Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19690204 ,. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~O C. F. HOECKEL D. B. & L. CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission February 4, 1969 Public Hearing was called to order by George Heneghan, Chairman, at 5:15 p.m. at the Pitkin County Courtroom with the following members present: Chairman George Heneghan Francis Whitaker Dale Mars Robin Molny Chairman Heneghan - There are only 4 members of the Commission present. Prior to our opening the public hearing, I would like to give the opportunity for each member to make his comments on what he feels on what is before us. W e had quite a long study session this afternoon and it was determined at that study session that the problme is so complex and involved that we feel that we are not going to vote on it tonight since it will require more study. The problem that is apparently before us and the thing which has precipitated it is that it is the feeling of some of the citizenry that a few of the buildings that have been constructed this year within our zoning laws, which are perfectly legal, have been very monolithic. By monolithic I mean consume large blocks of land, have cut off green areas, and open space and the problem is how to allow people to construct buildings that will give something back to all of us, whether it be green space or open space or park space and perhaps this could be done with some sort of bonus zoning or incentive zoning which would allow a person constructing a large building to get some benefit back to all of us. There are three proposals before us, one of them is density control. You may not all know exactly what that is. You are allowed at the present time to house a certain number of people on a given piece of land and the proposal before us is to cut the number of people in half that would be allowed to live on that given piece of land. It is our understanding that the reason that the group of people behind this would like to do it is so that we no longer get these monetary blocks. It is our feeling that perhaps this would accomplish nothing, because the monetary blocks would still be there and the only thing it would accomplish is you would have half the number of people living on a given piece of land that you do now. The other proposal before us is scale control. Scale control is, can be done in many ways, This might be done by allowing a builder to build a tall building and put more people in that building if he would give something back to all of us. For instance, if you would give some open space or an arcade, well there are many things that could be determincid that he would give back in order to put more people on the property than he is allowed to now. We also have before us a proposal on height. Essentially what this is is that a man who is constructing a building would be allowed to go higher if he brought in the sides of the building a certain percentage. For instance if he went 8 stories high half of the lot would be left open and would not be allowed to use that for parking but it would be again green and open space. I want to state again that none of us have any preconceived ideas here and we are hoping to get some ideas from all of you. We are hoping that it will not turn into a fight or argument but that we can get some constructive ideas from all the people who are here present. I know that you are all here because you are concerned and so are we. We don't intend to vote this afternoon and we just hope that we can get some constructive ideas from all the people here that have something to offer. There are a great many people here and I would like to limit the time that Nc} 79 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSI C.F.HOECKELD.B.I:lL.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69c ontinued. each one speaks to 3 minutes. If we have time after everyone has said his piece within 3 minutes, then pehaps we will start allover again. I feel that 3 minutes is certainly sufficient. Robin would you care to say something, Robin Molny - In trying to determine from the people who are for the rein- statement of the original density that was proposed in the Master Plan,c - cut in half sometime ago, the best that we could find is that they thought it would reduce crowding as a factor and also that the results of the pre- sent zoning is so appalling that perh?ps we should try to reduce density and hope for the best. It is in my opinion a kind of reactionary approach. They are reacting to something which has taken place thro~gh the imple- mentation of the Master Plan. We would very much like to be told why reducing the density would help. In all of our conversations, the Board that is, we are very interested in what George touched on which is the bonus zoning. I really want to stress that. You get to build more square foot- age by giving something back such as arcade, plaza, or set back. We don't necessarily feel at this point that tall buildings are bad. We feel that it would be beneficial because it would allow better site lines towards what it is we want to look at - better sun control, less shadow and icy conditions. We are very anxious to get a pleasant place, such as we have here presnetly. For instance, the nice outdoor eating places that we enjoy in the summer time. The Epicure for instance, the Aspen Inn, The Wienerstube, everybody seems to feel that that is the way to go. If we fillup blocks in total with low semi-monolithic buildings all that goes by the boards. I feel that a three story monolithic building is about as bad as a 6 story monolithic building. Francis Whitaker - I haven't much to add to what Robin has said, except that for a good many years I have been concerned about the total potential that there is in Aspen for the type of things we have. If you multiply the large buildings that are going up in the last year and put them allover to wherever they could go, I don't think any of us would like that. I am convinced that there is no easy solution and that all of the factors that have been mentioned have all got to be considered. Not just simply density control or set back or height limitations, they have all got to be worked out together. Dale Mars - I like to feel that Aspen is growing and it is growing. I feel that the developers and people that have property, with all the ideas that we have gotten in the last week, that a building can be put up leaving a little green and still get the same density or area to build their outlay of cash. We are sitting here tonight to hear some more ideas and then I think the thought is, we will get them all together and might even engage another planner to come in and take all these ideas together and our thoughts and come up with something. Chairman Heneghan - At this time I am going to ppen the public hearing. I am not going to restrict it to one of the three items. You may talk about any of the three because they are all about the same problem. I would like to restrict your remarks to approximately 3 minutes and would you, when you are recognized by the Chiar, would you state your name. It makes it a lot simpler for Mrs. Graves to get the minutes. Nc} 80 -- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIG C.F.HOECKElB.D.1l l. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. Joan Lane - Did I understand you to say just a few minutes ago, that you were increasing the density from what it is already under certain cir- cumstances. Chairman Heneghan - No, if I said that I did not mean it. All I said was we do not know why the proponents of the proposal to pass the density, what exactly the reasons are for passing the density. That is one of the things we want to hear. I know that there are a great many that would like the density and we realize that but we do not know exactly why you want it passed or whether there is another solution to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. Joan Lane - I'll give you one reason, its for more open space. Francis Whitaker - One of the reasons for the recommended density in the Master Plan was this. The Planner spent a good many years or a good many months going over the entire area. Jerry Brown had a very sympathetic and understanding approach. He considered every single problem involved - streets, water,sewage, open space, potential of the skiing area and the recreation facilities in the summer. These are the factors on which he based his recommended density. When you make a plan for 20 years and base it on a certain total population and then you almost double that population, it puts everything else in the plan out of kilter. Robin Molny - When you say that by reinstating the original density, you have more open space, what you are assuming is that perhaps the buildings will be built taller on less ground within the present height limitation. Joan Lane - Thats right. Perhpas 11 apartments on a few lots instead of 20. Robin Molny - So then you would be compressing the building. Joan Lane - You can apparently build profitably without filling up a whole block. This has been done and it was done last year. Robin Molny - In other words instead of a low building that did not meet its height availability you wouldhave a building a little bit taller on less land. Joan Lane - I wouldn't care if that kind of change were made but you simply do not have to make a profit as near as I can find out completely going the limits that are now acceptable legally. Chairman Heneghan - If I may just comment briefly. That is one of the things we talked about at great length today by just having the density allowing half the number of people live on a given piece of land. You could, in fact for instance, the structures that you are objecting to the units within those structures could be twice as large and the same structure exists. Joan Lane - I realize that, I am not sure their is a market for that. I just don't know. I am sure there are perhaps lots of ways this problem could be solved, not necessarily by lowering the density. Lennie Lookner - Why couldn't you do something like compromise somewhere in between like instead of 750 sq.ft. per unit, make it 1500 sq.ft. per N? 81 - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.6.