Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell.1983 I hi?L.:,....cL\'J' ~,-['L.L.. tfu ;<P.~ :; ,~! c'it~ ""'U Gt.,J,. ~ 0<'".. C~~ C4-.,'Cijt,:.-q-t~~;joL""'1J l...L~, Ct......,) 'Lt~iC."'-- fr'" t(d;?fU~ ~~,~ .u ""'" r~.~ \t"~, I~ 1,,,,c,CuP 700 ut&a~<, .. -- - RECEIVED APR i 9 1983, J'OO JAIME PARIS, M. D. A MEDICAL CORPORATION 202 T SANTA MONICA eCULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CAl.IFORNIA 90404 T&;:l.EPHQNE: 92S-4575 4/08/1983 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Perry Harvey, Chairman 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: Being not able to attend the public hearing scheduled for 4/19/83 to consider the Skiing Company's request to extend SPA designation to all of the Skii Company's Properties at Little Nell, I wish to express my disapproval for any change in the existing zoning. The Little Nell skiing area enhances the attractiveness of the community because of its unique convenience in the intown location ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM #205 CC: GERALD G. HEWEY ,~ - ~- ,"""""\ CITY OF ASP""N' :'.. MEMO fROM JOY A. BROOKS April 21, 1983 Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, The attached packet contains all of the letters from.the Planning and Zoning Comissioner's Meeting held this past Tuesday, April 19, 1983 tn reference to the "'Little Nell Property SPA 'De~ignation" These letters were asked to be given to you by request of Mr. Harvey. Sincerely, . d'O /IJl:-.'~~eo ~ ' ~ '1 r.sp/t .' ,.;;::;\ tJ , G'-~~ ,,...,,'. ' . <; '-").'"\, ' .." 0,;:-~0:;'~~ ,<,r,ot. Edward MeM~CEIVED APR 1. 91983 0/-::).<;)-- \\ 1\41 Grapevine Rood Jot> ~"(:.~~t:)> \~'O':lw~ M~ 01984 ~\'f/ '\~ /CO. ' ~, "Yy:~ I ' ~\C~ ~/S, /Cfo3, ~.-' I-~~' \>oS ~ < ~4<M ,- dt-;.. /4 .~ ,,{ ~ r.~ ~~~~tA ~. tk ~ ~ A-c' ~ tdLd ~~0U7J~. ZtLv 'M ~rhbvu~lf~ ~. tI 1M ~ ~,;-~ # Ju' ~ ..~ -~ rJ. tht ~~~~ ;If:' ~~.;-,y-~~ I~Cj~ -~ 1J.~tf~ ~~ m.i'..3o-y~ - n-vv'1-A- t-<.~ :A-e- ~ 1~ /---- -----.. /J - 6 ~ rttXe- ~;c; , . ~~. Z'". - . cuf~ ~ ~ .' (j '~~"U-n.~ ~ M/1u--Cj(Ih'~ Q~t'iA-~~~t ~ i-.~-, -I ib/4- ~ ~~AJ' /~~ ~ ~ /-7/ ._-~ ~~//J., ~ ,tLe ~ h? UU /. MA ~ W ../I_A'--><~ 1-. pL-O<- I o A~;T--- . ~ J-~.. . I C4.c ~~~Lr~. ~~, ., r {- , h-A~ T"... .'_"" ~.~ . "~~ ,~ S,/ \.1:.\ O. ~ ~~ rGs .~\~ ,?y..~ "x\G ~i GO '2;,'?'t;';''<i'\~ 1',,\";-, '-', PH'LlP H. ROTH BLUM , ,g 983 27S SWAN COURT 'RECEIVED APR \. n\1"I MANHASSET. N. Y. 11 030jlJvt..' April 15, 1983 Aspen Planning & 130 South Galena A$.pen, Colorado 2:oning Street 81611 COlIllllission Attention: Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Dear Mr. Harvey: , , As an owner of a Condominium at Aspen Square for the past 12 years, I am very much concerned about the development which may take place at the base of Aspen Mountain. Although I cannot,in all honesty, object to the requirement for an overall plan being required for the development of this property through the designation as a Specially Planned Area, I must object to the extension of the SPA designation since it appears to be a fore- runner to a rezoning application. ~ ...... ._..__- ___M"___ _____:::::. I have been in accord over the past years with the efforts of the city in maximizing open space and comprehensive design including a careful allocation of GMP each year. I believe that an encroachment into presently zoned Conservation Area should be resisted. P ROTHBLUM PR:hm CC: Mr. David Chase ^ RECElVEO APR1 9 1983 ARTHUR ROCK' Job 1635 RusS BUILDING 9AN FRANCISCO 94104 April 8, 1983 Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Little Nell Zoning Change Dear Mr. Harvey: I am the owner of a condominium in the Aspen Alps complex which faces the slopes of the Little Nell Ski area, specifically unit #809, and wish to state my opposition to the proposed change in zoning for that area. Any zoning change could and probably would result in an extreme visual impact on my and neighboring prop- erties. The most important consideration in my purch- asing the Aspen Alps property was what I thought I was buying was an unobstructed view. Any zoning change would, I believe, further result in an econom- ic loss. The Little Nell Ski area is part of the Aspen image and any zoning change would further enforce the grow- ing view of Aspen as being overly commercialized. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, , , /) f) , L~tl~ K~ Arthur Rock AR:mg MRS. HENRY T. CHANDL.ER 902 NORTH GREEN BAY ROAD LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60045 RECEIVED I\PR \. ;i383 () April 12, 1983 Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: I have received a copy of a notice of a public hearing to take place on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. A request will be made to extend the SPA designation to encompass all of the Skiing Company property at Little Nell. I am the owner of apartment 508 in the Aspen Alps Condominium Association and this building lies adjacent to the property being considered for a Zoning change. I understand that I am entitled to express an opinion. My family and I enjoy Little Nell just the way it is now. Since this Zoning change would make it easier to develop the Little Nell property, I am against it. Development would have an adverse impact on the enjoyment and value of adjacent properties and, in my opinion, would eliminate an important asset of the town of Aspen. The Aspen Skiing Company has stated that they "have not deter- mined what sort of development might be appropriate on that site." However, I do not believe they will leave it as is. I do not want it to change, and therefore request that you do not alter the Zoning designation. Thank you. Sincerely, ~4~ CLARISSA H. CHANDLER RECEIVED APR 19 1983 ~ R.. VERNON COLPITTS, M.D., ASSOCIATED 7000 FANNIN-,1620 HOUST'ON, TEXAS 77030 f7l31 197.1051 April 14, 1983 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: I recently received notification of a public meeting to be held Tuesday, April 19, 1983 and would like to register an opinion regarding this rezoning change. Number 1, I cannot understand the need for the change. The Little Nell ski area enhances the entire community of Aspen because it is in a convenient and well known location. Any change in this zoning I think would not be an asset for the town and certainly would be detrimental to the inhabitants of that section of the Aspen mountain. Number 2, should this development be the forerunner of some change as anticipated by the Ski Corporation, I think it would be prudent and honorable to advise the concerned people of that plan. Please put me ,down on the side of opposing this change in zoning. Thank you very much for your attention in this matter. (j.. v-'- . _ ~ R. Vernon Colpitts, M.D. #115 Aspen Alps Comdominium RVC/cf r--, ,~ EDWARD M, a'HERRON. JR, April 13, 1983 RECEIVED API< , . ~83 J Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: I am in receipt of the notice that a public hearing will be held Tuesday, April 19, to consider a request to extend the S.P.A. designation to all of the Aspen Skiing property at Little Nell. I have been a property owner in Aspen for more than 17 years. My family and I look forward each year to enjoy the Aspen community and all that it offers. I feel very strongly that the open area now zoned con- servation on the Little Nell slope is one of the great assets of the town. Any zoning change from the present situation without any plans for potential changes in its use seems to me to be premature and could only place added pressure on the planning and zoning commission in the future. I regret that I cannot be present at the hearing next Tuesday, but sincerely hope no change will be made in the zoning until such time as any changes in the use of the property will be presented. Sin~~ yours, ( d~t)}ud Edw. M. O'Herron, EMO'HJr:rmp <Sl1".~u:Wqjl"'d ' 1Oij(!"-kAlo....l;,,,'l"mutll OJ I :::.!t:WU< ~''1<lal<.Cal;f.91206 ,.... ..ECEIVEO APR,1 9 ~83 yo r- 0~ /1; 11' 1'-3 {2.:>-r- ("1.,".. :s-" -)- ' .f'~JJ~~'~""""" '7 'J. ""r ' ):Jc> ~ d"_<'~-~=C a;;-?--j J,..,. !?/~// , .-... 