1983 The City is assuring, by this action, that any development of this area must first meet their approval through the SPA process. Further, the flexibility afforded by the SPA process facilitates producing the best site plan possible within the constraints of the area should a development be proposed. A large number of the neighboring property owners and their legal counsel were present at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Most of that group was opposed to this request. Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that you extend the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels zoned CC, C and L-1, owned by the Aspen Skiing Company in the Little Nell Base Area as shown on the submitted map. The Planning and Zoning Commission added the following conditions to their recommendation of approval: 1. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. 2. Any variance in allowed use of the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning. 3. If Council does not accept Conditions 1 and 2, the recom- mendation of the P&Z would change to a recommendation for denial. Council Action: If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office, the appropriate motion is: "I move to read Ordinance 2 (P, Series of 1983." "I move to approve Ordinance �, Series of 1983. Conditions of this approval shall be: 1. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. 2. Any variance in allowed use of the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning." EXIIIBIT "1" A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen and in Section 18, Township 10S, Range 84W of the 6th P.m. being more fully des,-ribed as follows: .Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Block 102 in said City of Aspen; thence S. 75°09'11" E. 220.00 feet along the north line of said block 102 to a point 10.00 feet east of the Northwest Corner of Lot H of said Block 102; thence S.14°50'49" W. 2b3.26 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen; thence No. 38*35140" �4. 53.53 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 21; thence S. 45021'00" W. 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 to a point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite; Thence S. 10°06'00" W. 262.94 feet; Thence N. 80°30'00" W. 395.06 feet to the East 'Line of Tipple Woods Subdivision as recorded 3-23-59 in Ditrh Book 2A Page 250 as Reception No. 107798; Thence N. 15°30'00" E. 510.29 feet along the Easterly line of Tipple Woods Subdivision to a point on Line 8-9 of the Aspen Townsite; Thence along line 8-9 N. 74°23'00" 41.77 feet to Corner No. 9 of the Aspen Townsite; Thence along Line 1-9 of the Aspen Townsite 39057'22" E. 52.02 feet; Thence S. 75°09'11" E. 4.92 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot K Blo,-k 98 City and Townsite of Aspen; Thence along the West line of Lot R, Block 98 N.14°50'49" E. 1U.00 feet to a point on the South line of Dean Avenue; thence S. 75°09111" E. 60.24 feet along said South line to a point on the West line of vacated Hunter Street; thence N.14°50'49" E. 50.00 feet along said west line to the SW corner of Lot I Block 97;thence S. 75°09'11" E. 37.50 feet to a point on the center line of said vacated Hunter Street;thenee N. 14°50'49" E. 100.00 feet along said center line; then,-e S. 75°09'11" E. 37.50 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, a tract of land, comprising 0.14 a,-res, more or less, more particularly described as follows: The Easterly one-half (E1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 10)2, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly line of durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, hte Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one half (E1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded in the public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at page 101. Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 4 1 1 r mom LL� E. HOPKINS AVE. _ LL r iE, HYMAN r AVE. H I (N 1 r w lm a- — f 4 • 2 l • � 1 z J I N li ER ; —. •mw s i •ue oa r•r r 1 • era... � .'r+ ...o..r•.,OURATZTi-" AVE, Elo, B arrr, •ra — rtr ro• e tracl fi 2z R 38 39 u I 21 35 3 4 a �'✓ S 1 ., .. ,a : Hoer ,. •'� 20 2 ' 33'� 5 8 3 3 1e 17 16 4 q I S w �. �. 14 CA 7 24 • �L'R ;F"'1 f 2 2 t � � : rcv�,,,«e... t • .. � e� � l 12 6 fh j,�1 ♦ f 19 I ..r rr. , .,� �) Fes, f JIB 'eL^+• %ma`s 14 «LL; LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN February 10, 1983 Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Re: Aspen Skiing Companv/Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA Designation Dear Sunny, Pursuant to our conversations and meetings, I write this letter on behalf of my client the Aspen Skiing Company to request an extension of the SPA designation to encompass all of the Skiing Company property at Little Nell as shown on the enclosed map. The SPA designation is intended to provide the developer with flexibility and the City with project review. We believe the entire Little Nell parcel requires SPA designation so that any development plan can be prepared and reviewed at one time as a whole and not in a piece -meal fashion. Although we have no intention to develop the property all the way up the mountain, we feel that for flexibility, convenience and efficient planning, it would benefit both the City and the applicant if the whole parcel were designated SPA. By designating it SPA the City is not committing to any development prior to the approval of an SPA plan. We are not asking for any underlying zoning for the additional parcel, merely SPA designation. This designation would not create any development rights; it is just for housekeeping purposes to keep options open for when the time comes to develop the property. It is necessary to do this housekeeping now to eliminate questions that might arise in the context of future GMP applications. The enclosed map depicts the additional area to be designated SPA. I have also enclosed a copy of the names and addresses of all owners of real property within three hundred feet (300') of the area. ION • Sunny Vann February 10, 1983 Page Two The Skiing Company is the owner of all the property that is sought to be designated SPA and they have consented to this designation by signing this letter. I have also included a check to cover publication or processing costs for this particular application. I look forward to discussing this matter with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, GK kw enclosures cc: Peter Forsch ASPEN SKIING COMPANY By (::�� , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By ideon fman 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Location: Zoning: Aspen City Council Colette Penne, Planning Office Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA Designation June 13, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORMYJ� Applicant's Request: Referral Comments: Planning Office Little Nell Base Area (more specifically described in Exhibit 1). C - Conservation. L-1. The applicant requests extension of the SPA overlay on the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. The parcel which is presently occupied by the Little Nell building, the Ski School building, maintenance building and Lift #4 access is presently zoned CC with an SPA overlay. The City Attorney's Office made no comment. The City Engineering Department is concerned with possible impacts relative to parking, utilities and siting in the event of future development. Any SPA plan proposed for the parcel must take into account the several easements traversing the site. Of particular concern are the large diameter water mains which supply the water tanks to the southwest. Review: This issue has raised a great deal of neighborhood and community concern. In the expression of this concern, some statements have been made that indicate misunderstanding of the implications of the extension of the SPA designation on the remainder of the Skiing Company's property at the base of Little Nell. The Planning Office position is