HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910409
AGENDA
.
._'....'"
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
April 9, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING
THE ASPEN MEADOWS
,.
.
Im
I • .0141 Z I Dili
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Meadows Final SPA and Related Approvals: Additional
Information for Continued Public Hearing on 4/9/91
DATE: April 3, 1991
SUMMARY: At the 4/2 P&Z meeting, the Commission heard a
presentation on the final approval process by Planning Director
Amy Margerum. She also discussed the meeting schedule adopted by
City Council. Project representatives presented the different
elements of the Meadows proposal with the exception of the MAA
proposals. The Planning Commission discussed the "threshold"
issues and generally approved (via straw votes) of the following
issues:
* Text Amendments
OS (Open Space) zone
WP (Wildlife Preservation) zone - Commission members amended
the proposed language to require that any paved trails
or fencing be approved as Conditional Uses.
Academic - to allow those uses approved within the Meadows
SPA.
GMQS Exemption for non-profit development as Essential
Public Services - Staff pointed out that this code
amendment was directed by Council at Master Plan level
and was intended to waive mitigation for the lodge and
MAA expansion proposals which were on the table at that
time.
SPA Variations from subdivision regulations - It was
recognized by staff and the applicant that full
compliance with street standards, lightkng requirements
etc. might be contrary to efforts to maintain the
campus atmosphere at the Meadows. The applicant must
submit specific variation requests for consideration.
* Subdivision
Ten lots are proposed within the Meadows parcel. Staff
mentioned that many items have not been addressed by the
applicant pending final determination of building locations,
roadways, etc. The applicant provide updated Subdivision
information as these items are decided upon. Additionally,
staff has asked the applicant to go through each standard of
Subdivision in the code and address how the standard is
accomplished'or whether a variation is sought.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Meadows Final SPA and Related Approvals: Additional
Information for Continued Public Hearing on 4/9/91
DATE: April 3, 1991
SUMMARY: At the 4/2 P&Z meeting, the Commission heard a
presentation on the final approval process by Planning Director
Amy Margerum. She also discussed the meeting schedule adopted by
City Council. Project representatives presented the different
elements of the Meadows proposal with the exception of the MAA
proposals. The Planning Commission discussed the "threshold"
issues and generally approved (via straw votes) of the following
issues:
* Text Amendments
OS (Open Space) zone
WP (Wildlife Preservation) zone - Commission members amended
the proposed language to require that any paved trails
or fencing be approved as Conditional Uses.
Academic - to allow those uses approved,within the Meadows
SPA.
GMQS Exemption for non-profit development as Essential
Public Services - Staff pointed out that this code
amendment was directed by Council at Master Plan level
and was intended to waive mitigation for the lodge and
MAA expansion proposals which were on the table at that
time.
SPA Variations I from subdivision regulations - It was
recognized by staff and the applicant that full
compliance with street standards, lighting requirements
etc. might be contrary to efforts to maintain the
campus atmosphere at the Meadows. The applicant must
submit specific variation requests for consideration.
* Subdivision
Ten lots are proposed within the Meadows parcel. Staff
mentioned that many items have not been addressed by the
applicant pending final determination of building locations,
roadways, etc. The applicant provide updated Subdivision
information as these items are decided upon. Additionally,
staff has asked the applicant to go through each standard of
Subdivision in the code and address how the standard is
accomplished or whether a variation is sought.
1
A G E N D ,'A
ASPEN PLANNING AND,'ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
April 9, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
* Rezoning
As the Meadows does not currently have underlying zoning
except for the 25 acre Conservation land along the river,
this project proposes to zone the following areas:
Residential -Multi Family (R-MF) for the two townhome
parcels;
Moderate Density Residential (R-15_ for the four single
family lots;
Academic (Al for the areas occupied by the Institute,
Physics, and MAA;
Open Space (OS) for the Marble Garden, Anderson Park, and
the Tent Meadow; and
Wildlife Preservation (WP) for the racetrack oval and the
City -owned 25 acres along the rivers.
The proposal also calls for dividing the one Meadows SPA into
four distinct SPAs: 3 residential and one non-profit. Staff is
concerned about loosing the unity of the Meadows and is
continuing to study this request.
* GMQS Residential scoring
Staff scored the residential components of the Meadows.
Minimum thresholds were met. The Commission, on a straw
vote, voted to accept staff scores. However, the Commission
should revisit scoring criteria once the entire project has
been reviewed.
Staff is continuing to explore
were not fully addressed at the
Project representatives met with
discuss the following items of
meeting:
aspects of the application which
first public hearing on April 2.
Planning staff this afternoon to
concern brought up at the first
Most Current Map Information - The one sheet map which was the
basis of discussion contained new 'information regarding the
North/Seventh street -intersection. It also showed a new trail
link from Seventh to the proposed trail by the racetrack oval.
The applicant has amended the application and a new site plan is
attached.
Intersections of North, Seventh, and new Meadows, and Eighth and
new Meadows - Roger Hunt expressed concern over these
intersections. Perry Harvey will be organizing a site visit with
Roger,, Chuck Roth, A.J.Zabbia, and Bob Felsberg to look at the
physical constraints such as topography, vegetation, sight lines,
etc. and will report back on any alternatives.. * They will also
discuss signage options.
New Meadows Road - The applicant wants the new road to be a
2
private road with public access easement up to the restaurant
area. This would give the Institute more control over traffic in
the area, especially near the Chalets. Staff and the applicant
will continue to explore limiting the pavement width as minimal
as possible, yet maintaining adequate shoulder and snow storage
capacity.