1[" f' jil';J~./.Z7" ,,",H "p#v"?7U . ,,/.k~, .:f",{;.,..,4,"" a1.""-,,t..~ J-~ ~ ",,-.-' z:il...-- f'~~.:r~'< ~- J~~ /...,u..:. J,t/"~ ".-= -I A~- .-: Jk- 0;-- a~~ ~_t .4& -"_,_ -),Zk.. ~/.....:-4tr' 3"-7 f> ~~ ~~ ..u,~",,'-" ""J~r -I.i. ~",_'~ ~"'.frv ~,I.~ /~J~ji..--,~'1~ ~#A--.-r.r'-:' c~-_..... C~~ r~ /$--'-~&.--- ..t: eb.~~' J.,<'''''''"~ Z~~ r-':< '3~ ~..~ ~'i-W ~ 1'-'" ~ ,;!=r.-r ~ ,;; ..J..... jL P?","~ 0/","-' =-( .4~7 --?-~ '. % 0>- c/c-~r~ .ZL r~-.x ;1"" ;'-' 9: '-7~L/,~;I. ?3'~ ;; r - cr~ dr~;r'/~~ ~ .-., GARfKlElD & JH[JECJ!H, P.C. RECEIVED APR.' 9 '98~ , ~ ~. " -' ,-!; RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V, HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" SPENCER F. SCHIFFER KATHERINE HENDRICKS WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.C. KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN. P.e. April 19, 1983 Planning and Zoning City of Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Commission Re: Application for rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The undersigned represents The Aspen Alps Condominium Association, George Mitchell, H. Bornefeld and the Copper Kettle, all representing property interests adjacent to the property which is the subject of this Application. The Applicant has moved this Commission for an extension of the SPA designation to encompass all of its property at Little Nell (including property now zoned conservation). Although the Applicants correspondence supporting its Application is calming, it belies the true potential harm of such a rezoning. The Applicant contends that the City is not committing to any development prior to the approval of a precise SPA plan and therefore it is just a "housekeeping" act to avoid future questions in the context of GMP applications. This may be true but it is also a mechanism to allow a variance from zoning requirements. Indeed, the City in its Memorandum in support of the Application cites the benefit as offering the Applicant an opportunity to use the property for uses not allowed in the conservation zone district. It is unfair to hide from the strong presumption weighted in favor of retaining the conservation zone by simply reclassifying the property SPA. If such classification is deemed an overlay and not a rezoning it accomplishes the same mischief because the SPA designation permits a variation without standards from zoning constraints if the precise plan is a development acceptable to the City. The effect would be that the Applicant would have no burden now nor in the future to show that it has met legal requirements for a zoning change. The law on rezoning is clear and the burden on the applicant is quite dramatic in changing zoning as the Applicant will later seek, without demonstrating a change in condition of the neighborhood. '-~. ~, " ^ 1'"".. ~ GARflEW &IiIECIJIJ, !'.C. Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 Page 2 What the applicant does not do in its application -- and that is why its application should be denied - is show an inkling of why it feels the zoning should be changed for any reason other than procedural expedience. The change in zoning is being asked for with the purpose of merely relieving a particular property from the restrictions of the zoning regulations. This Commission should not let such a rezoning occur until a precise plan is submitted. It is the task of zoning to apply broad planning policies embodied in the master plan to specific property, consistent with the public interest. It has done so, and zoned the property in question. The owner of that property should not now be allowed to change that zoning as a "housekeeping" detail. Finally, there is no proceedure in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for the the classification of the property as SPA and requirements of the SPA are too indefinite and vague to give notice to neighboring property owners as to what the zoning in fact permits on the property. The down playing of the importance of this decision causes adjacent property owners great concern. For the reasons given here, the Application for SPA designation at Little Nell should be denied. Respectfully submitted, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. c.. ~,.,.,.."~--~~~ Andrew V. Hecht AVH:la ~ t6 ,....., HALGLENN CORP. 1428 Brickell Avenue / Suite 101/ Miami, Florida 3.R~CEIVED APR 1 9 1983 Tel. (305) 371-4112 ja.b Tel ex - 264250 11 Apri 1 1983 Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: This corporation is the owner of Unit 503-C, Aspen Alps South, 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. ' We have been advised that there is a re-zoning request by the Aspen Skiing Company to change the designation of ,the Little Nell Ski area to S.P.A. (Specially Planned Area). This corporation wishes to express its opposition to this change in zoning. We view this zoning change as a fOrerunner of potential development in that area that would have an adverse economic and visual impact on our property. In addition, we believe that the Little Nell Ski area in its present form enhances the community and is in keepin9 with the character and nature of Aspen. Any re-zoning which leads to development might change the character and would diminish the unique charm of Aspen. Very truly yours, EMH:sKs ,,-., '-", . # . LAW OF'F"ICES RECEIVED APR 1 9 1983 Jm MAX HESS WEINBERG ARTHUR C. CHAPMAN RICHARD 1... KAHN DAN BRUSSLAN DAN R. RQIN NORMAN A. SHUBERT RICHARD ,..I. CARMEL .JOEL. H. F'ENCHEL MORRIS G. DYNER DAVID W. INLAND!::R ROBERT W. KAUF"MAN STE;PHe:N R. MILLER PAUL D. STREICHER PAUL R. DIAMOND TERRIE A. RYMER JOEl. MILLER NANCY SHAPIRO rlSCHEL & KAHN SUITE 1800 THREE FI~ST NATIONAL PLAZA CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60602 (312) 726-0440 rRE:PERle A. F"!5CI-IEL. (1905 . 1956) L.OUIS 1.., KAHN (19(2 - 1965) F'>HILlP 8. HEI.I..ER ,,. <:OVN~'" April 13, 1983 Aspen Planning and Zoning Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Commission Attention: Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Re: Aspen Skiing Company Little Nell Extension of S,P.A. Designation Dear Mr. Harvey: I am writing this letter to you in behalf of Maureen M. Roin, the owner of Aspen Alps Unit 703, and personally. We believe that the request by Aspen Skiing Company to rezone the entire lower portion of Little Nell from a Conservation zone to a S.P.A. zone should be denied. The existing zoning of the base area of Little Nell as a Conservation zone was not undertaken without serious con- sideration and extensive study. The decision to maintain the mountain area as undeveloped land was reached because the City determined that its development would have adverse impact, not only on neighboring properties, but on the City as a whole, One of Aspen's most valuable assets has been the purpose- ful retention of its character as a "working city" as opposed to the helter skelter development of a vacation mecca typified by Vail and Crested Butte. The careful retention of Victorian structures and the imposition of height restrictions which assure that the \~eeler Opera House will remain the tallest building in the City, evi~ dence the care with which zoning provisions have been dravm. " ."