HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows Amend.04t w M Aft • 5 Meadows Rd SPA Amendment to 1991'
2735-121-29-008 Case 0057.2004.ASLU
r
9- S
0
1 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
City of Aspen
Land Use:
131041 Deposit
131042 Flat Fee
I
131043 HPC
131046 Zoning and Sign
Referral Fees:
151163 City Engineer
251205 Environmental Health i
237001 Housing
Building Fees:
211071 Board of Appeals
211072 Building Permit
211073 Electrical Permit
211074 Energy Code Review
211075 Mechanical Permit
211076 Plan Check
211077 Plumbing Permit
211078 Reinspection
211079 Aspen Fire
Other Fees:
111006 Copy
111165 Remp Fee
601303 GIS Fee
231480 Housing Cash in Lieu
111165 Open Space Cash in Lieu
Park Dedication
Parking Cash in Lieu
School District Land Ded.
Code Sales (Joint)
Contractor Licensing (Joint)
TOTAL
NAME: -
ADDRESS/ PROJECT:
PHONE:
CHECK#
CASE/PERMIT#: # OF COPIES:
DATE: INITIAL:
External Media
Located Here
M-022669
RMMI
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
MeadowsSPAAmendCover&TofC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
I.
Application Summary ...............................................................................
1
II.
1991 Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan ..................................................
3
III.
Meeting Hall Description.........................................................................
5
IV.
Traffic and Parking...................................................................................
14
V.
Early Excavation, Foundation and Utilities Work .....................................
16
VI.
Combined Reviews Code Section 26.304.060(B) ...........
16
VII.
Consolidated Specially Planned Code Section 26.440.090(B) ...........
17
Area (SPA) Amendment
VIII.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Code Section 26.470.070(H)...........
18
Public Facility Amendment
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Following
Page No.
1. Vicinity Map.............................................................................................. 21
2. Existing Aspen Meadows Campus
3. Existing Site Conditions
4. Meeting Hall Site Plan
5. Meeting Hall Perspectives
6. Meeting Hall Elevations
7. Meeting Hall Floor Plans
8. Parking Plan
9. 1991 SPA Master Plan
10. 1991 SPA Building Three Site Plan
11. 1991 SPA Building Three Elevations
12. Improvement Survey for Lot 1 A & 1 B Aspen Meadows SPA
MeadowsSPAAmendCover&TofC i i
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&Toff iil
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. f
B. Future Expansion of Health Center 1,500 sf. f
13,417 sf. f
The Aspen Meadows proposes the Conference & Meeting Hall for the
following reasons:
1. 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 1
2. 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.
3. To provide flexibility for the Aspen Meadows to serve smaller conferences,
groups and events with overlapping occupancies and schedules.
4. 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
1. Paepcke Auditorium. Seating capacity of 346 people. Used for conferences and
public lectures. Not suited for roundtable discussions and no sit-down dining.
2. Koch Seminar Building. Used for roundtable discussions of 10 - 50 people.
Not suited for groups larger than 50 people and no sit-down dining.
3. 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 2
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:
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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 3
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 3 8 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:
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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 4
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
MeadowsSPAAmend 5
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 fagade. 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
MeadowsSPAAmend 6
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
fagade 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
MeadowsSPAAmend 7
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:
1. 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."
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
MeadowsSPAAmend 8
articulate important elements of the building in a fashion common on the
campus.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 9
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
100`h anniversary of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is estimated over
300 guests participated in this exciting conference.
2 Institute's 11"' 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.
MeldowsSPAAmend 10
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
MeadowsSPAAmend 11
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 l31 l(ling 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 I" 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 12
The main physical points of comparison between the Meeting Hall and
I3tidding 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 13
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:
1. 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
MeadowsSPAAmend 14
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.
2. 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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 15
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
MeadowsSPAAmend 16
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.
2. 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.
3. The amendment provides flexibility for the Aspen Meadows to serve
smaller conferences, groups and events with overlapping occupancies and
schedules.
4. Applicant feels the amendment has less impact than the 12 additional
lodge units because it doesn't increase the bed base of the Aspen
MeadowsSPAAmend 17
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.
V111. 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
a. 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.
2. An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required
to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council:
a. that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated,
including those associated with:
i. the generation of additional employees, the demand for
parking, road and transit service, and
ii. 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;
iii. 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.
3. Notwithstanding the criteria as set, forth in subsections (1) and (2),
above, the Citv Council may determine upon application that
development associated with a nonprofit entity qualifies as an essential
MeadowsSPAAmend 18
public facility and may exempt such development from the rg owth
management competition and scoring procedures and from such
mitigation reguirements 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.
2. 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.
3. The proZrams 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 open, 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 eg neral public. (Underline added by
applicant.)
4. 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)
MeadowssPAAmend 19
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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 20
I I1h 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 100`h
anniversary of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Meeting Hall Employee Staffin,
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.
MeadowsSPAAmend 21
Maps & Illustrations
t
�w
1
j •\
I � I
®® THI �-AS�EN 1N ,
'THE Mi � V
A
PROJECT
LOCATION
Y
\
k
fW�
1\\
it
1 �
t1TE
M
U I
� f
The Aspen Institute
Doerr — Hosier
Building
VICINITY MAP
,aa T
ilea
ftb
The Aspen Institute
Doerr — Hosier
Building
VICINITY MAP
,aa T
ilea
ftb
I
t�
I •\ � l 1 1 1 I ,� I t 1
I
/ ,
,
W
l,lo_
o o
i
J /I
\ -
-<Z
U
o
zs
�
W
z
:5
CL
0
�L\ \ z
0
S <
W lit ply ,x \ - / - \ \\
<
I
w � �^ \ I, I I 4, i\ \ � • 1 \
IR
`\\`\ \ �\\ ��� ��� rah \ I • � �/ ��'/' \\ ,�
UZI
4
% J
` \` � � \\\ \ � \'� `� �' + — � � � � _ - \ m / � •.tom � ��� "�
Noo\
A)
\%\\0
1-7
\v\W...
63
0", W
oc
0, 0 l I`I / I I III I iA N .� s� :�+ff,. w /1
lilt
Di
J1, \
IWO* < LLJ
n. z z
w w
O .< afw
!� I
< </ ,Vz -
aw ow[ m Iz
i2
I
Ak
TTTl: Ir
Ic
X
HIM
,ter`
OT
s ,. �►
WEXNER
BUILDING
PR . PO / `1
DROP AND.
TURN UND
�•,� EVENT
— % AREA \
•
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Building \
\ r .
SitePlan
Jeffrey Berkas Architects
08-06-2004
011
v
;�5 F }gf �{��}F 9�'�Y � . �yg,j-7'_•"t ! G5���ad� {
Ilk If
s # 1 k law
IF
AF
R
an
I ri
5
• �pq e�
L . i�
d
y
W
3
z
Mo•�bl
�)
Y
�s.10 I
i
lL
a
Y
1
i ::'?TY -ry'.. ... ,.. 1 ,; .'"T'
Nr.T.1, .: p...: .,7 , .,� ..,
.• ..:t t ..f . �.
�,.ny. •5 ii i1 . /'� �,
.�+r f.:,q�n .."1r'.:, P +wr
'.vt ...., r7f 71: Y.• ?PIPE .� 1 a lc
j .. 3�. v. + '�. '�P. �, .�, �'v.-
t ,i i Y a,y a M1 } �, :� 1"
Y.
� � 17},
b i P
.m'�' �w?P '!�' N�;':{!�'
f� 19 r
:•+I�r. -rrw.
., s7 l7 _
i�� h. ."1r'q.... .�'.r'�
{ s r
lPi�l .
f 14
w�nP1:.
M1 hY,r
{
P
33
i
P
The Aspen Institute
Doen• - Hosier
Building
Main Level
9800 S.F.
Jeffrey Berkus Architects
08-06-2004
2. Terrace
21. Low Voltage
3. Gathering
22. Catering Kitchen
4. Lobby
2.7. Service Elevator
S. Planter
24. Lounge
6. Covered Entry
2.5. Men's Restroorn
7. Bridge
26. Women's Restroom
8. Covered Terrace
27. Lobby Below
9. Open to Below
28. Elevator
10. Water Element
29. Stairs Up
11. Light Well
30. Stairs Dawn
12. Underwater Skylight
31. Board Room
13. Check -In Desk
32. History of Aspen Institute Room
14. Business Center
33. Service Entry
15. Office
34, Lounge Below
16. CoatslOfl-ice
35. Art Grotto
17. Mechanical
36. Conference Prep Roam
18. Roof Terrace
37. Waiting
19. Terrace Room
38. Garden
cf:
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Building
Basement Level
7000 S.F. Below Grade
1250 S.F.
Jeffrey Berkus Architects
08-06-2004
20
36
' II 32
o.
22
i
ne
A29
20
�2:0:
37
20
Legend
1. Conference Space
20. Storage
2. Terrace
21. Low Voltage
3. Gathering
22. Catering Kitchen
4. Lobby
23. Service 131-ator
5. Planter
24. Lounge
6. Covered Entry
25. Men's Restroom
7. Bridge
26. Women's Restroom
8. Covered Terrace
27. Lobby Below
9. Open to Below
28. Elevator
10. Water Element
29. Stairs Up
I /. Light Well
30. Stairs Down
12. Underwater Skylight
31. Board Room
l3 Check -in Desk
32. History of Aspen Institute Room
l4. Business Center
33. Service Entry
15. Office
34. Lounge Below
16. CoatslOffice
35. ArY Grotto
17. Mechanical
36. Conference Prep Room
18. Roof Terrace
37. Waiting
19. Terrace Room
38. Garden
I
w
xV,
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Building
Upper Level
1150 S.F.
Jeffrey Berkos Architects
OS-06-2W4
Legend
1. Conference Space
20. Storage
1. Terrace
21. Low Voltage
3. Gathering
22. Catering Kitchen
4. Lobby
23. Service Elevator
5. Planter
24. Lounge
6. Covered Entry
25. Men's Restroom
7. Bridge
26. Women's Restroom
8. Carered Terrace
27. Lobby Bela.
9. Open to Below
28. Elevator
10. Water Element
29. Stairs Up
11. Light Well
30. Stairs Down
11. Underwater Skylight
31. Board Room
13. Check -In Desk
32. History of Aspen Institute Room
14. Business Center
33. Service Entry
15. Office
34. Lounge Below
16. CoatslQffice
.15. Art Grotto
17. Mechanical
36. Conference Prep Room
18. Roof Terrace
37. Waiting
19. Terrace Room
38. Garden
I? /
\1�3�11 g 2
w:� Gir fjr
�•C ' a •�I' I j � �I
r�.
♦`•'S '" S;/} • ,} }``'••'•• � .. +:'}:'}ti}:';�• III , /
•.;LSS;9 �.SL,•.;LSL;••3•� ;� L,�• LS�,�I' ,i` I 1
S•.,L� � S• , :S:IL LSD. SSL, �. lL}, ♦ � Ir , , r (.
•1� `l •}• l•}• } lLr'• l• I � II 1 � 1
••} r r%} r:};•}• •,}.,,1 3;}, •f,}',� ,I it � ,
\•���! Illlli ; �I i �\
;1111\
, :e 1 ! f" �-^. + :Sti.,•,
'Sy�� 1' 1 i 1 •�' f%.� + N�
I 1 1 1 1 •} �`} rL
i
/�• ; 1 � 11 1 1 II 1 I I`�`
_ r I I I ' •'•
1 f I
f \ \\ \ 1 1
II \I 11 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
11
I' 1
1
Final S.P.A. Development Plan
' r F
/ t INFORMATION OTHER THAN DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHOWN
- � ON THIS DRAWING ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
Client:
r1�\
Music Associates of Aspen
�', / C �` ' , . .�;•e_ Aspen Institute
Aspen Center for Physics ,
Savanah Limited Partnership
0 J-�April 1991W
.� %- l ': ! �' ~'tti �•�e�!p \ \'t, \ Note: This drawing is illustrative and not to be used as
"+. `• ' \�`� •••.� >C ` \ a \ construction documentation
1 l n DRAINAGE PLAN DATE: 7-2A1
Leonard Rice consulting water Engineers, Im
' LOT 4 ..... •.
r`°°o.°d tit
2 New Townhouse Unin pinking
tsl
\`, 'Gppghoe of Plopo.ed Tail Ea.em
Remodeled --
Trustee Townhouses ' IiewTowohouseUttit \ 1p.1 S �"---=--x--;; -==:`y _-•:\, `,..,,: ;� �_\. .: •`.
Meadows. Buildfug Addition
iAopoaed Dade I .. 2 �N 25c i r•� ` , t s"
f]radsa ethoposd, 'halt Bnaomt' I \\i / `, •` ,` -
, %, =tea �';% _ •\. �., It' �� � -•- __ -- -
s V % f �'�LO_T 1 t%J• (_l f - i rb ----
7 New Townhouses P _ SITE
7,/'... /•' _ ra�Tuos 7sy.oa ' '1 - l I - _�\,. _` `- V '-N'— � -'-j/ � \ �1: •.,r' :,, ``�\ '" '+a. •4 � \/
' � •� � �� 7raisOeita.'sslaara' \ �.-- Ni
�'t-
r-,7. J /ll �/, l I ' 'I ....� (✓I �,` r\! , �f(vi i ��'`' • L'� ;.l\ .� �:, ` f.,...��_�" �` /
Paepcke Audi
�' 1 � 1`i` .U� � \ 1 '�• t� it rPt /f� ! ,'l•\ ��� _
it
Area
`1 ` t .i! �' �• f ;/�/// LJr.`` i J+/f��Z — -
\ 17 'Bcmwd Stating Arcs
/� lracl[
r•
xr x ,.' At ' } open ipaae`
Rehearsal Facility
—wed intend
Tb�sics UAW
�'�• r // \ �! \ New IDtA Tent Location
�' -• �� . ••,•�'.' `\'\
t / , Single Fttiuil Lo Trail .Ima
i _y,_oa. 0
/_ • `0. 160. Parlc6ta Spaces '/ 114
LOT 3
of Tpil 6asemmt
Jai `� Sv �•.` �`• �\ `\ •;•.� t ';
New Accaa ham`JIi Sheet y` i 1` L :t ''
ZZ� �a O Q d H O Z O D ICI A d S d
o 919 8 A a `+
I I S ICI I
d S v w -
,z
1r�
1
"Lag Ogg
in
E-4
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OQ�2j0100 Nods c
T Y S I d S V.
►L fl I
U
c.7
I
Z
C)
H
I
Z
0
.¢
n
0
d
b
N
/
/
/ cl
� w
�\ a
4_Irz'A
d� pp
,ICJ
/ 3
A �
Z
,° Q
A jdy � Q � N y � \�
ZAAzL Y
0-4
v� sy3d \
Z w-+
O
- :0,
d'AZ .0 °r"0
o uc.0
C
F
s
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - -
Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
ame: Aspen Institute, Jim Curtis, Representative
ovation: 845 Meadows Road, Lot 1-A Aspen Meadows Subdivision
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
arcel ID # (REQUIRED) # 2735-121-29008
.EPRESENTATIVE:
lame:- Jim Curtis, Curtis & Associates
.ddress: 300 East Hyman Ave., Aspen, Co. 81611
hone#: 920-1395 ph. email-icurtis@sopris.net
ROJECT:
'ame: Aspen Institute Conference & Meeting Hall
Building
.ddress: 845 Meadows Road, Aspen, Co. 81611
hone #: 920-1395
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ rConceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt.
❑ MQS Allotment � Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)_
El
Historic Demolition
[ 4MQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use
❑
Other:
❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.
Vacant building site, Prior approvals granted for building site under
Aspen Meadows 1991 SPA Plan
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.
Conference & Meeting Hall Building, Application for SPA
Amendment to
Aspen Meadows 1991 SPA Plan
H�av on attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 3,330.00
Ll I' -Application Conference Summary
achment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
[Rosponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project: Aspen Institute Conference & Meeting Hall Building
Applicant: Aspen Institute
Project
Location: 845 Meadows Road, Lot 1—A Aspen Meadows SPA
Zone
District: SPA
Lot Size: 26.5 ac.
Lot Area: SPA Plan
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: n/a
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: n/a
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed. n a
Proposed % of demolition: n/a
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Existing:
Allowable:
SPA
Proposed: 11 , 917sf .
Heip,ht
Principal Bldg.:
Existing:
Allowable:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
Accessory Bldg.:
Existing:
Allowable:
SPA
Proposed: n/a
On -Site parking:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
% Site coverage:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
% Open Space:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed. - SPA Plan
Front Setback:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
Rear Setback:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed. -SPA Plan
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
Side Setback:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed: SPA Plan
Side Setback:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed. -SPA Plan
Combined Sides:
Existing:
Required:
SPA
Proposed. -SPA Plan
Distance between Existing: Required: SPA Proposed: SPA Plan
buildings:
Existing non -conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
n/a
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
n/a
* Plus 8,141 sf, of below grade exempted floor area.
EXHIBIT 2
COMPATIBILITY WITH HPC GUIDELINES
Even though the building site is not historically designated, 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 which are most applicable
below:
Orientation
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
The context is a campus not a building on a street. However, the building
entrance is located on the "front" facing the common public open space in a
manner similar to the other buildings on the campus.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale
with the historic buildings.
The Meeting Hall will consist of an aggregation of a series of block like
volumes. These forms will be a similar scale to the adjacent Calaway
Health Center and Wexner Lodge Building, and will be more articulated
than the larger scale of the Meadows Restaurant building.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
The front elevation of the Meeting Hall will have a similar scale as the
neighboring Calaway Health Center and Wexner Lodge Building. A
projecting volume above the entrance effectively articulates a front "porch"
though a "porch" per se is not part of the idiom of the adjacent modern
style historic buildings.
