Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.133 S 3rd St.A17-94 \~;i !J't:t!~ \\ \; "; ,-.. r""\. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE 2735-121-29-008 A17-94 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: M~adowsA Spa Amendment ~ G-fnQ.:5 E~hcr-;., project Address: 10d'North Third Street Legal Address: APPLICANT: Aspen Institute Applicant Address: 100 N. Third REPRESENTATIVE: Ted GUY Associates , :Ii 'N.J' .001.( f'~ 60Y l&ifD Representative Address/Phone: 23280 State Hiqhway 82 Basalt. CO 81621 927-3167 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 2282 # APPS RECEIVED 10 ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 10 HOUSING $ 60 ENV. HEALTH $ 60 TOTAL $ 2498 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: -1L- P&Z Meeting Dat I ~re\., CC Meeting Dat~ PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PUBLIC HEARING: .WES\)~O VESTED RIGHTS: ~ NO DRC Meeting Date --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ~ ~ REFERRALS: City Attorney city Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water city Electric Envir.Hlth. Zoning ~ Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector ~ Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell ACSD Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board , Open S~~ Board V'Other, <z.. " Other =:;z= DATE REFERRED: 312.-1 INITIALS: 5W DUE: 'III? ;~~~~~~~~;~~~7~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~;~;;~~~~;;;7/;~~~q7~~~~;~~~7~~, ___ City Atty ___ city Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health ___ Housing ___ Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: /h~ ;J;lb/qV , ,~ r-, MEMORANDUM q/o ~/ Directo,l' } , . TO: Mayor and city council THROUGH: Amy Margerum, city Manager THROUGH: Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: June 13, 1994 RE: Aspen Institute Expansion - Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan Amendment and GMQS Exemption for Essential PUblic Facilities, Second Reading of Ordinance 21,Series 1994 ================================================================= SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval of the proposed 2,410 s.f. expansion of the seminar facilities at the Paepcke Auditorium complex wit~onditions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Aspen Institute was a co-applicant in the 1991 Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan approvals. In 1992, the Institute's parcel was subdivided into the east campus (Paepcke academic complex) and west campus (lodge and restaurant) lots. First reading of Ordinance 21 occurred on May 23, 1994. BACKGROUND: The Applicant is the Aspen Institute, represented by James Cook, project Architect. The subject parcel is Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision (the east campus area of the Aspen Meadows). Its zoning is A (Academic) with an SPA overlay. The . Applicant seeks to amend the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan in order to add 2,410 square feet of seminar facilities, including new bathrooms. The upgrade is contemplated in order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. Also accommodated in the structure will be modern teleconference and aUdio/visual facilities. The existing facility contains 3 seminar rooms. After completion, there will be three seminar rooms. Please refer to the floor plans, site plan and application information, Attachment "A". The expansion also requires competition and mitigation. development was exempted as an exemption from Growth Management The original Aspen Meadows SPA essential pUblic facility. PROCESS: This amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan is substantial enough to warrant approval through the Final SPA Development Plan review requirements. This requires the application be reviewed by P&Z for a recommendation which is forwarded to City Council for final action. 1 ",...... ,-., CURRENT ISSUES: No major issues are being forwarded to Council from referral agencies except for the issue of the stormwater detention easement raised by Engineering, which is discussed in more detail at the end of this section. For complete referral memos, see Exhibit "B"). The seminar facilities at the Aspen Institute currently occupy approximately 5,120 s.f. The total build-out if approved will be 7,530 s.f. The Institute maintains that because of overcrowded conditions that currently happen during their programs, the additional space will allow for more effective seating arrangements, technological advances for, program needs, and handicap access for the bathrooms. Staff has received one letter of support of this application from Charlie Marqusee, a neighbor of the Aspen Meadows (Attachment "C"). The proposal complies with the review criteria for Development Plans. Complete staff response to requirements is attached as Exhibit "D". The GMQS criteria and staff reply is attached as Exhibit "E". Stormwater Detention Easement: The City Engineer requested in his ,referral memo that the Institute grant an easement within the, area of the old racetrack oval for future use as a detention pond. This request was first made during the 1991 SPA reviews, and is in conformance with the City's 1973 Urban Run-off Master Plan. Final SPA the code Exemption P&Z recognized that the location of the requested easement is not on the parcel of this SPA amendment, therefore they decided not to condition this application with the condition to dedicate the easement. However, the Commission felt that it was a necessity for the City to acquire an easement for detention purposes because of the reality of future clean water regulatory actions, and wanted Council to know that this should be pursued with the Institute (as owner of the racetrack area) in the future. By a 4-0 vote, they passed a motion to forward this issue to Council's attention. P&Z agreed with staff that after an easement is obtained, any design of a detention pond must be reviewed by P&Z and Council as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: anticipated. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval of the Aspen Institute's seminar facility expansion as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan, including GMQS Exemption as an essential public facility with the following conditions: No public financial implications are 1) The Sanitation District must review and sign off on sewer plans via a letter to the Planning Office prior to issuance 2 1"'. (~ of any building permits. 