HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19680301
Public Hearing
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 1, 1968
Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p. m. with the following members
present: Chairman Tharp, Mayor Barnard, Joel Hartmeist~r, Francis
Whitaker, Leon Wurl, George Heheghan. Also present were Marvin
Reynolds, building inspector and Jerry Brown, planner.
Chairman Tharp - I will say this, that there has been considerable
criticism leveled at the conduct of the last meeting. Now I won't
go into the wisdom or lack of Wisdom of the conduct of that meeting.
The public is entitled to criticize; they have a duty to criticize.
However, in this meeting the topic will be those points on this
agenda and whatever else might come up in this meeting that we have
time for. The past meeting is now a matter of public record and
that is the way it stands. vie will conduct this meeting along the
lines of those topics set forth in the agenda. The first item we
will consider is the vertical zonin~.
VERTICAL ZONING
The public hearing on Vertical Zoning is now open.
Secretary - Mr. Chairman, may I make one request, would each person
speaking give their name first.
Chairman Tharp - Did everyone hear that, when someone does speak
from the floor if they will give their name so that Mrs. Graves
can get that into the minutes please. I will read a memo report to
the Commission from Jerry Brown.
"Due to the recent surge in cor.ctruction of single-use
buildings devoted to apartment uses in the central com-
mercial area of the city, it has been brought to my at-
tention that the future for a cohesive and interesting
retail and service commercial center as envisioned in the
Master Plan is seriously threatened. With pre-emption
of strategic centrally located sites for non-commercial
uses, the necessity may arise to expand the limits of
the C-l District to provide sufficient open land for
commercial development, thus encouraging the use of
automobiles for circulation within the district. One
solution to encourage better commercial utilization of
land within the C-l Commercial District would be to limit
the use of buildings for dwelling and accommodations pur-
poses to the second floor or above with commercial and
assembly uses on the street level. The recommended
ordinance would read as follows:
C-l Commercial
Uses-Permitted
1. Any dwelling, boarding and rooming house, hotel,
motel and lodge use except patio and row house
of the AR-l Accommodations Recreation District
provided that all dwelling units are located on
or above the second floor above street grade.
2. Any other permitted use of the AR-l Accommodations
Recreation District. \,
That is the intention and use permitted in the dwelling units in the
construction in the C-l Business District as propc~ed in the report
by the City Planner. Discussion is open from the floor and again
please give your name so that the Secretary can get it into the
minutes.
Francis Whitaker - Mr. Chairman, before you do that I wonder if
there are any extra chairs available, there are people on the steps
and in the hall and there is room for more chairs.
(Chairs were brought into the Chambers.)
,
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/63, continued.
Chairman Tharp - I will say one thing on the discussion from the
floor to prevent the argument back and forth between opposing sides
on any given subject. Once a person has stated his case we will
thanl: him and then we will allow someone else to state their case.
C. N. Clark - Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that. The last time
I was at a meeting like this, this happened. We stated our case,
the Commission came back with their answer whether it was right
or wrong and we were asked to sit down. Now if that is the case
I say black is black and you say no, black is white period. I
think we deserve the right of rebuttal the same as you people have.
Chairman Tharp - We will if there is no further discussion on that
point, we will consider the validity of the rebuttal at the time
someone wants to give it.
C. M. Clark - I don't know really where to start the vertical ..
zoning. lam going to fight it the same as I did density control
provision in Title XI. On the basis that we have a tourist orient-
ed City here. Pe are inviting tourist to come in, they want to
stay in the heart of the City, lodges, condominiums, hotel what-
ever. We are in competition. I would like to make this very clear,
with the rest of the world, not only with this area. Snowmass,
Vail, sun Valley, anyother ski area in the European market is a
very serious competitor as far as 1 am concerned. With jet air
buses it will become more and more of a problem. One of the main
attractions of the European type dwelling is a pedestrian type City.
Jerry Brown, which 1 consider talks out of both sides of his mouth,
one he says he wants a pedestr:_an type village here block off
certain streets, let the density gain in the downtown area, more
cars out and ellininate the off street parking. On the other side
of his mouth, he is saying, however,
Chairman Tharp - If I could interrupt for a moment. We are here
concerned with this proposed vertical zoning and not about which
side of the mouth Jerry Brown speaks out or. Now that is my rule.
C. N. Clark - If we are going to sit here and argue all day, I have
a statement to make and I would like to make it.
Chairman Tharp - If your going to do it then do it.
C. M. Clark - I have 206,000 sq.ft. in this City that is being
affected by this and I think that 1 have the right to say certain
things that may not be exactly relevant to the vertical zoning.
Chairman Tharp - Just continue with vertical zoning.
Mayor Barnard - Mr. Chairman, point of order, I would lil:e to point
out here t~at you are conducting this meeting.
Chairman Tharp - I have already spoken to the Gentlemen about that
and now he can finish his statement concerning vertical zoning.
C. M. Clark - Now that you have interrupted the entire path that I
was trying to make is that one side is towards a pedestrian type
village with malls and eliminate as much off street parking as
possible which I am very much for. I think it should be generated
very much the way the Europeans have and have been very successful
with and that is pedestrian hiZhly densed downtown area. On the
other side he says lets kick all the people out and take 87 acres
of ground which you now have with the North Side Annexation, if
your Master Plan is correct, and put in commercial in 50% of it.
n
-,t.-
Public Hearinp" P & z, 3/1/63, continued.
He may be a good Planning and Zoning man but economically under
the economics of same it is just absurd. One building alone to
say anyone in particular - the one Tom Daly is disccssing building
is requiring him to put in 50% of the commercial area in. You
would have 52,000 sq.ft. I don't know if that means anything to
the Board or not but that is probably 2 or 3 years supply of shop
and/or o~fice space in one building. Now there is a very good
law in this land and that is very relevant to this point and it
has been t~e leveler of these United States since t0e year one
and that is the law of supply and demand. Now when you get a
latent demand built up a legitmate investor will come in and supply
the commodity w~atever it is. He is going to come in and supply
it. He is going to come in and s~pply it where he can make money
and not throw 150,000 or 200,OOJ sqft. on the market that can
absorb 10,000 sqft. and decimate rental levels in cOlnmercial and
shop area. How ,.ith this in mind you ~Jere requiring, the City of
Aspen if this goes through, and I assume that it will from Mayor
Bernard's statement last week stating that these boys are trying
to get this building built without a law being passed that hasn't
even been heard in front of the public yet. It is automatically
assumed that it is going to be passed and I resent that.
Mayor Barnard ~ Mr. Chairman, point of order, don't quote me if
I have smuething to say, 1 will say it, I don't need his help.
C. M. Clark - May I speak too. Here is the Aspen Times it says
plans to take advantage of zoning before the Commission could
change the zoning regulations - the other paper says the same thing.
There are some things, Mr. Chairman, that do and will be relevant
from last weeks meeting. And if I want to refer to it, I will
continue to refer to it.
Chairman Tharp - Does that conclude your statement then on vertical
zoning.
C. N. Clark - No.
Chairman Tharp - Continue
C. M. Clark - I will, if you will be quiet and let me, yes Sir,
I will be more than happy to.
Mayor Barnard - Mr. Chairman, there is a limit to the amount of
this t:1at I will take.
C. M. Clark - You can dish it out from that side of the table,
bL~ 1 don't know whether you can take it from this side or not.
Chairman Tharp - Please continue.
C. N. Clark - I wonder on just vn1at basis you are requiring 50%
of 37 acres again quoting your Master Plan as you helped develop.
It is sort of like a judge and jury, Jerry. I don't mind you
doing the Master Plan, don't mind you coming back and doing Title
XI on the density control but I sure hate you to come back the
third time with this vertical zoning problem and you were judge
and jury on the whole thing. There are a few economics that do
enter into the thing that should be understood. I don't think that
you can put J7 acres in Aspen in Commercial area or 50% of the
development. I suppose you co~ld break it dOvm to 2-1/2 times,
which is the volume requirement, and come up with something. I
don't know what it would be but this is a disaster to Aspen. You
have got to have people in the dOvmtown area if you are going to be
on the basis of a pedestrian City which I am in full agreement with.
