HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Rubey Park SPA.1983
/:l-fJ--
1
1
RUBEY
PARK
VISITOR'S
CENTER
]
'1
]
APPLICANTS
THE HODGE COMPANIES
SAUSALlTO, CALIFORNIA
a THE CITY OF ASPEN
I
,
]
LTD.
ARCHITECT
BENEDICT, SUTHERLAND, DUESTERBERG,
ASPEN, COLORADO
J
J
ENERGY CONSULTANT
BECKETT, HARMON, CARRIER AND DAY
DENVER, COLORADO
1
,/
J
I
RUBEV PARK TRANSIT / VISITOR CENTER
I
SPA APPLICATION CONTENTS
Index To Drawings
Narrative Outline
f
subject
Location / Zoning
Circulation
Existing Conditions
Site Plan
sheet
Upper Level Floor Plan
Lower Level Floor Plan
Elevations
Elevations
Cross-sections
1,
2.
3,
4,
5.
6.
7,
8,
9.
SYNOPSIS
OWNERSHIP
ZONING
I
I
THE PRECISE PLAN
Design considerations
Water supply and fire protection
Sewage disposal
Storm drainage
Trash & utility access areas
A. SITE
1,
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7,
I.
I
I
Traffic impacts
Site circulation
a. Vehicular
b. Pedestrian
f
8. Parking
9. Landscaping
I
THE BUILDING
1. Design considerations
2. Elevations (HPC approval)
3. Interior floor plans
a. Garden level
b. Durant street level
c. Mezzanine
B.
I
I
4~ Permitted and conditional uses
a. Permitted uses
h. Conditional uses
c. Area -and bulk requirements
I
t
EXEMPTION FROM GMP
II.
A. uACCESSORY USE'
EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC SPACE
SUMMATION (OBSERVATIONS)
B.
III.
I
f
1
1
ZONING
The Rubey Park parcel is currently zoned uP" park with transportation and
drainage tro) overlays. All ofthe "public usell functions described in this proposal
are allowable under the existinJ{ desianation. Current zoning does not allow some
ufthe potential commercial uses which would be included in the center.
RUBEY PARK TRANSIT / VISITOR CENTER
SPA APPLICATION
,
is a formal rei
under section 24-7.2 of the Municipal
SYNOPSIS
The following
I
Directly adjacent zoning consists of Lodge 1 (Ll), Lodge 2 fU', and Commercial
Lodge (eL) to the south and southwest; commercial core (ee) to the north and east,
and (P) park with lID)
Ian"
The property under consideration for SPA designation consists of Lots K, .L,M,. N.
0, P, Q, Rand 5,
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Block 90, original Aspen townsite, City of Aspen,
-
Colorado containing approximately 27,080 square feet (.622 aj
J
overlays to the west
meeting on Mav 10. 1982, City Council
Council initiative to designate
At their regular
motion to sponsor a
"SPA"
known as Rubey Park. An ~dditional 14,770 square feet of land consisting of
portions of the extensions of the public rights-of-way of Mill and Galena Street
would be withdrawn from general vehicular use and added to the 9 platted lots.
county of Pitkin,
res) and commonly
I
read and approved a
the Rubey Park Parcel
OWNERSHIP
The City of Aspen purchased Rubey Park in the fall of1970. Copies ofthe abstract-
of title are included with this presentattion.
~?'
Finally, approximately 418.5' of 18.74' wide public alley to the north and 418.5 of
9.33' wide sidewalk to the south would be included in the overall development
area ~""''''''''n~~~~ total land area to approximately
53,59l
effected
to bring the
11.23ACj
A.u...._......~u.......ut plan
]
t
is within the commercial core of downtown Aspen directly between
and the central
The parcel
the lodging district
1970 established a special municipal election on August 25, 1970
Resolution 18
to decide:
UThe question of issuing general
shopping and business districts.
Utilities and municipal services sufficient to. accomplish the project are cur-
rently available atthe property. There are no significant improvements existing on
the parcel other than a' 384 square foot frame buildina used as a bus stop and
t
I
Aspen} for municipal purposes
dispatch facility for the Aspen and.Pitkin County bus systems.
to 168. The "notice of bond
approved by. a vote of 270
The bonds were
contained the following assurance:
The buildingproposedforthissite totals 15)730J~1
I
sale'
yare feet ofwhich5,:810 s9uare
~All of the ta}(able propei within the City of Aspen is subject to a Ie' ~f a
general ad valorem taxforthe payment of principal and interest on said bonds.
feet is acceSSOJ
allocation competition andan850 square foot 2 bedroom employee housing unit.
The remaining 9,070 square feet constitute the p~blic areas oj ViSttor
center.
growth management
commercial space approved under the 1982
J
were First National Bank of
the high bidder and was awarded the bonds under resolution 20-
auctioned on the 28th of September 1970.
The bonds
Denver was
1970.
'Yj't.
Adoption of the precise plan as outlined herein and on the accompanying
plans sheets 1-9.
items:
With this application, we respectively request approval of two
1,
I
Exemption of. the .9,070 square
management quota-system under sec.
2.
J
the
in writing
which bore
the actual bonds
issued
Ordinance 24-1970
condition:
of space . from the growth
24-11.2e (exemptions) of the munici~
pal code as amended by ord.53 of 1982 and 24-3.7a (2) (accessory use) of the
municipal
public
code of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
feet
1
I
b) H,esolution #12 dealt with the purchase of
"municipal PU17Joses. "
7. Ordinance 18 was approved settingth~p'ecial electionforthe Rubey Park G.
O. bonds for August 25, 1970 . . . 6 days hi sales tax special
election on SeDtembeJ 1870.
~~That provision has been madefor the levy and collection of an annual tax on all
the taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the interest on, and principal
oj; this bond when the same become due -::
I
I
lots of Rubey Park for
the 9
that
revenues as
I
1
8. Both issues were approved by the electorate but the G. O.bonds for Rubey
Park were sold and the land purchased well before the 6th penny sales tax for
"open space" purchases went into effect the foHowing year.
ulated;
The repeated references to a property tax leVy to repay the" general obligation"
bonds for Rubey Park is not without purpose. Some members of the community
sincerely believe that Rubey Park was purchased as "open sEace". The Public
record contradicts this notion.
Given the proximity of the elections and the similarity of the issues, it is easy t.o
see how one could mistakenly assume that an of the land purchase issues
discussed or resolved during 1970 related to open space. Unfortunately for this
position, the record reflects otherwise.
I
The following obselVations provide some clues to the misunderstanding. 1970
ear for Aspen leRislativelr These chronological events, germane
are recorded in the public record.
I
The City owns the propeny free and clear in fee simole Nothing in it's method of
purchase or payment suggests or convenants any required restriction on it's future
Use. issue concerninR the Rubey Park property.develoD-
issue is thoroughly addressed in this SPA
!he only legitimate legal
ment proposal is one of zoning. That
application.
1. Early in the year (February), discussions of a Rubey Park purchase were held;
the purpose being to avoid high density development like the North ofNen and
Aspen Square buildings which had recently been completed.
2. The City was developing its present charter, a bond election to provide
money for land could not be held until after the home rule final
I
,
purchase
-
election.
I
3. But the option holders of the Rubey land wanted to build that summer of
1970.
4. Fearful of the possible results, a group of concerned citizens pooled enough
private capital to purchase the option until an election could be held and bonds
issued for purchaSe of the land and repayment of the private option purchase
donations.
5. The home rule charter was approved by the voters in the spring of the year
laying the groundwork for new legislation including a 6th penny sales tax to be
used in part for" open space" purchases. Ordinance 16-1970 defined the new tax
and it's purpose. Scheduling an election for September 1, 1970, if approved the
1
1
tax would go into effect January 1, 1971.
6. During the summer thep & Z passed two
to
Council concerning land purchases.
a) Resolution #11 dealt with the purchase of 112 acres at the entrance to
Aspen (which is now our present golf course) for aopen space purposes..
simultaneous resolutions
I
1
J
By keeping the building to the western end of the site and lall(.iS~aping the
center parking isla'nds, a potential canyon effect alan#( Galena Street has
been eliminated. In addition,. the open space along Wagner Park has been
enhanced with the extension of the Mill Street Mall
THE PRECISE PLAN
A. SITE
Geographic site parameters of the precise plan are addressed on the
architects' plans sheets 1-9. Approximate square footages of the total~
land area are contained in the synopsis. Adjustments to current land use are as
follows:
I.
1
i
l
The extending of the two Malls now allows for a logical connection from
the downtown to the lodging district and the base of As pen Mountain. All site
IIiaterialswilI _
1
be chosen to match the existing malls.
2.e Water Supply and Fire Protection
Water will be provided by a 2"
located in South Mill Street
% OF DEVEL,
AREA
PROPOSED
SQ. FT.
%OF
DEVEL.AREA
EXISTING
SQ. FT.
LAND USE
I
service line connecting to the existing 6" line
The project will require an 80 gpm flow. The
water pressure of the main IiIie is 90 psi.
main line are more
Both the pressure and the size of the
18%
9,497
,7%
384
Bldg, footprint
Landscape or
l
I
the anticipated demand.
The staging arcade and Mill Street Mall extension have been. designed to
allow passage of fll'e trucks and emergency vehicles. The actual riWlts-of-
way will still exist in the public domain although landsca~ed and
than adequate for
58%
24%
31,333*
13,190*
37%
63%
19,799
33,837
open space
Asphall
t
improved.
3.. Sewage Disposal
The project will connect to the existing 8" sewer line in South MiIlStreet.
The Aspen Sanitation District has indicated that. the anticipated flow of 80
improvements line or
to the existing
gpm can be accommodated with no
sanitation plant.
100%
* It should be noted that the project will nearly double the existini
and open space and reduce asphalt paving by approximately 20,000 square feet.
These representations were first made during the GMP competition and the
allocation for 5810 square feet-of commercial space within the structure was
made subject to them.
54,020
100%
54,020
TOTAL
l
1
4. Storm Drainage
Two catch basins will be provided at the north end of the bus loop, and will
pick up the eastern half of the site drainage. These catch basins will tie to the
existing Galena Street storm drainage line.
1.
Two elements were key in determining the building location:
1) Establishingthe most efficient circulation pattern forthe buses, visitor
parking, limos and other related transit activities.
2) all<l
Design Considerations
I
t
I
Thewesterh portion of the site will be picked up by roof or area drains and
will connect to the existing Mill Street storm drain, An additional catch basin
will also be provided at the end of the Mill Street Mall extension.
perceived bulk
least
land,
The resulting cresign has a~hieved both of these 'goals.
Creating the greatest feeling of o~en space
and density with the available
1
Since this project will effect a reduction of existin.
an accompanying reduction in runoff.
will utilize the interior loop (which
users a much larger and more
During the winter months, ski buses
has the capacity. for 8 buses)
J
50%, it follows that there should be
giving bus
pleasant waiting area. Bus shelters are designed to provide riders protection
from the elements, yet allow views to the mountain and the warmth of the
sun during clear days.
J
J
maintenance facility at the airport wU:
Rubey Park, which has
The development of the new bus
eliminate winter time mid-day bus parking at
been perceived as a problem in the past.
The proposed site design greatly reduces the CUITent bus impact on
Durant Avenue by relocating staging to the interior lot. The improved bus
circulation greatly reduces pedestrian/bus conflicts. Site landscaping,
bus shelters andatlractive signage will also improve the perceived
5.
There will be a trash and utility area created adjacent to the alley (staging
arcade) as indicated on the Floor Plans. An access drive for trash and seIVice
vehicles will be maintai~ed in the staging arcade and on the Mill Street MalI.
This will allow for efficient trash removal for the project and provide access
for trash removal from the existing buildings.
Trash and Utility Access Areas
}.
I
1
utility panels and
The trash area will be enclosed and visually screened. All
meters will be enclosed and all utilities Win be underground.
1
b. Pedestrian
By extending the Galena Street and Mill Street Malls, pedestrians will be
able to walk, unimpeded by auto traffic, from the core of Aspen to Durant
Stre~t and the Transit. Center. Mailing of the existing alley and the
toa seasonal "staging arcade" will enhance
and eliminate the constantly hazardous and
quality of Aspen's public transportation alternatives.
"ro reduce pedestrian/service vehicle conflict, service vehicles will be re-
stricted from the alley during high pedestrian use periods. The trash and
(hi (41
J
subsequent conversion
pedestrian circulation
meet the requirements set forth in 24-3.7
6. Traffic Impacts
The main .concept ofilie Transit/Visitor Center is to integrate heretofore
widely separated Visitor/Resort Service activities, recreation, entertainM
ment and cultural options under one centralized roof together with publici
utility areas shall
I
frustrating pedestrian/vehicular cross traffic at the existing bus entran-
ces to Rubey Park.
t
In the process of maIling. an eyesore
experience while still allowing trash removal]
access. 0- is within .easy walking distance of the lodge district,
ifts and the proposed. Dean Street and midtown
will be replaced by a pleasant
loading and emergency
private mass transportation alternatives. One of the major perceived
benefits aftbis concept is that private auto trips in the central core should be
reduced.
The projec~
Mountain
Aspen
trails.
to newcomers
:... dg for our Visitor Center (which
prJsent), the ChaI.lber, MAAlBallet, .Ski companies, Raft
congestion is due
We sense
driving
I
8.
It remembered that
developing both our highly successful <<free'
valley bus system during the 70'5 was auto disincentive. Rubey Park evolved
as a natural staging area for both of these systems as they develOped. Today's
for a Transit/Visitor Center is but one more logical step toward
in pursuit of the
the philosophical impetus for originally
transit system and the down
long
proposal
enhancement of the public transportation alternative
Pllrking
should be
7. Site Circulation
a. Vehicular
Interior bus circulation routes win eliminate the existing inefficient lot
arrangement which currently requires very hazardous winter time
1
I
I
range auto disincentive goal
"backing" of buses during skier staging operations. All vehicle move-
ments will be of a pull.through nature with bus trips expected to remain
basically unchanged for the moment.
I
I
B. THE BUILDING
L Design Considerations
Our first priority has been to keep the structure in scale and in character with
the immediately adjacent commercial core A
maximum FAR of 1.5:1
district.
i
I
Auto disincentive, by definition, means encouraging the resident and visitor
alike to make a conscious decision to leave the car (and parking problems) at
home. Providing improved desirable public transit alternatives is one of the
keys to developing the disincentive. Lack of public response to the demand
and lodging zone districts.
was adopted in keeping with the adjacent CC zone
for" convenient" auto parking is another. To encourage long-term parking at
Rubey Park as a first priority runs contrary to the entire concept and stated
goals of auto disincentive.
I
The structure has been stepped down into the landscape in a series of 5
discreet levels which vary the exterior height from 1 to 1 1/2 to 2 stories on the
north elevation. At least half of the structure in a
I
is a half level below grade
site size constraints precluded provision of long-term
indicated that subgrade
effective.
As a lesser priority,
parking at grade. Preliminary
parking provision in the area allowed would not be cost
investigation also
J
garden format. At it's highest point, the building does not exceed the heights
of any of the adjacent structures. There is no interference with any official
view plane.
2. Elevations (HPC Approval)
Architecturally, the building has been designed to complement the flavor
and character of the commercial core as closely as possible. The emphasis
has been on developing a thoroughly modern state-of-the-art structure
which still reflects the community's rich Victorian heritage. This has been
fenestration
accomplished through the building's lines and proportions,
{window and column details) and careful material selection.
