HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Skico Little Nell
.' ~
.JI.....
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
-
!
~
GIDEON r. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
February 10, 1983
~,
Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
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. Al though 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 plso enclosed a copy of the names
and addresses of all owners of real property within three
hundred feet (300') of the area.
',~3
/"'--
~
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
fman
GK kw
enclosures
cc: Peter Forsch
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
By ~~ (\5~
--
~ -~
~,'
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
1""',
!""'.
. .
MEMORANDUM
,':
Aspen City Council
.<1
,"
Colette penne, Planning Office .
Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property -' Extension of
SPA Designation,
June 27, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Location:
Zoning:
Applicant's
Request:
Referral.
Comments:
planning
Review:
..
.\
Little Nell Base Area (more specifically described in
Exhibit 1).
C - Conservation.
1.-1.
The applicant requests extension of the SPA overlay
on the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. 'Ihe
parcel ,which is presently occupied by the Little Nell
building, the Ski School building, maintenance building
and Lift 14 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.
.
Office
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 ~s a PUD) and is a review mechanism. The under-
lying zones of C - conservation and L-l 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
cr.iteria.
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.
.
~,..'):"~
.
r--
"""
Memo: Little 'Nell SPA
Page Two
,,"June 27, 1983
"
.'
i'l
I"
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 ~ertainly 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 curre.nt
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 27, 1983
.I"
,,;
.'
Planning and Zoning
Commission and ' "
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Con~issi6n and the Planning
Office recommend that you extend the SPA overlay to
encompass the parcels zoned CC, C and L-l, 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
zone will be reviewed under
the criteria of rezoning.
of the underlying
the SPA and using
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:
ftI move to adopt Ordinance 26, Series of 1983."
\'1Jf\
1flv~
#~~~tions, of this approval shall be:
1. Existing zones are maintained with
each zone's area.
respect to
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.
..
~ ' + -I,,!/ . 1'1 I ,
,1\ . '\. 1 '.' ' 1.1""\ ,'t:.',,:. ~~" "
3, '~,d~~~t'~~ C::~,:ttt::rr,~~o~~1 j~F1.
41 -+0 ~. \f.1 II
n.., , '"', ' ! , , ~ _, J { f"
, '~(\,{ :'\\)l!,IQ...OJ'1, '- Gt~.~,--u. ,.~7,. CbM~W,)f V\"-i i'V.....'---.
lTd'" J' I -l-~ ! L ' -:- \d I
, C-ci'IJ I TI D-vt.s L\ ~- V'- I "', .' ~ \,Vt.Q..-$;
~o t~ \01 \'103.
5. ;VlO\lL L'~.~sPA--d~~-to~\*~,jJoJ-+k
,. . ~W\ ~-+k9- :SI~.
~~6~ .
.
",
"'.
~
,
.
1"""\
"""
,..C.._,_ ..._.".".",.._.,,', '., ..___.... ....',~",. ,,,_'- _,_,~,;_".. '"~;..,c..-".._,,',...;~,, _c,.,'_," " '. "'"__.~.'. ,b' ,,'," ""'........_...
.C'-....:....~._......:....:"~ ,:,;",_~,:''';"~.,.;:O .".,~~,_.~;~-,~"__,,, '^';;_...~.'^
~-
EXHIBIT "1"
,A par,'el of land situated in the City of Aspen and in Se,'tion 18, Township
lOS, Range 84W of the 6th P.,m. being mre fully des<:ribed as follows:
.8eginning at the Northwest Corner of Blo~k 102 in said City of Aspen:
then.:e S. 75009' 11" E. 220.00 feet along the north line of said blo.,k
102 to a point 10.00 feet east qf the Northwest Corner of Lot H of said
Blo~k 102; then~e 5.14050'49" W. 263.26 feet to a point on the ~ortheasterly
line of lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen: then,-e No.
38035'40" W. 53.53 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 21: then.'e
S. 45021'00" W. 124.28 feet along the Northlolesterly line of said Lot 21
toa point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite: Then<:e S. 10006'00"
W. 262.94 feet; Then,:e N. 80030'00" W. 395.06 feet to the East line of
Tipple Woods Subdivision as re~orded 3-23-59 in Oitch Book 2A Page 250
as Reception No. 107798; Thence 1.. 15030'00" E. 510.29 feet along the
Easterly line of Tipple Woods Subdivision to a point on Line 8-9 of the
Aspen Townsite; Then,:e along line 8-9 N. 74023'00" 41.77 feet to Corner
No.9 of the Aspen Townsite: Thence along Line 1-9 of the As?en Townsite
39057'22" E. 52.02 feet: Then"e S. 75009'll" E. 4.92 feet to a point on
the Westerly line of Lot K Blo"k 98 City and Townsite of Aspen; Then,-e
along the West line of Lot R, Block 98 N.14050'49" E. 10.00 feet to a
point on the South line of Dean Avenue; thence S. 75009'11" E. 60.24
feet along said South line to a point on the West line of vacated Hunter
Street; then.,e N.14050'49" E. 50.00 feet along said west line to the SW
corner of Lot I Block 97: thence S. 75009' ll" E. 37.50 feet to a point on
the center line of said vacated Hunter Street:thence N. 14050'49" E.
100.00 feet along said center line: thence S. 75009'11" E. 37.50 feet to
'the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, a tra,'t of land, compr1s1ng 0.14 a"res, more or
less, more parti~ularly described as follows:
The Easterlyone-h..lf (1::1/2) of va"ated Hunter Street, westerly of and
adja"ent to Block If)2, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly
line of durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, ete Subdivision.
Said tract being the Easterly one half (EI/2) of all that portion of
said Hunter Street va.-ated by City of Aspen Ordinan"e No. B-53, Series
of 1947 re~orded in the publi., records of Pitkin County on Mar.:h 17,
1959 under Reception' No. 107787 in Book 181 at page 101.
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
/"-
_ n._..~,~""._..",~.\:.",.,,",,?"''''__~"'__'_
.
,
. '
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Location:
Zoning:
1"',
.-,
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property
May 23, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Little Nell Base Area (more specifically describ
111").
Exhibit
C - Conservation.
L-l.
Applicant's
Request:
Referra 1
Comments:
Planning
Review:
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 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.
Office
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 woul d not normally provi de. The SPA overl ay 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. '
,-.,
r--
,
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'Ne11 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
deni a 1.
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 1(J), Series of 1983."
"l 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."