2) A detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by Planning prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3) The Amended Final SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the city Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval of both the Commission and city council is obtained before their accep- tance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by city Council for a showing of good cause. 4) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning commission and city Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5) The Aspen Institute shall share continued responsibility to comply with the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to deny the application or alter the amount of square footage granted as exempt from growth management competition or mitigation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance 21, Series 1994 to amend the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan to allow the Aspen Institute's expansion of the seminar facilities by 2,410 s.f., as an exemption from growth management." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance 21, 1994 Exhibits: A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information B - Referral Memos C - Charlie Marqusee Letter, April 28, 1994 D - SPA Amendment Review criteria and Staff Response E - GMQS Exemption Review Criteria and Staff Response F - Published Public Notice 3 1""'\ 1""'\. ) i/" '.~ '''''-~', ~ ~""'---:- __ ~~-' ,'-- ~ ......:..' . ~ ----. -\ ""'.~.. ~ - ~1790- __ - -. ~ .~ -~ ~ '------, '-.; -'- . -,. . ::::~ /' '~. '.....- ..' '-- "-- ~:::::\:-... ----~ ~ - .....~ .' --- ~ --... - ./' :--"-. ---= -- - . . ," ~'''''' - . - '., ,:. .,--,." -: r" ", . '. . L~ ;":~-'-~"':":~~~~~~';._~"_,~~~~,~:, e.....'. ~"1lD'!n - "",-... <'-.;;=-.'.::,,,, ~;.,:,.. -' .' . .....;,.,";:.~ ""'.-, . ,. '.' - .... '-.' ,',' .,:;;'~~ -". '-~. ...,.."<,,, -~,.~",..,,,, .' =,';. .._,;..:,::~ - - ~- ' .-. - / , ' 1 ~ 't ,,":' \ ., ',- , ..... " NEl"l$e........."1. MOOUL:: .. -.J ~ '" \ \ I \ I \ 1 \ r--, -- "'\. '" '\ // ~\ \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ j , \"j , ...- ,I ", "', ~ \ /'/"/ f I ( i " , , /) ~/' - ,- ( '.' V'lESi SEMINAR \ \ e><I5~ 'Tl!J'U'.'a I { \:~" '~ ~ \ \ \ I \ i ,/ \(1-~/ \J i I ", '- ~ AUDITORIUM 1""'\. 1""'\ 1lU)~ NAMe 1 >"ES" seMINAR 2 !:AS" seMIN_ a NORTH sa.-f1NAR. 4 MeCl!ANIGAJ.. 5 c;lRClJL.ATlON 6 PAN1"R.Y j STCRAeE & COA" AREA q "'eNS 6AT!; 10 JoII4CMeN'S SA TH 11 CCUIC.TAYARD TO'" AL. sa. FT. :3 i i J; I I i I , 1 t:tlt;k1N 6 06 tv\IN A:R. PAGtLITte:S - Il\Q~Cf":"'N.()t'loQ D ~ :2;::....-8=....'11./:5('1 , - - Ii __ t'1nl'1 ilL! ~ i .~~I~I.~I~~D t'! ~~,.",.~~~. ~. .3 ~~~~~~~... .. ~~ ~:~~~~!:~~!~! ~~~ \~ \ \ - \\ "-// t/ . .,.i<"~~"'-';f~Jii.~ !::! . --------------- ,-~ ,," " ,.. ----------, '\ ~ : ~ ". \ ,/ ,/ -'\ \, ~\ " " " \ " ( '. '. I , , , t , , ' , , , I , , , , I , , " \ I J , \, \, ...,.. / -', ~ \ \ ',. " \ ../ / \, \...._~------,,/./ ,/ ,/ \ \,------------------' j/ -1 <r z . 9.~ t:4 Q~ t::::. "<:( '\ \ I.j\ t) u) ~ 'r- ~ ~\;:.. . f . . i t ,~ i _~t__ z (} j:: ~ ..J W W QJ.. ~ ~ ~ :1::' ..J <t U 9-J \..?:-\ '-\ -, CJ:.-' <:--....11 JYhihit.12- ~..nd , 19 _ By ord 17.......8 -' MEMORANDUM Thru: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office .' ^. j, Bob Gish, Public Works Director ~ 1() Chuck Roth, Engineering Department e.i2- To: From: Date: April 16, 1994 Re: Aspen Meadows Final SPA Amendment & GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. For filing purposes and future access and use of public records, please note that the original approvals were granted under the name "AsjJen Meadows" and not "Meadows" Final SPA as indicated on the application title page and the referral memo. 2. General - This application represents a request for Aspen Institute improvements that were not contemplated during the 1991 specially planned area review process. The letter of application states that 'the addition. . . . will not adversely affect existing, visual, pedestrian, access, noise or trash service conditions. Parking is provided on site and impact to existing traffic patterns will be minimal. Public services in place will be adequate to handle all new construction proposed.' This statement needs to be discussed. The page of the application that responds to review standards states that the requested increase in building square footage (which works out to a 47% increase) 'will not result in increased capacity. The current number of participants that use the seminar buildings will remain the same. It will, however, be more efficient. Everyone will have sears, and it will function and flow better.' How will this be regulated Or documented? It would appear that if 10%, to pick an arbitrary percentage for the sake of discussion, of current Institute function participants are st~ding today, the participants would increase to fill expanded space with 10% still standing iti the proposed future space, with a resulting 10% increase in Institute function attendance and 10% increase in demands for all support services, from employees generated, to parking space needs, to West End traffic, to trash and other service needs. Certainly it will require more Institute employees to operate 7,530 square feet of building than 5,120 square feet of building. It is recommended that the possible percentage increase of public and employee needs be determined and that service, parking, and traffic and transportation impacts be I"'., - determined and mitigated. If it is agreed that the proposed improvements will truly result in no increase in Institute function participants, conditions of approval are suggested that relate to covenants against permitting standing attendees, and quarterly reporting to the City to this effect for documentation of application statements and conditions of approval. Does the Institute maintain its own seasonal or monthly attendance records which could be copied to the City? 3. Traffic & Transportation Impacts - Discussed above in item 2. City staff, West End residents, the MAA and the Institute are currently working together to improve mitigation of traffic and transportation impacts. A condition of approval could be to recognize the work and to re-state that the Institute will continue to work with the community on these issues. 4. PM-10 and the SIP - In this context, the community should be considering adopting an ordinance requiring that certain percentages of any fleet operating within City limits be provided for with natural gas combustion or electric vehicles;ffi,~Oiler to reduce PM- 10. For this amendment application specifically, any increase in shuttle or transit needs could be required to be in the form of natural gas combustion or electric vehicles. 