Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Physics Center.1976PHYSICS CENTER F i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM M C. F. MOCCNCL !. !. S L. CO. I / ORDINANCE NO. �D (Serices of 1976) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 2.3 ACRES OCCUPIED BY THEIASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED ALLY PLANNED AREA MASTERPLAN FOR THE SITE; THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTERPLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA, ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and Aspen Center for Physics have presented to the City Council a request to rezone approximately 2.3 acres within the City of Aspen according to the Specially Planned Area (SPA) procedures of Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed master - plan presented and wishes to approve the same all as provided in said Article VII, _?OW, THEREFORE, DE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, Co_4-i r _ l That it does hereby rezone approximately 2.3 acres occupied by the Aspen Center for Physics according to the SPA Masterplan submitted, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The area rezoned is more specifically described as: A tract of land situated in the S104 NE 4 of Section 12, 7ownship 10 South, 'range 85 tdest of the 6th Principle meridian, in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: _beginning at a point whence the NW corner of said SW4NE4 Section 12 bears N 25°11'45" W 1041.20 feet; -thence N 17°34'00" E 344.04 feet; thence east 253.12 feet; thence south 328.00 feet; thence west 357.26 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.299 acres, more or less. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves roRY % C. /. Norcm S. !. s L. CO. All development in the above -described area shall be in con- formance with the elements of the approved masterplan, and the definitional, regulatory and other general provisions of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code shall, when not in conflict with the approved plan, continue with equal force and effect within such area. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance a copy of this approved masterplan shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and remain of public record; and constitute the development regulations applicable to the Specially Planned Area unless and until amended by authority of the City of Aspen. If any provision of this ordinance or the applica- tion thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, :such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applica- tions of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 3 That a public hearing on this ordinance be held on r 1976 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, EAD AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City Doff Aspen on the /. day of4t, L ) .mom' _y, 1976. Stacyt°Sta`ndle Mayo,t -2- i • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. /. ATTEST: zz:lu� "j �'. . Kathryn :Iauter City Clerk FINALLY adopted, massed and approved on the day of ATTEST: Kathryn S. Sauter City Clerk 11 1976. Stacy Standley III Mayor -3- 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOM14ENDING THE REZONING OF THE ASPEN FN'tX,,R_ FOR PHYSICS TRACT ACCORDING TO AN-APPMVED --PMSTERPLAN SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE 1 WHEREAS, there has been submitted for Planning and Zoning Commission consideration a masterplan for the 2.3 acre tract presently occupied by the Aspen Center for Physics, all according to the Specially Planned Area procedures of Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the procedures for adoption of any such plan require that, subsequent to conducting a public hearing on a proposed plan, the Commission forward to the Aspen City Council a report and recommendation with respect to any such proposal, and WHEREAS, the Commission, after proper notice of the same, did hold the required public hearing at its meeting held September 7, 1976, and is prepared to issue a recommendation with respect to the proposed masterplan, NOW, THEREFORE, i,E IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That it does hereby recommend to the City Council that it finally approve and adopt, as the development regulation for the site, the masterplan prepared by Jac}a M. Walls, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, for an area presently occupied by the Aspen Center for Physics, and more particularly described as follows: A tract of land situated in the SWQNE; of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colo- rado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the NW corner of said SANE34 Section 12 bears N 25011' 45" W 1041.20 feet; thence N 17034'00" E 344.04 feet; thence east 253.42 feet; thence south 328.00 feet; thence west 357.26 feet to the point of beginning containing 2.299 acres, more or less all as provided by Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Specially Planned Areas". That the Commission recommendation for approval is conditioned in the following manner (all conditions being designed to mitigate the potential for undermining the City's pending requirement that the balance of the lands owned and controlled by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies be developed only according to a masterplan for the entire site): 1. That the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies assure the City Council (to the satisfaction of the City Attorney) that the approval of the attached masterplan will not be used to argue against applica- tion of the SPA requirements to the balance of the adjacent Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies owned and controlled properties; either during administrative proceedings to acquire development permission for Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies lands, during litigation affecting the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies lands, or in any other context or for any other purpose; 2. That prior to final Council approval there be presented to the City Council a fully executed long term or perpetual lease agreement between the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Center for Physics (a) covering the entire area included in the attached masterplan, (b) providing for ownership of the existing and proposed building within the masterplanned area in the Aspen Center for Physics, and (c) naming the Aspen Center for Physics as the primary (although not necessarily the exclusive) lessee of the premises. 3. That it is understood that the preservation of -2- i • the existing buildings (or their replacement) and construction of the third library/office structure constitute the maximum build out proposed for the masterplanned area; and 4. That the working drawings for the proposed library/ office building be incorporated into the masterplan, by reference, and constitute the building regulations with respect thereto., c--} ; -- I And that the Commission makes this affirmative recommendation with the understanding that the parcelling of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies lands into individually masterplanned areas does not enhance the overall masterplanning of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies lands; but the fact that the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies has announced its intention to withdraw its pending SPA application; that the Aspen Center for Physics proposes only one additional struc- 'Cure for its site and the introduction of no additional uses in the future; that the Aspen Center for Physics has, historically, localized its needs to the masterplanned site and has made little demand for outside support services and facilities in the area; and that retention of the Center within the community, because of the educational and cultural opportunities it creates, is a desirable objective, all of these reasons compel the action of approval herein taken. Dated I, Charles T. Collins Chairman , deputy city clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its continued meeting held Friday, September 10, 1976. Deputy City Clerk -3- 0 9 J, /� -~�--- ' 1 f ; Y,,'. iZ- J ?J, J- SfK A B 0,if N, CENTER FOR PHYSICS i A.0 K M. WALLS /ARCHITECT 0 • V. ASPEN JACK FLOOR PLAN r;vplc I . "goo' zr VIC Cr=N1*.ER,1F0R PHYSICS M. WALLS ARCHITECT *GAPING T11.11AGE —4 LAW OFFICES GATES, AUSTIN 8, MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 JOHN THOMAS KELLY TELEPHONE 925-2600 ROBERT W. HUGHES October 8, 1976 The Mayor and the City Council The City of Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Center for Physics Council Members: This is to advise you that by the time of the proposed public hearing on Tuesday, October 12, 1976, the Aspen Center for Physics will be unable to comply, or sub- stantially to satisfy, either of the first two conditions imposed upon its rezoning and precise plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which conditions presumably the City Council would require satisfaction of, in whole or in part. As you will recall, the first two conditions, summarized briefly, were that the Center obtain the waiver of the Aspen Institute of any claim of discrimination with regard to this separate treatment of the Physics Center's application, and that the Center obtain a long-term lease from the Institute. We are still hopeful of being able to obtain a lease. We do not believe we will be able to satisfy the other condition, substantially or otherwise. We do not wish the Council to take the unnecces- sary time of holding a public hearing if we are unable to satisfy these conditions. It was our first thought simply to withdraw the present application. Upon further reflec- tion, we would request that the City Council table our application indefinitely, so that it would remain pending, in the event that the Institute, whose prior submissions we believe are also in a tabled and pending status, should wish to incorporate the Physics Center's "precise plan" for the 2.3 acres, into its plans at some later date. OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH The Mayor and the City Council The City of Aspen Page Two October 8, 1976 Our application has recommendations for your approval by the planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the recommendation of approval of subdivision exemption for the proposed Institute -Physics Center lease from the P&Z (as of its last meeting on October 5). Thus, if ultimately the Institute submits or processes a "precise plan" or rezoning change with the City, and if it includes virtually no changes in the plans for these 2.3 acres, then it would seem a shame to waste these recommendations of approval, the time and expense of the Physics Center, as well as the time of the City staff and agencies in having processed this application. Our request, therefore, is simply to table this application and the public hearing thereon indefinitely and our feeling is that that action would benefit the Physics Center, the City, and the Institute, with prejudice to none. The Physics Center is regretful it won't have this com- ing year its much needed library -office building, and perhaps may lose some foundation grants for construction, through circum- stances beyond its control and for reasons other than the merits of the particular building proposal, but it understands the problems preventing its proceeding further at this time. We are hopeful the City and the Institute will resolve their differences in a mutually satisfactory manner, and that that resolution will result also in favorable treatment of the Physics Center's prob- lem and application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMJr/lh cc: Mr. Donald C. McKinlay, Esq. Ms. Sandra Stuller Mr. Bill Kane CITY 072" ASP E-.4.N 1 3 0 souO-. ,t street aspen, c::P1) o° t10 8; 6 1 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 1976 TO: Members of City Council FROM: Sandra M. Stuller RE: Physics Institute Rezoning Request Members of City Council: At their Tuesday meeting the P&Z requested that I prepare a resolution, `or their consideration at noon on Friday, approving the Physics Institute SPA rezoning request. The Com- iaission gave a hesitant approval, remaining somewhat concerned that they are defeating the masterplanning of the entire site by their approval, but nonetheless feeling compelled to authorize construction of the library/office facility. I hope to have a copy of their resolution in your box on Friday afternoon. In any event, Steve Wishart, at the noon council meeting when the Physics Institute proposal was first discussed, asked me for a memo describing the difficulties that may arise by reason of any localized SPA approval on Institute owned land. This is both a planning strategy and legal question, but let me give you some thoughts on the subject, anyway. It is important to know, initially, the status of the different arrangements the AIHS has with DU, MAA and PI (Physics Institute). They can be summarized as follows: M.A.A. Lease O This lease became effective in September of 1964 for a term of 99 years and includes the tent area and west gravel parking area, with a right to use (jointly with the Institute) the present paved parking area and access road to the north and east of the tent. (The attached map outlines the leased area.) The lease also authorizes M.A.A. "to continue to use for parking purposes the Institute real property situate between the east line of the demised premises and the road leading to the Institute parking area, until such time as the Institute in its sole dis- cretion shall otherwise direct". Rent is $1.00 per year and the Memorandum to Members of City Council September 8, 1976 Page 2 M.A.A. is limited to using the area solely for cultural uses (music festivals, concerts, theatrical performances, operas, conferences) without the Institute's prior approval. Exterior changes to the tent and the construction of other structures or fences in the leased area are prohibited without permission from the Institute. In addition, permission is needed to sub- let any of the leased area or assign the lease itself. Improve- ments made by M.A.A. (including the tent) remain the property of M.A.A. and must be removed within one year from the end of the lease term. The lease may be terminated by the Institute in the event either (1) that the M.A.A. fails to use the property for . a period of more than 24 consecutive months, or, (2) M.A.A. fails to cure any default under its lease after 30 days notice of the same. Denver Universitv Deed There has been no conveyance to D.U. of any interest to date, inasmuch as this would constitute a subdivision of land for which an exemption (or full compliance with Chapter 20) would be required. 'However, the Institute has prepared (and is holding in escrow) a deed which, although not effective, gives us an idea of the Institute's present position with respect to its control over the future use of the "academic" area and facilities. The deed conveys to D.U. reserving to the Institute the right to exclusive use of the area for a period of three months (June 5 to September 5) every year, in perpetuity, with- out charge to the Institute for "rent, insurance, maintenance, utilities, taxes, or any other costs incident to operating and maintaining the land or facilities thereon." The deed contains what is known as a "reverter", i.e., it states conditions upon which the land may "revert" to the Institute. Specifically, the land will revert if, subsequent to the conveyance to D.U., (1) D.U. or the Institute records an instrument stating that the parties have not agreed upon "the architectural, aesthetic or environmental aspects, the general quality and character, or the maintenance and upkeep of the property", and (2) this notice remains of record for six (6) months without the party who filed the notice stating in a second instrument that the disagreement has been resolved. Once agreement has been reached with respect to these conditions, the land is also subject to reverter if there is "any change in the status of (D.U. or the Institute) relating to the property or regarding the conditions (described above)" and D.U. and the Institute "leave failed to agree upon alternate uses which satis- fy the basic purposes and intentions" of both D.U. and the Institute. This proviso concludes: Memorandum to Members of City Council September 8, 1976 Page 3 1 The reservation of use and the possibility of a reverter hereby retained by the Grantor (the Institute) shall be extinguished automatically if the Grantor shall cease to exist as a legal entity or shall fail -to use the property in any manner for a period of three consecutive years. Given the broad language in the reverter clause I would suggest that there is a substantial chance of a reverter of the property to the Institute, and a good indication that the Institute will continue a strong supervisory control over the use and maintenance of the property (at least in the near future). The possibility of reverter terminates only if the Institute abandons its summer use of the area or terminates its non-profit corporation status. Physics Institute There exists no formal documentation of the arrangement between the Physics Institute and Aspen Institute, and the only evidence of their understanding that I am aware of is contained in a letter to Paul Fishbane, dated August 7, 1976, .from Joe Slater (a copy of which is enclosed in the PI's application materials). The PI occupies the area under a perpetual "license" from the Institute, i.e., an open-ended but revocable permission to occupy the land and buildings, with ownership of both remaining in the Institute. The letter goes on to state: I. The buildings and land must remain available for AI- HS use when not being used by the PI; 2. The premises will revert to the Institute if the PI fails to use them for two consecutive years; 3. Although the PI area is included in the deed to D.U., a condition of the deed is that the PI be per- mitted to continue its operation as in the past; 4. The PI "must consult with and 'advise the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies regarding any changes in architecture, aesthetic quality or character which conforms to the agreement which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Center for Physics have had from the beginning"; and 5. Permission to use the facilities other than during the summer and permission to construct on the site must be procured in advance from the Institute. Consequently, the Aspen Institute has reserved the right to complementary use of the area, a strong right of review over Memorandum to Members of City Council September 8, 1976 Page 4 construction on and improvements to the area by the PI and a right of reverter in the event the PI should abandon use of the facilities for two years. As is apparent the Institute, in its dealings with all its "satellites", maintains (1) control of future construc- tion, (2) a right of joint use, and (3) at least to date, with respect to the PI, ownership of the improvements on the land. In any event, it is clear that the Institute maintains ultimate, unqualified authority over the development of what is known as the "Institute" property although it has delegated the use and maintenance functions to its lessees and donees. Nature of SPA Zone District The Institute land 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, densitites, off-street parking, height limits, et cetera) which will act as a miniature zone code for the area; and once adopted, building permits may issue only for development recognized in the plan. The rationale for and benefits of the SPA designation were well spelled out in the P&Z resolution dated November 11, 1975, which denied the Institute's request that its land be parcelled into traditional zone districts. The Commission con- cluded not only that the zone districts proposed were inappro- priate, but that the SPA designation for the entire site be retained because 1. SPA is a zone designation created by the American Law Institute, incorporated in its Model Land Develop- ment Code, and suggested for relatively undeveloped land where there is anticipated some demand for develop- ment in the near future but where it is desirable to discourage small, scattered and uncontrolled develop- ments. 