It is important to note that the parking requirement by code for the C~land
c-c zones is zero (0). Also, parking for employee housing is typically waived
as per Sec. 24-4.1Ic).
Under these circumstances, no long-term parking is being incorporated into
the Rubey PMk plan: 6-16 short-term spacesldepending on the season) will
be available to allow. visitors easy. access to the center for information,
tickets, ~..~ ..... '.... ~ ....'~' be
along D
by P &. Z and council
l
l
incorporated in the plan
....~.....' ,.........., _r.l....n:-upand drop-offzonewil
J
The net effect has been to create a light and open structure of very low profile
which minimizes the perception of bulk and density while maximizing open
space and ease of pedestrian/vehicular circulation. On February 8, 1983,
the project
developer/investors
at the Rio Grande
transit center by a direct
's from potential
parking garage
to the
The City is cUITently solicitating R.F.P.
to construct a 400-space
wi.
long-term
be connected
property. This garage
shuttle service.
it's final "enthu-
1983 edition
Aspen's historic preservation committee gave
siastic and unanimousJ/
of the Aspen.Times.
f
3. Interior Floor Plans
a. Garden (lower) Level
Standing on Durant Street at the corner of Mi one notices a drop in
elevation of 4-6' approaching the alley on the north boundary of the
property. The architect has taken advantage of this natural slope to both
submerge a portion of the garden level below grade at Durant, reducing
bulk, and to provide at-grade access at the north and west elevations from
approval according to the February 10,
9.
To enhance the feeling of open space, the building will be buffered by land-
scaped berms in the traffic islands and large caliper trees will be used on
11
Landscaping
both the islands and around the building. Abundant perennial plantings wi
provide seasonal variation to the landscape. Iffeasible, irrigation water wi
be .irttroduced for stream and waterfall effects.
I
The north building wan is ideally. suited for climbing
further buffer the building and enhance the alley landscaping. Where
feasible, trees and shrubs existing be relocated and
trunk
ivy which would
]
f
the skier staging arcade and mall
in Rubey Park wil
trees approaching the 6'
See P & Z resolution of October 14, 1970.
utilized inthe landscaping plan. There are no
diameter requirement in Sec.'10-12 (i:
1.
There are no visual architectural barriers within the
structure, consequently, a visitor standing in front of information
desk can see into the garden level through the stainvell atrium and up
onto all areas of the mezzanine without obstruction. This will allow the
first-time visitor ..~ ....
and orient his oe
the interior of
the
the building's contents visually
"-.... ,uickly summarize
the visitor information services currently pro--
by the Chamber of Commerce would be provided at the infor-
mation desk. Additional services may include state-of-the-art electronic
video information on such subjects as current weather conditions and
forecasts, ski slope and snow ~~~ j,..,~~ _~nn-o.~ lift congestion, road
conditions, tr~ ' reports,
accordingly.
An expanded version of
vided
The garden level contains 1830 square feet of the total allowable com-
mercial space !including cll"'Culationl which is slightly stepped down
from the public areas. As mentioned, major circulation patterns in the
public space are at grade with small grade changes accomplished
through ramping; A large concentration of lockers is provided with
specialty lockers for ski gear and luggage. Two small, coin,activated
changing rooms have been provided to allow visitors an extra hour of
skiing, etc. before they check into, or after checking out of, their accom-
modations.
I
l
I
I
I
A local bus dispatch office/drivers' room and building manager's office
have been provided. Both enter and exit off of the arcade vestibule
minimizing conflict \vith visitor se~ice operations. The manager's office
I
back country
runoff and
Information would be posted on current events and activities, race. and
various competition results, artslcultural activities, movies, menus,
etc.
~~..""hl...... ~"'r ~.~...,
avalanche conditions and forest service fire condition repoI1s,
river level.conditions for fishermen and boaters.
flight and ground
has a view window on the food service counter and public waiting are<\
for security purposes. The public waiting area is so arranged that exterior
ski racks can also be viewed for security purposes.
the arcade and the
the main mechanical area.
The trash/service area is completely screened from
public corridor. It also doubles as
1
l
to facilitate ease of access for skiers
This level also contains the
"at~grade'
luggage,
level.was designed
travelers with packages and
This
and
inter-city bus
The balance of this level is public wailing area which contains 900 square
feet offood service preparation area and counter space. The food service
area is covered in detail in subsection II.A." accessory use"
1
."e the interior focal point of aU transportation~
and/or Trailways would operate from this
Ught from the central atrium will reach 10 the garden level and the visitor
center above can be vie\\-'ed through the central stainveIl. Interior par-
area has two routes of access to the covered
operations and protected passenger/package
eliminated.
The result will be to convey the open airy sense of the upper levels of the
center and allmv maximum ambient natural light.
if not totaHy
be kept to an absolute minimum
titioning will
loading.
Restrooms with simultaneous accommodations for 9 are adjacent to this
level. At.grade access from the arcade entrance to facilitate handicapped
access is
possihle
type of vandalism which has
restrooms.
also provided. The restrooms have been Jocated. as close as
to oootinuously.manned areas of the center to discourage the
occurred at the isolated Wagner Park
information services and trans-
is designated public space and contains approximately 1890
b. Durant Street Level
This le\'el is devoted exclusively to visitor
portation. It
square feet.
J
1
in the visitor informatiOn area
infonnation desk, and another
amounts of
A has been created
utilizing the atrium over the central stairs'
large series of plantings under significant
greenhouse effect
I
Central
in the
A bank of public telephones is located opposite the restrooms.
reseIVations would have a. hotline and accommodations roster
visitor infonnationarea.
glass between the
introduced through
major
length of al
hvin entry; exit vestibules. Additional natural light is
\vide curved glass skylights which run .the. entire
circulation corridors and paths.
I
commercial establishments limited to the following and
art-gallery, bicycle rental, bookstore, cam~ra shop, drug
(dd) Retail
similar uses;
store, florist shop, Iiquorstore, photography shop, recreation/sporting
good store, stationary store, coin vending and lockers.
A smaller second staiIWell is provided from the arcade vestibule at street
level. It provides access not only to the mezzanine but private access to
the employee housing unit.
}
1
Business office, financial institution.
materials accessory to any of the above . listed uses
such storage is located within the structure.
Storage of
(ee)
(ff)
provided all
c. Mezzanine
There are two levels of mezzanine. The lower level contains 1490 square
feet of accessory commercial space including circulation. Five- steps up,
the upper mezzanine contains 2490 square feet of accessory commercial
space, including the circulation corridor, and 1175 square feet of public
space associated with the visitor center.
1
I
.2. conditional Uses
Restaurant, trade association.
These public portions of the mezzanine will contain facilities for: a box
office, seasonal recreational activities and reservations, sports desk,
J
3. Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicant respectfully requests adoption of the representations made
herewith in the narratiVe. and preliminary plans sheets 1-9 (the "precise
plan") as representative of the bulk and area requirements for the Rubey
Park SPA.
are. currently planned in a
ticketing. etc. Accommodations in this area
modular manner to facilitate seasonal rearrangement.
l
t
It should be noted that the current P {ParkJ zone carries a blanket
the
PUB (Public) zone, which encompasses incor-
porated into the building (public transit stop, terminal buildings, transpOfw
tation-related facilities"), derives its area and bulk requirements by adopted
ofthe 11 area and bulk requirements. Also,
many of the permitted uses
"no requirement" under all
infonnation facilities and park purposes. To allow accessory com.
uses which are visitor service oriented in support of; and sub-
Permitted and Conditional Uses
Intention
To provide for the use ofa public tract of land for both public transportation!
visitor
mercia:
ordinate to, the transportation facility.
4.
t
plan for SPA,
II. EXEMPTION FROM GMP
A. ACCESSORY USE
Permitted Uses
(aa) Public building
a.
J
The existing codes are not specific regarding criteria for II accessory" use. Sec.
24-3.7 (2) defines accessory use as follows:
transportation services
air travel. ticket agency,
air charter, auto
limousine
to
company, air express,
club, bus service, bus chartet and package service, cab and
for
the. following and
limited
airline
I
use is one that incidental to,
subordinate to, and devoted exclusively to the principal use afthe premises
and does not change the basic character tnereo}; as determined by the
is naturally and normally
"an accessory
service, travel agent; tour operator.
J
(bb) Public building for administration of winter and summer resort
services limited to the following and similar uses; box office, better
principal use".
office interpretation, in order for a food service
operation. to qualify as an accessory use, its size, scope,..and times of operation
should be tailored to several guidelines which are directly related to its in-
tended market. Therefore, any food service operation associated with the
Rubey Park Public Visitor Center and considered tf accessory" (thereby exempt
should:
the planning
required GMP competition)
According to
by code from
convention. bureau, central reser-.
chamber of commerce, entertainment bureau, ex-
nordic or alpine ski
nformation bureau,
limited to the following and similar uses; snackbar,
business bureau, booking agency,
vations agency,
pedition and guide services, educational services,
operator, news service, resort association, tourist
information service.
(ee) Food service
tearoom, coffeeshop or cafe.
ticketing, and weather
I
Visitation projections. for the center and high season peak hour impacts,
predicated on the amalgamation of aU anticipated activities in a~d around the
center, are outlined on the following chart.
of normal
use of the structure.
with the times
hours of operation coincident
Bea subordinate and not principal
Schedule its
1,
2.
I
1
activity within the center.
3. Scale
to a market which is generated
from within the nonnal activities and visitation projected for the
building.
its size and scope of operation
entirely
l
Page six of the preliminary plans contains the layout of a quick-food service
type operation on the lower level which will utilize a service queue/cashier/
counter service fonnat.
1
The food service area consists including
counter scating. service queue and food prep area. It is assumed (but. not
implied) from the amount of space allocated and the format that only basic food
preparation wiUtake place on premises, baking, etc. being subcontracted or
done at a remote location.
square feet
of approximately 900
J
)
The lower level location was selected for several reasons, chief among them
proximity and ease of access. to skier staging areas during peak hours of bus
operation.
I
that a natural circulation pattern (without stairs to
ski boots), evolves froni the staging arcade through
the food service queue and locker storage area, heated waited area, and back
1. Observers will note
complicate walking in
I
I
The restrooms are also accessible from
area without encountering stairs.
3. Most importantly, these areas which experience high activity during
several daily peaks are systematically isolated from the visitor center/sports
desk/box office areas whose visitation should be more static and orderly. In
this way, unnecessary traffic and confusion is eliminated.
this waiting! staging/refreshment
to the staging arcade.
2.
!
I
In making an argument for accessory use status forthe food service operation, it
should be
defined. as
J
the size. and scope of the operation. been
the original perception, hut the opera-
location within the structUre.
and exposure to the
noted that not. only has
dramatically reduced from
tion has also been relegated to a "subordinate'
Lack of expansion capability, lack of views,
lockers and service
J
adjacency
areas of the building only serve to underscore the subor-
dination of the refreshment activity within the building and define the severity
of the limits of its market.
J
}
I
RUBEY PARK TRANSIT / VISITOR CENTER
I
VISITATION PROJECTIONS
l
Peak
Hr Avg
Summer
Rush
HrsAvg
Daily
Avg
Aug 82
July 82
Peak
HI' Avg
Rush
HI's Avg
Winter
Daily
Avg
Mar 82
lan 79
AVG DAILY RIDERSHIP
1745
2044
2896
4037
532
15
3550
4393
616
15
(Recorded)
Public Transit
City Routes
Aspen Ski Company
Highlands Ski Co,
Ashcroft Co,
MAA
Sources
1
I
1418
3462
)
960
2705
2776
3084
7224
8027
7480
8574
Subtotal
Assumed 90% Rush
Winter Rush
Summer Rush
I
397
268
298
307
290
1445
1071
1190
976
1403
15 hrs}
17 hTS)
PiteD Bus
Assumed 90% Rush
Rush
38
153
7 hI'S
1
73
30
46
46
587
450
276
460
235
100
46
46
1173
1500
276
92
Private Transit Sources
(Assumed Impact
Lodge Shuttles
Cabs & Limousines
Trailways
Charters
J
I
Impact
Total Transi
I
630
5155
580
5735
2025
5
2030
12258
42
12300
42
8.5 hrs*
12 hI'S
Information &. Box office
Winter
Summer
J
48
678
529
631
Seasonal Recreational Activities
(Assumed Impact) (8 hI'S)
1
63
500
25
200
741
6235
82 Chamber statistics for Main Street Visitor Center location. Relocation 10 Rubey Park should dmmatically joel'ease this statistic.
2055
12500
Impact
Based on 81
Total
l
}
Basic services- There is no impact on basic services as demonstrated in
detail in Sec. 1.A.1~5 (the precise plan).
parking- Sec. 1,A.8 deals with the philosophical question of auto dis-
incentives and parking impacts. Rather than direct provision of long-term
parking, the project provides alternatives to improve the parking situation
community,wide. In this sense, we suggest and request that the project be
viewed in a different light, in the broader community context, and that the
short-term parking provided be considered adequate.
Employee housing-The commercial portions of the structure have al-
ready been approved pursuant to provision of adequate employee housing
under the terms of the 1982 fan growth management allocation competition.
This leaves a balance of 9,070 square feet of public space,. including the 900
foot food service area for which weare requesting accessory use
II A above,for.exemption consideration~
1.
2.
Maximum service capacity of the food service operation in its p~posed format
is estimated at 180 persons per hour. Bear in .mind that this capacity would be
achieved only if the bulk of the customers were ordering light, quick items-say
coffee and croissants "to go'.
J
I
I
From the above projections, we can estimate that maximum service capacity
represents approximately 9% of the winter peak hour visitation projection,
suggesting these observations:
1
3.
1. Given that the hours of operation for the food seIVice would be restricted
to the nonnal operating hours of the center, it therefore follows that the food
service market should be derived totany from within the nonnal activity of
1
square
designation -in Sec.
Our premise for exemption is simple. The City Council acting.as the City
housing authority recently completed development and constructionofthe
8O.:.unit Castleridge employee housing complex. This project includes 134
bedrooms providing potential housing for 268 employees.
the center.
2. Indeedj oUr sense of the statistics would indicate that during winter high
season peak. hours, the operation, as proposed, _may not have sufficient
capacity to satisfY demand.
3. The food service operation as proposed will neither market its product
outside of the center or deprive existing restaurantS within the community
of their current share of the market. Actually; in a sense, this proposal
1
I
This project was developed by the public sector with no GMP credit applied
to growth in any other sector. Under the circumstances, it stands to reason
that this the impact
addresses aneed heretofore totally unsatisfied i.e., quick and efficient food
service "en route" to any activityofhigher priority. As such, it is a comple-
ment to public transportation and another piece in the auto disincentive
puzzle.
1
I
public employee housing should apply as credit for
mitigation required of this essential governmental project under the same
rules which apply for private sector growth.
!
III. SUMMATION (OBSERVATIONS)
We feel it important to note that historically,
response to community growth and not as an element of it. The 1976
management policy plan" repeatedly addresses this phenomenon.