......., "......., ~ FISCHEL & KAHN Mr. Perry Harvey Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 13, 1983 Page Two While it is certainly true that no zoning map is cast in stone, and that changing economic conditions frequently warrant zoning changes, the wholesale rezoning of a vast area of open space without any indication of the manner in which it is to be developed, by itself, signals a change in attitude which would be damaging to the City and its image. The argument that the lower portion of Little Nell can now be zoned S.P.A. without its having any deleterious effect because the manner in which it is developed in the future will have to be specifically approved, is specious. A current change in the zoning will imply clearly that a decision has been made that the area can or will ,be developed. We do not believe that such a decision is warranted in the absence of a showing that a need for develop- ment of that area exists, and that a specific development is desirable. Clearly, such a showing, if it can be made, is demonstrable without rezoning the property. Any construction of a major nature on the face of Little Nell would immediately result in a visual violation of existing height restrictions, even if a technical violation did not exist. Based upon my prior experience in other cities, I am certain that such a visual violation would form the basis for strenuous argu- ments designed to alter those height restrictions. We are not suggesting that further development on Durant Avenue is not warranted, or that some form of major hotel develop- ment, there or elsewhere, is not desirable. but we do feel, most strenuously, that the requested change in designation would be harmful to the City and its residents, at least at the present time. vZ1ry ~ly yours , 1'- , /)' Dan R. Roin DRR/g ~ ~ ~: T-J;RRY J. TURKAT, M.D. .aJiologirl wl.phon. (805) 497-2727 Apri 1 14, 1983 RECEIVED APR .~ \983 , j Perry Harvey, Charman Aspen P 1 anni ng and Zoni ng City of Aspen 130 S. Gal ena Street Aspen, Colorado ,81611 Commission Dear Mr. Harvey: I am writing in response to the PUBLIC NOTICE concerning the request to extend SPA Oesi gnat ion to encompass all the Aspen Ski Company property at Little Nen. I had the opportunity of personally addressing the Planning and Zoni ng Commi ssion at the time that the Aspen, Ski Cl ub wanted to change the traffic flow, at the base of Little Nell in such as way that the ticket booths would be upon the hill without havin9 undertaken a consideration of the traffic problem that would develop if they did this, both on the hill and on the side streets. The Aspen Ski Club at that time said they would comeback w,i th a, traffi c study but , I be lieve they never came back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I cannot seewhat.purpose woul dbe served by the Planni ngand Zoning Comission granting the Aspen Ski Company the, Extension of SPA Designation. In my letter from Peter Forsch of the Aspen Ski Company, the argumentgi ven is that changi ng this designation wou 1 d provi de the City the abil i ty to look at the entire area ina comprehensive proces,s. He also argues that it wou ld e 1 imi nate the pi ece-meal nature of the property. It is preci se ly the fact that the property is quite di fferent in its di fferentareas that accounted for the original zoning situation. It would seem to me th,at the base of Little Nen is a conservation area in a true sense of the word for theConmuni ty. It acti ve lyrepresents the core of Aspen both i nsummer and in wi nter, and that the area presently zoned SPACC is a commerci a 1 area and the two are not interchangeable. The fa,ct that if one owner ownes both sets of propert i es does not gi ve that owner the ri ght to consi der them the same property. Itwou,ld s~em to me as well that the City and the Planning and Zoning Commission have the foresight to be able to look at the entire area without the Ski Company\s help in changing the zoning. It would seem to me that the Aspen Ski Company in its infinite wisdom could present to you a precise plan for the4rea, whether or not the zones were changed. The Aspen Ski Corp says that they have. not, determi ned what sort of development might be appropriate on that site, but I see nothing in the current zoning to prevent them from present i ng ~uch a deve 1 opment pl an, i. e. preci se plan for the area. It is only after they provi de that preci se plan that the p 1 anni ng and zoni ng wOU 1 d really have some i nsi ght as to what the 215 w.rl jan.. _J thou."nJ""k., calif, 91360 ~ -^ """'" ,~ owner is thi nki ng in terms of property deve 1 opment. In conclusion, I strongly resist as an adjacent property owner of Condominium 801 at the Alps the intent of change of zoning by the Aspen Ski Company. I propose that theygi ve you thei r so ca 11 ed "precise pl an" that they have in mind and at that time you will have all of the information and the Community will have the information necessary to evaluate their zoning requirements. Sincerely yours, -c~C\~ Terry J. 'Turkat, M.D. TJT: sns cc: Jerry Hewey-General Manager Aspen Alps Condomini um ,"-' ,-', Aspen/Pit 130 s HEMORANDUM ing Office ]frj)~i9JI~J~rnlill (""----""'<"'11 It APR 191983 ~ ASPEN / PITKIN CO '\ PLANNING 01=.r--,I(>i:: . I '-IJ...,. TO: Perry Harvey, Chairman, Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: W.D. Eberle, Boston, Mass. - Western Union RE: Rezoning Petition of the Little Nell Ski Area DATE: April 19, '1983 This letter came over the telephone today from Western Union. A copy of letter will arrive on April 20th. This letter will acknowledge the notice given to the public for a hearing on Tuesday, April 19. As an owner of apartment #210 at the Aspen Alps, I oppose the change in zoning. First, it's clearly a forerunner of potential development which will have both economic and visual negative impacts on the neighboring areas. Secondly, the area porposed to change from an open area would destroy one of the assets of the City by allowing development when there are plenty of other areas in town where development is more logical. \\'.D. Eberle r>.?R , ~ W$~ RE.C'C.\\JE.D JP -, A ,'-" STANLEY R. FIMBERG " I\\>R \ II 'e?l~ ~E.CE.\'JE.D :fD ATTORNEY AT LAW 9777 WILSHIRE: eOULE:VARD, SUITE 710 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 278-2434 April 14, 1983 Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: I am the owner of Apartment 402, Aspen Alps, and I spend a great deal of both winter and summer in Aspen. For that reason I do not rent out my condominium, but occupy it as an owner on a continuing basis. I am very concerned with the possibility of the rezoning of the Little Nell area owned by the Aspen Skiing Company. I would hate to see a high density hotel/condominium complex built in that area. I think it will have a significant adverse economic and visual impact on my property. The dewelopment of the Little Nell ski area in my judgment can only remove a great deal of the charm which is one of the significant assets of that area and one of the reasons I chose to locate there. I hope you will take this before granting any change in zo ration -.--" SRF:db cc: Mr. Gerald G. Hewey ,,-..., ~ April 19, 1983 RSCr""/" ~, vcO APR 1 9 1983 Jab Mr. & Mrs. John C. Taylor 340 Westwood Drive North Minneapolis, Minneapolis 55422 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey, This is to inform you that we are vehemently opposed to giving an S.P.A. designation to the Little Nell property owned by the Aspen Skiing Company. The recreation designation and use of that parcel is of par- amount importance to the entire Aspen community both economic- ally and visually. Additionally, the value of the open space is so great as to be nearly immeasurable. To change this parcel from its current classification would significantly alter a major element Of what makes Aspen the world class resort it is. From a personal viewpoint, our property especii'llly appealed to us when we purchased it in 1968 because of the recreation zoning of Little Nell. We strongly urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to con- tinue the present use and designation. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. John C. Taylor Aspen Square Apartments #123 & #304 1"", ~ RECEIVED APR 1 9 1983 ORTHOPAEDIC and FRACTURE CENTER, P.A. jab Cobb General Office 3910 Austell Road/Suite 101 Austell, Ga. 30001-1170 Parkway Regional Office 1001 Thornton Road/Suite 406 Lithia Springs, Ga. 30057 Douglas General Office 6130 Prestley Mill Road Douglasville, Ga. 30134 Scott G. Kleiman, M.D. Marvin M. Mitchell, M.D. Allan N. Levine, M.D. Neil J. Negrin, M.D. April 14, 1983 Practice Limited to Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery Phones Austell 944-1100 Parkway 944-3600 Douglasville 949-7400 Francis A. Ingalsbe Administrator Fellow American College of Medical Group Administrators Hours By Appointment Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Harvey: As an owner of a condominium in Aspen Square - Unit #413 - I am concerned with the proposed rezoning which would encompass the Little Nell Ski area. I have been a property owner at Aspen Square since 1969 and have always enjoyed the atmosphere and charm of Aspen. I feel that the zoning change that is proposed would only serve to present the opportunity for development in that area which would detract from the natural charm and beauty which now exists. The preservation of open space at Aspen serves to set it apart from over-developed ski areas such as Vail and I believe this distinction is one of the reasons that Aspen is world famous. I sincerely hope that your commission will take the posture of preserving the natural beauty inherent in the area. Yours truly, M--~~ Scott G. Kleiman, M.D. SGK!vt Reply: 3910 Austell Road, Suite 101 -., -., , MAR~~~R~'RA~e~RT.oNRECE.NEOA?R \ 5 ~ ATTORNEY AT LAW S 333 BAYSIDE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH~ CALIFORNIA 928BO TELEPHONE: (714) 675-9501 April 11, 1983 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention Perry Harvey, Chairman RE: Aspen Skiing Company Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation Hearing Date: April 19, 1983 - 5:00 p.m. Dear Mr. Harvey: I am writing as a non-resident property owner, concerned with the proposed zone change mentioned above. I am opposed to any ch::mge of zone for the Little Nell area, that I am sure is intended to ultimately lead to a change in that area. I would first like to comment upon the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY'S letter addressed to "Dear Propery Owner," dated March 24, 1983 (copy enclosed). One of the announced purposes for the letter is to "explain our intentions," although the writer does not get around to doing that. He immediately launches into an argument to support the proposal, and treats it as though it is an innocent housekeeping chore. Having raised the reader's suspicions, the writer immediately and defense1y assures the reader that "designation does not short cut or eliminate any of the other approval processes." Reading on, searching for the Ski Company's intentions, we are next told they really have no definite intentions for this parcel. I cannot accept that statement as being completely candid. and certainly cannot reconcile it with the writer's purpose of explaining the Ski Company's intentions. I would have been much less concerned about the S,ki Company's intentions, if it had forthrightly announced what they were. I am sure, however, the company recognizes opposition to any effort to change Aspen Mountain, and this first letter is merely a part of its softening up process. Having been a planning commissioner, I am familiar with the process Ski Company is employing, attempting to get their foot in the door first without too much opposition, and, the spring board to the next step, and that is development of Aspen Mountain. There is no point in a zone change to an SPA designation without there being some underlying plan to develop the area. Aspen Mountain is the single most spectacular asset of Aspen. Millions of posters around the world prominantly display Aspen Mountain, and Aspen nestled at its base, would show far less attraction to the potential guest if a substantial portioIl of that major asset were spoiled. Nature did - -, '. Aspen Planning Commission April 11, 1983 Page - 2- a pretty good job on Aspen Mountain, and I doubt the Ski Company can improve upon it to any great extent. To allow development of the mountain would be like putting a high rise hotel in the foreground at the view of Maroon Bells. I am sorry I will not be able to appear in person at the hearing on April 19, but entrust you and your colleagues to duly note my and other residents' objections that must be presented in letter form. MOB /mw cc: Aspen Skiing Company ~, ,~ \ZJASYBi SQ\UIRE RECEIVED APR 1 9 1983 job April 19, 1983 Planning and zoning Commission City of Aspen Ci ty Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colo. 81611 Re: Application for rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: You have received several letters from members of our Home- owners' Association. We respectfully request denial of the Aspen Skiing Company's application for SPA designation at Little Nell, currently zoned conservation, for the following reasons: 1. An "overlay" has the same effect as a zoning change in that SPA designation would sanction deviations in under- lying zoning, density, and uses of a given area. 2. When Little Nell was originally designated conser- vation area, City Council determined that conservation was the best usage of that area. 3. A zoning change of this magnitude designation is tantamount to a zoning be allowed on "housekeeping" grounds. be required to divulge: - and such "overlay" change - should not The applicant should - For what reason he is rezoning. - Why he should be entitled to an "overlay" or rezoning. - Information concerning the impacts of the proposed change. ~ Austine Stitt president, Board of Directors Aspen Square Condominium Association AS/ck 617 East Cooper Avenue Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-1000 condominium hotel at little neU I', ."......, PETER VAN DOMELEN. P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 202 MILL 8: MAIN BUILDING 400 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 (303) 925-6415 April 19, 1983 R~CEJVED APR 1 9 1983 J>>9 Mr. Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 and zoning Commission Dear Perry, I am representing Mr. Dudley J. Hughes who is the owner of two condominium units in the Aspen Square. Mr. Hughes has requested that I advise the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission of his opposition to the change of zoning for the Little Nell areas requested by Aspen Skiing company. Mr. Hughes' objections are based upon the following grounds: 1. It is believed that the base of the mountain should be retained as open space and that this is one of the major attractions of Aspen and a successful accomplishment of the City of Aspen. The requested rezoning would negate this effort and have a detrimental effect upon Aspen in general. 2. The proposed change of zoning would have the potential of eliminating the major access to the ski area and to apply this area for other usage would be detrimental. Your consideration of Mr. appreciated. Hughes' position will be Hughes PVD:tu cc: Dudley J. Hughes 'i.____ . I"'. 1-' BEAR PROPERTIES LTD. ..' . R \ 9'e'b~ RE.CE\\JED ~? )0.'0 April 17, 1983 Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Chairman Harvey: RE: Aspen Skiing Company Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation As an Aspen property owner adjacent to the proposed zone change, we strongly urge you and the Commission to deny the zone change for the Aspen Skiing Company. The zone change is a forerunner for development in this area and would have an adverse economic and visual impact on the neighboring properties. The Little Nell area is the keystone of Aspen and, granted, this area could possibly use some renovation, but to allow a zone change up the hill and close to existing structures will eventually lead to development, ruining one of Aspen's true assets. Public view and access of this area is of key importance and by allowing this zoning it is the first step towards restricting both these vital interests. Some Planning and Zoning Commissions will not even listen to a request for a zone change on a similar piece of property such as this until a total package is presented which would outline an overall development plan. Since it is far easier for a developer to obtain concessions and approvals on a step by steb basis, some developers have a tendancy to disguise their true intent; and why not, especially since the zone change does not grant any development rights. Are you really that naive? We respectfully request that you and the Commission please limit the zoning to its present status with rigid height requirements should the existing SPA-CC be rebuilt. 