HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910402
AGENDA
..
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 2, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Ball
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1001 ute Avenue SubdivisionJPUD Conditional Use
Review of 8040 Greenline Review
B. The Aspen Meadows Residential GHQS, Final SPA
and Rezoning
IV. ADJOURN
a.cov
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: March 28, 1991
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Special Meeting, April 9th
* The Aspen Meadows (continued)
Regular Meeting, April 16th
* Gordon Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit (PH) (KJ/LL)
* Lily Reid Special Review and GMQS Exemption (KJ/LL)
* 716 West Francis, 620 West Hallam & 214 Wesat Bleeker
Historic Designation (PH) (RE)
*j The Aspen Meadows (continued)
Regular Meeting, May 7th
* Aspen Villas PUD Amendment for Trash/Mail Enclosure (KJ)
* Clarendon PUD Amendment (PH) (LL)
* Christiania Lodge GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing (LL)
* Messiah Lutheran Church Amended Conditional Use and GMQS
Exemption for Affordable Housing (PH) (KJ)
* Square Footage Code Amendment (PH) (LL)
�ZM94VWN
Tuesday, March 19 at 4:30 to give opin-
ions to the Planning and Zoning
commissioners. Public support is greatly
needed and appreciated.
Deborah Barnekow
Artpark volunteer
Be There!
Editor:
I would like to inform the citizens of
Snowmas Village that there is an impor-
tant council meeting Monday, March 18
at 4 p.m. The subject is the proposed new
development at the Horse Ranch. If you
are concerned about the future of Snow -
mass Village — its quality of life, traffic,
density, size of proposed homes, wild-
life and environment — come to this
meeting. It will probably be your only
real chance to let your concil know how
you feel because conceptual approval of
the new Horse Ranch sub -division (96
homesites) will be voted on by the coun-
cil at this meeting.
■ The development will add substan-
tial impacts to our village including
traffic, public works and police depart-
ments and special districts (including
water and sanitation and fire).
■ This new sub -division will develop
the last major open space area in our
village.
■ This development will impact
important wildlife areas.
■ This new sub -division will change
dramatically the present visual make-up
of our village.
Please come to the meeting and
express your concerns on Monday,
March 18 at 4 p.m. in the council
chambers.
Jack Hatfield
Chairman
Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee
Snowinass Village
Police Call Stolen Car's Phone, Make Arrest
MIAMI (AP) — There's a new anti-
theft accessory for cars — the cellular
phone.
Lynne Rosier was describing her
missing car to Metro -Dade police officer
Ralph Baena, and decided to call the
phone in her car.
A male voice answered.
Baena took over, telling the person he
understood the car was for sale.
"Meet me in the parking lot at Sunset
High," the suspect replied.
Five minutes later, police rolled up at
the high school to find an 18-year-old
"Better than anything I've
seen on TV."
Lynne Rosier
Car Owner
leaning against the stolen car. They
arrested him Friday on charges of grand
theft.
Rosier got her car, and the phone,
back.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205 E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations)
State of Colorado)
} SS.
City of Aspen )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, Glenn Horn being or representing an applicant before City
of Aspen, personally, certify that Public Notice of the application
for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision was given by posting notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205 E, which
posting occurred on March 20, 1991, in a conspicuous place (as it
could be seen from the nearest public way) and that said sign was
posted.
Applicant:
Peter Coventry
By
Glenn Horn
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and
signed before me this 1 day of April, 1991, by Glenn Horn on behalf
of Peter Coventry.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
W'e4l�
NO Y PUBLIC
domp
P,
it
PLACZLiu-mt
401,
RACZAK
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I herebycertify that on this �'-
y day of March, 1991, I placed true
and correct copies of the attached Public Notice regarding 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD,
8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review for Accesory Dwelling
Units and GMQS Exemption, in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage
prepaid to the following:
James E. & June H. Anderson
I.W. Bailey, III
2145 Fieldcrest Dr.
Box 32830
Owensboro, KY 42301
Louisville, KY 40511
William D. & Judith B. Prakken
Lowe Development Corp.
215 Country Club Park
11777 San Vicente Blvd., Suite
Grand Junction, CO 81503
900
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Roderick N. Jack
261 Union Blvd.
Kitchner, Ontario CANADA
E.S. Sanditen
N2M259
Box 11566
Aspen, CO 81612-1156
Joan Crawford & John
Honigsberg
R.A. Franklin
15310 Manor Village Lane
Apt. 16-C
Rockville, MD 20853
251 E. 51 st St.
New York City, NY 10032
Valerie Arden Richter
6214 N. 34th St.
Padraic P. & Shirley A. Frucht
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
#24, 151 Gonzales Rd.
Sante Fe, MN 87501
George Dunea Trustee
of Morris Trust
R.R. & K.K. Denning
906 Franklin
N.N. & J.S. Claman
River Forest, IL 60305
518 River View Drive
Grand Junction, CO 81503
R.C.B. & A.M. Clark
P.O. Box 899
W.L. and B.B. Henderson
Osterville, MA 02655
4 Butternut Rd.
Randolph, NJ 07869
1
R.T. Fridholm as Trustee
of Fridholm Revocable Trust
100 River Place
Detroit, MI 48207
R.B. Reingold
730 Lawrence Dr.
Newbury Park, CA 91320
W.H. Trembly, Jr.
River Ridge Office Park
Building B, 6400 Riverside Dr.
Dublin, OH 43017
Johannes Van Tilburg
1110 Broadway
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Melvin L. Reich
c/o Alan I. White
Box 2714-726
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
H.A. & L.M. Schirmer
827 Iverness Dr.
La Canada, CA 91011
Domingo & Yvonne Baitlon
612 W. 18th St.
Pueblo, CO 81001
0234 Light Hill Road • Snowmass, Colorado 81654 o 303-927-4800
Nancy Ellen Taub T. & M. Appelquist Kenneth S. & Karen Gottlieb
c/o Texan Bldg., 4th Floor 400 Livingston St. Rio Escondido 16
333 W. Loop North New Haven, CT 06511 Naulcalpan EDO De Mexico
Houston, TX 77024 59000
Beem Corporation
Suite 6202
12100 Marion Lane
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Nancy Schaldach, Trustee of
the Gunter & Nancy
Schaldach
Revocable Trust
3131 Antelo Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90077
Bertram R. Firestone
Box 167
Waterford, VA 22190
Aspen -Chance, Inc., as
Trustees
under American Red Oak
Trust
81 Flint St.
Exter, NH 03833
SmugglerDurant Mining
c/o Box 533
Cross River, NY 10518
U.S. Government Forst
Service
806 W. Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
T.F. & C.R. Crum
991 Ute Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Chaspin Associates
c/o M. Chase
Suite304, 450 Newport Center
Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Gene Golub
c/o Golub & Co.
625 N. Michigan
Chicago, ILL 60611
R.L. Pipes
9 Noble Woods Way
Ormand Beach, FL 32174
Lot 1 Development
Partnership
c/o R. Neiley, Jr.
Suite 3, 600 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
D. & M. Hartman
#6 Ridgeman Court
Midland, TX 77005
Aspen - Chance, Inc.
3 Longfellow Lane
Houston, TX 77005
Aspen Skiing Company
Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612-1248
Savannah Ltd. Partnership
Suite 1100
1300 N. 17th St.
Rosslyn, WA 22209
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Linda D. Edwards
Now Linda Edwards Woerner
990 Van Nuys St.
San Diego, CA 92109
James M. DeFrancia
Suite 200, 10 Pidgeon Hill
Drive
Sterling, VA 22170
Susan Fleet Welsch, Trustee
of Welsch Trust
17686 Caminito Hercuba
San Diego, CA 92128
Ten Ten Ute Homeowners
Assoc.
c/o Ute Place Homeownesr
Assoc.
19 Ute Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.G. Davis, Jr.
110 S. Marion Ave.
Ventnor, NY 08406
Henrik N. Vanderlip &
Christina Hoyt
Suite 14, 136 E. 79th St.
New York, NY 11021
1010 Ute Corporation
Box 9046
Aspen, CO 81612-9046
J. S. Zaluba &
Ronald C. Collen
Box 9640
Aspen, CO 81612-9640
MMORANDUK
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue - 8040 Greenline Review,
Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan (as consolidated two-
step review)
DATE: March 22, 1991
Summa-ry: The The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1001 Ute
8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling
Units, and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan with
conditions.
Applicant: Peter Coventry, represented by Glenn Horn
Location: 6.73 acres on Ute Avenue. uphill from and including
the tennis courts leased by the Gant Condominiums. To the East
is the Aspen Chance Subdivision and to the west is Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision and City -owned park land.
Zoning: Land below the 8040 elevation is zoned R-15 PUD (109,110
s.f.). Land above the 8040 line is zoned C Conservation (7,480
s.f.). The portion of the parcel extending uphill from the city
limits carries the county zoning of AF-1.
Applicant's Request: This project requires several land use
reviews. The Commission will be called upon to act on 8040
Greenline review and Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling
units. The Commission will also forward a recommendation for
GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing (A.D
Subdivision/Planned Unit Development (PUD) to City Council. The
applicant has requested that the PUD review, normally a four step
process, be consolidated into two steps. In addition, the tennis
court lot must receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director
under Section 8-104 A.1.e. For the two residential lots, GMQS
Exemption for Lot Split from City Council is needed under Section
8-104 C.l.a.
Proposal: The applicant seeks to divide the portion of the parcel
within the city limits into three lots, two to each contain a
single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, and the
third containing three tennis courts held in a long term lease by
The Gant. The existing tennis courts will be moved to the west
approximately 50 -feet to accommodate the access drive to the
homesites. The tennis courts are proposed to be deed restricted
against further development and will be available for use as
common open space by the two residential lots. This court area
is not used to calculate density, floor area nor open space. The
property outside of the city limits is proposed to be deed
restricted against future development also. Please see
Attachment "A" for application information, site and elevation
sketches.
Referral Comments: Attachment "B" contains the complete referral
submissions. Highlights of these are as follows:
Engineering:
1) The subdivision plat still lacks certain information
about monuments, bearings, rebar, and Planning Director
signature block.
