HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19690224 Meeting was called to order by Mayor Robert Barnard at 3:45 p.m. with Councilmen
Carl Bergman, Werner Kuster, Clyde Clymer, City Attorney Albert Kern and City
Administrator Leon Wurl.
Councilman Bergman moved to approve the minutes of February 10th, 14th and ~lst as
: Minutes prepared and mailed by the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman Clymer. Roll call
vote - Councilmen Bergman aye; Kuster aye; Clymer aye.
Councilman Kuster moved to confirm~the actions taken at the special meetings held
Minutes on February 14th and 21st. Seconded by Councilman Bergman. Roll call ~ote -
Councilmen Clymer aye; Kuster aye; Bergman aye.
Public Hearing - Density, Scale Control, Height of buildings.
Height, Open
Space, Hearing Mayor Barnard - I would at thls time like to open a public hearing on a matter that
has come to us from the Planning and Zoning Commission. We will. take up density,
scale control and height of buildings as the first matter then later we will take
up subdivision regulations.
Recommendation from the Planning and Zoning as follows: "See recommended proposal
on Council Room Wall. Molny moved to accept the proposal and recommend same to
the City Council. Seconded by Whitaker. Roll call vote - Molny aye; Barnard aye;
Mars aye; Whitaker aye; Heneghan aye. Proposal to be outlined by Robin Molny, Jack
Walls, Robert Sterling and Janver Derrington."
We will have comments from the floor, I think I will open the public hea~ing by
letting Robin Molny spea'k on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission and out-
line just exactly what their proposal is.
Planning & Zoning Recommendation
PROBLEM
A. Monolithic Buildings
1. Monotonous
2. Fill blocks
3. Block sun
4. Block views
B. Lack of Open space for public
C. Bonus incentives poorly defined
OBJECTIVES
A~ More open space at ground level
B. More variety in shapes of buildings
C, Preserve as much sun and view as possible
D. Do notpenalize the developer
E. Offer better bonus incentives
DEFINITIONS
Required Open Space - Open space from ground level to sky, not to be used for
vehicles, trash, storage, etc. (One side open to a street.)
Building Frontage That portion of the front of the building which is~within 50% of the depth of the lot from the front lot line.
Public Way - Open space from ground level to sky available to the public
and open ~n at least one side to a street or arcade, not to
be used for vehicles, trash, storage, etc.
Public Arcade - A covered passage at ground level available to the public,
a minimum of 12' wide and open on at least two, sides (one side
open to a street).
SOLUTIONS
A. EstabliAh a required open space of 25% of the total area of the building si~e.
B. Limit maximum building frontage:
1. 9 Lots (100' x 270 ) 135
2. 8 Lots (100' x 240 ) 128
3. 7 Lots (100' x 210 ) 120
4. 6 Lots (100' x 180 ) 109
5. 5 Lots (100' x 150 ) 96
6. 4 Lots (100' x 120 ) 81
7. 3 Lots (100' x 90 ) 64
8. 2 Lots (100' x 60 ) 45
9. 1 Lot (100' x 30 ) 30
10. Corner Lot (100' x 30 ) 100'
a. Elements of.the building which are higher than two stories shall have the Height, Open SapcE
same llmitations as listed above for their aggregate length facing the Hearing
front lot line. ~
b. Maintain the present floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of allowable gross building
area.. (G.B.A.) is eqBal to 2-1/2 times the total area of the lot.
c. Buildings may be built in elements of two, four and six stories with the
following total floor area limitations:
1. Two Stories 30% of G.B.A.
2. Four Stories 30% of G.B.A.
3. Six Stories 40% of G.B.A.
d. Bonus Incentives
1. For each square foot of public way, 5 square feet of
floor area may be added to the mix story element.
2. For each square foot of arcade, three square feet may be
added to the six story element.
3. Bonus areas may be in the form of additional stories,
not to exceed ten stories.