5. Storm Runoff - During the original review process, the Engineering Department reported that the adopted 1973 Urban Runoff Master Plan called for a sedimentation pond easement on Lot 1. The City Council that approved the original application did not require that the easement be conveyed to the City. It is recommended that the current P & Z and City Council determine their interest in such an easement, which would be a major need in meeting any possible future Clean Water Act street runoff requirements, in addition to the City of Aspen presenting an image of being on the leading edge of street run-off and Roaring Fork River water quality issues. The easement could be encumbered with an restrictions or development review requirements that P & Z or Council deemed necessary. 6. Utilities - The application was referred to the Aspen Water Department, but not to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter should be required from the District stating that it has reviewed the plans and that any necessary fees have been paid. 7. Compliance with Existinl! Aporovals - Prior to approval of this application, the Zoning Office should provide comment on the status of existing conditions of approval and whether all of those conditions have been met. 8. Plat Amendment - Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plat amendment meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal Code should be approved and recorded. cc: Cris Caruso M94.185 I"""'" -- MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 21, 1994 RE: Meadows Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption Parcel IO No. 2735-121-29-008 The original SPA Plan exempted all institute facilities from mitigating for affordable housing impacts. The current amendment is only a technical change (to comply with the American Disabilities Act) and, therefore, the Housing Office recommends that the affordable housing impact fee and/or mitigation be waived. The language is stated below, which was recorded as part of the Development and Subdivision Agreement, The Aspen Meadows, Specially Planned Area, pages 18 and 20: Under the terms ,of this Agreement, the City acknowledges it has granted the Institute a GMQS development exemption for essential public facilities from competition and affordable housing impact mitigation for the Institute's existing and new facilities, /clc:word\referral\aspn_mea.mit ,-. 1""'\, JlEKORUlDOX TO: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner nox: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Meadows Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption April 18, 1994 U: ])ATB: The Historic Preservation, Committee reviewed this proposal at their , regularmeetinq ,of April 13,19:94. The .Board approved the design of . the new' seminar buildinq with the recommendation that the architects study creatinq some subtle distinction between the old structure and new addition, throuqh the use of different materials or details. ,-' 1""'\, MEMORANDUM 991 TO: LESLIE LAMONT, PLANNlNG OFFICE TO: PHll.. OVEREYNDER, DIRECTOR OF WATER LARRY BALLEJ."Il'GER, WATER SUP FROM: SUBJECT: MARCH 31, 1994 MEADOWS FiNAL SPA AMENDMENT &GMQS EXEMPTION PARCEL ID NO. 2735-121-29-008 DATE: The Water Department requires additional information from the Applicant on the Meadows submittal prior to comment. We were not supplied with drawings/descriptions of existing water infrastructure, or proposed plans to utilize existing utilities. Our Department must also have mechanical drawings showing proposed water piping both inside the structures and outside. Please advise our Department if it is our responsibility to contact the applicant for this information, or should this process be accomplished through the Planning Office? LB:rl IJabl1\meadaws.spa .1"""\ ,,-., Exhibit "D" As~en Institute SPA Amendment Review standards for development in a s~eciallv planned area (SPA). The following review standards are set forth in section 24-7-804 B. of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The proposal is an enhancement of the existing seminar function of the site. The facility will remain at three seminar rooms. Structurally, the new wing will basically replicate the Herbert Bayer designs of the existing Paepcke buildings. The site will remain virtually the same but will include some new exterior patios (please refer to the landscape/site plan). Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be submitted and reviewed by Planning prior to the issuance ~ of ~ building permits. ./ a:... ''''1 2. ,.-whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to ~service the proposed development. Response: the Institute asserts that the number of attendees will remain the same even though floor area will increase. The number of seminar rooms will remain at three. During recent discussions on the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, Cleve Johnson with the Institute made the commitment to increase "internal" circulation between the West Meadows campus and the East Meadows areas for service and delivery needs. The roads surrounding the project are capable of handling the Institute functions. Engineering has restated the need for a storm water detention pond easement on Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision. As mentioned in the staff memo, P&Z has decided that this issue should be pursued by the city, but not in the context of this application because it involves a separate parcel of land. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: The site is basically flat. exist. No hazards of this type 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. r-, 1""'\, Response: open space and trails were outlined in the 1990 approvals. Trails will not be affected. No exceptional changes to open space will result with the subject application. The design and location of the structure as proposed will not create any significant changes to the site internally or from off premise. s. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. . Response: The community Plan promotes cultural and educational enhancement of Aspen. This proposal will allow the Institute to better offer its programs to local and visiting attendees. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Response: No public expenditures are ,needed for this project. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 7-903(B) (2) (b). Response: This standard does not apply. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption as an essential public facility. 2 ,-", r-, Exhibit "E" As~en Institute SPA Amendment GKOS Ex_~tion for Essential Public Facilities: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(b) (i-iii) the Council may exempt development if it is for essential public facilities. Development shall be considered an essential public facility if it "serves an essential public purpose,provides facilities in response to growth, is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the City. It shall also be taken into consideration whether the development is a not-for-profit venture." Although the code further stipulates mitigation of impacts of development, ie.housing" parking, utilities, etc., these requirements may be waived for the development associated with a non-profit organization if it qualifies as an essential public facility. Response: The 1990 Meadows SPA approval granted GMQS Exemption for the Institute's West Meadows expansions including 50 new lodge rooms, and updated/enlarged restaurant and health club facilities. Based on this previous ruling that the Institute is considered an essential public facility, and that the proposed seminar expansion does not represent major growth in and of itself, the Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of growth management exemption ,for the 2,410 s.f. of expanded seminar facilities. r-, ~ -,' MEHORAlfDUH TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Aspen Institute Expansion - Aspen Meadows'SPA]?IaY'1a1.9pment' Plan AmenCiment and GMQSExemption for Essential Public Facilities (public hearing) DATE: May 3, :1994 ====:===:======================================================== StlKMARy: Staff recommends approval of the proposed 2,4:10 s. f. expansion of the seminar facilities at the Paepcke Auditorium complex with conditions. ' APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by James Cook, Project Architect LOCATION: Lot:1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision (the north- eastern portion of the Aspen Meadows). ZONING: A (Academic) with an SPA overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant seeks to amend the Aspen Meadows Final SPA ,Development Plan in ,oJ:'der to add 2, 4:l0square feet of seminar facilities~ including new bathrooms. The upgrade is contemplated in order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. Also accommodated in the structure will be modern teleconference and audio/visual facilities. The existing facility contains 3 seminar rooms,; After completion, there will be three seminar rooms. Please refer to' the floor plans, site plan and application information, Attachment "A". The expansion requires exemption from Growth Management competition and mitigation. The original Aspen Meadows SPA development was exempted as an essential public facility. PROCESS: This amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan is substantial enough to warrant approval through the Final SPA Development Plan review requirements. This requires the application to be reviewed by;P&~"i'f6r a recommendation' which will bef()rWa:biedto~ity C6undilfor final action. REFERRAL COMMENTS: (for complete referral memos see Attachment "B") Enaineerina: 1) There is strong concerns that the increased size of the facility will generate additional employees, support services, and traffic impacts. ,2) A request for a storm detention/sedimentation pond easement was made during the 1990 Meadows SPA review, but not accepted by :1 i""" r-> Council. Engineering still believes that this easement is necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act; 3) The Sanitation District must review and sign off on sewer plans via a letter to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits. Fire Marshall: No comments at this time from this office. Housina Office: The Housing Office recommends that housing mitigation be waived for the new facilities because of the applicant's need for the structure to comply with ADA, and the fact that the original Meadows SPA development was exempted from housing impact mitigation. Historic Preservation: The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the proposed structure and recommends employing' subtle design . distinctions between the old and new buildings. Water: Since submission of his referral memo, Phil overeynder has been meeting with engineering representatives ,of the project and is receiving all necessary documentation regarding the existing and proposed water system for the Paepcke complex. STAFF COMMENTS: The seminar facilities at the ASi'en Institute cur~ently occupxapproximately 5,120 s.f. The total build-out if approved will be";;:1,530 s.f. The Institute maintains that because of overcrowded conditions that currently happen during their programs, the additioIlal space, will, allow for ,morEL effective seating arrangements, technological^advances for program needs, and handicap,access for the bathrooms; Staff has received one letter of support of this application from'+ Charlie Margusee, a neighbor of the Aspen Meadows (Attachment "C"). Review standards for development in a speciallY planned area (SPA). The fOllowing review standards are set forth in section 24-7-804 B. of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The proposal is an enhancement of the existing seminar function of the site. The facility will remain at three seminar rooms. Structurally, the new wing will basically replicate the Herbert Bayer designs of the existing paepcke buildings. The site will remain virtually the same but will include some new exterior patios (please refer to t.he landscape/site plan). Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a detailed landscaping 2 1"". r-, plan to be submitted and reViewed by Planning prior to the issuance of the building permits. 2. Whether sufficient public' fa-c'i"lities' and roads, exist to service the proposed development. Response: The Institute asserts that the number of attendees will remain the same even though floor area will increase. The number of seminar rooms will remain-~'three;'"'During recent discussions on the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, Cleve Johnson with .the Institute made the commitment to increase."internal" circulation between the West Meadows campus and the East Meadows areas for service and delivery needs. The roads surrounding the project are capable of handling the Institute functions. 