HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Institute,Meadows & Others.1970-75 ..
5000 watts, 1260 Kilocycles
aspen broadcasting company, inc. R S ii 0
box e, aspen, colorado 81611
phone 925-7383
November 25, 1975
Attention: Bill Kane, Jack Jenkins and City of Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission also Mayor Stacey Stanley and
City Attorney Sandra Stuller;
This letter constitutes an official objection to the proposed,
suggested and discussed zoning, developement and land use
by The Aspen Ins • ute of Humanistic Studies for the open lands
and riding ring in Wei Aspen.
It is my experience and knowledge that Walter Paepcke willed and
intended, through personal communications with me, to always
keep this beautiful and inspiring, green., open area to enhance
the cultural side of Aspen., unspoiled and natural in order to
propogate the humanities. This is a very important aspect to
the true Aspen idea. Mr. Paepcke bought these lands for a very
few dollars and gave them to the Institute, "knowing" that they would
always be safe and preserved by so doing!
We are waiting to hear about discoveries by Ms. Stuller concerning
the search into fesibility of creating a Historic or Conservation
overlay on the entire riding ring area based on Mr. Paepcke 's
wishes, tax—gift. legalities or any possible preservation possibilities
based on this research.
If the Aspen Institute would live within it ' s means and balance it ' s
books it would not be necessary to create a sea of roofs,
congestion and pollution and destruction where cultural Aspen should
be. To loose the identity of this part of our meaning and the
only open space in this part of town is of grave concern to everyone
here.
Res .- - ully submitted, ,
s- �"
.. •ara McLoughl n
Box 1265
Aspen, Colo. 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, am' box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICK MAHONEY 'vr
DATE: AUGUST 20 , 1975
RE : UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO/ASPEN INSTITUTE
I have had numerous inquiries from individuals at the
University of Colorado for the City' s attitude con-
cerning university/institute plans. I believe this
matter deserves council time and have requested that
we discuss it under City Manager business on August 25th.
cc: Sandra Stuller
ccg
1!712,.^ 77: 7,2 f"■:! ,c),TIES POST,9°
• 0 t'
1 .7 ^, !.—.7
LAJ
MailgrA
Iwo
U.S.MAIL rn
* nommunim
— (-1 n 7 e:/7 nr-7 T n.17- 7 r(zr M1a PJCL
(.7: r' 1 7 r- Tn7/ 1-17F.1',77.7 rr- r _ r 7 A p
flTV i0L- 1
rfi f!..1 T a ii777
T TV 11 P, ,1
■,.1
"1 4I 1
A rn; "7"7"YA TTr11.1 rflp,/ ny:." '2P71/T(2, 1TCly 7-7T •rr...)A
iN 7‘ Tr 'P" e. 7 7 7 NI Cr, '. . T 2.7 TA t.1 n T 'or! 2 T ("'1 77
T "17n. r.'"A 1 77 TT ".'n !1T-' e'r) Tr '\ c."17'7 T 7.!! IT A 7 r.ir.T f", T 77'.1
7.11/N " MV rtyno 7',..7"11.7"," "MT 917?r) .A1 7 7v • y7
TIJ T V(.7 ` 7YPT(''TT kt r A 1-.) 7(77" 7 A r.r. mp . 6 r,^ C•
r' T TT f !7*.TT "7' (7! !:!, r.! 77,7" T 7„..n 77) TI"
T 1T r) Tu 7n n T717, TTI l'+'17.7TT N'r! TIT T TT T!! t v-7777(7 l'771,'•
Apr.D•4 7117 ( t \1t'TI T,■ 1,,T ?or", r T &IT TT 1 TT T " 7y7
7 I r. n T T T !!,7 Tr,, P m T T',, T 7 -T-1 r T-; T A
7.* r 7)7 T);-.1 A . •t ',I 1r/) y T " ' Tm T r
'")'171 I 1.T 7( 7"i7f'TAN/
1Thr) \IA I.., ."1/T T2 ! 'T 7 7 A r•,7 ^, Tr.1') Mry•
17" 7.2fltAnT,1Y C 't TT
1,7r, rn - nr
r
on-,v; ,,s1n.
cc
Li)
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
J/Yt2 April 5 , 1973
City Council
City of Aspen
P. 0. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
For the past six months a committee representing the Aspen Chamber
of Commerce, the Aspen Theatre Institute, Ballet West, the Music Assoc-
iates of Aspen and the business interests of Snowmass , has been meeting
to solve a problem which faces each organization: how to successfully
represent their quality programs so that the summer visitor will fully
respond.
We have in mind a joint program which, we feel, is totally consis-
tant with the prevailing efforts in Aspen to improve the quality of life
here while restricting its growth. This program would publicize its sum-
mer activities to persons and families who would be attracted primarily
by Aspen's cultural events. Hopefully, they would make extended visits
and would utilize its lodging, its shops and restaurants. The committee
feels that for the foreseeable future, attracting more visitors of the
type we have in mind will fill the under-utilized facilities available
here in the summertime, creating a better balance of visitation summer
and winter. Because of the imbalance which now exists, we do not feel
that this effort will create appreciable pressures for growth.