2. 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 regu- lation for the specifically planned area, precluding inconsistent future development. Memorandum to Members of City Council September 8, 1976 Page 5 1 3. 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. <. I think these conclusions, as well as anything, spell out the objectives of an SPA designation. The difficulty with approving different SPA plans for each lessee or donee of the Institute lands is that (1) we lose the ability to require simultaneous and integrated development of the entire site, (2) we lose the ability to require joint and complementary use of new structures and facilities, and (3) we subject the City to the argument by each separate lessee or donee that it must satisfy all its needs within the land area under its control (with a possibility of duplicating functions). The SPA designation was designed to (1) force the Institute to define itself, and (2) produce the most efficient use of the land. Neither of these objectives are reached by establishing a series of masterplanned areas within the boundaries of the Institute lands. SMS/mc cc Mick Mahoney Bill Kane • \ t• eri. P• \ � 1 � r 4 1 , 'St4 tO �1J�U-1.K-1�I .F A'l+G�-Lp - _._� �� ; �r fit_., • ;\. ... -'--L_!•. I !/`_l-�-/r • - � IK�S ���' Yr�'C 148 LO-: nE BY 15 ofFT,}' ---- ------ r-- -- ---- ' ------------ , rr MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Physics Center Subdivision Exemption Request DATE: October 6, 1976 This is an application for Subdivision Exemption by the Aspen Center for the Physics for a long term lease to it from the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies of the 2.3 acre parcel that is the subject of the Physics Center's rezoning and S.P.A. precise plan application. The condition of subdivision, i.e., by their lease, was imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a condition of rezoning and S.P.A. approval. The applicant will appear before the City Council on October 12, 1976, for rezoning, S.P.A., and Subdivision Exemption approval. The Planning Office recommends approval of the Physics Center Subdivision Exemption request. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the exemption request at their October 5, 1976 meeting. • 9 LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MGGRATH,JR WILLIAM R. JORDAN III JOHN THOMAS KELLY September 10, 1976 ROBERT W. HUGHES Mr. Bill Kane Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Physics Center Dear Bill, AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 At Sandy's suggestion, this is to apply on behalf of the Aspen Center for Physics for a subdivision exemption for a long-term lease to it from the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies of the 2.3 acre parcel that is the subject of the Physics Center's rezoning and SPA precise plan application. This application is necessitated by the P&Z's condition of approval of the rezoning and SPA precise plan approval that the Physics Center have a long-term lease so that its responsibility to the City for compliance with the rezoning and SPA requirements is assured. We believe a subdivision exemption is warranted for the following reasons: 1. The condition of subdivision, i.e., a long-term lease, was imposed by P&Z itself as a condition of the rezoning and SPA approval. 2. This "subdivision" is not within the intents and purposes of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code for reasons herein indicated. 3. Given our submittals on the rezoning and SPA precise plan, virtually all of the subdivision substantive requirements have been satisfied: there is no increased density beyond the mere physi- cal increase of a building; there are no internal OATEs, AUSTIN Ek MCGRATH Mr. Bill Kane Page two September 10, 1976 streets to be paved; all utilities are in; landscaping is in .place; and the plot plan previously submitted will, if the rezoning and SPA are approved, be recorded; it satisfies virtually all of the requirements for a vicinity map and a subdivision plat under the Code. 4. Unlike the usual "subdivision" created by a conveyance and potential new ownerships -- one where planning concerns are the greatest -- this "subdivision" is created only by a leasehold interest. Thus, e.g., no consumer protection for a purchaser (Section 20-2) is needed. We would appreciate your submitting this to the Planning and Zoning Commission at your earliest convenience. Once again, thank you for your prompt consideration. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH By t J. Picholas McGrath, Jr. JNMJr/le 1J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen WaRfl mg 6efflffl+S-S-e 60u^'c14 FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Physics Center Subdivision Exemption Request DATE: October_$, 1976 This is an application for Subdivision Exemption by the Aspen Center for the Physics for a long term lease to it from the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies of the 2.3 acre parcel that is the subject of the Physics Center's rezoning and S.P.A. precise plan application. The condition of subdivision, i.e., by their lease, was imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a condition of rezoning and S.P.A. approval. The applicant will appear before the City Council on October 12, 1976, for rezoning, S.P.A., and Subdivision Exemption approval. The Planning Office recommends approval of the Physics Center Subdivision Exemption request. 77X.e Pz , 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council, City Manager FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane RE: Aspen Center for Physics - Separate S.P.A. DATE: September 9, 1976 By Monday's meeting time you will have received a P & Z resolution recommending the creation of a separate S.P.A. of some 2.3 acres for the Aspen Center for Physics. Two memo's are attached which summarize our evaluation and recommendations on the subject. In its simplist terms the application represents a possible tradeoff between maintenance of an comprehensive view of the entire Institute versus a single building which represents a high public value. As you will gather from the correspondence we have consistently recommended an overall S.P.A. as a prerequisite to any further development on the Institute tract. However, in all honesty we must admit that the building as proposed would not be something totally obnoxious to the ultimate development of the tract and the unique funding constraints involved indeed make this a special case. As pointed out in our memo to P & Z we find the building to be well designed, sympathetic to the surrounding environment and one without a substantial additional traffic impact. Again from a narrower planning and administrative point of view an approval could result in an erosion of our ability to derive an overall Institute plan. The Council will have to decide whether a special overiding public interest is at stake. Should the Council decide in favor of this application, we fully support the conditions enumerated in the P & Z resolution to specifically include: 1. Guarantees against leverage by Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. 2. Provision of a satisfactory long term lease arrangement. 3. Plan constitutes maximum buildout as proposed. 4. Final drawings for new building be part of master plan for separate S.P.A. 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Aspen City Council, City Manager FROM: Bill Kane RE: Physics Institute DATE: July 23, 1976 As you may know we have been discussing the problem of the expansion of the Physics Institute with respect to the larger question of adoption of a master plan for the entire 130 acre Institute property. The Physics Institute has received grant money from the Kiesge Foundation which would allow them to build a new building to include a library and seminar room (copy of general plans attached). We have consistently agreed that any improvement to the Physics Institute property be tied in with an overall S.P.A. master plan for the Aspen Institute lands. The Physics building must be started before Oct- ober 15 of this year in order to qualify for grant money. To this point they have been waiting for the Aspen Institute to submit an overall master plan. With Fall approaching and no plan submitted yet the physics group is obviously getting nervous. I was approached by Paul Fishbane, Physics Institute President and Jack Walls the architect for the project with a request to investigate the possibility of separating the Physics and Aspen Institutes to allow the physicists to proceed independently of the Aspen Institute. In response to this question I recited our traditional thinking on the subject but admitted that technically the seperation sought could be accomplished. Such a seperation would require, as a minimum the following: 1) A formalized long term written lease for lands immediate to the proposed Physics expansion. 2) A description of a seperate S.P.A. for the Physics Institute leased land. This, of course, would require the amendment of the zoning map and would have all the notice and hearing re- quirements of a rezoning. 3) The development and approval of a seperate S.P.A. Master Plan for the Physics Institute lands. Of course there are points to be made on both sides of this question. On one hand, the Aspen Institute insists that the City's intransigence with respect to zoning institute lands serves only to frustrate, disappoint and ultimately discourage the aspiring cultural and education groups in the city. However, the approval of an overall plan by granting building permits on a building by building basis erodes the concept of an overall, integrated balanced plan. I have given Mr. Fishbane our more or less standard response and we continue to hold out for an overall master plan. We will continue with this policy position unless otherwise directed by Council. You may expect some serious lobbying by the Physics group and we will stand by to impliment any policy you choose. Under normal circumstances I would not raise this issue but felt it to be of such significance as to warrant Council consideration. cc: Sandy Stuller MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (BK) RE: Aspen Center for Physics Request for Separate S.P.A. Designation. DATE: September 2, 1976 On September 7, a public hearing will be conducted to consider the question of the creation of a separate S.P.A. for the Physics Institute to facilitate the construction of a new library and seminar room. If approved, this proposal would allow the Physicists to plan their site of some 2.3 acres independently of the overall Aspen Institute. Accompanying the request for creation of a separate S.P.A. is the S.P.A. master plan which basically reflects the existing buildings and the new library and seminar room. It is our belief that if approved, the new building would exhaust the development potential of the 2.3 acre tract and any future expansions would have to be reviewed by P & Z and Council. From the information submitted to date we find the building to be well sited, well designed, and sympathetic to the surrounding area. However, we still have our concern for the successful master planning of the entire Institute tract and stated our reasons at the last meeting. The Board is being called upon to weigh the long range planning concerns represented by this project against the more immediate benefit to the Physicists and the community. 4k 0 0 Before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen A-ttgt�s-1 'Art 7, 19-7/. ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS' Application for rezoning of 2.3 acres from SPA in a larger tract to SPA for the specific 2.3 acre tract; and application for approval of a "precise plan" for such tract. Paul M. Fishbane, President, Aspen Center for Physics Jack M. Walls, Architect Oates, Austin & McGrath J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., Counsel 41 0 0 ` s� `yam,.'..?• t 1 { 'r•}.., JL, �` :i l •� I, r .� � �- _ �� ���.} - - - 4_ i .�- x .L .;_ ._..•{� , � � _ � i �• •�-• - .yeti �. - . n.1 f 1110 r/C - A-Pf_'N- CENTEP :=OR PHYSICS J laCK M. WALLS ARCH,IT,ECT • 11 LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN IQ JOHN THOMAS KELLY RO©ERT W. HUGHES LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN 8L MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADo 8I611 August 16, 1976 The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Commission Members: AREA CC^.E 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 The Aspen Center for Physics is a Colorado non-profit corporation, and has been since 1968. It has a license in perpetuity to use approximately 2.3 acres of land owned by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (in the so-called "academic area"); its offices and academic buildings are located at Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and it has conducted its academic business there in the summers for the last fourteen years. It is our understanding that to any extent necessary to satisfy the City's requirement that the "owner" of land join in an application for rezoning, the Institute joins this separate application (see Tab "A"). The Physics Center is badly in need of a new building; the building and the need therefor is discussed below. How- ever, it now finds itself unfortunately caught up in the larger planning and development differences that appear to exist be- tween the Institute and the City. This application is an attempt (a) to extricate the Physics Center from those larger problems, and (b) to persuade you and the City Council that, for the reasons below, the 2.3 acres of the Physics Center (which is "owned" by the Institute (see Tabs "A" and "B"), ought to be dealt with separately and independently from the rest of the Institute's approximately 120 acres. The Physics Center is described more fully in materials attached hereto as Tabs "C" and I'D." It is a totally indepen- dent entity from the Institute, although two Institute officers do sit on the Physics Center's twenty -member Board of Trustees. The Center's annual budget is only about $70,000.00, and it has no paid staff except secretarial and maintenance. While it is, even by academic standards, low budget and low keyed, it is nonetheless unique in the world. Its trustees and current participants include at least one Nobel winner in physics, as • OATES, AUSTIN 8, MCGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page two August 16, 1976 well as several physicists on the staffs at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, and at the Los Alamos, New Mexico, Scientific Laboratory of the University of Califor- nia. All of the participants are prominent physicists; they come to the Physics Center to research and to communicate with other physicists on questions ultimately essential to us all. Given that, historically for almost a decade, the Physics Center has been independent and has had virtually autonomy con- cerning its 2.3 acres at Sixth and Gillespie; that the Center has always had total control in its development, raised its own funds, and the like, we hope you will agree a persuasive case can be made that you should deal separately with its 2.3 acre site -- despite the undeniably appealing planning position that all of the Institute's land should be handled as a whole. For if the Physics Center is viewed as part of the Institute's proposals, the Physics Center will in all likelihood not be able to begin its needed building this year, and will in that event jeopardize or lose needed foundation grants for construction. The Physics Center has raised approximately $120,000.00 for its proposed new building (Tab "E" is a list of contributors). A grant of $50,000.00 from the Kresge Foundation must be committed by October 15, 1976 (i.e., in Kresge's present apparent view, having a construction contract signed and building to begin by then). A grant ($40,000.00) of the Fleischmann Foundation must be similarly committed by June 1, 1977. The proposed 3,666 sq. ft. building is to house the Physics Center's highly specialized library (sharing a library with others is thus unrealistic for the Center); it provides an all-weather seminar room (the only present seminar "room" is out-of-doors); and it will provide some needed office space, so that two, rather than three, physicists will share an office. (One can readily surmise it is difficult to do theoretical equations -- let alone concentrate -- when three physicists share one small blackboard in an office!) The building con -- templates no expansion in the Center's activities; it has already decided its present size is optimal (see Tab "C"). Thus, this application involves no new housing, transportation, or parking impacts. • • OATES, AUSTIN &. McGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page three August 16, 1976 The building is low in profile, architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings, and situated so that, given existing landscaping, buildings, and topography, the new library virtually could not be seen from adjacent residential streets, and indeed would be visible at all only from the Music Tent, Red Mountain, and the sky. (See the map accompanying this material.) The Physics Center has been a good neighbor even in land use terms. It has spent much more in landscaping than its low budget would otherwise justify, and its existing plantings in large measure lessen any visual impact of the proposed library. The present building and rezoning plan has been presented to and has the approval of, its neighbors, the West End Improvement Association (see Tab "F"). It has even purchased some 50 bicycles, which it makes available to its participants at a nominal rental, to lessen dependence on the automobile and attendant impacts of cars on the neighborhood. From a planning standpoint, it is always logically better to deal with a larger whole (e.g., all of the Institute's 120 acres), than with smaller pieces -- but sometimes (a) the small piece has a history of being dealt with separately, (b) is autonomous, and (c) is so small and insignificant in relation to the larger whole, that given its clear need for separate treat- ment, the otherwise valid planning considerations should yield. We hope you will agree this is such a case; and that you will set a prompt public hearing to rezone the 2.3 acres on which the Physics Center sits to its own Specially Planned Area, and upon the Center's "precise plan" for that area. The technical requirements of this submittal follow this letter (Tab "G"), and other background materials are set forth at Tab "H." Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMJr/le R. O. Anderson Chairman J. E. Slater President Aspen h ute for Humanistic Studies Mr. Bill Kane Planning Office City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: 1000 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado 31611 U.S.A. 303 925 7010 Cable: Aspeninst Colorado 12 August 1976 As owner of record, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies joins with the Aspen Center for Physics in the accompanying request for rezoning and master plan approval of the approximately 2. 