2) Easements are required and shall be shown on the plat for
the following: a 15' Spar Gulch drainage easement, aligned
with the Midland r.o.w.; a waterline easement for the
pipeline to the Linda Edwards property; trail easement as
proposed by the applicant; and a 20' water easement proposed
through Lot 1 to Aspen Chance.
3) Water pressure is adequate to this property. When this
property is connected to the City's water system, any water
rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to
the City.
4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join
the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to
address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow
removal/parking problems.
5) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
6) Parking space locations must be identified on the site
plan/final plat..
7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested
by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected.
8) The USGS Avalanche Hazard map indicates the possibility
of small avalanches occurring within the proposed building
envelopes. Further study by an avalanche specialist is
required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen -Northern concerning construction
impacts on slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The driveway curb cut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18'
in width.
radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must
be protected by fire sprinkler systems.
22) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in
character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be
eliminated.
23) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the
Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in
addition to the regular connection fees.
24) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation
drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off must
be handled on -site or by the City's storm water system, if
available.
25) Sewer lines/connections shall meet the approval of the
Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be
paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system.
26) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the
extraineous area to the west of the pedestrian access point.
27) A Final Development Plan and PUD Agreement must be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval
by City Council or the approval will be rendered invalid.
Attachments:
"A"- Proposed PUD Development Plan, Plat,
"B"- Comments from Referral Agencies
"C"- 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn regarding Subdivision process
"D"- 3/18/91 letter from Glenn Horn to Tim Whitsitt/Cindy Houben
19
)•._� / / / /j / .-� - _ solo
77
$oho
ATTACHMENT
i soso
8040
� � /�� •yam �.-_ —I/ r
40
.010 - -- / 1 to - - •/ _ _ �- _ em)
I
so
I/
�,, _ t.- ____. ___--. -:;:.• '�.'- may., ,/// �/ /, //% •� \ \ �
/,1'I1,Sk ° I� nuu ro�� pi�ilD \• � t
\ / \
f � � 7Deo
IL
79/o1 I -
IN
7 0 -
' S _
�S ct
L�
�w
and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be
located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall
meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is
required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition
of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six
months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall
have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his
or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. occupancy of the
accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet
the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For
purpose of this provision, a unit shall be considered rented if
it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which
requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of
rent.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of
each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to
the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state
that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such
units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall
be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of
the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant
shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorders Office.
3. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
8040 Greenline: The Planning Office recommends approval of 8040
Greenline review with the following conditions:
4) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade alterations
must be completely contained within the property lines of this
parcel.
5) When this property is connected to the City 's water system,
any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed
to the City.
6) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by
Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected. These techniques
include: the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude
at least four feet above finished grade and be without doors or
windows on the up -slope sides; they should be able to withstand
200 lbs/s.f.. Positive landscaping should be done at the rear of
the homes during or shortly after construction.
8) Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in
17
addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen -Northern concerning construction
impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The mine waste/tailings must be capped with 2-3' of clean
soil fill.
Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends approval of
subdivision with the following conditions:
11) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7-1004 C. and D.
shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering
Office..
12) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section
7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of
any excavation or building permits.
13) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic/pedestrian
trail, and two waterlines, as described in Engineering's referral
comments must be shown on the plat.
14) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the
Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the
roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems.
15) The Subdivision Agreement and Plat must be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by
City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals
invalid.
PUD Development Plan: The Planning Office Recommends approval of
this development plan with the following conditions:
16) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the
east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be
achieved without a variation.
17) Fourteen parking spaces must be identified on the Final
Development Plan.
18) The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in
width.
19) A trash service are must be shown on the plan.
20) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved
through the Environmental Health department.
21) A 50' minimum radius for the cul-de-sac is required. If the
18
designed so that adequate public facilities will be
available to accommodate the proposed development at the
time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public
facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such
that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
Response: According to comments from Engineering, the Fire
Marshal and utilities, basic needs are met except where noted and
conditioned.
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
Response: As discussed in referral comments, vehicular access is
acceptable with conditions. Staff would like a reconsideration
of pedestrian access, that being a less "urban" treatment on the
entry, and even removal of the sidewalk along the driveway. The
additional pavement seems excessive given the width of the
private drive. It will also require plowing in the winter to
keep it useful.
13. Final Development Plan.
Response: The applicant has provided an acceptable plan for
review purposes. Staff has requested some additional site
section information from the architect and this should be
available at the meeting if not sooner.
Sec. 7-904. PUD Agreement.
The following information is required to be filed concurrently
with the PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. As the
Subdivision Agreement is a similar document, the Agreement could
be a consolidation of the two as long as all required information
and commitments are contained within.
A. General. Upon approval of a Final Development Plan for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant and
City Council shall enter into a Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any conditions
placed on the development order.
B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The PUD Agreement
shall outline any agreement on the part of the ap-
plicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided
interest in all common park and recreations areas,
together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation
and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council
may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the
current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements
in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the
ER
City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all
landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and
replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2)
years after installation. The guarantee shall be in
the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or
savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight
draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender and shall give the City the uncon-
ditional right upon demand to partially or fully
complete or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to
partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements
or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills
for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and
upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the
release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion
of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%)
which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements
are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-
five percent (25%), which shall be retained until the
improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure
installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the development, the City Council shall
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current
estimated cost of such public improvements, as es-
timated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be
in the form specified in Sec. 7-904(c) and may be drawn
upon by the City as therein specified. As portions of
the public facilities improvements are completed, the
City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements,
except that ten percent (10%) which shall be withheld
until all proposed improvements are completed and
approved.
Staff Recommendations:
GMQS ExemptionlConditional Use: The Planning Office Recommends
approval of Conditional Use for. one Accessory Dwelling Unit in
each residence with the following conditions:
1. Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300
16
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: March 27, 1991
RE: Aspen Meadows Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development
Plan, Text Amendments, Rezoning, Residential GMQS Allotment,
Subdivision, Special Review for Off -Street Parking, and
Conditional Use for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units
Summary: Conceptual approval for the Aspen Meadows occurred in
December 1990, based upon general compliance with the Meadows Master
Plan. The Planning Office has reviewed this submission for Final SPA
in consideration of the conditions of approval for the Conceptual Plan
as well as standards for the other individual reviews. The Planning
Office recommends approval of the Final SPA and adjunct reviews with
conditions.
Applicant: Owners: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Ltd.
Partnership
Leaseholders: Music Associates of Aspen and Aspen
Center for Physics
Interested User: International Design Conference in Aspen
Representative: Joe Wells
Location: 86.1 acres bounded by Gillespie Street to the south,
Roaring Fork Road to the east, the Roaring Fork River to the north,
and to the west Meadows Road, the Red Butte Cemetery and the Black
Birch Subdivision.
Request: This review is the third step in a four part hearing process
for:
Residential GMQS Allotment Final SPA Development Plan
Land Use Code Text Amendment Map Amendment (Rezoning)
Subdivision Special Review (Parking)
Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units
Vested Rights and Subdivision exemption for Condominiumization of the
townhomes will be considered at City Council.
Background: Approvals of the Meadows Master Plan occurred on October
16, 1990. The Conceptual SPA Plan recommendation for approval was
made by the Commission on November 20, 1990 (Resolution #90-19). The
City Council approved the Conceptual SPA Plan with conditions on
December 20, 1990 with Resolution #2 (Series 1991).
Scheduling: The Meadows has been scheduled for three Commission
meetings:
April 2 (regular meeting and public hearing)
April 9 (special meeting and public hearing, Meadows only)
April 16 (regular meeting, if necessary)
Four meetings are scheduled for City Council review:
April 29 (special meeting, First Reading of Ordinance)
May 13 (regular meeting, Second Reading and public hearing)
May 20 (continued public hearing)
June 3 (special meeting, continued public hearing)
Additionally, the HPC will continue Conceptual and Final Review and
discussion of the program on April 8. The Meadow's Final Historic
Preservation Plan is scheduled to be heard on May 8.
Project Description: The Meadows Final SPA submission is broken down
into the separate elements listed below. Please see SPA discussion in
staff comments for discussion of these proposals in light of
Conceptual approvals and Code requirements.
Music Associates of Aspen:
Tent Expansion - In order to provide dressing room areas and
restroom facilities, approximately 1,500 square feet is proposed
for the rear of the Tent (on the northeast side.)
Rehearsal Hall- The proposed hall will be 11,000 square feet of
FAR mostly underground and surrounded by an earthen berm. The
uses will include closed rehearsals, public rehearsals and
performances.
Parking Lot - The parking area will be reorganized to accommodate
approximately 274 spaces, up from 258 current capacity. A
central pedestrian walkway will be improved. A bus drop-off area
on the southern side will be added.
Institute Lodge and Restaurant:
New lodge units/buildings - A total of 50 new lodge units are
proposed. This will entail construction of three new structures
and adding rooms to two existing Chalet building locations.
2
Existing Lodge Units - The three existing Chalet buildings have
been deemed too far gone to renovate as originally planned.
These structures will be taken down to their foundations and
rebuilt with some expansion as mentioned above.
Restaurant - Proposed expansion of 2,000 square feet will involve
enclosing the existing roof deck for year-round use. The
drawings in the application mistakenly included other areas (new
kitchen) which will not be considered. In order to allow this
change the applicant is requesting a code Text Amendment to
include a new GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities.
Health Club - Two areas of expansion totaling 1,800 square feet
will include men's and women's facilities. A new pool and hot
tub will be outside, north of the building.
Residential:
Trustee Townhomes - The plan calls for renovation of the eight
existing units and the addition of three new units; two on the
north end and one on the south end. All will be 2,500 square
feet.
Tennis Townhomes - Seven new 2,500 square foot units.are proposed
to be located across from the tennis courts.
