RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HDECKEL B. B. a L. CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:20 p.m. with Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, Geri Vagnuer and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford, City Engineer David Ellis, Economists Yank Mojo and Larry Simmons, and City Manager Mick Mahoney. MINUTES 1/29, 2/5, 2/7, Vagnuer made a motion to approve the minutes of Janu? 2/19 ary 29th, February 5th, February 7th and February 19th. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Memo to City Council Chairman Gillis submitted a letter from the Commission to the City Council. Stated that it had been dis? cussed that day at the luncheon study session. Stated that to the memo had been added that the Com- mission hoped the Council does go ahead and form a Regional Planning Commission for the County. Concensus of the Commission was for Chairman Gillis to sign the letter and have it forwarded to the City Council. Molny Office/ Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had dis- Residence cussed the matter and decided that this project would be continued until Thursday. WATER UTILITY Bartel explained that City Engineer David Ellis had SERVICE PLAN a study session with the City Council concerning the water service plan, rate studies, plant investment fees, all as part of the water program. Stated that in September of 1972, the Commission recommended to the Council that they not extend the water line to the Woody Creek area. Stated that as part of that resolution, asked that the Council not make any major water extensions into the unincorporated area of the County until there was an official water plan. Bartel stated that as part of the work that Ellis has been doing with Briscoe Management, has prepared the map with the Planning Office input for the water service area of the City. Ellis stated that basically, they want to present the proposed service area to the Commission and get com? ments and hopefully their approval on it. Stated that it has been presented to Council at a study session. Ellis explained the location of the prOposed service area and submitted a map. Stated that the most im? portant reason for choosing this area is that it con? forms to the current proposed zoning inihe County. Stated that the overall water utility analysis, de? mandes and so forth, the study was made on a projec- tion of population within the area bounded by the solid line on the map. Ellis briefly went through what the boundary for the propsed water utility service plan would be. Ellis explained that basically there is no area within the proposed service area that would have less den? sity than one dwelling unit per acre, which is basic? FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. C0. Regular Meeting 1. U. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 ally the criteria which they used. Felt that at that density it would be reasonable for the City to serve water and it would be beneficial to the parties re? ceiving the water. Ellis stated in the area where the 8050 was followed that was thought to be the developable area and what is prOposed for development, even though 8040 is real? ly the maximum elevation to which they could serve by gravity. Ellis pointed out the areas on the map where, should there be any PUD development under the proposed zon- ing or should the proposed zoning not be finalized within the next six month, that the City water utility would want to immediately amend the service area to include those areas where greater densities would oc- cur. Stated that basically what is shown beyond the solid boundary is all that private land in the Roar- ing Fork up to Difficult, and on Castle Creek up to the first intersection with the Forest Service Pro? perty, and on Maroon Creek up to the Forest Service Boundary just above the T-Lazy 7, and the Owl Creek Area, and the Woody Creek area. Ellis explained that the large rectangular area which is marked Ellay Corporation, is that area described in the service contract the City has with Elay Corpo? ration. Stated the City Attorney has not made a spe? cific comment on that, but there seem to be several conditions in that contract that would probably re? lieve the City from serving them. Stated that it is beyond where the City would really like to serve un? less there was some high density development there. Ellis pointed out that the existing City water trans? mission mains extend to just beyond the en? trance to Sardy Field. - Chairman Gillis request that Ellis explain where the water extensions existed and were proposed within the City limits. Ellis explained that within the City limits, the big area which is not served is the Benedict parcel that is separated from the rest of town by the river. Stated that the new office building is to be serviced by an extension from the domestic tap. Schiffer questioned how it is determined when the service is extended. Ellis explained that they have a proposed extension policy and are currently trying to establish a defi? nition for an extension versus a tap. Ellis stated that what they have proposed is that for the purpose of extension policy, a waterumain service berconsidered an extension if the primary location of usage is out? side a platted townsite or subdivision, except in a single family and duplex dwelling on individual tracts could be serviced. The service would provide water to more than two dwelling units, either presently or in the future, the property does not abut on an exist- ing water main or primary location of usage is over no WM 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS fORIoIIO C. F. HOECKELB. B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting feet 100 to lot a main nearest from the in platted a March Zoning Aspen Planning & unless 5, the 1974 is service subdivision. Ellis stated that the basic feeling of the consultants and is that anything outside the City is an extension Boulder they the reasoning behind that is primarily in they require a have had experience to back this up specific contract for water service. Bartel lation reviewed the water utility Gillis questioned proposed density to Ellis on in the the plan in County and City. service supply of re- water. Ellis stated that presently, raw water rights far exceed the amount of growth that would conceivably take Stated that in order to prove place for many years. the under existing State water right due diligence laws, must show due diligence, which would mean reStated there servoirs, raw water pipelines, etc... all the water rights way we could justify using or within this service area, probably even within the Felt areas enclosed by the dotted lines on the map. of amount done adequate that in the short run, have raw water on dollars Stated that 3/ 4 million work. is no transmission lines is probably the biggest project which shows due diligence in the Maroon Creek Basin. Stated we have almost three times as many water rights Stated we in Castle Creek as we do in Maroon Creek. is shown. could service far in excess of what the that out pointed Bartel City Council in of June make by Resolution agreed that they would extensions in the County for any tap waterline any where there were a substantial number of new users not 1973 first without it referring to ons County Planning & the Zoning Commission, and were the County comments negative, would not make the extension unless necessary for City the Gillis interests. just how many that service area. Ellis stated and tween 26 solid line on that had it if questioned out people by 1985, is that flow it That thousand. the map. 28 Bartel stated that based on the metro been were figured is a build a on has of projection would within be substantially check out being considered within 18000 the be- the area people that at peak periods. sections within Ellis pointed out which line on the map are not that with the exception the solid red presently being served. Felt of the Airport Business Center, not area the largest being served presently is north until of the highway you get to the Racquet Club. questioned Johnson as service future what the priorities is concerned. stated that within gram, have tem as a whole, 3- and as be as far capital improvements proprojects to improve the systhose improvements are made, Ellis priorities would for the FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. L. CO. Regular Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 will allow City to better serve the fringe area. Chairman Gillis stated that he would like to see a map coinciding with the Land Use Map with current waterlines, proposed waterlines, and priorities. Feel this would be the strongest input of the Commis? Sion. Ellis stated that he could come back with this infor- mation._ Stated that the first priority is a new 20" transmiSsion line from the filter plant into town across Castle Creek and it would connect on the end of South 7th Street. Stated that that is budgeted for this construction season. Ellis stated from that point, in the next construction season, would want to continue the transmission line into Monarch and Hyman, where it would be joined with existing transmission line in town. Stated that those two major improvements to the system would take place in the next 2 seasons. Ellis stated that the other major project would be a storage tank where the Ridge of Red Mountain is, to double water storage capacity. Would be a reserve capacity for supply during peak demand periods. Ellis stated the City would also like to place the line on North Mill Street basically from Cap?s to the hospital, would like to put in a 12" line. In regard to the raw water supply, would be putting in five years from now, a diversion dam on Maroon Creek, which would enable the City to utilize the full design capacity of that transmission line. Johnson stated that he agreed in general with the pro- posed area. Felt the priorities should be upgrading the service to what is already served before any ex- tension work is done. Schiffer stated that he felt the same way, but would like to see more definitive map of the City itself in terms of where there are lines in existence. Also questioned how it is determined whether or not to ex? tend to a specific area. Ellis stated that that is a problem which has not been fully addressed, and that is the question of whether or not wells should be allowed within the City water service area. Stated that in general, any subdivision would have to put in mains that would meet the utili? ties specifications. Within the City, there are few areas that are not presently equipped with mains abutting the front footage of the property. Feel that generally, are leaning towards a position that wells would not be acceptable. Have history of wells going bad. Ellis stated he would return to the Commission when there was room on the agenda. Gillis suggested Ellis return to the Study Session the following Thursday. -4- FORH so c. F. HOECKEL B. B. a co. Regular Meeting Agenda Items SUBDIVISIONS Margaret Meadows Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Aspen Center - Preliminary Plat Public Hearing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Jenkins made a motion to adopt the proposed water ser? vice area with the condition that the Commission has a closer look at the area within the City of Aspen and the direction it is going in. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had decided at the luncheon study session that day that for the next possibly 6 or 7 meetings, will not accept any new projects for the agenda. Stated that there are too many items which the Commission needs to consider in order to revise the Land Use Plan and the Master Plan. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Meadows Preliminary Plat. Gillis stated that the applicant was not prepared for the presentation at this point. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing on Margaret Meadows Preliminary Plat. Johnson made a motion to continue the public hearing- on Margaret Meadows to March 19, 1974, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis Opened the public hearing on Aspen Center Preliminary Plat. Ed Del Duca, Assistant City Engineer submitted com? ments to the Commission. Del Duca stated that basically, most of the problems have been resolved. Del Duca stated that he felt there was an error on the dedication, in that the entire right?of?way, intent was that entire right?of?way be dedicated, but felt that it was an error on the plat that it was not shown. Stated that must be corrected. Del Duca further stated that easements for the exist? ing sewer lines and propsed storm drainage facilities in lot 3 should be granted. Stated that they have had a drainage study by Wright-McLaughlin and they conform with the intent of the study. Further pointed out that an easement for the water line in Lot 2 should be granted upon relocation. Also, a dedicated 40 foot right?of?way for access from Mill Street to the existing access easement should be pro- vided. Del Duca stated that the 10 foot trail easement shown within the proposed roadway should be removed from the roadway and a separate easement should be provided for the following reasons: (1) Presently proposed is a 40' right?of-way which is to be used for a 10' trail easement and a 30' roadway. The subdivision regula? tions require a minimum of 42' roadway, excluding curb and gutters, within a 60' right-of?way, so the proposed roadway does not meet the regulations even if FORM 51] C. F. HOECKEL B. B. L. CO. Regular Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 the entire right?of-way were used exclusively for roadway; (2) The present proposal does not allow ade- quate space for pedestrian access to and from Lake? view; (3) The minimum roadway acceptable for access is 32' excluding curbs gutters. This would not al? low any parking but would allow for auto breakdowns, snow removal, A bike and trail easement re? quires a minimum of 10' and a pedestrian walk requires a minimum of 6' totalling 50'; and (4) The proposed roadway will serve Smuggler Street in the Lake View Addition, which has a 45' right?of?way and which has as its only access the proposed 30' of road right-of- way. Del Duca included the following comments: (1) The landscape plan presented is not adequate; (2) The area to be vacated by the City should be designated; (3) a portion of Lot 3 is presently being considered for purchase by the school board; and (4) Improvement district agreements are not in the best interest of the City in this particular project: An agreement to do the necessary improvements in coordination with the City would be a much better arrangement. Schiffer stated that under the subdivision regulations it requires 60' unless there is some unusual tOpography size or shape of the property, etc.. Questioned Del Duca if that is how he felt and why he was recommending less. Del Duca stated that since Smuggler does not go through and probably never will, the Engineering Department feels that a 40' road is adequate. Schiffer questioned if there was anything about the site itself that would preclude this requirement. Del Duca stated that there is also a site plan problem as far as land use. Stated that originally 60' was required, however, there has been a lot of coordina? tion between the developer and the City, and this rec? ommendation is the result of that coordination. Felt the trail should not be included within the roadway. Felt the trail should be someplace else. Schiffer stated that rather than set a precedent by allowing less than the required 60', felt the Engineer? ing Department should explain their reasons for their recommendation. Del Duca stated that he did not feel the full 60' was necessary because of the limited area of service. Chairman Gillis questioned if the drainage was sub? surface. Del Duca stated that the Wright?McLaughlin study showed these as surface drainage. Stated that he had sketched them on the plat, with the exception of one which they feel is not necessary. Pointed out that the 30" pipe would be shared expense between the owner and the City. Stated this would be in the subdivision Del Duca stated that the develOper has agreed to con? FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a: L. CO. Regular Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 form to the intent of the Wright?McLaughlin study. Schiffer questioned if the deficiencies which were pointed out in the January had been corrected, with the exception of those pointed out at this meeting. Bartel stated that there were three things which he had comments on under subdivision: (1) Will need language on the final plat saying that no develop? ment is to occur on Lot 3 until City has site plans submitted and approved because the only area that have detailed site planning is Lot 2; (2) Stated that have discussed with Schottland on the dedication requirement that it be cash rather than public land dedication; (3) For the final subdivision plat agree- ment, will need a landscaping plan because cannot be definitive at this scale, so that a dollar amount can be assigned to be included in the subdivision agree- ment for landscaping. Bartel pointed out that there is one ownership that fronts on Monarch and another ownership that fronts on Mill Stated that this is an issue for the regrading. Schiffer questioned if all the referrals were positive. Bartel stated that the school's comment is not a con- dition for preliminary plat approval. Chairman Gillis stated that according to the Code, the developer has followed everything and things look good from a subidivision standpoint for preliminary plat. Schiffer stated that he would like to specify on the right-of?way where the 40' is being recommending plus the 10' trail easement. that Commission specify that there are conditions that warrant that kind of vari? ance from the subdiVision regulations for this pro- ject. 3 Schottland questidhed what he was to come in under for the main part of Lot 3. Bartel stated that this subdivision plat not be used as the site plan. Stated that they would be required to have a detailed site plan for Lot 3, the same as for Lot 2, before develOpment can proceed. Schottland questioned what would happen in the event they do not subdivide Lot 3. Bartel stated that the City would want the same re? view, and stated that if they condominiumize, they would be required to return anyway. Attorney Art Daily was present, representing the de? veloper, and questioned if that Lot was not subdivided, is it really appropriate to require site plan review in the future of that. Bartel stated that he would like Ellis to comment on that, but felt that a great deal of the work which was done in Lot 3 area was really done conceptually. -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves PORN it! C. F. HDECKEL B. B. L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Was not done as the only Opportunity to look at drain- age, easement alignment, Ellis stated that the only alternative to that would be absolute dedication of all those rights?of-ways and easements which are at this point not contemplated to be dedicated absolutely. Vagneur questioned if the develOper were to sell a por? tion of that prOperty to the school, would that im? mediately mean subdivision of Lot 3. Bartel stated that it would. Schottland stated that, in reference to the additional 10', just found out about it today. Architect Tom Wells stated that they had spent a great deal of time with the PlanningsOffice determining their site plan, the location of the road, the possible Railroad right-of?way, and the possibility of the Sinclair Station. Stated that it is all fairly tight design through there. Stated that the addition of the 10' is a last minute thing. Ellis stated that the developer had been notified con- cerning that easement previously. Wells stated that if the easement goes exactly as the Engineering Department had indicated, the preperty is certainly usable, but would question whether or not there could be a Sinclair Station. Stated that at this point, Schottland does not have assurance that there will be a Sinclair Station. Stated that that easement would give them 90 feet rather than 100. Schottland stated that originally the Engineering De? partment had informed them that they wanted 60 feet. That was to include a 20foot railroad. N0w up to 70 feet. Del Duca stated that 60 feet including the railroad, trail and road is different than 20 feet for the rail- road and 40 feet for the road. Schottland stated that they are providing lots of trails through the property and this would destroy what they are trying to do here. Feel it is not cor? rect to put the 10' trail easement on. Wells stated that in their original conversation with the Engineering Department, they discussed 60', in? cluding road, trail and railroad, so either the trail is going to break that into 40' and 20'. Feel the trail should still be in that total. Felt that may? be it is possible that the trail could go on the other side. Schottland pointed out that the existing right-of-way is l6'. Ellis stated it was 25' dedicated easement. Schottland stated that they have, according to what -3- . . mx-I-uw.wmeI FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. L. CD. Regular Meeting we? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Del Duca stated at lunch, 32'of paving and 8' of side- walk. Questioned why they are requesting sidewalk for pedestrians and additional 10' for trail. Del Duca stated that it was poor design to put bicycle and pedestrians on same easement. Stated the 10' ease? ment would be all?purpose. Stated it would go across the river. Stated it would be part of the overall trail system. Schiffer stated that his problem was that the subdi- vision regulations require a 60' road right?of-way, and instead, they are talking about 40? plus 10', which is still below the 60' required. Wells stated that he had always thought the agreement was for 24'. Ellis stated that there was not one plan where he had put his okay on a 24' right?of?way. Ellis stated they need either a specific easement for trails or need to work out an on-site agreement guaranteeing that there would be public access along the frontage through the site for pedestrian traffic. Wells stated that they would not like to commit to something which would prevent the Sinclair Station from coming in. Feel they could work something out. Wells pointed out that they have provided 50% more parking than is required for the project. Ellis stated that the idea of no parking on the street he felt was their agreement and hoped it would be in the subdivision agreement. Stated that 24' in his opinion would be inadequate because of necessity for any type of vehicles to stop, Do not feel that you can totally preclude the fact that there might be loading zones, either passenger or freight at the curb. Schottland stated that he felt they had worked every way they could with the City, and now it is getting to the point where it cuts into their prOperty and precludes one of the major things they are trying to get in, which the City has requested they include. Wells stated that their site plan, allow for the side- walk to be on the property on the one side. Stated that until they really get down to a site plan all the way across including the Sinclair Station, really do not know what to do about the situation. Feel it is a matter of design where the trail easements go. Ellis stated that he felt the situation could be worked out. Ellis stated that the Railroad right-of-way seems to be a problem in trying to utilize that far north- easterly corner of the property. Bartel stated that Del Duca had looked at about 3 dif? ferent alignments for a possible RR right-of-way, and this particular one would require acquisition of ad? ditional property. Stated that when Kravatsky did the site plan for the 11% acres felt that the place to .. . FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. CO. Regular Meeting ASPEN CENTER Ordinance #19 Preliminary Final RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 terminate the rail might be back further because of the problems with crossing Mill Street and problems on the 11% acres. Johnson questioned how long it is reserved for. Bartel stated it is reserved until Lot 3 is resub? divided, when the decision would have to be made. Ellis pointed out that it could not be reserved in? definitely. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. Schiffer made a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat on the condition that the Engineer? ing Department's conditions be met and a solution is arrived at to the trail. Motion seconded by Vag- neur. All in favor, with the exception of Landry who abstained. Motion carried. City Economists Larry Simmons and Francis Mojo sub- mitted an evaluation of the economic impact study sub- mitted in support of the Aspen Center and Aspen Center Apartments. Complete evaluation is available on file in the office of the City/County Planner. The conclusion is as fol? lows: "We do not wish to be derogatory to the effort put in by Peter Cunningham. The task is extremely difficult even for one with wi? der?ranging experience in this field due to a lack of data. Given this difficulty and the magnitude of this project, we feel that the impact statement should have been writ- ten by a professional. As we collect more data and refine our conceptualization of the Aspen economy, there will be a far better basis on which the professional can operate. Overall, we must have better data estimates and better conceptualization than exists in this study. We would also like to point out that there were many points of ommission in this study such as effects on traffic, the need for such a center to increase the shopping Opportunities of residents, the positive impact of greater selection and conveni- ence to the peOple who have done without or wasted time in getting wanted items. Though some of these are not quantifiable, they do have an economic impact by chang? ing resident spending patterns and general consumer behavior. One very positive effect of the ASpen Center that was not noted in the study is the develOpment of resident oriented con- sumer outlets. This has the effect of keep? ing Aspen income in the Aspen economy and lessening the dependence on tourist spend- -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SD C. F. HOECKEL B. B. L. C0. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 ing while making the economy more vi? able and more reSpondent to resident needs. It should be noted that the impact of this center is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 in that it affords an opportunity for greater utilization of existing services and facilities, while providing for a more balanced economy as it pertains to the tourist and non?tourist elements." Simmons did add that it would seem possible in terms of the Sinclair Station and parking and traffic in the downtown area that it would also fit in with the concept of the mall. Felt this should have been in? cluded in the study. Bill Dunaway, editor of the Aspen Times, pointed out that at one time, the Commission for the County, had said that a second market coming in would be allowed to have the same amount of square footage as City Market. Pointed out that this was at the time of the Safeway proposal. Stated that he understood City Mar? ket had over 14,000 square feet. Questioned what the limit on the grocery store in this particular pro- ject would be. Johnson stated that he thought the limit on a build? ing for one particular use was 12,000 square feet un- der the existing ordinance. Ms. Baer agreed. Stated that the ordinance was writ? ten after that discussion took place. Johnson stated that he thought City Market had 13,200 square feet, and further stated that he felt 9,000 square feet of total space for a food outlet would not be adequate. Johnson stated that a grocery store along the same line as Safeway or King Super would not even look at a site unless they could look at 19,000 to 21,000 square feet. Stated that that would be in a place like Grand Junction or Denver, and the situation here would be different. Schottland stated that in reference to his approaching various market operators, almost all of them say that they are not able to operate in a 12,000 square foot store, so it means that they have become very limited as to the type of operation that they would be able to accommodate. Stated that since the City Economists have said that they feel that the possibility should be explored of a larger store and the Commission, if they feel this is something the developer should look in to, would possibly help if they had a recommendation from the Commission to the Board of Adjustment to per? haps allow more square footage for the market. Felt that it is something that should be resolved fairly soon. Chairman Gillis stated that when he heard the concept felt this would be a placement store. Stated that -11? FORM C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. C0. Regular Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ASpen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 there were two problems which he hOped would be dealt with the Sinclair Station and Tom's Market. Stated that this would not be a replacement for Tom's Market. Schottland stated that he had discussed the matter with Curt Baar, and Baar stated that he was not a young man and did not want that size of a mortgage on his business, and offered to sell Schottland his business. Schottland pointed out that he was a real estate developer and not a market operator, and it was left at that. Johnson stated that it would still solve a problem downtown in that it would alleviate a lot of traffic downtown. Chairman Gillis stated that there would still be the problem of Tom's Market. Schottland stated that he felt what was needed was a first class market operator in a good size store. Stated that everyone knows the problems at City Mar- ket because of the small size of the store. Stated that he had discussed with City Market the site and it does not really help them because they need a lar- ger store. Feel that based on what Simmons had said, if the CommissiOn felt that it was something they should explore, feel they would be interested in looking into that because they are having problems getting a market Operator into 12,000 square feet. Stated that because they are required to have stor- age, it cuts their floor space down to 8900 square feet. Dunaway questioned if the ordinance was written to provide for storage space. Bartel pointed out that it could not be warehousing type storage. Johnson stated that you cannot build a building twenty thousand square feet and say 12,000 square feet is sales area and the rest of it is storage. Stated that the ordinance is not written that way. Dunaway pointed out that the ordinance is written to provide for supplemental storage. Johnson questioned how you define warehousing storage. Bartel stated that he felt it was primarily space for the transition of items from the truck to the shop. Johnson pointed out that City Market transists those items every day. Felt that if you are saying that what you put in your back room and put out that day is not warehousing then feels that the Commission should be able to look at something a little bit larger. Feels this town needs a larger and better equipped supermarket. Schottland stated that they would look into the sto- rage business, and see about 15,000 or 16,000 square -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 feet. Johnson stated that he thought in a grocery operation and most supermarkets today do not look strictly at grocery sales as their business. Stated that most supermarkets have what is known as general merchan- dising departments, which take anywhere from 3 to 4 thousand square feet in the store. Stated that if you are just looking at a grocery outlet, felt that in the area of 15 to 16 thousand square feet could adequately serve and do a good job of just grocery sales. Economist Mojo stated that the definition of ware? housing Space is space for.hire. Bartel stated that there were two things specifically that the Planning Office followed up on and a third that he had called Daily and mentioned to Schottland his concerns. Bartel stated that Schottland had written a letter as part of the handout given to the Commission at the luncheon that day saying that they will agree to parking management consistent with an overall park? ing plan for the open parking provided that it is applied uniformly downtown. Stated that it covers all the private spaces. Bartel further explained that he and Schottland had discussed the housing and there would be 13 units with either 19 or 20 bedrooms. Stated that he had indicated to Wells approximately a month ago that it really changes the concept that he worked out breaking up the bulk of the project if they tried to add more housing here, plus having, he felt, some really detrimental Spillovers to the adjacent resi? dential neighborhood. Stated that Schottland has: (1) Submitted in a drawing the location of housing for the next phase, which is near the existing area zened for residential development; and (2) submitted after checking with Silverking and Silverking is leasing apartments for certain businesses in town, and the business then makes those apartments available to employees, so there is that additional Opportunity for housing in the project. Bartel stated that he had called Daily and asked that they take another look at the Sinclair Station pro? blem and indicated his concern to Schottland and would like them to respond to that. Schottland stated that he had discussed the situation with Tom Wicks today. Stated that Wicks' lease comes up for renewal in June and Wicks said that what he would like to try to do is he felt the timing for him would be to pour the footings this fall so that he could be in early next spring. Felt that if he could do it earlier, would be advantageous to him, but that at the latest he would like to see it done in the fall. Stated that that was the second dis- cussion they had had in reference to this. Stated that he had discussed with Wells, and Wells felt that what was very important for them to do is to do a -13- u-v-FORM so (2. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. ca. Regular Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Master Plan on the site and feel they could have that done within 90 days, and then could see how that fits in with what they are doing. Gillis stated that the Commission, etc.. had all a- greed that they wanted the Sinclair Station in that area, but also all agreed that they did not want to see anything else in the remainder of the prOperty until the phase is approved. Felt that it is premature to discuss the remainder of Lot 3. Bartel stated that the agreement is for 52,000 square feet not including the housing. Feel there is only one possible location for the Sinclair Station and that is on Mill Street. Stated that he would want that access to the arterial street and feel what the site planning really involves is taking a look at how that relates to the adjacent use, and does not feel that must involve all of Lot 3. Schottland stated that before they do anything else, feel an obligation to Master Plan the rest of that. Stated that to put in a specific use without that Master Plan would be a mistake. Feels that now is the time that they need to do this and have always worked very hard with the Engineering Department and the Planning Department to keep that 100' Open for the station and would like to study the possible air rights over Sinclair and how that relates to adjacent uses, Chairman Gillis stated that the develOper could Mas- ter Plan if for himself, but felt that the concensus of the Commission was not to look at anything beyond the first phase. Jenkins stated that he concurred with Gillis. Schottland stated that he was not asking about any future phases. Schiffer questioned if the numbers question had been resolved regarding the housing and the parking. Bartel stated that the Planning Office is not recom? mending additional housing units as part of this building. Feel that it destroys all of the quality and good work that Wells has done. Stated that the Planning Office had asked them to show the location for housing on the next phase. Bartel stated that the parking spaces exceed the mini? mum Code requirement. Stated that on the Sinclair Station, his concern is that going throught the first phase, we are not relocating use which has been a problem use downtown for at least 4 years, and feel that it is important to get the committment to the extent that Schottland is able to make it, that he will make a site available for the Sinclair Station. If the Sinclair Station rejects it, then must state the reasons for it. Does not want to see another building season go by with no committment that that is one of the uses which will be relocated as part of this project. -14- FORM 5D C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. C0. Regular Meeting . .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ASpen Planning Zoning March 5, 1974 Schottland stated that he wants the Sinclair Station in the project and would make a committment that they would use their best efforts to get the station down there as soon as possible, hopefully within 90 days can have concrete answer. Jenkins stated that he felt the housing was inadequate. Simmons stated that basically, it is a matter of pri- orities, whether greater shopping facilities for the residents as contrasted to creating more employee housing. Stated that he did not feel there would be anyone who could afford to put in total employee hous? ing not in Aspen with these land prices. Jenkins stated that in effect, are telling peOple to go down the valley to find housing. Simmons stated that he felt it would have to be dealt with as a regional concept of ASpen versus down the valley. Wells stated that this has been a very conscious to be part of the overall plan. Felt the Commission should look at housing areas shown on the Master Plan. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Jenkins to a point, but would not say that we should eliminate something that this community needs just because we are going to create another problem in another area. Schiffer pointed out that the Commission gave concept? ual approval conditioned on working out the housing and parking problems and those have been worked out. Bartel stated that the specific proposal was to show the location for the housing for the next phase and the letter of intent to agree to the parking manage? ment. Johnson questioned if the management parking would in? clude that which is in the building. Bartel stated that it would not. Del Duca stated that he felt the Commission was making a mistake by not looking at the whole plan. Felt that it would be possible for businesses to lease housing. Schiffer stated that he felt that would be a problem for businesses owning spaces in the project. Do not think you can ask a developer to guarantee employee housing when he does not know what employees are going to be there and what kind of uses are going to be made. Bartel pointed out that this is the final phase of Ordinance #19, but not the final phase of subdivision. Schiffer questioned if they now have a final site plan. Bartel stated that there is a separate site plan on file with the Building Inspector and this is a rep? resentation of it. Stated that everything is avail? -15- 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS fORM" C. F. HOECKELB. e. ft L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & is that able questioned proposed market. Schott land under required Schiffer volved March Zoning had what Ordinance # 19. been decided the about in- research what is the law allows. stated that he would as how much space far as 1974 5, quoted from the zoning ordinance ( Commercial All permitted and conditional commercial and Johnson Core): " shall be restricted to a maxifloor area of 12, 000 square feet, excluding mum gross for storage purany basement area used exclusively Felt that etc..." poses or underground parking, Felt that allowable. 12, 000 square feet is the gross is public tranthe only thing that might except that business retail sportation houses, uses facilities, and all uses out mean that a of the or County Buildings, AR- l ware- accommodations24- 7( rec- under paragraph square footage limitation, which Pointed that they could build a warehouse. grocery store could not operate on two reation district shall not have a might City permitted c), levels. Schiffer stated that he would like to recommend a variance to provide for more square footage for the Feels it is essential to have an efficient market. in that area. of market type Landry stated that she was abstaining and voting on this project. from discussion Schiffer stated that since the planning recommended no more employee housing in would go along with that. Office this had phase, Schottland stated that what is happening, is that will provide the housing, just not at this point. they motion to approve the preliminary and final under Ordinance # 19 presentation for the Aspen Center with the recommendation that the Commission would encourage a variance for a reasonable increase in the grocery store space should that be needed to Vagneur made make best it a feasible more efforts possible by Johnson. and to that work the with developer make Sinclair. Motion seconded Jenkins stated that his vote would be conditioned not should be down there, but on whether or not Sinclair until the Commission faces the problems which they cannot vote create when they permit this to happen, Feels that it generates on another project like this. Main Motion STEVENS ANNEXATION of for the City. too much All nay in favor with the exception of Jenkins who voted Motion carried. and Landry who abstained. Bob Stevens a problem was present and submitted map of the pro- posed annexation. stated that they were trying to annex of Aspen, the Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim, Lode Mining Claim, etc... Stevens 16- the Pride Sibling 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 CO. C. F. HOECKELB. O. II: l. Regular Meeting that stated Stevens March Zoning Aspen Planning & basically, 5, looking are 1974 at the claim from Loewe Ringquist City purchasing the bawhich would ~ e $ 10, 000 down, for $ 60, 000, lance over 5 years with equal annual installments Stevens giving the City of Aspen with 8% interest. Stated that 2. 01 acres ( Little Cloud) as a park. the Little Cloud. into a road is there presently Stated that this could be utilized to the City for 10 a removal, trash way to etc... the of base Cloud Lode Mining and go up through the County the 66 buildings property. No trails which go all the Strawpile start at the Little Claim, curve into the Pride of Aspen, Stated that he has given the 66. out pointed Stevens acre can and be the that the S B& constructed for on parks- recreation. pieces of those Stated that moving from the Little Cloud, go over to the Copperopolis, which is owned by the Quaker Realty Brumder. Company, which is in fact J. Christopher Stated that Brumder has been asked to give this to Stated that Brumder has an access problem the City. in that he would have to go through private condemStated nation through Shaw, Ringquist and Stevens. that Brumder has applied to the BLM Office in Glenfor access twice and has been turned down wood Springs Stated into the Copperopolis. access to trouble that to have not would he probably gone access he had if he claim that into thought get access is a BLM access because through in any other manner, 90Q. almost perfect cliff at both times for stated that he has contacted an attorney in Denver and a law firm in Aspen and asked about the question of Brumder getting access to the Copperopolis Stated that it was for the purposes of developing it. a of access, a form has the general opinion that he his from of ore donkey trail which is for the removal property if he should mine it. Stevens stated that when Brumder purchased the property Stevens stated he was told that he had no access. that he offered $ 25, 000 ( the amount which Brumder had Stated that he felt Brumder paid) for the same land. Stevens is for landlocked Stevens stated development. that the City would end up with a park 24 system, which would amount to approximately Brumder Stated that that was including the acres. Stated that less the Brumder pieces, would be pieces. Pointed out that in turn, the City around 16 acres. would then be able to run there waterline through, would be able to utilize area for the change of mass trail transit easement. stated that they would road right- of- way over so that would go through BLM and still Stevens right- ofsouth for Stevens giving development. way, a in the turn new move connect with parcel the rail- right- of- way of the land in same the located the 8040 line for the Commission on Stated that all the monuments are in place the map. Stevens 17- 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORM II C. F. HOECKEl 8. B. co. II