that the SPA is not a zone category, rather it is an overlay (much the same as a PUD) and is a review mechanism. The under- lying zones of C - conservation and L-1 will remain on the property. For development to be possible that is not consistent with these underlying zones, the parcels will either have to be rezoned or the use evaluated as part of the SPA process using the rezoning criteria. The advantages to the applicant are the removal of the question of ability to submit an application for a GMP allotment. This ability to compete should not, in our opinion, be denied. The SPA designation will allow flexibility in the site design of the development, which will hopefully result in a better development. We doubt that the Skiing Company would consider the extension of development on more than a small percentage of this parcel. Also, the SPA overlay over the entire area will allow for its redevelopment as a whole, rather than incrementally. Memo: Little Nell SPA Page Two June 13, 1983 This application of an SPA overlay has been compared to a project in the SCI zone and statements have been made that once an SPA exists, it is very difficult to deny a proposal because the review criteria are so broad. The fundamental difference between the proposed development in the SCI zone and this possible proposal is that the project in the SCI zone was a request for a permitted use and the correct zoning is in place. In this case, the underlying C - conservation zone will be considered. The ability to deny a subsequent SPA plan certainly exists. The advantages to the City are that the SPA overlay adds a layer of review which precludes any development occuring in the area until a precise plan is adopted. Even those uses permitted by the underlying zone cannot be built without the adoption of a precise plan. Again, extending the SPA as requested by this application does not give the applicant any new development rights, in fact, it limits those rights inherent in the current zoning. The City is assuring by this action that any development of this area must first meet their approval through the SPA process. Further, the flexibility afforded by the SPA process facilitates producing the best site plan possible within the constraints of the area. To summarize the meaning of extending the SPA designation, we outline the following: What Does It Allow? - The applicant can ask for greater density and FAR. The ability to submit a GMP application for the entire parcel. (Allows a proposal to be eval- uated in its entirety, rather than in a piece- meal fashion.) The uses on the C - conservation parcel can be varied. Part of the development can be on this parcel if the specific plan is approved. Flexibility in the design of the site, so that it can be limited height, etc. The City to review any proposal for development, nothing can be built without the approval of a specific plan. What Does It Not Allow? The right to a use not allowed by the underlying zones without evaluation of the proposed use in light of the rezoning criteria. (These are specific conditions.) It does not close off future options - rather the future Council will have a mechanism with which to fully evaluate a project. An automatic allowance for lodge uses outside the base parcel which is zoned for the use. Since a lodge development would not require a subdivision action, the SPA will provide a better review mechanism. • • Memo: Little Nell SPA Page Three June 13, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that you extend the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels zoned CC, C and L-1, owned by the Aspen Skiing Company in the Little Nell Base Area as shown on the submitted map. The Planning and Zoning Commission added the following conditions to their recommendation of approval: 1. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. 2. Any variance in allowed use of the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning. 3. If Council does not accept Conditions 1 and 2, the recommendation of the P&Z would change to a recommendation for denial. Council Action: The appropriate motion is: "I move to adopt Ordinance 26, Series of 1983." Conditions of this approval shall be: 1. Existing zones are maintained with respect to each zone's area. 2. Any requested variance(s) in allowed use of the underlying zone or requested increase(s) in permissible density of FAR will be reviewed under the SPA and using the criteria of rezoning. — �� -' _ ..sue •� -� "' ' " ...,. — � - ', s. ;� L .` Grp ,�� { — � i 0.• � t W _��,; E. HOPKINS AVE. _y • t,. fib � !'. ~ { E. HYMAN { AVE. _ . ..._y ! I IIL r� w f �T AVE. ...,,,f......�.®fa , d O� F"r f� •+.t< tilt ss. �s `8 fom.p•�"DUftAN1i`® AVE. { LI ra v film fil �' �"°'.. sc Lw n�. w s r—iT� a f. nr•.t � �. � � _ _ � ". � 1 d4 24 �� 11 12 13 i.ti i tA • wf �A' w d �� `.�' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA DATE: April 19, 1983 Location: Little Nell Base Area (more specifically described in Exhibit 11111) Zoning: C - Conservation. Applicant's Request: The applicant requests extension of the SPA overlay on the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. The parcel which is presently occupied by the Little Nell building, the Ski School building, maintenance building and Lift #4 access is presently zoned CC with an SPA overlay. Referral Comments: The City Attorney's office made no comment. The City Engineering Department feels the application should be reviewed in light of the potentially greater development right that may occur through elimination of the Conservation zone on the parcel. Possible impacts relative to parking, utilities, and siting could be significant. Any SPA plan proposed for the parcel must take into account the several easements traversing the site. Of particular concern are the large diameter water mains which supply the water tanks to the southwest. Planning Office Review: This application is unique in that it is not, technically, a rezoning application. Rather, the action requested is for extension of the SPA which exists on the front section of the property, over the remainder of the Ski Company's property. The underlying zones will remain CC on the front parcel and C - conservation on the area to be designated SPA. The advantages of this action benefit the applicant by offering optimum flexibility in the uses, area and bulk requirements, dimensions and siting of structures, etc. The SPA overlay will allow an application to be made for a use that the conservation zone would not normally provide. The SPA overlay over the entire area owned by the Ski Company at the Little Nell base area will allow for its redevelopment as a whole, rather than incrementally. The advantages to the City are that the SPA overlay adds a layer of review which precludes any development occuring in the area until a precise plan is adopted for the area. Even those uses permitted by the underlying zone cannot be built without the adoption of a precise plan. Extending the SPA as requested by this application does not give the applicant any new develop- ment rights, in fact, it limits those rights inherent in the current zoning. C-1 • Memo: Little Nell Property Page Two April 19, 1983 The Planning Office does not believe this is a controversial issue. The City is assuring, by this action, that any develop- ment of this area must first meet their approval through the SPA project. Further, the flexibility afforded by the SPA process facilitates producing the best site plan possible within the constraints of the area should a development be proposed. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to Council ( Cc the extension of the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels owned by the Aspen Skiing Company in the Little Nell Base Area as shown on the submitted map. o� 4 l Ar,) cd Jt 1 �k I- Vil f 0 C c- - \ 2, 4kQ e- rvlk*�) j P1 W_�}JJ 0 A Q�� r, • . rs. Ciiarles B. Edisonoe Mayor Herman Edel r The City Council of Aspen -The Planning and Zoning Commixion of Aspen 130 South Galena Street`' ` Aspen, Colorado 81611 =''} Dear Mr. Edel, Council and Commission Members: I am writing in concern of the Specifically Planned Area proposal. :,As an, individual who has consistantly, quiety loved and supported Aspen for nearnly twenty years,(and tax payer) I besceech those with decision responsibilities to consider the consequences of the SPA Overlay not just in economic terms. Aspen is a state of mind, besides a geographic location. However, both were created with unique excellence. Must the beauty and natural excellece remaining be destroyed? In the past decade Aspen has suffered because of hasty decisions. People not familiar with Bad Gastein, St. Moritz, Kitzbuhel and other centuries old, quality ski resorts fail to see the history of these communities and how development has been handled. Even by appearances, there is fine historic preservation, and although density of buildings, the quality of construction does not include convention facilities or massive "first class" hotel, destroying the prime natural and economic resource - the mountains. Perhaps it is because Europe has minimum space, it therefore has been pro- tected and preserved even through economic crisis, when alternatives of quick -fix financial development could have taken place. The protective 1974-1975 zoning of Aspen Mountain as a conservation area had the finest intent and best interest of the Aspen community, as well as a resort. The SPA Overlay seems to actually reopen the possibility of the Little Nell property development. Furthermore, adjacent private property owners generourly purchased - Lot # 21 and had it zoned as a park for the specific purpose of pro- tecting the 1974-1975 zoning. 2. o If*the SPA Overlay is passed the destruction cannot be changed by a committee meeting. Even the disasterous situation revolving arount Lot # 13 and Trueman Subdivision is indicative of the SPA Overlay consequences. Hasty decision has made waste. Prospective ecphomic advancement is not always long term profit or progress. s More importantly and immediate, -any decision should not be made at the point of transitic_z of the Mayor and City Council. Cordially, Threde S. Edison - s TSE:bbt ecs Gerald G. Hewey Pam Cunningham William R. Dunaway 7 June 1983 0 • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on :�-I2A , 19 "31 a true and correct -copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Ftwe— S�L� C-Y'-� V"t-t C' sirr. a: 5 PFl was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: Martha Eichelberger PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Skiing Company Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider a request to extend the SPA desig- nation to encompass all of the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 925-2020, ext. 223. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: s/Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen account. Published in the Aspen Times on J" o�q-1 CITY/COUNTY PLANNJNtij OFFICK 130 S. GALE.NA OPEN, COLORADO 81611 i :ZZ:N e. P m MAR29 APR C, (j 52355! Spar Consolidated Mining Co 28 State Street Boston Massachusetts 02109 P APR 1', ✓ 7083 it. . . ...................... . . . EN pi iKtN Co PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Skiing Company Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider a request to extend the SPA desig- nation to encompass all of the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 925-2020, ext. 223. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: s/Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen account. Published in the Aspen Times on J�d_�J MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer PLANNER: Colette Penne RE. Applications for Rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation; Aspen Skiing Co. Eames Addition Rezoning; and Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning DATE: March 2, 1983 Attached you will find three applications for rezoning, referenced above. The first is requesting an SPA designation for the entire Little Nell parcel, with the intent that any future development plan can be prepared and reviewed at one time as a whole. The second is requesting Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Eames Addition to be zoned L-2 from its current R-15 PUD/L. The final rezoning application for the Buckhorn Lodge requests a change from its present "0", Office to C-L, commercial -lodge zoning. Please review the applications and return your comments to the Planning Office no later than April 5, so that we may adequately prepare for our presentation before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering ."* DATE: April 1, 1983 RE: Aspen Skiing Company Rezoning Request, Little Nell Parcel ---------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above request to rezone the entire Little Nell parcel to SPA, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The zoning designation map and property description labeled exhibit "l" do not match. 2. Any SPA plan proposed for the parcel shall take into account the several easements traversing the site. Of particular concern are the large diameter water mains which supply the water tanks to the southwest. 3. This application should be reviewed in light of the potentially greater development right that may occur through elimination of the conservation zone on the parcel. Possible impacts relative to parking, utilities, and siting could be significant. JH/co 11 • The following are all the owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property described on Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Robert B. Goldberg )Suite 300 500-5th Avenue New York, New York Ajax Mountain Associates, Ltd. c/o Stephen J. Marcus Box 1709 Aspen, CO 81612 Hans B. Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, CO 81612 The City of Aspen 500 East Main Street .,--Aspen, CO 81611 Hans B. Cantrup Andrew V. Hecht P.O. Box 388 Aspen, CO 81612 Lyle D. Reeder P.O. Box 4859 ' Aspen, CO 81612 Robert R. Romer 3375 Foothill Road ,,Apartment 511 Carpinteria, CA 93103 Ronald M. Popeil 919 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL Spar Condolidated Mining Co. 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 South Galena Street Condominiums C/o Robert Blitz River Oaks Farm Norton Road, Barnwood Lane Potomac, MD 20854 Aspen Alps West Condominiums J P.O. Box 1228 Aspen, CO 81612 Tipple Lodge Condominiums c/o Lee Miller 747 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81612 y Aspen Square Condominiums ✓x P.O. Box XX Aspen, CO 81612 Chateau duMont Lodge c/o Aspen Chateaux Management Company 899 Skolde Blvd. Northbrook, IL 60062 Chateau Chaumont Lodge c/o Aspen Chateaux Management Company 899 Skolde Blvd. Northbrook, IL 60062 Glory Hole Condominiums ✓. P.O. Box 10502 Aspen, CO 81612 Durant Galena Condominiums c/o Lee Miller 747 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 High on the Hill Condominiums ✓ c/o Christopher B. Hemmeter North of Nell Condominiums Hemmeter Center c/o Charlie Hopton Honolulu, HI 96815 i • Aspen Alps Condominium Association P.O. Box 1228 Aspen, CO 81612 George C. Anderman Joan E. Anderman 506 Denver Building 1776 Lincoln Denver, CO 80202 The Kettle Corporation P.O. Box 8080 ,/ Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen Grove Associates P.O. Box 3421 i Aspen, CO 81612 Stein Eriksen P.O. Box 1245 Aspen, CO 81612 Stanford H. Johnson P.O. Box 406 Aspen, CO 81612 Hans B. and June Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, CO 81612 Tipple Inn Corporation P.O. Box 147 Aspen, CO 81612 - 2 - PARKING LOT i m �� , `.a-: ♦ �' \s, .. 9 111 _ r E. HOPKINS AVE. 4 I, i E. HYMAN ; AVE. LIU,.. zI � v~i w t a. • I . w..y 1 Q• I 2 r JQ .�.,. �I W rJ � ER 1 AVE. `— .+.■.++...--� .` +; E. r+.,.•mow ors■+eaL "•' r r r r , � r i �.....■+vim.-r •,...,......,.,r.0URWT['" AVE.' � � r •1 r r w� � amam Mo. traLf r. ran 22 =• 38 39 a� - 21 54 I� 2D °5'� 2 r 3 r. 5 re 31 B 3 3 17 16 r Is 6 � ... I 4 46 Jill e NOW 19 ( II IZ 13 � rrt• 14y w� ■ �' a� '' 0 0 r1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 13, 1983 Mayor Edel agreed to let the new Council face this issue. Councilman Collins moved to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Michael. Motion carried. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - Aspen Rugby Club Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the special event permits for 3.2 beer for the Aspen" Rugby Club; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #24, SERIFS OF 1983 - Lada Vrany Settlement Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1983, by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, abstain; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. DINANCE #2b, SERIES OF 1983 - Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell i Mayor Edel closed the i ,on .second reading; seconded aye` Knecht, aye.t Collins, Extension of SPA Mayor F.del stated he believed he had a conflict of interest and will not vote. Councilman Knecht said he would like to put this off until the next meeting. City Attorney 'Taddune asked Council -to read his memorandum interpreting SPA zoning mechanism. - Andy Hecht also J entered a letter he would like Council to have. -- Mayor Ede1 opened the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to continue -the public hearing and table this until June 27, 1983; �o_nded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, Mayor Edel abstained. Motion carried. ORDINANCE f27, SERIFS.OF 1983 - Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning City Attorney Taddune told Council he has included language indicating that the owner of !' the property has induced the city to consider this by volunteering an FAR of 1:1 and has changed some whereases. Taddune said this does not change the character of the ordinance but tightens up the 1:1. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council that the planning office and P & Z recommend Council not rezone this C/L but recommend rezoning to L-3 for the four reasons listed in the planning office memorandum. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, pointed out one of the objections to the rezoning is that C/L has a higher FAR. If the applicant were seeking a 2:1 FAR, there would be some concern. However, the applicant has agreed to an FAR for this parcel of 1:1. This is the same FAR as L-3 zone. Kaufman said by rezoning this to C/L, the Council is not creating more density, commercial space or any new lodge units but would allow Mr. Kelly to be conforming. This property has been the same way for over 20 years. Mayor Edel said one of the delights of Garmisch is the tiny lodges. The only reason they exist F is because of the commercial space downstairs. f Bil Dunaway said in C/L zone, there are no parking requirements. One of the benefits of this building is that there is good parking in an area that is congested. Kaufman said there are no parking requirements in either the commercial zone or the lodge zone. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1983, on second reading as amended; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilman Collins stated he has had problems with the L-3 zone since it was passed by Council. Consistent with his position on L-3 as spot zone, Councilman Collins stated he must take the position this is spot zoning. Councilman Collins also agreed with the four points in the planning office memorandum. Councilman Knecht moved to table Ordinance #27, Series of. 1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Michael. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1983 - Subdivision Exception and SPA Amendment for Marolt City Attorney Taddune told Council he is trying to iron out all problems of the closing prior to granting subdivision approval. Taddune requested Council open the public hearing and continue it. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to continue the public hearing and to table this until June 27, 1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1.983 - Shapery Downtown Storage SPA Plan City Attorney Taddune reminded Council thev have been advised as to their options with respect for an S/C/I use in this zone, and the ramifications for failure to act on this application. Taddune said, on the other hand, there has been a lot of interest in pur- chasing that property as open space. There have been negotiations with the applicant about purchasing the property. Gideon Kaufman said if something is going to be worked out to purchase this property, that has no legal bearing on the application. The applicant is entitled to a hearing on the application. This application has been in process almost a year. Mayor -elect Stirling suggested a negotiating team be formed to work in the next two weeks to bring this to a resolution in another form instead of developing the property. • ATY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM KEREN MATSOUKAS August 15, 1983 Mr. Peter Forsch Aspen Ski Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Peter, Colette Penne initially sent the enclosed invoice to Gideon I. Kaufman. Gideon suggested that, we send a copy of the additional billing for the Little Nell extension to you at the Aspen Ski Company. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed invoice, please do not hesitate to call Colette Penne. Thank you, Kereff L. Matsoukas Administrative Secretary Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 July 25, 1983 Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman Box 1001 611 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: "Additional Billing" on Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Extension of an SPA Designation Attached is the "Additional Billing" for the time spent over the allocated hours on the Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Extension of an SPA Designation. There are 11 hours allocated for an SPA process and 15.5 hours were spent on this project. Therefore, 4.5 hours at a rate of $90.00 per hour has been charged to total an amount due of $405.00 Should you have any question in regard to this bill, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Colette Penne, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Continue Meeting Aspen City Council July 7, 1983 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Knecht, Collins, Walls and Blomquist present. ORDINANCE #26, SRRIES OF 19-8 Little Nel PA Mayor Stirling opened the continuation o e public hearing. This ordinance is adding an SPA zoning designation to the Little Nell area owned bv_ the Aspen Skiing Company. This are is now zoned CC, C, conservation and L-1. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council there is a parcel zoned CC with an SPA overaly. The request is to extend this SPA to the remaining Skiing Company property at the base of. Aspen Mountain. Peter Forsch, Skiing Company pointed out the two small parcels on the property which are zoned L-1. Councilman Blomquist said there is a provision in the Code saying in cases where the zoning lines were not drawn where intended, such as on a property line, an interpretation is made and j the zoning line is moved back where intended. Councilman Blomquist said he felt the splitting of this property was unintentional. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there are a number of situations in the community where a piece of property is split by a zoning district boundary for a number of reasons. To compute a development allotment on those parcels, the planning office takes each portion under each zoning category and compute *.chat would be allowed and aggregate the density. Ms. Penne pointed out this issue has raised a great deal of community interest and concern expressed. Also, there has been misunderstanding about the function of the SPA overlay in general. The position of the planning office is that as SPA would be used as an overlay, to allow varying of density, setbacks, and area and bulk requirements; an SPA also gives Council a review mechanism. The P & Z recommendation to Council asks that the underlying zones remain on the property as they are. j The P & Z said for development to be possible, there either has to be a subsequenty rezoning, or Council would look at the project in view of the rezoning criteria. These conditions are in this ordinance. The P & Z stated if Council did not accept those two conditions for this SPA extension, then their recommendation would be one of denial. Ms. Penne told Council the advantages to the applicant in this SPA extension is the removal of the question of whether they can apply for a GMP allocation for development on the property. This would allow the applicant to apply under GMP using the property as a whole which would probably result in a better development than just the front of the property. 