Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Institute.A3194Aspen Institute Ext. of Vested Rights A31-04 2735-121-29-008/009 Thursday, July 14, 1994 • The Aspen Times 29 s 1 The Aspen Times • Thursday, QUIT SMOKING American Heart Association 1992, American Heart Association Bicycle Safety Tips Ride a well ogaipped bike. Always use a strong headlight and taillight at night and when visibility is poor. Be sure your bike is adjusted to fit you prop- erly For safety and efficiency, outfit it with bells. rear-view mir- rors, fenders (for rainy rides), and racks, baskets or bike bags DIAGRAMS COURTESY OF THE PORTLAND. ORE. BICYCLE PROGRAM 14, 1994 ■ l• ANWMIIM� Sunday, July 17th 6:30 pm Aspen Center for Environmental Studies 1969 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics and one of the world's most accomplished and influential scientists, joins ACES to introduce his recently published The Quark and the Jaguar• Adven- tures in the Simple and the Complex that explains everything from the fundamentals of matter to the need for wildlife conservation and population control. Join us at Hallam Lake for this rare opportunity to meet The Man Who Knows Everything. Free and open to the public - proceeds from book sales benefit ACES I If you are unable to attend, but would likeACFS to arrangefor a signed copy, please call us at 925-5756. PLEASE FORGIVE THE NOISE Hard rocks, hard soil. The driving of piles at the Kraut Development at 715 East Hyman Avenue has been been extended from Tuesday, July 5 to Friday, July 15 due to rock and soil conditions. Driving the piles will not be continuous during this period. This will be noisy and we apologize for the inconvenience. For information please contact Jim Curtis, 920-1395. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE Jim Curtis, Project Manager ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 f 0 D LAND USE APPLICATION FEES a %3 S CITY: 63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -MR011 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Signif. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final _ -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -93450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering - County 00115-63340-163 Engineering - City 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL % (; i�-- Name: � �" Phone: Address: Project: n , r`— Check #: Z Date: No of Copies: — / i 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 04/26/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735-121-29-008/009 A31-94 STAFF MEMBER: _LL PROJECT NAME: Aspen Institute Extension of Vested Rights Project Address: Aspen Meadows Project Legal Address: APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, Inc. (410) 827-7168 Applicant Address: Box 222Queenstown, Maryland 21658 REPRESENTATIVE: Kaufman and Peterson Representative Address/Phone: 315 E. Hyman 925-8166 Aspen, CO 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # APPS RECEIVED 3 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 978 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date lJ Z 3 CC Meeting Date 15 � 1 b DRC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PUBLIC HEARING: YES ,NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. City Engineer Bldg Inspector Housing Dir. Fire Marshal Aspen Water Holy Cross City Electric Mtn. Bell Envir.Hlth. ACSD Zoning Energy Center DATE REFERRED: FINAL ROUTING: N�'ti School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other INITIALS: DUE: ------------------------------------ ----------------- ------------------ DATE ROUTED: Z INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Housing Open Space FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Zoning Env. Health Other: • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager X THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Directo FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: July 25, 1994 RE: The Aspen Institute - Vested Rights Extension, Second Reading of Ordinance 31, Series 1994 ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant, the Aspen Institute, seeks to extend vested rights status for a period of three years for the construction of the last lodge building approved by the 1991 Aspen Meadows Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development Plan. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with one condition relating to a revised trail easement alignment down to picnic point. The main objectives of this condition are to link the Meadows Road multi -use pathway to the existing Sanitation District access road with a safer, easier grade at lower cost with much reduced destruction of the hillside and native vegetation. At first reading the Engineering staff had recommended a storm water detention easement in the racetrack area. Since then this condition has been deleted from the ordinance. On July 13, a site visit was conducted by Parks staff and Council members Waggaman, Reno and Paulson. On July 18, Parks staff met on site with David McLaughlin, Cleve Johnson and Joe Wells representing the Aspen Institute, and David Brown representing Savanah Limited Partnership. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan was approved by City Council on June 10, 1991. This approval included vested rights for three years, ending June 21, 1994. Please see Exhibit A for Ordinance 14, Series of 1990. BACKGROUND: The approved Aspen Meadows SPA Plan granted an approval to the Aspen Institute for the addition of a new parking garage and tennis shop expansion, 50 new lodge rooms, and renovation/expansion of the health club and restaurant/administration building. To date, the only element of the Institute's redevelopment which has not been built is building no.3 to contain 12 lodge units. At the time of approval, the Institute's redevelopment was exempted 1 0 0 from Growth Management competition and mitigation because it was deemed to be essential public facilities, necessary for the continued well being of the Aspen Institute. At first reading, Council requested that staff provide the following background information: 1) What were the 1991 City Council's thoughts during the Aspen Meadows review by which they decided against the pathway alignment recommended by Planning and Parks staff. Attached as Exhibit "C" are the minutes of the various 1991 Aspen Meadows Final SPA hearings provided by the City Clerk. Pathway route: The minutes indicate that the applicant (the "Consortium", which included the Aspen Institute, MAA, Physics Institute, and Savanah Limited Partnership) felt that the City should rely on the Meadows Master Plan which was developed in 1990 as a precursor to the SPA review. The Master Plan indicated the route would be along the slope below the restaurant building. Gideon Kaufman stated that the alignment determined in the Master Plan brought pathway traffic down to the river area before it went through the campus sculpture garden which is used extensively by the Institute. During the Master Plan consideration the Parks staff was not consulted for comment or to conduct a feasibility study of this alignment. During the 1991 SPA review however, Parks staff was asked to consider this alignment and became very concerned that this route would be expensive to build and destructive to the immediate hillside (5/20, pg.9). Perry Harvey, project representative stated that the construction of the trustee townhomes includes a retaining wall at the north end of the parking area which would preclude a trail in that location (5/20, pg.9). Today, staff believes that a new trail section could be located along the access road to the health club rather than through the parking area of the townhomes to avoid the retaining wall issue. Another consideration is that the Sanitation District might still need to retain its roadway access to the Castle Creek sewer line, precluding construction of the retaining wall. The issue of disruption of Institute activities rose again on the May 20 meeting (pg.13-14 of the minutes) when David McLaughlin said that there should be some discretionary limits to the public's use of the campus when classes or events are occurring. This concept has been currently recognized by Trails staff with their offer to consider closing the trail during special events in the sculpture garden. However, this would be a philosophical twist for Parks Department and might lead to the precedent where other property owners with trail easements could seek to limit public use of the trails. If limitations were to be agreed upon, the City would need to know very specifically the location and duration of the events 0 i warranting trail closures. Responsibility for barricading the trail must also be discussed. Perry Harvey also mentioned that there will be extensive public access around the property (on the City's conservation land, trails and bridges) and that the Consortium members "need to keep their sanctity in order to conduct their business" . The Institute and MAA agreed to allow public access through their properties with reasonable controls (this access includes a pedestrian easement around the old racetrack, a non -improved path between 7th and 8th Streets behind the four single family lots, and an easement across the tennis townhome parcel and through the restaurant area to connect to the City's conservation land)(4/29, pg.6). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA became mandatory in 1993. The Parks Departments makes every effort to comply with the ADA slope maximums of 5.56 %. The plan designed for the current alignment contains slopes of 7%. If the alternative alignment is acquired, staff will have the old road surveyed for slope and will design a trail with as limited slope as possible. Pathway alternatives through and beyond the open space: Staff was asked about other routes besides the one in question up onto the Meadows bench. Up to this point, staff has identified two other connections which would make good routes to other areas of town. One would be to connect the open space trail to Cemetery Lane by crossing Castle Creek, ascending the hill, and traversing the cemetery. The other would be to extend the trail to the south border of the open space and link it to Sneaky Lane. At this point, vital easements have not been acquired to make the connections. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting that the vested rights for the approved but unbuilt lodge building no. 3 be extended for a period of three years. The applicant states that this extension is justified given the "tremendous outlay of funds and the major steps that have been taken towards implementation of the overall plan...". Chapter 24, Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code does not provide specific review criteria for an extension of vested rights. Extension of vested rights is completely discretionary by City Council. In consideration of the Institute's request for an additional three years of vested rights beyond the three years granted in 1991, Planning and Parks staff feel it necessary to condition the request with an item which is important to the health and welfare of the community and the environment. This item is the revision of the trail alignment down to the 25 acre city -owned conservation land. 3 Recommended Trail Re -Alignment: Currently the Aspen Meadows Plat shows an area for a trail below the restaurant building and Lots 5 and 6 (the tennis townhomes and trustee townhomes). The slope in this area is very steep, nearly 1:1 in places, and is thickly covered with native shrubs and small plants. During the 1991 Meadows SPA review, staff expressed its deep concern that a design for a trail on this slope would be steep, and more importantly, would create a substantial scar on the hillside due to excavation of a trail bed. First and foremost, this spring the Parks Department contracted with Gary Lacy to visit the site and design a trail which would be wide enough for multiple purposes and at a grade which would meet ADA (Americans w/ Disabilities Act) requirements. His goal was also to limit impacts to the natural landscape of the area. The design he has presented has met the first two objectives fairly well, but as expected the proposed alignment will be terribly destructive to the hillside and expensive to construct. The swath of disturbance will be at least 20 feet wide including the cut above and the fill below the trail surface. The estimate from a local company for excavation and retaining the slope is over $83,000 - surfacing, revegetation and completion of the trail to Picnic Point bridge is additional to this amount. Staff will present large detailed drawings and photos at the Council meeting, but has included Trails staff's memo and a reduced map of the area as Exhibit "B". In summary, the physical impacts of the trail in this area and the associated costs of the trail's construction are the main reasons staff believes it is critical to pursue another alignment. Staff believes that in exchange for any vested rights extension, and because the detailed impacts have now been identified, the trail easement should be moved to the northwestern corner of the Institute's property below the Institute's health club. For decades there has been an old dirt road going from the top of the hill down to picnic point. This informal access way is used occasionally by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to service its sewer lines along Castle Creek. Some revisions to this old road would be necessary to make the switchbacks more functional for a trail, but the side slope is not nearly as steep and the hill is predominately grass with limited shrub cover. Not much slope retention would be needed, thus the construction costs would be greatly reduced. An access easement would have to extend along the paved road from the parking garage area northward to the health club and the old road below. Secondly, a trail relocation would better avoid the construction activities associated with the tennis townhomes. The closest part of this multi -family structure will be along its north wall, approximately three feet from the trail. Not only will townhome construction close access on this trail section but after completion, the trail will be so close to the building that it will be an awkward, uncomfortable feeling for trail users and townhome occupants. During the 1991 approval hearings, City staff spoke strongly in favor of the northern trail alignment by the health club. The Aspen Institute, however, objected to this location because it brought the public further into the Institute's campus area. They were, and still are, concerned that the pedestrian and bicycle traffic making its way the extra 500 feet past the restaurant building on the Institute's internal service roads would create an unacceptable disturbance to Institute activities around the Marble Garden and pond area. As pointed out by Trails staff, a possible solution might be to limit trail traffic during an occasional private event in the Marble Garden area. An important point to make regarding public access to this area of the campus is that the restaurant is now actively advertising lunch and dinner to the general public. Staff believes that the added pathway traffic will not be a negative impact to this public - oriented area and could actually enhance the restaurant's business. An idea generated on July 18 was to bring the trail behind the restaurant building but bring it back around the north side of the restaurant and through the parking area of the Trustee Townhouses to connect with the road by the Health Club. Staff's initial reaction is cautious - the pedestrian/bike use does not interface well with the parking lot traffic and visibility. Storm Water Detention Easement: City Engineering has withdrawn their request for an easement at this time. They decided that when a detention solution is needed, an easement will be sought through condemnation. Given the determined need by Parks and Planning staff for the revised trail easement, staff believes that the vested rights for the remaining lodge building should be conditioned upon dedication of the easement by the Institute. If so dedicated, staff would find that there is no loss of public benefit from a three year extension of vested rights for the following reasons: 1. The project is a relatively small element of the overall Institute development approved in 1991. 2. The 1991 SPA approval exempted the Institute's development from growth management competition and mitigation, therefore the City did not assign GMP allocations to the Institute, nor was it expecting mitigation during a specific timeframe from the Institute. 3. The Aspen Area Community Plan's goal of supporting the arts and non-profit organizations of the community will be upheld by the vested rights extension. 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an extension of vested rights for the remaining lodge building at the Aspen Institute for a period of three years with the following condition: 1) The Aspen Institute shall dedicate a trail alignment along the roadway from the parking garage to the old road below the health club, then fanning outward towards the property line of Lot 1, until such time that the City Parks Department finalizes a trail design to follow basically the old road. Then, the City will be responsible for costs associated with surveying and platting the new trail easement, as well as the costs of developing the trail. The old easement will be abandoned during the replatting effort. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to alter the condition of approval, extend vested rights for a different period of time, or deny the extension request. PROPOSED NOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 31, Series 1994 which grants a three year extension of vested rights for the Aspen Institute's construction of lodge building number 3, containing twelve lodge rooms." -) (t l.-tt 0" u/17�X- At EXHIBITS: A. Application Information B. Trails Staff Memo and Drawings C. City Council Minutes, Excerpts from 4/29/91, 5/20/91 and 5/28/91 D. Public Notice 0 COUMJI 93cbibit� 19 APIPrOV" _--- � LAN OFFICES0F• By Ordinanae KAU F'%1A & PETERSON, P.C. BROOKE A. PETERSON TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN ' 8166 (303)ACS•MILE ERIN L. FERNANDEZ" 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE -.--- ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ) 925-1090 (303)925.1090 ROBYN J. MYLER ' ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND April 26, 1994 "ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK AND CONNECT ICUT Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Aspen Institute - Extension of Vested Rights Dear Leslie: Please consider this letter a request on behalf of The Aspen Institute to extend its vested rights for the Meadows project. As you know, per SPA Ordinance Nos. 10 and 11 and the SPA Agremeent, The Aspen Institute secured approvals from the City of Aspen for major renovations and additions to its campus at the Meadows. During the past three years, The Aspen Institute has spent considerable funds to implement modifications and changes to its campus. These changes have been extensive. Rooms have been completely renovated, and new rooms have been built. The health club and the restaurant have been renovated. A new parking structure has been built. The utilities and the new road have been installed. Every aspect of the application has been completed, except for one small building which has not been built. Given the tremendous outlay of funds, and the major steps that have been taken towards implementation of the overall plan, The Aspen Institute would prefer not to have to build this one small building at this time, and hereby requests an extension of its vested rights for a period of three years. I believe this request is justified, given the immense work •whlcli has been done towards the implementation of the Campus improvements, the wonderful benefits that the community is beginning to see through the renovation of the campus, and the fulfillment of the spirit of the approvals that The Aspen Institute has secured. We look forward to discussing this matter with City Council prior to the expiration of vested rights in June. We hope that the Planning Office will support our request, in light of the commitment that The Aspen Institute has made to fulfill the spirit and letter of the Agreement with the City of Aspen. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C., a Pro s,;ional Corporation By �y Gi on Kaufman • City Conncil RXhJ it_a_ APpCoved , 19 _ By ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner FROM: Patrick Duffield, Trail Supervisor RE: Access To Meadows Lot #4 Trail DATE: June 16th, 1994 In your negotiations with the Aspen Institute perhaps you could persuade their Board of Directors to rethink the access to the trail which already exists on the City owned Lot #4. The reason for the alternated route is three fold. First, there already exists an access to the north of the Savannah Limited's townhouses. This was developed for Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to maintain their sewer line which runs the length of Lot #4. As there is no other access to this parcel for the heavy pumper trucks, the access road will remain intact. Secondly, the 'new' alignment would entail descending fifty vertical feet by developing a tightly switchbacked trail. This alignment would require a large amount of cutting and scarring the pristine hillside just to the south of the Meadows Restaurant. Also, a great deal of fill dirt would be required, as well as removing and relocating many shrubs and other such vegetation. Thirdly, there would be quite a large cost associated with retaining the hillside due to its 45+ degree slope. Aspen Earthmoving gave an estimate of $83,200.00 (1280 lineal feet at approximately $65/LF). That estimate does not include surfacing, revegetation or completing the trail to the picnic point bridge. There is the additional concern of the 'new' alignment's close proximity to the townhouses Savannah Limited is planning to build east of the tennis court area. The trail, as currently called for, would sit three feet north of these new townhouses. This could create a very uncomfortable feeling for both the residents in the townhomes as well as the trail users. The Institute's main concern over the alternate alignment along the Sanitation District easement is the infringement of the general public on a few of their annual special events. These events are private and the Institute does wish to the participants to be distracted by general traffic. A possible solution to this situation would be to close the trail on these days to allow more privacy for these few special events. It is my belief that using the grade developed for the Sanitation District would save the hillside, greatly reduce costs and allow for a good trail alignment to the Lot #4 parcel trail. Further, the Aspen Sanitation Consolidated Sanitation District has granted us permission to use its access easement for this purpose. 1 M 1:!xisrinqq 9roUnd 2'shoulderAf r 2'-41 dia. rock ' from "Cavation or from o FF -s i to (-8'-10' hard surface trail 15► TYPICAL SECTION I It = 51 cuvrAl LL 1 N CttrVS6 1Z6Qu1K6'5 WIDCR XOUCT109) S i p o Kevegetate n c; a it) p�u 1,pv� dopes w�on•site_ �` •�`�° \ `i��•�u ��,Ui�?G`'�t�j}• n � `uPyetatlon flans < � • � , ' planted From frail ♦, �\ \ ` n l pc - - _, - � high �oul� • ra�t� � � Q�� _ _ 1 Match flusfl -17 -to existln roa F EI. 7858. � ►t C New 8'-1 O' C i / hard -surfaced trail. .