Robin Molny - The problem we have been coping with is the soicalled monolithic
building in Aspen which is the monotonous four story, block long buidings of which
we had a few examples of by last summers building program. We feel that in addition
to filling up the site and being very plain in character, these buildings, block the
sun and block the view. They also have no regard for open space available to the
public for public use. We also feel the bonus incentives that are written in the
present ordinances are adequate. The bous incentive here is additional square
footage on a stipulated ratio for open space sacrificed by the developer. An
example of this is the arcade, if you are familiar with it, in the center of the
Northof Nell Building which has doors on either end gives bonus incentives to allow
the developer more square footage in his building which is of no practical value to th~
public. The rest of the problems are listed on this side of the display board and we
have set forth certain objectives. We want to create more open space, at ground
level, we want to achieve more interesting building shapes, we want to retain as much
view and as much sun as reasonable or possible. Another example I might point out
is on the Aspen Square building we presently have almost a ~oot of ice impregnated
with dirt for about half the street leaving a narrow isle on the north side of the
street for traffic passage. This is the direct result of a bloc'k long building,
four stories high which allows no play of sun on the street to help in melting the
ice. There are certain precedences that have been set by ordinances that allow
the developer opportunities to develop sites in question. We don't want to penalize
developers if we can help it in regard to these opportunities. We want to offer
~he~d~veloperi~bonus incentive. So if he gives up land in the form of open space,
public ways or arcades he gets additional square footage in the building he proposes
to build. We want to do this by re-apportioning the amount of square footage in
different elements in the building. To solve the problem we propose, Planning and
Zoning proposes, to establiAh a required minimum open space, 25% of the total lot
area of the building site. We also propose to limit the maximum building frontage
on the building site. Sliding scale and it goes as follows: in a 9 lot situation
you have a lot 100' x 270' long you cannot build a building on the frontage more than
135' long. As you go the scale slides. When you get to one corner lot you can assume
that you face on the side street, your lot goes 100 lineal feet of building. With
one interior, lot you are allowed to build 30' of frontage. We also propose that
elements of building which are higher than 2 stories shall have the same limitations
as listed on this column above their aggregate length facing the front lot line. We
propose that buildings be built in 2, 4 and 6 stories with the following floor area
limitations. For a two story building you can build 30% of the allowable gross
floor area. For a 4 story building, 30% of the allowable gross floor area and 6
stories 40% of your allowable gross floor area. Your building area.is 2-1/2 times
your lot area. We propose the following bonus incentives. For each square foot of
public way 5 sq.ft, of floor area may be added to the six story element of the
building only. For each square foot of arcade, 3 square feet may be added to the
six story element of the building only. The addition of bonus areas to the six
story element may be in the form of additional stories, not to exceed a total of
ten stories in height. We also have some draft definitions. The required open .space,
the 25% that I mentioned has to extend from the ground level to the sky, it is not
to be used for vehiCles, trash, storage, etc. You must have one side open to the
street. It need not necessarily be devoted to public use. Building frontage - That
portion of the front of the building which is within 50% of the depth of the lot from
the front lot line.' Assuming that this board is a lot, everything from here forward
50% or forward is cOunted as frontage. Public way - Open space from ground level ~
to s'ky available to the public for public use and open on at least one ~side to a stree
877
Regular Meetin~ Asjoen City Council February 24, 1~69
Height, Open or arcade not to be used for vehicles, trash, storage etc. Public arcade - Covered
Space, Hearing passage at ground level available to the public a minimum of 12' wide and open on at
least two sides (one side open to the street). Are there any questions at this point.
Mayor Barnard - This applies to both C-1 and C-C, right?
Robin Molny - Yes. (See demonstration posters in City Clerk's office). Since the 9
lot parcels are the ones that are killing us, we'll start with that. You take a 9
lot parcel, 270 x 100, red indicates a 6 story building, yellow 2 story, green 4 story.
We have ta~ken what we feel to be the worst possible application of the criteria we
have set forth. So we wind up with a 2 story building 90 x 100, wind up with a 6
story element which is 45 x 100 and wind up with this aggregate length 135'. This
building which is 50% or less from the front property line does not count in frontage.
It is 4 stories high and is 50 x 90. You multiply all the floor areas by the number
of stories, you wind up with 63,000 square feet.
Bill Dunaway - On these bonus, is that in addition to the 25%?
Robin Molny ~ Yes, any addition over and above the 25% applies to the bonus. The bonus,
the 25% does not count. So we have filled the property to this extent with this
building. Wind up with 63,000 sq.ft, which is some 3500 sq.ft, less than the present
allowable floor area ratio since we have a 25% open space here that fills up this portion
of the lot you wind up with that much public way, or arcade. Assume thatit is public
way, you take the demensions multiply them out and multiply by 3 gives you a bonus
building area of 11,250 sq.ft. You add this to this and you can see that you are over
the 2-1/2 floor area ratio.
Jac'k Walls - That should be multiplied by 5.
Robin Molny + Right.-. So here is~a building where a man has not tried for any bonus,
he gets it automatically if he wants to apply it. He pu.ts it on this portion of the
buiding. I don't ~know if you can see of what we have got and what happens, you get
an additional 2-1/2 stories, making it an eight and a half story building. I would like
to show you what we have, this is Aspen now and what we are objecting to in several
buildings that were built. There is a building which fills the lot property line to
property line 4 stories high and without the application of the bonus. I have dotted
in the six story building which is the red portion. Now we have taken a 9 lot parcel
arbitrary almost and shown a different solution. We weren't really trying to get an
especially well proportioned'~ni~ding. We have a stipulation that a ulld~zng over
2 stories high cannot have more than 135' of aggregate frontage. Hera is a 4 story
building, here is a 6 story building, With the sum of this line and that line are
135~. Thisand this are actual frontage of 50% or,more forward from t-he mid depth of
the lot and. are less than t35'. You get. this. open space and thatopen space, 2 story,
4 story. You apply your bonuses and you get 83,312 sq.ft, because this much of the
open space is over and above the required 25%. What you wind up with is a building that
is 10~1/2 stories high in the center - 9-1/2 I beg your pardon. Five lot parcel -
We feel that a 5 lot parcel represents the breaking point of parking underground.
It is pretty hard to get underground parking on 4 lots or less. In C-C there is a
stipulation that you can lease parking in C-1 which eliminates par~king if you so desire.
But the C-1 District is quite a large area and as I siad we are t~rying to get this
ratio set up that we are working on for both C-C and C-1. This is the worst building
we could imagine on 5 lots,~ 5. stories only. You can't~even ma'ke it to 6. stories. Than
your 4 story element and your 2 story element and this is your ~25%~required open space.
