Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19700213 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C.!'. HOECK fL a. B. 8- l. ca. Public Hearing Aspen Planning and Zoning February 13. 1970 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5 :05 p.m. with William Tharp, Francis Whitaker, John Gilmore, James Breasted, Charles Vidal and Tom Wells. Also present Jerry Bro.n, Consultant. FUBLIC HEARING - DENSITY & OPEN SPACE Chairman Molny opened the public hearing and read the rules of procedure which would be followed for the hearing and give the background and purpose of the hearing. Chairman Molny - The original Master Plan recommendations of 1966 set forth certain density and floor arese ratio stipulations. I believe at that time, or shortly thereafter .hen the Title XI zoning ordinace was prepared certain pressures were brought to bear and the density was doubled at that point and the floor area ratio was raised 25% I believe. Mr. Whitaker - Robin, excuse me but I don't think the floor area ratio was changed. Chairman Molny - Okay, thanks. In the recent past a great deal of concern has been expressed on the part of the citizens of the community relative to over-crowding would take place in the Aspen area. There was a deal of evidence to show that the town had turned into a boom town situation with as an example, a 600% increase in retail sales over a nine year period which generally seems to forecast a shaky economy. There was a commi ttment in November by many of those who ran for public office and City Council to do .mat we are attempting to do today and thats take a new look at the density requirements and recommend they revert to the original proposal. This draft ordinance which some of you have is by no means a cure all, its just one step of what we hope to be an orderly procedure. ~~at the ordinance basically does is reverts to the original master plan proposals with one addition, that is requiring 25% open space, in addition to the other requirements. If any of you are holding this draft proposal, I want to express the word draft because thats all it is. There have been certain corrections and additions made and I'll just go through the tedious procedure of reading this. (See draft ordinance attached) . The City Building Inspector made an a~alysis of all the buildings which were built during 1968 and 1969 and hlO buildings which are presently proposed, all of which fall in the ft~-l, C-l or C-C districts. I'll just read off the buildings in question. Fasching Haus, Chateau Snow, Cooper Building (which is the new building under construction across from the Wienerstube), Cottonwoods, 700 Monarch, Demeo Apts., Aspen Square "A" Building, Aspen Square "B" Building, North of Nell, one on 700 W. Hopkins, Hannah Dustin, Aspen Furniture, Winfield Arms, Larkspur, Midlands, Little Nell, Roaring Fork Chateau at 1033 E. Cooper, Roaring Fork Chateau at 1035 E. Cooper, Silver Bell, Tyrol, Lift One and the Aspen Club. Now relative to lot coverage, I'm just going to read the amount of ground which is presently covered by all these buildings. I .~ll only mention the ones that are over 60% coverage. 37.8%, Fasching Haus; 53% Chateau Snow; 7~% Cooper Bldg.; 61% 700 Monarch; 43% Demeo Apts.; 56:;; Aspen Square; 5a,t Aspen Square; 88% North of Nell; 39% 700 W. Hopkins; 26% Hannah Dustin; 73% Aspen Furniture; 37% Winfield Arms; 75% Larkspur and it goes down in ranges from 27% to 46%. This is relative to open space and you can see that all the buildings built almost without excep- tion had a great deal of open space provided in their lot coverage ratio. Now I will deal with floor area ratio as we know we are ta.lking about 2-1/2 to 1, these zones do not presently have floor area ratio namly AR-l but I will just read them as if they all had the floor area ratio stipulation because we propose to include it in AR-l at this point. Remember it is 2-1/2 to 1 under the present ordinance. 1.32:1; 1.60:1; 2.92:1; 1.54:1; 1.73:1; 1.30:1; 2.08:1; 1.34:1; 2.88:1; 1.17:1; 1.13:1; 1.31:1; and we go donw to the Aspen Club which is 2.25. So nobody with seve rIa exceptions comes close to 2-1/2 to 1 under the present buildings .hich have been built. However, the number of units thats allowed would be effective under our present proposal. I'll read the letters and telegrams that we have received so far: - 1 - -,~-,~... --..-. ~.,-'-,.;._-.,,,..., ....-_........'",_.,y""-~~...... - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. f. HOECKEL 8. a.& l. CD. Public Hearing. P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. Gentlemen: I want to express my support of the efforts to chpJlge the density, open space and floor area ratio. This is the first step in the right direction for Aspen. Not only do I express this support personally, but for my constituents in Ward I of the City of Aspen. More building in the present and past manner can only result in over-crowding and the lowering of the quality of the environment in the City of Aspen. /s/ Ross Griffin. Telegram. I understand that your commission .111 meet on February 13, 1970 to discuss possible changes in present zoning of all or a portion of the City of Aspen. I had intended to appear at this meeting but other circumstances have made it impossible for me to do so. I am the owner of property located at 900 Durant Street a request for a building permit with respecto to this property was filed on February 12, 1970. While it goes without saying that I and my family .ho have been residents of Aspen for almost a genration are in favor of any measures which would strengthen and enhance the future of Aspen, we are opposed to any change in law which .!Quld frustrate the legitimate and beneficial improvements .mich I and others similarly si tuated have already proposed. If any changes in law ought to be made, they ought to affect only future plans and not plans representing a large investment of time and money and certainly not such plans which are in keeping with the best interests of Aspen's future. /s/ H. Christopher J. Brumder Gentlemen: I would like to go on record as being in favor of the proposed draft ordinance being presented at the public hearing today. The 25% open space requirement is a must if new construction is going to contribute any badly needed esthetics value to the community. An increase in the amount of land required for each dwelling unit is necessary only because