...,' -"'-"--' ._'-'---~,.
,""'"
,.....,
EXHIBIT "1"
Apar~el of land situated in the City of Aspen and in Section 18, Township
lOS, Range 84W of the 6th P.m. being more fully des,:ribed as follows:
,Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Blo~k 102 in said City of Aspen;
thence S. 75009' 11" E. 220.00 feet along the nort h li ne of said b lo.:k
102 to a point 10.00 feet east of the Northwest Corner of Lot H of said
Blo,:k 102; then~e S.14050'49" W. 263.26 feet to a point on the ~ortheasterly
line of lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen; then.'e No.
38035'40" w. 53.53 feet to the ~orthwest Corner of said Lot 21; then.:e
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. 10006'00"
W. 262'-94 feet; Then.:e N. 80030'00" W. 395.06 feet to the East line of
Tipple Woods Subdivision as re,:orded 3-23-59 in Ditch Book 2A Page 250
as Reception No. 107798; Then,:e N. 15030'00" E. 510.29 feet along the
Easterly line of Tipple Woods Subdivision to a point on Line 8-9 of the
Aspen Townsite; Then.:e along line 8-9 N. 74023'00" 41.77 feet to Corner
No.9 of the Aspen Townsite; Thence along Line 1-9 of the As;>en Townsite
39057'22" E. 52.02 feet; Then.:e S. 75009'11" E. 4.92 feet to a point on
the Westerly line of Lot K Blod< 98 City and Townsite of Aspen; Then.:e
along the West line of Lot R, Bloek 98 &.14050'49" E. 10.00 feet to a
point on the South line, of Dean Avenue; thence S. 75009'11" E. 60.24
feet along said South line to a point on the West line of va,:ated Hunter
Street; then"e N.140s0'49" E. 50.00 feet along said west line to the SW
corner of Lot I Block 97;then"e S. 75009'11" E. 37.50 feet to a point on
the center line of said va"ated Hunter Street;thence N. 14050'49" E.
100.00' feet along said center line; then"e S. 75009' 11" E. 37 .50 feet to
'the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, a tra.:t of land, compr~s~ng 0.14 a,:res, more or
less, more particularly deseribed as follows:
The Easterly one-half (E1/2) of va.:ated Hunter Street, westerly of and
adjacent to B1o"k 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly
line of durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision.
Said tra"t being the Easterly one half (EI/2) of all that portion of
said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen Ordinan,:e No. B-s3, Series
of 1947 re.:orded in the publie re,:ords of Pitkin County on Mar.:h 17.
1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at page 101.
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
,
.
.
'"
I
l
\
"
.
--
1.'
, b f\\RKING LOT )" \ .' ., .....~_.
~Ir:'~" .' . ~c =~;....~ i__. .~
. '~f',.' . ~ r c ~ -=::::\~.r." "
- ---~ \ -,. 'l\
; U f'~~~ l;;t '- -:: f'" , \ ~~: " .
.____o:~.~___.:... !...J'~~ ' '~'._ _~~""'-;;..__~~____}I ~J~" '
· 1-. ,i " 1t:;',: ~, " .. "
I H l'-t-- h" I k~-\\J1 1;: ( / '
!1f" ..l.;t- 1" !'-'-.. I I I (\Ptl", .. .'/
1:'..7;f1c'F I ......... ~ I,
'!.~~r\'=f .. s..:"'-...," "'.' . ;~~---I " . ......,. '..
, ;l%' I_~'''~
H '1 ~.':~'~' ! "'- I.. : '\..... i
l.,il2.~Th. I ',.l-':',,- \ ~ ~.,
,\l..)~g:'\h I I'I3)I~ Ir:"' _1\C: ~,~"':~,.
.1' '7jo,.'\,\1 I Ii' -"'~:i-r:\-l ;
1,1- \' ie' ~ . ' I~" lLL-, . ::,
"{N1 I ~ \'
. ' " 1_..1,' Eo ,HOPKINS AVE. " ~ l., ----...
11 . I \
11 I i .6fc r I ~~ ~ 'r-J r--.
I · I ~" ;.~
I I ... ,I >..,~.
I I (n I" \
Ii) , I i~j; I: I '
--.......",
~
.- . ,> ~'~'J;:\:.", .~,:.. ,
~
I (.J7\
-
., ~,."
. ::: :;~,'
j~e
'L._.I
j - 'h ~l~ H
lIIJIJIII]
L . ' ,,">" '., " 1<,::.,. J" E. HYMAN ,: I AVt,
J ~~il, I' '~ H ''''' - ~ Ir;t>i' j " !
!...-.. ' 4: .1 ,- Z ~ I
I: . 1'1", r ~ I I
I ' " ~. . 10. f I I
~~I, ~~~, ~ ~ i ' i"., ~
)~~;fl .' '.,' E.' ,~ER'" +':~=--~---:"'':''r'':'''~--'':'_-'-~
j!.1 f ~Ft r<BI! ~~, )~ IH I.' I k;~ I !
" ~, I I
..~.~'Ii . .i"-----------, .' , ' . . I. I
"'..1' rTllllllTll f-l/ . . ro I ,(~ f'J I. "N.1'~ I
", .0) WJ1ilW I [~ I N I ...'" ~ \,.. I
':-,' . I .'it .1 - I .
.----oU~m1- AVE..--,J.: --'~-----f\~l~7'--,-"_.1_-~-------~
m -l L., I~ t',.... 'i;.~. .! · . 1
ill' .. I(~i " lr;;~,\{~_" I . Y.t~ I
___.-J...___'"t..____..---~"V"~-- ~~r :1J~~'1 I I
::......: " '~- I '
, :--...... \; B Ij) 11)1':11' . ,...., "! . I' '
r--....{!.ioo~..,/, ' . u' "i j....-......
"7 : K/'., 1 . ... ':':;:"~.~,::J::;.:-.:,/~..,:'~ : ~o ~.. " , ~.~ v-j.
5 ' 2. ',.,"." ..~. ,"" .'.. " : tra~"~9~
8 3 ." i'-3 "':, C : :,,' I 33.
6, " 16 'IV ,'~, ". ; '''', I p, ... ~9 II 17 52/5,
9. 9 5 15 1\ ,}, .' ...' 16 4 ~ ,...
10 10 6 I. I !~~<"I'O-____...._ '\: r ,. ~li ... [;
...!.!-, I I';' ~-_, 1 'L. S",'ea<1-<'-\ 'e ,V .-2.
