The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Aspen Institute.A3392 ~-~, ~~ ~~~...; ~"';~ r~-\ ,^ ,; ,,/:> '.'/J, .;:,' \;~.~)YO' d\l? , ,'-\ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 4/1-6/92 DATE COMPLETE: 'II?"! ~ PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. ~735-121-25-Q01 A33-92 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Aspen Institute Amend. Sub. Development Order Project Address: 845 Meadows ~oad. Aspen. CO Legal Address:NE 1/4 Sec.12. Tnshp.l0 S.Rnq.85 West. Aspen. CO APPLICANT: Aspen Institute/David McLauqhlin. President Applicant Address: 845 Meadows Road. Aspen. CO REPRESENTATIVE: Gideon I. Kaufman. 315 E. Hvman. Suite 305 Representative Address/Phone: PO Box 1001 Aspen. CO 81611 925-8166 PAID: (YES) NO AMOUNT: $1.002. --------------- -------------------- NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 4 / )( TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: CC Meeting Date 120 /~ VESTED RIGHTS: PUBLIC HEARING: j){LC.- ~ OD VESTED RIGHTS: Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ------------------ -------------- 2 STEP: )<~ YES NO YES NO YES ~o) YES NO Paid: Date: ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- REFERRALS: X City Attorney Mtn Bell )( city Engineer Parks Dept. Housing Dir. Holy Cross Aspen Water Fire Marshall city Electric Building Inspector Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Aspen Con.S.D; Energy Center DATE REFERRED: -,/,;<,;; - 7,~ INITIALS: (!!.ic/ ;~;~~=;~~;~;~7================;~;;=;~~;;7;r~1~C?:L=~;~;~~~~ ___ City Atty ~ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health ___ Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: t3*~~ School District Rocky Mtn NatGas State HwyDept(GW) State HwyDept(GJ) Other /""'. "'-", fllIA ~ .'-'-~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~ FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: July D, 1992 RE: Aspen Institute Subdivision Amendment for Lot 1, Aspen Meadows SUbdivision, Second Reading of Ordinance 40, Series 1992 (continued from June 22, 1992) SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute (Applicant) proposes to divide its approximately 14 acre parcel (Lot 1, Aspen Meadows SUbdivision) into two parcels for tax purposes. One of lots would be academ~c in nature containing Paepcke Auditorium, Boetcher Hall, the Academic Facility, and Anderson Park. The other lot would include the commercial operations of the 7 lodge buildings, restaurant, parking/tennis facility, health club, and the race track open space. This application is a one-step subdivision amendment before City council. The ,Planning Office recommends approval of first reading of this item with conditions. Since first reading, staff met with David MCLaughlin, Mona Chamberlain and Gideon Kaufman to discuss tax implications and staff concerns about creation of a new lot for a project that received exemption for development mitigation requirements. Staff now has a better understanding of the Institute I s needs and supports the proposal with an added condition permanently linking non-profit ownership of the two subject lots. Please refer to Current Issues section below for further discussion. Also since first reading, city Engineering Chuck Roth submitted referral comments attached as Exhibit "0". In his memo, Mr. Roth requests that the Council re-examine the City's need to obtain a storm water detention easement for the racetrack area contained within the proposed Lot L This was evaluated during the Meadows SPA review and was not included in the approvals by city Council. The major concern at that time was visual impacts and environmental changes which might occur with a detention facility, although a specific design was not part of the review. Please refer to t~e Referral Comments and Current Issues sections for further discussion. I PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First reading passed by a 3-2 vote on May 26, 1992. At that meeting, staff recommended that Council withhold discussion until second reading so that the Applicant could provice 1 i'. /~ .-., -. additional information to staff regarding tax implications and Growth Management Exemption status of the new lots. BACKGROUND: Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision was created as part of the Aspen Meadows Final SPA and Subdivision reviews conducted by City Council from January 1991 through June 10, 1991. This parcel was transferred from Savanah Ltd. Partnership to the Aspen Institute after the Final Subdivision Plats were recorded in January of 1992. The Institute has since been advised that they might lose tax exemption status for their entire property because of 'the commercial lOdge/restaurant operations on the western portion of Lot 1. Aspen Institute representative Gideon Kaufman approached the Planning Office to determine an appropriate process by which Lot 1 could be divided into two legal parcels. See application letter and letter from the Institute's tax consultant William Schmalzl, Exhibit "A". In consultation with the city Attorney, Planning staff determined that the request should be considered by the City Council in a one step review pursuant to Section 24-7-1006 B. See Exhibit "B" for the Code text and staff discussion. REFERRAL COMMENTS: On June 6, 1992, city Engineer Chuck Roth submitted comments regarding platting requirements and the need for the city to obtain a storm detention easement in the racetrack oval area as indicated in the adopted "Urban Runoff Management Plan". This easement will allow the city design flexibility for compliance with the Federal "Clean Water Act". Please refer to Exhibit "D" for complete referral memo. CURRENT ISSUES: During the Aspen Meadows Final SPA and Subdivision reviews, the Aspen Institute and Music Associates of Aspen received exemption from Growth Management competition and mitigation of their development impacts because of their status as "essential public facilities". with the adoption of Ordinance 13, 1991, Council amended the GMQS Exemption section in the Municipal Code to allow Council's