HomeMy WebLinkAbout0057.2004.ASLU
0057.2004.ASLU/MeadowsSPAAmend.doc I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
MUNICIPAL
This Application is for the following: CODE SECTION
1. Combined Reviews 26.304.060(B)
2. Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment 26.440.090(B)
3. GMQS Exemption for Essential 26.470.070(H)
Public Facilities Amendment
This Application is illustrated by the “List of Drawings” outlined in the Table of Contents and inserted following the text of the application.
The Aspen Meadows property received Specially Planned Area (SPA) approval in 1991 for a master plan for the property. The 1991 SPA Plan encompassed all of the Aspen Meadows-Aspen Institute
property, Music Association of Aspen property and Aspen Center for Physics property. Under the 1991 Plan, the Aspen Meadows was approved to expand its lodging units as follows:
A. Reconstruction of existing lodge units 60 units @ 35,950 sf.
B. Construction of new lodge units 50 units @ 42,410 sf.
110 units @ 78,360 sf.
C. Currently built lodge units - 98 units @ - 64,943 sf.
D. Remaining unbuilt lodge units 12 units @ 13,417 sf.
The Aspen Meadows property currently has 98 lodge units totaling 64,943 sf. and unbuilt 1991 approvals for 12 lodge units and 13, 417 sf. The Aspen Meadows wishes to convert the 13,
417 sf. of remaining unbuilt square footage to the following:
A. Conference & Meeting Hall Building 11,917 sf. ±
B. Future Expansion of Health Center 1,500 sf. ±
13,417 sf. ±
The Aspen Meadows proposes the Conference & Meeting Hall for the following reasons:
To bring the Aspen Meadows meeting and dining facilities “into balance” with the 98 lodge units to better serve their conference, group and event guests.
To provide a “keynote” conference and meeting hall to accommodate up to 250 guests with a main conference hall, sit-down banquet dining and state-of-the-art audio/visual facilities.
To provide flexibility for the Aspen Meadows to serve smaller conferences, groups and events with overlapping occupancies and schedules.
To promote the use and occupancy of the existing 98 lodge units instead of adding more lodge units.
The existing Aspen Meadows facilities are “out-of-balance and dated” in their ability to serve larger conferences, groups and events as well as smaller conferences, groups, and events
with overlapping occupancies and schedules. The Meeting Hall is proposed to address these needs and the 250 seating capacity of the hall is based on the 98 lodge units, at double occupancy,
which can accommodate up to 200 guests plus additional capacity for Institute personnel and guests attending events.
The deficiencies in the existing Aspen Meadows facilities are outlined below:
Existing Meeting Facilities
Paepcke Auditorium. Seating capacity of 346 people. Used for conferences and public lectures. Not suited for roundtable discussions and no sit-down dining.
Koch Seminar Building. Used for roundtable discussions of 10 - 50 people. Not suited for groups larger than 50 people and no sit-down dining.
Boettcher Building. Used for roundtable discussions of 10 - 30 people. Remote location is a big negative, not suited for groups larger than 30 people and no sit-down dining.
Existing Dining Facilities
Aspen Meadows Restaurant. The main dining area seating capacity is approximately 100 people. Bernhard Room seating capacity is approximately 40 people. Ortega Room seldom used. The new
a-la-carte addition is for light food service and has a capacity of 32 people. Not suited to handle sit-down dining for groups larger than 100-140 people or multi-groups of 50-75 people
each or dining-dancing-performance combinations.
The main shortcomings of the existing Aspen Meadows facilities are two-fold.
1. The ability to serve larger conferences, groups and events that occupy the
98 lodge units and need consolidated meeting and dining/banquet space.
2. The ability to serve overlapping smaller conferences, groups and events that occupy the 98 lodge units and need separate meeting and dining/banquet space due to their overlapping
occupancies.
The Meeting Hall is proposed to bring the Aspen Meadows meeting and dining facilities into balance with the 98 lodge units and the approximate 200 guests the lodge units can accommodate.
The Meeting Hall is sized to handle the larger conferences, groups and events, and concurrently give the Aspen Meadows the flexibility to handle smaller conferences, groups and events
with overlapping occupancies.
The applicant feels the Meeting Hall will have less impact than the 12 additional lodge units because it doesn’t increase the “bed base” of the Aspen Meadows. The intent is to promote
the use and occupancy of the existing 98 lodge units instead of adding more lodge units. On a comparative basis, applicant feels the traffic and parking impacts of the Meeting Hall
will be less than the 12 “approved but unbuilt” lodge units. A Traffic & Parking Report is submitted herein as part of this application
II. 1991 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) PLAN
The 1991 SPA Plan was the culmination of over 2 years of planning, meetings, and public hearings with the City of Aspen. The SPA Plan created a master plan for the total Aspen Meadows
Property including the Aspen Meadows- Aspen Institute parcel, Music Association of Aspen parcel, Aspen Center for Physics parcel, and Savanah Limited private holdings. The SPA Plan
achieved several important community goals:
1. It recognized and applauded the consortium of non-profits as key institutions of Aspen’s heritage and their intellectual and cultural enrichment of the Aspen community.