3 acres shown herein. This request is made by us only in order to satisfy the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. Because the Aspen Center for Physics for more than a decade has been the tenant of the buildings and immediately adjacent land, it will continue to have such rights in the event of a transfer to the Univer- sity of Denver of the academic area. We understand that the Physics Center may use this letter in connection with its request for permission for the construction of a new library. In view of the funding deadlines faced by the Aspen Center for Physics, we join with them in hoping you can give their request your immediate favorable attention. Sincerely yours, E. Slater F-3 Aspen In ..te- for [ILIM ani st(C Studies � 1000 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado V IG11 U.S.A. 303 925 7010 Cable: P.::penina Colurarlr 7 August 1976 Dr. Paul M. Fishbrtne Aspen Center for Physics Box. 1208 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dr, Fishbano: The purpose of this letter is to confirm the arrangements which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies has had with the Aspen Censer for Physics for more than a decade. In addition, we formally wish to express the hope that the Aspen Center for Physics will be permitted to construct its needed library facilities. We would appreciate it if you would please sign this letter and the following resume, which conforms to the existing arrangements that are as follows: The buildings and immediate area of land known as "The Aspen Center for Physics" and used by the Aspen Center for Physics be made available to the Aspen Center for Physics in perpetuity to the extent their needs to carry out the Physics Program require , The buildings and ground.; remain the property of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and shall be made available for other uses during the period when acti- vities of the Aspen Center for Physics are not in progress. If the facilities and lands are not utilized by the Aspen Center for Physics for two consecutive years,* all of their rights will be terminated and the property will revert to the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and/or to the University of Denver. (As you know, a donation of the Institute's academic core, including the Physics Center area, is being made to the University of Denver with certain reversionary clauses. In this donation, the rights of the Physics Center to continue their program on the basis they have had with the Aspen Institute is assured and has been agreed to by the University of Denver.) The. Aspen Center for Physics must consult with and advise the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies regarding any changes in archi- tecture, ae sthotic quality or character which conforms to the agreement which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Center for Physics have had from the beginning. The Aspen Center for Physics must notify the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and/or the University of Denver a year in advance of their needs in other than the summer period in order to facilitate the y W td Dr. Paul,& lishbane - 2A 7 Au,ju t 1976 proper scheduling of the fzcilities and binds currently used by the Aspen Center for Physics, and any new construction would be covered by the requirements for prior approval and consultation and other provisions outlined in this letter. Sincerely, 1. E . Slater President Jill. Davis, Assistant Secretary APPROVED: Paul M . Fishbane Date ASPEN CENTER FOR PI3YSICS Fact Sheet 7,7e Institution ,;..at is the Aspen Center for Physics? The ACP is an independent scientific -educational institution which runs a 13 - 14 week program in theoretical physics and astrophysics each summer. It is incorporated in the state of Colorado, and is recognized as a non-profit insti- tution by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Is the ACP part of the Aspen Institute? No. The ACP is completely independent legally, financially, and adminstratively. The ACP started under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in 1962, but was incorporated as an independent institution in 1968. It operates uder its own board of trustees, plans its own programs, and finances these programs and its facilities with funds raised specifically for these purposes. It was also operated and funded indepen- dently of the Aspen Institute in the early years, 1962-67. 'v,here did the facilities come from? The two physics buildings at 6th and Gillespie Streets were built with funds raised specifically for the physics program. Because of the early connection with the Aspen Institute, the buildings are on land which belongs to the Aspen Institute, and formal title is with the Institute. However, the ACP was given use of the buildings and .land in perpetuity for the physics program when the Center was incorporated in 1968. Who maintains the physics buildings and grounds? The ACP maintains the buildings and grounds, and has put sub- stantial effort each year into upgrading the buildings, im- proving the landscaping, and so forth. The Aspen Institute does not contribute to maintenance, improvements, operating costs, etc. `;that facilities are available? The two buildings have office space in two -person offices for 58 participants, plus two administrative and secretarial offices. There is a small research library, and an outdoor patio area used for seminar/lectures. The ACP Program What is the ACP program? The ACP runs a program in theoretical research in physics and astrophysics June - August each summer. The program is relatively unstructured, and provides scientists from dif- y ferent institutions a chance to get together to talk about n 0 0 2 . and work intensively on problems at the forefront of physics and astrophysics. The organized activities consist of lectures and discussions of special subjects. About 150 research papers a year result from work done at the Center. Is it important? The Center's program is the largest and most successful of its kind in the world. The work done at the Center has been of very high quality, and many of the most productive physicists and astrophys:icsits in the U.S, and abroad try to spend time here. Who comes to the ACP? Participants are selected by the trustees on the basis of their scientific abilities. They are professors and research. scientists from universities and research laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. Most come with their families for an average stay in Aspen of four weeks. How big is the program? There will be 250 participants in the 1976 program, repre- senting 90 institutions. They were selected from over 450 applications for the program. There are about 70 partici- pants at the Center at a time. We have experimented with the size, and had 80 — 90 participants at a time in 1973. This was too large for the kind of informal contact the program is designed to facilitate, and the size was deliber- ately cut back to the present average of 70. Who funds the ACP program? The physics -astrophysics program is funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by registration fees charged to participants, and by contributions from our Corporate Associates. The total operating budget for 1976 is $70,125 comprised of $46,500 for the NSF, $8825 from NASA, $10,800 in registration fees, and $4000 from the Corporate Associates (Xerox and Bell Laboratories). Where does the money go? Roughly two-thirds of the $70,000 budget goes into operating funds for the program: secretarial and administrati.v-- services, books and journals, supplies, upkeep, etc. The ACP does not pay participants, and provides only very minimal support for travel and other expenses (an average of $100 per person in 1976). Rentals for ACP participants and their families are taken from the general Aspen market and total an additional $85,000 in 1976. Other living expenses of the participants and their families should be added to. this total in assessing the economic impact of the ACP on the Aspen community. It is a•measure of the value of the program that so many scientists want to participate despite what is usually a considerable personal expense. S 3. t-;hy have the program in Aspen? Becau-se Aspen is such an attractive place for families, participants are willing to come here at their own exnense. They typically work very intensively during the week, and get into the mountains on weekends. The physicists seem to be particularly well-known do _local sporting goods shops and restaurants, and as music festival patrons. Some 20 physicists now own houses or apartments in Aspen. The New Physics Building V-hy build a new building? The ACP urgently needs more library space, an indoor seminar room, and a few more offices to relieve present overcrowding. Why not use Aspen Institute facilities? The ACP and the Aspen Institute are completely independent. The ACP has never used the Institute facilities, which are completely devoted to Institute programs. Moreover, these facilities would not be suitable for ACP needs even if they were available. (For example, physics seminars require a small lecture- or classroom -type seminar area and are quite different from the round -table discussions typical of In- stitute programs. Physics office space, with the requirement of blackboards, etc., is quite different from the Institute offices, and a research library, to be useful, must be im- mediately accessible from the offices.) Why does the ACP need a new library? The present library occupies two offices (opened up) and a storage room, and has completely outgrown this space. The library budget is roughly $10,000 a year for the highly specialized journals and books necessary for. a successful.. program. The collection grows at the rate suggested by this figure and the well-known information explosion in science. The new library will have roughly 1000 square feet of stack and reading spade, compared to 330 square feet in the present library. This will enable us to keep all our books, current research journals, and back issues for ten years.readily accessible. Why a seminar room? The ACP does not have an indoor seminar room. Seminars are held outdoors on a patio adjacent to the Stranahan building, weather. permitting. The seminar room will be lecture -style, with seating for about 60. Why more offices? In order to accomodate 70 sc.lentist,s (the size we. ha�,e fo ,.nd. most suitable in ensuring.a wide variety of interests among the participants without losing the possibility of infor;nal contacts), the Center has to put three participants in all the two -person offices in one building, and to use a nearby house for overflow office space. The tripled offices are e • i 4 . noisy and uncomfortable, and not conducive to concentrated :•:ork. The overflow space is inconveniently far from the library and the center of activity. Both problems will be eliminated when the new building is available. Vion't more offices just lead to a bigger program? T•?o. There is no intention to increase the size of the protrram. Quite the contrary. Past experiments with larger sizes i•.ere unsuccessful, and the.program was deliberately reduced to its present size. It was resolved by the trustess again in 1976 to hold the program to its present size, and in fact, to cut back if necessary in 1977 to avoid tripling offices. o,:r large will the new building be? Approximately 3300 square feet, with a library, seminar room, 6 two -person offices, and an administrative office. What will it look like and where will it be? It will be a partially sunken low -profile concrete block and wood building located between and north of the existing buildings. The exterior will be compatible with the exist- ing buildings. The new building will be very inconspicuous from Gillespie Street. .%'hat about parking? There will be no change in the size of the program, so the present parking area will continue to be adequate. The ACP provides approximately 50 bicycles for participants at a small rent, and is on the present City bus route. Overflow parking is available in the music lot on the rare occasions when it is needed. What about the land? The new building will be on land totaling 2.1 acres owned by the Aspen Institute in the so-called "academic area". The ACP has use of the land and the existing buildings in per- petuity for the physics program. What about funds for the building? The ACP has received grants from the Fleischmann Foundation ($40,000), the Kresge Foundation ($50,000), past participants and their families ($15,000), and its Corporate Associates and others ($10,000) toward the cost of the building, and is ready to proceed with construction. The KresCD ge grant must be committed by October 15, 1976, and the Fleischmann jrant, by June 1, 1977. 0 0 5. i.nen :could the building be available? The building is urgently needed for the 1977 program. There is literally no space in the library for our next order of books and journals, and cutting back the size of the program to avoid tripling up offices might endanger the fundinng and effectiveness of the program. In addition the funding from. the Kresge Foundation earmarked explicitly for the building i-rill be in danger without an autumn start. The building s'-2ould be available if the present zoning problems can be resolved in time for a start on construction this fall. 0 • . 9. TRUSTEES, ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS 'S TO EXPIRE IN 1979 Elihu Abrahams, Rutgers University Philip Anderson, Bell Laboratories Felix Boehm, California Institute of Technology Peter Carruthers, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Benjamin Lee, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory L.M. Simmons, Jr., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Frederik Zachariasen, California Institute of Technology TO EXPIRE IN 1978 Stephen Adler, Institute for Advanced Study Stirling Colgate, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory David DeYoung, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Paul Fishbane, University of Virginia, Sydney Meshkov, National Bureau of Standards Heinz Pagels, The Rockefeller University ^�?;S TO EXPIRE IN 1977 R.O. Anderson, Atlantic Richfield A.G.W. Cameron, Harvard University Loyal Durand, University of Wisconsin Murray Gell-Mann, California Institute of Technology Peter Kaus, University of California David -Pines, University of Illinois Joseph -Slater, -The Aspen Institute HONORARY TRUSTEES Hans Bethe, Cornell University Michael Cohen, University of Pennsylvania Robert W. Craig, Keystone Center Daniel Fivel, University of Maryland George Stranahan, Aspen Robert-R. Wilson, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory PAST TRUSTEES Julius Ashkin, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1972 Michel Baranger, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1974 Harrison Brown, California Institute of Technology, 1971-1972 Richard Ferrell, University of Maryland, 1968-1972 George Field, Harvard University, 1972-1974 '•iarvin Goldberger, Princeton University, 1968-1973 Alan Heeger, University of Pennsylvania, 1973-1976 Henry Primakoff, University of Pennsylvania, 1968-1972 Frederick Seitz, Rockefeller University, 1968-1972 Lincoln Wolfenstein, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1973 Who Are! The Participants? In the summer of 1976, 240 physicists and 40 astrophysicists from 90 different institutions and 10 different countries attended the Aspen Center for Physics. The average length of stay of these physicists is 4 weeks from May 31. to September 5, and the average size of their families is two children and two adults. Twenty of them own property and/or homes in Aspen and many visit again during the winter months to ski. Most of the physicists are ardent hikers, fishermen and tennis players and they spend much of their free time in these endeavors. The Center trys to attract a wide variety of participants. Approximately 60% were junior faculty or the eauivalent, and each year approximately 40% visit here for the first time. It is not atypical. to have several Nobel Laureates in attendance. • Report on Building Fund As -pen Center for Physics �;. Pagels 3uilding Fund Chairman ,rants max C. Fleishmann Foundation Kresge Foundation Total Grants Gifts Atlantic Richfield Mazor Foundation IBIv: e l l Labs Individuals (names attached) Interests on Deposits Accumulated Total Architect Fees Fund Raising Expenses Total Cash on Hand (August 12, 1976) August 121 1976 $4o,000.00 _joj000.00 90,000.00 $ 1,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2.000.00 $13,000.00 14,221.73 -- ?1.?---75 27,994.48 - 5,123.48 $220274.74 F-3 czi t7 rbra},ams Adler Anderson, R. 0. Ashkin Baierlein Baranser,.MI -ardasis Baym Bernstein Berry Bethe Boynton Brick-wedde, F. Brown, R. Brogan Campbell, D. Carlson Carruthers, P. Castillejo Chakkalakal Chan, N. P. Cheng, T. P. Coleman Colegate Cohen, Judith Cohen, Michael Cohen, Morrell Connell Daehnick DeFacio Dexter Domokos Dresden Fn�1er irenson Fsnosito Farrar, S. Fe ar ina Feenberg Fe ynman 111 1;1 Fisher Fishbone Frampton rrauenfelder Freund Fricke Building Fund Contributors Gallagher Gasiorowicz Ge11-14ann Gittleman Gladne,y Glasser, ?M. Good, R. H. Gural.nik Halrerin Hammer Harms Harrison Hartle Haymaker Heeger Hellwarth Henneberger Herczeg Hobson Hofstader Holstein Hoyer Huang Joss Kab i r Karl Kau s Klauder Klein Kleinman, L. Knasel Kopf, Carol Krisch Krizan Lamb , F. Leiobowitz Lieb Lowe, I. McCray Marshak I,;art in L. Ann ,?rzberger, L. ?Michel, F. C. Mullin Nagle Neal Nieto Newman Norton • • Certel G u b o O-Dut Pagels .reccei Pines Poirier =range Pratt Primack Qu inn :amond, P. Rosen, P. Rosner Saladin Sakita Satierstein Saichler Schwarz, J. Segall, B. Se^re Shapiro, M. Shaw, G. Shen Shimizu Shtokhamer Silk S im.,arek Simmons Sirlin Slansky Soruch S �L-.eele Sternheim Sterns Strauch Sucher Suranyi Suura Swift Taylor Terhune Theimer To mk in To mo z awa Treat True Truran, J. Uzes Wali Warnock Watts Wayh mar Widdenthal Wilson Winik Witten, T. Wong, T. F. Yang WEST SIDE It PROV1,: NT ASSOCIATION 701 N. Thr. d Street Aspen 4 August, 1y76 The Hon. Stacey Stanley, Mayor Members of the City Council The Board of the Iest Side Improvement Association supports the Aspen Center for Physics in their request for specially planned zoning for their 2. some acres of - land. .-1'le approve the plans of their proposed building, and support their no -growth policy, i.e. maintaining their operation at 70-75 participants at a time. We also encour- age them to use the parkin; area of the M.A.A., and thus avoid on -street parking on Gillespie and 6th Streets. We understand that it is important that they break ground this summer for their new building or possible lose their grants. We concur in their expeniency. We further suggest that as soon as feasible that the Aspen Center for Physics make a committment to replace the present wooden structure. The physicists, many of whom are property owners in the West Side are a positive asset to the community - economi- cally as well as socially. . We have contacted as many of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of The Center as was possible in such a short time. All those contacted were favorable: Agreed: Mrs. Mary McCarten 625 Gillespie Mr. and Mrs. James Jiarkalunas 624 N. 6-th Street Rr. and Mrs. Kurt Bresnitz 715 W- North Street Mxs. Elli Islen 707 West North Out of Town Mrs. Elaine Higby 615 W. Gillespie For Sale t 1��s. Ivy Papst 635 W. Gillespie Mrs. Lucy Hibbard 521 W. North ✓rr. a-nd Mrs. David O'Meara 603 W. Gillespie Yours Very Truly Ann Schwind Chairman `lest Side Improvement Assoc. 46 • • Outline for Precise Plan for Physics Center's 2.3 Acres 1. Uses. Academic. 2. Setbacks. Side: 10 feet; rear: 15 feet; front: 20 feet (in minimums). 3. Height. Maximum of 25 feet. 4. Open space. At least 25%. The per cent of actual open land is more like 87%. The total land area is approximately 100,145 square feet. Building coverage is as follows: Hilbert Hall 5,558 sq. ft. Stranahan Hall 4,219 sq. ft. New library, etc. 3,666 sq. ft. Total land coverage: 13,443 sq. ft. It is proposed that Hilbert Hall, a wooden structure, be replaced eventually, but that would not change these figures for purposes of the precise plan. The timing of the replace- ment of Hilbert Hall is of course dependent upon the exigencies of fund-raising and foundation grants. 