'Engineer ingha.s,jj'e$tatedtheneedfor ,a '.. s-to:t'1llwatel:" detention pond easement on Lot 1 of the kSpe'fi''''i'reiiao-Q's "S'ufidlvision.'- ThiS" utility easement is important in respect to the City's Urban Run-off Master Plan and Aspen's compliance with the Clean Water Act. Council did not require this easement as a condition of the 1990 SPA approval because of pressure by the applicants who felt that it creates the opportunity for the city to build a concrete containment structure in the racetrack area. This is certainly not what Engineering has in mind asthereareai~p.~1:i..1:udeofdesign options available for na1eural, native looking ponds to accomplish any drainage functions. Engineering does not want to miss this current opportunity to obtain ,this easement. . At.. .suph, ,time that a. pond designed, EngineerirtgWillbringtheiprOposCl.l back for to P&Z for review. ;i 3. Whether the parcel~proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and thei possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: The site is basically flat. exist. No hazards of this type 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning teChniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. ., .;;; Response: Open space. "and trails were outlined in the 1990 approvals. Trails will not be affected. No exceptional changes to open space will result with the subject application. The design and location of the structure as proposed will not create any significant changes to the site internally or from off premise. s. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 f"'"' f"'"' Response: The Community 'Plan promotes "cultural and educational enhancement of Aspen. This proposal will allow the Institute to better offer its programs to local and visiting attendees. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Response: No public expenditures are needed for this project. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 7-903(B) (2) (b). ,Response: This s,tandarddoes not apply. 8. Whether there aresufficlerit GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption as an essential public facility. GMOS ExemDtion for Essential pUblic Facilities: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(b) (i-iii) the Council may exempt development if it is for essential public facilities. Development shall be considered an essential public facility if it "serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to growth, is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the city. It shall also be taken into" consideration whether the development is a,not...forwprofit venture." Although the code further stipulates mitigation of impacts of development, ie. housing, parking, utilities, etc., these requirements may be waived for the development associated with a non-profit organization if it qualifies as an essential public facility. Response: The 199QMea.dows Sl?'A approval granted GMQS Exemption for the Institute I s West Meadows expansions including 50 new lodge rooms, and updated/enla:r.-ged restaurant and health club. facilities. Based, on this previ"us r\lling', that the Institute 'is considered an essential public facility, and that the proposed seminar expansion does not represent majo:r.- growth in and of itself, the Housing Office andl?lanning staff. recommends approval of growth 'management exemption for the 2,410 s.f. of expanded seminar facilities. RECOMMElmATION: Staff recommends approval of the Aspen Institute's seminar facility expansion as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan, including GMQS Exemption as an essential public 4 ~ ~~.) Pr,Jt; 1"", r-, facility with the fallawin~ canditians: . 1) The Sanitatian lilistrict must review and siqn off on sewer plans via a letter to the Planning Office prior to issuance if any building permits. detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by lanning prior to the issuance of the building permits. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall grant and perfect an easement on Lot 1 for the purposes of future storm water detention in compliance with Aspen's 1973 Urban Runoff Master Plan. Such easement shall be determined by the Public Works Department. 2) The Amended Final SPA ,Development ,Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin Ccunty cle;rk and Recorder. 'Failure on the part of the applicant to re'cord the documents wi thin a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the city Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval of both the commission and City council is obtained before their accep- tance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City council for a showing of good cause. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning commission and city Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. &)~~ 1i\~~\\)(\ . , . ~ ~1 J.. 1r~~~. ~J.~" ~~ ~ ~ V'- ~/O A - Praposed'Site Plan and A~~licatian B - Referral Memas C - Charlie Marqusee Letter, Aj1lril 28, ~l""-~~~~~. q~.ij> ~\t> ~~' 5) ~/1+~rr~ I D,i., d Sffl ~ ~j U..JJ.n,_ ~~ fotl c.G J AlL1 Lot I "() IY~~" . ~ ~ (~"~)>d~~ ~ ~V4iJ ~~ Attachments: InfGlrmatian 1994 J~~r "l II"- - ~ ~..... .... r"\ ,,-., . .... .... .... MEADOWS SPA AMENDMENT ' - for - ASPEN INSTITUTE SEMINAR BUILDING .... at 1000 North Third Street - Aspen, Colorado 81611 .... .... .... .... February 21, 1994 - .... Prepared by: - THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC Architects and Structural Engineers 23280 State Highway 82 P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, Colorado 81621 - - (303) 927.3167 927.4813 Fax .. - - THEOOORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND S~TURAL. ENGINEERS -', - January 24, 1994 - - aty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 / - Attention: Leslie Lamont - RE: Aspen Institute Meadows SPA Amendment Seminar Building Legal Description: - Lot 1 of a subdivision located in the North 1/2 of Section 12 and the South 1/2 of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, State of Colorado. - Dear Leslie: - The primary purpose for the remodeling is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to upgrade the electrical system to present day codes along with providing a more energy efficient mechanical system. - The following is a description of the proposed addition to the remodeling of the existing Academic Facilities, for your review and approval. - The new addition will be a block and steel structure, in keeping with the existing architecture, designed by Herbert Bayer. The new eighteen hundred square foot addition will house a seminar room and a state of the art audio visual room to serve the existing as well as the new. - The addition will be built in the existing campus profile and will not adversely affect existing visual, pedestrian, access, noise or trash service conditions. Parking is provided on site and impact to existing traffic pattems will be minimal. Public services in place will be adequate to handle all new construction proposed. - - We trust that the enclosed information meets your requirements, but if there is any further information required, please contact this office. - ~r :~* - JMC/nw - 93166 L1 ~ . 