Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.017-79RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO. /~ (Series of 1979) A RESOLUTION SETTING FOR THE FACTS WHICH RESULTED IN CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE ASPEN INSTITUTE'S APPLICATION FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is presently owned by The Meadows Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (collectively called hereinafter "The Aspen Institute") and zoned SPA (Specially Planned Area); and WHEREAS, The Aspen Institute has submitted an application which requests the adoption by the City of Aspen of a precise development plan for said area; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has denied the application of the Aspen Institute; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Aspen requires that the City Council "shall make findings adequate to apprise the applicant of the reasons for...denial and the specific grounds relied on for such action". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Findings of Fact. (a) The property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto was annexed to the City on January 8, 1968, with the adoption of Ordinance #30, Series of 1967. (b) Historically, since the adoption of the Aspen Land Use Master Plan of 1973 and the general rezoning of the entire City in conformity thereto, the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto has not been zoned to allow for tourists. The history of the zoning of follows: 1. After annexation, the (Tourist) by the adoption the accommodation of the property is as property was zoned T-1 of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1968. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 2. On October 14, 1970, the Aspen Institute requested and obtained rezoning of the property with the adoption of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1970. This ordinance zoned the area West of Castle Creek and the property which was previously subdivided as the Second Aspen Company Subdivision R-15. The remainder of the property was zoned AR-2 (Accommodation and Recreation) with a buffer strip of one hundred (100') feet along Gillespie Street zoned R-6 and a buffer strip of one hundred and fifty (150') feet along Meadows Lane zoned R-15. 3. On June 25, 1973, the Aspen Institute submitted its Master Plan to the City during final consideration of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1973. The City Council approved this master plan and incorporated the plan as part of the Land Use Plan of the City for the purposes of Ordinance ~o. 19 review. The result of this action was to allow the Institute to build in conformance to the plan, including use and density, without further review. 4. On August 26, 1974, action of June 25, 1973. the City Council reaffirmed its As a result the Aspen Insti- tute was allowed to build a chalet and workshop without further Ordinance No. 19 review. 5. In 1973, as a result of a complete review of land use within the City of Aspen the Aspen Land Use Master Plan was adopted. The master plan, as adopted, identi- fied the property described in Exhibit "A" as appropri- ately "Institutional". The institutional land use cate- gory was adopted with the intent and purpose to "allow land owned by cultural and educational organizations to develop according to approved site plans in areas where (those) activities (then) exist(ed)". The 1973 Master -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (c) ten Plan specifically determined that this property was not appropriate for the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen. 6. On April 25, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordi- nance No. 11, Series of 1975, which rezoned the entire City by repealing and reenacting a modified zoning code in conformity to 1973 Master Plan. The Institute pro- perty was recommended for academic zoning. However, in deference to the request of the Aspen Institute, the property was zoned SPA (Specially Planned Area). Such zoning was, in effect, a compromise. 7. On August 14, 1975, the Aspen Institute submitted a petition to rezone its property. The petition asked for the rezoning of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision Property to R-6, and the remainder of the property to C-1 Commercial) and L-2 (Lodge and Hotel). 8. On November 18, 1975, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission recommended denial of the rezoning application. The resolution of denial is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". It is clear from paragraph three (3) of the reso- lution and the failure of the Institute to prosecute further its request to rezone the property that the Institute had agreed to the SPA designation of its property provided it was allowed to proceed with PUD provided it was allowed to proceed with PUD (Planned Unit Development) and subdivision review, which when the precise plan for complete would constitute development of the area. The property described in existing structures. These has ninety-two residential units totaling 51,580 square 2,030 square feet of food and beverage space, 6,700 Exhibit "A" attached hereto structures are divided into feet with square feet of -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves miscellaneous and retail space, 6,900 square feet of recreational space and 28,570 square feet of academic space. (d) Historically, the structures and property have been used to house academic programs and conferences conducted by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, including the housing of faculty The following is a history of the use of the proper- and guests. ty: 1. In 1949 the Aspen Institute was founded as the Aspen College under the sponsorship of Walter Paepcke. The property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto was donated by Mr. Paepcke to the College for its use. 2. In the summer of 1950 the Aspen College was renamed the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. 