5. Site location. In the City of Aspen, served by and adjacent to Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and is more fully shown on drawings accompanying this application. 6. Utilities. All necessary utilities are at the site (as is .also more fully shown on the drawings). 7. Adjacent landowners. The names and addresses of landowners within 300 feet are on an attached list. i Property OwA within 300 feet of AspAenter for Physics Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Collins Robert W.Pullen Box HH 825 North St. Ms. Ida Vail Pabst 635 W, rillesoie or Box 8015 Mary McGarten 625 Gillespie Ms. Elaine C. Higbee 1200 Amer. Natl. Bank Bldg. Denver, co. 80202 or 615 W. GillesDie Tamzin P. O'Meara 603 W Gillespie or Box 10457 Mr. & Mrs. James J. Markalunas 624 N. 6th St or Box 542 Thomas 0. Wells 614 W. North or Box 3199 Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Burkee 610 W. North or Box 544 Ms. Greta M. Lum 600 North or Box UU Mr. and Mrs. Robert langenkamp 633 W. North or 4403 Center Ave. Apt, 5D Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Bresnitz 715 W. North or Box 70 Mrs. Fred Iselin 707 W North Box 418 Lucy R. Hibbard Roberto. P. Dickson 521 W. North or IP37 East Alamsda Denver 80209 Kr. & Mrs. Bill Block Box 18 32 I•ICMORAWDUM a TO: Aspen City Council, City Manager FROM: Bill Kane RE: Physics Institute DATE: July 23, 1976 , As you may know we have been discussing the problem of the expansion of the Physics Institute with respect to the larger question of adoption of a master plan for the entire 130 acre Institute property. The Physics Institute has received grant money from the Kiesge Foundation which would allow them — to build a new building to include a library and seminar room (copy of general plans attached). We have consistently agreed that any improvement to the Physics Institute property be tied in with an overall S.P.A. master plan for the Aspen Institute lands. The Physics building must be started before Oct- ober 15 of this year in order to qualify for grant money. To this point they have been waiting for the Aspen Institute to submit an overall master plan. With Fall approaching and no plan submitted yet the physics group is obviously getting nervous. I was approached by Paul Fishbane, Physics Institute President and Jack Walls the architect for the project with a request to investigate the possibility of separating the Physics and Aspen Institutes to allow thephysicists to proceed independently of the Aspen Institute. In response to this question I recited our traditional thinking on the subject -but admitted that technically the seperation sought could be accomplished. Such a seperation would require, as a minimum the following: 1) A formalized long term written lease for lands immediate to the proposed Physics expansion. 2) A description of a seperate S.P.A. for the Physics Institute leased land. This, of course, would require the amendment of the zoning map and would have all the notice and hearing re- quirements of a rezoning. 3) The development and approval of a seperate S.P.A. Master Plan for the Physics Institute lands. Of course there are points to be made on both sides of this question. On one hand, the Aspen Institute insists that the City's intransigence with respect to zoning institute lands serves only to frustrate, disappoint and ultimately discourage the aspiring cultural and education groups in the city. However, the approval of an overall plan by granting building permits on a building by building basis erodes the concept of an overall, integrated balanced plan. I have given,Mr. Fishbane our more or less standard response and sae continue to hold out for an overall master plan. We will continue with this policy position unless otherwise directed by Council. You may expect some serious lobbying by the Physics group and we will stand by to impliment any policy you choose. Under normal circumstances I would not raise this issue but felt it to be of such significance as to warrant Council consideration. Cc: Sandy Stuller ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS BUX 1208 ASPEN, COLORADO 131611 9 August, 1976 Charles Collins . Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Collins: Upon the recommendation of. the City Planner, the City Manager and the City Council, the Aspen Center for Physics respectfully requests that the property as shown on the en- closed survey be rezoned a separate S.P.A. so that we can build our new library building. Also enclosed is the master plan for' this property. The Aspen Center for Physics has rights for first use in perpetuity to this land whose title holder is the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. The property consists of approximately 2.1 acres and is presently zoned S.P.A. Because of funding contingencies, we would appreciate your immediate attention regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, PMF/ss Paul M. Fishbane, President Aspen Center for Physics fm!? I97b ELLI ISELO • �1 7� 0o 0 tul- �4 dzl�, • Before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen State of Colorado ) ss. County of Pitkin ) Ann Salter being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. She is a secretary at the Aspen Center for Physics. 2. On Wednesday, August 18, 1976 she personally prepared envelopes addressed to those on the attached list marked as Exhibit A; that separate envelopes were prepared by her for each person that on the attached list has both a street and box address; that she placed a copy of the public notice as published in the Aspen Times on Thursday, August 19, 1976 in each of the envelopes; and that on Friday, August 20, 1976, she mailed each of the envelopes, first- class postage prepaid. Dated: 1 4/1 Ann AdIter Subscribed and sworn to before me this _day of w , 1976. My commission expires: E-- -g7 - 7 .9-'- Notary P lic Center for Physics Property O� * within 300 feet of Asp y" Mr. °c Mrs. C}zrl_es T. Collins Box HH Ms. Ida Vail Pabst 635 W. Gillespie or Sox 8015 Mary McCarten 625 Dillesoie Robert W.Pullen 825 North St. �/26 5 If 74 d j4VVSJr,, TgV-. 770 7-7 Mrs. Walter Paepcke Box 1032 fes. Elaine C . }ii ;bee 1200 Amer. Idatl. Dank Bld;;. Denver, co. 80202 or 615 W. Gillespie Tarnz. in P. O'Meara 603 W Gillespie or Box 10457 Mr. &furs. James J. Markalunas 624 N. 6th St or Box 542 Thomas 0. Wells 614 W. North or Box 3199 Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Burkee 610 W. North or Box 544 Ms . Greta M. Lum 600 North or Box UU Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ia ngenkamp 633 W. North or 4403 Center Ave. Apt, 5D Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Bresnit2 715 W. North or Box 70 Mrs. Fred Iselin 707 W North Box 418 Lucy R. Hibbard Roberta P. Dickson 521 W. North or 1937 Fast Alameda Denver 80207 Mrs. Carol Block Rox 1898 ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS BOX 120B ASPEN, C❑L❑RAD❑ B1611 public notice re: Physics Center Rezoning PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing will be held before the City of Aspen Planning and zoning Commission at 5:00 o'clock P.M., September 7, 1976 upon the application of the.Aspen Center for Physics for a rezoning of 2.3 acres of land ownedby the Aspen Institute for Humanis- tic Studies and licensed to the Physics Center, located generally at 6th and Gilles- pie streets, from a Specially Planned Area of the larger tract belonging to the Institute to a Specially Planned Area for the specific 2.3 acres, and for approval of the Physics Center's "precise plan" for the 2-3 scree, which plan envisions principally the con- struction of one additional building to house a library, seminar room and offices. The 2.3 acre parcel at 6th and Gillespie Streets is legally described as follows: A tract of land situated in the SW'14 NEy4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the NW Corner of said SW V4 NEV4 Section 12 bears No 25 degrees 11'45" W. 1041.20 feet; thence N 17 degrees 34' 00" E 344.04 feet; thence East 253.42 feet; thence South 328.00 feet; thence West 357.26 feet to the point of beginning; containing 2.299 acres, more or less. Copies of the plan are available for re- view at the Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen. CITY OF ASPEN By: Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk ";;• Published in the Aspen Times Aug 19, - 1976. Before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen August 17, 1976 ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS' Application for rezoning of 2.3 acres from SPA in a larger tract to SPA for the specific 2.3 acre tract; and application for approval of a "precise plan" for such tract. Paul M. Fishbane, President, Aspen Center for Physics Jack M. Walls, Architect Oates, Austin & McGrath J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., Counsel •'y„' ter' .�` ✓...��..+.�.M1��.�1�-. . __-.-• "� �!�•_ %u.. ~' . � 4... •.� __ _ .� ... �� � .. .. �...,a.r �"� ��� r 'ILK.. Y �� •.\•.... `� �`1�'� f � � . - ASO)E' N• CENTER ,FOR PHYSICS J ACK M. WALLS ARCHY7,ECT•, • LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 JOHN THOMAS KELLY August 16, 1976 TELEPHONE 925-2600 R05ERT W. HUGHES The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Commission Members: The Aspen Center for Physics is a Colorado non-profit corporation, and has been since 1968. It has a license in perpetuity to use approximately 2.3 acres of land owned by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (in the so-called "academic area"); its offices and academic buildings are located at Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and it has conducted its academic business there in the summers for the last fourteen years. It is our understanding that to any extent necessary to satisfy the City's requirement that the "owner" of land join in an application for rezoning, the Institute joins this separate application (see Tab "A"). The Physics Center is badly in need of a new building; the building and the need therefor is discussed below. How- ever, it now finds itself unfortunately caught up in the larger planning and development differences that appear to exist be- tween the Institute and the City. This application is an attempt (a) to extricate the Physics Center from those larger problems, and (b) to persuade you and the City Council that, for the reasons below, the 2.3 acres of the Physics Center (which is "owned" by the Institute (see Tabs "A" and "B") ought to be dealt with separately and independently from the rest of the Institute's approximately 120 acres. The Physics Center is described more fully in materials attached hereto as Tabs "C" and I'D." It is a totally indepen- dent entity from the Institute, although two Institute officers do sit on the Physics Center's twenty -member Board of Trustees. The Center's annual budget is only about $70,000.00, and it has no paid staff except secretarial and maintenance. While it is, even by academic standards, low budget and low keyed, it is nonetheless unique in the world. Its trustees and current participants include at least one Nobel winner in physics, as • 10 OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page two August 16, 1976 well as several physicists on the staffs at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, and at the Los Alamos, New Mexico, Scientific Laboratory of the University of Califor- nia. All of the participants are prominent physicists; they come to the Physics Center to research and to communicate with other physicists on questions ultimately essential to us all. Given that, historically for almost a decade, the Physics Center has been independent and has had virtually autonomy con- cerning its 2.3 acres at Sixth and Gillespie; that the Center has always had total control in its development, raised its own funds, and the like, we hope you will agree a persuasive case can be made that you should deal separately with its 2.3 acre site -- despite the undeniably appealing planning position that all of the Institute's land should be handled as a whole. For if the Physics Center is viewed as part of the Institute's proposals, the Physics Center will in all likelihood not be able to begin its needed building this year, and will in that event jeopardize or lose needed foundation grants for construction. The Physics Center has raised approximately $120,000.00 for its proposed new building (Tab "E" is a list of contributors). A grant of $50,000.00 from the Kresge Foundation must be committed by October 15, 1976 (i.e., in Kresge's present apparent view, having a construction contract signed and building to begin by then). A grant ($40,000.00) of the Fleischmann Foundation must be similarly committed by June 1, 1977. The proposed 3,666 sq. ft. building is to house the Physics Center's highly specialized library (sharing a library with others is thus unrealistic for the Center); it provides an all-weather seminar room (the only present seminar "room" is out-of-doors); and it will provide some needed office space, so that two, rather than three, physicists will share an office. (One can readily surmise it is difficult to do theoretical equations -- let alone concentrate -- when three physicists share one small blackboard in an office!) The building con- templates no expansion in the Center's activities; it has already decided its present size is optimal (see Tab "C"). Thus, this application involves no new housing, transportation, or parking impacts. OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page three August 16, 1976 The building is low in profile, architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings, and situated so that, given existing landscaping, buildings, and topography, the new library virtually could not be seen from adjacent residential streets, and indeed would be visible at all only from the Music Tent, Red Mountain, and the sky. (See the map accompanying this material.) The Physics Center has been a good neighbor even in land use terms. It has spent much more in landscaping than its low budget would otherwise justify, and its existing plantings in large measure lessen any visual impact of the proposed library. The present building and rezoning plan has been presented to and has the approval of, its neighbors, the West End Improvement Association (see Tab "F"). It has even purchased some 50 bicycles, which it makes available to its participants at a nominal rental, to lessen dependence on the automobile and attendant impacts of cars on the neighborhood. From a planning standpoint, it is always logically better to deal with a larger whole (e.g., all of the Institute's 120 acres), than with smaller pieces -- but sometimes (a) the small piece has a history of being dealt with separately, (b) is autonomous, and (c) is so small and insignificant in relation to the larger whole, that given its clear need for separate treat- ment, the otherwise valid planning considerations should yield. We hope you will agree this is such a case; and that you will set a prompt public hearing to rezone the 2.3 acres on which the Physics Center sits to its own Specially Planned Area, and upon the Center's "precise plan" for that area. The technical requirements of this submittal follow this letter (Tab "G"), and other background materials are set forth at Tab "H." Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH By ��v kk Gam% J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMJr/le R. O. Anderson Chairman J. E. Slater President Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies Mr. Bill Kane Planning Office City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: 1000 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 U.S.A. 303 925 7010 Cable: Aspeninst Colorado 12 August 1976 As owner of record, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies joins with the Aspen Center for Physics in the accompanying request for rezoning and master plan approval of the approximately 2. 3 acres shown herein. This request is made by us only in order to satisfy the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. Because the Aspen Center for Physics for more than a decade has been the tenant of the buildings and immediately adjacent land, it will continue to have such rights in the event of a transfer to the Univer- sity of Denver of the academic area. We understand that the Physics Center may use this letter in connection with its request for permission for the construction of a new library. In view of the funding deadlines faced by the Aspen Center for Physics, we join with them in hoping you can give their request your immediate favorable attention. Sincerely yours, E. Slater Aspen to for Humanistic Studies 1. 