The committee and its associated organizations deplores the summer-
time trend, which appears to be developing, of increased visitation by
campers who tend not to participate in the community's cultural or economic
life but who, on the other hand, serve to clutter and litter our surroundings.
Each organization now advertises to its own constituency separately
and inadequately. Since the various constituencies involved overlap to a
very large extent, it becomes quite obvious that a properly funded, joint
community effort will be far more productive than the sum of a series of
fragmented undertakings.
The results of these meetings which took place was to design an
effective vehicle that would enhance Aspen's cultural image. The committee
funded and produced art work for a common mailing and high quality brochure
to be available in substantial quantity. The committee estimates that
City Council Page 2 .
additional funds in the order of $20,000 to $40,000 will be required to
print the brochures and to distribute them. The cost, of course, would
vary with the extent of the effort. A modest portion of the funds required
can be obtained from the cultural organizations which are limited because
they can benefit only from increased ticket sales as a result of such a
program.
The committee spent several months exploring ways in which to raise
the remaining funds from local commercial entities, but because of the frag-
mentation and absence of organization of these various business groups in
Aspen and Snowmass, the committee concluded that funding the program
entirely from private sources appears to be impossible. Reluctantly, the
committee further concluded that if this program is to be carried out at all
it will require public financial support. It is the purpose of this letter,
therefore, to solicit the financial participation on the part of the City and
County.
When Walter Paepcke dreamt of building a model community in Aspen,
he thought in terms of three major elements: work, play, and culture. It
is in the interest of perpetuating and strengthening the latter that the under-
signed submit this proposal to you.
Sincerely, ON BEHALF OF:
THE ASPEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Jame j. Pa e
ASPEN THEATRE INSTITUTE
Ms. Nancy Di
BALLE/T''WEST - - - -
Ms. Pat Dasko
M SIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN
CAI
Edgar B 41& ern, Jr.
BUSINE S INTERESTS OF SNOWMASS
J n Francis ���
• 4
CITY4f k S PEN
130 so � �� � .,
street
aspen , "� ` ` 81 61 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 9, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FROM:W1m-andra M. Stuller
RE: Land Use Regulation of the Institute Property
Bill Kane is receiving constant inquiries concerning
independent purchases and development of parcels of the Aspen
Institute property, all of which are precipitating the need for
formulation of a policy by the City Council so that city admin-
istrators (and reviewing boards, particularly the P & Z) can
respond to inquiries and development permission requests and
not undermine the overall objectives of the Council for the pro-
perty. Consequently, at the noon Council Meeting held March 9th,
we were directed to submit for discussion on the agenda for the
22nd the question as to how you wish us to proceed with Institute
and D.U. requests in the near future.
Effective Regulations
The parcel is presently zoned Specially Planned Area
(SPA) which anticipates that the entire tract will be masterplanned
(and the masterplan approved by the P & Z and City Council in the
same manner as zoning is adopted) before any development (requiring
issuance of a building permit) occurs on the tract. Essentially
SPA procedures provide for the adoption of a very precise plan for
the area (designating uses, densities, off-street parking, height
limits, et cetera) which will act as a minature zone code for the
area; and once adopted, building permits may issue only for develop-
!ent recognized in the plan. The Physics Institute is considering
construction this spring but is precluded from any construction
absent a fully approved masterplan for the entire site. This is one
area of concern.
The second is the proposed transfer of ownership of the
"academic core" area to D.U. Section 20-3 (s) of the Municipal Code
defines "subdivision" as follows:
?embers of City Council
March 9, 1976
-Page 2-
(s) Subdivision. A subdivision or subdivided land is
defined as:
(1) A tract of land which is divided into two
or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate
interests (including leasehold interests) , in-
terests in common, or other division for the
purpose, whether immediate or future, of trans-
fer of ownership, or for building or other
development, or for street use by reference to
such subdivision or recorded plat thereof.
The D.U. grant, if given by deed of the tract condituting the core,
would definitely fall within the definition of subdivision activity,
and the Institute has been so advised. Dill is also receiving in-
quiries about development that is premised on conveyance of the
Meadows and other areas to third parties, all of which concern him.
These two recent events demonstrate my two areas of con-
cern with respect to the land, namely, (1) we will, by permitting a
series of small construction activities, preclude the development of
an overall integrated masterplan of the area (as well as relieve
the pressure on the Institute to provide such a plan) , and (2) we
will make more difficult (legally and practically) the implementation
of an overall development plan by putting ownership in different
hands, each of which owners may have different objectives for the
tract they own and limitations on their ability to develop simulta-
neously with other owners. To prevent the undermining of the pur-
ooses of SPA zoning, we must, at the start, clear the air as to
where we are going, and know that the City Council supports the
posture we, in house, assume.
Recent Rezoning Request
Let me recap the proceedings before the P & Z on the re-
cent Institute rezoning requests because they amply demonstrate the
tension between the Institute and City to date.
The rezoning application requested elimination of the
SPA designation and consisted, essentially, of parceling the
Institute' s 113 acres into various zone districts already described
in the Zoning Code, namely R-6 , R-15 , C-1, L-2 and A(academic) . The
proposal was designed to eliminate the need to masterplan the entire
site, and to designate different areas into distinct zone districts.