If a casual breakfast or lunch is the visitors first priority, we submit that he
will opt for one of om many fine"full~service".restaurants outside of the
center, the fonnat of the Rubey Park Food Service Operation not lending
itself to relaxed sophisticated dining.
l
public infrastructure develops in
"growth
I
"The population boom which resulted in creating a variety of adverse com-
munity impacts set the political stage for the zoning changes which took place
in March of1974
B. Exemption for Public Space
Sec. :u.:-11.2ofthe Aspen Municipal code as amended by ord. 53 series of 1982,
currently provides for exemptions. from growth management procedurE!s for
essential governmental projects, subject to the review and recommendation of
the P &. Z and City Councii
J
Communities suffering from boom growth conditions usually e}(hibita
distinct lag among job formation, housing construction, and the develop-
ment of the community facilities which are necessary to support people and
busine~s.
mitigation of the project
application is dedicated to that
Sec. 24-11.2 (e) requires that the applicant document
impacts, if any. The bulk of this SPA
purpose:
)
J
In the issue concerning "open space", we have already demonstrated that the
Rubey Park property does not legally qualify as open space by any stretch of the
its goal "system balance." That is} a
to ensure that all components of community
The Growth Policy outlined here has as
policy framework which seeks
growth are in mutual balance.
J
,
imagination, regardless of original perceptions among some well-intentioned ele-
ments of the community; Under these circumstances,we respectfully suggest that
It is a purpose f!fthis Plan to provide adequate community supportfacilities for
anticipated urban development.
I
the open space constituency consider turning their attention to the $1.5 million or
better of bonding capacity which
These funds could be
could go further
is "saved" by this proposal.
considered for legitimate open space pUrposes elsewhere. In fact,
elsewhere.
I
In the issue of growth management, the commercial portions of the project
which have generated some concern have now passed growth management
Pitkin County hase}(perienced the kind of lags described above.
The point here is that at certain population thresholds, government is called
to make sudden and dramatic. improvements to certain key public
J
competition and mitigated any impacts by providing adequate employee housing.
Section H-B identifies more than adequate employee housing credit for mitigation
of the public space impacts. AU growth management concerns have 'been
addressed and resolved.
upon
facilities.
These excerpts address the obvious lag in government's ability to provide public
facilities in times of rapid expansion such as Aspen e~perienced in the .past
decade: This phenomenon is due in part to the inordinate length of time required
to develop. programs, gather community. endorsement and implement projects.
The balance of the time lag phenomenon.isfina.ncial
]
1
including the commercial space which
..:nanifestation of past growth and devel-
community. In this sense, we
request your approval of the Rubey Park Transit/Visitor Center
We respectfully
SPA.
Recent events have. indicated that transportation programs currently in effect
wiUstrain the 7th penny sales tax revenue beyond it's limits. Although not entirely
committed at present, the town's general obligation bonding capacity could easily
reach it's limits with approval of only a portion of the broad range of capital
improvements suggested or being considered.
I
,
The point here is that when resources are strained and the opportunity is present
for creative financing mechanisms, they should be considered closely; any trade
offs. being analyzed in light of community goals should be studied thoroughly,
fairly, and unemotionally.
j
If the preponderance of evidence suggests thai goals are not "realistically" com-
promised and that the result prevents the. promulgation of new taxation, thus
preseIVing capital and borrowing capacity for other projects, then the creative
mechanism should be vigorously pursued. We strongly suggest that the Rubey
Park Transit/Visitor Center project should be considered in the context of these
observations.
]
J
J
I
J
,
11 ~ ~
- ~:
tn.- &;'
...Cl
Cll""
.Q Q) g
*
Cll
:J .
"C (fJ ~
-g ~ ~
lllj~
~ 0.1
-
ill
-VI
~~I
J~ :
" 0:0
3: ~O
Z~Z<C
2a:wg
-........<(0-1
ZQ.UJO
2).0:0
I-t.uoz
<Cml-W
g;:)!!!3i
-I Q:> <I:
~
dol.
,,-
1
Fo,k
Spring St.
------------
_ ~i
~~
Ave.
Roaring
River
Main St.
Courthouse
County
Galena St
====-----'
~-
!! ... I
. - --
'_.--..,
St.
~o
.0
j ;[~:r
t
/.
~
~
Mi
%
$I,
Mona;c:h
Park'
Library
Paepcke
Aspen 5t
I
1
I
I
)
1
1
RUBEY PARK
Location;
Zoning
~.~
Overlay
Transportation/Drainage Overlay
Historic
Legend
~
~
I
J
J
J
I
,
Main St.
~l!!!j
- 9!"
aJ'S; ~
~Ol
J:'I m g
S
gj
:I .
't:l i!
'2 l: f
jg.!28
... Co 0
! i
-
:I
<1l
-
.!:l tJ !
't:l .e >
~,- :
,8ii'5
~ g
"'.
0:0
we
~......
za:ffiQ:
Qctu9
.... Q.- en 0
~>Q:u
~UJoz
om....W
!!: :J ~ 3;
U a: > c(i
,-
d...
..
,~ '
2
Hopkins Ave.
Hunter St.
Spring St.
Hyman /we.
Cooper Ave.
Durant Ave.
Glory Hole
Park
-
Aspen St
J
I
I
1
}
]
RUBEY PARK
Circulation
!1fl==J_ ~
~
Legend
- Pedestrian Malls Pedestrian Circulation l----~ City Bus Route
W Parks or Openspace B Proposed Traits B Ski Bus Route
':;:.:..:.:.''''
1
1
]
"d '" "
..... Q; *
_ '" 0
0').5 iG
_ C'l ~
CIl t: M
..c C1l g
'-
CIl
...
(fJ
CIl
:> -
"0 (f) ~
~ .
"O~~
c: l: ::;
CO ro '0
--"
~ Q, &
..c::::: q
...
:>
(fJ
...
() </) "
:.;:;U E
'>.J Q) >;
~:t: 2
10... J: '5
Q,) ~ 0
..0 cc ~
'"
z
2 0::,0
!: WQ
!i~!z~
o a::.w 0
u c:(CJ....
" Q.'tn.o
z "'-G:_u
- -o:z
li; Hft-,w
)( :),~;f6
III O:>:<C
"" --,..
d... ,~
. ~a
e. ;;fi"
" ,
'I '
., !
II I
. ,I ,
'I I
II I
,I .1 .
" I
" I
,I
" I
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
i 0'
, 11 .1 .
l-:~~~:~-=~~~=-~~~=1~~-~~;~~~=-"=-~~~ - - - - -- J~_=!==::._ ?=:; ;;;-~~ ~-;~
I Parking ca I--t--- CB
I Ski Bus loading \ 1 1
III II J
I II ,
I I' ~
I Ii Co
~'V Ii:
, I, I
LT I, '
.,yabl ,m;ng\/ - ...~
Toilet t _ I I
. . ,
:' I
" ,
'I'
, ,
-- ~---------~-- --- ---- ---===-H- ~--=--=--~-=-~l:::=-=-=--=
~i ~ Durant Ave.
11 I
:iL ! --[!, .
"6 G;Al.E~ STREET CB I
'I h-'
I I I '-
I I I
'I I
I'
--~- ---6"W---- ---- -r+{_J_-
I, ,
~ (I) 51
'I I
" ,
i" (
-4+ -~~CB
MILL STREET
,,;
J
.
.j
l~
"
Ii
Cooper Mall
"
"
\I
'I
II
.1,.
I,
o I
,I
"
,I
"
"
"
,I
,I
,
I, 0
"
...-LL
'iTea J
01"1 I .-
-G~_I__-
I' I
,\ I
I' ,
,I I
" ,
I' I
I I :i
II) ~ <0
I I I
I I I
I, I
I I I
-.s.~!.qw.
o
,
o
~,
Wagner Park
.~
---.
(r=-
\
I
I
1
I
I
1
i
i
"- r
i
1
RUBEY PARK
Existing
Conditions
Legend
l--e--I Electric
a
I
]
3
..-
..
nr1==4~
Light
Box
I . I
~ Switch
Street
Basin
Fire Hydrant
Catch
~
D
Telephone
Water
E3
B
Storm Drain
I--s"'-I
I-~s--I Sewer
Gas
-0 ~ "J
::: ~ ~
tn.!: ;(l
~ ",.
<Il c: M
.c <ll g
~
$
'"
<Il
::J 0
"'0 (Jl ~
. ~ ~
"'0 ~ -:
r::: c .2
CO ClJ 3
i:: 0. ~
C1> 5-
~ '
...
::J
'!'
...
u (/) ~
:.0 1:) ~
Q) .$! ;,
c: ,- "
Q)"5~
~ ~ .
~ '" N
,,-
""II,
::,: ;
.;;
i:,;!(~, ' ';. " ,,-:
Iii".. ...
",iI,.', ,i
..,.jJ
i-.
1.1.. .If
(- ~.~
1 i> ,\~,
"&, . ~
, - ~.
:t...,. ~; :-
.; \i.
') '"
, ';r
," . .r.,'ti
.~JL- \..-!t -
,
.
1
I
I
I
I
)
1
]
II:
w
'''8
llt.z
a:-WoC
'!I:,CJ:~
~ ~~;g
4. W,Oz
~ !~,&
u)' a:'>::l
""'-:4
d."'2!,;o2
d... 13K,'S,'.J<o
......I'!oIHI.
....."''''
1
~-~r I
I
I
........ AVENUE
I
......~
~
RUBEY PARK
Site
Plan
= S,l.'>IO......FT.
_"',C>10~"T.
= &'ZO__"T.
=1S",7~-'FT.
Building Area
"'="650"''''' CoM"",,"'C,^l... API''''''''''t:>
Ll''':>~'''Gi''''''"'''Tti'''''''''_''I>\I!.'''T P..........
"",,,,-0'" C._T_, ?U<>\..\G- <;'PNC.l'<_
C""",",OH <!>I'\"<'''- ......P,,,""'Ut...ATlO..
""'pLOY"" ""IT
TOTAL_'\-1:>'...... """^
Site Area
Tit'''' "Ff"-CT'"'' "'T"'^F<"" CO>!T,",'_ e.~"'1e..$,..FT.
OR.l.22>/oC"'''$.WH'CH ,..C,-UOEl' ....UfoEYp,>...."-,""""Tt0<6
~~','.;-'-~..,T ;,~~\..';{N...."'..~T~~T,,~';ro.~~
----_ $urfaoe Drainage
. Traffic Direction
legend
m Switch Box
. Street Light
c:::J Catch Basin
CO
J
4
._,
lU1==i~
]
-
c
1
I
1
A
B
"ti VI ~
..... "- ~
- Q.l '"
.,
C').!: ~
~'"
Q) C '"
.0 <ll g
as
iil
Q)
:l -
"C f/);2
~ "
"C ~ ~
C c c
(tl ro fj
(fiQ.~
J:: '
....
:l
(/)
....
(J <Ji 0
:at)~
Q) ., ,
c::E~
CLl u ~
.c (a ~
z
~
G: . 1
o ..10
o .11I10
it ~~~!~
.... a::",IO:
.. CIU''''
rii -0. !D,ls;
.... >II:C
a: lI"r,O\Z..'
'0-'
~ !Ji; ~I
!; 11:1> ""
-.
_" 1m
- ""'-
5
.-
~
hOOF lEVEL EMPLOYEE UNIT
-: ~~
-~
a ! ~
'Y ..
s h:1
~/
~ / ~
) //
//
/
/
//A
~-=-~~
r-- ~ ~C~SSO;~"'MERt~~L
.4QOSQ.fT.l.....P)
ACCESSOR'r'COMMERClAL
r~
J
1
1
1
RUBEY PARK
Upper Level
Floor Plan
!'l:f1===i~
A
I
z
<
..J
..
II:
o
o a::.O;
..J 'wo!
IL ll:'''' <I
....I a::z Ie
w _:,wu',ol
>......' ......
~ Q;,:cn (0
>-!i:cIU
II: w'O'Z
; m!:!~
o ::2.\!! IV>;
..... 0::>1.'
--
dot_ Z
- ..
....
"d Cf) ~
- 4i ~
_ '" M
tnt:<Q
-. '0, 0>
OJ t: '"
-e OJ g
Q)
-
IJl
Q)
::l -
"'C (/);f.
~ .
"C Q.l .g
t: € ~
C'<l'" 0
1: 0.. ~
Q) g
.c: '
-
::l
IJl
-
() (/J "'
~ t) ~.
0)$"
l: ,- "
Q)-5~
~ ~.
_ '" N
.1
I
,
.i
!I
Ii
Ii
6
,".....
RUBEY PARK
Lower Level
Floor Plan
~~
/
/
c
'"
AUTO.I.UIC
._-
sursrA110IiI
./
/
/
/
(
,
,
,
+-_____-1.
.
II
~
Ll,_~
...
.
.
ACCESSORY ""-'CW.
:I8aOSQ.f"
.
.
.P!l!I_qc
.L
~
..J
,~
+j PUSL,IC .AI~II~G
- SUTlNGAR(A
'. I
,J,
/
c
J
1
J
1
I
]
1
I
)
.
i
..
l~
,.
=t
I
1
I
I
I
]
WAGNER PARK ELEVATION
I
'lE 0'
:1U!a
_.1-)0(1,
-,Z,lt
C4 a:::lUtOI
Z c(lU:....
o a.,,,, '0'
t= >:<<,(.)1
'" WiO:Zi
~a:I;!:::\~1
... ::13"''''1'
w CC~> '<C
~"
.~rt^';;....
. ~
"'"--
7
f..h_
J-.
~
~.
~~
~
)
I
RUBEY PARK
El$vations
AVENUE ELEVATION
DURANT
J
F1:F1::=:J
o .. "
, '
"d rJJ ~
:::: di ~
"
0').5 ~
.... '"
(1) Co M
.c (1) g
....
<1>
-
1G
::I '
"C ;;
~ 03
"0 Q).g
s::::: E ;:
J:2~~
asC.i
.c::'
-
::I
III
-
.~ $) 5
"0 u ~
<1>'"
c:~~
Q) ~ c
.c ('IJ ~
ffi.8i
It !Z "!
~~rlg!
00.00
., >-il:U!
~ W~ ~I
III !iD'Q.
ida:S:-~
"'-Iof
~- ....~...-
~
;:~'-'.~:~'\
, Y.'"
L...~;,,; r
,',/
\ '
J
I
I
I
I
,F~:/--,,,^-
t '-c'~ "~
~:J" V"
/ ~~
, ~
'~
>
NORTH MALL ELEVATION
7(;'~~;'. -~;,~~:~ t..... .1
, 'T:'~'k'''',f rt' rr.(i{C"='=~
n\'WI,.I. .". 1 ,~
<::;.J,(bLJJ'A~ ,.,
I
I
)
RUBEY PARK
Elevations
SOUTH CANOPY ELEVATION
]
8
-
.
Fl::Fl:d
04. 1G
1
I
1
)
".nlllo..~E"n"
IlEZZNI'"E
SECTION A-A
r.~~~.
, ~
'"'\~
, ^
~I~
111'\iiti
1~:I!.i"I!":~1i]
H&lu.;!:~-
-._--_._-.---
nlllllll I
~-~_.,
---.- -
_111I1
SECTION c-c
"'d IJ) ~
:t:: 4i ~
'"
en.S ~
'- Cl~'
~ c: ^
..Q Q,l g
...
2
'"
CIJ
~ ~
"C (J) if:
~ "
'0 ~ g
t: c .2
<ll '" 0
i:: c.. ~
~ &
..cq
-
~
'"
-
.~~ g
"0 u ~
C1J"'"
c::E~
Q) ~ 0
.c CIJ ~
secTION &-B
1
]
I
J
)
~ ffi 01
~~~f
o or 0
III Q. -c
U)~c
(I) i:i3.
