HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Mountainedge.1982
"'i
;;=,.,
,~
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, INC.
Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the
Music Associates at the meeting held on Friday,
July 13, 1979 at the Castle Creek Campus.
RESOLVED: That the Building and Grounds Committee be,
and hereby is, authorized to proceed with negotiations,
with Hans Cantrup and his representatives, to develop a
student housing facility for the MAA, on the property
known as the Koch Lumber Company property. It is under-
stood that the MAA will actively participate in such
matters as: Programing and Design of the facility, as
well as the political processes required to obtain annex-
ation, rezoning and other necessary approvals.
I"'.
1"'.,
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 22, 1982 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Regular Meeting
I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
II. MINUTES
II I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Arthur's Restaurant, Inc. - Expansion of a Condi.ti,onal Use
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Mountain Edge Subdivision - Conceptual Review
, V. RESOLUTIONS
A. ~ommending 010f Hedstrom for Service on Planni.ng andZonin9 Commission
VI. PLANNING ISSUES
A. Discussion of Nonconforming Lodge Alternatives (time permitting)
VII. ADJOURN MEETING
.
.
y{,
r
i
I
I
I
~
I
,-,
~
"
Statement of the Shadow Mountain'Citizen's Group
Before the Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
At the Hearing on June 22, 1982 concerning
the Mountain Edge Pud Conceptual plan for the Koch Lumber Site
A. Reasons for Opposition to Proposed Mountain Edge Project:
1. DENSITY is still too high: in fact, it is higher than
before. The entire project needs to be cut by 50%.
2. As business people in this community, we question the
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY of this project and request the P & z
to require an "Economic Feasibility Study" from the
applicant before this project is given any real
consideration. If this project is not economically
feasible, we fear that possible dollar losses from
operations might force the owner to convert employee
units (and particularly the cafeteria if it exists)
into free market use, and we ask, "In the event of
bankruptcy, what happens to the employee units'?"
3. We still oppose any sort of CAFETERIA in our neighborhood.
And if the First Street Right-of-Way property is to be
used for this cafeteria, we would like to see a proper
application filed where the City, at least, would be
required to join in this application. We are concerned
that the First Street Right-of-Way remain for public
access to Little Cloud and the proposed Shadow Mountain
Park and Trails.
4. We request that a firm CONTRACT between MAA and Cantrup
be required before the project be approved on any level.
We believe that the present agreement between MAA and
Cantrup (I refer to the agreement in your packet) is
insufficient protection for the 11AA and this co~~unity.
We also request that a contract is needed between the
City and cantrup regarding the winter use (employee
housing) of these units.
5. This project does not substantially MEET THE STUDENT
HOUSING NEEDS of the MAA. For all of the impact on
our neighborhood, the benefits to MAA do not appear
to be significant.
6. If this proposal is a<;cepted, we request that the FOOT-
PRINT BE REARRANGED to allow the open space in this
proposal to be contiguous with other open space already
available in the Shadow Mountain Area.
,
I"""'-.
,-,
Statement of the Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group
Page 2
7. We request that this building be restricted to current
ZONING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, per this neighborhood's
year-long battle for a lower FAR and 25 ft. height
limits.
B. Our Position Remains the Same
1. FIRST CHOICE--City Purchase as a Park
2. SECOND CHOICE--Property remain R-15
3. THIRD CHOICE--Rio Grande Counter Proposal
City could trade open space land from the Rio
Grande property for open space land on the
Mountain Edge property,"with Cantrup building his
employee units on the Rio Grande property, and
the employee units would be owned and managed
by Arts Housing (MAA and Arts West).
C. 'Rio Grande Counter Proposal
1. At the April 6 meeting, Olaf suggested that we
check further into this counter proposal.
2. We have done so. At this point we have met with:
Lou Gresset, Business Director of MAA
Dr. Russell Scott, Arts West Aspen
Hal Clark, Open Space Board
Welton Anderson, Architect for Cantr~p
These key people all welcome further research of this
counter proposal.
3. We have written a letter dated May 25 to Alice Davis
in the Planning Office requesting that this alternative
be further examined and studied. (A copy of this letter
is in your packet.)
4. With this proposal, other developers could also transfer
their REO units to this property to provide the remainder
of the needed MAA student housing.
,
,-,
~
statement of the Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group
Page 3
5. We feel that adding housing to the Rio Grande property
would make it safer since this area is presently a
high rape area and housing would make it more of ,a
"people" area.
6. Employee housing on the Rio Grande was a part of the
original plan submitted by Fritz Benedict for that
property. And as we understand it, the housing idea
was abandoned because the question would have had to
go before the voters as whether to allow housing on
City-owned open space land. Since with our proposal
the open space land would be traded, this idea could
again be reconsidered.
7. We understand that this proposal would cause more
traffic on Mill Street, but feel that with good planning
it could be designed with viable solutions to the
traffic problems.
SUMMARY
1. Thenejghborhood: still objects to the Mountain Edge
Proposal because:
a) Density is too high--needs to be cut 50%
b) Building should be restricted to 25' height limits
c) We fear economic infeasibility will cause free
market use
d) Footprint needs to be rearranged to meet park needs
2. We also feel that this proposal is not a secure and/or
long-term answe~ for the MAA because:
a) A firm contract between MAA and Cantrup does
not exist
b) The number of units proposed does not meet the
housing needs of the MAA
c) This project is probably not financially feasible
3.Qur counterproposal:
a) has evoked sufficient interest from the community
b) would better meet the needs of everyone involved
i
I
./
~
,-,
I
I
I
I
I
Aspen/Pi tk,inPlanning Office
130 sou th ga Ie na's tree t
aspen, colorado 81611
June 20, 1982
Carolyn Doty
Shadow Mt. Citizen's Group
P.O. Box 5091
Aspen, CO. 81612
Dear Carolyn,
I am writing in answer to your letter of May 25, 1982 regarding
the City's First Street right-of-way and the proposed Mountain
Edge project.
Welton Anderson has removed the cafeteria and the request for
the sale or gift of the City's First Street right-of-way from
the Mountain Edge conceptual subdivisionjPUD application. He
has informed me that a separate application will possibly be made
at a later date by the MAA requesting the right-of-way and approval
for the cafeteria. Since this is no longer part of the current
Mountain Edge application, we are not evaluating or requiring in-
formation on the cafeteria. At such time when an application
regarding the right-of-way and the cafeteria is made, the City
will be a part of the application as owners of the right-af-way.
In essence, the Mountain Edge application, as currently proposed,
is a complete and proper application and does not include a re-
quest for a student cafeteria. '
Thank you for your letter regarding the neighborhood's concern.
The P & Z meeting on the Mountain Edge application is set for
June 22, 1982. The Planning Office memorandum on the application
will be ready for distribution Friday afternoon, June 18, 1982.
Sincerely,
~ QOJ.Ji.a;
Alice Davis, Planner
.
,-..
.-'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
DATE: June 17, 1982
Lot Size:
1.42 acres (62,068 sq. ft.)
Location:
Zoning:
Background:
Applicant's
Request:
Between Garmisch and First Streets, Cooper and Durant Avenues
(formerly Koch Lumber Company)
R-15 (rezoning to L-2 proposed)
The Mountain Edge property was annexed into the City on
November 26, 1979 and was zoned R-15 on January 11, 1982.
When zoning the Mountain Edge property, both the P & Z and
City Council were reluctant to zone the property on the basis
of an indefinite development proposal involving an RMF or L-2
zoning. Both groups did, however, indicate a willingness to
consider a rezoning of the property in the context of a
specific development proposal and stated that they would
sponsorthe rezoning application. Sponsorship would avoid
the twice a year date for such applications to be submitted
by private landowners.
The applicant submitted a conceptual outline of a proposed
multi-family project for conceptual subdivision review which
was discussed by P & Z at their regular meeting on April 6,
1982. P & Z tabled the item, requesting a more even split
between space devoted to free market units and space devoted to
employee units. P & Z also requested more detailed information
from the applicant addressing the appropriateness of an RBO
zoning and a 70:30 project as determined through the review
criteria established in the Code. It is this amended Mountain
Edge application for conceptual subdivision review which
is currently under review.
The applicant is requesting conceptual subdivision and PUD
approval in order to construct 76 employee dorm rooms and
24 faculty/free market units. The dorm rooms are proposed as
housing for MAA students in the summer and seasonal ski
employees in the winter. The faculty/free market units are
proposed as a means to offset the construction costs of the
dormitory and to provide a continuing operation subsidy for
the dormitory. The free market un its wi 11 be so 1 d as condo-
miniums with deed restrictions limiting summer occupancy to
music school faculty members at a rate 20% below market rates
for similar units. Eventually, this project would requ.ire
a rezoning to L-2, an RBO rezoning approval for a dormitory
use and increased density, a GMP exception for the employee and
free market units as a "70:30" project (Section 24-11.2(;)) and
further subdivision and PUD approvals.
The amended Mountain Edge application differs from the original
application in the total number of units proposed, the
employee unit/free market unit mix, the square footage ratio
of space devoted to employee versus free market units, the FAR
and the percentage, of open space provided. These di fferences
are shown below.
,-"
-.,
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Two
June 17, 1982
Total Units
Employee Units
Fr~e Market Units
Original Submission
February 12, 1982
95
68
27
Mountain Edge Application
Amended Application
May 5, 1982
100
76
24
Size:
Employee Units
Free Market Units
300 sq. ft. each
1,450 sq. ft. each
300 sq. ft. each
7 @ 1,280 sq. ft.
10 @ 1,340 sq. ft.
7 @ 1,450 sq. ft.
Sq. Ft. Ratio
Free Market/
Employee Units
60%/40%
50%/50%
Unit Ratio
Free Market/
Employee Units
28%/72%
24%/76%
FAR
1.12: 1
55%
1.14: 1
65%
Open Space
As the table shows, eight employee units have been added in
the amended application while the free market units have been
reduced by three units for a total of five additional units
to the amended application. The total square footage has
been redistributed sothat approximately 50% of the space
provided is for employee units while only 40% was originally
designated for employee units. The amended application does
not include a cafeteria ora request for ,the City to sell or
give City land at the south end of First Street for the
cafeteria. The applicant has stated that the MAA will file
a request involving this land and the cafeteria as part of
a separate application.
Referral
Comments:
The Engineering Department review gave the following four
comments on the Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD conceptual
submission:
1. The submission is missing information of all adjacent
lands owned or under option to the subdivider and deed
information addressing existing easements.
2. Information needs to be provided on the relocation or
undergrounding of the existing power 1 ines.
3. Parking prOblems would seem to be mitigated by the
proposed .underground facility. The proposed sticker pro-
gram should be effective provided it can be adequately
enforced. '
4. The applicant should be required to obtain letters from
all utilities as to the availability of service.
The Water Department and Aspen Metro Sanitation District ha\1e
no problems, at this time, with the proposed project.
Memo: Mountain
Page, Three
June 17, 1982
Planning
Office Review:
,-"
Edge/PUn -' Conceptual Submission
,-"
During the original review of the Mountain Edge conceptual
application the Planning Office identified three major
areas of concern: 1) the short terming of condominiums,
2) high density and 3) the student cafeteria. The cafeteria
has been removed from this application and is no longer a con-
sideration. Additional information on the appropriateness of
an RBO rezoning and a "70:30" project was also requested.