� SEE OEIrAILS VHIS SHEET- ... � F Revegetate sl pes •. w/ native grasse , low I` zI un-sine vegetation tom,\ 3 I Preserve existing vegetatio z. -4 ` r I P° 1 s C•' Ll N a' O`. s iN �• high buukf F� g to n¢ay slop \ 3� \- ��♦ on-sl FgetatiQ1 �. R31se manhole 1 %� `\�i \ anted trail areas. rim to El 91 � •t� \G+� \�\ �� NOTe.Trail -W be staked by Engineer prior \ to constnxhon \\off, Ot ♦ \ 5AM-JA lON � ACBbSS cAT NEW "mNNIS �'rowNrl�oM�$ ORDINANCE N0 31 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING THE VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE ASPEN INSTITITI-E AT LOT I -A OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVI- SION WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance Nu.14, Series of 1991 for the approval the Aspen Institute's development of 50 new lodge rooms, a parking garage, renova- tion and expansion of the health club, and ren- ovation of the restaurant building by approval of the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan (`Plan"); and WHEREAS, Vested Rights for the Aspen Meadows was also granted within the Plan for a period of three years, effective through June 21, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute has completed the majority of the projects approved by Ordi- nance No.114, but were unable to complete ludge building number 3 to contain twelve lodge rooms prior to the expiration of vested rights due to fund raising constraints; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Institute submitted a request to the Planning Office on April 26, 1994, for an additional three years of vested rights to extend from June 21, 1994, to June 21, 1997, for the remaining development of lodge building numb 3; and WHEREAS, the request for vested rights extension was considered by the Planning Office, Parks Department and the Engineering Department, and as a result of their reviews, these departments sought in exchange for the vested rights extension Iwo new easements, those being a revised multi -purpose trail align- ment on the old dirt road below the health club at the northwest corner of the Institute's prop- erly, and a storm water detention easement In the old racetrack area as Identified in the City , July 2-3, 1994 . AIften Times 1540 of Aspen's 1973 Urban Run-off Management Plan; and WIIEREAS, Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code was adopted to provide the necessary procedures to implement the provi- sions of Article 68 of Title 24. C.R.S., as amend- ed and Section 24-68104 (1). C.R.S., permits the vesting period to be extended upon the express authorization of City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL- ORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby extend Vested Rights for the Aspen Institute granted by the site specific development plans approved for the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan, established by Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, for a period of three (3) years from June 21. 1994 to June 21. 1997, subject to the condi- tions set lurlh at Section 2 below. Failure to abide by any of the terns and conditions In Section 2 within 45 days or the conditions attendant to the original approvals shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agree - merits required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result In the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2: The extension of vested rights shall be conditioned by the following: 1) The Aspen Institute shall dedicate a trail alignment along the roadway from the parking garage to the old road below the health club, then fanning outward towards the property line of lot 1, until such time that the City Parks Department finalizes a trail design to follow basically the old road. Then, the City will be responsible for costs associated with survey- ing and plaiting the new trail easement, as well as the costs of developing the trail. The old easement will be abandoned during the replot- ting effort. 2) The Aspen Institute shall to dedicate a storm water detention easement fit the old racetrack area as Identified in the 1973 Urban Runoff Management Plan. The easement shall be for a 5 acre fool detention pond and assocl- aled inlet, outlet and maintenance access ease- ments. The City will be responsible for costs associated with surveying and platting the new storm water detention easement, as well as the costs of developing the pond and associated needs. Section 3: That the establishment of a vested properly right shall nut preclude the applica- tion of ordinances or regulations which are general In nature and are applicable to all prop- erty subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumb- ing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom Is granted in writing. Section 4: That the City Clerk Is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 25 day of July, 1994 at 5.00 P.M. In the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published In A newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB- USHED as provided by law, by the City Council th.- Cily ui Aspen c.: thL 27 day u! tune, 1994. John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Published In The Aspen Times July 1, 1994. 13i: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Directo�4x FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: June 13, 1994 RE: The Aspen Institute - Vested Rights Extension, First Reading of Ordinance al-, Series 1-994 ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant, the Aspen Institute, seeks to extend vested rights status for a period of three years for the construction of the last lodge building approved by the 1991 Aspen Meadows Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development Plan. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with conditions, most importantly relating to a revised trail easement alignment down to picnic point, and a storm water detention easement in the racetrack area. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan was approved by City Council on June 10, 1991. This approval included vested rights for three years, ending June 21, 1994. Please see Exhibit A for Ordinance 14, Series of 1990. BACKGROUND: The approved Aspen Meadows SPA Plan granted an approval to the Aspen Institute for the addition of a new parking garage and tennis shop expansion, 50 new lodge rooms, and renovation/expansion of the health club and restaurant/administration building. To date, the only element of the Institute's redevelopment which has not been built is building no.3 to contain 12 lodge units. At the time of approval, the Institute's redevelopment was exempted from Growth Management competition and mitigation because it was deemed to be essential public facilities, necessary for the continued well being of the Aspen Institute. STAFF COMMENTS: Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code does not provide specific review criteria for an extension of vested rights. The applicant is requesting that the vested rights for the approved but unbuilt lodge building number 3 be extended for a period of three years. The applicant states that this extension is justified given the "tremendous outlay of funds and the major steps that have been taken towards implementation of the overall plan..." 1 Chapter 24, Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code does not provide specific review criteria for an extension of vested rights. Extension of vested rights is completely discretionary by City Council. In consideration of the Institute's request for an additional three years of vested rights beyond the three years granted in 1991, Planning, Parks and Engineering/Public Works staff feel it necessary to condition the request with two items which are important to the health and welfare of the community and the environment. These two items are the revision of the trail alignment down to the 25 acre city -owned conservation land, and the dedication of a storm water detention easement within the old racetrack oval. Recommended Trail Re -Alignment: Currently the Aspen Meadows Plat shows an area for a trail below the restaurant building and Lots 5 and 6 (the tennis townhomes and trustee townhomes). The slope in this area is very steep, nearly 1:1 in places, and is thickly covered with native shrubs and small plants. During the 1991 Meadows SPA review, staff expressed its deep concern that a design for a trail on this slope would be steep, and more importantly, would create a substantial scar on the hillside due to excavation of a trail bed. First and foremost, this spring the Parks Department contracted with Gary Lacy to visit the site and design a trail which would be wide enough for multiple purposes and at a grade which would meet ADA (Americans w/ Disabilities Act) requirements. His goal was also to limit impacts to the natural landscape of the area. The design he has presented has met the first two objectives fairly well, but as expected the proposed alignment will be terribly destructive to the hillside and expensive to construct. The swath of disturbance will be at least 20 feet wide including the cut above and the fill below the trail surface. The estimate from Aspen Earthmoving for excavation and retaining the slope is over $83,000 - surfacing, revegetation and completion of the trail to Picnic Point bridge is additional to this amount. Staff will present large detailed drawings and photos at the Council meeting, but has included Patrick Duffield's memo and a reduced map of the area as Exhibit "B". In summary, the physical impacts of the trail in this area and the associated costs of the trail's construction are the main reasons staff believes it is critical to pursue another alignment. Staff believes that in exchange for any vested rights extension, and because the detailed impacts have now been identified, the trail easement should be moved to the northwestern corner of the Institute's property below the Institute's health club. For decades there has been an old dirt road going from the top of the hill down to picnic point. This informal access way is used occasionally by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to service its sewer lines along Castle Creek. Some revisions to this 2 old road would be necessary to make the switchbacks more functional for a trail, but the side slope is not nearly as steep and the hill is predominately grass with limited shrub cover. Not much slope retention would be needed, thus the construction costs would be greatly reduced. An access easement would have to extend along the paved road from the parking garage area northward to the health club and the old road below. Secondly, a trail relocation would better avoid the construction activities associated with the tennis townhomes. The closest part of this multi -family structure will be along its north wall, approximately three feet from the trail. Not only will townhome construction close access on this trail section but after completion, the trail will be so close to the building that it will be an awkward, uncomfortable feeling for trail users and townhome occupants. During the 1991 approval hearings, City staff spoke strongly in favor of the northern trail alignment by the health club. The Aspen Institute, however, objected to this location because it brought the public further into the Institute's campus area. They were, and still are, concerned that the pedestrian and bicycle traffic making its way the extra 500 feet past the restaurant building on the Institute's internal service roads would create an unacceptable disturbance to Institute activities around the Marble Garden