-. 8 1 I Ii} "'''' I ...". ~I'dLU.\ .. "
-~ 24/ lA', I.
",_. 22. / I,V f~ 14' "
" I /,( ....,,'~-:"-" .;.--
,- ,i' ",;"""~'
t r~-- -,;" / l~';' I, . ..~~~,>:::.J~~~,., )1
1/.,...;;+.' . . '.' ,"'. ", '. ,"~l '....;00,;
.,,;i!jJ"', ',~" ..
~f~ . "'S
I", -~
t\' " ..,},
." . "W,)t.
~ " ' \;'1
";"\
011"
~,'''-,
mID
16 _'-- .
.-r- ;:l -
. J,_, '-,'.
.~' fi'l. "
, !.~.-J:"h-15
1. ~ 10.4/ (PUD)
,~&
*'
.,~
'r,
\ ,;
I~
I,
~,
I~~
~
~
'..
,
.;....",--,_....,..".^~.....
,', "....,...,,"'~.,..,..C-',,:.,._,k"'...
.... ...,.
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL,CORPORATION
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
February 10, 1983
-...
Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
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.
.-
,
.
.
~
.
~ .' !
,
~\
"~____~";"..,~~,'~"- ,_,,,-,,,,-..~,, ,_ ,;,_~_,.'-'..o-.. ,_.;.,....._..,....~~~;.:...;....._._.....,_b"...,.::~'..:.,." ,'".....,__~'~.,;.....'_..",.._,~~_.
Sunny Vann
February 10, 1983
Page Two
"N.~.;,..._....-"....,"_.",-""....;."...,.~~,."._,....~.,..;,,.;.;..;:"'~"'''_':~~''''_"~''''';~
~,
'to
1
I
I
~.
,
i
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.
GK kw
enclosures
cc: Peter Forsch
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
By ~~ C\5L
,
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
~
,
,
~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
f"'"
,-\
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Colette penne; Planning Office
Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Property - Extension of
SPA Designation
June 13, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM~~~~
Location:
Zoning:
Applicant's
Request:
Referral
Comments:
Planning
Review:
Little Nell Base Area (more specifically described in
Exhibit 1).
C - Conservation.
L-l.
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.
Office
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 asa PUD) and is a review mechanism. The under-
lying zones of C - conservation and L-l 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
cri teria.
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 thana 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
af,forded 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.
1"'\
~
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-l, 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
zone will be reviewed under
the criteria of rezoning.
of the underlying
the SPA and using
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.
PARKING LOT
:9U
I
-,~ ".
---
~
.,\,'~ .
~.
~.: I
.___- ..--....-r . ,,~._'--~...:---_._----'''I ~", ,: "'-, /
1 ~"", h" ,~ h~' _:~:..~<<o\ ~ '(. /
1,..,.,7'1-.', !;"" i...... ,!"'- \ ("" r
. .'" \t.:.r;r.4U '" I e 'U1.L.V/
,," .'., """ "~',', ",., BJH "'T~t~i~ H~\ I ~ti.' f_--' >~:'l:
<~ ~!~ I ' \'. ~. ~, .....
"'.'d ", 'l.- '- i, . ~ I 2.," .-' , '.
~;\'""i :~CtQ"..,-. ' ' '~\'h ,'~' "'~~\'j ~\- \,,",:
,,~~k!l\ I I r-..h..I\..~~.. --''''''
I I I '
l_:r" 'I C" i~'''' '~C ' 'S.... 'i~-
~I> I ""'I~ I 1,;;, '''I'lf--
! \ il'l i \ ':i~:-
l;; , I \,,"1"" 1 lli t '
, 1-: ; -:',~ : E. HYMAN , · '
I r.1\ I '
I 'I~' - I I
a:: v, ~ 1'":, ' I
w E In~ ~
I- 0. "- '"
z (/) ·
3! I I
L ~ I
I , ' ',' '., ' '" I, ,",' ~ '
, " E.' 1 AVE. ' . I.,., ," 'is
-~---------~---------~
Iii ' '" , I I
''r'::Lw' I ' ~
.",~ ,,~l_-------' I I I
._ I I. I I
, ,lEI xl .11.1,
.___~URA""~ AVE ___.,..Y;"iP---------v'", -..,~~-~...--,.- .----------
".. . iJ '. I ' t'l - rr"6 ' , , I
,'" \ I
1 I
I I
I 1
1
"-- I I
I
"""
"-
.
~
.
'"
.
.
..
...........
.,.:.....:
.! '. ;."
. :: .~.,
1.-.1
;...
\"
",::,
"
.'
, .
'-',
<(.
r
w
-' ...
<(
'"
mrn
;."
"
"
\(( .\1
..
OJ.'
II
12
22.
8
7
-: ';:., ~'::,- ,:::,.."....;:~r:j <i;':'j, . ~ ,_
.: ,."A. I
,::C '. 'p
,: ' '. I '
" I . '..
,'. "':,'" r' .
,.~._ I
I -..vA>-_ \
I I'~' -_, ~ S"'~Oe.(.-\
/ l\\~\ ~:.... I ~P:'(>..u.\,.
24 I q' I
I / I .~ ~~..,.\ ...--'
, f;' "';'. ~!'o. L....
,/ l~i./ \ "".",.,~ . I ~~~
y -.", : >. , '-
, l' ' ." ' .....\1 ",,/
I Jilj'; ", ,,' ,:\\. '........
~"f~J. .' " ' .', , .l'
'l'Ji:f .' ~\'
'. ',Jt:<I.
I" ,~
I~ ' ' ~
-, '," ~~~
.'''~
,:'\
I.
, .~ '
4
I
5
2
2
6
16
4
8
3
4
9
15
5
9-
10
10
6
t -'''-', .._
:: C,("
. ~L.:\ y7;
. ,/4 l;~-" 5
.,~-F;"') (\!'UD)
1"""\
,~
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
111(1).
Zoning: C - Conservation.
L-I
Applicant's
Request:
Referra 1
Comments:
Planning
Review:
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 offi ce 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.
Offi ce
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 appli,cation 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 r;nhtc:: -in -F::t.~+ -:.j.. 1~_~-'--~ .. . .
1"""\
,-.,
Memo: Little Nell Property
Page Two
Ap ril 19, 1 983
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 Counci~l ~IC:f~'
the extension of the SPA overlay to encompa?s the parcels7~wned '
by the Aspen Skiing Company in the Little Nell Base Area as
shown on the submitted map.
n l,.' ..