of recent abuses and thoughtless design concepts. /s/ Fred Hibberd Gentlemen: Over one year ago a group of citizens asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to return the density controls to those recommended in the Master Plan. Now ayear later we support fully the proposal by you to effect this return as well as the scale controls you propose. The Master Plan densities .ere recommended after one year of study and we feel that what has been built under the present controls shows clearly how important for Aspen's future the Master Plan densities are. We have now seen what , , , and other have done with the present densities. It is, therefore, time to stand up for Aspen rather than accommodate the above mentioned and their schemes. /s/ Thomas Benton for the A.L.F. - 2 - -'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllIl\! C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L,CO. Public Hearing. P & z. 2/13/70. continued. Robin: This is a statement in support of the Commission's efforts toward stricter density requirements. Aspen and it's surrounding environs must now: (1) Concentrate on and (2) vigorously promote a policy of QUALITY instead of QUANTITY. We must live in a balanced ecology and this is born out by the recent policy statement voiced by the Aspen Skiing Corporation. If quality becomes the goal, then we .111 witness an increase in the overall standard of living, property values and general well-being of the populace -- a permanent populace plus transient populace in proper balance with the natural surroundings. If we choose qualtity instead of quality without regard for environmental balance, then we'll start marching to the beat of a different drurmner. /s/ Samuel J. Caudill George Heneghan asked me to express his sentiment that this matter which we are present proposing "must go through". He is the former chairman of this commission. Thats all of ~y documentation. ~~o would like to make a statement at this time. Bob Stevens: I am representing myself and Matthew O'Block of Aspen and White Swan, Washington. I just had a few questions I would like to adk, mainly of Jerry Brown, on the density changes that are being instituted in the AR-l District of 750 sq. ft. per d.elling unit and 1500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. This cuts the density in half for unlimited unit in the AR-l district and Mr. O'Block was worried and I was worried it would influence the value of our land .hich we have today. I've owned property in Aspen for 15 years, I've paid taxes here for 15 years. Mr. O'Block owned property in Aspen for 40 years I guess. He's paid taxes in Pitkin County for years and probably o.ns, what would be worth well over a million dollars worth of property. I value the property that I have about $120,000 and I had to get mine the hard way and I think Mr. O'Block had to get his the same way. We just wonder what is the va,ue of our property going to be. At present market conditions and I do not intend to build on my property, if we're interested in slowing down Aspen, I think that Mr. O'Block and myself would give a deed restriction to the City of Aspen that we wouldn't build on this property for a minimum of 3 years. I would just like to address this to Jerry. Whats the value of Mr. O'Blocks property, Robert stevens property going to be after this change in the zoning. Jerry Brown - I just made one note here Bob, I think the consideration and in t he way its being discussed in this public hearing is I think we are concerned of course about values of individual property, but I think the over-riding consideration is right now the value of the enti re resort complex. I note from down the valley a lot of concern about where the entire area. is heading. So I'd ask you another question, what would be the value of the property if the area loses its first class status, will it be worth as much even as it would be under the halving of the density. See thats the tact I am taking on this. Whats wrong .1th our who~ environment not just one piece of property. Bob Stevens: I agree with you. I do think the P & Z and City Council of Aspen o.e something to the existing property owners, as to maintaining the value of their land. They may have purchased it certain dates along the line .nether they purchased it as Matt O'Block did 40 years ago and how his property has probably gone from$@500 to over a million dollars .here I may have purchased for $40,000 or $50,000 and no.' mine is worth $120,000. I would hot like to have to put my property on the block in 1970 or 71 or 72 and sell it and receive $25,000 or $30,000 for it .nere I had paid $50,000 for it. This is strictly a monetary thing as far as I am concerned. Its true on one hadn I am a developer, a nasty word to a lot of Aspenites. I've been in this valley longer than a 100 of the Aspenites in this room. On the other hand I'm a conservationist in that I am a - 3 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIIM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.!ll.CD. Public Hearing. P & z. 2/13/70. continued. member of Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited etc. I make my income on developing and real estate. I like Aspen the way it wa.s back in 1953 and '54' when we took the old single chair up the mountain ana .e skied and it was a hell've lot of fun. Aspen's changed, the Ski Corporation has spent thousands and thousands of dollars to promote Aspen, to get the people here, build Aspen, get it bigger, bigger, more lifts, more buildings. I think the Ski Corporation is part of it, they've an invested interest here, they have land in Aspen and so forth. We .'BIlt to know what our land is going to be worth. I've been here a long time and I don't .