One lot parcel - You have 25% open space in the front of the building. You can in no
way get more than 3 cars parked. We assume thatit ta~kes an average of 1000 sq.ft, per
car under the present ordinance. Nevertheless, we have actually designed a building
schematically to be 5130 assuming that there is 2,130 sq.ft, of storage area or unusable
space etc. We still only wind up with a 3 story buil,ding. This building in effect
would be like Pat Moore's building only a half story higher, those of yo~u who are
familiar with that building. Now thereis a way that we are investigating where you can
patak on the front and bac'k of the lot, but it loo~ks relatively unfeasible. It means
sacrificing a driveway past your 25% area, head in par'king, all you would wind up with
is a building with an elevator shaft and a stairway on one level and these elements
slide forward in. each case over the p rklng. I don't think too many people wo~uld take
advantage of that.
Bill Dun~way - %s there any type of bonus for leaving open space above parking, in
other words, have the building, over~their~parking? .. .
Robin Molny - The bonus is built in, Bill. You just visualize you can build your
building over the parking itself but there is no added bonus. One thing that occurred
tous, ~at. do. you do to.the people in~the~C-C zone, like Kuster who have.a building
that they are planning to enlarge, in the future who actually designed their building
to enlarge it in the future. That I feel would really fall under the terms of hardship
and you would have, to go to.the Board~of Adjustment and as'k for avaria.nc~ on the basis
of hardship. Because you made the plans and then the proposal passed, we have worked
a hardship on you. Is that not right.
8.78
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 1969
Mayor Barnard- You mean that he would not be able. to provide this oppn space that Height, Open
would be required. ~ Space, Hearing
Robin Molny - No, but I thi~k the Board of Adjustment might be very lenient towards
people in that condition.
Councilman Kuster- Could you put this in the ordinance.
Mayor Barnard- Kuster, what he is trying to do is~give you the proposal so you under-
stand it. Then if you approve of this thing, then have it written up in a formal
ordinance, which obviously this does not constitute an ordinance. But I wanted him
to explain it to you so you can see what they are trying to do. He is just covering
that one faze of the thing, where someone has a building on a piece of land in the C-C
what does he do. This proposal is just taIking about a clean piece of ground.
Robin Molny - Our first approach was to say in cases lfke yours to dictate building
set back above the first floor. That means that that portion of~the building is set
back from the lines of another portion of the building. For all praeticR1 purposes
that solves nothing, all you do is have a wedding cake effect. In thinking about
your lot~ there are a lot of buildings behind it, there is no view anyhow. So in
your case, you wouldn't be hurting anybody. In other cases that may be a consideration.
Butch Clark - Robin, under this'ordinance, it could be at least mentioned that under
the terms of this ordinance that existing buildings are not taken into affect and
that a hardship will be wor'ked and go to the Board of Adjttstment. Mention it right
in the ordinance, I see no great reason not to.
Councilman Kuster - Thats a good idea.
Robin Molny - Then what you do you put the Board of Adjustment in. the position
of being the Board of review.
Butch Clm~k. - They should be on existing buildings.
Councilman Kuster - I think something could be wor'ked whereby existing buildings
are recognized .that a hardship may be created.
Robin Molny - Recognize the fact that we might be working a hardship on existing
§tructures. It is the intent of or the right of the Board of Adjustment to correct
such a hardship.
Mayor Barnard- That seems reasonable to me. Because the buildings that are there
are there you can't do anything abot it. Well this is an extremely complicated
thing and I am sure we didn't expect all of you to grasp it right away. I don't
think there are many people who understand the whole thing. I do thi~k it would
certainly.prevent happening, what happened to. us. last summer, as far as these great
block like buildings. .Are there any questions from Council.
Councilman Clymer ~ One question as I understand it, you propose to go higher in lieu
of spreading it out.
Robin Molny - No, Ze'ke, you can put your extra bonuses into your 6 story building
where ever you choose.
Councilman Clymer - Your tal'king about 6 story building.
Councilman Kuster - What is .the highest building allowed
Robin Molny - 10 stories,, no h~gher
Councilman Clyme~ Now these stories would be the same as they are now, only now your
raising this height limit from 37-1/2' to on up.
Councilman Bergman - Its higher than thatnow, what is the height limit.
Robin Molny - 40' in the C-C and 37-1/2' in the C-1.
Councilman Clymer - So then you propose to raise them to what.
Robin Molny - Multiply 10' per floor, it would be 100'.
Councilman Clymer - S'kyscrapers which for the last 2 years we have tried to 'keep down.
Bill Dunaway - I don't quite understand (b) under solutioms. 30% of the gross
building area. In other words, if you. have a two story buiding, you could get only
30% of 2-1/2 of the lot area.
879
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 1969 ·
Height, Open Robin Molny - That is the maximumyou can put in a two story building.
Space Hearing ~
Bill Dunaway - So actually, what does thatcome to.
Robin MoOny - Jac'k, do you have a comment.
Jack Walls - Its 30% of GBA (gross building area) which for instance on a 3000 ft.
lot which is a one lot situation, the GBA would be 7,500 sq.ft. Now 30% of that would
be allowable in a 2 story, 30% of that would be. allowed in a 4 story and 40% would be
allowed in a 6 story, divide it that way. In other words, you are splitting up the
gross building area that you are allowed on thatpiece of property into those 3 per-
centages. You can arrange them anyway you want to.