L/;-Y/\o:rn . -1 I / -L
I ..L.xr'c-L Q '-,,~ ,n ,-n,,.-{! !~/.nJ,,'Y' (CU>JLCJ w rU;;f:JO,c.(
,"/-/\..._-::.A1t'-L.. 7'~)-Y~-~ "__.._Cr"- y,~ ,J'-T"""- .
-/0 eDk {~~o~~~"'dJ!lJ I
'I
'"'
, AY'J~ ~ O-\"~ CLV\-0<- \ / U.:0L,?-! ':~f
" ~r(:x' v~ 7. ~:~ ()01 f I k K;')' ,,/c,'_; ~cr
(J 'I\Jer fu sfA */) $A v ,p,:-H(J3)... (J,.-L -reM <A.... ~ ~ ~ ~/1_1 ~ " \
-3. 're ;~1L...f\ C,.J: ( d b-P~S V.AlI' Q cc. ~d ~;/'/::L -h 0'1\
l I I
" 2 ~/' ,r' -Li"J
I=<--- , oJ Y', ..4,-' \ v -, ,-
I,! nil -L \ IJ?
f'7 ,:"'U'?i",Jd C-Jl,D",V},;,,:- IU 0... K~"--vv,-QJ'1.C\a iIrl
~~ dc;;~. (j
"':~T-';h:Ye' o,cr, Ht'y:~cano'u"'n.-~c'1ellO:f Aspen ,...~"~,;l,it-0I~~1~,~,~,~,.;,
. J-..&.. . '-.':", :.;~r:,~ .._,:' ;;-.;.>,-:~.,::: :P,Y"~'~~'.',:..
"The Planning and Zoning Commisi.on o:f;Aspen',/:?r'
}~~e~ ~u ~~ 19~~~~a ~i6rr t _ _.,>~~1~~:_:,t;:;"1;i,~1~lJ'\"\:::,:;1'-;b"
Dear Mr. Edel. Council and Commission'Membersl
1 am writil}g in concern'o:f the Speci:fically Planned Area proposal.
. -'_:,:~:"?:;''-~~.';',!
i' As an' 'irldividual who hasconsistantly, quiety loved and supported
Aspen :for nearnly twenty years, (and tax payer) I besceech those
with decision responsibilities to consider the consequences o:f
the SPA Overlay not just in economic terms.
-
#.. "
~,
. ~:
"-,..;::..- M'",
~.rs.
. ~::', _ ~.: ,~ )1 ,J: :.~~~i.'/":>~'"
'0-,>'.-" "~..' "',
CI,o.les B. Edison
~,
,.
"
, -,;0.
.........-.
'.,
-..:..~
.
-
...:;..~,~.,~':'.-
, '
-.....-.'."'. >
...-........
-.: ~.~.....-......
. "
~/el-k
'~
.~~
'I
,.,~)..~
. ,",
,-"it<;
i,',.-
I
!:
I':
I.
t
t
The SPA Overlay seems to actually reopen the possibility o:f the
Little Nell property development.
Furtilermore, adjacent private property owners generourly purchased
Lot # 21 and had it zoned as a park :for the speci:fic purpose o:f pro-
tecting the 1974-1975 zoning.
"
.. ....-,~..~..-..--.. .
'.. ...~..._...,-~~,--."".."....~~.~;,--
.
..
1"""\
:.1
~..
-",". .
.
.
." .
'-." .
If'the SPA Overlay is passed the destruction cannot be changed by
a committee meeting. Even the disasterous situation revolving
arount Lot # 1) and Trueman Subdivision is indicative of the SPA
Overlay consequences.
.~
. . "- ~ ".
,Hasty decision has made waste. Prospective e6'8'nomic advancement
.. is not always long term profit or progress. ;:f:.:/ .
, . :0, ., '., . ,it..
More importantly and immediate,_any decision should not be made
at the point of transitic~ of the Mayor and City Council.
"Zl's: {2:--
, ... Threde S. Edison
'~,
,
TSElbbt
CCI Gerald G. Hewey
Pam Cunningham
William R. Dunaway
7 June. 198)
. ,
.
.,
\
.-.-.---~-,.----'---.-';._...--------__:__--.-'---'-.__:__'--...'.....~-....,''''''-'-1--~
.,....
2.
.-:'
"
<
,<
.,.(",,~,
.h,
.~''''' .
", :t.: '..~1
.......
~
I
\
~~.:-
..
-...,. .......-..-...,'..., --....-...... ..~ '""".-.........-.-.. -., _...._."............'....,."..-~._.,.
f
.-,
-,
,
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
%-171
, 19 <g1l a true and
I hereby certify that on
correct-copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding
A~ ':,~ c...~ ~ IAU-l. ~"-h,,sln-. ..C:: SP6'1 ~
was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed
. to the following:
.
1\~ bl\l1~
Martha Eichelberger
-
-,
t
r
,~
\ '
.
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
meeti ng to begi n at 5: 00 p. m. in the Ci ty 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. II
Published in the Aspen Times on .3- /l'1-ZJ' "3
-,
()
.jj)
\.
o
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
'Ci ty of Aspen account. I I
Published in the Aspen Times on ,3-~'1--g?,.
F,;
.."C!.w~ .,__=
COli . -msrr'-,
---._--=~",,-
In/COUNTY PLANNING! OFFICII
p... I SO S. GALENA
IPEN, COLORADO a I 1511
;-,y-'-'
I'~~'"
,(.J!~~.~
'~'" ;'\'2'"",<f,::~t ~'-.
:*~~l~;':~{ y~ ~
.f:'
I
,
"""". '=
~rlJf/A
Fo v~~. \, f
, (Of.:"_" ~ ' t\
~ f:: '"'l': "if~"" , ',ld
~: ';./'i,';,!(l ~ ,:
'/'\ Ff> -----1'1 J',
h, ""')'~' "OAA II..JI..,' '
,., 'r;;", "\..)/\1 "')" <'/"
"~it<'. ~ -" Jt..(J I' 1 '_>I<,~'lt
''''rf:D '\'1 0.",0,./\1'
'No ""Og.,,;:?!
r klvO!1t, ,";~;
"f# ,;
Spar Consolidated Mining Co. ~~'~~
28 State Street ,P)l2JI{!]/" 'J " lil'in)
Boston Massachusetts 02109 ~fI!( ".--,l@L~."I~~
II' A ,-
,:! ,ph I? 1083 U
. ",~,. i, u v ':i
."i\,,_ u;
"p.. '--~'-
I:,:f:,~~ / PiTKiN CO.