~nt to lose any money. I had to get it the hard way and if this zoning is going to change the value of my land, I'm not in favor of it. But in pre- serving Aspen, I would put a deed restriction on my land voluntarily for a period of 2 or 3 years. That nothing would be built on it, rather than see the value of my 1 and go down the drain. Jerry Brown: Let me make one other comment. I see some of the background of the question, as I would analyseit if I were in a developer standpoint rather than sitting up here. Its .hen you change the density say in a commercial district aree where you can have additiona.l commercial square footage to pick up the building area and in the AR-l district .nere your relatively limited on what else you can do in addition to residential units. I think there is something for the Commission to consider. Bob Stevens: I would like to speak a little further. I developed the following buildings: Alpinblic Townhouses; Midland Condominium,and the Little Nell Condominiums. In no case did I use all of the land that was available. In no case did I not have open space green area. In no case did I not have parking one for one even before you had the ordinance. I feel that in the AR-l district you may be going a little strong going 1500 sq.ft. per d.elling unit .hich would mean on 5 lots of land .here you can no", go underground, leave 50% of the land open in green areas and parks, you could only put 10 units on this land as com- pared to 20 units under the present zoning. I think this is something for the Commission to think about. Chairman Molny - Jerry, do you want to make a general statement at this point. Jerry Bro.n: No I will wait. Chairman Molny: As you all know, I think, about a .eek ago D. R. C. Brown .Tote a letter making certain statements relative to skiing facilities vs plan for development in the a.rea and he pointed out I believe that if the developments that he knew about were completed and populated and the ski areas that he feels can be developed and were aeveloped that within 10 years we would have doubled the skiing population in resident population in the area. Darcy would you like to comment to that or whatever you wish. D.R.C. Brown: I think the letter has been pretty well publicized. I don~ think there is reason to remunerate the standing the Aspen Ski Corporation took. At this time I would like to add I spent several hours with the Forest Service reviewing all of the potential ski areas in the White River National Forest. There are within the vicinity of Aspen, within an area of 15 miles possibly 4 undeveloped areas. Only one of them large enough. I don't see how they will ever be developed because of the economic situation. The fifth one is economically feasible but the status of the land ownership is such that it cannot be developed. So I feel that our appraisal of 30,000 skiers in the area by 1976 to cope with safely and give high quality skiing is essentially correct. In your study did you take into account Snowmass and Aspen Wildcat and projected growth. D. R. C. Brown: Those are the two largest, and not only just those. I would just like to throw out a thought here. If one of the reasons for reducing the density in Aspen is to compensate for the very large projected growth of other areas in the county, that maybe the landowners in ABpen are being penalized. - 4 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIIM'O C.F.HOECKELa.a.ftL.Co. Public Hearing. P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. Chairman Molny - You would be correct if that were the only thing that is being done, with this criteria in mind. I will say, and I think I am speaking for the whole Board, that Darcy's letter certainly wasn't the only reason .e began this procedure because its been coming for a long time. I would like to ask Mr. Hauk to also comment at this point who represents more expert opinion, he is from the Forest Service. Mr. Hauk: I didn't come prepared to make a speech. My name is Paul Hauk, I'm the staff officer of the White River National Forest (grazed land and water sheds). ~~ get involved with the ski area feasibility, the .nole rat race. I have been in this work for the last 25 years in the Rocky Mountain Region for the Forest Service. I was one of the few guys who skied in the outfit many years ago so I was tagged to look around at the various areas. So I have been in this region since 1957. I've been involved .1th all the feasibility reports for all the areas ..................... and as Darcy pointed out we have had a long respect for the ski areas in the White River. I just completed a detailed inventory of potential ski areas along the White River. This includes from Vail Pass all the way over to Meeker, covers around 2 million acres. Looked at 20 sites plus 15 miscellaneous sites. Sometime next month will be up to show some slides and whats in the mill. ..................... Right in the immediate area, start over around Haystack, its a good area probably not the best potential. Problem there is land ownership. Smuggler Mountain, large property owner McCullough Oil. Little Annie, already approved for development waiting for financing andplanning. Hayden Peak, Kellogg Area etc. Going up the Roaring Fork, our feeling is maintain the valley as it is. Had pressure from some people in New York who feel the Roaring Fork valley should be kept as it is from Difficult Camp ground to up to and including the top of Independence Pass. We feel there are better sites, we should develop the best sites first. Going towards Glenwood Springs, there is Sunlight expansion, Marble, Redstone, Ruedi, Meadow Mountain near Vail, Avon site and all sites involve few tracts of private land. ..................................... This give you an idea of .nats available in the future in the immediate vicinity of Aspen. All you have is Little Annie, Smuggler as you go do.n the back side of Red Mountain towards Woody Creek. What I am trying to point out is you have some more ski areas around but at the sametime youhave to protect lets say provide and maintain the quality and safety here. If not, there will not be the wilderness that you people are looking for. Some.nere you have to draw the line. Could stop this by saying there .111 be no more ski areas in this area or developments in the Aspen area. Would like to develop in the logical and best way. Do not want to develop because of pressure to stimulate the local economy. One day there .Qll be a big suburb bet.een Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Ithink quality skiing is Vll!ry important. Do it right not only within the town of Aspen but outside and look far enough ahead on the additional sites. Lets maintain the quality because sooner or later your going to be forced into .nat Darcy is forced into on the mountain. You don't want the over-crowding on the hill. Forest Service is in sympathy with the ideas of the P & Z. Chairman Molny: WouJd you comment briefly about Darcy's thoughts relative to your thoughts on ticket limitation. Mr. Hauk: I agree, just a matter of time when