and pond area. As pointed out by Patrick, a possible solution might be to limit trail traffic during an occasional private event in the Marble Garden area. Storm Water Detention Easement: During the 1991 reviews and approval of the Aspen Meadows, City Engineer Chuck Roth sought to acquire a detention easement in the area of the old racetrack. The City's 1973 Urban Runoff Management Plan identified this location for such a use because it is realistically the only place large enough to serve the west Aspen area. There is no current discussion of any designs for a detention facility, but staff shares the Institute's (and community's) concern that any detention pond must be designed to be as least intrusive as possible. The Planning Commission recently acknowledged the importance of this detention easement during review of the Institute's request to expand the Paepcke Seminar Facilities on the east campus. They passed a motion by a 4-0 vote to forward their concern to Council that this easement is necessary for compliance with clean water regulations and should be obtained from the Institute. It is important to recognize that any pond design must be thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA. Please refer to Chuck Roth's June 20, 1994 memorandum, Exhibit "C". Attached to it are letters of support from the Colorado Division of Wildlife Department of Natural Resources as well as Trout 3 Unlimited. Both groups cite sediment pollution as being the most harmful to our exceptional aquatic resources. A detention pond allows fine sediments to settle out of storm water before its discharge into the river. It also provides an opportunity for storm water to naturally recharge the ground water system. Chuck will be showing photographs of a few different pond designs at the Council meeting. However, these will be for conceptual purposes only - no consideration is being given to any specific design at this time. Actual need to develop a detention pond may be up to twenty-five years away. Given the determined need by Parks, Planning and Engineering staff for the revised trail easement and storm water detention easement, staff believes that the vested rights for the remaining lodge building should be conditioned upon dedication of these easements by the Institute. If so dedicated, staff would find that there is no loss of public benefit from a three year extension of vested rights for the following reasons: 1. The project is a relatively small element of the overall Institute development approved in 1991. 2. The 1991 SPA approval exempted the Institute's development from growth management competition and mitigation, therefore the City did not assign GMP allocations to the Institute, nor was it expecting mitigation during a specific timeframe from the Institute. 3. The Aspen Area Community Plan's goal of supporting the arts and non-profit organizations of the community will be upheld by the vested rights extension. ----------------------------------- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an extension of vested rights for the remaining lodge building at the Aspen Institute for a period of three years with the following conditions: 1) The Aspen Institute shall dedicate a trail alignment along the roadway from the parking garage to the old road below the health club, then fanning outward towards the property line of Lot 1, until such time that the City Parks Department finalizes a trail design to follow basically the old road. Then, the City will be responsible for costs associated with surveying and platting the new trail easement, as well as the costs of developing the trail. The old easement will be abandoned during the replatting effort. 2) The Institute agrees to dedicate a storm water detention easement in the old racetrack area as identified in the 1973 4 Urban Run-off Management Plan. The easement is for a 5 acre foot detention pond and associated inlet, outlet and maintenance access easements. The City will be responsible for costs associated with surveying and platting the new storm water detention easement, as well as the costs of developing the pond and associated needs. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to alter the conditions of approval, extend vested rights for a different period of time, or deny the extension request. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read of Ordinance , Series 1994." "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance , Series 1994 which grants a three year extension of vested rights for the Aspen Institute's construction of lodge building number 3, containing twelve lodge rooms." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A. Application Information B. Patrick Duffield's Memo and Drawings C. Chuck Roth's Memo k, • •City Council Exhibit Approved 19 19 MEMORANDUM By Ordinance To: Mayor & City Council Thru: Amy Margerum, City Manager Thru: Robert Gish, Public Works Director From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C- Date: June 20, 1994 Re: Aspen Meadows Storm Runoff Detention Pond Summary: Staff recommends that City Council obtain the storm runoff detention pond easement that was identified in the adopted Urban Runoff Management Plan. The easement is shown on the attached excerpt. Letters of -support for this action by Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Division of Wildlife are attached. The easement would assist the City of Aspen in meeting future Clean Water Act requirements that may eventually be legislated. Previous Council Action: City Council declined to exercise its rights during the original Meadows review process. There were many issues under consideration at that time, and this easement was not considered important enough to obtain. Staff still feels that the easement is important and still recommends that Council obtain the easement. Problem Discussion: The easement is for a 5 acre foot detention pond and associated inlet, outlet and maintenance access easements. Staff shares the concerns of Aspen Institute and other individuals that the easement be properly developed if a sedimentation pond is ever constructed. Any such proposed pond development should be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. Attached are letters from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and from Trout Unlimited that report that the most significant pollutant in streams and rivers is fines such as are removed in detention ponds. The letters both support City Council obtaining the detention pond easement. During previous discussions with staff and Council, we discussed the possibility of constructing a buried facility. This is possible although costly. The other possibility is for a surface facility. Although a surface detention pond would change the character of the sage brush field within the race track, the change could still be an aesthetically and environmentally pleasing facility with wetland vegetation and birds. Staff will present . photo enlargements of several aesthetically pleasing storm runoff detention projects. 0 0 If one examines a map of the City, there are no other undeveloped parcels where the "West Aspen - Institute Detention Pond" could be located. This sedimentation pond would serve only a portion of the City which is identified in the Runoff Plan as the West side. Alternatives: There is virtually no storm sewer system in the West End. If such a system is developed at some time in the future, it could daylight in a Meadows detention pond the same as east end storm runoff drains to Rio Grande detention and sedimentation ponds and downtown drains to Jenny Adaire Pond. Note that the amount of fines that are intercepted at Jenny Adaire Pond from entering the Roaring Fork River requires that the pond be dredged about once every three years! There is a possibility that the Sanitation District may enter storm runoff development as a means of improving the quality stream of stream flows upstream. They may be able to treat storm runoff at a different location. Nevertheless, staff recommends keeping options open and obtaining the easement designated at the Meadows. Financial Implications: Obtaining the easement at this time presents no cost implications because the easement was designated in an adopted plan. Proposed Motion: I move to require the conveyance of the Urban Runoff Management Plan identified storm runoff detention pond easement as a condition of approval of the granting of vested rights. City Manager Comments: M94_90 State of Colorado DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Department of Natural Resources May 31, 1994 Mr Chuck Roth, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Chuck This is in response to our recent conversations regarding stormwater retention and sediment trapping. As you know, the Division of Wildlife strongly supports any effort to reduce the amount of sediments entering our streams. I have the honor to be an instructor in various national -level Corps of Engineers training courses dealing with stream and wetland restoration and development. One of the points I stress in this training is that the impact of fines on trout streams in Colorado is greater than that of all other water pollutants combined. I also use Aspen and Pitkin County as examples of local governments that accord aquatic resources the respect they are due. As examples I cite the new Pitkin County Land Use Code as enlightened and appropriate riparian protection, and show slides of polyclimax riparian vegetation in the middle of Aspen. I point out the fact that Aspen has an effective stormwater sediment retention program in place-- not because anyone is requiring them to, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. We are certainly in favor of your adding to sediment reduction capabilities in Aspen. Please let us know if we can further aid your cause. By this letter I would encourage the city council to obtain any stormwater retention easements identified in the Urban Runoff Management Plan or as otherwise needed for Roaring Fork River water quality protection. Sincerely, Alan E. Czenkusch Aquatic Habitat Biologist 473 Mtn Laurel Dr #A Aspen, Colo 81611 cc: Cote, Sealing (DOW), Gruenberg (TU) • FERDINAND HAYDEN CHAPTER Box 8132 Aspen, Colorado 81612 June 2, 1994 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Council Members: &S iRIBUTED TO response By 8v Hate RECEIVED JUN 8 M4 city ManlgerlMaVes Office As president of the Aspen Chapter of Trout Unlimited I support anv efforts to reduce sediment in the Aspen area. Sediment, including fines, have a greater impact on trout habitat than all other water pollutants combined. Aspen's stormwater sediment retention program is effective. Adding to your capabilities by obtaining stormwater retention easements identified in the Urban Runoff Management Plan such as at the Aspen Institute should be encouraged and supported. Yours truly, William A. _ /sj NOTE' 1~ 6ajp-1 n mouse. - . a�. Ilk IMP -:/ area Ella , / C\ 1 1 -� •1 ayatam. r•�ii /�ei,�'.\ �y�� _ - '�� - III ��-�-� � � _-s• H' I / /.� ail _ / i osairdlan •. . / 1 � s ava-Mt oeoaeirX N •. ~_ � a f I�I •" , / � e/ / , . V � •�� � •�'/ l f ` ' !%� MdalaAadldlwfgN *S.r � I I ' �' � • _ _ ';;•r � r � / �� /• p. �1 - / (� /4, NOTE 4`'�r/'1 / e �.! • i i `� P. r 'I ( J. / J • � ` � � � , 11\ \ � . `� \ ' 1 1'II. N�! . � � �/// 18C i5 '. -10 e. .,.r / p\ c, � � ��` o" � •'.