F.~.n<\.!~\]H\'r' nr-r-'.",-
'...~: '-~;' ;' .tc
~
,
'~
r--
r--
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
PLANNER: Colette Penne
RL Applications for Rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension
of SPA Desi gnati on; Aspen Ski i ng Co., Eames Additi on Rezoni ng; and
Buckhorn Lodge Rezoni ng
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.
.f
.
.
.~
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, City Engineering ~
FROM:
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 "I" 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
,,-,
.-,
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
%
High on the Hill Condominiums
c/o Christopher B. Hemmeter
Hemmeter Center
Honolulu, HI 96815
South Galena Street Condominiums
~ c/o Robert Blitz
v. k
I R~ver Oa s Farm
Norton Road, Barnwood Lane
Potomac, MD 20854
, Aspen Alps West Condominiums
,::J P.O. Box 1228
Aspen, CO 81612
Tipple Lodge Condominiums
v,vc/o Lee Miller
. 747 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81612
.,l.o Aspen Square Condominiums
v{X P.O. Box XX
, Aspen, CO 81612
~
I\;'
Chateau duMont Lodge
c/o Aspen Chateaux
Management Company
899 Skolde Blvd.
Northbrook, IL 60062
Chateau Chaumont Lodge
,j" c/o Aspen Chateaux
i\: Management Company
899 Skolde Blvd.
Northbrook, IL 60062
Glory Hole Condominiums
lIS; P.O. Box 10502
Aspen, CO 81612
Durant Galena Condominiums
c/o Lee Miller
747 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
~ North of Nell Condominiums
K, c/o Charlie Hopton
i/)
'"
Iv
,-..,
~
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
" 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 -
"'
11'00.. ... .
.".............
j ; ~
i
~
% .
I(,~
--.....- .~
," .':,':',::"
" .......::
1\
j r
I~
f't.RKINGLOT
P
ji./
,.,
~l
~l
.';;;;,~
32
31
/
-15
,p
"
^
,'-",
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 13. 1983
o
n
LA
n
\.i
; .I
, ,
\.)
..---
~
~_.--.....
.
~
Mayor Edelagreed 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 Councilwonan 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!
~u9by Club; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. .
ORDINANCE '24. SERIES OF 1983 - Lada Vrany Settlement
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing_ There 'were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the
pUblic hearin':j:.
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1983, ~n -second reading; seconded
by COuncilman COllins. Roll call vote; Councilrnembers Michael, aye; Knecht, aye~ Collins,
- abstain: Mayor Edel, aX!::J_"MQt:.i..-oA....c.aru.ed....----
"""",""-', , ~
DINANCE"26, SERIES OF 1983 - Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell F.xtension of SPA ",
"
Mayor Ede1 stated he believed he had a conflict of interes't and will not vote. Councilrna
Knech~ said he would like to put this off until the next meeting. City AttorDey~Taddune
asked COuncil. to read his memorandum interpreting SPA zoning mechanis~,.,AnaY Hecht also
entered a 1etter he would like Council to have.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. _--~
Councibman Knecht: mo'Ved to cont~~ring and table this until June 27, 1983;
onded by Councilman ~ All in favor, Mayor Edel abstained. Motion carried. ',',.
ORDINANCE '27. SERIES ,OF 1983 - Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning ~
..... --- .
City Attor.ney 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
changedsone uhereases. Taddune said this does not change the character of the ordinance
but tightens np the 1:1. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council that the planning
of~ice and P & Z recommend Council not rezone this e/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 elL 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 elL, 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
is because of the commercial space downstairs.
Ii
Bil Dunaway said in elL zone, .there .are no parking requirements. One of the benefits of
this bui1ding is that there is good parking in an area that is congested. Kaufman said
there are no parking re~~irements 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 problens 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.
City Attorney Taddunetold Council he is
prior to granting subdivision approval.
and continue it.
i
,
1:
trying to iron out all problems of the closing "
Taddune requested Council open the public hearing ..
l-
Ii
!.
I
i
Councilman Knecht moved to table Ordinance #27, Series of 1983; seconned 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
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 1983 - Shapery Downtown Storage SPA plan
City Attorney Taddune reminded Council they have been advised as to their options wit~
respect for an S/C/! use in this zone, and the rami:f:i.cations for failure to act on th~s
application. Taddune said, on the other hand', there hi\s been a lot of. interest in pur-
chasing that property as open space. 'i'here 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 le9al bearing on the application. The appl~cant
is entitled to a h0.ar.ing on the application. This application has been in process almost
a year. Mayor-elect Stirling suggest~d 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.
I
~.
Ii
, " ."' '.'.~'_ ........_M....... ,~....
CITY OF ASPEN ..
MEMO FROM KEREN MATSOUKAS
;rt
August 15, 1983
Mr. Peter Forsch
Aspen Ski Company
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, Cglorado 81612
Dear Peter,
Colette Penne initially sent the enclosed invoice
to Gideon 1. 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,
~,::f
Admi ni strati ve Secretary
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
L
..
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
asp en, co lor ado 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 ch~rged to total
an amount due of $405.00
Should you have any question in regard to this bill, please don't
hesitate to call.
:,/j;;~~j jI:2~0~Y~__
Colette Penne, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
;, l.,.~~,",_,_,,_ ..~:,:,';-;;;::;;::;;:::~___--'--'----:--
0"
.. '
n
I"
U
o
.lo
~.1
d2:d ~~/'~
/
.-,
,I""",
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.
ORnrN~CR #26, SRRIES OF 198 - Little Nell SPA
)1 Mayor Stirling opened the continuation 0 e public hearing. This ordinance is addinqan
SPA zoning designation'to the Little Nell area o'>1ned by the Aspen Skiing Company. This i:
are is now zoned ee, C, conservation and L-l. Colette Penne, planning office, told Councili'
there is a parcel zoned CC with an SPA overaly. The request is to extend this SPA to the Ii
remaining Skiing Company property at the base .of Aspen Mountain. Peter Forsch, Skiing 1:
Company pointed out the two small parcels on the property which are zoned L-l. 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
the zoning line is moved back where intended. Councilman Blomauist said he felt the l!
splitting of this property was unintentional. .', 'ji
Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there are a number of situations in the comrnunit
where a piece of property is split by a zoninsr district boundary for a number of reasons. :,
To compute a development allotment on those ,parcels, the planning office takes each portio~
under each zoning category and compute ~>1hat would be allowed and aggregate the density. :'
Ms_Penne pointed out this issue has raised a 'great deal of co~unity 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 re~uirements~anSPA also gives )
Council a review mechanism. The P & Z recommendation to Council asks that the underlying
zones remain on the property as they ~re.