Butch. Clark -~Your~demanding that buidlings be different heights.
Bill Dunaway - Thats what I am asking.
Robin Molny - You are forcedinto a variety of shapes if you want to use your entire
allowable
Bill Dunaway - Even if you have one or two lots.
Robin Molny - Sure
Councilman Bergman - What thought has the Planning and Zoning given, lets say go up
another 8 years from now, where things change and they say well gee loo'k maybe B
years ago it was a fine idea but the way things are right now, we go all the way up
the river and up the pass lets just do away with this and build on all the lot.
Robin Molny - Our feeling is this. That the 50% commercial in the C-C District is a
self limiting situation. There is one exception to it which Butch pointed out but the
commercial zone isn't going to build faster than its demand, unless a really cheap
developer comes in and puts in cheap space. As buidlings get taller, by the way,
the requirements get more stringent, as far as quality of construction, fire proofing
and so on. We feel when we project growth patterns that C-C is going to grow slowly.
There is a good chance that it might not frow as tall as we allow it to grow because
you have to provide 50% commercial. Let me point out one thing, you don't have to
provide 50% commercial, for space acquired by bonus. But we have a hunch that buildings
are not going to be as tall in the C-C as we allow them to be, or if they are, its
going to be very slow. The C-C will slowly build up as the demand occurs, the majority
of the building will occur in C-1 and I think if we have written a good proposal here
that at that point you either have the option as City Councilmen, if you still are,
to expand C-1 or else say thats it and hope for satellite communities which inevitably
will be under way at that time.
Councilman Bergman - One more question, lets try and consider like D~nver and all the
cities of that population or cities right around 100,000 population.. Right now this al-
most seems about your idea~here and your drawings seemthe same except for the ~meen
area which would be open, right. You speak of monolithic buildings. I can think
of nothing more monotonous than the average type city. They are all alike aren't
they. I mean really, they are almost all tall buildings.w~h windows so many feet
apart, I' am trying to compare that with what we have right now. By releasing our
height limit are we dOing the right thing, or maybe is the block even better. What
was your discussion on this. Lets say like the Empire State Building vs a building
in Denver that is a 12 story building high, there isn't really much difference.
Mayor Barnard - I think I can answer your question easily. Which would you prefer,
to have a block like Hodge-Oliver or would you prefer coming down one block where
you have a nice inner court yard lfke the Wienerstube with plants and trees and
some landscaping, which do you prefer?
· Councilman Bergman - There is no problem there.
Mayor Barnard - Well I am as'king you which you would rather have, because this is the
d&cision we are making here.
Councilman Clymer - On the height there Doc, I think Carl agrees with me, if the Wiener-
stube were 10 stories high, I would rather see the Hodge-Oliver.
Robin Molny - The Wienerstube can't be 10 stories high.
Councilman Clymer - Well I mean
Robin Molny - Here is the point. Only 40% of your building area allowable can be six
stories high, then your bonuses and obviously some will go up to 10.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 1969
Councilman Clymer - Certainly a lot of it would be 3 times as high as it is now. Height, Open
Tow or 3 stories with that little garden. Space, Hearing
Mayor Barnard I want to point out the thing we are NOT struggling with now is the
height, the tallness of the Hodge-Oliver .is not what we are-quarreliHg about. Its
the fact that it fills up the whole block.
Councilman Bergman - That's right, this is the decision. Would you rather have
that or a 10 story building in town.
Mayor Barnard - I have already decided what. I wq~ld-rather have, but you boys make
your own decision.
Councilman Bergman - I mentioned this to a couple of other people lets say a good
handful of developers got together and moved here from say Los Angeles. The first
thin'g they say is we have a gold mine here in Aspen, which we have, Okay this is 1969
now lets raise the h~ght this year. Five years from now we will take things as
they come, start chipping away at the green-area~ before you ~know it its gone. I'm
not saying this is going to happen but it could.
Robin Molny - Of course,that depends~on the backbone of the City~ Government. at the
time. You know what happens at public hearings when people are against a proposal.
We wouldn't have proposed this if we hadn't felt it was a real good alternative to
the present situation. The only other alternative you ha~e is to re-define your
bonus system under the present ordinances. And what yo~u are going to get is slightly
shorter monoliths.
Councilman Kuster How tall is the Opera House.
Councilman Clymer 62'
Robin Molny - The Hotel is 56'
Butch Clark I 'know the Opera House is over 56'
Councilman Clymer - I~never measured it.
Butch Clark - Well we measured .all of them, I don't have my figures with me.
Councilman Clymer - I know with a 36' ladder you can get in the 3rd story windows
but there is a lot of building above that.
Robin Molny Incidently I would like to give credit to Walls and Sterling whose
basic idea this was, it was not my idea, it was ther~s. They came UP with the idea
right or wrong.
Mayor Barnard - I would like to compliment the P & Z for the tremendous amount of
hours and work that has gone into this proposal. -This is not an easy thing to put
together. Any further remarks from the floor.
Bill Dunaway - Aa I underst~and it, under this proposal if somebody wanted to offer
a lot more open space and have a needle type building, they couldn't do it. They
would ~still need to have 2 pa~t story and 4 part story.
Robin Motny- No, you can build a 10 story building~on the property alone, but what
you would have would be a building that would be 100' tong x 135' is that correct.