\ III ;' I � II %'I I�' uu � I WRIGHT - MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS otq. .T oaaLL « uu. oaNrpaPwt.l9T3 Praise« No 73x-05A o..... 4 e< 5 t420 o...... c~soul gwct• RYc,KRJr.0.LS APR 21 '94 01:49PM KAUFMANN & PETERSON P.2 THE .ASPEN INSTITUTE, INC. P.O. Box 222 Queenstown, Maryland 21658 (410) 827-7168 April 21, 1994 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 13C South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Extension of Vested Rights Dear Ms. Lamont: This letter shall authorize Gideon Kaufman, on beY.alf of The Aspen Institute, Inc., to seek an extension of the vested rights for the Aspen Meadows project, and to sign any and all documents which may be required to secure such extension. If I can provide any additional information, plea_.e do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation and z.ttention to this matter. Very truly yours, THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, INC. gy David McLaughlin, Pres:.dent MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner FROM: Patrick Duffield, Trails Supervisor THROUGH: George Robinson, Director of Parks DATE: May 24th, 1994 RE.: Trail changes @ Aspen Institute and Savannah Ltd. Properties Since the Aspen Institute and Savannah Ltd are looking to amend their S.P.A. approvals, we have the opportunity to get an improved alignment and wider dimension to trails planned for these areas. At the Aspen Institute, a better alignment to preserve the hillside above Lot #4, and reduce costs, is available by using the current sanitation access easement. This would place the trail along Meadows Road to the Southwestern most point of the Institute property. An access road for Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District already exists. The trail could lie atop the Sanitation Disticts access easement. This would reduce the costs of grubbing, cutting and retaining the steep hillside where the current trail easement leading to Lot #4 exists. Savannah wishes to adjust their building footprints. As they ask for this change, perhaps we could get the plan for a 3' wide soft trail, running between the tennis condos' covered parking and Meadows road, changed. We would like to have a hard surface trail with a minimum width of 8'. This would link the bikepath from 8th Street to the trail easement leading to lot #4. This improves the trail connection by keeping the trail users from being thrown out onto Meadows Road, into on -coming traffic. Separating the trail users from automobiles is our desire. Hopefully this is an opportunity to improve on what was decided during initial approvals. • tr CAQW" JtdLL"t—r./ By Ordiname Continued Meeting Aspen City Couiiu±- _ April 29. 1991 Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council HPC has granted conceptual approval subject to specific conditions to be met at final reviews scheduled in May. HPC has required a cross section and additional narrative on the fox mound relocation. The most significant condition deals with the rehearsal performance hall. In response to a number of public concerns and to protect the tent's integrity, HPC required the relocation of this rehearsal hall to the north of the proposed east location and reductions in height of both the architecture and the land forms, and a re -study of the berming and the landscape treatments around it. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, said when they went through the master planning process, they looked at the property from an internal view point, from the standpoint of preserving the internal interior campus configuration, maintaining the buildings on the fringes of the property to keep the race track open, Anderson park intact, and the views from inside the property the way they have been. Harvey told Council there are 7 separate parcels of land; (1) the Institute parcel including the track, Anderson park, Paepcke, Boettcher and the lodge, health club and restaurant, (2) the M.A.A. parcel including the tent and the M.A.A. lot, (3) Physics Center drawn carefully to include and preserve their circle of serenity; (4) the conservation land which the city will be purchasing, 25 acres encompassing all the land along the Roaring Fork and both sides of Castle Creek, (5) trustee town houses including 3 new, (6) seven tennis town homes, and (7) four single family lots with one homeowners association. Harvey told Council a major consideration is maintenance and improvement of public access to the land. There is a new extensive trail system, including using the existing Eighth street which will become a trail and be maintained by the city, there are two bridges to connect the Rio Grande trail and the property. The property will be completely surrounded by trails. Harvey pointed out the institutions need to keep their sanctity in order to conduct their business. There will be private parcels of land with internal trails and circulation which will be maintained internally. Harvey said the Institute and M.A.A. have allowed the public through the land and will continue to do so with reasonable controls. Harvey reminded Council Seventh street is the new access road and will parallel Meadows road on the east side of the cottonwood trees. The Seventh street vehicular access will come into the restaurant area and will stop. The parking structure under the tennis courts is to keep the traffic and cars on the periphery of the property. There is some employee parking on site. Harvey said the applicants will market the parking and van system to guests before arrival. There will be a bike rental shop located on site. Harvey told Council the applicants have worked with RFTA to develop a loop system, using a natural gas vehicle. Prior to and after R 0 0 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 29, 1991 said the concern on staff's part is to speed up the property conveyances between Savanah and the non -profits. Harvey said the subdivision plat is not difficult; however there are some things in the SPA that can take the entire 180 days in order to record. Councilwoman Pendleton asked why the 30 day requirement is included. Ms. Margerum pointed out it is because the agreement for the conservation land has a 30 days requirement. Councilman Peters said the relationship of the Aspen Meadows to the Aspen community is driving Council's involvement in this process. Councilman Peters said Council should be looking out for the community's interest. Council has taken a number of actions in order to preserve the Aspen Meadows, like spending over $2,000,000 to buy the riparian area. It is incumbent upon Council to make sure the community interest is served and that the final product does not lose it's community character. Councilman Peters asked what is the public access to areas like Anderson park, areas around the tent, to and through the Institute and down to the riparian area. Councilman Peters said the planning office has raised the issue of a relocated trail down to the riparian area, which staff considers not an improvement, stating the current rail is preferred down to picnic point. Councilman Peters said also he wants the applicants to address what public access will be to the Meadows, generally. Councilman Peters said there may be some questions who actually owns the Meadows interest, and Council should know exactly to whom they are awarding the development rights and whether they will be able to deliver the deeds to the properties to the non profit organizations. Councilman Peters said Council has yet to see that the ultimate result, transferring land to the non -profits, will be accomplished. Councilman Peters said short terming of the hotel is a significant issue. Councilman Peters asked if when the new condominiums were scored for GMP, were they scored for mitigating their housing as residential or commercial. Councilman Peters said the Meadows road is unnecessary and is an acquiescence to the needs of a few property owners. Councilman Peters said the old Meadows road would have served quite well had the city been more strict about limiting development. Councilman Peters said the rehearsal facility has improved; it is appropriate to move it to the north. Councilman Peters said the Aspen Center for Physics has asked for little out of this process except to be able to enjoy peace and quite. They have been given a subdivision and a road. Councilman Peters said it is inappropriate to put a building on the west of the music tent, which would block views of the sunset and the sky. Councilman Peters said he would prefer the parking on the surface around the hotel units; a parking garage is inappropriate and out of place at the Aspen Meadows. Councilman Peters said he will reserve judgement on the excess allotment until conferring with staff. 13 Continued Meetina Aspen Citv Council Mav 20, 1991 Section 2 addresses two new zones, open space and wildlife preservation. Ms. Margerum reminded Council they had asked that the conditional uses be included in the open space zone that were included in the wildlife preservation zone. These include fencing and downcast illumination lighting for walkways and trails. The drainage issue has been separated. Surface and underground drainage has not been added as a conditional use in the OS zone. Ms. Margerum said staff feels adding language to ordinance #14 would allow Council to address the issue of surface and underground drainage. The applicant is giving easements for this; however, the concern is that there be a public hearing at the city before putting in any drainage system in. Ms. Margerum noted staff was trying to get at the public hearing by having this as a conditional use. This can be taken out of the conditional use section and a condition added to the ordinance stating that the construction of any storm water drainage structure or facility shall be preceded by public notice and an opportunity for public comment at Council. Council agreed to the permitted uses change of downcast illumina- tion lighting for walkways and trails and fencing. Kaufman told Council the applicant started off with a specified portion of the race track designated as the place where the storm drainage would take place, which the applicants preferred to be underground. Then the whole rack track was designated as a retention pond. Kaufman said the language currently states that anywhere in an SPA it is appropriate. Kaufman said this is inappropriate as one element in this entire process was the retention of the character of the Meadows. Kaufman said a storm detention area of the recommended magnitude in the race track or anywhere on the campus is not appropriate. A. J. Zabbia was given the oath. Zabbia said there has been some misinformation on the urban water runoff plan and water quality act of 1987. Zabbia submitted a memorandum to the planning staff to clarify these misconceptions. The storm water act regulations require municipalities of over 100,000 to apply for storm water discharge permits. Small municipalities under 100,000 were exempt from this application until October 1991. Whether small municipal- ities will be required to proceed as large municipalities is unclear at this time. Procedure for small municipalities was not set by the act. Zabbia told Council the EPA will issue additional regulations to clarify this act. Zabbia said another misconception about the clean water act is that the act is a permitting and monitoring act only. It does not contain quantitative discharge standards for storm water runoff. The point of the act seems to be assessment of storm water and when identified during monitoring will be addressed on an individual basis. Od, 0 • Continued Meetina Aspen Citv Council Mav 20, 1991 Zabbia noted that the Urban Runoff Management plan by Wright McLaughlin was done in 1973. The plan was a series of proposals that maintained a wait and see attitude. Zabbia told Council if they approve the easements, the surface water facilities will completely change the character of the race track. Wildlife would be displaced and the habitat permanently changed by surface retention. Zabbia stated the placement of a retention pond in the race track is completely out of character with the aesthetics and overall scheme of the Meadows. Chuck Roth, city engineer, in a memorandum dated May 15, responded to a lot of Zabbia's points. Roth told Council he contacted the state division of water quality to clarify whether the city needs to obtain a permit. The state assured Roth the city of Aspen will be required to have a permit by October 1992. The city will be required to treat urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The city in the Municipal Code has adopted the 1973 plan. Roth said a variation will have to be given if an easement is not required. Roth told Council the water can be pumped somewhere else. Mayor Stirling asked if staff is satisfied with the applicant's proposal to deal with their own drainage. Roth said the applicants are asking the city bury theirs yet are not proposing to bury their own. Roth said from an engineering standpoint, he is satisfied with their storm runoff design. They have identified a 1 acre foot pond. Councilman Gassman said he feels the request is absurd. This is discussing whether the city wants to use the Meadows to solve "drainage problems" for the entire city. Councilman Gassman said the city has an obligation to treat storm drainage to the maximum extent practicable. Councilman Gassman suggested it is not practicable to use the Meadows to treat storm drainage. Councilman Gassman said this is not the intent of the plan. Councilman Gassman said drainage in this part of town has not changed in 100 years. What problem is the city trying to solve at the expense of the Meadows. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed she has had a hard time with the drainage issue. Roth said there has been some basement flooding in the west end in past years. Councilwoman Pendleton said she does not like the idea of a drainage pond in the race track. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said the city should not foreclose their options not knowing what the EPA will do. The water standards will continue to get more and more stringent. The point staff has tried to make is that the city is not filtering the water going into the rivers. The burden will be upon the city in the future to mitigate what is going into the rivers. Since 1973 this area of the city has been targeted to provide detention facilities. Councilman Tuite asked if this pond has been sized out. Roth answered it has been sized out at 5 acre feet, 5 acres by 1 foot 3 i 0 Continued Meetina Aspen Citv Council Mav 20, 1991 deep or 1 acre by 5 feet deep. Councilman Tuite said he cannot envision using the Meadows for a runoff pond, especially what the city and neighborhood have been through the last couple of years. Councilwoman Pendleton asked if it is possible to locate this in the parking lot. Mayor Stirling said there would be too much disturbance in putting this 5 acre feet underground. Mayor Stirling moved that Council not consider this anywhere on the Meadows property; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Councilman Peters asked about creating an easement where the consortium proposed detention pond will be. Zabbia said the problem with this pond is that the runoff will have to be piped from Gillespie street through the race track to this pond. Herb Klein asked if there could be a half acre site that is 10 feet deep. Klein said this pond should not be in the race track. Klein said if there is an opportunity for the city to have a facility, it should be taken. This might be located in a depressed parking lot or under the parking lot. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters. Motion carried. Ms. Margerum told Council the wildlife preservation zone would remain as is. The recommendation from P & Z specifically stated paved walkways, fencing and lighting to be conditional uses in that zone district because this district is meant to be much more natural. Ms. Margerum requested Council delete (c)(3) under conditional uses. Ms. Margerum reminded Council at the last meeting they asked for alternative which would broaden the discretion of Council of allowing exemptions for both mitigation and competition for non- profits. Ms. Margerum told Council staff intentionally left the language limiting so it would not apply to all non -profits in the city. The alternative for Council is to remove the academic zone district from the language. Mayor Stirling said the language is "development associated with non-profit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the GMQS and from some or all mitigation requirements . . ." Charles Collins said in section 4 there is a suggested change adding design standards in Section 7-1004(c) streets and related improvements. Collins said the variations listed in the SPA are now bringing in design standards from the subdivision chapter. Collins said it is an exclusionary rule to take design standards and move them into this amendment. Article 7 has 6 or 8 divisions. Collins said he does not feel it is appropriate to move review standards from one division to another. Collins quoted from the 4 0 0 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 20. 1991 in trouble and the applicants have to provide a fleet of new buses. Ms. Margerum suggested, "including new reasonable mitigation". Herb Klein asked who makes the decision on this, whether its staff or P & Z. Ms. Margerum said it is P & Z after a hearing. She will clarify this. Mayor Stirling moved to accept paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 with modifica- tions from staff; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling said paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 deal with fire access. Council had no problems with these paragraphs. Paragraph 9 deals with tree removal. There is a memo from the applicant. Fred Smith told Council the memo is to clarify trunks groups; there are 40 trunks being removed, 14 groupings. Smith said the applicants intend on replacing caliper inch for caliper inch. In some instances trees are being removed because they are old or diseased. These will also be replaced. Klein suggested a minimum size for replanting be specified. Smith said 1.5 inch Aspen tree would be a good size. Council agreed to add 1.5 inch. Paragraph 10 is trails including the race track easement and access to the riparian zone. Ms. Margerum said the intent of the condition regarding the race track is that there was not a link from Seventh street up to the race track. The applicants have committed to add that easement to the race track. There is not commitment for an easement around the race track. The applicants have indicated they would be willing to provide a pedestrian easement around the race track, not a trail. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see these specified in the condition. Kaufman said the applicant is willing to commit to an easement as long as the city agrees to hold the applicant harmless, indemnifies them, and that there is not access when it is dark. Caswall said it is unconstitutional for a municipality to agree to indemnify a private party. Caswall noted there is a state statute that private parties who dedicate their property for public trails are entitled to the same type of immunity the city has. Kaufman said the Institute has been sued in the past by people injured on their property. Kaufman said they are willing to have the public use their property but not to take on the exposure of someone injuring themselves and suing the Institute. Klein said if the applicant would give fee title for the easement to the city they would not have that exposure. Mayor Stirling said it is critical the public have access to this property. Ron Austin told Council in the county on an exposure issue, it was provided that the government would represent and defend the 0 0 0 Continued Meetinq Aspen City Council May 20, 1991 landowner against any claims. Council requested this be addressed for their next meeting. Ms. Johnson told Council the master plan and final plan indicate a trail going between the new tennis townhomes and the restaurant across the steep slope heading towards picnic point. Ms. Johnson told Council staff did a site visit and discovered how rugged this slope is. Building a multi -use trail would be very expensive and very damaging to the slope. Ms. Johnson said there is an old road bed further towards picnic point which accesses at the end of the trustee houses. This road with improvements would suit the multi - trail purpose needs to access the city -owned riparian land. Ms. Johnson pointed out the applicant is planning on 2 new townhouses in this area. Ms. Johnson said the applicability of this trail warrants further exploration accessing the pedestrian roadway from the health club to the parking lot. Kaufman told Council this issue received a lot of discussion in the master plan. The reason this location was selected is that it took the pedestrians and bicyclist down into the riparian area before they went to the campus. Staff's trail takes the trail right through the heart of the campus. The sculpture garden is used extensively by the Institute. This will be located right next to a major pedestrian area. People backing out of the trustee houses would be backing into the trail. Ms. Johnson told Council staff was proposing to explore using the access road, not the parking lot area of the townhomes. Harvey noted when the new trustee houses are built, there will be a retaining wall. At the end of the trustee houses, it is an extremely sharp drop off. Harvey said there is less room at that end of the health club for a trail head. Charles Collins asked if there is a provision of a trail on the east end of the conservation area. Mayor Stirling said there will be a new trail to that area. Collins asked if there will be a trail head on the west side to park vehicles or for people to take off from. Mayor Stirling said there is no provision for a trail head. In the spirit of auto disincentive and public transportation, he does not want to invite cars into that site. Collins asked about staking out the conserva- tion zone. Mayor Stirling said this will be done the first week of June. Councilman Peters suggested the trail alignment be left to the planning office. Councilman Gassman requested the planning office relook at both alternatives. Councilman Gassman said the old road may have been the original road into Aspen from McClain flats and the most successful trails follow common sense alignments. Mayor Stirling moved to refer number 10 on the 2 specific aspects of access to the riparian zone and secondly the race track easement 0 0 • Continued Meetina Aspen Citv Council Mav 20, 1991 Councilman Gassman said this is not demanding that the parking facility be built but if it is, it should be bonded. Ms. Margerum said this is approving the parking facility and if it is not, staff would have to see a revised plan because this had implications for internal circulation, the design of the townhouses and Institute area. Kaufman said the applicant is not providing for or paying for any trails other than the old Meadows road. Mayor Stirling suggested deleting "public" in #26. Harvey said this project involves many different parcels and specific utilities. Harvey requested a sentence stating, "that portion of such assurances as is reasonably found by the public works director, in connection with the appropriate utility department, to be related to the work for which a permit is sought, must be in place prior to the issuance of that building permit". Harvey told Council the applicants are trying to develop a format when a permit is asked or that those assurances associated with that be guaranteed. Mayor Stirling suggested this be submitted to staff for review and Council will look at this next week. Mayor Stirling said #27 is the expansion of the restaurant administration facility. Council agreed to the condition. Ms. Margerum told Council she received a request this evening that may allow this condition to be deleted by the next Council meeting. Council agreed. Harvey said condition #28 is fine as far as dealing with an SPA amendment when one of the non -profits wishes to submit an amend- ment. It does not address what happens if one of the residential components wishes to submit an SPA amendment. Harvey requested a sentence stating, "Any SPA amendment proposed to be submitted by any residential owner or association thereof, shall require in additional to the consent of the association of owners of the component involved, the approval of the resident non -profits of the SPA". Council agreed with this in concept and requested staff review this for the next meeting. Mayor Stirling requested condition #29 be worked on this week simultaneously with condition #10. David McLaughlin said the concern is not the change in historic usage. McLaughlin said there should be some discretionary limits to use of the campus during the time when classes or events are going on. Councilman Peters said trust for reasonableness has to flow both ways. Councilman Peters pointed out one of the reasons for this process is to preserve the community feel for this property. Councilman Peters said the community is making sacrifices in order to preserve the Meadows. Councilman Peters said if the language preserves discretionary right to the Institute, he will object to it. McLaughlin pointed out the Institute and M.A.A. will also be making huge investments 13 • Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 20. 