The P & Z , after a very volitile public hearing on the application
refused the request. I would like to repeat at length the findings
and conclusions of the Commission on the application (recited in
their Resolution dated November 18th) because they articulate well
Members of City Council
March 9, 1976
-Page 3-
the reason for SPA designation and the appropriateness of the zone
district for this site.
The Commission resolution begins by making these findings
with respect to the Institute parcel:
a. The Institute property remains as the largest
undeveloped tract of land within the City of Aspen and
its development will have significant impact on the
Aspen Community warranting the closest scrutiny by
this Commission.
b. The requested rezoning would create the
potential for unacceptable high intensity commercial ,
lodge and residential uses, as well as permit the
continuation of the academic activities on the site.
c. The Institute property includes areas of
limited suitability for development and is serviced
by an access road (Meadows Road) which has a carrying
capacity substantially less than the need that could
be generated by development pursuant to the requested
zoning.
d. The Institute property is bounded by river
frontage and severe slopes on the north and west, and
a low-density residential neighborhood to the south,
all of which limit accessibility and create unique
problems for the development of the site which may
not be addressed if the requested proposal is granted.
e. "luch of Aspen' s heritage is contained and main-
tained with the West End of the City and careful site
planning and architectural review, not guaranteed by
the requested rezoning, will be needed to preserve the
quality of this environment.
f. Historically, the Aspen Institute has rendered
a cultural service for the Aspen citizenry by providing
the site for the summer music festival, and the viability
of this program as a cultural activity, and the summer
tourist attraction, must be maintained.
g. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the
Institute site as unique and suitable for institutional
development, a land use objective not satisfied by the
Institute' s present zoning proposal.
Members of City Council
March 9, 1976
-Page 4-
The Commission then went on with its conclusions which
found the retention of the site as an SPA desirable and appropriate
because:
a. SPA is a zone designation created by the American
Law Institute, incorporated in its Model Land Development
Code, and suggested for relatively undeveloped land where
there is anticipated some demand for development in the
near future but where it is desirable to discourage small,
scattered and uncontrolled developments.
b. The SPA designation precludes premature develop-
ment and assures that an entire site will be developed in
a compatible manner. This development technique permits
as much flexibility as possible in determining the content
of a precise plan, but once the precise plan has been
adopted it becomes the development regulation for the
specially planned area, precluding inconsistent future
development.
c. If zoning is ever to be a tool of effective and
rational planning it is essential that it be future-directed
in cases where the present status of the land gives no
indication as to its ultimate best use.
The Institute, at the end of the hearing, indicated a will-
ingness to accept the SPA designation, if permitted to proceed with a
PUD/subdivision application where it would be able to get conceptual
and preliminary approvals before expanding large amounts of planning
moneys. It was anticipated that the PUD/subdivision development
plan would, on final approval, constitute the final site plan
anticipated by the SPA zone district. The P & Z encouraged the
Institute to take this approach. To date, the Institute has neither
filed a PUD/subdivision application nor appealed the P & Z zoning
request denial to the City Council. Once again the City and Institute
are at a standstill.
Purchase Proposal
No discussion on this matter would be complete absent
some comment on the possibility of City purchase of the site. Mick,
in a letter to Joe Slater dated January 2nd, suggested the purchase of
all the Institute land (with the exception of the academic core) for
approximately $3. 75 million. IIe arrived at this figure by calculating
that:
,
Members of City Council
March 9, 1976
-'Page 5-
a. The developable area for residential homes at
the minimum would bring $1 million.
b. The trustee homes at $120, 000 each would bring
$1 million.
c. The revenue from the operation of the Meadows
should capitalize out at $1 million.
d. The land of an additional 200 units should
value at about $400, 000.
e. This leaves a balance of $350, 000 which the
City would purchase as open space land from the Sixth
Penny.
Mick estimated that the residential areas would accommodate approximately
fifty (50) units. Towever, his estimate of $1 million capital value in
the Meadows (based on anticipated revenues) must now be reduced because
the Kreske Building will be given to D.U. as part of its gift.
Conclusion
The administrative request being made to the Council is for
some help with dealing with the myriad of information requests made
by Institute representatives and potential developers of the site as
to how the City will react to any number of development schemes pro-
posed for the site.
SS/pk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council , Mick Mahoney, Sandra Stuller
FROM: Bill Kane
RE: Aspen Institute Specially Planned Area/Denver University
Subdivision
DATE: March 22, 1976
The purpose of this memo is to state the planning staff's perception
of City policy regarding the development of the Aspen Institute site
and advise the Council of our posture in dealing with the continuous
string of inquiries from private developers regarding the land de-
velopment potential .
Two documents clearly state the advised City position to date re-
garding development of the Institute
1. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution dated 11/18/75
which sets forth the planning background and rationale
for the existing Specially Planned Area requirement
for the site. Most of this reasoning is grounded in the
uniqueness of the site which derives from
a) its size of 120 acres;
b) its undeveloped condition;
c) its location being nested within an established
low density neighborhood, and
d) the quasi-public nature of the property and the
institute itself.
Much suspicion still exists which suggests that the County
gave the land to Walter Paepke for public purposes.
2. Sandra Stuller's memo to Ctiy Council dated March 9, 1976
which concisely reviews the history of City-Institute
negotiations and restates the City Planning and Zoning
Commission's position outlined in the above mentioned
memo.
