HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Aspen Institute-Subd E.028A-85!r
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen .
DATE RECE IV ED:-9"Z
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
Applicant Add:e sz
RE PR ES ENTAT F
Representative Add
Type of Application:
I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
/ Final Plat
V III. EXCEPT ION/EXEMPT ION REZ ON ING 2 step)
h . SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
Special Review
Use Determination
Conditional Use
Other
CASE NO.
-
STAFF:
V5--04c?
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)
($ 680.vu)
P&Z CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
HATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
-- - REFERRALS:
City Atty
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol. S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn
Other
----------------------
FINAL ROUTING: - DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty v City Engineer Building Dept.
Other:
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. .0
(Series of 1985j
A RESOLUTION GRANTING EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS
AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING IN THE
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES AN ABILITY TO EXERCISE ITS
OPTION, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1980, BOOK 395 AT PAGE 763 IN ORDER
TO OBTAIN RECORD TITLE TO THE "ACADEMIC PARCEL"
WHEREAS, on or about July 16, 1985, the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies submitted an "Application for Exemption from
the Definition of Subdivision or Exception from the Standards or
Requirements of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code", which applica-
tion is hereby incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the stated purpose for the said application was the
Aspen Instit:ute's need for subdivision approval so that it can
exercise its: option to purchase an approximately 26.5 acre parcel,
commonly known as the "Robert 0. Anderson" or "Academic" parcel,
as described: in the application and as specifically referred to in
that option to purchase between the Meadows Corporation and the
Aspen Institute, recorded September 26, 1980, in Book 395 at Page
763; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the Aspen Insti-
tute for Humanistic Studies incalculably enriches the cultural and
educational life of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the evidence and testimony
presented at the duly -noticed public hearing conducted by the City
Council on September 23, 1985, the City Council has determined
that, under the facts and circumstances presented, the require-
0 •
ments of the full subdivision process would be redundant, serve no
public purpose and be unnecessary in relation to the land use
policies of the City of Aspen; and upon the satisfaction of the
conditions set forth below, the proposed subdivision will substan-
tially comply with the design standards of Chapter 20; therefore,
the City Council desires to grant subdivision approval subject,
however, to the representations and agreements of the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the current record
title owner of the entire unified parcel, specifically Aspen Moun-
tain Joint Venture by letter dated September 10, 1985, and through
representation at the public hearing, endorsed and supported the
application subject, however, to the representations of the appli-
cant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Secticn 1
That the City Council hereby approves the Statement of Excep-
tion appended hereto and grants subdivision approval pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 20-19(c) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen and, in granting and approving the annexed statement
of exception and declaration of covenants, the City Council finds
that:
1. The application requests the subdivision of a tract of
land into two parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership
2
■
r . •
within the definition of "subdivision" set forth in Section
20-3(s) of the Municipal Code;
2. The Aspen Institute has represented that the application
is for the purpose of confirming record title only and has agreed
that any future application for zoning, land use or development
pertaining to the academic parcel shall proceed the same as if the
entire parcel was unified and in single ownership as if no subdi-
vision had been approved, thereby requiring a comprehensive plan
with the concurrence of all title owners; and
3. Under the facts and circumstances presented, the City
Council hereby determines that requiring the application to be
processed through the full subdivision process would be redundant,
serve no public purpose and be unnecessary in relation to the land
use policies of the City of Aspen and, notwithstanding the excep-
tion and in view of the representations of the applicant, finds
thSt the proposed subdivision will substantially comply with the
design standards of Chanter 20 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached State-
ment of Exception and Declaration of Covenants on behalf of the
City of Aspen.
Dated :---=�t== `'�C,� -- /------ 1985.
William L.-Stirring, Mayor
3
•
0
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held on _ , 1985.
2D
Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk
4
STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND SUB-
DIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES TO EXERCISE ITS OPTION TO ACQUIRE RECORD
TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "ACADEMIC PARCEL",
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1980, IN BOOK 395 AT PAGE 763 AND DECLARA-
TION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies enjoys
an option to purchase the real property described in Exhibit "A"
annexed hereto, commonly known as the "Robert 0. Anderson" or
"Academic Parcel" (hereinafter "Academic Parcel"), in accordance
with that "Option to Purchase", between the Meadows Corporation
and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, recorded September
26, 1980, in Book 395 at Page 763, in the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder; and
WHEREAS, Aspen Mountain Joint Venture (hereinafter "AMJV") is
the record title owner of the parcel described in Exhibit "B"
annexed hereto, which is subject to the option (hereinafter
referred to as the "unified parcel"); and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its Application for Exemption from the
Definition cf Subdivision or Exception from the Standards or
Requirements of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code submitted on or
about July 16, 1985, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by
this reference, the Aspen Institute requested an exception from
the full subdivision process and the granting of subdivision
approval so that it could properly exercise the aforesaid option
and confirm record title to the Academic Parcel in the Aspen
Institute; and
0 0
WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of September 23,
1985, conducted a duly -noticed public hearing on the aforesaid
application, and at the close thereof, determined that the Aspen
Institute'S request for such exception was appropriate and deter-
mined to grant subdivision approval, subject, however, to the con-
ditions, covenants and restrictions described hereinafter and as
agreed to by the Aspen Institute during the course of the afore-
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colo-
rado, does hereby determine that the application for exception
from the full subdivision process is proper and hereby grants
subdivision approval, subject to and upon satisfaction of the
following conditions, which are hereby agreed to by the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies and AMJV:
1. Prior to recordation, a final plat of the unified par-
cel conforming to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Munici-
pal Code of the City of Aspen shall be submitted to the City Engi-
neer for review and written approval. Said plat of the unified
parcel shall contain a recitation subscribed by the owners of the
resulting parcels that said parcels are subject to the restric-
tions, conditions and covenants of this Statement of Exception.
2. The final plat shall reflect any utility easements or
other related interests lawfully in existence, as approved by the
City Engineer;
2
0 0
3. 'There shall be established an ingress/egress easement
for pedestrian access between the two parcels as indicated on the
final plat;
4. Encroachments and trail easements shall be shown on the
final plat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
5. Adjacent ownerships shall be shown on the final plat.
Further, in addition to the above -stated conditions and in
consideration for the granting of an exception from the full sub-
division process and subdivision approval, the Aspen Institute and
AMJV ("Covenantors"), in furtherance of their representations to
the City Council during the course of the public hearing and as an
inducement to the City Council to approve the subdivision, do
hereby restrict the unified parcel as follows:
1. In the event that any municipal improvement or improve-
ments of the kind contemplated in Section 20-16 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, become, in the sole judg-
ment and discretion of the City Council of the City of Aspen,
necessary or desirable to the area of the Academic Parcel, the
Aspen Institute agrees to join, upon demand therefor by the City,
any special improvement district, urban renewal district, or down-
town development district formed for the construction of such
improvements (including, without limitation, signage, drainage,
underground utilities, paved streets and alleys, planting, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, traffic circulation, trails,
recreation facilities, berms, open space lands, public transporta-
3
•
tion facilities, parking, etc.) in the area of the Academic Par-
cel.
2. Despite the separate ownerships, the unified parcel
hereinabove described, as designated on the official City of Aspen
zoning map, shall continue and be deemed a single unified parcel
with regard to all zoning, land use and development, it being the
intent of the City and Covenantors that any proposed change in
zoning, land use or development with regard to the unified parcel
shall be submitted and considered as if the unified parcel was not
subdivided. No development application shall be submitted which
does not comprehensively address development on the entire unified
parcel, and no such application shall be submitted or considered
without the written consent of all owners of the unified parcel.
3. The covenants and conditions herein contained shall run
with the land and shall be binding on all parties having any
right, title or interest in the above -described parcels or any
part thereof, and their heirs, representatives, successors and
assigns.
4. The subdivision shall become effective only upon the
recording of the plat and this Statement of Exception and Declara-
tion of Covenants.
5. No conditions or covenants contained herein shall be
released, waived in any respect or modified or amended without the
prior consent of the City of Aspen as reflected by ordinance of
the City Council.
Dated this day of __________•
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Statement of Exception and Declara-
tion of Covenants has been fully executed this day of
1985.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By- __ - -- --- --
lliam L. St_ ing, Mayor
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC
STUDIES
By ----------------------- -------
Title
ASPEN MOUNTAIN JOINT VENTURE, a
Colorado Joint Venture
By— .......... -------------------
John H. Roberts, Jr., A Venturer
I, Kathryn S. Koch, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Statement of Exception and Declaration of Covenants was considered
and approved by the City Council and that the Mayor, William L.
Stirling, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
Kathryn S. Koch
2D
• 0
ME MORANDU M
TO: Aspen City Council
THRD: Hal Schilling, City Manag pp
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Ai\
RE: Aspen Institute Subdivision Exception
DATE: September 16, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Off ice recommends that Council grant the
Institute's request for subdivision exception for the purposes of
exercising its option to obtain title to the 26.5 acre Academic
parcels, known as the East Meadows.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council denied a request by the Insti-
tute for subdivision exception/exemption for the purposes of exercis-
ing its op --ion on the 26.5 acre parcel in 1977.
BACKGROUND: The attached letter of application provides a summary of
the Background to this request.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The attached memo from City Attorney Paul
Taddune, provides a comprehensive review of the issues associated with
this application. In summary, Paul's findings are as follows:
1. Council may except this application from the other review steps
of the subdivision process and take final action on the request
pursuant to Section 20-19 (c) . Council may also choose to refer
the aplication to the P&Z for recommendation. Tonight's meeting
has been duly noticed as a public hearing to permit Council to
take final action if it so chooses.
2. The request to exercise the option is appropriately a subdivision
application since it involves a transfer of title (see Section
2 0 - 3 ( S ) ( 1) ) .
3. Section 20-5(b), requiring the applicant to obtain a development
allotment prior to granting any subdivision, does not apply since
no land development is proposed by the applicant, and the land in
question is not a vacant parcel..
4. The SPA regulations refer to development applications for "a
parcel " and require that if a parcel is owned by more than one
individual, consent to the application from all owners shall be a
processing requirement (Section 24-7 .3 (b) ) . Furthermore,
Section 24-7.6(a) requires that the precise development plan
shall reflect the proposed development for the entire ownership.
0 •
Ther of ore, the application to transfer title to the Aspen
Institute should not affect our ability to obtain a unified plan
for the parcel. The Planning Office recommends that to insure
this result, we should condition any action we take upon the
requirement that a unified conceptual and precise development
plan be submitted by the owners of the lands covered by the Aspen
Institute SPA overlay. This condition will satisfy Paul's
concern that planning issues be culled from the application to
permit its approval as a one-step application before City
Council.
we also received the following comments from Chuck Roth, of the City
Engineering Department:
1. The applicant should prepare a plat meeting the requirements of
Section 20-15 of the Code.
2. The utility companies should be contacted to identify their
easement requirements and other related interests.
3. An ir.gress/egress easement should be established where the road
extends between the two parcels (i.e., behind the conference
facilities towards the housing units and tennis complex) .
4. Encrcachments and trail easements should be shown on the Final
Plat.
5. Adjacent ownerships should be shown on the Final Plat.
6. The applicant should agree to the standard improvements district
language available through the City Attorney.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to Council include:
1. Approve the Subdivision Exception request as a one step applica-
tion pursuant to Section 20-19(c).
2. Refer the application to the Planning Commission prior to any
Council action.
3. Deny the application as inconsistent with the Subdivision
regulations.
Based on the analysis completed by the City Attorney, we feel that
Council can approve this application tonight. We feel that the
principal planning issue associated with this request is our desire to
maintain a unified planning context for all future development
applications on this property. We, therefore, recommend that if
Council is to approve this request, the action include the conditions
which are shown below. Should this approach be taken, we do not feel
that it is necessary to refer this application to the Planning
Commission. Furthermore, we do not find any basis to deny the applica-
r
• 0
tion as inconsistent with the subdivision regulations. As noted in
the attached letter of support from John Roberts, the present owner of
the property "the stated needs and objectives of the Institute are
meritorious, and it is our belief that actual ownership of the
Academic Parcel can only serve to strengthen the Institute's presence
in the Aspen community."