~i!:: I
a: .. ,
RUBEY PARK 0> .
C ~
ross -
Sect/Qns ~
Fl:Fl:::::::J 9
o 4- e '"
..-
I
J
..........~.-~~~~-----~-,~,---.~-""""'I
MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP
ACCOMMODATION - NO LIABILITY
Please direct correspondence to:
r
,
6m E. HOPKINS
ADDRESS
THE CITY OF ASPEN
ATTN: MONROE SOMERS
ASPEN
CITY
COLORADO
STATE
8] fill
ZIP CODE
ORDER NUMBER 7300231
L
.J
"
Description:
LOTS K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R AND S,
;SLOCK 90,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT:
(TITLE EXCEPTIONS ON REVERSE)
Grantee in last instrument aF~transferring ownership:
BOOK 251 AT PAGE 619 GRANTEE IS THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
IN FEE SIMPLE
Trust deeds and mortgages apparently unreleased:
NONE
Liens and judgements (against last grantee) apparently unreleased:
NONE
This information is for your sole use and benefit and is furnished as an accommodation. The information has
been taken from our tract indices, without reference to, or examination of, instruments which purport to
affect the real property. The information is neither guaranteed nor certified, and is not an Abstract of Title,
Opinion of Title, nor a Guaranty of Title, and our liability is limited to the amount of the fees.
Date: NOVEMBER 29
,19 82 ,at 8:00 A.M.
TransamerlCa Tdle Insurance Company
By ~J-tr
Form No. 0.-661
--
--
-
--
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
TITLE EXCEPTIONS:
1. Reservations and exceptions in Patent and Acts authorizing the issuance thereof.
Patent recorded on subject property on March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216,
providing as follows: "that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold,
silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim of possession held under
existing laws."
2. Terms, conditions, agreements, provisions and obligations as contained in Agreement
between Hodge-Oliver Company, a Limited Partnership and the City of Aspen as recorded
April 7, 1970 in Book 247 at Page 864 which contains a first right of refusal for a
period of 20 years from January 5, 1971.
3. Notice of Historic, Designation as recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515.
,,",,-'~,,,,,,,","",,,,,,,,,;
~
,-.
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 13, 1983
.~~
n
II
members appointed by the county and the 5th member appointed jointly. The new board will
recommend the department director. Mayor Edel said the city is very much involved in the
process. Mayor Edel said he believed strongly that Duane Fengel has done an outstanding
job for the city.
3. Bil Dunaway asked that the Council add to the agenda using the
race for the Fourth of July. It is the sarnecourse as last year.
this be on the new Council's agenda.
streets for the foot
Mayor Erlel suggested
RESOLUTION #16, SERIES OF 1983 - Milton Conner Memorial Park
Councilman Knecht moved to read Resolution #16, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael. All-in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #16
(Series of 1983)
clerk
WHERF~, Milton G. Conner (1898-1983) a native and li{e-long citizen of
Aspen 1 Colorado, was a member and manager of the Board of Directors of-the
Fraternal Hall Association for 25 years; and
WHEREAS, in this capacity he acted as guardian of the Fraternal Hall
Building (City Hall) from 1928 until September, 1944, when he participated in
the granting of a perpetual lease of the building to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, from 1944 until the mid-1970's, he was instrumental in
preserving this historical structure and in tranSferring permanent title to
the prqperty to the people of Aspen in 1956; and
WHEREAS, the city Council, on behalf of the people of Aspen, wish to
express regrets and sympathy to his family and friends on his passing, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to honor and remember Milton G. Conner
for his life and contributions to the people of Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
APSNE, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City commemorate in perpetuity the name or Milton Conner by
na~ng Lots N, 0 and the west twenty-two and one-half (22-l/2) feet of Lot P
Block 931 city and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, in his honor, to be known
from this time forward as "Milton Conner Memorial Park". was read by. the City
n
r ',1
U
Councilwoman Michael said she would like to see something like a plaque in the park
explaining about Milton Conner. Council agreed.
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Resolution #17, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #17, SERIES OF 1983 - Robert "Bugsy" Barnard Park
Councilman Collins moved to read Resolution #17, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #17
(Series of 1983)
city
WHEREAS, DR. ROBERT A. BARNARD did ably and faithfully serve as a
Councilmember for two years and ,Hayor of the City of Aspen, COlorado, for
four years, and such outstanding service did contribute to the continued
prosperity of the City and the accompliShment of i.ts goals, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Barnard was responsible for the annexation of the North
and South side, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Barnard was responsible for the adoption of the City of
Aspen's 1966 Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Barnard actively worked for the elimination of all outdoor
advertising both in the City and County, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Barnard had unswerving faith in the concept of underground
parking at Wagner park, and
WHEREAS, the city of Aspen desires to honor and commemorate a park
in memory of Dr. Robert A. Barnard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED that the city commemorate in perpetuity
the name of Dr. Robert A. Barnard by renaming No Name Park to be known from
this time forward as "ROBERT A. BUGSY BARNARD MF.~10RIAL PARKIl was read by the
clerk
i:
II
"
,
I!
Ii
Ii
i!
"
It
I'
]i
n
II
Ii
Ii
Ii
;:
j)
"
"
"
!\
Ii
II
n
i:
,
il
i:
"
11
ii
!'
I'
I
if
g
Councilman Collins moved to Adopt Resolution #17, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael.
Councilman Collins
to get involved in
I this park. Dunbar
plan to the city.
I
I
I
"
I'
I
I
i
,
,
Ii
"
\1
!!
plaque for this park also. Mayor Edel asked Chuck Dunbar
Councilman Knecht asked about the landscaping plan for
gotten together, some volunteers and they will submit a
suggested a
the plaque.
said he has
Allin favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1983 - Rubey Park SPA
Councilman Collins stated there are
consideration, and he would like to
sworn in.
several items on ,this agenda for second and final
propose that they be put off until the new Council is
Councilman Collins moved that Rubey Park SPA public hearing be opened and continued until
the next regular meeting; seconded by Councilman Knecht.
Councilwoman Michael 'said she is opposed to the motion as soree of the ordinances to be
..... ""._-,.,- "_r"_""',,,"_~""'_"''' ,,~__,._,_""_"__"'_____'" " "" ._...._'.__~_..."_._,,_.._,,
ii
I:
i:
j!
l'.
,-.,
r-.,
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 13, 1983
tt~
~..
- T
considered are no,t controversial. Councilwoman Michael said when this Council took office II
four years ago, there old Council did not finish some business that this Council made
some bad decisions on because they were not familiar enough with the issues.
Councilmembers Knecht and Collins in favor;, Councilwoman Michael and Mayor Edel opposed.
Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
1. Francis Whitaker read a letter to Council. "Ladies and GentleMen, I wish to oppose
the passage of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1983 for the following reasons. 1. Just on
general principles, I oppos,e the rezoning of Rubey Park from P, park to any other land
use. For at least 15 years there has been a constant battle to protect our parks and
open space~ Reme~er the Barnard administration's attempt to rezone Herron Park for
employee housing, and then its use as a winter snow and trash dump.
The Standley administration rezoned a portion of the golf course open space on
Cemete,ry Lane before anyone really know about it. Also tried to rezone and open for Ij
development the lots on the north side of the golf course, purchased for open space. The >>,:
EdeI administration rezoned, fortunately temporarily, a part of the golf course for an II
automobile impound lot, and appeared ready to give a large portion of the Thomas property I.
to the Dividion of Highway for a four lane highway. Public opposition and the voters III
turned the .tide ~ I
,
)1
11
II
,
I believe the City of Aspen has a permanent commitment to the voters to keep Rubey
Park and a park. When this property was proposed for development, the then City Council
took quick action. lie formed a Rubey Park Trust Fund, to which 36 locals loaned $88,975,
and which enabled the Council to hold the property until a bond issue could be submitted
to the voters. The bond issue was to purchase the property for muni9ipal purposes~ I
submit that commercial space is not a municipal purpose, and that the contributors and
voters wanted the property undeveloped.
Tbe area is too small and in a highly congested area. The Rio Grande property was
purchased for transportation, there is plenty of room there. Any transit terminal must
have room for Trailways bus system, instead of leaving it out at the airport.
I am opposed to the three exemptions, growth management, employee housing and
parking. Every exemption you grant further counteracts the whole idea of growth manage-
ment. Rexpectfully yours, Francis t^lhitaker. If Whitaker read a letter from vlilliarn and :[
Florence Beaumont, who loaned money for the purchase of Rubey Park and who object stronglYi:
to the proposed plan for the development of Rubey Park. Nhitaker read a list of loan ii
contributions to the Rubey Park Trust Fund. L. Schoolman, $1000; William Staley, $1000 ~
Henry Steint' $1000; John Strandberg Jr. $1000; Don Swales, $1000; Tom's f1arket $2000;
Ben & Katherine Wells $3000; Francis Whitaker $1000; Leigh Wilson $1000; Phil and Joan
Wright, $25; Michael Hernstadt $10,000; John Herron $1000: Thomas Daly $2000; Kettle
Corporation $3000r G~ Drummond Mansfield $500; Charles Nicola SlOO; Harold Pabst $6000;
Ruth pope $1000; Eve Homeyer $100; Esco Development Corporation (Butch Clark) $10,000;
Blaine and Caroline Fairless $1000; Giles Tilley and Mary Brown, $1000; Fox, Sweeney & i'
True $1000, Peter Guy $2000; Gus Hallum $1000, J. Sterling Baxter $2000, I-lilliam and )1
Florence Beaumont $2000; D.R.C. Brown $1000; Canyon Cable TV $10,000; Peter or Penderal ii
DuBois $250; Aspen Skiing Company $10,000; Aspen ~~ildcat Inc. $5,000; Bank of Aspen $1000;:1
Aspen Country Store, Inc $2,000; Torn Wilson (Hodge-Oliver) $3,000; . ~
2. David Zaagman said he did not think it appropriate to build commercial building betweep
the lodging zone and the mall. Zaagman said he felt there is further planning needed 1:1
for that area~ . .. !
3. Mayor-elect Bill Stirling said the nature of the proposal is laudable and extremely i:
creative as it calls on the private sector to build a building for the city; but not at 1,'1'
all costs if it is in the wrong place. Stirling said there is a glut of commercial space
in Aspen, and to increase conunercial space on city property is a problem. Stirling said )i
he felt the spirit was to retain that area as open space. Aspen is threatened with i
losing open space. !
4. L. Schoolman told Council he was'one of the contributors to hold the property for the
city. At that time it was to hold Rubey park to keep it from being developed.
5. Carolyn Ooty told Council she is opposed to this project. f~s. Doty said that all
open space that exists should be preserved.
6. Mark F. said he has never heard people complain about the inconvenience of getting on I
buses at Rubi?Y park.. . !
7. Melinda Severence told Council that Rubey Park is a transit center, whether it should Ii
have been there or somewhere else. For five years, the city, county and Ski Company have ii
all used it as their central transportation point. Ms. Severence ,pointed out the city II
has tried parking and a bus shuttle at Rio Grande and people do not use it. ,
I
i
,
,
I
'I
Ii
i,
Ii
ii
II
"
"
~1
8. Maxi Peyton said the city should investigate the possibility of adding bathrooms, a
waiting area and shelter but eliminating the commercial space from this project.
9. David Ehgler said changing the cosmetics will eventually lose some of the qualities
that make Aspen very attractive.
10,
Council-elect Al Blomquist urged Council to rut this off until the next meeting.
11. Francis Whitaker pointed out any measure submitted to the"voters to take away open
space has been soundly defeated.
Mayor Edel closed the public hearing.
,
~
0..,,',..
~:
"
[,
.
o
u
n
II
I,'
\.;j
o
~:-."-,,,,--,..-
..::-
4
,-..
.-.,
Continued Meeting
Aspen City council
July 7, 1983
Walls said she would like, to know how big a building, what are the uses, and where it
woul~ be l?cated.. Coun~ilman Collins said,hewould like to know density, open space,
park~ng~ clrculatlon, Vlew planes, comrnerc~al build out and delivery access. Forsch said
that wQm'ld br a GMP application, essentially. l1ayor Stirling 'suggested a balance somewhere
of the,t.wo 11stS. _ '
" ORllloIOONCE #23, SERIES OF 1983 ~ey pa~k SPA J ' It
/; ~nyor Stirling opened t~e public hearing. Mayor Stirling enteren into the record lettersJ ~1
:::roe from George Byers" In favor of the proposal; Mary Faulkner, Tipple Lodge in favor ii
ClIf theprop'os'71i Francis Wh~ta~er, st,ron~ly opposed to the Rubey Park .apPlic~tion; ~1ichael ~
K~ns~ey, Pltkln County Connruss.loner., saYlng :RuI;>ey needs improvements :and upgrading; Ii
WJ.ll1am and Florence ,Beaumont.. strongly objectJ.ng to the proposed plan. :;, '_,~'_:.:...jl
Cqlette Penne, planning office~told Council this project is a successful competitor in !i
the qommercial growth management competition for 1983. An allocation of 5810- sauare, feet
of commercial space has been ma,de for the project. This ordinance reouests rezoning from
--P, park with a transportation/drainage overlay to Public/SPA. The ordinance also adopts
a precise -plan. There is exemption for the 9,070 square feet of public space from the'
GMP competition, and exemption of an employee housing unit and parking. for that unit.
P & Z send a resolution with their recommendation, with a list of permitted and conditional
uses. The P &, Z recommends Council rezone this property to public/SPA and adopt the
precise plan, and grant the exemptions. P & Z was very sensitive, in the permitted and
condit~na1 uses, to the interplay of the public. space and the commercial space.
Mayor.Stirlincrentered into, the record Resolution 83-2, r.rom the Commercial Core and
Lodging COMmission~ recommending that.Council encourage Trailways to bring their buses to
Rubey Park when the terminal is 'finished. Monroe SUmr.1ers, representing the applicant,
said this process had evolv~d over a long period of. time and has adjusted itself to all
laws and rules in the comrnunitv desianed to promote slow arowth. Su~ers said there is
a need for this project to deal with~the transportation issues. Over 15 years ago, Aspen
recognized thE~ need foroublic transportation alternatives and a plan for auto disincentive.
As early as 19:64, Rubey Park was suggested as a transportation center. The reason to use
Rubey Park is geographic; it is surrounden by.the lodqerlistrict and the comnercial core.
Summers pointed out Rubey Park evolved as a transportation hub; it makes it convenient
for people. .
SUMmers told Council the city has been running a trans~ortation system arounn Rubey Park.
Summers said Aspen is on the verge of providing a state of the art transportation system.
The city and county are developing a consolidated transportation system; a county wide
sales tax is approved for transportation. There is a new bus maintenance facility being
built, which will allow much more flexibility and the upgrading the appearance of public
transportation. Pitkin County and As.~en ,./ill h.ave the Second largest transportation system
in the state of Colorado when all this comes together. Summers sain there is a system but
no place to operate in otwn. Summers told Council the concept of putting the visitors
center and the transportation terminal together makes sense.