With an impending request for conveyance of the 30 acre "academic
core" of the institute land to Denver University the time seems
appropriate to once again state the Planning Office's recommendation
regarding the entire site.
1. We feel that the Specially Planned Area (SPA) requirement
for the entire 120 acres is justified and necessary in
light of the unique site characteristics described in the
Planning and Zoning metro of 11/12/75.
2. The D.U. subdivision request highlights the need for a
comprehensive site development plan in that such a con-
veyance will separate the operation of the program and
accomodation elements of the plan. In short the concern
has always been that independent development of the Meadows
area would lead to excessive number of beds that would
appeal to skier tourists rather than provide housing
needed to support the program elements. On the other
hand, should programs be expanded beyond the housing
capability of the Meadows, inevitable costs will be
forced on the community in the form of transportation
cost and competition for inflationary pressures on the
housing supply.
Aspen Institute
March 22, 1976
Page Two
Should Denver University pursue extensive undergraduate
programs, transportation and housing requirements will
be hard if not impossible to meet to say nothing of the
exacerbation of the skiing season pass problem.
3. We sympathize with the Institute's stated problem of
excessive operation cost and certainly understand their
interest in attracting a partner to share in such costs.
However, we will advise Planning and Zoning and Council
that under no circumstances should the D.U. gift provide
an escape from the overall S.P.A. requirement. Off hand,
I would say that we should support the subdivision only
if a legal means can be devised to totally subordinate
D.U. 's planning and building rights to the overall Institute
S.P.A. (120 acres).
4. It is an overall site planning goal to preserve the
functional open space in the interior of the site and
transfer allowable single family homesites to suitable
lands at the periphery of the site. Such a transfer
would not be possible without overall site plan. The
riding ring, and surrounding area has been repeatedly
recommended for open space preservation.
5. It may be in the interests of the City to accept a straight
land dedication in the event of subdivision. Such lands
would be valuable for trail dedication and flood plain
protection purposes. A comprehensive development plan would
allow the City to relate all potential dedications as a
whole.
6. The automobile impact on the neighborhood and concommitant
requirements for city street development can not be
adequately evaluated on the piecemeal basis that the
institute envisions.
7. Should the subdivision of 30 acres of the site be approved
with the above mentioned conditions no considerations
should be given to an additional fragmental conveyance
of the Meadows property alone.
The Institute seems resolute in its avoidance of the S.P.A. process.
Various excuses for non-compliance have been offered but the central
reason suggested to date is cost. The high cost for preparation of
adequate plans has never been admitted as a basis for excluding pro-
visions of the subdivision ordinance in the past and we feel that
it should not be one now. Our Planning Commission and City Attorney
have worked on this tedious problem with the planning staff, Mr. Milhan
of the Institute and their legal counsel . The Institute was advised
and agreed through the consent of Mr Milhan and Mr. Levin that
Ordinance #71, 1975 (new three step P.U.D. Ordinance) would provide
clear guidelines for the preparations of plans necessary to fulfill
the S.P.A. requirements through this plan, assurances could be given
in three steps to allow a hierachy of investment and specific detail .
This agreement prevailed after two lengthy public hearings and
innumerable work sessions with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To date, the Institute has responded with several schemes to subdivide
and further fragment the property in a fashion that is totally in-
consistent with the spirit and intent of the S.P.A. requirement.
For these reasons and those planning concepts delineated in the Planning
and Zoning Commission Resolution of 11/18/75 the staff will doggedly
adhere to the S.P.A. requirement for the entire 120 acre parcel of
the Institute lands and advise all prospective developers of the same.
This will be our position unless otherwise directed by the City Council .
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies Post Office Box 219
.% Aspen Colorado 81611 U.S.A.
303 925 7010
.Y
August 23, 1971
R.O.Anderson Chairman
J.E.Slater President Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Post Office Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Again, let me tell you how much I appreciated the oppor-
tunity to appear before the Board at its recent meeting to explain
the origin and intent of the Master Plan for the development and
preservation of the land of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic
Studies.
I reported at our annual Board of Trustees' meeting July
3rd that the Master Plan had been formally presented to the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission. I further reported that the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended that we survey our land
according to the areas of intended use proposed in the Master Plan
and submit this survey as the basis for rezoning of our land.
Our Board, after careful consideration of your request,
decided that the Master Plan, which has been formally approved by
them and filed with the City, is adequate protection for the City,
County and Institute, and offers a clear-cut guide for the future
planning and development for all concerned.
There were several specific points our Board asked me to
relay to you. The first deals with your request for information on
our intentions for the density of the development of the recreation/
commercial section of the Master Plan, namely the area of the
immediate vicinity of the Meadows and Four Seasons. It is the
intention of the Board to keep the density of the area as low as
possible. If there is any change at all, we do not see more than a
doubling of the room accommodations in the future for this area.
The Master Plan we filed indicates where such new buildings would
be located.
The second point deals with the long-range intention of the
City and County for land use adjacent to Institute property.
II
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2.
If we are to keep the majority of our land undeveloped and green,
we would like an assurance from the City and County that a serious
effort will be made to reciprocate by providing green, undeveloped
land adjacent to our property wherever feasible. This appears to
us possible along most of our border on the east side of the Roaring
Fork River; part of the area south of Roaring Fork Road; and ad-
jacent to our btundary west of Castle Creek north of Red Butte
Cemetery.