The Planning Office finds that the Aspen Institute is an essential
part of the basic fabric of Aspen. Its historic operation in our
community is one of the elements of Aspen that sets us apart from
other resorts as a unique environment, as envisioned by Walter Paepcke
and other contemporary individuals. Allowing the Institute to obtain
record tittle to its property will "promote the health, safety and
general wE'lfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen"
as per Section 20-2, purpose and intent of our subdivision regula-
tions, by enhancing the presence of this notable institution in our
community. Provided that this action in no way inhibits our ability
to obtain an integrated plan for the property, we feel that this
proposal can only be of benefit to the welfare of Aspen.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to grant subdivision exception to the Aspen
Institute for the purposes of its exercising its option on the 26.5
acre Academic Parcel, also known as the East Meadows, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant will submit a plat, for review by the Engineering
Department prior to recordation, which conforms to the require-
ment: of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code.
2. The applicant will contact those utility companies identified by
the City Engineer as appropriate, and will place on the Final
Plat any easement requirements or other related interests they
may have.
3. The applicant will establish an ingress/egress easement where the
road extends between the two parcels.
4. Encroachments and trail easements should be shown on the Final
Plat.
5. Adjacent ownerships should be shown on the Final Plat.
6. The applicant will submit a Statement of Subdivision Exception to
the City Attorney containing the following items:
a. The applicant's agreement to join any improvement district
which may be formed.
b. The applicant's agreement that despite the separation of
ownerships, the Aspen Meadows property, as designated on the
official City of Aspen Zoning Maps, continues to constitute
a single, undivided SPA parcel, and that no precise develop-
3
AR.10
ment plan application pursuant to Article VII of Chapter 24
may be submitted which does not comprehensively address
development on the entire ownership of the Aspen Meadows
SPA, as per Section 24-7 .6 (a) of the Code, and no conceptual
application may be submitted without consent from all
owners, as per Section 24-7.3(b)."
4
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE
DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION OR
EXCEPTION FROM THE STANDARDS OR
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO: Aspen City Council
FM: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado
nonprofit corporation, hereby submits to the Aspen City
Council this Application (a) for exemption from the defini-
tion of a subdivision pursuant to 20-19(b) of the Municipal
Code, or in the alternative, (b) for exception from the
application of the standards or requirements of Chapter 20
of the Municipal Code pursuant to 20-19(c) thereof, with
respect to the real property described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein, which real property
is hereinafter referred to as the "East Meadows".
The "East Meadows" is that 26.5 acre parcel which from
time to time has, in the past, been referred to as the
"Robert 0. Anderson Center" or "Academic Parcel". It is
that property on which the Paepcke Auditorium and other
buildings are located.
I. THE NEED FOR RELIEF
Although the Aspen Institute has had the full use of,
and beneficial title to, the East Meadows for eight years,
record title has been in others. The Aspen Institute now,
for the first time in over five years, has an opportunity to
exercise an option which will permit it to obtain record
title to the East Meadows. It intends to exercise that
option in order to insure its ability to control its destiny
with respect to its programs and presence in Aspen. How-
ever, in order to exercise that option the Aspen Institute
needs, and therefore requests, an exemption or exception
from the subdivision regulations.
II. BACKGROUND
Historically, most of West Meadows and East Meadows was
acquired over a period of years by a corporation called The
Aspen Company. The capital stock of that company was given
to the Institute in the early 60's; the Aspen Company was
then dissolved; and the Institute became the owner of the
entire property approximating 85 acres.
In the 1960's and 70's the structures on East and West
Meadows were built by the Aspen Institute. The restaurant,
chalets, trustee houses, Kresge and the Health Center were
all located on West Meadows. To operate those facilities
the ]Institute formed a wholly -owned operating subsidiary,
Meadows Corporation. Later it was logical to put the record
title of West Meadows itself in that same subsidiary.
The problem was that the subdivision regulations seemed
to prohibit a conveyance of less than the whole. Thus the
Institute's only recourse was to transfer the record title
to all 85 acres, take back from its subsidiary at the same
time a $100 option on the 26.5 acres (East Meadows), and
then hold that option pending a subdivision exception or
exemption from the City.
The Institute made the title transfer and took back the
$100 option on May 3, 1977. It immediately notified the
City and filed an Application for Exception and Exemption
from the subidivsion regulations. It was that application
which was promptly denied, not on its merits but for other
reasons which at that time appeared to the City to be sound.
When in 1980 Mr. Cantrup negotiated to take over the
Institute's subsidiary and the properties to which it held
record title, something had to be done to preserve the
Institute's rights to the 26.5 acres of East Meadows. The
Aspen Institute held the beneficial title and was generally
recognized as the owner but its wholly -owned subsidiary had
the record title. Mr. Cantrup, by one of his June 19, 1980
agreements with the Institute, promised that he would make a
new application for exception and exemption of East Meadows
from the subdivision regulations.
-2-
0
•
In effect, the
tute on East Meadows
for five years. On
Cant: -up that at any
could take over (or
paying $3,000,000.
same $100 option in favor of the Insti-
was continued, but with a restriction
June 19, 1980 the Institute agreed with
time within those five years Cantrup
obtain the release of) that option by
He would thereby acquire East Meadows.
On April 5, 1985 Mr. Roberts purchased Cantrup's
interests and assumed Cantrups' obligations under the
various Institute agreements, including those relative to
the S100 option. At the same time Mr. Roberts acquired
Cantrup's right to take over the Institute's $100 option by
paying to the Institute the $3,000,000 due June 19, 1985.
Mr. Roberts elected not to buy East Meadows.
III. GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO 20-19(b
Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal Code provides that:
(b) The city council may exempt a particular division
of land from the definition of a subdivision set
forth in section 20-3(s), when, in the judgment of
the city council, such division of land is not
within the intent and purpose of this chapter.
Prior to the granting of any such exemption, the
city council may request a recommendation from the
planning and zoning commission.
Section 20-2 of the Municipal Code provides that:
The purpose of this regulation is to assist the
orderly, efficient and integrated development of the
City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of
population and coordinate the need for public services
with governmental improvement programs; to encourage
well -planned subdivision by setting standards for
subdivision design and improvements; to improve land
records and survey monuments by establishing standards
for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests
of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer
protection for the purchaser; to acquire desirable
public areas; and to otherwise promote the health,
safety and general welfare of the residents of and
visitors to the City of Aspen. (Ord. No. 22-1975, §1)
-3-
0
To summarize the express purpose and intent of the sub-
division regulation, it is to regulate orderly growth and
development within the City. Clearly, when a property owner
seeks to divide his property for the purpose of development
or to divide his property in such a way as to increase the
potential for development thereof, the City has a legitimate
interest in regulating that subdivision. However, where the
division of property is for purposes unrelated to develop-
ment or potential development, and moreover, that division
of property would not have any impact on the public, there
is no need for government regulation. Recognizing, of
course, the need to monitor such activity, it is submitted
that it is appropriate for an application for exemption to
be made in each such instance and determinations made on a
case by case basis.
In this case East Meadows has a Specially Planned Area
designation which, under the recently adopted SPA regula-
tions embodied in Ordinance No. 20, series of 1985, would
preclude any use or development not in accordance with the
requirements of the amended Article VII. Those rigorous
requirements include submission and adoption of a conceptual
plan, a precise development plan, public hearings and
compliance with all other zoning requiremens of the Code.
The Aspen Institute respectfully submits that, given
the constraints imposed upon the property by reason of its
Specially Planned Area designation, granting the requested
exemption will have no impact whatsoever on the use or
development of the property.
The proposed division, the Institute believes, is
outside of, and thus would not violate, the purposes and
intents of Chapter 20 as described in section 20-2.
IV. GROUNDS FOR EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO 20-19(c
Section 20-19(c) of the Municipal Code provides that:
(c) The city council may grant exceptions from the
application of the standards or requirements
of this chapter and grant final subidivision
approval when the city council, in its sole
-4-
discretion and judgment, deems certain
requirements to be redundant, serve no public
purpose and to be unnecessary in relation to
the land use policies of the City of Aspen
under the facts and circumstances presented
and, notwithstanding the exception, finds that
the proposed subdivision will substantially
comply with the design standards of this
chapter. In cases where a public hearing is
required prior to the granting of any final
approval, the city council may choose to
conduct the public hearing itself or refer the
application to the planning and zoning
commission or a hearing officer. Prior to the
granting of any such exception, the city
council may request a recommendation from the
planning and zoning commission.
The applicant submits that all of the requirements of
Chapter 20 as applied to the proposed division of the 85
acres are redundant, would serve no public purpose, and are
unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City
of Aspen under the facts and circumstances existing and
presented.
As stated, the Chapter 20 requirements were designed to
regulate growth and development within the City. Those
requirements were intended for subdivisions of land or
interests in land created for development purposes or to
increase the potential for development. When the division
is not made for development purposes but merely to permit
the Aspen Institute as owner to complete its title, the
requirements become redundant. Nothing else will result and
nothing else is contemplated other than that which otherwise
might be permissible under applicable zoining. To enforce
the requirements in this case would serve no public purpose.
In the context of a conveyance under the Aspen
Institute's $100 option the regulations are unnecessary in
relation to the land use policies of the City. Moreover,
when one compares the specific requirements of Chapter 20
with -he requirements of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1985,
it is readily apparent that those subdivision requirements
are redundant.
-5-
The City Code advises that the purpose and intent
of the subdivision regulations is "... to assist the
orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of
Aspen Since no development could possibly take place
on the subject property without compliance with the specific
requirements of Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, notwithstand-
ing approval of this request, the subdivision regulations
are necessarily redundant in this case.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the applicant respectfully
requests that, with respect to the exercise by the applicant
of its $100 option for the property described in Exhibit
"A", the City Council grant an exemption from the definition
of subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal
Code, or in the alternative grant an exception from the
application of the standards or requirements of Chapter 20
of the Municipal Code pursuant to Section 20-19(c) thereof.
Respectfully submitted,
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC
STUDIES
By
,It"', �
Executive Vice President
1000 No Third Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Of Counsel:
Spencer F. Schiffer, Esq.
434 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2043
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
600 17th Street, Ste. 2800
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 595-9900
•
VERIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO)
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned being first duly sworn affirms that he
is the Executive Vice President of the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, that he is knowledgeable of the
statements and facts in the foregoing application and that
they are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Further, the undersigned states that he has been
authorized by the Institute's Board of Trustees to execute
and file the within application.
/§1 , I //� " 4, �/, At,.. � -4 -
Colin W. Williams
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoVerification was subscribed and sworn to
before me this 9 day of July, 1985.
My commission expires:
My Commlesion expires 11 04 87
1000 North Third Street
Aspen. CO 81611
•
September 10, 1985
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Institute Application for Exemption or
Exception from Subdivision - "Academic" Portion
of Aspen Meadows
Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members:
As the present owner of the entire Aspen Meadows Property,
Aspen Mountain Joint Venture desires to declare as a matter of pub-
lic record its wholehearted support for the Aspen Institute's cap-
tioned Application. The stated needs and objectives of the Insti-
tute are meritorious, and it is our belief that actual ownership of
the Academic Parcel can only serve to strengthen the Institute's
presence .in the Aspen community.
An important element of our support is the Institute's asser-
tion (as :Mated in Section III of its Application) that the pro-
posed land division "is for purposes unrelated to development or
potential development" (emphasis added). If the Application had
development implications of any kind, of course, a subdivision
exemption or exception could not be granted. However, the next
paragraph in the Institute's Application might be read to suggest
that the "East Meadows" (ie. the Academic Parcel) has or will have
its own Specially Planned Area designation.