The fOllowing is a list of current Planning Office concerns.
1. Short-termi ng - The current appl i cati on wi 11 eventually
require a rezoning to L-2 where short terming of condo-
miniums is allowed. With the existing R-15 zoning short
termi,ng ,is not allowed. The Planning Office feels that
short-terming is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan states that short terming
in this neighborhood should only be allowed at existing
locations. The Planning Office's current study of
lodging in Aspen indicates that this is still appro-
priate and that existing zoning provides an adequate
enough amount of lodge and short term condominium units
to provide for necessary growth. Prelimjnary survey
results do show that it may be appropriate to allow the
expansion of nonconforming lodges to meet the demand
for lodge units and to experience a moderate level of
lodge development through the growth management quota
system. Since lodge units needs can be met at existing
locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2
in a new location.
Short term condominiums create substantial i,mpacts on
surrounding areas due to increased traffic, parking
problems and potential noise problems. These impacts
should be considered in evaluati,ng an L-2 rezoning and
a short term project on the subject property.
2. Density - The amended application increased the total
number of units in the Mountain Edge property from
95 to 100. This includes 76 dorm rooms (previously 68
rooms) and 24 free market units (previously 27 units).
The Planning Office, as before, is concerned with the
htgh density proposed and feels this density is not
appropriate at thi,s location. The Shadow Mountain
neighborhood has echoed this concern. One hundred
units is an especially high density when compared to the
six units allowed on the parcel with the current R-15
zoning.
The applicant has esti~ted, based on the proposed
dens ity, the projepted popu 1 (i tion of the propsed ,,'
dormitory to be 15Q peop 1 e in the SUlllmer (two person
occupancy) and 75, people in the winter (single occu-
pancy). The traffic, parking and noise impacts resulting
from the dormitory popu 1 a tion along with the impacts from
the free market units makes the density problem a serious
consideration.
3. RBO - The Planning Office has no problem with an RBO
zon i ng used at this locatton for the purpose, of allowing
a dormi tory but we do question the appropriateness of
an RBO to obtain a higher density at this location.
Sections 24-10.:3 and 24-10.9 of the Code provide criteria
for evaluating RBO requests including 1) compatibility
with the neighborhood conSidering design, bulk and
density, 2) compliance with the purposes of a PUD, 3)
compliance with any adopted housing plans Or goals,
4) geographic dispersal of deed restricted units,
5) minimization of environmental and social impacts,
6) maximizati,on of construction quality and unit size,
7) compatibility with area and bulk requirements,
r-,
~
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Four
June 17, 1982
8) proximity to transportation, the degree to whIch
automobile use is discouraged and the provision of
on site auto storage, 9) adequacy and availability
of utilities and 10) consideration of an RBO being
more appropriate in relatively undeveloped areas.
In addition to the previously mentioned short-terming and
density concerns, the RBO review criteria raises a few
other issues. The proposed four story structure adds
excess ive bulk and goes beyond the height 1 imi t of
25 feet in the R-15 zone and the 28 foot height limit
in the proposed L-2 zone., Thi,s height is not compatible
with the underlying zone district but may be varied
through the PUD process.
In consideration of the City's housing goals, the pro-
posed proje,ct would meet a serious need for guaranteed',
housing for MAA students in the summer whi,le also
providing employee housing for seasonal winter employees.
The proposed rental rate for MAA students is $27.00
per bed per week whtch equals $0.72 per square foot
for each dorm unit. This falls under the adopted
rental guidelines for middle income employee housing
units. The applicant currently has no proposal for
deed restriction for winter use of the dorm rooms. The
Planning Office recommends the dorm uni,ts be restricted
to the low income category of the housing price guide-
Hnes (,$0.55 per square foot) for winter use. It appears
that due to the dormitory sty 1 e of the units, that summer
use for MAA students may also need to De restricted to
the low income category as opposed to the middle income
category proposed. The amenities offered in the project
may however warrant a higher income category for the
MAA students.
The proposed project may discourage automobile use in
that it abuts the old Mi,dland Right~of-Way which mClY
eventua lly provide direct pedestrian access to the Mus i c
School if the proper easemeni;$,can be obtained. The pro-
posed underground parking facllfty provides excellent
on site automobile storage.
4. "70:30" - Section 24-11.2 allows residential units to
be exempt from GMP procedures when 70% of the units
proposed are deed restricted to the City's employee
housing prIce gui,deHnes. Thi:s criteria requires the
appl icant to deed restrict according to the guidel ines
for summer and winter use if a 70:30 exemption is used.
The Planning Office recommends deed restriction to the
low income guideline category.
A review of a "70:30" project should include a deter-
mination of community need considering, but not limited
to, the number, type, miX and price of the units pro"-
posed. The Code recommends that a 1'70: 30" proj ect
maintain an average lJ, and 2 bedrooms per unit withi,n
the deed restricted portion of the project and recommends
that at least 50% of the residential floor area be
devoted to the deed ,restricted units, The proposed
project now meets the 50% floor area recommendation.,
The project proposes two beds per dorm room, but as a
dormitory the project cannot approp,riately be evaluated
on a, basis of the number of bedrooms.
5. The Ro 1 e of the MAA - The role of theMAA in the ,manage-
ment of the proposed project has not been clearly ,
identIfied by the appl icant. The appl ication does
inc 1 ude a resolution pas.sed by theMAA Board of Trus tees
l'\
,,-.
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUn - Conceptual Submission
Page Five
June 17, 1982
authorizing the Buil ding and Grounds, Cormnittee to proceed
with negotiations with I:lans Cantrup and his representa-
tives to developMAA student housing on the Mountain
Edge parcel. The resolutJon states the MAA will
actively participate i,n the programming and design of
the facility and in necessary political processes. The
applicant has stated that legal documents on the MAAl.s
role i n.the management of the proposed 'proj e.ctare not
feasibl e untIl the Music Associates knolol tne kind of
facility which will be ultimately approved. The appli-
cant has shown a will ingness to comply with conditions of
approval relatIng to this matter.
6. The Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Concerns _ The Shadow
Mountain Neighborhood Group has consistently expressed
their opposition to the Mountain Edge project due to
insufficient agreements between' theMAA and I:lans
Cantrup, questions regarding the economic feasi,bil i.ty of
the project, traffic and parking problems the high
density and the proposed dormitory use. '
rhe Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Group has expressed
that the first choice of the neighhorhood is the
acquisHion of the parcel by the CIty for use as a
park. Secondly, they' would prefer that the property
be developed wi.thin the parameters of the current R-15
zoning. As a third al ternative the NeIghborhood Group
has recommended a counter proposal to the project sug-
gesttng that the City trade open space 1 and from the
Rio Grande property for open space land on the Mountain
Edge prope.rty wIth Cantnup building his employee unIts
i,n the Rio Grande property. The proposal recommends
that the units be owned and managed by Arts Housing La
proposed joint lIenture of Arts West and MAA). The
Rio Grande parcel would serve as a possible sIte for the
transferri.n9 of any employee unIts using the split-site
method for locating employee and free market unIts, up to
a li.mit of 300-500 beds on the parcel.
The Planning OffIce feels that this is an unlikely
alternative due to the complexity of the land trade,
the time requ ired to obta i.n the necessary approvals,
the fact that the SPA proceedings for the Rio Grande
property are well under way and the resulting negative
impacts from such a project. With the immediate need
for MAA housing, the ttme involved in a land trade,.
and the reworking of the Rio Grande SPA would prohibit
an expeditious solutIon to low income stUdent/employee
housing problems. Currently the proposed SPA for the
Rio Grande does not include any resi,dential uses,
The Planning OffIce has further problems with the Rio
Grande stUdent/employee housIng alternative when the
impacts of a 300-500 bed hous.ing project are evaluated.
If the recommendatIons of the Smuggle,r Area Master
Plan are adopted, traffic from this area along with
the traffi c generated from the proposed Performing
Arts Center will push Mill Street to capacity without
cons idering the traffic generated from the proposed
300-500 b,ed fad 1 i ty, Parking and noise impacts
would be further problems., especially in light of
other existIng and proposed uses in the area. This
1 arge emp 1 oyee proj ect is, also i,n conflict wIth the
CItyl.s policy of the geographical disbursal of deed
restricted unIts and integratiM these uni,ts wIth other
types of residential developments.
~ '*- ......
,-,
.-,
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Six
June 17, 1982
Summary:
Planning
. Offi ce
Recommendation:
The Planning Office is sympathetic to the MAA's need for
housing, however this proposal doe~ not ~ppear to b~ the
proper solution. In evaluating thlS proJect accord~ng to the
policies of our adopted Land Use Plan and our evolvlng,
update of our physical and poli,~y P!a~s, we do n?t belleve
that the employee housing need Justlfles the POllCY t~adeoffs
regarding density and increasing short term use of thlS
neighborhood.
The Planning Office recommends that the applicant rework the
Mountain Edge proposal since the project as currently proposed
is not acceptable. The Planning Office would suggest that
t.he fOllowi,ng items be included in the newly amended applica-
tion so that our planning concerns are appropriately handled:
1. Density - A reduction in the floor area to the allowed
1: 1 floor area ratio requirement with the same 50-50
distribution of the floor area between free market and
employee units. This would reduce the density and in
effect remove the necessity for an RBO rezoning for
density reasons. The RBO would only be required in
order to allow a dormitory use on the site.
2. Short-terminq - Since according to the City"s land use
pOlicies short terming is only allowed at existing loca-
tions and should not be allowed at this new location,
an application for multi-family Ul)its with six month
minimum lease restrictions would be most appropriate for
the free, market segment of the project. This would
eliminate the need for an L-2 rezoning and would require
a rezoning to RMF.
3. Heiqh~ - The height for the 4 floor story structure
should be reduced to conform to the 25 foot height
requirement of the RMF zone district. If L-2 zoning
is still requested, the 28 foot height limitation
should lie met.
4. MAA Agreement - Further explanation and documentation
of the MAA's role in this project is needed, especially
with regard to the management of the student/employee
units. Also, information is needed on the MAA's plans
for requesting the gift or sale of the City's right of
way of the south end of First Street for use as a student
cafeteria.
.
,-.,
"-.,,,
MEMORANDUM
TO: . ,.Alice Davis" Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office~
DATE: June 10, 1982
RE: Mountain Edge Amended Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission
------------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above submission for conceptual subdivision
and PUD approval, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. Referencing my memo of March 9, 1982, the following items are
still missing from the submission:
a.
b.
All adjacent lands owned or
Deed information addressing
/
under option to the subdivider.
existing easeme~ts,etc.
2. We remain concerned about relocation or undergrounding of the
existing power line.
3. The submission would seem to mitigate most parking impacts created
by the project. The proposed sticker program should be effective,
provided it can be adequately enforced.
4. The applicant should be required to obtain letters from all
utilities as to the availability of service.
JH/co
~
.
,,:::L-.