Plat Requirements - Staff has asked the applicant to go through
the entire list of subdivision improvements and standards and
specify whether the project is in compliance,, needs variation
(under the proposed text amendment) or is still being designed.
Staff will then develop conditions based on this information.
GMOS Scoring and Allotments - The Meadows representatives feel
strongly that the Commission is specifically charged to conduct
scoring and that it is not an option to simply "accept" staff's
recommended score. Regardless of the fact that this is the only
application, scoring should be done by the Commission to avoid
any challenges.
Non -Conforming Lot As the proposed road alignment cuts across
the Marquese lot, the lot area for calculating FAR is reduced. In
effect, the non -conforming Marquese lot will become even smaller.
As brought up at the 4/2 meeting, the applicant proposes a lot
line adjustment for an even trade of land area to eliminate any
increase to the Marquese non -conformity. The exact amount of
land swap will be determined when the precise location of the new
road is established. A lot line adjustment is a one-step
subdivision exemption heard by City Council. A condition of
approval shall require this to be accomplished prior to the final
plat.
.Single Family Lots/Covenants - As proposed, the building
envelopes establish where all structures,, decks, hot tubs,, and
manicured landscaping may be located. The building envelopes are
roughly 6,000 s.f. Each home size is limited to 4,050 FAR plus
exemption for 500 s.f. of garage and 500 s.f. for the required
affordable housing unit. The applicant feels that the building
envelopes allow for some flexibility for one and two story home
design. This would avoid a "wall" of two story facades if the
structures were squeezed into smaller envelopes. Additionally,
the applicant proposes that the two end lots have zero setbacks
on their outer sides in order to have larger gaps between the
homes. Staff is continuing to review thearchitectural
guidelines proposed in the covenants. Staff will seek input from
HPC regarding the bulk and. massing issues of the envelopes,
setbacks, and covenants. Another question to be considered is
the landscape plantings at the rear of the homes. Does the
Commission want a requirement that certain types and amounts of
trees be planted to screen the homes from the racetrack side, or
should every attempt be made to limit new plantings in order to
preserve the open sage feel? Staff will be making a site visit
3
to consider this question.
Handicap Access for the Institute Uses - As described, vehicular
access will be greatly limited in the Chalet area. The proposed
service and emergency loop will be as minimal as the Fire Marshal
will allow. In order to accommodate handicap access to these
buildings, the applicant will explore pull -offs or areas of wider
roadway to allow drop offs for physically impaired persons.
Specific spaces for handicap parking will be located near the
restaurant/administration building. The exact number of required
spaces is being studied by the applicant.
Restaurant/Administration Building Expansion - The applicant will
provide drawings showing the exact areas of expansion including
floor plans to determine areas of use. It has been stated that
the lodge and restaurant need a centralized location for
administration and the building expansion will accomplish this.
As mentioned at the Commission meeting, a text amendment is
proposed to allow GMQS exemption for development of non -profits
as Essential Public Services. Staff was not comfortable with the
idea of restaurant expansion as an essential public service,
especially since the restaurant would be marketed to the general
public. Until further consideration of the uses within the
building are made, staff cannot make a final recommendation on
the GMQS Exemption issue for this structure. The other uses at
the Meadows proposed for GMQS Exemption (lodge rooms, health and
tennis club, Tent and Rehearsal Hall) have staff support for
exemption as originally contemplated by Council at the Master
Plan stage.
SPA Variations - A complete list of variations as allowed by the
SPA section of the code is being compiled by the applicant.
Staff was aware of some variations such as R-15 lot size and
setbacks, and certain subdivision requirements, but there has
been no comprehensive listing by the applicant. These variations
must be declared within the SPA Agreement.
SPA Division into Four SPAs - The applicant is requesting to
divide the Meadows SPA into three residential SPAs and one SPA
for the non -profits. Also proposed is removing the small area of
SPA overlay from the City -owned parcel. The arguments for these
requests are: -
1. The resulting development will contain distinct planned areas
(especially the residential parcels) which have little connection
to one another either by use or philosophy. The historic context
of "The Meadows" as a single entity will be by and large gone.
2. If still enveloped under one SPA, any of the owners could
choose not to consent to any SPA amendments proposed by the
others within the SPA. This could have great consequences
(mostly affecting the non -profits) since there would now be many
n
more owners of the residential units.
3. The SPA overlay on the small portion of City land appears to
have been a mapping error to begin with. If retained within the
SPA, the City would also be a "consent" player as described in #2
above. This might be an awkward situation since the City is the
reviewing body of SPA requests.
Staff is not thoroughly convinced that the SPA split is
necessary. However, we have asked the applicants to supply
specific language on the residential portions of the project
limiting future development. Staff feels that the three
residential parcels have gotten many benefits from being
associated with the Meadows SPA (lot size,, density, setbacks)
Although the SPA overlay might remain, there should be no further
benefits bestowed on these parcels as the Meadows is now being
separated into separate elements. We have asked the applicant to
explore legal issues of covenant language which might preclude
problems discussed in #2 above. Staff agrees with removal of the
SPA overlay from the City -owned land.
Construction Scheduling and Access - Staff was concerned that
heavy construction will occur within the West Meadows prior to
the new road being finished. In the'meeting with Perry Harvey et
al. it became more apparent that this would likely happen for at
least several weeks. Staff would like to add a condition that no
construction access to the Chalets or restaurant will commence
until the new roadway can be used for the construction traffic.
This will limit impacts to the residents along old Meadows Road
and Eighth St.
Housing Mitigation - While staff agrees that the single family
homeowners should decide who occupies the deed restricted units
contained within, the units must be always rented and price and
income requirements must be met. The applicants feel that the
income requirements would be hard to meet if a couple wished to
occupy a unit.