1000 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 U.S.A. 303 925 7010 Cable: Aspeninst Colorado Dr. Paul M . Fishbane Aspen Center for Physics 1. O. Anderson CLiirman I 12 ��, E. Slater President Box Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dr, Fishbane: 7 August 1976 The purpose of this letter is to confirm the arrangements which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies has had with the Aspen Center for Physics for more than a decade. In addition, we formally wish to express the hope that the Aspen Center for Physics will be permitted to construct its needed library facilities. We would appreciate it if you would please sign this letter and the following resume, which conforms to the existing arrangements that are as follows: The buildings and immediate area of land known as "The Aspen Center for Physics" and used by the Aspen Center for Physics be made available to the Aspen Center for Physics in perpetuity to the extent their needs to carry out the Physics Program require. The buildings and ground.; remain the property of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and shall be made available for other uses during the period when acti- vities of the Aspen Center for Physics are not in progress. If the facilities and lands are not utilized by the Aspen Center for Physics for two consecutive years,all of their rights will be terminated and the property will revert to the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and/or to the University of Denver. (As you know, a donation of the Institute's academic core, including the Physics Center area, is being made to the University of Denver with certain reversionary clauses. In this donation, the rights of the Physics Center to continue their program on the basis they have had with the Aspen Institute is assured and has been agreed to by the University of Denver.) The. Aspen Center for Physics must consult with and advise the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies regarding any changes in archi- tecture, aesthotic quality or character which conforms to the agreement which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Center for Physics have had from the beginning. The Aspen Center for Physics must notify the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and/or the University of Denver a year in advance of their needs in other than the summer period in order to facilitate the I. Dr. Pau%Fishbane s 7 August 1976 proper scheduling of the facilities and lands currently used by the Aspen Center for Physics, and any new construction would be covered by the requirements for prior approval and consultation and other provisions outlined in this letter. APPROVED: Paul M . Fishbane Sincerely, E . Slater President Jill Davis, Assistant Secretary Date 0 ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS Fact Sheet The Institution What is the Aspen Center for Physics? The ACP is an independent scientific -educational institution which runs a 13 - 14 week program in theoretical physics and astrophysics each summer. It is incorporated in the state of Colorado, and is recognized as a non-profit insti- tution by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Is the ACP part of the Aspen Institute? No. The ACP is completely independent legally, financially, and adminstratively. The ACP started under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in 1962, but was incorporated as an independent institution in 1968. It operates uder its own board of trustees, plans its own programs, and finances these programs and its facilities with funds raised specifically for these purposes. It was also operated and funded indepen- dently of the Aspen Institute in the early years, 1962-67. Where did the facilities come from? The two physics buildings at 6th and Gillespie Streets were built with funds raised specifically for the physics program. Because of the early connection with the Aspen Institute, the buildings are on land which belongs to the Aspen Institute, and formal title is with the Institute. However, the ACP was given use of the buildings and land in perpetuity for the physics program when the Center was incorporated in 1968. Who maintains the physics buildings and grounds? The ACP maintains the buildings and grounds, and has put sub- stantial effort each year into upgrading the buildings, im- proving the landscaping, and so forth. The Aspen Institute does not contribute to maintenance, improvements, operating costs, etc. What facilities are available? The two buildings have office space in two -person offices for 58 participants, plus two administrative and secretarial offices. There is a small research library, and an outdoor patio area used for seminar/lectures. The ACP Program What is the ACP program? The ACP runs a program in theoretical research in physics and astrophysics June - August each summer. The program is relatively unstructured, and provides scientists from dif- ferent institutions a chance to get together to talk about n • • 2. and work intensively on problems at the forefront of physics and astrophysics. The organized activities consist of lectures and discussions of special subjects. About 150 research papers a year result from work done at the Center. Is it important? The Center's program is the largest and most successful of its kind in the world. The work done at the Center has been of very high quality, and many of the most productive physicists and astrophysicsits in the U.S. and abroad try to spend time here. Who comes to the ACP? Participants are selected by the trustees on the basis of their scientific abilities. They are professors and research scientists from universities and research laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. Most come with their families for an average stay in Aspen of four weeks. How big is the program? There will be 250 participants in the 1976 program, repre- senting 90 institutions. They were selected from over 450 applications for the program. There are about 70 partici- pants at the Center at a time. We have experimented with the size, and had 80 — 90 participants at a time in 1973. This was too large for the kind of informal contact the program is designed to facilitate, and the size was deliber- ately cut back to the present average of 70. Who funds the ACP program? The physics -astrophysics program is funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by registration fees charged to participants, and by contributions from our Corporate Associates.. The total operating budget for 1976 is $70,125 comprised of $46,500 for the NSF, $8825 from NASA, $10,800 in registration fees, and $4000 from the Corporate Associates (Xerox and Bell Laboratories). Where does the money go? Roughly two-thirds of the $70,000 budget goes into operating funds for the program: secretarial and administrative services, books and journals, supplies, upkeep, etc. The ACP does not pay participants, and provides only very minimal support for travel and other expenses (an average of $100 per person in 1976). Rentals for ACP participants and their families are taken from the general Aspen market and total an additional $85,000 in 1976. Other living expenses of the participants and their families should be added to this total in assessing the economic impact of the ACP on the Aspen community. It is a measure of the value of the program that so many scientists want to participate despite what is usually a considerable personal expense. • • 3. Why have the program in Aspen? Because Aspen is such an attractive place for families, participants are willing to come here at their own expense. They typically work very intensively during the week, and get into the mountains on weekends. The physicists seem to be particularly well-known in local sporting goods shops and restaurants, and as music festival patrons. Some 20 physicists now own houses or apartments in Aspen. The New Phvsics Building Why build a new building? The ACP urgently needs more library space, an indoor seminar room, and a few more offices to relieve present overcrowding. Why not use Aspen Institute facilities? The ACP and the Aspen Institute are completely independent. The ACP has never used the Institute facilities, which are completely devoted to Institute programs. Moreover, these facilities would not be suitable for ACP needs even if they were available. (For example, physics seminars require a small lecture- or classroom -type seminar area and are quite different from the round -table discussions typical of In- stitute programs. Physics office space, with the requirement of blackboards, etc., is quite different from the Institute offices, and a research library, to be useful, must be im- mediately accessible from the offices.) Why does the ACP need a new library? The present library occupies two offices (opened up) and a storage room, and has completely outgrown this space. The library budget is roughly $10,000 a year for the highly specialized journals and books necessary for. a successful.. program. The collection grows at the rate suggested -by this figure and the well-known information explosion in science. The new library will have roughly 1000 square feet of stack and reading space, compared to 330 square feet in the present library. This will enable us to keep- all our books, current research journals, and back issues for ten years.readily accessible. Why a seminar room? The ACP does not have an indoor seminar room. Seminars are held outdoors on a patio adjacent to the Stranahan building, weather permitting. The seminar room will be lecture -style, with seating for about 60. Why more offices? In order to accomodate 70 scientists (the size we have found most suitable in ensuring a wide variety of interests among the participants without losing the possibility of informal contacts), the Center has to put three participants in all the two -person offices in one building, and to use a nearby house for overflow office space. The tripled offices are • 4. noisy and uncomfortable, and not conducive to concentrated work. The overflow space is inconveniently far from the library and the center of activity. Both problems will be eliminated when the new building is available. Won't more offices just lead to a bigger program? No. There is no intention to increase the size of the program. Quite the contrary. Past experiments with larger sizes were unsuccessful, and the program was deliberately reduced to its present size. It was resolved by the trustess again in 1976 to hold the program to its present size, and in fact, to cut back if necessary in 1977 to avoid tripling offices. How large will the new building be? Approximately 3300 square feet, with a library, seminar room, 6 two -person offices, and an administrative office. What will it look like and where will it be? It will be a partially sunken low -profile concrete block and wood building located between and north of the existing buildings. The exterior will be compatible with the exist- ing buildings. The new building will be very inconspicuous from Gillesnie Street. What about parking? There will be no change in the size of the program, so the present parking area will continue to be adequate. The ACP provides approximately 50 bicycles for participants at a small rent, and is on the present City bus route. Overflow parking is available in the music lot on the rare occasions when it is needed. What about the land? The new building will be on land totaling 2.1 acres owned by the Aspen Institute in the so-called "academic area". The ACP has use of the land and the existing buildings in per- petuity for the physics program. What about funds for the building? The ACP has received grants from the Fleischmann Foundation ($40,000), the Kresge Foundation ($50,000), past participants and their families ($15,000), and its Corporate Associates and others ($10,000) toward the cost of the building, and is ready to proceed with construction. The Kresge grant must be committed by October 15, 1976, and the Fleischmann grant, by June 1, 1977. When would the building be available? The building is urgently needed for the 1977 program. There is literally no space in the library for our next order of books and journals, and cutting back the size of the program to avoid tripling up offices might endanger the funding and effectiveness of the program. In addition the funding from the Kresge Foundation earmarked explicitly for the building will be in danger without an autumn start. The building should be available if the present zoning problems can be resolved in time for a start on construction this fall. 0 • 6. TRUSTEES, ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS TERMS TO EXPIRE IN 1979 Elihu Abrahams, Rutgers University Philip Anderson, Bell Laboratories Felix Boehm, California Institute of Technology Peter Carruthers, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Benjamin Lee, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory L.M. Simmons, Jr., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Frederik Zachariasen, California Institute of Technology TERMS TO EXPIRE IN 1978 Stephen Adler, Institute for Advanced Study Stirling Colgate, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory David DeYoung, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Paul Fishbane, University of Virginia Sydney Meshkov, National Bureau of Standards Heinz Pagels, The Rockefeller University `PERMS TO EXPIRE IN 1977 R.O. Anderson, Atlantic Richfield A.G.W. Cameron, Harvard University Loyal Durand, University of Wisconsin Murray Gell-Mann, California Institute of Technology Peter Kaus, University of California David Pines, University of Illinois Joseph Slater, The Aspen Institute HONORARY TRUSTEES Hans Bethe, Cornell University Michael Cohen, University of Pennsylvania Robert W. Craig, Keystone Center Daniel Fivel, University of Maryland George Stranahan, Aspen Robert R. Wilson, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory PAST TRUSTEES Julius Ashkin, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1972 Michel Baranger, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1974 Harrison Brown, California Institute of Technology, 1971-1972 Richard Ferrell, University of Maryland, 1968-1972 George Field, Harvard University, 1972-1974 Marvin Goldberger, Princeton University, 1968-1973 Alan Heeger, University of Pennsylvania, 1973-1976 Henry Primakoff, University of Pennsylvania, 1968-1972 Frederick Seitz, Rockefeller University, 1968-1972 Lincoln Wolfenstein, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1973 Who Are The Participants? In the summer of 1976, 240 physicists and 40 astrophysicists from 90 different institutions and 10 different countries attended the Aspen Center for Physics. The average length of stay of these physicists is 4 weeks from May 31. to September 5, and the average size of their families is two children and two adults. Twenty of them own property and/or homes in Aspen and many visit again during the winter months to ski. Most of the physicists are ardent hikers, fishermen and tennis players and they spend much of their free time in these endeavors. The Center trys to attract a wide variety of participants. Approximately 60% were junior faculty or the equivalent, and each year approximately 40% visit here for the first time. It is not atypical to have several Nobel Laureates in attendance. 11 • Report on Building Fund Aspen Center for Physics H. Paaels Building Fund Chairman Grants Max C. Fleishmann Foundation Kresge Foundation Total Grants Gifts Atlantic Richfield Mazor Foundation IBM Bell Labs Individuals (names attached) Interests on Deposits Accumulated Total Architect Fees Fund Raising Expenses_ Total Cash on Hand (August 12, 1976 ) August 12, 1976 $40,000.00 50,000.00 90,000.00 $ 1,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 $13,000.00 14,221.73 -- -71.� --7-5— 27,994.48 - 5,123.48 - 596.35 $22,274.74 .1 Building Fund Contributors Abrahams Gallagher Adler Gasiorowicz Anderson, R. 0. Ge11-iv;ann Ashkin Gittleman 3aierlein Gladney Baranger, M Glasser, M. L. 3ardasis Good, R. H. Baym Guralnik Be- Halperin Bernstein Hammer Berry Harms 3ethe Harrison Boynton Hartle Brickwedde, F. Haymaker Brown, R. Heeger Brogan Hellwarth Campbell, D. Henneberger Carlson Herczeg Carruthers, P. Hobson Castillejo Hofstader Chakkalakal Holstein Chang, N. P. Hoyer Chen-, T. P. Huang Coleman Joss Coleg'ate Kabir Cohen, Judith Karl Cohen, Michael Kaus Cohen, Morrell Klauder Connell Klein Daehnick Kleinman, L. DeFacio Knasel Dexter Kopf, Carol Ann Domokos Krisch Dresden Krizan En,ler Lamb, F. Erenson Leiobowitz Esposito Lieb Farrar, S. Lowe, I. Fearing McCray Feenberg Marshak Feynman Martin Field Merzberger, E. Fisher Michel, F. C. Fishbone Mullin Frampton Nagle Frauenfelder Neal Freund Nieto Fricke Newman Norton E Oertel Sterns Okubo Strauch Oput Sucher Pa-els Suranyi Peccei Suura Pines Swift Poirier Taylor Prange Terhune Pratt Theimer Primack Tomkin Quinn Tomozawa Ramond, P. Treat Rosen, P. True Rosner Truran, J. Saladin Uzes Sakita Wali Saperstein Warnock Satchler Watts Schwarz, J. '.9ayhmar Segall, B. Widdenthal Segre Wilson Shapiro, M.. Winik Shaw, G. Witten, T. Shen Wong, T. F. Shimizu Yang Shtokhamer Silk Simarek Simmons Sirlin Slansky Spruch Steele Sternheim M w WEST SIDE IMPROV10.ENT ASSOCIATION 701 N. Thrid Street Aspen 4 August, 1976 The Hon. Stacey Stanley, Mayor Members of the City Council The Board of the West Side Improvement Association supports the Aspen Center for Physics in their request for specially planned zoning for their 2. some acres of land. -We approve the plans of their proposed building, and support their no -growth policy, i.e. maintaining their operation at 70-75 participants at a time. We also encour- age them to use the parking area of the M.A.A., and thus avoid on -street parking on Gillespie and 6th Streets. We understand that it is important that they break ground this summer for their new building or possible lose their grants. We concur in their expeniency. We further suggest that as soon as feasible that the Aspen Center for Physics make a committment to replace the -present wooden structure. The physicists, many of whom are property owners in the West Side are a positive asset to the community - economi- cally as well as socially. We have contacted as many of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of The Center as was possible in such a short time. All those contacted were favorable: Agreed: Mrs. Mary McCarten 625 Gillespie Mr. and Mrs. James Markalunas 624 N. 6th Street Mir, and Mars. Kurt Bresnitz 715 W. North Street i":rs. Elli Islen 707 West North N M Out of Towne Mrs. Elaine Higby 615 W. Gillespie For Sale: ;,rs. Ivy Papst 635 W. Gillespie Mrs. Lucy Hibbard 521 W. North Mr. and Mrs. David O'Meara 603 W. Gillespie Yours Very Truly Ann Schwind Chairman West Side Improvement Assoc. 1 0 • Outline for Precise Plan for Physics Center's 2.3 Acres 1. Uses. Academic. 2. Setbacks. Side: 10 feet; rear: 15 feet; front: 20 feet (in minimums). 3. Height. Maximum of 25 feet. 4. Open space. At least 250. The per cent of actual open land is more like 87%. The total land area is approximately 1001145 square feet. Building coverage is as follows: Hilbert Hall 5,558 sq. ft. Stranahan Hall 4,219 sq. ft. New library, etc. 3,666 sq. ft. Total land coverage: 13,443 sq. ft. It is proposed that Hilbert Hall, a wooden structure, be replaced eventually, but that would not change these figures for purposes of the precise plan. The timing of the replace- ment of Hilbert Hall is of course dependent upon the exigencies of fund-raising and foundation grants. 5. Site location. In the City of Aspen, served by and adjacent to Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and is more fully shown on drawings accompanying this application. 6. Utilities. All necessary utilities are at the site (as is also more fully shown on the drawings). 7. Adjacent landowners. The names and addresses of landowners within 300 feet are on an attached list. e Property Own* within 300 feet of Aspe*enter for Physics Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Collins Robert W.Pullen Box HH 825 North St. Ms. Ida Vail Pabst 635 W. Gillespie or Box 8015 Mary McCarten 625 Uillesnie Ms. Elaine C. Higbee 1200 Amer. Natl. Bank Bldg. Denver, co. 80202 or 615 W. Gillespie Tamzin P. O'Meara 603 W Gillespie or Box 10457 Mr. & Mrs. James J. Markalunas 624 N. 6th St or Box 542 Thomas 0. Wells 614 W. North or Box 3199 Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Burkee 610 W. North or Box 544 Ms. Greta M. Lum 600 North or Box UU Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ia ngenkamp 633 W. North or 4403 Center Ave. Apt. 5D Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Bresnitz 715 W. North or Box 70 Mrs. Fred Iselin 707 W North Box 418 Lucy R. Hibbard Roberta P. Dickson 521 W. North or 1937 East Alameda Denver 80209 Mr. & Mrs. Bill Block Box 1832 MEMORANDUM M TO: Aspen City Council, City Manager. FROM: Bill Kane RE: Physics Institute DATE: July 23, 1976 1 As you may know we have been discussing the problem of the expansion of the Physics Institute with respect to the larger question of adoption of a master plan for the entire 130 acre Institute property. The Physics Institute has received grant money from the Kiesge Foundation which would allow them to build a new building to include a library and seminar room (copy of general plans attached). We have consistently agreed that any improvement to the Physics Institute property be tied in with an overall S.P.A. master plan for the Aspen Institute lands. The Physics building must be started before Oct- ober 15 of this year in order to qualify for grant money. To this point they have been waiting for the Aspen Institute to submit an overall master plan. With Fall approaching and no plan submitted yet the physics group is obviously getting nervous. I was approached by Paul Fishbane, Physics Institute President and Jack Walls the architect for the project with a request to investigate the possibility of separating the Physics and Aspen Institutes to allow the physicists to proceed independently of the Aspen Institute. In response to this question I recited our traditional thinking on the subject but admitted that technically the seperation sought could be accomplished. Such a seperation would require, as a minimum the following: 1) A formalized long term written lease for lands immediate to the proposed Physics expansion. 2) A description of a seperate S.P.A. for the Physics Institute leased land. This, of course, would require the amendment of the zoning map and would have all the notice and hearing re- quirements of a rezoning. 