HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Shapery
?
^
,,,,,,",,
/
i,
CRONOLOGY: TRUEMAN CENTER
The purpose of this document is to provide a historical perspective to the
development of the North Mill Commercial Complex by the establishme~t of the
complete public record from the review of that project. This chronology
is intended to be comprehensive so as to respond to many of the questions
raised by members of the public during the GMP review of the storage project.
In foIl owi ng the approval process of the Trueman Neighborhood Commerci a 1
Project (TNCP) from the Initial Phase of the Conceptual Plan through
Preliminary Plat Review and Final Plat/SPA, many major changes were made
in the project. The size of the grocery store/commercial facility
was the most debated topic and was substantially reduced from early
phases to the final product. Consequently some of the early thoughts
on the amounts of open space, parking and use of the property also changed.
In November of 1975, when the Conceptual Submission was made, the
decision had not been made whether this would be a 2, 3 or 4 lot
subdivision. In a letter dated 11/11/75 from Bob Grueter, attorney for
Mr. Trueman, to the City of Aspen, he states that the only parcel they
anticipate selling for sure is Lot 2 to the United States Postal Service.
11/18/75
The "initial phase" of the Conceptual Plan shows the panhandle property
occupied by paddle tennis courts, a 1000 square foot one-story recreation
building and parking. Dave Ellis, City Engineer requested in a referral memo
that the option of using Lot 3 for an approved access from Red and Smuggler
Mountains to Mill Street be reserved.
Conceptual Submission
TABULATION OF DATA
Lots
R.O. W.
Lot I
Lot II
Lot II I
Total
Land Use Program
1.27 ac.
2.76 ac.
2.95 ac.
1.24 ac.
8.22 ac.
R.O.W.
Remaining Land
1.27 ac.
6.95 ac.
Open Space (25% of 6.95 ac.)
Total Footprint of
All Buildings
Parking
Recreation
Setback and Buffers
Total
1. 75 ac.
1.15 ac.
2.37 ac.
1.25 ac.
.43 ac.
6.95 ac.
Structure and Units
1. Recreation Building - single story, 1000 sq. ft.
2. Post Office - Single Story 23,000 sq. ft.
3. Trueman Building - Single building or tight building cluster, three
stories, NC, office, res.
For the record, he recommended that the area be kept free from any
obstructions at this time until final subdivision is reviewed. (The
. )
\/
.1>'
,-..
.~
Cronology
Page Two
question was whether a Smuggler Mountain connection should be via the
panhandle or an upgrading of Mill Street).
11 /25175
The Planning Department recommended to P & Z that dedication of the panhandle
property for a road to Red Mounta in be requi red in conjuncti on wi th the
development of the site. Kane asked P & Z to approve a plan that does
not show improvements on the site. Grueter would not agree to the dedication
of the land for an extension to Red Mountain. He said the applicant would
agree to provide all the roads within the subdivision that are needed
to serve the subdi vi sion but not to serve Red Mountain.
11 /28175
Memo from Dave Ellis concerning existing encumbrances on the property:
A water and sewer easement bisects the property along the old railroad alignment.
12/2/75
Planning Office recommends a new road alignment through the Trueman
property and that the proposed R.O.W. be shown clear of obstructions and
the assumption be made tbatdedication of the roadway will be required
in part or whole by the City in connection with subdivision.
Stuller responded that she felt there was benefit to the tract specifically
as well as benefit to the City. She proposed a compromise by which a
formula would be worked out involving some dedication by the developer and
some condemnation by the city.
12/9/75
Motion passed by P & Z that the right-of-way be reserved through the
panhandle and that any improvements to that section are at the risk
of the owner or developer. No value would be added for improvements in the
case of condemnation for a period of 5 years and any uses would be
conditional. Also that they recognize that if the road alignment goes
through this parcel, they will be expected to be involved to some degree
in terms of land dedication.
12123175
Panhandle - Planning Office advocating getting a dedication of some
percentage for the possibility of developing a new access to Red Mountain Road.
1/21/76 (Revised conceptual)
Letter to Bill Kane from Joe Porter
Lot III - remain the same
Lot IV - remain undeveloped in its present SPA category with no
additional obligation for future use or approval by either
the City or the developer.
1/22/76
Memo from Bill Kane
re: Conceptual Subdivision
Recommendation that the balance of the site remain as a separate SPA
restricted in S/C/I uses only.
""
,-..
~
Cronology
Page Three
3/8/76 - Council Meeting
Issue remaining: Use of land in the panhandle. Motion passed to hold the
panhandle in moratorium for one year.
6/1/76 - Presentation to P & Z outlining conceptual approval.
Any plan approval on Lot III is subject to a one-year moratorium pending the
decision on the extension of Mill Street to Red Mountain.
Preliminary Plat tabled for site visit.
Preliminary Plat Checklist.
Open Space for Dedication
Other Open Space
1.99 ac.
1.24 ac.
6/15/76 - Preliminary Plat Approved by P & Z
(No specific mention of Lot 3)
Note: The files on this process are very unbalanced. The Conceptual
Review is heavily documented and issue-laden. The only
information on Preliminary Plat is contained in the minutes and
the above-mentioned checklist. The Final Plat and SPA are
documented in the recorded documents and the Subdivision ,Agreement
and Amendment.
8/23/76 - Letter from Jim Trueman to Mick Mahoney
"In our conversation we discussed the possibility of some sort of
trade in regard to the 'panhandle property'. Subject to the city's
desire to acquire this property, I am totally willing to negotiate
any reasonable swap arrangement. With the timing of the subdivision
fee payment to be sometime in the future, it does give us some
time to work out an arrangement on that piece of property if, for
instance, the subdivision fee were involved in the acquisition
negotiation."
10/14176 - Mahoney Memo- Calculation of Park Dedication Fee
No commercial value was assigned to Lots 3 and 4 for park dedication fee
calculation, however, that did not mean that they could not have a
commercial use. The Trueman Center (Lot 1) was valued at $7.50/sq.ft.
the Post office site (Lot 2) at $6.00/sq.ft. and Lots 3 and 4 were
averaged in, bringing the overall value to the $5.00/sq.ft. No development
plans were proposed for Lots 3 and 4.
12110176
Grant of the following easements to the public:
15'wide joint drainage, utility and access easement on Lot 3.
1/5/77
Mill Street improvements estimate from Dave Ellis for regrading,
fi 11 i ng and wi deni ng from Mai n to Puppy Smith Street.
1'""\
,'-",
Cronology
Page Four
* Note: A meeting held with Bob Grueter.on March 23,1983 indicated
that when the City decided to go with the Mill Street
improvements, there was some consideration of the relocation
of Cap's Auto Supply to Lot 3 and the construction of an
auto repair shop.
1/10/77
Council - Final Plat Approval & SPA with recommendations of the City
Engi neer.
Mayor authorized to approve the Subdivision Agreement.
4/8/77 - SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Book 327, Pgs. 25-38
The $90,000 park dedication fee was to be paid at the time a certificate
of occupancy was issued for the project to be developed on Lot 1, or
on June 1, 1978, whichever first occurs.
Trueman and the City further agree that the aforesaid sum constitutes the
sole and only cash (or land in lien thereof) dedication which will be
required in connection with the subdividing of the within lots, TNCP.
The City agrees to vacatea11d waive its presently existing water right-of-way
recorded in Book 241 at Page 887 of the Pitkin County Records, and
located along the old Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way through the TNCP.
12/19/78 - Amendment Agreement
Ord.#4, Book 6 p.2552 1st Reading 1/8/79
Adopted 1/22/79
Lot 3 - The parties hereto further recognize that it is their intention
that the City shall be granted a right of access through Lot 3,
TNCP. Toward this end, Trueman shall grant to the City an
irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3, TNCP, which
license shall become null and void upon the construction of
future improvements on the property together with the grant
to the City of a specific access easement through Lot 3, TNCP.
1/4/79 - Memo from Ron Stock
"The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement in that the City is granted
an irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3 until there is
construction of future improvements on the property together with a grant
of a specific access easement through Lot 3. This allows the developer
to construct the proposed drainage improvement with new specifications
and plans to be drafted by him and approved by the City."
Sewer Easement, Book 241, Page 810
Subdivision Agreement - Acceptance of the Final Plat by the City shall not
be deemed to constitute a vacation of the existent water and sewer
easements within the TNCP, and no interest in the same shall be deemed
waived or conveyed until such time as all water and sewer improvements
have been completed as shown on sheet number (4) of the Final Plat.
P. 4 Final Plat - Utility Modification Plan. Abandonment of 10' sewer easement
following the old Rio Grande track alignment.
SPA Plan Language
"No development of Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall take place pri or to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA Master Plan."
,-..,
~
Cronology
Page Five
The bottom line of all this is that the parcel is developable within the
S/C/I zone. The only requirement is that a specific SPA plan for the lot
must be approved, which shall constitute an amel)dment to the SPA Master
Plan. The easements on the lot have been vacated or relocated and do not
present a problem in the development of the lot.
""'"
,
.-,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(Please add to your cronology of the Trueman Center)
The Planning Office memo of June 7, 1976 which dealt with the Trueman Property
Preliminary Plat indicated that Lot III was comprised of 1.24 acres and that
1.24 acres would be used for recreation and 1.99 acres for open space. The
memo never specifically describes the areas which will be dedicated to open
space or recreation, but since the 1.24 acres matches the amount of space in
the Lot III parcel, one could assume that this area was considered for a recrea-
tion use.
This memo was introduced to the record at the Public Hearing held before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 5, 1983 by Hal Clark. Also introduced
was an untitled plan that was part of the files on the Trueman project held by
the City Engineering Department. The plan was drawn in 1975, updated on May 5,
1976 and coincides with the information in the Planning Office memo concerning
Preliminary Plat review. Since it appears that no official Preliminary Plat
was recorded, it is possible that this plan was the Preliminary Plat submission.
The recommendation of the Planntng Office in the June 7 memo was for "approval
of the Preliminary Plat based upon the above broadly described conditions..."
The minutes of the June 15, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting show
that preliminary plat approval was "recommended" and "conditioned upon recom-
mendations of the Planning Office and the City Engineer." An error was possibly
made in the minutes, since P&Z does not "recommendu Preliminary Plat approval,
they take final action.
Section 20-14 of the Code outlines Final Plat Procedure. The statement is made
in this section that "the final plat shall conform to the approved preliminary
plat and shall include all changes as required after consideration by the
planning commission." If the approval by P&Z in fact intended to limit the use
of Lot 3 to recreation purposes, it certainly seems that some discussion would
have occurred and tighter assurances been made than are reflected in the record.
If this was indeed intended to be part of the Preliminary Plat approval, it
was not carried over to the Final Plat and violates the continuity required by
the Code. However, a copy of an official Preliminary Plat cannot be located
and the Council did not condition the use of Lot III in Final Plat approval.
This ambiguity in the record leaves us at an inconclusive point and we cannot
definitively say whether or not the lot was limited on the preliminary plat
and therefore should have been limited on the final plat.
,.,,~ .'~--'..'.'_._~'--'--' " ^' ~''''~'-''~~'''-'''~',-.~,",''''
"......,
.~
3507
Regular Meeting
.-- "~''''''~'~"-~'.'''-'.'
"~,~_~~_:~_ City Council
JUly.:':.l,. 1983
"^",".~
'r
1,
!I
II
if
"
BOARDS AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Ma}~~ stArling said the Council had almost twenty applications for the openings. The
Cb~il ~as appointed Doug Allen to the Housing Authority; David White will be a P & Z
~e9~ela~member, and Paul Sheldon will be the new alternate; John Herz will be a regular
lBoam(l Q)ii:: Adjustment member and Jon Hollinger is the new alternate. The Commercial Core
. . ommission member is Mary Karen Eule~
Sllnl?Jml{ PROPERTY REPORT
~y Manager Chapman said Council has asked him to meet with Shapery and also to get an
~inion of value on the property. Shapery presented an offer, and indicated he is unwill-
:Ung to negotiate down from that~ The offer is purchase price of $650,000; Shaperywill
o-ontribute $10,000 to landscaping the parcel, if the city is willing to match 'that amount.
The city will pay taxes pro rated from June 27 to closing, and 10 per cent interest on
$650,000 from June 27 until. closing, Which is estimated at $8,200. The $650,000 purchase
price includes a $300~OOU note to Trueman; there is a due-on sales clause in the note.
The.re is 12 per cent interest payable quarterly, principle payment of $100,000 January 10
1984 and"$200,OOO due Januaxy 1.0, 1987. Chapman told Council letter from High Country
Appraisals indicates that $650,000 is a fair price; the letter says the price is probably
more than fair.
Chapman told Counci1 the staff has been doing some work on the $4,000,000 open space bond
issue to determine the 'best way to finance this property. Chapman told Council he had
discussed financi.ng the $350,000 with $hapery; there is some uncertainty with this. The
$300,000 note with Tru~an will probably get wrapped up with the unpaid park dedication
fee on this lot. TherE: are approximately $460,000 worth of bonds that have not' been issued
out of the $4,OOO~OOC; it is recommended by Joe Barrows that these be issued. Thebonds
proceeds will be invested~ Chapman told Council the city feels Trueman owes $130,000 for
the park dedication fee, $908000 plus interest; Trueman feels he owes $17,000. Mayor
Stirling suggested "the staf:f submit a contract with 'a contingency.
Gideon Kaufman, representing Shapery, said he feels when Shapery's application for SPA
was turned down June 27, invexse condemnation took place, and the city effectively purchased
the property. Kaufman said Mollica did an appraisal on the property, in which he stated
the property was WQ'rth $800,000 to $1,000,000. The city h~s a letter of opinion stating
that $650,000 is a good price. Kaufman said he did not believe this is now a negotiating
situation. Shapery is willing to sell the property for $650,000. Kaufman said there are
some time constraints under the laws of Colorado, and he would like the city to act on the
offer. Kaufman said he would li.ke to avoid the time and added costs of getting into
arbitration. Kaufman sai.d he felt the $650,000 figure is justifiable, and he would like
to end this and cut down the costs.
Mayor Stirling said the Council can act rapidly in the next two weeks. The city has not
had an opportunity to negotiate with Trueman. Mayor Stirling said the city ought to
prepare an agreement for sale and put the contingencies in it and move the next step.
Chapman told Council the staff has not been able to get ahold of Trueman's attorney.
Chapman said he is meeting with the then-city manager this week to see if he could get
a confirmation about 't.hecityagreeing to waive the commercial park dedication fee.
Chapman said Mick Mahoney did not confirm that. City Attorney Taddunesaid Mahoney wants
to go through the history before confirming anything.
WATER EXTENSION LINE TO THE M.A.A.
Councilman Collins said at the last meeting, Council approved to extend the water line to
the M.A.A. If Council wants to reconsider this action, it has to be done at the next
meeting. Councilman Collins said ,he would be willing to put this over a day or two. Tom
Dunlop, environmental health director, told Council the sanitation districts combined
their two Boards and voted 9 to 1 in favor of funding the sewer extension, based partly
on what happened at Council two weeks ago. The sanitation boards voted to provide $19l,OOC
based on re-evaluated engineering costs. Dunlop told Council the sanitation boards knew
their approval was approval of the entire project, knowing the Council's approval was
conditioned upon their approval.
Dunlop told Council the sanitation districts put a condition upon their approval that if
the property ever sells, that the gift is no longer a gift and someone has to pay the
sanitation district back. Councilman Collins said he would like the city to be consistent
with whatever the sanitation districts did. Chapman suggested the staff prepare a specifi,
agreement with the M.A.A. The staff will work with the sanitation district to get the
agreements in synch and them submit this back to Council. Councilman Collins said he
wanted more discussion on this, and would be Willing to continue this.
Councilman Collins moved to continue theme~ting to Tuesday, July 12, 1983, at noon;
Council agreed.
TED RYAN LAND AT ASHCROFT
(\
~ouncilman Knecht moved to adopt Resolution #18, Series of 1983, in support of the Ashcrof
land exchange: seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, motion carried.
I '
t. .-j
~'j
V
Council left Chambers at 9:1S p.m.
Continued Meeting
Kathryn s~ Koch, City Clerk
Aspen City Council
July 12, 1983
Mayor Stirling called the continued Council meeting to order at 12:05 p'.,In. with Council-
members Blomquist, Collins and Walls ~resent.
._._,.~.._--"~_.- '~'-~,~~-~~~-,-~--~-~--...---_.._~-~~-------:-.------.-..-.-~---~-~--,----~.-....~~
,.,..,..\
.-,
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
July 12, 1983
Mr. Sandor W. Shapery
La Jolla Cove Plaza
8008 Gir~rd Avenue, Suite 410
La Jolla, California 92037
RE: "Additional Billing" on Shapery Adoption of an SPA Plan
Attached is the "Additional Billing" for the time spent over the allocated
hours on the Shapery Adopti on of an SPA Pl an. There are 11 hours all oca ted
for an SPA process and 23 hours were spent on this project. Therefore, 12
hours at a rate of $90.00 per hour has been charged to total an amount due
of $1,080.00.
Should you have any question in regard to this bill, please do not
hesitate to call.
M~ /~~-
Colette Penne, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
CP/klm
,-"
,-.,
-'
'"',
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 13, 1983
~,~ ""''''''''''''~,~
. ,.~ -~---~~ ~""'"r
Mayor Edel agreed to let the new Council face this issue. Councilman Collins moved to '~
continue the public hearing to the next regularmeetingi seconded by Councilman Knecht. j;
All in favor, with the exception of COWlcilwor:\an Michael. Motion carried. 11
SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - Aspen Rugby Club a
Ii
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the special event permits for 3.2 beer for the Aspen~I'.,:
Rugby Club; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor'l motion carried..
r
(1
II
LJ
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1983 - Lada Vrany Settlement
(
II
"Mayor Edel closed the ii
Ii
un ,second reading; seconded
aye; Knecht, aye! Collins, ,
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
pUblic hearing.
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1983,
by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers llichael,
-abstain; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE '#26, SERIES OF 1983 - Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell F.xtension of SPA
Mayor Edel stated he believed he had a conflict of interest and will not
Knecht said he would like to put this off until the next meeting. City
asked Council. to read his memorandum interpreting SPA zoning mechanism.
entered a letter he would like Council to have.
vote. Councilman
Attorney Taddune
Andy H.echt also
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Knecht moved to continue the pUblic hearing and table this until June 27, 1983;
seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, Mayor Ede1 abstained. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE *27, SERIES.OF 1983 - Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning
City Attorney Taddune told Council he has included language indicating that the owner of
the property has induced the city to consider this by VOlunteering an FAR of 1:1 and has
changed some whereases. Taddune said this does not change the character of the ordinance
but tightens up the 1:1. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council that the planning
office and P & Z recommend Council not rezone this CIL but recommend rezoning to L-3 for
the four reasons listed in the planning office memorandum.
n
II
U
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, pointed out one of the objections to the
rezoning is that CIL has a higher FAR. If the applicant were seeking a 2:1 FAR, there
would be some concern. However, the applicant has agreed to an FAR for this parcel of
1:1. This is the same FAR as L-3 zone. Kaufman said by rezoning this to elL, the Council
is not creating more density, commercial space or any new lodge units but would allow Mr.
Kelly to be conforming. This property has been the same way for over 20 years. Mayor
Edel said one of the delights of Garmisch is the tiny lodges. The only reason they exist
is because of the commercial space downstairs.
Bil Dunaway said in elL zone, 'there are no parking requirements. One of the benefits of
this building is that there is good parking in an area that is congested. Kaufman said
there are no parking reQuirements in either the commercial zone or the lodge zone.
"
II
I:
Ii
Ii
'(
!
Mayor Edel closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1983; on second reading as
amended; seconded by Councilman Collins.
Councilman Collins stated he has had problens with the L-3 zone since it was passed by
Council. Consistent with his position on L-3 as spot zone, Councilman Collins stated he
must take the position this is spot zoning. Councilman Collins also agreed with the four
points in the planning office memorandum.
Councilman Knecht moved to table Ordinance #27, Series of 1983; seconned by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Michael. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1983 - Subdivision Exception and SPA Amendment for Marolt
City Attorney Taddune ,told Council he is
prior to granting subdivision approval.
and continue it.
trying to iron out all problernsof the closing
Taddune requested Council open the public hearing
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Knecht rnovedto continue the public hearing and to table this until June 27,
1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1983 - Shapery Downtown Storage SPA Plan
City Attorney Taddune reminded Council they have been advised as to their options with
res-pect for an s/c/l use in this zone, and the ramifications for failure to act on this
application. Taddune said, on the other hand', there has been a lot of interest in pur-
chasing that, property as open space. There have been negotiations with the applicant
.. about purchasing the property. Gideon Kaufman said if something is going to be worked !:
out to purchase this property, that has no leqal bearing on the application. The applicant'
I is entitled to a hearing on the application. This application has been in process almost
a year. Mayor-elect Stirling suggested a negotiating team be formed to work in the next
I two weeks to bring this to a resolution in another form instead of developing the property.
I
I
!
~.
II
ii
--y
'..' - "'--"_._-~--,-,-"""-',"'~.' .. . ':""""'~'-~ ,'~-' _.-
r--,
.~
J
~.
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 13, 1983
-
----.
Councilwoman Michael moved to table Ordinance #29, Series of 1983, until June 27,1983;
seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht.
Motion carried.