Single Family Lots - Four 12,000 square foot lots are requested
to be subdivided out of the southern portion of the racetrack
oval and will front the new Seventh St. Included within the
residences will be required one bedroom deed restricted
affordable housing units, typical of "accessory dwelling units"
which must get Conditional Use approval. The plans call for
building envelopes which establish limited areas for manicured
landscaping and altered setbacks to space the homes out somewhat.
Conceptual covenants describe design parameters, materials, etc.
(see Attachment C).
Access and Traffic Mitigation.Plan:
Seventh Street - As dictated by Conceptual approval, the old
Meadows Road will be converted to t= ,pedestrian/bike trail and
Seventh St. will be extended into th. ,.=Ieadows and will parallel
old Meadows Rd. on the other side of the cottonwood trees.
Pedestrian Trails - Old Meadows Rd. will become the major
pedestrian connection to the West Meadows. A new easement is
proposed between the new single family lots and the racetrack.
Other trails connecting to the. Roaring Fork trails and Castle
Creek trails are also proposed, but these will mostly be on the
City -owned land below the bluffs.
3
Bus Routes - The Traffic Mitigation Plan included in the
application package describes service to MAA concerts as follows:
RFTA will maintain its city-wide service to the West End and drop
passengers off at Main and Fourth. If desired, people may walk
down Fourth (designated ped-only route) or take a smaller shuttle
bus to the tent. A new loading area has been designed in the MAA
parking lot to reduce ped./auto/bus conflicts and noise at the
Tent.
Parking Plan - In addition to the MAA lot, a semi -underground lot
is proposed at the site of the existing tennis courts. Six new
courts will replace the old ones and will become the roof of the
97 space structure. Most of the existing parking amongst the
Chalet buildings will be removed and the pavement reduced to a
16' service and emergency lane.
Service Deliveries, etc. - In order to limit large truck traffic
to West Meadows, the operator of the restaurant will be required
to have contractual agreements with his/her purveyors to limit
deliveries between 9-11 a.m. and 2-4 p.m. Additionally,'these
trucks will be required to use Seventh Street only between
Highway 82 and the Meadows. MAA deliveries will be limited to
Third Street between the Meadows and Main.
Other Reviews:
Subdivision - The Meadows is proposed to be divided into a total of 10
lots in order to convey ownership to the various non -profits, the
City, and allow development of the townhomes and single family homes.
Condominiumization of the townhome buildings will be requested at City
Council.
Text Amendments - Two new zones are proposed for the protection of
open areas on the Meadows: OS - Open Space and WP - Wildlife
Protection. The applicant also seeks amendment to the Academic Zone
to allow uses approved in SPA, a language change in the GMQS exemption
section to accommodate development of non-profit organizations, and
SPA change to allow variations to the Subdivision Regulations.
Rezoning (Map Amendment) - The Meadows currently has an SPA overlay
but only the area along the river is zoned (Conservation). The four
single family lots are proposed to be zoned R-15. The two townhome
parcels are requested to be R-MF. The bulk of the non-profit land
including the Institute, MAA, Physics, and the Chalet/Restaurant area
are proposed to be Academic. The racetrack and the conservation land
will be designated WP for wildlife habitat. The remaining open areas
including Anderson Park, the Marble Garden, and the area southeast of
the Tent will be zoned OS.
Special Review - Parking for uses in the Academic zone is approved by
Special Review. The Traffic Mitigation Plan will be considered within
this review.
4
SPA Variations - The SPA regulations allow for requests to vary
certain items required by the underlying zone districts. The Meadows
proposal seeks to vary the R-15 lot size of the single family lots, R-
15 minimum side setbacks, and subdivision standards.
----------------------
Referral Comments: Highlights and areas of concern from other
agencies are entered below. Please see Attachment "A" for complete
memos.
Engineering: Chuck Roth forwarded an "executive summary" of his
detailed memo contained in Attachment "A". This summary reads:
Plat - Many pages have not been submitted and much information is
lacking.
Trails - Alignment needs improvement to improve steep grades.
Access - Legal access for existing homes along Meadows Road has not
been provided. Staff questions if roads should be private in this
project or if they should be dedicated public rights -of -way. Staff is
inclined to recommend that roads should be public. Street design
plans have not been submitted and there is concern for compliance with
roadway safety parameters.
Utilities -.Little information has 'been submitted. Utilities should
be placed in or adjacent to land which is disturbed for other reasons,
such as roads, trails. Utilities should not be permitted in open
spaces.
Storm runoff - The applicant has offered a detention pond, easement as
required in code but has encumbered easement with underground
requirements. This would cost the City far more to construct and
maintain, therefore, staff cannot recommend acceptance. Applicant's
engineer continues to work with the City.
On -site runoff - Requirements have been addressed but not fully
documented.
Energy efficiency - The proposal does not appear to exceed existing
City requirements which happen to be in the process of revision.
Staff would like 'to see the applicant work with the City energy
efficiency committee and perhaps representatives of Rocky Mountain
Institute to provide a better proposal.
Code and zoning amendments - Staff recommends against new zone
districts (OS and WP) which would encumber public development of storm
water facilities potentially needed to comply with the Clean Water
Act.
5
RFTA: Dan Blankenship reviewed the Transportation Plan and feels that
the level of van services to the airport and to/from town appears to
meet the envisioned needs of the development. He expressed concern
about the lack of apparent enforcement mechanisms the City holds over
the operator of the van shuttle system. The lodge operator is
responsible for van service according to the plan. Dan's concern
applies to whether the operator diminishes or ceases service or does
not expand service if warranted by increased demand. Some form of
contractual obligation for specific service levels, subject to ongoing
review, will not require the City to rely on the operator's good faith
efforts.
The RFTA service described for the MAA concerts has been agreed to by
the RFTA Board of Directors. This service format is considered
experimental at this time and will be reviewed for effectiveness over
time.
Fire Marshall: A 16 foot wide circle drive (around the Chalet loop]
is the minimum for fire apparatus use. It shall be all weather
surface capable of supporting the weight of a fire truck. This
modification is made with the understanding that the buildings will be
sprinklered. Fire hydrant locations will be addressed later.
Housing Authority: Accessory dwelling units by definition are deed
restricted to resident occupancy, and cannot be used for GMP
mitigation. These proposed four one -bedroom units however must be
fully deed restricted to low income price and occupancy guidelines to
provide housing for 7 employees. Minimum lease periods shall be six
months. Payment in -lieu shall be indexed to guidelines in effect at
the time of payment
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Thomas Bracewell submitted a
detailed run-down on necessary line improvements, easements,
maintenance and repair needs (including removal of existing septic
systems), construction planning and inspections, and fee payment
scheduling. The Meadows consulting engineer is A.J. Zabbia, who is
also the Sanitation District's consultant. This will provide a
convenient link between the two parties, especially regarding
regulations, specifications, and procedures.
Parks. Department: George Robinson forwarded concerns on:
1) Landscaping: tree removal information must be more detailed:
individual trees, i.e., type, diameter, new location; what time
of year for moving; who will move them; and what process. Will
trees at health club be relocated or kept?
2) Trails and Trail Construction: if trail work is to be done in
conjunction with the construction of the tennis townhomes, when
will this be (fall 1992]. What "agreement between the City and
Savanah" exists regarding trail construction? Who is responsible
for maintenance, and what materials will be used? What width is
0
proposed for bike routes on streets, and what separates bikes
from cars? Who is responsible for street closures for MAA
concerts?
3) Ditches and Drainage System: What are the minimal conflicts
alluded to on page 96? Will the Meadows continue to improve and
maintain the ditches? How will irrigation system be altered to
maintain turf areas? Who will install new irrigation system?
Water Department: Larry Ballenger states that the written information
provided is not sufficient to make any determinations on this project.
Utility drawings (existing and proposed) are needed. Major utilities
exist in this area and information is lacking as to whether these will
be affected.
Environmental Health Department: Proposed improvements to the sewer
system will result in better overall service. Central collection
lines should be located to make connections easy. The proposal to
slip -line the Castle Creek trunk line will reduce infiltration during
run-off periods.
The proposed water conservation methods for the residential and lodge
uses will help to lessen peaks to water and sewer service demands. It
is requested that more details be provided on water saving techniques
'to better evaluate the potential benefits.
Use of irrigation ditch water for landscape use is proposed and is
advisable. There must be no connection between this irrigation system
and the potable water system.
The proposal to divert seasonal run-off into swales, ditches and
detention structures will help control erosion and non -point pollution
sources on the site. In addition to proposed easements, channels, dry
wells and other methods, it should be a requirement to prevent co -
mingling of irrigation water and pond water from run-off flows to
reduce pollution in Castle Creek.
Water quality from street, parking and roof run-off should be
protected by evaporation or subsurface facilities including parking
lot trenches and roof drywells.
There is a discrepancy in terminology regarding building types and
fireplace replacement.
The MAA parking lot should be paved to reduce dust, a major part of
Aspen's particulate problem.
A Fugitive Dust Control Plan must obtain approval through the
Environmental Health Department and the State prior to issuance of any
building permits.
7
The noise abatement chapter in the Municipal Code will apply during
construction. General vehicular noise is expected to increase in the
neighborhood.
The food service facility must comply with applicable regulations.
Swimming pools shall comply with state regulations.
The applicant should contact this office should mine waste or dumps be
found during excavation.
Staff Comments
II. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING Section 8-103 A.2.
establishes the annual allotment for residential growth to be 39
units: 20 free market units and 19 affordable housing units``. From the
free market category, any units built resulting from GMQS exemption,
ie. single family, duplex or multi -family replacement, are subtracted.
At a minimum, there shall be available for allotment 30% (or 6 units)
for competition. The Commission shall evaluate and score proposed
residential developments and forward a recommendation for allocation
to City Council. The Meadows was the only submission for 1990
competition. The deadline date for 1990 submission was carried over
until February 15, 1991 by Ordinance 55 (Series 1990) on August 27.
Staff researched building permit records (Nov. 1989 through Nov. 1990)
to determine how many "net" units were built as exemptions. "Net"
refers to the number of new units minus any demolitions which
occurred. It was found. that 22 net new units were built. Because
this figure exceeds the 20 established allotments, 6 shall be deemed
available as mentioned above.