21s. Penne told Council the SPA overlay over the entire area will allow for site design as a whole, and will allow the applicant to compete under the rV.P. The SF*. on this property does not give the applicant any assurance that they will be successful in the competition. Should the applicant be successful, they would then have to go through the process of having an SPA precise plan approval by Council. Ms. Penne told Council that the C, conser- vation zone, is not open space; it is land with certain uses allowed, such as single family dwellings, certain institutional uses." Once an SPA overlay is on this property, nothing can be built without Council's approval. Ms. Penne pointed out to Council, thev have just gone through an SPA process in the S/C/I zone. An analogy was made that once there is an SPA on the property and it has a GMP allotment, Council's hands are tied. Ms. Penne said this case is not the same; in the S/C/I zone, the use being applied for was a permitted use. The applicant would have to reauest rezoning, or Council would review the uses for the project. The planning office feels this SPA gives the applicant flexibility, and it does give Council a great deal of review power. The recommendation of the planning office, as well as P & Z, is to adopt Ordinance #26, extending the SPA with the conditions that the existing zones are maintained and that any requested variance in allowed uses or increase in density or FAR will be reviewed under the criteria of. rezoning. Mayor Stirling said the Council has received a lot of mail on this application and entered it into the record. There are 27 letters from people living in Aspen that were in favor of this application. These discussed the need for quality development and improvements at the base of Aspen Mountain, and the ability to be able to plan in advance for this area. The Council received 33 letters protesting this application from out of town persons, mostly adjacent property owners. Their reasons against the application are the need to retain green belt, preserve the conservation zoning, and not wanting to see development at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Council also received 6 letters from in town people against the application. There is a separate package from the Aspen Alps against the application. Mayor Stirling entered these letters into the record. Gideon Kaufman, representing the Aspen Skiing Company, told Council the request to extend II the SPA is being made after much thought for very specific reasons. Kaufman told Council last year the Skiing Company put together some proposals for the development of Little Nell in preparation to submit a GMP application. At that time, attorneys for other li applications suggested to the city that the Skiing Company was not able to compete under C&T because the zoning was not appropriate for the land intended to be developed. The proposal for development affected only a small portion of that land zoned C, conservation. II It was argued that the Skiing Company needed a rezoning before they would be eligible to compete in GMP. It is now being argued that the Skiing Company should not be allowed to l rezone to SPA until they present a specific site plan. Kaufman told Council he met with I' city staff, and it was suggested that the SPA be, extended so that there would be a clear i right for the Skiing Company to compete in growth management. In doing this, the city j! would get an added layer of review. The Skiing Company desires to clean up an area they feels needs to be cleaned up at the base of Aspen Mountain. Kaufman told Council that talk of a hotel at Little Nell is speculative. Kaufman said the applicant feels that j the premiere ski area should have an entrance to its premiere mountain that better utilizes' the area. Kaufman said the Aspen Skiing Company would like to offer a development that would better l improve traffie flow, services and visual impact to the area. Kaufman told Council a number of concerns have been raised about the SPA. Kaufman•interpreted the Code to state an SPA designation can be legally placed at Little Nell, and with the underlying C, conser- vation zone in place, the city has legal rights to review any specific plan the applicant came forward with. Kaufman pointed out the city attorney has made a thorough review into 0 • Continued Meeting Aspen City Council July 7, 1983 the SPA and the legal ramifications. Taddune finds that the city can legally designate a parcel SPA; by designation a parcel SPA, the city does not give up control over develop- ment because the parcel keeps its underlying C, conservation zoning. City Attorney Taddune requested the Aspen Skiing Company be bound by his memorandum, to further assure that his interpretation will control. Kaufman told Council the Skiing Company is willing to accept the recommendation of the city attorney. Kaufman said the SPA with added control for the city, and for the applicant to compete in the GMP process was favorably reviewed by the city staff. The P & Z, after extensive study, voted 6 to 0 in favor of the adoption of the SPA. The previous city Council granted approval at first reading. Kaufman said Council should keep in mind the welfare and economic well being of the whole community and not just adjacent property owners. Kaufman pointed out that rigid zoning is no longer viewed as the best way to encourage efficient, appropriate land use. The purpose of zoning is to insure compatability. Kaufman said this area is changed, and what is best for Little Nell is different from what was appropriate in the 70's. Competition has changed, the need for ski areas has changed. The Skiing Company feels the Little Nell area needs to be upgraded. Kaufman told Council that the Skiing Company has development rights in this area; they are not asking for development rights they do not already have. Kaufman told Council the Skiing Company could put in close to 80,000 square feet in this area presently. The Skiing Company is asking Council to help them be flexible and more creative. Through an SPA flexibility, the applicant could eliminate some of the height and bulk that could be created through the underlying zoning. An SPA means spreading out of development. Kaufman reiterated C, conservation zone is not a park zone; there are uses in this zone. There is no FAR in the conservation zone. Kaufman said the applicant .feels the designatio of SPA allows an opportunity for a more aestheitic, pleasing development. The applicant would like to be allowed to work with the city to put in a development in there that will work and everyone will be proud of. Maco Stewart told Council he has owned property for 20 years at the Aspen Alps. They bought a park for the city to insure privacy, the view, and the green belt. Stewart said people have come up with an interpretation of conservation zoning to fit the pocketbook of the people that are benefitting. Stewart read conservation zoning, "to provide areas of low density development to enhance public, recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage production in crops and animals, to contain the structure of urban development." Stewart said conservation zoning is what they bought their property with the understanding. Perry Harvey, P & Z Chairman, presented his thoughts in voting for