Building and Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
The Meeting Hall 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 those forms
rather than as a separate element of the composition. Most of the roof is
Compatibil ityHPCGui del ines
flat. Slopes and pyramidal roof forms are used to articulate important
elements of the building in a fashion common on the campus.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
When the roofs on the Meadows buildings are visible they are usually
white, in most cases, a synthetic type membrane. The roofs on the Meeting
Hall will also be white. The roof will either be a membrane or some other
material that reads as a single monolithic unit.
Materials
11.8 Use materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
The International Style, which is the primary architectural style of the
Meadows campus does not use materials to make any accommodation to
human scale. Instead, singular materials are typically used in broad planes
extending from the ground to the top of the wall. Accommodation to human
scale is rarely made, and when it is, it is done with door or other similar
elements. The International Style was often purposefully "scaleless," and
the nearby historic buildings are no exception. Human scale is more
emphatically established in this building than its neighbors because the
building has so many doors.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use components that are similar in size and scale to those of the
historic building.
The Meeting Hall will be detailed in a very minimalist fashion which will
be fundamentally similar to the adjacent historic building.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
The adjacent historic building is not an "older" style. The Meeting Hall will
not be imitating the adjacent building, but will be a fundamentally
"modern" building. It will however be more contemporary in appearance to
represent its own "age."
Compatibil ityHPCGu idel ines 2
Chapter 14 — General Guidelines
Accessibility
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with
accessibility laws.
The Meeting Hall will comply with current standards for accessibility.
Color
14.3 Keep color scheme simple.
14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more
successful than working with a variety of palettes.
The building is to be finished in white concrete or white stone cladding and
extensive use of glass. It will be a simple color/material scheme very much
in line with the other existing buildings.
Lighting
14.6 Exterior lights should be in color and intensity to that used
traditionally.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
14.8 Minimize the impact of light spill from the building.
The lighting scheme will follow the pattern of existing lighting on the
Meadows campus, which is minimal and low level. 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. The building does include some large areas of glass and care will be
taken to minimize light spill from these areas. We will pay particular
attention to making the light source not visible through these areas to the
extent feasible.
Mechanical Equipment & Service Areas
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
Service to the Meeting Hall is provided through a door on the side. Most of
the time the service requirements for this building will be limited given its
function primarily as a place for meetings. When food is served in the
building it will be prepared in the existing main kitchen in the Meadows
Restaurant and transported to the serve and catering kitchen in the basement
of this building by hand or golf cart. No new trash dumpsters will be
installed for this building and service vehicles will not come to the building
itself.
CompatibilityHPCGuidelines 3
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from
the public way.
The major mechanical equipment will be located in the basement. Supply
and exhaust air will be through unobtrusive areaways covered by grates or
through louvered openings on walls in areas that are not easy to see such as
the downhill side of the river face. Exhaust fans and plumbing vents will be
minimized and located in places that are difficult to see.
Signs
14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically.
14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize
architectural features.
14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs.
14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of
the site.
The Aspen Institute has an overall signage scheme. This includes a practice
of putting building names on or near individual buildings. Signs for this
building will be consistent with the overall Institute signage program. In
general they will be small scale and understated. The name for the building
may be somewhat larger, but will be in line with similar building names on
the campus.
CompatibiIityHPCGuidelines 4
EXHIBIT 3
Aspen Institute
Existing Program HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 07/11/00
Building
Floor Area
No. Units
No.
Name
(� )
1
Crown
8,658 s.f.
12 units
2
Arco
13,665 s.f.
20 units
3
not built
0 s.f.
0 units
4
Wexner
11,210 s.f.
18 units
5
Wachner
5,310 s.f.
8 units
6
Kreske
11,229 s.f.
16 units
7
Catto, Wittemore and Marolt
14,871 s.f.
24 units
Total existing floor area:
64,943 s.f.
Total existing units:
98 units
Aspen Meadows S.P.A. Allowance:
78,360 s.f.
110 units
Total allowable for Building 3:
13,417 s.f.
12 units
(') Based on measurements taken off of the Aspen Institute Meadow
Lodges Drawings issued by Backen Arrigoni & Ross. Inc. issued on
2/9/92.
Floor area measurements are taken from the exterior face of
framing
Floor area measurements exclude the following:
• On -grade and above -grade balconies/decks
• Unheated entry/stair cores.
EXHIBIT 4
SCHMUESER j GORDON I MEYER
ENGINEERS S SURVEYORS
August 17, 2004
Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
Crystal Palace Building
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO
81611
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
118 W. 6TH, SUITE 200
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
970-945- 1 004
FX: 970-945-5948
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 2 1 55
ASPEN, CO 81612
970-925-6727
FX: 970-925-4 1 57
RE: Aspen Meadows Property Conference and Meeting Hall Building Traffic Report
Dear Jim:
I am writing to provide a traffic analysis of the proposed conference and meeting hall
building at the Aspen Meadows that is the subject of a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
Amendment application to the City of Aspen. My comments and conclusions are the
result of an analysis of the proposed building uses and our discussions with the Aspen
Meadows staff regarding the rather extensive traffic mitigation measures that are already
in place on the property. I am generally of the opinion that the addition of the conference
and meeting hall, in and of itself, will not significantly increase traffic to and from the
Aspen Meadows since most attendees at various functions will be lodged at the
Meadows property.
Introduction
The Aspen Meadows Resort is located on Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision and
SPA at 845 Meadows Road in Aspen, Colorado. The property comprises 98 existing
lodge rooms, the existing Meadows Restaurant and Health Club and existing meeting
facilities including the Paepcke Auditorium, Koch Seminar Building and Boettcher
Building. The Aspen Meadows provides the lodging and meeting facilities for the Aspen
Institute as well as non -Institute conferences, groups and events on a parcel totaling
approximately 39.70 acres.
Primary vehicular access to the Aspen Meadows is via Seventh Street through a portion
of the West End residential neighborhood and Meadows Road. The property received
an SPA approval in 1991 that included some fairly extensive traffic mitigation
requirements that will be discussed further in this report. The Meadows property also
undertook significant road improvements between 1992 and 1994 that included the
construction of "New" Meadows Road from Seventh Street and virtually eliminated
Aspen Meadows — related traffic from the Eight Street corridor.
Traffic Analysis
One aspect of the traffic analysis for the Aspen Meadows property that I have been
forced to concede early -on is that the site and the proposed conference and meeting hall
Mr. Jim Curtis
Aspen Meadows Traffic Analysis
August 17, 2004
Page 2
building really defies conventional traffic generation analysis utilizing the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. The 98 lodge rooms function
in the manner of a "Hotel" with related meeting and conference space under the ITE
criteria. On that basis, however, the traffic generation is related to occupied rooms and
not necessarily the conference space(s). Traffic generation would therefore be
unaffected by the construction of additional conference / meeting space if the bed -base
is not increasing. It is also worth noting that hotels in the ITE manual, like the Aspen
Meadows, that focus on group conference activity have significantly lower traffic
generation rates than "Resort Hotels" where guests are leaving the site daily to take
advantage of off -site activities.
The key issue regarding the proposed conference and meeting hall building at the Aspen
Meadows is whether that facility will have a significantly greater impact on overall traffic
to and from the Meadows than the construction of 12 more lodge rooms approved, but
never constructed, in the 1991 SPA. The current proposal is to construct the conference
and meeting hall facility on the property instead of the 12 previously approved lodge
rooms. Construction of additional rooms in a "Hotel" operation that incorporates
conference facilities is a category that is addressed by the ITE Trip Generation manual.
The manual (6'h Edition) would suggest a trip generation rate of 8.92 average vehicle
trips per day per occupied room. On that basis, the construction of the 12 un-built lodge
rooms approved in 1991 could generate up to 107 vehicle trips per day in the absence of
any substantive traffic mitigation measures.
As I indicated in the introduction section, the 1991 SPA approval of the Aspen Meadows
Master Plan included a Traffic Mitigation Plan that was the result of the work of a
committee of individuals representing the Aspen Institute, the Music Associates of Aspen
(MAA), the local transit agency, residents of the neighborhood, a traffic consultant and
City of Aspen staff. I met with General Manager Eric Sather and Front Desk Manager
Lee Amory on August 4'h and found that all of the substantive aspects of the 1991 Traffic
Mitigation Plan for the West Meadows component have been implemented as follows;
a. Airport Van Service Airport arrival and departure times are logged with
reservations. Vans are dispatched automatically to pick up arriving guests at the
airport and return to the airport for departures. Staff estimates that 75% of
Meadows guests utilize the airport shuttle. Of the remaining 25%, approximately
half (12.5%) are guests arriving by car from the front range and half (12.5%)
obtain rental cars while in Aspen.
b. Town Van Service Available every half-hour from 8:00 am to 11-.00 pm. The
Aspen Meadows owns a total of five vans with a passenger capacity of between
10 and 15 people per van.
c. Van System by the Lodge Operator The van system is operated by the Aspen
Meadows Resort.
Mr. Jim Curtis
Aspen Meadows Traffic Analysis
August 17, 2004
Page 3
d. Chartered Vehicles Aspen Meadows van service is available for off -site group
activities by guests of the resort. When the van system is insufficient or in a
scheduling conflict, the Aspen Meadows has a reciprocal arrangement with
Colorado Mountain Express (CME).
e. Bicycles The Aspen Meadows has approximately 15 bicycles available for rental
and provides racks for their storage in the spring, summer and fall seasons.
f. Promotional Materials Attached are copies of the shuttle van schedule flyer and
an excerpt from the Aspen Meadows Resort brochure promoting the availability
of the shuttle van service.
g. Underground Garage The garage constructed under the tennis courts
accommodates up to 97 vehicles and is rarely, if ever, full.
h. Trail Easements Trail easements have been provided and trails have been
constructed to connect the Aspen Meadows to the Rio Grande trail across the
Roaring Fork River and to the West End summer pedestrian system.
i. Employee Transportation The Aspen Meadows provides Roaring Fork Transit
Agency bus passes to employees at an annual expense of $20,000.
j. Delivery Vehicles The Meadows has arranged to have their suppliers deliver to
the site at the end of their Aspen route, generally between 9:00 and 10.00 am.
Delivery vehicles access the property via Seventh Street and Meadows Road.
While we do not have site -specific traffic count data, my subjective observations while
visiting the Aspen Meadows property is that traffic is minimal and the shuttle van system
was very evidently in active operation.
Conclusions
The primary purpose of the proposed conference and meeting hall facility at the Aspen
Meadows is to increase the utilization of the existing 98 lodge rooms on the property.
Increasing the utilization of the existing lodge rooms will increase traffic proportionally
but would do so within the parameters of the 1991 approval and the existing traffic
mitigation measures of the Meadows.
From our discussions with the property managers, the Aspen Meadows hosts two broad
types of events at their conference facilities and meeting rooms. These include
conferences and events for out-of-town guests that generally stay at the Meadows and
"public" events such as the weekly Rotary Club meeting, weddings and occasional
memorial services. Conferences for guests of the Meadows are addressed by the traffic
mitigation program and fall within the parameters of the 1991 approval even if the new
building allows a higher utilization factor. Public events are harder to control relative to
i
i
i
Mr. Jim Curtis
Aspen Meadows Traffic Analysis
August 17, 2004
Page 4
arrival modes and do result in an occasional parking problem along Meadows Road. A
key question would be whether the Aspen Meadows would host significantly more
"public" type events as a result of the new conference and meeting hall building. The
answer in talking to General Manager Eric Sather would indicate that they may host a
few more public events over the course of the year as a result of the new facility but they
would not "double up" events in the various buildings due, in part, to simple staffing
limitations. In addition, if the new building achieves the primary goal of increasing
utilization of the on -site lodge rooms, all of the available conference and meeting rooms
will see increased utilization on that basis and availability for additional public events will
be limited.
One further mitigation measure suggested by the Meadows and included in the SPA
Amendment application is the conversion of the at -grade clay tennis courts to the south
of the existing parking structure to temporary event parking. This measure is proposed
to address the occasional overflow parking associated with larger public events on the
property. Based on the footprint of the tennis courts, it would appear that up to 50
vehicles could be accommodated on an occasional basis on the existing platform of the
two southerly at -grade tennis courts. Use of the south tennis courts for occasional
parking for larger public events would also require constructing an improved vehicular
access to the courts and replacement of the tall chain link fence with a less intrusive
wood fence around the perimeter. The Aspen Meadows also proposes to plant
additional trees along the east side of Meadows Road to further shield the temporary
parking area from view along the road.
I hope these comments are helpful with regard to the potential traffic impacts of
constructing the proposed conference and meeting hall facility at the Aspen Meadows. I
would generally conclude that additional traffic associated with events at the new facility
will be minimal in the context of potential traffic associated with the 12 additional lodge
rooms approved in 1991 that are not to be constructed. I am also of the opinion that the
Aspen Meadows has been diligent in implementing the traffic mitigation measures
required in the 1991 SPA approval and would anticipate that those programs will
continue to minimize traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and streets even
if the new facility is successful in improving utilization rates of the existing lodge rooms.
Very Truly Yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
tJaW. Hammond, P.E.
Principal. Aspen Office
JHIjh 96057TA
ASPEN * CO * USA
11
- '.j.�,i a .'14 •' ?ak - •
A � "
7 ,
• :y. a
y
.�• u R i � � .ems•' �:v{+.t 2� .. if �s }yy �� � . .
•.7r:•L fj`•IS
,�yr{'"1'�•F�+
�alip�p�,�j's� t,`XqV
f yt::,- �: 4�'xd,, •.yi•.t;f gt r"
• - C
• c
{-Iome of_tAspnrnpue,
ASPEN TOWN SHUTTLE:
8 : 00 AM 11: 00 PM departing from Bandar
Reception Building on the hour and half-hour
when requested.
For pick up - Please call 544-7826 from town
prior to the hour or half hour. Shuttle will only
depart if requested. Pickup and drop off are at
the Silver Circle Ice Rink and the Gondola
shortly after the hour & half-hour.
The last shuttle departs from the Aspen
Meadows at 11:00 PM.
AIRPORT SHUTTLE:
Please schedule 24 hours in advance with the
Guest Services Staff ext. 7826. Allow 1 Hour
and 15 minutes prior to flight time for all
airport shuttles.
O: FRONT OFFICE / FRONT DESK / SHUTTLESINFO.DOC
EXHIBIT 5
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
2004 Events for the Roarinp, Fork Valley Community
Adelson Art Gallery Exhibit Opening, January 3Td from 5 — 7pm featuring Anderson
Ranch Arts Center faculty. 1000 North 3Td Street, Aspen.
The Aspen Institute Dialogue is a monthly interview program produced for KAJX
Roaring Fork Public Radio featuring guests drawn from the Aspen Institute, selected
participants of the Institute's programs, and other accomplished visitors to the Aspen
Meadows campus. The interviews, address compelling topics of the day. This program
is aired on the first Thursday of each month at 12:30 pm on 91.5 fin.
January Community Great Ideas Seminar and High School Seminar
Following a half -century Aspen Institute tradition, this seminar will employ informed,
Socratic dialog to explore some of the core ideas and values that have arisen over
2500 years of human history. By better understanding our civilization's underlying
values and ideas — and how these evolved — we often clarify our own direction in
life ... and we become more effective as leaders.
Great Decisions Series (Tuesdays; February 3 — March 23; 7:30-9:30 pm) Participants
discuss key foreign policy issues presently facing the world that are outlined in the 2004
Foreign Policy Association briefing book. The fee for the eight -week series is $135 for
ACI members.
The Great Books Series (Wednesdays; February 11-March 31; 7:30-9:30 pm) draws
passionate readers together to talk about enduring issues and ideas. The fee for this eight -
week series is $145 for ACI members.
Great Books Foundation Workshop (February 5-6) The two-day Basic Leader Training
Course introduces participants to the shared inquiry method of reading and discussion.
The workshop is for people who plan to lead a Junior Great Books or adult Great Books
program; or anyone interested in improving their leadership and discussion skills.
Certification is available. $225 if registered by January 15.
The Moderator Training Workshop (February 7) -ACI moderators are required to
participate in this workshop. If you would like to participate please let us know.
February 13, 2004 Dinner with Ken Adelman at the home of Barbara and John
Gold "Change Management in Caesar's Rome, Saddam's Baghdad, and Bush's
Washington" $60 per person; 6pm Ken Adelman, a former U.N. Ambassador and
Arms Control Director in the Reagan Administration, is currently a member of the
Defense Policy Board.
February 23, 2004 Dinner with Harvey Sicherman, Ph.D. at the home of Marian
Davis $60 per person; 6pm Dr. Harvey Sicherman is President and Director of the
Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has extensive
experience in writing, research, and analysis of U.S. foreign and national security policy,
both in government and out. He served as Special Assistant to Secretary of State
Alexander M. Haig, Jr. (1981-82) and was a member of the Policy Planning Staff of
Secretary of State James A. Baker, III.
The Vision of the Founding Fathers: Are We Living Up To It?
March 17 at 5:30 pm in Paepcke Auditorium. Pulitzer Prize winners Joseph Ellis and
Gordon Wood, two of the nation's preeminent Colonial scholars, join in discussion with
Walter Isaacson about the vision of the founding fathers and where we are today. Free
and open to the public.