_,_.i..:..:-...4...;..:..,_,,,:."::~ _ .-,~La
,-,
-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: 'Paul,Taddune, City Attorney
City Engineering Department
Ron >Mitchel1 ,Acting Housing Di rector
Building Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Amended Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual Submission
DATE; May 27, 1982
The 110untain Edge Subdivision/PUD (Music Associates Housing) - Conceptual
Submission is appearing before you in a revised form. . This item was tabled
at the April 6 P & Z meeting. The number of units has been adjusted from
the previous 68 students units and 27 faculty units to 76 proposed student/
employee units and 24 faculty/free market units.. Tile application provides
a justificatIon for the Residential Bonus Overlay request, has a lower density
and rea 11 ocates the square footage oetween the student and faculty units so
that the rati.o is now yery close to 1: 1. You may notice that the cafeteria
is not included in this plan; the MAA wlll request the dedication of right-of-
way and plan for the cafeterIa as a separate application at a later date.
Thi.s item is heing scheduled for the June 22nd, City pand Z meeting; please
respond with comments regarding this new proposal try Thursday, June 10.
Thank you for your assIstance.
rCl,' ~ ~
rVf!o/V7.' ~..;z: ~
.
~
~
~"""""'r-1.....-"'r--~.r"'J:... :_. '''-'-::-'U~
In'~~~''~*'' ~ JJ;~\~
'." I _ ' , - \ '. ~ 1
,:" '\1
L Jl;": 2 F,.;Z ,\ J_J'l
;0\., ,~'/r~,'
'"
'-,- ~'. -,. ,,' ~ "~
;
\
1"""'.
,-,
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CITIZEN'S- GROUP'
C/O CAROLYN,S. DOTY
P.O. BOX 5091
ASPEN, CO. 81612
Phone: 925-1718
,Welton Andersol1.
113 N. 8th
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Welton,
Our neighborhood group met last Wed., May.19 to review
your recent plans for the Mou,ntain Edge property ~ ,as well.
as to discuss other it,ems related to this project. '
" ,
In regard to your present plan, weare glad to see a one-
to~one ratio between employee and free market units for
this property. However, we are,still, uncomfortable about
the number of units proposed. \Ole would like to see a 33%
reduction in the, density of this entire project..
,
Also, although you are not submitting cafeteria plans at
'. this time, as we understand it you will in the future, and
we would like tore'-state that we ,totally' oppose,'a cafeteria
on this site.,
:-''''''',''
conce~ll of our is as fo11';ws: Al~~~~gh: we~e~lize
have tried to maintain as much oj;>en'space as possible
~n your present plan, we are concerned that the open space
be contiguous with other open space already available in the
area (City - owned landJBLM land~ and Steven's and Barbie's
, potentict I open -space landY so' that. tpeJ;e' iaa, 'greenbelt
connecting 'to, the proposed, trail a.rea. In,oj::her words, we., ,
request the possibility of, rearranging, the ,foQtprint to meet'
bur objective., . ' ,
Above are our concerns regarding your present proposal;
however, as we have presented in our counter' proposal before
Planning and Zoning on ApriJl .6, 1982, this ProposaL is not
the first choice' of our neighborhood. We, would, of course,
prefer to see the' property purchased by the. City as a park;
secondly, we, would like to have the property, remain R-15,
and thirdly, we would like to have' th,e City trade open'
space land from the Rio Grande property for open space on the
"
;,\, '1 .
,-,
^
Page Two
Mountain Edge property, with Cantrup building his employee
units on the Rio Grande, property, and the employee units
being owned and managed by: AJ:;tl;;_Ho1.lsing (a joint venture qf,
Arts W~~t and MAA~.' ' ' ", -', -, ,','
" ".,:'i'. 0 ! ',,:;,:,,' ,'-":",,.:' ;"::" :':',~_:,:", , ::. ,,_: ":' " ,'. . . ,_
As a. group, we ti~ve furth'er inv~stigated the possibilities of ' .
our third choice by meeting with Lou Gresset of MAA; Dr. Scott
' of Arts West Aspen, Hal" Clark' or the Open Space Board, and ,
finally a letter to the Planning Office suggesting that they
examine this alternative (which is enclosed). We request'
that you also examine this alternative, along with the Planning
Office" by studying the Rio Grande SPA to determine if there
may be a feasible site for this alternative project.
Thank you for,working with us and we hope to continue working
successfully with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Carolyn S. Doty
Chairperson,
Shadow Mountain Citizens Group,
cc:, Alice Davis,
Planning Office
/\~-
,......,
r-.,
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CITIZEN'S
C/O CAROLYN S. DOTY
P.O. BOX 5091
ASPEN, CO. 81612
Phone: 925-1718
GROUP
May 25, 1982
Ms. Alice Davis
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO. 81611
!:lear Alice:
The Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group met Wed., May 19
to once again discuss the proposed development on the
Mountain Edge property. We are writing this letter to you
regarding some concerns of ours.
First, although after talking with Welton recently, we
realize that his present proposal does not now include the
First Street Right-of Way for the cafeteria; as we under-
stand it, Welton is going to re-submit that portion of the
proposal separately. Since this is city-owned land (and
we have heard it may even include some BLM land), we are
concerned that all owners of record are required to be a
party to a zoning application, which would mean that the
city (at least) would have to join in the application.
will you please cerify in writing that the application is
complete and proper?
Secondly, we attach a copy of the only known agreement
between Hans Cantrup and the MAA. We feel that this letter
is insufficient protection for the MAA and the community.
We feel, therfore, that a very firm and clear contract
signed by Cantrup, the MAA, and the City should be entered
into the record before Mountain Edge is given any further
consideration.
Thirdly, because of the looseness of the Cantrup/MAA
agreement to date and because of Cantrup's numerous code
violations in the past, we are concerned about economic
feasibility of this project. We are concerned that possible
dollar losses from operations might force the owner (Cantrup
or the MAA) to convert the cafeteria and/or the employee
units into free market tourist use. Therefore, we request
-
,.-,
Page Two
that qn "economic feasibility study" of the project be
completed before Mountain Edge is given any other consideration.
And finally, in speaking with Lou Gresset;, / Business
Director of the MAA,on Fri., April 16, we were told that the
MAA would welcome any help in finding an alternative solution
to the one on the Mountian Edge property, particularly if that
solution could provide more beds, and more of a quarantee of
solving their long-term housing problem. As you know from
our counterproposal on this property presented to Planning
and Zoning on April 6, 1982, we suggested the possibility of
the City trading open space land from the Rio Grande property
for open space land on the Mountain Edge property, with Cantrup
building his employee units on the Rio Grande property, and the
employee units being owned and managed by Arts Housing (a joint
venture of Arts West and MAA). At that meeting Olaf suggested
that we further research that possibility. We have, and we
attach a letter from the Aspen Lodging Association to the MAA
and Arts West Aspen outlining this alternative proposal, which
we feel would solve the long-term housing needs of the MAA and
the short-term winter employees. We request your examination of
this alternative and possible study of the Rio Grande SPA to
determine if there may be a feasible site for this alternative
project.
We hope that you will consider our concerns and our
alternative proposal. If you have any questions or would
like our help in any way, please contact us. We hope to hear
from you soon. You may contact me at 925-1718, Marge Riley
at 925-7068, Al Bloomquist at 925-3520 or Michael Behrendt at
925-3220.
Sincerely,
C~r ~J
Carolyn S. Doty
Chairperson,
Shadow Mountain Citizens Group
cc: Herman Edel, Mayor
Welton Anderson, Cantrup architect
Lou Gresset, Business Director of the MAA
Dr. Scott, Arts West Aspen
Enclosures: 2
~
. ,t"-.,\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council
FROM: Welton Anderson representing Music Associates of Aspen and Hans Cantrup
RE: Criteria to establish appropriateness of R.B.O., zoning (24-10.9) and
70-30 C.M.P. EXEMPTION
DATE: 5 May 1982
Section 24-10.9 of the Municipal Code establishes criteria for the determination
of the appropriateness of Residential Bonus Overlay Zoning and the elements
that which constitute "preferred" project as follows:
"Applications... best achieving the greatest number of the following
purposes will be preferred":
1. "Compliance with PUD purposes set forth in section 24-8.1
(a). Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout
of buildings
(b). Improve the design, character and quality of new develop-
ment
(c). Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services
(d). Preserve open space as development occurs
(e). Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site
and thus encourage preservation of the sites' unique natural
and scenic features.
(f). Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
areas"
In addressing these first concerns, the applicant proposes to cluster develop-
ment along the back and west property lines, away from existing developments
to provide a substantial useable open space buffer zone open to the neighborhood.
Existing trees and other natural features of this site will be preserved, and
the Midland trail will be restored.
The mix of student and faculty units of varying sizes and heights, yet con-
structed with the same quality of materials and detailing will give it a
design character that is both unified and diverse, without abrupt distinctions
being obvious between the two sections, or the surrounding developments.
2. "...Compliance with the adopted housing plan goals; mix of units,
type, price, etc."
'This plan fills a serious void in the Aspen housing market, i.e.
through R.B.O. zoning, 76 units at rents guaranteed lower than
vertually anything else in Aspen, will be made seasonally avail-
able to those employees who Aspen needs most and who can afford
our high rents least. In summer, the Music Associates are guaran-
teed a permanent facility for both students and faculty.
3. ".. .Maximization of construction quality..."
'The quality of construction, materials and detailing of the employee/
student portion will match that of the faculty/free market to avoid
any obvious differentiation between occupancy groups. This is made
possible by the free market construction subsidy.
4. "...Disbursal of deed restricted units and integration with other
types of development..."
'Deed-restricted employee housing is largely concentrated in the
Smuggler area, on the bus routes, but away from the bulk of jobs and
services. Disbursal of deed-restricted units throughout the community
is a planning goal often resisted, understandably, by neighborhood
groups. By integrating both freemaiket and employee units into an
architecturally consistant whole, the employee units are designed to
compliment, and not distract from, the existing neighborhood and
free market portion.
Memo: Mountain
Page Two
5 May 1982
Edge/R.B.O. & G.M.P. Exemption
^
,-,
5. "Minimization of adverse environmental and social impacts."
'Parking is addressed in detail below. Other impacts including
deterioration of the quality of life in the ilrrmediate neighborhood
because of the density of the development are difficult to assess
at this point except to say that the quality of life for the Aspen
community as a whole has suffered seriously from the lack of winter
service personnel in recent years; and will suffer immeasureably
without the Music School.
6. "Compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning, including
area and bulk requirements of underlying zoning districts."
,While this R.B.O. proposal requests a 1.14:1 F.A.R. (closer to 1.06
to 1 excluding subgrade floor areas), it is sensitive to the scale,
bulk and massing of the surrounding and largely built out lOdging
and multi-family neighborhood; and provides substantially more
amenities for its occupants and neighbors than required.
7. "Proximity to transportation, and degree to which proposal discourages
auto use while providing unique measures for off or on site auto
storage"
.This site is directly.on one bus route and three blocks from Rubey
Park. It is also abutting the old Midland R.O.W. which will eventu-
ally provide direct bicycle access to the Music School on Castle
Creek when the City and County acquire the remaining trail easements.
As for "unique measures" for automobile storage, the applicant pro-
poses not only to provide all required parking for 100 cars on site
and below grade; but to initiate an "underground parking only" sticker
system for occupants' automobiles, along with "NO PARKING" zones on
South side of Cooper and the West side of Garmisch for any stickered
vehicle.