It has always been our understanding that the entire Aspen
Meadows Property represents one "SPA parcel" (ie. has a single SPA
designation), and that the whole area must be treated as an inte-
gral tract of land for all SPA purposes. If this interpretation is
accurate, the Institute's Application will not in fact have any
impact on potential development of the area, since regardless of
the separation of underlying ownerships the entire Aspen Meadows
Property will still have to be master -planned at the same time.
V •
•
Aspen City Council
September 10, 1985
Page 2
If, on the other hand, approval of the Institute's Application
will also result (whether automatically or by future application
from the Institute) in the creation of two distinct SPA parcels,
the City's long struggle to establish a single, cohesive land use
plan for the whole Aspen Meadows Property may be jeapordized.
It is respectfully submitted that if the Institute's Applica-
tion is in fact approved, the Council might wish to condition such
approval upon the express understanding that despite the resulting
separation of ownerships, the entire Aspen Meadows Property shall
continue to constitute one undivided SPA parcel for all purposes
under Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Your serious consideration of these matters will be greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Aspen Mountain Joint Venture
B y : 144 � * 6 `1
John H. Roberts, Jr.
cc: Mr. Robert O. Anderson
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
Alan Richman, Planning
Office
C�
From:
Chuck Roth, Assistant
City Engineer
Date: September 16, 1985
Re: Subdivision Exception - Aspen Institute
Having reviewed the aboved referenced application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. The application is unclear to this reader. It does not
clearly state in the opening paragraph what is desired,
namely the subdivision of one parcel into two parcels. The
last sentence of that paragraph erroneously refers to the
entire parcel as being called the "East Meadows."
2. The platting which this department received was so sketchy as
to be of little referral use. If the application is to be
approved, it should be conditional upon receiving platting in
accordance with Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code.
3. There was a bridge across Castle Creek on this property which
was destroyed by the spring run-off of 1983. The bridge was
incorporated into the trails system. The bridge was insuffi-
ciently constructed to withstand a 100-year flood. It failed
in about an eight year flood. If the Institute originally
provided that bridge, it might be appropriate to require them
to reconstruct it at this time as a condition of approval.
4. All of the utilites need to be contacted for easement require-
ments and any possible utility extension requirements or
other utility related interests which might be obtained at
this time as a condition of approval.
5. An ingress/egress easement agreement between the parcels
should be established where a road crosses the common property
1 ine.
6. Any encroachments must be indicated on the final plat.
7. Trail easements and dedications need to be shown on the final
plat.
8. At this time the Engineering Department does not see a need
for the acquisition of public rights -of -way for routing
through the property although this might become an issue at a
future time if the properties are developed.
• 0
Page 2
Subdivision Exception - Aspen Institute
September 16, 1985
9. There are a couple issues which relate to the platting
showing adjacent property ownerships, which are not shown on
the submitted plat. Showing adjacent ownerships is not a
requirement of a final plat, although it is a requirement of
preliminary platting (Sec. 20-12(p)). We would like this
application conditioned on final platting showing adjacent
ownerships. One reason is to verify that the property shown
is the entire parcel owned by the applicant and that no
pieces have been left out, which has occurred before. The
other is that the Engineering Department has had some problems
with question of ownership and right-of-way along Meadows
Road from Eight Street which might be cleared up by platting
this application.
10. The number of parking spaces versus Code requirements and the
number of bedrooms and other uses of the property can be
reviewed at this time. We should see some information
addressing these items, and the correct number of parking
spaces should be a condition of approval.
11. The applicant should agree to join improvement districts with
current language which is available from the city attorney's
office.
cc: City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR/cr/subd.excep.asp.inst
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 1985
TO: Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies Application for Exemp-
tion from the Definition of Subdivision or Exception from the
Standards or Requirements of Chapter 20 of the Municipal
Code
The Inst:itute's application is directed to the City Council pursu-
ant to Section 20-19(c) of the Municipal Code which provides:
"The City Council may grant exceptions from the application
of the standards or requirements of this chapter and grant
final subdivision approval when the City Council, in its sole
discretion and judgment, deems certain requirements to be
redundant, serve no public purpose and be unnecessary in
relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen under
the facts and circumstances presented and, notwithstanding
the exception, finds that the proposed subdivision will sub-
stantially comply with the design standards of this chapter.
In cases where a public hearing is required prior to the
granting of any final approval, the City Council may choose
to conduct a public hearing itself or refer the application
to the Planning and Zoning Commission or a hearing officer.
Prior to the granting of any such exception, the City Council
may request a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission."
Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal Code, which pertains to exempt-
ing a division of land from the definition of subdivision, pro-
vides:
"The City Council may exempt a particular division of land
from the definition of a subdivision set forth in Section
20-3(s), when, in the judgment of the City Council, such
division of land is not within the intent and purpose of this
chapter. Prior to the granting of any such exemption, the
City Council may request a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission."
0 •
Memorandum to Planning Office
September 13, 1985
Page 2
In view of the above -referenced provisions, the application raises
various issues, to which I address the following question and
answer analysis:
1. Under the Code, does the City Council have the ability to
grant a one-step subdivision?
Yes. In accordance with Section 20-19(c), the City Council may
grant exceptions from the application of the standards or require-
ments of the subdivision regulations (i.e. conceptual, preliminary
and final) and grant final subdivision approval when the City
Council deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no pub-
lic purpose and to be unnecessary in relation to the land use
policies of the City. Inasmuch as the application is being
noticed for a public hearing, the City Council may accomplish pre-
liminary plat and final plat approval through a one-step process.
However, this procedure is advisable only to the extent that plan-
ning issues (as may be more properly within the province of the
Planning and Zoning Commission) can be culled out from the appli-
cation. This reading of Section 20-19(c) is consistent with Sec-
tion 30-23-227, C.R.S., which, to the extent it may be applicable
to home rule cities, authorizes a governing body to assume and
exercise any power granted to or duty placed upon a municipal
planning commission.
2. Does the Institute have standing via its option to commence a
subdivision application?
Yes. Having reviewed the title documents pertaining to the
option, it appears that the representations of the applicant are
correct and that under the common law the Institute has retained
for itself a valid option to acquire the academic parcel. By
implication, treatment of the subdivision regulations (bv excep-
tion/exemption) is necessary to formalize the transaction. Any
questions concerning the legitimacy of the application and the
standing of the applicant are resolvable in favor of the Institute
in view of the position of the title owner, John Roberts (as
articulated in the September 10, 1985, correspondence to the City
Council) that both recognizes the validity of the option and sup-
ports the application.
3. Does the request of the applicant fall within the definition
of subdivision?
0 •
Memorandum to Planning Office
September 13, 1985
Page 3
Yes. In accordance with Section 20-3(s)(1) a subdivision or sub-
divided land is defined as:
11(1) A tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more
lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests, including
leasehold interests in common, or other division for the purpose,
whether immediate or future, o_f transfer of ownership or for
building or other development, or for street use by reference to
such subdivision or recorded plat thereof; or ...". (Emphasis
added)
Under the above definition the application is clearly requesting
the division of a parcel of land into two parcels for the purpose
of transfer of ownership (i.e. confirming legal title).
4. What other sections of the Code should be addressed?
The following Code provisions are pertinent to this application:
** See Section 20-5(b). Development allotment.
"No subdivision shall be approved ( nor exemption or
exception granted) pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter 20 unless or until the applicant shall have been
awarded a development allotment pursuant to Article X of
Chapter 24 hereof (Growth Management Quota System) when-
ever such allotment is required for the proposed devel-
opment of the subdivided land. Upon receiving a devel-
opment allotment, the applicant for subdivision approval
may be deemed by the Planning Office to have satisfied
the conceptual presentation requirements of these subdi-
vision regulations, and the office may authorize the
applicant to proceed directly to preliminary plat
review, all as provided in Section 24-10.3(f)."
The operative words in this section are "whenever such allot-
ment is required for the proposed development of the subdivided
land." Inasmuch as the subject parcel is already developed and
the applicant has represented no interest in further development,
this provision should not present an obstacle to subdivision
approval. It should be made clear, however, that any development
on either the Institute site or the remainder owned by Roberts
should proceed as may be required by the Growth Management Quota
System set forth in Chapter 24.
0 •
Memorandum to Planning Office
September 13, 1985
Page 4
** See Chapter 24, Article VII pertaining to Specially
Planned Areas ( as amended earlier this year pursuant to Ordinance
No. 20-1985) specifically the following sections:
- Section 24-7.1(a) "Specially Planned Areas (SPA) refers to
those parcels designated on the zoning district map by tb overlay
'SPA' upon which uses may be permitted and development shall pro-
ceed only_upon compliance with the requirements of this article."
( Emphasis added)
As you know, Section 24-7.1(c) defines development as "any activ-
ity which materially changes the use of the land in question
including, but not limited to, the construction or substantial
modification of residential or lodge units or commercial square
footage, or other accessory buildings and structures located on
the property, the construction or substantial modification of
roads, any significant site grading or other earth work or the
installation or substantial modification of utilities."
- Section 24-7.3(b). "If a parcel is owned by more than one
individual., consent to the application from all owners shall be
required before the application may be processed." It should be
noted that the entire parcel is entitled in Roberts. If this
application entailed development plans, all owners would have to
consent before the application could be processed.
CONCLUSION
To the extent that planning issues can be culled from the applica-
tion and resolved in the direction of the City (with regard to
comprehensive planning, zoning, development, etc.), the applica-
tion is more susceptible to approval through a one-step process
before the City Council.
PJT/mc
5C
L1
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P.C.
September 18, 1985
Honorable William Stirling and
City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
D
@rawR
SEP 2 01985
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 025 2612
Re: Aspen Institute Subdivision Exemption Application
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
The application for a subdivision exception or exemption by
the Aspen Institute violates long standing (in excess of twelve
years), consistent policy of the city to treat the 85 plus acres
at the Institute site as one planning whole, a consistent policy
the City has defended not only administratively but in a law suit
filed by the Institute against the City, its councilmembers and
its Planning Commission. Further, the Institute's argument to the
contrary notwithstanding, there is no significant basis for the
granting of an exception or an exemption under subdivision laws
or the city code provisions relating to subdivisions. Thus the
application should be denied.
I represent Concerned Citizens -West Side, Inc., a non profit
corporation formed in 1980 specifically as a vehicle for
participating in the planning process with regard to the Institute
site. The general interests of Concerned Citizens -West Side, Inc.
have been expressed to you and to your predecessors over the years
most recently in the attached letter from me to you dated July 24.
Given the long standing consistent policy of the city, we
were somewhat surprised at the letter to you of the city attorney
and the planning director dated September 4. It appears to
accept the view that the Institute might properly be able "to
cull out from the application issues which may have planning
ramifications." The issue is, it seems to us, whether that is
ever possible, and that may be illustrated as follows: To our
knowledge neither the City nor the County has ever granted a
naked subdivision exemption or exception absent some development
proposal, absent some master plan, absent some consideration of
possible densities absent some restrictions on the exception or
exemption itself. And we thought that the City does not grant an
exemption or exception unless there is a corresponding exemption
from the GMP, which is not possible with this application.
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
There is no need, as the Institute appears to argue and as
your staff appears to accept for the Institute to be able "to
confirm legal title to the academic parcel." The institute has an
option that still has some ninety four years to run and therefore
it hardly needs to move immediately. It could for example seek a
subdivision exception or exemption at such time as it is ready to
master plan the 26.5 acres on which it has an option together in
cooperation with Roberts who owns the balance of the 85 acres.