~
-.:;-
)
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68. continued.
You, and I quote from my statement a year ago on Title XI, Jerry's
90% correct in there and everybody agrees with this Master Plan
but there are areas that he just dosen't know the whole story.
And we just keep going back to one man and he says he is judge and
jury on this and with 206,000 sq.ft. of land I have a little
interest. 1 realize you are trying to do whats right but if you
decimate the downtown area, build one new building and no more
buildings will be. 1 do employ 180 people in this area or I did
last summer, 1 am down to about 60 now and I am sure they are
Mr. Lane - Here or Snowmass
C. M. Clarl~ - There were probably 60 here, the payroll in the Aspen
area. Does it have to be in the City limits?
Mr. Lane - No, I just as~ed.
C. M. Clark - Oh, all right. So I am very interested in the
development of the downtown area. And the law of supply and demand
will dictate exactly how much construction will be built. That
concludes and thank you Mr. Chairman.
Bill Stevenson - From San Francisco. I would like to point out
that in the downtown area, the C.l,area, 1 made a survey the
other day and there is approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of property
with nothing on it at this time. tf people were to develop on it
commercial buildings on that property it would amount to somewhere
in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 750,000 sq.ft. of retail shops.
I am not 100% certain what the existing retail area is but with
a quick survey, I would be very much surprised if there was more
than 150,000 sq.ft. of retail area in the business at this time.
C. M. Clark - I would like to comment on Mr. Stevenson, if he took
a survey just in the area that was downtown.
Bill Stevenson - C-l District.
C. M. Clark - Well we added about 30 some odd acres in the North
Side Annexation, is that right, Jerry?
Jerry Brown - The C-2 does not require 50% commercial.
C. M. Clark - Well this is the first time I have heard about this,
how do you get copies of these things before meetings so that we
know what we are talking about. I called several times trying
to get one and I would like tomake an objection against that. We
come to a :learing not knowing what you are going to throw at us and
we are supposed to have all the rebuttals and all the information
necessary to either go along with your or argue the case with you.
Chairman Tharp - Was Mr. Clark denied a copy of this that I read?
Secretary Graves - It was published in the newspaper that I had all
proposals.
C. N. Clark - This was published in the newspaper?
Secretary Graves
public hearing.
right there.
C. M. Clark - Of the proposals?
_ There was a legal notice in the paper on the
Mr. Chairman has a copy of the legal notice
Secretary Graves - It says that copies are on file in my office.
C. M. Clark - I stand corrected.
_l:._
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Tom Daly - Although 1 don't always agree with Butch Clark, I agree
with him 100% here. I hate to think what this would do to Aspen.
I know for one 1 would defini~y build the building at the base of
Little Nell even if it were 100% commercial because of the location.
But 1 hate to think what it would do to all the other businessmen
in town. The shops that there are in town would be vacant. How
could the prices stay anyway near what they are at this time. If
I would be putting up my own building 50% commercial, it would
be almost 50,000 sq.ft. of space. Checking with the realtors
in town, all of them, they tell me that there isn't a need for more
than 10,000 sq.ft. now, I have a building plan right now that
shows about 18,000 sq. ft. 1 plan on taking 2 to 3 years to rent
this space out. My figures come up about half way between Mr.
Clark's and Mr. Stevensons and I come up with if you search the
density at 2.5 of lhe land and you took 50% of that for commercial
space in town, this would include the new area that would be
commercial space, you wind up with 1,600,000 sq.ft. of commercial
space. You couldn't rent this out in a City of Chicago or New
York. What is Aspen going to do with all this space? One thing
it will do is force people in a lodge business, maybe some lodge
man who would like to develop 24 lodge units, it would be forcing
him to go into the commercial rental business. You would have to
come up with twice the money to get the building up. Whenhe
got his building up, he would be undermining all his other friends
in the downtown area. Then this other space, what would you be
putting in there? Restaurants, doctos offices, dentists offices
and so on, then the old rental spaces would be vacant in a year
or two. As soon as the peoples leases came up, I don't know why
they would stay in an older building when they could get a
brand new office..o,r rental space. I know if I were going to put
in a brand new buiding, I would put in a theatre, because I
would have so much space 1 wouldn't know what to do with it. 1
would definately do that and 1 could still get the condominium
units in. I think supply and demand factor holds true anywhere
in the world. Lets take New York, ou biggest City, and you get
into the commercial area. I don't know if Jerry Brown did any
work in New York City or not but if he did great. When you get
into 5th Avenue, the heart of New York you have a commercial
buildiqg next to a condominium next to an office next to another
office building, next to a hotel, next to an apartment. Its
not all, this is America, to do strictly by supply and demand
what's needed. You don't force anyone to come along and have to
put in 50% of anything. On this building I was going to build,
I was going to put in arcades on the first floor which is what
the City shows that is what they want. In their Title Xl it
even gives you credit, gives you extra footage of building if
you put in arcades. If this weren't true you would be forcing
elimination of all arcades because people are having to jam in
their 50%. Sure you could still give extra credit for arcaeeS
You are creating all kinds of problems. 1 would say before you
could even think of changing this to 50%, you would need a 3 to
10 year study on something like this. You don't just change this
to put all these business people in town out of business. Some
of these people don't even realize what it will do to their
business until all of a sudden all of their tenants were gone.
Maybe all will be sitting over by Tom Daly's place at Little Nell
because it is right next to the ski hill. I could plan it many
ways, I'm all for Aspen, 1 love Aspen, 1 came here and although
1 can't complain, I'm making about 1/4th of what 1 made ;In tbG
cities and could make in the City in Chicago where I ca~.tt6m: '
I have been here almost 4 years now andI~!Jtd like ..to stay.
But I even had an offer for a proj.ct lih!~h' I have in writing
that I could put at the base af tfcte Nel1~re'I would wind up
making almost twice what I could make on my proposed proJect.
-5-
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68. continued.
~~ich would be a shopping center similar to the one that is going
up in town. Well I for one would hate to see a grocery store and
all commercial at the bottom of Little Nell. I have figures,
I have a contract offer I can show you if you desire, I could pick
up more money, do less work and make Aspenone heck of a place
to have a commercial shopping center right at the base of the
lift. I just wish that people would give a little thought and
I hope there is a little more consideration between all the people
in Aspen so that they don't have to be fighting and arguing all
the time. Thats about it.
Francis v~itaker ~ Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Jerry Brown
a question. 1 thinl, this might clear upa point in this uses
permitted section, It says provided that extension of existing
accommodations of residential uses shall be limited to 50% of
their existing floor area. Does that mean that an existing
lodge could expand 50% of its floor area and not have to comply
with this requirement of commercial use.
Jerry Brown - That is correct.
Mr. Henry - I am very much against this zoning, we are in the
lodge business, we are not in the shop rental business. If we
had wanted to be, we would be and not in the lodge business. We
happen to have acquired about 3 years ago some lots next to our
existing lodge for expansion. If we wnt to expand this way we
are just devouring the property completely. We are already
restricted on off street parking and we are restricted on the
number of unit s we can put on a lot and now you are saying we
will maybe restrict you on the ground floor and maybe the second
story too. This as far as I am concerned is no dam good.
C. M. Clark - I would like to read part of a page of a prepared
statement I made on March 20, 1967 at the second reading of Title
XI, which I opposed and which has since been changed considerably
in a lot of places and inplaces that 1 opposed. And that is "it
has been said and 1 do not doubt it that upwards of 75% of
property in Aspen has been zoned by people that live outside 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 been here. They have put their faith in Aspen as you
and I have done, some because they loved Aspen and some because
Aspen in the past has always been a good investment. There has
never been a year to my knowledge since 1946 that the price of
land did not increase. This has established the fate necessary
for Aspen to grow and prosper as it has done. These people
were legitmate investors not fast buck promo tors as some of you
here would like to rise to the occassion and call it. Their
faith in Aspen has always been regarded in the past by people
who make policy, passed on ordinances and generally maintain
discipline in the City. I s~ncerely hope that all of us
here today bear in mind that we have as much responsibility pro-
tecting these investors economic ownership as we have our own."