3. In the summer of 1951 the first executive programs were conducted in the Hotel Jerome. 4. By 1954 the executive program had increased to five two-week sessions in the summer. The participants of these programs were housed and fed in the Hotel Jerome. 5. In 1954 the first buildings were constructed on the property. 6. Since 1954, Aspen Institute programs have increased to the point that in 1979 there were 55 Institute pro- grams scheduled in Aspen. There is some evidence that the property has been used to house tourists during portions of the winter. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the number of tourists housed, the period of time in which they have been housed, the date when this use began, the date when this use was terminated, if it has been terminated, if this use is considered illegal as a violation of the current zoning ordinance or whether it it is a legal nonconforming use discontinued. is a legal nonconforming use and if whether it has been abated or -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (e) A historical review of the actions of the Aspen Insti- tute reveals a conscientious attempt to avoid the SPA planning process and the lack of dedication or commitment to completing the process after it had begun. The history of the application is as follows: 1. Immediately after the property described in Exhi- bit "A" attached hereto had been zoned SPA (Specially Planned Area) the Aspen Institute submitted its petition to rezone the property. The action of the Council to zone the property SPA had occurred on April 25, 1975. The petition to rezone was dated August 14, 1975. 2. When the petition to rezone received immediate, unfavorable community response, the Aspen Institute sub- mitted a proposal explaining how it would develop the property if such rezoning was granted. The proposal dated August 25, 1975, indicated that the Aspen Insti- tute would construct 100 bedrooms, a modest administra- tion building and a small library. The purpose of this construction was "to balance the current academic facil- ities''. If the zoning was approved, the Aspen Institute stated that it would sell the academic structures to the University of Colorado and contract with the University such that the Aspen Institute would retain the ninety (90) day operation that it operated during the summer while the University would run a Center for Advanced Studies during the remainder of the year. It was stated by the Aspen Institute that both activities "would be self contained". Further, sale "would create an endowment fund for the Institute". Later the University of Denver was substituted for the University of Colorado. -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 3. After the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the petition to rezone and after the Aspen Institute had indicated a willingness to accept the SPA planning process provided it was permitted to proceed under the PUD (Planned Unit Development) and subdivision process with the final PUD plan and subdivision plat constituting the precise plan under the SPA zone, the Institute again attempted to avoid the planning process. On March 22, 1976, the Aspen Institute contacted the City Attorney and suggested that if the City would agree to five basic development aspects, including an immedi- ate designation of use and density sufficient to allow the construction of 300 bedrooms in addition to the existing development, the Aspen Institute would then submit a detailed precise plan under the criteria of the SPA zone. Under the advice of counsel that considera- tion in advance of a formal application is seriously close to contract zoning, the Council denied this pro- posal. In an effort to take an affirmative position to assist the Aspen Institute, directing and advising the master plan for the entire the Council adopted a motion Aspen Institute to submit a acreage under the SPA pro- cess. The Planning office's position paper was included as part of the motion. A copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Aspen City Council dated March 22, 1976, are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Of particular interest is the position of the Planning Office that "the Institute seems resolute in its avoidance of the SPA process. Various excuses for noncompliance have been offered but the central reasons (sic) suggested to date is cost. To -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves date, the Institute has responded with several schemes to subdivide and further fragment the property in a fashion that is totally inconsistent with the spirit and intent the SPA (process)" 4. On August 3, 1976, the Aspen Institute finally sub- mitted a conceptual SPA precise plan. The Aspen Insti- tute requested approval to allow the construction of 392 rooms together with an increase in the size of the res- taurant facilities and the recreational facilities. The plan further requested the subdivision of the property into twelve (12) separate parcels. At that time, the Aspen Institute stated that the property would be used for their ninety-day (90) summer operation and during the remainder of the year as a Center For Advanced Stud- ies of the University of Denver. The facility, accord- ing to the Aspen Institute, tourists". 