It is interesting that the Institute itself created the
option and hence the potential separate ownership. Should it, by
virtue of creating an option in itself, with an option to Cantrup
to cancel -that option be able to bootstrap itself into a
subdivision exemption? Would you be so inclined to grant a
subdivision exemption if in fact the Institute had clearly sold
the entire 85 acres and wanted to buy back 26.5 acres and the
seller came in and asked for a subdivision exemption to sell the
Institute 26.5 acres? Of course you wouldn't. You would insist
that the owner of the single parcel adhere to the City's policy
of a dozen years to master plan the entire project before
splitting it up.
Let's examine in further detail the Institute's assertion by
its principal attorney Mr. McKinley in a letter to Mr. Daily,
the attorney for Mr. Roberts, a copy of which was sent to the
Mayor, dated July 17, 1985. In that letter on behalf of the
Institute, Mr. McKinley asserts as follows with regard to the
Institute subdivision exemption application:
"It has nothing to do with planning and certainly
could not stand in the way of a joint planning
effort."
Further in the application, the Institute asserts that since it
states that it has no potential development plans for the 26.5
acres that you should grant a subdivision exemption application
because your subdivision laws only deal with actual or presumably
immediately potential development. That is not so. The
subdivision laws are very broad and are designed to preclude the
possible piecemeal development of land by virtue of the splitting
of land parcels. Are you going to be able to require that the
riding ring or track area be open space, as both the Institute
and Bill Kane (for the City) agreed should be done in 1976, if
that open space burden will fall only on one of two landowners,
or only upon the Institute owning 26.5 acres rather than 85?
•
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, .JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAN!
It is interesting that the Institute in its application
does not quote the definition of a subdivision at all, but rather
simply quotes the exemption provisions and the general purpose
provision. A subdivision is defined under state law and your
code in very broad terms. Your code reads:
"A subdivision or subdivided land is defined as:
(1) A tract of land which is divided into two (2)
or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate
interests (including leasehold interests) interests
in common, or other division for the purpose, whether
immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or for
building or other development...."
In other words the development of land into separate parcels,
i.e, the Roberts parcel and the Institute parcel, is in fact
within the definition of a subdivision. The reason for that is
the division of land quite clearly presupposes planning
decisions,and results in the City's having to deal with two
owners, with separate development goals, with separate financial
desires, ideas as to densities, etc. Thus the Institute is
incorrect in asserting that no planning interests or policies of
the City are involved in this application simply because it does
not currently have pending a development proposal. Does anyone
seriously believe that the Institute never plans to do any
development on this 26.5 acres? One need not speculate because
your code says it is a "subdivision" to divide land into two
parcels "for the purpose of transfer of ownership." It doesn't
say the division of land into two or more parcels for the purpose
of evaluating current development. It is much broader. If the
Institute were correct in its argument why are there seven
(numbered four through nine in section 20-3) non applications of
this definition, for divisions created by order of court, by
liens, etc..? In other words, if the subdivision laws were not to
apply so Jong as an owner did not have current development plans -
that could have been specifically written into these seven
specific exceptions.
There is of course Section 20-19, a broad exception or
exemption provision applicable when a "division of land is not
within the intent and purpose of this chapter." The division of
the largest developable site in the City of Aspen ought always be
within the intent and purposes of the City's subdivision chapter,
and the specific findings of Section 20-19(a)(1), (2) and (3)
cannot be made in this case.
Suppose the Institute obtains this subdivision exemption and
then does not get what it wants and files a separate application.
Suppose the City refuses to consider the separate application for
a plan for the 26.5 acres. Suppose the Institute then sues the
•
L�
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, .JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT L 4W
City on the grounds that an
than one owner because that
process of law rights?
SPA may not properly encompass more
might violate the Institute's due
The neighbors in the area that are members of Concerned
Citizens -West Side, Inc. think that the City's best interest, and
their best interest, lie in denying this application so that it
is clear that the Institute must work with Roberts and plan the
entire 85 acres and not be able to use its separate
ownership as a strong argument for the separate development of
its 26.5 acres whether or not Roberts is ready to plan his
part of the 85 acres. At the very least, the City
should require as a condition of the exemption or exception the
following:
1. That the Institute waive any objection to
the requirement that its 26.5 acre parcel be
master planned in conjunction with, and
simultaneously with Roberts' master planning
the balance of the 85 acres.
2. That the Institute not be allowed any
development unless and until a master plan is
approved for the entire 85 acre parcel.
Thank you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., P.C.
cc: Hon. William Stirling
Mr. Chic Collins
Ms. Charlotte Walls
Ms. Fat Fallin
Mr. Tom Isaac
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Mr. Alan Richman
Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
Spencer Schiffer, Esq.
jl5:lcity918
•
•
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
600 EAST HOPKINS.CVENUE
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Mayor and City Council
CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
July 24, 1985 AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925 2612
Re: Concerned Citizens - Aspen Institute - Roberts - Meadows
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
For many years now, I have represented a group of citizens
and homeowners on the west side called Concerned Citizens -West
Side, Inc. Like most such citizens groups it is fairly loosely
organized, although members that have been active include Belton
Fleisher, James Adams, and John Schuhmacher. As with most
citizens groups, any person living in the West Side can join upon
payment of a modest fee, and at times over the years the group
has had as many as fifty different West Siders make a
contribution to its efforts.
My clients' interest has been rekindled in light of
correspondence to the City indicating that the Aspen Institute
wishes to subdivide the 26.5 acre parcel from the larger parcel.
Concerned Citizens -West Side, Inc. obviously can not take a
position with regard to a subdivision application since in
fact one has not yet been filed. Nonetheless, it is an
appropriate time to restate Concerned Citizens' general position.
On July 2, 1980 we wrote to you on behalf of these same
citizens as follows:
"We have previously mentioned on numerous
occasions the interest of our various
clients, but briefly to reiterate, they
are as follows:
1. That the Institute remain in the
community if it so chooses, and that
it have a viable proposal and ability
to use the land for its reasonable
academic needs.
2. Preservation of the track or riding
ring area as open space, and proper
treatment of the environmentally
sensitive areas of Castle Creek.
•
•
J. NICHOLAS 1v1cGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3. Sufficiently applicable and
sophisticated traffic impact studies
so that access routes may be determined
depending upon the nature of the use
of the project (it is our understanding
that Mr. Cantrup may not desire the
tourist facilities that many found
objectionable in the past application).
4. Trails within the proposal that meet
applicable trails plans.
S. Adequate specificity in the proposal,
such as a precise plan plat showing overall
density, building footprints and. locations,
and the location and extent of employee
housing.
6. Adequate resolution of unsettled matters
particularly with regard to the Music
Associates but also perhaps the Physics Center.
Insistence upon following the normal procedures
and requiring an application from Mr. Cantrup
[the then owner] or his entity also will help
reaffirm confidence in the public nature of the
process. There is certainly room for legitimate
differences of opinion as to informality in the
use process --ex parte contacts, appearances of
unfairness occasioned by private communications
and the like-- but even those who choose the
informal course must consider that at some point
in time the aspect of 'wheeling and dealing'
behind the scenes undermines the integrity of
the public process. What may be entirely legal
under present law as to informal private com-
munications may not always be entirely wise."
•
•
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORPJEV AT LAW
Five years later my clients still have the same substantive
goals, and they remain concerned about private meetings that are
not subject to full public scrutiny, no matter how well
intentioned the parties may be. An application, or several
applications will soon be filed. Such applications should follow
the ordinary, public process.
Sincerely,
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., P.C.
jl5:mayor
cc: Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mr. Alan Richman
Paul Taddune, Esq.
•
September 10, 1985
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Institute Application for Exemption or
Exception from Subdivision - "Academic" Portion
of Aspen Meadows
Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members:
As the present owner of the entire Aspen Meadows Property,
Aspen Mountain Joint Venture desires to declare as a matter of pub-
lic record its wholehearted support for the Aspen Institute's cap-
tioned Application. The stated needs and objectives of the Insti-
tute are meritorious, and it is our belief that actual ownership of
the Academic Parcel can only serve to strengthen the Institute's
presence in the Aspen community.
An important element of our support is the Institute's asser-
tion (as stated in Section III of its Application) that the pro-
posed land division "is for purposes unrelated to development or
potential development" (emphasis added). If the Application had
development implications of any kind, of course, a subdivision
exemption or exception could not be granted. However, the next
paragraph in the Institute's Application might be read to suggest
that the "East Meadows" (ie. the Academic Parcel) has or will have
its own Specially Planned Area designation.
It has always been our understanding that the entire Aspen
Meadows Property represents one "SPAparcel" (ie. has a single SPA
designation), and that the whole area must be treated as an inte-
gral tract of land for all SPA purposes. If this interpretation is
accurate, the Institute's Application will not in fact have any
impact on potential development of the area, since regardless of
the separation of underlying ownerships the entire Aspen Meadows
Property will still have to be master -planned at the same time.
•
Aspen City Council
September 10, 1985
Page 2
If, on the other hand, approval of the Institute's Application
will also result (whether automatically or by future application
from the Institute) in the creation of two distinct SPA parcels,
the City's long struggle to establish a single, cohesive land use
plan for the whole Aspen Meadows Property may be jeapordized.
It is respectfully submitted that if the Institute's Applica-
tion is in fact approved, the Council might wish to condition such
approval upon the express understanding that despite the resulting
separation of ownerships, the entire Aspen Meadows Property shall
continue to constitute one undivided SPA parcel for all purposes
under Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Your serious consideration of these matters will be greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Aspen Mountain Joint Venture
By: 144
�����
John H. Roberts, Jr.
cc: Mr. Robert 0. Anderson
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
0
dh
EXHIBIT A
to Aspen Institute's Anpl_ication for
Exemption or Exception from Requirements of
Municipal Code Chapter 20
nescr':ption of East Meadows
A tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 10 South, Rance 95 .-,est of the 6th principal meridian,
City of Aspen, Pitl-in County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the Northwest corner of
the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of
said Section, 12,-A 1954 U.S. Brass Cap, bears
S17051' 47", .-; 521.03 feet;
thence N O1°39'00"
thence S 8802100"
thence S 01°39'00"
thence N 74°07'26"
thence S 82007'01"
thence S 65°46'20"
thence S 35032'16"
thence S 74°03'17"
thence S 6000'18"
thence S 35020'24"
thence S 170i°'yl"
thence S 12°39'09"
thence S 45042'26"
thence East 43.00
thence S 57°03'35"
East
East
West
East
East
East
East
East
East
Ec.st
East
was
Last
feet;
East
300.00
290.40
129. 00
35.86
65.62
43.36
68.82
349.45
120.93
67.42
130.94
100. 44
114. 56
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
86.44 feet to a point on the
East line of the '.•:est half of the Northeast quarter
of said Section 12;
thence along said East line
feet to the intersection
Roaring For}; Road;
thence along said .•'est 'line
feet to. the intersection
Gi l:.esnie Avenue;
S 00026'55" East 250.00
with the Vast line of
S 16°35'00" East 722.50
with the North line of
thence along said North line extended West 1119.97
feet;
thence
N 1-034100"
East
1031.39
feet;
thence
N '0000'
00"
V.est
416.17
feet;
thence
_, C1039'O0"
East
168.00
feet;
thence
N 39°21'
0 0 "
.•,est
290. 40
feet to the point of
beginning;
E):CEPTI::C THEREFROM:
A tract of land located i. the N'�1/4 ":E1 /4 of Section 12,
me
To%-.nsh_p 10 South, Range 035 West of trio Sixth Pr-llc=pal
,Serid_an, C,''y of Aspen, Co'_Urade, -3_'e particularly
uescribed as follc'.,s.
0
Bcginning at a point whence the Southwest corner of the
N111/4 ,,;E'_/4 of said Section 12, a U.S. brass can dated
1954, bears S 17°51'47" west 521.03 meet;
thence N. 01039' East 300.00 feet;
thcrce S 89021' -East 290.40 feet;
thence S 01°39' .vest 300.011 feat; t
thence 13 83021'lest 290. y0 feet to the point .of beginning.