2. It encouraged redevelopment and revitalization of the facilities and programs of the non-profits.
3. It subdivided the property to allow the individual non-profits to own “fee simple” their individual parcels. This was critical to the fundraising and revitalization of the non-profits.
The Aspen Meadows facilities are owned by the Aspen Institute and the SPA Plan allowed redevelopment and expansion of the facilities. Between 1992 -1994 the Aspen Institute undertook
a good portion of the redevelopment activity. The Aspen Institute reconstructed the existing lodge units and constructed 38 of the 50 new lodge units. It did a modest renovation to
the health center and restaurant, and constructed the underground parking garage and tennis courts. The remaining 12 lodge units i.e. Lodge Building Three of the SPA Plan, were not
constructed due to lack of funds.
Today, the Aspen Institute is committed to continue its revitalization as follows:
1. Construction of the Conference and Meeting Hall, as proposed herein, is the cornerstone of the Aspen Institute plans to continue to upgrade and revitalize its facilities, grounds
and programs. The Meeting Hall will be a signature building on the Meadows campus and will compliment and support the operations of the existing facilities.
2. Renovation and expansion of the Aspen Meadows Restaurant. An exciting renovation plan consistent with the 1991 approvals has been prepared by Harry Teague Architects, has been favorably
approved by the City, and work is scheduled to start in mid-October.
3. Reserving square footage, as proposed herein, for a future renovation and expansion of the health center. The preliminary thinking is to renovate the health facilities and programs
into a more “integrated and holistic” health and educational facility supportive of the founding vision of “Mind, Body and Spirit.” These plans are several years away and will be
reviewed as a SPA Amendment at the appropriate time. The Institute requests the square footage be reserved in order facilitate fundraising for the expansion and renovation. It is
impossible to fundraise for the expansion and renovation if the Institute cannot represent the square footage has been reserved. The Institute fully understands the design, compatibility
and merits of the expansion and renovation would be reviewed under a SPA Amendment.
Overall, the Aspen Meadows Campus has been able to revitalize itself in an exciting and community oriented manner. The Music Association of Aspen has provided the community the wonderful
Harris Concert Hall and Benedict Music Tent plus an array of exciting programs and events; the Aspen Center for Physics has constructed a new teaching hall and continues to bring world
class physicists to the community; and the Aspen Institute has renovated most of its facilities and continues to give the community stimulating and enriching programs and events.
III. Meeting Hall DESCRIPTION
A. Location
As shown on the Site Plan drawing herein, the Meeting Hall is located between the Calaway Health Center and the Wexner Lodge Building. This is the same location where the 12 lodge units
were proposed to be built as approved in the 1991 SPA Plan, i.e., Lodge Building Three on the 1991 SPA Plan. Therefore, the Meeting Hall is located within an approved Building Site
of the 1991 SPA Plan.
The site is well suited for the Meeting Hall. The site is centrally located to the surrounding buildings and will be convenient to the Aspen Meadows guests. The site offers dramatic
views of the Roaring Fork River and the Hunter Creek Valley. The site is fronted by landscaped areas that can be used for summer activities and provide wonderful outside opportunities.
The site is near-by the Aspen Meadows Restaurant where the main food service will be prepared. Overall, this site is well suited for the facility and likely would have been the site
selected for the facility had it been envisioned as part of the 1991 Plan.
B. Building Design
Architecturally the Aspen Meadows is composed of modernist structures designed by Herbert Bayer, Backen, Arrigoni and Ross and the forthcoming Harry Teague restaurant remodel and addition.
While there is a common thread of philosophy, each building has a unique voice appropriate to its function and site influences.
Since its inception in 1949 (inspired by the vision of Walter Paepcke) the Aspen Institute has served as a cornerstone of the community, supporting and promoting the Aspen ideal of ‘Mind,
Body and Spirit.’ Fostering a lineage of great thinkers and “doers,” the Institute continues its legacy of programs that involve leadership from around the world. It is now time to
construct a meeting hall that will replace the temporary summer tents used for larger annual seminars and will allow for year-round use.
The Meeting Hall is designed to accommodate gatherings ranging from 50-250 people in a single level, comfortable, and stimulating environment. The building is carefully nestled into
the site to allow strong at-grade relationships from all sides. The massing of the building has been modulated to respect the height and scale of the adjacent Calaway Health Center
and Wexner Lodge Building. A key design feature is that the main meeting room has been located at ground level to allow the room to be light and airy, and to flow into the extensive
terraces, patios and landscaped areas surrounding it. In summary, the hall is designed to take full advantage of the site and the wonderful outside opportunities offered by the site.
A new drop-off/turn-around motor court will be located in a paved area north of the Meadows Restaurant. This court will help define entrances to the restaurant delivery area, the Meadows
Townhouses and the existing parking lot while creating a drop-off to the new Meeting Hall.