will have to limit the number of skiers. Trying to get the wintll!r olympics. Trying to pull more people into the area. Cannot turn down the slympics, but .nere do we stop. The main thing is quality and I would say your almost beyond the point of return at this point. Butch Clark: Its ~ understanding from what you said, there are roughly 8 major areas that could be developed. Since Darcy Brown's letter came out in the paper and the stand that the Ski Corporation has taken, I personally have had 2 con- versations with major corporations .ho say that if its that good and they're runing that close projecting 30,000 skiers per day, .hen the areas fully developed, they want to get into the ski business. It seems to me a little bit early to start projecting prices if we had these areas developed. If we were right to the maximum, then I would fully concur with his thinking. But we have, I mean the Haystack area has as a typical land ownership, money .111 cure it. If general motors wants to build on Haystack, .~ all know they're going to cure the land o.mership problem. These are the size corporations that are looking into the ski - 5 - RECORD OF. PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C.F.HOECHlB.B.IlL.CO. Public Hearing. P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. business. Aren't we pretty well predicting disaster prior to its happening. Mr. Hauk: No, I don't think so because last three weeks I spent 3/4ths of my time talking to groups such as you are speaking of, all kinds of promoters talking about ski areas. Especially where private land is concerned. I'm just saying, that if we aren't carefull, it will happen with Haystack and this is going to happen around the country, "Ie' re going to end up with some Mineral King situations which means, for example Haystack .>ill sit in a law suit and courts for years. In the end its going to mean how we issue permits. Things are just not going to always work out the way you think they're going to. Pressures not to build ski areas. We feel we have to meet the need for additional ski areas. I think there is room for more ski areas. ~~at I am saying you cannot jam up the Aspen area. Butch Clark: We have twice the available ski area available now. v!hat the Ski Corporation is saying which is the opposite of any planning of any corporation that I know of. Major corporations are lucky if they can see six months down the line. They try to 10l!)k into the crystal ball to see maybe a year but they are so far off because of all the different facts that come into play. We're looking at double the skier days right now in the existing areas and saying by 1976 we will crowd those areas for me its a little ludicrous to look that far do.n the line. Mr. Hauk: I don't set ~self up as an expert. Chairman Molny: I think we had better move along now. Butch Clark: Representing myself and the Esco companies here in Aspen. My comments on the proposal being discussed here today are as follows: I would like to repeat some of the comments on the presentation that I made to the City Council on April 3, 1967. How did we arrive at these density figures for dwelling and accommodation units. In the summer of 1966 when the master plan was coming into being, under the very able direction of Mr. Jerry Brown, this density problem came to my attention. At that time I took a very critical position of the density controls of the business district as they were written. Jerry's argument to me personally was that he just did not like or feel it was right for the City of Aspen to have high density in the downtown area. We had many lengthy and serious discussions pertaining to this density control. At first he arrived at the density controls by stating to me, "I don't think there should be over two condominiums and/or apartments allowed on anyone lot or lodge or accommodation units allowed on anyone lot~ Alot in the City of Aspen, barring a few exceptions, is 3,000 sq.ft. and he in my opinion arbitrarily divided 3,000 by 2 and said there should be1500 sq.ft. of land for each dwelling unit, divided 3,000 by 4 and said there should be 750 sq. ft. of land for every accommodation unit. At this point and time the masterplan .nich contained incidently many, many good recommendations that need to be put immediately into effect again I must regress and say that 98% of this was excellant which should be inaugurated at the earliest possible moment and are being held up by people like myself here in Aspen .no see the tremendous adverse economic problems involved with these ratios of land to units. Its a stop gap measure. The Aspen Board of RealoDs convinced the CityCouncil to approve the master plan by lowering these density units by 1/2 - the 1500 multiple family became 750, the 750 sq. ft. accommodation unit became 375. At no time to my knowledge was there an expert of economics consultedon these square footages. But rather it was so very apparent Jerry Brown and the Aspen P & Z were out in left field of something representing some type of relief be accomplished. This was done by dividing what Jerry Brown and the P & Z had inhalf. Inorder to allow the master plan and its 98% necessity to become a reality, asyou members of the Council know, you did pass the master plan with the apparent reductions to' 750 and 375 sq.ft. Three days ago, I contacted Mr. Youngbluth from Ft. Collins appraiser, he is a senior residential appraiser, who has the highest designation an appraiser can get. I spent approximately 1/2 hour on the phone to him and told him of what this ordinance consisted of in relationship to density controls. - 6 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HlIlM" C.l'.HOECkEL B.B.