5. On August 17, August 24, "would not be used to house August 31, and September 14 1976, the Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings on this submitted conceptual precise plan. 6. On September 14, 1976, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission tabled the submitted conceptual precise plan pending a study, to be performed by the Aspen Institute, to consider the financial feasibility of restricting the use of the proposed conference center rooms to exclusive conference use. Shortly thereafter, the University of Denver withdrew its interest in operating the academic facilities. 7. Rather than fulfilling its agreement to conduct the study, the Aspen Institute responded by divesting itself of all property owned within the City of Aspen. On May 3, 1977, the Aspen Institute sold the unsubdivided -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves property to the Meadows Corporation, a wholly-owned sub- sidiary of the Aspen Institute For Humanistic Studies. In return the Meadows granted an option to the Aspen Institute to repurchase the academic facilities con- sisting of approximately 27 acres. Further, the Aspen Institute sold the property known as the Second Aspen Company Subdivision to private individuals through mesne conveyances. The conveyance of the subdivided property resulted in a buildup of residential structures in the neighborhood adjacent to the Music Tent operated by the Music Associates of Aspen. The close proximity of this residential development to the Music Tent has resulted in a distraction from the quality of the musical exper- ience. 8. On May 9, 1977, the Aspen Institute applied for sub- division exemption to allow the Meadows Corporation to deed the academic facilities constituting approximately 27 acres back to the 9. On April 8, 1977, Aspen Institute in a Institute. the City Council met with the public work session to assist the Aspen Institute in determining how to proceed. At the work session the Council was informed that R. O. Anderson felt the Aspen Institute was b~ing singled out by the City. As a result, the Aspen Insti- tute had decided to reduce its programs in Aspen and to move the remainder of its programs The Aspen Institute would not work versity of Denver. And, the Aspen to other locations. further with the Uni- Institute would wait five or ten years for a change in philosophy 0n the City Council before returning for development approval. Council was further informed that the Aspen I~stitute had sold the property it owned in the City of Aspen. -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves The Planning office recommended that the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto be rezoned aca- demic with a maximum density of 200 rooms, including the 92 units which were already constructed. It was their opinion that if the Institute property was so zoned the development could be exempted from the Growth Management Plan. Despite the position of the Aspen Institute, the City Council directed that a letter be sent to Mr. Anderson inviting him to meet personally with the Council. 10. On July 13, 1977, the City Council and R. O. Anderson met in a public study session. Mr. Anderson reiterated that the Aspen Institute desired 356 total units for the housing of faculty, guests, and some employees. However, the Aspen Insti- tute does not believe that it should be the owner of a "major hotel business". So after approval, they "intend to sell off the resort hotel facility and retain owner- ship of only the academic" facilities. Once again the Council requested that the Aspen Institute process a precise plan under the SPA zoning process. It was agreed that the Aspen Institute would submit a precise plan and that the City Council would expedite the SPA process. Mr. Anderson advised the Council that the Physics Institute needed to construct a library and that the approval of the structure had been delayed pending approval of a precise plan for the entire property. He also indicated that the Aspen Institute had conveyed all of the property zoned SPA to the Meadows Corporation. Thus, if Council would approve a subdivision to allow -9- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves the Meadows Corporation to reconvey the academic struc- tures to the Institute, including land leased to the Physics Institute, the Aspen Institute would waive any legal claim thus allowing construction of the library without full SPA plan approval. The Council asked the Aspen Institute to submit a formal application for sub- division and a precise plan for the approximately 2.3 acres occupied by the Aspen Center For Physics. 11. On August 8, 1977, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1976, which adopted a precise plan for the approximately 2.3 acreas occupied by the Aspen Cen- ter For Physics. Thus, the library was allowed to be constructed without approval of a precise plan for the entire parcel. 12. On August 12, 1977, sion recommended approval the Planning and Zoning Commis- of the submitted conceptual SPA precise plan to allow the construction of 356 rooms for faculty and guest housing, including 92 existing units. The approval was conditioned on the Aspen Insti- tute conducting ongoing winter conference and educa- tional programs, among other items, to assure that the rooms would be used for legitimate conference needs as opposed to being used by the winter skiing tourist. A copy of the Planning Office memo dated July 29, 1977, is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". A copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Aspen City Council dated August 22, 1977, are attached hereto as Exhibit "E". Further, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a resolution denying subdivision exemption which would have allowed the Meadows Corporation to deed back a portion of the property to the Aspen Institute. This action was taken in an effort to require a coordinated -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves planning process for both academic facilities. 