March 22, 2004 Dinner with Reggie Rivers at the home of Paula Paepcke Zurcher
"Leadership in Athletics and Life" $60 per person; 6pm
Reggie Rivers spent his entire six -year NFL career as a Denver Bronco. When he retired
from football, Reggie became an editorial columnist for the Denver Post, co -host of
Countdown to Kickoff on Channel 4, columnist for Pro Football Weekly, and host of
"Drawing the Line," a public affairs program on KBDI, Channel 12 in Denver that
focuses on Constitutional issues. Reggie has self -published two books and his third will
be released this fall.
June 6, 2004 ACI Dinner Discussion featuring The Honorable Ann Richards at the
home of Gerald Hosier $60 Governor Richards will be speaking on the topic of
"Osteoporosis and Health". Former Texas Governor Ann Richards advises Public
Strategies, Inc. in developing communications and public affairs strategies for corporate,
industry and non-profit clients.
An Evening of Words and Music featuring Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
columnist and three -time Pulitzer Prize winner, and Walter Isaacson, Aspen Institute
President and CEO, sharing the stage with David Finckel (cello), Wu Han (piano), and
student musicians from the Aspen Music Festival and School. Saturday, July 3, 2004,
4: 00 p.m., Benedict Music Tent. Tickets ($25, $50) available at Music Festival Box
Office, 970/925-9042. Limited -seating benefit dinner follows at the home of Laura and
Gary Lauder. For information, call 800/410-3463.
111h Annual Summer Celebration, featuring The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor,
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, for a public conversation and
dinner, Saturday, August 7; A panel discussion focused on US foreign policy featuring
Brent Scowcroft, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and special guest Robert S. McNamara, among
others. Walter Isaacson to moderate; to be followed by a private reception, Wednesday,
August 4; and a special film screening (to be announced), Thursday, August 5.
Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, August 4, 5, and 7, Aspen Meadows Campus.
Tickets required. Conversation only ticket: $15; available at the Music Festival Box
Office 970/925-9042.
Einstein: A Celebration --August 8-11, 2004
Join the Aspen Institute, in collaboration with the Aspen Center for Physics, to celebrate
the upcoming 100t' anniversary of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Through keynote
speakers, lively discussions, receptions, exhibits, and a concert, attendees will immerse
themselves in this iconic figure, exploring his vast impact on our world, from his
revolutionary science to his broad impact on international relations, arts and culture,
national security and beyond. Space is limited. Early registration is strongly
encouraged.For more information and to register, visit our website at
www.aspeninstitute.or enstein or call 970/544-7960.
Monday, July 19, 5:30- 6:30 p.m. Paepcke Auditorium
Conversation with Joel Achenbach and Michael Lewis moderated by Walter Isaacson.
Michael Lewis, author of several best-selling books, including Moneyball, W.W. Norton
& Company, 2003; a contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine.
Joel Achenbach, commentator for National Public Radio; staff writer for the Washington
Post; syndicated columnist; author of four books, including Captured by Aliens: The
Search for Life and Truth in a Very Large Universe, Simon & Schuster, 1999. Book
signing to follow. Free and open to the public.
Summer Speaker Series
The annual Summer Speaker Series convenes Tuesday evenings at 5:30-6:30 PM in
Paepcke Auditorium, 1000 N. P Street, Aspen, from June 29-August 19, 2004, unless
otherwise noted. The Series is free and open to the public.
June 29 Philip E. Coyle, senior advisor, Center for Defense; former assistant
secretary and director of Operational Test and Evaluation, US Department
of Defense (1994-2001)
"Car Bombs, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mini -Nukes, and Terrorism -
"ere is America going on homeland security and national defense? "
July 6 Robert Dallek, professor of History, Boston University; renowned scholar
on the US presidency and US history and foreign policy; author of
biographies of, among others, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy;
Nelson W. Polsby, Heller Professor of Political Science, University of
California, Berkeley; preeminent scholar on political behavior and
institutions
July 13 Gary Hart, former US Senator (D-CO); of Counsel, Coudert Brothers.
"Security in the New Age of the Twenty -First Century"
July 20 Martin Marty, Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor
Emeritus of the History of Modem Christianity, University of Chicago
Divinity School; author of the multi -volume work, Modern American
Religion, three volumes of which have appeared: The Irony offt All; The
Noise of Conflict, and Under God, Indivisible
July 27 Orville Schell, professor and dean, Graduate School of Journalism,
University of California, Berkeley; prolific writer and scholar on the
history and politics of Asia;
Richard Baum, professor of political science and director, Center for
Chinese Studies, UCLA
August 1 Amb. Dennis Ross, Secretary Madeleine Albright, Senator Dianne
Feinstein featured in a panel discussion with Walter Isaacson.
August 3 Sylvia Earle, noted marine biologist; Time magazine's first "hero for the
planet" (1998); former chief scientist, US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) "Sustainable Seas: The Vision and
the Reality"
August 12* WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE
A panel discussion moderated by Walter Isaacson featuring Imam Feisal
Abdul Rauf, leading Islamic expert; Elaine Pagels, award -winning
author, professor of religion, Princeton University (tentative); Rabbi Brad
Hirschfield, vice president, The National Jewish Center for Learning and
Leadership (CLAL); Peter Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian
Morals and Pusey Minister, The Memorial Church; member, Faculty of
Arts and Sciences and Faculty of Divinity, Harvard University. Co-
sponsored by the C6rdoba Initiative.
August 19* Dinesh D'Souza, Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow, Hoover Institution;
author of several books, including: What's So Great about America
(Regnery, 2002); senior domestic policy analyst, Reagan White House
Adelson Art Gallery in the Paepcke Building,1000 N. P St. Hours: Monday -
Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Robert Longo Exhibit, August 1 - 15, 2004
The powerful drawings of artist Robert Longo will be shown at the Aspen Institute as
part of the upcoming symposium on the life, work and influence of Albert Einstein.
Many thanks to Metro Pictures, Ed & Ann Hudson and Melva Bucksbaum & Raymond
Learsey for their help in bringing this world famous artist to Aspen. Opening held in
conjunction with opening reception for the Einstein Celebration on Sunday, August 8.
Steven Richter Photography Exhibit, August 20 - October 16, 2004
Iris prints of street life, from East Hampton to Angkor Wat (or Venice to Vietnam).
Opening: Friday, August 20.
For information, please call 970/544-7950.
Seminars
Executive Seminars:
May 14-21, June 18-25, July 16-23, August 13-20, and September 27-October 4.
Leadership Seminars:
Challenges of Global Capitalism, August 1-6.
Pursuing the Good Life, August 22-27.
For seminars information, please call 970/544-7915.
Justice and Society Seminars:
July 18-24, July 25-31.
For more information, please call 212/765-1927.
ACI Dinner Discussion featuring Dr. Irwin Stelzer at the Bass Residence, 150
Exhibition Lane, Highlands, Aspen. Friday, August 271h at 6pm. The Shape of the
Nation in the Run Up to the Election $60 per person includes cocktail reception and
catered dinner. Irwin Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute's
regulatory studies program. Prior to joining Hudson Institute in 1998, Stelzer was
resident scholar and director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute. He also is the U.S. economic and political columnist for The Sunday Times
(London) and The Courier Mail (Australia), and a contributing editor of The Weekly
Standard. His areas of expertise are economics, regulatory policy studies,
telecommunications and competitiveness.
October Community Great Ideas Seminar and High School Seminar
Following a half -century Aspen Institute tradition, this seminar will employ informed,
Socratic dialog to explore some of the core ideas and values that have arisen over
2500 years of human history. By better understanding our civilization's underlying
values and ideas — and how these evolved — we often clarify our own direction in
life ... and we become more effective as leaders.
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
2003 Events for the Roaring Fork Valley Community
January Community Great Ideas Seminar and High School Seminar
Following a half -century Aspen Institute tradition, this seminar will employ informed,
Socratic dialog to explore some of the core ideas and values that have arisen over 2500 years
of human history. By better understanding our civilization's underlying values and ideas —
and how these evolved — we often clarify our own direction in life ... and we become more
effective as leaders.
Winter Speaker Series: Free and Open to the Public
Carol Browner — February 131h at 6 p.m. Location: Koch Building
"Public Health and Environmental Protection: Where are we now? Where are we headed? "
Ken Adelman — March 171h at 6 p.m. Location: Paepcke Auditorium
"Crises Galore in the Middle East and North Korea: A Perspective from Inside Washington"
Special Event Featuring_ Keynote Address & Dinner Discussion:
March 26, 2003 "Body, Mind, Spirit: Exploring the Aspen Idea"
Candidate Forum for Mayoral and City Council Election
Adelson Art Gallery: December 22 — April 15, 2003
Featuring Native American corn husk bags and contemporary art from the private collection of
Melva Bucksbaum and Raymond Learsy. By appointment only.
June 23-25, 2003: Can Ethics Be Taught? A community discussion of where our ethical
positions originate, how and why we might choose to change them, and whether present efforts
might bring us a less scandal -ridden future. Participants will ask "When have I (if I ever have)
actually altered my moral stance as an adult? and why?"
The Aspen Institute Dialogue is a monthly interview program produced for KAJX Roaring Fork
Public Radio featuring guests drawn from the Aspen Institute, selected participants of the
Institute's programs, and other accomplished visitors to the Aspen Meadows campus. The
interviews, conducted by Amy Margerum, address compelling topics of the day. This program
is aired on the first Thursday of each month at 12:30 pm on 91.5 fin.
Film Debut, "Lines in Space: The Art of James Surls" -- Jules— In addition to the opening
honoring James Surls on July 3`d at 5:30 p.m., we will debut a documentary film on him July 17`h
at 6:30 p.m. in Paepcke Auditorium. The film, "Lines in Space: The Art of James Surls "
highlights this world renowned artist who has made his home in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Famous Conservationist Bill Lishman Lectures at Paepcke -- Noted film producer, artist,
inventor, and conservationist Bill Lishman will offer a special presentation featuring his current
work as Chairman of Operation Migration leading whooping cranes on a new migration. This
free public lecture takes place on Saturday, Jul.} 5, 4pm, at Paepcke Auditorium courtesy of the
Aspen Art Museum and Mark Richards in cooperation with the Aspen Institute. In the 1996 hit
Fly Away Home by Columbia Pictures, Jeff Daniels portrayed Mr. Lishman who, with his
daughter, facilitated the first southward migration of a group of orphaned Canada geese. Mr.
Lishman will also discuss his art and his earth integrated architecture.
Art Exhibit Opening FeaturingP_ hotographs of Music Greats — July 181h from 4-6p.m.
Located in the Hines Room, Kresge Building at the Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows campus,
the exhibit by acclaimed photographer Jim Arkatov will feature stunning photos of Igor
Stravinsky, Jascha Heifetz, Leon Fleisher, Isaac Stern, Midori, Dorothy De Lay, Ravi Shankar,
Lynn Harrell, Arthur Rubinstein, to name a few. The show will be displayed until August 14.
Special Events as part of the Summer Celebration
July 30: Special Film Screening hosted by Jack Valenti
July 31: America and the World, foreign policy panel
August 2: Summer Dinner
The annual Summer Speaker Series convenes Tuesday evenings at 6:30 PM in Paepcke
Auditorium, 1000 N.Third Street,Aspen, unless otherwise noted.The Series is free and open to
the public. This Series is generously sponsored by Gerald M. Levin.
July 1: Wolf Blitzer, award -winning anchor of CNN's nightly Wolf Blitzer Reports. "How the
World has Changed Since the Iraq War."
Reception with Grassroots TV Featuring Wolf Blitzer
July 8: Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University. A
distinguished anthropologist, writer and filmmaker actively involved in interfaith dialogue and
the study of global Islam. "Islam and The West: Dialogue of Civilizations?"
July 15: Kenneth W. Starr, law partner, Kirkland & Ellis; former Independent Counsel,
Whitewater Investigation; former Solicitor General of the US and US Circuit Court Judge for the
DC Circuit; author, First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life
(Warner Books) "The Supreme Court in American Life: Affirmative Action and Beyond. " *Book
signing to follow
July 22: Mary Robinson, director, Ethical Globalization Initiative; former President of Ireland;
former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Making Globalization Work for All the
World's People. "
July 29: Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association of America "Achilles In The White
House: Lyndon Johnson Triumphs and Tragedies, and Their Relevance to 2003. "
August 5: Michael M. Kaiser, president, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts "The
Ecology of the Arts."
August t 12: Much Ado About Berlioz — A fascinating panel discussion relating
the Berlioz opera, Beatrice et Benedict with its inspiration from Shakespeare's play, Much Ado
About Nothing, and the overriding themes surrounding both. Panel will include Berlioz scholar,
Peter Bloom; Shakespeare aficionados, Carol and Ken Adelman; Michael Stem,Opera Conductor
and Opera Director, Edward Berkeley.
July 3: Art Gallery Opening and Lecture Featuring James Surls (Paepcke Auditorium; 5:30 PM;
Lecture 6:30 PM)
July 12: Walter Isaacson, president and CEO, The Aspen Institute, will discuss his newly
released book, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (Simon & Schuster) — Co -sponsored by
Aspen Writers' Foundation (Paepcke Auditorium; 6:30- 7:15 PM) *Book signing before and
after lecture
July 25: The Individual vs. Community- In association with the Society of Fellows symposium
The Individual vs. Community, this panel discussion will feature experts from a variety of fields
who will discuss the relationship between individual rights and the demands of community.
Moderated by Bill Cathers. (Paepcke Auditorium; 5:30-7:00 PM)
August 1: A Wilder Look at Aspen's Rebirth — Thornton Wilder: Join us for this stimulating look
into the ideas of one of America's greatest playwrights, and his connection to Aspen. Featuring
distinguished director Richard Digby Day, this panel discussion will explore Wilder's
significance in the shaping of the `Aspen Idea'. This event is in collaboration with Theater
Masters. (Paepcke Auditorium; 5:00-6:00 PM)
August 2: Special Community Event— Featuring a lecture by The Hon. Stephen G. Breyer,
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, "Balancing National Security Interests
and Civil Liberties" (Aspen Music Tent; 5:30-6:45 PM)
August 17-18: Modern Leadership Lessons from Shakespeare —This fun -filled, interactive
seminar features clips from three popular films of Henry Vth. Participants will learn strategic
planning, ethics, motivation, changing roles, persuasion, and other key leadership qualities to
apply in today's businesses, nonprofits, communities, and families.
October, 2003
Inception of Local Community Membership program "ACI" (Aspen Community and the
Institute) This membership program gives contributors discounts on community programs and
invitation to the Dinner Discussion Series.
ACI Dinner Discussion with Walter Isaacson at the home of Lome and Larry Winnerman.
December 16th at 7 p.m. $60.
A Special Evening with The Honorable Madeleine Albright In collaboration with the Aspen
Writers' Foundation, The Aspen Institute co -presents the former Secretary of State in a talk and
book signing in honor of her recent memoir, Madam Secretary. Monday, December 22, 5:30 pm.
Paepcke Auditorium. ACI members are eligible for early ticket purchase starting December 1.
Tickets, $15, are available at the Wheeler Box Office 970/920-5770.
EXHIBIT 6
August 23, 2004
Mr. James Lindt
Community Development Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Owner's Authorization and Consent
Aspen Meadows Property
Conference & Meeting Hall Building
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment Application
Dear James:
I hereby authorize and consent to the filing of the above referenced Land Use
Application. Jim Curtis and Jeff Berkus are authorized to represent the application.
Respectfully,
Am r
Ex �agerum
ve Vice President
The Aspen Institute
Li ndtAuthorizati onMargerum
EXHIBIT 7
August 23, 2004
Mr. James Lindt
Community Development Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to Filing of Land Use Application
Conference & Meeting Hall Building
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment Application
Dear James:
Portions of Lot 5 of the Aspen Meadows SPA Subdivision are proposed for site
improvements and landscaping as part of the above referenced Land Use Application.
Lot 5 is generally referred to as the "Aspen Meadows Townhomes." The townhome
owners and the Aspen Institute have had discussions concerning the site improvements
and landscaping. At this time, a final plan for the site improvements and landscaping has
not been agreed upon, but both parties agree it is in everyone's interest to "clean-up and
landscape" the parking and entrance area of Lot 5. Both parties are confident a final plan
will be mutually agreed upon in a timely fashion. Therefore, the Lot 5 townhome owners
consent to the inclusion of portions of Lot 5 in the above referenced Land Use
Application and to the filing of the Application.
Respectfully,
J.dhn S resident
Aspen Meadows
Townhome Owners Association
LindtConsentLUASarpaConf&MeetHall
EXHIBIT 8
MUSIC ASSOCIATION OF ASPEN AND ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS CONSENT
(Submitted to Planning Office under Separate Cover)
EXHIBIT 9
Account:
Tax Year:
Parcel:
Mill Levy:
Estimated Tax:
PROPERTY PROFILE
R014027 Account Type:
2004 Version:
273512129008
30.026000
Area ID:
APR District:
Status:
* This Mill Levy is from the most recent tax roll
ASPEN INSTITUTE INC
1000 NORTH THIRD ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
321
rt.:. n:'7
1000 N THIRD ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
Assessment n orma ion
2694
20040426000
001
0
SUB:ASPEN MEADOWS LOT:1-A
\ 403019
t
\ 40302Z' - -
231832 \
\ t
407001 \ U6001
1 \ �., � �z .,
/ 407002
407003
LJ
407004
j — (407005'
107851 e
Pi
tkin Res
v. \
0 \
239001
ustee ado
M AUUW50U �•' �� _
II
y�4 -
.ice-� r{•� �� /'r �J .
s en Meadows
' LOT 1-A \ "
231003
129008
r r
t�
2a4002
_ ; 129a09
2a4001 Aspen !41bad 's
-'1
235005`� 201001'_
r
201007
' +t
Snobble
Dean Split 201003
23 '4
235006
I
282001,
Pine Ho low 18 6
Ql 2002 + rdo .kb, 1 POW
\ 6aar
zOzrin2
EXHIBIT 10
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Jim Curtis, Representative for Aspen Institute
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for SPA Amendment
(hereinafter, THE PROTECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that
APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed
to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their
hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity
and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are
incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to
process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project
consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of $ which is for _ hours of Community Development
staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional
monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit.
Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees
that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case
will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
1/10/01
APPLICANT
By: Jim Curtis
Date: Sept. 1, 2004
Mailing Address:
300 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, Co. 81611
EXHIBIT 11
ASPEN INSTITUTE INC
ESTRIN CARRICO FAMILY TRUST
FELDER RICHARD B & DEBORAH S
1000 NORTH THIRD ST
101 FIRST ST #508
11498 E CAROL WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259-2620
BAIRD STEPHEN W & SUSAN MERRITT
HOFFMAN LARRY J & DEBORAH
SMITH VICTORIA LEA
SMI
SMI
TRUSTEES
1221 BRICKELL AVE
1160 PARK AVE
120 S LASALLE ST
MIAMI, FL 33131
NEW YORK, 10128
CHICAGO, IL 60603
CITY OF ASPEN
SMOOKE BARRY 75% INT
LAMM RICHARD D
130 S GALENA ST
155 5TH ANITA
1700 LINCOLN ST #4000
ASPEN, CO 81611
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
DENVER, CO 80203
WING KAREN J
MILE HIGH HOLDING CO
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC
18351 KUYKENDAHL #457
1991 E ALAMEDA AVE #9
2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD
SPRING, TX 77379
DENVER, CO 80209
ASPEN, CO 81611-8500
VESTAMERICA INC
BREMER MALCOLM H & ANGELIKA S
SHERMAN HARRIS D
3102 N OAKLAND ZION RD
3263 AVALON PLACE
370 17TH ST STE 4500
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703
HOUSTON, TX 77019
DENVER, CO 80202-5647
WRIGLEY WILLIAM JR RESIDUARY
COLGATE S A & R W TRST
HOLMES ROBERT & AUDREY
TRUST
422 ESTANTE
45 BERMUDA RD
400 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1100
LOS ALAMOS, NM 87544
WESTPORT, CT 00880
CHICAGO, IL 60611
FORD MERRILL M & FREDERICK C III
PITKIN COUNTY
SHIELDS ROBERT L 13.5% INT
51 MEADOWS TRUSTEE RD #51
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
5750 OAK CREEK LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
LITTLETON, CO 80121
GORDON SHELDON M & CHRISTINE E
HARRIS ROBERTA H
MARKALUNAS JAMES J & RAMONA 1
6 GLENVILLE ST
6 LONGFELLOW PARK
624 W NORTH ST
GREENWICH, CT 06831-3638
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS GANTZEL JOAN & STEEN GORSUCH JEFFREY S 48.935010 INT
700 E GILLESPIE 705 MEADOWS RD 707 W NORTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
SARPA JOHN G & JAN JONES SARPA WELLS JANE I & JONATHAN R AULD ROBERT H & CAROL C
71 MEADOWS #7 721 W NORTH ST 730 W SMUGGLER AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST BARABE CAROLYN CERISE JAMES M
734 W SMUGGLER 790 CASTLE CREEK DR 790 CASTLE CREEK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDRICH REV TRUST MELINDA LRM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WALDECK VIVIAN G
825 W NORTH ST 8540 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVE 915 W NORTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1173 MIAMI, FL 33143 ASPEN, CO 81611-1171
REED PRESLEY 0 & PATRICIA CHOUMAS JOHN JAMES & PATRICIA G JACKSON LAND COMPANY
999 8TH ST BLDG 300 BAYS 313-314 C/O FRANNIE DITTMER & STEVE
BOULDER, CO 80302 1601 E OLYMPIC BLVD SPECTOR LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90021 150 S WACKER DR STE 1200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
817 W NORTH LLC 630 MEADOWS COLORADO TRUST KENROSS LUX S A
C/O GARY A WRIGHT C/O GOULD & RATNER/JXC C/O HANK HOLT
715 WEST MAIN 222 N LASALLE ST SUITE 800 3765 CHAMPION BLVD
ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60601 WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27115
HOLLENBECK FAMILY 50% SHIELDS ARLENE M ESTATE OF 23% COVENTRY JANE
C/O KATHY SHIELDS WIDLUND C/O KATHY SHIELDS WIDLUND C/O LA SALLE JOHN D
5256 E MINERAL CR 7203 S HARRISON WAY 675 MEADOWS RD
CENTENNIAL, CO 80122 LITTLETON, CO 80122 ASPEN, CO 81611
DUNCAN DAVID GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR TRUST DITTMER THOMAS H TRUST
C/O LA SALLE JOHN D C/O SILVER VENTURES INC C/O STEVEN SPECTOR LLC
675 MEADOWS RD 5121 BROADWAY 150 S WACKER DR ST 1200
ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 CHICAGO, IL 60606
DIGIGLIA LE RAY CAMALOTTA ENTERPRISES LTD IBH PROPERTY TRUST
DIGIGLIA JOHN WILLIAM DUNCAN C/O HARRIS IRVING B TRUSTEE
PO BOX 4305 675 MEADOW RD 191 N WACKER DR #1500
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60606-1899
KELLY FAMILY LTD ROSE ALLAN V FERGUSON JAMES & ESTHER
KELLY JOHN THOMAS C/O ONE EXECUTIVE BLVD PO BOX 1457
533 E HOPKINS YONKERS, NY 10701 CHARLESTON, SC 29402
ASPEN, CO 81611
GALLUCCIO VINCENT MORRIS JOHN S JR HANSEN SALLY
PO BOX 8065 PO BOX 8991 PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
MARQUSEE CHARLES B WESTVIEW HOLDINGS LLC
PO DRAWER X 5121 BROADWAY
BOCA RATON, FL 33429 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209
EXHIBIT 12
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE 7/7/04
?ROJECT: Meadows SPA Amendment
ZEPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
DWNER: Aspen Institute
FYPE OF APPLICATION: SPA Amendment, Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facility
DESCRIPTION: As part of the original Meadows Subdivision/SPA approvals, fifty (50) new lodge units not to
exceed a gross interior square footage of 42,410 square feet were approved. All but twelve (12) of
the allotted lodge units and 13,417 square feet were built. The Aspen Institute now would like to
amend the Meadows SPA to use the left over lodge square footage to construct a conference
facility to seat approximately 250 people.
.and Use Code Section(s)
l6.304.060(B) Combined Review
!6.440.090(B) Consolidated Specially Planned Area Amendment
!6.470.070(H) GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facility
(eview by: Staff for complete application; referral agencies for technical considerations (Development Review
Committee Meeting); Historic Preservation Commission for formal referral on the design, Planning and
Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on SPA Amendment and GMQS Amendment.
City Council shall be the final review. authority regarding the proposed requests.
'ublic Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance.
'lanning Fees: $2,620 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $220 per hour)
'.eferral Fees: Engineering $355, Housing $355
'otal Deposit: $3,330
'o apply, submit the following information:
Total Deposit for review of application.
Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address,
and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Completed City of Aspen Land Use
Application Form.
Letter of consent to apply from a person or persons owning more than 50% of the property within the Aspen Meadows SPA.
Signed fee agreement.
Pre -application Conference Summary.
An 8 1/2" x I I" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen.
Proof of ownership.
Site Improvement Survey.
Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- 11"x 17").
1. Proposed floor plans (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- 1 I "x 17").
Proposed elevation plans. (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- 11"x 17")
A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review
standards relevant to the development application.
Traffic Study performed by a licensed engineer.
List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels
for a small fee. 920.5453
Copies of relevant prior approvals.
Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the
following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred.
Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
40 Copies of the complete application packet (items 2-13)
mess:
ply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application is then referred to applicable referral agencies (a Development
view Committee meeting is held). The Historic Preservation Commission will then provide formal referral comments on the
;ign at a regular HPC meeting. Subsequently, the Applicant is then assigned a public hearing date before the Planning and Zoning
mmission by Staff. Staff then writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a
ommendation to City Council on requests. City Council makes final determination in the form of an ordinance.
claimer:
foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
ject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
nl or vested right.
i \
RUV
HT
FOND
Pikoposw
���� / w few \ '"� 1`^ ` •%�•~ �%k' � '� 1
POOL
✓ �. ''� � \ .� , /. ~ \ t 1. \ �
EVENT
MEADOW \ sMvl®
mww
w
IMPROVED
PARKING /
LOT
/
ems, i i
Y
PROPOSED
DROP OFF AND
TURN AROUND /
/
WEXNER
BUILDING
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Center
SitePlan
I Jeffrey Ilerkus Architects I
10.04.04
WATER
ELEMENT
WATER
S(11 TRCE
it
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Center
Main Level
9900 S.F.
.Irfl'rey Herkus Architects
10.04.04
FIRE
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Center
Upper Level
1,200 S.F.
Jeffrey Rerknc Architects
10-05.04
The Aspen Institute
Doerr - Hosier
Center
Lower Level
10,289 S.F.
907 S.F. F.A.R.
,leffrey Rerkus Architects
10-04-04
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
CASE NUMBER 0057.2004.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735-12-1-29-008
PROJECT ADDRESS 845 MEADOWS RD
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
AMY
GUTHRIE
CONFERENCE & MEETING HALL BUILDING, APP. FOR SPA AM
JIM CURTIS 920-1395
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 12/22/20
CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll
File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Tab Help
.Conditions Sub
Permits Yaluation Public Comment
Liam l Rolling Status Arch&ng Parcels i Custom Flelds ( Fee,{ I Fee Summary Actions I Routing Histcay
Perrrr� Type aslu __ Aspen Land Use 2004
- Permit 1t 0%7.2004ASLU A
Q
Adt*ess
T� Apt/Sute
City ASPEN
State�� zip 81611
Permit Information _.__ __
_ _ ------
Master Permit
Rautrg Queue I's" Applied 09/13/2004
•^
Project
Status Fp;;Fk; Approved I J
Description CONFERENCE b MEETING HALL BUILDING,APP. FOR SPA AMENDMENT TO Issued F-3€
!ASPEN MEADOWS 1991 SPA PLAN Final
Subrrntted IM CURTIS 920.1395
Clock Rurrrrg Days 0 Expres 09/08/2005
a-- Vabe on the web?
Permit ID: r 31566
Owner
--
Last Name JASPEN INSTITUTE �I
Fist Name �
1000 N THIRD ST
1ASPEN CO 81611
Phone ?(970) 925-7010
r4 OwnerlsApplicant?
___
Applicant-- ..... .........____._._._.
......_...___ ��._.___
Last Name AASPEN INSTITUTE _�
Ffrst Nana 11000
N THIRD ST
rx .. t41�7n�a imn - raw»
_._
PEN CO81611
c
>
Nei the perrrnt description Record: 1 of 1
AMENDMENT
TO
ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY
PLA FD AREA U VELUFMEPI1 & aUM.P1Vlntvt1 t�vitrlc,iici. i w uiauc
this day of �ll' , 2005, between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a
municipal corporation, THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, INC., MUSIC ASSOCIATES
OF ASPEN d/b/a ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL AND SCHOOL, AND ASPEN
CENTER FOR PHYSICS.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development &
Subdivision Agreement was recorded in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County, Colorado, on January 24, 1992, in Book 667 at Page 731, at Reception No.
340937 (the "SPA Agreement"), and
WHEREAS, the recording of the SPA Agreement was the culmination of
numerous public hearings on the adoption of a Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows, as
well site -specific development approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute was granted various development approvals
including approval for 110 new and renovated lodge units totaling 78,360 gross interior
square feet. The Aspen Institute has constructed and renovated 98 lodge units totaling
64,943 square feet to date; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute retained the vested rights for the development of
the 12 unbuilt lodge units (Building #3 on Lot 1A) as set forth by Aspen City Council
Resolution No. 47 (Series of 2003); and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the Aspen Institute submitted an SPA
Amendment Application including an Amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
Exemption For An Essential Public Facility to the Aspen Community Development
Department to not build the 12 remaining lodge units and to convert the remaining
unbuilt 13,417 square feet to a Conference & Meeting Hall and to reserve approximately
1,500 square feet for future expansion of the Aspen Meadows Health Center, (the
"Development Proposal"); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the
Development Proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review criteria
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code"); and
II 509066
SPAAmendment Page: 1 of 9 04/ 18/2005 10 : 161
Il{141
11{{1N{ Illl {{Il{{ 1N
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 0 0.00
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and considered the
Development Proposal at its regular meetings of October 13 and October 27, 2004, and as
a referral agency recommended approval of the Development Proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the Development Proposal on November 16, 2004, in accordance with
Sections 26.440.080 and 26.470.120 of the Code, and reviewed and considered the
Development Proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review criteria
of the Code, and recommended approval of the Development Proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council conducted a public hearing on the
Development Proposal on December 13, 2004, in accordance with Sections 26.440.080
and 26.470.120 of the Code, and reviewed and considered the Development Proposal in
°1 ® accordance with all applicable procedures and review criteria of the Code, and approved
(O o m
i,p m m Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 2004) approving the Development Proposal.
0 N N
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the SPA Agreement is hereby amended
to provide as follows:
1. Applicant shall abide by the provisions of Aspen City Council Ordinance No.
45 (Series of 2004), incorporated herein and attached hereto.
2 Applicant shall record an Amended SPA Plat in accordance with Aspen City
Council Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 2004). Said plat is recorded in Plat Book
_ at Page_ as Reception No. sp?p IC7t in the Office of the
Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
3. All other provisions of the SPA Agreement shall remain unchanged.
i a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and seals the day
a and date first above written.
r J
—� ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a munic r on
Kathryn S. ch City Clerk elen K. Kland zd, ayor
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, INC.,
a C rado corer on
Amy M crum, Chiefon. & Admin. Officer
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN d/b/a ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS
ASPE111MUSIQ F'ESTIWL MSOWOOL�
By: _
fJa�neA- Kelly, Admin. T-President
By:
SPA Amendment zw?-�, A
fIIIIII 509066
STATE OF COLORADO IIIII Page: 3 of 9
) IIII IIIII llllll Illlll IIIII 11II1 III Illl
S IIIII 04, ILVIR DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 18/2003 10. 161
)§ R 46.00 0 0.00
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this eday ofAnyi
2005, by Helen K. Klanderud, as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a munici al
corporation.
Witness my hand and of.
My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO )
)§
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was
2005, by Amy Margerum, as Chief Flnc
Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires: c�
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
me this L9'%y of MCWC/11 ,
ive Officer of the Aspen Institute,
r ( YVW
Notary Pub4
./
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9\,, clay of lhQxc�,
2005, by Don Roth, as President & CEO of Music Associates of Aspen d/b/a Aspen Music
Festival and School.
Witness my hand and official
My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
V
e. Y PVe
j•. i
)�� tf CRISTAL
��,� `' .. • Pg LOGAN
E OF'CQ�,O
The foregoing instrument was ackn e ged before me this U2iay of
2005, by Jane A. Kelly as Administrative Vice -President oYAspen Center For Physics.
Notary
Witness my hand and official seal !
My commission expires:61V�
Notary Publi
SPAAmendment
11111 Hill 506235
Page: 1 of 6
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111101/
z
1D 0
SILVIq DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO OS 10.05
R 3],00 D 0.00
ORDINANCE NO.45
(SERIES OF 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY
PLANNED AREA (SPA) AND AN AMENDMENT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE'S
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY TO ALLOW FOR
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LODGE BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A
CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL, 845 MEADOWS ROAD, LOT IA OF THE
ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION/SPA, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
Parcel No. 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from The Aspen Institute ("Applicant") requesting an amendment to the Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
exemption for an Essential Public Facility to allow for the construction of a Conference
and Meeting Hall on Lot 1 A, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute has provided written consent to apply for a SPA
Amendment from the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics per
the requirements for an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA; and,
f WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, zoned the subject
rW property to Academic with a SPA Overlay and approved the fina
l nal SPA development plan
subject to this amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council
may approve an amendment to a Specially Planned Area during a duly noticed public
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
made at a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering comments from the general
public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and
recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, City Streets Department, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City
Council approve an SPA amendment to the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
(SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS exemption for an essential
public facility to allow for the construction of a Conference and Meeting Hall in the place
of the unbuilt lodge structure on Lot 1 A, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
1 111111111111I
Page: 4 of 509066 9
lllllllll
04, .
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 18D 0.0 10.18E
R 46.00 D 0.00
I ll�lll � i 506235
111 �I I Page: 2 of 6
IIII llll 1 IINIIIIII 11l�1 !llllll If 01.2 , I l l! � 2 111 005
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 10.05
R 31.00 0 0.00
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That City Council hereby approves an SPA amendment for the Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
Exemption for an essential public facility to allow for the construction of a Conference
and Meeting Hall on Lot I of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA, with the following
conditions:
A amended SPA agreement representing the changes to the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision/SPA discussed herein shall be recorded at the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final
approval by City Council .