From the drop-off, the building is first seen through a grove of mature cottonwoods and a 60-foot spruce tree. These trees frame a view of the south end of the structure which will
be generally lower in height than the adjacent Wexner Lodge Building.
A new walkway will be woven along the western side of the line of cottonwoods and will arc past the existing pond, connecting to the building entrance. As viewed from the approach,
the entrance of the structure is clear and made identifiable by a glass atrium. This glass form visually separates the meeting hall space to the north and the pre-function areas to
the south and east and serves to modulate the fa(ade. The entrance faces a meadow to the southwest and links through a lobby to the terraces overlooking the Roaring Fork to the east.
This entry point is logical as a midpoint between the Wexner Lodge Building and the Calaway Health Center and respects an alignment between the distant views over Aspen Highlands and
Buttermilk, and the Hunter Creek Valley.
The exterior architecture is a simple volumetric scheme finished in white concrete or white stone cladding that will relate respectfully to the other structures of the Institute. The
building components are separated into smaller, identifiable elements that are in scale with the adjacent Calaway Health Center and Wexner Lodge Building. The Calaway gymnasium roof
is 18 feet high, approximately the same height as the adjacent heights of the Meeting Hall. Sections of the Meeting Hall walls are 32-feet wide, proportioned to respond to the 40-foot
wide section of the gymnasium. On the other end, the hall will be generally lower in height than the Wexner Lodge Building which is 22 feet tall. Roof skylights and glass atrium features
are proposed to emphasis key features of the building.
An efficient diagram of spatial connections and maintaining a low building façade has served to keep the building in balance with its surroundings. Placing support functions in the
basement has also helped to reduce the building’s impact.
The Meeting Hall is designed to address nature on all sides of the building; interior spaces are connected with doors opening to terraces and lawn areas that focus on views and the
path of the sun. These connections allow for an effective flow to and from gathering areas and promote the use of exterior spaces as an integral part of the building.
Another important aspect of the Meadows campus is the prominent use of environmental art. Herbert Bayer’s earthworks and outdoor sculptures are located throughout the campus. According
to our research, Bayer called for preserving the pond in front of the glass wall of the health center, but did not actively design the pond or place the stones in this area.
In this project we will continue the tradition of incorporating environmental art into the composition. We are working with internationally acclaimed artist Andy Goldsworthy who has
envisioned a serpentine stone wall that will weave from the reconfigured parking lot through the building to the edge of the bluff beyond. Herbert Bayer’s earthworks are typically autonomous
compositions. In Anderson Park the pedestrian circulation is actively engaged with the piece. In our project, the art and architecture will be physically linked in a compelling dialogue.
The Meeting Hall is designed to respect the architectural heritage of the Aspen Institute and integrate into it’s historical context. This vision of ‘dynamic modernism’ addresses human-scale
and emotional responses in a fresh, yet timeless voice. As a centerpiece for the Aspen Institute, the structure will have the strength and flexibility to ensure viability and inspire
great interaction for generations to come.
C. Compatibility With HPC Guidelines
Ordinance #5 of 1996 designated certain parts of the Aspen Meadows-Aspen Institute campus as historic sites or structures. The specific designations include the Meadows Restaurant and
Calaway Health Center, the original Trustee townhouses, the race track, the sculpture gardens and all other landscape elements associated with the Bayer/Benedict design including Anderson
Park and a 50 foot radius around it. While the total campus is not historically designated nor specifically the Meeting Hall building site, the Aspen Institute is very sensitive to
the historical importance of the total campus.
The Meeting Hall is envisioned to be a signature building on the Meadows campus. The challenge is to design a signature building that stands-out as a “focal” building, but still contextually
fits within the historical framework of the campus. As a signature building, the Meeting Hall is larger with significantly more amenities and features than the other buildings. However,
the building’s style, mass, form, materials and colors have been designed to fit within the framework of the site and campus as follows:
Building Style: The building is in the modern or “international” style consistent with the other buildings on the campus. This style is characterized by simple volumetric compositions,
planar use of glass, windows at the corners or as “slots”, asymmetry, minimal ornamentation, emphasis on materials and techniques that are the result of contemporary industrial processes,
transparency, a limited material pallet, etc. The Meeting Hall will have a similar fundamental style, except it will look more contemporary than the Bayer buildings nearby to reflect
its own “age.”
Location and Orientation: The location and orientation of the building follows the established pattern on this part of the campus where buildings are used to form an edge to the common
open space. Moreover, the design of the building is oriented towards integrating this open space into the function of the building by opening onto outside activity and event areas.
Scale and Mass: The scale and mass of the building will be similar to the adjacent buildings flanking either side. The Calaway Health Center to the north is divided into the 18 foot
high gymnasium wing and the 11 foot high entrance. The Wexner Lodge Building to the southeast is a flat roof two story building of 22 feet. The Meeting Hall echoes these two buildings
in that the Meeting Hall is predominately 17 to 19 feet high adjacent to the 18 foot high gymnasium wing and on the southeast, generally lower in height than the Wexner Lodge Building.