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY -AT LAW
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
July 24, 1985
Mayor and City Council
CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
JUL 2 9 1985
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 025 2612
Re: Concerned Citizens - Aspen Institute - Roberts - Meadows
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
For many years now, I have represented a group of citizens
and homeowners on the west side called Concerned Citizens -West
Side, Inc. Like most such citizens groups it is fairly loosely
organized, although members that have been active include Belton
Fleisher, James Adams, and John Schuchmacher. As with most
citizens groups, any person living in the West Side can join upon
payment of a modest fee, and at times over the years the group
has had as many as fifty different West Siders make a
contribution to its efforts.
My clients' interest has been rekindled in light of
correspondence to the City indicating that the Aspen Institute
wishes to subdivide the 26.5 acre parcel from the larger parcel.
Concerned Citizens -West Side, Inc. obviously can not take a
position with regard to a subdivision application since in
fact one has not yet been filed. Nonetheless, it is an
appropriate time to restate Concerned Citizens' general position.
On July 2, 1980 we wrote to you on behalf of these same
citizens as follows:
"We have previously mentioned on numerous
occasions the interest of our various
clients, but briefly to reiterate, they
are as follows:
1. That the Institute remain in the
community if it so chooses, and that
it have a viable proposal and ability
to use the land for its reasonable
academic needs.
2. Preservation of the track or riding
ring area as open space, and proper
treatment of the environmentally
sensitive areas of Castle Creek.
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3. Sufficiently applicable and
sophisticated traffic impact studies
so that access routes may be determined
depending upon the nature of the use
of the project (it is our understanding
that Mr. Cantrup may not desire the
tourist facilities that many found
objectionable in the past application).
4. Trails within the proposal that meet
applicable trails plans.
5. Adequate specificity in the proposal,
such as a precise plan plat showing overall
density, building footprints and. locations,
and the location and extent of employee
housing.
6. Adequate resolution of unsettled matters
particularly with regard to the Music
Associates but also perhaps the Physics Center.
Insistence upon following the normal procedures
and requiring an application from Mr. Cantrup
[the then owner] or his entity also will help
reaffirm confidence in the public nature of the
process. There is certainly room for legitimate
differences of opinion as to informality in the
use process --ex parte contacts, appearances of
unfairness occasioned by private communications
and the like-- but even those who choose the
informal course must consider that at some point
in time the aspect of 'wheeling and dealing'
behind the scenes undermines the integrity of
the public process. What may be entirely legal
under present law as to informal private com-
munications may not always be entirely wise."
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Five years later my clients still have the same substantive
goals, and they remain concerned about private meetings that are
not subject to full public scrutiny, no matter how well
intentioned the parties may be. An application, or several
applications will soon be filed. Such applications should follow
the ordinary, public process.
Sincerely,
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., P.C.
jl5:mayor
cc: Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mr. Alan Richman
Paul Taddune, Esq.
•
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER
ASPEN, COLORADO a1611
(303) 925-2043
August 19, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Institute Subdivision
Exception or Exemption
Dear Alan:
Following up on your request of July 18, 1985,
enclosed please find a copy of the Option to Purchase, dated
June 19, 1980 between the tMeadows Corporation and the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies together with the copy of the
Agreement re: Academic Parcel between the Aspen Institute and
Hans Cantrup.
The Meadows Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Aspen Institute, was sold to Bans Cantrup on June 19, 1980.
Cantrup subsequently dissolved the corporation and title passed
to him individually. Upon the filing of the Bankruptcy
Petition, title passed to the Bankruptcy Estate and that title
was conveyed to the Aspen Mountain Joint Venture pursuant to
Bankruptcy Court Order on March 31, 1985. Accordingly, The
Aspen Institute has the right to exercise the option and obtain
a Deed from the Aspen Mountain Joint Venture pursuant to the
Option to Purchase. Incidentally, if you refer to Paragraph 1
of the Agreement re: Academic Parcel you will see that The
Institute was not in a position to exercise the option prior to
June 19, 1985.
I am also enclosing a list of the adjacent property
owners which was prepared by your office.
Alpine Surveys is preparing the proposed
Exemption/Exception Plat in accordance with Section 20-15 of
the code. Those will be delivered to you upon completion.
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
City of Aspen Planning Department
August 19, 1985
Page Two
If there is anything else which you need to place this
matter on the council agenda, please let me know as soon as
possible.
Very ruly you s,
encer F/Schi err
SFS:Is
Encs.
cc: Donald C. NIcKinlay
GEUGRANHICAL Gk or --------------> AIA
ASPEN INS I'I U1 E ADJA1'4CLiNT
LANUOANLHS
LABELS ARE ALPHAbE T IC by :
UWIVkK NAMt
I
AIA/U525U
ADAMS, JAMES S.
ADAMS, FLORENCE
795 MEADOAb KUAD
ASPEN, COLURADO
d1bll
AIA/U3b3U
I_
BARR, HELEN E.
,�..
ul JOHNS ISLAND URIVL
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
32yb3
AIA/U5655
BECK, NEIL H. 6 PAI-iELA L.
515 A. GILLtSPIE
ASPEN, COLUkADU
blbll
t
AIA/O5b45
BERMUDA PkUPEKTILS, INC.
A NEW YORK CURPURATIUN
C/U SYDNEY J. SCHAAKIL
575 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY, NE'A YUKK
10022
u
AIA/05258
CANTRUP, HANS b.
POST OFFICE HUk 368
ASPEN, COLORADO 8lbl 2
AIA/053Ub
CERISE, JAMES 141.
CERISE, CAROLYN A.
790 CASTLE CREEK DNIVt
•
AIA/1U462
CHEEK, JOHN H. JR. ONO. 9U4
1NT,
CHEEKr KATHXI(4 BUt1GAKDhLk
1Uti
CLONMEL ROAD
_VOX 1633
NASHV ILLE r 1 ENIJESSEE
37220
AIA/05ob1
`._ COLLINS, CHAKLtS 6. JANILE 5.
BOX HH
blb12
ASPEN, COLORADO
AIA/U5b69
� GRONNER, GtURbINA
1440 LAKESHORE UkIVE
bU61U
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
s
24
AIA/U53b9
,
Z, WILLIAM ruKUtitRTA
__HARRIS►
u b LONGFELLOVr PARK
MASS►+CHUSE(I5
02130 "
Z. CAMBRIUGEr
3:
I
AIA/0063ti
31
I
HODGES, ELAINE C.
'.� 916 9
2800 SUUTM UNIVERSITY tjOULEVARU
bU210
._._ UENVERr COLORADO
IJ I
AIA/U5379
K,
5 HOLLENBECK, ZEpH J. AND
HOLLENBECK, ELIZABETH J.
4200 EAST CEDAR
60222
,DENVER, COLORADO
_
W 49
IS.
AIA/03275
Ib JOSEPHSONr MAHVIN
ET 40 WEST 57 STkE
fib+ y NEVti YORK
NEW PORK C1TY,
1U019
AIA/U3525 -- — - -----
KERN, ALBERT ANU SUSAN
POST OFFICE BOX 369
81612
ASPEN, COLORADO
AIA/0564
LADDER, GAHY
890 ROARING FORK ROAD
81611
ASPEN, COLORADO
4
AIA/03525
KERN, ALBERT ANU SUSAN
%0 ! POST OFFICE HOX 369
ASPEN, COLORADU
w
81612
AIA/0564d
LAUDER, GARY
wr
690 ROARING FORK RUAU
y L_.
ASPEN, COLORADO
dlbll
wt
-- -
-
,2
AIa/U5b4s
LAUDERf LEONARD A.
4
LAUDER, EVELYN H.
"I
2 EAST 67TH. STREET
NEW YURK CITY, NEW YURK
10021
'
2ul
v
21�
�
AIA/05b41 —
LAUDER, LEONARD A. AND EVELYN
H.
'
2 E. 67TH. STREET
r
NEw YORK CITY, NEw YURK
.10021
y
2
f
wl
AIA/03549
LAVENUER, RAY A. 6 RUSEMARIE
IG
BOX 1129
"i
ASPEN, COLUKAUU
i
AIA/05b44
LOVING, GRAHAM
ft
U
686 ROARING FURK ROAU
a
ASPI-N, COLORADO
Hlbll
i5
4.
47
46
4w
iY
x
AIA/05664
b,
MACATEE, GEORGE P. III
4-01
MACATEE., SHIRLEY
3929 POTOMAC
°4I
DAILAS, TEXAS
752U5
�,
AIA/010d8
8()x loblo
•
ASPEN, CUl.uf1AUU
61612
4'!
AIA/OU957
0_'SHANA, CATHY
POST OFFICE BOX 15101
ASPEN, COLURAUU
81612
AIA/05681
GDUM, JOHN ALbERT JR.
ODOMp LORRIE FURMAN
I.
11690 WEST 36TH. AVENUE
1---__._.__-ftEALRIUGE,
.LOLURADU
d.0033_.
I.
"
'
AIA/05682
Izi
PAEPCKE, ELlZAbET.H--H.-..._ ._
AS EXECUTOR
I1
105 WEST ADAKS
o
AGO, ILLJNOI5
6Q.603
v
U
`r
ILI
AIA/08552 - --- -----
O
PE.SMAN, GERARD H�
v
31
1009 VIVIAN CIRCLE
Y�(
BOULDER, COLORAUO
6U303
AIA/08533
G E-k A k U -H_,-- _--
L.
11
1009 VIVIAN CIRCLE .
BOULDER, COLORADO
80303
"
a
'7
AIA/01022
w
-RAYN_ES, MAR1 IN__.J
6352 GILLESPIE
s"
ASPEN, COLORADO
81611
54
6
AIA/03825
s
t----___-SCOTT,
jUDGE_F_ ITZMUGH Ill
SCOTT, SUSAN
BOX 1815
'+vl - r• / 4111.. 1.r r\ IJ 11 1t 1 L 1 J
`r I 1 ll 1 L •
AIA/01013
WHITING, KENNETH R.
C/O WHITING PETKOLEUrl CORPORAITON
SUITE 2300r TWO UNITED 6ANK CENTER
_1700 DROADWAY
DENVER, COLORADO 802U2
r
1
M
^" I2il
I
i
_
f 41--
OPTION TO PURCHASE
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE, dated as of June 19,
1980, is between MEADOWS CORPORATION ("Grantor"), a Colorado
corporation, and ASPEN.INSTITUTE FOR HUINIANISTIC STUDIES
r
("AIRS"), a Colorado non--for-profit corporation.
RECITALS
AIRS and Grantor are the parties to an Amended
Option to Purchase (the "Amended Option"), dated November 15,
1977, and ATHS, Meadows and Holme Roberts & Owen are the
parties to an Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement"),
dated November 30, 1977. AIHS and Grantor desire to terminate
the Amended Option and the Escrow Agreement and to enter
into this Option to Purchase.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
suffi.cie-11Cy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
-1-
1. 0 tion. Grantor hereby grants AIHS an option
to purchase the real property described on Schedule 1 attached
hereto together with all furnishings and personalty used in
connection therewith (the "Property") on the terms and
cOnditlOns set forth herein.
2.01 Purchase Price. The purchase price (the
"Purchase Price") for the Property shall be $100.00, payable
at the closing -(the "Closing") described in Section 4.
2.02 Adjustments in Purchase Price. The following
items shall bn apportioned at, and as of, the Closing date.
and the amount of the Purchase Price adjusted accordingly:
(a) Any general property taxes and
assessments for the year in which the Closing takes place
and any casualty insurance that AIHS-elects to assume. If
on the date of Closing either -the applicable assessed value
or assessment rate cannot be ascertained, such taxes and
assessments shall be apportioned on the basis of the latest
applicable rate applied to the latest applicable assessed
value.