determination that "upon application that development associated with a non-profit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the GMQS and from some or all such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and warranted." This GMQS Exemption was then granted to the Aspen Institute's increase in lodge rooms, expansion of the health club, parking garage and restaurant renovation. No expansions to the academic buildings of the campus resulted from the Meadows Final SPA Plan. In response to staff's concern whether or not the creation of the second lot opens the door for other users to purchase the property, the Institute has offered to draw up covenants which require both lots to be perpetually in common ownership. This action will provide some assurance to the City that a commercial entity will not take over the Institute property. However, if in the future 2 ,1"""\ r.., 1) The Amended Plat, Subdivision Agreement, and subdivision covenants shall contain language requiring the new Lot 1 and Lot 1A to be held in common ownership. 2) The use of the two Institute lots shall be as originaL_y approved under the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan. This requires non-prOfit use of the property during the summer months and allows for-profit use of the lodge facilities during the winter months. Any deviation from this approval shall be brought before city council for reconsideration of Growth Management Exemption and may require mitigation of development impacts as established by the Land Use Regulation in the Municipal Code. This condition shall be contained within the Subdivision Agreement and subdivision covenants. 3) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during pUblic meetings with the city Counc~l shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approva~, unless otherwise amended in the conditions. 4) The amended Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Agreement must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder with~n 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so wi~l render the approvals invalid. ALTERNATIVES: city Council could decide to require GMQS mitigation for the commercially-oriented lot or: could deny the proposed subdivision. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 40, Series 1992 as amended for the approval of Subdivision of Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision into two lots." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance 40, Series 1992 "A" Application and Letter William Schmalzl, Aspen Institute Tax Consultant "B" section 24-7-1006 B. and planning Response "C" city Council Meeting Minutes of 4/29/91, 5/13/91, 5/20/91, and 5/28/91 "0" Engineering Referral Memo 6/6/92 4 r', LAW OFFICES 'Jty couneil ~lblt ''If /. ApprOved , 19 By Ordinance , GIDEON L KAUFMAN GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEP;ONE AREA COD:: 303 92S-S1t56 TELEFAX 92!5-1090 April 16, 1992 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Aspen Institute HAND-DELIVERED Dear Kim: Pursuant to our phone calls and meetings, please consider this letter an application on behalf of The Aspen Institute to amend the Subdivision Development Order for the purpose of dividing Lot 1, Meadows Subdivision, into Lot 1 and Lot lA, as shown on the attached map. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $1,002.00 for the Planning and Engineering Office fees, together with an Authorization to Submit Land Use Application signed by David McLaughlin. As we discussed, I believe the subdivision is appropriate under 97-1006.B, since the amendment is consistent with the approval granted in the SPA. It is not the intent of the division of Lot 1 into two lots to modify or change the approval granted in the SPA. The division is being requested in order to preserve the tax-exem?t status of the academic portion of The Aspen Institute property. without separating the lodging portion of the lot from the academic portion, the entire property could be taxed. This would result in a financial burden for The Aspen Institute. The Aspen Institute is willing to stipulate that Lot 1 and Lot lA could not be separately conveyed. Therefore, there is no real change to the approval as granted. We are merely preserving the previous tax-exempt status of the property whi~h the Institute owned prior to the conveyance of the land from Savanah. I look forward to having this matter placed on the next available City Council agenda. Thank you for your help and consideration. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By G~aUfman J GK/bw Enclosures cc: David McLaughlin ....'~ 1"'\ i"'"\ '. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT LAND USE APPLICATION THE UNDERSIGNED, David McLaughlin, as President of The Aspen Institute, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation, hereby authorizes Gideon I. Kaufman to submit an application, and any related documents, to the City of Aspen on behalf of The Aspen Institute, Inc. for amendment of the Subdivision Development Order for the purpose of dividing Lot 1 into two lots, Lot 1 and Lot lA. , r- DATED this ~ day of April, 1992. THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, INC., a ::lor~-profit corporation David McLaughl n President '. r-, r-- , "- k r:::1' I' : _ :~:i'C " ,., ,'\ ~. . Ii '. '-i t;rG'O" C' ,i" ,,\ ,JWj_.,.,,',~ ~':\'~~; l',T'1 ,-,',~'V<,,~'~,':-' ,-"'~"".. ",,' ',~~<~:~ . ~ I')'--;->~_~; I f :G-1,. - :":'. : 0 ~ '-^ ! .... . ~:---, . :. L.r' I ,-' "-- "",/' ~_/" ~'., ' " ,c.-..=," ..J--. ",,>," ,/,' ."" -:::'\. I, -.. ,.~ti ' 10' - \ L:: _.' ~ - .\ " 'I I H" , ~ ; iil , , , ' ,~ .. ,." ----.~.~ , ,,' ,~ ~ ' ' , . r-:~~-' p~~' ~"~,,,,~~, !)::y" - Q ~\ i' ; " " r--,,' ,,' (~_/ ., ' '--"f ,- ' . ,c_,,-_,t- ,\ "'1 - ~' >--/ , /tt /" v "- --<-. ,! " ,; , , j 11' ~ f ~ I I iF. " D!'I" ..t! '1 . !@ ;1/11 ~,.,..., :~f( [ ~> i 0 CI'.; , "il f \/! ::; MAY I1AJ 2~':9?,}.3.:!6 W~~tp.., SQ LAW APEEti .~ PFlbi:2:'0l02 MAYER, BROWN &: PUTT W~5HlNliTClN \..QNOON NEW YoRK. HOt.ISTQN !.OS _11.J!1l TOI<YO BRUSSELS ll1Q SQUTf04 LA SALLE S'tFlu:r .