And I just question why in the last two years that we as property
owners, not only myself but everyone that does own property in
the downtown area are completely being attacked time and time
again? wbat we can do with it. It kind of grew and I think very
lovely, I like Aspen, I think that some of the esthetic: things
that you are working on are fine but let it grow, let it prosper,
don't try and dictate the economics too. You can just dictate
one to death and you will eventually get it so highly restricted
that people like Tom won't be here. And there won't be any
money and people will look around and say good, all of them are
gone and it will stay the same. Nothing stays the same, either it
-6-
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
grows and prospers or it just wilts away. People who come here
on vacation will go to other areas. They will go to areas where
they can walk to the lifts, they will go to areas where they can
walk downtown, where they can go out at night and walk home.
They don't have to take a car or bes. This is why they are here,
this is why the lodges, condominiums in the highly densed down-
town area are doing so well because the people that we are suppos-
edly catering too are demanding that they be downtown, they don't
want to be five miles from downtown, they want to be in Aspen.
They want to have a few drinks and stagger home if they want to
or send their kids out to dinner. They don't have to worry
about running 5 blocks through the dark of night to find a place
to eat. They want them downtown and I will be more than happy
to bring my appraiser up here from Ft. Collins who has worked
this town for 5 years now. vrho I think economically speaking,
he teaches for the MAl, is very well qualified to speak in the
way of economics, 1 offered when Title XI and was turned down
flatly. No one on the Boards wants to listen to any outsider.
They say Jerry Brown knows everything and we are going to change
it. VIe are going to change it to the better. Its not good
enough we are going to make it all different. ~ny I ask, is
it that bad what we have here.
Chairman Tharp - Is there anyone else.
Mr. Henry - I would like to ask Jerry Brown a q\1estion. Is one
of the reasons for this percentage of shops in a lodging
establishement to cut down on automobiles in the business district.
Don't you think that there are more cars coming into town, in and
out to shop and going back out again then there is of one car
coming into a lodge and staying there.
Jerry Brown - I think that is true. I have been watching the
parking in the whole C-l District and the parking problem
exists where there are retail shops.
Mr. Henry - Now you want to put more retail shops in that district.
Jerry Brown - At the risk of opening another complete subject,
this whole thing has been considered concurrently with parking.
The Commission had a study session last week, we had a lot of
problems in our own organization because we continually bounced
back and forth from retail space to parking. So I think the
two have to work together. The vertical zoning is predicated
on the idea of solving the parking solution with an off street
facility.
Mr. Henry - Then why add more shops downtown problem area.
Jerry Brown - That is basically true.
Mr. Henry - Not sure that makes sense.
Jerry Brown - If we want an off street parking facility, we have
to have the people attracted to an area close to it to use it.
Mr. Henry - Maybe you ought to move the shops out to space
where we have room for parking.
Jerry Brown - No, we are talking parking structure, Mr. Henry,
you "~uldn't put the cars on the street or on a lot, they would
be inside.
C. M. Clark - Jerry, may I ask if you have studied this thing,
-7-
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/60, continued.
isn't it a little unusual? I came to Leon Wurl and requested
from the City Council they give me official endorsement on a
parking lot that I put in and I told them that I expected to
lose money on it and I was doing it as an experiment to prove
that this tremendous horrible awful bad parkins problem did not
exist. And I figured that I would lose about $1500. If you
would like to see $ll,OOO do~m the drain in two months time, come
over and check the books on that thing. We deposited $110 in
two months. It made me so sick, but I was willing to spend $1500
to find out what the off street parking was and 1 found out it
cost me $4,000 and 1 don't want to hear anymore. 1 can get you
all the statistics , number of cars, when they parked, I can
get you all of it. It is funny to me that you didn't come to
me and ask how the one parking lot that was in operation did,
which was an absolute disaster. It seems funny to me that
I had to spend my money to prove these things. I don't mind
doing it, apparently I did it anYVJay, but funny that somebody
dosen't reach some advantage from it and at least the City
Government recognize the fact that that is why I did it.
Jerry Brown - On the parking lot, this goes back to something I
said sometime ago during the Master Plan. We have a particular
parking problem in Aspen. So what 1 am trying to do in the
planning for which you are trying to go ahead for more than 3 or
5 years, is to come around to a scheme that, we realize the
parking problem will get worse initially under this vertical
zoning procedure. But the idea is that it is going to have to get
a little bit worse before we can solve it. v~ don't have a
parking problem in Aspen as far as solution is concerned at this
time. Because I was up here this whole last week and the whole
business district was parked solid and I parked here across the
block. So as soon as you go to charge somebody they will also
park just across the block.
C. M. Clark - It really is not that bad a parking problem.
Jerry Bro~m - I think it is getting worse each year.
C. M. Clark - It will get worse, I agree.
Tom Daly - I have been skiiing over in Europe t.he last couple of
years and I would guess that Aspen right now has more commercial
space than any other ski area in the world. Right Jerry?
Jerry Brown - I am not that well versed in ski areas.
Tom Daly - Have you designed any other ski areas.
Jerry Brown - I have designed them but they have not been built yet.
Tom Daly - So we are the guinea pig here.
Jerry Brown - l:ell to a certain degree, yes.
Tom ~aly - I am not being critical, so you do have to admit that
you sl~uld be a little bit cautious to what you are doing to the
who le town.
Jerry Brown - The point is we are not copying anybody.
Tom Daly - I would say from wandering around in ski areas that I
have not seen 1/4th as much space. You are losing all of it. I
have other property here across from the post office '1 plan a
commercial building there because as a free thinking American I
"
-0-
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/l/6G, continued.
thought this was the place where a commercial building would go.
Again if you drive the people out of the do'~town area, they are
going to go somewhere and it might not be Aspen. Once a City
goes on its way dom, from the days of Rome, 1 don I t think you
can mention anyother one anyother way, 1 sure would like to know.
Once they start going down, they keep going down, I would like
to keep Aspen a top skier's resort, not have all the lodges empty.
These people with the idea that condominiums are taking business
away from anyone is a lot of. bunk. The business of s1:iers is
there, there are nIDre every year. To change something to complete
commercial and all the people who own the land don't want it,
you can easily see that we don't need it, even if. it was double
the amount you needed, 20,000 sq.ft. of comnercial, that is no-
where near the 1,600,000. Yo~r figures are so far out. That is
all, thank you.
Wilton Jaffee - I would li1:e to ask a question also. I ton't
think people are objecting to condominiums per se. I think that
they are objecting primarily to the price level that lousy
condominiums are bing sold for. A man builds a condominium and
does a good job, sells it for $75,000 or $100,000 ~n1ich is a
substantial amount of money. The clientele of people he will get
will probably be more in line with what Aspen wants. I don't
thinl~ any of us want to turn this into a Miami Beach. I don't
think anyone wants to turn this into a mass concentrated area that
really has too many parking problems. That has the capacity to
take away the charm that Aspen has. We all want to keep the
City under a certain amount of control. Lets call a spade a
spade. The law of supply and denand has turned the whole world
into a giant cesspool. If you don't believe it, go to the major
cities where the law of supply and demand has been freely used.
It works, there is no question about it, it works but the results
after a period of 10 to 20 years are disasterous. Now there is
no reason why people slmuldn't ,nake money, or any reason why
peor,le shouldn't build, but lets build f.or a clientele that will
get people that we want here t~at help build the city and help
set it up. I don't really know if the proposed change in the
rules of vertical zoning will ac~omplish this but it ~rould seem
to me that if it doesn't, the rules should be set up in such a
way that t~e building that does take place is a building that
will create enough, not necessarily drawing a vast crowd of lower
middle income people, b'.1t drs,;;Jing the kind of people that will
maintain values and maintain good business to all the present
lodge o~mers. Not necessarily create $25,000 or $30,000 tax
gimmick condominiums, that are lived in f or short periods of time
and then brutally abused by people that come in from all sorts
of places.