1991 in the property. McLaughlin said there are occasions when they will be concerned about people getting in the way of these invest- ments. Councilwoman Pendleton asked how the property would be closed up. Kaufman said this is private property in which the owners allow public access. If someone is interrupting seminars they can be told to get off the property. Kaufman said it is different when an easement is granted and the public feel they have a right to be there. Councilwoman Pendleton asked how the Institute will control people who feel they can walk anywhere on the property. King Woodward said the property has been used and also abused by the public, from training their dogs in the music tent to picnicking in Anderson park. Councilman Peters pointed out the public investment in this property is in the $3 million range. Kaufman said the public has access through the riparian area and through the race track. Kaufman noted there is a heart to this campus. What is important is not just the land but what goes on at this campus. The Institute currently determines when people are abusing the property. Kaufman said they do not want someone else making that decision. Councilman Peters said that authority is going to have to be shared because there are other interests being served. Mayor Stirling said the non-profit groups have to have a certain amount of discretion. Mayor Stirling said he is happy with the language. Robert Harth, M.A.A. said the language refers to health and safety and protecting the property. There are other issues about the activities the institutions present that need to be protected. Kaufman said protecting the serenity of the users is not addressed. Mayor Stirling moved to direct staff to work with a representative of the applicant to work on modification to this language and bring it back on the 28th; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. Condition #k30 is the location of the rehearsal facility for the M.A.A; the lodging units for the Institute; the tennis townhouses; the addition of trustee houses; and the parking structure. Mayor Stirling submitted to the public record 26 letters Council has received urging Council not approve the east site for the rehearsal facility. It is part of this plan to have the rehearsal facility on the east side of the music tent. Council accepts this location. Bob Starodoj said he earlier asked if this was a year round facility and was told no. He also asked if this was a rehearsal facility or a performing facility and was told it was a rehearsal facility. Starodoj said this is not what is in the plan. Starodoj 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 13. 1991 seating for music festival activities at the tent continue. Robert Harth, M.A.A. director, said yes. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing on Ordinance #13, Series of 1991, land use code amendments. Mayor Stirling pointed out this adds new zone districts to the Municipal Code. These new zones were inspired by the submittal of the Aspen Meadows. This also amends the growth management quota system for essential public facilities. John Doremus said he feels the race track area being zoned to Wildlife preservation is inappropriate as it is surrounded on 3 sides by fairly intense development. Doremus said open space would be a more appropriate zone. Doremus said if this is an important wildlife area and it is important to retain it in it's present state, how can the city consider a storm water retention facility on the race track. Caswall pointed out Ordinance #13 does not rezone any property; it creates various zoning district amendments and amendments to the land use code. Doremus said storm retention facilities are a use by special review and would be totally inappropriate for wildlife preservation zone. Tom Cardamone favors the new wildlife preservation zone. This would also be appropriate for Hallam Lake when it is annexed into the city. Cardamone pointed out the 25 acres of riparian land is extremely valuable to wildlife. Cardamone said the race track would be of secondary importance to wildlife; however, the race track should be preserved as much as possible. Harvey pointed out in open space and wildlife preservation, permitted uses do not indicate underground utility uses. Harvey asked if this is a blanket approved use in any zone district. Staff said yes. Harvey said the applicants have only proposed underground storm water retention facilities. The applicants have proposed the city be required to put their storm water detention underground. Harvey said this easement has now consumed the entire race track area. Harvey urged Council to remove surface storm water detention as a conditional use in the WP zone district. Chuck Roth, city engineer, told Council the 1973 urban runoff plan was adopted by Council and is part of the municipal code. Any subdivision is required to comply with this section. Roth told Council an easement has been identified in the race track area. This would be a storm runoff detention pond for the entire west end of Aspen, not just this project Roth said the clean water act is imminent. Ms. Margerum noted i could be a great cost to the city if the city were absolutely limited to underground and not surface detention ponds. If this is a conditional use, it will have to undergo a public hearing process and the development will have to meet the intent of the zone district. Ms. Margerum said this 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 1991 should be assurance for the future that this will not be a monolithic structure. Phoebe Ryerson asked if trails are permissi- ble in the WP zone. Mayor Stirling said they are possible. Caswall reminded Council this is an ordinance of general applica- tion and storm detention ponds may fit in other WP zones, not just the Meadows. Councilwoman Pendleton asked if this should also be a conditional use in the open space zone. Ms. Margerum said this is an appropriate addition. Councilman Peters asked if there are other zone district that allow this use. Caswall said Aspen has been developed to the point where there is no place left to develop storm water detention facilities which will be necessary to meet federal guidelines to maintain the quality of the rivers in the area. Gideon Kaufman requested a language change on the bottom of page 5, paragraph 3 to read, "such development from the GMQS and from some or all mitigation requirements". Caswall said this clarifies the intent. Charles Collins pointed out permitted uses states, "any uses approved within a final development plan" and any use is rather a broad conclusion. Uses are normally specific. Collins said if the permitted uses are going to be amended, they should be specific. Ms. Margerum said the intent is that the property would have an SPA overlay. The SPA overlay allows one to vary any uses as long they are approved by Council. Ms. Margerum said there are very limited properties in the city that have an SPA overlay on them. Ms. Margerum said the reason this is included is that on a piece of property where there is an SPA overlay, one is allowed to vary uses. If the underlying zoning is academic, staff wanted to make sure this was not construed as non -conforming with the underlying zone district. The purpose is to insure the uses are not perceived by a financial institute as being non -conforming with the underlying zoning. Collins said this ordinance appears to be mixed in a custom -like manner for this particular application. Collins said this will have implications for all applications before the city. Ms. Margerum told Council staff is recommending the land use code be amended to allow the subdivision regulations be varied if there is an SPA overlay. This is to allow staff and applicants be a little more creative while still maintain the safety and public health needs, especially with respect to roads. Ms. Margerum said this would allow narrower roads and lower development needs and to do things that are not necessarily appropriate in a major subdivision, certain engineering design standards that would not be appropriate in an area where the city is trying to maintain the rural charac- ter. Ms. Margerum recommended the code be amended,to allow the strict subdivision standards be gotten around when there is an SPA overlay. 11 Regular MeetingAspen City Council May 13, 1991 about approving something that has difficulty getting financial support. Councilman Peters withdrew his motion to delete Section 1. Mayor Stirling moved to direct staff to take into consideration observations made about Section 1 and bring this back at the continued public hearing May 20. Councilman Peters said he would like the engineering department to investigate if there is a different way to allow and design a facility for storm water runoff. Councilman Peters said he feels Section 5 is very narrow and written too selectively. Mayor Stirling requested staff look at Section 5 in the same context as looking at Section 1. Mayor Stirling moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance #13, Series of 1991, to May 20 with the staff directed to make comments on the observations made specifically on Sections 1 and 5; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 1991 - Code Amendment Section 7-602 Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1991, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1991 - Historic Designations Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council each of these 3 historic designations will have an accessory dwelling unit attached. Each of these meets 2 of the 6 standards for designa- tion. Each of them is requesting the $2,000 grant. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1991, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Gassman moved to approve the $2, 000 grant to each of the 3 designated landmarks; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. 13 Reqular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Mav 28. 