Revegetation - Staff has reviewed the 3/21/91 letter from Don
Ensign regarding construction impacts and revegetation of native
plantings. Recognizing that it is not specific to individual
sites within the Meadows, staff feels that it outlines adequate
measures to protect and repair natural areas. Staff recommends
that these guidelines be required as a condition of approval.
Trenching for Utilities - As engineering consultant for the
Meadows, A.J.Zabbia submitted a 3/29/91 letter describing the
impacts of trench box construction vs. laying back the sides of a
trench. It is obvious that the trench box will be the least
impactive in terms of disruption of ground area. He states that
the applicant is willing to commit to using the trench box
method. This is recommended to be a condition of approval by
5
staf f .
Attachments:
Illustrative Meadows Plan dated 4/91
Memo from Meadows Consortium, dated 4/3/91
Letter from Don Ensign, Design Workshop, dated 3/21/91
Letter from A.J.Zabbia, dated 3/29/91
Revised Conditions of Approval Recommended by Staff
jtkvj/meadows.notes
G
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Aspen Meadows Consortium
RE: April 2, 1991 Planning Memo
DATE: April 3, 1991
In reviewing your memo we offer the following clarifications and
comments. This is being done in an effort to handle many of the
issues between ourselves outside of P & Z and Council.
1) Request:
In addition to the requests listed we are'also
requesting final approval for an exemption from GMQS
competition for the Institute and MAA facilities. This
will need to be granted after the code amendment is
finalized.
2) Referral Comments:
A) The plat will not be finalized until final
approval. Adaquate information has been
provided in the final submission for the
review process. As we proceed in the process
further detail will be provided as finalized
with P & Z and Council. As the approval
requires an accepted and recorded final plat
this need not be an issue now. Engineering
requests full condominiumization plats for
SPA. Condominiumization plats are not
prepared until construction has been
completed and the maps can be drawn.
Planning Memo
April 3, 1991
Page Two
B) We have provided a trail easement on the
submitted maps. As we proceed through the
approval refinements of trail design and
widths will necessitate changes and we will
make those changes. Provided however, that
the trail system does not intrude into the
privacy requirements of the trustee and
tennis townhomes. We are confident the
easement can be worked out. The existing
pedestrian walkways within the Institute and
MAA parcels will remain private and will not
be open for public access.
C) We find a tremendous inconsistency in the
City position regarding the storm runnoff
facility. On the one hand staff recommends
that we put all utilities underground and not
be permitted to encroach into the sage area.
But the City insists on a vehicular access
easement to the Race Track and a surface
detention pond which will destroy permanently
the sage. We ask that Planning Office take a
firm position on this issue and require that
the City meet the same standards for
undergrounding that are applied to our
projects.
D) We agree to construct the new Seventh Street.
access road first to accommodate construction
traffic. We will prepare all legal documents
required to accommodate 7th street over
private property and provide access easements
for the Meadows road residents. We have
submitted all final plan details for the road
to planning and P & Z.
E) We have sent you a letter dated March 26 with
a copy of a letter sent to Lee Cassin in
January. We are requesting an interpretation
from Planning'of the code definition of the
Trustee houses as it relates to multi family
units. As the zoning code contains the
pertinent definitions you are the appropriate
person and not the Clean Air Board.
Planning Memo
April 3, 1991
Page Three
F) Regarding the accessory Idwelling units on the
single family homes we agree that these be
deed restricted to low income guidelines for
size, type, rental and occupancy standards.
As discussed during the master plan and
conceptual approval stages the homeowners
must have the absolute right to decide who
lives in the unit. The Housing Authority
cannot simply move someone into the units.
Further we would like the tenants to not have
to meet the income guidelines. The units
will be rented at the low income guidelines
but if a couple moves in and they both work
they will undoubtedly exceed the low income
salary guidelines.
3) Staff Comments:
A) Excess Development Allotment:
In order to complete the land transfers
anticipated in the application all approvals
must be in hand. This means we must have a
GMQS allocation for all the residential
units. The staff memo outlines the issue and
leaves the decision up to Council. We .
request that Planning and the City Attorney
determine that the 25% applies to the 39 unit
quota and ask Council to confirm that
interpretation. This will give the
applicants a greater comfort level and will
definitely move the process forward.
B) In response to the memo we have provided a
trail easement from 7th Street to the Race
Track trail easement. This is shown on the
plan presented April 2, 1991 to the P & Z
commission. We will provide a trail link
from 7th street to the Race Track trail. We
will not be responsible for trail
construction from 7th street to the
conservation land. Further an agreement must
be drafted whereby the City will assume all
responsibility for liability and maintenance
of the existing Meadows road and all public
trails on private property.
Planning Memo
April 3, 1991
Page Four
C) The cash in lieu housing fee should be paid
proportionately with issuance of various
building permits. No cash in lieu need be
paid for road or infrastructure permits or
for the single family portion. As permits
are pulled for the tennis townhomes and new
trustee units then the cash in lieu should be
paid proportionatly.
D) We recommend splitting the SPA for several
reasons. The residential portions should be
separate so that the non -profits do not need
to seek approval from each and every one of
the separate residential owners. As you
know, under the code, the refusal to
cooperate by one townhouse owner would
completely prevent the non -profits from
processing a request. The SPA boundary
currently excludes almost all of the
conservation land. If the SPA is not removed
from this property then the City would have
to be a coapplicant for any SPA amendment.
This.would definitely confuse the issue and
perhaps compromise council's ability to
review any SPA application. While none of us
anticipate SPA amendments we cannot foresee
future circumstances and should not
needlessly complicate issues. The goal of
the SPA is to encircle the campus and bind
the non-profit owners together. A single SPA
on the campus will accomplish this goal
without involving the City or the residential
owners.