(b) Grantor shall pay all recording and
doc,uneritary fees in conn+action with filing for record the
deed Convi':y_ing title to AIRS. Grantor shall also pay all
recording fees ill connection with the recording of any
document:., rle.ces s`Izy to eliminate the- Title Defects d scr,_LI
in Secti;:_i
-2-
3. Title Defects. If a title search of the
Property obtained by AIHS at its expense reflects the existence
of any encumbrance, encroachment, defect in or objection to
title (a "Title Defect") arising by, through or under Grantor,
AIHS shall give Grantor written notice of the Title Defects
it is unwillilig to waive prior to the -Closing and Grantor
shall thereupon take all action necessary or desirable to
remove such Title Defects. Grantor shall be entitled to an
adjournment of the Closing for a period of up to 60 days (or
such longer period as the parties may agree upon in writing)
in which to removes: or cure all the Title Defects listed in
such notice. If Grantor shall fail to cure or remove the
designated Title Defects on or before the adjourned Closing,
AIHS shall be entitled to specific performance of Grantor's
obligations hereunder and to obtain in addition monetary
damages resultirig from Grantor's failure to cure the Title
Defects. In addition, AIHS may elect to accept title to the
Property subject to the remaining Title Defects, but such
latter election sYiall Ilot affect any rights to specific
Performance or d,7images that AIIIS may Have because of Grantor's
failure to cure the designated Title Defects.
4 • H x�.�rcise of 0 tion and Cl.os.ing. The Closing
shall be held at the place -in Denver or Aspen, Colorado at
10:00 A.M. On a;iy business day prior Ju;�e 19, 2079, as
=0
designated by AIHS in a written notice to Grantor, mailed or
delivered by hand at least 60 days prior to the designated
date, advising Grantor that AIHS elects to exercise this
Option. At the Closing the following shall occur, each
action being considered a condition precedent to the others
and all being considered as taking place simultaneously:
4.01 Deed. Grantor shall execute, acknowl-
edge and deliver a special warranty deed conveying title in
fee simple to the Property to AIHS, free and clear of all
liens and encumbrances arising by, through or under Grantor
(including any rights obtainable through adverse possession)
except as set forth in Section 3.
4.02 The Purchase Price. AIHS shall deliver
cash or its certified check to Grantor in the amount of the
Purchase Price payable under Section 2.01, as adjusted under
2.C'2.
4.03 Additional Documents. Grantor shall
execute and deliver to AIHS such other documents and take
such other action as AIHS may reasonably require in order to
carry out the transactions contemplated by this Option.
5. Termination of Prior Agreements. Grantor and
AIHS hereby agree that the Amended Option and the Escrow
Agreeme at referred to in the Recitals above shall be, and
they h::rez)y are, terminated --id of ne.) Furt..h.f�r. force or
--4-
effect. The parties also agree that the Bargain and Sale
Deed, December S, 1977, covering the Property, given by
Grantor to AIRS and being held by Holme Roberts & Owen
pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, shall be, and it hereby
is, terminated and of no further force or effect.
6. Remedies upon Seller's'Default'. If Grantor
defaults in the performance of its obligations under this
Option, AMS shall be entitled to (a) specific performance
of this Option and (b) monetary damages..
7. Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing any
part of the Property is taken in condemnation or under the
right of eminent domain, this Option shall remain in full
force and effect, and Grantor shall defend or prosecute (as
the case may be) any action to obtain just compensation and
upon receipt of property or sums -of money collected by
Grantor by reason of the condemnation or taking under the
right of eminent domain convey and assign or pay all such
propert:.y and sums to AIRS. In addition, Grantor shall
assign, transfer, and set over to AIRS all Grantor's right,
title and interest in and to any unpaid awards or other
payments arising out of such condemnation or taking. Grantor
shall not compromi:sr,, adjust or accept any omounts so payable
without AMS's prior writt-t,ri consent.
8. Notices. All notices under this Contract
shall be given uy c^.rti .;.�d m-iil directed as follow,-;:
If intended for AIHS:
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
717 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Attention: The President
with copies to:
Mr. Robert 0. Anderson.
P. 0. Box 1000
Roswell, New Mexico
._.Holme Roberts & Owen
1700 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80290
Attention: Donald C. McKinlay, Esq., and
W. Dean Salter, Esq.
If intended for Grantor:
Hans Cantrup
P. 0. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81611 f
with copies to:
Garfield & Hecht
The Victorian Square Building
601 East .Nyman Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Andrew V. Hecht, Esq.
and
Kerwin and Elliott, P. C.
1414 Lincoln Center.
1660 Lincoln Street
.Denver, Colorado 80264
Attention: Thomas J. Kerwin, Esq.
Either party may by notice so given, change the address to
which future notices shall be sent.
Im
• • •
9. Miscellaneous.
9.01 Amendments. This Option may not he
amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except by
an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto.
9.02 Assignment. AITIS may sell, convey or
assign its interest under this Option•without Grantor's
prior written consent.
'9.03 Termination. This Option shall termi-
nate on June 19, 2079, unless the date of the Closing is
extended beyond such date pursuant to the terms of Section 3.
9.04 Counterparts. This Option may be exe-
cuted in any number of counterparts, each of which shall for
all purposes be regarded as an original, and any party's
execution of any counterpart shall bind it as soon as the
other party shall have executed at least one counterpart.
9.05 Conditions Precedent. Performance of
every obligation of either party herein shall also be a
condition precedent to the obligations of the other party.
9.06 Headinqs. Section headings are in-
serted only for convenience and they shall in no way define,
limit or prescrik),--:! the.scope or intent of this Option.
9.07 Binding Effect. This instrument shall
be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties
hereto and their r--:;pectivo successors and assigns.
MFAI
9.08 Rule A ainst Perpetuities. If any
provision of this Option is deemed to be invalid because of
the rule against perpetuities, the effectiveness of such
provision shall terminate on a date 20 years following the
death of the last to die of the issue of Robert F. Kennedy,
the late Senator from the State of New York, living on the
date of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Option the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
MEADOWS CORPORATION
By
A -)PEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC
STUDIES
_ - By -- — �—•- - ----
.ecreLary President
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER )
Tt-e for.eraing instrument was ack ow edged before
tae the*y,� da of.,June, 1980, �!
and , ,Lt-T �� 1� 1, tC _ as the _ President and
the Secretary of ;rFAi�O`+dS COY.PORATI �N, a
Color=<i�ao cc::-t c?ratlon.
witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires i(/)'Lct�r /,� 4p/'
IV
(SEAL)
Notary P�bi
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DEriVER l
Thq foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
me this day of June, 1980, by Joseph E. Slater and
Donald C. McKinlav as the President and Secretary of ASPEN
INSTITUTE FOR 4iLZ�NISTIC STUDIES, a Colorado not -for -profit
corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
(SEAL)
Notary Public
0
u
SCHEDULE 1
(Attached to and forming a part of the
Option to Purchase, dated June 19, 1980,
between Meadows Corporation and Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies)
Description of the Property
Subject to the Option to Purchase
Description of the Academic Parcel
A tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 10 South,... -Range 85.r4est of the 6th principal meridian,
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the Northwest corner of
the Southwest quarter of the :Northeast quarter of
said Section 12, A 19541 U.S. Brass Cap, bears
S17051'47", U1 521.03 feet;
thence N 01°39100" East 300.00 feet;
thence S SS°21'00" East 290.40 feet;
thence S 01°39'00" west 129.00 feet;
thence NI 74°07'26" East 35.86 feet;
thence S 8200.7101" East 65.62 feet;
thence S 65°46'20" East 43.86 feet;
thence S 35°32'16" East 63.82 feet;
thence S 74°03'17" East 349.45 feet;
thence S 46°00'18" East 120.93 feet;
thence, S 35°20' 2 t" East 67. 42 feet;
thence S 17019141"East 130.94 feet;
thence S 12039109" aSt 100.44 f^et;
thence S 45 :2'26" East 114.56 feet;
thence East ti 3. 00 feet;
thence S 57°03'35" East 36.4.4 feet .to a point un the
East line o:: the 'Nast half of the Northeast quarter.
of said Sec -ion 12;
thence alone; said East line S 0002615511 East. 250.00
feet to ttie intersection with the line of
Roaring 'Fork Road;
then:.:> along said 'rest line S -16°3:5'00" cast 72'2.50
fcct tQ, t:.e intcrsccti oil with thQ Nor`.:h line of
G111eSJ1�3 �•.'i�nll"'.;
thence 10:,'•� .~. :i(1 lin eat: :.�C1d "Ist 1119.97
foe
the::t` 17 , , „�,�� 1. 39 feet;
thc;,.:c :,'.:�'t:." ,;t '416.17 feet:•
thence ,ti ram._" ?' �:�` ?.53. 00 `r, ,t.
thence 3 i :'1,' );]" ;;..:�t 20J.40 f o-Lto the t of
beg point .
7iii:i i.,t:;,
EXCE:'TING TIIE:2FrROM:
A tract of land located in the NW1/4 NE1/4 of Section 12,
Toc;nstiip 10 South, Rance 35 t:est of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, City of Atpcn, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the Southwest corner of the
NW1/4 NE1/4 of said Section 12, a U.S. brass cap dated
1954, bears S 17°51'47" ',lest 521.03 feet;
thence N 01*39' East 300.00 Eect;
thence S 89°21' East 290.40 feet;
thence S 01139' West 300.00 feet; I
thence N 83.021' ',est 290.40 feet to the point .o.1 beginning.
„
AGREEMENT RE ACADEMIC PARCEL
THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 19, 1980, is between
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES ("Seller"), a Colo-
rado not -for -profit corporation, and HANS CANTRUP of Aspen,
Colorado ("Purchaser").
Recitals. Seller and Purchaser are the parties to
a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated June 19, 1980, ("P&SA”)
pursuant to which Seller purchased from Seller all of the
issued and outstanding capital stock of Meadows Corporation
("Meadows"), a Colorado corporation. As part and as a
condition of the closing under such Agreement, Purchaser
caused Meadows to enter into an Option to Purchase (the
"Option"); dated June 19, 1980, with Seller, covering the
Academic Parcel described therein. As a further condition
to the closing the parties are entering into this Agreement.
In consideration of the foregoing and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Seller agrees that at any time prior to
June 19, 1985, provided Purchaser is not in default under
the P&SA, the Promissory Note, the Security Agreement (or
the Mortgage referred to therein), this agreement, or Meadows'
loan at the Colorado National Bank:
1
(a) Selle*ill not exercise the •
Option, and
(b) upon 30 days' prior written notice
from Purchaser to Seller (given in the manner
provided in Section 15 of the P&SA), Seller
will sell and assign the Option to Purchaser
for $3,000,000 cash.
2. At the Closing referred to in the P&SA, Pur-
chaser will cause Meadows to execute and deliver to Seller
a lease (the "Lease') of the structures, furnishings,
equipment and personalty (collectively the "Premises")
located on the Academic Parcel on June 19, 1980, subject to
the outstanding leases to Music Associates and to the Physics
Institute, for a term expiring at midnight September 30,
2079, for the period June 1 through September 30 of each
year during the term, the Lease to be in the form and sub-
stance of Exhibit E-1 hereto.
3. Until Seller exercises its Option, or it is
assigned to Purchaser under section l(b) above, Purchaser,
at its expense, shall repair, maintain and keep the Premises
in first class condition, including but not limited to
structural repairs and replacements of structures and person-
alty as may be required. During such period, with the exception
of the Trapazoid hereinafter described, Purchaser may not,
without Seller's prior written approval (a) alter or demolish
any structure or add or construct additional structures or
improvements on the Academic Parcel; nor (b) amend or attempt
K
to amend the existing leases to Music Associates of Aspen,
Inc. and the Aspen Center for Physics but shall abide by the
terms of both said leases.