$la..,..a-QoOQ TL'l.ZXI.oA04 FAC$I~II..2t .)12-701-7711 CHICAGO, ILUNOIS 60603-$441 wl.....1A'M A. SCHMAl..Z~ .,2-10l-,:a25 May 20, 1992 VI~'fl~Sno:LE MS. Xim Johnson A5pen/Pitkin countyPlanninq otfice 130 south Galena Street. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 'l'be A$pen Institute Dear Ms. Johnson: :Mr. hut1llan has asked. me, to ",dte you reoardinq why The Aspen Institute ("the Instit.u1:e") i. _eking to, divide 1:ha Xelldows Subdivision into Lot 1 and Lot lA. As you are aWarl;!, prior to the Institute's acquiaition of the Savanah property, the parcel o~.Q by the Institute vas ~pt from Colorado property tax. We are conce~ed tQat the Combination o~ the two parcels could result in the loss of the property tax exemption tor the entire parcel. 'therefore, in order to maintain the status quo, we haVe recommanded tha~ t!1e Meadows SUl:ldivlsion ba Cl1v1aeCl 1nto Lot ~ and Lo~ u. In addltlon, the Aspen Institute is a tax~.xempt or~ani:ation under Section~Ol(c)(31 of the Internai ~evenu. Oode of 1986. :rhe renovation .CJf the resid.ntial, parcel will be a subac.mt:Lal expense to the: :rnstttUte. . To cover the costs of those renovatic)l)s. the Institute for a time may ne&4 to r.n~ the rooms for ~ctlvitiesthat are not dlrectly related to its exempt purpQse. .This "in qen-ra.te sOllle ,unrelated. b\lsinus, taxable inCOllle. " Purth4lir, such renta1s (lould j Aop;ardizQ the Institute I s continu~4 federaltax:exeaption it they were SUfficientlY Qubatant:Lal.In o~.r to avoid any possible risk to the Institute's t4'-" status, it: has decided to ton a wnolly-owned SUbsidiary that will operate ~e ~esidential paroel. This will protect the Institute'S t~x-eXe~ption and will si>>plify accounting rorthe tor-prOfit rentals. MAY MAY 20 '92 13:17 WHE>LE;e.,S Q LAW APEEN Cot:l ;:J(;. .1..:1_'::"0 r(l{~ _ ,~ FA&'c%%S HAYER, :BROWN &: :PLATT lea. Ki. Johnson May 20,'1992 Page. 2 The diviSfonof the property will petaj:~ the znllUtute to leas.. the rel!lidenHal parcel to U..ubsi<<iary so that any for- profit: act:ivit:i_ wJ.l1 not: " conduC't4K\ by the Institute and will there,fore not jeoparcSizet.he Instit:ute'. t:liUC statu.. (A ~.a.s. is beinq UCa4 so that: wAe.n 1:he not-for-profit u.e of the property can fully cover the cost: of the project, the property can be t7:an.~.rred back to t:he :tnst:it:uu frClJl the subsidiary without adverse tax consequences.) If you have a.ny furtber ques1:!ons reqarding the tax reasons for this proposal, please do not. ~.:l.tat. to contact Ille. Very truly yours, ~~~lZ1 WAS/bkj eo: Gideon Kaufman David Mc~uqhlin ** TOTAL PAGE.00~ ** l-'\ .;1'ty COUDell-1't ~.... ' , " By Ord1D1lDce ''B'i Subdivision Amendment per Section 24-7-1006 B. Aspen Institute, Lot 1 Aspen Meadows Subdivision B. other Amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved y City council, provided that the proposed change is consiste t with the approved plat. If the proposed change is n t consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall e subject to review as a new development application for plat Response: The division of Lot 1 into two lots is proposed by t e Institute to protect tax-exempt status for that portion of the r property devoted to academic purposes (Lot 1A). The parc 1 indicated as reconfigured Lot 1 will contain the for-profit lod e buildings and restaurant and will be operated by a wholly-own d subsidiary of the Aspen Institute. A letter from the Institute's tax consultant William Schmalzl (Exhibit "A") explains the effec s of the lodge income on the Institutes tax-exempt status. Planning staff was concerned early on that the division of the 10 s may establish a channel for selling off the lots for furth r development. However, in review of the SPA regulations controllin the Meadows lots, it is clear that any contemplated changes withi the development must be processed according to the SPA Amendmen processes within the Land Use Code. Any future Plat or Subdivisio Agreement amendments would have to be processed through th Planning Office. A concern raised by the city Manager is that the Institute (an MAA)received exemption as essential public facilities for Growt Management competition process and mitigation of developmen impacts. Planning staff has reviewed minutes from the approva hearings. However, it was clearly discussed on May 13 and May 20 1991 that non-profit entities in the Academic zone other than thos existing at the time of the approvals were eligible (at Council' discretion) for GMQS exemptions. Please refer to Exhibit "C" fo council minutes of April 29, May 13, May 20, and May 28, 1992. I addition, Meadows representative Gideon Kaufman stated at the Ma 28, 1991 meeting that rights of first refusal will be granted t the other non-profits in residence at the Meadows, and tha amendments to the SPA will be made if uses are changed. ( 1""\, 1"""""\ CJ.ty Council Exhib.Lt ApprOved , 19 By Ordinance April 29. 1991 continued Meetinq Aspen city council Ms. Margerum told council the final development plan of SPA is being amended to allow within an SPA overlay variations to be allowed from the subdivision standards of the code. The subdivi- sion regulations in the land use code are very specific in terms of curbs, gutters, street design, lights, etc. The code is being amended to allow the SPA to be varied with design standards of Section 7-1004(C) (4) for streets and related improvements. This is to allow more creativity in roadway design in the Meadows area. Ms. Margerum told Council Section 5 deals with exemptions to the growth management quota system. The code currently allows for Council to exempt from growth management competition the construc- tion of essential public facilities. The code also states these essential public facilities need to mitigate the impacts of the facilities. During the master planning process one item was that council would exempt from mitigation as well as competition those facilities being proposed by the M.A.A. and the Aspen Institute. Council directed staff to come back with a code amendment that would accommodate this type of exemption. This addition