Hopefully these comments will help reach consensus on items and
thus forestall or shorten discussions in public forums. Please
call with comments or need for clarification.
De;iun WOrk,hoy, Inc.
Landscape Architecnire
Land Plannin"
Urhan Desit'n
March 21, 1991
_;01. Ms. Amy Margerum
,f,,.;1. c i 0.;1?1„ Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
1 Re: Aspen Meadows Final SPA: Impact of Construction and
Development to NatisTy Vegetation
Dear Ms. Margerum:
This letter is intended as clarification to Item 26, page
92, in the Aspen Meadows Final Submission Document, in so
far as this section addresses the impacts of construction
and development on native vegetation on the Aspen Meadows
property.
The landscape design is illustrated in the Conceptual
Planting Plans, L-9 through L-12. They indicate a minimal
area of manicured landscape immediately adjacent to, or
contained among the buildings. In public areas, new trele
planting will be limited to Aspen, Spruce, Pine and
Cottonwood trees, which presently exist -on the property.
Existing trees that will be affected by new development will
be relocated on the property to the maximum extent possible.
These trees are identified on the Existing Conditions Plans,
L-1 through L-4.
The intent is to limit the impact on native vegetation by
intensely maintaining only the manicured areas and by
carefully monitoring construction activities to limit the
extent of disturbance.
Revegetation of all disturbed areas of native vegetation
will occur based on the following guidelines:
1. An appropriate mix for native grasses will be
determined by a turf expert who will identify
existing native grasses. Disturbed grass areas
will be re -seeded with this mix.
`k(irk,h,i . h1c.
Ms. Amy Margerum
March 21, 1991
Page Two
2. Native plant materials will be obtained from a
nursery such as Native Plants, Inc. in Utah. This
nursery has a wide range of native plants
including Sagebrush, Willows and Gambel's Oak, all
of which are common on the property. The plants
are container grown, they come in many sizes and
are dependable growers. With proper watering,
Sage and Willows grow rapidly.
3. In conditions where slopes exceed 3:1, erosion
control materials will be applied, and where
necessary slopes will be stabilized through
terracing and planting techniques. In all cases,
sufficient topsoil will be applied.
4. The first year is the most critical in the
establishment of native shrubs and grasses. A
temporary irrigation system will be installed to
ensure that the ground is kept moist during the
first growing season.
By following these guidelines which have led to successful
revegetation with native materials in previous projects, we
feel that the Aspen Meadows property can be maintained as an
attractive manmade environment along with a healthy, natural
landscape.
Sincerely,
DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC.
Don Ensign
Principal
DE/la
u
Leonard Rice Consulting Water
2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1143 / (:
March 299 1991
Ms. Amy Margerum
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Director
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
�inW�, Inc.
��QQpp
9589 • FAX (303) t5wi
rd Rice
r S. Ten Eyck
1' H. Botham
Bethel
R. Ford
This letter is to describe the concepts and methods contemplated
for proposed installation and upgrades to the Aspen Meadows utility
infrastructure and mitigation to impacts on the native vegetation
and environmental sensitivity at the area.
Utility construction by its nature will involve trenching of soil,
removal of native vegetation, and disruption of the natural
surroundings. Construction in the past several years has been
complicated and, in some cases, made more disruptive by Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements that are
essentially dictated by the Agency and reduces the owners
flexibility in construction methods.
Trenching for utilities can generally be accomplished in'two ways:
1) trenching and laying back the sides on a slope consistent with
the soil type, or 2) trenching using a trench box. Laying back the
trench sides at different slopes is dictated by OSHA depending on
soil type and can vary from vertical to 2:1. This is the most
economical method for installing utilities but requires greater
surface area disruption.
For example, a 10' deep trench 6 feet wide with a 2:1 side slope
would be 46 feet wide at the top. An additional 20 to 25 feet will
be required for placement of excavated material and access to
equipment. The disrupted surface would be approximately 65 to 70
feet wide along the length of the utility.
Water Rights
Ground Water
Civil Design and Construction
Water Resources Planning
20 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE
1970 — 1990
A.,
Ms. Margerum
March 29, 1991
Page 2
The other procedure for utility trenching is to use a trench box.
The trench box is a steel structure approximately 18 feet long, 4
feet wide, and 8 feet tall with opened ends. The box is placed in
the trench to support the trench sides to prevent side sloughing
and protect the laborers inside the trench. It is pulled along as
the utility is installed and backfill is placed behind it. Use of
the trench box reduces the surface area of disruption. For
example, a 10' deep trench, 6 feet wide using a trench box would
be 10-15 feet wide at the top. An additional 20-25 feet will be
required for placement of excavated material and access for
equipment. The disrupted surface would be approximately 30-40 feet
wide along the length of the proposed utility versus 65-70 feet
wide without a trench box. Using the trench box is the least
economical method for utility c.onstruction because handling and
excavating in the box requires a great deal of time.
The applicant is prepared to specify the use of a trench box for
installing the Aspen Meadows utilities to reduce surface area
disruption. As stated above, this method is not the most
economical. It should also be understood that the surface area of
disruption shall vary somewhat based on the total trench depth and
the types of utilities being installed.
As part of the construction specifications, a width shall be
specified for the specific utility. At the time of construction,
the contractor shall be required to erect fencing along the
boundary at the working area to prevent disruption- of additional
vegetation.
The backfi l l material shall be compacted by mechanical means to 95%
Standard Proctor Density. Revegetation shall occur after
backfilling and at a time that will best suit growth of the
specific vegetation to be reestablished.