4. On the map attached to the Security Agreement,
Exhibit D of the P&SA, at the northwest corner of.the Academic
Parcel is a trapazoidal piece marked "T" and herein called
`1--, "the Trapazoid". Though that piece is presently a part of
the Academic Parcel, Purchaser shall be entitled to receive
it free of the Option upon accomplishing the following:
(a) By June 19, 1982 obtaining subdivision approval
from the: City of Aspen of the Real Property described
in the P&SA divided into at least two pieces,
(i) one of which shall be the Academic
Parcel redefined to include the strip of land
between it and the Roaring Fork River (marked "x"
on said map) but excluding the Trapazoid, and
(ii) and the remainder of the Real Property
in one or more pieces, as Purchaser may elect.
Following the accomplishment of the foregoing all
references to Academic Parcel in all of the agreements
and instruments referred to in the P&SA shall automatically
be deemed to designate that parcel as redefined, except
that the Option shall continue to cover the Trapazoid.
(b) When such subdivision approval is obtained,
Purchaser shall be entitled to a release of the Trapa-
zoid from the Option.
3
5. A zoning ordinance applicable to the Real
Property (as defined in the P&SA) is currently pending
before the Aspen City Council. The parties understand that
the density contemplated by such ordinance applies to both
parcels. With regard to density, Seller understands that
density allocations made during the next five years for the
Real Property under'any zoning, subdivision or P.U.D. application
currently pending or later made during that period will
apply to the entire Real Property. If Seller exercises the
Option, as permitted under Section 1 above, it may seek
additional density then or later available, if any. In
addition to the provisions of section 4 above, Purchaser
affirmatively agrees that he will use his best efforts in
all zoning and subdivision proceedings affecting the Real
Property to obtain the subdivision approval described in
section 4 as well as to keep the Academic Parcel from being
zoned or designated as open space, conservation or the
equivalent.
6. (a) This Agreement may not be amended, nor
may any rights hereunder be waived, except by an instrument
' in writing stating that it is an amendment or a waiver and
formally executed by the parties hereto.
4
(b) Purchaser may not sell, convey or assign his
interests under this Agreement without Seller's prior written
consent, except to a nominee of Purchaser, and provided in
any event that Purchaser executes such guarantees and other
instruments as may be necessary to confirm his personal
liability with respect to this Agreement and the Lease.
(c) This Agreement may be executed in counter-
parts, each of which for all purposes shall be regarded as
an original, and either party's execution and delivery of a
counterpart shall bind him or it as soon as the other party
has executed and delivered a counterpart.
(d) Each party will bear the fees and expenses
incurred by it in the negotiation and preparation of this
Agreement.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (b) above,
this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of Seller and Purchaser and their respective successors
and assigns.
(f) This Agreement shall be construed and enforced
in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado.
EXECUTED as of the date hereof.
ATTEST:
Secretary
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC
STUDIES
E-5
President-
� 1 fll ..1•'; �r/r •�' ..• '� /,(/f/ i. � ,! I ': '':' � ''..I..�• •I .I 1•,\! \`1�1,1 \•\ 1\•.'.
'/I\, '.': `''�r^-••.'t--• -'' : ,! e�•. SALT ! : ►•. �� . t., , �- I•r• 1 '�� t11�1 r' \,
/
I r w...
/. 1!,-.: / r . •�� �I I'll 1 t ., i 1 1.
�, ,, / fir' ,,� • 1 ,.. ', .�
'il'1, i L- � � ��.,1 i � ..r,, w - .i'1•v. �. 1 �./ '��y��• ' "• ,. •yam. '��
• (/ (, : i : '' t l., JS.' 1 • 1 • i, ' ` 1. � • r � E 1„' ', `..,Z . `? •.••—r ~—� �•`
fit. / �' ' '.r. `1�. �\ •\! it y• 1 fi'i N' .w; �� `,' •� 7f ��...�,-7 ..1'` _�'_._l. �J\\. :.
+ i 1.• •'I'1. 1,`•. 1 I \. :I �'i ''1 �11' t i I I�� I , • I ! .1• • Lvy. _�"�lolsa�� .1 � r ���.. , 1 • 1; / ' .+... i.`.
I •n , •-11 •;• �':,�. .y• `, �� it"I Iilli� l III --' ., .�.• ,- �' � AR `:.
! I� ' •� , 1 : • �' •N\1i ,•1+��•..�! , +�-.`-r• fir.: ` I ( '' ` ; S/
''t � '.�;. • ,� III U� '•• r j ./ \ I I � y�.�, � •
II r•,'. •.r'�`';!.�, •�•r�,' 'i•1 I,� ` r,i w•..' `• i „ 1 �: �. t "•'•' .. ._•- ._.� . t• 11 '� •,; �rw%, � ^'�
CHALrr
ALrr
1 ''�" :�'` '�, 1 III II I u ,'. .� . i , •I C' r 1 '' �,\• 1\v�
1 '• 'I' _ I , m '�,�•
• � 1 .1,; , ', III ��r••� 'I •�' ,��
.....�,,•'/ / }'ll, �' I� II �\II' ,; ,Ir%.I� 1, ! ` •.r.• ' :1�•L� •.' � •r '`e r' '1.
CO--1
�.. _- ��11 III � , ' i� •�,r-�.,�—����F; ! '''' 1 '� ,.. ' '\� _�.�• ` ,•,�\'�-�•• �
. ,,•r,•I,' .. F� Illi � ..�` t .I � ._r' ..�' 1'� �.'r• •`---�_. ' —•+r/•'r •J r .
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP
Planning and Development Director
-I--
S, 41-
je
4 cam_- (�z
]: hereby certify that on this day of �d e
198,4---_, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
Jane Lynn Raczak
E
0 •
MEMURANDU M
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Institute - Subdivision Exception
DATE: September 3, 1985
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Spence
Schiffer on behalf of the Aspen Institute, requesting subdivision
exception for the purposes of exercising an option which will permit
the Institute to obtain record title to the "East Meadows" also known
as "The Academic Parcel". The parcel in question consists of approxi-
mately.26.5 acres and is included within an overall parcel of approxi-
mately 85 acres commonly known as the Aspen Meadows, all of which is
currently zoned SPA. Please review this material and return your
referral comments to the Planning Office as soon as possible to
prepare for its presentation before City Council on September 23,
1985. This is a quick turnaround and if you should have any problems,
please call us.
Thank you.
0
•
HAND DELIVERED
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-2043
August 9, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, ('10 81611
Dear Alan:
RE: Aspen Institute Subdivision
Exception or Exemption
In accordance with your request, enclosed please
find a check from the Aspen Institute in the amount of
$1,490.00 in payment of the requisite application fee.
Although I disagree with the position which you are
taking, apparently based on Paul Taddune's advice, that the
application must first be presented to P&Z, the fee which has
been based upon the two step process is being submitted at
this time so as not to delay processing of the application.
Nevertheless, I would like the opportunity to meet with you
and Paul immediately upon his return to discuss this in more
detail. Naturally, if you change your position, I understand
that my client would be entitled to a prorata rebate.
The plats, proof of ownership, and list of adjacent
property owners are being assembled and will be delivered to
you as soon as they are available.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very my yours,
Sp cer F. Schiffer
SFS:Is
Enc.
cc: Donald C. McKinlay
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. MYLER 450 S. GALENA, SUITE 202
SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920-1018
August 20, 1985 L5
?_ 1 1985
Alan Richman, Director
City/County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: AI:HS Application for Subdivision Exemption
Dear Alan:
I understand, from comments made by Bill Sterling at
Monday's City Council meeting that the Institute's application
for exemption from subdivision has been accepted, is being
processed, and is set for consideration on September 9, 1985.
Would you please provide me with copies of the application,
opinion letters, referral comments, planning office comments and
recommendations, etc., that is anything constituting the planning
office file to date. If someone from your office will make
copies and call Kristy, we will pick them up with a check for
processing this request.
Very truly yours,
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
By: , 4 in44:li ` ��� —
andrgh t 11er
SMS:klr
cc: Aspen Partnership Foundation
s
•
July 24, 1985
Mr. Donald C. McKinley
Mayer, Brown & Platt
600 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80202
Dear Mr. McKinley:
I am in receipt of your application requesting an exemption or
exception from subdivision for the Aspen Institute. Before this
application can be submitted to the City Council for review, I must
certify it as complete. For me to make this determination, I will
require the following information:
1. A disclosure of ownership of the property, demonstrating
your right to apply for the exemption or exception. We need
for you to provide us proof that the Aspen Institute now has
beneficial title to the East Meadows and that you have an
option to obtain record title.
2. Four copies of your proposed exemption/exception plat should
be provided, meeting the standards of Section 20-15 of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
3. A check in the amount of $680 must be submitted.
Once I have received these item I will schedule you before City
Council. Normally, it takes about one month for us to place you on an
agenda, allowing staff adequate time to comment on your proposal.
Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR/nec
MAYER, BROWN & PLA"1 T
CHICAGO
WASHINGTON
600 SEVENTEENTH STREET
LONDON
NEW YORK
HOUSTON
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
/8
July 3-7; 1985
Ms. Kathryn Koch
Aspen City Clerk
City Hall
515 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
303-595-9900
TELEX 450505
CABLE LEMAYDVR
Re: Application of the Aspen Institute for Exemption or
Exception from the Standards or Requirements of
Code Chapter 20
Dear Ms. Koch:
Enclosed are five sets of the Aspen Institute's appli-
cation.
Please distribute to the Council members and place on
the next available agenda.
Thank you.
/nb
Very truly yours
IC�
Donald C. McKinlay /]
Copy: Mr. Alan Richman, planning Director
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
• i
MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
CHICAGO
WASHINGTON 600 SEVENTEENTH STREET
LONDON
NEW YORK
HOUSTON DENVER,COLORADO 80202
July 1.7, 1985
Ms. Kathryn Koch
Aspen City Clerk
City Hall
515 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
303 595 9900
TELEX450505
CABLE LEMAYOVR
Re: Application of the Aspen Institute for Exemption or
Exception from the Standards or Requirements of
Code Chapter 20
Dear. Ms. Koch:
Enclosed are five sets of the Aspen Institute's appli-
catiCn.
Please distribute to the Council members and place on
the next available agenda.
Thank you.
/nb
Very truly yours
Donald C. McKinlav
Copy: Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
•
•
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE
DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION OR
EXCEPTION FROM THE STANDARDS OR
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO: Aspen City Council
FM: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado
nonprofit corporation, hereby submits to the Aspen City
Council this Application (a) for exemption from the defini-
tion of a subdivision pursuant to 20-19(b) of the Municipal
Code, or in the alternative, (b) for exception from the
application of the standards or requirements of Chapter 20
of the Municipal Code pursuant to 20-19(c) thereof, with
respect to the real property described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein, which real property
is hereinafter referred to as the "East Meadows".
The "East Meadows" is that 26.5 acre parcel which from
time to time has, in the past, been referred to as the
"Robert 0. Anderson Center" or "Academic Parcel". It is
that property on which the Paepcke Auditorium and other
buildings are located.
I. THE NEED FOR RELIEF
Although the Aspen Institute has had the full use of,
and beneficial title to, the East Meadows for eight years,
record title has been in others. The Aspen Institute now,
for the first time in over five years, has an opportunity to
exercise an option which will permit it to obtain record
title to the East Meadows. It intends to exercise that
option in order to insure its ability to control its destiny
with respect to its programs and presence in Aspen. How-
ever, in order to exercise that option the Aspen Institute
needs, and therefore requests, an exemption or exception
from the subdivision regulations.
•
II. BACKGROUND
Historically, most of West Meadows and East Meadows was
acquirE-d over a period of years by a corporation called The
Aspen Company. The capital stock of that company was given
to the Institute in the early 60's; the Aspen Company was
then dissolved; and the Institute became the owner of the
entire property approximating 85 acres.