& L. co. Public Hearing. P & z. 2/13/70. continued. He at that time assured me that it spells economic disaster for the downtown Aspen area. Jerry Brown in my opinion, is a very competent qualified master planner. His esthetics are good, I believe he has the good of Aspen at heart. He has in my opinion one small drawback, he does not understand economics this was left c ompetely out of thepicture when this ordinance was drawn. I would go so far as to say, in the Master Plan and in this ordinance Jerry Brown is 98% correct. However, I believe the 2% thats left, I feel should be corrected or it will mark economic disaster for Aspen. I just wonder how estaeticlly pleasing will be a downtown area that s dying and that has destroyed the faith of the investing public that makes the city grow. As we all know, basic business philosophy is that there is no status quo in economics or business. It is either growing or declining at some rate. It would bepleasant indeed to be in the unheard of position that we here in Aspen have the goose that laid the golden egg. That we can arise for every scholarly esthetic value kno.n to man. I think, however, our present position we must be very cognizant of esthetic value, but must never lose cite of the of the age old balance between economics of business and the esthetics of art. There has been said and I do not doubt it, that upwards of 75% of the property owned in Aspen is owned by people that live outside of the Aspen area, some even in other countries. These people have invested their money in Aspen, some for many more years than most of us have even been here. They have put their faith in Aspen as you and I have done. Some because they loved Aspen and some because Aspen has always been in the past a good investment. There has never been a year to ~ knowledge, since 1946 the price of land did not increase. This has established the faith necessary for Aspen to grow and prosper as it has done. These people are leitimate investors, not fast buck promoters as a few of you here would like to rise to the ocassion and call them. Their faith in Aspen has been well regarded in the past by the people .no make policy, pass onordinances and gen~rally maintain the discipline of the City. I sincerely hope that all of us here today bear in mind that you have as much responsibility inprotecting these investors economic ownership as .e have our own. Gentlemen, we have voted you the money to expand, that point I was referring to passage of the sewer for Metropolitan and also the new waterplant, most of us here were thinking in terms of this expansion not in urban sprawl so we could have one metropolis stretching from Glen~od Springs to Aspen but rather a highly intensified do.ntown area. That has proven to be so successful here in Aspen, Europe and many other areas of our type. I do not believe I have to convince you that the public is demanding that they be in a location so they can walk to our nighclubs, ski slopes or bus locations for the outside ski areas, and that they don't want to have to drive a car like Los Angeles in order to get something to eat. This gentlemen, is evidenced by the concentration of lodges and con- dominiums that are close by in the downto.n area. On February 4, 1969, I made a presentation to the Aspen P & Z relating to the same subject and outlining the detremental effect of this same density proposed and Mayor Barnard's excellant recommendation on incentive zoning which was unanimously approved by the Aspen p & Z. But afterwards rejected by the Aspen City Council. I have made copies for distribution today in hopes of revising City zoning. It is amazing to me when I realize the density of our tout'ist and commercial lots would only be doubled that of our present residential lots - duplex on 210ts vs fourplex on 210ts in the commercial area. The construction industry is second only to the skiing in Pitkin County. In 1969 Pitkin County of Aspen issued 20 million dollars worth of building permits .nich vertually supported the economic climate for the spring, summer and fall. The activity directly employed some estimated 1200 paid employees. At the U.S. Government estimate of ne.money impact on the community, Aspen enjoyed some 30 million dollars in purchasing power. Because of this tremendous impact on our economy, I propose the following: (1) That reconsideration be given to "inventive zoning". (2) That further in-depth studybe given to this vital subject before a hasty decision that is being pressured through by an uninformed emotional thinking group that does not understand the economics of marrying a gracious Aspen to a healty economic business climate. (3) That any recommendations without extensive workshop studies should be avoided. (4) I wish to strenously object to any decision reached in haste without City and regional planning by professional competent people. (5) This tremendous task is scheduled to be accomplished within 10 days as the City Council has scheduled a public hearing at that time. With the time schedule proposed any decision that might be reached .~ll be hasty, incomplete, arbitrary, and dangerous to our economy and will no doubt be subjected - 7 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM \1 C. F. ~O[CK"l a. B. ,. L. CD. Public Hearing. P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. to severe legal scrutiny as the new Title XI has already had nine changes plus four proposals. This continual changing without proper study, without proper research, and without adquate discussion between all parties concerned could according to our own city attorney and the Colorado Municipal League handbook legally jeopardize our entire zoning code. This would be a disaster to Aspen. In closing, I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider the time table and give it the thought, time and professional study it obviously deserves. Chairman Molny: I will say that I invited Mr. Nick Coates to be at this meeting. Bob Lewis: I have been in the community for 22 years. My personal observation, I've seen the quality of life and .nen you make an impact on the natural environ- ment something has to give. I have seen the quality of life in this community deteriorate. I am interested in ecology and I am quite a.'Bre .nen you make an impact on the natural environment something has to give. It takes a very long time for it to restore itself. The human environment that we have in our City is also subject to irrevocable harm. You see a tremendous amount of over-crowded city, especially cars in the City. No attempt to do anything about these cars in the City. I really think;;:the City Council and the P & Z should find out the opinion of the residents and visitors about increasing the density. An~her matter I would like to raise is the setbacks. I see on Page 3 where there is a 10' setback from the rear of the lot. I would like to recommend that the P & Z Commission consider the setback from all rivers as well as streets. This set back figured from the center of the stream. The highest flow in the spring, the sides of the river for figuring setbacks. Now I realize it varies