&L.CO. Public Hearing, P & z, 2/4/69, continued. unit. Lets say develop the other 7S0 sq.ft. to green area. So you are devoting 7S0 sq.ft. to living unit but you have to give up 7S0 sq.ft. for green area. Robin Molny - Thats pie in the sky. When you stop and think, in affect you are reducing the density. I would think that that would be the result of what you are saying. You are talking SO/SO aren't you. Lennie Lookner - Maybe you could work up something to reduce the density and give us more green areas to look at. Robin Molny - That is what we are striving to do in slightly different terms. Harry Uhfelder - I have been developing the Aspen Townhouses. I have never utilitized the full allowed density. For instance, this last year I developed 11 units on S lots. I am leaving area for green space and off street parking. And I think it works very well. It is popular and acceptable. I think you have to find a compromise solution in between what has been suggested and what is allowed. It can be done. It is popular and keeping in the character of the place. Some kind of compromise. Tom Benton - When we requested the density we did not only request the density but also scale control, to go along with that. Our feeling in this was the density is as recommended in the Master Plan were based ona study almost a year of study whereas the densities that were adopted finally were based on nothing more than a little Harassment by a few people. Now what Mr. Uhfelder said there are a great many things that have been built in Aspen that have densities of much less, actually those are densities which are recommended in the Master Plan. There is no problem here. I think thats the type of thing Aspen needs and is beneficial to Aspen. But just these few thathave caused the big problem and so unfortunately you have to regulate for those few. Now I think you are right that the major problem is not completely densities in itself. It is the use of space. Personnally I feel there is nothing wrong with a compromise as long as the town achieves benefitas well as the people who are building also. But our request was for two things, so that this wouldn't happen, that we wouldn't be involved in cutting the densities in half and find thatpeople are building the same size building with units just twice as large. I think that the direction would be beneficial and some sort of bonus system. But it has to be tied, we feel, absolute requirement that certain amount of land be left open because if you don't make it a requirement, it will never be. Nancy Ward - I have never hadthis question answered to me. I have property, I came out with a design conforming to multiple family dwelling. I was told why not call yourself a lodge, then you can get more on that property. Now I didn't intend to build a lodge, I want apartments. I don't intend to run a lodge. Now what loophole is in the zoning code that will allow me to pur more units on my land simply by calling myself a lodge. Chairman Heneghan - That was a loophole, and that has been changed. There is no reference in the present zoning ordinance to a lodge, motel unit, condominium none of these references are now made. There are only two - limited and unlimited unit. What you call it or do with it is your own N? 82 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOECKELB.B.illL.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. business. But it is now tied to square footage. There are only two kinds and they are not tied to what they are called. This was changed about a year ago, maybe not quite that long ago. But that problem no longer exists. Frank Decoty - It seems to be that the basic issue here is an aesthetic one. It revolves around the amount of coverage or site that is actually used. for development. Of the three measures that you have talked about - density, scale control and the third one which I call floor area ratio FAR. This is probably the closest thing which regulates the use of the land. This is a bonus technique and maybe used. But I think to use it in a community like this is a give and take situation. The community itself has to respond to development appreciate it or deappreciate it whatever they want to do. It has to be willing to give up certain things in order to get certain things. You have to be willing to accept the fact that higher buildings are not unpleasant in themselves. It is how they are designed the fact that they might open up views rather than restrict them, the fact that a high building upon a narrow street casts no more shadow across the stree t than a low buildigg as Robin pointed out. I think floor area ratio technique is a very logical one for this particular problem. This won't solve the whole problem of over ~rowded or temptation in the community but it should be studied in greater depth. Robin Molny - I have a coup;le of things. One is we welcome any letters to any members of the Board, I think I speak for all of us, you can get our names and addresses from the City Clerk. In 1960 Aspen did a FAR floor area ratio law. It pertained to residential, tourist and business district. It only lasted a little while. Those of you who were here will remember that Ralph Melville came up with a proposal which was on one lot 3500 and what he did in affect, he built a towner one room bed as many stories as he could errect. The floor area ratio at thattime was 2-1/2. So he was allowed to build 7500 sq.ft. and I think he taught the community a lesson on making hasty provisions. Also this is the point I am trying to make, at that time a great furor came to past because the people in the community were very much opposed to tall buildings any shape any form as they were tall. I would like to know now some of the opinions of the people here about tall buildings and relative to what we have been saying about them. David Hopkins - Robin, with regard to this and what has gone before, I was wondering if anybody has ever made a study of an envelope that could be preserved, for view easement or for particular heights. Say land that cannot be built on so that we would have some idea of what we are trying to preserve. Complain about a buiding that is 2 or 3 stories tall and covers the whole block and you can't see Little Nell. Now has anybody ever examined what could be done in the way of zoning, not dealing with the building itself but in dealing with the space that you cannot build on. And has anybody tried to determine what kind of configuration you would have of building form that you might have as you went from the base of the mountain to the north. Robin Molny - That might have been done quite a while ago. I know it was done in a negative way Herbert Bayer told me that when he was involved in zoning a few years ago, he made a perspective drawing showing what could :happen to Aspen in the negative sense, if it were all filled up. I think Nt} 83 ,-... - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,011101'1 C.F.HOECKElB.B.ll L. co. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. it would take some research. Of course, what you have here is again telling people how to use their land, dictate how they are going to use their land. And I think what we are trying to do is offer options, bonus options. Don Westerlind - I would like to read a statement of the position of the Pitkin County Construction Association: "We share the concern of all citizens about the direction in whichour City is heading, especially with regard to our present zoning codes. Our concern is for a community whose environment is conducive to pleasant living for all our citizens. There- fore, such a question deserves better treatment than the hasty adoption of this proposal without hearing any other alternative proposals. Rather, we feel that any changes of a long-range effect deserves diligent, thought- ful and carefully studied examination before enactment. A mere reduction in density or scale is not a comprehensive solution. Furthermore, it will not solve the problems of the present zoning. It may only make them worse. The Pitkin County Construction Association has appointed a planning committee to particpate in all Planningand Zoning matters being considered by City and County officials. As Chairman of this committee, I invite any interested citizen or group to participate with us for the betterment of the community." /s/ Don Westerlind Chairman, Planning Committee Pitkin County Const. Assoc. Butch Clark - George, I have a prepared statement that will probably take about 5 minutes. Chairman Heneghan - Hit it. 'Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen: .My name is C. M. Clark. My comments on the proposal made today by Mr. Benton are as follows: The proposal as presented is presumabley following the Master Plan. To the legal letter of the law and to what now appears in print, this is certainly correct. However, I would like to comment on the reason the lower densities were adopted in the Master Plan as they now exist rather than the density levels that were adopted by the City Council. This change was not made in the Master Plan due to a verbal agreement that Jerry Brown had with us at that time. It was done in order to expedite the acceptance of the crucially needed Master Plan by both the city and the county due to Jerry's feeling that if he did go back and make the change causing the Master Plan to be reprinted that there were so many spur groups pressuring him to make minor changes it was his feeling he would be changing it forever and also the fact that as long as the city and county did not accept it his firm could not receive the final payment which was so richly deserved. So with this in mind it was Jerry's word that he would see that the city council adopted the present density controls and not the ones that he had included in the Master Plan. Believe me if I had ever imagined at that time Nt} 84 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIG C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.Co. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. this would be used against the verbal agreements that we had with Jerry, the density controls as they now exist in the city ordinances would have been reprinted as such in the Master Plan. I believe that this coming in at a later dae is a hoax and a subterfuge against the good faith exhibited at that time. Needless to say I am appalled and dismayed. Let us examine some of the adverse effects that lowering the density will have. 1) By lowering the density in the highly urban area of Aspen we are going to put increased pressure on a spreading megapolis that will cover Aspen to Glenwood. It is a known fact that Los Angeles is a typical example of a city without a core. It is the epitome of urban sprawl. It has no central heart, no central core as such, but is just a constant and immense sea of roofs spreading over hundreds of square miles. To examine this problem even more closely it is the feeling in almost all of the European resorts and certainly in Vail, Sun Valley, Snowmass-at-Aspen, etc., etc., that the way to a beautiful resort is not to allow it to spread but to keep it a very highly dense, urban, pedes train type village that has a living vibrant core. With the Master Plan calling for 47,000 permanent residents to be here by 1986, it is reasonable to assume that all of these people will not arrive in the last two years, but that we are now feeling the pressure that a very fast growing community is capable of exerting on good planning. It is also reasonable to assume with our present growth rates as they are that we could reach these proportions by 1976. There is no way humanly possible to stop the growth in this valley. It can only be directed to the highest and best interests of all those concerned. 2) Probably one of the most serious problems facing this community today is long term low cost housing. In today's market place as it now exists, land costs per apartment unit are presently running at about $4,000 per unit. Studio type units, very suitable for single people, are running about $2,000 land cost per unit. If the contemplated lowering of density is adopted this would have the immediate effect of doubling the land cost on a per unit basis and would have the net effect of rasing the rent of every long term rental apartment in town whether it be built in the future or whether it is now constructed by from $40 to $60 per unit per month. In order to clarify myself, let me give you a specific. In the AR-l area I am presently building for Mr. Wink Jaffee a 30 studio unit apartment house for long term rental. The land on which this building is being constructed is presently worth $60,000, or, converted to the per unit land cost, i.e. 30 units divided into $60,000, $2,000 per unit land cost. The present rates contemplated to be charged with the construction costs as they now exist plus $2,000 per unit land cost will allow Mr. Jaffee to rent these units to permanent Aspen people for approximately $170 per month. If this new density control provision were adopted, then we could only build 15 units on the same parcel of land or a per unit land cost of $4,000 per unit, i.e. $60,000 divided by 15 equals $4,000. In order to capitalize and amortize with the rate appropriate to return to invested capital, these units on the same land would rent for approximately $214. In this case $44,00 a month for additional rent would have to be paid for every secretary, electrician, beautician, etc, that lives in this unit. Not only this but because of the very limited amount of land left in Aspen N9 85 - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.I:IL.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. these units, due to being only half their original size as it now exists, would be necessity be constructed further and further away from our central business area. This would make it too far for a pedestrian to walk to work, thereby causing these outlying low density units to add to the very automobile congestion that is probably our second most serious problem here in Aspen. Chairman Heneghen - Mr. Clark, before you continue with No.3 I would just like to hear comments from the rest of the people, then I will allow you to continue. You have already exceeded 5 minutes and I appreciate your comments. Any further comments. Shady Lane - I think what Mr. Whitaker said is very pertinent. Density is a fundamental thing, it dosen't just concern the size of the building as related to the parking, the sewer lines and everything involved. Aestheticlly when you raise the density such as they are in the Aspen Square area there is a certain amount of off street parking provided but there is also a lot more businesses and traffic pDJblems generated by that higher densi~y. I think that anybody who was here at Christmas time that the density is a basic fundamental that you have to go by when you are planning. That is why it was in the Master Plan. The scale proposal is most certainly to improve the aesthetics, of what you allow to be done with the land by trying to make it better. But you can't disregard the density if you have a scale control. You know if you put up a New York skyscraper over there, you are going to create a temendous amount of traffic, sewer line wouldn't handle it, although there seems to be no limit to what the sewer plant can handle. As far as the economy, I think that is very important to this town. Our economy is based on the tourists. I don't know if any of you have, but I have talked just a few minutes ago to a ski instructor and he said, my god what have they done over there. All of the tourists are saying to him what are they doing over there, which would be related to scale. They don't like the appearance. We can hope that something can be worked out in relation to scale to improve whatever density is allowed. I went to practically all the meetings of the Master Plan, citizens meetings and so on and followed it up as much as I could, I don't know anything about this verbal agreement. I attended as a citizen, I spoke as a citizen and listened and read it when it was published. If there was some verbal agreement I don't really accept it because it was not part of any public meeting that I attended. I think in this respect about a scale I think it is important that we have a good core not just half a core. Because like I said, I really don't think the tourist consider what started last summer a core for this community as a top resort. I think it is most important, that in this respect, we try and create a good resort in this town. Everybody thinks like a famous statement of Short Pabst when he said what we want is quality, and he got into the high pockets bit. The quality is not just concerned with price it comes from hot dogs or it comes with whatever. But there is such a thing as good quality and I think this is what we are really trying to achieve. The thing we have to do is, we have to take care of the tourists and I don't think in the terms of as Chateau Aspen advertises covered parking. Well they have approximately a maximum of