C. N. Clark - I just wonder how many people here would stay
in a lodge or hotel or condominium in town that is located over
a grocery store or restaurant or any other of commercial uses
that Jerry Brown envisions. I'll ask Vivian Goodnough just
how good that Snowflake would be located over a grocery store on
a second floor.
Vivian Goodnough - No, I wouldn't like that at all. In fact,
we do have apartments we do rent long term. vIe tried renting
long teTIa and combining it with the tourist and it just dosen't
work. vihen you rent long term you get dogs etc that dOeS n' t worl~
out. Because if YOG rent an apartment by the reason you get
dogs bicycles, ,you gettrueks and t~8i1ers and everything.
".,:: ;:;
C. M. Clark. to yoJ be1ieve taat this i~ s tourist oriented City?
-s-
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/l/6C, continued.
Vivian Goodnough - I just don't think they would really be great
myself.
Mr. Henry - I don't think we could rent any rooms above a rest-
aurant, not the way we have been operating.
C. M. Clark - It is a beautiful theory Jerry, but I just wonder
now in practicality you envision it working. I wouldn't mind
beinc next to a restaurant ii that is the commercial building
in Aspen. I live in the downtown area and that dosen't bother
me a bit, but I don't think I want to live over a restaurant or
grocery store, or a filling station on the first floor or
a parking lot or anything else. People who come here want to
stay in a lodge and a lodge nonnally has a lounge on the first
floor. !1aybe YOL; can cbs nge it all
Vivian Goodnough - I would li~~e to say also that if you go by
this law of supply and demand, that all of the housing that is
above shops now is not the kind we rent out to get people to
come in and get reservations. There are long term housing for
the people who live here and thank goodness ,"1e have it and I
thinl: everybody who lives over shops are happy t~1at they are
there but that is the kind of existing use they are getting.
C. M. Clark - But you realize that the needs that will develop
in the future. There will be apartment houses built in the down-
town area for long term people. There ,"1ill not be any short
term people. v!e will get these built.
Chairman Tharp - Nr. Clark witIlOut cutting you off, you have
spoken several times and I ,"~nder if there are other people who
would like to speal~. I am not stopping you from rebutting,
wonder if there is anyone else who would wish to speak.
Bob Stevens - I guess that I am the idiot that started this whole
condominium mess. 1 built the first one in town. Since then
they have become quite popular. In rebut of Mr. Jaffee's
comments about the use and the way they are being used. I
think the people that we are speaking of and 1 ma speaking in my
o~m case, 'i.:he people who have condominiums here as ';;0 the abused
nse of tI.e condominium, the Alpenblick for instance, the preserit
Chairman of the Board of Bobby Brook sweaters, Joseph Coors
President of Coors Brewery and Bill Hodges one of the original
Silverstein, Hodges and Herriucton, etc. I think these are the
type of people we will bring into to,"ln that are abusing this
thing so called tax gimmick. T,"eir families use them, their
children come up from Denver. Bill Bradford went three floors
in his because he has 3 or ~. children that are here all the time.
Mr. Grant from Denver uses his and loves his apartment. This is
their borae away from home. They have made this IOOney and they
can afford it and I think it is the American way of life that they
can pur~hase a condominium at the base of the mountain to enjoy.
I think that if we try to rule this out as 10n3 as we have a
need created here for condominiums, I think we ought to build
condominiwns for these people. If we want to keep Aspen stagnant
why instead of spending $lOO,O~O for advertising why are we
pumping almost three t~les that much i~ we want to keep people
away. We don't have to advertise.
James ~bore - If you want to know why we are getting more and
more condominiums, I thinl~ it was about three years ago that we
woeld not be able to build any business in the businesses other-
wise in town due to the off street parking that was hoisted
~'.
-lD-
.~ . --
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
upon us and so try to figure out one grocery store, meat market
or whatever you might want to do on the couple lots of land
unless you o~1ned the corner that you could comply with the off
street parking. You could do it with a condominium so anyone
tha:: is going to 'Juild is going to build a condominium. Service
types are going to have to stand in line. This might gradually
work out, but not the way the off street parking is. I would like
to know from Jerry what really this proposed thing is to do
to alleviate the off street parking. I am like Butch, I never
seen what it is that we have come up here to talk about. All
I know is what is sketched in the paper.
Tharp - This is somewhat off the subject but Jerry Brown seems to
be getting several direct attacks at him so Jerry you may.
Jerry - This all started on this realizing that we were between
a rock and a hard place in the off-street parking. So the idea
is to provide a business center that can support off-street park-
ing because the streets just can't handle it. The idea is to let
one, two or three small lots go ahead and expand and understand
the expand liability. Lets say that the proposed liability that
they are incurring with the parking district and structure. We
see that as the only answer. Small individual lots that each
person went by the ordinance and made their two or three spaces
for their little shops, we found that they don't work out, they
end up full of snow or filled by employees or something like that.
What would happen if we had a parking district, parking structure
and therefore we should have users close to that parking structure.
Now there has been talk of one parking structure, but in the
Master Plan if you will look it talks ot 3 in various sections of
the City. Well this parking structure cannot supply the commercial
users if it is too distant. What happens if when the first parking
structure goes in we have all condominiums around it for several
blocks, each one providing its own parking and no one interested
in the parking structure, that makes a parking structure impossible.
So that is how-
Clark - That is my point, Jerry, we just don't need it. It took
me $~,OOO to prove it.
Daly - I thought we were talking about this vertical zoning.
Tharp - We were talking about the vertical zoning, but the point
was raised to Mr. Brown and I did say -
Daly - Jim was going along and then all of a sudden we got off on
this parking, but we ~ere talking about vertical zoning and how
much of a building has to be commercial. Now, I agree with Jim
Moore in a lot of ways, but Jim again what are we going to do with
all that commercial space? You know you are in the real estate
business and you know when you need 5,000 or 10,000 sq. ft.
Jim - Well, the next question I was going to ask was for a little
bit of information and maybe some other people here would like
some too. I would assume that if you are going to build some
apartments you have to build a meat market under it.
Bruce Sutherland - Would like to direct this question to Jerry
Brown. Do you say that you have made some studies for several
parking structures? Can you tell me on what properties?
Jerry - Well, we have considered either Wagner Park or the site
adjacent to the Opera House for the first one. You consider ttat
there are two vacant blocks over on the northeast corner of town
which we indicated either one and the third proposal was this
building here considering we had a new City Hall adj,aqe)1;lt(j the
Court House and possibly this would make a centr*,UY"166ated
structure. We aren't trying to put them right in the oenter.
.' .J
- 11 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Bruce _ Question would be concern for esthetics, have you given
consideration to the esthetics of a two, three, four story parking
structure?
Jerry - Yes, I have and I delved a lot into it on my proposal be-
cause there were a lot of comments on it. They don't have to be
ugly if they are above ground, usually they are because they are
built for a maximum of return. But I don't feel that they have
to be ugly. During the Master Plan stage I brought along a ren-
dering of one of an architect firm I was associated with that had
built that was pretty attractive. There was a market on the first
floor and 3 decks of parking above. So you don't have to walk
by a parking structure. This was somewhat in the capital improve-
ments pr~gram: the idea I had for adjacent to the Opera House.
Clark - On that vain Jerry, j,f the parking problem is 80 critical
in this town I see that the City Fathers have brought themselves
forth, you say Wagner Park, I don't think you have a chance of a
snowball in hell of getting Wagner Park for one and two the lots
next to the Opera House you don't own and you have to deal with
Mrs. Shaw before you get them. You are dealing in theory and if
it is so important why doesn't the City buy the land and do what
I did and the City feels free to provide free parking with tax-
~ayers money then let them, but why don't they get with it.
Instead of having you try ahd figure out how to decimate the down-
town area, why don't you figure out how to talk them into buying
~:Jme land at these prices and provide just floor level parking
where you don't have to do anything except plow it. In the future
as we both agree, in 5 or 10 years time we are going to need
these parking structures. Why don't you put your efforts, rather
than trying to mess up the economics, to try to figure out how to
get the land so that in the future we can build. I think that you
are dealing in theory out the ears, you people are just too close
to being out of school, I am afraid.