Summers told Council he spent a year at RUbey Park answering constant requests for informa-
tion, cultural tickets, and'bathrooms. Rubey Park is a magnet; it is there, it is currently
the transportation svstem and it is perceived as' an in~orMntion center. Summers told
"Council the people are not presently'being accommodated. Summers said there are concerns
with this proposal. The proposal was mad~ to get a visitors/transportation center that
would not cost the taxpayers any money. Summers said taking busing out of Runey Park is
not the solution; RUbey Park needs to be upgrade",. '
Charles Hopton said there was a downzoning after Aspen Souare was built so that the town
would not get another buildin0 like it on Rubey Park. The voters voted to buy Rubey Park
for open space. Hopton said transportation should not be precluded from Rubey Park, but
commercial $pace should not be allowed there. Hopton said a transportation center is
needed; however, . this is growing far out of proportion to what is really needed.
Jan Derrington said that Rubey Park, .was never a park, as such. Derrington .said Aspen
claims to be a first class resort, yet does not have a transportation center. Derrington
said this facility is' a ,reasonable solution to ,providing a facility that is badly needed,
using a rne~hanism of public and private partnership~ alleviatin9the town r.rom taking on
another tax burden. Derrington said he did not think 5,000 s0uare feet of. commercial
space would break-Aspen. The services would not be competinq with anything else around.
Derrington said having an attractive visitors/trans~ortation system is a very positive
thing and would provide convenience tor the visitors.
t
Molly Campbell, read a letter from the Gant into the record, s~ying they feel Aspen needs
to continue to Aspen needs to continue to improve its visitors' services; they support the~
proposed SPA overlay. The improvement if the transportation center is a necessity. Rubeyt
Park is a convenient location for both sumrnerand winter visitors as well as downtown . Ii
employees. Rubey Park should be upgraded to provide circulation, visitor ~anagement and 1;
information. ~1s. .Campbell told Council when the. nant ~.,.as approyed,they were forced to
operate two shuttle vans as auto disincentive. One of the biggest problems was where to
drop guest's on and off safely; Rubey Park has provided a safe, feasible, good alternative.
Ms." Campbell encouraged Council. to leave their 9ptions on Rubey Park open.
Peter Forsch , transportatio!,! mana'ger for the Aspen Skiing Company" told Council they have
been using Rubey Park for years and years and hundreds of thousands of people go through
that area~ Forsch said that Rubey Park is poorly designed for both auto and pedestrian
circulation. Forsch said the location of,R~bey Park near the lodges and commercial core \1
is one of the only locations which is ,extremely important to t~ansportation. Forsch urgedi;
Council to consider this for the transportation hub and visitor center for Aspen. H
Dick Jackson, operator of the trolley car at Rubey :~ark, ,told Council he runS both a winteJ
and summer center at Rubey Park~ aackson said it is important to have an 'information ij
center at Rubey Park. Jackson said it is important to be able to o~fer all these facilities
in one place. It is done in many resorts in Europe. II
~
-'
~"""~-,,,,;...-,~,',-,.~,.,,.~"~_.~'..~:-._~..;.
/""'-.
!""'..
Continued Meeting
Aspen City Council
July 7, 1983
Torn Clark: said when it comes to Rubey Park transportation center, the problems with ViSitol
management did not happen yesterday. Clark said he hoped the Council is concerned about: I
visitor ma~agement; making it con~enien~ and easy for peopl7 does ,not hurt the ambiance Of!
Aspen. Th~s enhances what Aspen 25 trY2ng to do. Clark sa1d hav1ng a transportation cent r
has been a real priority of this community. Clark said he felt this center would be a i
convenience for Aspen's customers; it would not hurt anything but would help the town.
Jon Busch agreed with most of ,the comments~ however, there is the consideration that Aspen
does not need such a big center. In peak periods of the winter, Rubey Park is full of II
buses and people. The need to have Trailways come in has not been addressed. Once Amtrak
starts serving Glenwood Springs, there will b~ increases of buses. This transportation, I
center is really needed. Busch pointed out that the Council's advisory Boards pave said I
this is a center that is needed and have recommended it to Council.
n
u
Hans Gramiger said he felt open space in the middle of town is important, and Rubey Park
compliments Wagner Park. Gramiger said he would not want to see a transportation center
in the middle of town. Gramigerpointed out looking at transportation in the long range,
this site is too small for what is being proposed. The Rio Grande for transportation has
to be looked at. Graroiger'read to COuncil a transportation report from PBQ&D that the
Rio Grande should serve as a parking area and as an anchor for the major, transportation
routes. Rubey Park should only serve as a bus stop; all routes should terminate at Rio i
Grande. Rubey Park willbeoome less able to handle the buses as the transportation syste~
grows; Rio Grande improved should be the terminus for.all express and major local bus i
routes.
John Coddle stated he is strongly in favor of both the information and transportation
center at Rubey Park as a great asset to the community. Coddle said a transportation
center at the Rio Grande will necessitate another form of transportation. Coddle said
rejection of this plan will mean that streets will become increasingly congested; the more
cars there are, the' less room there is for pedestrians.
I
it
II
II
Carolyn Doty, committee to preserve open space, told Council the committee opposes the
rezoning of Rubey Park because it has been a park for 12 years. The Committee especially
opposes any commercial use on anything zoned park. Ms. Doty said she thought anything
zoned park had to be submitted to the voters before any changes could take place. City
Attorney Ta,ddune said it i's not the zoning but the monies which bought the property.
Summers pointed out Rubey Park was not purchased wi th open srace funds. Taddune said the 'j
prior Council had committed to submit ,this to the voters.' Ms. Doty said this is the wrong'!
spot for the project; the area is too small, it is too congested already. Ms. Doty said ]1
transportation systems do need parking area. The main massive buildings should be on the;:
Rio Grande. !-f,s. Doty said she felt there was too much commercial growth in Aspen already.:!
Marvin Jordan, member of the CCLC~ said both the Mall Commission and CCLC have been ~
concerned about Rubey Park. Aspen needs to be able to serve the visitors that are here. ii
Jordan said the CCLC is on record in favor of bringing bus arrivals and departu1;es into Ii
the center of town. It is a crime against the visitors to be dumped off at night five ~
miles out of town. Jordan told Council the. CCLC chose not to go on record about the il
commercial space; however.. individually, Jordan said he did not Much care for the concept !i
of 5,000 squar.e feet of commercial space. He feels the transportation/visitors center 11
is an imperative necessity for the continued prosperity of Aspen. ij
Jerry Blann, Aspen Skiing Company, said they spend about $800,000 a year on transportatio~
to serve the customer. Blann said Aspen's need a focal point for transportation. Blann il
said he did not think the Rio Grande is the place for a transportation center ; it is 11
inefficient and energy consumptive. II
David White said this is part of a long range plan, with Rubey Park, Rio Grande and the
airport -,as part of transportation. There should be a way to 'get people from Glenwood \,'1
Springs to Aspen and back out again. Roger Hunt, P & Z member, said he has seen how ,
otner communities handle their tourists; the way Aspen handles it's tourists is rather ii
disgraceful when it comes to community services. Hunt said he felt it would be a II'
calamity ,not to have a Rubey Park transportation center. Hunt said he did have concern i
about the commercial space in this center; hqwever, this is a way for the city to get 1i'I
services that are needed without putting the financial burden on the community_ Hunt
told Council the P & Z was concerned that the commercial space should be auxiallary to II
the transportation needs. Hunt favors this as a solution to Aspen's existing prOblem. ~I!,
Kandi Shaffron said the proposed commercial space, is a negative impact because there are
empty store fronts in town. Ms. Shaffron said with lockers in the center, there'will be
a vagrancy problem. There is a need for a visitor center. Mari Peyton, a tour operator I
in town, said she has never heard tourists complain about a bus stop at Rubey Park. She 1\
has heard tourists complain that Aspen is being overrun by commercial space. !1s. Peyton III
said she would hate to see Aspen calling itself a premier ski resort and having to trade '
some rare open space because the city cannot afford to build bathrooms. 11s. Peyton said
a visitors center, shelter, and bathrooms .is warranted.
J
Joe Cooper, Highlands, said Aspen needs a transportation center and needs to get rid of
some of the cars. This should be a pedestrian community. One of the prOblems is the
locals. A good bus system and transportation center should be created. The streets shou~~
be two-thirds open space and meander through town; one-way the streets and landscape them~1
Bil Dunaway asked if the city is going to have to pay for anything at Rubey Park, or will i
Hodge Oliver, in exchange for the commercial space, pay for everything. Summers said thal
was the original concept; however, the arrangement was to get through the SPA process I
before the negotiations were finalized. I
George Parry said the city has built a good transportation system, and it is very impor- ,
tant to keep the terminal in the center of town at Rubey Park. Parry pointed out that I
a good transportation building will eliminate a lot of the black top that is at Rubey j
Park now and will have more open space and landscaping. Parry said that Aspen has to II
take care of the tourists in order to stay a tourist community. The town lacks a facilit~
where people can get out of the weather, get a snack and wait for the bus. ~
"
i!
o
_.,-,-~".~-,~-,
OJ
'1
I
I
1
J
'"
,..,
1""'\
Oonti~uedMe~~in~
Aspen City council
July 7, 1983
,
Charles Hopton said he is not against the uSe of Runey Park as a transportation stop; this I
plan is replacing blacktop with buildings. Thete are smokey buses sitting there all the II
time filling up the p~operty. .
~yor StiIling closed the public hearing. ~
~~~i!man Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 1983, on second. reading; secondeq
bW i:ouncilman Collins a Ii
II
II
:;
Ii
cauncilman Blomquist said he would prefer to adopt only section 1 of the ordinance so the
rezoning is accomplished hut not the approval'oitha SPA. Councilman Blomquist sRidhe
would also prefer to eliminate the transportation/drainage overlay. CouncilmanBlornquist
objected to the commercial space!- it is excess.ive. Councilman Blomquist said he feels
the city can handle improvements at Rubey Park without involving the private sector.
ii
Councilman Col~ins said he felt there is strong feeling in the community about this half II
block as a park. Councilman Collins said he felt it was purchased for that; it was a !i
park at one time, and people feel strongly' in that regard. Councilman Collins agreed this i,
is not the appropriate location for such a facility in terms of the scope and magnitude' !.
of this. Councilman Collins said a few years ago, there was strong feelina against large ;'
buses coming into the center of town and feels this is a valid consideration today. F
Councilman Collins stated open space is very p.t'ecious. Councilman Collins, said regarding
auto disincentive, at some point, Aspen will reach diminishing returns. Councilman Collins
agreed something needs to be done to inspire the tourists; Aspen needs an information
center. Councilman Collins said the downtown area is speciali and bus terminals do not
compliment what Aspen is trying to do in the downtown area. Councilman Collins said he
would like the city to take another look at this site, to inclur.e some things needed to
handle the buses a~d a modest information center.
Councilman Knecht said the visitor's center isvery'irnportant. The taxpayers will not have
to pay for anything in this proposal. Councilman Knecht s~id he felt the taxpayers should
be allowed to vote for this proposal. Councilwoman Walls said she does not like the size '
Of the plan as it is now; does not like the cOlnmercial space nor the uses that are listed
in the ordinance. Councilwoman Walls said Aspen does neerl a transportation/visitor
center with bathrooms, lockers-, ski storage. Councilwoman Walls sRin Trailways has got
to come into town to be able to drop people off in town.
Mayor Stirling stated he is concernerlabout the commercial space because the city should
not bea partner in commercial space. This space will be highly visible and rentable, and
will leav~ other already built commercial space empty. Mayor Stirling said he is concerned
about losing open space in this area, although Rubey Park is not an ideal park. Hayor
Stirling said a transportation center of this size will draw a lot of density into the
downtown area. Mayor Stirling said Aspen needs a visitor center there and. a small trans-
portation center; the commercial space is not appropriate. 11ayor Stirling said he would
like to see Rio Grande used as a secondary transportation center in a variety of ways.
Mayor Stirling said he is also concerned that the city does not know exactly what the
developer is going to co and what he is going to pay for.
ROllcall vote; Councilmembers Blomquist, nay; Knecht, ayei Collins, ayei Walls, naYi
.Mayor Stirling, nay. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Blornauist moved to adjourn at 8:15; seconded by Councilman Knecht_ All in favor,
motion carried. .
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
July II, 1903
Mayor Sti.rling call~d ~he me<eti~"7 to ordEr at
Knecht, Walls and Blomquist present.
with :o;z.:;ilm;;:mb,;:,::,;~ cell illS,
5:03 'o.m.
\i
"
"
Ii
1. N'ic:!1.o1as (Frenchy) !)z:-1ie:1 zaic. that t.~h= bi.c?cle tr::>.ffi;;:- i::; the :nz.lls 3eems to .l:;.,;: ;ett.ing:!
,,"'orse, e.~(I. r;,_S'..~t;:'3tet'. 3C:r.~' ~\',3.Y ~~f €nf~Jrci:r'.g thi.~. De.~,Ue~ pair.tee. out ':r.,~re ar~:.1.ots of ~i
pec:?l,:,: .'ind rrc;"sical 7rc:1.?S in t.:b.e rr.:=:.ll, ,';lr:.o. t:::..; bi'=:J"clez d.o n.:>t :nix. X.;.::.,:.:,::' S-:.i.t'li.::-:.-; ::;~l..~ Ii
at l...~r.ch, ~e ~\..s.3 =3.r(~ly :"r.iss~':, by St)IT'.e ~icycles; :;.e zto~"\:?e:: so::r.e bicycle r.i,.l~r! ;3.::16 ,a.;~k.ed. Ii
them to ....<:>.lk their bike~. JC:Jn Gcr;.:h..irM' .~.zge~ polic~ ?::ep3.rt:nent, z.?.:i,d t;:.e p.:.l.i.ce: d'3raxt.- Ii
ment tries to get out on the mall as often as possible.. The police department .,\"01:-.1:;, .like ii
citizens to help. Edie Dunn said that bicycle riders, i.n general, are not obeying traffic 11
signals, stop signs, around town. Mayor Btirling asked if the police l.:...:!'~~a;:t.me~); "cicke.-:.s \1
bicyclers. Goodwin said they stop bicyclers and talk with them. The police department II
has shied a"-a.y ::rom ~'r.iting ticl~ets beC,luse they found it \\'a.:; ~,ot effe.c-:::i\Te; it is i:"(()re !i
effective speaki.r,q to th:=~~l~ Ci~~l ~anagz:o: ChaFn".ii::1 ~u(.!3"e:;ted m.J,kinq bicycle t:':"i3..f:::Lc in. ".:t.e
mall .::'. Fo.lic~ effcrt for t.l-..e next cctJ.?le of \\'e~k.'!. C~a9:r.a:~ s,::ii:i t,e, would r..ave staff
contact th.e :'::>icy.::le rS!1tal and repair ehcpstl':: r2:>'1L:.d t;:e:;n t~.ere. i.'3 li.C :'icyc.le rid.ir:q ~r;.
the Jr,'?,ll.
CITIZ~~ PA~TICI?ATION
2. 'Michael Gassman read to Ccu.ncil a lat.ter. 'that he is r..l~o 51.ib::nitt.ir.g t.c t),.e City counCil!1
of Denver. "Council Members: I
The .Cities 0:: P',~pen and Dem7G:r have a terrific o9Port.il:.1i':.:t to so17e tm,.. big prol::].ern;.; t
at once. , il
about this year's puny, lackluster, and generall~
"
il
about the traffic congestion !i
by the numerous parades j:
Ii
u
I:
People in'Aspen have been complaining
dissappointing Fourth of July Parade.
At the sarne time, people in Denver have been complaining
increased commuting times, and all-round inconvenience caused
associa-t~d with.last week's Shriner's convention.
I""'.
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Rubey Park SPA
DATE:
June 13, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~d~
LocatiOn: Lots K. L, M, N, 0, P, Q, Rand S, Block 90, original Aspen
townsite, City of Asepn.
Zoning: "P" - Park
TD Overlays - Transportation and Drainage
Applicant's
Request: The appl i C3.nt is requesti ng rezoni ng from "Park" to "Publ i c/SPA",
adoption of the precise development plan, exemption of the
9,070 square feet of public space from growth management
competition and exemption of the employee housing unit from
GMP, and exemption from the provision of parking for the
employee units.
Referra 1
Comments: The Housing Office points out that Sec. 24-ll.2(e) Exemptions
from the Growth Management Quota System has been amended by
Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1982) to read:
"All construction of essential governmental projects
other than housing; subject to the special approval
of the City Council upon the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. To be eligible for
said exemption the applicant shall be required to
document that the impacts of the project will be
mitigated, including the employee housing generation,
parking demand and the basic service provision."
The documentation needed for this project to be exempt would simply be
a pledge by the City Council that they will continue to require residential
development to generate employee housing.
The City Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Drainage: The application is somewhat confusing with regard
to the handling of on-site storm drainage. The
site plan appears toindicate on-site drywell
detention systems. This is the desirable solution
to maintain the aquifer.
2. Trash Access: The trash area proposed for the structure is fully
enclosed and separated from the alley by doors.
Section 24-3.7(h)(4) requires an "open area"
accessible to the alley. The trash and utility
area should be redesigned to allow open access
to the alley.
3. . The site design appears to eliminate public access tl? thbe .Plad:king
area north of the alley and south of the Stefan Kae 1n Ul lng.
,
/''''.'\
,-,
.
Memo: Rubey ParlCSPA
Page Two .
June n 1983
",
WEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The area included in the site is from the alley to the north, the
sidewalk to the south and an additional 14,770 square feet which is the
extension of the malls on Galena and Mill Streets. The total land area
is 1.23 acres.
The proposed building totals 15,730 square feet of which 5,810
square feet was allotted in the 1983 Commercial Growth Management
Competition as accessory commercial space. A two-bedroom employee housing
unit of 850 square fe,et is part of the proposal. The remaining 9,070
square feet constitute the public areas of the transit/visitor center.
BACKGROUND
.'
Since each of you has been given a copy of the SPA submission for
,this project and it thoroughly covers the project history, we will move
On to the evaluation of the proposal.
EVAlU~TION CRITERIA
1. Compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site,
considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the
applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability
of the site for development in terms of on-site characteristics,
TIle criteria outlined in the Municipal Code for evaluation of a
specially Planned Area are contained in Section 24-7.2(d) of the Code.
-rhe plan shall be considered and approved '.. as if an application by a
private lando\1ner for an amendment to the zoning district map;" .The
. review must be based on, although not necessarily limited to, the
evaluation criteria outlined in Sec.24-12.5(d)(1).
The transportation/visit~r's center is proposed for location
adjacent to Aspen's primarY"fOurist lodging district and the Commercial
_ Core. The site is, of course, already in use as a transportation center
for the City, County and ski area bus systems. The building bulk is
compatible with that surrounding the site, as buildings on all sides
are at least two-story and generally cover the lots they occupy to a
greater percentage than will this structure. To the west is Wagner Park,
which contains no structures. The continuation of the Mill Street
section of the mall should integrate well with the transition from
Rubey Park to Wagnes Park. The 'building has been placed on the westerly
portion of the site to eliminate the problem of sixable buildings on
both sides of Galena Street which ~ould form, as the applicant has
stated, "a potential canyon effect." We feel that the applicant's
attempt to "create the greatest feeling of open space and least perceived
bulk and density with the available land" has been well executed by the
PI'oposed site plan. As i ndi ca ted in the GMP submi ss i on and worth
reiterating here, the project will nearly double the existing landscaping
and open space and reduce asphalt paving by approximately 20,000 square feet.
No site problems exist that require mitigation. .
2. Impacts upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availabil ity
of on and off-street parking and ability to provide utility
,'i service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment
of the fiscal impact upon the .community.
:'~
~;~
.
"
-'.
1,
r-
~
l4emo: Rubey Park. 'SPA
Page Three
June 27, 1983
"
The project is intended for use by the mass transit user. A minimal amount
of on-site parking is being provided (6-16 short term spaces, depending
on the season) so the project should not be a traffic generator. It will
simply be impractical in the winter to drive a car to the Visitor's Center.
In the summer. when the typical visitor is more likely to be driving a
car, there will be more parking spaces available. A stop at the Visitor's
Center should be relatively brief (half an hour or less). By consolidating
visitor needs, there may be a traffic reduction (in terms of auto trips) and
the touri st wi 11 be made ar/are of the bus system by comi ng to the center.
If the decision is made to bring Trailways buses to this center, there will
be taxi cab activity that must be accommodated. The sacrifice of the
present parking lot on the site (approximately 32 spaces) is unfortunate
because of the loss of spaces, (net" approximately 16 in summer, 26
in winter) but the overall benefit of the new center far outweighs that
loss. A decision in favor of this plan will also increase the need for
the parking garage at the Rio Grande to proceed in a timely manner.
Also, since buses presently access the transit center via the alley,
there is less than cptimum interaction of cars, pedestrians, and buses.
The increased safety offered by the interior loop arrangement of the
plan is overdue. At present buses are forced to back up in potentially
hazardous areas of skier staging operations; they conflict with pedestrians
on Mill, Galena and at the entrance and exit of the alley; and interact
with automobiles on Durant Street. All of these unfortunate situations
are being eliminated by this plan. The provision of utility services is
adequately handlec! by existing levels of service. The applicant \~i11 be
required to provide on-site drY'"lell detention systems to handl e as much
storm runoff as possible, as represented in the GMP subdivision.
It is important to note that the approach taken by the applicant to have a
'private individual develop a much-needed' public facility by subsidizing its
costs via conmercial development represents an important savings in
capital outlays by the public. This innovative financing mechanism
achieves substantial fiscal benefits to the "community, with the only
impact being the addition of new co~nercial space. which the applicant
has mitigated via the GMP Application.
3. Impacts upon expected'air and water quality in the vicinity of the site.
Idling buses are not an enhancement to air quality. However. the proposal
does not include an increase in bus trips from the status quo. The
effect on water quality will be no greater than any typical commercial
development and should be mitigated by the on-site retention of drainage.
4. Analysis of the community need for the project and the relationship
of the proposal to the goal of overall community balance.
'The Aspen/Pitkin County transit system is second in size only to
Denver's RTO system in the state of Colorado. There are approximately
50 vehicles operating in this system and essentially no center from
which to operate. In order to make the system more attractive to both
the res i dent and vi sitor, the deve 1 opment of thi s trans it center is
essential. For the visitor to be attracted to using the system, the
experience must be more positive than that offered by the 384 square
foot bunding that now represents a transit centr;:r. The building aside,
the present visitor experience of being corraled in a mud puddle when
awaiting ski bus boarding has to be less than memorable. For a major
ski resort that relies on a public transportation system to the degree
.
I"""'-
~
"
Memo: Rubey Park SPA
Page Four
June 22, 1983
j ~,
that we do, a center from which to operate is a vital community need and
necessary to balance the system. The 1973 Vool'hees Regional Transportation
Plan identifies Rubey Park as the location for Aspen's transit center
and for skier staging operations. There may not be a demonstrated need
for the commercial space, however the quota allocated in the 1983
COlmnercia1 GHP competition did not exceed the year's available quota
and the 5810 square feet of commercial space awarded to this project
is necessary to underwrite the costs of the public components of the center.
5. 'Compatibility of the project with the Aspen Area General Plan
. of 1966. as amended.
Rubey Park is shown on the plan as a Public area for use as a
"Transit Terminal." As noted above, the Regi ona 1 Transporta ti on P1 an also
identifies the site for this purpose. '
. 6. Ilhether the proposal will promote the health, safety and general
trelfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen.
The free transit system is a necessary element of the town for,
many residents and especially winter visitors. The increased safety
aspects of the plan have already been discussed.
,ADOPTION OF THE PRECISE PLAN
The building'facade has been modified in response to comments of the
"PC and received their approval on February 8th of this year.'
The submitted narrati ve outli nes in detail the site P1 an, buil di ng
design and interior floor plans. This plan can be adopted as the precise
developD~nt plan for the parcel through the SPA process. The maximum exterior
FAR is 1.5:1 (in keeping with the adjacent CC zone district).
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
fhe Planning and 2onir.a Commission considered the rermittcd and cor.diti')nal us~s
as submitted by the applicant and Planning Office and the proposed function of
the facility and decided on the parameters for uses as listed in their attached
resolution.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT REQUESTS
.
"
Exemptions' from Gro\1th Management Competiti on are reques ted in the fa 11 owi ng
categories:
1. Exemption for Public Space.
2. Exemption of Accessory Use Area.
3. Exemption of the employee unit being provided and from the provision
of parking. for the unit.
The pub 1 i c space in the buil di ng wi 11 be those areas used for the
administration of the transportation services and administration of winter
and summer resort services. The intention of the Public zone is
II to provi de for the deve 1 opment of governmenta 1 and quasi -governmenta 1
facilities ,for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental
purposes." Permitted used inClude "public transit stop; terminal
buildings; transportation related facilities; public park." Sec.24-l1.2(e)
of the Municipal Code as amended by Ordinance 53, Series of 1982,
provides for exempti ons from growth management for essenti a 1 governmental
projects, subject to the review and recolllmendation of the P & Z and City
Counci 1.
~,
~
Memo: Rubey Park'. SPA
Page Five
June ~21 1983
P'
.
To be eligible for the exemption, the applicant i.s required to document
that the impacts of the project will be miti9ateo, including the
employee housing generation, parking demand and the basic service provision.
The basic services are in place, the parking has been discussed earlier
in this memo and the provision of emploYee housing for a public project
is built in to the overall City plan to both provide employee housing
through publ icprojects and the requirements that growth generates housing
to offset its impacts. This transit facility is also a response to a
lag in the provision of infractructure for the transportation system and
is not a growth generator.
The exemption of the accessory use areas is being requested for the provision
of a food service operation of 900 square feet. Thi s amenity woul d fall
into the permitted use section as a "trans'portation related facility" and
part of the Dtem;n..] building". The proposal is outlined in detail in
the subm; sshm ,and Ifill ,be a ",servi ce queue/cashier/ counter ser\d ("P
format." We believe that this facility. is a subordinate use in structure particularly
since it win have coincident hours of operation with the facility. A snack bar
15 a customary accesscry use within the transit facility and is an amenity
that wi 11 incre~se the convenience and comfort of the trans it user.
, The'ernployee unit being provided within the center is an 850 square
foot two-bedroom unit. as required in the Gr~p competition, for which an
exemption needs to be granted. The applicant is also requesting that
the provisions of parking spaces for the unit be waived. Considering the
proximity of the center to the Commercial Core, the mountain and certainly
all bus routes. the waiver of providing parking is very justifiable.
Planning and Zonin~
Commission and
Planning Office
Recomrilendation:
The attached resolu~~vn is the recommendation.
Counei 1
Action:
The appropriate motion is:
"l move to adopt Ordinance 23, Series of 1983."
"
"
"
.'
,1""\
.1""\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, City Engineering Department ~
FROM:
DATE:
March 23, 1983
RE:
Rubey Park SPA
Having reviewedctre above application to establish a specific SPA
plan for the Rubey Park visitor's center, and having made a
site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Storm Drainage: The application is somewhat confusing with
regard to how on-site storm, drainage is to be handled. The site
plan appears to indicate on..,site drywell detention systems.
This is the desirable solution to maintain the aquifer.
The narrative in the application, however, seems to suggest that
all on-site storm water will be routed to the City storm drain
system. In view of our reluctance to allow private developers
to burden the storm drains with runoff from roofs and other
impervious areas" it would be most desirable for this project
to handle as much storm runoff on-site as possible.
2. Trash Access: The trash area proposed for the structure is
fully enclosed and seperated from the alley by doors. Aspen
Municipal Code Section 24-3.7(h) (4) requires an "open area"
accessible to the alley. The enclosed arrangement proposed
would not permit easy access to trash dumpsters, would not
permit placement of an electric transformer vault with a crane,
and would not allow easy reading of meters. The trash and
utility area should be redesigned to allow open access to the
alley.
3. The site design appears to eliminate public access to the
parking area north of the alley and south of the Stefan Kaelin
building.
JH/co
I'"'.,
~
pit:kin caunt:y cammunit:y cent:er
0100 lone pine road
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-6610
14 E M 0 RAN D U 1>1
TO:
Colette pe;vne //
Jim Hamil to ,',"
r
March 23, 1983
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ruby Park SPA
I have reviewed the SPA application for the Ruby Park project and have
found that the applicants assertion that he has satisfied the employee
housing requirement through a previously developed employee housing
project is neither correct nor necessary. His assertion is incorrect
because this project is already developed and occupied and, therefore,
does not provide new housing for new employees generated as a result of
the Ruby Park project.
The applicants assertion that he needs to satisfy the employee housing
requirement at all, is incorrect because Sec. 24-11.2 of the Aspen
Municipal Code exempts the need to develop such housing even taking into
consideration Ordinance 53 amending said section.
Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1982) amending Sec. 24-11.2(e) states:
"All construction of essential governmental projects
other than housing, subject to the special approval
of the City Council upon the recommendation of the
Planning and zoning commission. To be eligible for
said exemption, the applicant shall be required to
document that the impacts of the project will be
mitigated, including the employee housing generation,
parking demand and the basic service provision."
The sentence stating "To be eligible for said exemption, the applicant
shall be required to document that the impacts of the project will be
mitigated, including the employee housing generation. . ." is the
basis for the employee housing requirement associated with residential
development.
.-.-.
i~
Colette Penne
March 23, 1983
Page Two
The reason being is that residential development does not precipitate
employee generation in the private sector per se. In other words, to
the extent that residential development generates the "need" for
another boutique, the employees of that boutique have been (or should
have been) housed in conjunction with the development of the commercial
space occupied by that boutique.
Then why do we have an employee housing requirement for residential
development? The purpose of the regulation is clearly to offset the
need for employee housing in the public sector. The premise is that
each residential unit developed precipitates the need for a fraction
of a public employee. In other words, once a certain number of residen-
tial units are developed, the community needs to hire more school
teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, bus drivers, etc., hence, the
requirement for employee housing associated with residential development.
Therefore, in my opinion, the documentation needed for this project to
be exempt would simply be a pledge by the City Council that they will
continue to require residential development to generate employee housing.
,""""
,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Rubey Park SPA
i~ay 9,
1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Location: Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, Rand S, Block 90, 0
Aspen townsite, City of Aspen
Zoning: "P" - Park
TO Overlays - Transportation and Drainage
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting rezoning from "Park" to "Public/SPA",
adoption of the precise development plan, exemption of the
9,070 square feet of public space from growth management
competition and exemption of the employee housing unit from
GMP, and exemption from the prOVision of parking for the
employee units.