and sending the resolu- it tion on to Council. There are 4 or 5 different parcels of property involved, some of them already have an SPA. Harvey said that Little Nell area is important to the whole town, and;! if some mechanism could be put into effect to see a comprehensive plan for the whole area, the town would be better off. SPA zoning is designed for the benefit of the City. With an,! SPA overlay, the city won't see any plan except an entire plan. Harvey said SPA plan gives;! the city latitude as well as giving the applicant latitude. Harvey said he had confidence l' in the city and their ability to create an plan for this important part of town rather than;l fragmented and sold off. II Judy Royer said the Council was voted in on a mandate to stop and look carefully at all the new commercial growth in Aspen. Ms. Royer said she resented the threat by the Ski Company that if the SPA is not passed, they will build something anyway. Ms. Royer said Little Nell is nice and low key. Charles Hopton, adjacent property owner and representing out of town owners, said that both' Noxth of Nell and As Sauare should not have been built, and hopefully, people can learn from the past. Hopton said the Skiing Company already has building encroaching upon the conservation zone. Hopton said in the conservation zone, one needs 15 acres to build any- thing on. Hopton said the flat land at the bottom of Little Nell is needed for access to and from the ski area. Hopton said he did not see how the Skiing Company could fill up that area with a building and continue to use it as a ski area. Hopton said this land should be maintained as access. David Fane, Aspen Alps owner, said the Skiing Company agrees that the buildings at Little Nell could be improved. The Skiing Company could have done something about this for a number of years. Kandi Shaffron said she would rather see the conservation area maintained; as conservation. Jerry Blann, Vice President Skiing Company, said there have been reauest; informally by Council, formally by the CCLC, Lodging Association to clean up Little Neil. The Skiing Company agrees it should be cleaned up. Blann said there are certain functions that need to take place to the base of Little Nell; service functions, ticketing, ski school, administration. These are inadequate to serve Aspen Mountain. Blann said a year ago the Skiing Company had a poorly thought out proposal for a hotel in this location, which raised anxiety. This hotel was operationally inefficient and insensitive for this unique site. Blann told Council the objective in applying for SPA is to maintain flexibilii in designing the operationaly and uniqueness of this site. The Skiing Company has commited $500,000 to start movina the maintenance facility. The Skiing Company hopes the Council will provide an opportunity to design this area to be less rigid. Hans Gramiger showed an aerial photograph of Aspen and Aspen mountain and said this area should not be covered. Gramiger said this area was zoned by use. Gramiger said he would rather see a PUD to cluster the buildings rather than spread them out. Gramiger said the city needs more green space, not less. Jim Curtis, planning and designing, agreed that Little Nell should be upgraded as soon as possible. Curtis questioned the mechanism for the city and the applicant to accomplish this. Curtis said he felt the SPA process is probably the correct mechanism. Curtis contended that the Council has additional power with an SPA to see what they would like to see in that location. Arthur Rock, Aspen Alps owner, said he felt the owners of the Aspen Skiing Company's main interest is in developing real estate. Rock said he felt the applicant was applying for this rezoning in order to increase the value of the Company. James Perez, Aspen Alps owner, said he is very concerned that this is the first step in opening the gate for many other changes more subtle and complicated to control. Perez said he is concerned about what might happen to the only access to skiing he has.. Continued Meeting Asper. City Council July 7, 1983 Bill Lucks, architect in town, said he is concerned about the entrance to the mountain. Lucks said he felt this should be redeveloped property. Lucks said the Little Nell area !. does not benefit the city, the Skiing Company or the visitors. Lucks said he felt the Skiin Company is asking for the flexibility to include a larger land area, not necessarily increase density. Lucks said he is concerned about the existing development rights on ; the present SPA to the detriment of the entire entrance area of Ajax mountain. Lucks said the way to accomplish a better entrance experience and to keep the view of Ajax is to allow the Skiing Company to consider the larger land area in a more comprehensive fashion to address the operational aspects of the mountain. Bill Kane, former planning director, said Council is presented with a dilemma; there is property with fixed CC zoning, which has prescribed development rights and on the other hand, a rezoning application including a provision of SPA zoning which includes a sub- stantial portion of the Aspen Mountain. Kane said the existing facility is inadequate for a 3,000 capacity ski area. The base has poor access and hazard zones. Kane said the Skiing Company inherited a configuration which is not state of the art and does not speak well for the quality of skiing on Aspen mountain. Kane told Council that the CC zoning at the base came after two years of debate. This zoning was a result of compromise. Kane recommended a process to insure the opportunity to site plan the property in a proper, wasy. The SPA zoning provides for an explicit planning process and gives the city discretion. Kane said the Council should be explicit in which areas are available for development. Kane said CC zoning has no setbacks, 45 foot height limitations. This is the most intensive zone in the city. The city should try to identify the area which makes sense for a development of a site plan, zone it SPA so the city can be participants in the process and try to deal with the numerous public issues. Jerry Hewey, general manager of the Aspen Alps, questioned why the SPA line should go way up the mountain, if they are only going to clean up the base of the mountain. Hewey said Aspen Alps purchased the lot to the east of the Alps and donated it to the parks associa- tion. Hewey said if the Skiing Company moves the line to the bottom of the mountain, he would request that the rest of the land have covenants that it would never be built on. Mike Strang told Council he shared most of the concerns of people at this hearing. Strang_. said the Skiing Company could be sold, and it could have different management that might not be sympathetic. Strang said it is the obligation of the Council to keep maximum control in this process. Strang said if that mechanism is the SPA, he would urge the Council to pass it. John McHale, representina Aspen Square, told Council the Association opposes the reauest of the Aspen Skiing Company seeking to extend the SPA since it is feared that granting this request prior to consideration of an application for rezoning violates the integrity of the comprehensive land use process set forth in the Municipal Code and will not provide landowners with appropriate protection and ability to comment. McHale said the designation of a SPA presume development. The designation of this district SPA will permit the Skiing Company to design a submission for GMP. Once an allotment has been made, the P & Z and Council will be presented with a project whose rezoning eligibility will be difficult to resist. McHale said the Aspen Square urges that the process be conducted in accordance with the land use design. Change in the use of the district requires an application for rezoning to be considered under the Code's criteria and public hearings. Andrew Hecht, representing the Aspen Alps, said there is a myth that there is underlying zoning which controls what plan the Council needs to approve. Counservation