8. "Adequacy of utilities"
'AII utilities notified to date find no problem with serving this
project.
Finally, Section 24-10 notes that "R.B.O. applications are preferred in rela-
tively undeveloped areas... also, preferred'in areas where either appropriate
to neighborhood or where it is possible to cluster and mitigate adverse effects
upon surrounding areas through use of green belts and open space."
'This proposal meets most if not all of these last criteria to be a "preferred
R.B.O. application." It is an undeveloped site, bordered on two sides by
undeveloped land (one side is undevelopable) yet the other two sides are
precisely the same sort of development, i.e. long and short-term multi-family.
In addition, nearly two-thirds of the site is given over to "open space" with
the bulk of that forming a one-half acre green belt/park abutting the surrounding
neighbors. All development is to be clustered in areas away from existing
development and oriented toward undeveloped land.
Summary:
Residential Bonus Overlay applications are not easy. This applica-
tion, however, meets all the established criteria for a"preferred
application." The applicant is not requesting the full density
or the maximum floor area bonus allowed under R.B.O. ;coning, only
that which can meet the minimum needs of the Music School, without
maximizing the site to the detrement of the neighborhood.
Residential Bonus Overlay zoning with 70:30 GMF exemption (actually
here it's 76:24) is appropriate in this case to help accomplish a
number of community goals: It...
1). Provides the MAA with guaranteed housing for at least 20%
of their students and staff.
2). Provides 76 subsidized efficiency rental units to 76 winter
employees, deed-restricted.
3). Provides the minimum number of saleable free-market units
that can realistically offset the short and long-term financing
Memo: Mountail
Page Three
5 May 1982
Edge/R.B.O. & C.M.P. Exemption
,-,
~,
required to subsidize the deed restricted portion.
4). And finally, although still required to go through a very
lengthy multi-step review and approval process, the 70:30
C.M.P. exemption will allow a greater proportion of deed
restricted units to come on line in less time.
~,
.-"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Welton Anderson representing the Music Associates
RE: Amended "Mountain Edge" Music Associates Housing - PUD and Subdivision
Conceptual Submissions
DATE: 5 May 1982
The following is summarization of comments and recommendations made by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group, Planning Office
and others during the April 6, 1982 Planning and Zoning meeting; followed by a
narrative describing the changes brought about by the input from this meeting
and an explanation (requested by Alice Davis, Planning Office) of why the appli-
cant feels R.B.O. zoning and 70:30G.M.P. exemption is justified.
P&Z
Comments:
Shadow Mtn.
Citizens
Group:
Planning
Office
Comments:
The overall concerns of the Planning Commission seemed to be
that although the proposed density was high, it was close to
acceptable if the unit mix and square footage ratios were
adjusted in favor of the student/employee portion. A figure
of 80 student and 20 faculty units was suggested 'as a better
mix. The square footage of the faculty units was described as
excessive and should be reduced to bring that portions square
footage into equilibrium with the student portion.
The self contained residential campus planning approach was
well received as were the 100% onsite parking and open space
aspects of the project.
Concerns were raised that the project would be operated by and
for the MAA as presented and that documentation to insure this
be presented later in the process.
Understandably there was significant resistance to any develop-
ment plan for this land from the immediate neighborhood. Un-
expected, however, was their superb presentation of the projects
negative points and their constructive suggestions for three
alternative approaches. The Citizens Group's main objections
were centered around their neighborhoods existing problems
being greatly intensified, i.e., insufficient parking, conges-
tion, noise, etc; and that views, solar access, trails, wild-
life habitat, and the neighborhood's quality of life in general
would be harmed.
Comments late in the meeting and others relayed to me through
Michael Behrendt on April 14th, indicate that while the neigh-
borhood still prefers no development or only the free market
portion located here; indicate a genuine willingness to work with
the applicant for their mutual benefit. Like the P&Z, the useable
open space/green belt areas and off street parking were mentioned
as pluses. And, like theP&Z, they wanted special assurance
that if the land is up zoned to L-2 or RMF, that "what we see
being presented is what we'll get" and that the MAA and its
needs are not a "smoke screen": for a large development with-
out any guarantees. Also, through Michael, came the comments
that although the density was higher than the neighborhood
wanted, it was "close" to acceptable (but certainly not to
everyone), and that generally the neighbors thought the short-term
aspects of the project were "O.K.".
The Planning Office's position is well explained in their April 1,
1982 Memorandum. Informal comments subsequent to the April 6
meeting indicate that, while they still prefer a "pure employee"
project on this site with the Residential Bonus Overlay zoning
being used only for additional employee units and not additional
floor area; they found the site planning concepts "good".
Memo: Amended
Page Two
5 May 1982
Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
,-, .-,
Lot SI'u:.::. I/J. ,0&'6 q.
AMENDED PLAN: The following chart shows the initial submission data
and the amended figures:
Stu/Emp:
68 units @300 sf ~20,400 sf
lounges, common' areas~ 7,025
sub total 27,425 S.F.
1
I
AMENDED
SUBMISSION (5 May 1982)
NET
CHANGE
INITIAL SUBMISSION (5 Feb 1982)
subtotal
42,075 S.F.
common areas =
subtotal
8,960 sf
13,400
10,150
2,600
35,110 S.F.
1+
i
1+
I
I
i-
I
i
i
,
8,185 sf
76 units @ 300 sf~22,800 sf
lounges, common ~12,810
subtotal 35,610 S.F.
8 units
Fac/F .M.:
27 units @ 1,450 sf
common areas
~37,150
2,925
24 units -
7 @ 1,280 sf
10 @ 1,340 sf ~
7 @ 1,450 sf ~
3 units
TOTAL:
95 units
69,500 S.F.
!
I
1100 units
I
,
I 76% / 24%
I
70,720 S.F.
'- 6,965 sf
,
i
1+
+
1,220 sf
1. 7%
Unit ratio
Emp/F.I1.
72% / 28%
S.F. Ratio
Emp/F.M.: 39.5% / 60.5%
50.3% / 49.7%
F.A.R. :
1. 12: 1
1. 14: 1
+ 0.02:1
Open
Space:
34,010 sf ~ 54.8% 40,531 sf ~ 65.3;; : + 6,521 sf
'+ 10.5%
Even though this chart shows a net increase of 5 units and 1,220
square feet over the first submission, we end up with 10.5% more
open space equating to 65% of the site. This was achieved by
eliminating three faculty/free market units, reducing each of
the remaining 24 units by an average of 100 S.F., and clustering
all these units along the south property line. eight student/
employee units (plus lounges) were added at the "garden level"
where practice rooms were shown on the earlier plan (the practice
rooms will be moved to the sub-basement level). This 5% increase
in density actually translated into a 10% decrease in above grade
bulk. There is, however, a necessary trade off which is allowed
through the PUD process: a 4' variance in height for the West-
ern 3/7ths of the faculty/free market row closest to the base
of the mountain (see plot).
Three of the six faculty/free market units which fronted Garmisch
were eliminated. The remaining three would be at a "garden level"
at the West End of the 3 story faculty/free market row. But
rather than placing these three units a full floor (10') below
grade (making them viewless, dark and unmarketable) they are 6'
below the adjOining 3 story section and set back 8' further
from the old Midland R.O.W. This approach provides 10% more
useable open space while adding only 4' of additional height at
the back of the site where its impact is least.
Parking:
Sub grade parking is provided for all 100 cars required and a
permit parking system (described in section 7 of the attached
R.B.a. memo) to discourage on street parking will be developed
and implemented.
Trails:
The trail easement has been redesigned and relocated t~ better
follow existing grades and to provide more landscaped buffer
space between it and the units abutting it. There is also a
bicycle parking/storage area in a widened section of the trail on
a terrace overlooking the ampitheater court. This can be a real
asset when all the remaining easements are obtained for the bike-
path to the Castle Creek Music School campus.
Guarantees:
The last major issue raised by both the neighbors and the P&Z was
their concern that this development would in fact be the permanent
and exclusive summer home for music students and faculty members
and an asset for Aspen. Unfortunately, many of these legal docu-
ments cannot be drawn up until the Music Associates know what
Memo: Amended
Page Three
5 May 1982
Summary:
Mountain )(ge/PUD - Conceptual submissionr',
kind of facility will be ultimately approved. Therefore, at this
stage of the process we can only include the preliminary docu-
ments attached; and comply with whatever additional materials
requested for conditional approvals.
The initial submission for Conceptual Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development Approval was tabled April 6th by the Aspen
Planning Commission with instructions to rework and fine tune
the numbers in favor of the student/employee portion. This
ammended application shows a 12% increase in student units, an
11% decrease in faculty units, a 29% increase in student square
footage and a 17% decrease in faculty square footage. These
changes add 5% more density, 1.7% more total square footage, but
reduces the land coverage by 10.5%, increasing the open space to
65% of the site.
Although increasing the total density by 5% seems to run counter
to all previous recommendations, it is justifiable when one
considers the following:
1). That the increase is all student/employee units genuinely
needed by both the MAA and the community's winter employers,
2). That it can be accomplished while actually reducing the
building mass of the project.
,
.'
.1"""'\
,.-.,
ASPEN LOCGING ASSCX::IATION
100 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CD 81611
925-3520
~,hy 1, 1982
To: Russell Scott, President, Arts West Aspen
Fran: Al BloIlXJ.uist, President, Aspen Lodging Assaciatian
Subject: A Permanent Solution to the Sumner Artist-'Student HausingProblem
By Creating an Enda\\!lBnt far the Arts
'!he Goal
,'!his is ta request the narre .of a strang business~type person from Arts
West Aspen and anather from Music Associates .of Aspen to serve an an Aspen
Lodging Assaciatian Task Farce ta find a permanent salutian ta the Sumner
Artist-Student Hausing problem. MAA again has a crisis far this sUlllrer. What
I want studied is haw ta canvert City incentives far emplayee hausing and
private sectar skills inta incentives far an endawment far the Arts, and a
subsidy far sUlllrer student hausing.
'!he Market
The Cantrup proposal far MM hausing an the Kach Lumber site provides the
seed "idea". There is a net surge .of 1000 winter-anly emplayees each fall.
Elnplayrrent in SUlllrer is about 5000 and jumps to 6000 each winter. The 1000
can't take a 12'mJnth lease...sa they buy space as roorrmal:es at $300-500 each
per rronth.. .same deal as is CO!JllX)n an the college campus. '!hey want a 6 rronth
lease far their Aspen "fling"
Robin Haod Theory
The Aspen Zoning Ordinance and GMP adapted the "Robin Hood Theory" far
Emplayee Hausing. A develaper robs 30 free market units ta subsidize break-
even an 70 emplayee units. The incentive\\Drks.
'lb date, the methadalagy has .only been used far year-round, far sale .or
far 12 rronth lease, emplayee hausing. It has never been used ta help meet the
1000 bed net surge far the winter emplayees needing .only a 4 ta 6 rronth lease.
Chly an Arts West .or MM, with a 2 ta 4 rronth SUlllrer need and same kind .of sub-
sidy ta the capital plant cauld meet this winter need.