2. An amended SPA Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval by City Council
shall include the following:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing: easements, encroachment agreements and licenses (with the
reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility
pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed
improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional
requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
3. The dimensional requirements approved for the Conference and meeting
Hall are as follows:
llllll Illll llllll l llll I lli lllll llllll 111lllll IIII ill! Page: �66 90:161
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.00
2
III III llll II 11 III Illlll III IIII IIII III II Illl I III506235
Page: 3 of
6
01,ZI,2010.05SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 0.00 4. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution, as well
as the Final HPC Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building
permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
d. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for
stream margin protection. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of
silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can
provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt
fence and straw bales placed in a manner preventing erosion and
protect the river from residual run-off.
e. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for
Construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will
take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles
so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and remain
protected.
f. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree
Protection. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by
the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any
construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of
materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot
or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There
should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan.
g. Proposed art wall will need to be identified on site plans and
constructed in a manner that impacts the least amount of existing
vegetation. Construction plan for wall shall include tree removals and
protection.
h. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and landscape plan
reviewed by Parks Department
i. A restoration plan should be developed for the disturbed areas around
the terrace and patio.
j. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a
Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and
debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
I IIIIII I1i11 IIIIII IIIII IIII Illill IIIIII 111 IIIII IIIIIII 090:161
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 0 0.00
II!� 506235
II Page; 4 of 6
IIj(
Ill Illl Illlll illl Illl Illlll Illlll IIIII I el llllil ,_ , I 12
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 0. 10 05
R 31.00 D 0.00
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to
correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in
designing any drainage improvements.
k. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements
specified in Condition No. 9 included herein.
A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Health Department, as detailed in Condition No. 4
included herein.
5. Throughout the structure, the Applicant shall install a fire alarm system
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also install
a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community
Development Director stating that all conditions of approval have been
read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks
Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the
agreement.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Health Department a fugitive
dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
disturbed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud
o, that has been carried out, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown
09 dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. This shall be
r- N o required with the submittal for building permits.
CO
t@ a m 8. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards,
with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by
the City of Aspen Water Department.
s
9. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains)
to sanitary sewer lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall
�Z
require the use of a pumping station.
10. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is
~� a limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday.
r j
r
J_
N
4
! I I 506235
IIII �II Page: 5 of 6
IIIIIIIIII if Ili lilli 111 II� 91 /21 / IIII III 2005 10 . 05
SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00
I1. There will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public
rights -of -way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City
Engineer. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a full set of construction
management plans that are consistent with the City Construction Management
Plan Guidelines at the time of building permit submittal.
12. The Applicant shall submit a food service plan for review by the
Environmental Health Department and obtain a food service license if
required, prior to serving food from the catering kitchen. If determined to be
necessary by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Applicant shall
install an oil and grease interceptor in the catering kitchen.
13. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as may be amended
from time to time.
14. The applicant has agreed to meet with representatives of the Pitkin Green
Homeowner's Association to discuss screening measures for the new building.
Section 2
That the 1,500 undeveloped square feet remaining from the Conference and Meeting Hall
(given it's slightly smaller dimensions than the previously approved lodge structure) be
reserved for future expansion of the Health Club located on the same campus, subject to a
Substantial SPA Amendment.
Section 3•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
509066
IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIll111 IIIIIIIIIIII !II II1I1 !�!! IIII Page: 04/ 18/2005 10 : 161
!!II
SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.00
I��ill IIIII III � I ��I IIIII IIIII IIIII I�� I��II IIII I��I O60
6 5
0 10 .0S
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of December, 2004, at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22"d day of November, 2004.
t'4s '
Kathryn $' ' h, City Clerk
rA
"'.• `, .
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this F3 day of 004.
At_
Approved as to form:
r
Rl
- -�.. I-.Ae
4elenayor
ORDINANCE NO. 45
(SERIES OF 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY
PLANNED AREA (SPA) AND AN AMENDMENT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE'S
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY TO ALLOW FOR
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LODGE BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A
CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL, 845 MEADOWS ROAD, LOT 1A OF THE
ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION/SPA, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
Parcel No. 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from The Aspen Institute ("Applicant") requesting an amendment to the Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
exemption for an Essential Public Facility to allow for the construction of a Conference
and Meeting Hall on Lot IA, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute has provided written consent to apply for a SPA
Amendment from the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics per
the requirements for an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA; and,
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, zoned the subject
property to Academic with a SPA Overlay and approved the final SPA development plan
subject to this amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council
may approve an amendment to a Specially Planned Area during a duly noticed public
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
made at a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering comments from the general
public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and
recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, City Streets Department, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City
Council approve an SPA amendment to the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
(SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS exemption for an essential
public facility to allow for the construction of a Conference and Meeting Hall in the place
of the unbuilt lodge structure on Lot 1 A, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
1
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That City Council hereby approves an SPA amendment for the Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
Exemption for an essential public facility to allow for the construction of a Conference
and Meeting Hall on Lot I of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA, with the following
conditions:
1. A amended SPA agreement representing the changes to the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision/SPA discussed herein shall be recorded at the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final
approval by City Council.
2. An amended SPA Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval by City Council
shall include the following:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing: easements, encroachment agreements and licenses (with the
reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility
pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed
improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional
requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
3. The dimensional requirements approved for the Conference and meeting
Hall are as follows:
Maximum Height
Per Final SPA Plans
Trash Access Area
Per Final SPA Plans
Allowable External FAR
11,917 SF
Per the Meadows SPA approved
Minimum Off -Street
pursuant to Ordinance No. 14, Series
Parking
of 1991
2
4. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution, as well
as the Final HPC Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building
permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
d. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for
stream margin protection. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of
silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can
provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt
fence and straw bales placed in a manner preventing erosion and
protect the river from residual run-off.
e. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for
Construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will
take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles
so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and remain
protected.
f. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree
Protection. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by
the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any
construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of
materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot
or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There
should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan.
g. Proposed art wall will need to be identified on site plans and
constructed in a manner that impacts the least amount of existing
vegetation. Construction plan for wall shall include tree removals and
protection.
h. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and landscape plan
reviewed by Parks Department
i. A restoration plan should be developed for the disturbed areas around
the terrace and patio.
j. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a
Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and
debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
3
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to
correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in
designing any drainage improvements.
k. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements
specified in Condition No. 9 included herein.
A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Health Department, as detailed in Condition No. 4
included herein.
5. Throughout the structure, the Applicant shall install a fire alarm system
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also install
a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community
Development Director stating that all conditions of approval have been
read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks
Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the
agreement.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Health Department a fugitive
dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
disturbed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud
that has been carried out, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown
dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. This shall be
required with the submittal for building permits.
8. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards,
with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by
the City of Aspen Water Department.
9. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains)
to sanitary sewer lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall
require the use of a pumping station.
10. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday.
M
11. There will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public
rights -of -way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City
Engineer. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a full set of construction
management plans that are consistent with the City Construction Management
Plan Guidelines at the time of building permit submittal.
12. The Applicant shall submit a food service plan for review by the
Environmental Health Department and obtain a food service license if
required, prior to serving food from the catering kitchen. If determined to be
necessary by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Applicant shall
install an oil and grease interceptor in the catering kitchen.
13. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as may be amended
from time to time.
14. The applicant has agreed to meet with representatives of the Pitkin Green
Homeowner's Association to discuss screening measures for the new building.
Section 2•
That the 1,500 undeveloped square feet remaining from the Conference and Meeting Hall
(given it's slightly smaller dimensions than the previously approved lodge structure) be
reserved for future expansion of the Health Club located on the same campus, subject to a
Substantial SPA Amendment.
Section 3•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
E
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of December, 2004, at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22" d day of November, 2004.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
day of , 2004.
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- SPA Amendment and
Amendment to GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility, Second
Reading of Ordinance #45, Series of 2004
DATE: December 13, 2004
PROJECT:
Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall
APPLICANT:
The Aspen Institute, with consent to apply from the
Music Association of Aspen and the Aspen Center for
Physics, represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and
Jim Curtis.
ADDRESS:
845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID:
2735-121-29-008.
REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting an SPA Amendment and
Amendment to an existing GMQS Exemption for an
Essential Public Facility, in order to construct a new
conference facility and meeting hall at the Aspen
Institute.
EXISTING ZONING:
Academic with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay.
STAFF
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
recommend that Council approve this application as
outlined in the attached Ordinance. This project will
bring additional viability to the Institute's operations,
which is of benefit to the whole community.
P&Z
P&Z recommended that Council approve this project by
RECOMMENDATION:
a 5-0 vote, including one additional condition, which has
been incorporated into the Ordinance as condition 14.
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics
received approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus
through designation as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). The Aspen Institute acted on
1
some of its development rights, but did not construct the last of the series of lodge
buildings that had been planned. This building was to be located between the structure
known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The Institute has recently
determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve overall
occupancy of their existing lodge units and amenities, and therefore has applied for an
SPA Amendment to convert the unbuilt lodge approval into a Conference and Meeting
Hall. There will be no reduction in the number of existing lodge rooms. The applicant
also plans some minor improvements to vehicular circulation and landscaping on the
property. City Council shall make a final decision on the requested SPA Amendment and
GMQS Exemption Amendment after considering a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
This project has been reviewed and endorsed by the Historic Preservation Commission
per their attached resolution. HPC participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic, including the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. The area where the
new conference building will be sited is not designated. The board appreciated the
opportunity to provide referral comments on the application given the historical
significance of the Aspen Institute campus.
SPA AMENDMENT
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The project does not meet the criteria stated in Municipal
Code Section 26.440.090(A), Amendment to SPA Development Order, for an
insubstantial administrative amendment, therefore it must 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 final development review and approval. Note that the application
included a request to consolidate the Amendment review into one joint meeting between
the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, but this was not supported by
Community Development Staff. Therefore, the application must proceed through the
Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council for final approval.
According to Section 26.440.090.C, during the review of an SPA amendment, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may require such conditions of
approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current
community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions
of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended, any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented
since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments. The
applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review process.
2
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicable review criteria for an SPA Amendment are attached as "Exhibit A." The
Institute requests approval of an SPA amendment to convert an allocation for 12 lodge
units up to 13,417 square feet in size into a Conference and Meeting Hall. The new
building is to be constructed in the same location that the unbuilt lodge units were
approved to be constructed within the SPA. The additional lodge units no longer meet
the needs of the Institute, who feel that the lack of a more central and larger meeting area
is a challenge to their success. The project will still leave 1,500 square feet undeveloped,
which the Institute wishes to reserve for future expansion of the Health Club under a
separate review. An SPA amendment and GMQS Exemption will need to be processed at
that time, specific to the plan that is developed, however the applicant requests assurance
that the square footage remains available, assuming that review criteria will be met. This
provision has been included in the ordinance.
The Applicant has provided a detailed discussion of the Institute's current facilities and
needs. Staff agrees with their conclusion that better occupancy of the existing lodge units
is important and that the new conference facility is likely to provide that opportunity. In
addition, evidence is presented in the application to support a finding that the new
building will create similar development impacts as were previously anticipated, for
instance in the area of traffic generation, since the project is primarily being undertaken to
increase occupancy of existing hotel rooms. These impacts have already been addressed
through the successful implementation of a traffic management plan. The amendment
does not appear to result in any additional costs to public facilities or environmental
concerns.
HPC has reviewed the architecture of the new building over the course of four meetings.
This context is very sensitive to new development, which, if mishandled, could compromise
the integrity of the site. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a
manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful
stewardship of the property be maintained, which staff believes will be the outcome of the
new Conference Center and Meeting Hall project. There are no prescribed dimensional
requirements for this project, other than the maximum square footage, because it has been
designated an SPA.
The applicant is also proposing the reconfiguration of a portion of a pond near the
conference building, and the selective removal of some trees around the pond, both for
the health of the landscape and for the restoration of the earlier appearance of this historic
property. Parks Department approval is being sought. A new turnaround area is to be
constructed where the road currently dead ends to general traffic (next to the restaurant)
and some new landscaping around the adjacent parking lot is planned. The application
requests approval to convert one of three clay tennis courts at the entry to The Meadows
into an overflow parking area, which neither HPC nor P&Z supported.
3
GMOS EXEMPTION
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Aspen Meadows SPA included a determination that the
property is an "Essential Public Facility." The application provides language from the
1991 ordinance explaining Council's finding that the Meadows campus is the source of
tremendous intellectual and cultural enrichment for local citizens and visitors.
Essential public facilities are eligible for a GMQS exemption by City Council. The
exemption will be approved if the following conditions are met:
Section 26.470.070(H), Construction of essential public facilities
1. Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if:
a. 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.
2. An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Council:
a. That the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those
associated with:
i. the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit
services, and
ii. 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:
iii. the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air,
water, Iand and energy resources, and is visually compatible with surrounding
areas.
3. 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: A 13,417 square foot expansion within the Institute's property was
anticipated in the SPA in the form of lodging expansion. The project has been referred out to
City Departments such as Water, Fire, Engineer, Parks and Building for input. In terms of
affordable housing mitigation, the applicant was not required previously to address this issue
under the "Essential Public Facility" status, and feels that there will be not be additional
employees generated due to the change in use of this building from a lodge to a conference
center. Existing staff will be able to serve the activities in this building on all but a few
occasions each year, when temporary labor or job sharing with other businesses will be
undertaken, as is the current practice.
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed application meets the
review standards for approving an SPA amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.440.090, Amendments to SPA Development Orders. Therefore, staff recommends that
City Council allow for: 1) the development of a Conference and Meeting Hall in lieu of
the lodge building that was to be constructed and 2) an agreement that the remaining
1,500 square feet that was allocated in 1991, be reserved for a future expansion of the
Health Club, subject to another SPA Amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #45, Series of 2004,
approving an SPA Amendment and Amendment to the GMQS Exemption for Essential
Public Facilities for the Aspen Institute."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B --Application
Exhibit C—HPC resolution
5
Exhibit A
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SPA Amendment.
The City Council may approve an amendment to an approved SPA if the proposal meets
the following review standards:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding:
The Institute already functions as a conference location. The new building is
situated so that it is central to the main activity area on the campus with easy
access to lodging and amenities. The new building is built in the same location as
was approved for development in the SPA, with a slightly larger footprint. The
design has been discussed in depth by the Historic Preservation Commission, who
has endorsed the project finding that it is compatible with the architectural
characteristics of the Meadows and minimizes impacts on the adjacent historic
resources, including the landscape.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding:
The project is not expected to generate significantly greater utilization of public
resources than what was already anticipated in the SPA. Essentially the
conference center is intended to insure the full occupancy of existing lodge rooms.
Traffic generation is not expected to increase and there will be no additional roads
needed. The application does discuss the idea of converting two existing clay
tennis courts into an overflow parking area. The HPC does not support this plan
because of the loss of an athletic resource, visual impact, and generally limited
occasions when the extra parking is needed.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding:
The building envelope has a gentle slope and is free from environmental hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
31
Staff Finding:
The impacts of a new building in this location were already accepted in the SPA
and the Meadows has taken significant steps to be involved in trail connections
and stewardship of important open space.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not find any way that this project is in conflict with the AACP. This is
a very important community resource that needs to remain viable. The new
conference center will allow for the continued presentation of important programs.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public
funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The project does not require the expenditure of public funds or provision of public
facilities. Any upgrades to utilities to accommodate this development will be
borne by the applicant.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2).
Staff Finding:
The building envelope does not contain steep slopes, although it backs up to a
steep slope to the Roaring Fork River. Slope and density reduction are not
applicable.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding:
The project is exempt from GMQS as an essential public facility.