I
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1983 - Appropriations
[
Finance Director Sheree Sonfield explained to Council these expenditures have been
previously approved by Council. These are Alley clean up $14,286; trash barrels $4000.
flower box project $16,215; mall operations $5000; roof. repairs $11,825 and truck leases
at $4000. The appropriation ordinance COrrects the transfers tro~ the land.fundand the
transportation/mall fund to the general fund.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no co~ents. Mayor Edel closed the
pUblic hearing.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adoPt Ordinance #30, Series of 1983, on second reading
seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers' JVI,ichael, aye; Collins, aye; Ii
Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #31, SERIFS OF 1983 - Doppes Settlement
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. City Attorney Taddune explained this is an ap?ropria-
tion ordinance to settle a-claim against various defendants. The city's share is $600.00 ~
and is less expensive than litigation. II
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1983, on second reading; ,I
seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; CouncilrneI'1bers Knecht, aye; Michael, aye~ II!
Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
GOLF PRO SHOP CONSTRUCTION FINAL REPORT AND SALE OF OLD PRO SHOP i
Jim Holland, parks director, told Council the original budget for the pro shop was $74,0001]
and the actual expenditure was $211 over budget. Holland said the architectural fees I
has an upset figure of $6400. After the job was completed, the architects Hagman-Yaw ,1
reported to Holland that their actual time was $2311 over the job. Holland said he felt !i
the architects had'done a great jOb, and the pro shop is a beautiful facility. Holland ji
recommended Council add the $2300 to Hagman-Yaw's contract. This brings the project to II
only $211 over budget.
Councilwoman Michael moved to give authorization to staff to increase Hagman-Yaw Architect~
Ltd.' coritractby $2315.78; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. "
t
~
I;
~
Holland told Council he had advertised in the paper for disposition of the old pro shop.
Holland received three proposals in writing; the Lions Club in Basalt asked for donation
of the building for a community centeri a cash offer of $3250 from Joe Winerise.
The third offer is from the Stones for a child care center. The offer has been changed
I' from the last meeting, the original offer was to ~ove the building to Iselin at their
expense. The new offer is that the city move it at their expense, and the Stones are
Willing to lease it for a minimum' of five years. Councilman Collins asked if the new
offer to lease the space might come close to balancing the cost of the original offer.
Holland said they may well. Councilman Collins suggested going back to the Stones to
firm up the costs and lease payments.
ii
"
"
Ii
it
Ii
ii
l!
"
,.
Iii
II
Councilman Knecht asked for an update on the landscaping. Holland said he will advertise 11
for bids July 7. The earliest starting date would be 30 days from that. Councilman !i
Collins asked if this included berming and paving of the parking lot. Holland said no. ['i.'
Mayor-elect Stirling said he had been contacted by students in the high school as a
possibility of using this building as a teen center. Mayor Edel said this Council would I
not make a decision on the old pro shop.
MAROON SELLS BUS PROGRAM
Monroe Summers told Council this program has had seven successful years. The city took i
it over from the county three years ago and is proud of the fact that the program has \:
been kept in the black. This year the Aspen Highlands is foregoing its sky ride operation:~
In the past, the city's relationship with Highlands has always been extremely cooperative. Ii
'l'he Maroon Bells bus program has been a non-profit cooperative effort of the Aspen Skiing i:
Company, who provides the buses, some insurance, and the physical barricadesi the Aspen il
Highlands, who provides the parking lot and half the expense of a ticket taker; the II
City of Aspen and U.S. Forest Service. The four entities have worked well together. ij
'l'his year in the absence of the sky ride, the city has been negotiating a new arrangement I
with Highlands in order to keep the Maroon bells bus program going, fisc&lly viable and I
acceptable to the general pUblic. I
Summers told Council last year a professor from CSU did a fOllOW-Up study, which showed II
the Maroon Bells bus program had achieved an acceptability with the public between 80 '- 11
90 per cent. The study showed ,that the bus program could handle at most a fare of $2.25. Ii
Summers told Council taking all financial things into account, he arrived at $5,000 for r
the lease of the Highlands parking lot. Summers told Council he has had numerous meeting~
with Highlands r and they have not arrived at terms. Summers said he offered Highlands 11
$5,000 for a three year lease. Summers asked Council to find acceptable the offer he :1
made to the' Aspen Highlands. II.
Mayor Edel .asked what the alternatives were. Summers said the Forest Service can affect ,;
a temporary day time blockage of the road. Summers said they have also investigated the ~
alternatives Of operating the bus program at the high school, the Iselin pool. This I,
ii
would create a bigger problem. Summers said fo:r the long-term 'solution, they have looked Ii
into a parking lot and staging area at the forest service boundary. The city could get I:
out of the program and simply lease buses. The forest service has long ranrre plans to Ii
do this and has funds for 1985. A landscape architect' from the DepartI'1ent of Agriculture :'i
is coming to look into sites that might be appropri.ate for this operation. 11
Ii
,.
"
,
,
"
I
"
i
~
,
,-.,
,-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE:
June 13, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:~...z~
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of
the scoring process. The original submission was for three storage
buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made
to the application which reduced the size of the project to 21,056
square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and Zoning
Commission re-scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation for
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
S/C/I zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
project, "no development of Lots ...3... shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the
development of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment
to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise:
There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will be
beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off their
engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage:
"It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on~site drywells
or non-discharging holding ponds.
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Two
June 13, 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project's run-off is
not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treatment
given to street run-off currently entering the pond from
the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic loading
to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation of
inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet.
The total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this
review, since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to
review the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'x18'=144 sq. ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq. ft.
Gross storage square footage
Drive-through 2nd floor corridors
Total Gross Square Footage (storage)
Office
On-site manager's apartment
=
8,064 sq.ft.
8,960 sq.ft.
17,024 sq.ft.
4,082 sq.ft.
21,056 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
=
=
=
=
=
=
Total
=
21,856 sq.ft.
Lot Area is 1.147 acres
=
49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan
for Loe 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial porject Specially
Planned Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment
to the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you face. To the
southand east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which
this proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be an
intrusion and a negative impact on an environmentally sensitive
area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property.
This proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if
the storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and
the sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positive
as the open views of ACES that would be offered by the relocated
trail.
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three
June 13, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property is
that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners can
be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only the
segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment is
very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the
trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition
to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the
trail, there is the added possibility that,a linkage could be made
to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to
the West End residential area. The applicant has further responded
to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by fencing the
project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual impact of
renters accessing their units and to limit the hours of operation
and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on this site is
the fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots
and all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot
1. When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office,
no amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot
3 cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on
the existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case
he/she would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant
of a storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go
from this project; and (4) a trip to this location will be multi-
purpose. Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the
porject may not be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as
is typically the case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low-impact use in the
S/C/I zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle
sales facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and
storage (also a permitted use) is much "quieter." Employee generation
is minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office
and housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co.
Building which will be located at the entrance to the project.
parking is being provided at one space in front of each unit, which
is adequate, but at least three spaces should be provided at the
office location. One space for the manager's car and two for customers
should be provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities
and access (a 15' easement on the west side of the property, which
allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line
exists on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be
placed over the trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The
site plan is well-executed, with a good circulation plan and an
interesting design for this type of facility. The structures are
,-..,
,-..,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Four
June 13, 1983
intended to have the appearance of large barns and because of the
grade of the site will not show up as full two-story structures.
The structures will have the visual impact of reducing a view of
Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and the view of the
trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as
follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No requirement
25%
1:1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial-
Limited Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake
and the river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project
will not impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site
provided run-off is contained on-site. The closest point of the
development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the
City's settling ponds are between the development site and the
river, drainage impacts should not affect the river (with one possible
exception of during construction). The question of overall community
balance can be approached from the perspective that by meeting the
need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it
will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of
storage facilities in this location. It should be noted that such
facilities are a permitted use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying
zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Pro
Con
Land Use Compatibility
Trueman Center;
Sewer plant
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
Rio Grande Trail
Relocation closer
to open areas
No guarantee of
easements
Traffic
Multi-use trips
Excess traffic now
Site plan
Relatively low
impact
Bulky development
at trailhead
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Five
June 13, 1983
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
The attached resoiliution is the recommendation.
Council Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that if Council
approved the SPA plan,the GMP allotment be increased to allow full
construction of the project. The language in the Ordinance allowing
for this was removed from Ordinance 29 at first reading.
The appropriate motion is:
"I move to adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1983 (as amended)."
,-..
,-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE:
June 27, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:~-"" oc/ Z .h~
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of
the scoring process. The original submission was for three storage
buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made
to the application which reduced the size of the project to 21,056
square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and Zoning
Commission re-scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation f~r
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
SjCjI zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
project, "no development of Lots ...3.;. shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the
development of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment
to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on, the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise:
There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will be
beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off their
engines when loading or unloading.
site
Drainage:
"It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on-site drywells
or non-discharging holding ponds.
1"""'\
,-.,
Memo: Shape~y Downtown Storage
Page Two
June n 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project,' s run-off is
not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treatment
given to street run-off currently entering the pond from
the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic loading
to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation of
inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet.
The total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this
review, since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to
review the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
=
8,064 sq.ft.
8,960 sq.ft.
17,024 sq.ft.
4,082 sq.ft.
21,056 sq.ft.
400 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
21,856 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x18'=144 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq.ft.
Gross storage square footage
Drive-through 2nd floor corridors
Total Gross Square Footage (storage)
Office
On-site manager's apartment
=
=
=
=
=
=
Totalo
=
Lot Area is 1.147 acres
=
49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan
for Loe 30f the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial porject Specially
Planned Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment
to the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you face. To the
southand east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which
this proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their ,open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be an
intrusion and a negative impact on an environmentally sensitive
area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property.
This proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if
the storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and
the sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positive
as the open views of ACES that would be offered by the relocated
trail.
,'-"
,'-",
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three -
June 27, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property is
that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners can
be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only the
segment of the trail which lies on his property and. that segment is
very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the
trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition
to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the
trail, there is the added possibility that.a linkage could be made
to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to
the West End residential area. The applicant has further responded
to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by fencing the
project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual impact of
renters accessing their units and ,to limit the hours of operation
and therefore limiting the ligDting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SP~
One of the fundamental problems of this development on this site is
the fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots
and all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot
1. When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office,
no amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot
3 cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on
the existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case
helshe would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant
of a storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go
from this project; and.(4) a trip to this location will be multi~
purpose. Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the
porject may not be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as
is typically the case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is.apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
'J'he s_tQ.ril,ge warehouse proposal is arelatively low-impact use in the
SICII zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle
sales facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and
storage (also a permitted use) is much "quieter." ..E,l!lployee generation
is minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office
and housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co.
Bui.lding which will be located at the entrance to the project.
Parking....is being provided at one space in front of each unit, which
is adequate, but at least three spaces should be provided at the
office location. One space for the manager's car and two for customers
should be provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities
and access (a 15' easement on the west side of the property, which
allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line
exists on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be
placed over the trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The
site plan is well-executed, with a good circulation plan and an
interesting design for this type of facility. The structures are
.
,-.,
~
Memo: Shaper~ Downtown Storage
Page Four
June 27, 1983
intended to have the appearance of large barns and because of the
grade of the site will not show up as full two-story structures.
The structures will have the visual impact of reducing a view of
Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and the view of the
trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as
follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum. rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No req:uirement
25%
1:1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
Other Review Criteria
The. project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is l.ocated in the "Neighborhood Commercial-
Limited Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake
and the river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project
will not impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site
provided run-off is contained on-site. The closest point of the
development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the
City's settling ponds are between the development site and the
river, drainage impacts should not affect the river (with one possible
exception of during construction). The question of overall community
balance can be approached from the perspective that by meeting the
need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it
will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of
storage'facilities in this location. It should be noted that such
facilities are a permitted use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying
zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Pro
Con
Land Use Compatibility
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
Rio Grande Trail
Relocation closer
to open areas
No guarantee of
easements
Traffic
Multi-use trips
Excess traffic now
Site Plan
Relatively low
impact
Bulky development
at trailhead
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shape:ty Downtown Storage
Page Five .
June 27, 1983
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
, The attached resoiliution is the recommendation.
Council Action
The planning artd Zoning Commission recommended that if Council
approved the SPA plan, the GMP allotment be increased to allow full
construction of the project. The language in the Ordinance allowing
for this was removed from Ordinance 29 at first reading.
The appropriate motion is:
"I move to adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1983 (as amended)."
'0.,/'
/""\
,-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
DATE:
May 23, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RE:
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA plan
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds
of the scoring process. The original submission was for three
storage buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment
was made to the application which reduced the size of the porject to
21,056 square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and
Zoning Commission re-scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation for
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
S/C/I zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Attached for your review also is the history of the Trueman Neigh-
borhood Commercial project as it relates to Lot 3. Our research
shows that Lot 3 is a developable parcel with S/C/I zoning and an
SPA overlay and that provisions were made for the vacation of ease-
ments at the time of development.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots ...3... shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the develop-
ment of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment to
the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise:
There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will
be beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off
their engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage:
"It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on-site drywells
or non-discharging holding ponds.
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Two
May 23, 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project's run-off
is not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treat-
ment given to street run-off currently entering the pond
from the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic
loading to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation
of inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring. Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet. The
total ,buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this review,
since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to review
the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'x18'=144 sq.ft. = 8,064 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq. ft. = 8,960 sq. ft.
Gross storage square footage = 17,024 sq.ft.
Drive-through 2nd floor corridors = 4,082 sq.ft.
Total Gross Square Footage (storage) = 21,056 sq.ft.
Office = 400 sq.ft.
On-site manager's apartment = 400 sq. ft.
Total = 21,856 sq. ft.
Lot Area is 1.147 acres = 49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan for
Loe 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial porject Specially Planned
Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment to
the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you. face. To the south
and east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which this
proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be
an intrusion and a negative impact on an'. environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property. This
proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if the
storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and the
sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positive as
the open views of ACEiS that would be offered by the relocated trail.
,-.,
,-.,
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three
May 23, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property
is that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners
can be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only
the segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment
is very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild
the trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In
addition to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation
of the trail, there is the added possibility that a linkage could
be made to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman
Center to the West End residential area. The applicant has further
responded to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by
fencing the project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual
impact of renters accessing their units and to limit the hours of
operation and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on thi site is the
fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots and
all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot 1.
When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office, no
amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot 3
cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on the
existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case he/she
would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant of a
storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go from this
project; and (4) a trip to this location will be multi-purpose.
Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the porject may not
be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as is typically the
case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low-impact use in the
S/C/I zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle sales
facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and storage
(also a permitted use) is much "quieteJ:'." Employee generation is
minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office and
housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co. Building
which will be located at the entrance to the project. Parking is
being provided at one space in front of each unit, which is adequate,
but at least three spaces should be provided at the office location.
One space for the manager's car and two for customers should be
provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities and access
(a IS' easement on the west side of the property, which allows the
City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line exists on the
eastern side of the project. No structures will be placed over the
trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The site plan is
well-executed, with a good circulation plan and an interesting design
,-..
~.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Four
May 23, 1983
for this type of facility. The structures are intended to have the
appearance of large barns and because of the grade of the site will
not show up as full two-story structures. The structures will have
the visual impact of reducing a view of Ajax from the Rio Grande
Trail as it nears town and the view of the trail and green space from
Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are
as follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No requirement
25%
1:1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial-Limited
Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation plant, Hallam Lake and the
river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project will not
impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site provided
run-off is contained on-site. The closest point of the development
to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the City's settling
ponds are between the development site and the river, drainage impacts
should not affect the river (with one possible exception of during
construction). The question of overall community balance can be
approached from the perspective that by meeting the need for storage
nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it will not be traveling
on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center. Some individuals have
raised the question of the appropriateness of storage facilities in
this location. It should be noted that such facilities are a permitted
use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Pro
Con
Land Use Compatibility
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
Rio Grande Trail
Relocation closer
to open areas
No guarantee of
easements
Traffic
Multi-use trips
Excess traffic now
Site Plan
Relatively low
impact
Bulky development
at trailhead
,1""""\,
1'""\
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Five
May 23, 1983
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
The attached resolution is the recommendation.
Council Action
If Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the appropriate motion is:
"I move to read .ordinance ,Aq (Series of 1983)."
"I move to a1~~e Ordinance eACf (Series of 1983)."
(~~4- S-dl Dn S)
,-..
,.-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE: April 25, 1983
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth Management
Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of the scoring
process. The original submission was for three storage buildings and a
total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made to the application
which reduced the size,of the project to 21,056 square feet in a two
building configuration. You re-scored the amended application, it
again met all required minimum point thresholds and the recommendation you
sent to Council was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to
complete the project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation
for quota, you resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. Council reviewed your recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the SCI
zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Attached for your review also is the history of the Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project as it relates to Lot 3. Our research shows that Lot 3
is a developable parcel with S/C/I zoning and an SPA overlay and that
provisions were made for the vacation of easements at the time of development.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA Submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots.. 3 ., shall take place prior to approval
of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute amendments
to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore, submitting the
enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the development of Lot 3, which
if approved, would constitute an amendment to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning the history
of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P & Z and Council be
advised that the considerations generally applicable to applications for
zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department has requested that attention be given to the
following items:
1. There may be potential problems with utilities and in-place
easements that currently exist on the parcel. The applicant should
be required at this time to obtain comments from the Aspen Sanitation
District and Holy Cross Electric Association regarding existing
facilities, setback needs, and any potential relocations. The City
will require a minimum twenty foot easement along the westerly property
line for storm drainage and access to Jenny Adair Park.
2. The applicant should be required to obtain some assurance from
adjacent property owners that easements are available to accommodate
the trail relocation, grading and landscape needs.
r",
"'r"
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Two
April 25, 1983
3. Proposed location of the Koch building does not appear to honor
the proposed setback from Puppy Smith Street.
4. How will access be provided to the phase one construction? Will
the elevated driveway portion of the structure be built in total
during the first phase?' This should be clarified.
5. Neither the original GMP site plan nor the current site plan
adequately addresses grading requirements for the parcel. The
grading to accommodate the elevated drive and realigned trail may
extend significantly on to adjacent ownerships. Reconstruction
of the trail should not interfere with access to Jenny Adair Park.
The Envi ronmenta 1 Health Department made the fo llowi ng comments:
Noise:
There is a 15 minute idling o.rdinance in the Municipal Code which
will regulate vehicles using the facility. Perhaps signs at the
entrance to the storage area will be beneficial to notify vehicle
operators to turn off their engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage:
"It will be the request of this office that all run-off from paved
areas and roof drainage be contained on the site. This can be
accomplished by using on-site dry wells or non-discharging holding
ponds.
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located in Jenny
Adair Park to contain this project's run-off is not recommended.
Thi s is due to the inadequate treatment gi ven to street run-off
currently entering the pond from the West end of Aspen. Any increase
in hydraulic loading to this pond will simply exacerbate the situa-
tion of inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Planning Office Review Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet. The
total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this review,
since the only way to adquately consider its impacts is to review the
total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'x18'=144 sq. ft.= 8,064 sq. ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq. ft.= 8,960 sq. ft.
Gross storage square footage =17,024 sq. ft.
Drive-thru 2nd floor corridors = 4,082 sq. ft.
Total Gross Square Footage(storage) =21,056 sq. ft.
Offi ce = 400 sq. ft.
On-site Manager's Apt. = 400 sq. ft.
Total .... =21,856 sq. ft.
Lot Area = 1.147 Acres =49,963 sq. ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan for Lot 3
of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project Specially Planned Area. If
adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment to the SPA Master
Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/Commercial/Industrial.
/""'..
.~,
/""'.
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Three
Ap ril 2!l., 1983
Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal with
surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evaluation
literally depends upon which direction you face. To the south and east
are neighborhood commercial and SIC/! uses with which this proposal is
consistent. To the west anti north are the pristine natural settings of
the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with their open meadows and
wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring Fork Greenway and the Rio
Grande Trail will both be affected by the placement of this project.
If you consider the north and west sides of the "neighborhood", this
project can only be considered to be an intrusion and a negative impact
on an environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in several ways.
The most significant,of these responses is the offer to dedicate to the
City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of the
property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 sq. ft.). This offer
is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity of the Greenway.
A second response is the appli cant's proposal to rel oca te the Ri 0 Grande
Trail to the west side of the property. This proposal is a preferable
location for the trailhead, in that if the storage warehouses are built,
having the trail between them and the sewer plant does not represent
an experience nearly as positive as the open views of ACES that would be
offered by the relocated trial. The downside of moving the trail to the
west side of the property is that: (1) there is no positive assurance offered
by the applicant that the easements necessary ft0m the adjoining property
owners can be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only
the segment of the trail whi ch 1 i es on hi s property and that segment
is very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the trail
and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition to the
obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the trail, there
is the added possibility that a linkage could be made to the trail which
connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to the West End residential area.
The applicant has further responded to the sensitive nature of surrounding
land uses by fencing the project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the
visual impact of renters accessing their units and to limit the hours
of operation and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 To The Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on this site is the
fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots and all
attention then turned to the details of development of Lot 1. When Lot 2
was developed by the U.S. government as a post office, no amendment to
the original SPA was filed. The result of these two actions is that the
total traffic and pedestrian circulation from these projects was never
fully evaluated and the development of Lot 3 cannot be addressed without
recognizing its cumulative effect on the existing situation. Several
assumptions can be made: (1) merchants operating in Aspen who need quick access
to their stored goods will opt for one of these spaces rather than one
at the ABC; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case he/she
would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant of a storage
unit space will use a private vehicle to come and go from this project;
(4) a trip to this location will be multi-purpose. Based on these
assumptions, we can conclude that the project may not be as low impact in
terms of traffic generation as is typically the case for a storage
warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc. already generate considerable daily trips, the lessees
of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already planned trip
to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been placed
on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation than is
apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
,.-.