Jerry - Mr. Clark, get a copy of the capital improvements and read
it. I just make recommendations, I don't run the City. The recom-
mendation was made along with the drawings.
Clark - Have they purchased it?
Jerry - No.
Tharp - Any further comments (none) I have here a petition signed
by a total of 22 people. This is rather lengthy and I will try
and find the relative points of it. "The over crowding streets,
sewer, water, recreation facilities by high density condominiums
is very serious. But most important of all would be the loss of
Aspen's village atmosphere and with it Aspen'S livelihood, our
tourist income. Clear cut legal precedents as noted before
always evolve too late after the damage is done to protect the
community from such calamities. But Aspen has forged ahead before
and set precedents for example, day light savins time, city sales
tax and the Humble oil suit. In the Humble suit the court ruled
that the City does have a right to protect its wealth. It appears
to be imperative that we must now forge ahead and prohibit the
further spread of condominiums in all of Aspen". The following
signers of this petition request that immediate action be taken to
prohibit the construction of condominiums in all zoned areas of
Aspen. As I said before there are 22 names.
Daly - How can we forge ahead if we don't do anything?
Tharp _ I read the petition that was presented against the building
of condominiums of all zoned areas.
Daly - Who made up the petition?
Tharp _ I have no idea, it was presented to me and the names are
on there.
- 12 -
Public Hearin~, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
C. Sampson - I think one point that hasn't gotten enough thought
here is the fact that people with one or two lots in the commer-
cial area expanding or building. This vertical zoning would
eliminate the parking part of it as commercial establishments.
I don't think this point has been stressed enough. I am thinking
of Carl Bergman's problem down there. If this vertical zoning
would have been in effect he wouldn't have had to lease some
parking. I don't say that I am against condominiums, lodges in
the central business zone, but I think at the same time we should
take into consideration the small shop owners and thin~s like this
in this vertical zoning.
Vivian - Can't you just say that if they care to build commercial
space along with their apartments, units or lodges, they may?
Clark - You can do that now.
Dunaway - Does the proposed ordinance eliminate off-street parking
requirements for commercial construction? So there is no provision
to eliminate this. In other words we would still have the same off-
street parking requirements.
Francis - There has been one proposal made that in any mixed use
like that the off-street parking requirements may serve a duel pur-
pose. In other words if you had a business that was only operated
from 9 to 5 on the ground floor and you had accommodation units up
above it might be possible to let the parking spaces that would
provide for both uses at one time. In other words you would not
have to provide all spaces required for the commercial use and all
spaces that would be required for accommodations. You get a credit
on them. That has not been worked out yet but that is one of the
suggestions that has been made.
Barnard - Well, Jerry, part of this whole thing ~lcng with this
was that a person could satisfy his off-street parking requirements
and still exist but in a different location, in an off-street
parking facility. Is that ~Jrrect?
Jerry - That is correct.
Henry - I would like to say that any existing lodge that wants to
add on not be required to go into the shopping center business.
Francis - Mr. Henry, I read that any existing lodge can increase
its floor space by 50% of what it has without coming under any of
this.
Henry - What if we want to increase it by 100%, that is all that
I am saying. We are required off-street parking for any additional
structure and we are required only so many units per lot. We know
the lodging business, we happen to be in it. That is the only
businees we are in or we would get out of it and go into the
shopping business. And I don't want to be told that I have to go
into the shop business.
stevenson - Can someone explain to me the reason or arguments be-
hind the fact that existing lodge owners can have preference over
his property than any other property owner.
Jerry - The reason behind that is where you have prior right to the
use of the land under a legal ordinance, in other words, residences
and accommodations were allowed. I didn't think it fair to make
all the existing ones non-conforming uses. Generally zoning
applies to the new use of land and you try not to step on existing
people.
Daly - There might be a couple of loopholes even if you did it that
way, I don't know. I think it should be one way or the other and
I think it should be without any commercial requirement unless the
people want to put it up. Again the one building that I am thinking
of for a year or so will be all commercial but if you did that, the
people who had a lodge do not have to put in commercial how would
you determine what land he owns. Mr. Henry, did you buy the lots
with the lodge, did you have them right from the start?
- 13 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Henry - Part of it, part of the unimproved space we bought at the
same time.
Daly - what I am getting at is why couldn't one guy at the other
end of town say well, buyout a lodge. There are all kinds of
loopholes and I think before you think of this again it will take
not only 6 months study but 5 or 10 years. You are affecting many
people's lives and I don't know who is going to sit still for that.
Stevenson - As a representative of the group that is proposing to
build condominiums across from Little Nell, I would like to state
that we made a complete survey of the retail market in Aspen. We
had a professional marketing survey made as to the demand for
commercial retail space in Aspen and we made it known to many
national people that we were contemplating building retail or
commercial space on our property and we did not get one inquiry
for retail ~pace. ~e also discussed it with local retailers
and also we were not given an offer on space in our complex. I
would like to ask Mr. Brown where he thinks all the people are
going to come from to fill this commercial space.
Jerry - From allover, your question goes deeper than that.
Stevenson - If the demand existed for commercial space we would have
built it.
Jerry - I would like to ask one question about the survey, was it
based on what the people would pay for space or just plain available
space?
Stevenson - We took our feelers out on the basis of, make us an
offer.
Jerry - Well, I have been taking more than I have been giving out
here so I would like to make a couple of comments. To come back
to the Master Plan and what we are trying to do. I saw a couple
of chuckles when I solved the parking problem by building all con-
dominiums and have their own off-street parking. But is that what
we really want? Second - when we get into this business of zoning,
we have land zoned for condominiums that have not been built so
although I agree with the !dea of the market etc., zoning is never
restricted to the number of parcels that could be used for certain
occupancy because the same thing of freedom of choice in our free
society. I would like to ask a question because most of the com-
ments are from peo~le who are vitally interested in building con-
dominiums I believe or existing lodge owners. I just wonder if
anyone disagrees with the concept of shop space in town or whether
in other words do they agree that some ratio should be arrived at
or just totally disagree until the market takes care of it?
Moore - I would like to see us start playing the thing by ear like
we used to create a balance and keep everybody happy.
Daly - Supply and demand is the only thing.
-14 -
'"
Public Hearinf" P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Clark - Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why this thing is being
railroaded. We have a Monday hearing in front of the City Council
and I can't even get my appraiser out of the hospital for today and
three days later we have got to go and do the same thing in fro~.t
of the City Council. I have never heard of one being railroaded
this fast.
Tharp - First of all no one has taken a vote up here yet and I
think that we will have to wait and see. Let's not--
Clark
It is already scheduled for Monday.
Tharp - I am talking--
Henry - I understand there is being an office and shop building
built this summer. It looks to me that we are long on shop space
in town.
Stevens - Tom Daly and I did a study on those two lots across from
the post office on Teddy Gordon's two lots and Tom wanted me to go
into a partnership and put up a strictly office building. Maybe
a restaurant down below, real estate office, build three floors
and put shops on the main with a little arcade and build offices
above. I contacted quite a few businesses in Aspen. Rocky Mt.
Natural Gas was interested in relocating, we couldn't supply
enough off-street parking. There wasn't enough need to fill the
4,000 sq. ft. of office space. I couldn't get anybody to sign
up for $2.00 a sq. ft. When you are dealing with $6.00 a sq. ft.
of land cost you are talking $4.00 to $4.75/ sq. ft. on rental.
It is just automatic. If I went over there and threw up a building
now I could not lease it. Frankly I don't know how Tom Daly is
going to lease what he's got. He is going to have to have at
least a 3 or 4 year program to lease what he's got in his building.
Just how are you going to lease it with this vertical zoning.
Then you've got some poor little guy whose got Peppermint Tree
shop or something and their rent is low and you take him out of
there and put him in a new one, take Holland and Hart out and put
them in the new one, they take all of the desirable location
leaving the people who were here first to go begging.