Finally, the City has zoned 100 and 150-foot residential
strips north of Gillespie Street and east of Meadow Lane and all
of our land west of Castle Creek, for reasons that were never
fully clear to us, since we never intended to develop any of that
land residentially, as can be seen from the Master Plan. We would
like to request that the City change this zoning back to AR-2, as
originally zoned by the City, or to a zoning compatible with the use
indicated in the Master Plan.
In arriving at these decisions, the Board took into con-
sideration the fact that the Institute has always been a good
institutional citizen in the City of Aspen, in particular in terms of
the manner in which it has purchased, restored, preserved and
used the land it owns. As a result of the stewardship of our
property, land values have appreciated considerably, and continue
to do so near our borders. Our Board believes that the Institute's
record of the use of this land for the past twenty-two yeaIs,
reinforced by the concrete indication of our intention for future
use specified in the Master Plan, therefore gives the City and
County adequate assurance that this land will be maintained and
preserved in the best interest of the City, County and Institute in
its present form. I hope this action is satisfactory. If you have any
questions, please let me know.
Sincez'ely,
.�i
Rowan Wakefield
Executive Vice President
CC: Mr. Herbert Bayer
- e
....71,644.
. /
. _
•5 17')
22 June, 1970
Metro Report to: City of Aspen Plannin ,F, Zoninj . •
Commission
- - - .. . . . . ...... ...........
Subje -: Re-zoning' in the Vicinity (:)-' the
1 „. . 77; itute
UpgradinT; zoning in this area from AR-2 to R-15
should present no probles providinE adecluate
le7a1 notification is :la.de to all property owners
and the required public hearinr is held. Since
this resuest oriinated frio property owners in
the vicinity, a checi:: should be Lade by the Cac.mis-
sion to determine the nature and e::tent 0: any
non-conforminz uses vhicR could be created by the
application of :lo-se restrictive zonin:„
�3-0
Aspen, Colorado
Mask 18, 1970
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
We wish to call to you attention certain discrepancies pertaining_to the
official Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as related to
the official County Zoning Map. The problem is as follows:
1. Those areas abutting the North side of Gillespie Street, the
Aspen Company Subdivision, and that area abutting the East
side of Meadow Lane are now, under the present Zoning Map,
zoned AR-2 (Tourist).
Prior to the effective date of the North Side Annexation, said areas were •
zoned 1;-15 Residential. The boundaries delineating that area which was
Residential were clearly set forth on the official County Zoning Map and
the City Zoning Map prior to April 3, 1967. I refer you in particular to
Footnotes 1, 2 and 3 of the official County Zoning Map.
In checking the minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, we find
no reference or reason given as to why this change occurred, other than the
City's official Zoning Map was drawn to conform to the Leo H. Daly Master Plan.
We feel that this change in boundaries between the Tourist area and the Resi-
dential area along Gillespie Street, Meadow Lane and the Aspen Company Subdivi-
sion was the result of a drafting error. If the said boundaries are in compliance
with the Master Plan, they are so only because the people who drew up the maps
for the Master Plan were unfamiliar with the area and the background setting
forth these original boundaries. I am sure it was not the intent of the Leo H.
Daly Company to zone one of the finest residential areas in Aspen as Accommodations
and Recreation, nor were they aware of the very important reasons for establishing
a 150-foot buffer area for the residential areas along Gillespie Street and
Meadow Lane. One planning maxim has always been "like areas should face like
areas" and certainly residential property should not face directly across the
street from potential tourist property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 2
May 18, 1970 -
Therefore, the following signatories respectfully request that the City
Planning and Zoning Commission conduct a formal hearing concerning this
matter and set in motion the necessary legal procedures to rectify what
we feel is a technical omission.
Respectfully submitted,
* i c U,% /, ', !.�. - �,��,,' `.t mot_
//•,, r. __s C. 1 \\., •-1\( C--
..A 0--:(..(:(1., / 6 Ar:',;'('(' )
\ , , i ., -,--, _ ,- ...S' ke) .t.1.--C. e) R ---C rfC:(ci
,t... --.'ft? L..."1,1-111,-(,,. ds•.,tl,t.'s ^ R.- 1?,29 i •i 4-'e.`l�r' � ✓` . mss_
iG.:i.i�- .rte:{.. /1^.i.-i i�.�ca ;/,n- l�/ . i.C.
� r ✓,// I -?/1 y'!�",,,4.. , C-Ci/_,^2:---%'f>G��r/,sue/
'.''' ,...,7,. , .,„ / -) /D. .? 41--,-", (s.. '9411/(7.2.--('.
y 4 \ i
s � J N
P. J.tox2t' ASPEN
Aspen,Co or,Jo 81611 ;
Area Code 303-025-7010 Founded by Walter P.6'aepcke 1549
J
• Vs y/-7
•
June 12, 1970
Y
--)(/
Mr. Robin Molny
Chairman
City of Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission
Post Office Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Robin:
It has been brought to the attention of the Aspen Institute that the
area in which the Institute/Meadows complex is located, when
annexed to the City, was zoned improperly. According to the
latest zoning district map, the entire Aspen Institute and Aspen
Meadows area and part of a sub-divided residential area are zoned
AR-2 -- Accommodations and Recreation.