13. On August 22, 1977, ceptual approval of the the accommodations and the City submitted Council granted con- SPA precise plan sub- ject to the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the addition that the 356 rooms must also house employees with the number of rooms to be dedicated to this use to be defined at a later point, with the statement that a tennis court is too intense an open space use, but a golf course was not, and that the Aspen Institute was encouraged to develop mechanisms to show their intent to remain in Aspen and to see that the property is developed as a winter conference and educa- tional facility and not as a tourist facility. A copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Aspen City Council dated August 22, 1977, are attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 14. On November 14, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, the Growth Management Quota System. The Council did not grant an exemption to the Aspen Institute, but delayed consideration until after approval of a precise plan for development of the property. A copy of the Planning Office memo regarding exemption frola the Growth Management Quota System dated October 5, 1977, is attached hereto as Exhibit "F". 15. Even after obtaining conceptual approval the Aspen Institute again attempted to avoid the SPA planning pro- cess by asking the City Council on January 30, 1978, to approve the construction of 32 faculty and guest housing units. The Institute stated that "if these units were approved for immediate construction the Aspen Institute would then continue through the SPA process". The City -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Council denied this application stating that the Insti- tute understood the process; that they have started and stopped the process a half dozen times; and, that the City Council has attempted to assist in numerous ways, including meeting with R. O. Anderson and approving a conceptual plan. However, the City cannot allow devel- opment in violation of its own zoning code. 16. On April 10, 1978, the Aspen Institute submitted an application for conceptual PUD plan and conceptual sub- division plat approval. The plan, as submitted, varied greatly from the conceptual SPA plan that had been sub- mitted and approved. This plan still asked for 356 units with 28 units being However, this development ance the current academic designated employee housing. no longer was designed to bal- facilities. In the proposal the Institute asked for either a 600 seat conference center or 12,000 square feet in additional conference space. The proposal also doubled the size of the res- taurant with an additional 9,000 square feet, added 3,500 square feet in administration space and nearly doubled the size of the recreational areas by the addi- tion of 3,000 square feet plus six new tennis courts making a total of twelve. 17. On May 30, 1978, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the application. At the con- clusion of the public hearing the Commission recommended denial. On June 6, 1978, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission adopted a formal resolution recommending denial which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit "G". Specifically the Planning and Zonning Commission found that the 356 room proposal exceeded the real academic needs of the Aspen Institute and was excessively devoted -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves to the commercial marketing of resort activities; that the size of such a facility would adversly impact and burden the City in respect to services, traffic conges- tion, pollution, and the west end residential ambience; that the development proposal was irreconcilable with the intention of the Growth Management Plan; and, that the promises of the Aspen Institute with respect to the operation of the resort conference center were insuffi- cient guarantees that there would not be increased tour- ist use or complete conversion to a resort hotel after construction. 18. On June 12, 1978, the Aspen Institute's plan, with the exception of the additional academic conference space, received conceptual approval by the City Council. However, the City Council conditioned its approval upon the Aspen Institute meeting (17) requirements which are as follows: a. That the Aspen Institute give assurances that it will remain in Aspen. b. That the Aspen Institute identify what reason, if any, exists for exemption from the Growth Man- agement Plan and under what conditions an exemption is justified. c. If the Aspen Institute development is exempt from the Growth Management Plan, what would the development have received as management review. d. Are the employee housing appropriate location and has considered alternate sites. e. That the Aspen Institute its estimate of points during growth sites in the most the Aspen Institute satisfactorily refined the number of employees necessary -13- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves to operate the Aspen Institute and determine the number which must be housed on site in employee housing. f. That the Aspen Institute satisfactorily refine its estimate of faculty to conferee ratio. g. That the Aspen Institute satisfactorily refine the number of units necessary to house faculty and guests. h. That the Aspen Institute provide adequate data to justify the size of its proposed food and bever- age facilities. i. That the Aspen Institute propose a traffic cir- culation pattern, both interior and exterior, capa- ble of satisfactorily mitigating the impacts of the density requested. j. That the Institute identify and propose methods to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed development on the whole. k. That the Aspen neighborhood and the City as a Institute satisfactorily define its future educational programs, including future marketing methods, in order to assure that the com- munity impacts will be minimized. 