Arts Hausing, Inc. would be set up ta awn and .operate seasanal hausing up
ta a 300-500 bed limit. It would .obtain free land from the City, County, Sewer
District, BU! and/ar the private sectar, and then .offer the land ta develapers
wanting a split-site REO project.
r-,
r-"
'-
Russell Scott, Arts West
May 1, 1982
Page 'I\vo
The developer would build the 30% free market units on his own land and
the 70% employee units on Arts Housing, Inc. land, and deed the finished em-
ployee units to Arts Housing, Inc. A special City ordinance could add rewards
for those developers offering the first 300-500 beds to Arts Housing, Inc.
Now, it is important that the ROO is not just for big projects. A duplex
qualifies. The Baker Duplex at 118 E. Hyman is an ROO four-plex, with tw::> em-
ployee units in the basement. The t\\Q extra units could have been transferred
by the split-site method to either the Visual Arts Center site or MAA school
site to meet an artist housing and/or employee housing need at either of those
sites, or any other that might have been avaiahle. It could have happened,
had Baker wanted to "contribute" to an Arts West or MAA endowment. 'I\venty or
thirty people building single family houses could transfer 1 ROO each to Arts
Housing, Inc. during the fund drive. They could do this with only the "right"
to build the unit if another provided the endowment cash which to build the
unit. The point is that Arts Housing,' Inc. gets housing, free and clear, or
partially so, and has endov.ment "income" for Arts use. Further, all types of
housing, from 00= to apartments to duplexes, are possible.
It is going to be difficult to get existing projects involved.
primarily, Arts Housing, Inc. is a vehicle to involve new projects,
SOlIE large. It fits in well with Arts West's fund raising plans.
Thus,
mst small,
However, both the Cantrup-Koch Lumber and the Kuhn projects might possibly
still have time to get involved and "prove" the case. At minimum, they \\QuId
provide two "test cases" on which to rum SOlIE numbers, test for legal and pro-
cedural problellE, etc.
Rio Grande Arts Campus
The Rio Grande should have some people living there.to make it alive by day
and safe by night. The SPA is u!lderway, and a site where the impound lot is now
could easily and quickly be drawn on the plat to accorrodate Cantrup's student
housing portion of the Koch Lumber Plan. The Shadow Mountain Neighborhood is
fighting the density and bulk of the total project, and especially the cafeteria.
They have asked that the half of the site devoted to the Student Housing and
cafeteria be made a park in a land trade for a Rio Grande site for the Student
HOUSing and cafeteria.
Were Arts West and MAA to intercede at this point with the above Arts
!busing, Inc. proposal, the neighborhood objectives \\QuId be achieved. The point
for Arts West and MAA and each developer is that such neighborhood problems will
develope in alnDst any neighborhood where an ROO is proposed.
,-.,
i""",,
"
Russell Scott, Arts West
Hay 1, 1982
Page Three
Thus, having a "pq,itive idea" for the Rio Grande as an Arts Campus needing
housing capitalized on the problem every developer of high density faces in a
neighborhood. It says, simply, to the developers of the next 300-500 employee
beds, ''We at Arts Housing, Inc., can help you avoid the problem if you do a split-
site RBJ, put the employee units on our Rio Grande or other sites, and deed the
units to Arts Housing, Inc. The tax advantages are... .etc."
Each neighborhood gets only the free market units and less over-all density
because of the split-site arrangerrent. Arts Housing,Inc. gets to be in business
and turn over its net income, to the Arts.. .annually! The developer gets out of
the operations responsibility for the employee units and gets cerctain tax advan-
tages on top of the zoning and GMP advantages that. caused him to want to do business
under the RBJ Robin Hcxxl Theory. 'Arts West zrerely takes away his problems to create
endownEnt.
The Oden group did the Hunter wnghouse project... .with directnees, simplicity
and speed. Scmehow, it seems, the Arts should be able to do as well,.. .even better.
Perhaps the Oden group might rise to a new challenge.
cc: Mayor Herman Edel
wu Gressett
Attachments (2)
~"
~
~ ~d~We.j, oj/~ Jrw.
f!loa> ~ ~ ~obado- 8/6'12
April 22, 1982
Mr. Allan Blomquist
President
Aspen Lodge Association
c/o Chalet Lisl
P.O. Box 152
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear AI:
As you have requested, I am writing to give you some idea
of the MAA's housing needs.
As you probably know, a number of our students prefer to
find their own housing and also prefer to do their own cooking.
These students probably number about half of our enrollment and
in the following'figures these students are not considered. We
do, however, anticipate finding housing each year for at least
400 students. This means 400' beds, not necessarily 400 rooms.
Historically, we have been able to count on the Holland House
for 45 beds and the Mountain Chalet for 68 beds. In recent years
we have relied exclusively on the Cantrups for the balance of
our student housing. As you know, all of the Cantrups' properties
are in a state of flux at this time, with some up for sale, some
possibly being torn down and some red tagged, etc. Consequently,
at this point in time the Cantrups are only guaranteeing me 40
beds at the Alpina House which is by far the most substandard
property they own. There is a possibility that we might also
have access to the Blue Spruce (60 beds) providing the City of
Aspen does not require that building to be torn down before the
sununer begins. In 1981 the Cantrups housed 297 MAA students.
As you can see, we are currently short 197 beds at this time for this
sununer's session. Although we are currently negotiating with the
Goodnoughs for the Snowflake Lodge, it appears that their lodge
would only accommodate approximately 75 students. At the end of
April I will be contacting every lodge in town in hopes that several
different lodges might take 5-10 students each and help solve our
1982 student housing dilemma.
The most desirable solution for the MAA would be to have MAA-
.
,-"
-,
- 2 -
owned housing, or at the very least, a long-term lease agreement
which would eliminate this yearly problem. It would seem that if
we owned our own housing for our summer use, those same rooms could
be rented in the winter as employee housing, hopefully generating
some income for the ~AA.
I hope this information is helpful to you, and if you need
further clarification please don't hesitate to contact this office.
Very sincerely yours,
~,~".."
.w-
Lou Gressett
Business Director
LG:ht
j,w.
j .sir'
~o/~81612 '
fl.Alb drlf~' crt. April 27, 1982
vV~:x, .9J.'P" ,
.
~
LJ.nda C
Hous ' oUCh
J.ng D'
J.rector
Each year, the :/olusic Associates of Aspen acts as its own reser-
vations agency and books the majority of its faculty, artists and
staff members in various properties throughout Aspen.
Housing questionnaires begin arriving around the first of the
year, and the bulk of the requests come in gradually over the next three
to four months. During that time the :/oWA Housing Director has a number
of activities which precede the reservation process: making contacts
with management company and lodges, viewing properties, soliciting
rentals from the private marketplace, etc.
MAA's needs change little year after year. Because most of the
reservations are for the duration of the Festival, bookings are made
for a nine-week period of time; and due to the length of these reservations,
the Housing Director is always looking for condominiums and homes, units
with cooking facilities. The faculty and artists always request quiet
apartments with adequate space since most teach or practice in their
'homes. Staff members are often here for more than nine weeks (three
months is not uncommon) so they desire comfortable living arrangements,
usually away from the heart of town; many feel that studios are con-
fining for that length of time.
In general, Aspen's management companies have been cooperative
but problems still remain. Since artists' salaries and the MAA's budget
require reduced rates for a long-term reservation, management companies
must try to encourage owners to accept a lower rate for a confirmed
nine-week reservation. Often owners would rather hold out and try to get
much higher nightly unit rates since the total revenue, if most of the
summer were booked, would be substantially more. Some management com-
panies try harder than others to encourage :/oWA long-term rentals and
inevitably we use these companies the most.
Total numbers of reservations change every year, of course. How-
ever, there is a definite consistency in the ratio, thus the following
figures might be of some interest. They reflect the total ~AA reser-
vations for summer 1981. Probably no more than one-sixth are privately
owned homes and reservations which were contracted apart from manage-
ment companies.
Studios
One bedroom apartments
Two bedroom apartments & home,S
Three bedroom apartments & homes
Four bedroom homes
Five bedroom homes
44
19
49
25
4
3
Relevant to the figures above, MAA can always rent more quality
studios and one bedroom apartments. Also hard to find and in great de-
mand are smaller (two or three bedroom) homes in the west end of
Aspen, any home with a heated, insulated garage (for grand piano
and large classes), very nice larger rental homes for a realistic
price and homes with two separate working areas (such as an arrangement
where the living room and family room are on separate floors).
,......
~;t Jtllq~L
~f~y z~ ~
~I ~ tl6JJ
{)JA/J )0 /;b~ :
J~.,. ~ ~11/'LC'e'~k.1A~?~'~ .~
71fJl. . .~1~~.~ .z.... .'-I....~
h0!.~~'.,y;t ~.. .~4- &}... ~ ~
~,'M....~.../f# .~..4-At~. ,~.f
.~~~i~ ,,~4v---~
;iW .~..~..~..C~~. ~.~
~ ~.. ~...~..~...~....~."-
~.~ ~~~'~ ~...~...~
of?rt '..... .~'/:b;:~~
~<~ r.t- .,~ .~,...~.. ~f?rI!/
r .~,~~.'~.~~
~.~, vk;[4.~
~..~
tol 6. ~<..?f 2-t:I2-.
~/ .~. ff" II
tv ~, II 2-~ ,
""
~
-
PEN
130
asp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 5, 1982
TO: Alice Davis ~
FROM: Gary Esar~
RE: Mountain Edge SUbdivision/PUD - Conceptual Review
As you know, Hans Cantrup has filed a 106(a)(4) action against the
City challenging the R-15 zoning of the property in question here.
The reviewed proposal will necessarily involve a rezoning applica-
tion on the same property.
The question arises as to what effect the lawsuit has or should
have on this application. As a matter of law, the lawsuit should
have no effect on this application; the applicant is merely taking
parallel approaches toward the same goal. A determination favor-
able to the applicant on the matter of rezoning in either forum
would make moot the other approach.
As a practical matter, however, the lawsuit does have an effect.
The lawsuit already filed by the applicant and the vocal opposi-
tion to the application by affected neighborhood groups allow us
to draw a reasonable inference that the City's action in this
matter will be challenged in Court whichever way the decision
goes. Accordingly, the City has to take special care to complete
and preserve its record of deliberations in this matter.
In this regard, we note from the Engineering Office comments on
this conceptual review application, that a vicinity map and sketch
plan are missing. I understand that the applicant may not be held
strictly to those requirements because the Planning Office already
has the information required on the vicinity map and sketch plan.
Nevertheless, and despite the risk of requiring the applicant to
submit redundant documents, it is our advice that all things
required by the process be brought into the record, by submission
by the applicant or stipulation by the applicant as to data
already in the Planning Office.
On the conceptual application itself, I have questions as fol-
lows:
~
,-,
~,
Memo to Alice Davis
April 5, 1982
Page Two
1. The Code provides that conceptual subdivision and PUD appli-
cations be filed by one ownership entity or jointly by all
owners of property affected (520-10, 524-8.5(a)). From the
application, the cafeteria area doesn't appear to be under
the ownership of the applican~yet it is part of the PUD pro-
posal. Is this proper? 7
2. R.B.O. requires that it be "for primary residential use by
local residents" (524-10.1) and that it be applied only in a
"pure" (524-10.3(b)) residential project. In my mind, a fact
question as to whether this application complies with these
requirements arises and needs to be answered by the Planning
Office or the P&Z.