Building and Roof Form: The building consists of a simple assemblage of rectilinear volumes. Large glazed openings are designed to create an open relationship between the inside and
outside. The roofs are articulated as the top of these forms rather than as a separate element of the composition. Most of the roof is flat. Slopes and pyramidal roof forms are used
to articulate important elements of the building in a fashion common on the campus.
Materials and Color: The building is to be finished in white concrete or white stone cladding and has extensive use of glass. It will be a simple color/material scheme very much in line
with the other buildings on the campus.
Lighting: The lighting scheme will be minimal, low level and mostly indirect. Walks will have low level landscape lighting directed on the walking surface. Lighting on the exterior of
the building will be at the entries and will be primarily by down lights.
Signage: The signage program will be an extension of the existing overall campus signage program, which is relatively understated. There will most likely be a building name on the exterior.
This will be in a modernist architectural fashion as is common throughout the campus.
The applicant has reviewed the HPC Guidelines to determine those guidelines most applicable to this building type and context. While many of the guidelines are not directly applicable,
the applicant has addressed those guidelines most applicable in Exhibit 2. Both the Institute and the architect are sensitive to the historical importance of the campus and have strived
to do a “signature” building that fits within the historical context.
D. “Keynote” Peak Events
During the summer, the Institute has 3 – 5 keynote peak events that have from 250 to 300 guests. In recent years, the largest keynote event has been the Fortune Magazine/Aspen Institute
Brainstorm Conference (July 14 - 16) which typically has 300 or more guests. The Brainstorm Conference is a nationally and internationally recognized event which brings together invited
guests and speakers to discuss national and world events. The conference is grounded in the Institute’s mission to provide a “safe non-partisan forum for open discussion.” The Institute
currently sets up temporary tents in the paved parking area behind the Music Tent and in the marble gardens of the Aspen Meadows commons to handle these peak events. As one can imagine,
a temporary tent in the parking area behind the Music Tent is not a very functional or attractive way to “greet” nationally and internationally recognized leaders and also infringes
on the operations of the Music Tent.
The Meeting Hall is designed to handle these peak events in a functional, flexible and attractive manner by making use of the surrounding landscaped areas to set-up adjoining small temporary
tents that effectively expand the ability of the hall to accommodate these peak events. The adjoining tents would be used as reception areas, lounge areas, areas for informal discussions,
etc. The use of the Meeting Hall, the adjoining tents, and the continued use of the marble garden for peak summer events offer a functional, flexible and attractive solution to accommodate
the peak events.
Other examples of keynote peak events are the following:
Einstein: A Celebration - August 8 – 11. A joint conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute and the Aspen Center for Physics to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity. It is estimated over 300 guests participated in this exciting conference.
Institute’s 11th Annual Summer Celebration – August 7. A celebration to honor the Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. It is estimated
over 300 guests participated in this celebration.
E. Floor Area Measurement
The floor area of the Meeting Hall is the following:
- Countable Floor Area 11,917 sf. Basically above-grade sf.
- Non-Countable Floor Area 8,141 sf. Basically below-grade sf.
TOTAL 20,058 sf.
The countable and non-countable floor area is based on the definition and measurement of floor area using the current Aspen Municipal Code. Countable floor area is basically above-grade
space and non-countable floor area is basically below-grade space.
The countable floor area is 11,917 sf. and this is the square footage that the applicant requests be counted against the remaining unbuilt 13,417 sf. approved under the 1991 SPA Plan.
This would be an “apples to apples” comparison of above-grade space because the 13,417 sf. remaining under the 1991 SPA Plan is all above-grade space.
The 1991 SPA Plan defined the lodge units and lodge square footage as “gross interior square feet” or “gross interior floor area” which is inconsistent with how the current Municipal
Code defines and measures floor area. However, the 1991 SPA definitions were consistent with and reflective of the conceptual designs for the lodge buildings approved in 1991. The 1991
SPA Plan approved 7 lodge buildings mainly with “slab on grade” construction with minimal to no sub-grade space. Where sub-grade space was proposed for the 7 lodge buildings, either
mechanical room space or the Kresge Building conference space, the sub-grade space was approved in addition to the above grade space. Therefore, the 13,417 sf. remaining under the 1991
SPA Plan is all above-grade space under the 1991 Plan.
Applicant feels making the floor area measurement consistent with the current Municipal Code would be easier for all parties. Consistency with the current Code would also be consistent
with how the City Council reviewed and approved the 1998 SPA Amendment approving the Benedict Music Tent. The Music Tent, as constructed, was approved under a 1998 SPA Amendment which
showed a detailed set of architectural drawings and included approximately 7,050 sf. of sub-grade space which is exempted from floor area under the current Municipal Code.