That would be your maximum. You wouldn't be limited, Bill, because you would be
giving 50% of your lot in bonus, you couldn't make 10 stories.
Bill Dunaway - That's what I mean, you would be limited anyway. Anything above 6
stories is limited to 40% of the gross.
Robin Molny - Before the application of bonus. But even if you built on only 1/2
of the block, which we happen to think is desirable, a 10 story buiklng. I'll
revise that previous statement. You build on 1/2 of your site, you leave 50% of
open space and your bonus will not let you go 10 stories. We can calculate that
very rapidly for you.
Bill Dunaway - But you couldn't take advantage of your 2-1/2 times ratio in any
case unless you had the 2 and the 4 story units is that correct.
Robin Molny - That is generally the way it works out.
Bill Dunaway - No matter what you do, if you wante~ to have just the one building
it would be limited to 40% of the area.
881
Re~ar Meeting Aspen City Counci~ - February 24, 1969
Height, Open Bill Dunaway - Economically you wouldn't be utiliti~ing the land.
Space, Hearing
Robin Molny - Unless there was some real reason that you didn't want to do it, like
you didn't have enough money for this year, you built your building so high with
structural consideration for additions in the future.
Attorney Kern - Have you considered requiring the open space to be landscaped.
Robin Molny - Yes, these are just draft definitions. We'd have to stipulate especially
public way. Public way insinuates that people can wal'k on it. Well you know very
well that there are not going to be very popular with the landlord so we defined public
way as space for public traffic or landscaping for the benefit of the public.
Attorney Kern - Are you recommending landscaping then in the open space. Regulating
that the Council require landscaping in the open space.
Robin Molny - In public.way or open space.
Attorney Kern - Open space.
Robin Molny - Not necessarily landscaping, we would prefer landscaping.
Councilman Kuster - I would, you'll get a garbage dump otherwise.
Robin Molny - Well, we would have to stipulate out the unsavory aspects.
Butch Clar'k - I would like to co~muent. I have been attending Planning and Zoning
meetings for the last 6 years and in all thattime the idea has been limit, limit,
restrict, restrict and this is the first time the P & Z as a whole has taken an overall
picture and come.up with something~that is wor'kable naE5,o,nly to the landowner, the
person who is building on it but also for the good of Aspen and I thin'k they have done
a fabulous job. .I don't know how many man hours they'have put in. What can happen
eventually if the trend toward restriction and holding back and stopping the ultimate
would be only the slop building could make money. Only the guy that can throw out real
crumby construction could make it. This they have on the incentive basis, its going
to be over the 4 story level which puts it into concrete. We are going to get much
finer buildings, they are going to be fireproof, they are going to be follo~ving the
Uniform Building Code. They are going to be first class structures and still provide
the open space we all want and view. We have created the monoliths with this constant
height restriction, stop constrant restriction all the way through. I thin'k they have
come up with something that will really pave the way and from what I hear about the
new building inspector it will be done according to the UBC, no variations. He comes
highly recommended. I thin'k this is the right tract. This constant restriction
beating the developer down, if you own land in Aspen downtown the idea is to cut the
price of land or ma'ke it worthless. This is an incentive program to really do
something fine for the City. I am all for it.
R. Hewey - Is there any 'kind of way that the average person can get a graphic idea of
what it would look lfke in the downtown area to have tall buildings and what it is going
to involve and where they can or can't be.
Robin Molny - This may not answer your question but it is my feeling that in the not
too distant future to have a model of at least the C-C and C-1 Distri=t of downtown
Aspen. If you wanted an answer to your question if such a model existed. We would
have to take a photograph and sketch in on open sites and sites which coul.d be raised
and developed and show you what the_ implication would be. But it won't help you under
present circumstances.
r '
Mo Seigle - I would like to point out whethe :zt is relevant or not. A new thing that
is happening very strongly in building and this is geodesic structures. The geodesic
structures could bring in a whole new era in the building system within the next 5 or
10 years. Its contour, there is not wasted space because everything is in a circle.
Scientists are developing this now, putting them out for pepple to see.
Robin Molny - Aspen has one of the first geodesic domes built in the .country.
Attorney Kern - Robin, I would like to get what you intended with your definition of
building frontage. You say that.portion of the front of the building frontage. You
say that portion of'the front of the building whimh is within 50% of the front lot line.
You relate the front lot line to the narrow portion of the lot. In other words, if
you have a lot that is surrounded by 2 streets.
Robin Molny - Front line is the case where the lot faces one street. On a corner
lot the owner has the option of choosing his front lot line.
Regular Meeting~ Aspen City Council February 24~, 1969
Attorney Kern - So a 9 lot area you could choose the front of his building to be on Height, Open
the 100' rather than the 270'. I'll have to think this out. I am wondering since Space, hearing
your lots run north and south and you are using this building frontage to determine
where the open space is, weren't you at one time thinking of having the open space
running north and south rather than east and west.
Robin Molny - We 'kic'ked that around. Didn't feel that was the criteria we wanted.
We want the required open space on a street.
R. Hewey - Even if it is on the north side.
Mayor Barnard - I think that makes sense, because in a 9 lot situation you have a
large area in the block thatis very low compared with the rest of us.
R. Dagg - I've seen this same thing put into effect before. There is one hitch to it,
in the fact that every buiIding has to be gone through direct control. In other words
everyone has to be passed on. Do you have.that incorporated.