3. Will MAA be providing full-time year-round, on-site manage-
ment or not?
GSE:mc
,,,.......,
,,,.......,,
-f,' Ie
-
,Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena'street
aspen, colorado, 81611
MEt10RANDUM
TO: Ron Mitchell, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual Review
DATE: March 30, 1982
Attached is the Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual ,application submitted
by Hans B. Cantrup. This proposal is for a facility for students and faculty
,of the Music Associates of Aspen (68 student dorm rooms and 27 faculty/free
market units). The property is the "Mountain Edge Annexation" or former
Koch Lumber Company property. This item is scheduled for review by the City
P & Z on Apri 112, 1982. If you have any comments , please 1 et me hear from
you'as soon as possible.
Thank you for your assistance.
.
,-."
,-,.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
1'I:lic~ Davis, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~
FROM:
D1'I:TE:
March 9, 1982
RE:
Mountain Edge Conceptual Subdivision/P.U.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
The conceptual submission fails to supply a number of basic items
required under Section 20-10 as follows:
1. 1'1: vicinity map showing the project location, all adjacent
lands owned by or under option to the subdivider, common landmarks
and zoning on and adjacent to the project. This information is
pertinent to this developer since an overview of his other hOldings
in the area may reveal a need for other improvements.
2. A sketch plan of the site showing predominate existing
conditions. All of the structures on the site have been demolished
or removed and the area is currently covered with fill and debris.
The conceptual submission should" however, address existing
easements, the overhead power line, etc.
3. The application at no point mentions who the owner is, nor
does it include a copy of the title insurance or any other proof
of ownership. Such deed information would also serve to clarify
existing easements, etc.
JH/co
HOLY CROSS r:LECTRIC ASS(Q::IATION, INC.
1301 GRAND ,AVENUE
P. O. DRAWER 250
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
AREA CODE
303
~, 945.5491
"
4 945 ~ 6056
March 4, 1982
Aspen Pitkin
130 South
Aspen,
REF:
Be it
has e
The p
neces
rules
missi
arran
will
alter
the a,
JAF:lsz
-~
-,
March 4, 19.82
1r~n
~~.IoIAR 111982 ,Ill
ASPi:./\/1 PITKIN CO,
PlANNING OFFIC~
Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group
c/o Carolyn Doty
Box 5091
Aspen, Colorado B16l2
~ ... ..~
Ms. Jeanne Jaffee
Chairman of the Board
Music Associates of Aspen
600 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Jaffee:
As members of the Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group, we
are concerned about the proposed hiqh density g~yelop~nt at
the base of shadow Mountain which is proposed aSMAA housing.
We are aware that there is a need for MAA housing in Aspen, '..~'
and we are in agreement that this need should be inet.
We feel, however, that the, MAAhousing proposed on this
site, which would be included in the 98 units, would not help
the housing situation to any great extent, and wolild impact the
neighborhood negatively. Froin the model we were shown by
Welton Anderson, we notice that much of the development would
be luxury housing, and the, MAA portion would be dormitory-type
housing. Those members of our group who have ,housed MAA
students for several years question whether the needs of the
MAA student would be met with dorm-type rooms and cafeteria
facilities.
Also, the concept of the Cafeteria worries us considerably,
since we feel that this would cause numerous problems such as
parking and too many people using the facilities other than
those who live on the property.
As well, we are troubled about environmental issues.
Since the development would be backed up against the mountain,
there would be pOllution problems, and we also are disturbed
that this project may harm the home of the elk who graze on
this mountain.
Another concern of ours is parking. There are already
parking problems in the area. We realize that underground
parking is proposed ,for this project, but we find that the
underground parking in other buildings in our neighborhood is
often not used since occupants and their guests often find it
easier,to park in the streets.
.
";------
,-,
,-,
....... L':"~
Ms. Jeanne Jaffee
Music Associates of Aspen
March 4,~1982
Page 2
Furthemore, .we question the ability and willingness of
the developer proposing this complex to conform to the city
building code and to plans he might submit because of his
numerous code and use violations on his other properties.
In conclusion, we agree that there is a need for MAA
student housing and we support this issue; however, we are
concerned that this proposed project will provide a detrimental
impact on oUr neighborhood far outweighing the slight benefits
to the MAA students.
If you have any questions, we would welcome the opportunity
to meet with you to discuss these problems and/or work with
you to explore._other alternatives.
Sincerely,
~,~Q~
Carolyn Doty, CO-Chairperson
74<<,<" f~'1<<-.j)Y~~
'..::) V
Marge Riley, Co-Cha~rperson
Shadow Mountain Citizen's Group
cc: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning & Zoning
Aspen Wilderness Workshop
West End Homeowner's Association
,-,
~,
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ALICE DAVIS-PLAJTJl~
JIM MA...'U<ALUNAS '(J ,
MOUNTAIN EDGE S D~PUD-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
FEBRUARY 24, 1982
"'~,,, ,J'-1:.~J~r::;.,; /j.:
~ '.,. .,~, """ .
~tt"'i~'\W'i.l...:.:ii;,'\~
'/
We have reviewed this proposal and wish to note that there is water available
from a 6" main located in Cooper Street. Since a utility plan was not sub-
mitted, it is difficult to determine exactly the developer's intent in
supplying water from any given street. It would appear from the configuration
of the buildings on the property, that two services would be required. The
68 dorm units could be supplied from the 6" main in Cooper Street. The faculty
units would have to be supplied from Durant or South Garmish,:, Streets.
Under no circumstances will the Water Department allow connection to the old
5 1/2" steel line in South Garmish, which is scheduled for replacement.
In the event that a fire protection system is required and/or additional hydrants
are required, it is our recommendation that the 20" line on Garrnish be tapped
with an isolating valve at the point of attachment to the transmission main.
If connection is made to the 20" transmission main and or the 6" main, water
would be available in sufficient quantities and adequate pressure for the proposed
usea
!""'\
."'"
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune. City Attorney
City Engineering Department
Jim Hamilton, County Housing Director
City Hater Department .
Aspen Metro Sanitation. District
Mountain Bell .
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshal/Building Department
Herb Clapper, City of Aspen Fire Chi.ef and
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Representative
FROM: Ali.ce Davis, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD .. Conceptual Review
DATE: February 17, 1982
Attached is the Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual application submitted
by Hans B. Cantrup. This proposal is for a facility for students and faculty
of the Music Associates of Aspen (68 student dorm rooms and 27 faculty/free
market units). The property is the "Mountain Edge. Annexation" or former
Koch Lumber Crnnpany property. This item is.scheduled for review by the City
P & Z on March 16. 1982; therefore, review and forward comments back to me
PX Monday, March 8. .
Thank you for your assistance!
AT I'lte.e....r "~IJ I'",..-e" I J i3fN"'c
~SCtt"'6:-S~ l3y
o v/c ~J-C.I"'J(Z,IC..s
1-He. 1-1"" J-"-""''''y rH I f'",.;)e4" C'A'" I-IA........". /'0
,0 S e. e. If,
oF- T/7/J S n..e.. IT ....I...~ .l'"rle...,">'E' ~/~'-.H"';' A~""- /'0 r .,HE=
. ...::
..... i.~...~As"s.- .s AJ-l?"",__ /'1eG""'#-t:.o~ -A.f"tf1I'- 1;;1.
~'.r ~~~'..'...' -~~-:... .
~.tII,).Jt:C.1
/2 ec W'~,.
">--'". . . -~. .' +
",-,.~ ." .
",/-' .,......
.. ..~.-
~d-. "--1
j-J- L..~
A S b /7a. ~..
"';-' .',.
.~ '. ',' .' '''. .
.."-',
. . ~ ".:,,'- ~. ~~~~-
'..
- -
,
;.:...
,
~
.~
. ~.,...
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena.street
a spe n ,c 0 I or ado. 81611
\.
Ip",^,"~~.,,-.
MEMORANDUM
.:::-:-'r-;,-,
rnJi. !5';I~J1,~d ".' ~rm .
....~.',.'.'i:i.Y<J2nif\ 1 'iN .n'
f'''''''/,,'_,~,",,~ ...! lfll, .; . ::J",
I '~, ,. '-~'~.._,' "".. f' 1';;;', I
\ !:- i{ .-,,,,-. '~."~"""""-"",f I
::;: \. .11
i,? ,-_ ^ ii//'."
"", '-1.82.' 1~B2 {'I/
;:.i.....:._~.':_~~;~;-_,lL0
"LA... ," '<IN [yo
' .. .. "^ .. ,.". '. ~ ~. 0
. . '~i,li~G OFftCf
TO:
tJ~
P~ul Taddune. City Attorner
City Engineering Department.
Jim Hami,lton,Coullty Housing Director
City Water Department .
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Mountain Bell .
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshal/Building Department
Clappe City of AspeniFire Chief and
ounl;~ipNaful'a )\Gas. Representative
FROM: AltceDavis, R1ann~ng.Office
RE: 140untai n Edge Subdivision/PUD -Conceptual Review
DATE: February 17. 1982
Attached is the Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual application submitted
by Hans B. Cantrup. This proposal is for a facility for students and faculty
of the Music Associates of Aspen (68 student dorm rooms and 27 faCUlty/free
market. units).. The property is the "Mountain Edge Annexation" or former
Koch Lumber Company property. This item i.s scheduled for review by the City
P & Zon March 16. 1982; therefore, review and forward comments back to me
Qy Monday, March 8. -
Thank you for your assistance! ,
ft~ ~~-7U~~aoLce ~~
fl4-.~;;Ch~~;1X~
~~~ tJ--P~~"--~ '~/
-Bt ~ . ~~ .c;Cc6-e. cJ4 /r~
~~th-4t- ,'La./t~
~~~
~ 'r'~~ ~~~~~~~
. r~.~.~ 'c
/;JflJa---' o4~o'rI;df ~ o/~
f-fl~ i-~ a4 J)~'i ~
w-~/--'-' J-4 % A0P ~ ~
./JJ1rV1-of 4r ~--- ~ ~J~~
~
.~
j";ie
-
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
~.,,-.,; .,"
-,:-.'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
--eaul Taddune. City Attorney
"tity Engineeri.ng Department.
Jim Hamilton, County Housing Director
vCity Water Department
vAs pen Metro Sanitation District
-Mountain Bell
~oly Cross Electric
Fire Marshal/Building Department
ytterb Clapper, City of Aspen FIre Chi.ef and
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Representative
FROM:
Alice Davis, PlannIng Office
RE: Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD - Conceptual Review
DATE:~~
Attached is the Mountain Edge Subdi vis ion/PUD - Conceptual app licati on submitted
by Hans B. Cantrup. This proposal is for a facility for students and faculty
of the Music Associates of Aspen (68 student dorm rooms and 27 faculty/free
market ,units). The property is the "Mountain Edge Annexation" or former
Koch Lumber Company property_ This item Is scheduled for review by the City
P & Z on Ma. d, 16. 1982; tlierefor9, re"illh' "no for','ara cornmeRts bac.k Lv llle i
.Qy--M'onday, March 8. -<4 P"'; I l :2...1 ~ 'i?"2 ,:;;.C LiO v.. h.tt.u-e... $I.n.w e.o V'i'V\'\eAf1J.., I (0'2.&;'(
~, ! r
. ho CA"f,oliY', y() U. "<..~ '2>0"0'"\. "'~
Thank you for your assistance!