fromyear to year. I think we can have some evidence of the high water in 1956 or '57' flood and there were: many of us around who remember how high the water was. I think we can go back to that and predict that in future years we're going to have another high run off and an early flood. Chairman Molny: We are doing a study and proposal on this and there is a public hearing scheduled. Nick Coates: I have seen in other cities the effectof changing density and in this area it vertually stopped building for 4 years. Practially nothing was built for a 4 year period. I know that that is exactly what a lot of people would like to see done and it may very well do that. I think the Council and citizens have an obligation not only to the people that are proposing this but also to the people who own land the committments of construction impact on the economy. In other words, the people who are construction workers and all the people .no service these workers. It is my proposal to Robin that instead of doing this in one drastic step, that it be planned over a numb~r of years. Have in the ordinance this year the densities will be this, next year this and maybe over a 3 or 4 year period. This would give the community time to adjust, slow things donw and .lOuldn't just cut things off. It .Quld take a little longer to do this and would relieve the impact on property owners. Fritz Benedict: I have lived here about 25 years and I am very worried about the way the growth is going. I would like to address a few remarks to the people who might be hurt, by these density controls. Bob stevens mentioned hisland and O'Blocks. I don't think we can really get upset with O'Blocks problem. I think those whoown land have a similar history. I think there are a few people who would be hurt, those who have plans to build this year but feel this is a small minority. Over the last few days, many of you know Tom Wilson, developer of Aspen Square bought .nat you know as Rubey Park for around $11.00 a square foot, for a half block downtown Aspen which is about as much as anybody has paid to my knowledge. We had done a little study for him. He has offered this land to the City .1th no profit to himself. I think it is very important to the future of the City for the City to acquire that land. In the study .e used the proposed density controls. There is no problem to get a building to fit those controls. If he can do it paying $11.00 a square foot for land, I can't see how anybody can be hurt. I think the group that is opposed to this are the people .no are involved in construction. They're worried about what it will do to their livihood. This is all wrong. There is so much in historical precedence we're going to through a booming cycle. Far too much building in one year. If growth is slowed in Aspen, this .111 not sloW - 8 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rORM ~ C. r. HOECKEl U. U. & l. co. ~blic Hearing, P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. down in the satellite areas. Should have the beds at the ski slopes so peop~e don't have to drive.......................... yitzhugh Scott: I just want to personally encourage the P & Z to continue this sort of effort to _fine a cure to land use andovnership problem in our area rather than leaving it up tomoney. Ross Griffin: My presentation is just a question to Jerry Brown. Under your original proposals before the change by the City Council, the City limits at that time what wasyour population figure that could be taken care of by the City of Aspen. Mr. Whitaker: 4600 residents, 6700 visitors for a total of 11,300 I believe that was before either the north annexation or the south annexation. Ross Griffin: Any figures on the impact of the annexations. Jerry Brown: No. Would have considerably more resident population in most of the area say the north annexation was heavy on resident population very light on visitor population. Ross Griffin: Would like to say I encourage the P & Z in this effort and we must maintain quality. Jerry Brown: For those of you who don't know .no this beared character is, I'm from Glenwood Springs and a get rich quick artist from Glenwood Springs. I'm concerned Parkinson's Law. Parkinson wrote a book sort of tongue in cheeck and said .nen they finally got the British Foreign Office established in an old foreign office building they were engaged in selling off India and several others parts of the empire. Its not his most famous law but he said once your totally organized, your done. Well I'm concerned because this hearing, the first meeting I came to here in Aspen the first night I was in town, I was a guest of the Walls at a school board meeting where everybody wanted to punch everybody in the mouth. I am impressed with the way this meeting and hearing has been handled with the comments. There have been some good comments from the floor, I think. However, I was asked about three weeks ago to look at the relationship of land to potential population in the Aspen area. This was after the letter from the Ski Corporation and I have done that. I calculated based on the vacant land that is still available in the townsite of Aspen, here is a map, I .'On't bore you too long but t he red lots are the ones which are presently devoted to some use. There is no attempt to analyse how well devoted they are to use, which ones might change etc. The white spots are vacant lots. Then using those figures, they are in the AR-l C-l and C-C Districts, I did not use the C-2 district. Based on those figures and this was a difficult figure to get from the Chamber and Visitors Bureau we have 9131 beds available in the Aspen Townsite at the present time. Under the present densities that we presently have, factored by these vacant lots and I did not include any single lots because not much is done on 3,000 sq.ft. except maybe right in the downtown .so I knocked out all the single 3,000 sq.ft. lots and went only to sultiples of two or more. Under the present density .19 could have an additional 6,148 beds figuring two beds per dwelling unit. Now some will be limited and some will be unlimited. So I didn't think I was being too far out in left field to say that each additional room or each additional unit provide for visitors. So we could have about 15,000 beds in Aspen if this land that I have in .nite here were developed. Under the proposed density, that additional figure would not