'>-
r--..
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Four
Apri 1 25,1983
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low-impact use in the S/C/I
zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle sales facility,
all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and storage (also a permitted
use) is much "quieter". Employee generation is minimal and the housing
need is being met. The manager's office and housing unit are being housed
in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building which will be located at the
entrance to the project. Parking is being provided at one space in front
of each unit, which is adequate, but at least three spaces should be
provided at the office location'. One space for the manager's car and two
for customers should be provided. Ea.sements exist on the property for
utilities and access (a 15' easement on,the west side of the property,
which allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line exists
on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be placed over the
trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The site plan is well-
executed, with a good circulation plan and an i.nteresting design for this
type of facility. The structures are intended to have the appearance of
large barns and because of the grade of the site will not show up as
full two-story structures. The structures will have the visual impact
of reducing a view of Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and
the view of the trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be
lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as follows:
Min. lot area
Min. lot width
Min. front yard
Min. side yard
Min. rear yard
Maximum height
Min. distance between
buildings
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6, 000
No requirement
10 feet (from Puppy Smith Street)
No requi rement
No requi rement
32 feet
No requi rement
25% -
1:1
No requi rement
The proposed project meets all these requi rements except that the Koch Lumber
Co. building is set right on the front property line. Within this SPA
process, the front yard can be varied if you feel the rationale of the
applicant warrants it. The applicant placed the structure in this location
to maintain the line with the existing houses on Puppy Smith Street and
to maximize the area available for dedication as a park. The applicant
is prepared to move the building back 10 feet if required.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as amended
in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial-Limited Industrial" area.
All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake and the river area are in the "Open
Space" category. The project will not impact air and water quality in the
vicinity of the site provided run-off is contained on-site. The closest point
of the development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the City's
settling ponds are between the development site and the river, drainage impacts
should not affect the river (with one possible exception of during construction).
The question of overall community balance can be approached from the perspective
that by meeting the need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchanges
who use it will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of storage
facilities in this location. It should be noted that such facilities are a
permitted use in the SIC/! zone which is the underlying zone of this parce1.
~
~,
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Fi ve
April ~ 1983
Planning Office Recommendation
In summary, the above di scuss ion reviews pos iti ve and nega ti ve aspects of
several issues as outlined below:
Issues
Pro
Con
Land Use Compatibility
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
ACES
Roaring Fork Greenway
No guarantee of
easements
Rio Grande Trai 1
Tra ffi c
Site Plan
Relocation closer
to open areas
Multi -use trips
Excess traffic now
Relatively low
impact
Bulky development
at tra il head
Wei ghing all these factors, the Pl anni ng Offi ce recommends that you recommend
the approval of the Specially Planned Area plan for the Downtown Storage project
with the following conditions (recognizing that additional conditions may result
from discussion):
0\'- 1.
_11..-0 'Ii
\ G~\" ~(\t:'
~ <"'p
~k\'j<-t' . .
~d'>
V;'\c:;;~
fY"\
01-- 5.
O\- 7.
eJi-. 8.
0\\\<,'. 9.
.,)' \ .~
')\0-.-"''- '('~~'
,., ..)-
, 0-" 10
:1- .
Retention of the existing easement for storm drainage and access
to Jenny Adair Park along the westerly property line.
Evidence of agreement from the Aspen Sanitation District and Holy
Cross Electric with the plan regarding existing facilities, setback
needs and potential relocations prior to final Council approval.
Evidence of assurance from adjacent property owners that easements
are available to accommodate the trail relocation, grading and
landscape needs prior to final Council approval.
4. Repositioning the location of the storage buildings and the Koch
Lumber Co. structure such that a J1[ foot front yard exists on
Puppy Smith Street. !)
6.
Grading and access requirements for the parcel be submitted to and
accepted by the City Engineering Department prior to construction.
The Koch building (manager's office and residence) be hooked up to
City Water and AMSD sanitary sewer lines.
'Signage be provided on-site to notify vehicle operators of the 15
minutes idling ordinance.
A 11 run-off from paved areas and roof dra i nage be contai ned on the
site.
Provision of three parking spaces at the Koch Lumber Co. building site.
Fencing be provided of natural materials which is high enough to
obscure the view of first level storage activity.
O~'l1. Lighting be low-key and have limited hours of use in consideration
/ -0 . ~ the wil dl i fe sanctuary.
Co 1V\ '-lor--. , I
, LJ-'l..\ '" oo-\c,stt>..l "'-"'d f,.. {\ fI ' _I .
'^sald'.;&Y\. +0. ~1Q..c~t f'?1/~ di?_~;Ii-.~~ '.J.or.' Li. ' -to 1l2..?fncd-LcrYUStlo:;
~ f/VLSLV:J- ~, wJ<. <01- I Js,{d -L o~ fi,tVf$J,'fj! -~ y- ~. I Q,vl..d
.J-s ,') ~OU.:s;:. j'- I ! \
~ ,. [:;;"11\.(.. ~ I I I I . (I (\ .
iY"":\ &j-~-z;<,Jc.. ~J/\ zn~)Jv-'().(J? .._:T 1V LLR(~~' fL 'i-:kL ~)O ,on,
I L~1"":9J -to oJ2j)&-c0 ~v~ ':c-,'~ry"'(.tiC>\ ,C\=,ltf)/Q~31;C)\Q~ 1>1 o-1_~( ~r,:
_)~'" Qd- \!u.ff) "'\;-0 Y" ~1-''''--P~. .'.1.\ \ I vV\~'Y'1INQ...v"::l.sLt.,-.t'S. "T",b,V'(}.,..-:..,J '!f,u-.
~- _ - \'-. V-~'_f -..~ \, "1_ )( ___ _ I . /~
() I,:;.)""'" '. .. (,.1(. "''-'"0'\''' ,:" ,.1 ,,/ LC:. .'::+\ '"'L i . \
tsL~.,..:",,,"^~~_r."'~C\y ~-u)rc- r'\JX.5~_'-L-.._ u---.t,- T!l"-Y'-- '. y'~ ~;"i.A-' (1'- \.A..::::::' '\-! C':~" r:~':.-I{'";:) ~"'-f :; \..l' ' \, )
,j :;~
~'
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G, EISENSTEIN
---....,....,......--.-
/'-'\
LAW OFFICES: OF
GIOEON I. KAUFMAN
A PIIlO'IESS,OHAL C:O~I"'OJtATION
SOX t0001
eu WEST MAINSTR:EET
ASPEN,COl.ORA0081en
TELEPHO'NE'
AREA. COOlt.303
925-816e
,..~,.",.
..' "
~. ~. .
'.,;'.
October 19, 1982
Heiko Kuhn
Aspen Sanitation Department,
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sandor W. Shapery
Dear Heiko,
I write this letter to put in writing the agreement
that my client Mr. Shapery has reached with the Aspen
Sani tat ion District. Per our conversation, it is my
understanding that the Aspen Sanitation District will allow
Mr. Shapery to put the trail on the Sanitation District's
land, in the rear of your property, as shown on the enclosed
Plat and as discussed with Jim Reser. When the trail is
realigned per the Plat, Mr. Shapery will plant a number of
Aspen trees between the trail and present employee housing
of the Aspen Sanitation District. In addition, ~1r. Shapery
will help defray the cost of moving the two underground
sprinklers that are presently located on Mr. Shapery' s
property.
We appreciate
working with you.
the Board.
. ." ~
your help in this matter and have enjoyed
I hope that you will convey our thanks to
-',ii;c'
~ "~
,
~
i
.
1'""\
Heiko Kuhn
October 19, 1982
Page ~o
';f.
:" ~'i,:
,-.,
If you have any questions or changes to this
understanding, please let me know. Otherwise, please sign
this letter below and return to me.
GK kw
enclosure
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a,Professional Corporation
By
9JJ (~ .
Gideon Ka~n
Aspen Sanitation District
By
IU p:;-
Heiko Kuhn
"
~
.
'.
t,~
~"'''. ".".:.:,
. ' ,..-,\
HOLY CROSS EL.c.CTRIC ASSOCr~TION, INC.
3799 HIGHWAY 82
P. O. DRAWER 250
GLENWOO() SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602
AREA CODE
303
945-5491
March 30, 1983
Dear Tom:
...,;-';;''c:<'.
Thomas Wells & Associates
Mr. Tom Wells
330 E. Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lt:)t3,
.',;<;;<;,"
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the
property and are requesting that additional easements
indicated on the site plan. ,The existing transformer
east of the property is capable of providing electric
referenced
be provided as
located to the
service to the
Ken.Roberts,
Engineering Department
';,';:>,;;
to contact me.
KR:lsz
cc:File:Area90-58
",
\
-,"'....
,',. ~-~ ,",.,^" .".- "-,~"",",,~,-,,..,,-- ;-~.--,..,..,..-.,..
",.\. ",
"' ~'~
,-.,
--
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON /, KAUFMAN
GfD5:0N I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO Bl611
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
February 10, 1983
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sandor W. Shapery/Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project Adoption of Precise SPA Plan
Dear P & Z Members,
Please consider this letter an application for the
adoption of a precise SPA plan for Lot 3 of the Trueman
Neighborhood Commercial Project as depicted on the enclosed
SPA Submission Map. This application is made pursuant to
Sections 24-7.1j 24-7.2 and 24-12.5 of the Zoning Code of
the City of Aspen. We are submitting this application on
behalf of our client, Sandor W. Shap~ry, the owner of Lot 3,
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial P1:'oj ect. Mr. Shapery' s
address is La Jolla Cove Plaza, 8008 Girard Avenue,
Suite 410, La Jolla, CA 92037,
Tn accordance with the requirements of the SCT zone, we
propose the following requirements for Lot 3.
Lot Area
1.147 acres
Minimum Lot Width
100 feet
Minimum Front yard
10 feet (from Puppy
Smith Street)
Minimum Sideyard
No Requirement
Minimum Rearyard
No Requirement
Maximum Building Height
32 feet
Minimum Distance Between
Buildings
No Requirement
Permitted Uses
Same as SCT
Ii"'"' .,
,-"..
,-.,
P & Z Members
February 10, 1983
Page Two
Proposed Structures
Self-storage warehouses
and Office Building with
Employee Apartment as
depicted on SPA Submission
Plan
Off-street Parking
As per ~ 24-4.5, Aspen
Zoning Code
External Floor Area Ratio
1: 1
Internal Floor Area Ratio
No Requirement
Construction Schedule
7,000 square feet to be
built each year beginning
spring of 1983, unless
greater allotment is
awarded in anyone year
These requirements are all either identical to or stricter
than the requirements set forth in the zoning code for the
SCl zone.
The location and characteristics of streets, other
rights-of-way and utilities shall be as depicted on the SPA
Submission Plan and/or on other maps and plans submitted in
conjunction with the GMP Submission for Lot 3, Trueman
Neighborhood Commercial Project.
The dimensions and grading of parcels of the lot and
the dimensions and siting of the structures shall be as
depicted on the SPA Submission Plan and/or maps and plans
submitted in conjunction with the GMP Submission for Lot 3,
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project.
Even though one of the purposes of the SPA is to allow
flexibility for a developer to seek greater density and vary
the underlying area and bulk requirements and uses, we have
designed this SPA Precise plan and the project to conform to
all the requirements of the SCI zone.
Enclosed please find a list of the names and addresses
of all owners of real property within three hundred feet
(300') of Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project and
our check to cover processing fees and an estimated
publication cost.
"'".'
,-"
-
P & Z Members
February 10, 1983
Page Three
I look forward to discussing
the soonest available meeting.
further, please let me know.
GK kw
enclosure
these matters with you at
If you need anything
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
G~~fm""
cc: Sandor W. Shapery
Owner's Signature:
andor
lvS
/"-tf/ jJ
~.
~
cot~
+
W&tf;.!,,-\ C.rv.. r ...'
p("'! 4Jbf"C
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
,.-."
February 23, 1983
Nayar of Aspen
Aspen city coun~il
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members Micb,ael, Coll ins, Parry.
Knecllt ~
The Pitkin County ParKs Association and the Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies have asked me to su~marize our objections
to the mini-warehouse project proposed at the entry to the Rio
Grande trail. Our objections are broad-based, site specific,
and procedural. 'l'hey are enumerated as follows:
1. Aspen Area Planninq Objectives
OVer ten years ago the Aspen Airport Business Center
was developed. Its purpose Was to locate t:hose service-
conunercial projects outside the city which necessitated
large storage facilities and generated minim~l traffic
flow. This 24,000 square feet mini-warehouse facility
is exactly this type of use and shOUld be located
outside the city.
2. The Trueman SpeciallY.PlannE~LArea
The mini-warehouse site is Lot III of the original
four lot Trueman SPA Subdivision approved by the
ci ty in 1976. Thi E: proposal should be reviewed in
relation to the histo~.ical representat.ions of the
developer, the cu:r.rent status of the T:rucYr:~~n S. P. A.
and the appropriaten,",ss of this use for thil't si toe.
A review of the documents relating to the Trueman
S.P.A. plan ,S1'0WS the developer represented Lot III
to the City Council and to the Planning Commission
for "recreational development". 'Ehe conceptual S.P.A.
plan submitted by tb,? project planner, Mr. Larry Yaw,
shows paddlebalJ. courts and Ll small recreational
building on Lot III. Planning office memos (June 7, 1976)
recommend preliminary pla't approval with Lot III as
recreat,ionaJ. use. Due to expected heavy traff ic
generation from the Trueman project, Lot III was also
seriOUSly considered as a new altern(;~t.ive road access
to Red Mountain and .silver King areas to avoid the
Mill Stl'eet bridge cOf'gestion. 'Ehis route was later
dropped f rom con side1:i.1 ti.on. The only o1:her use considered
for Lot III, be,;id,"s open space, was for parking for
empJ,'yees of UJe> 'I'ru.eman CentE.'r. It was widely believed
that the lot vh;~, l:ltlbui Idab1e due to a multi.tude of
P.O. Box 8777 . Aspen, Colorado 81612 . (303) 925-5756
,.....,
,-'
>
-2-
easements.
The Park Dedication fee req~ired of the Trueman
Development (originally for $90,000 and still unpaid)
was calculated in a memo by the City Manager, Mick
Mahoney. The memo clearly shows that no commercial
value was attributed to Lot III for park dedication
fee purposes.
An amended S.P.A. plan was never filed for the Post
Office building on Lot II of the Trueman S.P.A.
We assume this is because it is a federal project
which' claims exemption from local zoning laws. If
this were the case, the original developer should
have filed the amendment since city S.P.A. regulations
require a "precise plan" for a S.P.A. area. While it
is clear that Lot II was to contain the Post Office
facility, it is also certain that auto and pedestrian
circulation through the Post Office site is a mess.
In 1982 nearly $30,000 was spent by the city, county,
PCPA and others to attempt improvement of this mess
by construction of a.-.s.idew:alk b;!tween the Post Office,
grocery and west Kspen a~ea;-" The'original',<:1evel0per
_~€!fused to contribute to this pro ject. "-'___."..
~The --;:ecoided-Trueman S.P.A. plan shows potential 'LO~
III uses not as SCI uses but as uses set only by the \
S.P.A. plan. This is an important technical distinc- \.
tion and Shouldinf lue nce your consideration of~the
!application. There is no public zoning action that
L ~:~~a~~ I~Z';~~;;~~~~~~~::~;s:::n t~~~:~~~:-~fthe
Trueman S.P.A., specifically 30 aspen trees, have
never been installed.. Landscaping is also not completed
on the Post Office site. A sidewalk improvement district
was discussed with the developer but never pursued by
the city. Certainly more sidewalks are needed through
tJds area. We do not know if any other engineering
,issues remain outstanding.
In summary, we feel that the original approval of the
Trueman S.P.A. project contemplated only limited
recreational development of Lot III, and certain issues
are still unresolved. In our opinion the developer of
the Trueman S.P.A. has already received credit for
minimal recreational use of Lot III by approval of a
commercial center on Lot I and a Post Office on Lot II.
To apply for commercial development of Lot III would
be "double dipping" his allowable densities for the
whole S. P. A. Additional commercial uses in this area
can not be justified and were never contemplated in
the original S.P.A. pla~ning.
r-,
.-,
...." ~
-3-
3. The Mini-warehouse Pla~or Lot III
This 24,000 square foot facility massively impacts
an environmentally sensitive river front area and
trail head park. It constricts the Rio Grande trail
with a sewer plant on your right and a 40' warehouse
on your left. This is simply atrocious land use
planning.
The project itself covers virtually the entire
surface area of Lot III. Roads are on each side
of the warehouse together with a.turn around.near
the river. Much of the landscaping would occur off
of Lot III. The project proposes relocating two
sections. of the existing trail onto property owned by
the Aspen Sanitation District. We expect the owners
of the trail easement, Pitkin County, will oppose
the relocation of the trail through the sewer plant
property.
Night lighting may. be added to the warehouse for
security reasons. This would be very destructive to
wildlife at the Hallam Lake sanctuary and along the
river corridor.
Due to the nearness of this warehouse space to the
Aspen retailing areas we feel traffic impacts will be
greater than that for normal warehouse buildings.
The tendency will be for use of the warehouse as
extended retail space, i.e., "Come see what we have
in our nearby warehouse" or, "We'll get the other
model for you right away. It's only at a nearby ware-
hoUse." This warehouse will have a locational advantage
over .similar facilities presently at the Airport
Business Center which the city and county deliberately
located outside the city.
It is ironic that these issues are relevant to the
S.P.A. plan. not the G.r.LP. application 'l<lhich preceded.
Thus the applicant was able to obtain a G.M.P. allotment
for this site.
We urge the City Council to enforce the conditions of the original
Trueman S.P.A. plan and deny this ill-conceived, destructive
project.
Si/N~
Hal Clark .
president, Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies
Vice President, PCPA
Former Assistant City-County Plannel
CCI Aspen P & Z Commission
pitkin County commissioners
Aspen Times
;r"
,"",'
'J' ,..
']/
\.'~
,-.. ,-.,
. A.~N.PITKIN
'E'N'L,.,-aRm&iAc.E'N,' "PAL' "MEA,' ','L::r"H' 'D' ~-'-:RTMENT'
.' ___,_ ,\,j,~,::~\,:v, ",.;,~~.:;I,. ":~'~i>):;:II';~,>,, ,,-, ,":".,"::' , :>;"'.,: ,d"""':'/' ~<',_'"; ,," ,/~" '::'_ ,': J .:,".' ,',.'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
i'9'~~ee:~~,;:jcB!:<l:m~i!,n~'~fi-ce.
Themas s. Dunlep, Dir7cter~
EnvJ.renmental Health Department
FROM:
DATE:
April 14, 1983
Aspen DowntewnSterage
.RE:
,:."" ,,', ':" ,.'-' ",'
----'--- -'-',- -,--'-- --,-- -- --_.- -~ --:--, ---~~-' _._-,----- -;...----.--- ----- ---
, , "-,, """ -' ,'" , , '
The, fellewing cemments are .offered concerning the abeve'
re'ferenced submittal.
Ail1' pellutien:
The .only impact that qanbe seen at this time weuld be increas.ed
vehicularemissiens ,as a result .of .site specific traffic
velumes,. These t,raffic, flews are net pres~J!\j: at the, site at
this time due' te it's urluse'd state,,:. This will prebably net
qa.us,e undue hardships en the neighberhoed since the vehicles
will net be censtant given ,the proposed use of the preperty.
s1 te Drainage:
It will be the request of this .office that all run-eff frem
paved, ar,eas and rebf drainage be contained en the site. This
can be acc'emp.l,iflhed by using en:-flite dry ,well.s or non-discharging
holding ponds. '
The use .of ,the~xisting,s,torm seweJ:' hOl,ding pond lecated in
Jenny Adair 'Park to centa'iri this preject' s run-eff is net
rec.ommended. This is due.te the inadequate treatment given to
s.treet run-off currently entering the pena' from th'e West end .of
.Aspen. Any increase in ,hydraulic loading te this pend will
simply exacerbate the situatien of inadequate water treatment
prier tb discharge intetheRbaring Fork River.
Noise:
Increased vehicular traffic in the area mentioned in this submittal
will be the .only 'significant .neise, generating element. It is felt
at this time.' that no violatiens.of ,the A,spen Neise Abatement
Ordinance will. be realized. ' Hewever, there is a 15 minute idling
ordinance in the Municipal Code which will regulate vehicles using
. the' 'facili ty . Perhaps signs a,t the entrance to the, sterage area
wil:l'be beneficial to notify vehi.cle .operators to turn .off their
engines when loading or unloading.
130 Sout:'" G.elena. St;r,eet:
Aspen, Caloredo 816'11
303/925-2020
""
."-'
r
.r
("""\.
~
Page Two
April 14, 1983
Aspen Downtown Storage
In sununary, this application was very incomplete when submitted
to this office. Tnerefore, the above comments assume this is
a storage only structure. That is to say there will be nO
occupancy of the structure and no businesses requiring ,on-site .
;:If<:}i~tiA~,:~~~;1:kge allowed. ,-- '. -.--
TSD/co
I""'"
.r--..
AGE N 0 A
. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 5, 1983
5:00 p.m.
city Council Chambers
Ci ty Hall
Regular Meeting
I. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Change in Use (to be tabled)
~. -,~....".,.<,,,.,,..