zone does not have high density; Council would be giving the applicant a leg in the door to come in and negotiate their land use. Carol Fuller said she did not feel the need for any change at Little Nell. Mari Peyton said the Skiing Company has been very vague about any plans, and asked if they could present a specific plan simultaneously with an SPA request. Carolyn Doty, representing the committee to preserve open space, told Council the committee opposes an SPA extension on any part of the area zoned conservation. The Committee agrees with the conservation zone to prevent any encorachment of development on Little Nell. They want to site to be retained as open space. Don Crawford said watching people ski down Little Nell is a show everybody enjoys, and would hate to see anything done to open the door for some development to take away the conservation zone. Crawford said that Ajax is an awesome looking mountain, and this avenue to town should not be taken away. i� u Mark Danielsen said this was zoned conservation in 1975 because it was the lowest and most conservative zone that could be placed on private property. The purpose of this zone was to allow the maximum, quality skiing experience and to prevent encroachment of development on this site. The SPA overlay will allow a development application. This was discussed previously and it was found it was not appropriate to go through GMP competition without an SPA overlay. A substantial right is being discussed here, whether the city is going to trade the stability of a conservation zone for the instability of a development application. Danielsen asked what has changed in this community to warrant development on that site. J. D. Muller, adjacent landowner, told Council he had written letters, which are in the record. Muller told Council they are not required to grant the SPA; it is not an all or nothing item. Muller said he felt the city could make a better deal for the city than what is being proposed. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Kaufman clarified it is not'a threat to talk about what an applicant has a legal right to do with their property. The Skiing Company has certain legal rights on that property but feels they can accomplish a development better with an SPA. Kaufman reiterated the Skiing„ Company would abide by the city attorney's memorandum. Mayor Stirling asked the applicant. if they would be willing to bring the SPA line down the hill. Peter Forsch told Council that line was drawn to designate the property boundary. It is not the intention of the Skiing Company to build up the hill; they used the property line for the SPA rather than an arbitrary line. (l� . If i i i Continued Meeting Aspen City Council July 7, 1983 Mayor Stirling asked if the applicant would be willing to bring forth a specific plan. Forsch said as part of the SPA process they would come back with a specific plan. Mayor Stirling asked if they would present a specific plan if this application is turned down. Kaufmou !Faidl they were not in a position to answer this question. City Attorney Taddune asked at*uou& the possibility of covenanting the rest of the land. Forsch said they would want.'to zettmin the Skiing Company's ability for ski lifts, operations, etc. Blann said the tTrntgfrvation zone allows for the functions of the Skiing Company now, and they would want those same rights. Planning Director Sunny Vann told Council there is a reason why SPA precise plan is not submitted prior to GMP competition. The GMP is a competitive process and no one would want their plans known prior to the submission date of the GMP. Vann told Council in this case, in the absence of a detailed proposal and in looking at the entire property, it was discussed that no development was appropriate, and that the planning office could not support development on the upper portions of this conservation zone. Without a specific proposal, the property boundary was made the SPA line with the understanding that no development could be approved until a precise plan was submitted. Councilman Collins asked how this proposal would fit into the GMP quota. Ms. Penne said it may require multiple years of quota, which is up to Council's discretion. It may have to compete in successive years. Councilman Collins agreed that the property have to be improved and enhanced, and the SPA is the way to vo. Councilman Collins questioned puttinc the SPA on the property before the City has an idea of what is being proposed. Councilman Collins pointed that out because of other SPAs in the city, which have not been successful. Usually with SPAs, the benefits accrue to the developer. Councilman Collins said on the basis of the poor record of SPAs, the questions, the lawsuits, the misunderstanding, the SPA should not be granted in this case until such time as the city has some outline or conceptual idea of what is being proposed for this property. Councilman Knecht agreed that the present Little Nell is not great. Councilman Knecht sai if the Skiing Company agreed to move the line for the SPA boundary down to the gravel line (passed out pictures), he would agree to approve this with conditions. These are, from Taddune's memorandum one this is designated SPA, development may occur only in accordance with the approved precise plan. Two, any element of the precise plan which deviates from the requirements of the underlying zone district can only be accomplished obtaining a variance in the zoning. Three, the applicant be requested to agree that the memorandum shall govern the interpretation of the SPA procedures. Councilman Knecht said he felt confident with the above that the Skiing Company could come up with a good plan. Councilman Blomquist pointed out Section 24-2.3 of the Code which relates to boundary lines. With the conservation zone and the interpretation of this section, Councilman Blomquist i; feels there is no L zoning on this property. Councilman Blomquist stated he is officially�l questioning the lines on the zoning may. Councilman Blomquist said neither of the L zones'! are feasible sites for a lodge use; this is a mapping error. Councilman Blomauist appealed to the P & Z to adjudicate this issue. With this, the conservation zone would extend to is the Alps, and the CC zone is larger by a triangle. 11 Councilwoman Walls said she could not vote for extending the SPA to the entire property. If the Skiing Company is willing to lower the SPA line to the flat area, she may vote in favor. Councilwoman Walls said she would be in favor if the SPA did not go any further west than the Hunter street extension. Councilwoman Walls said the Skiing Company should plan their development in the area presently zoned CC with a small amount in the conserva- tion area. Councilwoman Walls said she would not vote for any plan which moves the lift any further up the hill than it is now; nor would she vote for any plan that would block the view of the mountain from the Hunter street extension or from across the street. Mayor Stirling said he felt the Skiing Company should come forward with a master plan of what their intentions are for that area. Mayor Stirling said the SPA could be considered on that basis, and that the SPA line should be brought down. Mayor Stirling said he felt the balance of the land should be covenanted in some way, and not to interfere with the existing uses of the Skiing Company. Mayor Stirling said the underlying zoning should hold. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 1983; conditions of this approval shall be (1) move the line of the SPA designation to the present flat, grade area (2) adopt memorandum of June 10, 1983, as the governing memorandum to apply to the SPA designation written by the city attorney. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Mayor Stirling moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Walls, nays; Knecht, aye; Collins, nay; Blomquis- nay; Mayor Stirling, nay. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Stirling said he did feel this area needs attention. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see the proposal, and would like to see what the Skiing Company has in mind for this. Mayor Stirling said the Skiing Company should come forward with a precise plan on how they would do development in this area. Mayor Stirling said the SPA line should come down to the bottom, and the Skiing Company should talk about covenants for the rest of the mountain. Kaufman asked how they would be protected in the GMP process with the rest of the people they have to compete with. Councilman Collins said he felt this should be done in a general outline form with just footprint, density, and circulation. Mayor Stirling said people want to see where an extension of a building would go. Councilman Blomquist moved to request the staff to prepare a memorandum on the advisabilit! of rewriting the SPA provisons and the possibility of installing a moratorium on new SPA until such time that a study is complete and action has been taken by Council; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Collins said, in addition to moving the SPA line down, he would like limiting the eastern edge of the SPA to the Hunter street extension explored. Forsch questioned the specificity of what Council wanted to know about the proposed plans. Councilwoman I J Continued Meeting Aspen City Council July 7, 1983 Walls said she would like to know how big a building, what are the uses, and where it would be located. Councilman Collins said he would like to know density, open space, ' parking„ circulation, view planes, commercial build out and delivery access. Forsch said that would by a GMP application, essentially. Mayor Stirling suggested a balance somewhere of the two lists. OnAN3NCE #23, SERIES OF 1983 - Rubey Park SPA *..hyor Stirling opened the public hearing. Mayor Stirling entered into the record letters;, ate from George Byers, in favor of the proposal; Mary Faulkner, Tipple Lodge, in favor of the proposal; Francis Whitaker, strongly opposed to the Rubey Park application; Michael: Kinsley, Pitkin County Commissioner, saying Rubey needs improvements and upgrading; William and Florence Beaumont, strongly objecting to the proposed plan. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this project is a successful competitor in the commercial growth management competition for 1983. An allocation of. 5810 square feet of commercial space has been made for the project. This ordinance requests rezoning from P, park with a transportation/drainage overlay to Public/SPA. The ordinance also adopts a precise nlan. There is exemption for the 9,070 square feet of Public space from the GMP competition, and exemption of an employee housing unit and narking for that unit. P & Z send a resolution with their recommendation, with a list of permitted and conditional uses. The P & Z recommends Council rezone this Property to Public/SPA and adont the precise plan, and grant the exemptions. P & Z was very sensitive, in the Permitted and conditonal uses, to the interplay of the public.space and the commercial space. Mayor Stirling entered into the record Resolution 83-2, from the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, recommending that'Council encourage Trailways to bring their buses to Rubey Park when the terminal is finished. Monroe Summers, representing the an.olicant, said this process had evolved over a long period of time and has adjusted itself to all the laws and rules in the community desianed to promote slow growth. Summers said there is a need for this project to deal with the transportation issues. Over 15 years ago, Aspen recognized they need for Public transportation alternatives and a plan for auto disincentive As early as 1964, Rubey Park was suggested as a transportation center. The reason to use Rubey Park is geographic; it is surrounded by the lodge district and the commercial core. Summers pointed out Rubey Park evolved as a transportation hub; it makes it convenient for people. Summers told Council the city has been running a transportation system arounO. Rubey Park. Summers said Aspen is on the verge of providing a state of the art transportation system. The city and county are developing a consolidated transportation system; a county wide sales tax is approved for. transportation. There is a new bus maintenance facility being built, which will allow much more flexibility and the upgrading the appearance of. Public transportation. Pitkin County and Aspen will have the second largest transportation system in the state of Colorado when all this comes together. Summers said there is a system but no place to operate in otwn. Summers told Council the concept of Putting the visitors center and the transportation terminal together makes sense. Summers told Council he spent a year at Rubey Park answering constant requests for informa- tion, cultural tickets, and bathrooms. Rubey Park is a magnet; it is there, it is currentl the transportation system and it is perceived as an inforri.ation center. Summers told Council the people are not presently being accommodated. Summers said there are concerns with this proposal. The proposal was made to get a visitors/transportation center that would not cost the taxpayers any money. Summers said taking busing out of Rubey Park is not the solution; Rubey Park needs to be upgraded. Charles Hopton said there was a downzoning after Aspen Square was built so that the town would not get another building like it on Rubey Park. The voters voted to buy Rubey Park for open space. fIopton said transportation should not be precluded from Rubey Park, but commercial space should not be allowed there. Hopton said a transportation center is needed; however, this is growing far out of proportion to what is really needed. Jan Derrington said that Rubey Park was never a park, as such. Derrington said Aspen claims to be a first class resort, yet does not have a transportation center. Derrington said this facility is a reasonable solution to Providing a facility that is badly needed, using a mechanism of public and private partnership, alleviating the town from taking on another tax burden. Derrington said he did not think 5,000 square feet of commercial space would break Aspen. The services would not be competing with anything else around. Derrington said having an attractive visitors/transportation system is a very positive thing and would provide convenience for the visitors. Molly Campbell, read a letter from the Cant into the record, saying they feel Aspen needs to continue to Aspen needs to continue to improve its visitors' services; they support the proposed SPA overlay. The improvement if the transportation center is a necessity. Rubey: Park is a convenient location for both summer and winter visitors as well as downtown employees. Rubey Park should be ungraded to provide circulation, visitor management and information. Ms. Campbell told Council when the.rant was approved, they were forced to operate two shuttle vans as auto disincentive. One of the biggest problems was where to' drop guests on and off safely; Rubev Park has provided a safe, feasible, good alternative.: Ms. Campbell encouraged Council to leave their options on Rubey Park open. Peter Forsch, transportation manager for the Aspen Skiing Company,.told Council they have been using Rubey Park for years and years and hundreds of thousands of people go through t&-Nt area. Forsch said that Rubey Park is poorly designed for both auto and pedestrian circulation. Forsch said the location of Rubey Park near the lodges and commercial core is one of the only locations which is•extremely important to transportation. Forsch urged; Council to consider this for the transportation hub and visitor center for Aspen. ! Council he runs both a winter to have an information to offer all these facilitie Dick Jackson, operator of the trolley car at Rubey Park, told and summer center at Rubey Park. Jackson said it is important center at Rubey Park. Jackson said it is important to be able in one place. It is done in many resorts in Europe.