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 a~plic~nt 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 prooerty as a whole
which would probably result in a better develon~ent than just the f.ront of the property.
l~. Penne told Council the SPA overlay over the entire area will allow fo~ site design as
a whole, and will allow the applicant to compete under then~P. The SF!. on this property
does not give the applicant any assurance ~hat 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. ~s. 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 ap~roval.
Ms. Pennepointed out to Council, they. 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
request 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 nensityor 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 f.rom people living in Aspen that were in favor
of this application. These discussed the need for quality .develo~nt 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 t,own 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, represent~ng the Aspen Skiing Company, told Council the request to extend
tne 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 ap?lication. At,that time, attorneys for other
applications suggested to the city that the Skiing Company was not able to co~pete unner
GMPbecause 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.
,
I!
/1
"
I'
,I
Ii
"
I:
I:
Ii
II
It was argued that the Skiing Cornpanyneeded a rezoning before they would be eligible to (i
compete in GMP. It is now being argued that the Skiing Company should not be allowed to i!
rezone to SPA until they present 'a specific site plan. Kaufman told council he met with Ii
ci.ty .staff, and it was suggested that the SPA be. extended so that there would be a clear )'
right for the Skiing' Company to compete in growth management. In doing this, the city il
would get an added layer of review. The Skiing Company desires to clean up an area they Ii
fee~s needs to be cleaned up at the base of Aspen Mountain. Kaufman told Council that Ii
talk of a hotel at Little Nell is speculative~ Kaufman said the applicant feels that f1
the, premiere ski area should have an entrance to its premiere mountain that better utilizes!;
the area. ~ II
Kaufman said the Aspen Skiing Company would like to offer a development that would better iJ
improve traffie flow ,services and visual impact to the area: I<aufman told Co,uncil'a I
number of concerns have been raised about the SPA. Kaufman 'interpreted the Code to state J
an SPA des,ignation 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 :i
came forward with. Kaufman pointed out _the city attorney has made a thorough review into 'ii
'I
!I
1
':
,
.
~-"----------------
--
^
~
Continued Meeting
Aspen city Counoil
July 7, 1983
the' SPA and the legal r'amifications. 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 Taddunel
requested the Aspen Skiing Company be bound by his memorartrlum, 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 f.avorably 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 ~ouncil granted approval at' first reading.
Kaufman said Council should keen in mind the welfare and economic ~ell 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 purpos
of zoning is to insure compatability. Kaufrnansai~ thi~ area is changed, a~d.whatis best
for Little Nell is different from what was appropr~ate ~n the 70's. Compet~t~on has
changed the need for skiar,eas has changed. The Skiing Company feels the Little Nell
area ne~ds to be upqraded~ Kaufman told Council that the Skiing Company has development
rights in this area; they are not asking for development rights they do not alrea~y ha~e.
Kaufman told Council the Skiing Company could put in close to 80,000 square feet ~n th~s
area presently. The Skiing Company is asking Council to help them be flexible and ~ore
creative. Through an SPA flexibility, the applicant could eliminate some of the he7ght
and bulk that could be created through the underlying zoning. An SPA means spread1ng
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 th€des~gnatio
of SPA allows an opportunity for a more aestheitic, pleasing developmen~~ The app11ca~t
would like to be aliowed to work with the city to put in a development ~n there that w~ll
work and everyone will be proud .of.
(
"
II
I
I
,I
II
II
II
II
"
I,
I
I
i
I Charles Hopton, adjacent property owner and representing out of' town o''/ne'rs, said that bothl
North of Nell and Aspen Square should not have been built, and hopefully, people can learn II
from the past. Hopton said the Skiing Company already has building encroaching upon the i
conservation zone. Hopton said in the conservation zone, one needs 15 acres to build any- j
thing on. Hopton said the flat land at the bottom of Little Nell is needed for access, to I
and from the ski area. Hopton said he did not see how the Skiing Company could fill up
tha,t area with abuilding and continue to use it as a ski area. Hopton said this land I
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 j
number of years. Kandi Shaffron said she would 'rather seethe conservation area maintained!
as conservation. Jerry Blann, Vice President Skiing Company, said there have been requests
informally by Council, formally by the CCLC, Lodging Association .to clean up Little Nell. il
The Skiing Cornpanyagrees it should be cleaned up. Blann said there are certain functions
that need to pake place to the base of Little Nelli service functions, ticketing, ski
school, .adrninistration. These are inadequate to serve Aspen Mountain. Blann said a year
ago the Skiing Company had a poorly thought out proposal fora hotel in this location,
which raised anxiety. This hotel was operationally inefficient and insensitive for this
I unique site. Blann told Council the objective in applying for SPA is to muintain flexibili~y
in designing the operationaly and uniqueness of this site. The Skiing COMpany has commitedl
$500, 000 to s,tartmovin9' the maintenance facility. The Skiing Company hopes the Council
I will provide an opportunity to design this ~rea to be less rigid.
Hans Gramigershowed an aerial photograph, of Aspen and Aspen mountain and said this area
should not be covered. Gramiger said this area was zoned by use. Gramiqersaid 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 designin~, 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.
Maco Ste~art 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
peo, pIe have, come up W~,'than,interpretat,ion of. conservation z,oni,n~ to fit the pocketbook 1'1
of the people that are benefitting. Stewart read conservation zoning, "to provide areas
of low density development to enhance public, recreation, conserve natural resources,
~ncourage production in crops and animals, to contain the. structure of urban development."
~tewart said conservation zoning is what they bought their property with the understanding. II
perry Harvey, P & Z Chairman, presented his thoughts in vqting for and sending theresolu~
tion on to Council. There are 4. or 5 different parcels ot property involven,some of them ~
already have an SPA. . Harvey said that Little Nell area is iMportant to the whole town ,andl!
if ,some. mechanism could be ,put into effec, t to see a comprehensiV, e, Plan, for the whole area, ill
the town would be better off. SPA zoninq is designed for the benefit of the City. With ani
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 ~
in the city and their ability to create an plan for this important part o~ town rather than:
fragmented and sold otf.
i:"'1
J
Judy Royer said the Council was voted in on a mandate to stop and look carefully at all thel
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.
o
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, Asoen Alps
owner, said he is very concerned that this is the first step in opening the gate for m~ny
II' other changes more subtle and complicated to control. Perez said he is concerned about
what might happen to the only access to skiing he ha~.