C--B-.--S-!rn'f>eiY-SP A.. ~::_:.~"~~ ti .:'';1_:=~
C. Rubey Park .SPA .,
IV. RESOLUTION
A. Satellite Dish Regulations
V.
AD.JOURN MEET ING
!
l
,
./
I
V
hv;I.21o.
01$r~! f~k"j i ,,:siv~:~ :cf- dwc: l~
r G II $ VvLQ.Vl-U:>',,;, -~::>".- ~Y'.cI '0''1\''..-::,:, vJ[,; C~ t\D, V~
I-T }1vO-\--VVUL+ . "
0'" V~+~)
(1 ,,' ' =let r't! J;
. <, [ " f ~ ','._ . ' '_ " " -'-. \. " ..' , ..",'
'YV\j:),C~{-..I,b{ I.i-h~. LV., r\-h '*""\""fJ1'- oc 10'" l~, <-'" ~L ,
~I~; '- fa:: 'ex'^" I
f
..;
(
tIP
("'\
\
,
-e'.'fMtl f( f'.y.,(/d(
~i? !j"I,
:c f,_...J;.#'tJ
Certificate of Occupancy for the improvements constructed on
Lot 1, TNCP, the parties hereby agree 'as follows:
1. DRAINAGE I~WnOVE~mNTS - LOT 2. The parties hereto
recognize that it is their intention that all drainage improve-
ments required under the Subdivision !l-greement on Lot 2, TNCP,
shall be constr~d by the United State~ Post Office, the
.
,
purchaser from Trueman of this real property. If the United
States Post Office refuses to construct' the drainag~ pond as
".shown" on the drainage plan heretofore approved by the City,
Trueman agrees that he will construct said drainage pond within
,ninety (90) days of the receipt of the written request of the
,
_ ". City to' proceed. '
'. ;:, . .. ~ 2."-'
.
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - LOT 3.
Trueman agrees to
" 'construct all drainage improvements required ,under the Subdivision
...:....
Agreement'on Lot.3, TNCP. It is agreed that the aforementioned
. '
agreement, requires the construction of a simple grass-lined
,t,
1\'
swalein .accordance with specifications and plans which are to
be drafted by Trueman and approved by the City to allow construction
within the easement designated on the Final Plat of the TNCP
which plat is of record in the office of the Clerk.and Recorder
in and for the County of Pitkin.
The parties hereto further recognize that it is their
intention that the City shall be granted a right of access through
Lot 3, TNCP. Toward this end Trueman shall grant to the City an
irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3, TNCP, which
license shall become null and void upon the construction of
future improvements on the property together with the grant to
City of a specific access easement through Lot 3, TNCP. '
3. puppy SMITH STREET - ABOVE GROUND LIGHTING. Trueman
agrees to bear fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the above
ground lighting improvements. It is estimated that Trueman's
cost for these above, ground lighting improvements will be
approximately One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,350.00).,
-2-
=""y,.~.~"-,;~,
"
.~~.. !
.' ,
I
1'1
i i
'.1 :
i I
\ r
f !
,.1
H
1 ~'
,I
i I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
. .,.,....-
, r
, ,
.
,
,~ ':
l
~
.'
,
,-.,
..r', '"
,-.,'".
'.A
,
/
-,
i.
..
I
J'
I
I
.
MEfoIORANDUM'
.... .
.:4r':"J'~
Y7 r-'
~.J.~Q_~ C;,.sl"'l......~
. FfzOj7G t
',;.
.'.. .
TO: Aspen Planning Commisston
. , FROM:
Planning Staff (HC)
~
IE:" Trueman Property Subdh'ision Prelimi~ary Plat
:
DATE: Jone 7. 1976
.:::.....'!:
'-..
.'_n._r
....
r'.___ T'
'-.'- .
This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for the Trueman
froperty Subdivision. The area of tha project is divided as --
follows: - ,
"
2.74 ,acres
2.39 acres
1.24 acres
.49 acres
b1E. 'acres
8.22 acres
Buildin9 footprInts'-
Parking
Recreation
open Space
ROW . ,
.'
Lot 1
lot II
'Lot II I
Lot IV
ROW
..""-
o
...
...
.-
:.,~_..-_._'.
1: 26 acres
2.37 acres
. 1.24 acres
-1.99 acres
1.36 acres
~',. -
. -: c' 8.22 acres
d
. - ,6_ ''':0- ..~ '0' ..-' .
,
The plan for Lot I as approved'by the City Council called for the
following: ,.' .. . .
,...,..-.--'
-- . ~ .
1. Food Store
2. Service Related Retail -
Basement
3. Neighborhood Commercial..
4. Employee HOusing
S. Basement Storage . ,
15.000 square feet
10.000 square feet
10.000 square feet
10,000 square feet
2.000 square feet
,;,- 47.00Q square feet total
E-, ::"'-~:--:'''''::7: :,":":".
The plan as submittec!-has..eliminated the 2,000 square foot basement storage
and increased the first floor building size by 2,000 square feet for an
enclosed loading area__c\Je,have .cScheduled' the applicant for City Council
agenda on June 14; 1916 to discuss thIs 'change and to report on p)"ogress
. with the application. ; ,I\lso, we have included the mlnutes of the Council
action for your revie~.: :; .
The conments of t~e Plannin.g Off'i.ce on :the .PreliminarYPlat 'are as
follows: '
~
,
-
.'-~- --~'-'~""
., - .. -. .- ," - --.--
0'" _
1;' Tftle - the title to the"property is not clear. A dispute
exists with Mrs. Paepcke. and Carol Craig. Clear title
< must.be. obtained by Trueman before recordation of the Final
,~- Plat. . .' ':, .. c-,... ~:.." -- , -',,,,,:"~"," ..
::-::~-~ "-7",' ~_
2. Pedestrian 'fS.cces's - -..
A,,_, Ma49r: t,ra.i}. .is located in disputed area. Needs
be surveyed around existing cottonwood trees.
~ ~,_. ". _ _n_ ,_, .
B.\'" TraU'~cce'ss to Bennet.t site either by Mill- Street
sidewalk or, along west of' grocery building.
.
.-
I'.'
., . '",
'W
";:. /' :''''
'"
"
. .
..
y
.. ~ '
i
!
1.
;
I
.
.
." r".
,.,....,..
,
,-.,
,.
,.. .~._._.-.........,-~......~..,..,.. .."-" .
-....--............
MEMO,
Trueman ~roperty Preliminary Plat
June 7. 1976
. ,;', :'",~'; :';. . ,1' .'
...... .
. .
Page Two
..,:. ,"
...~ .' ..
......'.
,.". , . -
'.
3. Mousin9 - a schedule for building employee housing units
IlUSt be deve1cped by applicant and approved by P & z
an.d, Council. Otherwise no guarantees exist for construction
of the units. Present plan calls for 13 units on second
floor. but construction not part of first phase of project.
Parking spaces need be allocated on the Trueman site for
these residential units. ~
4. Parking ~
A. We are in agreement with the number of 123 spaces
for the commercial complex provided housing
spac~s are reserved.
8. Parking for Lot II. the Post Office. is not shown.
We feel the Post Office will argue for an excessive
amount of parking s~ace. Such space will supplement
that availab1e for the commercial space.
C., The design for the parking lot is massive and should
, be "broken up" by additional landscaping buffers.
5. Lot II- Post Office site is left in undeveloped state
precipitating the following concerns:
,A. . Parking spaces?
8. Auto circulation through site?
;, An easement is needed from Lot II to serve
commercial access road or the lot lines between
Lot I and Lot II should be described by the access
road.
"
.'.
. 'C.'
C. Lot II approval should be conditioned on meeting
the design standards of the City of Aspen Sub-
..division Regulations (Section 20.16-17).
6. Fire Protection - per Dick Miller. Aspen Fire Chief:
A. Two fire hydrants will be required.
8. Emergency fire truck access is.needed to the rear
of the commercial building either by easement through
Bennett's property or by shifting the building to
the north. .
!,
. C. . The mall needs redesign to accomodate fire truck access.
'7~ 'Loading Area - for grocery needs to accomodate pul1 off zone
. for taxi's. 1 imousine.
8. Transportation-
A. A bus stop is 10cated on Mill Street,An provides
access to the site.
B. Auto access is via one road cut on Mi11 Street.
, C. No auto access is provided to serve the contiguous
Bennett properties forcing an additional road cut
to serve the Bennett site.
.. "-'-~-'.""'".'-"".-.
._-".
.
",
-I' ...
'-',".
.
. ,:.~,:~:~ ,.~
.;(f;
.),~"!
:"~r- .
',':~
./i
:',::'$- :
'li
--
:1
ii
. ;
, ' ~'
/'
. .
,
.
/~'\
"" ,'" "..\
, ,
,
.
>
.. ~.
._.
.'
:i'
",I
'j'
"
i
"
.'..
'.'....,-'..;.
.. ....:',
.. ~.
';:'t:;..
".',-, ....
'I
.,...'
I"'."';
"".'"
.~ ..
,-.,
.'.>"
',"',' "
::,':/,.;~:>::I'- :"
. . ., "
,
MEMO ,
Trueman Property Preliminary Plat.
.June 7. 1976 .~
'age Three
. ~, . ," ..'
.... ,. '," ."
,,,,'
..', .
,
~ ' :
. '-~ .
D. .!Iorse ,Slte - the contiguous ownership. to the north
" would be serviced by the Trueman access road. Property
between the road right-of-way and property line should
be deeded to the City to control north side access
thus providing a mechanism for repayment (through the
Cfty) of road costs to the developer (Trueman).
9. Mill Street Improvements -
A, The City must schedule and budget improvements to Main
" Street to accomodate increased use generated by Trueman
development.
~;
..
"
.
"
8.
"
Jmprovements to Mill Street may necessitate a new access
point for Capp's Auto through the Rio Grande site. Or
the City may wish ,to purchase Capp's as an alternative
. to providing Rio Grande access.
C. Sfnce the improvements to Mill Street by the City will
be precipitated by the Trueman development, the developer
should pay a share of the improvement costs.
The, previous Schottland development was committed to
pay ~O% of the costs of improvements on Mi 11 Street
wh1ch fronted the development. Such improvements would
fnclude. cutting, filling, grading, regrading, paving,
. sfdewalks, curbs and gutters. It would be appropriate
to pay such sums to the City upon commencement of such
improvements. We feel this is an appropriate requirement
for the Trueman development.
.'
. ~
10, Publfc Use Dedication - we recommend a cash dedication of
6% of the market value of the land to the City.
11. En9ineering Comments - As of this writing, specific comments
of the City Engineer have not been recei ved. Numerous
l1I!etings have occurred among the planning staff, Trueman
representatives and the Engineering Department. Should
Preliminary Plat be granted by P & Z, such approval should be
c:onditioned on the design standards Section 20-16-17 of the
Cfty of Aspen Subdivision Re~ulations.
In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Preliminary
Plat based upon the above I;>roadly described conditions and upon approval
by the City Council of the revised, configuration of the grocery store,
which now contains a 15,500 square foot food store and a 1,500 square foot
enclosed loading area. Essentially, the 2,000 square foot basement
storage has been transferred to the first floor for loading and checkout
services. lie feel the City Council should be consulted as to this alteration
fn their Conceptual SubdiviSion approval.
,
"
, ,
,
,
.
',J
F.
\
,
,"'. ,
. .
.. ,""
".' ,', ..'-'
,
,.
.',
.
-__.___ ..__. "_.___. _,.. ~~'.'.'_"w' ',_ ..... ........~._._..___.. _...._....... .....,". ...........
." _;:...~'-I
.
~-
't....
I..
I
. I
, !
->,
-I
~ fORM 50 e.', HO[CKEl....1t L. CO.
j
1
Regular 'Meeting
J
1"""'\
1"""'\
c)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 1976
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Chic Collins at. 5:10 p.m. with members
Danny Abbott, Roger Hunt, John Schuhmacher, and Allison Dowing present. Also
present was City Attorney Sandra Stuller and Hal Clark of the Planning
Department.
Motion
Approval of Minutes
1 Trueman Subdivision
1 Preliminary Plat
I
J
1
J
J
I
i
,
I
I
Motion
Public Hearing
Rezoning Notice
Procedures
Motion
Conditional Use
j Apartments in Durant
i
1 Mall
I
j
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
,
I
Hunt made a motion to close the continued meeting from
June 1, 1976; seconded by Abbott. All in favor, motion
carried.
Collins opened the regular meeting for June 15, 1976.
minutes of coincide with the
Hunt moved to table the/!-1ay 18, 1976 tol ' . current set
:::::~::::~o:::o::::c:: ::~:::ngA:: ::v:a:o~~i::t:::,y II:.
session with the Planning and Zoning at 6:00 p.m. on
the Trueman Subdivision and asked that any discussion be J
held at that time.
Hunt moved to table any discussion on the Trueman propert I
until later in the hour at which time there will be a
joint study session with the Council; seconded by
Schuhmacher. All in favor, motion carried.
Clark asked the Commi,ssion to table this item since the
notice was not published in the paper.
Hunt moved to table the public hearing on the rezoning
notice procedur~ and to reset the public hearing to July
6, 1976. The motion was ,seconded by Abbott. All in favor
of the motion, the motion was carried.
Clark explained this is a conditional use public, ;hearing
to consider the apartment change of use in the Durant t
Mall from office space to apartment space. The apartmentsL
consist of two I-bedroom units at 875 and 900 square feet'I'
'Also a two bedroom unit of 1250 square feet. These
apartments will affect only the internal space of the
Durant Mall. The recommendation from the planning office'
is for approval conditioned upon a leasing requirement
of a minimal of six months duration for the use of the
units.
-
Leonard Oates was present on behalf of Block 106 Associate
and developers of the Durant Mall. Oates pointed out
that with the approval of the requested apartments, that ~
will make a total of 11 apartments within the project and ~
is requesting that two of the apartments be released from ,
the requirement that there be a minimum of a six month
term and the remainder have that requirement for the
six months.
Collins opened the public hearing on the conditional use
of the Durant Mall apartments. There was no discussion '
from the public. Collins closed the public hearing. t
Collins read into the record a letter from Marcia ~
Rothblum,Aspen Square, Aspen, CO 31611. The letter f
,disapproVed of any use in the location of the Durant Mall I
which would involve the influx of one other automobile. t
Oates mentioned there is provided parking spaces for the
above requested apartment units.
-1-
... .~
j
j
I '
I
1
J
'1
.
I 'Conditional Use
j Museum in R-6 Zone
1
I
,
i Motion
I
I
I
I
j Old Business
New Business
Use Determination
Wunderkind Specialty
Clothing.
i
,
1
i
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 1976
, 'r"\ .,-..,
Hunt questioned the short term !eases being requested
two of the apartments. Hunt asked the reason for the
request; and how will the units be managed and asked
where the manager will be located.
on
John Ginn, owner of the Durant Mall, was present and
explained to Hunt that the apartments will be managed
through Interwest Realty on the site. Ginn also explained
the reason for the request is economic. Oates continued
explaining that two of the units will be 1200 square feet
which will make them too large to be economically feasible
for employee housing.
Collins felt the six month minimum lease was established
under Ordinance #19, Series of 1974; and felt maybe
some arrangement could be worked out between the parties
involved for short term rent; however, the commission
cannot waive the 6 month lease requirement.
Abbott moved to approve the apartments as conditional use
subject to the planning office's recommendation that there
be a6 month lease requirement; seconded by Hunt. All
in favor, motion carried.
Clark explained that the City Council did not act on
second reading to approve the zoning change allowing
museums as a conditional use in the R-6 zone. Therefore,
this has to be tabled until Council acts on the zoning
change.
Hunt moved to continue the public hearing concerning the
conditional use of museums in the R-6 zone to the June
29, 1976 meeting; seconded by Abbott. In favor was
Abbott, Hunt, Schuhmacher, and Collins. Motion carried.
Abbott asked to have Brian Goodheim, Housing Authority,
scheduled on the June ,29, 1976, agenda.
It was also requested to have the secretary prepare the
zoning code, PUD, and subdivision regulations for the
P&Z members.
Clark explained that this is a conditional use hearing for
Wunderkind Store located in the Durant Mall. The store
will be a childrens ski shop and offer recreational
equipment retail facility. The planning department's
recommendation is it would be an appropriate use in the
CC and C-l zone. It is not appropriate in the Neighbor-
hood commercial zone and recommend denial of the request.
Mr. Oates was also present on behalf of Wunderkind Specialt
Clothing shop. The proposal is for a children's ski
shop and outdoor activity shop. Oates feels a ski shop
type of activity is a legitimate and appropriate use within
a neighborhood commercial district inasmuch as the
orientation of the community is towards this type of
activity. The proposed activity is necessary and will
service the recreation needs which are required in this
town of the children of the community. Under the proposal
Mr. Plantec, owner of Wunderkind, will have the following
activities in his business: there will be a program
where back trades and equipment will be handled, also
a service will be provided that will work closely with
the schools in that a rental programs providing equipment
and items to children who might not otherwise have an
opportunity to ski because of economics of the matter.
They will service people at competitive prices and not
high prices. At present there is nothing available outside
the commercial core and Oates feels the commercial core
is not appropriate for this use.
Collins mentioned there was a stUdy session on the
Neighborhood commercial concept. The questions is are
-2-
)
"I"
,
,)
1'1
'OllflllO e.r.HOEClCtLB.....L.Cll.
Regular l1eeting
.
.~
Trueman Subdivision
Preliminary Plat
1
'I
,
II
1""'\
I,)
,-..
,", .
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves'
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 1976
these uses appropriate for neighborhood commercial zone.
There is Commercial-one areas that are zoned for this
particular use. Collins would like to see the uses
designated for the neighborhood cQmmercial zone be kept
in line with the N/C concept as it was originally establis,
by the P&Z con~ission. This use is not compatible for I
the N/c and should not be approved.
Mr. Plantec mentioned he had looked at other places in
the City and feels the Durant Mall appears, both from
the community and their own personal standpoint to be
the most effective location. Also the fact that the
Durant Mall is adjacent from Little Nell. Mr. Plantec I
explained that children will be able to rent 80 cm
skis of which there is a need.
Hunt agreed that a ski repair and waxing shop as an N/C us
in that vicinity; but couldn I t agree with a retail sports I
shop of this type. Hunt feels the integrity of the zonin~
should be maintained and feels this shop belongs in the l
C-l zone. ,
Hunt made a motion to have the request for a use determin
tion requested for the Wunderkind Specialty Clothing ,
be denied on the basis it is not designed and intended
to serve the value of frequent trade or service use of
'the immediate surrounding neighborhood; and is in fact
more appropriate in t'he CC or C-l zoning in the Aspen
core area. The motion was seconded by Schuhmacher.
All in favor were Hunt, Abbott, Schuhmacher, and Collins.
The motion was carried.
Downing arrived at 6:15 p.m.
This was a joint study session between the City Council
and the P&Z members. Members present from the Council
were Councilman Wishart, Councilman Behrendt, Councilwoma
Johnston, and Mayor Standley.
Clark began by reading the comments from the planning
office on the Trueman Preliminary Plat from the memo
dated June 7, 1976. The comments dealt with the following
Title, Pedestrian Access, Housing, Parking, Lot II-Post
Office site is left in undeveloped state precipitating
the following concerns, Fire Protection, Loading Area -
for grocery needs to accommodate pull off zone for taxi,
limousine, Transportation, Mill Street Improvements,
Public Use Dedication - recommended is a cash dedication
of 6% of the market value of the land to the City, and
the Engineering Comments~ In summary, the Planning
Office recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat based
upon the above broadly described conditions and upon
approval by the City Council of the revised configuration
of the grocery store which now contains a 15,500 square r"
foot food store and a 1,500 square foot enclosed loading
area. Essentially, the 2,000 square foot basement storage,
has been transferred to the ,first floor for loading and f
checkout services. The planning department feels the !
City council should be consulted as to the alteration of ',',
the grocery store in their conceputal subdivision
approval. '..
The Council and P&Z members went through the presented ,..'
plans with the Trueman developers and the planning
department.
-~~~~
,~.'
-3-
....','
1
"1 ^
. j
, I
,
f
j
1
I
I
j
I
j
!
.t'J.ann~ng anClzoning Commission
II
June IS, 1976
.
1"'"'\ ,-.,
Kan~explained that Council is ~resent to give their
comments on the size of the food store. City Council
approved in conceptual terms, a 15,000 sq.ft. food store
on one grade and in general, 2,000 sq.ft. in the basement
for storage. The 2,000 sq.ft. was understood by the
Council and Kane to be miscellaneous storage and not
specifically relegated to grocery storage. The architects
have worked with Associated Grocers and have come back
with a plan for approximately a 17,000 sq.ft. food store.
The architects are arguing that they need more space
for an enclosed unloading ramp and more space will be
added for checkout counters. Kane asked for an interpre-
tation on the part of the. Council as to what was meant
by the 15,000 sq.ft. approval and to give direction to
the architects as to how to proceed. ~
,
Yaw explained they are present for preliminary approval
from P&Z. Yaw asked for Council's opinions and comments
so when they do come in for final approval there isn't
any time lapse. .'
I
(
Yaw began explaining the food store. It will be an
independent food store. At the conceptual meetings,
the architects didn't know about the specifics of grocery
store operations. Therefore, the~ went to Denver to
learn about grocery store layouts. A grocery store has
three distinct functional areas; 1) grocery sales area;
,2) loading and operations; 3) and check-out sales area.