2:;!280 STATE HIGHWAY 88 P. O. BOX 1840 BASALT. eOL-ORAClO 81 621 (303) 887-31 67 , 1) . Pmject Name AT.rAalMmr '1 IAND USE APPLICATIW FORM . f". .1"""'\ Aspen Institute, Meadows SPA Amendmellc Academil!!' Facilities - - 2) Project Location Lot 1 of a subdivision located in the North 1/2 of Section 12 and the South 1/2 or ::;ectlOn .L, 'l'ownsnlp .LV ::;outn Kange 8:' weS1: of Lhe h~h ~.';M , P;-'+kin rr'l11nt-y. St'rlrP nfrnlnr::lrlf""'l (in:licate .tu.eet add1:ess, lot & block IlI.IIli:Jer, legal description where awrcpriate) . - - 3) Present Zon.i.ng A (SPA) 4) IDt Size 39.697 AC (Lot 1) 5) Awlicant's Name, Address & Ib::me # The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies - 100 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-6396 6) Repn!seIrt::ative's NaDe, 1\dd:ress & Blone" Theodore K GUY Associates. PC - 23280 Hiqhway 82, Basalt, CO 81621 (303) 927-3167. 7) Type of Aw1ication (please d:Jeck all that awly): - - _ ~;<;l1 Review x Final SPA Amended _ CancepbJal H:i.storic Dev. Final Historic !lev. eorrlitional Use _ Cotx::eptual sPA 8040 Greenline _' Cotx::eptual RID Minor.Hist:oric !lev. .> - _ stream Margin Final RID Historic. D=nolition ~ View Plane SlJbdivision _ Historic Designation - Cl::a'rlclminimn; =tion --'- TelctjMap ADax1ment '-- GC3 Allot:JDe:nt ~ ~ Exerption - _ IDt SplitjIDt Line AdjusbIent - 8) Description of Eidst:in] Uses (I'I.....n..~ am' type of ex:ist.in:J. st:ruc:i:'treS; aw=i:mate sq. ft.; rnni""l'" of kiliu:&=;any pI:eVioos aw=vaJs granted 'b~ the property) . - The use of the existinc buildina consists of', one lame sarn~ nar room and two smaller classrooms alone with the sUDoortine ancillarY facilities. - 9) Description of !levelopnen:t AWlication - 'RP(jJ1P~t" rn ~mF!nd p-xi~+inq SPA Dpvl=:"npmAnt- Pl~n t-n inrlllr1p .:::l npw p.ighh::~pn sqllH1'""e -F()()t ;tnd the a~pr()pri~t'p. l;::;r.n~rapinQ. - ... 10) Have yal attadled the follaring'? -L. ~.se to Attachment 2, M:inimJm Snhn;=inn O:x:rt:ents --X..- Respol.se to Attachment 3, ~; 1'; C ~::nhni =ion 0Jnt:errt:s --X..- ~.se to Attachment 4, Review st:.andal:tis.J:or Your AWlication .. .. .~-'- ,1 .____,._u... _~" . ... CITY OF ASPEN rq/~ 1'1.3 . '~-APPLICATION CONFERENCE ~y ... . '" . .. PROJECT: QI.lne.I\ ~ ~ifr511-~GMr;;,G~1Jm ~, ....-,-~~I / I..' /" L -Gr esstnr,~ I APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: '/ / ~ (~. PGI!,(,e, REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 9- 3 I l' '~~-(Ah+,es OWNER'S NAME: ()~ ~;/;;;G , SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: Sf'1 ~ - 2 ~ ' 2. ": Describe action/type 'of development being requested: /J~f: /U!~ ~tti ~ 4Pri ~~ I. . . ~TJ'\Z'0' . 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: - - - - - - - ... - Policy Area/ Referral AO'ent ~ ~, I~ -rM m~t.i!- ~j)~, 1I{}(5 ~ 4. Rev~ew is: (P&Z Comments -' './NV' rt eCt (11-- ... - Ezti:n to ~ 5. Public Hearing: Only) (~l~OnlY) ~ (NO) of the application - 6. M 5r;:;E to be submf tted: . 1/ /) L.. {lSI/ 'E, '/ f"tY;f-cr What fee was applicant requested to submit: 4-/'1'6-1- 5"$fS? . . ' ftf3 Anticipated date' of submission: EN(,. 2/ clot COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: (~.~ /r~ - Number of copies 7. - 8. - 9. frm.pre_app - 3'l.,. 1.-1 q ~ ')7/ b' q'J/ # - - r-. - r-, TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PROCEDURES ~ APPLICATION TYPE .... ~ Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Mountain view Plan Hallam Lake Bluff Co~ceptual.HistoricDevelopment Final Historic Development Minor Historic Development Historic Demolition Historic Designation .... .... .. - - .--conoe al SPA Final SPA ""- Cance ual PUD Final PUD Subdivision Condominiumization ... .... ... Lot Split Lot Line Adjustment, GMQS Allotment GMQS Exemption ... - Map Amendments Text Amendments w PUBLIC HEARING REOUIRED? Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y BY WHOM Commission HPC HPC HPC, Com- mision & Council FORM OF NOTICE* 2,3 , .1,2,3 1,2,3 HPC - 1,2,3 Commis. - 1,2,3 Council - 1,2,3 Y O. Cogncil 1,2,3 ((~~mmis~t~ ~ ~~~~::.J Council 1,2,3 Y Y Y N Y..-- N Y N (Except for lot split) Y y * Numbers refer to the following: Q)- Publication in newspaper 2 Posting of property 3 Mailing to surrounding landowners - .... .... Commission Commission Council Commission See above for lot split Commission & Council commission & Council 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 Commis. - 1,2,3 Council - 1,2,3 Commis. - 1 Council - 1 ... r-, r-, - ~ .... / - - - .... CITY OF ASPEN VICINlTY MAP N.T.s. TIlE ASPEN MEADOWS FINAL S.P.A. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANO FINAL SUIlDIVlSION PLAT .. .~ ... - ~ - .... "'" ...... - .... ... . .._..___...__^_,-,",_~.",~..~.,.~,"w._'n.."~... """."..._.,~_.-._-~~~,~'''-'''. - 1""'\ r-, - ,..". ASPEN INSTITUTE MEADOWS SPA AMENDMENT SEMINAR BUILDING - The following information is supplied in response to items addressed in the "Land Use Regulatioh". ;iiililirt ....... When the Aspen Institute examined remodeling the existing seminar facilities to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to upgrade the seminar facilities so that they could accommodate current teleconferencing technology, it was discovered that a significant portion of the existing seminar buildings would be used in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it was determined that the existing structures did not lend themselves to an efficient upgrade. Therefore, the best approach was to add a new building. The current seminar building square footage is 5,120 SF. The new building would increase that by 2410 SF. This will enable the bathrooms to comply with the ADA, and to create efficient use of space. We will also have one seminar facility that has the current technology necessary for today's seminars. The new square footage will not result in increased capacity. The current number of participants that use the seminar buildings will remain the same, it will, however, be more efficient. Everyone will have seats, and it will function and flow better. There will also be an upgrade of the mechanical and electrical systems of the existing buildings to comply with the current National Electric Code, and provide a more energy-efficient mechanical system. - - - Review Standards for Develooment - 1. Campus SPA was approved in 1991 after extensive review. There are no new uses or major expansion contemplated. ... 