gives Council the discretion to exempt non-profits from the requirements in GMQS of mitigation if they are located in an academic zone district. This amendment is very limited in terms of applicabili- ty. ( Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Peters, no; Pendleton, yes; Mayor stirling, yes. Motion carried. councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 1991, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Ms. Margerum told council the SPA submission is broken down into separate elements being proposed by the various non-profits. The Music Associates of Aspen are requesting an expansion of the existing tent to provide a larger backstage area. Ms. Margerum pointed out the master plan allowed for an expansion of the tent itself; however, the applicants are not asking for that expansio~ at this time. The M.A.A. will reconfigure the seating inside the tent. The M.A.A. is also proposing a new performance rehearsal hall of about 11,000 square feet. This rehearsal facility is mostly underground and surrounded by a berm. The uses include rehearsals, pUblic facilities and performances. The parking lo~ will be reorganized to accommodate more spaces, 274 up from 258. This will also be improved to enhance the pedestrian experience through the parking lot and to accommodate a bus drop off area. The gift shop will be expanded by 100 square feet. The Aspen Institute lodge and restaurant is proposing a total of 50 new lodge units of 42,410 square feet. The 3 existing chale-; buildings will accommodate a portion of these new lodge rooms. They will not be renovated but will be demolished and rebuilt with 3 '(: II ( /"""1, ~. Reqular Meetinq Aspen city council Mav 13. 1991 Ms. Margerum told Council the code amendment allows for discretion on Council's part to exempt an essential public facility from the growth management competition, which is already allowed in the co~e as well as from some or all of the mitigation requirements. This is done on a case by case basis. Kaufman pointed out the ability to vary uses presently exists under an SPA. The proposed change is the language in design standards of section 7-104 (c) (4). Collins asked about the language on page 5, "existinq non-profit entities may be exempt from GMQS" and questioned the wording as selective or prejudicial. Collins asked if the existing non-profits may be grandfathered. Ms. Margerum agreed with striking the word "existing". Connie Harvey said stating development for a non- profit entity can be exempt from GMQS and mitigation requirements could be dangerous. Ms. Harvey said there should be restrictions. people may create non-profit organizations to get around this. Mayor Stirling said this is a good warning; this is at the discretion of Council after a public hearing. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series cf 1991, as amended to delete the word "such" section 5 paragraph 3, last sentence and replace with "some or all"; under Section 2 conditional uses, bringing across the same conditional uses as in the WP zone to the OS zone; deleting "existing" in non-profit entities; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Peters said he feels section 1 should be deleted; The academic zone with an SPA overlay is very narrowly defined. This is redundant as the same effect is accomplished in the SPA overlay. Uses can be varied, which is an argument not to include section 1 in the ordinance. Councilman Peters asked if the SPA should be abdicated, would the underlying zone survive. Councilman Peters said there is no need for this section, and there is in fact a danger in including it. Councilman Peters moved to delete Section 1 from Ordinance #13, Series of 1991; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Kaufman said lending institutions need redundancy. Kaufman said the Institute has talked to banks about this and they are uncomfor- table lending money where land is zoned SPA and uses are non- conforming. Ms. Margerum said it is up to Council not to allow uses that will not fit in. Ms. Margerum said trying to specify the uses may be more of a problem. The uses being proposed for the Meadows are very close to those already allowed in the academic zone district. Harvey told Council SPA is not something that is understood throughout the country. The issue is that if the uses are allowed in the underlying zone district, that's a great comfort to a lending institution. Mayor stirling said he is concerned 12 ,"""" !.....'\ ( continued Meetinq Aspen City council May 20. 1991 deep or 1 acre by 5 feet deep. Councilman Tuite said he cannot envision using the Meadows for a runoff pond, especially what the city and neighborhood have been through the last couple of years. Councilwoman Pendleton asked if it is possible to locate this in the parking lot. Mayor Stirling said there would be too much disturbance in putting this 5 acre feet underground. Mayor stirling moved that council not consider this anywhere on the Meadows property; seconded by Councilman Gassman. councilman Peters asked about creating an easement where the consortium proposed detention pond will be. Zabbia said the problem with this pond is that the runoff will have to be pipej from Gillespie street through the race track to this pond. Herb Klein asked if there could be a half acre site that is 10 feet deep. Klein said this pond should not be in the race track. Klei:1 said if there is an opportunity for the city to have a facility, it; should be taken. This might be located in a depressed parking 10-;; or under the parking lot. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters. carried. ( Ms. ~arger~m told Council the wildlife preservation zone would rema~n as ~s. The recommendation from P & Z specifically stated paved walkways, fencing and lighting to be conditional uses in that zone district because this district is meant to be much more natural. Ms. Margerum requested Council delete (c) (3) under conditional uses. Motion Ms. Margerum reminded Council at the last meeting they asked for alternative which would broaden the discretion of Councilor: allowing exemptions for both mitigation and competition for non- profits. Ms. Margerum told Council staff intentionally left the language limiting so it would not apply to all non-profits in the city. The alternative for Council is to remove the academic zone district from the language. Mayor stirling said the language is "development associated with non-profit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the GMQS and from some or all mitigation requirements. . ." Charles Collins said in section 4 there is a suggested change adding design standards in Section 7-1004(C) streets and relate~ improvements. Collins said the variations listed in the SPA are. now bringing in design standards from the subdivision chapter. Collins said it is an exclusionary rule to take design standards and move them into this amendment. Article 7 has 6 or 8 divisions. Collins said he does not feel it is appropriate to move review standards from one division to another. Collins quoted from the 4 ~ '-". MEMORANDUM City c~...,"!u ~Ncl By OrdinaDCe I\...ot\ I~ ....th~:t V ,11_ To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C1-1C- Date: June 6, 1992 Re: Aspen Institute Amendment to a Subdivision Development Order (Lot Split and Plat Amendment Having reviewed the above referenced application, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. This may be an opportune time to reexamine the storm runoff detention pond easement issue. A portion of this site was planned for a detention pond and iderttifiec in a legally adopted plan, the "Urban Runoff Management Plan." The community wil someday be required to comply with the Clean Water Act, and this site is important in being able to meet compliance. We are aware that the community is concerned about the possible appearances of a detention pond, and we suggest all of the public review ane aesthetic considerations desired be prescribed as conditions of approval and that an easement be as large as possible in order to provide the greatest design creativity ane flexibility. 2. A plat amendment must be filed as provided for in Section 24-7-1004 D of the municipal code. 3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights- of-way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M92.172 / ,,-., .~ IJt~ " MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Diane Moore, city Planning ~ Director@,! THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: May 26, 1992 RE: Aspen Institute Subdivision Amendment for Lot 1, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, First Reading of Ordinance ~, Series 1992 SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute (Applicant) proposes to divide i-::s approximately 14 acre parcel (Lot 1, Aspen Meadows Subdivision) into two parcels for tax purposes. One of lots would be academic in nature containing Paepcke AUditorium, Boetcher Hall, the Academic Facility, and Anderson Park. The other lot would include the commercial operations of the 7 lodge buildings, restauran~, parking/tennis facility, health club, and the race track open space. This application is a one-step subdivision amendment before ci-::y Council. The Planning Office recommends approval of first reading of this item with conditions. Staff also recommends that Council withhold discussion of this item until second reading so that t'1e Applicant may provide additional information to staff regarding tax implications and Growth Management Exemption status of the new lots. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision was created as part of the Aspen Meadows Final SPA and Subdivision reviews conducted by City Council from January 1991 through June 10, 1991. BACKGROUND: This parcel was transferred from Savanah Ltd. PartnerShip to the Aspen Institute after the Final Subdivision Plats were recorded in January of 1992. The Institute has since been advised that they might lose tax exemption status for their entire property because of the commercial lodge/restaura~t operations on the western portion of Lot 1. Aspen Institu-::e representative Gideon Kaufman approached the Planning Office t;o determine an appropriate process by which Lot 1 could be dividad into two legal parcels. See application letter and letter from t~1e Institute's tax consultant William Schmalzl, Exhibit "A". In consultation with the City Attorney, Planning staff determinad 1 r"', ,....., " that the request should be considered by the City Council in a o~e step review pursuant to section 24-7-1006 B. See Exhibit "B" for the Code text and staff discussion. CURRENT ISSUES: During the Aspen Meadows Final SPA and Subdivision reviews, the Aspen Institute and Music Associates of Aspen received exemption from Growth Management competition and mitigation of their development impacts because of their status as "essential public facilities". The proposed division of Lot 1 into two parcels appears to have no impact on the GMQS exemption status on the surface. However, whether or not this opens the door for other users to occupy the Institute property is a concern of staff a~d was discussed in a general manner during the approval hearings. Further staff discussion is in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" contai~s the minutes of several Council meetings where these issues were considered. with the adoption of Ordinance 13, 1991, Council amended the GMQS Exemption section in the Municipal Code to allow Council's determination that "upon application that development associated with a non-profit entity qualifies as an essential pUblic facili~y and may exempt such development from the GMQS and from some or all such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate a~d warranted. " This GMQS Exemption was then granted to the Aspen Institute's increase in lodge rooms, expansion of the health clu~, parking garage and restaurant renovation. No expansions to t~e academic buildings of the campus resulted from the Meadows Final SPA Plan. Staff believes that if another non-profit or for-profit entity ever purchases a portion of the Institute (or MAA) properties, the city council should review the situation to determine if the previous GMQS Exemptions can be applied. If the exemption is not applicable, the new owner would be required to mitigate as if it were newly developing the property. A question arises with t~e current proposal to revise Lot 1 and turn the commercial lodge operations over to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Aspen Institute. At what point does this new entity become non-exem?t from GMQS? Staff and the applicant need to discuss this aspect of the proposal and will be adding a condition of approval to t_^1e subdivision approval ordinance. Staff does not believe that perpetually linking the two new lo~s is a significant issue as long as any future owners qualify under GMQS requirements as discussed above. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: City property taxes may be exempt for certain non-profit groups who receive official exemption through the Colorado Division of Property Taxation. The Pitkin County Tax Assessor's Office could not find record of this sort of exemption for the Institute's Meadows property. If this exemption were granted for the future academic portion of the Institute land, t~e 2 . "~/' ~ty Council ""'ih~t .l,..) ~oved , It _ By Ordinance Subdivision Amendment per Section 24-7-1006 B. Aspen Institute, Lot 1 Aspen Meadows Subdivision .,-.." B. other Amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by City Council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat. Response: The division of Lot 1 into two lots is proposed by the Institute to protect tax-exempt status for that portion of their property devoted to academic purposes (Lot 1A). The parcel indicated as reconfigured Lot 1 will contain the for-profit lodge buildings and restaurant and will be operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Aspen Institute. A letter from the Institute's tax consultant William Schmalzl (Exhibit "A") explains the effec1:s of' the lodge income on the Institutes tax-exempt status. As Institute representative Gideon Kaufman was out of town when this information arrived, staff would like to discuss this letter wi1:h Gideon prior to second reading. Planning staff was concerned early on that the division of the lots may establish a channel for selling off the lots for further development. However, in review of the SPA regulations controlling the Meadows lots, it is clear that any contemplated development must be processed according to the SPA Amendment processes with1n the Land Use Code. Any future Plat or Subdivision Agreement amendments would have to be processed through the Planning Office. A concern raised by the City Manager is that the Institute (and MAA) received exemption as essential public facilities for Growth Management competition process and mitigation of development impacts. Planning staff has reviewed minutes from the approval hearings. However, it was clearly discussed on May 13 and May 20, 1991 that non-profit entities in the Academic zone other than those existing at the time of the approvals were eligible (at Council s discretion) for GMQS exemptions. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for Council minutes of April 29, May 13, May 20, and May 28, 1992. ~, ,1""'\ ( '. Reqular Meetinq ASPen city Council Mav 26. 1992 condominiumize the lower floor and have any businesses that buy space pay the housing office back. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Pendleton, yes; RiChards, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ~~ - C\l\''^l'~' ~~~ ORDINANCE #40. SERIES OF 1992 - -~_~i':: _. _.::.. }...",..ullill\r' Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 1992; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters., Motion carried. ORDINANCE #4 0 (Series of 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL CREATING TWO LOTS FROM LOT 1 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION (NE 1/4 SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10- SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST) was read by the city clerk Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council there are some issues to be clarified between first and second reading. / Councilman Peters said he disagrees with the complete premise of this application and it runs counter to the master plan process and the SPA. This is a watershed issue, whether the city will help the Institute circumvent non-profit laws when everything Council did was predicated was to allow the Institute to exist as a non-profit cultural institution. Mayor Bennett said his understanding of non-prdfit laws is that non-prOfit groups are told to split off their commercial opera- tions. Councilman Peters said during the process it was found that commercial uses were barely acceptable if they aided the non-profit use. Councilman Peters said there were major concessions to facilitate the activities of the Institute in Aspen. Kaufman told Council there is nothing in this application that goes contrary to the concept put forward in the earlier process to allow the Institute to upgrade its facilities. Kaufman said the Institute is willing to stipulate that no sale of one portion or one lot can take place without the either. It is only for tax purposes there will be two separate lots. Mayor Bennett said if by second reading there is not a firm statement from staff that there is no chance of future people in charge of the Institute selling it off, he will not support this. If there is that guarantee, this is a bOOkkeeping issue. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 1992, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. 