The plan presently shows the 15,000 sq.ft. on the main
level and 2,000 sq.ft. down below. Yaw explained what
the .truck does after it has unloaded the goods being
brought to the grocery store. Yaw doesn't want to see
the area that the truck comes into being left open. He
would like to enclose that area. Yaw feels from the
conceptual level of approval, the 2,000 sq.ft. was
in the context of the grocery store for basement storage.
The planners at Associated Grocers told Yaw that a
grocery store has to operate at one level. Therefore,
Yaw would like to put a 2,000 sq.ft. enclosed secured
loading area and would slope down to meet the berm and
to cover the area where the truck is. From the architectua
standpoint, the enclosed area would improve the massing
of the building, and will improve two views those being
from the Hotel Jerome area and vehicular traffic down
Mill Street. It will not increase the net grocery sales
area. The question is if the council would like to see
the area enclosed or would like to see it surrounded
with a chain linked fence.
.
,
,
t
t
Councilman Wishart suggested to Yaw to take the 2,000 sq. ft. I'
out of the sales area. .
Councilwoman Johnston felt the 2,000 sq.ft. was never ,
intended for grocery storage. There is nothing in the !
minutes that says 2,000sq.ft. will be for grocery storage'l
The 2,000 sq.ft. was for other storage only. t
Coucilman Behrendt remembers when the developers requested :
for storage for the other stores. Councilman Behrendt I
also never thought a grocery store could be operated on I
two levels; therefore, ,the storage was for the other
stores in the. complex.
Mayor Standley felt the 2,000 sq.ft. was non-specific
and non-exclusive. It was to be used any way they wanted
to use it. Other Councilmembers intent was the storage t
would be exclusive of the food storage, other Councilmembe~
didn't\care, and others encouraged the space to be for [
food storage. The Councilmembers present feel that if
the grocery store is on one level it should be only
15,000 sq.ft. and no more, If the storage is enclosed
it has to be included in the 15,000 sq.ft. and cannot
be a 2,000 sq. ft. trade off for the non specific storage
on the underground level. That is the issue.
)
-4-
,. ~:
I
ti
,
,\
1
/ ',->.. ..... .,-'
~
!1
.1 ,.... ,.""',,,,,.,.,.c'"
,I :Regular 11eeting
J
'I
J
I
4
j
1
Motion
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
!
!
I
f
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
.
II
()
~
,,,\
,"<",.d!
~.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 1976
Yaw mentioned he would like to enclose the area becuase
it is an aesthetic side of the building. Councilman
Wishart once again suggested to take the 2,000 sq.ft.
out of the 15,000 sq.ft. Yaw feels the independent
grocer is not going to want to make that tradeoff and
Yaw is trying to find a way to deal with the aesthetic
problem.
Mayor Standley suggested leaving one of the ends of the
ramp open; because as soon as something can be left out
over night and is secure that space would be considered
as storage and then it should be included in the building
mass.
Councilman Wishart left at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Standley suggested to Yaw to leave the area open
and leave it a potential "eye sore" and if the Council
then determines that through Tom Dunlop, Environmental
Health, the City cannot control the problem of papers
blowing, the Council will come back and ask Yaw to
enclose it.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of ,the preliminary plat
of the Trueman property shown on the 15,000 sq.ft. t
grocery plan; conditioned upon recommendations of the r
planning office and the City Engineer. With the additiona~
recommendation of unsecured carporting of the ramp i
loading area of the grocery for the purposes of better i
visual appearance on that side of the building. The ~
comments of the Plan. ning department' s mem~ '3:a:ted June .,
7, 1976. Also theConstruct~n for the/t~,&&O feet of ~
parking space be 50% included in two years andf ~.
additional 50% completion at the end of four years. .
include .
Hunt amended his motion to khe correction of paragraph f
four of the planning department's memo dated June 7, 1976
to indicate rather than 123 spaces to be 113 spaces.
~he motion was seconded by Downing. All in favor of
the motion. Motion carried.
Hunt moved to continue the meeting to June 22, 1976;
seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried.
Abbott moved to adjourn at 7:25p.m.; seconded by Hunt.
All in' favor, motion carried.
~}1 1:2 fe#;~
Li by M. IKl , ep y City Clerk
"y-"",--,,-' ""
~
Ii
~
iW
.<
II
.
1""'-. ,,-,,
OWNERSH I P AND ADJACfNT DVINERSH I f)
- REPORT
Order Reference
FEE: __~lOO.OO
THE COMPANY hereby certifies thot from Cl ~3eC1rcrl of the company's
property account (campi led from reconJs contuined in the Pi tkin
County Clerk and Recorelcr's Office) that the
real prope-rty described below is vested of record as Of the
dote of this report in the nome of:
RECORD VESTING: SANDOR w. SHAPERY
ADDRESS: 443 WEST "c" ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY: LOT 3,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
within 300 feet of
THE FOllOWING DESCRIBED REAl. PROPERTII S Aflf'[AR 10 BEi A13~=&fll{=
:j;g THE REAL PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBEl), AND AI!! VESTED OF RECORD
IN THE NAME(S) SET FORTH IMMEDIATl:LY FUl LOYJlNCi EACH DESCRIPTION:
DESCR I PT ION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPEIHY: SEE ATTACHED PAGES
RECORD VEST I NG : SEE ATTACHED PAGES
ADDRESS: SEE ATTACHED PAGES
DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY:
RECORD VESTING:
ADDRESS:
THIS REPORT IS NOT A TITLE POLICY- NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR
A GUARANTY OF TTTCE, NOR AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, AND IS ISSUED
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH WE BELl EVE THE INFORMATION
SE! FORTH HEREIN TO BE ACCURATE} THE COMPANY ASSUMES NOR WILL IT
BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
ON ACCOUNT OF ANY INCOMPLETENESS OR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION CON-
TAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FEE PAID HEREUNDER.
SHOULD LIABILITY FOR THE INFORMATION BE DESIRED, THEN PLEASE MAKE
APPLI CAT ION FOR THE APPROPRIATE TITLE INSURANCE POLI CY OR GUAR-
ANTY.
TfU,C
BY:
UNDER\~r\I TTEN BY SAFECO Tl TLE I NSURANCL COr1P{,,\r'
t:t1tAG~
-_....,f'.L~:,.._
TITlE tNSURANC~
a
~EAl [SlATE ClO~""
-'-~-;':"'(,:'T' j-' :'. ....-
""6'ft.~'6
TRACY Tln.E, lTC, [,] 60' FA.\1' H""AN '"
)!\A(X) 816' 1 ["](:l(X)) 920-1120
1'""\
LOT I,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
II
'-",
TRUEMAN ASPEN COMPANY, AN OHIO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4355 Davidson Rd
Amlin, Ohio 43002
LOT 2,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
BLOCK 4,
LAKEVIEW ADDITION,
ELIZABETH PAEPCKE
P.O. Box 1032
Aspen, CO 81612
FRANK E. CHRISTOPHER II
P.O. Box 8449
Aspen, CO 81612
BLOCK I,
LAKEVIEW ADDITION
CAROL CRAIG
P.O. Box 1283
Aspen, CO 81612
ELIZABETH PAEPCKE
P.O. Box 1032
Aspen, CO 81612
AREA WEST of LOT 3,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
CITY OF ASPEN
P.O. Box V
Aspen, CO 81612
AREA EAST OF LOT 3,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
PITKIN COUNTY
c/o COUNTY COMMISDSIONERS
P.O. Box 4096
Aspen, CO 81612
;
.
.
II
,-.,
t""'\
AREA EAST OF LOT 3, (CONTINUED)
ASPEN SANITATION
P.O. Box 2810
Aspen, CO 81612
MILL ST VENTURE.
P.O. Box Q
Aspen, CO 81612
<
II
,-.,
,-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Engineering Department
PLANNER; Colette Penne
RE: Adoption of an SPA Plan for Lot 3. Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
DATE: February 23, 1983
Attached please find an application submitted on behalf of Sandor Shapery
which seeks to adopt, an SPA Plan amending the Trueman Neighborhood SPA,
of which the property in question is one parcel (Lot 3).
Please review the application and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than March 10, as the item is scheduled for a March 22 P&Z meeting.
Thank you.
.... ri
.'
'.p. 11'
.~"
...~...;^' _d': ,'..'....A'- ":'..
, '-..,',.:,~ ..,...:-".._~",...,",: . ,....:..~..
,..~:~..-,
II
,
,-..
,-.,
"
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
, I hereby certify that on March 1 , 19 83 a true and
correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Adoption of an SPA
Plan for Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
was deposited into
to the following:
the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed
See attached.
.
.#1(JJd:h.tuft~
Martha Eichelberger ,
II
,-.,
,-.,
~
PUBLI C NOn CE
RE: Adoption of an SPA Plan for Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project
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 consider the adoption of an SPA plan amending
the Trueman Neighborhood SPA, of which the property in question is one
parcel (Lot 3). The purpose of the SPA plan amendment is to consider the
construction proposal known as the Aspen Downtown Storage warehouse project
which was awarded a GMP allocation this year. For further information, contact
the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman
Published in the Aspen Times on March 3, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
,".- ."."
II
,~
j\
,,~,
,-..
,-.,
The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Aspen
The Planning Commission
The City Attorney
The Director of Planning February 23,I983
Dear Si rs,
I refer you to the proposed Downtown Storage facility
scheduled for an SPA amendment hearing on March 22,I983
before the Planning Commission.
In researching the files in the City Clerk and Engineering
department files at City Hall I have discovered the following
pertinent information as it relates to the use of Lot III
or the "panhandle property" commonly known as the land
adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail entryway.
The documents supporting the Preliminary Plat approval
forwarded to the Planning Commission on the Trueman Subdivision
under the SPA plan stipulate that lot III (the panhandle
property) would be used for recreation purposes. The enclosed
land use plan shows that this,l.24 acres was to have paddle
courts and a small recreation~uilding as a permitted use.
Also enclosed is a memo from tile planning department that
further reinforces this planned recreational use on the
subject property now proposed for a storage warehouse use.
It seems to me that the cleat'intent of the developer, Mr.
Trueman, and the City of Aspen w'as to allow only a recreation
use on said land. I believe that there is a clear mandate
and it is wholly within the rights of the City of Aspen under
the SPA provisions to preclud.e'tbis amendment and disallow the
proposed material alteratio~~of the existing SPA plan.
The plan approved in the Truem,(l.T,l, development balanced the
i ntensi ve use of a porti on of 't"h'e' property used for the
supermarket and post office ~i~h a non-commercial use of
the panhandle property; lot I-II. ,- -
Supporting the non-commerci~l intended use for the subject
property is the letter lrom Mr. Mahoney to the Council at
that time in which the City Manager specJfically states that
he assigned no commercial value to ,lot III in arriving at
the $90,000 park dedication fee. This fee was due to be
paid at the time a certificate of occupancy was issued for
the Trueman project but it appears it is still outstanding
at this time.
'~\,
"
<Iii:ilit.i~,,,,,,,,.,:..,-~._,-,-,-,,
..
r"
or 1
,-.,
-
.-J_I::-:~iiiJl1 .
,.. U
Lot III never was developed with paddle courts and in fact from
I978 until last year was used for storage of a semi-trailer used
during construction of the sho-ping center as well as drums and
sewer pipes some of which is still lying on the property.
An innocent third party has purchased lot III and has chosen
to interpret the SCI/SPA zoning as one permitting him to
develop the property with a storage warehouse. I believe this
flies in the face of the facts as reconttructed from that time
and that it never was the intention to allow commercial use
on this property.
I respectfully submit that there is nothing to justify the
alteration to the original SPA plan and in fact, pragmatics
dictate that we not add to the chaos and confusion of the
already overintensive use of the property surrounding the
supermarket and the post office.
Thanking you,
Most sincerelej(,
~). ,,'
Marc S. ~berg
Box 8747
AspeR Co. 8I6I2
.'
Encl. Land Use Plan
Memo from Planning Dept.<
"
--.'--'" ,... -.-...-".----
-----,.-
'1- <.'
/
~
~_...__._...,u._'". ..._.' f_rj..Ilill;l:,il\lIl-
~~ !\lll:~,,::.,ll
.~"'--- --
MH10lWIOUM
1'""\
,-., C;;/"" r ' <-
y" ,"'-"
I'-.~ ;'..... ":' c' ;-.S!..~"
oFlZ 0/7 G '
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE::\ Trueman Property Subdivision Preliminary Plat
DATE: June 7, 1976
This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for the Trueman
Property Subdivision. The area of the project is divided as
follows:
Lot I
Lot II
Lot II I
lot IV
ROW
2.74 acres
2.39 acres
1. 24 acres
. 49 -ac res
I. 36 acres
8.22 acres
.'~
Building Footprints
P k' .
~~r~~~ion
Open Space
Rm~
I. 26 acres
r 37 acres
_1,24 a~
. . 99 acres
1. 36 acres
8.22 acres
The plan for Lot I as approved'by the City Council called for the
following:
1. Food Store
2. Service Related Retail -
Basement
3. Neighborhood Commercial
4. Employee Housing
5. Basement Storage
15,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
2.000 square feet
47,000 square feet total
The plan as submitted has eliminated the 2,000 square foot basement storage
and increased the fi rst floor buiJding si ze by 2.000 square feet for an
enclosed loading area. \Ie have scheduled the applicant for City Council
agenda on June 14. 1976 to discoss this change and to report on Pl'ogress
with the application. Also, we have included the mlnutes of the Council
action for your review.
The comments of the Planning Office on the Preliminary Plat are as
follows:
1. Title - the title to the property is not clear. A dispute
exists with Mrs. Paepcke, and Carol Craig. Clear title
must be obtained by Trueman before recordation of the Final
Plat.
2. Pedestrian Access - .'
A. Major trail is located tn disputed area. Needs
be surveyed around existing cottonwood trees.
B. Trail access to Bennett site either by Mill Street
sidewalk or along west of grocery building.
II
-'-=--Y~~-:"'l~~.\.,\".;,~, '" f
.. ...\\"',~ .
.~ .."\, .. ~ ~
'.. .
.' -!!........-..
.~, '" '~"'''''' ' .-- .~~........
Il.,,"., ',"'-, ..._!. ~~........--.. .. . ". . '4J ____...-.~_f
· "",~>::::~c~~~=:\~~-~~';'~~:~':
U> : _.. . (~"-,"~j;j-'" --.:...--. :.~~:..
~. ..., ...........;.._',.":.,.........~.. ~..........
'v · ,\/ ' "--"""-~.- "Q '. ~
"" 0 \~--i.' n~ "-.
x.' ~l '. '-'> ,- .., ')
"" igj}! ,~?3t:"\
k:' .._~ 8'. 8: ji. !~- 'Y~" ~
. .' "., I r ,'/.: ~~--'~=- I~' -' , ~") <0 J ~ ~/ . ~o: ' c<\~~
.J;.JJ - ;.;;.,--,. t.. }l' ....; ..... ....
, ~j ~,I~f:-:;-"",-,::~~"__"~~",,,, ~', : it: ~~\ "
", ~ ./ ,," (/) .2. (/) ,... /
--.J ""'\ '. t . / IY'\ ...... _r
(- "~
: l: / ·
r . ·
! "\'" (- ~.... 0 ~
i .. \- co en - ~'
.' C; J . :,~~~ ~$1& ~ ~ . )~'--
~: ( '\\\:~ f\ '0'.'.~ ';" (~:'
;~_.- ./ " :~;: . ./d ..
, . v. I
;'~ ....,...._._. ' I r'"
\. r ....-.J:..... ...~
.. ,... l.
,\\'_; \ r' ; ..~i ..._: ~
~ \~ -)\ ~:'I'" '. ~~~-~." ~.>/)'
\ '\ "- Q) .::;
" ~ \' .. ... 'U ..:...J
" \;; ';\ .... :,'(.,) ==
it" V, \(I.I::S
,,0, ' '. a:.o
.- l .
, '( -
\
\
J: ~t 1,1/. '
.-0 ..
~ 1<--
0.1
'. J' \' j
. "', ) '\ f
';:1_ ;1:-.
i -......-~...... r '"
j '\ N. .'
,)
;'
"
"
. "
"
, ,
!
,
,
i
I
. .
,
,
, .
"
,
" .
, .
\)
,'-
<'\
c:
~o
y- .-
~~~'~~ \~/;i.i
" (.)
'. ! '
,.,P 0.\
\ " 6;...>:::- -
~ /._' ,,;::a (.)
..--....... ",,-,,' 0 >>
.\ .G\..":; ,~ ..."
\ :::'-..;J:: .~'<::, ~.'
, . ,"/''!. '. ~. c'
\' -o'~' "'\' co
. ..\.;>~'; y- ':5
,.~_.............-'o \.~ en
ci (1.1
o "0
.. (1.1
Cl. a.,
i '
c,
--";
')
.,
'\.
\
\
,
\ '
~, \
t ?
c:;:.:~
.'
.?
\
."
,
"-....-.-........................ c--....
I"~"')
. -...: I
~ '-:........ . w'''-'~
~. ,el
i
.~. .
: ; .""
- '
/
,
.
,\
\\
-
-
-
-
o
...J
..."/
' '
'.' ~ .
fi
-: I \.
1-,,,, "'-...........
\
\
(
I
,
)
,
I
.
"
"
1\ :
\.. '"
. "
.,
-...
./
'- -..(
/,"
rJ ".
r----.
\ ' '
.' '';-
\ /r('~ \ r-
~.
~ '\
.~
..,,\
<
)
--'
,
(,
,
". .~~
..-.,-,....--
. _ H""'~'
;;;.,.
.,. ~ /'.~
,-.,
~
.~
/17-
"'2J2%.....
cJ; Co~ 4 1.\..... ,2)
1'97~ _ OrJ. ~4- ~\ '
(f.{ too,1t.. 0 / P , '2Sr"2.- .
~ (sJ'~<
A-~'c~
@ c,~ J__, '1.... {l~nq
"
,
.It,
~~,~
',;..
-"..;.
CITY OF ASPEN
v ' :~
130 south galena street
, ",.,/
'1';' . . ;'",,",
asp e n ~,CO lor a.~ Q?' 81611
,~~","', "'~'
""< ..
!
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1979
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Ron Stock
HE: Amendment to Subdivision Agreement of the
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
The Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project has encountered
problems which were not anticipated or addressed in the Sub~
division Agreement. To solve these problems, I have negotiated
with the developer to amend the Subdivision Agreement. I
request and recommend your approval of this agreement.
Dave Ellis does not agree with my position. I have included
in the packet for your consideration a copy of his memorandum
which expresses his opinion. Bas~cally, he agrees that problems
exist which are unaddressed and unresolved in the Subdivision
-,J' Agreement. Ilowever, he believes these problems were caused by
the developer or that the developer has failed to address the
problems when found.
70 a limited extent, Dave is correct that the developer's
action has created part of the problem but I have found that
the developer was willing to negotiate in good faith. Further-
more, there seems to be no alternative in that if I follow
Dave's argument to its logical conclusion, I must fail to
negotiate thus leaving the Subdivision Agreement which we all
know to be defective. Such action would not seem to be in the
best interest of the community. For this reason, I request
your approval.
Drainage Improvements - Lot 2
The developer has sold lot 2 to the United States Post Office
and the Post Office has agreed to construct the drainage improve-
ments as indicated on plans previously approved by the City.
r
'-'1.
,-,)
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 2
The Subdivision Agreement requires Trueman to complete this
construction prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
to the building being constructed on Lot 1. The developer
has requested and the amendment reflects the agreement on
the part of the Post Office to construct these ~mprovements.
However, part of the drainage on Lot 1 is to be deposited in
a drainage pond located on Lot 2. Since we may be unable to
coordinate the construction of the drainage system I have
included the provision which will require the developer to con-
struct this drainage pond in the event that the Post Office
would refuse.
On the preliminary plan submitted by the Post Office, they have
indicated to us their intention to construct these drainage
improvements as required.
Drainage Improvements - Lot 3
.
"
-...
Everyone, including our engineering department, was under the
mistaken belief that the road constructed on Lot 3 was located
on the westerly lot line. Based on this assumption, they
requested and obtained an easement parallel to the westerly lot
line on which easement the City was allowed utility and access
use. The developer agreed to construct a grass line swale within
this easement. After a survey of the property, it was determined
that the lot line was further west than believed. As such, it
was impossible to construct a grass line swale for drainage and
to allow vehicular access within the easement as granted.
Utilities had been constructed within the easement. Therefore,
considering the shape of the lot it became unreasonable to
move the easement.
The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement in that the
City is granted an irrevocable license of access through all
of Lot 3 until there is construction of future improvements
on the property together with a grant of a specific access
easement through Lot 3. This allows the developer to construct
the proposed drainage improvement with new specifications and
plans to be drafted by him and approved by the City.
Puppy Smith Street - Above-Ground Lighting
At the time of Council approval of the project, the Council
conditioned its approval upon the developer agreeing to bear
one-half of the cost of the above-ground lighting improvements
on Puppy Smith Street. However, this condition was not
included in the Subdivision Agreement. The agreement amends
the Subdivision Agreement by making this a requirement upon the
developer.
"........
1""'\'
,
~)
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 3
Utility Improvements
The Subdivision Agreement requires the developer to remove
two power poles owned by Holy Cross Electric Association from
the property. Holy Cross has demanded of the developer the
payment by him of the cost of replacing this service to its
customers. The developer would probably agree to this require-
ment except that Holy Cross wants the developer to pay for the
entire cost of underground service rather than above ground
service.