Given the above, applicant requests the “floor area” definition of the 1991 SPA Plan be amended to the definition of floor area in the current Aspen Municipal Code, and that the floor
area of the Meeting Hall and the square footage reserved for future Health Center expansion and renovation be measured under the definition of the current Aspen Municipal Code.
As noted earlier, the Institute has requested 1,500 sf. of floor area be reserved for future Health Center expansion and renovation. As part of the expansion and renovation, the Institute
is also considering approximately 1,500 sf. of below ground space which would be exempted as floor area under the current Municipal Code. The 1991 SPA Plan approved an 1,800 sf. expansion
of the Health Center. In 1993, the Health Center was expanded as follows:
- Maintenance Shop 1,069 sf. - Serves total Meadows Campus
- Men’s Massage Rooms 275 sf.
- Storage 55 sf.
1,399 sf.
As shown above, the bulk of the 1993 expansion was a Maintenance Shop for the total Meadows Campus. The 1993 expansion did very little to expand the actual health facilities of the
Health Center. In essence, the Institute is hoping to eventually expand and renovate the health facilities of the Health Center as originally envisioned in the 1991 SPA Plan. However,
to fundraise for the expansion and renovation, the Institute needs to be able to represent that square footage has been reserved and that under ground space would be exempted consistent
with the Municipal Code. Without this representation, it is extremely difficult to approach potential donors due to the uncertainty of the proposal. The Institute fully understands
an SPA Amendment would be necessary and that the specific proposal would be reviewed on its design, compatibility and impacts. However, the Institute is confident it can submit an SPA
Amendment for the Health Center which is consistent with and an enhancement of the 1991 SPA Plan.
F. Comparison With Building Three of the 1991 SPA Plan
At the pre-application conference with the Planning Office, the Planning Office requested a brief comparison of the Meeting Hall and Building Three of the SPA Plan. This was mainly
for illustrative and background purposes because both the applicant and Planning Office agreed that the Meeting Hall would be reviewed based on its specific plans, compatibility and
impacts.
When the Meeting Hall was first envisioned by the Institute several years ago, it retained Harry Teague Architects to do an analysis of the “approved” square footage remaining under
the 1991 SPA Plan. This analysis is given in Exhibit 3 and illustrates the unit count and square footage of the existing “as-built” lodge buildings. The analysis determined there were
12 lodge units and 13, 417 sf. of remaining unbuilt “approvals” under the 1991 SPA Plan. As noted, the 1991 SPA Plan approved 7 lodge buildings totaling 110 lodge units and 78,360 sf.
Six(6) of the lodge buildings totaling 98 units and 64,943 sf. have been constructed, and the remaining lodge building, Lodge Building Three, was not constructed due to lack of funds.
Lodge Building Three contained 12 lodge units and approximately 10,320 sf. based on measuring the “conceptual” SPA drawings of the building. Building Three was a 2 level building with
6 lodge units on the 1st level and 6 lodge units on the 2nd level. The building footprint was approximately 5,160 sf. Based on the Harry Teague Architect’s analysis in Exhibit 3, the
6 lodge buildings which were constructed contained approximately 3,000 sf. less square footage than approved. Applicant has not field measured each of the 6 constructed lodge buildings
against the “conceptual” SPA drawings of the 6 buildings to determine where the square footage differences occur in the 6 buildings. Applicant will be happy to do the field measurements
if requested by the Planning Office, but applicant feels this is not directly relevant to the SPA review of the Meeting Hall based on its design, compatibility and impacts.
The main physical points of comparison between the Meeting Hall and Building Three are outlined below:
The Meeting Hall has slightly more square footage above grade than Building Three. The Meeting Hall has approximately 11,204 sf. above grade and Building Three had approximately 10,320
sq. above grade. The Meeting Hall has an additional 8,141 sf. below grade; whereas, Building Three was a “slab-on-grade” building with no below grade square footage. (For clarification,
the Meeting Hall has 11,204 sf. above grade and 713 sf. below grade countable floor area for a total of 11,917 sf. countable floor area as defined by the current Municipal Code.)
The Meeting Hall has a larger building footprint than Building Three. The Meeting Hall has an approximate 9,890 sf. building footprint and an additional 4,233 sf. of terraces and patios.
Building Three had a smaller approximate 5,160 sf. footprint. The larger footprint of the Meeting Hall is driven by the need to accommodate a single large meeting hall on one level
with supporting lobbies, entrance, terraces and patios.
The building heights of the Meeting Hall and Building Three are very similar. The Meeting Hall heights vary from 15 to 19 feet on the north end and from 10 to 23 feet on the south end.
Roof skylight and glass atrium features on both the north and south ends are approximately 21 to 25 feet high. Building Three was a uniform two-story structure ranging from 21
to 24 feet from existing grade to top of flat roof.
The “real” difference between the two buildings is that the Meeting Hall is envisioned as a “signature” building for the Meadows; whereas, Building Three was a simple continuation of
the other lodge buildings. As a signature building, the Meeting Hall is larger with significantly more amenities and features. The Meeting Hall is much more “connected” to the outside
with its extensive terraces, patios and event areas, and is consciously designed to be a “focal” building for the Aspen Meadows.