19 ~ ( Reqular Meetinq Aspen City council May 26, 1992 Roll call vote; councilmembers Richards, Peters, no, Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. no; Pendleton, yes; Motion carried. WEST HOPKINS FUNDING Jim curtis, housing authority, told Council they have received a conditional loan commitment for the property. Council needs to set the preliminary sales prices in order to complete the construction loan and to allocate the supplemental budget. curtis said the authority will set final sales prices prior to the lottery this fall. curtis told Council the budget is about $100,000 lower than previously seen. A variation on alternate A is taking the two lowest one bedroom unit, $35,000 and shifting them to $55,000. This would create a subsidy for the project of ,$347,000 versus $425,000 seen earlier. Councilman Peters said he would like to raise the one bedroom to that in alternate B. ( Councilman Reno asked about the budget for proj ect management. Curtis said this is budgeting additional services with Bill Van Nuys. Councilman Reno said the position of Dave Tolen was supposed to be project development; this may be duplicating services. curtis said Tolen's time over the next 4 months will be consumed with other projects. The housing authority feels they need additional services from the architect and builder. curtis asked if this will deal with the request to waive park impact fees. councilwoman Richards said ,council has decided to have a separate discussion on this, based on an earlier project. Councilman Peters moved to approve supplemental West funding of $267,000; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. favor, motion carried. Hopkins All in Councilman Peters moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting for another 15 minutes; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. HOUSING AUTHORITY BUDGETS Dallas Everhart, finance director, reminded Council the housing authority is quasi-independent organization; however, their budget has to be approved by Council and the Commissioners. This is a housing authority resolution approving funds for west Hopkins. Councilman Peters moved to approve Housing Authority Resolution 92- 4; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 20 1"""'\, 1"""'\ ~ ~. LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN GIDEON L KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 816t! TELEPHONE AREA CODe 303 9:< 5-8166 TELEFAX 9;; 5-1090 April 16, 1992 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Aspen Institute HAND-DELIVERED Dear Kim: Pursuant to our phone calls and meetings, please consider this letter an application on behalf of The Aspen Institute to amend the Subdivision Development Order for the purpose of dividing Lot 1, Meadows Subdivision, into Lot 1 and Lot lA, as shown on the attached map. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $1,002.00 for the Planning and Engineering Office fees, together with an Authorization to Submit Land Use Application signed by David McLaughlin. As we discussed, I believe the subdivision is appropriate under ~7-1006.B, since the amendment is consistent with the approval granted in the SPA. It is not the intent of the division of Lot 1 into two lots to modify or change the approval granted in the SPA. The division is being requested in order to preserve the tax-exenpt status of the academic portion of The Aspen Institute property. Without separating the lodging portion of the lot from the academic portion, the entire property could be taxed. This would result in a financial burden for The Aspen Institute. The Aspen Institute is willing to stipulate that Lot 1 and Lot 1A could not be separately conveyed. Therefore, there is no real change to the approval as granted. We are merely preserving the previous tax-exempt status of the property which the Institute owned prior to the conveyance of the land from Savanah. I look forward to having this matter placed on the next available City council agenda. Thank you for your help and consideration. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By (k~ dr~n Kaufman GK/bw Enclosures cc: David McLaughlin ( ~ ~. ~, Reqular Meetinq Aspen City Council May 28, 1991 language in the agreement between the applicant and the city regarding the purchase of the conservation land which binds the applicant to record the final plat in order to receive money for the land. Ms. Margerum said this is probably enough incentive for the applicant to get the final plat recorded. Council agreed. section 6 are findings under the growth management quota system. New language added is "no GMQS residential scoring and considered reflected the waiver of the 6 month minimum lease requirement as set forth in the applicable regulations". Ms. Margerum said if Council wants to waive the 6 month minimum lease requirement, which is allowed in SPA, that Council make a finding when the project was scored under residential GMQS, they were aware of the 6 month minimum lease waiver. councilman Peters said he would agree with this if it is for the benefit of the Institute and other non- profits. Ms. Margerum said this has been an element of the master plan and conceptual SPA throughout the process. Mayor stirling moved to accept this finding; seconded by Council- woman Pendleton. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling said section 7 is where Council is going to discuss the 6 residential allocations for 1990 and the 8 residential allocations for the future. Mayor Stirling asked if there is agreement for the 6 allocations in 1990 and for making a future allocation of the 8 units. council agreed. section 8 is findings regarding the essential public facilities, the new tennis courts, rehearsal facility, renovated lodge and administration building. George Vicenzi said the discussion last week of a year round rehearsal performance hall with no limitation is contrary to the initial public hearings on the master plan. Vicenzi said it is reasonable to limit the use of the performance center; this is an SPA process, it is not a commercial zone and special conditions can be placed on approval. Vicenzi said this is the largest commercial operation being expanded in the Meadows area. The commercial operation is right in the middle of a residential area. Vicenzi said the M.A.A. committed to plowing the parking lot if there are going to be winter performances, and this should be part of the agreement. vicenzi said the residents are also concerned about conference use of the property. There should be some limitation put on the use of the rehearsal facility. Connie Harvey asked what is to keep institutions from selling OLt and moving. Ms. Harvey said the city has given a lot in conces- sions to try and keep the organizations. Kaufman told Council there will be rights of first refusal among the other non-profit organizations if one wishes to sell. There would also be amenc- ments to the SPA if uses are changed. Councilman Peters said it is 15 .,W ,~ ,~ / ~. ( Reaular Meetina Aspen City Council May 28. 