7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
1n �� o�v �� sPqJ
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: _NJJ ` �// zzAspen,
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /, � lba J , 20 04— 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
-I
1206 12e✓'l e f0 (name, please print)
being of repenting anApplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have
complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the
following manner:
Publication B notice: o.f Y the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
JPosting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on
the subject property at least fifteep (15) days prior to the public hearing and was
continuously visible from the Z day of NJ k g �m fw9ZI/ , 200_4-, to and
including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
V Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class
postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal
government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental
agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject
to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners
shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no
more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the
owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this I Zlay
of V)Z()QQb , 200 pi by S e t Sr 'e6T �� L
���•PRY•pG6 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
AMANDA My commission expires: 0 9/0l y/ (V
LI?7-ECC
��•cbt �••• Notary Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
0912412008
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
B Y MAIL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS CONFERENCE AND MEETING HALL,
INSUBSTANTIAL SPA AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENT TO GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, December
13, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
the Aspen Institute requesting an Insubstantial Amendment to the 1991 Specially Planned
Area (SPA) approval and an Amendment to the GMQS Exemption for an Essential
Public Facility in order to construct a conference and meeting hall in lieu of a lodge
building that was previously approved. The property is located at 845 Meadows Road,
Lot 1-A Aspen Meadows Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposed new
building will be constructed between the Callaway Health Center and the Wexner Lodge
building. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, (or by email at
amyg@ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on November 27, 2004
City of Aspen Account
lUu�(oe p,%d /10vQlm 12,vl- Z<o, 2,o04-
ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ESTRIN CARRICO FAMILY TRUST FELDER RICHARD B & DEBORAHS
1000 NORTH THIRD ST 101 FIRST ST #508 11498 E CAROL WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259-2620
SMITH VICTORIA LEA BAIRD STEPHEN W & SUSAN MERRITT HOFFMAN LARRY J & DEBORAH
1160 PARK AVE
TRUSTEES 1221 BRICKELL AVE NEW YORK, NY 10128 120 S LASALLE ST CHICAGO, IL 60603 MIAMI, FL 33131
CITY OF ASPEN SMOOKE BARRY 75% INT LAMM RICHARD D
130 S GALENA ST 155 5TH ANITA 1700 LINCOLN ST #4000
ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 DENVER, CO 80203
WING KAREN J MILE HIGH HOLDING CO MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC
18351 KUYKENDAHL #457 1991 E ALAMEDA AVE #9 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD
SPRING, TX 77379 DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611-8500
VESTAMERICA INC
BREMER MALCOLM H & ANGELIKA S
SHERMAN HARRIS D
3102 N OAKLAND ZION RD
3263 AVALON PLACE
370 17TH ST STE 4500
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703
HOUSTON, TX 77019
DENVER, CO 80202-5647
WRIGLEY WILLIAM JR RESIDUARY
COLGATE S A & R W TRST
HOLMES ROBERT & AUDREY
TRUST
422 ESTANTE
45 BERMUDA RD
400 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1100
LOS ALAMOS, NM 87544
WESTPORT, CT 00880
CHICAGO, IL 60611
FORD MERRILL M & FREDERICK C III
PITKIN COUNTY
SHIELDS ROBERT L 13.5% INT
51 MEADOWS TRUSTEE RD #51
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
5750 OAK CREEK LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
LITTLETON, CO 80121
GORDON SHELDON M & CHRISTINE E HARRIS ROBERTA H MARKALUNAS JAMES J & RAMONA 1
6 GLENVILLE ST 6 LONGFELLOW PARK 624 W NORTH ST
GREENWICH, CT 06831-3638 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS GANTZEL JOAN & STEEN GORSUCH JEFFREY S 48.935% INT
700 E GILLESPIE 705 MEADOWS RD 707 W NORTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
SARPA JOHN G & JAN JONES SARPA WELLS JANE I & JONATHAN R AULD ROBERT H & CAROL C
71 MEADOWS #7 721 W NORTH ST 730 W SMUGGLER AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST BARABE CAROLYN CERISE JAMES M
734 W SMUGGLER 790 CASTLE CREEK DR 790 CASTLE CREEK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDRICH REV TRUST MELINDA
LRM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WALDECK VIVIAN G
825 W NORTH ST
8540 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVE
915 W NORTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1173
MIAMI, FL 33143
ASPEN, CO 81611-1171
CHOUMAS JOHN JAMES & PATRICIA G
JACKSON LAND COMPANY
REED PRESLEY O & PATRICIA
BLDG 300 BAYS 313-314
C/O FRANNIE DITTMER & STEVEN
999 8TH ST
1601 E OLYMPIC BLVD
SPECTOR LLC
BOULDER, CO 80302
LOS ANGELES, CA 90021
150 S WACKER DR STE 1200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
817 W NORTH LLC
630 MEADOWS COLORADO TRUST
KENROSS LUX S A
C/O GARY A WRIGHT
C/O GOULD & RATNER/JXC
C/O HANK HOLT
715 WEST MAIN
222 N LASALLE ST SUITE 800
3765 CHAMPION BLVD
ASPEN, CO 81611
CHICAGO, IL 60601 .
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27115
HOLLENBECK FAMILY 50%
SHIELDS ARLENE M ESTATE OF 23%
COVENTRY JANE
C/O KATHY SHIELDS WIDLUND
C/O KATHY SHIELDS WIDLUND
C/O LA SALLE JOHN D
5256 E MINERAL CR
7203 S HARRISON WAY
675 MEADOWS RD
CENTENNIAL, CO 80122
LITTLETON, CO 80122
ASPEN, CO 81611
DUNCAN DAVID
GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR TRUST
DITTMER THOMAS H TRUST
C/O LA SALLE JOHN D
C/O SILVER VENTURES INC
C/O STEVEN SPECTOR LLC
675 MEADOWS RD
5121 BROADWAY
150 S WACKER DR ST 1200
ASPEN, CO 81611
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209
CHICAGO, IL 60606
DIGIGLIA LE RAY
CAMALOTTA ENTERPRISES LTD
IBH PROPERTY TRUST
DIGIGLIA JOHN WILLIAM
DUNCAN C/O
HARRIS IRVING B TRUSTEE
PO BOX 4305
675 MEADOW RD
191 N WACKER DR #1500
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1899
KELLY FAMILY LTD
ROSE ALLAN V
FERGUSON JAMES & ESTHER
KELLY JOHN THOMAS C/O
ONE EXECUTIVE BLVD
PO BOX 1457
533 E HOPKINS
YONKERS, NY 10701
CHARLESTON, SC 29402
ASPEN, CO 81611
GALLUCCIO VINCENT
MORRIS JOHN S JR
HANSEN SALLY
PO BOX 8065
PO BOX 8991
PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARQUSEE CHARLES B WESTVIEW HOLDINGS LLC
PO DRAWER X 5121 BROADWAY
BOCA RATON, FL 33429 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- SPA Amendment and
Amendment to GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility, First
Reading of Ordinance #fir, Series of 2004
DATE: November 22, 2004
PROJECT:
Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall
APPLICANT:
The Aspen Institute, with consent to apply from the
Music Association of Aspen and the Aspen Center for
Physics, represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and
Jim Curtis.
ADDRESS:
845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID:
2735-121-29-008.
REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting an SPA Amendment and
Amendment to an existing GMQS Exemption for an
Essential Public Facility, in order to construct a new
conference facility and meeting hall at the Aspen
Institute.
EXISTING ZONING:
Academic with and Specially Planned Area (SPA)
Overlay.
STAFF
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
recommend that Council approve this application as
outlined in the attached Ordinance. This project will
bring additional viability to the Institute's operations,
which is of benefit to the whole community.
P&Z
P&Z review is scheduled for Nov. 16th, after the issuance
RECOMMENDATION:
of this memo.
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics
received approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus
through designation as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). The Aspen Institute acted on
some of its development rights, but did not construct the last of the series of lodge
buildings that had been planned. This building was to be located between the structure
known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The Institute has recently
determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve overall
occupancy of their existing lodge units and amenities, and therefore has applied for an
SPA Amendment to convert the unbuilt lodge approval into a Conference and Meeting
Hall. City Council shall make a final decision on the requested SPA Amendment and
GMQS Exemption Amendment after considering a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
This project has been reviewed and endorsed by the Historic Preservation Commission
per their attached resolution. HPC participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic, including the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. The board
appreciated the opportunity to provide referral comments on the application given the
historical significance of the Aspen Institute campus.
SPA AMENDMENT
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The project does not meet the criteria stated in Municipal
Code Section 26.440.090(A), Amendment to SPA Development Order, for an
insubstantial administrative amendment, therefore it must 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 final development review and approval. Note that the application
included a request to consolidate the Amendment review into one joint meeting between
the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, but this was not supported by
Community Development Staff. Therefore, the application must proceed through the
Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council for final approval.
According to Section 26.440.090.C, during the review of an SPA amendment, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may require such conditions of
approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current
community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions
of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended, any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented
since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments. The
applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review process.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicable review criteria for an SPA Amendment are attached as "Exhibit A." The
Institute requests approval of an SPA amendment to convert an allocation for 12 lodge
units up to 13,417 square feet in size into a Conference and Meeting Hall. The new
building is to be constructed in the same location that the unbuilt lodge units were
2
approved to be constructed within the SPA. The additional lodge units no longer meet
the needs of the Institute, who feel that the lack of a more central and larger meeting area
is a challenge to their success. The project will still leave 1,500 square feet undeveloped,
which the Institute wishes to reserve for future expansion of the Health Club under a
separate review. An SPA amendment and GMQS Exemption will need to be processed at
that time, specific to the plan that is developed, however the applicant requests assurance
that the square footage remains available, assuming that review criteria will be met. This
provision has been included in the ordinance.
The Applicant has provided a detailed discussion of the Institute's current facilities and
needs. Staff agrees with their conclusion that better occupancy of the existing lodge units
is important and that the new conference facility is likely to provide that opportunity. In
addition, evidence is presented in the application to support a finding that the new
building will create similar development impacts as were previously anticipated, for
instance in the area of traffic generation, since the project is primarily being undertaken to
increase occupancy of existing hotel rooms. These impacts have already been addressed
through the successful implementation of a traffic management plan. The amendment
does not appear to result in any additional costs to public facilities or environmental
concerns. The applicant is also proposing the reconfiguration of a portion of a pond on
the site, and the selective removal of some trees around the pond, both for the health of
the landscape and for the restoration of the earlier appearance of this historic property.
Parks Department approval is being sought.
HPC has reviewed the architecture of the new building over the course of four meetings.
This context is very sensitive to new development, which, if mishandled, could compromise
the integrity of the site. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a
manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful
stewardship of the property be maintained, which staff believes will be the outcome of the
new Conference Center and Meeting Hall project. There are no prescribed dimensional
requirements for this project, other than the maximum square footage, because it has been
designated an SPA.
GMOS EXEMPTION
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Aspen Meadows SPA included a determination that the
property is an "Essential Public Facility." The application provides language from the
1991 ordinance explaining Council's finding that the Meadows campus is the source of
tremendous intellectual and cultural enrichment for local citizens and visitors.
Essential public facilities are eligible for a GMQS exemption by City Council. The
exemption will be approved if the following conditions are met:
Section 26.470.070(H), Construction of essential public facilities
1. Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if-
3
a. 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.
2. An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Council:
a. That the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those
associated with:
i. the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit
services, and
ii. 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:
iii. 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.
3. 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: A 13,417 square foot expansion within the Institute's property was
anticipated in the SPA in the form of lodging expansion. The project has been referred out to
City Departments such as Water, Fire, Engineer, Parks and Building for input. In terms of
affordable housing mitigation, the applicant was not required previously to address this issue
under the "Essential Public Facility" status, and feels that there will be not be additional
employees generated due to the change in use of this building from a lodge to a conference
center. Existing staff will be able to serve the activities in this building on all but a few
occasions each year, when temporary labor or job sharing with other businesses will be
undertaken, as is the current practice.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed application meets the
review standards for approving an SPA amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.440.090, Amendments to SPA Development Orders. Therefore, staff recommends that
City Council allow for: 1) the development of a Conference and Meeting Hall in lieu of
the lodge building that was to be constructed and 2) an agreement that the remaining
1,500 square feet that was allocated in 1991, be reserved for a future expansion of the
Health Club, subject to another SPA Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B --Application
Exhibit C—HPC resolution
Exhibit D- P&Z minutes of Nov. 16, 2004 to be provided at Second Reading
E
Exhibit A
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SPA Amendment.
The City Council may approve an amendment to an approved SPA if the proposal meets
the following review standards:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding:
The Institute already functions as a conference location. The new building is
situated so that it is central to the main activity area on the campus with easy
access to lodging and amenities. The new building is built in the same location as
was approved for development in the SPA, with a slightly larger footprint. The
design has been discussed in depth by the Historic Preservation Commission, who
has endorsed the project finding that it is compatible with the architectural
characteristics of the Meadows and minimizes impacts on the adjacent historic
resources, including the landscape.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding:
The project is not expected to generate significantly greater utilization of public
resources than what was already anticipated in the SPA. Essentially the
conference center is intended to insure the full occupancy of existing lodge rooms.
Traffic generation is not expected to increase and there will be no additional roads
needed. The application does discuss the idea of converting two existing clay
tennis courts into an overflow parking area. The HPC does not support this plan
because of the loss of an athletic resource, visual impact, and generally limited
occasions when the extra parking is needed.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding:
The building envelope has a gentle slope and is free from environmental hazards.
5
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
Preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Staff Finding:
The impacts of a new building in this location were already accepted in the SPA
and the Meadows has taken significant steps to be involved in trail connections
and stewardship of important open space.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not find any way that this project is in conflict with the AACP. This is
a very important community resource that needs to remain viable. The new
conference center will allow for the continued presentation of important programs.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public
funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The project does not require the expenditure of public funds or provision of public
facilities. Any upgrades to utilities to accommodate this development will be
borne by the applicant.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2).
Staff Finding:
The building envelope does not contain steep slopes, although it backs up to a
steep slope to the Roaring Fork River. Slope and density reduction are not
applicable.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding:
The project is exempt from GMQS as an essential public facility.
V
rol
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, \ � ( (/,/1_, �L C L—/ aJ T (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class pottage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
�gnature
The f e oin "Affidavit of Notice" was ac wled ed before m this 2 da
of g , 200�, by _ L)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: L/Zn 33
Notary Public BOG
� 1 `�
m
o •.,
CoLoaPo
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE P UBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGA9
LIST OF 'tHE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADO>/S CONFERENCE AND MEET-
ING HALL. INSUELSTANTIAL SPA AMENDMENT
AND AMEND-4r TO GMQS EXEMPTION FOR
AN ESSENTIAL Pt,glac FACILITY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public
hearing will be held on Monday. December 13.
2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the
Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an applica-
tion submitted by the Aspen Institute requesting
an Insubstantial Amendment to the 1991 Specially
Planned Area (SPA) approval and an Amendment
to the GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public
Facility In order to construct a conference and
meeting hall In lieu of a lodge building that was
previously approved. The property is located at
845 Meadows Road, Lot 1-A Aspen Meadows Sub-
division, City and Townsite of Aspen. The pro-
posed new building will be constructed between
the Callaway Health Center and the Wexner
Lodge building.
For further Inf4ation, contact Amy Guthrie at
the City o! Aspel Community Development De-
partment, 130 S. galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-
5096, (or by emdi6at amyg®ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published In The Aspen Times on November 27.
2004.(2161) -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- SPA Amendment and
Amendment to GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility
DATE: November 16, 2004
PROJECT:
Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall
APPLICANT:
The Aspen Institute, with consent to apply from the Music
Association of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics,
represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and Jim Curtis.
ADDRESS:
845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID:
2735-121-29-008.
REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting the appropriate land use
approvals to construct a new conference facility and meeting
hall at the Aspen Institute.
EXISTING ZONING:
Academic with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay.
LAND USE
SPA Amendment and Amendment to existing GMQS
REQUESTS:
Exemption for an Essential Public Facility.
STAFF
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
approve this application as outlined in the attached
resolution. This project will bring additional viability to the
Institute's operations, which is of benefit to the whole
community.
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics
received approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus
through designation as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). The Aspen Institute acted on
some of its development rights, but did not construct the last of the series of lodge
buildings that had been planned. This building was to be located between the structure
known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The Institute has recently
determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve overall
1
Hall. City Council shall make a final decision on the requested SPA Amendment and
GMQS Exemption Amendment after considering a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
This project has been reviewed and endorsed by the Historic Preservation Commission
per their attached resolution. HPC participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic, including the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. The board
appreciated the opportunity to provide referral comments on the application given the
historical significance of the Aspen Institute campus.
SPA AMENDMENT
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The project does not meet the criteria stated in Municipal
Code Section 26.440.090(A), Amendment to SPA Development Order, for an
insubstantial administrative amendment, therefore it must 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 final development review and approval. Note that the application
included a request to consolidate the Amendment review into one joint meeting between
the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, but this was not supported by
Community Development Staff. Therefore, the application must proceed through the
Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council for final approval.
According to Section 26.440.090.C, during the review of an SPA amendment, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may require such conditions of
approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current
community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions
of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended, any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented
since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments. The
applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review process.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicable review criteria for an SPA Amendment are attached as "Exhibit A." The
Institute requests approval of an SPA amendment to convert an allocation for 12 lodge
units up to 13,417 square feet in size into a Conference and Meeting Hall. The new
building is to be constructed in the same location that the unbuilt lodge units were
approved to be constructed within the SPA. The additional lodge units no longer meet
the needs of the Institute, who feel that the lack of a more central and larger meeting area
is a challenge to their success. The project will still leave 1,500 square feet undeveloped,
which the Institute wishes to reserve for future expansion of the Health Club. An SPA
amendment and GMQS Exemption will need to be processed at that time, specific to the
plan that is developed, however the applicant requests assurance that the square footage
remains available, assuming that review criteria will be met. This provision has been
included in the resolution.
2
The Applicant has provided a detailed discussion of the Institute's current facilities and
needs. Staff agrees with their conclusion that better occupancy of the existing lodge units
is important and that the new conference facility is likely to provide that opportunity. In
addition, evidence is presented in the application to support a finding that the new
building will create similar development impacts as were previously anticipated, for
instance in the area of traffic generation, since the project is primarily being undertaken to
increase occupancy of existing hotel rooms. These impacts have already been addressed
through the successful implementation of a traffic management plan. The amendment
does not appear to result in any additional costs to public facilities or environmental
concerns. The applicant is also proposing the reconfiguration of a portion of a pond on
the site, and the selective removal of some trees around the pond, both for the health of
the landscape and for the restoration of the earlier appearance of this historic property.
Parks Department approval is being sought.
HPC has reviewed the architecture of the new building over the course of four meetings.
This context is very sensitive to new development, which, if mishandled, could compromise
the integrity of the site. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a
manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful
stewardship of the property be maintained, which staff believes will be the outcome of the
new Conference Center and Meeting Hall project. There are no prescribed dimensional
requirements for this project, other than the maximum square footage, because it has been
designated an SPA.
GMQS EXEMPTION
REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Aspen Meadows SPA included a determination that the
property is an "Essential Public Facility." The application provides language from the
1991 ordinance which explains Council's finding that the Meadows campus is the source
of tremendous intellectual and cultural enrichment for local citizens and visitors.
Essential public facilities are eligible for a GMQS exemption by City Council. For
Planning and Zoning Commission's information, the exemption will be approved if the
following conditions are met:
Section 26.470.070(H), Construction of essential public facilities
1. Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if:
a. 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.
2. An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Council:
a. That the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those
associated with:
i. the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit
services, and
3
ii. 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:
iii. 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.