IV. Traffic and Parking
A. Traffic
A Traffic and Parking Report by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyers, Engineers, is
given in Exhibit 4.
The report has the following main findings:
On a comparative basis, the Meeting Hall will generate less traffic than the 12 “unbuilt” lodge units approved under the 1991 SPA Plan. This is because the Meeting Hall is an accessory
use to the existing 98 lodge units and “in and of itself” is not a significant traffic generator because it is not increasing the bed base of the Meadows.
The Aspen Meadows has done an excellent job of implementing the recommendations of the Traffic Mitigation Plan of the 1991 SPA Plan. Because of the excellent job of the Meadows and the
fly-in characteristics of its conferences, groups and events business, this has resulted in an overall reduction of traffic generated by the Meadows operations. The traffic mitigation
measures of the Meadows are outlined in the Traffic Report in Exhibit 4.
Even considering Items 1 & 2 above, it is expected there will be a slight increase in the overall traffic at the Meadows because it is hoped the Meeting Hall will result in an higher
occupancy of the 98 lodge units. However, the overall traffic impact of 110 lodge units was considered and approved by City Council as part of the 1991 SPA Plan. Therefore, the slight
increase in traffic resulting from an higher occupancy of the 98 lodge units would still be less than the traffic impact of the 110 lodge units which were approved.
As outlined in the Traffic Report, the traffic at the Aspen Meadows can generally be classified into two categories:
Out-of-town guests for conferences, groups or events. Out-of-town guests generate very little traffic at the Aspen Meadows. Aspen Meadows management estimates approximately 75% of the
Aspen Meadows out-of-town guests fly-in and are met at the airport by the Aspen Meadows shuttle vans. Of the remaining 25% guests, management estimates an approximate 50-50% split between
guests who fly-in and rent a car and guests who do not fly-in but drive-in. The Aspen Meadows operates 5 shuttle vans with seating capacities between 10 – 15 people each. More importantly,
when reservations are taken for conferences and groups, Aspen Meadows management tell their guests a car is not necessary and promote their car free setting and shuttle service. The
Aspen Meadows does an excellent job of promoting and providing a car free visit for its guests.
Locally oriented conferences, groups or events. Locally oriented events generate most of the Aspen Meadows traffic. Examples would be the Thursday morning Rotary, local homeowners attending
Institute events, local weddings, events like the Bob George or Tom Peirce memorials, and general local traffic. These are locally oriented events where locals either drive, bike or
walk to the event. The Aspen Meadows has very little control over how people choose to come to these events.
It is important to distinguish between the two types of traffic because attaining higher occupancy of the 98 lodge units will have minimal increase in traffic because these are predominately
out-of-town guests who fly-in and use the Aspen Meadows van service. Concurrently, the number of locally oriented events will probably not significantly change or increase simply due
to the new Meeting Hall. Therefore, the applicant is confident the overall traffic will only increase slightly or basically remain the same as the current operations. Moreover, because
the bed base is not being increased, any increase in traffic due to the higher occupancy of the 98 lodge units was taken into account in the approval of the 1991 SPA Plan.
As also noted in the Traffic Report, the Aspen Meadows has done an excellent job of implementing the recommendations of the Traffic Mitigation Plan of the 1991 SPA Plan. The Traffic
Report outlines the traffic mitigation measures of the Meadows. Because of the fly-in characteristics of its conference, groups and events business, and its excellent mitigation measures,
traffic at the Meadows seem well within the parameters of the 1991 SPA Plan.
B. Parking
Day-to-day parking at the Aspen Meadows is simply not a problem. As part of the 1991 SPA Plan, the Aspen Meadows constructed a 97 car parking garage under the tennis courts. On
a day-to-day basis, the parking garage is rarely full. Again, this is due to the high percentage of out-of-town guests who fly-in and use the Aspen Meadows shuttles, and do not rent
a car.
The parking issue at the Aspen Meadows is strictly infrequent peak parking overflow. Approximately 5 - 7 times a year, the Aspen Meadows will have keynote events or larger
locally oriented events where overflow parking is a problem, and people sometime park along Meadows Road. To handle these infrequent peak parking times, the Aspen Meadows proposes to
convert the existing two clay tennis courts to overflow parking as shown on the Parking Plan herein. The two tennis courts will accommodate approximately 46 cars. As shown on the Parking
Plan, the Aspen Meadows also proposes to upgrade this area by extending the row of street trees along Meadows Road, removing the 10-foot tall cyclone tennis fence and replacing it with
a low wood fence, and doing low landscape screening in-front of the new wood fence. This will create a much nicer entrance along Meadows Road, will have less visual impact to the neighbors
across the street, and the overflow parking will probably be used not more than 5- 7 times a year.