The applicant has made an effort to place utilities in the most
direct and least disruptive routes on the Meadows property. For
example, a sewer line was originally proposed along the east side
of the race track to serve the Physics Institute and Boettcher
Auditorium. A route is now proposed across the MAA parking lot
preventing disruption of sage vegetation approximately 1000 feet
long and 30-40 feet wide.
Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc.
Ms. Margerum
March 29, 1991
Page 3
Every effort will be made to reduce vegetation disruption as much
as possible. However, as stated earlier, construction will cause
disruption due to trenching and equipment.
Please contact me through our Denver office if you have any
questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
LEONAn RIC SULTINC WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
i
A. Z r.
P o' Manager
Civil Design and Construction Observation
AJZ/kr
878HAD06
cc: Perry Harvey
Joe Wells
Gideon Kaufman
Fred Smith
Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc.
The following are recommended conditions to be forwarded to City
Council:
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 k6 13 foot service/emergency loop by the chalets shall
be all weather surface that can support fire apparatus. It
shall be plowed to this entire width during the winter. rFhe
app1 earrt--make -,every- ars -to--red ee--the-*4-d-t4k--of
�lr�-rear��a-t��ct�ierr-���lY-�hc Fl�rc-i�ar�ra��
7. The buildings accessed by the -16 13 foot service/emergency
loop shall be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the Fire
1
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 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
2
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. The amount of payment shall be made according to
the number of units being permitted.
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. Frier--to-----Ee�e�1s--eerree�a-erg--c-ri-s--p�a�;--an
evalt�ab�err-�-e�i sing--�re�i�e--�ege�$�3e�--�nc�- -fie
pr�teeb--t*e- natur -envire"ent--y; ** == -lire -stibm-fitted--#ro--the
eac}e-types. The
four guidelines stated in the 3/21/91 letter from Design
Workshop must be implemented throughout the Meadows. The
applicant shall insure through installation inspections and
post -construction monitoring that the protection and
revegetation efforts are successful.
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
3
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.
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 ) Unpaved for pedestrian,
bike and public access.
( 3 ) Benches -tIrtk4 _--and
ptrb�}-e -&peas
Conditional Uses: The following are Conditional Uses in the
Wildlife Preservation Zone District.
(1) Paved trails.
(2) 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."
4
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 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
5
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.
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. _T_n extreme cases where there is no alternative to utility
installations in the above locations, the utility corridor
C-I
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.
17. A Lot Line Adjustment as a Subdivision Exemption for the
Marquese property shall be applied for and processed
concurrent with City Council's consideration of the
Subdivision.
18. Trench box construction methods for utility installation
shall be employed throughout the Meadows to limit impacts to
the site.
19. Lining of the Castle Creek trunkline shall be implemented.
If sections must be totally replaced, these locations shall
be identified to the Planning and Engineering offices and
least disruptive methods shall be identified and employed.
7
APR-05-1991 15 : 57 FRO01 ESTEE LAUDER INC TO 913039253977 P.03
4ie aldrich museum of contemporary art
953 Main straet, Rldgo iusldt Conn4 icvt 08$77 203-438.4519 FAX 203 4 -0188
April 4„ 1991
nonorablt Bill sterling, Mayor
P.O. Box 4723
Aspen, CO 81612
Isar MaYOr Sterlingp
I am the owner of Trustee HOUSe #2 at- AspOn Meadows
since 1965 and have been spending every Sumer and some
winters in Aspen.
I reoeivO the Aspen TiMe& when 1 am not in Aspen
per nonal ly and so `1 am awarc of the MAA4 s pl au for the now
bui ldinq and. I find it very difficult to underztand that it
would not be obvi.oUS tO all that this build!T'S; belan4;a on
; --- the west of the tent allowing -the beautiful grassy aria .east
of the ten to be available for people wbo 10-ve Music and,
Cannot afford t) purchase tickets of admission and others
like myself and my wife who in qood weather also
efor
listening to the music surrouriAled by the naturalY of
Aspen even though our annual $1,5oo.oQ.oentrlbution to MAA
has beer, entitling us to a 15 concert pass ip
1 hope Mayor Sterling, when you &nd the council will be
faced with the* decision of place nt of -the new p AA building
yo'u will insist on it being placed to the west of the teat.
Respootfull y:
t
Larry Aldrich
chairman, Aldrich Museum Of Contemporary Art
LA/dw
MAR-2 1 ----:;I 1 THU 1 6: 35 H&C P . 0 1
ELL MOv1:vTAIN RANCH
Hand delivered, courtesy of Ann and Ed Hudson
March 21, 1991
Members of the Planning and zoning Commission
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Member of the Planning and Zoming Commission:
I am writing You concerning the proposed site of the
rehearsal hall for the Music Association of Aspen. I understand
there is a meeting on March 22 to discuss the subject. I would
like to share some of my views and concerns with you about the
quality of music in Aspen and the open space on the east side.
My children and I have spent manor enchanted hours over the
years enjoying the music on the sawn on the east side of the
tent. The -environment for children provided by the open space as
they hear glorious =ssic 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 Amy
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 sane way I do.
For those reasons, -I urge you to reconsider construction of
a rehearsal hall in that specific. area. Perhaps the westerly
ei.te would be less invasive of green spaca. 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 decisi-on is
certainly worth it. I personally ,love the tent, and would hate
to see a rehearsal hall Bupersede 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 disoussi.on and
Judicious consideration 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,
essi.ca Ca o
---------- �- -- --------------- ----------' -
PPR- 09-1991 10 : 00 FROl EETEE LAUDER INTO r.�.1 0-'39?5423
_ F,t�f1
Cl i :�or`d & Janet DQssigny
P. D. Box 2657
Aspen, Colorado 81612
March 22, 1-991..