17662 IRVINE BOULEVARD, SUITE 4, TUSTIN, CALIF. 92680. (714) 730-7717 ~, ,-", .......-, , Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen April 17, 1983 Page 2 This letter will serve as official notice that legal action may result from the outcome of the Aspen Skiing Company's actions. Sincerely, LTD. . Brad Perrin General Partner BP:smw cc: Peter Forsch Gerald G. Hewey K. L. Dennis .-.. r-.. . Wilshire Company 180 GRAND A VENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (415) 451-2191 TELEX: 338139 April 12, 1983 RECEIVEDAPR t 91983 . Ol? J Perry Harvey, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning City of Aspen 130 South Ga1ena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Little Nell Area, Rezoning, Commission Dear Mr. Harvey: This Company has owned 2 condominiums in Aspen Square since 1969. We have been apprised that the Aspen Skiing Company wishes to rezone the Little Nell Ski Area. To start, this Company is against rezoning the Little Nell Ski Area, and requests;the "Area to be Designated SPA" which is now zoned "Conservation", remain zoned TTConservation", and permanently. It has always been thought that this land was a part of the Park System of Ajax Mountain, and/or belonged to the City of Aspen and was being kept as part of open space within the city limits of Aspen. Little Nell chair lift is, without question, the No.1 access to Ajax Mountain. The openness of the area and the fact that the chair lift is practically in downtown Aspen, is an asset of skiing, the city, and the atmosphere. As an example, the chair lift at the SkierTs Chalets is difficult to find, let alone if you are new to the Aspen area. In addition, there is insufficient access ability and parking in that area. It is felt the openness of the area, accessability of Little Nell being right downtown, and close to many condominiums and businesses, makes the area as now developed, a fine tribute to the city. The area as presently is, has access to it from three sides, and each with further access. If the property is rezoned, it is only the prelude to another rezoning, and/or a prelude to the land being developed in time. It will destroy the conser- ' vation concept of having park or open land adjacent to the center of down- town. It will destroy the reasons many people own property, both residential and business, in the area. Development of the area will create the additional of many people to the area, and then the accessability to the Little Nell chair lift will, of course, become more difficult. It is even conceived the beginning of the chair lift will be moved further up the hill. . .-, ~ ~ ~, Page Two Little Nell Area April 12, 1983 It is felt that developing the area would be to "move the mountain" away from the city, and the way it has been has certainly helped to make Aspen what it is today. Any change in zoning as stated above, is a prelude of further change or development, which may not take place today or 5 years, but could be done in the future when there is a new Planning Commission, and/or City Council. It is felt the land should be left open and in a conservation zoning. There is certainly no need to move the Mountain away from the city and destroy the beauty of the town. The City of Aspen should continue the preservation of open space, as it has done in the past. Rumors have it the Aspen Skiing Company wants to develop the site as a hotel. Obviously, this will create a lot more traffic and confusion in the area. It will certainly destroy the area in that the lower part of the mountain would be hidden by the development. As you certainly are aware, open land within the city or adjacent to the city is precious, and once developed, it is seldom returned to its natural state. There are certainly other places in the city that could use development that would not harm the environment. We may speak of development in this letter more than rezoning, as we look to the end result. We know that if the Planning Commission does not take this into consideration at this time, that the Planning Commission is only the first step, because the various steps in development of a site is to obtain the rezoning desired first by a developer. In this case, it is obvious that the owner of the site wants to develop the site. Otherwise, why is the rezoning of the site being requested? Hence, keeping the site in permanent conservatroon will retain Ajax Mountain in the city at the edge of the downtown area. This writer has been to Aspen in the summer, and it is sure nice to be downtown and yet, see all that open land at our disposal, in the city and at the edges. Do not move the Mountain away, keep the zoning as is. MLS:mk cc - A pen Square Attention - David E. Chase General Manager " Anchorage, Westport, Conn. Office. :294 Round Hill Road, Greenwich, Conn. 06830 April 14, 1983 RECEIVED APR 1 9 1983 . '<Jt> J Mr. Perry Harvey , Chairman Aspen Planning and Zon:ilhg Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen , Co Dear Mr. Harvey : We are long time owners of Condominium 213 at Aspen Square, and we have visited the A~en Ski Area since it openedcin the winter ~.1947/48. We always enjoyed skiing in Aspen with access to the ski area first using the old Lift # 1, and later by access thru Little Nell. The Little Nell area has become more important as access to the mountain when Lift # 1 became Lift # 1 A , and unfortunately moved further up the mountain thereby requiring a lengthy climb from the ski lodges in town. Of course, this increased the number of skiers waiting to take the Little Nell Lift , and additional use of the area near this lift would hinder , and have a detrimental influence to skiing on Aspen Mountain. The competiveness of Aspen Mountain would be reduced in a highly competitive ski business. We always appreciated the city administration's policy to preserve open space, and not to become another Vail with overbuilt terrain. Aspen would loose its charm, and become less desirable as permanent residence , or for a visit if P and Z would open the door to further development. Sincerely, ~ ~"- Robert O. and Edith B. Fehr ~ ,-, J. W. KELSO COMPANY, INC. P. O. BOX 2149 GALVESTON. TEXAS 77553 i:)ECEIVED APR 1 9 1983 I' ? April 15, 1983 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman Gentlemen: I am writing to you in regard to the proposed zoning change request by the Aspen Skiing Company, at the base of Little Nell. As an owner of Unit No. 130 at the Aspen Square, I am concerned that a zoning change in this area would have an adverse impact on the site and surround- ing properties. Surrounding open space is a major asset of the community. Pre- servation of open space has been a major accomplishment of this City's administ- rations. This area in particular, being one of the most popular ski areas in Color- ado, needs to retain as much open space as it presently occupies in order to handle the large crowds it draws, to assure safe and proper functioning of the ski area. In view of the above, I am strongly opposed to this zoning change. JWK/ms Very truly yours, c1:.w XJw John W. Kelso ~ CoNDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT. INC. 147Sov1t>GoIon::l_ "-',~3t6" (303)?25-2:1oo """""""""00<1.1<< '-"''''''' .--...... .~.TIPPoO"" oDutonI or",.,..l.<:agoO April 19, 1983 Aspen Planning & Zoning CoIrmls~lon Aspen, Coloracto 81611 RECEIVED APR 1 91183 60"0 We, the owners of the Tipple lrm Condominiums, object to the proposed rezoning of the A5pen Ski Company property at the base of l.J.ttle Nell'e because we fear that future development of' this property would re3ult in: 1. Inadequate parking fa0111t1e3 2. Increased traff1c flow in an already congested area 3.000tructionoftheviewfrornexi.l3tingpropertiez 4. Obstruction of pedestrian access from Dean Stl'(!et to Little Nell'..... We ask that you do not approve the reque~ted rezoning of the Aspen Ski Company property. Thank you. Sincerely, Tlpple!nnCondominitnOwners ~\ -, VJASYEN SOlJARr. R\9\983 RE.CE.