3. 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: A 13,417 square foot expansion within the Institute's property was
anticipated in the SPA in the form of lodging expansion. The project has been referred out to
City Departments such as Water, Fire, Engineer, Parks and Building for input to ensure that
relevant conditions of approval are included in the Council decision on the GMQS
Exemption. In terms of affordable housing mitigation, the applicant was not required
previously to address this issue under the "Essential Public Facility" status, and feels that
there will be not be additional employees generated due to the change in use of this building
from a lodge to a conference center. Existing staff will be able to serve the activities in this
building on all but a few occasions each year, when temporary labor or job sharing with
other businesses will be undertaken, as is the current practice.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed application meets the
review standards for approving an SPA amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.440.090, Amendments to SPA Development Orders. Therefore, staff recommends that
the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the attached resolution recommending that
City Council approve the proposed SPA amendment to allow for: 1) the development of a
Conference and Meeting Hall in lieu of the lodge building that was to be constructed and
2) an agreement that the remaining 1,500 square feet that was allocated in 1991, be
reserved for a future expansion of the Health Club, subject to any approvals required by
the Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B --Application
Exhibit C—HPC resolution
Exhibit A
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SPA Amendment.
The City Council may approve an amendment to an approved SPA if the proposal meets
the following review standards:
4
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding•
The Institute already functions as a conference location. The new building is
situated so that it is central to the main activity area on the campus with easy
access to lodging and amenities. The new building is built in the same location as
was approved for development in the SPA, with a slightly larger footprint. The
design has been discussed in depth by the Historic Preservation Commission, who
has endorsed the project finding that it is compatible with the architectural
characteristics of the Meadows and minimizes impacts on the adjacent historic
resources, including the landscape.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding:
The project is not expected to generate significantly greater utilization of public
resources than what was already anticipated in the SPA. Essentially the
conference center is intended to insure the full occupancy of existing lodge rooms.
Traffic generation is not expected to increase and there will be no additional roads
needed. The application does discuss the idea of converting two existing clay
tennis courts into an overflow parking area. The HPC does not support this plan
because of the loss of an athletic resource, visual impact, and generally limited
occasions when the extra parking is needed.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding•
The building envelope has a gentle slope and is free from environmental hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Staff Finding:
The impacts of a new building in this location were already accepted in the SPA
and the Meadows has taken significant steps to be involved in trail connections
and stewardship of important open space.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding•
Staff does not find any way that this project is in conflict with the AACP. This is
a very important community resource that needs to remain viable. The new
conference center will allow for the continued presentation of important
programs.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public
funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The project does not require the expenditure of public funds or provision of public
facilities. Any upgrades to utilities to accommodate this development will be
borne by the applicant.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2).
Staff Finding:
The building envelope does not contain steep slopes, although it backs up to a
steep slope to the Roaring Fork River. Slope and density reduction are not
applicable.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding:
The project is exempt from GMQS as an essential public facility.
on
RESOLUTION NO. 37
(SERIES OF 2004)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
(SPA) AND AN AMENDMENT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE'S GMQS EXEMPTION
FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY TO ALLOW FOR A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED LODGE BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A CONFERENCE
AND MEETING HALL, 845 MEADOWS ROAD, LOT IA OF THE ASPEN
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION/SPA, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from The Aspen Institute ("Applicant") requesting an amendment to the Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS
exemption for an Essential Public Facility to allow for the construction of a Conference
and Meeting Hall on Lot IA, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute has provided written consent to apply for a SPA
Amendment from the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics per
the requirements for an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA; and,
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, zoned the subject
property to Academic with a SPA Overlay and approved the final SPA development plan
subject to this amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council
may approve an amendment to a Specially Planned Area during a duly noticed public
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
made at a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering comments from the general
public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and
recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, City Streets Department, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City
Council approve an SPA amendment to the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
(SPA) and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS exemption for an essential
public facility to allow for the construction of a Conference and Meeting Hall in the place
of the unbuilt lodge structure on Lot 1 A, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1
That the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council
approve an SPA amendment for the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) and
an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS Exemption for an essential public facility
to allow for the construction of a Conference and Meeting Hall on Lot IA of the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision/SPA, with the following conditions:
1. A amended SPA agreement representing the changes to the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision/SPA discussed herein shall be recorded at the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final
approval by City Council .
2. An amended SPA Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval by City Council
shall include the following:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing: easements, encroachment agreements and licenses (with the
reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility
pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed
improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional
requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
3. The dimensional requirements approved for the Conference and meeting
Hall are as follows:
Maximum Height
Per Final SPA Plans
Trash Access Area
Per Final SPA Plans
Allowable External FAR
11,917 SF
Minimum Off -Street Parking
Per the Meadows SPA approved pursuant to
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991
4. The building permit application shall include:
b. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution, as well
as the Final HPC Resolution.
c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building
permit set.
d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
e. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and
any approval from the Parks Department Director for off -site
replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal
permit application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan
indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed
on the site.
f. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a
Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and
debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to
correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in
designing any drainage improvements.
g. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements
specified in Condition No. 9 included herein.
h. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Health Department, as detailed in Condition No. 4
included herein.
5. Throughout the structure, the Applicant shall install a fire alarm system
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also install
a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community
Development Director stating that all conditions of approval have been
read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks
Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the
agreement.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Health Department a fugitive
dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
disturbed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud
that has been carried out, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown
dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. This shall be
required with the submittal for building permits.
8. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line
of any trees to be saved subject to the following provisions:
a. The City Forester or his/her designee must inspect this fence before
any construction activities commence.
b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction
equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be
allowed within the drip line.
9. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards,
with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by
the City of Aspen Water Department.
10. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains)
to sanitary sewer lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall
require the use of a pumping station.
11. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday.
12. There will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public
rights -of -way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City
Engineer. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a full set of construction
management plans that are. consistent with the City Construction Management
Plan Guidelines at the time of building permit submittal.
13. The Applicant shall submit a food service plan for review by the
Environmental Health Department and obtain a food service license if
required, prior to serving food from the catering kitchen. If determined to be
necessary by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Applicant shall
install an oil and grease interceptor in the catering kitchen.
14. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as may be amended
from time to time.
15. The tennis courts along Meadows Road shall remain in place.
Section 2•
That the 1,500 undeveloped square feet remaining from the Conference and Meeting Hall
(given it's slightly smaller dimensions than the previously approved lodge structure) be
reserved for future expansion of the Health Club located on the same campus, provided that
applicable City Land Use approvals are granted for the.
Section 3•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16t"
day of November, 2004.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /V I �I�l 1S �/ �L�C� �� Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: l Zn Q , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, 9 �/V� �Q_ C ( l 42 L (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, c
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide \
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not L
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the .property subject to e
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac owledged before me lhi—A day
of �- , 200H, bye^--�-5
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires���
Notary Public
(n ' OATES
�'• O
OF C'p`O
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST CF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS CONFERENCE AND
MEETING, HALL, INSUBSTANTIAL SPA AMEND-
MENT AND AMENDMENT TO GMQS EXEMPTION
FOR AN ESSENTIAL pUBLIC FACILITY
NOTICE IS TIEREBY GIVEN that a public
hearing will be held on Tuesday, November Public
2004Nat a meetingtt0 begin at 4:30 p.m. before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis
Cities Room, City sion, Sister
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by the Aspen
Institute requesting an Insubstantial Amendment
to the 1991 Specially Planned Area (SPA) appro-
val and an Amendment to the GMQS Exemption
for an Essential Public Facility In order to con-
struct a conference and meeting hall In lieu of a
lodge building that was previously approved.
The property is located at 845 Meadows Road,
Lot I -A Aspen Meadows Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen. The proposed new building
will be constructed between the Callaway Health
Center and the Wexner Lodge building. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at
the City of Aspen Community Development De-
partment. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920.
5096, (or by email at amyg@ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Tines on October 30 2004.(2071)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
ENDORSING A PROPOSAL FOR THE ASPEN MEADOWS CONFERENCE CENTER
AND MEETING HALL, WITHIN THE ASPEN MEADOWS SPA, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.30, SERIES OF 2004
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, The Aspen Institute, represented by Jeff Berkus Architects and Jim Curtis, have
requested a referral comment from HPC for a proposed new Conference Center and Meeting Hall
located within the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project will be
formally reviewed as an Insubstantial SPA Amendment at the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the area where the new structure is to be built is not designated historic, however it
is generally understood that the campus as a whole has architectural and historic significance to
Aspen and therefore HPC's comments are sought, as they were during the 1991 SPA review; and
WHEREAS, HPC and the applicant discussed the project over the course of several meetings
and site visits and had a productive interaction which resulted in a number of amendments to the
project that both parties found were improvements; and
WHEREAS, as the basis for a referral comment to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 13, 2004, performed an analysis of
the application using the HPC review standards, found that the review standards and the "City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 27, 2004, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved this
resolution in support of the project, with conditions, by a vote of 6-0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby supports the development of the Aspen Meadows Conference Center and
Meeting Hall with the following conditions:
1. HPC supports the selective removal of trees around the pond in front of the Health Club
and new Conference Center for the purpose of restoring the historic landscape, as it is
documented to have existed in the early years of the Institute. HPC feels that the
landscape architecture at the Meadows has the same significance as the architectural
resources.
2. Further refinements of the project, including materials, new landscaping, and the design
for a trellis at the entry door are to be reviewed by HPC as information becomes
available. HPC would like to see some continued work on the following issues: some
trees planted along the pathway in front of the new building, simplification/refinement of
the rear elevation, removal of the rock from the center of' the pond, and carrying the
design of the paving that is used in front of the Conference Center over to the Health
Club.
3. HPC does not support the conversion of the existing clay tennis courts to special events
parking, but rather supports the continued use of parking along Meadows Road for
special events. The board is in favor of efforts to restore the landscape and allee of trees
that characterize the entrance to the Meadows.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of October,
2004.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Amendment, Referral Comment
DATE: October 13, 2004
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics received
approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus through its designation
as a Specially Planned Area. The Aspen Institute acted on some of its development rights, but
did not construct the last of the series of lodge buildings that had been planned. This building
was to be located between the structure known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The
Institute has recently determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve
overall occupancy of their existing lodge units and amenities, and therefore has applied for an
SPA Amendment to convert the un-built lodge approval into a Conference and Meeting Hall.
The Historic Preservation Commission participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic. These include the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. Only these immediate areas
were designated, and not the entire campus. As part of the requested SPA amendment, HPC is
being asked to evaluate the proposal based on our guidelines in order to make a recommendation
to P&Z and Council.
Although this is not officially a Major Development application, staff proposes that the HPC
review this important project in two steps, similar to a Conceptual and Pinalhearing. iming is
very important to the applicant, who hopes to break ground in the early spring, therefore staff has
allocated time on upcoming agendas to complete this review.
HPC and the applicant had an excellent dialogue at the September 22"d meeting. The architects
have responded with a significant revisit of the site plan in order to protect views of the Health
Club and to preserve the open grass area around the existing pond. Staff recommends that the
HPC accept the project at the Conceptual level with conditions, and invite the applicants to
return for Final review on October 27t'.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and Jim Curtis.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structures) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepcke and
formed the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows
campus is very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke
brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role
in which he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the
chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are. the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a manner
that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful stewardship of
the property be maintained. Staff has provided a number of historic photographs at the end of the
memo to give the HPC a sense of the campus from its beginnings.
This application proposes a new structure that will be central to the Institute. The Conference
and Meeting Hall is proposed to be 11,917 square feet above grade, primarily one story in height.
Design Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B."
Staff admires the amount of analysis that the applicant has given to the history of the Meadows
and. Bayer's work. This was conveyed to HPC at the September 22"d meeting through the
application materials, site visit, and presentation.
6
At the September 22nd meeting, there was a very productive discussion about the character of the
Meadows, and the Institute's goals for their new project. The applicant has given thoughtful
consideration to the concerns expressed by staff and the board, and has responded to a suggestion
that the building plan be "flipped" so that the end with a slightly more compact footprint is closer
to the Health Club. In addition, the building has moved towards Wexner and as far back to the
top of slope as possible. The approach to the building more closely reflects the placement of the
existing pathway through the pond area, and leaves the grass meadow undisturbed.
A line on the site plan, taken off the corner of the "HC mural" shows that the view towards the
Health Club is less obstructed than in the previous plan, which is beneficial. If there is any
additional potential to relocate some of the space in the first floor lounge that flanks the entry
more towards the north, staff believes this would go even further to protect the Health Club and
create a connection between the buildings when people gather on the entry terrace. It would also
make the project even more consistent with the placement of the lodge building that was
approved in the 1991 SPA.
There is one other minor issue on the revised plan that staff would like HPC to address, which is
the sloping roof over a staircase on the north end of the building. This portion of the building
will likely have limited visibility, however in elevation the shed roof form is somewhat
inconsistent with the character of the adjacent structure. This might be resolved if there is any
revision to the lounge as discussed above, but otherwise, while staff appreciates what is probably
an effort to step down height towards the Health Club, a flat roof in this area may be more
appropriate.
The building displaces a portion of pond that may or may not have been part of the Bayer design.
This particular pond is more naturalistic than the landscape features Bayer is known to have
created and its elimination is unavoidable if the meeting hall is to be. sited as planned. At the
September 22" d meeting, all appeared to be in agreement that the proposed location for the new
project is sensible because it completes an established pattern of buildings that line the edge of
this bluff. The new building does incorporate water as a primary element of the entry, now in
the form of a reflecting pool, which will be a thin layer of water over rock. The applicant still
has every intention of installing a piece by famed environmental artist Andy Goldsworthy,
however the design will likely be revisited given the site plan changes that have developed. Staff
finds that a Goldsworthy design will be an exciting addition to the campus given that Herbert
Bayer's "Grass Mound" pre -dated the "earthwork" movement in landscape design by 10 years
and was one of the first environmental sculptures in the country. The applicant is also interested
in pursuing the idea of removing the large cottonwood trees that have sprung up in the. pond and
block the Health Club in a way that was not originally intended. With HPC's endorsement, they
would like to meet with the Parks Department to discuss restoring this aspect of the site.
In terms of the architecture of the new building, staff discussed the form at some length with the
applicant and raised a concern that it is somewhat complex compared to the immediately
adjacent, rather boxy, flat roofed buildings. Considering the guidelines though, staff does not
find that the composition, massing, or roof are out of character with the campus, because it has
many strong relationships to some of the seminar buildings east of this location.
3
Staff recommends that HPC approve this application on a Conceptual level, with conditions for
restudy, and that the applicant return for Final review on October 27'". Final review will address
the landscape plan in greater detail, lighting, fenestration, and selection of materials.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC support this project conceptually with
the following conditions.
1. For final review, study the potential to move some of the first floor lounge area to the
north in order to open views towards the Health Club even more effectively.
2. For final review, study the shed roof on the north side of the building and consider a flat
roof instead.
3. That the concept of removing the cottonwood trees in the pond for the purpose of
restoring Bayer's original concept for the Health Club is acceptable.
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated October 13, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
C!
"Exhibit It: Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Meadows Restaurant, Conceptual
Review"
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A -frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
❑ These include windows, doors and porches.
❑ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
5
HISTORIC PHOTOS OF'1'11E MEADOWS
r
s
.,,r„
ki
`
to rt
■ENE■..
The tent, Seminar
building, and Race
Track
The Health Club
and Pond
Grass mound, looking
from the location of the
new Wexner building that
replaced this lodge.
Sculpture garden,
looking from the
location of the new
Wexner building that
replaced this lodge.
7
A:.
8
Seminar building
Outdoor conference
gathering
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgai re Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall- Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Amendment, Referral Comment
DATE: September 22, 2004
SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics received
µpproval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus through its design. -,ion
as a Specially Planned Area. The Aspen Institute acted on some of its development rights, but
did not construct the last of the series of lodge buildings that had been planned. This building
was to be located between the structure known as the Wexner Building and the Health Club. The
Institute has recently determined that they need better conference facilities in order to improve
overall occupancy of their existing lodge units and amenities, and therefore has applied for an
SPA Amendment to convert the unbuilt lodge approval into a Conference and Meeting Hall.
The Historic Preservation Commission participated in the review of the original SPA, and in
1995 certain parts of the campus were designated historic. These include the Trustee
Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gardens. Only these immediate areas
were designated, and not the entire campus. As part of the requested SPA amendment, HPC is
being asked to evaluate the proposal based on our guidelines in order to make a recommendation
to P&Z and Council.
Although this is not officially a Major Development application, staff proposes that the HPC
review this important project in two steps, similar to a Conceptual and Final hearing. Timing is
very important to the applicant, who hopes to break ground in the early spring, therefore staff has
allocated time on upcoming agendas to complete this review. A group site visit is scheduled for
September 22"d at noon, so that the board can review the building corners, which will have been
staked.
HPC Staff has no concerns with the concept of replacing of the approved lodge building with
a conference facility, but does have some concerns that the site plan of the new building
impacts the visibility and character of the historic Health Club. Suggestions for restudy are
made within this memo, and the applicant is invited to return to the board on the October 13`"
agenda.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Jeffrey Berkus Architects and Jim Curtis.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, -City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and
formed the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows
campus is very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke
brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role
in which he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the
chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures,
such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Harris Hall, have been designed in a manner
that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful stewardship of
the property be maintained. Staff has provided a number of historic photographs at the end of the
memo to provide the HPC with a sense of the campus aesthetics from its beginnings.
This application proposes a new structure which will be central to the Institute. It is 11,917
square feet above grade, primarily one story in height.