2. Existing public utilities and roads do exist to service the existing building with no increased impacts as a result of this amendment. - 3. No slope, instability, mud flow, or other hazards exist that would adversely affect this project. The new construction will be built on a gravel terrace adjacent to the existing structure, located no closer to the river than the existing structure. ... 4. The new construction will be tucked into the recess formed by the existing building and will match the massing and materials, so as to minimize the impact to the existing building. - 5. This project is in compliance with the "Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan" in that it is promoting and encouraging the cultural and educational community by promoting the intellectual arts. ... 6. There will be no expenditure of public money required. 7. There will be no development on slopes in excess of 20%. :;;0;.; B. Project is exempt from GMQ's allotments. - Develooment Schedule: Construction is scheduled to begin the fall of this year with completion no later than June 1995. IlOo.o: -- - ~- r-, - - Public Facilities .... , Existing building is serviced by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District and will be utilizing this existing service. We do not anticipate any extension or relocation of collection lines. No change is anticipated n the water service or distribution line. / .... 93166 - - - - - ~ - ... - .... ,.... - - - " '" '.':f"~"" ,... As~en Music Festival ID:303-925-38Q2 I""- FEB 15'94 ('""'\, .' ~'-- Music Associates of Aspen - - - February.15, 1994 ... - Mr. David McLaughlin President The Aspen Institute Wye, MD P.O. Box 222 Queenstown, MD 21658 - Dear David: - Thank you for your l.et.ter d~tedFebruary 3, 1994 regarding a proposed expansion of the Institute's primary seminar puilding adjaCent to Paepcke. - - We have reviewed your plans fully endorse the project. further enhance the quality ~ - ... - " .... - - - and specifications, and The expansion wi,11 indeed of the Aspen Meadows. - PoSt Ollice !lox M, A.<pen, Colorado 81612 JOJ/925.32S4 FIXl JOJIJ2S.J802 MIL<le Asml.'ies 01 Asren. lne. . ASj'ell Musle ~'c~tl\'.1 & Sel.....t 17:03 No.OO? P.02 ~3'<~~, f:1'~.:. , 3i ,,\ \. 0011111 Of TNI\Ht lfG.I(U(. AtW'1\COIr.I c".~ nctll..t1'IAIt111 ,.- WMtuttLtt!l:HEI\ 't\Pr"IIlN_ toOrLA,COfoIQCIQH "."'1." WOOlI ,,\YJC . l;ootI.....v ot~~, oUIt~'" ,~^'J.Jlt,,~ NMlNI' A/lIIlI J\lWLAflCkIlI:l''''' ,^",,$I~C"1 I.I.i.l11ICWllUCl(WlJl,l WlI.l.W.IE.~ ~",,'r.N1lI\ofI,l loIl~o\(l.C~ Dah~UI'l""'4Y .-.a,'l'Ithl.tllllS()l "..mwft'-" no::ctoWl""urn,lAN UOtW'p(;l.UII.l1I UtCH.W. A. OOLCIelAoJ lJ(.WIIA~L.(I("UlirJ N.JQrlC'tlil\lll~ .f1r....:04JMo..1O JOfU.tWAN WM;. J(IAMlIlL.w1RJ8. UIA._","Ilt'U(I~ Ul.lbI.VlnlHS!8!l1 J.Io.lol[~INt. ~l<,.Vlir"''' M4H(;....\IC CAIIOr. ~ 11I0;' J""I,S" Illl(l,l ~A.loMy"AA6 Iltll!CJltJll Wun/U,y c.i,l.~./ol".4dl ~'''f'AlIUM ~.AlIlJN"~ h"itJlAnJ.Ht'1'jII ~"".iIlU'I lCt.ll'lt u~4loLUl~4Ut AI.4NI~fl .,(l'I1;(.tJUNr "~RHltIE'''' I.iUMVS\Dl.'1Il 'UIA5l.(tAN l...I.ruwJ.~I'1'f IU.UL~lV rn_ISl.\'AIJC.gw '1oI11IP'WfST kfNNC111n.1.lM<1~ DAVlOI'iIllfQl.l Hal'lClfa'Y1n.2liooa GORllON HAAO< IIIO$ilIGIlIEIMIlIi.C II1JIA~.Ulll"'N .....,...- UJ6lbJ1,lH. ~HtIUJoM\lttItAlltJ!':~ ~ A. ae.fDlC.T"FIdIli lolNIWILlfE1HCloWIti JC.l.NtCJAFFEE ~JOI."I;.l.ltnnt.UI WfI!". w.usm P. MtfICKl! w.'QIfIOIGtC./M"HH fW<;Y~$/roIlrll M!;.AUnt.lDft.!':T.unON ~HaNW1..&lEIN IIIt'141UI$lIlIN..IIl .lOHNN.8telll~ II.II\$(UlMl.hI)C.UIt~ HlWoIwsI.kM1IOIy &6rd t,L\111Il.WIIUCIIlj,jW,IW '- unIU"HlI'S. .uw-Arnl IaNC N1K0l.6..HI. 4oiCncCDC.!:t~ I!El&yCUArlIN lIKIIlNgr,WtI~1l fr,l.~tAlWtI'l OOl'lOONftl\ll'''''' Gr.lWf)(W'~n fl.UN".~'I' OCll(Jll.otlllOtrW,H WJ'N ANN tNn( . ""AeJlr~.IO.$fN~ L!ClHJ.N)j..LAI..Il)Eft fJOHm'.~~ ri,ij'AOlM:"fCAtr OWEO'....liA ""'YUI,l$QH "I\MW.v NlWNAH WlU,W,l4Hi'tlli t~'I4(""',.IC'" 'JY"IWtJ'tr.J'lU,f.Ul LlDVDct. ~II N,.i"w,SWAtI ...-- J,. tOllNl"wr"1 ~IiWfrNCft "",IU~'l'QC:W ~'4UI'nXolClCrnt.i.... _..... tlMfm "AlUM ,-... -....... ""'" VoWIIl"P.ICf'Ib$ICfl: ......- ";" FEB 18 '94 10'49 ASP~NSTITUTE - ... - February IS, 1994 - Mr. David T. Mclaughlin The Aspen Institute - Dear David: r-, P.2/2 / As the representative of the Campus Conunittee of the Aspen Center for Physics I fully . ' support the Institute's application for renovations to the East. Seminar Building. The campus is undergoing the kinds of change that mean excellence far into the future and it is a pleasure for the Physics Center to be part of ~s progress. - ... ... Best, A~~ ~N. D, ~ge Stranahan ... - ... -, - ... ... - ... .. ,,-.., ~ ro.. ''''''\ <J CHARLES B. MAROUSEE POST Office Drawer X. Boca Raron. Florida 33429 /'r L..- . '.f '",----., April 28, 1994 APF~ 2 9 "-, , Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Ha 11 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Lamont: I have seen a legal notice in the Aspen Times of April 16th to the effect that the Aspen Meadows is requesting approval of an 1800 sq. ft. addition to their academic buildings. As the owner of 655 Meadows Road, located adjacent to and south of the Aspen Meadows property, I would like to go on record in strong support of this addition assuming that you have satisfied yourself that the siting, appearance, and construction are in harmony with the existing academic buil dings. On a previous occasion I have suggested that the complex of academic buildings not be held to a tight en~lope around existing structures. The complexity of arriving at the present Specially Planned Area Site Plan would suggest that the best time to give the academic area some breathing space would be right now, at the beginning. I assume that we are all interested in the economic success and viability of the conference center. This may very well require some future modification, enlargement, or diversification of the conference facilities which is hard to foretell at this time. I would therefore suggest that you allow the conference center additional square footage for future construction of academic facilities to the extent that the