.. !el'"
fD??L ....'\,..-,
, '
"
:"::~;-<"J
.'
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Background:
Proposal:
~
.,.-."
MEMORANDUM
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
Welton Anderson Associates
MOUNTAIN EDGE MAA STUDENT/
SEASONAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING
5 February 1982
In 1978, most of the 60,000 square feet of the old
Koch Lumber Company was annexed into the City for the
expressed purpose of providing a permanent housing
facility for the Music Associates of Aspen.
In the past 21 years, up to 200 music students have
been housed in various lodges owned by the Cantrups.
Last summer the rate was $52 a week. The future con-
solidation plans for the smaller lodges into one
"World Class Resort Hotel" makes the MAA's need for
permanent housing immediate.
To this end, several proposals have been prepared.
The first was for 150 studios, housing some 300 of the
Music School's 600 students and included 45 free market
units on the adjoining Barbee property. This met with
resistance from the neighborhood and other concerned
parties.
The following proposes less than 50% of the density
originally requested by the MAA. It will provide 68
student dorm rooms of 300 square feet each. Each
cluster of 5 or 6 dorm rooms share a lounge designed
for garnes, T.V.. and other forms of interaction. The
dorm rooms will be convert able ~o "mid-term" winter
seasonal employee use. Rental rates for students will
be fixed by the MAA at essentially that which the stu-
dents now pay for a lodge room. Winter rates will be .
set by the housing ~uthority. Full time on site
management will be provided by the MAA on a year round
basis. To offset construction costs of the dormatory
segment, and to provide a continuing operating subsity,
the project includes 27 faculty/free market un~ts of
1,450 square feet each. These units will be sold as
condominiums with deed restrictions limiting their
summer occupancy to Music School faculty at 20% below
market rates for similar units. The operating subsidy
accrues to the MAA in the form of fees paid them to
manage the faculty portion during winter for short-term
tourist usage. The MAA's role as property manager is
only being discussed at this time, but extension of
the student/employee management to cover the faculty/
free market portion is seen as a logical means of
providing the MAA with an ongoing endowment.
This proposal comes as a result of meetings with the
MAA, Planning Office, surrounding neighbors and developer,
and is a comprehensive approach from a planning, community,
political and economic viewpoint, and addresses their
concerns as follows:
A. Low scale massing along Garmisch and Cooper, with
the provision of nearly 60% open space primarily
at that corner, accessible and useable to the
community.
B. Density much below that which the MAA requires,
but necessary to reduce impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods.
C. Provision of at least 90% of code required parking
below grade and out of sight.
j
..
2'
.~
.'-.
f
~
,...,
,...,
D. Amenities for both the MAA and community to include:
1) .
Half acre park ("Koch Park" to be built atop
parking structure) with band-shell/ampitheater
for practice and performances.
2) .
Retention of Midland R.O.W. as trail easement.
3}.
Provision of modest, subgrade MAA student
cafeteria to replace the one lost at the
Wheeler.
4). Central switchboards for both portions of
project.
5). Provision of summer MAA faculty housing on
site (at 20% below going rates and guaranteed
available).
6). Outdoor recreational facilities.
7). Practice rooms, lounges, recreation rooms
and lobbies.
rJ
~
t
This narrative, along with accompanying documents and
drawings, constitute the 'Conceptual' Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development application for the MAA/Moun-
tain Edge housing proposal. Subsequent matters for
deliberation are: Preliminary and final Subdivision
and PUD approvals, rezoning to L-2 (for 'mid-term',
'short-term', and cafeteria uses), application for
Residential Bonus Overlay zoning (to allow the increased
density), the sale or gift of the 8,800 square feet of
vacated and unused city land at the south end of First
Street for use as the new MAA cafeteria, and certainly
other unforseen approvals in the complex process. The
code specifies that these matters be dealt with subse-
quent to Conceptual level review. Therefore, may we
early in the "process" identify those aspects of this
Conceptual Application that will benefit the Aspen
community, and work in concert to refine the rest.
,.
,
,
---_.~
~
!""'\
:7 H~.(. ~~._'
January 11, 1982
Mrs. Jean Jaffee, Chairman
Music Associates of Aspen
600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mrs. Jaffee:
In accordance with your request, the purpose of this
letter is to confirm my representation to you regarding
the development by me of an MAA student housing project
on the property now known as the Mountain Edge and formerly
known as the Koch Lumber property located between Garmisch
and First Streets.
As you know, this project was first proposed in 1979
and the property was annexed for that purpose. The City is
now in the process of zoning it R-15 which would preclude
the project.
You have my absolute assurances that if, rather than
R-15, the City adopts L-2 zoning with a residential bonus
overlay for the property, I will develop the project which
was presented to you by Welton Anderson on January 8, 1982.
Although the specific details will need to be worked out
the development will be along the following parameters:
1. The maximum number of units which the zoning
would permit would be developed in a ratio of 70 per cent
student/employee housing to 30 per cent free market units.
2. The student/employee housing portion of the project
would either be leased to the p~ on a year-round basis,
or some other arrangement satisfactory to the MAA adopted
which would insure that it be available, at least during the
sumn1er season for music students.
3. Sixty-Five per cent of the free market units will
be available on a first priority basis for ~mA faculty
during the summer season.
Since we are not now in a position to persuade the
~
~..'.~ .... ......
/,,",\,
r-,.
Page 2
Mrs. Jean Jaffee, Chairman
January 11, 1982
City Council of the need for this project, the burden of doing
so will obviously be yours. Unfortunately, too few of us
realize that this opportunity for the MAA may never again
be available.
We look forward to your success in this endeavor and
to working with you to develop this worthy project.
Very
..f1'4gnt!; r
C/fs
.,
.---
---
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
.'--.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
IIA82-60
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner
of:
A parcel of land being all of Block 62, City and Townsite of
Aspen, all of Block 1, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen, the part of the old Colorado Midland Railroad right
of way located Southwesterly of said Block 1, Eames Addition,
and those parts of unplatted portion of Eames Addition to the
City and Townsite of Aspen and Charles H. Jacobs Lot and the
alley in Block 1, said Eames Addition lying within the follow-
ing described parcel, to wit:
BEGINNING at the Northeasterly corner of said Block 62;
thence South 14050'49" West 316.33 feet along the
Easterly line of said Blocks 62 and 1 to the South-
westerly line of the railroad right of way;
thence North 42027'42" West 320.82 feet along said
right of way line to a line projected Southerly from
the Westerly line of said Block 1;
thence North 14050'49" East 143.05 feet along said pro-
jected line to the Northwesterly corner of said Block 1;
thence South 75009'11" East 270.00 feet along the
Northerly line of said Block 1 and 62 to the point of
BEGINNING.
-""
",,--
situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested
in the name of:
HANS B. CANTRUP
by that certain Personal Representative's Deed recorded in Book 411 at Page
182 and that the above described property appears to be subject to the follow-
ing:
(1) Deed of Trust from Hans B. Cantrup to the Public Trustee of
Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of The Bank of Aspen to secure
$750,000.00 dated July 10, 1981, recorded July 15, 1981 in Book 411
at Page 293.
...
NOTE: although we believe the facts stated herein are true, it is understood
and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title Company, Ltd. will be limited to
the amount of the fee charged hereunder. This Certificate is not to be con-
strued as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, or a guaranty of
title.
Dated this 1st day of February, 1982 at 8:00 A.M.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
Fee $75.09.
'1
k~
Signature
..~
----~
~. ."
~
,-"
I
1
iI......,
"
\
t
~
t
I
,
i
f
"
~..
t
~
i
!
~
~
~
'l
i
'f
I
'~
,.~; ,
.1
:\
I.,
~" ~
'I
'I
i
.!
'l
,\
I
!
'I
,
i
,
I
I
i I
i
I
\
,
I
!
l \
DJ;S'rJHC'l' COUR'r, COUHTY OF PI'rKIN, STATE OF COr;ORj\DO
Case No.
COHPLAINT
HANS B. CANTHUP, Plaintiff,.
v.
~~CITY OF A~~E~a Municipal Corporation and
of.~-y---c;rA.spen, Defendants. .
. .__._--~""
t~cfty $oundl
---- .
'.
The Plaintiff by and through its attorneys, Garfield &
Hecht, complains of the Defendants as folloHs:
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
j\
1. Plaintiff is the OHner of c~rtain real property located
in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State or Colorado, and
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference.
~
2. Plaintiff is,
a resident of the City
*'
and at all times material hereto, has been
of Aspen, pitkin County, Colorado.
3. The Defendant, City
organized and existing under
State of Colorado.
of Aspen, is a MU:1icipal Corporation
and by virtue of the laHS of the .
~
f
" 4. The aforesaid real prop.erty Has annexed to the City of
Aspen in November of 1979 for the express purpose of facilitating
a ~tudent housing project for the !~sic Associates of Aspen.
'?
SECOND CLAHl FOR RELIEF
8. The Plaintiff real leges each and every allegation
contained in Paragraph 1 through 7, in its First Claim for Relief.
f
,
,
..
\......)
,
/""'\.
.~
9. 'fhe exprer:s pllrpo~;c f'or which the Defendant,. City
Council, adopted the aforesi1id zoning ordini1nce was to restrict
the development of' the i1[orcsaid real property until such time as
the Plaintiff presented a formal development proposal for. the
aforesaid housing project and the same Has approved by the City
Council.
./)
~
bspot
10. The adoption of the said zoning ordinance constitutes
zoning.
11. The adoption of the said zoning ordinance is
unconstitutional in that it docs not bear any real or. substantial
relationship to the public health, safety, morals or Hclfare.
'(
12. .The adoption of the said zoning ordinance 'is contrary
to the legislative policy of the City of Aspen in that it does
not comply \vith the comprehensive zoning plan for the City of
Aspen.
t~.,
113. The Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12 of its First and Second
Claims for Relief.
THIRD CLAn! FOR RELIEF.
14. Plaintiff purchased the aforesaid real property
described in Exhibit "A" and spent considerable SUDS of money in
the preparation of plans for the development of the aforesaid
housing project in reliance on the actions of the City of Aspen
in annexing the said real property and on the representations of
City administration officials Hith respect thereto,
j
1
15. As a result of their actions and representations the
Defendants are estopped from zoning the said real property in any
manner which Hould preclude the development of the aforesaid
housing pro)ect. .
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff pra.ys for:
a. An Order pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 106(a) (2) to
compel the City of Aspen to re-zone the aforesQid real property
to a classification which would permit the developE\ent of the
said housing project.
b. An Order pursuant to C,R.C.P. Rule 106(a) (4) to
show cause why .the relief requested should not be allOl.;ed.
c. A Declaratory Judgment that the said zoning
ordinance is unconstitutional and therefore void.
d. For an award to the Plaintiff of his damages,
costs, expenses and for such other and further relief as to the
Court may seem proper.
.
- 2 -
L
(
..,
. .
.
..
-,
~
~.
Dated this 10th day
of February, 1982.