Robin Molny - Its passed upon by the building inspector.
Mayor Barnard - The building inspector would be the one who wo~ld look at it and see
if it conformed.
R. Dagg - Wouldn't you run into another Hodge-Oliver then.
Robin Molny - No, because we have a different set up.
Mayor Barnard - The ordinance would p~ovide
R. Dagg - The thing is there are different ways to comply with these bonuses.
Mayor Barnard~- Well that is right, this plan is not inflexible, they didn't mean
for it to be.
R. Dagg - When you are writing this thing up, taking into account maybe each building
should be passed on bya controlled group.
Robin Molny - If you are tal'king about some body other than the building inspector
then you are tal'king about building review and then you have the implication of design
control. Am I right, Albie.
Attorney Kern ~ Yes
Robin Molny - Design control in Colorado is pretty shaky ground.
R. Dagg - WetF%~--~'lmost takes this route in order to get away from some of the
problems ~hat have been created.
Mayor Barnard - t think this ordinance should be written in such a way that the buildin
inspector can simply take it and apply it. As a matter of fact, we got away from this
building review for that very reason fo the fact it just was not a workable thing.
Councilman Kuster - Butch Clark just said it, this is. workable. You can only apply
an ordinance as good as it is.
R. Dagg ~ An ordinance whereby the City could control site lines~. You might get a
4 parcel and a 5 parcel owned by separate owners and both decide to build a 10
story building or whatever as close as they can side by side. Now if you could
control and say that we would rather youput your 10 story here and here, you could
be in a better situation.
Attorney Kern ~ Unfortunately yau can't do that by law.
Butch Clark - They can't aByway. You have 20' if you expect to have any windows
according to the UBC. Economically it would be a disaster to do that because you
spoil the view of each other.
Bill Dunaway - I don't understand why you permit the one corner lot to have the
whole 100' frontage when all the others are rather limited~
Robin Molny - My memory fails me on that, Jack or Bob can you answer that.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 1969
Height, Open Bob Sterling - If you limit the corner lot situation to say 30' and the developer
Space, Hearing ta~kes the option of using the side~ street as his frontage he dosen't end up with
any building at all. But you don't get 100' frontage because you have a required
~ 25% open space which by definition assumes he is going to set bac~k 25'. Even though
we have an allowable 100' the maximum length of the building using the.side street
i as frontage would be 75'
Butch Clar'k - One of the problems, Bill, was to try and align the buildings north
and south so it would allow a maximum view toward the mountain~ That was a stic~ky
~ ~ · problem.
Bill Dunaway - This might encourage people to brea'k up into one lot segments.
Bob Sterling - This once again is possible, but it becomes very expensive and uneconom-
ical.
Janver Derrington - How a person, if they wanted to go to a tower only on a 9 lot
situation, taking advantage of the percentage if they had a building with the maximum
frontage would be 135' and take advantage of all the bonus space, they would be
getting as a result of leaving almost 3/4ths of the lot undeveloped at ground level
they could have a building 10 stories tall 58' x 135' gross building area of 78,500
sq.ft, whichis better than their 2.5 FAR.
Mayor Barnard - I don't think that is a bad situation, the block is 3/4ths open.
Bill Dunaway - This is taking into account the 40% plus
Janver Derrington - I am not taking into account the 2 and 4 stories, I am just
thrOwing them out and ta'king ~advantage~of the incentives of leaving almost 3/4ths
of the lot
Mayor Barnard - Council, what wouldyou think, assuming that you like the general
idea, of just taking the matter under advisement, letting Kern work it up into
some written form and then come bac'k at us another time like at the next meeting.
It really has a~ lot of,merit. I 'know its a staggering thing to try and comprehend
all at once. I again would li~ke to than~k and compliment the men that spent all
this time trying to get this thing put together cause to try and fine something
that dosen't haVe loopholes is really something else.
Bill Dunaway - The public hearing was also on density congrols. Was there any
recommendation made on this. ~
Mayor Barnard - NO, we are pretty much staying away from density,, because we
feel it is two different problems.
Bill Dunaway - At the same time there were~ 2 problems that the hearing was supposed
to cover.
Mayor Barnard- The hearing took up density, scale control and height of buildings.
Bill Dunaway - The th~ing is there is no recommended, change. I gather this is a
recommendation from P & Z.
Mayor Barnard - That is right.
Bill Dunaway - And they had no recommendation on density control.
Robin Molny - ~Not at~ this time
Mayor Barnard - I think it is a great mistake to confuse these two things at this time.
Bob Sterling - When we came up With this idea we came~ up with the idea in terms to
keep as many things that are in the ordinance now that is possible. At o. ne time we
did come up with an idea of changing the densities. We were discouraged from that
by almost everyone, so we are trying to 'keep everything just as stable as possible
or within that framewor'k.
Robin Molny - Just one point, why we were discouraged from fooling around with
densities. The so called density control is based on the lot square footage per
unit and people say density there talking about bodies. We felt ~that just because
you ma'ke a unit require more lot area dosen!t reduce the number of persons in a
number of rooms.. Therefore, ~e have no recomendatior~'at this time.
~ ·' (No further comments)
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 1969
Mayor~Barnard - I'll close the public hea~iBg at this time and as~k Council if they Height, Open
want to ma'k~ a motion to instruct Kern to put this into a little more formal Space, Hearing
written form.