1. Annual Quota = 20 free market units
2. Excess Allotments Granted = 0
3. Carryover from prior years = 0
4. Units built pursuant to exemptions = 22 free market units
5. Expired GMQS allocations
Quota Available
1990 Allocation
= -2
6 units (30% req'd.)
The Meadows residential component requests allotment for 14 new units.
This is composed of 7 new Tennis Townhomes, 3 new Trustee Townhomes,
and 4 single family lots. The applicant therefore seeks additional
8
allotments from the future to accomplish its residential goals.
Section 8-103 B. sets forth the mechanism whereby this may be
accomplished:
Excess development allotments.
1. In awarding development allotments, the City Council
may authorize development in excess of the maximum
amount of development allotted for a year established
in Section 8-103 A. Excess allotments, however, shall
not exceed twenty-five (25%) of the annual development
allotment established in Section 8-103 A.1,2,or 3.
2. Any allocation of excess development shall be off -set
by a reduction in successive years so that every fifth
year the total development allotted within the previous
five (5) years shall not be in excess of the cumulative
total permitted by Section 8-103 A.
The following information describes the past five years in terms of
allotments, excesses, and what is available as excess allotments for
the Meadows. Numbers from past years were obtained from Table A-1 of
the Phase One Report of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan dated
January 1991.
Total Free Market Allowed
Total Free Market Granted
186 187 188 189 190 Total
20 20 20 20 20 100
18 24 11 3 (14]* 70
* Indicates the 14 units proposed by the Meadows
It is evident that past allotment activity would allow excess to be
granted to the Meadows without exceeding the 115 year clause" spelled
out above. Knowing this, the proposal would be eligible for the 6
units for 1990, plus excess not to exceed 25% of the "annual
development allotment established in Section 8-103 A.2." The code is
silent on whether the 25% shall be calculated from the 39 units total,
or just the 20 available free market unit allotments. Staff feels
that the City Council must make a determination on this language.
If it is determined that an excess is granted amounting to no more
than 25% of total 39 units (9 units), the Meadows could accomplish
their goal of 14 units with 6 minimum available from 1990 and 8 excess
units "borrowed" from the 1991 GMP allotment. If is determined that
the excess shall be no more than 25% of the available 20 free market
units, or 5 units, then "borrowing" must occur from 1991 (5) as well
as 1992 (3) to reach their needs.
Staff has scored the Meadows residential component (Attachment "B").
As you can see on the last page, minimum thresholds must be met in
order to be eligible for allotment. According to staff's review, the
proposed residential development, including new townhomes and
residential lots, narrowly achieves the 60% threshold for overall
scoring in categories 1-5. Note that the Commission may consider
applying bonus points where staff is not allowed to.
Attachment "C" shows the proposed configurations for the single family
lots. The setbacks for the easternmost and westernmost sides are
proposed to be 0 feet to allow greater separation between these two
homes and the adjacent interior pair. The covenants describe
architecture, setbacks and landscaping limitations. Staff proposes
the following additions to the covenants to further stress the
landscape/harmony issues:
III. (page 2)
o add sentence: "The accessory unit must be 100% above grade and be
designed and deed restricted to the low income residency requirements
of the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority.
o add "decks, patios, hot tubs, etc." within description of building
envelope.
o add sentence "During construction, the building envelope must be
barricaded along the rear and 1/2 the length of the side to prevent
disruption of the native vegetation there. No equipment, material
storage, or clearing shall occur outside of the barricades."
(page 4)
o Fences and walls: add statement to include that "no fences can be
located along the side property lines along the rear 1/2 of side."
o Landscaping: add to third statement "These plants must be low-water
(xeric) species consistent with the sage meadow regime. There shall
be no artificial irrigation within these "natural areas" of the lots
except minimal hose end watering to establish the screening plants."
IV. Architectural Style:
o Building and Scale: 4th line, change "should" to "shall"
III. FINAL SPA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following is a discussion of Final Review Standards and the
Meadows SPA Plan. The Commission is requested to make recommendations
to City Council for their consideration. The Final Development Plan
10
must be reviewed in light of the conditions resulting from Conceptual
SPA approval, which took into consideration the eight review standards
of Section 7-804 B. There were 27 conditions resulting from
conceptual approval. These are listed below with responses compiled
from staff and referral agency comments.
Prior to submission for Final Development Review:
1. The applicant shall submit a construction schedule.
Response: The applicant states that it is difficult to prepare
an accurate construction schedule. The main reasons are: 1) the
inability to predict fund-raising success; and 2) there are five
separate components to the whole project - the Institute
improvements, MAA improvements, Savanah residential development,
the infrastructure (road, trails, utilities etc.), and the
trail/bridge work. The applicant offers that detailed schedules
will be provided when specific components apply for building
permits.
A listing of projects within each component is included on page
99 of the application. Please see Attachment "D" for staff s
time line description of the proposed schedule. It is staff's
opinion that a very specific order of projects be maintained
which gives the community an assurance that roads and
infrastructure are in place at the appropriate time. For
instance, the new road cannot be built until the tennis court is
moved. Yet, the tennis/parking structure isn't listed in the
Institute projects. The application states that the first
efforts will go towards Chalet and Kresge renovations, but the
new road won't be in yet. This seems to indicate that Meadows
Road will be the access for construction equipment and workers.
2. The visual impact (height and linear appearance) of the
underground parking lot at the tennis courts shall be reduced as
much as possible. A detailed parking plan shall be provided
indicating any existing parking to be removed and any proposed
parking at the Meadows.
Response: The proposed tennis complex includes a semi -
underground 97 space parking garage, 6 tennis courts, pro shop,
bike storage, and two restrooms. Although one siting objective
of this element was to reduce intrusion into the racetrack oval,
staff is concerned that the part of the structure containing the
pro shop and restrooms is much too close to the road. At the
restroom area, the distance from the wall to the pavement is only
four feet. At the pro shop, a raised deck appears to be three
feet from the pavement. Staff feels strongly that the structures
be moved back as far as possible, even if it means removing the
entry porch, reducing the floor area of the shop, and removing
one or both restrooms. The applicant considered these structures
in an effort to break up the horizontal lines of the garage/court
1
facade, but having the structures this close to the road creates
other visual and physical problems.
The building elevations are not dimensioned, but it seems that
the height of the pro shop is about 13 feet. The applicant needs
to look at reducing the height to a minimum. The there is
partially -underground storage for bikes. It is unclear if bike
storage is underneath the pro shop. If so, there may be some way
to lower the height of the structure even more.
The application does not address the overall height of the
parking garage. This was cause for great concern during
Conceptual approval. Since no argument was made for retaining
the height, staff still recommends reducing the height of the
garage several feet.
On the north side of the parking structure, a new berm (about 6
feet tall) and vegetation is proposed to screen the highest side.
3. Those elements listed in the Master Plan must receive Conceptual
and Final approval by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)
unless the HPC determines that final approval is not necessary
prior to Final SPA submission.
Response: HPC has granted conceptual approval for the
residential and lodge components of the Meadows plan. However,
due to considerable concern over the location of the Rehearsal
Hall, the HPC is holding a continued public hearing on April 8.
No later than April 5, the two possible sites (east and west of
the Music Tent) will be staked to show the diameter and height of
the proposed structure and berm. The Planning Commission is
strongly advised to go to the Meadows to look at the two sites
when staked in order to evaluate visual impacts, service
considerations, traffic considerations (pedestrian and vehicular)
and impacts to the "sense of place." Please see Attachment "E",
Amy Margerum's letter to HPC regarding HPC Action.
4. A Subdivision Plat in full compliance with Section 7-1004 D.1 and
D.2 shall be submitted which describes the specific parcels to be
held in separate ownership, including the Conservation Area to be
Purchased by the City.
Response: The plat as submitted lacks most of the requirements.
The proposed parcels are conceptually laid out on page 137 of the
application book. When specific decisions have been made
regarding utility locations, rehearsal hall location, road
alignment etc, the applicant will make final adjustments to the
lot lines and add easements on the plat.
5. Trail easements on the Meadows property must be dedicated on the
Subdivision Plat consistent with the Meadows Master Plan. The
trail accessing the west Meadows area from Seventh at North shall
12
follow the boundary of the racetrack open space as shown on the
Master Plan.
Response: The layout and grading plan indicates the trail
locations and grades. What is lacking is an important link to
Seventh Street from the trail between the Physics Center and the
four single family lots. The Parks Department has some questions
regarding construction and maintenance of the trail system within
the Meadows property. During the Master Plan process, it was
agreed that the City would construct all trails/bridges on the
conservation land and Savannah would be responsible for the
Meadows Road, Seventh Street, trails to the conservation land.
( See also #10 )
6. All utilities shall be underground. Easement needs of each
utility shall be addressed at Final submission. Major Utilities
must sign off on final submission.
Response: No mention was made regarding electrical and gas
supply. Water and sewer improvements are proposed. As mentioned
by both the Engineering and Water Departments, detailed utility
maps must be evaluated to determine impacts to existing systems,
wildlife and vegetation impacts, easement locations, etc. It
must be a goal of the applicant and the City to insure that all
underground installations be made along roads, pathways, and
cultivated landscape areas. The racetrack oval should be
considered inviolable to utility crossings because of the
sensitivity of the sage meadow vegetation. The Engineering
Department wants to insure that drainage facilities be allowed
within the racetrack area.
7. The applicant shall investigate with the Engineering Department
how to comply with drainage and runoff issues and be prepared to
specify mitigation in the final application and, grant all
easements as required.
Response: The applicant's engineering consultant has submitted a
plan that identifies a three acre rectangle on the north half of
the racetrack as an underground easement for urban storm run-off
storage. This is not an acceptable offer based on several
criteria. First, if the intent is to limit visual impact of a
detention facility, the construction of a huge underground tank
would decimate the native habitat of the sage meadows there. The
structure would have to be buried deep enou4h to allow several
feet (maybe 6 to 10 feet) of soil cover in order to re-establish
the native low-water (xeric) species which have extensive root
systems. Second, the cost of the buried structure and attendant
revegetation requirements would be excessive. Third, maintenance
of an underground facility would be difficult and more expensive
than for surface facilities. Planning staff has not spoken with
the applicant's engineer about alternatives, but evidently none
were presented to the. City Engineer for consideration. Any
13
ditches, swales, intermediary ponds, or detention areas must be
covered by access and maintenance easements.