GARFI /tD & HECHT ,
J,'
~y --1/; 1.<
~er F. Schif fer, .jo.. 1764
Atftofney for the Pl, U,tiff
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1936
"
t
,
r
I
1
I
1
:jt
d
. I
.
- 3 - .1.
';',., ':'1
':; (
...
"
..
1"""\
1"""\
-
.'
Exhibit "1\"
o
A parcel of land being all of Block 62, City and Townsite of
Aspen, all of lllock 1, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen, the part of the old COlorado 1.1idland [(ailroad
right of way located Southwesterly of said Block 1, Eames
Addition, and those parts of unplatted portion of Eames
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen and Charles H.
Jacobs Lot and the alley in lllock 1, said Eames Addition
lying within the following described parcel, to wit:'
.' . BEGINNING at the Northeasterly corner of
said Block 62; thence South 14050'49"
West 316.33 feet along the Easterly line
of said Blocks 62 and 1 to the South-
westerly line of the railroad right of
way; thence North 42027'42".West 320.82
fe~t along said right of way line to a
line projected Southerly from the Hesterly
line of said Block 1; thence Horth..
14050'49" East 143.05 feet along said
projected line to the Northwesterly
corner of said Block 1; thence South
75009'11" East 270.00 feet along the
Northerly line of said Block 1 and 62 to'
the point of BEGINNING.
sttuated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
.
(
~
.,.
..
"
"
/""'\
'-'.
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OV p~rKIN.
~;'I'^,I'I;: OF COLORJ\DO
Civil Action No. 82-CV-044
ANSWER
;
HANS B. CANTRUP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Municipal corporation,
and the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
Defendants.
The above named defendants by their attorneys, Paul Taddune,
City Attorney of Aspen, and Thomas T. Crumpacker, state as
follows in answer to the plaLntiff's Complaint:
FIRST DEFENSE
1. . Defendants are without knowledqe or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
set forth in paraqraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Defendants admit the alleqations set forth in paragraphs
2,and 3 of the Complaint.
3. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 4
of the Complaint and refer to the proceedings of the City Council
with respect to the annexation of the aforesaid parcel of land for
a more accurate representation of the actions of the City Council
in annexing the parcel; defendants further state in response to
paragraph 4 that plaintiff has not submitted a formal development
proposal for a student housing project to the Music Associates of
Aspen on said parcel. .
4. In response to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, defendants
admit that on January II, 1982, the City Council of the City
of Aspen adopted an ordinance zoning the aforesaid property to
R-15. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that said
zoning classification precludes the development of the proposed
housing project, inasmuch as there has been no concrete proposal
by plaintiff for the development of a proposed housing project
on said parcel.
T
f
I.
!
.'
"
1""""\
~
5. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraphs
6 and 7 of the Complaint.
6. With respect to paragraph 8 of tho Complaint, defendants
re-allege and incorporate their responses hereinabove, as may be
applicable.
7. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraphs
9, 10, 11 and 12 of the ,Complaint.
8. With respect to paragraph 13 of tho Complaint, defendants
re-allege and incorporate their responses hereinabove, as may
be applicable.
9.
to form a
paragraph
Defendants
belief as
14 of the
are without knowledge or information sufficient
to the truth of the allegations contained in
Complaint.
10. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 15
of the Complaint.
SECOND DEFENSE
Defendants are unable to respond intelligently to the
plaintiff's Complaint, due to the fact that R.C.P. Colo., Rule 8,
has not been complied with, in that the plaintiff has not associated
his prayers for relief with the claims stated in his Complaint.
Plaintiff asserts three separate claims for relie.f, at the end of
which he prays for four types of relief, i.e.
a. Mandamus, C.R.C.P. 106 (a) (2),
b. Certiorari, C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4),
c. Declaratory judgment, C.R.C.P., Rule .57, C.R.S. 13-51-101
et seq, and
d. Common law damages.
Defendants are unable to associate which type of relief is sought
in which claim for relief.
THIRD DEFENSE
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the City Council
for the reason that the members of the City Council have not
been personally served, and the Attorney General of the State of
.Colorado has not been served as required by C.R.C.P., Rule 57(j)
and C.R.S. 13-51-115.
-2-
(
T
i'
o'
.'
..
t""'\.
."'"
F'OUETll DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant
mandamus type relief under C.R.C.P., Rule 106(a) (2) for the
reason that the law does not specially enjoin either.:the City
or the City Council, as a duty resulting from their office, to
rezone the property to a classification which would permit
the development of plaintiff's housing project. The Court further
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief under C.R.C.P.
Rule 106(a) (2) for the reasons that the Court has not issued an
order requiring the defendants to show cause why such relief
should not be granted, and plaintiff has failed to file and
perfect this proceeding, including naming and serving indispensable
parties within the time limit provided by C.R.C.P. Colo., Rule l06(b)
which is jurisdictional.
.
FIF'l'H DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant
certiorari type relief under C.R.C.P., Rule 106 (a) (4) for the
reasons:
(1) The acts complained of by the City and City Council
are neither judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(2) Neither the City or City Council has exceeded its
jurisdiction or abused its discretion;
(3) The plaintiff has pleaded an adequate remedy at
law, namely damages;
(4) The plaintiff has not filed and perfect~d this
proceeding, including naming and serving indispensable
parties, within the time limit provided by C.R.C.P., Rule
106(b), which is jurisdictional.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant
plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment relief and monetary
damages, since certiorari review pursuant to C.R.C.P., Rule 106(a)
(4) is the exclusive remedy for reviewing a zoning determination.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Even assuming the Court has personal and subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claims, the Court should
not entertain these claims for the following reasons:
-3-
f
T
:1
!'
.
..
.~
~
(1) Plaintiff has failed Lo exhaust his administrative
remedies,
(2) Plaintiff has not specified in detail, nor has he
submitted for formal consideration, the precise housing
project which he alleges has been precluded by E-15
zoning, and, therefore, no final. decision has been made
by defendants on plaintiff's claim;
(3) A declaratory judgment by this Court, if
rendered, would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy claimed to give rise to this proceeding,
See C.E.S. 13-51~llO, C.E.C.P., Eule 57(f).
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims for damages are barred by. the doctrine
of sovereign ~mmunity, and by the provisions of C.E.S. 24-10-101,
et seq.
NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver,
estoppel and avoidable consequences.
TENTH DEFENSE
------
Each of the plaintiff's three claims for relief fails to
state a claim against any of the defendants upon. which relief
could be granted.
More specifically, with respect to plaintiff's first claim
for relief, which presumably seeks mandamus or certiorari relief
under Rule 106, there is no claim that the acts which plaintiff
seeks to compel are acts which the law specially enjoins as a
duty resulting from the defendant's office or that the function
of the defendants in rezoning plaintiff's property is judicial
or quasi-judicial; and no show cause order has been issued by
the Court as required by said Rule 106. The issuance of such an
order by the Court is discretionary, and defendants request the
Court not to issue such an order based on the confusing and
inconsistent claims as asserted by plaintiff in his Complaint.
with respect to the second claim for relief, there is no
indication of what constitutional right the plaintiff claims
was violated by the defendants' actions in rezoning their property,
nor how defendants' actions yiolated such constitutional right.
with respect to the third claim for relief, estoppel is not
an independent ground upon which the Court can grant relief,
either declaratory or otherwise.
-4-
r
f
.'
,.
,
~
-,
WIlElU::FOI\E, ck,fcnc1allb, resjx'ct fUlly pray that the Court
exercise its discretion i1nd not is:3UU iJny ~3how ,cause order
in this matter; further, that the Court enter its judgment
dismissing the Complaint herein, granting defendants their
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for suc~ other
relief as the Court.dcems proper.
OFFICE OF THE CI'I'Y ATTORNEY
City of Aspen, Colorado
~ c-.-.---........,.
BY::---'\-~~l \..
Paul J. T~une' jfl082~
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020, Ext. 220
IA r---
~.: / >~4--C;;&---..,
Thomas T. Crumpack. #2537
117 South Spring reet
Aspen, Colorado 611
(303) 925-1216
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Answer on the plaintiff herein by placing
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this .~_day of
March, 1982, addressed as follows:
Spencer F. Schiffer, Esq.
Garfield & Hecht
601 Eas ...Hyman
Aspen, 010}ad9 81611
r--'
(. .
,
I
,
,
i
.
~,
i
1
!
f
I
!
,
I
i
I
I
[f
r I
,
i
I
i
}
f
J
;d'
~
I
I
I
!
-'
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Zoning of Mountain Edge Annexatton (Known as Koch Lumber Property)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publi c hearing wtll beheld before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, Novemb~r 17, 1981 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.. in the CHy CoundlChamb.ers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the proposed zoning of property, the Mountain
Edge Annexation (formerly known as the Koch Lumber Property) to one of several
possible zoning categories, including R~6, R~15. R--l'IF and l-2. Further infor~
mati on may be obtained from the Planning Office. 130 S. Galena, Aspen. 925~2020.
ext. 224.
/s/ 010f Hedstrom
. Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commi'ssion
Publi'shed i.n the Aspen Times on October 22, 1981
City of Aspen Account
cnv/.COUNTY PLANNING Ol"FICE
130 $. GALENA
is> ,/
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
f Y. ., \.- "'. ',.""
.._ j';':!lJ.v.t'uo) I.
OCT21'BI l~? ~l
. " ~" I 8
. ". 1-
~:::.
COLO' no .'''~ I
r.1l52335,
.,'~....,~
J
,
.."-,,..~-
'i,~" . ,.....w.-
~,~,
..-
........,-
<......'
,.,,,.;..,,,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Zoning of Mountain Edge Annexati'on (Known as Koch Lumber Property)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wi'll be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoni'ng Commission on Tuesday, November 17, .1981 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the proposed zoning of property, the Mountain
Edge Annexation (formerly known as the Koch Lumber Property) to one of several
possible zoning categories, including R~6, Rc15, R-MF and L-2. .Further infor~
mati on may be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena. Aspen, 925-2020,
ext. 224.
/s/ Olof Hedstrom
Chairman, Aspen Plannj'ng and Zoning Commi'ssion
Publi'shed in the Aspen Ttmes on October 22, 1981
City of Aspen Account
--
,
(:~TZI~::j:; 0~,i[~
. , '.'\. l~"l~ , ,1
",:\."'€11.8\'.li \;,:\i;I!:\i\tu
i~rfLi::~O ..,.~.,. .\.'",\"\0/ .\< ....
.IO '~\:;\\'U.'*:R :
.., \~E:tl.lt~M..,.... .,. ,F'.~tjl)f':BSSEJ)1
_ ,.," ABI..:E1:lt!:.>'L ,.". .,:. ... ., i
~n. ..,.9~1.::r.{~~~;!i.fI...l,~.:!i2.f.~\.:!t~~c"-'j
.......~..... J
;<...~"~~~.:..:.:.;...-~----~-
. R $ ~~, ~ c./J1 rI^t
__L.~~~V < C
'Q~"".s' .
, ,~ ""<><).
~~~~'
"'<".J',_/
CITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFICI!!
1 SO S. GALENA
.0""91"lrN, COLO"?I\D-:. 8",,'1
(
'.
r