1. That the Aspen Institute give satisfactory assurances that the facility will not be used to house tourists. m. That the Aspen Institute identify open space areas and trails and assure that the general public may use such open space and trails by agreeing to grant deed restrictions or title to such property. n. That the Aspen Institute minimize the potential obstruction of views by its development including -14- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves elimination of the unfavorable affects on the "wilderness experience" of the valley floor. o. That the Aspen Institute give assurances that it will support and promote community oriented functions. p. That the Aspen Institute propose a satisfactory schedule for the phasing of development, including a proposal such that the later phases will not pro- ceed to development if previous phases have failed to achieve a mitigation of impacts as envisioned. q. That the Aspen Institute satisfactorily miti- gate the concern that a 356 room conference center exceeds the academic needs of the Aspen Institute and is excessively devoted to the commercial mar- keting of conference activities. 19. On December 12, 1978, the Aspen Institute submitted an application for preliminary PUD plan, preliminary subdivision plat and final SPA plan approval. The ap- plication as submitted had again been modified from the proposal which had once received conceptual approval. This proposed plan requested the establishment of per- mitted density to allow for the development of 214 faculty and guest housing units, 34 employee housing, 7,780 square feet of restaurant space, 38,235 square feet of common space, including additional meeting areas, and 17,280 square feet in miscellaneous space, including additional recreational areas, all in addition to existing structures. Further, the Aspen Institute requested the establishment of permitted and conditional uses to allow for the development of a commercial con- ference center. The Institute represented that a com- mercial conference center was a facility "dedicated to -15- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves handling group meetings and educational support" 20. The application as or providing program development and was not a "resort hotel". submitted by the Aspen Institute did not meet the seventeen (17) requirements established by the City Council at the time of conceptual precise plan approval. Specifically, the application did not meet the following requirements: (a) The Aspen Institute did not offer adequate assur- ances that it would remain in Aspen. (b) The Aspen Institute stated that the application had received exemption under the Growth Management Plan. This was not the case. To the contrary, the record of the adoption of the Growth Management Plan clearly indicates that no specific exemption has been granted to the Aspen Institute. The Aspen Institute then maintained that an exemption should be approved because the Aspen Institute's property was not included in the original calculations of the Growth Management Plan buildout and because of the academic nature of the facility. In reality, however, the application was for a commercial facility with only slight academic use in the sum- mer months. (c) The Aspen Institute failed to provide a proposal indicating how many points the development would (d) have received under The Aspen Institute refine its estimate growth management review. had failed to satisfactorily of the number of employees necessary to operate the Aspen Institute or the number which should be housed on-site in employee housing. -16- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (e) (f) (g (h (i (J The application, of common space, areas, was, once current academic Institute failed in requesting 38,235 square feet including additional meeting again, not designed to balance the facilities. Therefore, the Aspen to satisfactorily refine the num- ber of units necessary to house faculty and staff if such a balance was to be achieved. The Aspen Institute failed to provide or propose auto disincentive programs including alternative forms of transportation to mitigate the impacts of the recommended density. Further, the Aspen Insti- tute failed to propose an exterior traffic circula- tion pattern which was capable of satisfactorily mitigating the impacts of the requested density. The Aspen Institute did not attempt to identify the adverse impacts of the development on the neighbor- hood or the City as a whole nor did the Aspen In- stitute reco~nend any proposal to minimize these adverse impacts. The Aspen Institute failed to define its future educational programs. Specifically, the Aspen Institute did not define nor agree to pursue on- going winter conference or educational programs in order to guarantee that the facilities would be used by individuals other than tourists. The Aspen Institute did not give assurances that the facility would not be used to house tourists. In fact, the Aspen Institute not only stated that tourists would be housed but demanded the right to house tourists. The Aspen Institute fy open space areas consistently refused to identi- or to assure use by the general -17- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves public. Further, the Aspen Institute refused to grant deed restrictions or title to such areas. The Aspen Institute also did not adequately identi- fy the location of trails although it did propose to dedicate easements for such trails once their locations were determined. (k) The Aspen Institute did not consider the obstruc- tion of neighborhood view planes by its development and therefore did not act to minimize the potential obstruction. (1) The Aspen Institute gave no legal commitiaent to support or promote community-oriented functions. (m) Although the Aspen Institute proposed a phasing of development, it did not restrict later phases such that approval would not be given if the earlier phases failed to achieve a mitigation of impacts. (n) The Aspen Institute did not show that a 356 room conference center was necessary to balance the cur- rent academic facilities. To the contrary, the Aspen Institute's request for additional common areas, including additional meeting space, clearly indicated that the 356 room conference center was larger than necessary to balance the current aca- demic facility. 