8. Seventh Street shall be the primary access for two way traffic,
into and out of the Meadows.
Response: The Final SPA Plan shows Seventh St. as the primary
access for two-way traffic. The residential lot layout sheet
dimensions the pavement at 22 feet, with 3 foot shoulders on each
side, 6 foot snow storage on the south side, and additional
planting area on the south side. During discussions at
Conceptual, staff understood that the road would be closer to the
southern boundary of the Meadows. Also, staff would like to see
the pavement narrowed to 20 feet.
9. Costs associated with the Seventh Street expansions or
alterations shall be borne by the applicant.
Response: The applicant commits to paying costs of Seventh
Street access through the Meadows property.
10. Trails and bikeways shall be implemented in compliance with the
adopted Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. The pedestrian trail along
the old Meadows road alignment shall be reconfigured to conform
to design standards set forth in this plan.
Response: The old Meadows road trail scales out to approximately
12 feet in width. This should accommodate bikers and
pedestrians. There is concern that details for the two trails
extending down the steep slopes (east and north sides) have not
been worked out. 8-10% slopes exceed the Pedestrian Plan
guidelines. The alignment should be lengthened to decrease the
steepness. Switchbacks may be necessary but are undesirable.
Since easements are required for the trails, the exact design
requirements and locations are required prior to dedicating the
easements. The applicant must co-ordinate with City trail
representatives (Parks, Engineering, and Planning.)
11. A fugitive dust control plan must be approved by state and County
agencies prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits.
Response: The applicant will obtain approvals from the County
and State prior to issuance of any building permits for the
property.
12. Food service facilities shall comply with all State and local
environmental health codes.
Response: The applicant commits that all food service facilities
will be incompliance with State and City health codes.
14
13. Energy efficient measures shall be a priority throughout the
Meadows property.
Response: The applicant details the energy conservation
techniques to be used in the GMQS section of the application.
They are relatively vague statements, not concrete commitments.
14. Housing mitigation for the 23.69 low income employees shall be
provided through cash -in -lieu for 16.69 employees as well as on -
site housing for seven employees, deed restricted to low income.
Response: The Housing Authority concurs with the housing
requirement for 23.69 low income employees, 16.69 are mitigated
by cash payment. They state that the payment amount shall be
calculated at the level in effect at the time the payment is
made. Payment shall be made prior to issuance of any building
permits for any of the residential projects.
15. The affordable housing units must be deed restricted meeting the
Housing Authority's requirements for size, type, asset, income,
and occupancy standards.
Response:- The applicant agrees to deed restrict the units to low
income occupancy in order to satisfy GMQS requirements. The
units shall be 500 square feet of net livable area and be 100%
above grade.
16. Condominiumization fees shall be paid for the eight existing 3
bedroom townhomes totaling $64,240, payable before plats are
filed
Response: The applicant commits to paying this fee when the condo
plats are filed. This is standard procedure.
17. New residential units must receive GMOS allotments prior to Final
SPA approval.
Response: The residential GMQS.application was scored by staff
and minimum thresholds were met. The Commission and Council will
continue with the scoring and allocation process.
18. The following areas shall be rezoned to a new zone district
called OS -Open Space: the 25 acre parcel currently zoned C-
Conservation (with consent of the applicant), the Racetrack, Sage
Meadow, Anderson Park, and the Tent Meadow, as designated in the
Master Plan. Upon further review, some historic use of the
parcel may indicate a slightly different approach to zoning
(SPA).
Response: The applicant has submitted text proposals for two new
zones. One is for maintenance of existing native open areas, the
15
other for more "manicured" or manipulated open spaces, ie.
Anderson Park. Please see Rezoning section of this memo.
19. The Rehearsal Hall shall be located to the east of the Music Tent
and shall be screened along the eastern MAA property boundary
with a vegetative buffer.
Response: The Final Plan shows the hall on the east side of the
Music Tent. Staff recommends that the final location be moved to
the north as much as possible and that options to reduce the
height and size of the berm be explored prior to City Council.
20. A detailed description of the use program for the Rehearsal Hall
shall be provided. This must address seasonal use, daily use,
use by outside entities, public performances, etc.
Response: The MAA submitted a schedule of events and use in
Exhibit "F" of the application. Staff noted one overlap of Tent
and Rehearsal Hall activities on Sundays from 2-3 pm. Other
"close calls" (events within one hour of each other) exist four
times within the weekly schedule. Please see attachment "F" for
staff worksheet. In the MAA's off-season, it is proposed that
the rehearsal facility might be used by IDCA in June, by Physics
and the Institute for lecture type events, and other MAA
sponsored events. Other non-profit users are contemplated, but
no for -profit use is anticipated.
21. A fire suppressionfprotection plan must be developed in concert
with the Fire Marshall's Office and included in the Final
submission.
Response: The applicant commits to installing fire hydrants
according to the requirements of the Fire Marshal's office. The
Fire Marshal indicates that the applicant will sprinkler the
buildings served by the 16 foot service/emergency loop in the
chalet area. The improved water system will increase water
pressure and volume for enhanced fire protection.
23. The applicant shall commit to making necessary corrections to the
Sanitation District trunk line as mentioned in the referral
letter.
Response: In the GMQS section of the application, the applicant
states that the 8" trunkline along Castle Creek and the Roaring
Fork River will be "partially replaced or lined with a
polyethylene or insituform liner". As this is riverbottom
riparian habitat, it is strongly recommended that lining the pipe
be undertaken. Replacement of the line requires excavation and
is the most damaging of the alternatives.
24. A detailed transportation plan shall be submitted with the Final
Plan application. The bus loading area and its interface with
E_
Pedestrian access ways must be addressed. The transportation
Plan shall also provide specific details on items mentioned in
the Master plan: vehicle size regulations, small non -diesel
buses, Rio Grande shuttle. paid parkingf, residential parking
Permits, lodge limousine, and which possibly includes paving the
M.A.A. parking lot. In addition the transportation plan shall
evaluate the effectiveness of less underground parking and a
better transit system throughout the property.
Response: Much effort went into the development of the Traffic
Mitigation Plan. The bus loading configuration on the MAA lot is
a good improvement to lessen bus impacts on the tent,
pedestrians, and auto traffic. Vehicle size regulations were
explored and it became apparent that no feasible trans -shipment
location exists to load into smaller trucks. The result is that
the hours and routes of large truck traffic will be limited
whether it is West Meadows or MAA deliveries. The MAA and
restaurant operators will be responsible to maintain these
requirements in their contracts with shippers.
A non -diesel bus will be used in the West End route of Main,
Fifth, Gillespie, and Third Streets. It will intercept persons
from the Main Street RFTA lines who do not wish to walk down
barricaded Fourth St. One question remains: who will barricade
Fourth Street on concert days and who will provide/pay for
signage mentioned in the Plan. Increased public information on
bus routes will be available at the Rio Grande Garage. The MAA
will continue their literature program promoting transit, bike,
and walkway options for concert goers.
The Master Plan states that paid parking at MAA would be used in
conjunction with a`residential parking permit system. A permit
system is not proposed at this time because of the impacts to the
neighborhood. It is the MAA's plan to see how the other elements
of the Plan work before attempting to initiate a permit system.
The lodge operator will be responsible for maintaining a two -van
shuttle system for airport use and shuttle to town. The town
shuttle will be used by guests, employees and residents of the
West Meadows. Its' pick up _location will be at the Restaurant.
Please see application for operation schedule.
As mentioned at other points in this memo, the parking around the
Chalets will be replaced by a parking structure under the tennis
court. The lodge guests must park there and if heading towards
town will pass the shuttle stop. This should entice guests to
take the van rather than rely solely on their autos.
The Lodge will have 20-30 rental bikes available for lodge
guests. They will be stored at the tennis structure. Fees will
be minimal to cover maintenance, replacement, and administration
costs.
17
As the use patterns for these Traffic Mitigation Plan elements
develop, it will be necessary to review the successes and
failures. The Planning office recommends a yearly review during
the development of the Meadows. once the Meadows is complete,
the review could take place less frequently, perhaps every 2 or 3
years. The reviews should entail trip and passenger rates for
vans, busses, and bikes, and traffic counts on Seventh Street,
and other West End streets. The applicant should be responsible
for pulling together information from all applicable sources,
i.e., RFTA, MAA, etc.
25. The proposed building envelope for the Health Club expansion
shall be shown on the Final SPA Plan. The building shall not be
expanded any further to the north. When designing the new road
in front of the club, the trees and pond shall be kept or
relocated.
Response: The rectangular shape of the expansion shown at
Conceptual approval has been changed into two areas of expansion,
one on each side of the northern extension of the building. This
will provide a men's and women's section and will differentiate
the new from the old. In discussion with the applicant's
representatives, it was learned that the tabular information and
drawings in the application booklet is wrong. The building
extension on the Castle Creek side will not hang over the slope
and the loop trail on that side will not be done. Also, no part
of the new structure will extend past the existing building on
the north. The total addition will be 1,800 s . f . as granted in
the Master Plan, not 2,000 s.f.
26. Impacts of construction and development on the Meadows property
to wildlife and native vecetation should be addressed at the
final development plan and appropriate mitigation measures placed
on the final approval.
Response: Tom Cardamone has submitted a letter which deals
mainly with the small and medium-sized animals of the sage
meadows and the importance of retaining the racetrack area for
their habitats. He recommends construction of dens for fox to
relocate to if the mound near Anderson park is removed. The
application is otherwise lax in attention to native vegetation.
It calls for expansion of new manicured lawns which will remove
native plants and will require additional maintenance of mowing,
fertilizing and watering. This will be an impact itself. Staff
proposes a condition limiting manicured landscaping to locations
where it currently exists. Also, since a utility plan was not
submitted, it is unknown where proposed utility expansion or
upgrading will affect natural areas.