3) The development and approval of a seperate S.P.A. Master Plan for the Physics Institute lands. Of course there are points to be made on both sides of this question. On one hand, the Aspen Institute insists that the City's intransigence with respect to zoning institute lands serves only to frustrate, disappoint and ultimately discourage the aspiring cultural and education groups in the city. However, the approval of an overall plan by granting building permits on a building by building basis erodes the concept of an overall, integrated balanced plan. I have given.Mr. Fishbane our more or less standard response and we continue to hold out for an overall master plan. We will continue with this policy position unless otherwise directed by Council. You may expect some serious lobbying by the Physics group and we will stand by to impliment any policy you choose. Under normal circumstances I would not raise this issue but felt it to be of such significance as to warrant Council consideration. �c: Sandy Stuller so so ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS BOX 1208 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9 August, 1976 Mr. Charles Collins Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Collins: Upon the recommendation of the City Planner, the City Manager and the City Council, the Aspen Center for Physics respectfully requests that the property as shown on the en- closed survey be rezoned a separate S.P.A. so that we can build our new library building. Also enclosed is the master plan for this property. The Aspen Center for Physics has rights for first use in perpetuity to this land whose title holder is the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. The property consists of approximately 2.1 acres and is presently zoned S.P.A. Because of funding contingencies, we would appreciate your immediate attention regarding this matter. PMF/ss Sincerely yours, Paul M. Fishbane, President Aspen Center for Physics �npt /YarlPci� — cleAverPel wt7k 14xJ /j / /97h Al �Nm J�� • LEONARD M. OATES RONALD O. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III JOHN THOMAS KELLY ROBERT W. HUGHES LAW OFFICES OATES, AuSTIN $ MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 August 16, 1976 The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Commission Members: AREA CODE_ 303 TELEPHONE 925-0600 The Aspen Center for Physics is a Colorado non-profit corporation, and has been since 1968. It has a license in perpetuity to use approximately 2.3 acres of land owned by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (in the so-called "academic area"); its offices and academic buildings are located at Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and it has conducted its academic business there in the summers for the last fourteen years. It is our understanding that to any extent necessary to satisfy the City's requirement that the "owner" of land join in an application for rezoning, the Institute joins this separate application (see Tab "A"). The Physics Center is badly in need of a new building; the building and the need therefor is discussed below. How- ever, it now finds itself unfortunately caught up in the larger planning and development differences that appear to exist be- tween the Institute and the City. This application is an attempt (a) to extricate the Physics Center from those larger problems, and (b) to persuade you and the City Council that, for the reasons below, the 2.3 acres of the Physics Center (which is "owned" by the Institute (see Tabs "A" and "B"), ought to be dealt with separately and independently from the rest of the Institute's approximately 120 acres. The Physics Center is described more fully in materials attached hereto as Tabs "C" and I'D." It is a totally indepen- dent entity from the Institute, although two Institute officers do sit on the Physics Center's twenty -member Board of Trustees. The Center's annual budget is only about $70,000.00, and it has no paid staff except secretarial and maintenance. while it is, even by academic standards, low budget and low keyed, it is nonetheless unique in the world. Its trustees and current participants include at least one Nobel winner in physics, as • OATES, AUSTIN 8, MCGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page two August 16, 1976 well as several physicists on the staffs at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, and at the Los Alamos, New Mexico, Scientific Laboratory of the University of Califor- nia. All of the participants are prominent physicists; they come to the Physics Center to research and to communicate with other physicists on questions ultimately essential to us all. Given that, historically for almost a decade, the Physics Center has been independent and has had virtually autonomy con- cerning its 2.3 acres at Sixth and Gillespie; that the Center has always had total control in its development, raised its own funds, and the like, we hope you will agree a persuasive case can be made that you should deal separately with its 2.3 acre site -- despite the undeniably appealing planning position that all of the Institute's land should be handled as a whole. For if the Physics Center is viewed as part of the Institute's proposals, the Physics Center will in all likelihood not be able to begin its needed building this year, and will in that event jeopardize or lose needed foundation grants for construction. The Physics Center has raised approximately $120,000.00 for its proposed new building (Tab "E" is a list of contributors). A grant of $50,000.00 from the Kresge Foundation must be committed by October 15, 1976 (i.e., in Kresge's present apparent view, having a construction contract signed and building to begin by then). A grant ($40,000.00) of the Fleischmann Foundation must be similarly committed by June 1, 1977. The proposed 3,666 sq. ft. building is to house the Physics Center's highly specialized library (sharing a library with others is thus unrealistic for the Center); it provides an all-weather seminar room (the only present seminar "room" is out-of-doors); and it will provide some needed office space, so that two, rather than three, physicists will share an office. (One can readily surmise it is difficult to do theoretical equations -- let alone concentrate -- when three physicists share one small blackboard in an office!) The building con -- templates no expansion in the Center's activities; it has already decided its present size is optimal (see Tab "C"). V-1us, this application involves no new housing, transportation, or parking impacts. E • OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Aspen Page three August 16, 1976 The building is low in profile, architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings, and situated so that, given existing landscaping, buildings, and topography, the new library virtually could not be seen from adjacent residential streets, and indeed would be visible at all only from the Music Tent, Red Mountain, and the sky. (See the map accompanying this material.) The Physics Center has been a good neighbor even in land use terms. It has spent much more in landscaping than its low budget would otherwise justify, and its existing plantings in large measure lessen any visual impact of the proposed library. The present building and rezoning plan has been presented to and has the approval of, its neighbors, the West End Improvement Association (see Tab "F"). It has even purchased some 50 bicycles, which it makes available to its participants at a nominal rental, to lessen dependence on the automobile and attendant impacts of cars on the neighborhood. From a planning standpoint, it is always logically better to deal with'a larger whole (e.g., all of the Institute's 120 acres), than with smaller pieces -- but sometimes (a) the small piece has a history of being dealt with separately, (b) is autonomous, and (c) is so small and insignificant in relation to the larger whole, that given its clear need for separate treat- ment, the otherwise valid planning considerations should yield. We hope you will agree this is such a case; and that you will set a prompt public hearing to rezone the 2.3 acres on which the Physics Center sits to its own Specially Planned Area, and upon the Center's "precise plan" for that area. The technical requirements of this submittal follow this letter (Tab "G"), and other background materials are set forth at Tab "H." Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMJr/le Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) > ss. County of Pitkin ) William _ A . Dunawaydo solemnly swear that I.................... ........_.............. I am the .._LiblS.der._..._..... ............... of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whale or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished continuously and uinterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as sceond-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legall notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspapers for the period of ......1............ consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .A.UgU.St.... 1-9.............. A. D., 19 ...76 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- paper dated ........... . ............................... A. D., 19 ........ .%Us1'l ` �j,� Lf�l Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in d far the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this ...... .... day of ... a. A. D., 19.._74 n \ Y No blic My commission expires ' Copy of Notice public notice re: Physics Center Rezoning PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing will be held before the City of Aspen Planning and zoning Commission at 5:00 o'clock P.M., September 7, 1976 upon the application of the Aspen Center for Physics for a rezoning of 2.3 acres of land owned by the Aspen Institute for Humanis- tic Studies and licensed to the Physics Center, located generally at 6th and Gilles- pie streets, from a Specially Planned Area of the larger tract belonging to the Institute to a Specially Planned Area for the specific 2.3 acres, and for approval of the Physics Centers "precise plan" for the 2.3 acres, which plan envisions principally the con- struction of one additional building to house a library, seminar room and offices. The 2.3 acre parcel at 6th and Gillespie Streets is legally described as follows: A tract of land situated in the SW`/. NEV. of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the NW Comer of said SW44 NEv. Section 12 bears No 25 degrees 11'45" W. 1041.20 feet; thence N 17 degrees 34' 00" E 344.04 feet; thence East 253.42 feet; thence South 328.00 feet; thence West 357.26 feet to the point of beginning; containing 2.299 acres. more or less. Copies of the plan are available for re- view at the Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen. CITY OF ASPEN Bv' Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times Aug 19, 1976. i -. _. a wit. � '--- --_ • % . _�/' -- - � - -- � - - • 'A "A. 7 lZ I` +•fir -Z i .L.^ .- `. i � .. � F � .� .. �1; '• .; > _ ASPf=-N,. CENTER FOR PHYSICS J ACK M. WALLS �'ARCH:1T,ECT• ;. O. Anderson Chairman i. E. Slater President Aspen Witute for Humanistic Studies Mr. Bill Kane Planning Office City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: 1000 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 U.S.A. 303 925 7010 Cable: Aspeninst Colorado 12 August 1976 As owner of record, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies joins with the Aspen Center for Physics in the accompanying request for rezoning and master plan approval of the approximately 2. 3 acres shown herein. This request is made by us only in order to satisfy the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. Because the Aspen Center for Physics for more than a decade has been the tenant of the buildings and immediately adjacent land, it will continue to have such rights in the event of a transfer to the Univer- sity of Denver of the academic area. We understand that the Physics Center may use this letter in connection with its request for permission for the construction of a new library. In view of the funding deadlines faced by the Aspen Center for Physics, we join with them in hoping you can give their request your immediate favorable attention. Sincerely yours, f E. Slater S toiderson G Finnan Sale: President Aspo11 in (7_ �( f Ol- HLlti1c1111S?!(:.`.'�ti.ldi `S 1000 North I bird St. • Aspvn, Colorado Ct 1511 U.S.A. 303 92.5 7010 Cable: Colorado 7 August 1976 Dr. Paul M. Fishbane Aspen Center for Physics Box 1208 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dr. Fisliban-a: The purpose of this .letter is to confirm the arrangements which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies has had with the Aspen Center for Physics for more than a decado . In addition, we formally wish to express the hope that the Aspen Center for Physics will be permitted to construct its needed library facilities. We would appreciate it if you would please sign this letter and the following resume, which conforms to the existing arrangements that are as follows: The buildings and immediate area of land known as "The Aspen Center for Physics" and used by the Aspen Center for Physics be made available to the Aspen Center for Physics in perpetuity to the extent their needs to carry out the Physics Program require. The buildings and ground:; remain the property of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and shall be made available for other uses during the period when acti- vities of the Aspen Center for Physics are not in progress. If the facilities and lands are not utilized by the Aspen Center for Physics for two consecutive years,' all of their rights will be terminated and the property will revert to the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and/or to the University of Denver. (As you knovr, a donation of the Institute's academic core, including the Physics Center area, is being made to the University of Denver with certain reversionary clauses, In this donation, the rights of the Physics Center to continue their program on the basis they have had with the Aspen Institute is assured and has been agreed to by the University of Denver.) The. Aspen Center for Physics must consult with and advise the Aspen Institute for IIumanistic Studies regarding any changes in archi- tecture, aesthotic quality or character which conforms to the agreement which the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Center for Physics have had from the beginning. The Aspen Center for Physics must notify the Aspen Institute for IIumanistic Studies and/or the University of Denver a year in advance of their needs in other than the summer period in order to facilitate the � y m t3 Dr. Pau 1'ishhane - � 7 Au.ust 1976 propor schedul.inq of the facilities and lands currently used by the Aspen Center for Physics, and any new construction would be covered by the requirements for prior approval and consultation and other provisi:�;�s outlined in this letter. Sincerely, E , Slater 1President Jill. Davis, Assistant Secretary APPROVED: Paul M . Fishbane Date ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS Fact Sheet The Institution What is the Aspen Center for Physics? The ACP is an independent scientific -educational institution which runs a 13 - 14 week program in theoretical physics and astrophysics each summer. It is incorporated in the state of Colorado, and is recognized as a non-profit insti- tution by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Is the ACP part of the Aspen Institute? No. The ACP is completely independent legally, financially, and adminstratively. The ACP started under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in 1962, but was incorporated as an independent institution in 1968. It operates uder its own board of trustees, plans its own programs, and finances these programs and its facilities with funds raised specifically for these purposes. It was also operated and funded indepen- dently of the Aspen Institute in the early years, 1962-67. Where did the facilities come from? The two physics buildings at 6th and Gillespie Streets were built with funds raised specifically for the physics program. Because of the early connection with the Aspen Institute, the buildings are on land which belongs to the Aspen Institute, and formal title is with the Institute. However, the ACP was given use of the buildings and land in perpetuity for the physics program when the Center was incorporated in 1968.. Who maintains the physics buildings and grounds? The ACP maintains the buildings and grounds, and has put sub- stantial effort each year into upgrading the buildings, im- proving the landscaping, and so forth. The Aspen Institute does not contribute to maintenance, improvements, operating costs, etc. What facilities are available? The two buildings have office space in two -person offices for 58 participants, plus two administrative and secretarial offices. There is a small research library, and an outdoor patio area used for seminar/lectures. The ACP Program What is the ACP program? The ACP runs a program in theoretical research in physics and astrophysics June - August each summer. The program is relatively unstructured, and provides scientists from dif- ferent institutions a chance to get together to talk about 2 . and work intensively on problems at the forefront of physics and astrophysics. The organized activities consist of lectures and discussions of special subjects. About 150 research papers a year result from work done at the Center. Is it important? The Center's program is the largest and most successful of its kind in the world. The work done at the Center has been of very high quality, and many of the most productive physicists and astrophysicsits in the U.S. and abroad try to spend time here. Who comes to the ACP? Participants are selected by the trustees on the basis of their :-c-ientific abilities. They are professors and research scientists from universities and research laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. Most come with their families for an average stay in Aspen of four weeks. How big is the program? There will be 250 participants in the 1976 program, repre- senting 90 institutions. They were selected from over 450 applications for the program. There are about 70 partici- pants at the Center at a time. We have experimented with the size, and had 80 - 90 participants at a time in 1973. This was too large for the kind of informal contact the program is designed to facilitate, and the size was deliber- ately cut back to the present average of 70. Who funds the ACP program? The physics -astrophysics program is funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by registration fees charged to participants, and by contributions from our Corporate Associates. The total -operating budget for 1976 is $70,125 . comprised of .$46,500 for the NSF, $8825 from NASA, $10,800 in registration fees, and $4000 from the Corporate Associates (Xerox and Bell Laboratories). Where does the money go? Roughly two-thirds of the $70,000 budget goes into operating funds for the program: secretarial and administrative services, books and journals, supplies, upkeep, etc. The ACP does not pay participants, and provides only very minimal support for travel and other expenses (an average of $100 per person in 1976). Rentals for ACP participants and their families are taken from the general Aspen markeu and total an additional $85,000 in 1976. Other living expenses of the participants and their families should be added to this total J.n assessing the economic :impact of the ACP on the Aspen community. It is a.measure of the value of the program that so many scientists want to participate despite what is usually a considerable personal expense. 