1991 late in the process to limit year-round use. Councilman Pete~s pointed out when the rehearsal facility was first proposed, it was proposed as a non-insulated summer-only facility. Councilman Peters said he would like to see more definition about how the facility will be used for the benefit of the community. Mayor stirling moved to add a condition to #2, "As needed, the M.A. A., would be required to plow the parking lot to help insure the parking lot does not spillover onto the neighborhood streets"; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. section 9 is a series of GMQS exemptions and specifying what is being granted. Harvey said this does not reference the reconfigu- ration of the seating in the music tent to add additional 400 seats. Ms. Margerum said this not new square footage. Counc11 requested this say "backstage" tent expansion. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and continue p.m.; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, exception of Councilmembers Gassman. Motion carried. to 10:30 with the Harvey said in Section 10 the applicants would like to see as one of the findings that it is appropriate to apply zoning to the property because there is no current zoning. Ms. Margerum said she does not feel this is necessary or appropriate. No comments on section #11. Charles Collins brought up variations from subdivi- sion. The text amendments pertain to design standards and not to subdivision approval requirements. Caswall said the reason for the addition of the word subdivision, the SPA allows variations in uses and the 6 month minimum deed restriction is in the sUbdivision section of the code. This is put in to clarify there is variation being granted in the subdivision condition. Harvey said there has been concern that the four single family units blend into the west end and that there not be a wall of buildings. The curving nature of the road makes the lots vary 50 they are not on a straight grid pattern. The sideyard setbacks have been varied to create a see through. HPC was concerned that a building wall not be created. Harvey said they do not want to bring the buildings closer to the road. Harvey noted that 25 feet of setback is about adequate for turning ratio. Ms. Margerum said the reason they are sited where they are is to have less intrusion on the race track area. Mayor Stirling said the curvature of t~e road is sufficient to give the lots variation. Joe Wells brought up the two RMF parcels and the applicants tried to minimize the boundaries of the lots so that as much remains in academic as possible. The property line will be very close to the back of the covered parking structures and may require a 15 foct setback. Wells requested a variation to have the property line 16 r-., r-", MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Diane Moore From: Kim Johnson Postmark: Mar 17,92 1:47 PM Status: Certified Previously read Subject: Insitute Lot division Message: I met with Gideon yesterday and we both agree that the most painless way to handle this for the Insitute is to have Planning Director approve this as an insubstantial plat amendment based on the technical problems (tax consequences) not anticipated during original approval. We don't really agree wi Amy's thought that the Institute's subdivision was predicated on "non-profit" use, but as "essential Community facility" (a difference in our mind). Anyway, they'd agree to all restrictions governing the Final SPA as part of this amendment. Gideon needs a final call so he can begin - do you concur? -------========x========------- 1/ 1_~ C~ 'p~fJJ;K};4 f-,11>>1/ -1" . 0 JZ , ------" .., ~ .----- . .' LAW OFFICES flI2 ,- GIDEON L KAUFMAN GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81611 .TELEP.HONE - -"-'-AR~EA CODE 303 9~ 5-8166 TELEFAX 9:< 5-1090 February 21, 1992 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Diane Moore, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Institute Request Dear Diane: Pursuant to our phone conversations, I write this letter to memorialize the request of The Aspen Institute concerning its des~re to create two (2) separate parcels on the Institute property at the Meadows. As you know, Lot 1, Meadows Subdivision, was created during the SPA process. This lot encompassed the existing Aspen Institute property, as well as the newly acquired Savanah property. Discussions with the Institute's tax attorneys disclosed a concern that one lot creates for The Aspen Institute's tax-exempt status. If The Aspen Institute owns all of the property in one name and in one parcel, the tax-exempt status of the whole property could be in jeopardy. Therefore, the tax advisors believe that it would be helpful to create two ownership entitites and two (2) lots, Lot 1 and Lot 1A. One lot would encompass the academic portions, and the other lot would involve those facilities which might affect the tax-exempt status of the property. We are not seeking any other modifications to the SPA Agreement, or to the restrictions which apply to the property. I believe that David McLaughlin has discussed this matter with Amy, and I look forward to you discussing this matter with the rest of the staff. Hopefully, our request can be accomplished as expeditiously as possible so that The Aspen Institute's tax-exempt status is not at risk. Again, I thank you for your help in this matter, and look forward to discussing it with you further. Very truly yours, GK/bw cc: David McLaughlin Mona Chamberlain LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., :yprOfe~vral Corporation Gideln Kaufman