It is the City's position that the poles must be removed and
that the cost of removing them is a matter of negotiation
between Holy Cross and the developer. The City will not take
a position in these discussions.
The developer has requested and the agreement provides for a
one year period in which to resolve this conflict. liowever,
to protect the City since Certificates of Occupancy will have
been issued, 'I have required that he place a performance bond
in the amount demanded by Holy Cross to insure the full and
faithful performance of this obligation.
,~.
Puppy Smith Street
Puppy Smith Street is to be paved at the expense of the developer.
However, both the developer's engineer and our engineering depart-
ment failed to require the placement of a culvert at the inter-
section of Puppy Smith Street and Mill Street to handle the
drainage resulting each spring. The developer was required in
the Subdivision Agreement to construct Puppy Smith Street according
to plans and specifications approved by the engineering department.
These plans and specifications have been approved but they do
not include the culvert. .
The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement by requiring
both the City and Trueman to pay for one-half of the cost of
the culvert with the developer providing the cash to pay for
the acquisition of the culvert and the City providing services
in kind to install the culvert.
Since there is some likelihood that the City will present to
the voters a plan to improve Mill Street at the next general
election, this agreement recognizes this possibility. In the
event that the City does submit such a plan to the voters and
it is approved, there will be no need for the installation of
a culvert and the developer will be relieved of this responsi-
bility.
,~
(:t
X'r..
.;~
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 4
Because paving of Puppy Smith Street will be delayed until
after the May election to avoid the expense of paving the
entire street and then removing this paving to install a
culvert, I have required the escrow of cash in an amount
equal to Elam's bid for paving. This escrow will protect
the City when it issues Certificates of Occupancy prior to
the completion of this paving project.
Pump House
An agent of the developer agreed with the engineering depart-
ment that it would replace the pump station if we would remove
it for their convenience in establishing a new grade. The
City acted in reliance upon this agreement and removed the
existing pump house. The City has no legal right to have a
pump house on Trueman's property. We leased this location
from the railroad for $50 in 1962. Since that time we have
not had a legal right to occupy the property. In 1968 the
railroad prosecuted a quiet title action which listed the
City as a defendant and an order was issued by the District
Court stating that we had no right, title or interest to the
property. Therefore, Trueman has a legal right for compensation
for the taking of the pump station site. His legal right
to compensation was recognized in the Subdivision Agreement
but not resolved.
"
",
The agreement requires the developer to deed to the City this
site at no cost including an access easement for operation and
maintenance as well as easements necessary for the operation
of any water delivery system from the pump house. Further,
the developer agrees that he will regrade the area around
the pump house as necessary to accommodate construction.
In return the City agrees to construct the pump house at its
own expense.
In all other respects, the Subdivision Agreement remains in
full force and effect.
I believe that the City is adequately protected in that each
Certificate of Occupancy can be conditioned upon full completion
of the requirements of the Subdivision Agreement as amended.
No Certificate of Occupancy need be issued on Lot 2 or Lot 3
unless full compliance is met. The building office may issue
Certificates of Occupancy regarding the improvements on Lot 1
until it reaches a point, perhaps somewhere near one-half
occupanc~ when the structure must be completed before another
~ertificate of Occupancy is issued. Finally, on the two items
which allow for completion in the future, the City is protected
by a performance bond and a cash escrow.
RWS:mc
,
.
-
~}
,-.. )
MEMORANDUM
TO:
RON STOCK
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS
CITY ENGINEER ~~
DATE:
RE:
December 18, 1978
Amendment Agreement to Trueman Subdivision
Improvement Agreement
The purpose of this memo is strictly to reiterate the verbal com-
ments I had regarding the Amendment to the Trueman Subdivision
Agreement. In the last 20 months since the approval of the sub-
division and the execution of the original subdivision agreement,
the engineering department has attempted to work as closely as
possible with xhe Trueman construction personnel. We advised them
in June 1977 and again in the spring of 1978 of the need for modi-
fications in the drainage system. We have also dealt with them
repeatedly on the matters of the street improvements. Not until the
final hou~ when a certificate of occupancy for the market was desired
and the weather was too severe to reasonably complete the remaining
subdiVision improvements, did Trueman approach the City in an attempt
to resolve the matter.
...~.
With regard to the pump station, it is clear that Trueman does have
some legal recourse for compensation for the taking of the pump sta-'-
tion site, and hence, some negotiating leverage. However, it is also
perfectly clear to me beyond the slightest doubt that the verbal
understanding reached between myself and James Lakin, Trueman's jOb
superintendent for eighteen months, was extremely clear as to each
party's responsibility in reconstructing the demolished pump station.
Likewise, I feel the original subdivision improvements agreement is
quite clear as to responsibilities and the conditions under which
a certificate of occupancy will be issued.
It is for these reasons that I strenuously Object to entering into
any amendment which would allow occupancy of the remainder of the
project prior to the completion of the subdivision improvements as
envisioned in the original agreement. I have not seen any indications
from Trueman in the last twenty months which leads me to believe that
he will honor the amendment any more readily than he has honored the
previous commitments. Quite clearly the only effective leverage which
the engineering and building departments have for enforcing the agree-
ment is the withholding of the certificate of occupancy. It is now
,
.
..
.
(\,
:'
,-;\
-'
Page Two
Re: Amendment Agreement to Trueman Subdivison
Improvement Agreement
December 18, 1978
approaching three years since the approval date on a similar sub-
division, the Aspen Club project, and we are still trying to obtain
compliance on a few remaining items which were not complete at the
time a certificate of occupancy was issued. The engineering depart-
ment nor the City has the time to spend in this fashion on another
protracted subdivision project.
One final note I would like to add is that Clayton has already been
approached for certificates oJ occupancy on additional buildings in
the complex, and I have had absolutely no indication that the items
not covered in the amendment are even being worked on. These include,
among other things, as-builts of all the utilities and granting of
as-built easements for all utilities.
cc: Mick Mahoney
Clayton Meyring
.....;'
jk
,-.,
,
1'""\ j
i
~
:~
'~
,~
)
,-".,."""""""'dd,?",,,,,..l,""'" .*,.,,,,",,~~<0'..,~~.,,,,W ,<, "-" ;".. """";~,,,,,,,,,,., ,,' "'li' ""-.,.,,,,,,,;,,,;J
~i;\;i.;~:~:i<'<f.:~w<,..ii::,i~~X~;0:.\;;~'~":~d';'';'~>;;(,;"'~:.;'~,~',~~S;,':0~;>~;:{'~';"~;~i<;';Jf~;r.;;ij;..L"';;;'i;;':;
t
-
.
P ,,-, '''''. ,~'" , N ',,-, ," '" ~ J' ", ~,'l
'" t:,,_' ..' ;'; ;.,)' ~,~) I d. ,-,'." ~i' ., :," " ;:,: I","'.' 1
J~ ""., ",... . I I'" ., t'. -' ,",' l" t' '
- j..\J..Y J;... h_r.... '~<",~ ..IL _~i.. ,:1 _:.~L" /~ t . ~
"
,,"', ...."~~ ):r71r~ )(7.; ~Trr
, i~}i~~Ld~f~
'Y~'-~ ~ .t
'" 1\ #"'0. ~.,..... ~'''i<l '-,.-;' ~ '" -.".1':....,. ...,. ~~."'l" ',',--
'i ,) '.:_,~ f. (l ".',. t,' :' t- ;' ,,'~,'l; 'J ,; :;
fj~, ('.Jl: ,,:,~'~:'1 .~ ~J~"h1r~'."~
..>i_ ---.l;......'~"'."'..... \,....~..~.r:o...,........_,''''.
Yi' ':{ {.~ G ...~ ,~;
t. II;. ~.." .~. 1J_1l' \.~,
!rt a i E\1 ~L~ (~ a
,Pi Q n <" "'~
....,.. ~,;, O(G' "'_ J~.... 'j
~
::'" H '~;: '"
..Ji. (~'i
,
(~ .f ~ :: l!
<!.P It h... .I!
'.c.
'.
MEMORflJH:lUM
TO:
City Planning COiln1lission and Aspen City Council
FRQl'1:
Planning St,~ff (B-lll Kane)
Trueman Pl'operty - Conceptual Subdi vi s i on
-
RE:
DATE:
December 1, 1975
After careful rev; ei~ of the Conceptual Subd'i vis i on Pl"OpOSa 1 fOl" tho
Trueman property we recommend in gen"ral:
1. A reduction 'in the size of the mllH:i-purposE'
cOnll1lorcial building and
2. CleaY'er provision for a nevi road al ignment throu~h
the site.
~IZE Or- COlI;MfRCII~L FACIUJJ.E.?.
The property is currently zoned S.C. I. and N.C., Neighborhood Comm'~i'c'idl
with a Speciall1 Planned [\':'00.' overlay. It is our understalld'in9 thii,t
these zoning catagories vlore applied to establ'ish use r'egulution:; whi'le
i n gener~.'i deferri ng to the S. P. 1\., revi e\~ process to determi no more
detailed mi;,tters such as bulk, height, density, circulat'iem. etc.
The applici\nts are at t.his time requesting conceptual approval for a
23,000 squal"e foot Post Office and an ildd'itional 75,000 squar'e feet
for cOil""ercial, officp ohd residential purposes. An of the permitted
lIses in the N.C. zone arc St;bl'litted helow along with the respective
floor area limitations now provided for in the Code. Assuming that
the Plan..ing Office recol;lmendation to I'f~duce food store areas fro.jj
20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet is rejected, it is clear from
the li s t thi: t the 'total range of permi tted uses in 'the N. C, zone woul d
rcqui re 35,000 squat"e feet. .
'<..F
~....:
,-.,
~
~~1[~IO
Truei11<lt) flrOp0rty
December 1, 1975
'Page T\10
H1.IG !l!l..9,? HOOD ..i:(':.!Y'iLI3..~JAL
PERrlITTED USES
FLOOR ARE!, LIMIThTIGI1 (Sec.24-3.6)
SQU/IRE FEET
Food S tOl-es
Pharmacy
Liquor St.ores
Dry Cleaning & Laundry Pickup
Bar-bel- & Beauty Shop
Shoe Repa'i r
Post Office Branch
TOTAL FLOOR AREA REQUIRES
20,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
(Presumably not necessary)
35,000
,
Assuming an additional 10,000 square fee~ for anticipated "cond'itional uses"
and 6,QGO squar'e f,,'Oj; for ten (10) dVlel1ing units at 600 Squ2T(~ feet eaci1
it ,is hard to imiig'ine space i'equ'lrE'ments beYond 51,000 square -rect. This
a 1 so, aSSUi'ies that the pend; ng recoi11,r:endati ons fo,' zoni I1g changes wi 11 not
be heeded. vie reccmmend tha t <;n exaust'j V0 supply of ne'i ghborhood commcl'cj a 1
services could easily be provided in a 50,000 ~quare foct building.' In
, addition \'ie ~ionder about the propriety of approving some 35,000 square
feet of speculative space bccsed on the assumption that conditional uses
wi 11 be granted prclcti ca lly at the will of' the developel^. i\ppl^OVa 1 for
,space for uses not Qcrmitted i the N.C. zone should be rosen/cd pendlng
appropriate conditional use headngs. II 75,000 square foot )U1ldlr1g .'
represents a Sl10PPl n9 center that I'Ii 11 draw upon the entire Aspen market
area and is thus in fundamental controdiction to the intention of the
NeighbcH'hood COr.1mercial zone which is in part "to allow convenience
establishments as part of a nei(ihborhood, dC"signed and planned to be com-
patible with the surround'ing ne'ighborhood". A'lso 25,000 square feet is
shol'in for office space. The cur'rent zoning al11endm(~nts p:"opcsed by the
Planning Office are predicated on the be'iief that too mu::h office space
already exists \~ith 170,000 square feet currc;nt'ly under 'ccnstruct'ion.
ROAD ALIG~t"ENT
The plan fOI' Smu991el' and Reel r'loulltains',
and p..e"cn;~ild to th,e Planning and Zoning
a 1 i gnmcnt throuqh th,e Trueman property.
. appro\'0d \'Ie rcCO!,JiHcnJ that
prepared by thePl anni ng Office
Commi ss i on call s for a n8\1 road
\Ihile the plan hilS not bct::n
'MOl" c.y.IlGtC([t t..t. a t. CG.
Reqular Heeting
Motion
Public Hearing
"Carriage House"
1.1otion
\
"'''';~''''f,",,,::n,,,,,'~=,,,,,~:''"''''',
\
^'
,-.,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
. 100 Loaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 197G
City Attorney Stuller asked the P&Z to consider an
amendment to the code to give some enforcement technique
if that is the understanding that P&Z has of the open
,space requirement.
Collins opened the public hearing of the zoning code
amendment to preclude the\~se of open space areas for
conunercial use.
There were no comnents from the public. Collins closed the
public hearing.
Hunt felt a vendor should be able to go through some proce-
dure that would allow vending in the mall on special days.
City Attorney explained that what Hunt is suggesting is
when a public right of way is being used for co~~ercial
activities that the open space should be able to be used
in conjunction with that. ~hat would mean that public
determination could be made at the time of the issuance
of the public streets permit and once that is administra-
tively approved that would be an acceptable approach.
Restaurants would be automatically accepted. Hhenever
activity is permitted on the public right of way, it will
automatically be permitted on the abotting private pro-
perty. HOt..-ever if it is a restaurant extension that will
be left up to the Mall Commission to grant.
Hunt moved to approve the zoning code amendment to Section
24-3.7{d) to preclude the use of open space areas for
commercial uses vIi th one amendment. The provision should
include an exception that would permit the required open
space to be used for conIDercial purposes when used in
conjunction with a permitted corr~ercial activity on
abutting public right of way. This would allow those on
and off the mall to use their open space if the City has
previously issued permission to use abutting public pro-
perty. The City Attorney was directed to draft an
amendment to that effect. Downing made a second to the
motion. All in favor, motion carried.
Clark asked the Planning and Zoning to set a public
hearing for the carriage house for June 15. The notices
would be going out before Council acts on the request.
Hunt moved to set a public hearing for the discussion
of conditional use of the Stallard House Museum in the
R-6 zone for June 15, 1976; seconded by Downing. All in
favor, motion carried.
Clark explained this is the public hearing on the prelim-
inary plat for the Trueman Property Subdivision. New
plans for the Trueman property were just submitted to
..the City Engineer, Dave Ellis, and Ellis has not had a
chance to review the revised set of plans. The Planning
Department is recommending to table the Trueman property
until possibly next 'l'uesday for consideration after the
site inspection of the property. Clark mentioned there
is still a problem with the title as to the west side
of the property. There is an encroachment of the fence
and the map notes it is disputed land. Clark suggested
the Commission go through the plans to see what the
developers have in mind for the project.
For the sake of the new planning and zoning members, Don
,
-3-
~
!
..:',~;'Y,II"'";"'C"'fC!d~~,,,3 "'~{~r",,~,,~!''!l<:<'?'':'$'o/' 'i'?'"~'",'!f'''f'''''':~r~;'J:~''F"i''''fl''''' "~'''''''"''\:'::~f ,
-p~:ning and Zoning commissi~
June 1, 1971
Esign was present to bring the members up to date on the
~rr.ueman development. 'rhe development is being done undm
Ordinance 1171. There have been some changes made since
the conceptual presentation. Esign explained his respon-
sibilities are the site planning and the organization of
the review process. The review process is 1) the concep-
tual presentation; 2) preliminary plan approval; 3) ,final
plan approval; 4) recordation. The conceptual approval
has been through P&Z and Council and granted. 'rhe City
staff has reviewed the development and the notices have
been sent out for the public meeting and are requesting
preliminary approval from P&Z. The ~hanges in the concep
~tua1 presentations are: 1) the right-of-way on smuggler
has been expanded trom 40 feet to 60 feet; 2) any plan
approval on lot three fOr a year pending the decis~on on
the extension of Mill Street and Red Mountain; 3) lot
four has been expanded from 15,000 sq.ft. to 21,000 sq.ft
4) the open space has been increased fr~m 1 3/4 acres
to 2 acres; 5) and building changes.
Yaw went over the plans with the commission members. Yaw
asked to reserve Dremission to provide for in the future
a stair and elevator for the apartments \-lhich will be
added to the upper level in the future.
Yaw also explained that he had talked to the planning staf
at Associated Grocers to see how a grocery store works.
Associated Grocers explained that a grocery store is made
up of three components. Those being: 1) a grocery sales
.area which takes up 60% of the space; 2) check out area
which accounts for 15% of the space; 3) and an operations
and back room which accounts for 25% of the space. \'Ihat
happens in the backroom is delivery, unloading, meat
processing and taking vegetables out. Yaw suggested the
following for the planning and zoning recommendation:
Qne of the cardinal rules of floor planning is to have.
all the space on one level. Hhen the request for the
2,000 sq.ft. down below was made, it was made before the
developers had tall,ed to Associated Grocers and have been
informed that it is not functional. Therefore, Yaw asked
thatP&Z recommend to bring the 2,000 sq. ft. upstairs.
The 2,000 sq.ft. would be used to cover the area that the
trucks come into to unload the merchandise. The merchandiE
could be left in this area until it was time to be used.
Presently, the space has to be used as open space. There-
fore, Yaw recon~ended putting a chained-link fence to
surround the area.
The Trueman Developers asked Planning and Zoning members
for the following: 1) their consideration on the future
stair element; 2) the deletion of a health club; 3) and
to add 2,000 sq.ft. to the second floor of the building.
Hunt mentioned he had not seen a sufficient area for
taxies and shuttle tYDe vehicles. Yaw mentioned he would
look into that.
Collins opened the public hearing for the
subdivision plat of the Trueman Property.
con~ents from the public. Collins closed
hearing.
preliminary
There were no
the public
Motion
Abbott moved to table the Trueman property pursuant to the
~on-site i..l}"eEect:!:9E,_2L the next regular meeting and
completion of information frQ[n t!:lSJ_ Ci ty_. Engineer; seconded
by-Hunt: .
Motion
Abbott amended his motion to continue this meeting to
June 8 at 5: OQ.-E.J!L~...A.J:: whicil time there ~lilL'be an on-
s-i te inspection of the 'l'rueman property; seconded by Hun t.
All in favor, motion carried.
-4- t
)
r'
,-.,
,-.,
\
~~. j'M-'_"'_F_~-"
"~" ..,,~. .:.;:.;.,>:Ji:~",6"'i~/"~M;i:;tv<':;;:ili~ii)~d'~:~i:~,,;;;;,k~'f;,>~:iI.;2~;';"';~i,'~,'~
TRU~MAN PROPERTY - ConceptuQl Subdivision ~<I ~9~1~
~orter told Council that since the .la~:;t m€~e~i.z'HJ .DarryEdwards. had gotten together
ithCity Attorney Stuller and a ~ote hd:1 been tldden to lot 4 . C).ty Attorney Stuller
r,t. 00(1 that there \.;ere t\...o altcrnat.l.v€'s; CJ tb;>r f(1"'lb:~ ('t tvlO lot subdi.vi.sion, or til.-1KQ it
~~~l' i..{j~J. fiUalify the al1(,...,....t~c densi.t.:' .:....n thl..\ ('.lurtll. City ,"',tt()'tt':ey ~(,t\.1.11('lr: ~;:Iid ~hc
did not support the pr()positlon of t\10 \.'$. foul: f but. v,'~s.askcd \'.'lwt.. acceptabl~
language to perpetuate what. Trueman wante.d to do, to ll.nllt the development rights..
porter told council there w~~e. three things. to (fQ over. j, how to t-rotd- th~ leftov(\r r-;nuc~
t't.,> 'I S, r:.>;') "C'~:;:-':~ '," .~'; .~ ,- .:.t' ,:, ~ :'C ~;i-'U-~'''~ en ':::~'.~ :~"c: ':'::'. ; },(".:'1:' ,~~t.:;_.l,,,;, . i:.q. ~'-l'-t. .," '
c~.(.;r -- p::.;~~v It.'J.;;. <'Vi)t-..::<"~..d...~; C0\11~Gi 1 had V0t~(.i. [\.11: 10, (lOLl S(lU,Are Lent:. c[,' :hf")using, 9ruc~.:ry
store of 20,QOO square feet; 5,000 squar7 feet of other retail spar:c; Council had
indicated that 15.000 squ;;\ro feet of off1.ce space on t.he second floor was to,-) much.
p(.\r1-,er s.,iti he \..:mtcd to rediscnst. t})~ bnr~C'mC'nt. Councilmnn 1)e Cr()(]olrlo h<::ld objec't ~d
to the Ih~alth club~ Tructnii.n said the he.n.lth club would be made avail..::.ble. to povple in
the office-Sf man.1<Jcrs .of the. store. ~.nd anyone. else wh,? want(~~~to ~(li!l1.. The.t'e woul.d
be about 100 mellibt.'r::;lupti.. Porter sa~d, he woul~ also l1.ke to l.ncl\ld~ ,:::L':).(')thcr5, 000
squa.re feet in the bn~emcIlt ~or servl.C~ \l~~CS .ll.ke TV repair, shoe sho?,;s:, sQlUcplnce
b,zt\vecm office and hard retal.l space.. Th.l.s would be a total 10,000 Si'<!l\U-aro foot base-
ment.
councilman Bl:hrcndt. moved t.otable thi~ at: this time because the pl;.1nnlng dcpo.rtment
has not seen or <lisc\\ss~d thi~; these people should. CJO to the planning d':er'<lrt.mont to
ha.ve to pro-blf'i>.:; w\)rkcu out.; It is not. ready to be Ul front o-f Council; seconded by
C',H,lI1cilwomun ~lvhnr~tvn.