be 6,148 but would be 3,074 or about 12,000 for a total of visitor population in the valley. Now I can't really back these against the mountain although I think Mr. Brown, he says Aspen Mountain can accommodate approximately 3,000 skiers. So I will go back just one time to say that the Master Plan was developed based on some questions in the citizens committee meetings we had trying to balance this out or achieve some semblence of balance between the people at the base of the hill and the people skiing the hill because skiing seems to be the dominate leader, to build accommodations basically for the skiing and not for the summeruse. This is a multi-faceted question because .nere the people are staying is bearing on parking our circul- ation of vehicles, just anumber of things. So we have the number of vacant lots and the number of people we can get on them. On trends and this gets - 9 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIl"" C.F,HOECHlB.B.I!!L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. interesting. I did divide the lot area by 4 or by 2 but I didn't do it quite as simply as you implied Mr. Clark. Because in '67' When this question came up we analyzed 31 lodges and 14 condominium type units. I might mention in passing, when I came here, there were about ~3 or 4 condominium developments either under- way or planned, that I knew of. At the present I imagine there have been about 4 or 5 lodges built in Aspen since I camehere. Everything is condominium type development. So the trend is definately since the time of the preparation of the Master Plan has been towards condomiums. Of the lodges and I could read the names of them, like the Jerome, the Limelite, the Agate, the Pines in other words what we used to call lodges if you analyse 31 of them they run about 1/2 million square feet and so they had at that time 730 sq.ft. of lot area per room. That was the trend of the character of the quality environment in Aspen. What I call apartments are the condominiums for the most part like the Alpinblick, Aspen Alps West, Fifth Avenue etc. I analysed 14 of them there were 204 units on about 200,000 sq. ft. of land with a total of 980 sq.ft. of lot area per unit. But I .ould emphasize that about 4 of those were quite low. There were 3 of them at 570 and one at 600 and those .~re generally ones built'most recedtly at that time in '67' and they were fairly large ones because they had an average I would say of 20 units apiece Whereas, many of the other ones would be 1800 sq. ft. per unit etc were 11,9, 17 etc generally were smaller. When we look at the very excellant list prepared by the building inspector, I rea*ly didn't have time to make a bunch of charts on this, as I say the lodges in pre-67 had about 730 sqft per room. The apartments in '67' had about 980 sq. ft. of the pre-67 to 710 sq.ft. pel!! room. So what I see is an increase in condominium type buildings with generally larger individual units and a corresponding or an inverse, pF.Oportion there of the decrease in the amount of lot area per building so that is the trend as I see it. So the question seems to be how shall the unit be arranged on the land, do we want in other words to have a considerably greater number of people in Aspen townsite. In my analysis I did not include the slope land up at the base of the lift because it is just a little difficult to imagine how people are going to arrange, the Aspen Alps, some people may have looked at that 5 years ago and said gee this is getting pretty steep probably can't put anymore units up there. Some of this area has been built since I have been here. So I did not include that in potential land, I did not include the C-2 area in potential land becaIse it is and has not moved. This is mostly the developable land controlled by the D & RG Railroad and todate they have not moved. ~lhat I see here is a policy question of are we going to have an extremely dense do.ntown or a less dense downtown forgetting for the moment the total number of skiers in relation to the mountain. I just think it is the sort of hearings like this where ideas sort of come up together that if we couldhave a meeting of the minds between the developers as a general label who want to have a denser downto.~ and those Who don't want a dense downto.n. I think possibly somemore work could be done in this end and come up with some sort of thing that will satisy as many people as possible. On the proposal that has been presented tonight, s~me of the things or questions I had have already been answered here. I mentioned to myself do we need additional drafting on this proposal. Some of the things have already been taken care of like the limited andunlimi ted number of units in one area. Then I would like to make a pitch, not for myself of course, that regardless of what the Commission recommends now, .e do need, we shouldn't have things like and I hate the .lOrd up-dating the Master Plan. I think what we need is a continuing statistical body so that on each block we know how many people are living there and What kind of densities and what accommodations and then when .e consider a change we can quickly apply it using modern statistital methods which means a computer to figure how many people in total ..'e are going to be talking about. So I am going to take some of the blame for the Planning Commissions considering the re-establishment of the densities first based on my somewhat extended analysis of what has happened and second do we need a bit of a breather space to see what really should be done. The idea of Regional planning is exceTIant. Its needed and this sort of statistical thing should be done not only for the townsite but for the Whole relationship of the area. Just to go back a bit. Mr. Clark did comment some 98% or some such figure in the Master Plan but not a hell'valot of what I have proposed has ever been done. Nothing about mass transit, verylittle about parking, the airport industrial site is sort of creeping along now, the railroad is exactly in the condition as it was if not worse than it was when I was here so I guess thats about the end of my pitch. Buts its a multi-faceted question and we do need these policy type discussions in an open atmosphere to - 10 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIl..lO C.F.HOECKELB.B.l\o L. CD. Public Hearing, P & Z. 2/13/70. continued. make sure when we move, .