usafule 8 covered parking spaces and there are 20 units. Now those people who are coming here are they getting first class accommodations. There is some question in my mind. They use the sidewalk and this is a question of density, off street parking till recently. All these things where they build from lot line to lot line whether recommended density fromthe developers, which they were, they just haven't worked~ The people that we depend on for our Nt} 86 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F,HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. bread and butter are not getting what they are paying for. And in this respect I think you can say what you want but you can kill the goose that layed the golden egg. Andy Bowles - I personally feel that we are making a lot of too little right now because just last year we inducted the commercial core zoning which for all practical purposes is supposed to stop the influx of these large buildings whichobviously is going to do so if it continues its present course. I think that what we ought to do si to see how the commercial core implements itself this coming year, this building season, and see whether or not it has done the purpose for which it was enacted. If there is any need for further changes in the zoning code regarding density, then we should think of it in terms of not so much the individual but the car on the street relating that to the building giving incentive to the builder to reduce by an undetermined ratio right now the amount of commercial space that he is required to bui~d in lieu of underground or underneath the building parking. Robin Molny - I think we are concerned here primarily with C-C and C-l districts, am I right. Chairman Heneghan - Not necessarily also the AR-l. Robin Molny - I was just thinking relative to Mr. Clark's statement about driving low cost housing into some other location, and thereby creating traffic problems. That is a whole another ball game that needs to be coped with, not necessarily bad in my opinion to':make low cost housing be located elsewhere. In the districts that we are talking about will not be dedicated to low cost housing anyway. John Doremus - Couple of comments on each of the proposals. I think this density control thing comes from the heart but I think as any of us who have thought about this at all and some of us who have found it out, it does not have anything to do with controlling the monolithic that you call structures. For example take the Aspen Square which has 72 studios. It would be a very simple matter to have the unit density by taking 3 studios and making them into 2 bedroom units. Also has nothing to do with the amount of people who will sleep in the~ because living rooms in the revised plan would sleep the same amount of people it sleeps now as the bedrooms might sleep one or two best. The basic design is for 2 people so you would have 6 people sleeping ina two bedroom unit as opposed to 2 people sleeping in each of 3 studios. The building would consume the same amount of space same length, same depth. So I don't really think that solves the problem by any means of what we are talking about. Now as to the other two proposals. We all talk about we want some scale and the floor area ratio should be considered. Some of us sit here and think that there are proposals that we could live with within these two schemes. Has the Planning Board tried in graphics to demonstrate any of these proposals. Has anybody drawn something taking a typcial block and said this is empty now, I'll fill it up and come up with something that Tom Benton or any of us here you your- self could agree on. It may very well turn out that what Robin would say well I think we could live with this is something that Francis Whitaker wouldn't live with. I wouldn't want to live with Tom Benton's proposal. So I propose that until you can graphically demonstrate what these 2 second proposals might offer the community in their extremes, is the way you have to do them, that we can't possitty r~lay them. You can't say yes this is N~ 87 "'"' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIG C.F.1l0ECKELB.B.llll.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. what we want because you don't know, we can't see them, can't picture them in our minds as to what would happen if such and such is proposed. And my final remark is a question. Do you really think you can solve this problem successfully without some outside help. Chairman Heneghan - John, we have discussed this at great length and my comments in the beginning were that we feel this problem is so complex we feel that we cannot vote on it tonight. We are going to do what you have suggested. To answer your third point of outside help, we have every intention of getting outside help or we have every intention of requesting outside help. John Huebinger - George shouldn't a limited and unlimited be defined with so many square feet. Limited equals 350 or 500 sq.ft. and an unlimited equals 1250 or whatever the figure is square footage of floor area. What woujp keep you from building 20 unlimited units on Aspen Square property and having 40 bedrooms in each unit. Chairman Heneghan - Nothing. John Huebinger - You would end up with a larger building than youhave now. Shouldn't we define a limited and unlimited unit with so many square feet and that be the maximum. Chairman Heneghan - We feel that we aregoing to have to re-define many of these things all together. Scale, density, limited, unlimited unit. I am speaking for myself now, I feel that these zoning laws can be written in a bonus way where a man can give something back to the community and still make a profit. Which ne is entitled to make. We are not here to take everyones profit away, we are all concerned about the same problem. I think it can be done without destroying profit at all. William Dunaway - I was going to suggest that the same thing except instead of tying it to square footage, tie it to each room whatever density you have, even if you keep the present density so that now a living room can be used as a bedroom could have more thanone living room, that is a loop- hole. Under these proposals especially scale control, there is no actual guarantee that a builder would or wouldn't even if you give them a bonus nothing says that you have to provide open space. In other words there is one proposal saying that he can go up and acquire more space but it dosen't say we have to do that. Chairman Heneghan - Normally if you can construct moreproducing property by giving something back, normally that would be the route that would be taken. William Dunaway - We don't have any proposals to date. Chairman Heneghan - That is correct, we don't. Well we do have one from Mayor Barnard about going up for everyone story to increase the building you give back 5% of the surrounding land and that is going to take a great deal more study. John Huebinger - On this 5% credit, what density was he talking about there- 375, 750 or the 1500 that is proposed. N9 88 - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. 1l0ECI(EL 5. 5. .!. L. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. Chairman Heneghan - He had not tied it to the density, that was an ord- inance in itself. Francis Whitaker - I believe that as the height increased that the square footage requirement per unit would increse. I think that was in the proposal. Ellen Harland - I would like to see us get away from the setback concept you know the 5' strips and the lO' strips and this type of thing. Because the man who owns two lots 60 x lOO and builds to the setback line that he is allowed, he is using far less percentage of his land to build on as opposed to a person who does own half a block and still allowed at this point to have a 5' setback along the side and a lO' one along the front. Now 5' x lOO' just dosen't give you very much. I would like to see it get on a percentage setback for open area and go along with Tom Benton's proposal with this open area in no way to be used as parking, garbage area or storage or what have you. It -should be public space. Then some- body could possibly build to the lot line within the central core because the Uniform Building Code already determines whether you can put windows in a wall on a lot line. There is a separation required if you want windows in there. Well in order to make usable units it is very difficult to build a building that has all blank walls. So right then and there, there is a control built in the Uniform Building Code. Now I think along with this, we could work out something. Barney Sledge - There are some of us that would like to buy some land and build something this next summer, do you have a deadline for which you are working for these new codes. Chairman Heneghan - There is a feeling that this is an emergency. Tom Benton - I have a suggestion since we all seem to agree on one thing, that its a complex problem and since the Pitkin County Construction Assoc- iation has agreed that it is a problem that should be studied and I agree and I think the Commission agrees that nothing