1991 Ms. Margerum told Council Section 10 includes an easement around the race track area and states that exact trail locations would be approved by the planning director. The city would get "as built" easements conveyed after the trail construction. This allows staff more flexibility in where the trails will actually go. Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council staff and the applicants took a site visit to look at the 2 proposed trail alignments below the restaurant building and one below the health club. Ms. Johnson said at this point in the design process it is difficult to conclude the exact impact to the site and workability of the 2 trail alignments. Ms. Johnson said both areas would require steep switchbacks and would need to be signed to not allow bike riding on the trails. Whichever trail is chosen, it should be the most useable for citizens and visitors alike. Suzanne Jackson, Design Workshop, presented drawings of alignments. Ms. Jackson told Council the existing trail in the area of the health center goes down at a 14 to 17 percent grade. Trail standards are 6 to 8 percent grades. In order to access the existing trail, because of development of the health club, one would have to make a really long switchback which would necessitate cut and retaining of the landscape. Ms. Jackson showed drawings of a trail starting at a 6 percent grade. Ms. Jackson said the trail should be about 6 feet wide to minimize the cut. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicant is willing to give blanket trail easements for these two trails. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, said the master plan shows a trail location and the applicants feel the trail proposed in the master plan has the advantages of being right along the river; instead of going through the campus, the trail get rights down to the conservation land and is generally superior to the other location. Councilman Gassman moved to locate the trail where it is shown in general on the master plan; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Councilman Gassman said there are two issues; one is topographic, the other is the issue of running the trail through the campus. I Councilman Gassman said he is sympathetic to not running the trail I through the campus. Councilman Gassman said there is an issue of privacy for the Institute and their programs. Councilman Gassman said it would be difficult to get a trail from the health club to the river. It is very steep; switchbacks cause cuts in the landscape. The trail by the tennis townhouses would be less disruptive of the landscape and it may be able to be used by bicyclists. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed. Councilwoman Pendleton said it seems people would not want to go through the campus but rather go around it. Councilman Peters agreed about the location of the trail and stated he would like to give the designers of the trails 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 28 1991 flexibility in order to disturb as little vegetation as possible. Mayor Stirling said the exact location of the trail should be worked out by the staff. Coming between the restaurant and the new tennis townhouses is the new location; the details to be worked out with staff. Councilman Peters suggested some parameters for the final trail location such as minimizing effect to the vegetation and topogra- phy. Mayor Stirling agreed he does not want to see an enormous cut on the hillside but that people can get to the river with as little damage to the ecosystem as possible. Charles Collins asked if this trail would meet the guidelines in the pedestrian plan. Ms. Johnson said staff is trying to get as shallow a grade as possible and to meet the grade requirements. Ms. Margerum said the pedestrian walkway guidelines are not binding but are general parameters. Collins asked if there will be a designated easement to a new bridge across to the Rio Grande trail. This trail easement is on the master plan. The motion reads, the final plat shall particularly note (1) an easement for a trail link around the race track trail to 7th street and around the race track and (2) the trail between the tennis town homes and the restaurant as depicted on the master plan. Exact �! trail locations must be approved by the planning director and an as built easement shall be executed and conveyed after trail construc- tion taking into account minimization of damage to vegetation and topography, allocating a secondary importance to maintaining a maximum grade. All in favor, motion carried. Condition #12 has ben reworded to convey all water rights, titles and interests to the city and the city will lease back to the developer interests to raw water for irrigation use within the development in an amount equal to that amount of water conveyed to the city. Larry Ballenger, water department, told Council he would like condition #11 to read, "there shall be no interconnections of non -treated water systems to potable water systems". The applicant had no problems with that language. Kaufman told Council the applicants and city's water counsel have reached agreement on #12, however, there is wording that is different from the traditional agreement. John Musick, city's water counsel, told Council the applicant will be conveying the water rights free and clear to the city. The city will lease those water rights back to the applicant. The applicant will pay the operation, maintenance and replacement costs in a pro rata basis with the other users of the ditch, who are the city and the forest service. The applicant will pay $100 for a carriage 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 28. 1991 permanent 20 foot easement extending 10 foot both sides of the center line to the newly constructed and of the newly constructed water line and a construction easement for an additional 5 feet on each side of the center line. Along with a similar 20 foot easement for the future installation of a connector main to the existing city main in Black Birch drive". Councilman Peters asked why these should be conveyed to the city when they are mostly on private property. Ballenger said with the connector to Black Birch, this will become a connector system serving the main core city system. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicant is prepared to pay for the loop into Black Birch. Kaufman said the applicants are not. Harvey said this has not been brought up and is not part of any of their financial calculations. Mayor Stirling moved to direct the staff to reword paragraph #13 to generally reflect Ballenger's comments; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling said #14 has been reworded to reflect a decision by Council not to have any retention for storm drainage runoff in the environs of the Meadows. Mayor Stirling pointed out the old #19 was deleted. Mayor Stirling said this property has a great range of wildlife in its eco-system from deer to foxes and a great variety of birds. Mayor Stirling said turning this over to the director of ACES is not acceptable. Caswall pointed out the determination shall be made by the city in consultation with the ACES director. Ms. Johnson said in #24 staff felt expansion of flat grassy areas should be minimized. If the applicant were to consider an addition to Anderson park or some other open space, this would be considered an SPA amendment, requiring further review. Kaufman said the applicants feel going through an SPA amendment is a major production. One reason manicured areas is included as a permitted use in open space is it is an appropriate use on the Meadows. Kaufman said they would like the flexibility to be able to increase the gardens or open space rather than have the city consider what is appropriate for their gardens. Ms. Margerum said the focus of the plan has been to keep as much of the Meadows property in its natural vegetated state as possible. Mayor Stirling said the mounds are a great amenity to the academic campus. Council decided to leave #24 as written. Condition #28 is the condition about access to the property. David McLaughlin, Aspen Institute, said all of this effort has been to keep the Meadows for the purposes for which it is intended, whether they are educational or intellectual. McLaughlin pointed out the applicants are about to goi through fund raising of about $18 million to make this a world class center. The status quo of this area is very important. McLaughlin said it is the intent of the applicants to keep the campus not as a park but as an intellectual 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 28, 1991 contiguous. Harvey said if this cannot be done, they will grant whatever easements are necessary. Council agreed to leave #2 in reworded about the trail vacation. Harvey said in #7 the applicants wanted the final sentence to read that "in the event an actual site or unforeseen technical consider- ation require a variation from utility alignments on the plat, that the actual utility location corridors will be inspected and approved by the city engineer and planning director prior to the issuance of an excavation permit". This means they are approved as on the plat. The applicants would like some assurance that small variations can be handled by the staff. Ms. Margerum said the existing language says staff will see the exact utility corridors prior to them being put in. If there are some problems on site, they will be brought to staffs attention. If the last sentence is removed, staff will only be called if there is a problem. Council agreed to the way it is written. Harvey asked that #9 be deleted in its entirety after last week's action on storm water. Council agreed. Harvey said at the end of #13, the language decided by P & Z should read "the least disrup- tive method should be identified and employed". Ms. Margerum said it is fine to change it back to the P & Z final resolution. Kaufman requested a finding be put back in the ordinance that the new Meadows road is a local street. This finding was originally placed in the record. Councilman Gassman moved to designate Seventh street as a local street rather than a collector; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Charles Collins read the definitions of a local and collector street. Collins said Seventh street must be a collector street because of the definition. Mayor Stirling said a local street dead ends in an area, which is what this street does. All in favor, motion carried. Ramona Markalunas pointed out this street is carrying commercial traffic to the Meadows. Harvey showed a map of the home sites and the driveway locations. Harvey told Council staff has recommended for lot 10 the driveway be on the west side. Harvey said it may be better for this to be on the east side. Harvey pointed out there is a drop into the property and it may be safer for the driveway to be on the east side. Council agreed to take condition #17 out. Ms. Margerum said on #18, staff had a concern with the amount of time allowed for the applicants to record the final plat. The Code allows 180 days following the adoption of the ordinance. There is 14 lff;KiSt in grAnd 2 0 - 3' d - 2-Ishoulder from la. rock 'CUT m eXcavatfon hard surface trail I Lt TYPICAL SECTION -7 7W \ �`� -r90 Match flush to _ - \ existing trail 41 Recreation Engineering &F Planning 485 Arapahoe -Boulder, Colorado 80302- TEL/ r-A/X (3 03) 54 5 - 5 S 8 3 -44 " a,t, f City of Aspen Wks Department 1.30 South Galena Street - Aspen, Colorado k R 16 1 WMA, 0 aslwi Match flush a r -to existing oa El, 7858.0 ,G % Fe 3" d oui e Pool (tree rem -t ne asnera Meadows 'Trail Connection %DO .......... 4611 0 14 -- - — - --------------- New 8'-101 hard -surfaced tra i 1. -SC-F- DETAILS SHEET_ lfr Gye 1 210' VATO: SHEET ,.June ig94 I