Daly - As far as Jerry asked how much space is needed, how much does
any of us think should be commercial. I think a plan, although
I think the Master Plan is good in many, many ways and the City
sure needs one. I think the commercial ar~a is a little too big.
This is a ski town and what will you do with all this commercial
space. I think the one body that could use space this big would
be if the United State Government came in and who wants the Army
here. As far as space needed, if you insist on a certain amount
of space and I am serious there, I think you should go less than
1% per lot possibility which maybe each building would have to
have a public toilet in. I think that is about all the room you
need.
Stan Anderson - I dig holes and pour them full of concrete. I am
starting my 8th season in Aspen and I think I have been around here
long enough to know some of the problems. Every year for the last
4 seasons I've tried to find land properly zoned where I could get
a permit to set up a batch plant. This is one area that is ter-
rificalJy neglected. I turned down Mr. Moore's building office
space, I turned down office space in the Wheeler Opera House, there
is other office space available, as far as I am concerned. The
industrial areas are far more critical than the commercial areas.
For 4 years I have tried to get a piece of ground where I can
get a permit to set a batch plant. I asked for a permit to set a
batch plant clear down at Woody Creek and I still can't do it and
there is a heck of a lot of parking space between here and there.
But you can't build anything but a house. This thing is so far
off base and out of proportion that it isn't even funny. You should
take a drive down through South Broadway in Englewood, J. C. Penney
is vacating, Johnson's is vacating, every ~little shop there. There
is one business on South Broadway that has a sign saying we are
staying. Outside of that everyone is moving to the -large shopping
center. If you want to create a slum area this .i5 the best way to
do it. .
- 15/-
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Jaffee - I would like to ask a question, you know in Puerto Rico
where they had the big building boom there was a boom on hotels.
They built too fast, the government felt that the idea was that
they had everything that existed there operating successfully.
So they merely made it impossible for new construction to take
p lace until everything was running very well. I would like to
point out that I just came back from Saint Moritz luxury hotel,
it is going bankrupt. The Swiss are getting together to try and
keep their hotels in the country and not let other people buy
them because of one thing - condominiums.
Tom Willson - San Francisco - I am involved in the condominium
project across from Little Nell and I want to know if any of the
experts and geniuses of planning can provide the people here at
this hearing facts, figures and statistics of the tremendous
need for this retail space? Have we looked at any documented
evidence to substantiate this at this hearing? This is my question,
do we have this available so that we can study it and come up
with what is right for Aspen? Lets see some figures. Does anyone
have these available to look at?
Jerry - I looked at these figures at the time of the Master Plan
but don't you think that any figures like these must fall in the
realm of economics? Economic models are nice exercises but I
question how valid they are. Two or three years ago we didn't
have the condominiums. When I got to checking into some date
last year on what was being built I wan thinking lodges and I
looked and there were no lodges tuilt in Aspen they had all been
condominiums. So I question if a model built precisely on what
we could foresee at this time would hold true on the law, say
the condominium law.
Willsen - Hasn't the crush of condominiums provided a great
economic base to the City? Hasn't it brought tax dollars into
the people, schools, restaurant owners? Hasn't this crush provided
something or not? Don't you think that Clark and Daly would build
all the shop space that is indicated if there was a need for it?
Moore - There is no commercial building in the town and there
couldn't be for the last three years because of our off-street
parking. We are now able to expand, did expand and were able
to add another block and one-half to the east of our business
area. Maybe economically you couldn't build a one story meat
market.
Willson - Maybe if the City used their money to provide a parking
facility instead of defending r~diculous law suits and used the
tax payers dollars a little bit more efficiently maybe you would
have that parking facility.
Daly - I would like to agree with the P and Z on one thing. If
we want to purchase or build a garage, one way or another we need
the parking space. If we went ahead and got ourselves some
parking space for now and eventually could build, then when you
got this done what you are talking about? I guess, am I right,
that you are thinking about eliminating the off-street parking
requirement for commercial? Am I right, Bill?
Barnard - Not eliminating, just satisfying the off-street parking
requirement in a facility.
Daly - All right, then satisfying the off-street parking. Let's
just say for my example, if you got rid of your off-street parking
for commercial you would be allowing people that have existing
commercial space to expand which would more than take care of the
need. It would not be bothering anybody and you would be helpin~
these people. You're not holding them down with their older' ,
buildings, they could remodel and expand. You would be getting
your property and eventually you would get your garages and you
wouldn't be putting all this commercial space on the market and
hurting these people. What is wrong with that?
- 16 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continu~d.
Stan Anderson - I came here for one reason tonight, Mr. Chairman
and that is to learn something. I haven't yet. But I am looking
at a piece of property which is zoned where I can put up an apart-
ment house. Before I do like Clark and Daly, before I invest
my money I want to find out what I can do. Now, in this area I
can put up an apartment house, I can sell that apartment house,
but can I sell thaG to 30 different owners? Same difference.
Clark - You can sell providing you can get it up before they change
the zoning. Condominium ownership is a form of ownership, not a
use and I want that thoroughly understood. I have pounded this
in Title XI until I forced condominium is a ownership basis not
a use and everybody is so adamately against condominiums. And
I agree with Tom, they bring an awful lot of money in here and I
have poured one million dollars of payroll alone into this town
and a lot of that money came from condominium owners. That is
the basis of ownership, not of use so there is no difference
between a lodge. You could take Vivian Goodnough's lodge and make
a condominium out of it. There is nothing in the world that
prevents this. It is a type of ownership, not of use. I can
take an office building and make a condominium out of it. I can
take shop space and make a condominium out of it.
Daly - A man from New York is noted and has done more writing on
condominiums and maybe the City could write to him. He wrote the
first condominium act for New York and Chicago and some of the
western states. I talked to this man and he said just about what
Mr. Clark just said. A condominium could be a gas station, it
could be a lodge, it can be anything, any kind of business. You
could take the Opera House and split it off and make a condominium
out of it. I know the whole City is a little off base on their
thinking on condominiums. It is an ownership and not a type of
building. I think we are sticking our necks out for a law suit
and we have enough already.
Chairman - The public hearing is terminated. There will be dis-
cussion and action by the Commission only at this time. Discussion
is open to the Commission. The gentlemen who have spoken have
made some very valid points. #1 - They have raised the question
and I think quite factually so, the need for commercial space,
how much commercial space is needed. #2 - They raised the question
of what about existing commercial space, what happens to them.
#3 - They raised the point of the amount of commercial space
that this would by law force upon the City if the proposed zoning
took place. I think those are all reasonably valid objections to
it. There is another objection to it - that it would appear on
the one ha0d that you would attempt to force on the community
commercial space which they do not need or desire. If the Com-
mission would like to raise objections to what these gentlemen
have said you are welcome to do so.
Francis - I think one other important point that was brought
out and that is something which the Commission worked pretty hard
to provide for and that is the arcades. I think the arcades are
a very desirable thing in the town and that part of this zoning
was never considered, it was brought up at the hearing.
Heneghan - We are only talking about the C-l area, we are not in
any way prohibiting someone from constructing a condominium with
no commercial space in another area. The only area that we are
talking about is the C-l area. He are also talking about a period
of 20 to 30 years, not talking about the shop spaces having to
be filled up in one year, 2 or 3. There are a great number of
acres where a condominium can be constructed and it was our con-
cern when we started talking about this demand for condominiums
that it appears to be far greater than it is for commercial at
the present time. And what appears to be occurring is that the
commercial area for the next 10,20 or 30 years is being preempted
by condominiums. So that in 10, 20 or 30 years the central core
of Aspen will be filled with condominiums and at that time if the
demand exists for commercial they will have to go out in the out-
lying area.
- 17 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Clark - You can tear them down and replace them with commercial.
Bar~ard . Mr. Chairman, the discussion has been confined to the
COITJ^ission now.
Heneghan - However, I am sympathic ".it h the lodge owners, it had
not occurred to me before that if they wanted to expand 100%
they could not. How did we come up with 50%?
Francis - That was in Jerry's proposal.