Referra 1
Comments:
The Housing Office points out that Sec. 24-ll.2(e) Exemptions
from the Growth Management Quota System has been amended by
Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1982) to read:
"All construction of essential governmental projects
other than housing, subject to the special approval
of the City Council upon the recommendati on of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. To be eligible for
said exemption the applicant shall be required to
document that the impacts of the project will be
mitigated, including the employee housing generation,
parking demand and the basic service provision."
The documentation needed for this project to be ,exempt would simply be
a pledge by the City Council that they will continue to require residential
development to generate employee housing.
The City Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Drainage: The application is somewhat confusing with regard
to the handling of on-site storm drainage. The
site plan appears to indicate"on-site drywell
detention systems. This is the desirable solution
to maintain the aquifer.
2. Trash Access: The trash area proposed for the structure is fully
enclosed and separated from the alley by doors.
Section 24-3.7(h)(4) requires an "open area"
accessible to the alley. The trash and utility
area should be redesigned to allow open access
to the alley.
1"""\
1"""\
Page Two
Rubey Park SPA
May 9, 1983
3. The site design appears to eliminate public. access to the parking
area north of the alley and south of the Stefan Kaelin building.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The area included in the site is from the alley to the north, the
sidewalk to the south and an additional 14,770 square feet which is the
extension of the malls on Galena and Mill Streets. The total land area
is 1.23 acres.
The proposed building totals 15,730 square feet of which 5,810
square feet was allotted in the 1983 Commercial Growth Management
Competition as accessory commercial space. A two-bedroom employee housing
unit of 850 square feet is part of the proposal. The remaining 9,070
square feet constitute the public areas of the transit/visitor center.
BACKGROUND
Since each of you has been given a copy of the SPA submission for
this project and it thoroughly covers the project history, we will move
on to the evaluation of the proposal.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The criteria outlined in the Municipal Code for evaluation of a
Specially Planned Area are contained in Section 24-7.2(d) of the Code.
"The plan shall be considered and approved... as if an application by a
private landowner for an amendment to the zoning district map." The
review must be based on, although not necessarily 1 imited to, the
evaluation criteria outlined in Sec.24-12.5(d)(1).
1. Compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site,
considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the
applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability
of the site for development in terms of on-site characteristics.
The transportation/visitor's center is proposed for location
adjacent to Aspen's primary rourist lodging district and the Commercial
Core. The site is, of course, already in use as a transportation center
for the City, County and ski area bus systems. The building bulk is
compatible with that surrounding the site, as buildings on all sides
are at least two-story and generally cover the lots they occupy to a
greater percentage than will this structure. To the west is Wagner Park,
which contains no structures. The continuation of the Mill Street
section of the mall should integrate well with the transition from
Rubey Park to Wagnes Park. The building has been placed on the westerly
portion of the site to eliminate the problem of sixable buildings on
both sides of Galena Street which ~ould form, as the applicant has
stated, "a potential canyon effect." We feel that the applicant's
attempt to "create the greatest feeling of open space and least perceived
bulk and density with the available land" has been well executed by the
proposed site plan. As indicated in the GMP submission and worth
reiterating here, the project will nearly double the existing landscaping
and open space and reduce asphalt paving by approximately 20,000 square feet.
No site problems exist that require mitigation.
2. Impacts upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability
of on and off-street parking and ability to provide utility
service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment
of the fiscal impact upon the community.
,.....,
.~
Page Three
RUbey Park SPA
May 9, 1 983
The project is intended for use by the mass transit user. A minimal amount
of on-site parking is being, provided (6-16 short term spaces, depending
on the season) so the project should not be a traffic generator. It will
simply be impractical in the winter to drive a car to the Visitor's Center.
In the summer, when the typi ca 1 vi s itor is more 1 i ke ly to be dri vi ng a
car, there will be more parking spaces available. A stop at the Visitor's
Center should be relatively brief (half an hour or less). By consolidating
visitor needs, there may be a traffic reduction (in terms of auto trips) and
the tourist will be made aware of the bus system by coming to the center.
If the decision is made to bring Trailways buses to this center, there will
be taxi cab activity that must be accommodated. The sacrifice of the
present parking lot on the site (approximately 32 spaces) is unfortunate
because of the loss of spaces, (net = approximately 16 in summer, 26
in winter) but the overall benefit of the new center far outweighs that
loss. A decision in favor of this plan will also increase the need for
the parking garage at the Rio Grande to proceed in a timely manner.
Also, since buses presently access the transit center via the alley,
there is less than optimum interaction of cars, pedestrians, and buses.
The increased safety offered by the interior loop arrangement of the
plan is overdue. At present buses are forced to back up in potentially
hazardous areas of skier staging operations; they conflict with pedestrians
on Mill, Galena and at the entrance and exit of the alley; and interact
with automobiles on Durant Street. All of these unfortunate situations
are being eliminated by this plan. The provision of utility services is
adequate ly handl ed by exi sti ng 1 eve 1 s of servi ce. The appl i cant wi 11 be
required to provide on-site drywell detention systems to handle as much
storm runoff as possible, as represented in the GMP subdivision.
It is important to note that the approach taken by the applicant to have a
private individual develop a much-needed public facility by subsidizing its
costs via commercial development represents an important savings in
capital outlays by the public. This innovative financing mechanism
achieves substantial fiscal benefits to the community, with the only
impact being the addition of new commercial space, which the applicant
has mitigated via the GMP Application.
3. Impacts upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site.
Idling buses are not an enhancement to air quality. However, the proposal
does not include an increase in bus trips from the status quo. The
effect on water quality will be no greater than any typical commercial
development and should be mitigated by the on-site retention of drainage.
4. Analysis of the community need for the project and the relationship
of the proposal to the goal of overall community balance.
The Aspen/Pitkin County transit system is second in size only to
Denver's RTD system in the state of Colorado. There are approximately
50 vehicles operating in this system and essentially no center from
which to operate. In order to make the system more attractive to both
the resident and visitor, the development of this transit center is
essential. For the visitor to be attracted to using the system, the
experience must be more positive than that offered by the 384 square
foot building that now represents a transit center. The building aside,
the present visitor experience of being corraled in a mud puddle when
awaiting ski bus boarding has to be less than memorable. For a major
ski resort that relies on a public transportation system to the degree
r----
'--,
Page Four
Rubey Park SPA
May 9, 1 983
that we do, a center from which to operate is a vital community need and
necessary to balance the system. The 1973 Voorhees Regional Transportation
Plan identifies Rubey Park as the location for Aspen's transit center
and for skier staging operations. There may not be a demonstrated need
for the commercial space, however the quota allocated in the 1983
Commercial GMP competition did not exceed the year's available quota
and the 5810 square feet of commercial space awarded to this project
is necessary to underwrite the costs of the public components of the center.
5. Compatibility of the project with the Aspen Area General Plan
of 1966, as amended.
Rubey Park is shown on the plan asa,Public area for use as a
"Transit Terminal." As noted above, the Regional Transportation Plan also
identifies the site for this purpose.
6. Whether the proposal will promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen.
The fr-e'e transit system is a necessary ele,ment of the town for
many residents and especially winter visitors. The increased safety
aspects of the plan have already been discussed.
ADOPTION OF THE PRECISE PLAN
!
!
The building 'facade ras been modified in response to comments of the
HPC and received thelr approval on February 8th'of this year.
The submitted narrative outlines in detail the sHe Plan, building,
design and interior floor plans. This plan can be adopted as the precise
development plan for the parcel through the SPA process. The maximum exterior
FAR is 1.5:1 (in keeping with the adjacent CC zone district).
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
Tile Planning and Zoni~a Com:nission considered the ren'litted and cor.diti8nal uses
as submitted by the applicant and Planning Office and the proposed function of
the facility and decided on the parameters for uses as listed in their attached
reso 1 uti on.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT REQUESTS
Exemptions from Growth Management Competition are requested in the following
categories:
1. Exemption for Public Space.
2. Exemption of Accessory Use Area.
3. Exemption of the employee unit being provided and from the provision
of parking for the unit.
I
The public space in the building will be those areas used for the
administration of the transportation services and administration of winter
and summer resort services. The intention of the Public zone is
"to provide for the development of governmental and quasi-governmental
facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental
purposes." Permitted used include "public transit stop; terminal
buildings; transportation related facilities; public park." Sec.24-1l.2(e)
of the Municipal Code as amended by Ordinance 53, Series of 1982,
provides for exemptions from growth management for essential governmental
projects, subject to the review and recommendation of the P & Z and City
Council.
r--
~,
,..-"
Page Six
Rubey Park SPA
May 9_, 1983
To be eligible for the exemption, the applicant is required to document
that the impacts of the project will be mitigated, including the
employee housing generation, parking demand and the basic service provision.
The basic services are in place, the parking has been discussed earlier
in this memo and the provision of employee housing for a public project
is built in to the overall City plan to both provide employee housing
through public projects and the requirements that growth generates housing
to offset its impacts. This transit facility is also a response to a
lag in the provision of infractructure for the transportation system and
is not a growth generator.
The exemption of the accessory use areas is being requested for the provision
of a food service operation of 900 square feet. This amenity would fall
into the permitted use section as a "transportation related facility" and
part of the '~terminal building". The proposal is outlined in detail in
the submi S5 i,9n ,and wi H ,b.e a ".~ervi ce queue/cashi er/ counter servirp
format." We -believe that this facility is a subordinate use in structure particularly
since it will have coincident hourS. of operation with theJacility, A snack bar
is a customary accessory use within the transit facility and is an amenity
that will increase the convenience and comfort of the transit user.
The employee unit being provided within the center is an 850 square
foot two-bedroom unit, as required in theGMP competition, for which an
exemption needs to be granted. The applicant is also requesting that
the provisions of parking spaces for the unit be waived. Considering the
proximity of the center to the Commercial Core, the mountain and certainly
all bus routes, the waiver of providing parking is very justifiable. ,
Planning and Zoninu
Commission and
Planning Office
Recommendati on:
The attached resolu~iGn is the recommendation.
-CoLlncil' i\ctl on:
If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
in Resolution 83-3, the appropriate motion is:
"I move to read Ordi nance dE , Series of 1983."
"I move to approve Ordi nance 4.0 , Seri es of 1983."
r-,
,-
FROM:
~EMORA
COLETTE PENNY
JAY HAMMOND ~, _
MONROE SUMMERS /I~
N DUM
;,
RE:
RUBEY PARK SPA
l-o':---
r"
[lj
r
'i( APR 1:, 1983;
~:... \,,:;--:-:,-"~':::",'~"'-' :
'::;L:' /~ / PiTI{~' ca. "-j
IT"r;l'\iVl;\JG OFFice-.
""""'----,
" :;Ji;Jnf'7r--.~
;', '.,", \\ \, ;"".,,1 ,
,:,:', -..-i? i, '" .f.>, Ir'
''''~'-,' , . f
...-.",,,c,, ':1..
,j
)1 ';
,
TO:
DATE:
APRIL 11, 1983
The attached from Timberline Disposal systems is in ,answer to the
proposed SPA ordinance condition on subject submittal concerning
elimination of an enclosed trash area.
I feel that this is a stop in the right direction in cleaning up
our alleys. My sense of the P&Z is that they would support such
a change in policy.
MS/lc
~,~,.",. ,""
,,.-
~
,
Timberline
Disposal systems, Inc.
serving
Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt
Jerry VanderVelde
Hr. Honroe Summers
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81612
April 7, 1983
Dear Nr, Summers:
I have carefully checked out the preliminary plans for removing trash and
rubbish from the new Rubey Park Visitor/Transit Center Project. I can
assure you that the system you propose of placing dumpsters within an
enclosed area will present no problems for my company. This type of
trash removal system is fairly standard in my experience, and we
anticipate no problems in rolling containers out to the truck.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you. Please feel
free to call on me at any time if further questions arise.
Sincerely" ~1~
~d.w~tMo
-
JV/cbg
Box 7936 . Aspen, CO 816] 2
Bus.: 925'3406 . Home: 945-7532
CITY/COUNTY PLANi'lINCi> OFFIGE
r 130 S. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO 81511
r
'4'
,
l
t.=:-. -...--....,-.. ._--,- ,....., ,i>....-.. ,--"0
~p~~6~~.~
( ~jI\~ '0,,,
\.- J~I'.J
MARZ 1'83 y;:? -'l
; j... ~ I
-. : I
. .. , 1 ~ K I
COLO ~B.52335~ L
CAP?OLLTON STATIO.
MAR 24_
:NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70111
MOVED, LEFT NO ADDllESI
.
~~qQ Q ;]
~OP~il[; 12:" ,
M~~~: ~ 8 19B3 : \
~~
f,:;PEN / PITKIN CO.
OFFiCE
GLEN CARIMI, Nono J. PECORARO
7934 MAPLE ST. .
NEW ORLEANS, LA '70118
j.......,......"...:>.,~.. ". .
~ .>; ,,' "~.,
:."........",.,,,.,"',,.'.,,.
:.._"
.;..~-
t"..
(""'0.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CiJ;y Attorney
lCW Engineer
vltousing Office
~'P0'n!"'S..jle.pa r:tmen t
"tHy Transportati on
PLANNER:. Colette Penne
,..... '.
',". ""..
"
~ ~.
BE:
Rubey Park SPA
, ,_,' ,.!lATE:, ,;,>.JAa~ch J5,. ",J.923 '.".
'j~'P1","s"ft'lld "the"application submitted for the Rubey Park Transportation
Center rezoning to SPA. We apologize for aSking you to review this application
as expeditiously as possible, but the City was late in submitting it to us,
.aaQ".the,...i.1:ellli,S,"""'cb.e.duled to go before the Aspen P&Z on Apri 1 5, so pl ease
return your comments to the Planning Office no later than March 23.
r./'Jank .yeLl.
~
...
. "'. , ".~.;i'
..'.
....- " ~'",~"'.,..-. ."
, , "".,
. ;.,
- ~-~"
.'-"
,~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Rubey Park SPA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 5, 1983 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to review the cops!~~~tion of the Rubey Park
Transportation Center. Specifically, the Ci~'iffltllj>twill review site
design for the bus circulation and visitor's center, and will set the area
and bulk requirements through the SPA process. For further information,
contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By: s/Perry Harvey, Chairman
,Published in'the Aspen Times on March 17, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
.
..
",
". . . '-"~'-"-'''''-'--,''_'''''---'--'-''---'-'-~-''----'-'--
. ..,..,...,..-,'....-- ~~, ......-.;,....;,...........
~,,:..,.,.
... ~ ,::"'<a.
.. .. , ~.
,,,..,,- ,
t""~
r--.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on March 21 . 19 83 a true and
correct copy of the Notice of Pub I ic Hearing regarding Rubey Park SPA
was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed
to the following:
See attached.
.
A1tVt:dJ/h&A//.~
Martha Eichelberger ,
..._,......-~........_^.,.~-',~.c-."'~~~'-..;"., .';"'_.~""""'"'"--..,...~.,--'-'."';':":';';""~;":-..~.'~_""~""""'-'._.''-''''.:,^,.-..c'''''''''~_~_'__''__,__,,__
{~,
\...,./
(''''r.:~
\~" .
'...........
PUBLI C NOT! CE
RE: Rub~y Park SPA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 5, 1983 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to review the construction of the Rubey Park
Transportation Center. Specifically, the Commission will review site
design for the bus circulation and visitor's center, and will set the area
and bulk requirements through the SPA process. For'further information,
contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By: s/Perry Harvey, Chairman
Published in the Aspen Times on March 17, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
-,
.