site will allow this without material impact on the other parties at interest. I would consider anything up to 10,000 sq. ft. of academic floor area, subject, of course, to site plan approval and such other safeguards as you may deem advisable. Sincerely. yours, 2{~s~s?!1wtr THEOOORE K G~SSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND ST', ~TURAL ENGINEERS r-" March 8, 1994 Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin County Planning 1 3,0 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Meadows Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption Case #A17-94 Dear Leslie: Enclosed are the items requested in your letter of February 28 concerning referenced project. rrEM 1: Proof of Ownership rrEM 2: A letter from the Aspen Institute authorizing Gideon Kaufman and Theodore K Guy Associates to represent the Institute. ITEM 3: Concerning employee generation and the GMQS exemption, the proposed project is a relocation of existing conference space from the existing Laughlin "North" seminar room to the new module of similar size. The additional square footage is being allocated to the ancillary facilities, i.e., rest rooms, that meet the "Americans with Disabilities Act" and to replace existing seating with more comfortable and efficient seating arrangements. Because of this there will be no increase in employment generated by this project. A check for ninety-seven dollars has been submitted. Check #1911. ITEM 4: Also enclosed are copies of the Ordinance, SPA Agreement and 10 copies of the approved landscape plan for the Meadows Final SpA Plan. ITEM 5: We trust the above ,information will allow you to proceed with the processing of this application. If there are any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. k. ~ ao-o-<,v ~ Ja es M. Cook, Project Architect TH ODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 93166 L3 cc: John Keleher 12 Fox 2328Q STATE HIGHWAY 62 P.o. BOX 1840 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (3081887-3167 /'/AF: 09 '94 13: 04 !<AunIAI'1 AI'iD pt IEF:SOII, ~F'. C. 1""'\ P,2/2 r"I eROOKEA, P~TtRSON GIDEON I. KAUfMAN' ERIN L. FERNANDEZ .. LAWOFFICES(}f' KAUFMAN & PETERSON,P.C. 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN,COLORAOO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925.8166 rACS1MIL~ (303)925.1090 llOBYN J, MYLER ... . AL$O &OMITTED.,. MA_'l'f,.ANO "" .USO AOMml:Q IN '~A'rbA -4l.tQ4D.ITf(OjH If"" rOAJ( .ICDG(I"'tf~TlGlJT March 9, 1994 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Meadows Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption Dear Leslie: I have reviewed the pitkin County records, and this letter shall serve to verify that the ownership of Lot 1 and Lot lA, Aspen Meadows, acoording to the Plat recorded in Plat Book 30 at Page 17, is vested in the name of the Aspen Institute, Inc. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. A Professional Corporation By t: Raufma, GK/ljn I"" David T. McLaughlin President March 8/1994 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subject: Permission to act on behalf of The Aspen Institute To whom it may it concern: This letter gives authority to Gideon Kaufman, the Institute's attorneYI and Ted Guy, our architect to act on behalf of the Institute on matters related to the renovations of the Seminar Building. Any other concerns should be referred to my assistant, Ellie Fox, who may be reached at 544-7901. David T. McLaughlin Aspen, co: 1000 North Third Street, Aspen, co 81611 . (303) 544-7900 . FAX (303) 925.4188 Washington, DC: 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20036 e (202) 736-5800 e FAX (202) 986-1913 Wye, MD: P.O. Box 222. QueenstoWll, MD 21658 e (410)820.5426 ~ FAX (410) 827-9182 ~~NI ~Y;THf ASPEN INSTITUTE ; 4-26-94 1:39PM THE ASPEN INSTITUTE~3039205197 ;# 1 - I"" r ' The Aspen Institute APR 2 6 !99,~ DavidT.Mcr;:= BVJ!A~. ~102(l.~19t Aprll26, 1994 ...., '._."4_~___.~____~""~_~~' I..e&li~~t City Planning Director Aspen- Pitkin PlaNIing & ZcmingDepartment 130 South, Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Laslie: r wmted to aclr:nowledge the Jetter 01 Apri112 from 0W\e Moore, and appreciate her bringing these is8Uef to our attention. Unfortunately, through a misa>tnIllunication, probably at our end, we were unaware of tM meeting schedule to review the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation P.\an, The two 1'l\eetingt when our representatives were present wu the result of MAA asking \IS to attend. In, the future, Jf you could have these notificatiOl\Sdireded to Cleve Johnson at The Aspen Meadows, I would appreciate it. We share the desire to have greater involvement by the Institute, as we are committed to address effectively any areas of non- compliance caused by the Institute or the operator of The Meadows property. We will review promptly the areal Diane identified and respond to those concerns as soon as we have done so. We willloo1c forward to meeting with you and other interested parties on this at an early date. Regards, 'tf DavidT. Mclaughlin Wye, MD: P.O. Box .u:z. Queeusrown. MJ) 21658 . (410) 820-5of.1.6. PAX (410) 827.'182 . A.p.... co: 1000 North Tltir~ SIt_. Aspe\l. co aWl. (!O!) 9~S'7010. FAX (!03) 9~'..1" W..hl"jIlon, be, 17" Ma...<huS"lS Av.nuo, NW, Suite '01. Washln/llOn, DC ~OO!6 . (~O~I 7!6.saoo, PAX I<lOa)9"-l9U . ,,"..-., "..- ....,,,., ..". ';~i :fli\ """",1 1""'\, ~ !i, '}' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN JlBAI)()1fS tJ:NAL SPECIALLY PLlUOl'ED AREA AMENDMENT NOTICE IS JlBREBY G,'I;VEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 199~ at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena,kAspen, CO to consider an application submitted by the Aspen Inst~tute, 100 N. 3rd st., Aspen, CO requesting approval to amend the SPA Development Plan to allow a separate 1800 square foot additipn to house a seminar room, and to allow remodelling to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Aspen Meadows i~cludes property owned by the Aspen Institute, the MUsic.A~sociate~?f ~spen, the Aspen Center for Ph~sics, and Savanah L~m~ted Partn-e:rsh~p. The Aspen Meadows property ~s bounded by Meadows Road, ~!illespie street, Roaring Fork Road and the Roaring Fork River, in Aspen, CO. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100", stJohn BenneU. Maydr Aspen City COUDcil T ~~~;~=~:~~~~~~:~~=~=2~:~=:~~~~~~~:~:~::~~:~:~=~~~===========~=== city of Aspen Accou9t ~;,: .('i ~,:, ',11 * ... } !'i~ ,,' ,.t ;',' \;', , , nJ:CiM\-r f)/\rv-1e.fl H 0fJ-1"~ J" '." Lf! X I q If: L l'