V. Early Excavation, Foundation and Utilities Work
Applicant requests the flexibility to do early excavation, foundation and utilities work in April–May 2005. This work would be contingent on recording an Amended SPA Plat and Development
Agreement but prior to issuance of a “full” Building Permit. Flexibility to do early work in April-May is desirable for all parties to minimize the start-up construction impacts of
the project on the Aspen Meadows summer season, Music Association summer season, and the adjoining neighbors. Start-up excavation, foundation and utilities is typically the messiest
and noisiest part of construction, and April-May is the perfect time to do this work prior to the start of the summer season.
Early work would also allow the applicant to get a head start on the project and allow on-going construction during the summer and winter of 2005 with occupancy by June 1, 2006. Pursuant
to the 1991 SPA Plan, applicant is meeting with the Music Association to ensure construction will have minimal “noise” impact on the Music Tent and MAA summer season.
VI. Combined Reviews, Code Section 26.304.060(B)
Code Section 26.304.060(B) is addressed below:
(B). 1. Combined reviews. The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or
modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and
ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained, and that a thorough
and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this title is achieved.
Applicant requests combined reviews of the application. Applicant feels combining reviews would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity in reviewing
the application.
VII. Consolidated Specially Planned
Area (SPA) Amendment, Code Section 26.440.090(B)
Code Section 26.440.090(B) is addressed below:
(B) All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement
of the approved final plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and the final development
review and approval.
Applicant feels the proposed amendment is both consistent with and an enhancement of the 1991 SPA Plan for the following reasons:
The amendment brings the Aspen Meadows meeting and dining facilities “into balance” with the 98 lodge units to better serve their conference, group and event guests.
The amendment provides a “keynote” conference and meeting hall to accommodate up to 250 guests with a main conference hall, sit-down banquet dining and state-of-the art audio/visual
facilities.
The amendment provides flexibility for the Aspen Meadows to serve smaller conferences, groups and events with overlapping occupancies and schedules.
Applicant feels the amendment has less impact than the 12 additional lodge units because it doesn’t increase the bed base of the Aspen Meadows. The intent is to better utilize and promote
the existing 98 lodge units instead of adding more lodge units. On a comparative basis, applicant feels the traffic and parking impacts of the Meeting Hall will be less than the 12
“approved but unbuilt” lodge units.
VIII. GMQS Exemption for Essential
Public Facility Amendment, Code Section 26.470.070(H)
Code Section 26.470.070(H) is addressed below:
(H) Construction of essential public facilities. This exemption is not deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the
Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council. This exemption is available provided the following conditions are met:
Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if:
it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands of growth, is not itself a significant growth generator, is available for use by the general public,
and serves the needs of the City.
An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council:
that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with:
the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit service, and
the need for basic services including but not limited to water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and police protection, and solid waste disposal. It shall also be demonstrated
that;
the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the City’s air, water, land and energy resources, and is visually compatible with surrounding areas.
Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in subsections (1) and (2), above, the City Council may determine upon application that development associated with a nonprofit entity qualifies
as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the growth management competition and scoring procedures and from such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate
and warranted. (Underline added by applicant.)
Under the 1991 SPA Plan, both the MAA’s and Institute’s plans were granted GMQS Exemptions For Essential Public Facilities. City Council Ordinance No. 14 (Series 1991) approving the
1991 SPA Plan and Exemption For Essential Public Facilities states the following:
“City Council finds as follows in regard to the Developer’s (i.e., Institute & MAA) request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for essential public facilities:
The Institute’s proposed development of new lodge units, expansion of the existing health club, expansion of the restaurant, and expansion of the tennis shop, including restrooms, is
essential for the revitalization of the Aspen Meadows property.
The MAA’s proposed expansion of the Music Tent, the addition of a year-round rehearsal/performance hall, and expansion of the Music Tent gift shop, is essential for the revitalization
of the Aspen Meadows property.
The programs and activities sponsored and/or hosted by the Institute and the MAA at the Aspen Meadows facilities have historically provided intellectual and cultural enrichment to the
citizens of the City of Aspen, without which the City would not have attained its present character and standing in the national and international community. Furthermore, the Aspen
Meadows facilities, and those of the Institute and MAA in particular, have served and continue to serve important community needs and proposed expansions of same will only enhance their
value and accessibility to the citizens of the City of Aspen and the general public. (Underline added by applicant.)
The Institute’s and MAA’s proposed development involves essential public facilities, will enhance existing essential public facilities, and is not-for-profit in nature.”
(From City Council Ordinance No. 14, (1991), Page 17)
Applicant feels the City Council findings made in 1991 are applicable today. As City Council stated in 1991:
“The Aspen Meadows facilities have historically provided intellectual and cultural enrichment to the citizens of the City of Aspen without which the City would not have attained its
present character and standing in the national and international community.”
The Aspen Institute continues to provide intellectual and cultural enrichment to the citizens of Aspen as demonstrated by the extensive list of Institute programs and events for 2004
and 2003 in Exhibit 5. A small sampling of the programs available to the public in 2004 are listed below:
- The Aspen Institute Dialogue is a monthly interview program produced for KAJX which addresses compelling topics of the day.