II
!,
II
I;
.,......,.,.._~.~-.,_...,...,..., -_..-.,.,..,.,.,.,.,...-,,,.,...,....,-.
~~
..
n
u
f'
"\
I
,.\
V
o
~:,-"'--""""-;.~-,-~~'~""
. ,'. w.._.. ~,... .. . '..."~,,,.,,+,,. .".:..,...._.., .....:..,_.'^'_~"-~"_. ".,'~~,,"""""-"'_~'w"''''~'''.~MA__'''-'. ,._",k.., uo"-;
'._-_"',",..",~,:._ ,-,"""" .C. ___"';"''''"''"',"".~,.., _.~'.,'^
,,,,",,
.-,
Continued Meeting
Aspen City Council
July 7, 1983
Bill Lucks, architect in town, said he is concerned about the entrance to the mountain.
Lucks said he felt th~s should be redeveloped property. Lucks sain the Little Nell area
doeS'notbenefit the city, the Skiing COInpany or the visitors. Lucks said. he felt the
Skiin Company is asking for the flexibility to include a larger land area, not necessarily
~ncrease '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 ina more comprehensive
fashion to address the operational aspects o~ 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 rezoningapplic,ation including a provision of SPA zoning ~.,hich incluclesa 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 ann hazard zones. Kane said
the Skiing Comp-any .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 theCC
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 OOuncilshould be exolicit 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 tne city. The city should try to identify the~area which makes
sense for a dp-velopment 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 Coun~il he shared most of the concerns of people at this hearing. Strano!
said the Skiing Company could be sold, and it could have different management that might .
not pe 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, representing Aspen Square, told Council the Association opposes the request
of. the Aspen Skiing Company seeking to ext'end the SPA since it is feared that granting
this request prior to consideration of an application for rezoning violates the integri~y
of the comprehensive land use process set forth in the Municipal Corle and will not provide
landowners with appropriate protection and ability to comment. McHale said the designation
of a SPA pres'urne 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
~ezoning 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 givin~ 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 SP~
request.
I:
I;
ii
i
Carolyn Doty, representing the committee to preserve open sDace, 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 watchin~ 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.
"
"
Ii
. Mark Danielsen said this was zoned conservation in 1975 because it was the lowes-t andmost<
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 'applicat,ion. This was discussed
.previously and it was fo.und 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 applicationM
DaIli,elsen asked what has changed in this community t,o warrant development on that site. i:
J. D. ~iullerl 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 Ii
nothing item. Muller said he felt the city could make a better deal for the city than I
what is being proposed'.
Mayor Stirling' closed the public he~ring.
Kaufman clarified it is not. a threat to talk about what an a-pnlicant has a legal right to ,i
do with their property. The Skiing Company has certain legal-rights on that property but )i
feels they can. accomplish a developme'nt better with an SPA. Kaufman reiterated .the Skiing::
Company would abide by the city attorpey's memorandum. Mayor Stirling asked theapplicantH
if they would be willing to, bring the SPA line down the hill. Peter Forsch told Council i~
that line was drawn to designate the property boundary. It is not the intention of the F
Skiing Company to build up the hill; they used ,the property line for the SPA rather than 11
an arbitrary line. II
II
Ii
Ii
.-~",",~~,-",--
,-
,-,
.
<
Continued Meeting
Aspen City Council
July 7, 1983
-
'1 Mayor Stirling asked if the applicant would be willing to bring forth a specific plan.
I Forsch said as part of the SPA process they would come back with a specific plan. Mayor
Stirlin9: aslkeif if they would present a specific plan if this application is turned down.
Kaufme~ $a~ they were not in a position to answer this question. City Attorney Taddune
as!lc:e<6 a~~ "!:the ppssibility of covenanting the rest of the I,and. Forsch said they would
want;~to :'rettmin the Skiing Company's ability for ski lifts, operations, ,etc. Blann said
the ~nfier~tion 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 ~his 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 II
to compete in successive years. Councilman Collins agreed that the property have to be. 1
'II improved and enhanced, and the SPA is the way to go. Councilman Collins q:uestioned puttingl
the SPA on the property before the City has an idea of what is being proposed. Councilman 1.
I Collins pointed that out because of other SPAs in the city, ,which have not been successfuI.i)
Usually with SPAs, the benefi,ts accrue to the developer. Councilman Collins said on the !
basis of the poor record of SPAs, the questions, the lawsuits, the misunderstanding, the
I SPA should not be granted in this case until such time as the city has SOMe outline or
I conceptual idea of what is being proposed for this property.
II
II
I,
"
,
I
II
"
Councilman Knecht agreedtha't the present Little Nell is not great. Councilman Knecht Said'j
if the Skiing Company agreed to move the line for the SPA boundary down to the gravel line I
(passed out pictures), he would agree to approve this with conditions~ These are, from III
Taddune's memorandum one this is designated SPA, development may occur only in accordance II
with the approved precise plan. TWo, any element of the precise plan which deviates from I
the requirements of the underlying zone district can only be accomplished Obtaining a I'
variance in the zoning. Three I the applicant be requested to agree that the memorandum I
shall govern the interpretation of the SPA procedures. Councilman Knecht said he felt II'
confident with the above that the Skiing Company could corn~ up with a qoodplan. I
Councilman Blomquist pointed out Section 24-2..3 of the Code which relates to boundary linei,.
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 (I
1 questioning the lines on the zoning may. Councilman Blomquist said neither of the L zones I
\ are feasible sites for a lodge use; this is a mapping error. Councilman Blomquist appealed!
! to the P & z to adjudicate this issue. With this, the conservation zone would extend to 1:1'
! the Alps, and the CC zone is larger by a triangle. II
1 councilwoman Walls said she could not vote for extending the SPA to the entire property. I
I If the Skiing Company is willing to lower the SPA line to the flat area, she may vote in !