It was the intention of both the County and City Planning & Zoning
Commissions, I believe, when the Institute area was annexed, to
keep the same zoning as it had with the County but transferred to
City status. What I think has happened is that the Master Plan
shows the entire area as AR-2, which is incorrect. There is an
area called the "second Aspen Company subdivision" with property
owned by Mr. Robert O. Anderson, Mr. John Merriam, Mr.
•
Henry Pedersen, Mrs. Cleveland and Mr. Viersen. Their sub-
divided lots zoned originally R-15, are now zoned AR-2.
In checking the County zoning map prior to the annexation to the
City, I noted there were areas of R-15 -- Tourist -- for land around
the Institute and Aspen Meadows and an R-15 area for the sub-
divided residential section. The County also had setbacks along
Meadows Lane and Gillespie Street.
The Aspen Institute would like as soon as possible, as would the
owners of the property in the second Aspen Company subdivision,
Ay y
2.
to schedule a public hearing to have the zoning changed.
I would be most happy to meet with the Planning & Zoning
Commission in regard to the proper zoning for the Aspen
Institute and Aspen Meadows area.
Thank you for your consideration and I will look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
King R. Woodward
General Manager
KRW:vc
June 22, 1970
TO : Report to City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jerry Brown
SUBJECT: Re-zoning in the vicinity of Aspen Institute
Upgrading zoning in this area from AR-2 to R-15 should present
no problems providing adequate legal notification is made to all
property owners and the required public hearing is held.
Since this request originated from property owners in the
vicinity, a check should be made by the Commission to determine the
nature and extent of any non-conforming uses which could be created
by the application of more restrictive zoning.
/s/ Jerry Brown
by L. Graves
-..s._•.,:....,.. -....:r:.,..... .._,::.w. was..:+,...._ ..,•,v:.:,.r,«a-a..ar...:.�.:,...:...,;:,..a-..n.e� i. ...a._.+. ...;;<.s•_+.w- +.........::.,.,,,.<;. .,.. .,-._....u..�;.,e_s•...,....:w..:..._...G,u.x.,..,._..._.w..,.r:,.i... ..............ww_a.�.W_.......,�...,.._.....
000
Aspen, Colorado
August 10, 1970
City Council
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
Re: August 24 Public Hearing, City Council
and July 14 Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing.
On May 18, 1970, a group of concerned citizens (having noted discrepancies in
Zoning Boundaries) requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to take certain
steps to correct errors and/or omissions in the zoning'of the North Side Annexa-
tion along Gillespie Street, Meadow Lane and the Aspen Company Subdivision.
After having considered the request on July 14 at a public hearing, the Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Aspen Company Subdivision zoning
be changed from AR-2 to R-15; however, no action was taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission concerning the so-called setback or buffer area which was zoned
R-15 prior to the North side Annexation, other than some verbal assurances "that
the Planning and Zoning Commission would consider at some future date a new
zoning classification for the Institute property".
Having had previous experience in these matters, what concerns the undersigned
is that this specific matter will be pigeonholed, shelved, lost or overlooked
as the result of changes in the membership and/or the continuity of the commission
goals. With all due respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission, we do not feel
that this Board has given sufficient consideration to the original request, which
asked that the area in question be brought to conform to the zoning classification
and boundaries in existence prior to the Northside annexation. In other words,
we requested that an obvious error and/or omission by the City of Aspen as a result
of the Northside Annexation be corrected. It is the feeling of the undersigned
that said changes were improper and did not follow the prescribed procedures as
required under the law.
We realize that it would be most desirable to reclassify the Institute property;
however, in view of the present circumstances concerning the disposal of real
estage by the Institute, we have no assurance, other than zoning, that tourist
type accommodations will not be constructed along Meadow Lane and Gillespie Street.
Therefore, the undersigned respectfully petition the City Council to refer back to the
City Planning and Zoning Commission the matter of re-zoning the Aspen Company
Subdivision from AR-2 to R-15 and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission
resubmit zoning classifications and boundaries, which were requested by the
undersigned and which were in existence prior to the Northside Annexation.
i ,,',; „, et. 1
/ ( , Respectfully submitted.,
()''
L (6'. ---e
ZI; fe?4-t'' ''7--''' f---A /%
/S .74--- . ,
\ j ,:_,...- cs ) ------/r1; / .:,
(14.4-'If L Lc, N C.,,?_...?" ,t_;_../::_,"(1_,i
r ,
l
i
._- f (
''i y 7. —� rte' `,✓(./"� ( 2" / ' --
j
,2M444-j4
7°
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM'.3 C.F.HOECKEL 8.8.9 L.Cl.
RESOLUTION
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WHEREAS , a request was made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to initiate re-zoning of the area known as Institute/
Meadows Complex, Second Aspen Company Subdivision' and property
abutting Gillespie Avenue and Meadow Lane, and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled
and held a public meeting on July 14, 1970.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends the City Council schedule a public hearing
to re-zone the area zoned R-15 immediately preceding the North
Side Annexation known as Second Aspen Company Subdivision and
the area west of Castle Creek to R-15 .