21. On February 20 and March 6, 1979, the Planning and Zon- ing Commission held a public hearing on the submitted appli- cation for preliminary PUD plan, preliminary subdivision plat and final SPA plan approval. 22. On April 3, 1979, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled indefinitely their consideration of the application. 23. On April 16, 1979, the City Attorney issued an opinion, at the request of City Council, which held in part that the -18- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves action to table the application indefinitely was in fact a recommendation of denial of the final SPA plan and a nullity in regards to the preliminary PUD and preliminary subdivision plat application. Further, the opinion stated that the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission must act to deny or approve the preliminary PUD plan and preliminary subdivision plat on or before April 19, 1979. 24. On April 18, 1979, a joint meeting was held between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The City Council requested the meeting for the purpose of expedi- ting action on the application consistent with its commitment of July 13, 1977. Subsequent thereto, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting and moved to take the application from the table. 25. On April 19, 1979, the Aspen Institute agreed to decide whether or not to withdraw its applications for preliminary PUD plan and preliminary subdivision plat approval on or before April 26, 1979. If the Aspen Institute decided not to withdraw its applications, it would grant to the Planning and Zoning Commission additional time up to and including May 1, 1979, to act on such applications. A copy of this written agreement is attached as Exhibit "H". 26. On April 26, 1979, the Aspen Institute withdrew its application for preliminary PUD plan and preliminary subdivi- sion plat approval. A copy of the written agreement with- drawing these applications is attached as Exhibit "I". 27. From April 18 until May 29, 1979, the Planning and Zoning Commission held special meetings on the average of two per week to further consider the application for final SPA approval. On May 29, 1979, after amending the fourth draft the Planning and Zoning Co~nission adopted a resolution approving a modified SPA precise plan. The Commission's -19- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves development have, as an tourists. recommendation of approval was conditioned upon the applicant obtaining full PUD plan and subdivision plat approval and coiaplying with all of the conditions contained within their resolution. A copy of the resolution recommending approval as Exhibit "J". 28. On May 30, June 12, and June 26, 1979, the City Council held a public hearing on the application for final SPA approval. 29. On June 26, 1979, the Aspen Institute, prior to final Council action, modified its application for final SPA pre- cise plan approval. The modifications went to both density and use. As modified, the Aspen Institute plan requested the establishment of permitted density to allow for the develop- ment of 135 faculty and guest housing units, 19 employee housing units, 5,470 square feet of restaurant space, 33,680 square feet of common space, including additional meeting areas, and 10,375 square feet of miscellaneous space, in- cluding additional recreational areas, all in addition to existing structures. Further, the modified application requested the estab- lishment of permitted and conditional uses to allow for the of a commercial conference center which would accessory use, the unrestricted right to house 30. On July 3 and July 16, 1979, the City Council held a public hearing on the modified application. At these public hearings the applicant presented evidence to prove that with a 70% yearly occupancy rate and with only 10% of this occu- pancy being tourist, the Aspen Institute would be provided with an endowment in excess of One-half (1/2) Million Dol- lars. On July 16, 1979, the public hearing was closed and -20- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves the application continued to the regular meeting of the City Council of July 23, 1979, for final consideration. 31. On July 30, 1979, the City Council moved unanimously to suspend the rules to allow for public comment prior to final action. At this time, the legal representative of the Aspen Institute confirmed that the Aspen Institute's modified ap- plication requested not only unrestricted tourist use of the facilities, but an agreement by the City that it would not amend such accessory use provisions or require the abatement of such tourist use without abating the conference center use as well. In other words, the City was expected to agree not to amend the provisions for unrestricted tourist use without zoning out of existence the Aspen Institute. 