>e move as correctly as possible. On the other hand, we cannot delay , forever andal ways say we need more analysis, we need more study because the environment is vibrant nothing stands still you can't hold the City down and plan it and say now this is the way we are going to do it, because it keeps moving inspite of whatever you want to do. These figures are dead the moment they are .rritten on a sheet of paper. Chairman Molny: I have two questions. (1) in making your first prognosis of the possibility of population increase particularly in the AR-l, you analysed vacant land and you took no consideration of the removal of existing buildings. Jerry Brown: No, as I say my figures are a minimum. Chairman Molny: "lhat do you mean when you say breathing space. Jerry Brown: Well it "as question to me on the amount of building that was on the immediate horizon. The trend that we've seen it on the buildings that are going perhaps that "'" needed a one year proposal to say this was valid .nen we looked atit, thats the least we should try to accomplish. Do we want to become more restrictive, maybe in analysing this we might say gee"'" havent' gone far enough. Butch Clark: One question I would like the Commission to consider is head towards a pedestrian downtown area and work the parking problem else.here. Primarily one-way streets and work the pedestrian orientation for the downtown area. If thats the case, the density should be increased. If we are going for pedestrian malls we should increase the density. If not, should go in the other direction. I have one comment to make on Rubey Park. I have beeninvolved in that land for about four years and as Fritz knows, it is probably number one commercial land in all of Aspen. Thats why it makes economic sense to Tom Wilson the developer inside this new criteria of density because it would be predominately commercial. And what we .ere talking about of the over-all density problem, is far overcome by the tremendous amount of AR-l land that cannot be off set by the commercial aspects of it. If you follow that thinking. Thirdly and this gets into the AR-l, the only way we can get employee housing such as Winfield Arms or Demos Apartments if we decrease the density you can forever forget housing any.nere in the Aspen area. That will add to the stopping of employee housing. There is presently according to the statistical data .e have in our office, about 250 units being planned of employee housing. We're finally getting to the point prices have come up enough of monthly rentals to off-set the construction and land cost. If we cut that density in half, you can write off employee housing. Following .hat Jerry has to say, I have one real serious comment to make. In the seven years that I have been attending P & Z meetings, City Council meetings it has always been the property owners or people who own property have been under attack and there has never been a real correlation towards something nice. A lot of people in this room feel that I am a fast buck artist. I can assure them I have 137,000 sq.ft. of this to"m that I am vitally interested in that I own. I work hard to get it and I'm interested in what happens to it. I live here this is my home, I'm not tr,Qng to destroy it. My opinion is I am on one side of the fence and that is high density in the urban area and prevent urban sprawl. I don't want the Los Angeles type of development. I would rather see it high rise and Robin you most of all worked the hardest onthe proposal that came up last year to go six stories in the zoning program which I felt as you remember the meetings no one was against that however it came up in City Council and they had the audacity to sit there and really didn't even consider it. Why can't we revise ome of those programs, get together and work the mass transpora.tion, mall areas, parking problem rather than spend the same amount of time in con- structive direction. Chairman Molny: I can answer your last question it was mainly a case of things happening faster thanideas. I'll close the public hearing at this time. Mr. Whitaker: I .~uld just like to comment on some with the Police Department "hen we're talking ab t of ou .................... Since 1966 our burglary..iand - 11 - information I got from working congestion and the deterioration larceny rate has increased RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. III L. ~O. Public Hearing. P & z. 2/13/70. continued. 150%; in 2 years our traffic accidents have increased 100%; in just one year our parking citations have increased 30%; our impounded cars in one year increased 30%; and our car thefts have increased in one year 150%. I think a lot of this is due to congestion just like to point that out. Mr. Wells: My only comment is I can see alot of agreement in some of the things that Mr. Clark said. Its mainly a matter of what the numbers are where they're going and how the different densities in our downtown resort area, residential areas are determined. I think that any town whether it is small like Aspen or any large population you have to take at any given point and time a total number of people and break that down to your commercial needs and your resort and residential areas .hich affect the number of schools and the .hole thing. I don't see any disagreement there. The only thing we really have to decide on is policy of how many people we want to enjoy these mountains. I think there are probably a lot of other factors like that too, water, traffic and all of the factors that have been discussed so much. I think we can rationally come up with a number we can plan around. Our concern is that the density as raised and its legitmate concern born out by the fact that a lot of the projects developed are not up to whats allo.ed now. Chairman Nolny: I will say relative tomy comment a few minutes ago, its really tough work to try to serve as a planning commission in this dynamatic booming atmosphere without the benefit of professional in-house assistance. We are on the verge of getting that and while we're talking buildings are being planned and built. We have some other items of public hearing relative to parks but I would like a motion to continue that portion to next Tuesdays meeting. Tharp moved to continue the remaining public hearing items till February 17th meeting. Seconded by Vidal. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ~) " C2:~ ,~ Secretary