-------------
EUGENE B. & MARLENE R, SHAPIRO
, 1870 ROSEMARY RD.,
HIGHLAND PARK, ILL. 60035
NORTON & VIRGINIA B. SHARPE
2450(),~O.!lN COLTER RD.
HIDDEN HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91302
GERALD ENGMAN,DAVID F. GORDON,
STEPHEN J. PHILLIPS
P.O. B,OX NN
ASPEN, COLO~DO 81612
DAVID KIRCHENBAUM
1015 EUCLID AVE.
CLEVELAND, mho 44115
MARYLAND ASPEN ASSOC.
P.O. BOX 1100
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
PETER HERSHORN
4383 WESTMOUNT AVE
WESTMOUNT, QUEBEC
H3Y 1W8 CANADA
JEROME L. SCHOSTAK
17515 W. NI~E"MlLE RD.
SOUTHFIELD, MICH. 48065
GERALD & MARY SALTON
221 Y.ALLEY RD.
ITHACA, NY JA850
..........
.
~AVery@.~
Plain Bond Labels
------------
NOTE: Do not type directly on the
Typing Guide or place It in
copIer because the black
lines will copy onto the
labels.
ROGELIO SADA
APANTEDO POSTEL 88
MONTERREY, N.L.
MEXICO
ROBERT P. GARRITANO
THOMAS A GARRITANO
5302 WEST DRUMMOND PLACE
,CHICAGO, ILL. 60639
AMELIA BRITVAR, LARRY SANDS,
WALTER BIRK, FRANK J. WOODS,
E. ROBERT GORDON
730 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DAVID F. & LETRICIA B. GORDON
P.O. BOX NN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
, BILL E. & ,XIOMARA CHILDRESS
4033 HYGEL AVE.
SARASOTA;, FLORIDA 33581
M. JOAN FARVER,
2609 SPRING GROVE TERRACE.
CHRISTIAN CHRIST
P.O. BOX 4947
--- ---"--~"--
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
ROBERT
I
rUt ^~IUA.""
914.420'720.1000.2400-
3600.4000.4500'7000
770'0,9200
and most other plain bond copier:
type using full sheet "
------------
For XEROX" 660 do not type above
broken line.
JOHN H.o & JOANNE CHILDERS
~299 KNOLLWOOD CR.
LAKE FOREST, ILL 60045
GEORGE A. HYMAN
203 E. 72ND
NEW YORK, NEW YORK'
10021
A.J. 'GREGG REALTY, CO.
23511 CHAGRIN BLVD. SUITE 314
BEACHWOOD, OHIO 44122
EDWIN oJ. & ADELINE M. GROSSE
34135 HUNTERS ROW
FARMINGTON HIDLS, MICHIGAN
48018
COPPER
INC.
GRENKO PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX W
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
WOODSON A. WOODS AND LOUIS
UNION TRUST CO.
,510 LOCAST ST.
ST. LOUIS, MO.63101,
ASPEN-COOPER
1616 CHAMPA, SUITE 202
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
)(eI'OK arv:t all model numbers isled .. f'eglstered tr.~s at XerQx Colporation..
AVERY is . 'egist.,..., lTademarlc of Avery tnlen'l4liornll COrporation
.
I
ps-!>.~'a_"
-------------
KATHRYN BUMGARDNER CHEEK
JOHN H. CHEEK, JR.
P.O. BOX 564
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
R.P. FITZGERALD
5.25 E. COOPER'
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
BALMORAL REALTY
300 NANTUCKE'F
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48103
JAMES P. & ELAINE B. MCDADE
P.O. BOX 3099
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ROBERT P. MORRIS
P.O. BOX 9069
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
W.J. RAY, JR. J.B. SPEED
50 SCOTT AVE.._,___, ",,,
:OOKEVILLE, TENN. 38501
BRIAN B. HARPER, JR.
BRIAN B. HARPF.R, SR.
H&H PROPERTIES
402 LuPINE DR.
~SPEN, COLORADO 81611
~.. .
.-'
.
,-, Avery @ ,~
Plain Bond Labels
------------
NOTE: Do not type directly on the
Typing Guide or place it in
copier because the black
lines will copy onto the
labels.
THE TENNESSE THREE
C/O KENWORTH OF TENNESSEE, JR.
P.O. BOX 7406
NASHVILLE, TENN. 37210
DONALD B. MCCANN, TRUSTEE
300 NATIONAL CITY BANK BLDG.
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
..,
TENNESSE THREE RENTALS .
2709_FIRST AMERICAN. CENTER
NASHVILLE, TENN. 37238
GLEN CARIMI, NOFIO J. PECORARO
7934 MAPLE ST.
NEW ORLEANS, LA '70118
JAM & DIANA G. MART
601 E .BL
ASPEN, 'COLO
LARRY & JUDY JONES FLOCKS
P.O. BOX 162l:l '
FT. SMITH, ARKANSAS
JAMES B. NOWERY, HAROLD J QUINN
100 TRAVIS PLACE
SHREVEPORT, LA.
FRANK GRIESINGER
SUITE 1412, SUPERIOR BLDG.
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
X6I'CK and all fI'lOdfll number3 bled .. regislered traclemNb of XeroJI( CcwpontIiCN'L
~VERY Is a 'egI~""'ed b'ademarit of Avery trJIemaboNll Cotporation
.
I
rUI ^~'U)lj,""
914.420,720.1000.2400
3600.4000.4500'7000
7700.9200
and most other plain bond copierl
type using full sheet
------------
For XEROX" 660 do not type above
broken line.
CH
GARY G. PLUMLEY
P.O. BOX 38
WOODY C COLORADO 81656
.
I
P.s..~~';;;1_4.
Avery@,~ . ..... . -. - '.
914.420.720'1000.2400
. i""" 3600.4000.4500.7000
7700.9200
and most other plain bond copie
Plain Bond labels f..--- type ~s~g !.ul~ shee!. .:.:
- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -------- - -
NOTE: Do nol Iype directly on Ihe For XEROX'. 660 do not type abov,
Typing Guide or place it in broken line.
copier because the black
Jines will copy onlo Ihe
labels.
BRUCE E. CARLSON MICHAEL E.KRAJIAN
P.O. BOX 3587 105 A COUNTRY CLUB DR.
COLORADO 81612 .
ASPEN, CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
28025
CAROL SUE THOMAS RONALD N. KRAJIAN, JACK B.
2172 PACIF~C AVE. 1/4 CRAWFORD, DON D. CRAWFORD
SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94115 4321 BIRCH ST., SUITE 200
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
.
, ~
. MBERT B. BEAN CRAWFORD PETROLEUM, DON D.
HILLTOP-WILSON POINT & JACK B. CRAWPORD
NORWALD I CONN. 6854 5400 THE TOLEDO SUITE 700
. LONG BEACH, CA.
.
COOPER COMMUNITIES, INC, EDGAR BRIGHT JR.
LAND DEPT. 1415 EXPOSITION BLVD.
P.O. ,BOX 569 NEW ORLEANS; LA.
BENTONVILLE, ARKANSAS
72712 .
KATHRYN BUMGARDNER CHEEK , HOSPITALITY INC.
NO ADDRESS GIVEN 555'E. DURANT
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
. '
JAMES CROFT LOFT . RICHARD A. & MARY WOJICK
444 AUDOBON ST. NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE .
NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70117
THOMPKINS, KERN & CO. .
,
c/o ASPEN ~LUE PRINT
520 E. CoO'l5ER
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GRANTHAN COUCH, ANN COUCH
6330 QUEBEC DR. .
SHIlEVEPORT, LA.
.
.. .
I .
\
XeftlIIl .rtd.. roo6eI ~ h"-d.. r~S1e<ed Iradeornwkl d X..-oz ~boft,.
AVERY.. . ~.tIIf" hcl.~ of Avert tnl_bonaI Corpor.tioII
. .
....
.
I
DC_C::"'::lr.. ~
r" Avery@ ) 'VI ^t;IV"'-
. 914.420.720.1000.2400
. 3600.4000.4500'7000
7700.9200
Plain Bond Labels and most other plain bond copien
type using full sheet .'
----------- - - - --_._-----.--- - f-----------__
NOTE: 00 not type direclly on the For XEROX" 660 do not type above
Typing Guide or place it in broken line.
copier because the black
lines will copy onto the
labels.
HANS B. AND JUNE CANTRUP HYMAN AVENUE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ROBERT. BARNARD
P.O. BOX 388 415 E" HYMAN P.'O. BOX 1880
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650
. MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES AMELIA L. KOPP & CO. RED ONION INVESTORS
333 E. DURANT P.O. BOX 100 C/O OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 600 E. HOPKINS
. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
, ,
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BIRKWOOD ASSOCIATES BERT BIDWELL INVESTMENTS
P.O. BOX 1248 P.O. BOX 3421 . P.O. BOX 567' -
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
.
RICHARD R. WOODS ROY & ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH ARCADE ASSOCIATES, LTD.
413 E. COOPER 530 WALNUT 620 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611
DONALD J. & DAVID M. FLEISHER G.L.C. ENTERPRISES T & E. RESTAURANT CORP.
401 E. COOPER P.O. BOX .348 .. P.O. BOX 4069
ASPEN; COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
.
GUIDO PAUL MEYER DONALD J. FLEISHER AND JOHN E. JEAN INGHAM -
P.O. BOX 1799 GRIFFIN, TRUST,EES P.O. BOX 1103
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 620 E. HYMAN ASPEN., COLORADO 81612
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
-
,
FRITZ & ERIKA LINDNER GOLDEN HORN BUILDING, ,LTD. DIKRAN A.S. DINGILLIAN
P.O. BOX 1116 P.O. BOX 4947 160 W 225 ST
ASPEN, COLO;RADO 81612 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10463
,
,
B & K ASSOCIATES ASPEN SPORTS ANDRE ULRYCH
308 SO. MILL ST 408 E. COOPER P.O. BOX 2202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
..
.
XerE* .nd as model ~ isled ... registered hdemarks Of XlW'OX Corporation.
AVERY. . ,.gSlored Ir~ of Avery tnI_tionaI Cotporation
. '
..~..
I
I
PS-5."l.'i1.A
RUSSELL VOLl< (ESTATE)
C/O RICHARD W. VOLK
217 N. WATER
WICHITA, KANSAS 67202
. HEINZ & ELAINE E. WOLF
.1221 MYRTLE 'AVE.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
C. A. MUER CORP.
1548 PORTER ST.
DETROIT"MICHIGAN 48216
ROBERT B. GOLDBERG
500-5TH AVE, SUITE 3000
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036
ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 3421
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
STEIN ERIKSEN
P.O. ,BOX 1245
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
JOHN R. FAULKNER, TRUSTEE
P.O. BOX 60l"
FRANKLIN, MICHIGAN 48025
THE TIPPLE LODGE
P.O. BOX 147
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
...-...
..
rAvery@/~
Plain Bond Labels
--.----------
NOTE: 00 not type dlreclly on the
Typing Guide or place It in
copier because the black
lines will copy onto the
labels.
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 1248
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES
C/O STEPHEN J. MARCUS
P.O. BOX 1709
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
BRUCE E. CARLSON
P.O. BOX 3587
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
ROARING FORK LIMITED PARTNERS HI
415 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
THEODORE A. KOUTSOUBOS
P.O. BOX 9064
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
VALLEY
AND
CO.
TED A. KOUTSOUBOS
P.O. BOX 3291
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
S
CALI
94115
x~ and a111'n()6el nurtberS bred.. reg/s1efed tradeom#Q Of XerQJ: CorporaIiorL
AVERY .. . reglSfetl'ed Iraclemaril; of Avery IntlWmlbonal CcHporabt
I
!
I VI i\I,..:.V^
914.420.720.1000.2400
3600.4000.4500'7000
7700.9200
and most other plain bond copier~
type using full sheet .
------------
For XEROX" 660 do not type above
broken line.
PARAGON ENTERPRISE
P.O. BOX 9064
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
.
JOAN L. KLAR
, P.O. BOX 722
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
KRISTIN CALDER
P.O. BOX 15175
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
TED' I<;OUTSOUBOS
419 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
S
CHARLES W. RACINE
P.O. BOX E-2
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO
81615 '
ROBERT E. & DYANNE M. BRANAND
449 1ST STREET SE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
J.D. MULLER'
P.O. BOX 4361
ASPEN, COLORADO' 81612
I
PS-5..~.'<1_A
, .
-------------
LEONARD & FLORENCE PATTERSON
P.O. BOX 8979
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
MICHAEL E. ARLIN
105 A COUNTRY CLUB DR.
CONCORD, NORTH C!'ROLINA 28025
. MARINO
RONALD N. KRAJIAN,
CRAWFORD, DO D.
4321 BIRCH ST.
NEWPORT BEACH
ACK B.
WFOIlD
ITE 200
C IFORNIA
92660
5400 THE TOLE
LONG BEACH,
EDGAR BRIG~JR
1415 EXPOSIfI BLVD.
NEW ORLEANS,
.
HOSPITAL~C'
555 E. DU .'
ASPEN, C _ _ 81611
VANCE GRENKO
555 E. DURANT
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
~...
.-
r'Av<ery@ (~
Plain Bond labels
------------
NOTE: Do not type directly on the
Typing Guide or place it in
copier because the black
lines will copy onto the
labels.
KENNETH R. & MARTHA STERLING
P.O. BOX 1366
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LEONARD W. & BARBARA W. KOVAL
920 FOREST GLEN WEST'
WINNETKA, ILL. 60093
JOHN THOMAS GUSSEL
555 E. DURANT #2-3
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
KARL G. & MADELEINE LARSON
2425 SO. l62ND STREET
NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN 53l5l
,"CH>ROA~ WOJ'"
HUBERT L. &~OANNE BURGESS
6413 HILLCREST
DALLAS, TEXAS 75205
JMC CO.
3534 SOUTH LINCOLN ST. SUITE 10
ENGLEWOOD~ COLORADO 80110
EUGENE B. & MARLENE R. SHAPIRO
7500 LINDNER
SKOKIE : ILL. 60077
Xerox and all model nurrOers Is""' ". 'egiste<ed trademarta d XtIfO)[ Corporation.
A'v'ERY It . 'ogistored lradeOTlllttt 01 A'fWy InlCllTWllKlnal CorporatiOn
I
I
('VI ^L:/ VA~' .
914.420.720.1000.2400
3600.4000.4500'7000
7700.9200
and most other plain bond copiers
type using full sheet o'
------------
For XEROX" 660 do not type above
broken line.
.,
MILES -Co ANDERSON
10227 LONGMONT
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
HUGH LEE BAKER JR. AND WANAH B.
CASEY
P.O. BOX 122
CROSBY, TEXAS 77532
JAMES M. & RUBY Jo FRAZIER
1330 Wo GIACONDA WAY
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85704
EDITH L. & ARTHUR D. RESNICK
12821 CAPITAL
OAK PARK, MICH~ 48237
ROBERT M. & SHELLY J. KATZMAN
5635 MAPLE RD.
WEST BLOOMFIELS, MICH. 48033
KEITH J. NORMAN
IRVIN S. NAYLOR
R.D,. 9
YORK, CONN. 17402
DlWID C. & ELIZABETH WEATHERBY
20 CEDAR LANE
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
SELMA FELDMAN
6754 LOS OLAS WAY
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
I
PS-5.~<;1.A