32. On July 23, 1979, the City Council on a vote of 6 to 1 denied the application of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. (f) The application of the Aspen Institute for final SPA precise plan approval did not comply with the requirements of Sec- tion 24-7.2(d) or Section 24-11.5(b) in that the application did not contain the names and addresses of all owners of real property within three hundred (300') feet of the area of the proposed change. Specifically, the application did not contain the name of Teleo J. Caparrella of 330 West Gillespie Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, or James J. Markalunas of 624 West North Street, Aspen, Colorado. (g) A review of the record shows compliance with the proce- dural requirements of the Municipal Code and of Section 31-23-301, et seq., C.R.S. 1973, as amended, with the exception that a writ- ten notice of the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning and Zoning Commission was not sent by first class mail at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing to all property owners within three hundred (300') feet of the area of the pro- -21- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves posed change in accordance with Section 24-11.5(d)(2) due to the failure of the Aspen Institute to submit a full and complete ap- plication in conformance with Section 24-7.2(d) and Section 24- ll.5(b) of the Municipal Code. (h) The property described in Exhibit "A" remains as the largest development will have (i) limited river density undeveloped tract of land significant impact on The property described in Exhibit suitability for development. (j) The property described in Exhibit frontage and severe slopes on the north residential neighborhood to the south in the City of Aspen and its the Aspen community. "A" includes area of accessibility and create unique of the site. The property described in pedestrian access. which limit development (k) cular and (1) Exhibit The available vehicular access to "A" is bounded by and west, and a low- and east, all of problems for the "A" has minimal vehi- the property described in Exhibit "A" has a carrying that required if development was allowed to proceed requested in the application without restriction of land and of the structures. capacity substantially less than at the density the use of the (m) Severe ecological and environmental damage may occur as a result of development on the property described in Exhibit "A". Development can alter and degrade the aesthetics and quality of life of the neighborhood and of the Aspen community in general. (n) A special development right should not be granted ab- sent the imposition of conditions which require that the develop- ment and use of the land shall have no significant adverse effect on the adjacent landowners, stream and air quality, road conges- tion, wildlife, and the general public interest. (o) The Aspen Land Use Master Plan, which was adopted in 1973, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "K", identified the pro- -22- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves perty described in Exhibit "A" as appropriately "institutional". The institutional land use category was adopted with the intent and purpose to "allow land owned by cultural and educational or- ganizations to develop according to approved site plans in areas where (those) activities then exist(ed)". The 1973 Master Plan specifically determined that this property was not appropriate for the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen. Tourist uses were specifically directed to the area at the base of the mountain and in close proximity to the commercial core. (p) The Growth Management Quota System limits construction of lodge units in all zone districts, including the SPA zone dis- trict, to no more than eighteen (18) units in each calendar year. The quota for lodge units has been depleted under the provisions of Article 10, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code through a portion of the 1981 allotment. Section 2. Conclusion. In conformance with Section 24-11.8 of the Municipal Code the applicant is apprised that its application was denied because: (a) The application was not in compliance with the require- ments of Section 24-7.2(d) and Section 24-11.5(b) of the Municipal Code; (b) The record shows a failure of compliance with the pro- cedural requirements of the Code. Specifically, failure to give written notice of the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission in compliance with Sec- tion 24-11.5(d)(2); (c) The property is located within a neighborhood where tourist uses are prohibited; (d) The property is not appropriate for the recreation and accommodation needs of tourists; (e) The application, as modified, is not eligible for exemp- tion from the Growth Management Quota System; -23- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (f) DATED: It is a specific finding of the City Council that the requested zoning is not in compliance with the adopted (g) (h) 1973 Master Plan; The legislature in granting to zone, Section 31-23-301, the City of Aspen the power et seq., C.R.S. 1973, as amended, specifically declared that a "comprehensive plan must be developed and that zoning shall be made in accordance with (the) comprehensive plan". If the City Council adopted the requested zoning, that act would be an abuse of discretion and exceed its jurisdiction; It is a specific finding of the City Council that the public good neither demands nor requires that the re- quested rezoning be approved, nor is the requested re- safety, morals zoning reasonably related to the or general welfare of the public, would be detrimental the health, and, the proposed use public good and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning code. ~ayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City/~ouncil of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held /~/_~ ~ , 1979. Kathryn S~ Koch City Cler~k do -24-