,
Kane sr-id the 1~'rqc5t thinrys that rcm~in unr-:)solved are (l} org,;U1iz.'l.tl;tltltF and ultimate
disposition otthc l.:md o1.nd (2) the sJ.z*; o~ the buildi.ng. . Karle recmmrc't'tdc.d a two lot.
subdivision ;:,od -.l 45,000 squ.u:e foot bUl.ldJ..ng which would contai.n a 2,:m"QOO foot food
.~",-",.........--.~ ......--.~ __N~"'''.l .,.-..,......
,
.~.~._."",~',.. -' .,,'_......-.~
.~.~'"_...,-.- ,.
-
~
"
1
l
~ .
i
"
~
~
ij
L,
....."--.......
:0
d
)
".]
/'>
'.~'.
",
'>
'e'
';"
""~
,'};
I,::,!
;ii;
>~
'/"
.;c...'~
<:'-
,.\
,;::
'old
Ii'.
;>",
";',
~:,;,~
'",~,:
;:():.
ilk::
"1
' ,
.
,:J
~
r
f
I
i
f
i
I
\)!l.~,.,..".,= ~,l
..'....c'f,"<'!(:"')~5.,'c'.;'M~
,-.,
r-,
~ ,.\.... <
l' ''1..
. 'LJUt.
" .. ~~ct..t in9 ._,_.____~____,_.~"'~..,.._)\SpCll3~i :tY."CQ1J.l,l9-~,~,..._._,", ....,....._.rcb~~,a l~y" ...~,,' ...l.~? ,6._.~.,..,..
.;;; J..."J.. _ __'"' _. ..__~_..,.__.______.~_...~._ .."---------,-~-_._---"...---.-----~-------~..--....-.,--.~..-.~_.- .. .~--.~_
Ii
" 10,000 S\luare feet of incidcn~:al nei~hborhood ret-ai 1 uscs; ~O,OOO office sp.:{CC, i.lnd ;:
tJ;,;":n~'s, 0'11 u.dditionnl 10,000 of hou1>~ng. Clty Attorney Stuller s.:ud tbc best api)roaC'~l r
;f;t~.'>~': ... i! t\o.'olot f;ubdivision, thi_s is t,he most :,ccure posit,ion for tile Cit,y. !'<Is. Stuller:
;".~ W IS approached that if 'l'rucn~an wn:\t.cd a four iot subd;.vision, what language
::~id \:; p~t ont-he pl~t to qualify development pot~ntial. The
, A'iU" Standley said he could see no reason to table this project, the Council had been
~~~~)ng at a building of 45,000 square foot maximum. That is not what is presented
t~1'.lht..
t1."l.>n,.::..=tc Wi~!;
opp"sr;'d to t.he mot.hln.
Mot.ion NO'l' carriE-d.
'I
i,
il
'j;
"'':.. C1"".)" 1:ncincer Ellis pointed out that the road alignment was important in concept"J:al., It
~.;l dc~crmine lot configuration i3nd even placement of tho::: buildings.. Ellis said earlier
i i~"..,as- noted that there .....ould ~ot be a through street connecting Spring with Hill through
j .hc Rio Grande prope~ty~ Ellis told Council that if they accept the conceptual plan as
i ;ho"" it. totally precludes doing anything on the City's side in the way of a ~ensible
J t~lLffiC sit.uation. Ellis said he felt the road was shown t.oo far to th~ north. -. Ellis
f G4id he would like to see elimi~ation of direct access by curb cuts and'service entries
I on }'lill street bo.ck in the plan, compatible with any future regarding of Mill street.
\ councilm,1.n !>~bl"cnat, rl';OV('rl nnt: to approve .the ~ubdivision a~~ to direct, t-he applicant: t.O
<,;~t tc.-3~t.hcr \dUl-C~I,~ Cr}in2(!1.-in9 and planninSl office; zeconded l::;.J:' Councih:':Jrn,.:m :)cdersen.
Mayor Standley stated there are basic constructs that are not acceptable to Council; (1)
the road aligr.ment and probl~ms t.nat Dave Ellis he.s a,nd (2) size of t.he bui.lding. Kane
recommended a 4S,~00 square foot building; 20,000 in food, 10,000 in office space, 5,000
adjacent neighborhood commercial uses, 10,000 in housing with a two lot subdivisicns.
11 Porter said he had drawings 'of various alignments for the road. Porter also requested
. this be tabled until Trueman could be present to make the final request of Council.
.
I
I
)~
!]
"
I'
Kane stated' 'in planning for the Rio Grande property, the planning office asked Council for :1
a decision on Spring street extension. Council's general pOlicy commitment was to drop
the Spring street extension. When the Spring street extension \';as dropp,~d, Porter moved
his road t..o the north to acconunodate more development.
..~
I
I
Councilman Wishart moved to table the Trueman project; seconded by Councilwcman Johnston.
Mayor Standley said when the project comes back all things Council is tulkingabout should
be included; road alignment, number of.lots in the subdivision, square footage, and tnat
the planning office and engingeering. departments have recommendat.ions.
All in favD~, motion carried.
!
,i
~
'f
f,
ORDINANSE #2, SERIES Of 1976 - Electric Appropriations
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing.
the p~blic hearing.
~
!
There were n~ co~~ents.
Mayor Standley closed
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordi~ance #2, . Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman
\iishart. .All in favor, motion carried.
ORDIN~,NCE # 2
(Series of 1976)
't,
II
"
I:
Ii
I
i
u
f ;!
, I':,
I c;ouncilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1976, on second reading; ~:
J .seconded by Councilman t-vishart:. Roll call vote; Councilmfmlbers Behrendt, aye; De Grc(-!crio"
& aye; Johns~on, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standle~, aye. Motion
carried.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FROM ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT REVENUES FIVE TROUSANU
($S,OOO) DOLLARS FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING COSTS INClDENT TO IllPLEgENTNCION
010'" THE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM; A:~D AN ADDI'l'IONAL r~IVE TllOUS..'l\ND
($5,000) DOLLARS FOR LEGAL fEES TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS PROTESTING THE
PUB~IC service rate increase was read by city clerk
if
!i
., OiU>I};ANCI; #3-, SERIES OF 197~ - Employee Retirement
;:
rr
Mayor St.andley opened t.he pUblic hearing. Councilwoman Johnston told Council the
Ct."ltnmi.t.t....c ucceptcd tJiC retirement plan without amendment. r.1ayor Standley clcsed the
:)~.l.~:,l ic ::v~. ;,' ::. fIlJ,
Councilman DeGregorio moved to .read 6rdinanc.~ ~3, Series of 1976; sec("'lnclcd by Council-
woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ORnrn]\,:'~cF. # 3
(Serie" of 1976)
;\N O:tDINJ'l:NCE m.;p1::J\LING .Z\ND JU;ENi'.C'l'l~c.rl'HR E=-tPLOYt~ESt RR'i'IRF.:HE:-Jt.i.' PT1AN AND
'1 HUST OF TlIE Cl'l"i OFA::-:iPCt'i; REPr,l..C:n~G THE PTIF.;.T:;NT 'l'HUS'1'EE l\ND.'\U'I'HORJZING
.1\p!>l.TNTB'l'H!l.TION 01" 'i'I!J:-: Pf.,i\:-;: J\Nll 'l'HLS'f BY '1'liE r~E'1'In.E~.U':N'I' Cm,~:-11':'TT':r:: }\l'lD
IHHEC'l'OR 011' l:'IHi'\NCE; EST1\nLH~l!_u~r: A FCltr:UUI,E BY VIH',j'HJ-: OF '..;!IICII 'l'Hr-:
CO:-ITil.lmJ'fION f'~?''.!)E BY TIm CITY ~ntL VE.:J'1' '!:n l':i'1pr,OY!:F~1 t"\CCOHD1NG 'l'C) YI-:l\HS
OJ" SE!WICr:: '1'0 'rUE Cl'l"l; r.':!'m.lIZlt~(j rr;l::.~:r[;~HJnr..r:: INVES1'!.tEHTS 1\NI) l\.U't110HlZIUG
Tim CGt,U'llNGJ.,lNG OJ? PI~l\N L"UtmS, ALL 1\S !-10Hl~ PAwrICUI,AHLY DJ:~scn.II3I.m IN 'I'm:.:
OHD1[~l\UCB was rend by tlH...1 city clerk.
CounciJ""om...m P(~der~cn 1!I()vcclto ttdopt Or.'dinal"c:(! it3, ~cr.in!J(lf 1976, OJ) second rN.lrl.inC'!';
Sccond(~d by Councilman Wishart:.
",,'."'L"""';Yft>I.;.,.f<~""
-",;;.1$"''';..
,. =!:" ;~'8",c>.< "':'~"I'""(~.,,.t&~.;r::,';'f('1C::~~'.~,,"'~:',~.,,~;iJl".'.' ",
, -~,~,
,,~,'\' ,"".,,'''~,:.!,,'''' ,..,:~. ,''',.~N.''
. ,:.",""..~ ....'q'...,
.';-~~
., ;w,~........; :l!>v. ,,. """",' " "" .,,",.,,,,,,:,-, '
_ ",..,_ ~~~,~~,~~~:::.....~'1_:"7,:~~~?____,___~..__._,,,..~"~p'~~~~.;.C::..~,~'.;r..,S~~,~9 ~.,;~....y,___;~_".......,,__..1~..'l~~::X_,?_?,!,,~~~,9.]6 -. '__'"'___
'-'.'~""'''~' - -_._-,.,.~,",.__._...,_.,~..,..._--.....,.......;<,......,.-..,~~.----,........~......"......~-~.-.,.~--,--_..."'--_._._,.._--..-...-__...._-~................~.~..."""-".....-~_._,-~.~--
~
II
11
"
'I
"
Ii
i(
/''''',
,'-'
lO'
,.I'. .
. .....--:'
Zcke Clymer, fire department, told Council it was gett.ing to be a problem parking when
15 to 20 vchiclp5 suddenly <.:onverge on the fire department fer an emergency. Clymer
~!l}:ed if the Ci ly \oJould consider converting part of the park along the east side of the
fire station for parking. Clymer suid that. daily, for.5ome reason, t',hree or four fire-
me'n corne to the 5t.ot,ion to work J.nd UICl.'C is no place to park. Cl)'mer said converting
t,h(,~ r.:c:r.k into a few pen.kinq pl':t:::cs 'vou.hl not: he o~.pcllsivc for the City. '1'11(... fire
. di.s.trlct would st.and uny expenses; tho fire .jepartmcnt would uonatc time and equipment.
. -. ~',
i1.:iY9:r. St.andley said he would rather than this under advisement and look at alternatives
su'ch",.as designating an official zone, or part of Cit:y Hall parking lot4 Mayor Standley
direc~ed City Manager Mahoney to work with the fire department, get their requiroments,
work, Quta solution and bring it back to Council.
\.
ASPENVI~~ - Reapproval of final plat
MaYO~andley explained this project conformed to zoning, there were no problems,
the Connt::il \'1a5 reapproving t.he subdivision4
. ,. . . . .
Cou;tcl.lwoma', Pedersen moved tv reapprove AspenV~ew fl.nal plat subdivision; seconded
by Councilman arry.
I
Councilwoman
were none4
asked if there were any changes since the first approval. There
All in favor,
CLARENDON - Reapproval of final plat
city Attorney Stuller told Council there has not been a recorded and accepted subdivision
agreement. Also the Clarendon anticipates an exchanges of deeds to clarify the western ;:
boundary 4 Council will have to authorize the Hayor to sign that deed. l
Councilwcman Pedersen moved to reapprove the subdivision plat and accept for recordation.
to authorize Mayor St~ndley to execute the subdivision agreement; and to authorize ~
Mayor Standley to execute the quit claim deed; seconded by Councilman Parry.
CouncilwOlt1.an Johnston pointed out that there are -several blanks in the subdivision
agrccment4 City Attorney Stuller said that Engineer Ellis had to calculate the amounts I
for escrow and dedication fees. Clarendon will accept Ellis' estimates for these
figures4
Councilwoman Johnston moved to amend the motion to include approval subject to the
amounts being okayed by the City administration; seconded by Couhcilwoma~ Pedersen.
Allin favor of the amendment, motion carried.
All in favor of the main motion, motion carried.
~ Conceptual subdivision .
Kane told Council the P & Z had approved the conceptual subdivision with a .general . ii'
configuration of 23,000 square foot post office and 75; 000 square foot general commer- I'I
cial building. The Council had tabled the conceptual subdivision at the last meeting
Ii
and required that the plan be amended to reduce the size of the commercial building.
Also required was that the balance of the property be reserved for future rezoning or I!
mechanism that would allow the developers of the land to come back to Council and ask ij
for further development. Porter's reduction is proposed to go from 75,000 square feet I!,
to 55,000 square feet, Which includes 10,000 for housing. Kane recommended the 10,000 ~
square feet for housing only if coordinated \Y'ith the housing authority wi.th some II
assurance that it be employee housing. Kane told Council there is 15,000 square feet IJ
of office space being propo.\-~ed. The planning office is recommending, citY-\>lide, that If
office space and retail/commercial be cut back. 'l'he planning office t s general position II
is that if the developers feel this is a reasonable use of land, there should be some U
assurance that this is preserved.as office space and not be converted into more rctai14 I~
Kane reminded Council there is a general downzoningproposal pending before P & Z4
One of the recommendations in this proposal is to take food stores from 20,000 to
15,000 square fcct4 'l'he planning office is recommending that 5,000 square feet be
sacri.ficed from this buildiug, if the Council accepts a food store at 15,000 square II
:::t~ortcr told Council this development is proposed SS, 000 square feet; 5, 000 ~~~~-r~-' +
fec't in the ba!-';c;>ment that will be he-l1t.h faci.lity prJnl.lrily for people that will use I-
I~b' ouildillq; ,~I.;,()nO ~:qU.ll'I..' .ll,,'L of n.'ldil '~;p,H:\:: 20,OOO~;qu~ln.' i()ol "rol.:t.!ry:~torc.
On t:.OP of that 15,000 .squu!"(.! feet ofs(.!rvicc c.lnd doctor ,office space; on top of that. il'
lO,0005qu~rc feet of housing. Porter said he had no problem going through the hOUSingll
authority, or with the contingency on the offico space. ~
P.ort"f."r ~~..tid ;It". t.h0 lc1!;I: counci.l tn(~t't.i.nq t.hl.' Conncil hitcl CHSCUS5Cd phasinq t,he oriqinal i
7~},O()/)~HIU~lrl.' f()(Jt [H'o.i<.,t:t. l'ortl.'J." sai.d tht.~'y planned to ph.we till' construction also,
abu"ting with the! rcti.lil first.
C..,uncilm,Ln Uchrcnc1t asked for nn explanation of the conceptual block plan with dotted
Ii,nen. Port(~r r'C'pliNl t..h05'~ \lerC futllt'e circuLlt.ion plllr1.$, tr"il dC'signationr;. 1'hesc
.11'1' vI'r..,. CUI1'."I'I'1l1,11. {'o!:;:,; Im.lll I;'.ll1"'lhl! ;1::l',.'c1 by 11"vin'l ,I slIl,divi:;ioll with (",II 11,tn,
('II" ;"1 ti,l- I'":'! ull il"- .jj,d Ulll' 1(>1'111" ll'ld.iJ, i:.tlIL lit.. Clllllll_'il IlI,vniWJ .iL:.f.'lf up
to pr\~n!';lll'('> fr'om UV' clf'vclopc,r: in tlw fUt"urp. Kane s"id vnry (l('finitply. K,:lnr~ silid
Ull' l'oIHl'.il hOld f...11 th,"lt -1'1,00'1 nqll_I1" f"l'l' W.lr: hHI I,iq, hut-, /11.1).-''''' .\1' ~;()nH' t illu' i.ll
t-ll~' ful.ul."...~ it w\Ju.ld l)t! jll:d i 1. ipd. '1'11(\ pLlIlllill'i 01 flc'" !:.lid lo cut thH.:k llw hui'J.dill\j ",'
but lC..1vc ill the f:le~ibi.lily rOt" futllJ:C df..!vr.!lop(l\.l.~nl'. on th':lt site. ii
f
l
[
~~'i"'~?:fE~'ik~";"'<.i:'~; ;.,,,~;:!d,-:ij/::;;;d;t::":;;";:;lf.W~'.;'(d.s;,~;:1V:,":?! :'1/1:,;:;;..:,.';. ';""'~'::';'~';;:;'1~':;~i':t': ;'::;';i:""~,,,:i';l;-r<<ii!'f~-~""'M.r,;~"" ."' -, ;:"~":~';j,) "/'ti-,;;;;"":s;:.,,..,.t!:..~, ''''c...;","~,~~,;;:"..,,;';'-~":;Ii''~'00'~i:;;;;~0.:~:~0'~:'''0.0'~~T'li;~;';;;iJJ~,;;'.;d';:;"~~j':;':0;~ii:0~f
,-..
,-.,
In.
Regular Meoting
IIspen City Council
January 26, 1976
:::::::::.;: ::::::'-;:--l' ~::::::;:::~-~::'-.-::':::;:=':-':::::::: .::::::::":: ':;::=:;:::'::_'-::-~, '-;-- ::::'::::-_"" -..... ~:_-. :::"-=.:.:'::: :::'::;:~':':::_:'_:_"-::':'-.-"
Councih~lc1n. Behrendt said if they subdi.vide once, there is a right to ':lse that land implicl
I K';lnc sald J,f the balance of land _ were 17ft undeveloped and. made SPA, If would carrysomc
blas for dcv~lopment. rl'he plannlng offlcc felt that the Slze of the proposed building
) represented too much ret.:l.i.luse of the site. 'l'hcy recommended that th(.~ si?;('I of the
building be cut U<lc'k ilnd some otht.r nf.. cd<~d S/C/l uses be included on th<ltsi tc in the
fuLur<:. K;Ule said crc.Jtinq two spcciillly pl.."'nncd areas \-!Quld creat.e a greilter responsi-
Ibility on the Council and p& Z to appJ:ove a development on that site in th0future.
Ci ty Attorney StuL.er explained that if the c1evelc.'per were to parcel off lot 4, you
would have an owner with no developable rights at all. Ms. Stuller. said if the City
has to request a dedication from that land for a right-of-way and it is under separate
ownership, it would make it difficult. Mayor Standley said if the building were ccndo-
minimized and the tenants were tenants-in-con~on of lot 4, it could be a problem.
i:
I
I
I
I
I!
Ii
I
,
I
.1
.,'; i
I
I
I
I
1
i
'1
1 1
i
I
I
!
"t,_.
~,
"'~
Porter said he wanted 55,000 ~quare,feet with no obligations on behalf of the develooer
or the City for anything in the future. When the need arises, the developer can corne
back through some ,predetermined process. City Attorney S~uller suggested when they
develop the final plat to note that no development rights automatically pass to lot 4.
Bob Grueter,representing Trueman, said he anticipated this land c0ntinuing to be a
specially planned area.
Councilman Behrendt asked what advantages accrued to the City to consider this develcpmen1
as a two lot subidivision.J1s. Stuller said the developer's disadvantage \,,"ould be the
dedication of open space. Grueter said they were not aSking for condominiazation.
Ms. Stuller suggested then that they maintain lot 4 as open space as an adjunct to lot 2
with no lot designation.
Mayor Standley reiterated that if at some point in the future there was a need for furthex
development, under SPA, the developer could corn~ back for more development. The Council
did notimrly to corne up with a subdivided piece of land that had a separate lot that
could be sold. Mayor Standley suggested that the Council deal with the building size
at this point.
Nayar Standley said Porter was aSking for a 20,000 square foot market and asked if that
included storage. Porter said that included everything, storage, etc. Elmer Beamer
spoke to Council about a 20,000 square foot food store. Beamer said the families of
Aspen want a store with sufficient shelf space to carry various sizes of merchandise,
where aisles are wide enough to carry through, and a store that is willing to handle
their own brand of merchandise. Beamer said that everything points towards a reduction
of traffic by having a large enough .store with storage. The main traffic drawer will
be the pos't office. If people can go to one store and buy everything, one will not need
to be trapsing allover town.
Beamer told Council that one and a half million dollars were snent in Basalt and Glenwood
with $50,000 sales tax lost and one million mil~s driven on Highway 82. <.rhis could be
prevented by having a store here with sufficient space to keep people here. Kane
replied that the City Market ,ip Glenwood is 20,000 total square feet with 4,000 square
feet 'storage and 3-4,000. ac'cessory t,lse. Kane said the planning office ;,;as suggesting
15,000 square feet as a ",!-',ay. to. control against accessory junk items. They are concerned
about bulk and massi~g of the 'building. Kane said that cross town ttaffic could not
be eliminated.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if the post office would be located on this site. Irv
Sherrick, U. S. Post Office, told Council they were interested in the land. They do
have floating boundaries. This post office will replace the present two in town.
Porter told Council that anybody that opened a grocery store in Aspen will not have to
look for unique ways to draw people into the store. Porter said the planning office
picked 15,000 square feet for a grocery store because they were concerned about massing;
Porter said he could illustrate that the massing can be dealt with. Hans Gramiger
questioned the allowed 82 parking spaces, and pointed out that normal Safeway procedure
was to provide 3 sqUilrc feet for parking, driveways, walkways, landscape per every square
foot of building. Gr?lmiger also pointed out that only one street would be serving this
grocery store. Porter said they were not using the same kind of parking ratios as
large cities, as a number of people would be using the minibus or pedestrian system.
Council decided they were ready to make decisions on the size of the market.