COPY FOR EVELYN LA►UDER. LETTER SENT TO EACH MEMSER OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AND ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
.
Dear ,
We are concerned about the site of the new MAA rehearsal
building, We agree that the building is needed, and we
appreciate itsattractive design with much of it underground,
minimizing its impact. We hope you will choose the westerly
location for it..
Over the years when we have sat outside for concerts, we have
enjoyed a lovely combination of pleasant sensations, such as!
- hearing the music we are fortunate enough to have here
each year;
W seeing the beauty of our nearby mountains, especially
toward Independence Pass;
relaxing in the park -like surroundings, feeling the
crass, le-raning against a tree, feeling the breeze,,
T greeting friends, neighbors, and people we don't know yeti,
,v'��t�yy.d .:}ht rind j ay sense of tranquility and en.jc��merit of all of
the above pleas},.arcs •
We know there are other concerns besides oursrelating to the
easterly location, and the lass of the outside surroundings as
they are today is the concern affecting us the most. Please tame
this, and other concerns, into Consideration when choosing the
location of the rehearsal, building. Please choose the westerly
,location.; don't replace what we currently have with bleacher -berm
seating and a view of the tent. Thank you very much for your
attention to this.
Yours vary truly,
Clifford aossigny
Janet Dossigny
Hii:—!'-1`'+� 1�1 t=I i r 4'�=I�`1 E:=SEE L�al_IT;E� 1 i' - - - - - - - - -'I- - - - ��-`,5;�L,-;�_I P. 1_115
f
I
I
5L1OrE 7111 INRAHAM BVIGPINO
i2$ &OUTHEAST Xwo A'+JtNWr,
3&aZ34 VL RIDA x 1
YCLCWWONt (305)
March 27, 1091
Felton AndersenFChairman
.Aspe�kn Planning and Zonij-jcj Comm,ksgion
P.O. 8Ox 9946
Asperl, Colorado
81612
Re. Rehearsal facility Site
tear Mr. Andarson t Chairman!
Wo ara wtit.ing to you as long time supporters of the MA and
the Aspen Institute and as friends of Evelyn and Leonard Lauder who
have brou ht the 41)ova-referenced issue to our attention.
we are very much in favor of a rehearsal facility near the
MU$iC gent. RoWever, we prefer the westerly Site in order to permit
the people who use the lawn for listening to festival. 14USic to
contintio to do so as they have traditionally done --ors blankets, can
deck chairs- On the lawn in the casual ( and free) summer way
that has been SO much a part Of the Aspen experience,
Wet therefore, respectfully aug est that You reconsider your
decision in favor of the "eastorly" site and vote, instead to
place the rehearsal facility on the westerly side of the teat.
Thank you,
t060 ary and R Chard Forman
.Aspen address: P.0. Box 4284
Aspen, CCU, 81612
am
March 21, 1991
Re: MAA Rehearsal Facility
Dear Mr.
I am concerned about the tentative approval to build the MAA
rehearsal facility on the easterly portion of the: MAA property.
it ,would be much better for the facility to be located on the
westerly side of the: MAA tent area.
My opinion is based an my experienoe of more than thirty years
as a real estate developer. In addition, I am a long time
resident, and owner of commercial prQperty, and have business
interests in Aspen.
It would be unfortunate to lose the beautiful open lawn area
enjoyed by so many during the music festival.. The facility could
be easily located to the west of the MAA tent, where it could be
designed to blend into the landscaping.
It is my understanding that -the Institute, adjacent neighbors,
the MAA, the Historic Preservation Commission and the community at
large, favor the westerly location.,
Please give consideration to the westerly location and to
preserving our Aspen treasure..
Thank . you .for your courtesy and cooperation.
very truly yours,
Albert B. Glickman
ABG:tjp
Nbert B. Glickman & Associates
$hopping Center & Real Estate DevelQpment
�iRRd ih(ilchirP Rnvnriv Wiil4 i Olifnrnia ongi n 01 q� '!)7A_P'7')7 r = c : nT Tf-,
APR-05-1991 15:57 FROM ESTEE LAUDER INC TO 913039253977 P.04
tALWORNU, LOS AMCEUSTJCLA
�`• n41iiIIEY • IyAV�s + ili�`ilfFi + WSAN¢JCLJi;14 • M�vi"Eis $IliF, s f
SA.N i5( .a r SAN PANeurm
�, �eni�lA W{Vw
April 2, 1991
Mr. dill Stir"gs Mayer
P. 0. Box 4723
Asgen,, Colorado 81.612
DPW Mayor Stirl i
GAADUATF SCITOOL OF ".CHITXXT UAL ANI) BAN pLAWLVG
OS A�NC�S4 CAL FoRNdA ���
I
90�4�.1467
17AX (213) 2D&$W
AS part-tirne residents with a home in the West ]End Of ASerr for tet�
summer pleasures is artt¢ d�, yL y f%^-n .rts ;.� 4� _ . �y 7' years, �►ny+ of ra^ur}�f/ m� ily's �cwat`ite
-� ��,4 A 4�T i1t 111C i�l,�j�,� Tent. �Lii��a� ���L�aV1l� 4oj��wel,r•� � w�r'
-cnOw, offers an. additional tare o�pp a•tunity ref iisteri to the cQz�c a all
Tent, for local residents tc�7tricr ,� tf,�,... �..,..�: �� ' erts On the lawn Just east of the Music
�s and fai�uue�, Z"'d surety far music students.