\VEO I\P yJP () April 19, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colo. 81611 Re: Application for rezoning: Aspen Skiing Co. Little Nell Extension of SPA Designation Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: You have received several letters from members of our Home- owners' Association. We respectfully request denial of the Aspen Skiing Company's application for SPA designation at Little Nell, currently zoned conservation, for the following reasons: 1. An "overlay" has the same effect as a zoning change in that SPA designation would sanction deviations in under- lying zoning, density, and uses of a given area. 2. When Little Nell was originally designated conser- vation area, City Council determined that conservation was the best usage of that area. 3. A\zoning change of this magnitude designati9~ is tantamount to a zoning be allowe~on "housekeeping" grounds. be requi\ed to divulge: - For ~hat reason he is rezoning. - and such "overlay" change - should not The applicant should - Why he should be entitled to an "overlay" or rezoning. - Information concerning the impacts of the proposed change. Yours sincerely, /) '" Uub-L ~ Austine Stitt President, Board of Directors Aspen Square Condominium Association AS/ck 617 East Cooper Avenue Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-1000 condominium hotel .!It little nell ~ - ~ ,~ J.D. MULLER ATTORNEY AT LAW JEROME PROFESSIONAL OOILDING 201 NOR1li MILL STREET MAlUNG ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4361 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 mEPHONE: 303/925-1923 RECEIVED APR \ ~3 19 April 1983 Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado Re: Application of Aspen Skiing Company for specially planned area designation for Little Nell property To the Commissioners: I own a condominium unit in the Tipple Inn Condominiums which are within 300 feet of the area which is the subject of the above referenced application. My concern with this application is that its approval would result in an unnecessary and potentially critical loss of control by the City over the development of an area presently zoned Conservation. This zone district is correct. The subject area was properly zoned Conservation and should be kept just as it is. The SPA designation at the least would give the applicant landowner arguments for varying the zone at a later date to any zone district it chooses, including the dense Lodge and Commercial districts; at worst, it might give the landowner a legal argument that this application is in fact a rezoning application, that is, that specially planned area is a zoning designation whose only restrictions are whatever plan gets approved, or otherwise stated: there are no set use, area or bulk requirements for an SPA plan; whatever use, area.and bulk may be proposed in the plan may only be judged by the standards for rezoning set out in Section 24-12.5(d), not by any zone district standards since SPA is its own zone district with no set requirements. I understand that it is the City's position that this application is not a rezoning application because an SPA designation under Section 24-7.1 and 7.2 is not a zone district. - ,~ . Planning & Zoning Commission, 19 April 1983, page 2. The City argues that SPA is not listed in either the use schedule of Section 24-3.2 or the area and bulk schedule of Section 24-3.4 and such sections are exhaustive of the "various zone districts." The City's position is that an SPA is an "overlay" which does not change the zone district or any of its require- ments; it is merely an acknowledgment by the landowner that no development will take place--even if permitted by the zone district--without the submission of a "precise plan" for the entire area. (Presumably an SPA overlay merges with other SPA overlays of the same landowner while the underlying zone districts remain the same, such that one plan must cover all a landowner's holdings which are covered by contiguous SPAs no matter the various times they were desig- nated.) Nowhere in the Code is SPA called an overlay or defined as being a zone district or not a zone district. (It can only be argued from the provisions of Section 24-3.2 with respect to A, Academic zone district, that in that zone district the procedures of Article VII (SPA) are to be used in a zone district.) This l,ack of clarity on the critical issue of whether or not SPA ,is similar to, say, the Residential Bonus Overlay District (which is spelled out in the Code), must be addressed now before SPA designation is given. (It should be noted that the applicant's letter dated February 10, states: "We are not asking for any underlying zoning for the additional parcel, merely SPA designation." If the applicant means that no change in underlying zoning is being requested, that is one thing; if the applicant means that there is to be no underlying zoning, that is quite another.) After SPA designation is given, a landowner is free to pursue the arguments expressed above and any others he can think of. Of course, making such arguments does not mean that any SPA application, including the present one, is not made in good faith based upon reasonable disagreement over a less than precise Code procedure; it means that a necessary clarification was not made when it should have been in the process. If SPA is a unique zone district, this is a rezoning application and, under the standards of Section 24-12.5, subsection (d), should be denied. Of particular relevance are subsection (2), the impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation, availability of on- and off-street parking and ability to provide utility service; subsection (3) the impact on air quality; and (4) the community need for the rezoning related to the goal of community balance. The rezoning is of course the removal of all requirements of the Conservation zone district. The SPA zone has no requirements. !~ ~ . )?lanning & Zoning Commission, 19 April 1983, page 3. Assuming the application is not for rezoning, the applicant states that it wants the designation "to keep options open for when the time comes to develop the property." The Commission has no obligation to help private landowners with their development options; it may do so if it is in the public interest. Requests for any change in status of a piece of property must be judged upon what is advisable consistent with the Code's requirements and purposes. The City is being asked to trade the possible problems mentioned above for a chance to review whatever project the applicant may later propose. Given the fact that the present zoning requires ten acres per dwelling unit it is hard to imagine a project the City would not get to review, either through subdivision, GMP or rezoning procedures. wh.at it? If this SPA application is not a rezoning request, then is it and what are the criteria for granting or denying Article VII (of Chapter 24) states that "Whenever this code or the zoning district map designates areas in which development will be permitted only in accordance with a plan of development for the entire area designated such areas shall be referred to as specially planned areas. ..." (emphasis added) and "If a specially planned area has been designated, no development in the area shall be permitted until the planning commission adopts a precise plan for the area. ..." (emphasis added). The article provides that a plan submitted for an area already designated SPA shall be processed like a rezoning application, but nowhere does it say how an area gets an SPA designation in the first place. A review of the applicant's letter makes it clear that no plan is being submitted at this time, nor is there any submitted indication of what development plan may be later proposed beyond, "we have no intention to develop the property all the way up the mountain." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Code to give the Commission a clear idea of what it can do, should do, or ,has done when it designates an area SPA. The use of the" SPA. procedure should be severely limited in the absence ,of (1) c.larification in the Code of SPA or (2) submission of a plan or at least development parameters with the $l?A 'application. The -..