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends that the remaining property under con-
sideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission be held in
abeyance until such time as a line of demarcation is established
between the Aspen Meadows and the Aspen Institute by the owners
of said property.
(I—,-,1.) /;
// 7 --/ 7,2
Robin Molny, ,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning
/970
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM•0 C.F.MOECKEL 8.B.&L.CO.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, a request was made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to initiate re-zoning of the areas known as Institute/
Meadows Complex, Second Aspen Company Subdivision, property abutting
Gillespie Avenue and Meadows Lane and the Aspen Institute Property
- west of Castle Creek all presently zoned AR-2; and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled and
held a public hearing on July 14, 1970; and
WHEREAS , a certified copy of the Pitkin County Zoning Map
dated January 1963 has been submitted to the City of Aspen showing
zoning of the areas stated above prior to annexation to the City;
and
WHEREAS , the intention at the time of annexation was to zone
the area in the City to correspond with the previous zoning in the
County prior to annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends the City Council re-zone the areas mentioned
in the foregoing as follows :
Institute/Meadows Complex AR-2 with a buffer strip
along Gillespie Street of 100 ' zoned R-6 and a
buffer strip along Meadows Lane of 150 ' zoned R-15
and Institute Property west of Castle Creek zoned
R-15
and as indicated on the attached map.
Ro b'in Molny, Chairman
ATTEST :
,!//'
Lorraine Graves , Secretary
DATED THIS 22 DAY OF September , 1970
1
CiTy PEN
asp � ,.,
September 22, 1970
Aspen Institute
P. 0 . Box 219
Aspen, Colorado
Attention:. King Woodward
Dear Mr. Woodward:
I am enclosing herewith an excerpt of the City Council pro-
ceedings of September 17th of which Council request I notify
you of the proceedings relating to the re-zoning request.
Please note the Council is concerned the re-zoning of the
Meadows/Institute properties not be delayed beyond January of
1971 and have requested land descriptions be submitted prior
to the first regular meeting of Council in January which is
the 12th.
Since the City Council meeting referred to in this letter, a
certified map has been received from the County that does show
that a buffer zone was adopted by the County. The Planning and
Zoning Commission will be acting on the buffer zone at their
meeting scheduled for September 22nd.
Sincerely,
h �.c. j .C.1 tli
Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Enc.
Y ..r'o'c r e4 ,.. ,._. .... ..• .�[.. -a . mrtLa ,W.+rv'
Adjourned Meeting, Aspen City Council, 9/17/70
s '
Councilman Comcowich questioned if the designation of Wurl
and Kern to negoiate would exclude; the services of Nature
Conservancy. Manager Wurl reported he had talked to Nature
Conservancy and they indicated their services are available
at anytime during the negoiations . They prefer the City to
begin the preliminary negoiations .
4. - Designation of an appraiser. Manager Wurl submitted
the following suggestions , reporting all were familiar with
the Aspen area : Justin Haynes and Company; A. L. Laffon; and
Frank Nisely, Jr.
Council instructed Manager Wurl to notify the proper parties . ' r
Board and Board and Commission, removal of Members - Councilman Whitaker
Commissions - stated he was concerned and felt an ordinance -should be
Removal of Members prepared outlining the proper procedure for removal of members .
Councilman Comcowich stated he felt the Charter members desired
to leave this flexible.
Councilman Comcowich moved to table discussion on drafting of
an ordinance at this time. Seconded by Councilman Walls . Roll
call vote - Councilmen Vare aye ; Whitaker nay; Walls aye ;
Comcowich aye ; Griffin nay; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried.
Meeting Date Manager Wurl outlined to Council the first meeting in October
falls on Columbus Day. Councilman Whitaker moved the first
regular meeting of the City Council in October be scheduled
for October 14th. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. All in
favor, motion carried.
Re-zoning Request Re-zoning Request - Councilman Whitaker reported he and Council
man Walls had attended the last Planning and Zoning meeting of
which the Planning and Zoning Commission requests the City
Council at this time consider re-zoning of the Second Aspen
Company Subdivision to R-15 ; the Planning and Zoning Commission
has not been able to locate an official map indicating that a
buffer zone existed at anytime; the Institute and Meadows
properties require designation of property lines so zoning can
be considered. Mr. Woodward representing the Meadows and
Institute indicated the information on property lines would be
submitted to the Commission the first of 1971.
Councilman Walls explained if R-40 classification is placed on
the Institute property along with Planned Unit Development
this will take care of the buffer zone. Any development under
PUD would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Council authorized Attorney Kern to prepare an ordinance
calling for R-15 zoning of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision
and in the meantime the City Administration investigate all
sources as to wheter a buffer zone ever existed.
Council further agreed a deadline of January 15th for the
Institute and Meadows to submit land descriptions to the City.
Council instructed the City Clerk to write a letter expressing
the city' s concern about the status of the property and the
Institute should be prepared by the first meeting in January
to submit land descriptions .
Mr. Bartle , Planner, reported he would talk with Ramona
Markalunas on the buffer zone and obtain a certified copy of
what the zoning was before the North Side Annexation.
Planning and Planning and Zoning Vacancy - Mr. Bartle recommend the
Zoning Vacancy composition of the Commission should include different interest
and view points of the community.