Councilman KuSter made a motion to instruct City Attorney;Kern to prepare this
proposal into ordinance form for Council consideration. Seconded by Councilman
Clymer. Roll call vote - Councilmen Kuster aye; Clymer aye; Bergman aye.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SubDivision
Recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission was submitted by the City Reg. Hearing
Cler~k as follows:
"Barnard moved to recommend the subdivision ~egulation proposal with the minor
revisions on mountain subdivision, street paving and the placement of utilities,
revisions to be submitted at a later date. Seconded by Molny. Roll call vote
Molny aye; Barnard~aye; Whitaker aye; Mars aye; Heneghan aye."
Mayor Barnard m I'I1 open the public hearing on subdivision regulations at this time.
Its a great long thing, I~think there are three perti~nent points in it and I'll
just enumerate them for you Briefly. (1) how to handle the hard surfacing
of the streets in a subdivision, (2) the matter, of having all the utilities
placed in the subdivision before it is accepted, (3) is the matter of having
narrower actual streets with the ....... ~'
provzslton~pa~ng is not allowed on these
narrow streets but provided on the property past where the street went. I don't
know if any of youhave any thoughts on this, but for the three points brought out
I would llke to open the public hearing on subdivision regulations. I thin~k the
point is pretty clear now, is we should pass these regulations in lieu of ~keeping
the ones we have no~, because the present subdivision regulations~are practically
worthless.
Butch Clark - I think they have been pretty well reviewed by the people on the
P & Z and they have spent a lot of time on it.
Mayor Barnard - I would just like to ma'ke this one remar~k on the paved streets or the
matter of hard s~rfacing streets. I strongly recommend that any subdivision
regulations do not specify the developer has to pave the streets. I think we should
put in there that when the streets are paved, they be paved according to our
specifications of the City Engineer. My reasons for saying this is (1) after a
development was made would give the ground time to settle over the service cuts so
you wouldn't have the situation we have here after we had in the 66 and 67 paving
districts in which the water cuts or service line cuts were made they all settled,
paving with them. (2) You would get away from the situation wh~re a person would
come in with ~ development and have a bloc'k and a half of hard surfaced streets and
nobody in the ~alley to put down decent paving. So you could end up here with a
whole bunch of littlemic~key mouse bits and~Pieces of paving and stuc'k with the
maintenance of them. I thi~k it would be a lot better to provide that th.e streets
be improved gravel streets, with your utilities and what not in them and then when
the City comes along with,a paving district they could do the whole works at once.
I would strongly recommend this be handled in that way. Leon, on utilities what is
the situation there. Isn't there some question of whether they should or shouldn't
go in or what they should consist of or what.
Administrator Wurl - Well I think the problem is whether they should be stubbed in
at the property line. You might want to consider the alternate of that which is
putting them in an easement in the back, forget about digging up the streets.
Bill Dunaway - Is there any provisions to have them put the money aside for paving.
Mayor Barnard - This I don't know.
Administrator Wurl - There is a provision in here that all improvements have to be
either bonded or a provision made for escrow funds established by the builder.
for the benefit of guaranteeing that the improvement will go in.
Bill Dunaway - He has a choice.
IButch Clark - I am against putting the utilities in the easement because of small
~subdivisons will be lots on just each side of the road. There won't be any easements
behind which would almost ma'ke the utilities be in the road and if they are in
the road then I think we should make the~devel~per stub out g~s, water and.sewer
to the edge. I am against the bonding, due to the fact once you get to fighting
with the bonding company, it could go on for years. I agree with escrowing the funds
so they are availabe.
$$5
Regular Meetin~ Aspen City Council February 24~ 1969
Subdivision Re~. Mayor Barnard - What-does Council thin'k of taking the utilities out beyond the curb,
Hearing you'd know where that was going to be wouldn't you, Leon.
~ Butch Clark - The reason for this, as you stated, would allow them to settle out,
when you do get paving you don't have to recover them.
Mayor Barnard - Well does that seem the way you want to handle this utility thing then.
How about this narrow streets on hillside subdivisions. What they are thinking about
is avoiding taking a great cut through the hillside.
Administrator Wurl - Couldn't that be handled under, we have a provision in here
allowing P & Z to consider ini~ARlly some variances from the requirements.
Mayor Barnard - You mean as the case arose.
Administrator Wurl - I am just thin'king about the problem of being too specific about
Rings. You avoid having to change them all the time.
Mayor Barnard - Your saying then, leave any particular situation up to.the discretion
of the P & Z.
Administrator Wurl - When they submit ~e plat they will know if they have a problem.
Mayor Barnard - Well these three things the P & Z pin pointed out specifically there
was some doubt in their minds.
e '
Attorney Kern - Has the P & Z submitted thes regulatzons.
Mayor Barnard - Yes, they have submitted these regulations to us with these 3 points
they ~ant you to consider and decid.e~how you want to do it.
Butch Clar~k - That was done with these revisions in order that you could go ahead
and hear this today.
Mayor Barnard So why don't you take these home, study them and look them over and
decide how you want to handle these three points and come back to.them at the next
meeting.
(No further comments)
Mayor. Barnard closed the public hearing~
Ord. #3 ORDINANCE #3.~ SERIES OF 1969, ANORD~t~I~CE AME~ING TITLE IX, CHAPTER 2, OF THE
Cigarette Tax TAXATION AND REVENUES. PERTAINING TO AN %NCREASE IN THE CIGARETTE T~was read by title
only, as agreed by Council, on second reading by the City Cler'k.
Councilman Kuster moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1969 on second reading and
order the same published. Seconded by Councilman Clymer. Roll call vote - Councilmen
Kuster aye; Bergman aye; Clymer aye.
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 1969, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE III, CHAPTER 5, RELATING
Ord. #4 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A~ AMENDING THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
Bldg. Inspector WORKS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
APPOINTEMENT OF CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR was read by
title only, as agreed by Council, on second reading by the City Clerk.
Councilman Clymer moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 1969 on second reading and
order the same published. Seconded by Councilman Bergman. Roll call vote - Councilmen
Bergman aye; Clymer aye; Kuster. aye.
Corp. of Endor Mr. Mo Siegle was present representing the Corporation of Endor on a request from Counci~
for moral support of an Aspen Festival of Love to be held beginning July 5th~and running
for 7 .to 10 days.~ He also stated ewery conceivable problem has been or being taken
care of by experts such as sanitation, eating facilities, public relations, equipment,
grounds. Will be taking place on Smarts land on Smuggler Mountain.
Council agreed to take..the request under advisement.
Rooming House Rooming House Licenses - Application s were submitted by the City Clerk, all in order.
Licenses Councilman Kuster moved to approve 1969 rooming house licenses to Chateau du Mont,
Chateau Chaumont, Blue Spruce and the Floradora Lodge. Seconded by Councilman Clymer.
Roll. call .vote-Councilme~Clymer aye4:~Bargman aye;-Kuster aye.
856
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February-24, 1969
Memo~ from Aspen Sanitation DistriCts , Administrator Wurl stated the Aspen Planner
Sanitation Districts are requesting th& City support 'by Resolution a regional planner
and the establishment of a board.
Council stated they did not wish to in the Resolution commit to the establishment of
a board.
Councilman Bergman. moved to instruct Attorney Kern to draw up a resolution indicating
the City's interest for a regional planner,for the City and COunty. Seconded by
Councilman Kuster. Roll call vote - Councilmen Clymer aye; Bergman aye; Kuste~g~ye.
Legislative Conference, Councilman Kuster moved~ to a.uthormze' Administrator Wurl to
attend the legislative conference in Denver on March 5th. Seconded by Councilman Leg. Conference
Bergman. Roll call vote - Councilmen Kuster aye; ~Clymer aye; Bergman aye.
Parking Lot Report- Administrator Wurl reported that in addition to the monthly
tic~kets sold at the Opera House lot which filled it, we have nnly sold~ 6 daily · Parking Lots
tickets. Suggest the City open up the lots for the remainder of the season free of
charge.
Mr. Clark request guidance in submitted his proposal before Council on pa~king
underground at Ruby Park and surrqunding streets. Suggest the City pay the cost of Ruby Park
the underground par~king and in return the owners of Ruby Park would donate the land
for the parking under Ruby Park.
Councilman Bergman moved that for the remainder of the season the par~king lots will be
free to tourists and residents. Seconded by Councilman Kuster. Roll call vote
Councilmen Bergman aye; Kuster aye; Clymer aye.
Park Meadows - Wgter - Letter of intent was submitted to Council for emergency Water-Park
temporary water. Meadows
Councilman Kuster moved to allow Park Meadows to obtain emergency water at the going
rate. Seconded by Councilman Bergman. All in favor, motion carried.
Bus Depot Report - Unavailable at this time.
Incident report on Pinocchio's for failure to obtain license before serving beer Pinocchio's
was submitted to Council.
Letter from the As~n Chamber was submitted requesting the City increase the fines Traffic
for speeding and decrease the speed in the school zone. Discussed four way stop on
Main Street. Council instructed Administrator Wurl to notify the Chamber ghat the
City has requested the State made a study and recommendation on the school .zone.
It was pointed out some of the buses are using Galena Street rather than the designated Bus Route
bus route.
Attorney Kern reported following the special meeting, Mr. Roan in Denver was notified Sales Tax Suit
and filed a motion to dismiss Civil Actinn 3900 in the Supreme Court. Results will
be available some time this week.
North Side Annexation Appeal - Answer brief has been filed and also brought out in N,S.Annex.
Mr. Nelson's brief is.the question.relating to property tax.
Letter from Frank Wilberding was re~d by Mayor Barnard relating to zoning.
Rio Grande Railroad easement - Council agreed to have Attorney Kern continue ~io Grande Propert
negoiations for the water easement and pedestrian walkway.
Mr. Clar~k askwhat eould, be done about his offer. Administrator Wurl pointed out Ruby Park
this would fall under the capitol improvements program. Would be up to the Planning
and Zoning to come up with a location on ~the south side of town for the capitol
improvement program.
Councilman Kuster questioned the holes and ice by the Aspen Square. Administrator Street Maint.
Wurl reported the street department is working as fast as they can.
Councilman Kuster also questioned the water collecting by the Cooper Street Bridge.
Drain Clogged.
Councilman Kuster moved to adjourn at 5:40 p.m., seconded by Councilman Clymer.
Ail in favor, meeting adjourned.
Lorraine Graves, City Clerk