The statement was made that "care will be taken to limit
disruption of native vegetation to a minimum." This is very
18
27.
ague. led elsewhere in this memo, it is recommended
that
a,work be confined to roadways, trai lways , and
exlstiied landscape areas. The difficulty of
�� tabige meadow ecosystem has been documented in the
gineepent Is comments. In extreme instances where
Shoul ruc be done across native meadows, the corridor
mac d As narrowly as possible and barricaded to keep
the hA nezcials from damaging the area. This was done in
z't 3 where the Hallam Lake pipeline was installed.
hI e S r'ecielped the contractor be aware and really kept
�IL e dama,nimum. Any revegetation efforts shall require
same o be replanted as were destroyed.
a generafeels the intent of this condition has not been
1Sfledpplicant.
19,
ent
anon
eauested by th
of�nse: ized copy will be provided prior to recordation
he play
IV . A
T r�NS ;��STER PLAN
The proposed
Firl Plan is consistent with
for the f011 owln the Master Plan except
a
Expansion of Institute restaurant facilities:
Th e MasterPlaid not indicate the
to
th
r'est4llz Which is included in
quest is collered by staff to be
EXemp-tion whic,ouncil proposed as a
Master -
Plan F,cess. See further
Amendment Sectit of this memo.
2,000 square feet addition
the final submission. This
problematic regarding GMQS
code amendment during the
discussion in the Text
One occurrence Cr Simultaneous Tent/Rehearsal Hall concerts:
The Master plan stated that no concurrent public events shall
occur. . Staff reviewed the schedules submitted by the applicant
and found ore overlapping situation. The schedules muschan e
to avoid this. g
Where the proposed Final SrA Plan is not in concur
Of the Meadows Master plar/ amendments shall be processed
with the terms
the SPA Amendment proces, set forth in Sec. 8 essed according to
Director may authorize Insubstantial Amendments 04 E. The Planning
meet the standards below; if the differences
The following shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment
19
titi
I A change in the use or character of threlor
2. An increase 'by 'greate-r thafi three (1erce
cover.age,of structures on the land. rates
me
3. Any andment that substantially incr( trj,,rat�Ol . ie
acl d
,4f
of the proposed development, or the deor, approve
4. A reduction by greater than three (3trcert,�,e off -streetopen space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1%) -.ent le -
parking and loadingspace. f -way for
6. A reduction in required pavement width rig
streets and easements. A the
approved
7. An increase of greater than two (2%scen, _,-,roved
gross leasable floor area of commercialldin, the
8. An increase by greater than one (1%)-cent or
residential density of the proposed dement OTI
9. Any change which is inconsistenC,onclitl,-
tth or Which
representation of the project's or it atheppr03 ectrequires granting of a further varii fr
approved use or dimensional requirement tect d
apph
roved
If the proposed changes are not consi,, wl to botConceptual Development Plan, the amendment.1 b($rev jeV an
b-
Conceptual Development Plan and Final Dewentpl-an
approval. to
na the
The Planning Director shall make a determion ,,nge
SPA
restaurant based on the above cr iterprior to
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
------------------------
V. SUBDIVISION i.isjon and
the apply f or SlAbd ication. for
The Commission shall consider . al-)P I and
forward a recommendation to City Council. An standards
subdivision review shall comply with the tL1 nVing
requirements.
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision
Area comprehensive Plan.
Response:
amendment
consistent
the Rspen
•shall be, consistent with
The Meadows Master Plan was adoPted
to the AACP- This Final plan
with the Master Plan.
b The proposed subdivision shall be
character of existing land uses in the
as an off icial
is generally
consistent
area.
Response: The proposed subdivision is
existing Meadows uses and those of the
20
W it', the
With th. the
Consistent I
surrounding area •
4 • Zone there c�-
Wi ldl ' erva. t i o� -
ife rvatio r1 , a new land and theelck
Astrict, O
Staff corwith �h i s reques � - ,-
5 • See extu ion
Zone thr cjnif ica rz t Op
XI and the �c Icw*� S aa�
t Mea- eas
� as O (A'�r'st•• Mar]
open 'C --Cz�e w distr, `ode
taff con with �� is request=
Ser'�x�sSion
6 • Divide
tone e),'A s ting SPA
s eparate (one E or the lion- oven Mead
n ode s•) z'of L -�hor the i C e-t-
212-2e o
htie
ndiv ntens stat�ct �
idua � by the a �1ict
a1 t As to �r-o cess amend �rcallow �p ez
by oneeSot' occupants, as woul eC� -1 seekina� � ��S o
Pl Staff h. a s concer-n e s if a11e c Q o.
the Aspen adows as orze n � �athi s e
functione �ar n�a kn1tte � .. tit pst in ect= �� rep
oso ny years, y it has dear 11,
anc
Staff d0esot reconrnencd the SPA b
flit u �
� • Remove
eSPA statu:from rom the
the creek Scre
ad river. Ci,-owr•dprce
� 1 Ong
The appliction does not a
on la%k of comp e 11 ing a dares r'eas ons f(this pr ®A
request . gume 17:3 staff do°t suppor-toE al.
him
VII - Text Amendments
The followin
amendments _ g nine review
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
criteria �,.,,ply to Proposec"
text
Whether the proposed anendmient is in portions of this chapter. �onf l
ict�h any
•
Whether the proposedi
amendment apLollc�ble
s the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. con � isterlt b all elemeh,�
whether the proposed amendment is s o f
Zone Districts and land uses, consi �r .•patib wnlh Burro h
neighborhood characteristics, cI � ing extl land use ding
The effect of the proposed amendme and
road safety. lit on treEic fenerat ioh
result Whether land the extent to and
• n de.m which nient
ands on public facilit �e ropoed � lid
extent to which the s, aid e-r and mould
of such Public proposed amendment Would ex°1 the ca the
I� lic facilities, lnclud c
transportation facilities, SeWa �h but = 1 imiteda ity
parks, drainage, schools an sewage �acilities,aate_. s to
d emergency nnedical - I it ies . uplolY.
23
oposed amendmentatural
would
to Which the pr acts on the
the extent adverse imp -
whether and . f Cantly r
result in SIgni is consistent and compatible
environment - posed amendmentof Aspen. trtg the subjel
ther the pro he Citynditions af f e pothe proposed
Whether character in t conditions which
sup
community ,een changed
the ether there have b I ,neighborhood Wh it,-, the
H. whe the surrounding n conflict with Of
parcel or ent would be I roose and intent
amendment. amend with the pul-
whether the proposed harmony
interest and is in f these
public in ed i n fig
l't of
chapter. dments has been consider or concepts ulnles'—
ng amen the.
text
Each Of the follow' Oncurs with 0 c C.Up i e
Staff C ands
standards* of the Ito
noted specifically below* on to Seeking rezoning seeks amend
applicant ed uses WOU'- '4`23L
one in additi ic, the of permitted ly plann,1--1-- <a
ic ZOT S to Academ the list ial of
Academic _���Of it allYt
the non-' pr Specific the approval
by age Of the zone iiuses approved in the Meadows Spec
-mechanism for taurant W
langu, panded t® allow. 11 establish a and res, With
the
be ex 11 ns recreation Zone W i-
This W1 datiO. ►f Academic zone' the
Area (SPA) - S such as acco=o es, in the forming
Within
Meadows use re not permitted
us d con fo
are
uses would be considere
text, these SPA overlay- protection for the 0,1LZ>ca-n
the Meadows provide a level Of community amenity, e
To wonderful
zones*. such a
lace
1, 1 ew 0 e the Meadows 0 new zones.
age for two -4t
make tang oposed in _ne
areas Which sing the language Pr it dr a L'1�7 aL q e
applicant is pro I PO- - staff agrees With (2) to add
os - open space: the following change;
With the tan image
application
fa St
staff agrees with add ildra 5L--riage
preservation: change to
Wildlife
Aildlife he following
proposed with SPA design motion
facilities" n anS nderlYing c�:�ning
ulations WithiionRe la -%.,;I& iot to ma3L-Titain
S .& -, - variat
subdivis 1 and use 3ws redevelopmen as to -1 im it
variations to certain d1mensiona Mead(
the of the objectives W HC)N#Qr 4a-vier,
allows for cer as a goal Of widths-
quirements- It was o one and road , rights Of way,
requirements' at parking widths
the eon
by reducing fy favemtiniattheseregu-I- ;E�Ltions
,aving on site ments Spec' arealizes le 'feel" -E<:),r the
P Sion re St.
subdivision quire onS, etc. ing a small sca review any
light locati goal of maintain thahandled
appropriate SPIN -review
street t with the feels withintheS staff
conflic opment. could b
Meadows devel requests
ID
Sion variation rec or nor-- ..... rof it
subdivl e S. f f let
public �Fa the ea Chalet
1 0
__JI �i Facilities
f or
t �ja S
process expansion
s e nt j a
e
or P callsfor-Stion WS planGM
ExeMMPmeadowsTh
T11
Ldevelo m_e,-o 24
P-T
Response: All neighborhood infrastructure is or will be in place
prior to construction of the homes and their units.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
Response: These units will house employees and will offset those
generated by the residential portion of the Meadows.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and
by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: All standards are being met by these units.
The Housing Authority requires the units to comply with their minimum
size requirements and deed restriction process. See conditions of
approval below.
X. SPA VARIATIONS
Several elements of the Meadows may be approved as variations within
the SPA provisions. The application did not describe them
individually, but staff has identified the following variations:
1. 12,000 square feet lots in the R-15 zone: 15,000 square feet
minimum in the R-15 zone district is required.
2. 0' setback for the eastern and western side lot lines for two R-
15 lots: 10' is the minimum side yard setback in R-15 zone
district.
3. Minimum subdivision standards, mostly for road and lighting
requirements: (see discussion in Text Amendment section above).
Prior to Planning Commission approval and recommendation the
applicant shall be required to submit a list of all variations
from subdivision standards.