--a. vw v� a�4aaavri (,��, L Itui �+tia r4.y�u'lL i'.id. ' V�a,RiiL+.aaA +
.10, zce M June, and have x� elect �t the .constxtxct � of ty' J .have attended the Design
Ties su=Ound ng the exterior of the Music Tent. sand castles and other d related
�n.-c taara-cridence -ass and Mount Soprxs, the children
vith their dogs romping on the ��(}�y
a,YYai l.i i4zlY�f7
T yrr i� i
i•� :� a i� �i•i7'Y,.,�"'i3+•ti .. a - • • --, tiA4tiWair.4- • A L .. C1a%i. �; :`t v . 1�� •
«+I, L 3tt 4 iiiai.. tt"IM Wd� T
i4R
IT'n uai axed magical moment each
therefore extremely distressed to ieam that -there '
ehean� h1 att this remarkable easterly site. Because is a �xoped Project for the, corts�tion of �,
warn of l� projects that surely affect the enure use of our pa +time x idetzce, We are riot always
edieated cam trneagt to the health, future and A pen cornm niM however', we da have a long and
n project. j Virit Of,ASPM and. therefore, I do wish to comment
knave received and reviewed completely the drawing} correspondence,,-
'oukd urge the AI and MAA to 0* consider the w Merl sate .f� the and newspaper articles, grid
iraugh their corx gc rtdence that the `westerly site would not a � rehearsal .hail i do u�.derstanc�
u't' =ding buildings. Arid, I am. of cou=e, ix� total a d�erseZY tm�act the Aspen Meadows car
A reasors for the westerly site. greement with the HPC 'regarding their preference
xe Graduate .8thc>ol. of Architecture and Urban pianrdng, where I hate WO
�n pr4vileged to learn from our faculty of architects, urban planners d xked for 1� years, and have
nc ire the en"Vonment, clean aax, low d�nst o en green s aceand environmentalists whose main
si 'nificantly for our s1�h`ect the �. ry, p gr , p never and wherever possible,
J Preservation of historical land. 'mass for its original use,,
USIY, this proposed project is veYy disturbing and troubling to those of
inese issues. - us whr� art totally committed
U f44
PF,,Cjt,l IER I [A C-1 TO 913039253977 P.05
n Igrge urban areas where we are constantly frustrated by
those q, I
'Cteiccrn fut the n5e that
d issues. it is our hop t a subject such as the
I
1 42 6e Uery of this historical site Is one that the Aspem City - Council,
the Tspooffz5r5l�-A'� CIA6zirl1*�g and' omnjLssiop members will reevaluate and recomider for the
futu -jr-� tors.
COMA,
April 8, 1991
Honorable Members of the City of Aspen City Council
and Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: MAA Rehearsal Facility
Dear Honorable Council and Commission Members:
I am writing this letter as a concerned Aspen resident. When I
heard the rehearsal facility was going to be built East of the
music tent I was deeply upset.
Aspen has lost so many of its wonderful traditions to growth that
the thought of another one being taken away was more than I could
fathom.
There seems to be some misunderstanding that the Aspen Institute
was supporting the easterly location. In actuality, the Aspen
Institute and MAA are neutral as to the East or West locations,
and that the original preference for the easterly site by the
Aspen Institute was a mistake. The Institute, in -a letter from
David McLaughin to Mayor Wm. Stirling, stated that it would
accept either an eastern or western location.
There are two issues that need to be addressed in the decision of
locating the rehearsal hall, the visual impact and the human
impact. I will address each individually.
Visual Impact
If the rehearsal hall is located on,the Easterly site, we will
lose the visual effect of the music tent sitting in the meadow
drawing people to its architecturally interesting design, I am
assuming that the majority of the people attending the music
enter from third street. This vision of the music tent has been
with us for over forty years. We would also lose the view of
Independence pass from the tent, which to many people is
considered quite spectacular.
The visual loss from the westerly site would be the open space of
the meadow on the west. Our visual loss of the Pitkin Green
houses and the ridges are not quite as spectacular as
Independence Pass.
i
Honorable Council
April 8, 1991
Page Two
Human Impact
The lawn seating has been an Aspen tradition for over thirty
years and offers a wonderful experience not just for a select few
but for all.
By locating the site on the easterly side, we would be limiting
both the size of the outdoor seating and the ability of the
parents to bring their small children with them to the music
tent. On many an afternoon you will see parents with babies and
toddler children picnicking and listening to the music.
Now a parent can sit comfortably, listen to music and the
children can listen or play. The children's play takes place
further from the music tent toward the parking lot and the noise
is absorbed out in the open space. If the easterly site is
chosen, there will now be a berm around the building which would
require the.children to play out of sight of their parent.s on the
other side of the berm. This creates an impossible situation for
a conscientious parent who wishes to listen to music but do not
like their young children out of their sight.
If parents did let their children play between the music tent and
the rehearsal hall, it appears that the noise would reverberate
off the rehearsal hall and impact the tent patrons.
The westerly location of the rehearsal hall would have little or
no impact on the people attending the music outside of the tent.
We moved to Aspen to raise
because of the opportunities
an incomparable lifestyle.
chance to hear music, picnic
I have a 3 year old son
children in our area, to
atmosphere.
our family in this magnificent area
to enjoy nature, culture, sports and
Don't deny valley residents the
and view the surrounding mountains.
who has an opportunity, like other
enjoy and learn from this unique
Our children are the MAA's future musicians and future music
patrons, let's not stop giving our children and residents of the
Aspen valley opportunities forsaken in other communities.
Honorable Council
April 8, 1991
Page Three
Since there are no strong adverse impacts with the westerly
location we strongly urge you to approve the westerly_site as the
best choice for the rehearsal facilities.