Councilman Behrendt moved to allow a 15,000 square foot total grocery store all inclusive.
~. Uotion died for lack of a second. ,,,"__~..".__'~""" .__.._.,_.______"_._. __-.___,_,
.!
Councilman
COllnci.lman
curried.
Behrendt moved to allow a 2~,OOO square foot store all inclusive; seconded by
i:i~;h,lrt. 1\11 ill f<lvor, "".ith t.he t'xC'('ption of Councilmemb("r JOhll:;f.on. ~lolicln
'Ii Councilmnn lHshnrt moved to allow 10,000 square feet of residence conditioned on going
'I
II through Goodheim's office and it be tied up with the housing authority; seconded by
Ii Councilman Dc Gregorio.
Councilmun llt"'h,1~0IHlt stlid Uw purpose of Lho hOllcin~l nllthority \,,",)5 to get proper~y into
the nnds of people thilt c.:m't buy in thi.s town. A rental plan docs not protect that
very group. Councilmiln \7'lisha.rt answer<.::'d by going thr.ough Goodhcd.m it docs not tic it
to rental or salc~ this is conceptually trying to keep it for these people.
^ll i 11 f;avnl~, flIol tOil C~ll:r 1.1'(1.
i
"
~
~
"."''''~'''
.,_.., .......:.0....."...
.~........~ .
1..
"
ASPEN/PITI\JN ,;'::lanning Department
" .
130 south galena' street
asp en, ~ (' {} ] 0 r ~ do'" 8 I 6 II
"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office (Bill Kane)
RE: Trueman Property, Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: January 22, 1976
Please find enclosed a letter from Joe Porter describing the revised
, Trueman Plan. In short, the proposal includes a reduction of the
75,000 square feet building to 55,000 square feet with 10,000 square
feet of housing and a 5,000 square foot basement health club.
We recommend the following:
The 10,000 square feet of housing only makes sense
if developed in connection with the Housing Authority
and Brian Goodheim.
2. The 55,000 square feet proposal includes a 20,000
square foot grocery store. We are still recommending
a maximum of 15,000 square feet with or without
storage. Should this recommendation be accepted
then 5,000 square feet of area should be sacrificed
from the building.
~1.
3. That the office space in the building be restricted
to office space by covenant.
4. That the balance of the site remain as a separate
Specially Planned Area restricted in Service/Commercial/
Industrial uses only.
..... ~ ~', ..
',,",.~.., '~""I".":J";.," "\"':":',"
+.,- .'n_,'....... .., '.;::..:.~,.,..;,..<.. . .'-'P-"""'"''
.........-,..~. --',"" .
.\
(
.../......;.1
.
~... ~~A"",-~ ...... 4...
i
i' I
t
,
i
---...,,-..
~ .
~-
-
1'""\
1'""\
Hcgular Meeting Aspen 'City Council January 26, 19"16
.:.::-:,:.:~::~:.::~,,,,:::::~';:::~~::::::::::.:::..."':::::'':.'.:''';::~:::'=:';:::-.::.:::::...,..........:,=..::=.==:::..:::::.~-;:'=::::=..."':"...::,"::::::::.::-:..'..,-~,--,-'*'.,---":::..,,_.......::.=-::::::::::::..::==
F'or the "ccond floor uses, doctors end services offices, tohe planning office is recom- II
mending t1.w,t t1~cybc c'ovcnan~ed to .those u~es spccif:ic <?dto ~topcrccping commcr.ciillicn, 0 II
The plannJ.ng oi:fJ..cc w.:.tnts thIS ~]PilCC restr.lctcd to offlCC only so that the 1> & Z \II'ill
not b(~ faced to conditional use hearings. l'1ayor Standley said he would be willing to I
accept 15,000 S(lU~tt'e [eet. of bona fide office and medical tlGes. Councilm,""ln Parry said
he felt i.t should he ()I')(~n to what. the nC'cd is; Counci 1 JW!1 no idea Wh':lt. t.he need will :i
be. N.:\}'or Standley point~d out th,J.t that sets up rating of uscs; the developer can ~
rate other buildings in t.own.
councilwoman Johnston moved thet Council detormine the footprint of the building at I
this point; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilmcmbcrs \Hshart, Pedersen, ~Tohnston!~
Behrendt in favor; CouncilmembersParry, De Gregorio; Mayor Standley opposed. Motion '
carried..
councilman De Gregorio moved to accept a 25,000 square foot footprint; seconded by
Councilman Par~y..
Planner Kane told Council it was irrelev~nt to discuss footprint.. This building will
not be uniformly two or three stories. The uses appropriate will make it a staggered
building; it could be 30,000 square feet on the first floor and only 5,000 square feet
on the second floor.. The Council will get two shots at the architectural design of
this .building.
Everyone opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Berhendt moved to reject 15,000 square feet for doctors and services;
seconded by Councilman Wishart.. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to accept neighborhood/retail at 5,000 square feet; seconded by
Councilman v~ishart. All in favor, motion carried..
"
Councilman Behrendt moved to reject the health and recreational facility at 5,000 square!iI
feet; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilman Wishart questioned this facility. Porter said.it would basically be handball)
court, and sauna for the people that live there. Councilman De Gregorio said he could <I
see this becoming another health center; there are two in town already. This would j
be increasing the value or cost of the apartments that the Council is trying to keep
as low-cost housing.. Councilman Wishart agreed, but said he was not opposed to a
separate' underground facility..
All in favor, motion carried.
r
~
The Council has approved 20,000 square foot grocery store; 10,000 square feet of
residential; and 5,000 square feet of neighborhood/retail, for a total of 35)000' square
feet. There is 20,000 square feet left unresolved.'
DKane told Council there was a fairly tedious procedures to go. through rec;y'arding '-.'.
~ngineeringgUeS~ions. Council decided to consi~er this on the next agen~~. Councilman!
De Gregorio !ert council Chambers. . .
Irv Sherrick, u. S.. Post Office, told Council they Were under a mandate frotA the Post-
master General to study all alternatives possible to reduce capital expenditures.
Sherrick said they might be able-to drop the size of the buildi.ng in Aspen to perhaps
19,000 square feet.. Sherrick said the lack of capital funds does not affect the
project in Aspen; their interest still runs high.. If anything does changes, Sherrick
said he would contact the City. Sherrick said their parking would be adequate to
handle customers; they propose 95 customer parking stalls..
ORDINANCE #S9, SERIES OF 1975 - Vacating Alley 92
Mayor Standley opened the public hea~ing. Mayor Standley told Council that the
Commissioners had gotten the requested easements from the adjacent property owners.
There were no other comments. Mayor Standley closed the pub1ichearing..
Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #59, Series of 1975, on second reading.
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
- - --------- --, ---------,-,-- ____~-c..(~:~~~~N~~ ~~~5) .~--' .. --: -- ------,-,---,- -~-------~ 1..----:-::-,
",N ORnIN,,!;cr: \.:,\(".i\"!'IN(; liLT. OF ":'HF. P-T,t\TTY:n l\r,r.t'~YHJ\Y r,YPiG IN l\NO I3F:TNF:EN
BI,t)Ci-\ 92, Ct.;,\" ,\:'.,U TO;'--::1:':T'n;0F i\:';!'U:, i'~;ll !,J,()Cj; l:}, E,\~;'l' A;;PEiJ i\nlJl'~'.~\n:AL
TOI~NSITE (LYING "ESTERLY OF A NORTIIERLY 'EXTENSION OF' 1'IIE !-:,\51' LINE OF
LOT 13, EAST ASPEN ADDITION) SAID VAC~TION BEING PURSUANT TO SECTION
43-2-301, ET.5EQ, C.R.S. 1973, AND BEING CONDITIONED ON RESERVATION OF
RIGIIT-OF-\;l\Y FOR UTII.ITY LOCA1'ION AND Hl\INTENANCE OF' PUBLIC ,\CCESS TO
l.O'r';:: l\D,l()nU:JC: 'I'm; V.\Ci\1'Y:O pnt~'.i'IO:~D OF 'l'HE 7\l,T.EYt.:.\y \',.<lS rc,'.d hy the
cityclC'rk.
',.'
Councilwom~n Peoersen moved to adopt Ordinance #59, Seric3 of 1975, on s~cond reading;
seconded by Council\-"'Llm~m. Johnston. Holl call vote; Coun,,:,,:ilmCIU})Cr.!3 "~chrcndt, ayc;
Johnst:o'n, uyc; Parry, aye; Pcdcrst:-.n, aye; Wi.shart, aye; Hayor 5,tu.nd~('y, aye.. Mot,ion
c;u-rj"d..
9..1.~N(:!~.J0..~.L-\~~!.!:n._~J~7~" - Hczoning . Thomil!1 T"rnpcrty t.e.) C, Conn("r.-vation
Hilyor r.lt:itndle.y npclH.~c1 the public Iwa.rilll]. '1'ht~r(,~ were no comments. UClyor St.andley
olo'sed t.he pUblic h~aring.
~
i'
i
I.
"
II
,<I,
<)('
I.... )
1'""\,
.'-'"
Special Meeting
Aspen City Council
December 23, 1975
"..-,""-
........--.--'
--_._-'-- '''-.--'....-,...-....-.....--
""-...----- """---_...---.......-...................-~---........
Larry Yaw stated that the architects disagree with the planning office on the size of
the building. The specially planned area will set the zone for that. The overlay is
S/c/I in neighborhood commercial zone. Yaw explained they are seeking conceptual
approval from the Council. During the preliminary planned area, all the architectural
aspects of the project will be presented. In the final plan there will be a complete
review of all the ~rchitecture, engineering and another Council approval. Then there
will be reco~dation.o~ the PUD subdivision and the final zoning. Yaw mentioned they
do need a qUlck dec~s~on; they are presently behind schedule.
Yaw explained their Objectives; to provide a neighborhood service center that will 'be
"a one-stop shopp~ng service, and Wl.ll prov1Qe space for the post officef to 'develop
a project which is consistent with the conomics of the land, and to connect with the
paths and pedestrian ~~~ms~~~city, and tp provide the City WIth reasonable
rlex~b~i~ty wicn tne ~ea Mountain extension.
-
Yaw explained ~he development program. The post office will be 23,000 square feet;
the service commercial building will be a total of 75,000 square feet and will be
comprised of a 35,000 square foot footprint, 25,000 square feet of offices and service
shops, TO, 000 square feet of resident-ial; as, 000 square foot recreation facility.
The total square footage would come out to 98,000 square feet. The parking would be
~or_ 300 cars. The~rchitects would like to have a shared parkinq concept. They
would be able to have more efficient parking and less congestion on the Sl.te.
Yaw told Council that they would not develo~on the panhandle for a period of five
years and anyth~ng €fiat was developea-on-it wou~a-no~e--towara-c()naefunatIC)n~Tn~
right-of-~ay is 1.27 acres leaVing almost 7 acreS rema~n1ng. The open space is 25
per cent, or another acre and three-quarter. The total footprint is an acre .15,
parking is 2.37, set backs and buffers is another 1/2 acre. The total acreage is 8.22
Yaw mentioned that the planning office and the architects are not together on the
concept of the neighborhood shopping center. The architects do not feel t:hat the
concept of having a neighborhood Shopping center spread throughout various areas in
Aspen would fit the economic or functional model of Aspen. It would take about 12,000
people to support a full basic service neighborhood Shopping facility. The alternative
to that is neighborhoods can support small grocery stores, but when taking a~~ other
facil1t1es that--OOlong Wl.th a shopping center, i~ will create cross town trPtf.'fi'",-
What is being proposed is something that takes all the basic service uses and puts
th~Jn in one destination, one-stop Shopping area.
In terms of the malls, Yaw felt that it was an unarguable economic phenomenon that
tourists oriented commercial uses are using up downtown Aspen. Yaw felt that many of
the useS should be in the Trueman area so that shopping can be done all at once. I
Yaw asked the councilme~ers what they thought about the"building. Councilman Behrendt
said that he would not vote for a building over 40,000 ,square fee~; the food ~arket
of 12,000 square feet plus 3,000 for storage is agreeable to him and the need for odd
~~ores in that area that are necessary.
Councilwoman Pedersen felt that the market size should be compatible with that which
can be feasibly attempted as" far as size is concerned in the west end and any other
markets in town. Pedersen was leary about the 20,000 square feet of combined and
cc:l.li t ional uses, too open ended.
Councilman Parry waS interested in it.
Mayor Standley felt that the size of the building was too large and suggested that a
service station be down there in a separate structure becuase the parking is too
much maSSing of open space. Mayor Standley also suggested that a restaurant be down
there to service the employees of the area. Mayor Standley said he would not want
to see any office space or retail facilities that are duplicated in the downtown area.
Mayor Standley said he did not see any problem with the housing, but in terms of
commercial space he \>lanted nothing over 40,000. square feet. The supermarket retail
area shouldn't exceed 12,000 or 15,000 ~quare feet.
Councilman Behrendt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Elizabeth M. Klym,
Deputy City Clerk
[
I
~
i
II
"
['
. ~
~
I,
:
i
i
j
;. ~
'.
!
,
"
I
:1
l
~~~:~\:1S\ :'!J[;?~:rl~,lP;?Jf:~~;%~~:::~~:0:~~?t:~~,;:t~,~>';; 1\1\'*\:s7f$~P:t:,j<';7~:,%*~~::,':~)i:?~<!3tfFf7rrE!]!/T!!;,~'J;xJrOffi!~~Er;;P?)'J:,:::dry' ''fb~'Z':R~~~~1~;~:' ?'f:"":o.'" ~-i;s:,,~{+"f~,~,;;..~::r:/ /~:...';~(\Y.@:f-:S'i"~
1'""\
19~
,-.,
Special Meeting
Aspen City Council
December 23, 1975
_",,,,,,,,,,,~_,,..,~,,,,,"';"......y_,~,-,-,,_,,,____,,,__,,,_ ,.._.<_"'_____......._._......~_......__'_.__M............_____..__.,...___......._.."'.....,___~_._____
-.,..,....--.....,,,'-............-.....-. --..-- -~.-.......-._--~..-~.'._.----,_...._...._'..........~_...._.-~.-._---._.._,-" -_...~-;.,_. ------.-..............-
.
..
ORDINANCE n03
(Series of 1975)
I
I
!
AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING UNANTICIPATED PLANT INVESTMENT FEES, INTEREST
INCOME, STOCK SALES AND COMMERICAL SERVICE REVENUES IN THE WATER
DEPARTMENT; APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FROM WATER DEPARTMENT REVENUES
FOR THE RED MOUNTAIN STORAGE TANK, GREATER ASPEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORA-
TION TAP FEE REFUNDS, RED MOUNTAIN PUMP STATION, UTILITY MAINTENANCE
PLUMBING SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL; MID DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY
EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACT~mNT was read by the deputy city clerk
Councilman parry moved to adopt Ordinance #103, Series of 1975, on .second reading;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen'. Roll call vote: Councilrnembers parry, aye;
Pedersen, ayeiBehrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
~..'".
~EMAN PROPERTY - Conceptual Subdivision and PUD ~,
Kane presented the Trueman Property explaining that Conceptual Subdivison is the first
step of a three step process. Larry Ya, BQb Grueter and Joe Porter are representing Mr.
Trueman and have appeared before the P & Z with conceptual subdivision. They were
advised to proceed along the lines of the PUD Ordinance, which is Ordinance #71, Series
of 1975. The steps are conceptual, second step is preliminary, and third step is final:
Kane noted a couple of issues involved in the Trueman property~ automobile circulation!
the.panhandle which the Plann~ng offi~~ wvvlJ like co gee ~ dedication of some percentage
for the possibi11ty of develop~ng a new access to ~ountain Road, and the s~z~
of the building.
The general problem is the size of the building. The two main structures are a post
office, which is 23,000 square feet, and a three level structure with a total of 75,000
square feet F.A.R. and a 25,000 square foot foot print. The planning office recommends
that a building of 75,000 square feet is too large. Because of downzoning, the
architects are not sure what square footage to use until the new downzoning is in
effect. The downzonihg currently permits a 20,000 square foot supermarket. The planning
office is recommending that a food market be 12,000 square feet with one ~t City Market,
one on the Trueman property, and one at the West end of town. The site is zoned Service/
Commerci.al/ Industrial SIC/I. The original intention was to create a neighborhood
commercial outlet with the addition of some S/C/I uses, i.e. commercial support
facilities; however, because of the post office, which took away from any kind of S/C/I
development, there is a building of 75,000 square feet with retail type functions.
The site is zoned neighborhood "corrmercial, SIC/I,-and specially planned area. The
reason it was zoned this way; the neighborhood. conunercial would establish the range of
uses; S/C/I zoning would establish the range of uses and the question of density and
building size would be settled when the plan came to P & Z and Council. The reason
there are two zones was because it gave P & Z and City Council the right to be able to
set density and bulk height massing of the building and arrange for parking and auto-
~obile circula"tion.
,.
I,
I'
II:
'.
1:
i:
II
1\
I'
"
The planning department feels that the scope and size of the building is too large
because the intent of neighborhood commercial uses are to allow the development of
commercial retail facilities on a neighborhood basis. The planning department. is
recommending that the maximum FAR of the building be 20,000 square feet with five other
uses at 3,000 square feet each. This would allow a maximum building based on permitted
uses at 35,000 square feet. Anything beyond 35,000 square feet means there will be
conditional use hearings and approvals. There is also added residential space, which
would be ten units at 600 square feet each. This would be consistent with employee
housing. A building larger than 50,000 square feet is questionable if it would still
be within t~e intent of neighborhood commercial zone.
There is a lot of criticism from the Mall Commission. The merchants on Cooper street
argue that with mall expansion and de-emphasizing the automobile on Cooper street, and
with 300 parking spaces for the people on the Trueman property, it will be easier for
people to shop there instead of walking to the businesses on Cooper street. Kane
noted that neighborhood commercial uses do not compete with the commercial core; they
are uses that satisfy the neighborhood and not satisfy the entire city-wide or regional
Shopping needs. A 75,000 square foot building wou*d constitute a regional shopping
facility; but a 30,000 square foot building would be more consistent with meeting the
need of a neighborhood commercial concept.
I
!
I
.
II Mayor Standley asked Kane what the planning office '-s feeling is regarding the storage
~,: area for the super market. Kane replied that they are recommending a total building of
15,000 square feet which will leave 3,000 square feet for storage.
!
I)
I:
I
Mayor Standley asked Kane what would make the neighborhood commercial detract from the
downtown area, for example iEa liquor store and drug store go down there., that would
be aetracting from the downtown Area; however, they are essential to creating u neighbor-
hood con~crcial area. Kane replied that the heart of the center will be a grocery store
and pharmacy. The other permitted uses are beauty shop, dry cleaning. pick up, and post
office bral~ch. It i50nly for daily Shopping kinds of needs. The range of uses is
the control for the commercial core.
Councilman l'arry felt tht.t it woulc..l become a locc1,l shopping center anu Shops in the mtllls
would become tourist oriented. Kane mentioned that in a 75,000 square foot building, it
would be hard to speculate what kind of uses will be put down there. Councilman Parry
also felt that the supermarket is too small. Councilman Wishart felt that the building
is toolarqe and would be creating competition for the downtown core.
Councilman Wishart left the Council Chambers
1\
Ii
I,
-'~.''"''f
,1""\
1""\ .
,
t)
6-' ' , "v..n
-...-----.. .~ f/ . -
..._".."...J.J~., .
January 21, 1976
Mr. Bill Kmle, Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill:
Attached is our revised conceptual plan of the Tl'ueman property.
As the map illustrates, we are requesting that Lot I accommodate
a neighborhood community complex )'lith the following program:
.' Basement - Health -and recreation facility
for building residents and' employees
5,000, sq.ft.
,Ground floor - Grocery store
Neighborhood retail
,
20',000 sq. ft .
5,000 sq.ft.
.
Second floor Doctors and service offices
15,000 sq. ft.
.
Third floor - Residential
TOTA~
10,000 sq. ft.
55,000 sq. ft.
Lot II is the post office site, as per our first request.
Lot III remain the same, and
We are requesting that Lot IV remain undeveloped in its present SPA
category with no additional obligation for future use or approval by
either the city or developer. '
r
Please put us on the city council agenda for Monday, January 26 so that
we can request conceptual approval as outlined in Ordinance 71.
."Thank You.
~inCerelY, ;~ .
. I ----..' ,
, \(-i 0 \11'K~
Joe, A. Porter
i/J'/pp
\ .
Attach.
dcsign v.orldl0p. inc. 4 m<1idcn I:111C r<1lciah. north cilrolin:1 27G07 phone 919 833'5714
..
.\
(
.
",....""..",;.,'..", ,~
._-'"
ClTY/S:;OII!llTYP~ANNlN~~CI!:
~~-,::t30 S. GA!.ENA
ASPEfli.COLORADO 81614
~. ~rz,\.
f'.".Qv~
. '40" t:2I!~. ~."'~'
, "/.f. .
"A~~/V~p ,
.~~~~...
,
-
.."...,
DB'" r,." '"
I. .5233S! ~
Paepcke _ VJ--!t..~
81iW"~<iJ(;J~~~ .~
u. Cf!j\J'J~Jt ;'J; ,"::/", j
.1' ".- u.~.,-:..:.~..L...., '1 .
I~(-- .1il
il"\ !H'''''D (;, "'~:'') 'I I
,n t mHh IJ t::x;~J li
Lt;~'<, ___--/"-
- '";:;SPEN / pri'K1N CO.
PlANNiNG OFfiCE ..