should be rushed into. I wonder if the Pitkin County Construction Association would agree to hold submitting preliminary plans to the Planning Commission, until such time as their study group and the Planning Commission can get together and decide what is the best way to control this thing. It dosen't seem that, generally everybody seems to be concerned about the problem, that that dosen't seem like it would be a hardship on anyone. Leon N~rton - I think the community would be surprised just how many con- tractors just might be willing to hold their plans, but there are some members who won't be. I am not speaking for the Association but I truly believe that a large group in the Association would be willing to hold their plans till better zoning is arrived at. But remember this, we have to make money and it has to be worked out on the economics as well. You might be surprised, we might cooperate more than you think. Francis Whitaker - I would like to go into a point that Ellen Harland raised. I do not think people realize that the Aspen Square is set back lO' back on very expensive commercial property. I think ~yself, if half that building were at the property line and the other half was set back 20', it would break it up and there would not be any difference in the cubic N9 89 - -, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOItM'~ C. F. ~OEC~EL e. B. II l. co. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. feet of the occupancy of the building and the public would benefit. I think that is one thing that we must consider as either a percentage or a set back in relation to the length of the building. When a building begins to get so long let them come to the street front and set the rest of it back. Mr. Durrenberger - I don't know if it is correct to bring this up at this time. We are talking about density and so forth, what are you going to do about sanitation and sewage. Twelve years ago the County promised us sewage in the east end. Five years ago they promised it, now our subdivision came into the City. Two years ago they promisedit, we don't have it. I was talking to a man the other day and he said that is uphill. We want to go downhill. You run a sewer line from the east end to this plant back of the Jerome it would take care of it. You ought to keep in mind I think sanitation when your talking about these buildings. Jack Walls - I believe that I was sitting in your_'position about; three years ago when we were going through with the Master Plan which is when these densities were discussed. I can't agree with Butch back there as to an agreement for cutting the density. I do remember though, the Planning Commission discussing this. There was no agreement made with anybody of that Planning Commission. The Planning Commission themselves took on this task they were the ones through the discussions with Jerry Brown of cutting this in half. But to cut this density right now to solve the problem that everybody thinks it will do, when we were going through the public hearings with the planner it was the consenus of opinion of all the people, private citizens who joined in on this project and worked with the planner, that the emphasis be placed in Aspen. Now if we reduce the densities by half it is going to require all this planning to spread. I mean all the building to spread, outside the City. This is not good for the area. The emphasis is to behere. I believe frankly that the density is as it stands right now is fine, but the problem being isin regard to the development of it. The bonus idea of developing property and leaving more open space is an ideal situation. This tied together with parking, parking is a tremendous problem in regard to this also in regard to traffic. It has been about three years since the Master Plan has been adopted and I am getting a little sick of having the Master Plan as a whipping block in this whole bit, because the Master Plan basically is a general guide. Its not law. Its been accepted by the City as a guide a general overall guide. And because sometning is not in the Master Plan does not mean that it shouldn't be here. In the three years since the Plan has been adopted, there has not been one bit of work done by the P & Z Now I am not digging you guys but I know that most of you are new on this but there has hot been one bit of work done, no study has been made in regards to implementing this Master Plan. In regards to traffic, parking and in regards to what we are here for today. In regards to dnesity and open area. Now all these areas have to be tied together. In regard to an overall scheme of what we want this town to be. It was basically the consenus of opinion, people that worked on this Master Plan, private citizens, that they wanted to see the centerof this town as a core area created for pedestrains. And this has not transpired because nobody has done any homework to plug into it. Nowit takes time but it takes a lot of hard work to do. This is one of the reasons I resigned from this Commission because of the fact that nobody was willing to do any of the work. Now because of the pressure that is being applied today, because of this density N9 90 - r_ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I! C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. and because of the buildings that were built this last summer, if we keep the pressure on you as the Planning Commission and the City Council, we will get something done towards this end. But if we were to leave it by cutting this density in half, then this solution to what we want this town to be will be prolonged, for a series of years till another crisis comes up. Now to me in this town even when John Doremus was on the Planning Commission, long before I got on and they had that ratio 2-1/2 times the area of the lot proposed, I said then that it would be much better to have a finger in the air than to have your whole hand stick- ing up, and blocking the view. When Ralph Melville tried his little tower'~ arrangement, people pulled the plug and screamed bloody murder. We've got high rise bulldings. For really a high rise building, if it is done good, it will open up space and open up sunlight. If we work a percentage reduction on the property so that we can have open space then in my mind there should be no ceiling put on it. If again we put on a height limiation, then we are in trouble again in regards to people fumbling around trying to get out from underneath it. And this is exactly what is being done now. I can't blame the developers. I am not pro or con don't get me wrong in regards to these people. But developers coming to town and build a project the size of Aspen Square are going to try to do the maximum in regards to what he can develop on that land to bring back a return. Now this is pure and simple economics. With the problem right now brought up and being pressured against you and the City Council to make something change then right now is the best time to really sit down and put the whole package together as far as the downtown tourist area and how to work this thing downtown. In regard to the business area which has been most lenient on height restrictions I would suggest and I have gone through this before in a height study when I was on the Commission that not just take a block and work it from that angle I think it should be started from a single lot situation and then multiples of two till we get up into a full block. Nowit is not to say that there is not this much land vacant left in town because in the future someone else is going to buy up the developed area, tear it down and develop it again. So you have to start out on a small basis and work up because if you put a limit and put a bulk ratio on this thing whats happening then to a one or two lot situation in the business district. I think it has to be worked in increments. Chairman Heneghan - We have every intention of doing what you say. I could not agree with you more. As you know in the past we have had under the Planning and Zoning such a thing known as plan check which took 2 to 3 hours per meeting and there simply was no time left for planning. Plan check is now gone and we are all aware of the problem and intend to look at this as a whole package. That is the reason why we decided not to vote on one individual piece of it tonight and make a mess of it. We all intend to spend a great deal of time in the next 2 weeks to try and get something accomplished. We need all the help we can get. I certainly appreciate everyone that is here tonight and hearing their comments. Curt Bond - I would like to know whether or not you expect that there will be a decision by the lSth of April when the buiding season starts. I mean for the small builder that wants to come in he dosen't want to sit around for 2 months and then you changeyour minds. Chairman Heneghan - I should certainly hope so. Bob Stevens - I would just like to comment on what Jack Walls said, I think what he said was very well taken. I think we need more open green N~ 91 - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C. f. ~OECKEl B. B. Ii l. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. belt area. Why not augment and put up some higher buildings that don't have to go highrise, they can go eight stories, seven stories and we can create some open green belt areas, get our density that we are proposing to get, get our economic return, our underground parking will go under and the green belt will be left open with no parking or garbage cans or whatever. I think that this is the approach to it. I think we have a very boring skyline in Aspen, Colorado right now, it is all level. If you were to take a side shot of Aspen, you take the AR-l plug in 25' on all the buildings that have been built within the last 5 years, I bet they come with- in a foot of it. You goin the commercial district you takeour old zoning law of 37-l/2', put your ruler on 37-1/2' you are going to see the same thing. What we have are two planes, 37-l/2' and 25', with no open green belt area. It is all just one great big sea of buildings. If you look at it from the air or fly a hilicopter over you will see it in a minute. Pat Smith - I would like to comment on Mr. Clark's comment on the larger developers and their worth and his examples were Vail, Snowmass, Sun Valley. Yes, those are nice developments and are fairly well done con- sidering all that they had to consider in the time they had to do it. I think our problem in Aspen is different and can't really be compared with those as far as our core problem and trying to tie all these necessary functions of the core of a city into a city. It just occured to me that it is our downtown area that we are now worried about because we have been offened by two condominiums. But if we were truly concerned about a core area for our city, wouldn't we be more concerned with commercial space for instance government functions expanding the post office in these spaces in town instead of buiding condominiums. Maybe it is a land use problem. There should be building restrictions on living units but possibly core units for City functions and so forth, that could go highrise. Therefore, it would be incorporation of these cluster highrise housing as well as the fact that if we are going to spread and let the little buildings go out so that they don't destroy the view of the core, and maybe that is a possible solution on land use. I would like to say too that as a favor to everyone on both sides, we know we have to grow and we are hoping you can control it one way or another. I can't stress strongly enough and all of us can't, the need for a hurry for everyones sake. - I would just like to know how these buildings are going to look, with some up to the line and some set back aways. Chairman Heneghan - Perhaps more interesting. Robin Molny - We are really interested in considering site lines. We hope that we can stipulate preliminary plans in the C=C, C-l District are required prior to the production of contractor working drawings. So that the developer dosen't spend a lot of money on drawings for something which we would shoot down from the site line basis. We would like to instigate this. - This is probably in order of importance to me, one you can;t park every car underground that you would like to, it would be impossible. You could if you went deep enough but economics and everytning would be against it. The set back regulation is a very archaic rule. It is mainly to allow air and light into a building. I think there would be a greater variety than that if there was some changes made in some property lines. Green belt thing, I would li~.60 see that word used less often in these N. 92 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \1 C.F.1l0ECKELB.B./tL.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. meetings because it is the concept that the one the Planner right after the second World War was a green belt around the whole city and literly that was a belt to completely circumscribe the inner core of the city from new towns spreading aroun it. Now green belts that crisscross, through and in spots all through the town is the concept. "Planning" with private property is probably a contradiction of terms. Planning actually means guidance, control and none of these things can absolutely be done in their true sense with private property. There has to ba a margin of profit, there has to be some sort of retur~ There is not city in the United State that has what you might call free economy which has been planning in the land use and economic sense. Planning has been done in other countries where they feel a greater amount of liberty to dictate to the individuals in that community what they should do with their lots and property. But I think again that you can see that kind of planning as a different thing entirely. If we are talking about guidance, controls, control is a negative term and dosen't mean positive action. In all kinds of regulations are simply control. And if we really want to plan there are other measurers that have to be taken into consideration that might print upon what has been so far free enterprise in this community which has been very archaic in a way, undirected. Ellen Harland - If you go high~ise, you are going to have to consider what the fire department can do, whether the City is willing to take on some of the fire department. Chairman Heneghan - That has been discussed. - On this land use problem the definition does not seem to be clear. When we talk about the core of the City, although we are talking about a commercial core, what we are talking about is a commercial and residentail core. It seems that in this point and time that a commercial core would be much easier to control as far as highrise is concerned. If we were to do something such as Mr. Clark suggested in the way of density, we would end up with sometning like you have in the Bronx and Brooklyn and Queens. The residential areas in New York City, where you would have a 6 story apartment house, you would have 4 apartment' houses per block and if we went to the projected 42,000 just take that as a figure, we would have 10 blocks square of this type of construction. I think this is an important thing to look at, you want to see how Aspen is going to grow, you want to direct the growth of it. Paul Talmey - First of all, I would like to point out on Mr. Clark's reasoning on economics. That the price of land, lower density would increase the cost per unit, its vice versa. The land value is a function of the revenue virus the revenue being a function of rent. As can be seen by the same price being offered in safeways with high rental costs, verus Safeways in towns with low rental. I think we are interested in open space in the town of Aspen, the growth of the community and preserving our environ- ment and stop this urban sprawl down the valley. And this means going up into highrise or higher buildings. This means how do we go about inducing builders, people that want to build, into going up instead of spreading out, and still allow them a reasonable return on their investment, and maintain property values. This can be done first of all to get the open space, volume percentage setbacks such as Mayor Barnard has suggested. A 5% setback. Then to prevent the existence of low buildings or thats 5% per story, then to prevent the existence of low buildings with a very small amount of setbacks youhave 10i?density restrictions. Such as in the Master N~ 93 ~---- - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. ~OECKEL O. B. III L. co. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. Plan. Then you allow them to go up increasing the allowed density say 10% per story. So with a 6 story building this would allow you to get 60% increase in density and a 30% setback. You have a tall narrow building giving you a nice 3 dimension to the town and the open space that you want as well as prpviding for the contractor a reasonable return by putting in a fair amount of units on the lot. As far as the maximum height goes You might want to instead of saying you can only have 6 stories or 8 stories you set a sight line on the mountain so you can say that from there on up we want to be able to see. And say a building down the valley could be higher than one up the valley. So people would still be able to maintain their view and not necessarily restrict the height because if you have an eight story building right next to Little Nell that is much worse than a 12 story building down Main Street behind the corner there. Butch Clark - In answer to your question of 47,000 people in the metrop- olitan area which goes down to Gerbazdale so it is not all in Aspen. There is quite a lot of development in the County. To the Gentleman in the red sweater, we worked on a residual technique and if you would care to stop by my office and I will show you. Paul Talmey - I'm talking about a long run of property values would change over time depending upon the revenue generated. Butch Clark - Monthly rental will increase $44,00, if you would care to stop by the office, I will show you what I mean. Paul Talmey Thats giving an assumed price. Butch Clark The price stays the same believe me, there is no variations in this price other than up. Jack Walls - One other thing that I would like to bring up is the fact that there has bean much talk about the pre-emptying of the business district with condominiums. I would think it would be a very big mistake to the City to cut out living in the downtown section. You find yourself in a situation which you have 8 to S in the downtown closing down with the exception of restaurants, no life going on. I think for a town like Aspen there should be life going all through the day and night. I think it makes much more sense. I think the development of the basic core of the business area would profit by this. You have living going on. If con- dominiums can be built still whereby you use a certain amount of it business and office space so that you don't actually do nothing but apartments to live in. Basically the reason why apartments are beiggput in the business district is because they have a much higher density, you can build higher than ahyplace else. This is partly why they build in the business district is because you can get more off your return. William Dunaway - The zoning now is SO/SO in the C-C. O. Louis Wille - I would like to relinquish my 3 minutes and let Butch Clark finish his statement. Butch Clark - 3) One of the principal arguments for low density is to do away with the block long b~iding. It is quite evident to me that we are N9 94 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELD.B.illL.CO. Public Hearing, 2/4/69, continued. all guilty of creating our own problems, and I mean by this the fact that we have not allowed the buildings to go to possibly a maximum of 6 or 8 stories which would allow for much better design and certainly not the bulk because of the limiting density controls that now exist. Let me take this one step further. At present there is a direct correlation between the density control, the limitation of heights that we have here in Aspen, and the bulk of the building. Mayor Barnard in my op~n~on has come up with an excellant recommendation for this problem, and that is for every story in height, not to exceed 6 or 8 stories, the required free space available to the public would be 5% per story. Therefore, in a 6 story building there would be 30% of grass, malls, patios, trees, etc. surrounding each building that could not be used for parking automobiles. This is known as incentive zoning. Give something - the height - and receive something - the free space, or so-called green area. Whether or not the ratios or percentages are realistic one way or another would require a tremendous amount of study and one that ~ not lightly dealt with. For some strange reason in this city we have a lot of people that are quick to change zoming laws without the intense study required to examine all of the ramifications that are inherent in this type of decision. It has been quite apparent that we collectively have made many, many mistakes in this area - witness the number of law suits and tremendous amounts of money that have been eppended most of which have been lost by the city, and witness just the great number of changes that have been made recently in our zoning laws. We had zoning, we adopted the Master Plan or the new Title XI, then we went right back and started changing Title XI. Legitimate concern has been shown by many attorneys that Aspen is changing its zoning so casually as to put itself in the untenable position of the State Supreme Court ruling the entire zoning code illegal. This is a basic fact brought out by the Colorado Municipal League in their handbook. If this should happen it would wreak disaster on our city. 4) Let us face the fact as they actually are. Does this lowering of density help us with our long term aims, does it help us with our low cost housing problem, does it help us house the tremendous number of people that are coming in our valley, does it help us expand the tre- mendous tax basis that we need in order to support our school system, or is it just a blatant nonsensical attach on condominiums that carries much malice with little foresight to the future of Aspen. Due to the tremendous increase in the number of our school age children and the heavy pressure financially applied to the building of school facilities, it would be interesting to me to calculate the tax load paid for by non-resident condominium owners that do not have children in our school system, and to mathematically find out how much each one of our individual real estate taxes would go up without this very important source of tax revenue. I quote one of the Board members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - "I think we have a helluva lot more important things to worry about in the planning of Aspen than this density control thing". I must admit I totally concur. I would personally much rather spend my time trying to find an answer to the parking problem or to the long term housing problem than to stand here and argue something we bave been through already. I don't believe one man can ~~e a erig5s. We have been living with our ~.,.,....__~~"_.".._~. ",~"___,,,,"u'_"""~_"';"_"'""~' - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR!IlIO C. F. HOECKEL B. B.& L. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. present zoning laws and just because Mr. Benton has made a proposal I hesitate to panic. Thank you. Tom Benton - First of all Mr. Clark lies when he says that any deals were made with Jerry Brown, this is very bad, I wish Jerry was here because it reflects on Jack Walls, myself, Francis Whitaker who were all on the Commission at the time. We have made a great many mistakes and all you have to do is go around and look at anytning that Butch Clark has had anything to do with and you will see them. He has never provided the low cost housing he has talked about for 5 years. He has never built one single unit of low cost housing, but he has talked about it. Economics which he likes to quote alot and he likes to bring in experts from the Cities, god knows they have a lot of problems by followingpure economic lines. One of Butch's sentences to me once was every time I say economics you say aesthetics. There has to be a blending of the two which he does not understand, of course. Chairman Heneghan - Mr. Benton, I would appreciate it if you would keep personalties out of this. Tom Benton - I thought I was referred to in that letter. Now I think the problem is a lot of people don't understand that density controls only affect dwelling units. They dont' affect commercial space at all. I think it would be find as somebody suggested, to see if the requirements that are in now can control the core and get what we want in the core of Aspen. But unfortunately I think that if we let another summer go by might primarily multiplying the dwelling units in the core, we won't have a core. So I think we have got to, I feel that there is a problem. Now Butch dosen't feel that there is a problem. So that is why we went to the City Council and asked that maybe the people of Aspen should vote. They could be able to express their opinion. Now if they say that there is no problem, then that is the will of the majority. Francis Whitaker - George, I would like to shed some light on this density recommendation. As I recall it, the Planning Commissinn recommended the adoption of the Master Plan with the densities that are in it. But we also were at the last minute pressured into recommending an alternate which went inthe original copy of the Master Plan, which does not show in any of these. Isn't that correct. I would like to state my position. In examining this problem and arriving at a conclusion which I myself will have to do and the members of the Board will have to do and this is in the Master Plan 1966 - 3 years ago it can be seen that the balance between skiers and facilities have reached the state of equaoleness. In the opinion of the Aspen Ski Corporation, trail development on the mountain has reached its optimum level. Now I ask myself this question, do I want to see 2 or 3 times more peopl! than what Aspen Mountain can accommodate. whichis our chief recreational facility, or should we hold the line to what we can accommodate.here and let those people go to Snowmass or where- ver else they want to go. Because if we have so many more people here than can ski on this mountain, we are going to congest this mountain going to congest the highways back and forth. We are not going to be able to handle the crowds. I think we have to look at it in that light. Jack Walls - May I answer in regards to Francis. Also in that Master Plan is a study in regards to transportation, between the 3 ski areas. This was N9 96 ~ -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~~ c. F. KOEC~n B. e. s. l. co. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. taken into consideration at that time because there was a problem. The basic idea of that was to put the emphasis on Aspen not down the valley not spreading it out. The emphasis was to be here. And all the people who stay here are not necessarily going to ski Aspen Mountain. There was a recommendation and it was discussed very much by the Planning Commission as you remember in regard to a rapid transit system that would connect all these areas together. This makes no sense in regard to limiting development just here and then shoving it down the valley. I think the emphasis is here, people want to be here and then I think the situation arises that you furnish transportatinn in regard to these other areas because transportation is now being furnished as it is. Francis Whitaker - I won't argue with you about the bus transportation to Snowmass. Joan Lane - I think it would be excellant to do it having the housing situation here and have other small units up and down the valley. More Snowmasses less urban problems in Aspen. Francis Whitaker - As a matter of fact, that was Jerry Brown's basic idea. Accommodations wuld be incorporated around all the different ski areas. Shady Lane - I had my book open to what Francis just read and what Jack just said. If you read it it says there should be these outlaying developments and that is where the additional recreational facilities are going to be and that is where the facilities should be. So whats this great press to build more accommodations here. At the moment there aren't enough accommodatinns at Snowmass but is that going to be true in 5 years. And then who is going to fill up the accommodations that are being built in Aspen or that have been built in that time. The other thing is somebody mentioned a question about the local contractors and so on, when this was in effect pressured in that the Planning Commission and Council adopt this presrent densities that the building was going to stop and everything else. I don't think that is true at all. You can see what happened last summer with the present densities there was enough work for all the local con- tractors and I don't know how many out of town contractors. I don't think we have to base our economy in the summer of building to try and have enough business for all the contractors on the western slope or Colorado or wherever it is. Its not going to hurt any local contractors. When you reduce the densities in Aspen and try and get back to the Master Plan and the outlying accommodations and recreation area. In answer to some of the things that have been said about things that are going to happen by 1976 the Planner makes an estimate of projected growth and then someone reads that and then they get the idea that it is a goal that you have to reach. I won't rant and rave anymore but to quote from gods own junkyard written by Peter Blake on Page 24, in talking about what has happened to our cities and I can say in this respect, I think what has happened in Aspen last summer the reason is quite simply about the only fact that determines the shape of the Amercian City today is unregulated private profit and speculation. Profit and speculation of land profit from manipulating land and buildings, profit from actual construction of subsequent sales of buildings. And I think what we are concerned with not only trying to do a good place for all of us to live and work but a good place for tourists to come to. This involves skiing and the accommodations in balance. r N~ 97 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.lll.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. If the skiing is developing someplace else then that is certainly the place to build the accommodations. Not crowd them on top in monolithic structures and what have you. We don't need it and it is not going to be good for us in the long run. Andy Bowles - In the first place, Tom Benton made a remark to the effect that in regard to the central core district. That we didn't want to see all these apartments take over the area with respect to comparison to commercial shops. I think he forgot this for a moment that the rule says Sl%, that you have to have in commercial space. Plus Mr. Whitaker when you made reference to the saturation of Aspen Mountain the question in my mind is to the authenticity of the statement~ Not on your part, but on D.R. C. Brown's part, because I had a conversation with the regional director of the forest service and he proceeded to fell me that this mountain alone just Aspen Mountain that the government had tenative plans for as many as 20 lifts. In other words, the government wouldn't do it but rather if the Aspen Ski Corporation would do it there is that many potential sites for lifts. You can well imagine how many more accompaning trails that would mean. Shady Lane - Where does this mountain ene. Are you talking about Little Annie and so '.on up there. Those in the Master Plan are referred to as outlying recreational acccommodation areas. Where does the forest service end this mountain. There is a ridge that goes back there a long ways. Andy Bowles - I can't honestly say to what degree it is, the Forest Service has a map which is available to anyone in this room which will show the areas which they are proposing. Shady Lane - I can't see putting any more lifts on the front of this mountain. Butch Clark - May I vindicate myself on tfiis statement of Jerry Brown. I want to do it for all the members that were on the Commission at that time. This has been twisted around till it sounds like ti was some kind of underhanded deal. As Francis said it was expeditious to get it, it was already printed, to get it in front of them and accepted and go ahead on that basis. It was no underhanded deal it was, don't cause anymore problems and the Planning and Zoning as you agreed to do, sent it to the Council with that recommendation. But I think it has been used adversely against us. If you wanted to change it at that time, it would have been a never- ending thing. Chairman Heneghan - I would like to attemtp to drop that subject. We are all here to try and accomplish something and get some ideas. - As a tourist I would say that you are probably wrong when you assume that people who ski at Snowmass or other areas are going to want to stay out there. They want to be where the action is and that is in Aspen. So lets leave it that way. Shady Lane - That is not necessarily true, when it is developed. - Its like New York City, you don't even know what is around New York City because people want to go right to New York City right where the actionis. N9 98 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~G C. F. HOI:CI(EL B. B. It L. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, 2/4/69, continued. - I have been in the ski business for lO years in Europe and here. I have talked to skiers for all these years, when they come to Aspen they will tell you that there is nothing like Aspen because every- thing is so near. If you stay in Aspen you don't even have to drive your car. If the City cuts down business here, I can see this spreading all down the valley. Skiers won't like that, they want to be near. Clyde Newell - I would like to ask Francis a question. Just how do we stop growing, put up a road block, down at Snowmass to keep them from coming to Aspen. Is that the way you want to do it. You can't stop people from going where they want to go. Shady Lane - I don't thnk we are trying to stop them, I think we are trying to keep our quality high so they tilways want to come. Clyde Newell- You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Earl Schennum - You want to limit a man's use of his property. He bought this property whether he be a small developer or big developer. He bought it with the idea in mind that when he gets some money to build a lodge in Aspen. There are a lot of people in Aspen who are small developers they are not all big fellows. So probably the only solution is to buy up all the property in Aspen and donate it to the City for parks. Tom Benton - If I could, I would. Shady Lane I hope that you will sell all those copies of the Master Plan so the people here will take them and read them so theyknow what we are talking about. Tom Benton - In 1954 the Supreme Court of the United States in an opinion handed down said that the town had the right to base laws on pure aesthetics. The town had a right to determine if it was beautiful as well as healthy. This was upheld in 1954 so when people say you can't do such things in Colorado but you can. I think the future of this town is very dependent on some restriction. Jack Walls - Aesthetic" zoning as it stands right now in the State Legislature there is no enabling legislation for aesthetic zoning. There is a way of doing it. It takes a little research and a little work but there is a way of doing it. I have had it told to me while I was on the P & Z Commission. Now all it does is take some work. Chairman Henegpan - Any further comments. (No further comments) We have quite a problem, and I can assure you that we will weigh all these projections and put in a great deal of work within the next few weeks. Try to come up with something that is successful, and does the job as we all would like to see accomplished. ~~---- orraine Graves, Secretary <~J Meetigg adjourned at 6:45 p.m. N~ 99