Barnard - I think that we are missing the point of this whole
discussion here. We are like a couple of porcupines making love,
we're being careful. The point of this whole vertical zoning thing
is we sat down and tried to figure out some way to keep the busi-
ness district from being built up with condominiums, that's all.
Primarily shop space is to be considered but it certainly is not
the prime consideration. I would like to make a few observations
about both the business district and condominiums. Last year the
City increased the size of the C-l District 324,000 sq. ft. which
is a pretty substantial increase in the business district. My
question to you gentlemen is why did we need to make this addition
to the business district. I would like to make a few comments on
condominiums, first place condominiums are not lodges, ty any
stretch of the imagination. Vertical zoning is not particularly
concerned with lodges and motels. I think you have a good point
George, this 50 - 50 thing would impose a real hardship on an
outfit like that. I feel personally that condominiums are not a
proper use in the C-l District. They are built with no regard for
the community, this gentleman said he made a survey, I don't be"
lieve it. They are built with no regards for the needs of the
community, they are - I apologize to this gentleman - condominiums
are built with absolutely no regard to the law of supply and demand,
they only regard that condominiums are given to is absolutely
immaterial. The main reason that they are sold to the buyers is
because they have a beautiful tax write off. On the basis of those
minimum remarks I would like to say that I oppose condominiums in
the C-l period no 50%, no anythirgelse.
Joel _ I feel like George and Dr. Barnard that we fill up the busi-
ness district and these people are not going to tear these things
down in the next 25 or 30 years they are going to be there for
50 years, 100 years. If we fill the business district up with a
bunch of, and I looked this up in the dictionary - a bunch of
rabbit warrens, that is defined as a building tenement district
containing many tenents in limited or crowded quarters we are
going to build our own ghetto right here in the business district
where they should be out in areas where there is more land avail-
able and where they can devote land to esthetic things instead
of next to the post office where they jam them in from one street
to the alley to the next property. No proper parking and to me
this is our first example in the business district of one of these
condominiums and I am against them. I am against them in the
business district.
~Iurl _ ~lr. Chairman, I think in our original discussion as George
pointed out the concern on the part of the commission for the
spread of mainly and almost 100% residential throughout the busi-
ness district is a valid concern. I think when JerrY sat down and
decided that the business district should expand I think it was a
logical thought. Some concern given at this time when there is
vacant land in that areas we expand the district. I think it
would be improper on his part and ours also. I agree also with
two other statements I hadn't thought of. One being to existing
lodges and the protection of the arcades. I think whatever our
recommendation is to Council it should incorporate something
on both those items. I feel that 1t ~~~,tianning Commission and
the Council and the people whOJllork. i'Qtittbe City do not concern
themselves with this growt,h1ntEf the business district you can be
sure that the people Wh6" eonstruct ~,ondominiums are not going to
concern themselves" with it. And 1 "think that places us in a
position ot having to do that. ,
- 18 -
Public Hearin~, P & Z, 3/l/68, continued.
Francis - From my own experience in developing business property
which I have done for quite a few years in California and Aspen,
I think the ground floor commercial from my own point of view is
a good one. I think that is the charm which you find in European
cities, the store with the residence up above. Certainly the idea
is not a bad one. I am concerned about the percentage required
and I think that the statements that have been made of no apparent
demand for that amount of commercial use we certainly have to
consider. I don't know that we are in a position to make a de-
finite recommendation on an ordinace at this time. I'm alao con-
cerned about the effect on existing lodges who have been here for
a long time. At the same time I don't feel the Commission can
do nothing about allowing 100% residential use in the pr1~e com-
mercial district. We are faced with probably 2 full blocks of
commercial zoning this year going 100% residential. I don't
think that is a good use when you consider the effect on the whole
business district.
Barnard - I would like to say this, I don't think the laws of
supply and demand would control the amount of commercial that you
would end up with. I don't think it will control the amount of
residential condominiums because this is a totally different
force at work here. Who is going to come in here and buy a con-
dominium paint shop or a grocery store - nobody. When we need
commercial we will get commercial.
No further discussion.
Barnard - Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion the building
of condominiums will be banned in the C-l District.
Joel Hartmeister - Seconded.
Roll Call vote -
Heneghan - Jerry Brown, is that legally possible?
Jerry Brown - Mr. Clark's statements were similar to what both I
and Scott said at the last meeting. I think you could ban con-
dominiums but I doubt if you could do it under the zoning ordi-
nance. Zoning is use, light, air, set-backs, height, etc., I
question ownership, you are asking me an attorney's ~estion.
Francis - The public hearing and the ordinance that has been pro-
posed says nothin~ about the elimination of condominiums. It is
limited and it is very specific and it says any permitted use of
teh AR..l Accommodations Recreation District except patio and row
houses. That means that any residential of any type except those
two particular one~ any residential is permitted under this ordi-
nance that we are discussing today at this hearing. I think ,~
myself that the motion is out of order. . '
Barnard - No, I don't. We are trying to solve this problem of
condominiums. This 50% thing was an attempt to do so.
Wurl - We might be able to solve the problem if we had the
question before us and voted on, it.
Roll call vote - Mayor Barnard aye; Whitaker nay; Hartmeister aye;
Wurl nay- Tharp nay; Heneghan nay. Motion not carried;
Daly - I have a suggestion where you could get your condominiums
with commercial space.
Chairman - Let me see if there are any other motions.
Francis - Mr. Chairman, I think that we should take the ideas that
have been expressed by the people who are interested much more so
than I am in making a living and what they are doing with their
land and take the ideas that the Commission has expressed and we
can either continue the public hearing or we should have another
study session and come up with something that we think will be
workable. I am convinced that the 50% requirement as it has been
demon$~rated here will provide an unnecessary amount of commercial
space.
~ 19 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Daly - Possibly we could get some commercial space, you went the
route of giving credit on arcade space, why don't you give a
credit in your density for not only arcade space but why don't
you give credit for commercial space. Why argue but come up with
some ideas that are workable. It is going to cost the builder
more to put in the commercial space. I wanted to make some money
on the commercial but I don't want to ruin everybody in town who
has space.
Chairman - Any other motions?
Francis - Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we do not make a
recommendation to the City Council at this time and continue our
study on the ideas that have developed from this public hearing.
Heneghan - I'll second it.
Roll call vote - Whitaker aye; Wurl aye; Hartmeister abstain;
Heneghan aye; Barnard nay; Tharp aye.
Chairman - Motion carried and that concludes the hearing on
vertical zoning.
ZONING REQUEST FOR BLOCK 58
Chairman - Next will be the zoning requE~t for Block 58.
The notice reads - "Notice is hereby given the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on March
1, 1968, 5:00 p. m., City Council Chambers, City Hall to consider
a request for rezoning of Block 58, Lots A, B, C, D, west half of
Lot E to tourist.
Plot plan and request are on file in the City Clerk's office,
City Hall and may be examined at any time by any interested person
during business hours.
This property is behind the Nugget.
(Commission reviewed plot plan.)
The public hearing is now opened and we will accept comments from
the floor.
Vivian - I think it is terrible to have one block and then one-
half a block tourist and then about 1/4 of that same area as
residential. The guy who owns the lots that are residential,
that isn't fair at all. It is not a neat residential site any-
more, the major use of that block is tourist.
Francis - I think it would be proper if you would ask if the
applicant is here.
Mrs. Franklin - Applicant - I think my request in writing tells
the story.
We the undersigned and property owners of Block 58 in
the To~mship os Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: who are
now in residence most respctfully request the Planning
and Zoning Board to reclassify and rezone the property
now held by us for the following reasons:
A. The front half of the block on Main Street is
occupied by a restaurant and the remaining lots are tonri"t
occupied leaving 5 lots, which are not sufficient for
residential comfort and privacy.
- 20 -
Public Hearin~, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
B. By reason of the use by tourists it has decruased
the property in value as residential classification.
C. Our block is surrounded by properties, tourist
zoned, The Tyrol, Aspen Institute, Telephone Company,
these and other income properties make our lots inade-
quate as residential.
Isl Arthur C. & Catherine M.