Aspen, Colorado
August 10, 1970
City Council
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
Re: August 24 Public Hearing, City Council
and July 14 Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing.
On May 18, 1970, a group of concerned citizens (having noted discrepancies in
Zoning Boundaries) requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to take certain
steps to correct errors and/or omissions in the zoning of the North Side Annexa-
tion along Gillespie Street, Meadow Lane and the Aspen Company Subdivision.
After having considered the request on July 14 at a public hearing, the Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Aspen Company Subdivision zoning
be changed from AR-2 to R-15; however, no action was taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission concerning the so-called setback or buffer area which was zoned
R-15 prior to the North side Annexation, other than some verbal assurances "that
the Planning and Zoning Commission would consider at some future date a new
zoning classification for the Institute property".
Having had previous experience in these matters, what concerns the undersigned
is that this specific matter will be pigeonholed, shelved, lost or overlooked
as the result of changes in the membership and/or the continuity of the commission
goals. With all due respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission, we do not feel
that this Board has given sufficient consideration to the original request, which
asked that the area in question be brought to conform to the zoning classification
and boundaries in existence prior to the Northside annexation. In other words,
we requested that an obvious error and/or omission by the City of Aspen as a result
of the Northside Annexation be corrected. It is the feeling of the undersigned
that said changes were improper and did not follow the prescribed procedures as
required under the law.
We realize that it would be most desirable to reclassify the Institute property;
however, in view of the present circumstances concerning the disposal of real
estage by the Institute, we have no assurance, other than zoning, that tourist
type accommodations will not be constructed along Meadow Lane and Gillespie Street.
Therefore, the undersigned respectfully petition the City Council to refer back to the
City Planning and Zoning Commission the matter of re-zoning the Aspen Company
Subdivision from AR-2 to R-15 and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission
resubmit zoning classifications and boundaries, which were requested by the
undersigned and which were in existence prior to the Northside Annexation.
1 Respectfully submitted,
.a_ 1/ lliilf '�.1/is
E
c
NJ, % ��..: ti ti f —...._-� l ' L.f 1 'c, 1.
•
` � '� �
_ ! z-s 44 _
— —
•
1
22 June, 1)70
Memo Report to: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission
F ro:r.: Jerry Brown
Sub:ect: Re-zoning in the Vicinity of the
Aspen Institute
Upgrading zoning in this area from AR-2 to R-15
should present no pr.oble s providing adequate
legal notification is :ade to all property owners
and the required public hearing is held. Since
this request originated fro : property owners in
the vicinity, a check should be made by the Commis-
sion to deterine the nature and extent of any
non-conforriing uses which could be created by the
application of _,:ore restrictive zoninr`-;.
P. O. Box 219 ASPEN IN.;.:. . ITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC S aDIES
Aspen,Colorado 81611
Area Code 303-925-7010 Founded by Walter P.Paepcke 1949
June 12, 1970
Mr. Robin Molny
Chairman
City of Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission
Post Office Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Robin:
It has been brought to the attention of the Aspen Institute that the
area in which the Institute/Meadows complex is located, when
annexed to the City, was zoned improperly. According to the
latest zoning district map, the entire Aspen Institute and Aspen
Meadows area and part of a sub-divided residential area are zoned
AR-2 -- Accommodations and Recreation.
It was the intention of both the County and City Planning & Zoning
Commissions, I believe, when the Institute area was annexed, to
keep the same zoning as it had with the County but transferred to
City status. What I think has happened is that the Master Plan
shows the entire area as AR-2, which is incorrect. There is an
area called the "second Aspen Company subdivision" with property
owned by Mr. Robert O. Anderson, Mr. John Merriam, Mr.
Henry Pedersen, Mrs. Cleveland and Mr. Viersen. Their sub-
divided lots zoned originally R-15, are now zoned AR-2.
In checking the County zoning map prior to the annexation to the
City, I noted there were areas of R- 15 -- Tourist -- for land around
the Institute and Aspen Meadows and an R-15 area for the sub-
divided residential section. The County also had setbacks along
Meadows Lane and Gillespie Street.
The Aspen Institute would like as soon as possible, as would the
owners of the property in the second Aspen Company subdivision,
2.
to schedule a public hearing to have the zoning changed.
I would be most happy to meet with the Planning & Zoning
Commission in regard to the proper zoning for the Aspen
Institute and Aspen Meadows area.
Thank you for your consideration and I will look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
z',„ / 7
King R. Woodward
General Manager
KRW:vc
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 50 C.F.HOECKEL B.B.&L.C.
RESOLUTION
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WHEREAS , a request was made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to initiate re-zoning of the area known as Institute/
Meadows Complex, Second Aspen Company Subdivision and property
abutting Gillespie Avenue and Meadow Lane, and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled
and held a public meeting on July 14, 1970.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends the City Council schedule a public hearing
to re-zone the area zoned R-15 immediately preceding the North
Side Annexation known as Second Aspen Company Subdivision and
the area west of Castle Creek to R-15.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends that the remaining property under con-
sideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission be held in
abeyance until such time as a line of demarcation is established.
between the Aspen Meadows and the Aspen Institute by the owners
of said property.
Robin Molny,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning