HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Johnson Hunter & Durant CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, awn box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
RE: Zoning of Stan Johnson Property
DATE: June 23, 1975
As indicated in the June 19 memo from the Planning Office the
Stan Johnson property which is essentially vacated Hunter Street
is zoned C-Conservation and as such allows little in the way of
development potential . Although the site contains a total area,
unencumbered by easements, of 1,250 square feet, it should be
recognized that the site has some, if little, development potential .
In short, the C-Conservation zoning for this site represents an
element of risk from the standpoint of confiscation. This po-
tential was apparently not discussed fully with the Council at
the time of the zoning code adoption.
We advise that the C-Conservation zone is the legally adopted
zoning catagory for the site and the initiation of a request for
a change in zone should be the responsibility of the owners.
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, mil box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
RE: Zoning of Stan Johnson Property
DATE: June 19, 1975
Some question has arisen concerning the appropriateness of the
C-Conservation Zone on the Stan Johnson Property at the end of
Hunter Street in that this zone allows little or no development
potential for the land. This zoning was recommended for the
site due to two considerations: 1) In the Urban Design Plan, a
need was established to preserve access to Aspen Mountain and
2) it was not considered to be a confiscutory action due to the
fact that the site is almost entirely covered with easements of
one sort or another.
The property in question apparently is vacated Hunter Street. The
frontage along Durant is 75' wide, of the 75' frontage, 14' of ingress
was granted to the Aspen Skiing Corporation on the same day the
property was sold to Stan Johnson; 15' is owned by Daily Construction
for a trash area for the North of Nell Building, 12' is owned by
the City of Aspen for a pump station, and 30' of water line easement
occupies 21' of the remaining 26' of frontage. The Daily Construction
trash projects into the property 10' and the pump station projects
22' into the tract. The 30' water line easement crosses the tract
on an angle creating two triangles , while the Aspen Ski Corp ease-
ment is undefined. An additional piece 8 feet by 100 feet was sold
to Daily Construction to accomodate the North of Nell Building.
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Stan Johnson Property
June 19, 1975
Page Two
In essence the property is undevelopable to any significant degree.
The total area not encumbered by easements is an irregular triangle
totalling 1 ,250 square feet.
It is the Planning Office concern that sufficient visual and physical
access be maintained to Aspen Mountain and Little Nell . The zone
conservation appears to achieve this objective while still permitting
some small scale low density development.
/ I
L ‘
V . 14.5'
DAILY CQ6i��" CITY I
235/6'701 IT '
• 3 JULY I9(.e ASPEN I
27 N OV. 1961 a i
N 11
I I
f 12'_
1
1 1
1
I
I . I j
STANFORD JOHNSON
256/ : 02 '
13 JULY 1971
/
/ ,
1
co I /
t° ASPEN SKIING CORP, / 1
co ° 256/506 f
f'- !3 JULY 1971 I !
14' INGRESS a EGRESS
i
in D EASEMENT WITHIN BUT I
--> NOT DEFINED AS TO '
N M LOCATION I ,
I
I
1 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I ) I
�� a
I , I
Ig (o
I I
/ WNI I
N U
I
I 0w I
[u
1 i
I I
I I I
I 1
8' I
I I
. 1
/
•
14.5'
JDALY CONST. CITY I
235/670 OF
. .c.,
/---- . i
— 3 JULY 1968 ASPEN
'�,_„_ 19 6/525
10 I
27 NOV.1961 w
N , 1
I
1
I
12'
i I
1
1
1 • tI
STANFORD JOHNSON I
I
256/ 502 '
13 JULY 1971 I
/ I
co I
to
ASPEN SKIING CORP. 1
cn° - 256/506 '
o }- 13 JULY 1971 I
0 14 INGRESS & EGRESS
,nom EASEMENT WITHIN BUT I
M -, NOT DEFINED AS TO I I
�N,� LOCATION 1
a I
o
I
I I
I I
w
I 3 I
I a I
2 1
1 "' W
fg o
1 ' `°
w CO CD_. I
I szta)
w•" I
N.U
1 0 No 1
W _CO
I
CD
I
U W
I CO W Ci"
I
oa I
1
1 • 1
8'
1 I .
I
VACATED'' I
I HUNTER 1
1 STREET I
I I
I ' I
1 I
Re: Property at Hunter and Durant Sts.
Dear Mayor, Members of Council :
On October 27, 1975 my attorney will present to the City Council the case
involving the City's zoning my downtown commercial property "Conservation".
I have prepared this document so that each member of the Council will have
individual knowledge of the events that took place concerning the "Conserva-
tion" zoning as applied to this property.
I have owned the property fronting on Durant Street Between the North of
Nell Building and the City pump house since July 1971 . The following
sequence of events have been taken from my daily notebook.
In the fall of 1972, I asked former Councilman Jim Breasted, who was inter-
ested in planning, to discuss with the City Council the following:
1 . I would someday be doing something with the Durant and Hunter
St. property; if it should be important to the city in their
planning, I would offer to work with them either by selling it
to them or trading it to them for other property.
2. That if the City was not interested, I would like to have
this established rather than it become an issue later when
property developing began.
3. I asked that the power poles, power lines and the North of
Nell transformer be removed; these were illegally placed
upon this property.
The City Council decided to look into this matter and into others similar in
nature; unfortunately, this never occurred.
June 17, 1974: Monday, 8:30 a.m. City Manager's Office:
1 . I presented photos of property showing the City owned power poles,
lines, transformers, and power reducing station. I asked that
these be removed.
2. I further stated that I would either sell the property or build
on it, but I thought the property strategic in relation to their
planning. I would still be willing to work with the City in
selling or trading for another. I wanted it clearly established
at that point whether the City was concerned about the land. I
did not want this issue to come up later when I decided to do
something with the property.
The City Manager said that he would take the matter to the City Council .
July 25, 1974: Thursday 11 :30. City Manager reported that the Council
was not interested in the land. There was no reply made concerning the power
line, poles, and power reducing station - as big as a Volkswagon.
August 1 , 1974: 10:00 ordered title insurance commitment in preparation for
selling the land.
December 6, 1974: Letter written by my attorney to the City to notify,
officially, to remove the electrical utility encroachments.
December 9, 1974 title insurance commitment was completed.
December 11 , 1974 I received, via my attorney, a letter from the City Attorney
claiming that the electrical service equipment had a right to be on the pro-
perty because the City had reserved a right to maintain existing utilities.
December 27, 1974: Friday, 11 :30 a.m. I went to Fitzgerald Real Estate to
list the property for sale. The property was looked up on the proposed zoning
-2-
map. The entire office was shocked when it was discovered that the lot
which I owned had been individually singled out of a downtown commercial
zone and designated conservation. This was apparently illegal discrimination.
I could not believe it so I set out to see the City Attorney and ascertain
if the map were in error.
1 :30 p.m. The City Attorney explained to me that the Conservation zoning
was a very drastic zoning designation and therefore was only applied to lands
with the owners' permission. The Aspen Skiing Corporation had given the City
permission for conservation zoning on their lands on the lower slopes of the
Little Nell , and that the Conservation designation was drawn on my land, on
the proposed zoning map, because it had been assumed that the Aspen Skiing
Corporation also owned my land. Without my approval my land would not be
so zoned.
I explained carefully that I was entering into a listing contract to sell
the property that very day, and that since I was not giving permission for
"conservation" zoning, would I be correct in stating in the listing contract
that the zoning would remain commercial ? The City Attorney's reply was in
the affirmative.
On the subject of the electrical equipment encroachments, I explained that
I was aware of the provision for the maintenance of existing electrical lines,
but, there were no existing electrical lines on this property at the time of
the vacation on October 7, 1947; electrical lines etc. , were installed in
more recent years, beginning, approximately, 1964 for the use of the Aspen
Center at the base of Little Nell and the pump house. Thus, the City had no
right to trespass upon the property and install electrical equipment 17 years
later. I asked again that they be removed immediately so that their visual
and physical obstruction would not interfere with the selling of the land.
She said that she would check with Stoggie Maddalone??
I asked if the Council had been informed of the encroachments? The City
Attorney replied "no. " I requested specifically that the City Council be
so informed.
I asked if she would make certain that the "conservation" zoning matter be
corrected. I received an affirmative reply.
This same day, December 27, I returned to the Realestate Office and repeated
the abaove conversation to the Realestate Broker, Dick Fitzgerald. Since the
Conservation zoning was going to be corrected by the City Attorney, the office
secretary was instruected to draw up alisting contract based on this infor-
mation.
December 31 , 1974 at the Realestate Office I signed the listing contract to
sell the lot.
January 7, 1975 I received a letter from the City Attorney stating that she
had decided not to notify the City Council of my request to have the encroach-
ments removed from my property; she was "unclear as to what position I wished
to take on the matter. " Was the written notice from my attorney and my numer-
ous personal demands to remove these encroaching lines etc. unclear?
The letter went on to quote two cases in which successors in title to property
were denied compensation for taking of property for utility facilities and
for damages because the plaintiffs did not receive the assignment of this
personal right from the former owners. This was interesting, but since I had
request removal , not compensation, I did not see how it applied. The letter
suggested that I file for compensation?? or offer the land to the City for
sale. The letter ended by saying the Attorney's office is always happy to
be of help.
January 14, 1975: Tuesday, 10:45 City Attorney's Office. In referring to
the letter of January 7, I made the following comments to the City Attorney
-3-
1 . The cases that she had quoted were apparently tried without
consideration of the 3rd and 5th Ammendments of the Constitution
of the United States.
2. If she thought the personal right issue were important I , no
doubt, could receive assignment of such interest from the Aspen
Skiing Corporation, because the property was conveyed to me with
the knowledge that these encroachments existed, and it would be
my responsibility to correct them. Still , since I was not ask-
ing for compensation for the encroachments, there was no reason.
3. There could be no doubt about what I wanted. For the 5th time
I was demanding removal of the encroachments.
The Attorney's conclusion to this was the same. She would talk to Stoggie?
4. I asked if the City Council had been informed as I had requested?
"No," was the reply.
5. I asked if she had corrected the "Conservation" zoning matter?
"No, not yet," was the reply. I said, will you see to it that
the proper authorities are notified so that the mistaken zoning
would be corrected; again I received an affirmative reply.
As I left, I re-emphasized that I had entered into a listing contract based
upon what she had said at out last meeting. I would be out of town for
several months and I must be assured that the zoning matter would be corrected.
The City Attorney assured me that the matter would be cleared up. I was
out of Aspen the greater portion of the winter, returning June 1 , 1975.
January 21 , 1975 Letter from the City Attorney's office informing me that
Stoggie will underground all electrical equipment that summer. Eight months
subsequent there is no change on the property.
June 9, 1975: At 11 :00 a.m. met at the Hunter-Durant property with a buyer
who had been waiting for my return to Aspen to purchase this land. I explained
the background of the zoning designation on the proposed map, and that I had
been promised, before I had listed the property for sale, that the mistake
would be corrected. I assumed that by this time it had been, but it would
be best for the purchaser to satisfy himself by inquiring at City Hall . This
he did.
June 11 , 1975: Wednesday at 3:00 the buyer called and said that the zoning
had not been changed. A permanent zoning ordinance had been passed April 28,
1975. He suggested that we meet with his lawyer.
June 12, 1975: Thursday, 8:30 a.m. at City Manager's Office, I explained the
problem and asked for a meeting with him and the Mayor so that we could jointly
get to the bottom of this matter. The City Manager asked: "Why don't you
see the City Attorney?" I said that I had been directed to the City Attorney
in the beginning and that I had relied upon her statements and that was why
there was now a very serious problem.
June 16, 1975 : Monday at 4:00 met with Mayor Standley. I explained the com-
plete history of the problem. He thought it was illegal to discriminate by
zoning one lot differently than the land on either side. He called Bill Kane
in the Planning Office explaining this and asking for a memo describing this
situation of a single tract of land, zoned conservation, surrounded by commer-
cial zones.
June 19, 1975: I called the Mayor to give an address. At this time he informed
me that the Planning Office had not prepared the memo on Hunter-Durant as he
had requested. The memo had instead dealt with "justifications" i .e. the
land had been zoned conservation because of easements etc. - instead of addressing
itself to the legal question of strip-zoning an individual lot Conservation
out of a commercial neighborhood. The Mayor said he would send this memo back
and ask for another.
-4-
June 27, 1975: Monday at 8:30 p.m. at the City Council meeting, Bill Kane
presented to Council the reasons for the C - Conservation zoning on this
property:
1 . The urban design plan called for maintaining access and open
space between the town and the Mt.
2. That the C - Conservation zoning wasn't viewed as confiscatory
because various easements "crisscrossed the property" giving the
land very little development potential so that the zoning applied
was irrelevant. But later in his speech he stated that they had
not really adequately located the property. Bill Kane said
further, "The goals are still as relevant as they were when we
went through the zoning process to keep an attractive way to
keep open space to the Mountain, and that our purpose tonight is
to warn you, to make you aware of this, and to remove any possi-
bility that perhaps the C - Conservation district may have been
applied by mistake or error or was a drafting mistake and that
perhaps the Council was not in full possession of the facts
when the area was zoned, so that we want to clarify the issue
and state what the background was. "
Mayor Standley followed: It was a small piece of property sandwiched between
commercially zoned areas and that, from a legal point of view, the land use
in the middle should be the same; and that it is up to the owner to determine
how to use his property in relation to the easements. Why should we take
a look at his easements and say because of these easements we are not going
to give you the same zoning as we gave the adjacent landowners?
City Attorney Stuller supported Mr. Kane's statements. She also demanded
to know what the matter was doing before the council . . . that I should go the
the P & Z and that the Aspen Skiing Corporation had granted permission
for Conservation zoning on their leased easements and that the planner had
suggested that the whole tract was under easement by lease to the Ski Corp
for recreational uses and "that is as far as I went." She said she was
"not in position to analyze whether or not the Constitution will be upheld.
That is not the point. I think what Stan is trying to say is buy if from
me; I don't want it."
Councilman Behrendt said I should get a lawyer. Councilwoman Pederson
suggested that I should go to the P & Z.
Bill Kane of the Planning Office concluded: "I think that it is/was our
responsibility to assure that that zone was applied with legitimate planning
process and the the council was made aware of all of the facts and that the
zoning was applied in good faith and that it was not a simple clerical or
drafting error. And that is all that we can do at this point is to assure
that the zoning was done in The legally prescribed way and that in order to
change that zone now you are in Me same boat as anyone else that seeks a
change of zoning - unfortunately."
July 16, 1975: Wednesday at 9:30 I met with the Mayor and the City Planner
Bill Kane. I described how I had in the past been involved in various pri-
vate projects to assist the City of Aspen by obtaining property for the City
in a practical , business-like manner. I emphasized that owners of property,
which the City wanted, could be approached in an above-board, honest manner.
I repeated again the history surrounding this small piece of land:
1 . I had from 1972 onward offered repeatedly to cooperate with
the City if they should see this property as important to
them. I was told that the City was not interested. (At no
point has the City come directly to me and stated that it was
interested inthis property, or inquired about location, easements,
or value. The Planning Office has acted as it's own court of
condemnation, and has passed judgement based on their own
assumptions, misinformation and desires. )
-5-
2. While listing the property for sale I and others discovered
on the proposed zoning map the Conservation designation on
this commercial property.
3. I interrupted the listing process to find out about this
surprise zoning designation from the City Attorney. I was
assured that there was no problem - that conservation zoning
was only applied by owner's consent. The problem would be
corrected.
4. I was out of town for several months taking care of some medical
problems. I returned to Aspen to find that two buyers were
ready to sign purchase contracts, but now we all discovered that
the land has been made worthless in the interim.
5. I pointed out the errors in Mr. Kane's presentation to the
Council . One easement mentioned did not exist; that the
remaining easements could be easily incorporated into a building
as an arcade which would have the advantage of increasing the
traffic flow through the building - most important aspect for
commercial property. (The Subject of how I had been maneuvered
from Commercial zoning to Conservation, while continually being
told that it was an error, was diplomatically avoided).
Following the Council meeting of June 27th, I began to do some research. The
following items came to light:
1 . The City water line easement which was displayed on a plat before
the City Council June 27th by the City Planner as crossing my
property does not apply to my property because the parties grant-
ing the easement did not own my property at the time this ease-
ment was granted.
This easement, where it exists outside of my property, is supposed
to contain a 12" water line to the storage tank on Little Nell .
However, according to my memory, and confirmed by the City Engin-
eering records the water line actually was installed outside of
the easement for a distance of approximately 200" (Just an inter-
esting sidenote. )
2. Checking the Planning Office I found that no record or file exists
to confirm that "The zoning process was done in the legally pre-
scribed way," as stated by Bill Kane at the June 27th Council
meeting. The only record is a file folder containing the memo
Mr. Kane presented to the Council on June 27, 1975; this was pre-
pared a few days prior to that council meeting.
3. An examination of the minutes of the City Council meetings, study
sessions, joint meetings with the P & Z, Planning Office and public
hearings disclosed no evidence to verify the statement that "Council
was in full possession of the facts," prior to the passing of the
zoning ordinance. The subject of C - Conservation zoning was men-
tioned only once - a brief and general description of the category.
(On the subject of C - Conservation designation as applied to the
entire lower portion of Aspen Mountain, the minutes of the various
meetings did not show that the Council had been informed of or
legally advised of the peculiar process of obtaining permission
from the Aspen Skiing Corporation to zone C - Conservation property
which the Aspen Skiing Corporation did not own, but merely leases.
The mining companies, the owners of these properties, were not asked.
These companies will no doubt attempt at some point to recoup the
millions of dollars of land value lost by sharply raising their
leasing fees to the Aspen Skiing Corporation. . .a situation that
will cause lift ticket rates to go higher. These mining companies
are not helpless in the area of protest. Their leases provide
-6-
them with the privilege of prospecting, mining, plowing roads -
winter or summer, and even to have lifts and trails moved if they
interfere with mining activities. The City's clandestine method
of down-zoning these properties could lead to embarrassing trouble.
Picture on December 25 several D-8 tractors digging up Aspen Mt. )
4. In checking with the officials of the Aspen Skiing Corporation,
I found that the Aspen Skiing Corporation had not granted permis-
sion for the Conservation zoning on their property or their
lessor's property or my property.
In conclusion: Out of this entire outline, the number one question that
needs to be answered is what kind of honesty has been represented here? The
people of Aspen are mostly in favor of your over-all goals; that is why you
were successfully elected to office. But when the process of carrying out
these goals is wrong, then the people lose respect for the government.
Respect for government is the very foundation of "civil order and obedience."
Most of us genuinely love and work for our community. What has happened to
Cam and I has happened to others. With the exception of a few bright inter-
vals, most of our contacts with local government and its committees have been
clouded with confusion, manipulation, subtrefuge, blank walls, unbending,
unreasoning enforcement of policies, and bits and pieces of information -
some correct, some incorrect, but inevitably incomplete.
The undertone to this documented incident is, in my opinion, Machiavellian. . .
i .e. , the end justifies the means. The City wants so badly to slow growth
and the departments are in accord; it appears that they will do anything to
accomplish this purpose.
Perhaps the fault lies more with the tools used than with the individuals
caught with a difficult policy to enforce. . .The downzoning tool as presently
applied is no longer applicable in general to the needs or situation in Aspen.
A revision is needed. In this case, conservation zoning is at fault. Conser-
vation zoning is in fact condemnation without any compensation. There is
no way that it will work, and enforcing it is an impossible task.
An attempt to do so only subverts the governmental process.
Standford H. Johnson
* An attached paper attempts to give some new ideas.
Box 406
Aspen, Colorado 81611
October 22, 1975 Re : Alternatives to downzoning
Dear Mayor, Members of Council f, Planning and Zoning :
Having observed the mounting boil , having been part of the
heartache and tragedies involving the City government vs . private
land ownership, fearing that extremes frequently "set in" following
decisive actions on the part of government , not wishing to see
either total abandonment of "slow-growth-policies" or a return
to the "bigger and better, more and more" days - which spells
inevitable doom to this tiny, fragile valley - and with some 20
years of Aspen citizenship behind me , I submit the following ideas
and statements as fuel for thought . The following is hopefully
seen as my sincere effort to suggest a few tools that are less
punitive in nature, and will perhaps in the long run accomplish
more than the present downzoning policy.
I begin with what will be repetitious background for some : For
at least 15 years I and a tiny minority beat the drums for down-
zoning . We pleaded regularly with our near-sighted officials and
neighbors to zone "now" for parks , to zone residential areas resi-
dential , to cut tourist zoning and to generally decrease sizes and
numbers of buildings that could be built in Aspen. Most specifi-
cally we battled the ominous condominium that was rapidly becoming
a fad in the "flat lands ."
In the early days of Aspen development lots sold for $600 and
later $1200 individually. At this point there would have been
little private hardship in financial loss , and as yet, few contem-
plated the sky-rocketing of land prices that would ensue directly
from the condo influx. It will be remembered by some that one of
the earlier complexes built was the Aspen Alps . A small hullabaloo ,
comical and yet serious in nature , erupted in its vacinity; this
was a small effort to halt this project and to protest even after
its completion. (in retrospect The Alps is one of the more attrac-
tive , but the fight was n' t over beauty, it was over condominiums) .
Following the Alp ' s construction, condominiums began to pop up
block by block. Citizens took no note and the Aspen Times was
supportive. And so it went until the final straw - the North of
Nell and the Aspen Square, both in the same summer . I dropped
everything to aid the cognizant Mayor Barnard in his lonely effort
to halt these blockbusters . Citizens , lodge owners still didn' t
get the picture . All of our letters , cartoons , the moratorium
failed for lack of support and the outright antagonism of the news-
paper. At this point I quit the downzoning cause ; not because
the problem had gone away, or I had given up on the idea of slowing
growth in the Aspen valley, but solely because now almost 90% of
the land was already developed, high land values had been established ,
and the blanket zoning which might have worked at an earlier date
was no longer applicable; another approach was now needed .
It was at this time that I personally embarked upon some new ways
of keeping a piece of my land open while still not slitting my
financial throat. If you are acquainted with the two year written
history* that proceeded the Mt . Queen and the Caribou condominiums ,
you will know that this area was planned by I and others to be
a City park without cost to the City; the Ski Corp was cooperative,
the City, non-functioning. Enough said about water under the
bridge, but a good point for the present government to keep in
mind . . . obviously it has never left mine .
* A fully documented paper is available upon request for
anyone interested in how 2 years were spent trying to
keep this area undeveloped, at no cost to the City. I
and other land owners would have received our market
value . The success of this ardent enterprise can be
viewed at the end of Monarch St.
•
What is wrong with the present method of downzoning?
1 . To reiterate, land in Aspen is a least 90%
developed. The buildings that are built
are going to be here for at least the next
100 years - barring physical disasters .
2 . As one councilman mentioned, and others may
realize, government countrol of private
property that destroys its market value
without compensation in Aspen or elsewhere
is not the basis on which this democratic
society was founded; some might call present
policies socialistic others might castigate
it with a communistic or dictatorial tag .
While private property, a cornerstone of
democracy, is fundamental , it is not necess-
arily sacrosanct ; it should never be placed
above human rights . The line is fine between
destruction of private ownership and the
downzoning of private land without due compen-
sation for fair-market value lost .
3. The personal tragedies , which you may or may
not be aware of, which you may or may not care .
about, are wrong and most probably not necessary
where a little business acumen and mutual spirit
of cooperation is induced. It has been noted
that there is no governmental representation of
land owners , other than private homes . It is a
good question to ask yourselves if you would
charge so readily if it were your land at stake -
the land that it has taken some a life-time to
acquire?
4 . As effective as some efforts have been to down-
zone, grevious over-sights have occurred; the
success has not been all that was hoped by you,
thus the slide show at last council meeting . The
City realizes there are some crucial pieces of
land left , and where condominiums have been ruled
out, we now have an overkill of office building/
retail s1tores . Those not building on their land
are scared; downzoning may have produced additional
incentive to build prematurely and to build bigger
than would have- been done under conditions of less -
press,ure . People don' t dare hold their land in
reserve if they can help it; "get out while the
getting is good". is a pragmatic position.
5. In the area of grevious mistakes I am keenly aware
•
of one. At least one apartment-lodge area in Aspen
has been downzoned to R 6, and R 15 is contemplated.
This says, in essence, that this is 9/residential ,
single family area , but in reality it certainly is
not . 'changing the title does not alter the book .
What could logically occur here as the result of
the,;4.2olAng designation change: The owners of the
aparments are eventually going to realize that
they= now own a non-conforming structure , and if
casualty should occur , may not be replaceable .
Further , because of this factor and others , their
selling values and monetary borrowing ability is
equivalently reduced. These apartments-lodges
have now become a less sound investment for the
banker and the owner . Because the value is reduced,
their selling price will be less ; consequently the
amount justifiably spent or borrowed for upkeep ,
remodeling etc . will be equivalently reduced. What
was once an attractive area could take on a shabby
appearance.
•
3
In Denver the exact reverse of this occurred.
What were once lovely residential areas have
been allowed, through poor zoning , to incorporate
apartments . Portions of the blocks were razed,
leaving homes here and there . These homes have
become increasingly shabby in appearance . They
were now undesirable as residences due to the
proximity of apartments and their value was lower
for the same reason. Their land did not increase
in value as apartment potential because the
apartments wished to leave some small open space
between units .
What happens to the vacant land in Aspen in the
formerly zoned lodge/apartment area? Under R 6
or R 15 single family residence is allowed , but
families do not wish to buy or build in an apart-
ment, lodging area . Building costs ar,e extra-
ordinary; why would a family invest a-<100 , 000
to live in an apartment area , with the potential
of a noisy train in their backyard, when they could
more logically make the &rr:e_ investment in Mt .
Valley or other more suitable residential areas .
With these facts in mind, what can a logical land-
owner now do with his land in this area? He
might logically move in an old house and let it
develop into something similar to the "Mickey
Mouse" house . Whatever he would do would have to
be an investment limited to the new low value of
the land, and the low return on such.
6. You are severly punishing those few who have held
their land for the sins of those who have cashed
in for everything that they could squeeze . These
are the mistakes of former councils reflecting the
former attitude of the citizens . These mistakes
are being paid for by a very small minority; just-
ifying this is like justifying ones losses , through
poor judgement , in the stock market by robbing a
bank.
7. It is possible that if this present policy is
continued and expanded as contemplated, with no
adjustments for the landowners , the next election
may see all of your good policies blown away by
a succeeding administration elected by a back-lash
of hatred and outrage .
8 . Finally, with the present method of zoning , the
very unique spirit of this community is being
destroyed. People don' t seem to care so much.
There were many factors that built this wonderful
sense of community love, esprit d ' accord; there
•
are many factors at work destroying it . One of
these factors is the inability to earn an honest
living in the town that the long-time residents
helped to build.
What can be done to control the building , to control the popula-
tion growth?
1 . Adopt now a policy of working with the landowners
through an ordinance that requires review of
each project in relationship to its neighbors and
the needs of the neighborhood and the community.
2. Implement the above by allowing the landowner the
option to donate part of his zoning (if undesir able)
to the City whereby he can receive equivalent tax
deductions that can be spread over 5 years . This
same principle has a multitudeof variations . If a
building is to be expanded and is seen by the planning
department as detrimental , ask that x quantity
be donated for a deduction.
4
3. Property tax incentives can be created for
people who modify their structures or projects .
4 . If the City prefers that a piece of land remain
totally vacant there are a number of combinations
that can be used. For example , the City owns
many pieces of property that are not critical .
Like value in land trades could be used . High
density zoning can be donated to the City and the
remaining land value purchased at a lower cost .
5. The Constitution of the United States and zoning
practices are nationally heading down a collision
course . One positive way to divert this is to get
the Federal Government to create tax incentives -
that could be spread over many years and possibly
inheritable - that would offset values destroyed
through downzoning. This would encourage people
to cooperate with local planning authorities and
may be a possible solution to the beleagured
rancher or farmer who so oftern finds his land
too valuable for cattle or farming, agricultural
prices and profit low and taxes corresponding too
high. Senator Haskell , or like-minded national
representative , might be interested in sponsoring
such a bill.
6. Keep the zoning high and rezone upward some of
your recent mistakes . Once zoning of an area is
established, good or bad, it should generally
remain, because people then depend upon the value
established. If it becomes desireable to change
the type of neighborhood or change the density, use
these other methods .
7. Use your planning office to aid people in a mutual
quest for an attractive, fitting building .
8 . Stop spending some of your monies , ear-marked for
studies , and buy critical land . It is sadly noted
that all of the money spent on planning and studies ,
and filed away, prior to 1967 could have bought
the very land the North of Nell and the Aspen Square
occupy today. How much better would this be than
having nothing to show for all the money spent .
9. Finally, don' t forget Aspen ' s employees - many
living in squalor. Rezone some appropriate areas
for small apartments designated for this purpose .*
Allow private enterprise to handle it ; much govern-
mental interference always creates a bungled outcome.
"Politics is the art of compromise ;" a good place to begin is
with planning . If you reject the foregoing ideas with a concensus
that "people won' t cooperate ," you should remember that people
will cooperate if there is an ordinance requiring approval of
new projects . Enough of us now have had a taste of inappropriate
zoning to shout with joy if approached with new angles that con-
sider land-owners financial well-being as well as that of the
community. If you believe that tax-incentives and other methods
can' t be done, please remember that former councils told me that
condominiums couldn' t be zoned out because a governmental body
couldn' t discriminate . The discriminating that is occurring now
is beyond our wildest imagination.
There are examples of the tax incentive having been quite success-
ful . Lot 21 in the Ute Addition was arranged by me for the Aspen
Alps to buy in, in turn, donate to the City; for this the Alps
received a tax deduction of like value .
* There are no appropriately zoned areas for employee
housing in spite of the tact that ideal areas exist .
5
In the past letters like this have unfortunately incurred
animosity; the suggestions and alternatives have been ignored ,
the warnings forgotten. I think this is a much wiser council
that cannot only use some or all of these methods , but can
come up with numerous variations of their own as individual
cases occur , and situations dictate. - - - -
Respectfully submitted,
Stanford H. Johnson
SHJ/ckj