As I do not have all the facts, there may be some financial
reasons for locating on one site or another. The building of the
rehearsal hall, should be reviewed and approved as any other
developer bringing a project before the city. In most of those
cases you have forced the developer to spend additional monies in
their planning and construction costs by forcing them to locate
and build in a manner to protect the view planes, the visual
impacts and the traffic patterns. Don't let up now.
Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter.
Sinc rely,
c/LCI
-
Sam and Heidi Houston
cc: Historical Preservation Society
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members
Aspen Times
ANN & ED HUDSON
530 W. FRA.NCIS STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
March 22, 1991
Members of the City Council
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Members of the City Council:
There are many things that make Aspen special and different from the other available resorts.
The most important of these are the Aspen Institute and the Aspen Music Festival.
One of the delights of summer in Aspen is the informal aspect of concerts at the. Music Tent.
Lying on the lawn, listening to Mozart while colorful hang-gliders circle Shadow Mountain is
pure bliss.
We are writing to urge that the proposed location of the Rehearsal Hall to the east of the Tent
be changed to the west location, preserving the traditional use of the lawn and the view to the
east.
Yours truly,
Edward R. Hudson, Jr.
Ann F. Hudson
ERHJr; vc
1 P4 L .0 1 '-1 I ••. �_ fill off
BRACE KONHEIM
March 20, 1991
Bill Sterling
Box 4723
Aspen, CO. 81612
Subject: MAA Rehersal Facility
Dear Bill,
kY
It has come to my attention that the MAA rehersal facility is tentatively approved
to be built on the easterly portion of the MAA property.
I further understand that this facility could be placed on the westerly side of the
MAA tent area. As a property owner and one who has been involved . with real
estate development for over 30 years, I have listed some of my thoughts on this
matter for your consideration.
1 Jt as proposed, we will lose the beautiful open lawn area enjoyed by • hundred
of Aspenites each week during the Music festival.
Why would you want to crowd that portion of the property. I could understand the
rational if this was in a high density area in a major metropolitan city.
The area to the west of the MAA tent is far better because of the openness that
exists there. The facility would be designed to blend into the landscaping and be
far more appreciated throughout the community. f
I know the Historic Preservation Commission, the adjacent neighbors to the east,
many supporters of MAA, the Institute and the community, favors the facility
being built orl, the westerly location.
Since the location of the MAA facility is not cast in stone and they would be happy
in either location,_ please support the site west of the MAA tent. Thank you for
your cooperation and consideration.
,ere ,
Bru e Konhei
P.U. BOX 580, ASPEN, CO. 81612
(303) 925-2259
APR-05-1991 15:56 FROM
5
ESTEE LAUDER INC TO
.r�nl/u`tv I , - •-TV
37I1 VVILLOWICK ROAD
HOUSMN, TEXAS 77019
April 3* 1991
913039253977 P.02
i 14vt VWUUUUuvvu 1.
Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council
and -Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: MAA Rehearsal Fac i 1 i ty
Dear Honorable Council and Commission Membersp
We wish to express our support for your deliberations
on the Aspen Meadows feaster Plan and the selection of the
westerly site for the rehearsal facility.
As homeowners � n no a�� VI l age, we repeatedly
enjoy sitting on the lawn for the afternoon concerts and
feel that the 'family of participants ,i,s .uhited
in its earnest concern for preserving this tradition.
We. -thank ;you for your st rious -tongidorati-Qn of this
matter.
SI ncerei y }
Sharon, & Frank 'Lorenzo
100 Alpine Lane
Snowmass Village,, 'CO 81615
bc: Evelyn Lauder
10 : 02:2 FROM E'STEE "Fi �DcF' I NC TO :�- �3 8 P.
Sc iff
March 22, 1991
Mr. Graeme Means
Aspen Planning and Zoning CommiSSiOn
P. 0. Boo 495
Aspen, Colorado S lb l"Q
Dear Mx�. Means:
I wish to express mar strong support for t 'hO— wes (.�rl'V
location of the MAA Re�hearsa.l Hall site.
.f
. We own hog ne in Srowmm-3�s and f requently at-
r r
Tents Events . We appreciate thecharm of
enjoying th,, rmselves can the lawn to the east of'
tent. It wi).1 be a tragedy to destroy that tradition.
I undetstand that both the HAA and Aspen Institute aro
neutral about the location of the rehk;-aral. h
Whiles there is a rer �z L;e�ment for. rehearsal f�acdl ` t .�� s,
please keep the tradition and experience nor thc'—;Lr e whc
enjoy the lawn.
Thank you f-or your c 1ns i aeration.
Yours very 'truly,
� h
v
i
0 '92 17 : 4 TOB I -] WASH I tII TO[-.1 D . C .
.f . 002
Date:
Marsh 21, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Comiissioners & Council Members
From: Mau ice 8. Tobin
210 W. Francis Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(30 ) 925-2414
RE: The location of the Rehearsal Facility of the Aspen Music 'Festival
No doubt you ha a encountered loud chorus' -of protest from those of us who
cherish sitting on the lawn and listening to music: To allow the rehearsal
hall to end thi great tradition in Aspen would seem,inexcusable.
I hope that common sense will Prevail and this great tradition of listening to
music op the lasin will continue.
The Aspen Institute, the townspeople and many other citizen groups long for this
tradi ti a,n to ca ti nue t The Meadows and all that are here or will come to Aspen f
will be enricheJ by keeping this tradition,
The NPG seems to have a good sense of Aspen; they are solidly behind keeping
this lawn seats g arrangement_
Good luck in yo r deliberations - the Gent and the lawn adds so much flavor
to Aspen - I ho a we can keep them. The visual impact of both give Aspen a
special glow