XI. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
1. Lack of detailed information for evaluation of plat, utilities,
easements and subdivision details:
Prior to review by City Council, the, applicant must provide
detailed information on the exact locations of utilities,
27
easements and other subdivision requirements. Referral agencies
were unable to give us adequate information due to the lack of
detail provided.
2. Landscape Plan:
There is a lack of information regarding relocation of trees.
Staff would like to limit new manicured turf areas and intrusions
into sensitive native vegetation areas. More information is
needed regarding changes to the irrigation ditch system and its
use.
3. Retention of quasi -public use of Health Club, Restaurant, Tennis
Courts:
The Meadows has long been considered a semi-public place. Staff
is concerned that the public not be cut off from this property in
the future. This needs to be balanced with minimizing traffic
and environmental impacts on the property. The applicant has
committed to allowing traditional uses of the health club, tennis
courts and facilities to continue. In general, other community
and non-profit users should be allowed access. We don't want to
see the Meadows ever turn into a "private club". The Commission
should discuss this issue and provide the staff with input.
4. Restaurant expansion:
Is the restaurant expansion "commercial" in nature and,
therefore, compete for growth management quotas for the
additional square footage requested? Staff will determine if
this expansion can be accomplished by insubstantial amendment as
it was not included in the Master Plan, however, the issue of GMP
exemption remains.
5. Single-family home lots, designs, and covenants:
Staff received the design guidelines, proposed building envelopes
and restrictive covenants for the four single-family homes on
March 27 and has not had adequate time to review and comment on
the proposal. The information submitted is provided for Planning
Commission review and will be addressed by staff prior to your
next meeting. In general terms, our concerns center around a
site design that reduces the semblance of "bulk" (i.e., 1010 Ute)
and also accomplishes a large rear yard setback and backyard
maintained in a natural state. We agree with the variations
proposed relative to the side yard but feel the front setbacks
and the location of the road could potentially be shifted to the
south. In general, the building envelopes appear to be more than
adequate.
28
6. Trails:
The Planning Commission should carefully review the location of
all trails. We are currently missing a link from Seventh Street
to the racetrack area. In addition, both Parks and Engineering
have commented on the grade of the trail to the Conservation
land. We have proposed conditions with respect to this issue.
7. Non -conforming lots:
The Marquese lot is proposed to be crossed with an easement for
the new Seventh Street access. As this is already a non-
conforming lot, staff is investigating any issues or special
reviews (variances) which may be required to allow this action.
8. Division of Meadows SPA into four SPA's (3 residential, 1 non-
profit/open space) ;
The purpose of an area designated SPA is to keep the property
planned as a whole although we understand the applicant's intent.
Staff is concerned that the dividing of the property into four
"mini" SPA's will harm the integrity of the Master Plan and the
SPA process.
9. Excess GMQS Allotment:
The Meadows application is requesting GMQS allotment for 14
residences. The 1990 allotment is 6 units. The applicant needs
an additional 8 unit allotment. The code allows City Council to
grant an excess allotment if the five-year cumulative quota is
not exceeded by such action. However, excess allotments cannot
exceed 25% of the annual quota. The code is not clear as to
whether this is 25% of the full quota of 39 units or only 25% of
that portion of the quota associated with free market units, or
20 units. We will be asking City Council to make this
interpretation.
10. Location of Tennis Court Uses and Height of Parking Garage:
Staff is recommending that tennis court ancillary buildings be
reduced in size and moved a bit further from the edge of the
road. We are also concerned that the overall height of the
parking garage has not been reduced, as was required as a
condition of approval of conceptual SPA.
11. Traffic Mitigation Plan:
Staff wants to ensure that we will be able to enforce the
provisions of the Traffic Mitigation Plan. We also need
clarification on "responsibility" for street closures, signage,
enforcement, tracking and monitoring.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval with
conditions of the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan; Text
Amendments in the language for the Academic Zone and Specially Planned
Area, and for the creation of the OS -Open Space and WP-Wildlife
Preservation Zones; Rezoning portions of the Meadows to Academic, R-
15, RMF, OS and WP; Subdivision; Special Review for Parking; and
Conditional Use for four attached Accessory Dwelling units.
The following are recommended conditions for one-step (Commission)
reviews:
Conditional Use for four attached Accessory Dwelling Units: The
Housing Authority and the Planning Office recommend approval of the
four one -bedroom units to be located within single family residences
on Lots 7-10 with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a residence on
each respective lot, a 500 square foot one -bedroom employee
housing unit must be deed restricted with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder to low income guidelines in a form acceptable to the
Housing Authority.
2. Each unit must be 100% above grade and meet the size, type,
asset, and occupancy standards for low income employees in the
Housing Guidelines placed at time of building permit.
3. A lease shall be executed by owner and approved tenant for a six
consecutive -month minimum lease and a copy be supplied to the
Housing Office within 10 days of approval of tenant(s).
4. One on -site parking space shall be provided for each affordable
housing unit.
Special Review for Parking: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the Special Review for Parking in the (A) Academic zone as represented
in the application with the following conditions:
1. The MAA lot shall remain unpaved but dust control measures must
be approved by Environmental Health prior to building permit for
the rehearsal facility.
2. Permanent separations between rows of head -in parked cars shall
be installed and striped to facilitate the most efficient parking
arrangement.
3. A review of the Traffic Mitigation Plan shall be conducted as
described in the condition for SPA approval.
The following are recommended conditions to be forwarded to City
Council:
30
Final SPA Development Plan: The Planning Office recommends approval
of the Final SPA Development Plan with the following conditions:
1. A construction timeline shall be prepared by the applicant prior
to final hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
extension of Seventh Street shall be complete and usable by
construction equipment prior to any other building permits being
issued for West Meadows projects.
2. The applicant shall conduct a review of the traffic mitigation
plan at 1 year intervals during Meadows construction in order to
evaluate its effectiveness. The applicant shall submit a report
to the Planning prior to December 31, 1992 office which 8 feet
must include traffic counts on Seventh Street, numbers of van
trips, charter vehicle use, passenger counts and destinations
resulting from -the West Meadows use. The review shall also
provide information from RFTA regarding their service provided
during the year. The City will review the report annually and
will have the ability to require modifications to the program or
additional mitigation measures on an annual basis at a public
hearing before the Planning Commission. After the Meadows is
complete, the reviews should occur every 2 years.
3. The lodge operator shall be responsible for operation of the
shuttle van system as represented in the Traffic Mitigation Plan.
4. It is the obligation of the restaurant operator to bind it's
purveyors to contractual agreement regarding hours of delivery
and delivery routes as outlined in the Traffic Mitigation Plan.
5. Any proposed SPA variations to subdivision regulations must be
listed and claims supported as part of the official application.
6. The 16 foot service/emergency loop by the chalets shall be all
weather surface that can support fire apparatus. It shall be
plowed to this width during the winter. The applicant shall make
every effort to reduce the width of this road via discussion with
the Fire Marshall.
7. The buildings accessed by the 16 foot service/emergency loop
shall be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal's
office.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, fire hydrant locations
will be established to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal's
office.
9. A more detailed account of tree removal information must be
provided prior to final SPA approval by City Council. This
report shall indicate individual trees to be moved/removed, their
size, species, new location, time of transplanting, etc. This
a
report shall be submitted to the Parks Department for their
approval.
10. An easement is needed for a trail link to Seventh Street from the
racetrack area.trail.
11. There shall be no cross connection of potable water and
irrigation water systems.
12. Drainage design shall not allow run-off to enter irrigation
ditches or ponds.
13. The applicant shall comply with fireplace regulations as required
by the Environmental Health Department. If there remains a
dispute regarding building types and fireplaces allowed, the
applicant shall seek final judgment from the Clean Air Board or
other appropriate body.
14. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a Fugitive Dust
Control Plan must obtain approval through the Environmental
Health Department and the State.
15. Prior to issuance of building permit for the rehearsal facility,
the applicant shall have proposed dust control measures as
approved by Environmental Health.
16. Prior to Final SPA approval by City Council, the applicant shall
submit revised drawings indicating that the porch in front of the
tennis pro shop is either removed or moved back, and the shop
reduced to 10 feet in height. One restroom shall be removed and
the remaining one moved as far from the road as possible.
17. Prior to final SPA approval by City Council, the applicant shall
submit revised drawings indicating that the height of the parking
garage shall be lowered several feet.
18. Trails must be designed for bike and pedestrian traffic. The
proposed trails are too steep and must be redesigned prior to
acceptance of trail easements.
19. All energy efficiency measures represented in the GMQS
application shall be implemented in the lodge and residential
units. These requirements shall be included in the single family
covenants and condo declarations.
20. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any residential
construction, the applicant shall pay the housing impact fee for
16.69 low income employees, as calculated at the index level in
place at the time of payment.
32
21. Additional fox dens shall be constructed by the applicant at
locations suggested in the field by Tom Cardamone prior to any
demolition or construction occurring on the property.
22. Prior to City Council's consideration of this plan, an evaluation
of existing native vegetation and measures to protect the natural
environment shall be submitted to the Planning Office. Of
particular need is description of the sage meadow vegetation
including shrub and grass types.
23. There shall be no expansion of manicured lawn areas except for
the Music tent vicinity.
24. Prior to excavation, construction barricades shall be erected at
the building envelopes of the tennis townhomes and trustee
townhomes to prevent falling debris and damage to the slope. They
shall remain throughout the entire construction process.
Text Amendments:
The Planning Office recommends approval of the following text
amendments. The recommended language reads:
a. Academic Zone District (Section 5-220):
Permitted uses are proposed to be amended by the addition of 117.
Any additional uses approved within the Meadows Specially Planned
Area (SPA)."
b. Open Space Zone District:
"Purpose: The purpose of the Open Space Zone District (O.S.) is
to protect those areas of the City of Aspen which are significant
areas because of their landscaping and which are part of the
architectural statements in the community. These areas are seen
as dynamic landscaped or natural areas which provide visual
relief and architectural or artistic statements within the
community. These areas, as dynamic features, may change over
time from natural vegetation to manicured areas or back again.
Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted as of right in
the Open Space (O.S.) Zone District:
(1) Walkways, paved and unpaved with benches, sculpture with
appropriate descriptive plaques, water features such as
ponds, streams and fountains, manicured and sculpted and
dynamic landscape features and architectural lighting.
(2) Draining facilities and utility easements for underground
utilities.
33
c. Wildlife Preservation Zone District:
"Purpose: The purpose of the Wildlife Preservation Zone District
is to set aside lands within the City of Aspen to provide for the
nurturing and preservation of natural vegetation, topography and
wildlife in a natural setting while allowing for the controlled
interaction of people without undue disturbance of the land.
Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted as of right in
the Wildlife Preservation Zone District.
(1) Drainage facilities, utility easements.
(2) Trails, both paved and unpaved for pedestrian, bike and
public access.
(3) Benches and decorative fencing to demark trails and public
areas.
Prohibitions: The following uses are expressly prohibited in the
Wildlife Preservation Zone.
(1) Above -grade covered structures of any type.
(2) Manicured playing fields for organized sports."
d. Amendment to Specially Planned Area Provisions (Section 7-
804 (D) (2)) :
Applicant requests that "Variations Permitted" shall be deleted,
and a new paragraph (2) adopted as follows:
"The Final Development Plan shall comply with the requirements of
the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations
from these requirements may be allowed based on the standards of
Section 7-804(b). Variations may be allowed for the following
requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings,
maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum
side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access
area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking
spaces and uses and design standards of Section 7-1004 for
streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall
be specified on the SPA Agreement shown in the Final Development
Plan."
e. Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities
(Section 104 (C) (1) (b) ) :
Applicant requires that "Construction of Essential Facilities" be
amended with the following language:
"Notwithstanding the above criteria, the City Council may
determine that development associated with an existing non-profit
34
entity qualifies as an essential public facility, and may be
exempt from the GMQS, as well as from mitigation requirements,
and does not have to meet the requirements of this Section for
the construction of essential public facilities."
Map Amendments (rezoning):
The Planning Office recommends approval of designating the following
zones within the Meadows property:
-- R-MF (Residential Multi -Family) shall be applied to the two
townhome lots.
-- R-15 (Residential) shall be applied to the four single family
lots.
-- WP (Wildlife Preservation) shall be applied to the 25 acre City
owned land and to the racetrack area as depicted in the Final SPA
submission.
-- OS (Open Space) shall be applied to Anderson Park, the Marble
Garden, and the Tent meadow as depicted in the Final SPA
submission.
-- A (Academic) shall be applied to all remaining lands on.the
Meadows.
The SPA designations shall not be split into 4 SPAs.
Subdivision:
1. Prior to the Commission forwarding a recommendation to Council on
the Final Plan, the applicant shall submit a complete list of all
variations requested from subdivision improvements and design
standards and the reasons for the variations.
2. The Seventh Street extension shall be dedicated as a public
access easement.
3. Legal access must be granted to the homes along Meadows Road.
4. Property exchanges between Savanah and the non -profits shall
occur upon filing of the Subdivision Plat.
5. All improvements required by the Sanitation District shall be
made to the District's satisfaction.
6. The repair of the Castle Creek trunkline which the applicant
commits to shall consist of lining the existing pipe to prevent
disturbance to the natural areas in the river corridor.
35
7. Complete utility plans, including existing and proposed lines and
easements must be submitted to Planning, Engineering, Water,
Sanitation, and other utility providers at least two weeks prior
to City Council review of the Final SPA.
8. A Subdivision Plat complying with the standards in Section 7-1004
D.1. shall be submitted at least two weeks prior to City Council
review.
9. Prior to signature by the City of final SPA Plans and Subdivision
Plats, major utilities shall sign off on the documents.
10. All underground utility installations shall be made along
roadways, trailways, and cultivated landscape areas.
11. In extreme cases where there is no alternative to utility
installations in the above locations, the utility corridor shall
be barricaded to the narrowest width possible to keep machines
and materials from destroying natural vegetation. This process
shall be reviewed and approved by Engineering prior to signature
of any excavation permits.
12. Any revegetation shall require the same species to be replanted
as were destroyed.
13. The easement for storm water detention on the racetrack area
shall be a surface easement.
14. Any ditches, swales, intermediary ponds or detention areas must
be covered by access and maintenance easements.
15. Exact designs for the trails are required prior to acceptance of
easements for the trails.
16. A digitized copy of the subdivision plat shall be submitted prior
recordation of the mylar copies.
Attachments:
"A" - Complete Referral Comments from Agencies/Departments
"B" - Residential GMQS Score Sheet (staff)
"C" - Proposed Single Family Lots and Covenants
"D" - Construction Timeline (staff)
"E" - Memo to HPC from Planning Director
"F" - Rehearsal Hall / Tent Schedule Worksheet (staff)
"G" - 11/23/90 Information/Contract for Conservation Land
Purchase
"H" - Letters from Public
jtkvj/meadows.final.memo
36
ff if KFG C H
INDUSTRIES INC
DAVID H. KOCH
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY March 26, 1991
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 9946
Aspen,CO 81612
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I have a home in Aspen, Colorado located at 855 Roaring Fork Road. This is a
lovely part of town and I am delighted to live there. I have been a resident at
this location for the last two years, and fully intend to retain my property for
a very long time. The environment in the west end of Aspen is extremely
important to me, and I very much want to preserve it in its present character
forever.
It has come to my attention that the Music Association of Aspen has intentions of
building a large berm and rehearsal facility in the meadow to the east of the
music tent. This large structure will, in my opinion, damage the esthetic
quality of the meadow it will be located in, and it will be a terrible
obstruction and eye sore in this area. I believe there is a very adequate site
to the west of the music tent which is quite suitable in every way for the
additional facilities required. I strongly urge that this westerly site be
chosen as I feel it will not be nearly so offensive to the neighbors and will be
much more in harmony with the environment.
I plan to join forces with the other neighbors in the area and do what I can to
mobilize public opinion to choose the easterly site which is enormously more
preferable.
Whatever you can do to support this objective will be greatly appreciated by me
and, I am sure, almost all the home owners in the west end of Aspen.
Si erely,
David H. Koch
DHK:mb
161 East 42nd Street 31 st Floor . New York, New York 10017 ■ 212/682-5755
TLX 424293 Kocheng TWX 710/581-4639 Koch NYK
El
P . 0. BOX 1365
CARL'S PHARMACY
"-A
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
TELEPHONE 925-3273
March 27, 1991
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
P. 0. Box 9946
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear 11r. Anderson:
It has come to our attention that the final
determination of the rehearsal hell position
on the Meadows property will soon be decided
by the .Planning and:oning Commission in the
very near future.
We would like to go on record as favoring the
Western Site rather than putting this large
structure on the Eastern Site and thus re-
moving all of the outside seating around the
tent.
Our employees and friends for years have so
enjoyed the privilege of hearing the concerts
seated on the grass outdoors, and we feel this
would deprive them of yet another special benefit.
Consequently, we would appreciate ,your passing
this on to the other members of the Commission
for consideration in making this decision.
Sincerey
Carl R. and Katie BerUman
Owners
ELK MOUNTAIN RANCH
March 25, 1991
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 9946
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing you concerning the proposed site of the
rehearsal hall for the Music Association of Aspen. I understand
there is a meeting to discuss the subject. I would like to share
some of my views and concerns wii:h you about the quality of music
in Aspen and the open space on the east side.
My children and I have spent many enchanted hours over the
years enjoying the music on the lawn on the east side of the
tent. The environment for children provided by the open space as
they hear glorious music from the tent in the freedom of the
outdoors and in the view of the mountains is one of the very
special aspects of life in Aspen, and one of the reasons for my
strong support for the music over the years. As you know, this
summer pleasure literally draws thousands of visitors to Aspen
each year. In addition, it gives profound pleasure to Aspen and
valley residents. Listening to the music outside in that fashion
has truly been an enriching experience for me and my children and
I'm sure many others feel the same way I do.
For those reasons, I urge you to reconsider construction of
a rehearsal hall in that specific area. Perhaps the westerly
site would be less invasive of green space. It might be more
trouble to reassess. I understand. But if we consider the
quality of life in Aspen our first priority, a little more
trouble and a little more time in reaching the decision is
certainly worth it. I personally love the tent, and would hate
to see a rehearsal hall supersede it as the eventual site for
summer music. Nevertheless, if a rehearsal hall is deemed
necessary, let's consider where it should go to least affect the
beauty of the surroundings, and be least invasive of precious
open spaces.
In conclusion, I write on behalf of more discussion and
judicious consi.deratio�i of the construction of the rehearsal
hall. To my way of thinking, the westerly site seems a much less
invasive area to locate the hall and as a result, a better
solution.
incerely,
F
IX-
essica Catto
LAW OFFICES
RoSEMAn-y FIRANKEL FUI3MAN
SUITE 717 INGRAHAM BUILDING
25 SOUTHEAST 2ND AVENUE
MiAasi, FLOEIIDA 33131
TELEPHONE (305) 374-3533
March 27, 1991
Welton Anderson,Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 9946
Aspen, Colorado
81612
Re: Rehearsal facility site
Dear Mr. Anderson, Chairman:
We are writing to you as long time supporters of the MAA and
the Aspen Institute and as friends of Evelyn and Leonard Lauder who
have brought the above -referenced issue to our attention.
We are very much in favor of a rehearsal facility near the
Music Tent. However, we prefer the westerly site in order to permit
the people who use the lawn for listening to festival music to
continue to do so as they have traditionally done --on blankets, on
deck chairs-- on the lawn in the casual ( and free) summer way
that has been so much a part of the Aspen experience.
We, therefore, respectfully suggest that you reconsider your
decision in favor of the "easterly" site and vote, instead, to
place the rehearsal facility on the westerly side of the tent.
Thank you.
4 0,V
Rosefaary and Richard Furman
Aspen address: P.O. Box 4284
Aspen, CO. 81612