In the 1960's and 70's the structures on East and West
Meadows were built by the Aspen Institute. The restaurant,
chalets, trustee houses, Kresge and the Health Center were
all located on West Meadows. To operate those facilities
the Institute formed a wholly -owned operating subsidiary,
Meadows Corporation. Later it was logical to put the record
title of West Meadows itself in that same subsidiary.
The problem was that the subdivision regulations seemed
to prohibit a conveyance of less than the whole. Thus the
Institute's only recourse was to transfer the record title
to all 85 acres, take back from its subsidiary at the same
time a $100 option on the 26.5 acres (East Meadows), and
then held that option pending a subdivision exception or
exemption from the City.
The Institute made the title transfer and took back the
$100 option on May 3, 1977. It immediately notified the
City and filed an Application for Exception and Exemption
from the subidivsion regulations. It was that application
which was promptly denied, not on its merits but for other
reasons which at that time appeared to the City to be sound.
When in 1980 Mr. Cantrup negotiated to take over the
Institute's subsidiary and the properties to which it held
record title, something had to be done to preserve the
Institute's rights to the 26.5 acres of East Meadows. The
Aspen Institute held the beneficial title and was generally
recognized as the owner but its wholly -owned subsidiary had
the record title. Mr. Cantrup, by one of his June 19, 1980
agreements with the Institute, promised that he would make a
new application for exception and exemption of East Meadows
from the subdivision regulations.
-2-
•
•
In effect, the
tute o:z East Meadows
for five years. On
Cantru-D that at any
could take over (or
paying $3,000,000.
same $100 option in favor of the Insti-
was continued, but with a restriction
June 19, 1980 the Institute agreed with
time within those five years Cantrup
obtain the release of) that option by
He would thereby acquire East Meadows.
On April 5, 1985 Mr. Roberts purchased Cantrup's
interests and assumed Cantrups' obligations under the
various Institute agreements, including those relative to
the $100 option. At the same time Mr. Roberts acquired
Cantrup's right to take over the Institute's $100 option by
paying to the Institute the $3,000,000 due June 19, 1985.
Mr. Roberts elected not to buy East Meadows.
III. GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO 20-19(b
Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal Code provides that:
(b) The city council may exempt a particular division
of land from the definition of a subdivision set
forth in section 20-3(s), when, in the judgment of
the city council, such division of land is not
within the intent and purpose of this chapter.
Prior to the granting of any such exemption, the
city council may request a reco=,endation from the
planning and zoning commission.
Section 20-2 of the Municipal Code provides that:
The purpose of this regulation is to assist the
orderly, efficient and integrated development of the
City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of
population and coordinate the need for public services
with governmental improvement programs; to encourage
well -planned subdivision by setting standards for
sundivision design and improvements; to improve land
records and survey monuments by establishing standards
for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests
of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer
protection for the purchaser; to acquire desirable
public areas; and to otherwise promote the health,
safety and general welfare of the residents of and
visitors to the City of Aspen. (Ord. No. 22-1975, §1)
-3-
To summarize the express purpose and intent of the sub-
division regulation, it is to regulate orderly growth and
development within the City. Clearly, when a property owner
seeks to divide his property for the purpose of development
or to divide his property in such a way as to increase the
potential for development thereof, the City has a legitimate
interest in regulating that subdivision. However, where the
division of property is for purposes unrelated to develop-
ment or potential development, and moreover, that division
of property would not have any impact on the public, there
is no need for government regulation. Recognizing, of
course, the need to monitor such activity, it is submitted
that it is appropriate for an application for exemption to
be made in each such instance and determinations made on a
case by case basis.
In this case East Meadows has a Specially Planned Area
designation which, under the recently adopted SPA regula-
tions embodied in Ordinance No. 20, series of 1985, would
preclude any use or development not in accordance with the
requirements of the amended Article VII. Those rigorous
requirements include submission and adoption of a conceptual
plan, a precise development plan, public hearings and
compliance with all other zoning requiremens of the Code.
The Aspen Institute respectfully submits that, given
the constraints imposed upon the property by reason of its
Specially Planned Area designation, granting the requested
exemption will have no impact whatsoever on the use or
development of the property.
The proposed division, the Institute believes, is
outside of, and thus would not violate, the purposes and
intents of Chapter 20 as described in section 20-2.
IV. GROUNDS FOR EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO 20-19(c
Section 20-19(c) of the Municipal Code provides that:
(c) The city council may grant exceptions from the
application of the standards or requirements
of this chapter and grant final subidivision
approval when the city council, in its sole
-4-
0 •
discretion and judgment, deems certain
requirements to be redundant, serve no public
purpose and to be unnecessary in relation to
the land use policies of the City of Aspen
under the facts and circumstances presented
and, notwithstanding the exception, finds that
the proposed subdivision will substantially
comply with the design standards of this
chapter. In cases where a public hearing is
required prior to the granting of any final
approval, the city council may choose to
conduct the public hearing itself or refer the
application to the planning and zoning
commission or a hearing officer. Prior to tr.e
granting of any such exception, the city
council may request a recommendation from the
planning and zoning commission.
'The applicant submits that all of the requirements of
Chapter 20 as applied to the proposed division of the 85
acres are redundant, would serve no public purpose, and are
unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City
of Aspen under the facts and circumstances existing and
presented.
As stated, the Chapter 20 requirements were desicned to
regulate growth and development within the City. Those
requirements were intended for subdivisions of land or
interests in land created for development purposes or to
increase the potential for development. When the division
is not made for development purposes but merely to permit
the Aspen Institute as owner to complete its title, the
requirements become redundant. Nothing else will result and
nothing else is contemplated other than that which otherwise
might be permissible under applicable zoining. To enforce
the rE�quirements in this case would serve no public purpose.
In the context of a conveyance under the Aspen
Instit:ute's $100 option the regulations are unnecessary in
relation to the land use policies of the City. Moreover,
when one compares the specific requirements of Chapter 20
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1985,
it is readily apparent that those subdivision requirements
are rE�dundant .
-5-
The City Code advises that the purpose and intent
Of thE� subdivision regulations is "... to assist the
orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of
Aspen .. Since no development could possibly take place
on thEl subject property without compliance with the specific
requirements of Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, notwithstand-
ing approval of this request, the subdivision regulations
are necessarily redundant in this case.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the applicant respectfully
requests that, with respect to the exercise by the applicant
of itE; $100 option for the property described in Exhibit
"A", t:he City Council grant an exemption from the definition
of subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal
Code, or in the alternative grant an exception from the
application of the standards or requirements of Chapter 20
of thE� Municipal Code pursuant to Section 20-19(c) thereof.
Respectfully submitted,
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC
STUDIES
r
B
Executive Vice President
1000 No Third Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Of Counsel:
SpencE�r F. Schiffer, Esq.
434 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2043
Donald C. McKinlay, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
600 l7th Street, Ste. 2800
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 595-9900
VERIFICATION
STA:CE OF COLORADO)
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned being first duly sworn affirms that he
is the Executive Vice President of the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, that he is knowledgeable of the
statements and facts in the foregoing application and that
they are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Further, the undersigned states that he has been
authorized by the Institute's Board of Trustees to execute
and file the within application.
L
-Colin W. Williams
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Verification was subscribed and sworn to -
before me this 1(,, day of July, 1985.
My commission expires:
1000 Math Tphird ires Stre t4 87
Aspen. CO $1011
• EXHIBI'T' A •
to Aspen Institute's Application for
Exemption or Exception from Requirements of
Municipal Code Chapter ?0
Description of East Meadows
A tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 10 South, Rance 95 Vest of the 6th principal meridian,
City of Asoen, Pitkin County, Colorado, r,ore particularly
described as follows:r
Beginn:_ng at a point whence the Northwest- corner of
the Southtcest quarter of the Northeast quarter of
said Section 12, -A 1954 U.S. Brass Cap, bears
S17051' 47", I-7 521.03 feet;
thence N O1°39'00" East
thence S 89°21'00" East
thence S 01°39'00" West
thence N 74°07'26" East
thence S 82°07'01" East
thence S 65°46'20" East
thence S 35032'16" East
thence S 74°03'17" East
thence S 4V 00'18" East
thence S 35°20'24" East
thence S 1701°'41" East
thence S 12°39'09" East
thence S 45042'26" East
thence East 43.00 feet;
thence S 57°03'35" East
3C0.00 feet;
290.40 feet;
129.00 feet;
35.86 feet;
65.62 feet;
43.96 feet;
68.82 feet;
349.45 feet;
120.93 feet;
67.42 feet;
130.94 feet;
100.44 feet;
114.56 feet;
86.4s feet to a Doint on the
East line of the '.•lest half of the Northeast quarter
of said Section 12;
thence along said Est line
feet to the intersection
Roaring Fork Road;
thence along said r'ezt line
feet to. the intersection
Gillespie Avenue;
S 00026'55" East 250.00
with the Vast line of
S 16035'CO" East 722.5C
with the North line of
thence along said ticrth line extended West 1119.97
feet;
thence N 17034' C�O"
thence N 49000'00"
thence Cl°39'00"
thence _`9021'00"
beginning;
EXCEPTING T3'.Z'REFR0M:
East 1031.39
t•:est 416.17
East 168.00
West 290.40
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet to the point of
A tr5c t of land located in the NW1/4 ":Ei /4 of Section 12,
Tounsh.ip 10 South, Range o5 W-2st of tj-,0 Sixth Princ=pal
;;erid:.zn, City of Aspen, Co'_,)radc, ,,,ore particularly
uescribed as follcWs:
Bcginnirig at a point whence the Southwest corner of the
htr'1/4 .:i._/4 of said Section 12, a U.S. brass cap dated
1954, bears S 17 ° 51' 47" West 521. 03 fee"
thence ;I 01039' East 300.00 feet;
tierce S 88021' 'East 290.40 feet;
thence S 01039' West 300.00 feet; 1
thence 1; 88°21' V:est 290.y0 feet to the puint.of beginning.
e • •
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN INSTITUTE SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the City Council of the City of Aspen. Colorado on September 23, 1985
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., in Aspen City Council Chambers,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an applicati on
submitted by the Aspen Institute. The applicant requests subdivision
exception for the purposes of exercising an option which will permit
the Institute to obtain record title to the "East Meadows" also known
as "The Academic Parcel". The parcel in question consists of
approximately 26.5 acres and is included within an overall parcel of
approximately 85 acres core nonly known as the Aspen Meadows, all of
which is currently zoned SPA.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-20200,
ext. 225.
a/Ti l i am_L�� r 1 i n g
Mayor, City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado
Published in the Aspen Times on September 5, 1985
City of Aspen Account.
�.1, , =fir
C17Y/COUNTY PLANNINO OFFIM
130 S. GALENA
a
ASPEN, COLORADO GMI I
pr 1U�A1 ��
TC
tlNvi�
No SUC - ►4UM13 r�
RAYN S, MARTIN
J.
1L63S CLESPIE
A_4,CS OLORA)0
•
P v J.paJi�uE;�
SEP •5'85 .� .22
jo.
�: �
t'M
19�
A•
•
CITY/CMNTY PURNN1N45 OFF1C=
1 711 � 4
ADPM. CQLUriA14 ��1611
•
�a
�- �,� Y
5pf
P ��t-l"'
CMW
AN f3F3 � SEP-CGS . 6
18,
RE *T•1.1RN r G 523351 L `li
70 ,c aE��lIJE::k
L':0X (X.QSED
CANTRUP, HANS B.
POST OFFICE bnx 386
ASPEN, COLORADO
AIA/05258
8161?
SEP / 0 I985
—�.. _ —� •• •••• r Put VUYISa meVls*ns Title Job NO
be commenced more than ten years Irom the date of the certification shown Drafted Client
hereon. Post Office Box 173()
Aspen, Colorado 81612 t
303 925 2688