2
Design Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff
finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
Staff admires the amount of analysis that the applicant has given to the history of the Meadows
and Bayer's work. This will be conveyed to HPC through the application materials and a
presentation. Although we have some concerns with the proposal that may warrant restudy,
overall we find that the philosophy of the project, and the intent to distinguish this building from
the surrounding Bayer work without totally departing from it, is in keeping with HPC policy.
The proposed location for the new project is sensible because it completes an established pattern
of buildings that line the edge of this bluff.
On a conceptual level, staffs concern with the proposal is the footprint of the new structure in
terms of its length and proximity to the Health Club. The lodge building that was c-pproved in
the 1991 SPA was somewhat closer to the Wexner structure, and was not quite as deep, which
prevented it from overlapping the southern view of this key Bayer building, including the "HC"
mural. In staffs opinion, the new Conference and Meeting Hall is not as successful in this
regard, in part because of the need to keep the meeting hall to mostly a one story level and
organize it in a specific manner for functional reasons. The HPC site visit will be important
because it will be the first time for everyone to see how the structure really lays out. It is possible
that locating the top of the bank in the field may show that the building can slip back slightly and
still allow the outdoor decks to sit on grade. Staff would like the applicant to explore the
possibility of an even greater setback by allowing some of the decks to project over the bank.
The applicant has suggested the possibility to staff that the meeting hall can move up to 10 feet
closer to Wexner through the removal of an Aspen tree, which should be discussed. Any other
possibilities to tighten up the footprint of the project so that it feels less crowded into the location
would be beneficial.
The building displaces a portion of pond area that may or may not have been part of the Bayer
design. This particular pond is more naturalistic than the landscape features that Bayer is known
to have created on the site and its elimination is unavoidable if the meeting hall is to be sited as
planned. The new building does incorporate water as a primary element of the entry. HPC will
note in the application that the project includes the installation of a piece by famed environmental
artist Andy Goldsworthy. Staff finds that this is an exciting addition to the campus given that
Herbert Bayer's "Grass Mound" pre -dated the "earthwork" movement in landscape design by 10
years and was one of the first environmental sculptures in the country.
In terms of the architecture of the new building, staff has discussed the form at some length with
the applicant and raised a concern that it is somewhat complex compared to the immediately
adjacent, rather boxy, flat roofed buildings. Considering the guidelines though, staff cannot find
that the composition, massing, or roof are out of character with the campus, because it has many
strong relationships to some of the seminar buildings that are east of this location.
3
Staff does not find conflict with the design guidelines, but does believe that there are impacts on
the Health Club that need to be re -visited.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC provide feedback on this project, which
can return for review as early as October 13cn
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated September 22, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
4
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Meadows Restaurant, Conceptual
Review"
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A -frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
❑ These include windows, doors and porches.
❑ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
5
HISTORIC PHOTOS OF THE MEADOWS
The tent, Seminar
building, and Race
Track
The Health Club
and Pond
FFIX
21
i
Grass mound, looking
from the location of the
new Wexner building that
replaced this lodge?
Sculpture garden,
looking from the
location of the new
Wexner building that
replaced this lodge?
7
Seminar building
Outdoor conference
gathering
V I C O R U M
ARCH ITECTU RE D E V E L O P M E N T C O N S U L T I N G C o m m u n i t y P L A N N I N G
MEMO
TO: Jim Gurtio/Amy Guthrie
FROM: Joede 5choeberlein
DATE: September 15, 2004
RE: Information on Environmental Art at the Aspen Institute and the Health center
Building
---------------------------------------------------------
Landscape design:
Bayer was making sketches of sculptured landscape beginning in 1947 including, Aspen Valley
Redesigned for Technical Purposes (1947) and Project for Positive -Negative Grass
Sculpture (1954). According to Monographist, Arthur Cohen, Herbert Bayer was given the area
of the central lawn to build some environmental sculptures. The Earth Mound (1955) and the
Marble Garden (1955) were constructed in this area. These are the first documented landscape
pieces that Bayer was able to execute.
Bayer continued to explore ideas for sculptured landscapes at the Aspen Institute and elsewhere. In
1958 he drew Geometry Lost in an Undulated Landscape. It is not clear where on the campus
(if anywhere specific), this was envisioned. Later Anderson Park was conceived. In the drawing it
shows an extension of ideas that first appeared in the Earth Mound and the drawing for
Geometry Lost in an Undulated Landscape. Anderson Park was executed in 1973.
There is nothing in the literature (that we have found) indicating any design of the landscaped area
in front of the Health Club. Aspen Institute Historian Nancy Thorpe said that she was unable to
find any drawings of the area in front of the Center. According to Nancy, King Woodward said
that the area in front of the Health Center "was envisioned by Herbert Bayer to be open with
existing pond, rock in place."
We have not found any information regarding who layed out, or installed the ponds in the first
place. Photographs of the new Health Center show the pond with the large stone and the dead
juniper (still existing), in place.
Earthworks (and unexecuted "Projects") Work Cronology:
Aspen Valley Redesigned for Technical Purposes — Drawing showing aerial view of valley
with various geometric structures constructed above the ground plane or carved into it. (Very
similar to the type of work Isamu Noguchi had been doing since the early thirties)
Drawing 1947
Project for Positive -Negative Grass Sculpture — Pastel Sketch with raised and depressed loops
and Mounds.
Pastel Drawing - 1954
4 3 0 W. Main, Suite 2 A, P.O. Box 550, Aspen, CO 8 1 6 1 2
970 920-0221 FAX 970 920-7833 a- m a i l c v c f o r u m @sop r i s. net
September 15, 2004
Page 2
Grass Mound — 40' Diameter, Circular (donut shaped) Mound w/ small mound, stone and
depression within.
No Drawings located.
Earthwork Executed 1955
Marble Garden — 36' x 36' Grid w/ various standing marble objects, fountain and pond
Isometric Drawing 1955
Earthwork Executed 1955
Kaleidoscreen — 7' x 12' Geometric sculpture of standing forms
Model 1956
Outdoor Sculpture Executed 1957
Geometry Lost in an Undulated Landscape — Unexecuted project for meadows — Undulating
ground plane with paths and geometric objects distributed around it.
Crayon Drawing 1958
Anderson Park — Path passing through landscape with raised mounds, depression, pond, stream
and a geometric sculpture in gravel.
Pastel Drawing — 1971
Earthwork Executed 1973
Buildings Cronology:
Seminar Building 1952
The Guest Lodge Rooms 1954, replaced 1991-1994
The Central Building (now Bandar) — 1954, various remodels and additions.
Health Center 1955
Paepcke Building — 1962
Physics Center Building — 1962
Music Tent — (Bayer's) 1964 — earlier version by Saarinen, Bayer Tent replaced by Harry Teague
design
4 3 0 W. Main, Suite 2 A, P.O. Box 5 5 0, Aspen, CO 8 1 6 1 2
970 920-0221 FAX 970 920-7833 a - mail cvcforum@sopris.ne
September 15, 2004
Page 3
Drawings of Health center:
Denver Art Museum Collection:
Plan, Photostat, 1955 de.1.25
Two elevations, graphite and ink on paper, 1955 de.1.26
Two elevations, graphite and colored pencil on photostat, 1955 de.1.27
Section and view of roof structure and plan of wall channels, Photostat, 1955de. 1.28
Details of roof structure, wall channels and spiral stair, Photostat, 1955 de.1.29
Details of roof structure, wall channels and spiral stair, Photostat, 1955 de.1.30
Plan, Photostat, 1955 de.1.31
Two elevations, Photostat, 1955 de.1.32
Two elevations, Photostat, 1955 de.1.33
Plan, Ink and Graphite on paper, 1955 de.1.34
Elevation and section of wall channels, ink graphite, and colored pencil on paper, 1955 de.1.36
Elevations, ink and printed film on paper, 1955 de.1.37
Details, ink and printed film on paper, 1955 de.1.38
Plan and Exterior Mural Design, ink and printed film on paper, 1955 de.1.38
Aspen Meadows Plan:
Aspen Meadows Site Plan, graphite, and printed film on paper, 1955 de.1.35
Period Photos of Health Center:
Exterior Gymnasium Wall, East Side, includes spiral stair to roof deck, 1955
herbert bayer, the complete works, arthur a. cohen, 1984.
South Elevation, Shows pond/rock/tree, glass on roof deck, etc. 1955
herbert Bayer, the complete works, arthur a. cohen, 1984.
Exterior view of Entry, includes part of Gym wall entry and "HC" graphic, 1955.
herbert bayer and modernist design in America, gwen finkel chazit, 1987.
2 Brochures about the Health Center, appear to be from the 1960's, don't appear to be designed by
Bayer.
4 3 0 W. Main, Suite 2 A, P.O. Box 5 5 0, Aspen, CO 8 1 6 1 2
970 920-0221 FAX 970 920-7833 a - mail cvcforum@sopris.ne
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE 7/7/04
PROJECT: Meadows SPA Amendment
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
OWNER: Aspen Institute
TYPE OF APPLICATION: SPA Amendment, Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facility
DESCRIPTION: As part of the original Meadows Subdivision/SPA approvals, fifty (50) new lodge units not to
exceed a gross interior square footage of 42,410 square feet were approved. All but twelve (12) of
the allotted lodge units and 13,417 square feet were built. The Aspen Institute now would like to
amend the Meadows SPA to use the left over lodge square footage to construct a conference
facility to seat approximately 250 people.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304.060(B) Combined Review
26.440.090(B) Consolidated Specially Planned Area Amendment
26.470.070(H) GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facility
Review by: Staff for complete application; referral agencies for technical considerations (Development Review
Committee Meeting); Historic Preservation Commission for formal referral on the design, Planning and
Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on SPA Amendment and GMQS Amendment.
City Council shall be the final review. authority regarding the proposed requests.
Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance.
Planning Fees: $2,620 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $220 per hour)
Referral Fees: Engineering $355, Housing $355
Total Deposit: $3,330
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Total Deposit for review of application.
2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address,
and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Completed City of Aspen Land Use
Application Form.
3. Letter of consent to apply from a person or persons owning more than 50% of the property within the Aspen Meadows SPA.
4. Signed fee agreement.
5. Pre -application Conference Summary.
6. An 8 1/2" x I I" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen.
7. Proof of ownership.
8. Site Improvement Survey.
9. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- I 1"x 17").
10. Proposed floor plans (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- I 1"x 17").
11. Proposed elevation plans. (2 Sets —24"x 36" and 40 Sets- t 1"x 17")
12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review
standards relevant to the development application.
13. Traffic Study performed by a licensed engineer.
14. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels
for a small fee. 920.5453
15. Copies of relevant prior approvals.
16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the
following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred.
Text fonnat easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
40 Copies of the complete application packet (items 2-13)
Process:
Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application is then referred to applicable referral agencies (a Development
Review Committee meeting is held). The Historic Preservation Commission will then provide formal referral comments on the
design at a regular HPC meeting. Subsequently, the Applicant is then assigned a public hearing date before the Planning and Zoning
Commission by Staff. Staff then writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a
recommendation to City Council on requests. City Council makes final determination in the form of an ordinance.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
RESOLUTION NO.47
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A FIVE YEAR
EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 14,
SERIES OF 1991, AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO.31, SERIES OF 1994,
ORDINANCE NO.28, SERIES OF 1997, AND BY RESOLUTION NO.65, SERIES OF
2000 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ON LOT IA OF THE ASPEN
MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTYI
COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
The Aspen Institute (Applicant), represented by Edward M. Caswall, for a five (5) year
extension of vested rights for Building No.3 (to consist of twelve (12) lodge units) on Lot 1 A
of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Academic and Specially Planned
Area Overlay Zone Districts; and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, which
approved the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Final Development Plan; and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1994, which
approved a three year (3) extension to June 21, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1997, which
approved a three (3) year extension to June 21, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Resolution No. 65, Series of 2000, which
approved a three (3) year extension to May 22, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010(C), Vested Property Rights of the Land
Use Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and
recommended approval of a five (5) year extension of vested rights for Building No.3 (to
consist of twelve (12) lodge units) on Lot I A finding that the review criteria have been met
and that the addition of future lodging is an important community goal; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Staff finds that any housing mitigation
fees that may be outstanding with respect to the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area are
not owed by or the responsibility of the Aspen Institute; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the extension of
vested rights for Lot IA under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of,the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a five (5) year extension of the vested rights
granted by Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, and extended by Ordinance No. 28, Series of
1997, Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1994, and Resolution No. 65, Series of 2000 for Building
No. 3 (to consist of twelve (12) lodge units) on Lot lA of the Aspen Meadows Specially
Planned Area to allow for the construction of Building No3, with the following conditions:
All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect for the Aspen
Meadows SPA.
2. The newly established expiration date of vested rights of shall be May 29, 2008.
3. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall, result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the applications
or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. The developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption
there from is granted in writing.
The Applicant shall resolve the water maintenance cost issue related to Condition
No.12 in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 with the City of Aspen Water
Department within thirty (30) days of this approval. If the water maintenance cost
issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Water Department
Director within thirty (30) days of this approval, the extension of vested rights shall
be considered null and void; and the Applicant shall have the opportunity to return to
City Council to reconsider the extension of vested rights request.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction; such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5-
A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 27th day of May, 2003, at 5:00
PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of May, 2003 .
Approved as to form:
ohn orce ter, City Attorney
Attest:
- - . -n
0 rn
�14 — S IN
/� �i
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
Amy Margerum
Executive Vice President
Administration and Finance
June 9, 2004
Mr. Don Roth
President & CEO
Music Associates of Aspen
Ms. Jane Kelly
Administrative Vice -President
Aspen Center for Physics
Re: Consent to Substantial SPA Amendment & Application
Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall Building
845 Meadows Road
The Aspen Institute, Owner
Dear Don & Jane,
As you are aware, "The Aspen Meadows, Specially Planned Area
(SPA) Development & Subdivision Agreement" was approved by the Aspen
City Council in 1992 and established a Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows
Campus. Article II, H(12) "Amendments," attached, requires that any SPA or
Master Plan amendments or future development applications submitted by one
of the non-profit users be jointly applied for and consented to by all the non-
profit users of the Campus. This provision was to insure the non-profit users
would communicate and coordinate their land use and building plans among
one another.
1000 North Third Street
The Conference and Meeting Hall Building is located between the
Calloway Health Club and the Wexner Lodge Building. The building will be a
Aspen, co s1s11
conference and meeting hall to accommodate 200 — 250 sit-down dining. The
preliminary program is approximately 10,000 sf. above -grade space and 7,800
PH 970.544.7905
sf. below grade space. The conceptual plans are enclosed for your review, and
FX 970.544.7908
either I, or Jim Curtis, our Owner Representative for the project, will be happy
to answer any questions on the project.
amym0aspen institute.org
On behalf of the Aspen Institute, I respectfully request your consent to
i8mv%zspeninstitute.org
the filing of the above referenced land use applications in compliance with
Article II, H(12) of the SPA Agreement. Thank you for your cooperation in
this matter, and please feel free to call on any questions.
RothKellyConsentSPAConf&MeetingHallBldg
S
V
Consent to Application:
Don Roth Date
President & CEO
Music Association of Aspen
Hall B
Jane Kelly Date
Administrative Vice -President
Aspen Center for Physics
RothKellyConsentSPAConf&MeetingHallBldg
Consent to Application:
Aspen Meadows Conference and Meeting Hall Building
Don Roth Date e Kelly Date
President & CEO A nistrative Vice- esident
Music Association of Aspen spen Center for Physics
RothKellyConsentSPAConf&MeetingHaUBldg
1!�416: 1 = Re $ 00 f: 667 F'G 769
Silvia avis, F'itkin Cnty Cler L a• ?��
8) Fox Dens. The Consortium has constructed replacement and additional fox dens
in a manner and at locations selected in the field by the City, in consultation with
the Director of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies ("ACES").
9) Re -Vegetation. Re -vegetation of all areas developed pursuant to the Plan shall
be implemented in accordance with those guidelines as set forth by Design
Workshop in its letter of March 21, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "H". All re -vegetation shall be inspected and monitored by the City to
ensure that re -vegetation efforts and the protection of the same are successful.
10) Manicured Lawn Areas. New manicured lawn areas shall be minimized to the
extent possible, except in those areas adjacent to the Music Tent, and as shown
on the Plat.
11) Construction Barricading. Prior to excavation, temporary construction barricades
and/or fencing shall be erected within five feet of the building envelopes of the
tennis townhomes and trustee townhomes to prevent damage from falling debris
to the slope bordering the development activity unless unstable soils dictate
alternative locations mutually agreed upon by Savanah, the Building Department
and Planning Office. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual
components, the locations of all fencing and barricades shall be submitted to and
approved by the Building Department and the Planning Office. All fencing and
barricades shall remain in place throughout the construction process.
12) Amendments. Any SPA or Master Plan amendment or future development
applications submitted by any non-profit user of the Property (Lots 1, 2 and 3)
shall be applied for jointly by all non-profit property owners but need not receive
approval of the pwners of Lots 5-10 inclusive. This provision shall supersede any
requirement herein or elsewhere in the Municipal Code or otherwise contained
requiring SPA submittal approval by all property owners within a Specially
Planned Area. Conversely, any SPA Amendment proposed to be submitted by
any residential owner or association thereof (Lots 5-10, inclusive) shall require,
in addition to the consent of the owners of the residential component involved,
the approval of the resident non -profits of the SPA, which approval shall,
however, not be unreasonably withheld.
13) Public Access. Public pedestrian access, excluding access to buildings, will
continue to be allowed at reasonable hours throughout the entire academic (A),
open space (OS), and wildlife preservation (WP) zone district areas of the
35