3. V,;-iy have the program in Aspen? Because Aspen is such an attractive place for families, participants are willing to come here at their own expense. They typically work very intensively during the week, and get into the mountains on weekends. The physicists sec�uF to be particularly well -known -in local sporting goods shops and restaurants, and as music festival patrons. Some 20 physicists now own houses or apartments in Aspen. The New Physics Building lrJhy build a new building? The ACP urgently needs more library space, an indoor seminar room, and a few more offices to relieve present overcrowding. Why not use Aspen Institute facilities? The ACP and the Aspen Institute are completely independent. The ACP has never used the Institute facilities, which are completely devoted to Institute programs. Moreover, these facilities would not be suitable for ACP needs even if they were available. (For example, physics seminars require a small lecture- or classroom -type seminar area and are quite different from the round -table discussions typical of In- stitute programs. Physics office space, with the requirement of blackboards, etc., is quite different from the Institute offices, and a research library, to be useful, must be im- mediately accessible from the offices.) Why does the ACP need a new library? The present library occupies two offices (opened up) and a storage room, and has completely outgrown this space. The library budget is roughly $10,000 a year for the highly specialized journals and books necessary for a successful.. program.- The -collection grows at the rate suggested.by this figure and the well-known information explosion in science. The new library .will have roughly 1000 square feet of stack and reading space, compared to 330 square feet in the present library. This will enable us to keep all our books, current research journals, and back issues for ten years.readily accessible. Why a seminar room? The ACP does not have an indoor seminar room. Seminars are held outdoors on a patio adjacent to the Stranahan building, weather permitting. The seminar room will be lecture -style, with seating for about 60. Why more offices? Tn order to accornodate 70 sc .entists (the size we have found most suitable in ensuring.a wide variety of interests among the participants without losing the possibility of informal contacts) , the Center has to put - three participants in all the two -person offices in one building, and to use a nearby house for overflow office space. The tripled offices are • • 4. rosy and uncomfortable, and not conducive to concentrated .•:ork. The overflow space is inconveniently far from the library and the center of activity. Both problems will be eliminated when the new building is available. Won't more offices just lead to a bagger program? 'ado. There is no intention to increase the size of the program. Quite the contrary. Past experiments with larger sizes were unsuccessful, and the program was deliberately reduced to its present size. It was resolved by the trusters again in 1976 to hold the program to its present size, and in fact, to cut back if necessary in 1977 to avoid tripling offices. large will the new building be? Approximately 3300 square feet, with a library, seminar room, 6 two -person offices, and an administrative office. 'v;.at will it look like and where will it be? It will be a partially sunken low -profile concrete block and wood building located between and north of the existing buildings. The exterior will be compatible with the exist- ing buildings. The new building will be very inconspicuous from Gillespie Street. „_nat about parking? There will be no change in the size of the program, so the present parking area will continue to be adequate. The ACP provides approximately 50 bicycles for participants at a small rent, and is on the present City bus route. Overflow parking is available in the music lot on the rare occasions when it is needed. What about the land? The new building will be on land totaling 2.1 acres owned by the Aspen Institute in the so-called "academic area". The ACP has use of the land and the existing buildings in per- petuity for the physics program. Z7at about funds for the building? The ACP has received grants from ($40,000), the Kresge Foundation and their families ($15,000), and others ($10,000) toward the cost to proceed with construction. the Fleischmann Foundation ($50,000), past participants its Corporate Associates and of the building, and is ready The Kresge grant must be committed by October 15, 1976, and the Fleischmann grant, by June 1, 1977. • 5. en :•;ould the building be available? The building is urgently needed for the 1977 program. There is literally no space in the library for our next order of books and journals, and cutting back the size of the program to avoid tripling up offices might endanger the funding and effectiveness of the program. In addition the funding from the Kresge Foundation earmarked explicitly for the building will be in danger without an autumn start. The building should be available if the present zoning problems can be resolved in time for a start on construction this fall. n .11 TRUSTEES, ASPEN CENTF,R FOR PHYSICS T'_= :-'S TO EXPIRE IN 1 Elihu Abrahams, Rutgers University Philip Anderson, Bell Laboratories Felix Boehm, California Institute of Technology Peter Carruthers, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Benjamin Lee, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory L.M. Simmons, Jr., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Frederik Zachariasen, California Institute of Technology TO EXPIRE IN 1978 Stephen Adler, Institute for Advanced Study Stirling Colgate, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory David DeYoung, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Paul Fishbane, University of Virginia Sydney Meshkov, National Bureau of Standards Heinz Pagels, The Rockefeller University TER'•:S TO EXPIRE IN 1977 R.O. Anderson, Atlantic Richfield A.G.W. Cameron, Harvard University Loyal Durand, University of Wisconsin Murray Gell-Mann, California Institute of Technology Peter Kaus, University of California David Pines, University of Illinois Joseph Slater, The Aspen Institute HO`<ORARY- TRUSTEES Hans Bethe, Cornell University Michael Cohen, University of Pennsylvania Robert W. Craig, Keystone Center - Daniel Fivel, University of Maryland George Stranahan, Aspen Robert R. Wilson, Fermi PJ,.tional Accelerator Laboratory PAST TRUSTEES Julius Ashkin, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1972 -chel Baranger, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1974 Harrison Brown, California Institute of Technology, 1971-1972 Richard Ferrell, University of Maryland, 1968-1972 George Field, Harvard University, 1972-1974 'arvin Goldberger, Princeton University, 1968-1973 Alan Heeger, University of•Pennsylvania, 1973-1976 Henry Primakoff, University of Pennsylvania, 1968-1972 Frederick Seitz, Rockefeller University, 1968-1972 Lincoln Wolfenstein, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1968-1973 Who Are The Participants? In the summer of 1976, 240 physicists and 40 astrophysicists from 90 different institutions and 10 different countries attended the Aspen Center for Physics. The average length of stay of these physicists is 4 weeks from May 33. to September S, and the average size of their families is two children and two adults. Twenty of them own property and/or homes in Aspen and many visit again during the winter months to ski. Most of the physicists are ardent hikers, fishermen and tennis players acid they spend much of their free time in these endeavors. The Center trys to attract a wide variety of participants. Approximately 60% were junior faculty or the ecuivalent, and each year approximately 40% visit here for the first time. It is not atypical. to have several Nobel Laureates in attendance. i August 12, 1976 ?enort on Building Fund Aspen Center for Physics Panels -uildin-a Fund Chairman ^rants ?,„ax C. Fleishmann Foundation $40,000.00 P;res e Foundation 50,000.00 Total Grants 90,000.00 Gifts Atlantic Richfield $ 1,000.00 Mazor Foundation 5,000.00 IBM 5,000.00 well Labs 2,000.00 13,000.00 Tndividuals (names attached) 14,221.73 Interests on Deposits __.7IZ---75 Accumulated Total 27,994.48 r.rchitect Fees - 5,123.48 Fund Raising_Exnenses -_ 59,L- motal Cash on Hand (August 12, 1976) $22,274.74 Building Fund Contributors Abrahams Gallagher Adler Gasiorowicz Anderson, R. 0. Ge11-Mann Ashkin Gittleman Ba.ierle in Gladney =:ranter, .M Glasser, M. L. -;ardasis Good, R. H. Baym Guralnik Beg Hal-Derin Bernstein Hammer Berry Harms Bethe Harrison Boynton Hartle Brickaiedde, F. Haymaker Brown, R. Heeger Brogan Hellwarth Cam-obell, D. Henrieberger Carlson Herczeg Carruthers, P. Hobson Castillejo Hofstader Chakkalakal Holstein Chang, N. P. Hoyer Chen-, T. P. Huang Coleman Joss Coleaate Kab it Cohen, Judith Karl Cohen, Michael Kaus Cohen, I4jorrell Klauder Connell Klein Daehnick Kleinman, L. DeFacio Knasel Dexter Kopf, Carol Ann Domokos Krisch Dresden Krizan -Engler Lamb, F. F,renson Le iobowitz Esposito Lieb Farrar, S. Lowe, I. rearing McCray Feenberc, Marshak Feynman 1,1art in Field T4erzberger, E. Fisher Michel, F. C. Fishbone Mullin Frampton Nagle Prauenfelder Neal Freund Nieto Fricke Newman Norton Gerte1 O u,[D O O v it t Pa,els Peccei Pines Poirier Prange Pratt Pr imack Qu inn ?amond, P. Rosen, P. Rosner Saladin Sakita Sarerstein Sa tchler Schwarz, J. Segall, B. Se:. -re Shapiro, M. ShaW, G. Shen Shimizu Shto':hamer Silk S imarek Simmons Sirlin Slansky S-jruch S ,eele Sternheim Sterns Btrauch Sucher Suranyi Suura Swift Taylor Terhune Theimer To mk in To mo z awa Treat True Truran, J. Uzes Wali Warnock Watts layhmar Widdenthal Wilson Win ik Witten, T. Wong, T. F. Yang WEST SIDE IMPROV;,: NT ASSOCIATION 701 N. Thrid Street Aspen 4 August, 1976 The Hon. Stacey Stanley, Mayor ;'embers of the City Council The Board of the West Side Improvement Association supports the Aspen Center for Physics in their request for specially planned zoning for their 2. some acres of land. -We -approve the plans of their proposed building, and support their no -growth policy, i.e. maintaining their operation at 70-75 participants at a time. We also encour- age them to use the parking area of the M.A.A., and thus avoid on -street parking on Gillespie and 6th Streets. We understand that it is important that they break ground this summer for their new building or possible lose their grants. We concur in their expeniency. We further suggest that as soon as feasible that the Aspen Center for Physics make a committment to replace the present wooden structure.. The physicists, many of whom are property owners in the West Side are a positive asset to the community - economi- cally as well as socially. We have contacted as many of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of The Center as was possible in such a short time. All those contacted were favorable: Agreed: Mrs. Mary McCarten 625 Gillespie mr. and Mars. James Markalunas 624 N. 6th Street Kr. and Rrs. Kurt Bresnitz 715 W. North Street t"Irs. Elli Islen 707 West North Out of Town c Mrs. Elaine Higby 615 W. Gillespie For Sales Mrs. Ivy Papst 635 W. Gillespie T'Irs. Lucy Hibbard 521 W. North Mir. and Yrs. David O'Meara 603 W. Gillespie Yours Very Truly Ann Schwind Chairman West Side Improvement Assoc. 7 R db so Outline for Precise Plan for Physics Center's 2.3 Acres 1. Uses. Academic. 2. Setbacks. Side: (in minimums). 3. 4. 61F C:9 7. 10 feet; rear: 15 feet; front: 20 feet Height. Maximum of 25 feet. Open space. At least 25%. The per cent of actual open land is more like 870. The total land area is approximately 100,145 square feet. Building coverage is as follows: Hilbert Hall 5,558 sq. ft. Stranahan Hall 4,219 sq. ft. New library, etc. 3,666 sq. ft. Total land coverage: 13,443 sq. ft. It is proposed that Hilbert Hall, a wooden structure, be replaced eventually, but that would not change these figures for purposes of the precise plan. The timing of the replace- ment of Hilbert Hall is of course dependent upon the exigencies of fund-raising and foundation grants. Site location. In the City of Aspen, served by and adjacent to Sixth and Gillespie Streets, and is more fully shown on drawings accompanying this application. Utilities. All necessary utilities are at the site (as is also more fully shown on the drawings). Adjacent landowners. The names and addresses of landowners within 300 feet are on an attached list. • Property Own0sithin 300 feet of Aspe4wer for Physics Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Collins Robert W.Pullen 13ox HH 825 North St. Ms. Ida Vail Pabst 635 W. Gilles-oie or Box 8015 Mary McCarten 625 Dillesoie 11:s. Elaine C. Higbee 1200 Amer. Natl, Bank Bldg. Denver, co. 80202 or 615 W. Gi.11esDle Tamzin P. O'Meara 603 W Gillespie or Box 10457 Mr. & Mrs. James J. Markalunas 624 N. 6th 5t or Box 542 Thomas 0. Wells 614 W. North or Box 3199 Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Burkee 610 W. North or Box 544 Ms. Greta M. Lum 600 North or Box UU Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ia.ngenkamp 633 W. North or 4403 Center Ave. Apt, 5D Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Bresnitz 715 We North or Box 70 Mrs. Fred Iselin 707 W North Box 418 Lucy R. Hibbard - Roberta P. Dickson 521 W. North or 1937 East Alameda Denver 80209 Mr. & Mrs. Bill Block Box 1832 MLMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council, City Manager. FROM: Bill Kane RE: Physics Institute DATE: July 23, 1976 1 As you may know we have been discussing the problem of the expansion of the Physics Institute with respect to the larger question of adoption of a master plan for the entire 130 acre Institute property. The Physics Institute has received grant money from the Kiesge Foundation which would allow them to build a new building to include a library and seminar room (copy of general plans attached). We have consistently agreed that any improvement to the Physics Institute property be tied in with an overall S.P.A. master plan for the Aspen Institute lands. The Physics building must be started before Oct- ober 15 of this year in order to qualify for grant money. To this point they have been waiting for the Aspen Institute to submit an overall master plan. With Fall approaching and no plan submitted yet the physics group is obviously getting nervous. I was approached by Paul Fishbane, Physics Institute President and Jack Walls the architect for the project with a request to investigate the possibility of separating the Physics and Aspen Institutes to allow the physicists to proceed independently of the Aspen Institute. In response to this question I recited our traditional thinking on the subject -but admitted that technically the seperation sought could be accomplished. Such a seperation would require, as a minimum the following:. 1) A formalized long term written lease for lands immediate to the proposed Physics expansion. 2) A description of a seperate S.P.A. for the Physics Institute leased land. This, of course, would require the amendment of the zoning map and would have all the notice and hearing re- quirements of a rezoning. 3) The development and approval of a seperate S.P.A. Master Plan for the Physics Institute lands. Of course there are points to be made on both sides of this question. On one hand, the Aspen Institute insists that the City's intransigence with respect to zoning institute lands serves only to frustrate, disappoint and ultimately discourage the aspiring cultural and education groups in the city. However, the approval of an overall plan by granting building permits on a building by building bas1s erodes the concept of an overall, integrated balanced plan. I have given.Mr. Fishbane our more or less standard response and We continue to hold out for an overall master plan. We will continue with this policy position unless otherwise directed by Council. You may expect some serious lobbying by the Physics group and we will stand by to impliment any policy you choose. Under normal circumstances I would not raise this issue but felt it to be of such significance as to warrant Council consideration. cc: Sandy Stuller ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS BOX 1208 ASPEN, COLORAD❑ DIG11 9 August, 1976 Mr. Charles Collins Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Collins: Upon the recommendation of the City Planner, the City Manager and the City Council, the Aspen Center for Physics respectfully requests that the property as shown on the en— closed survey be rezoned a separate S.P.A. so that we can build our new library building. Also enclosed is the master plan for this property. The Aspen Center for Physics has rights for first use in perpetuity to this land whose title holder is the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. The property consists of approximately 2.1 acres and is presently zoned S.P.A. Because of funding contingencies, we would appreciate your immediate attention regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, PMF/ss Paul M. Fishbane, President: Aspen Center for Physics Gu�7`l-t, /576 1,101crIa/5-- ZSPEN CENTER FOR JACK M. WALLS r4ys I Cs ARCHITECT so 00 4010 O.S. 5F-,A, --s CAP N.W. COR W 1/4 NE 1/4 e)mc_-rlql-j 17- I (07 X/1 U.C. V L r. NEW -,,BUILDING + LLLP ­44 Oct- 'c WAL PLOT PLAN SCALE I = so LOT SIZE 2.299 ACRES (ioo '144 SQ. FT) NEW BIJ I LD I NG SIZE 3666 SQ. FT, 1 10 4 14' Y. To '9 F3or=T-rc:RmFt, 40Ly cgo4ss iv e7 '55 7. 4"-smzL V,/Ararz. M 41 &j AVE is • ASPEN/PITKIT�' ring Department 13 U sou- a street aspen, . C'0._3➢1'Z",d o, 81 6 11 January 7, 1976 Aspen Center for Physics % Jack Walls Box 29 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jack, I have discussed your letter of December 19, 1975, inquiring about the new building for the Aspen Center for Physics, with Bill Kane and Sandy Stuller. We all agree that it would be proper for the Center to proceed with development review separately from the con- siderations involved with the Aspen Institute. We would sug est that the Center apply for a zoning change on their property leased from the Institute) from Specially Planned Area to Academic (A). A plan for development will then be reviewed by the Planning and' Zoning Commission and Council. We would suggest that you refer to the City of Aspen Zoning Code for appropriate procedures to accom- plish the rezoning. Please call us if you have additional questions on these matters. Very truly yours, Hal Clark City/County Land Use Administrator HC/cwk j aclk m. walls architect aspen, Colorado p.o. box 2e / zip Coda 81H11 / phone S03-e25-3218 December 19, 1975 Mr. Hal Clark City Of Aspen Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Hal: As a result of our conversation this last week, concerning the Aspen Center For Physics new building, I am writing you to see if we can start some action with the City of Aspen so that the Physics Center can start construction for their building early this spring. I realize that the Aspen Institute is in the process of working out zoning for all of their property, which includes the area that the Physics Center occupies. However the Aspen Center For Physics is not a part of the Institute, and should not be considered in the same light. In the past the Center has had a verbal lease arrangement with the Institute for the use of the land for their complex of buildings. This verbal lease was to run without end. However, the Physics Center has asked the Institute for a written lease which would spell everything out. This lease draft was drawn up this fall and submitted to Joseph Slater for review, but as yet has not been finalized. The basic terms of the lease indicate that the term shall be for 99 years starting Jan, 1, 1976, and ending December 2075. The use of the property was spelled out that the lessee (Aspen Center For Physics) will be limited soley to educational and scientific research uses. This would seem to fit in with the proposed use of this land, and would cause no conflict. As I mentioned to you the Center has a grant of money for use in the construction of this new building. However, this grant will end in June of 1976. Needless to say the Center is greatly concerned that because of the Institute zoning it might cause them to loose this grant money. Therefore we would like to request a variance from the Special Planned Area classification, so that our construction will not be delayed. I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. I am also enclosing with this letter a legal description of the area concerned, and a copy of the site location map for your information. I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to proceed. Thank you. ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A tract of land being part of SW1/4 of NE1/4 of Sec. 12, T. 10S., R. 85 W of the 6th P.M., more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the NV, corner of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4 of said Sec. 12 bears North 520 11' West 1017.07 ft., said point being the point of beginning: Thence South 318 ft. to a point on the northerly edge of Gillespie Street; Thence West 80 ft. along the north edge of Gillespie Street and its extension; Thence West 100 North 269.09 ft.; Thence North 160 26' East 282.81 ft.; Thence East 265 ft. to the point of beginning, containing 2.13 acres more or less. J NORTH'" PROPOSED BLDG. .. . ................... \ 1 ASPEN CENTER FOR PH"YS1 CS LOCATION PLAN f' j 50 ' PIE ST. The attached are comments written by a nationally respected planner. He has, obviously, reviewed the current Institute proposal and Bill Kane's eight point recommendation to the city Planning and Zoning Commission. Local persons who share both Institute and community concerns for the proposal, solicited this review. The remarks address four of the eight points in the planning office recommendation. Copies to: Bill Kane Chick Collins City Council Members Planning Commission Members Sandra Stuller Aspen Institute 2. • • Removal of future development rights and preservation of open space: We accept the contention that the area of the Institute grounds would, in any ordinary course, be zoned in residen- tial R 15 and R 30 zoning. We are also not opposed in principle to a shuffling, or reshuffling, or redistribution of the potential residential zoning within the tract as a whole. However, this game cannot be played several times around, it can be played only once. In ordinary cases, if the land were vacant, the residential densitylaccording to ground rules or formulae established by the Department of Planning, would be established by a hypothetical subdivision or some theoretical yield of lots per acre, after subtracting streets, or whatever the rules may be* A number would be established, &vri I for one do not accept the rules that the Planning Department, so far, has established but that is beside the point. Once that number has been established, the residen- tial units - by dwelling units or bedrooms - would be disposed on the tract and the rest would remain vacant and be planned constructively for various categories of open space from passive to recreational. In this case we are dealing with an institutional use in which extensive non-residential facilities already exist in the form of lodgings, a health club, various villas, meeting and conference rooms', the physics institute, the music tent, etc. If the Institute is given the full benefit of residen- tial density, assuming the land to be vacant it is receiv- ing as a bonus the non-residential structures already pre- sent. In this respect we will have exceeded coverage of the land and we will have exceeded traffic generation above that which would have been present had the land developed in a traditional residential pattern. We are, therefore, very much concerned not only with the number of residential units eventually established, but -particularly with the limitation on future construction not only of a residential, but also of an institutional nature. It is, therefore, simply not good enough to settle on room counts now and worry about the master planning of the remaining lands at some future date. If there is going to be a transfer of density, then the whole must be settled now .arad That most certainly would include the area to be eventually deeded to Denver University or any other institution. There is certainly enough precedent for ways and means with which to transfer density and to protect the lands from which such density has been transferred. It is unthinkable that the planning board, and its professional staff should not insist on such contractual means, whether by f4AO_�I_ these beAzoning hrAsite plan approval or by covenants running with the land, or A any other legal and safe means. I have been surprised at the contention that the Present submission constitutes a proper first stage application. Such first stage application certainly should show (at least in schematic form) areas which will be committed to future building, areas which will be created for permanent open space of active or passive nature and additional or supplementary traffic circulation. I submit that this application is not, in fact, a pro- per first stage application. Since the number of rooms which are asked for greatly exceed the present requirements of t1..'_ it at least stands to reason that the Institute or its successor also have plans for expanding conference facilities. I am sure the planning board would want to know where the Institute or its successor plan such con- ference facilities. If the planning board is inclined to be so generous as to permit the institute a full residential,count, Plus 4i-� the non-residential improvements, arrd' the planning board has a right to know and must insist upon knowing whether any further bonuses or benefits are asked of the City of Aspen. I would further like to submit that it is not suffi- cient simply to label areas 'open space'.I:ae I would pre- fer to see that these open areas are labelled as to func- tion, and with respect to functions I would particularly ask that there be ample reservation of open space around the music tent and that there be preservation, either of _r the existing track or a revised track layout adjusting to 1j P t �w some changes in road alignment, etc. �� � J I particularly request that the planning board not consider any first stage approval of any kind )or even the acceptance of these documents as a first stage application until the areas for present and future development have been clearly delineated, the open spaces have been esta- blished and identified, and the method of density transfer and the permanent protection of the open spaces generated has been settled to the full satisfaction of the planning board and the city attorney. Thank you. 3. "No further subdivision of the land." We do not believe that it is terribly critical whether any lands to be deeded to Denver University or the Physics Institute are deeded outright or conveyed on longterm leases, as long as the development status of these lands has been clearly established by deed restrictions, site plan appro- vals or other means, prior to such conveyance. The Institute has assured the planning board that any deeds to Denver University carry a provision that no structure may be erected on the lands without the approval of the Institute. The Institute is here setting itself up as a planning board fAvllyIt seems obvious that once the trans- fer of density has taken place and once the final status of these lands has been established, the only thing there- after of any interest to Denver University would be the res- trictions running with the land and the interpretation or variance of these restrictions by the planning board. Cer- tainly the institute thereafter no longer has any further function, other than to work within the parameters esta- blished in connection with the density transfer. It is my personal view that if sufficient land has been set aside to satisfy the requirements of the Physics Institute /AMML the open space screening necessary for the continued via- 0 wt t_ bility of the music tent �andA,the residential room count has been converted to lodging accommodations, % at there should be very little future building of any kind, other than in very restricted and specifically identified areas. ailge - I would suggest that any klease or conveyance to Denver S t -'64 L ✓ x-- " University A9t ev ni ttom�,, in connection with this applications for t#lec6 are not parties a!£ interest at this time. Neither the board nor I nor the people here have any intimate knowledge of the negotiations or legal documents . - Zo ►N exchanged,�3 the , whatever this be, will have to be worked out with the institute and no-one else. The final result must then, indeed, be final and the Institute must be prepared to live within its confinements. Any such arrangement certainly can leave not a single acre of K a this tract subject to any future use determination. S. "Phasing requirements," I think the sentiment c y m , at this time is that there is a great desire to make possible ways of meeting the Institute's needs for accommodations in connection with its conference programl There is an equally aversion to having such an accommodation result in the establishment of a µ motel or hotel complex in this residential area. To the extent; therefore, that the facilities will be a bona fide and genuine conference center there will be cooperation,&&* the extent that the conference facilities are a pretext for the establishment of a large commercial hotel complex, the opposition will be ferocious. In my opinion, there is only one way to assure that the conference objectives are primarytand that is to coordi- nate the phasing with the demonstrable needs of the Insti- tute or any party to which the Institute may, make its facilities available during the off-season. Even at the height of need, the Institute has required only 300 beds of accommodations in the City of Aspen. Of those, a certain number will always prefer to be quartered away from the Institute, with friends or in commercial establishments. A generous interpretation would probably indicate a need for no more than 200 beds (not rooms) ini- tially. That would mean the start of the program with 100 rooms and not 200 rooms. Certainly it should be possible to develop some statistical input here which we would strongly recommend to the planning board. The Institute has taken the position that an operator, which they apparently have in mind, will not take over unless there be 350 rooms, or that a lender will not lend money un-- less there be at least 350 rooms. Not only has the planning board quite properly taken the position that that is not pertinent to the matter at hand and to the deliberation over the disposition of a resi- dential area, but it also is rather vague economics. since the conference facilities are already available, the estab- lishment of rooms is a rather cut and dried economic affair, and the first increment of rooms will be there simply to supply the rooms to feed the existing conference facilities. That means that the large overhead spaces, such as big meeting halls, etc. will not be necessary certainly for the first stage and there would appear to be no economic neces- sity, nor is there any justification on the part of the Institute to require a full-blown facility. It is nice of the Planning Department to have been able to stretch the interpretation of room count to fit the Insti- tute's objectivep.Tn retrospect it may find it has establi- shed some poor precedents for future use and it may wish to be a little more objective and conservative in the final es- tablishment of the room count, het So far I have personally seen nothing, and I hope the board will agree, that would make it either functionally or economically necessary to do anything but meet the first stage of demonstrable demand. 6. "Car free development." In assuring us of car free development for a conference center complex I believe the Planning Department has made the wish the father of the thought. I honestly do not think that this has been thought through and I wish the planning staff would direct their attention to experience in general. I believe they will find it very difficult to come up with demonstrations or examples anywhere in the country that would support the contention that a complex of this nature canrw&, , be car free. Let us assume the most favorable circumstances. Jet us assume that the vast majority of the conference participants will be housed on the grounds of the conference center and will make their few trips into Aspen by some public or sub- sidised conveyance. It would still be optimistic to think that there would not be at least one-third to one-half of the guests who would wish to have some private means of :_frarisportation such as an automobile. Certainly the Insti- tute has been around long enough to establish traffic counts and parking lot counts which would determine the number of cars as a percentage of total guests at any one time. That would, however, be true only during the height of the conference season. Were these rooms to be made available to guests during off-season periods, a much larger percentage of the people would bring their own automobiles or rent them. If no parking facilities were present on the grounds of the conference center then off-street park- ing facilities would have to be established somewhere outside the grounds of the conference center to store the vehicles of conference participants. This is patently unreasonable and also difficult, for there are no such grounds available in the vicinity that could be rented by the Institute or the conference center. Universally, throughout the country, any conference center which may double as a hotel/motel or be supplemented by hotel/motel use would have in its ordi- nance provisions for a mandatory minimum parking space ratio. To establish such a facility and to deny this facility a parking lot, would be to render it economically unviable. It is my opinion that if the operator of such a facility would go into court afterwards, that the court would find ,;tt A(' highly unreasonable and grant the applicant the right to establish such parking lots. I think the planning board and its staff must quite frankly face the fact that considerable automobile traffic will be generated here, regardless of the amount of subsidized transportation which, after all, cannot be guaranteed and permanently written into any plan- ning board approval, The planning board cannot permanently mandate the need for an expenditure for such transportation if no-one cares to foot the bill. I sincerely suggest that this car free development is an idle dream. In esta- blishing the relative impact of residential versus quasi commercial development, the planning board must honestly face the fact that these traffic realities must be properly evaluated. It is, of course, obvious that the traffic pat- tern here would be one of high concentration whereas the development of these grounds along standard residential lines would dissipate such traffic movements over a great number of residential streets. The development of adequate traffic circulation and revised and improved traffic access patterns, as well as the demonstration of adequate parking areas, must become an integral part of the overall considera- tion of this application. .r' i� - /� ' ' % i � �. ��i - � � I� � / ,� ,� _ .� � . � � / � .1 �� ' / ' ' / / ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS JACK M. WALLS ARCH 1 TECT /-`-' U•s, UFiA S5 CAP N w, COR . _W i/¢ N& 1/4 SB.G'YION IZ 786s -- --� Uucxn�eavup >`4.E7�, fi'wer5� Co'�+ sewirR PLOT PLAN SCALE 1'1 = 50� LOT SIZE 2.299 ACRES (1003144SQ.FT). 1 NEW BUILDING SIZE 3666 SQ. FT. /Uk Aia,42F% 10$tiDQs.1 12 10 14.4 K • Y. To F3oErrcwmpa es� sfaj-Y Cg"6s "5T�6t W�TLr+i M�.iAJ AVJF . rs'c, i 1 . SmwEpS VAAtN ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS JACK M. WALLS ARCH 1 TECT U.S. BRASS CAP N-W, COP, SW 1/4. NE IZ. ! T IOS, F)89 ! (bTH. P,M. r J;G V S/u sr 253.42 f-1N4Tlx1K NFST 572 t \ V !d u �� =RG2AUIJD �, fbwrK7 w I Co`� sewffps_J PLOT PLANt7 �- �JI? listlo `wnr� 'IUD 'Ia�- �I 14 14, 4 K.Y. To BoE1TC34 M R% M3 - V 1+a�Y cons 4"S%�EC V.�ArLr+i MA,AJ � SCALE 111 = 50' LOT SIZE 2.299 ACRES (100,'144 SQ. FT) -- NEW BUILDING SIZE 366E 5[3. FT, I Esz, MAiry ASPEN " U.S. $F,RSS cAP K.w. C014 - 5W I/.¢ NO 1/4. e)mr--r100 12. r 105, R857w (imc P.M. �Z- u CENTER FOR PHYSICS JACK M. WALLS ARCH 1 TECT 9 r0 umverraKOV Nts �LC.P. Gatr►�.$ , "F ST 253.E+2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ATRACT OF LAND ;fTU;; reD IN THE 51N 1/4 NE 1/4 OFF bEr~'r10N 12.) TOWNSUIP 10 50UT4, RANGE 8S wEs-r of THE IoTN PR!KV PA' MaFI.DIAN, INTIAE CITY OF h5PRN, PITKIN COUNTY, C.OLChA00, 5F-lkla MOFNE FULLY VF-$CRk 3E0 AS I=OLLOWS : ?�-ECGiNINC•4 AT A PCWNr WHGNC,E THE NW CORNSF' OF SAID SW 1/4 N.E. ►/4 SECT10 N ► 2 'bEAPNS N 25011145" w 1041.20 FEET", T4SNr-M N 1'7`34'UO"E TI+F-"CE EAST 253.42 �EETj 'fNENG",= SOUTi4 326. 00 FeETI THC-NGE W E.ST 35i . 2 Cp FEET TO -r4m Powr OF t6EGIWINCA- (-0N7A►NINC-I 2.-499 AACRE--->, MO -AS OR LESS. SURVEYOR: ,TOWN F. bE15CHEL L.`a. KZ107 -TFY •- GO MAWAG E-MF-41`) ING. -I-z9-'1(, ,4 NE PLOT PLAN 0- NEW .'BUILDING / t_ SCALE 1" = 501 L'', LOT SIZE 2.2SS ACRES (100,144SQ.FT) NEW BUILD1NGSIZE 3G66 SO. FT, 1-1fitrl'401 OV OW AN, CAOWS 7 1 `12C/Zlo V. fKwsF, YA�.•t 'I .(:I IBF Taut _ _ _ p -ELra --. 3/4 EeT / 57.E 1 � 7805� i u0mv►�o ruw.,F . � . PvWieRZ ._ ----r- 1(0 j,::k 4 K, Y, To 4"5r--ZL NArSTzy MAIN _ 1 I smwWN; 1AA.fN S PA MASTERPLAN : SLIF)VEY DEaCFl1PT10N s SF-E:- ref�,;s� cs. LOC..ATIO;4 Otw PL7rY::ar..r,.ALLE'' s:�fii:, : °tee i'..QT PLA,t<l AYAILAZ>1L.ITY OF UTILITIE�-:->s ALLUTILITIES AP,E AVAIL.A15LE OR T W E St TF . SE F- PLOT PL A N . MINIMUM LOTAF�EA : 2.299ACRES 000,144 SQ.F=,r) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 253.42 1PEIET MINIMUM FRC?NT `YAFRD t 2.a FEET MINIMtJt,A SIDE `,AP;O : 10 FEI=T- MIN I MUM YARD: 15 I=EET MA'kIMUM 160ILD)NG gr=IG r : 25 ►=EET MINIMUM DISTAWCE,.5ETr[EE.h4 T3Ui1.DiNG5 : 2S FEET USES: THOSM?FF,-,m1TTEi:> IN ACADEMIC. ZOME Dr5TfRiCT. EXISTf N"'- STRUCTQPF S AND USES ON S17IE 9 I4105EKT I+ALL.- ACADEMIC USE. EXTFIjNAL FLOOD APaA - 5,155 SQ. FT: FRAME Si'PSUCTt�f� WIT}l GAR3LE TYPE 12,00F EXTF-AtOP► MATER1ALS - ROUGH SArYYN CETDNF� STI�L}G7l1P,=TE1,41FC)F'4h�/ IQ NATURk' Tea Brz SEPI.XC IN-0 A-r A LA'T@P, 'DA'rft . STKANA4AN HALL - ACAi3EM I C. U'5E . :ExTEP,NAL FLOOFA) AF3E.A - 4-, 1 ( *,I CE. FT 5TVWCTUFiS A C.0"F;INAT(GN CONCP,ETE BLOC AND WOOD W IT4 A 1=Lp,T AKID g1-OPIkCI >zoor-- EXTEF-,101zi MATERIAG.na- T�O;JG7-= SAWN r�EQ vi:OD Fl-yWCOD AND PAItOTF-0 CUIJGRETEP►C)GIG, sTr�ucTuFa PfsFSMI,IJENT IN WxTUft,I=. NEW PROPOC--)ED col-RUGTURFE - ACAT)EMiC USE. EXTERNAL FLOC)PI AP)F_A - �5,SC;i, I-T. INTEgNAL FLOOF2, AR6.A - 3.,4.1 r( . Fr. MINIMUM OPEN 5VACa- : 251'16 EXISTINC-I CFER AREA ON'atTF-I AFTER EXTERNAL FL009 AREA OF �F-x1t,TtIUG AND PRXDPt c,-ED SXRUCXOFI e5 HA�tE RE N 5U5TKACTF: i) AM0OWTS TC 8(P,101 SQ. P-. 0F, ",,to. 0FFSTREET'RkRKINCj: EXISTING PARKINC-I WILLACCOwIp',144-TM APPROX. I E5 AuTO,�-D ARD r-3C1 blC'-(CLES. 51GN fzEC0LATIONS z5ICANc-n )N SPECIAL PLANED AF)SA SNP,l.L BE. FOFL, IC3B1,4TI FICATtON AND SMALL. C,014PL\� WITH TIIE STANVA 0S FOP) IDENTIFICATION S1C-,NS AS SE7FOP%T1.4 IN Tt+E. ZONtN G ORDINANCE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO1,OKADO. LAI SCA'?+� EXiSTIt,IG SITE AREA ARC)OND rz-xI�-,T`"Ja STRuc-TUpaE;S A,hS F.�rEN LAjt) aCAPG T: IIITh+ GIRA-`:a, TRE5S AVD tJil_'?fiI.OvVE�,�s. S►TS- AFiCUQID "P9 PC,15Er-) MEW 1301 L.fD I K) 61 W i i-..L_ 'F C- 1r0?,4 E_'TH 1 �. '5A, t rcR-- WOSTRuCT10N SCH E.0l)I-I N Ca o IT IS ten.�i1`.EP T4k7- CC) ►isil=,UCT10N STAP►T IMN>,IIr->IA,Tra&L.y k►vD wOULC) COkiT I hi Ur- THRbUC9Ii-rt+F:..- W 1 QT1-FR, MC7FJTNS i cD <-c-> M 1� -ETl C-DP-J . A RoX. COoC:Ttr-')Q TI► .�: (, n.+OJTI- E,. *.ANY REPLACEMENT S14ALL. NOT THE FLOOR _AREA OF T44E EXISTW(I Wil-DING, WIT400T THE PFRM ISS I ON OF TF4E GIT f OF ASPEN .