-.. Planning & Zo~ .g Commission, 19 April, p .2 4. ~ potential impact of development in this area is too great to take the granting of an SPA lightly. The area should continue to be zoned Conservation in the absence of good reason to change it in any way. Standardless SPA designations may be unlawful. I object to the designation, but if the Commission does recommend granting the application it should be conditioned on the applicant's agreement that this application is not for rezoning. If the applicant agrees that this is not a rezoning application I would request that it make that part of the record of its application. Specifically, I urge the Commission to require a statement from the applicant that this application is for permission to overlay the present Conservation zone district with the requirements of Article VII, such that any "precise plan" under Article VII submitted by the applicant or its assignees or successors at a future date must either satisfy the use, area and bulk requirements of the Conservation zone district as a condition of its approval; or, the precise plan submission must include an application-for rezoning (under Article XII) of all the contiguous properties of the applicant and its assigns or successors designated SPA at the time of the submission of the precise plan such that it is permissible of right in the new zone district. If no zone district permits of right the precise plan; then rezoning to the "closest"zone district must be obtained under Article XII, and variations from that must then be approved using the standards of Subsection 24-12.5 (d). (Subsection 24-7.2 (d) requires approval under "Article XI" requirements; this is a typographical error and should read "Article XII" to be consistent with subsection 24-l2.5's cross-reference to "applications submitted pursuant to Article VII.") The applicant should also be r$.quired to agree as a condition of approval that if what it got regardless of its agreement was a rezoning as judicially determined, it will waive its rezoning rights acquired as a ,result of this application. I join with my fellow condominium owners in their statement of objection to this application which statement speaks to the criteria of Subsection 24-l2.5(d), as well as general philosophy, policy and intent of the various zoning provisions of the Municipal Code offue City of Aspen. For the record I note that the Tipple Inn Condominium Association is not included on the applicant's list of landowners attached to its letter dated February 10, and that no written notice was given to my condominium association. I also note that the suggestions in the preceding paragraph in no way qualify my objection to the application no matter how conditioned. ~'Y' c:- -~ J.D. Muller ~ >> /~ ,--- RECI=IVED APR 1 9 1983 "00 ~ ....... " BUTLER. BINION. RICE, COOK 8 KNAPP A PAR.TNERSHIP INCLUDINC Pfl,.OFESSIONAL COR.PORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT I,.AW ESPER-SON BUlL-DINeS 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 4G6 -6900 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 OF COUNSEL (713) 237-3111 LUIS J. CR.EEL, JR. MeXICO CITY TELEX 775532--TWX eSl3628 JOSEPH H. PECK, JR" P. C. PARTNER (713) 237-3174 ~8U;: LER.ION April 11, 1983 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Attention: Mr. Perry Harvey, Chairman City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Little Nell Extension of S.P.A. Designation Scheduled For Hearing On Tuesday, April 19, 1983 Dear Mr. Harvey and Members of the Commission: I am writing in regard to the above proposed extension for the purpose of expressing opposition to the proposed extension or reclassification now requested by the Aspen Skiing Company. I am a property owner in the City of Aspen and own a condominium in the immediately adjacent area to the base of Little Nell. I have received a letter from the Aspen Skiing Company dated March 24, 1983 which does not, in my opinion, reflect any reason, purpose or explanation as to the proposed redesignation. A copy of such letter is enclosed for your information. I oppose any redesignation at this time for the following reasons: ;~ "^ """'. ,-" Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1983 Page Two (1) The base of Little Nell provides the main access and exit entry to the entire ski area and is in effect the "heart" of the Aspen ski complex. Condominiums, shops, residences and other commer- cialestablishments have been built around this area (as the entire City of Aspen, in effect, has) and it would seem unwise to attempt a reclassifi- cation of an area so important and key to the entire complex without the "precise" plan alluded to in the March 24 Aspen Skiing Company letter; (2) The area at the base of Littl.e Nell is already highly congested as anyone can observe from the great number of skiers attempting to enter and exit from that location. Parking and traffic are additional problems. As you know, many resort hotels transport by bus and other vehicles their skiers to this area and pick them up after skiing; (3) The view of the mountain.which is made available by the openness of Little Nell should also be. considered. The Little Nell base is the only open area which is clearly visible from the heart of downtown Aspen. The beautiful torch light parade and other activities scheduled on Little Nell which make Aspen unique would be lost with potential development occurring in that area. The base of Little Nell is indeed a landmark which all citizens, guests and skiers have an interest. That landmark should not be altered without careful consideration and detailed evaluation of what impact may result from any alteration. ~. ,-" ^- Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1983 Page Three Finally, it seems unwise from both a practical and legal standpoint to attempt rezoning or reclassification of property without detailed plans for the usage of that property, and how those plans might impact surrounding areas, property owners, and the entire Aspen community. Aspen Skiing Company has pre- viously announced plans for hotels or other projects, and, although I am not particularly against both or for the develop- ment, I am in favor of an orderly evaluation of any project -- not a piecemeal one as is suggested now by the Aspen Skiing Company. Moreover,it is unfair to residents, businesses and the people of Aspen not. to be able to come and object, or support, whatever specific proposal and useage might be in mind for that base property. It would seem that due process of law in assqring each citizen of his constitutional rights would require that some more complete plan be submitted before any action is taken on this important issue. I would like to inquire as to the legal implications of an area being defined "specially planned area." I.f the area was zoned for conservation many years ago, then it would seem that such designation is even more important at thlS time and should be preserved and continued unless there is an overwhelming reason and justification to change that designation. Again, if the Aspen Skiing Company desires a specific project to be con- sidered, then such project should be submitted at a fair and complete hearing provided to them for that purpose -- but I strongly oppose any redesignation of an area as important as this without full facts and infonnation which I believe is the case here. Thank you very much for your consideration. JHP:pb Very truly yours, (j:7tt/~erz<;! 't - ",.., Ii'. ,,?\If<,PO<;1;q@ West~rn. @ ~ ~.. ~ unlonM Ilgram ~ ~ ~ ....,...... '-". nARK BRADLEY 3270 LAKE SHORE DR ",.., CHICAGO IL 60657 18AM .""" 4-000375S108 04/18/83 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP GLIVA 3129295724 MG M TDBN CHICAGO IL III 04-18 1252A EST jaY-> .""". ,-. ...... ,-.~ PERRY HARVEY, CHAIRMAN ""'. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY HALL, 130 SJUTH GALENA ST ASPEN OJ 81611 RECEIVED APR \ 9 1983 ....... ...... "'" ,- - -,..;: """ AS AN ASPEN PROPERTY O~lNER AND RESIDENT, I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE REQUEST BY THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY TO EXTEND THE SPA DESIGNATION TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF ITS PROPERTY AT "LITTLE NELL". - THE REMAINING OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL CENTER OF' ASPEN IS A t1AJOR OJMMUNITY ASSET, AND EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE i':l\DE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THAT ASSET AS OPEN SPACE. I STRONGLY URGE THE """ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REJECT ANY ZONING CHANGE, ,'HICH \YUGHT POTENTIALLY LEAD TO ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMHT m. AI<Y SUCH OPEN AREA" """ MARK BRADLEY, ASPEN SQUARE """ .- ...... .- 0056 EST ,-. ...... t13 MCO!ViP MG M ,-. -. ,-. ....... ,-. ,-" ,-. ....... ,-. ,""""'"', ' """ -. """ -. N '" "- ,....~ !!; ;;: N "'- ...... TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS ...... ""'" """'. LOTHAR M. VARADY. M.D.. INC. KAILUA PROFESSIONAL CENTER 30 AULIKE STREeT. SUITE 402 KAILUA, OAHU. HAWAII 96734 TEI..EPHONE 262-6141 Do , 9 '?J'B~ RECEIVED A. l\ ~ APRIL 14, 1983 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MR. PERRY HARVEY, CHAIRMAN CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DEAR MR. HARVEY: I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER NOTIFYING ME THAT THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY HALL TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF "LITTLE NELL." I AM EXTREMELY UPSET BY THE THOUGHT THAT ANOTHER "PLASTIC PRE- PLANNED OVERCROWDED FACILITY" IS GOING TO BE CREATED FOR THE FINANCIAL GAIN OF ONE COMPANY OR DEVELOPER WHO AFTER THEY HAVE REAPED THE HARVEST, PACK UP AND LEAVE TOWN. IT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE "UNSPOILED CHARM OF ASPEN" AND ALL THIS WILL BE DONE UNDER THE HEADING OF "MAKING THINGS BETTER." THE SPACE OF LITTLE NELL AND ASPEN MOUNTAIN ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR THE AMBIANCE OF THE SKI TOWN AND FOR THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF SKIERS. ASPEN IS A CONCEPT IN ALL OF THE SKI WORLD. WHAT ATTRACTS THE PEOPLE TO ASPEN IS IT'S NATURAL UNSPOILED BEAUTY. I STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO SPOIL IT. IF YOU CREATE ANOTHER PLASTIC CITY, THEN PEOPLE WILL GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. PROBABLY TO ANOTHER NEW UNSPOILED AREA, PROBABLY TO UTAH OR MONTANA. ~. LMV/nky ~ ..'OTTY J \,\JEISS CO ':<'I ST BELL~\/Ut PL HICAGO IL 60611 14P'v1 ~ . . . @ Ii "",us POSf-q . West~rn @ ~ ~... ~ UnlonM Ilgram ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ,. ,. ,. \< - -. """ .- 11-052723 SI 04 04/14/P,3 ICS IPMBNG? OSP GUT" 3127871045 LG" TDBN C:-fICAGO IL 103 .04-14 0704P E2T .""1 ,-. RECEIVED APR 1 ~3 ""I ",..,~ PF:RPy HA S\lFY, CHP, I RMA ~J ASPE~ PLANNING AND ?ONING CO~MISSIO~ -. CITY H~,j..L 130 SGI.'TH GALENA ST t,SP":'.1 CO 81 (;11 .-" """ 1""\ -.. ",.., - t',S 6\) ~.SP~N pnO?C'RTY O~,Hn~':(, I i,~rA~JT TO C0M'\1ENT ON TH~ REOUEST gv T-[t:: ,-. AS-PEN SKIING COMP,(l,NY TO EXTE~)DTHS: SPP~ DESIGN/\TICN TO ~NCOMpt',SS !'IL.L o~ ITS PPOPERTv AT LITTLE NEL~ THE REMAINING OPEN SPACE ^DJ^CENT TO 11-:": COMM":PCHL CS~ITE" Of" ASPEN IS A \1AJOR A,SSET A NT: EVE"Y ?~"'COT - SHOULD BE MADE TO P"ESERVE TInS OP"N SPACE. I STRONGLv UPGE THE PL,4,~pnMG A~,,lD ZC~.JIMG CO~MISSION TO PFtJECT ,~iI.JY 7'O~lI~,1f? CHt\~'.JG~ II,'HICH I"" \IIGHT POTErnIt.LLY LEAD TO ADDITIO\j0L COMMfRCUL DE1JfLOP"!,,\JT ON Ar,JY SUCH OP~~\l A PE,A. 1?ETTv fJ WEISS .~< -. """ - ...... ISD7 cST - ;v:cor,~p LSM """ - ""'. _. .""'\ ,tIftII', """ ,-. ""I "'" .'-, ,-. .""'\ ,-. - N '" "- ....",.. !!'. :; N It):..-... """ TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL. FREE PHONE NUMBERS '"" , "~~ /~~):>.. fb~:~ / r(~~,~,> C ~'U- <0' "".,;::,/ '\." ~(~~ ~\,./ o~ ;:::.:J:!F..s-<"" ." ~ \~ r.'V' '~'" ,.~. ~v ,~g'</~~ V ~<tv"<' April 14, 1983 ,-, ,-, William F. Maughan 2555 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Apartment 802 Washington, D.C. 20037 RECEIVED f\?R \. ~3 J Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: I am a property owner in Aspen (Aspen Square) and have been skiing and spending time in the summers in Aspen every year for the past fifteen years. In addition, I have many friends who love the town and spend time there for the same reasons. I introduced many of them to the town. In this connection, Aspen's attractions have always been its open spaces and high quality skiing and ski access. I personally, and speaking for my friends as well, would have to oppose any movement or action that would threaten that experience. I f Aspen becomes another Vail or the like with high density development and a city-like atmosphere, I and the others will go elsewhere. I am, therefore, opposed to any rezoning in the immediate area surrounding the lift access to Aspen Mountain. One of the major accomplishments of your Commission and others in the City Government has been the preservation of the open space quality of the town. Please keep it that way. wm:om J04h 4 ...T ,.f ^ RECEIVED APR \ 9 198~ JJb ..- r Cl--1 VcA ~.D ~:///cr/ OJ?/?O~_Cf ./0 Ui~(~Y- ~(/c;p,: /7/1/ h r c /O/.2.p 0 /"1/ O/?;Z, ;7 /"'Vc / / Ii J' '1 i:' l' !; 11 I! . ii II ii I' i; I, I, Ii 11 !i Ii ii I' Ii ,I 11 !i il j: I' II Ii ., j! ,I Ii ii ii ii Ii I. i: 'I i: I' Ii I, 11 I! ;....~~...",_;:..;;....-'-""..",.~.c..'.M~'._:."..;;.;:.;;,.;.~".,~,-''''_;...,'',,,'...""...,.....,.,.;;."":..,,.. .>. I -; . .. " Q . :";--"""'"''''~':''''''''' "".~'.'""~-"..""",, ~,~~, o ~ Q 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. J I Published in the Aspen Times on 3.....bI'1-S'"3 . ,;,: '. , :(. , ' . ~ ~ . , ASPEN SKIING COMPANY . ,~;0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE. AIRPORT BlJSINESSCENTER . BOX 1248 . ASPEN,COLORAOO 81612 . PHONE 303/925-1-220 March 24, 19'83 Dear Property Owner: In the near future you will be receiving from the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office a notification of the Aspen Skiing Company's ' intention to expand the Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) designation to all of the I and. owned by our company at the base of Little Nell. By writing this letter I hope to explain our intentions and hope- fully answer, or make mysel f a va i I abl e to answer, any ques t ions you might have in this regard. . There are currently three different zoning classifications on the property: (,omlnerc i al core (c. c. ). lodge (Ll) and conserva t ion (c) with the cOlllmercial eore zone being overlaid by an S.P.A. d",;igna- lion. lncreasing the S.P.A, designation over the entire parcel will not grant us any development rights but will eliminate the piecemeal nature of the property and allow both us and the City to look at the entire area in one comprehensive process. . This S.P.A. designation does not short cut orelitDinate any of the other approval processes. It is an overlay ~o the entire area that assures a complete and.thorough evaluation of.any development submission bybotb the planning and zoning commiss:ion and the city counci I. . i I I .~ I While we have not determined what sort of development might be appropriate on that site, we believe that because of the importance and sensitivity of the parcel that a "precise plan" for the area is appropriate. If I can answer any questions or clarify any,thing, please give me a call. I FlO,el" 0 ~ \~ \..:= ' Peter Forsch Manager Housing/Transportation ,PF/cls ASPEN MOUNTAIN BunERMILK MOUNTAIN SNOW MASS BRECKENRIDGE I '~-~.~ . ... " .. ... '!' .... , ... .... ?j~'''' .........- ,: .500 ' - - - - -_ .... ,-- .... "' ---- -._- ~ ~ - - -"\ Z NED c c - Vl en .~ 1- 0- Vl .c - ;) o Vl Cl) c o - III "0 8 ;:: .--._-----,-~-..--- ~ ... ... , "' ". , .;J' .,.,.'" ~ "' - , -- .A'}pen-t.nJ<.d ~ - - - - .. - ," " - .- ". , ". , -, , , , , ,. , , o z AREA TO BE DEOSIGNATED SPA - 'now zoned conservation', o c 2 "' u ~fl . o. 0.. ...,. . . . .. . . . ES . NTL'"Y PA-CC Durant' A venue : ASPEN . SQUARE . ..... Dean Av. III Cl) .. u < >- ,C o .r:. - c < North of Nell