- Community Great Ideas Seminar and High School Seminar. In the Institute’s half-century tradition, these seminars employ informed, Socratic dialog to explore some of the core ideas
and values that have arisen over 2,500 years of human history.
- Annual Summer Speaker Series. For 2004, the summer speaker series consisted of 9 public lectures or panel discussions on both national and international topics. The series was held
on Tuesday evenings at Paepcke Auditorium.
- Panel Discussions Hosted by the Institute. Throughout the summer, the Institute will host panel discussions on various topics. In 2004, examples of panel discussions include “The
Vision of the Founding Fathers, Are We Living Up to It?” and “Conversation with Joel Achenbach and Michael Lewis.”
- Great Decision and Great Books Series. Eight-week series discussing great decisions and great books.
- An Evening of Words and Music. A joint evening sponsored by the Aspen Institute and Music Association of Aspen featuring Thomas L. Friedman, Pulitzer Prize winner, and Walter Isaacson,
Aspen Institute President & CEO, and guest musicians and students from the Aspen Music Festival and School.
- 11th Annual Summer Celebration. A public conversation featuring The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States and panel discussions moderated
by Walter Isaacson, Aspen Institute President & CEO.
- Einstein: A Celebration. A joint conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute and the Aspen Center for Physics to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Meeting Hall Employee Staffing
Based on discussions with Aspen Meadows management, they plan to operate the Meeting Hall with their existing staff. They are confident this can be accomplished because the Meeting
Hall is geared to promote the occupancy of the existing 98 lodge units versus expanding the bed base of the Aspen Meadows. From an operational and staffing viewpoint, the current staffing
is based on handling the high occupancy summer season. Therefore, the staffing is the same if an average higher occupancy can be achieved across the year for the existing lodge units.
Aspen Meadows management did highlight that the 3-5 keynote peak events in the summer do require additional “single event” staffing. The “single event” staffing is handled by an informal
sharing of staff among lodging facilities in-town and temporary labor services. For example, for the Fortune Brainstorm Conference, the Aspen Meadows “picked-up” additional single event
staff from two other lodges in-town and from temporary labor services. This informal sharing of staff helps the lodging facilities handle their peak events, and provides additional
income to the shared employees.
The applicant requests the Meeting Hall SPA Amendment be exempted from GMQS based on the same findings City Council made in 1991. Applicant feels the findings are applicable today and
would be consistent with the past actions of the City.
1
MeadowsSPAAmend 21
0057.2004.ASLU/MeadowsSPAAmendCover.doc
ASPEN MEADOWS PROPERTY
CONFERENCE & MEETING HALL BUILDING
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Aspen Meadows Property
845 Meadows Road
Parcel # 2735-121-29008
Submitted To: Mr. James Lindt
City of Aspen Community Development Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 920 - 5095
Owner/Applicant: The Aspen Institute
c/o Amy Margerum
Executive Vice-President
1000 N. Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 544 - 7906
Architect: Mr. Jeffrey Berkus
Jeffrey Berkus Architects
430 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 925 - 7017
Planner: Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 920 - 1395
Date: September 7, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
Application Summary 1
1991 Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan 3
Meeting Hall Description 5
Traffic and Parking 14
Early Excavation, Foundation and Utilities Work 16
Combined Reviews Code Section 26.304.060(B) 16
Consolidated Specially Planned Code Section 26.440.090(B) 17
Area (SPA) Amendment
GMQS Exemption for Essential Code Section 26.470.070(H) 18
Public Facility Amendment
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Following
Page No.
Vicinity Map 21
Existing Aspen Meadows Campus
Existing Site Conditions
Meeting Hall Site Plan
Meeting Hall Perspectives
Meeting Hall Elevations
Meeting Hall Floor Plans
Parking Plan
1991 SPA Master Plan
1991 SPA Building Three Site Plan
1991 SPA Building Three Elevations
Improvement Survey for Lot 1A & 1B Aspen Meadows SPA
Supplemental Information
Exhibit 1 - Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 2 - Compatibility with HPC Guidelines
Exhibit 3 - Harry Teague Architects 1991 SPA Plan Analysis
Exhibit 4 - Traffic & Parking Study
Exhibit 5 - Aspen Institute 2004 and 2003 Programs and Events
Exhibit 6 - Owner’s Consent and Authorization Letter
Exhibit 7 - Lot 5, Aspen Meadows Townhome Owners Consent
Exhibit 8 - Music Associates of Aspen and Aspen Center
for Physics Consent
Exhibit 9 - Proof of Ownership
Exhibit 10 - Fee Agreement
Exhibit 11 - Adjacent Property Owners
Exhibit 12 - Pre-Application Conference Summary
MeadowsSPAAmendCover&TofC
0057.2004.ASLU/System Volume Information/IndexerVolumeGuid