1 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 1,1
Ii plan their development in the ,area presently zoned CC with a small amount in the conserva- II
1'1 tion area.. Councilwoman Walls said she would not vote for any plan which moves the lift ii
I any further up the hill than it is now; nor would she vote for any plan that would block t
~ the view of the mountain from the Hunter street extension or from across the street. J
" Mayor Stirling said he felt the Skiing Company should come forward with a master' plan of I
what their intentions are for that area. Mayor Stirling said the SPA could be considered
I on that basis, and that the SPA line should be brought down. Mayor Stirling said he felt Ili(
I the balance of the land should be covenanted in some way, and not to interfere with the
I existing uses of the Skiing Company. Mayor Stirling said the underlying zonin~ should !
I hold. I
Councilman Knechtrnoved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 1983; conditions of this i
I appzoval shall be (1) move the line of the SPA designation to t,he present flat, grade, area;1
(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; Councilmernbers Walls, naye; Knecht, aye; Collins, nay; Blomquis
nay; Mayor Stirling, nay. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Stirling said he did feel this area needs attention. Nayor 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 corne
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 outli~e form with just footprint, density, and circulation. Mayor
Stirlinq 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 adVi~~bilitJ
of rewriting the SPA provisons and the possibility of installing a moratorium on new SPA
until such time that a study is cornpleteand 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
..,...---'-.....-.,."..~...-
,--....,,,..--,'.'.--"."-, -- --
n
U
J
o
/,.,,\
t""\
,
;
Continued Meeting
-......-..,-..--......---.".,..
As.!?en,,~ity~~?u~~
July 7, 1983
--- ... ~-..,.....,.,.
r)
I,
I j
. ,
U
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,
par~ing~circulation,view planes,. commercial build out and delivery access. Forsch said
that w~uld by a GMP application, essentially. Mayor Stirling suggested a balance somewhel
of the 'two lists'.
I
!I OR:]1ilNiiNCE #23, SERIES OF 1983 - Rubey ParI< SPA
"
I
"
~~yor Stirling opened the publi.c hearing. Mayor Stirling enterea into the record letters;
~e from George Byers, in favor of the proposal; -Mary Faulkner, Tipple Lodge, in favor
~f the proposal: Francis Whitaker, strongly opposed to the Rubey Park application: r~ichael
Kinsley, pitkin County Comrnissioner~ 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 ~ornmerci'al growth management competition for 198'3. An allocation of 5810- souare feet
of commercial space has been made for the project. This ordinance reouests rezoning from
. P, park with a transportation/drainage overlay to Public/SPA. The ordinance also adopts
a precise rlan. There is exemption for the 9,070 s'C!uare feet of public space from the
GMP competition, and exemption o~ an employee housing unit and oarking- for that unit.
P $I Z send a resolution ~dth. their reCOMmendation, with a list of permitted and conditiona:
uses. The P& Z recommends Council rezone this property to Public/SPA and adopt 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 Stirlin~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'ten~nal is finished. Monroe su~ers, representing the applicant,
saici this process ,had evolv~d over a long period of time 'and has adjusted itself to all thE
laws and rules in thee,ornrnunitv desianed to l)rornote slo....' arowth. Sut'U":l.ers said there is
a need for this ,project to 'deai with-.the trartsportation issues. Over 15 years ago, Asoen
recognized the need f9r puhlic transportation alternatives and a plan for auto disincentive
As early as 1964, Rubey Park was suggested as a transportation center. The reason to use
~ubey Park is geographic; it is surrounden by ,the lodqe rlistrict and the comnercial core.
Summers pointed out Rubey Park evolved as a transportation hub: it makes it convenient
for people. .
('
I
l
Sunmers told Council the city has been runnin0 a transportation systeMaroun~ Rubey Park.
Summers said Aspen is Qn 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 ~ogether~ Summer.s sain there is a system but
no place to operate in otwn~ Summers told Council the concept of puttin~ the visitors
~enter 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 s"stem and it is perceived as an inforM.-"l.tion center. Summers told
.Council the people are not presently'being accommodated. SUmMers said there are concerns
with this proposal. The proposal was rnad~ to get a visitors/transportation center that
would not cost the taxpayers any money. Summers said tay.ing busing out of Ruhey Park is
not the solution: Rubey Park needs to be upgraden.
Charles Hopton said there was adownzoning after Aspen Souars was built so that the town
would not get another buildin0 like it on Rubey Park. The voters voted to buy Rubey Park
for open space. Hopton 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 solut:ion to .providing a facility that is badly needed,
using a rne~hanisrn of public and 'private partnership, alleviatin~ the town f.rom taking on
another tax burden. Derrington said he did not think 5,000 s~uare feet or. commercial
space would break-Aspen~ The services would not be competing with anything else around.
Derrington said having an attractive visitorsltranst,'>ortation system is a very positive
thing and would provide convenience fQr the visitors.
Molly Campbell, read a letter frornthe c,ant into the record, saying they feel Aspen needs .
to continue to Aspen needs to continue to irnf?rove its visi tors I 'services: they support the
proposed SPA overlay. The improvement if-the transportation center is a necessity. Rubey,
Park isa convenient location for both summer and winter visitors as well as downtown 1:
employees~ Rubey Park should be upgraded to ~rovide circulation, visitor management and '.
information. Ms. .Campbell told Council when the.~ant was appro~ed, they were ,forced to
operate two shuttle ~ans as autodisincentive~ 0ne of the biggest problems was where to
drop guest's on and off safely: Rubey Park.. has provided..a safe, teasible,. good alternative.
Ms. Campbell encouraged Council. to leave theirqptions on Rubey Park open.
n
lJ
Peter Forsch, transportatio~manager tor the Aspen Skiing Company,. told Council they have
b2en using Rubey Park for years and years and hundreds of thousands of people go through
that area. Forsch said that Rubey Park' is poorly designed for both auto and pedestrian
eixculation. Forsch said the location of Rubey Park near the lodges and commercial core i~
is ,one of the only locations "..hich is .extremely important to transportation. Forsch urged:.
Council to consider this for the transportation hub and visitor center for A.spen. !!
nick Jackson, operator of the trolley car at Rubey Park, told Council he runs both a winteJ
and summer center at Rubey Park. Jackson said it is important to have an infOrMation
center at Rubey Park. Jackson said it is important to be able to offer all these facilitie
in one place. It is done in many resorts in"F,urope.
Ii
~
!
,
....-..,_._.._.,----.,-~-,,_.._.:..-_.~,-....._,--,--.._.__..._--...__.,_._~.._._- ----.....-.. _.....-~--------_._".'''---~......_--------