Franklin
Maxine J. Nelson
Gertrude L. Janney
Chairman. '.:\.arp - Do you have anything further to add to this?
Franklin - No
Chairman - Is there any further comment on this.
W. V. N. Jones - I am opposed to this and so are some of our
neighbors. You have a couple of letter there.
Chairman - I have two letters here.
I am the owner of the house located at 323 West Hallam
in Aspen, and I object strongly to the rezoning of any
part of the residential area near my house. The rezoning
to tourist of the south side of Bleeker Street encroaches
on the residential community, increases the traffic around
the elementary school, and weakens confidence in the
zoning structure of the city.
Isl Peter Vought
Since the school buses use Bleeker Street adjoining the
elementary school play yard to load and unload students,
and since many mothers are dropping off and picking up
their children in this area, I recommend that lots A. B,
C and D of Block 58 continue to be zoned residential.
Isl Esther Benninghoff
Jones - My feeling is sir, if we allow any of the residential
area to be turned into tourist zoning you just open the way for the
whole area to be turned into tourist zone. That side of town, in
my opinion, is set aside originally for residential purposes and
the fact that the telephone company is there was a mistake in my
opinion, the fact that the Nugget is right there on that block was
also a mistake but it was done and I don't think we should make any
more mistakes in that area.
Clark - I didn't know anything about this but I own the house right
in front of Whip Jones and I fully agree with him that the telephone
company was a mistake and that was a long story in how they did
that. That was supposed to have been just an equipment building,
then they worked it around and put the office in that was a real
error and I agree that if we don't stop it there this is a resi-
dential side of town and the kids are walking down that street and
I think it would be a real big mistake.
Doremus - I don't own any property in that immediate vicinity but
I am opposed to it because I think it could be like spreading cancer.
I think the reasons given for rezoning could be the same reasons
for all blocks. I don't think this is true justification, it
certainly would break down and set a precedent for rezoning all the
land that was requested.
- 21 -
Public Hearin~, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Vivian - How many parcels of land are in this minority classifi-
cation? Everybody is making money in the businesses around there
and they are left out. Those five lots for a home are useless and
you are sayin~ that they can't be used as a business so let's turn
it into a parking lot.
Dunaway - I think zoning of 1/2 of a block at a time is spot zoning.
Changing zoning should be part of a plan initiated by the Commission
after study not just at the request of property owners. It cer-
tainly would open the door to other people wanting to rezone their
property.
Franklin - One quarter of that block on which my residence sits is
owned by the Nugget. I have the alley way which goes right by my
house and as for the safety of the children I have approached the
police and the school and my answer from each was you have to get
permission from one or the other. The trucks back out of that
alley right into the path of the children as they are approaching
or getting off the school buses. On those lots Mrs. Janney has, one
lot which she would sell, I am sorry, if the house were to burn
nothing could be built on it. Mrs. Nelson owns 1-1/2 lots and I
have 2. I don't intend to move from there, I just would like now
to have the fulfillment of this request because while we were away
we were never notified that part of this block had been turned
into tourist.
Chairman - Is there any further comment?
Clark - Just this comment, that if the house did burn you could
replace it.
Chairman - No further comments so the public hearing is closed and
will be confined to the commission. The point has been made by
Mrs. Goodnough that this isn't fair to not allow this. On the
other hand it is spot zoning, its taking a piece here and there
zoning it for whatever purpose without any cohesive quality to
the zoning. Would like to hear from members of the Commission
so that we can get on with the public hearing.
George - I don't entirely agree with Mrs. Goodnough. I think that
it was a mistake that that use variance was ever approved. The
Nugget faces not on your block. Arthur's also faces on Main and
not on your street, so even though they are there they are not
really endangering the children.
Franklin - We have delivery of milk, Coca-Cola and liner.s to their
back doors through the alley and also utilizing Bleeker and sitting
there idling motors and what have you.
Chairman - But there would be no reason for compounding it.
Barnard - I think it would be a great mistake to rezone this. 11y
primary reason is the fact that the kids go to the school across
the street, there are buses there at all times loading and unloading
children and I just see no reason to increase what is already a
bad situation. I personally would oppose rezoning of this land.
Francis - I would not be in favor of rezoning the land for tourist,
I think we should investigate the use variance that was granted and
apparently never used to see if there is anyway that it can be
revoked. I don't know whether there is a permanent right that a
variance gives someone. If there never was a reason to grant the
variance, variance has never been used, it seems to me it should
be investigated as to the reasons.
Barnard - That isn't under discussion, I think we should stick to
the matter at hand.
Heneghan - I move that we recommend to the Council that the re-
zoning request for Block 58 be denied.
- 22 .
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Barnard - Second.
Roll Call Vote - Hartmeister aye, Heneghan aye; Wurl aye; Whitaker
aye; Tharp aye; Barnard aye.
BUILDING REVIEW
Chairman - And that concludes the hearing on rezoning request for
Block 58. Next item for public hearing is the Building Review,
the elimination thereof. It has been proposed that the Building
Review portion of the zoning code be eliminated and that the
building inspector submit a list of all proposed buildings to the
Commission, so that they at any time could call for a hearing on
any building. Discussion is now open.
Clark - I am for doing away with this. It has become just a
political football but I don't think any of them should be re-
ferred to at all. You have a building inspector and in any other
county that I have been in in my life they all go to the building
inspector and he rules what it is and that is it. If it is denied,
you have the right of appeal, which we have here, if it is granted,
the building inspector who is supposed to be a professional in
his business he is supposed to be interpreting it. Past history
here has proven that it is a political football. Everything
that is brought in here is a question of who knows the Mayor and
whether the Mayor is for or against it.
Barnard - When you had the building inspector in your pocket it
was pretty handy, wasn't it?
Clark - I object to that remark.
Chairman - That is enough of that, calm down and let's get on
with the public hearing.
Clark - I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman - Dr. Barnard's remark was out of order and we will
continue with the public hearing on Building Review.
Clark - I think that it has been proven to be a political football
and I have nothing whatever to do with this project one way or the
other on the one for the Murray block. I don't know that I go
along with 108 condominiums, I haven't really given it a lot of
thought because I have been a little busy. But that shows to me
when that comes up that its just a question, certain people, and
I ~on't mention any names, say automatically that this new zoning
is going to go through. So Fritz Benedicts office worked night
and day to blast out the plans to beat this previously approved
new zoning. Its just automatically taken for granted that it is
going to be rezoned.
Chairman - I would like to point out that it was not.
Clark - But their request was turned down in anticipation of this.
This is an interesting point to me because it was turned down.
I think when you are dealinr, on this level on just a dictatorship,
very dirty level that it should be just left to the building
inspector just like everyone else does it. You turn your plans
in and you have a perfect right to deny them if it is denied you
can take it to the Board of Adjustment and appeal it because they
are the board to appeal a building inspector's ruling and I see
no reason why we have to cause it and there has been an awful lot
of problems that we have had in this area. Why do we cause it,
why not let the building inspector make the decision and he makes
it one way or the other and we abide by it and if we don't like
it we have the right to go to court. First the Board of Adjustment
and then we can take it to whatever court we want to.
- 23 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Doremus - I was around I think when this so called building re-
view was first adopted and it was Traft and Bean who recommended
it. I was also the first building inspector and I know why
Building Review was first adoDted. It doesn't seem like it is
. a
bein~ used for that purpose anymore. It was very questionable
paragraph in the law at the time it was passed, and it is still
questionable. Hopefully someday it will be something that is
enforceable in the State of Colorado. The best attorneys judge-
ment at that time was questionable as to being enforced to the
letter. It was to hopefully prevent somethin~ architectually
atrocious. That was all that it was meant fer, it talks about
safety and welfare but that is legal mumble-jumble. It was to
prevent or at least discourage architectually atrocious structures
from going up into a town where you have some character of its own.
I think that if it isn't being used for that means anymore it
should be dropped. The question is if it is being deleted from
the Planning and Zoning Commission, is it being ~iven to some
other body?
Chairman - No, it is not to be given to another body.
Bruce Sutherland - I would question the necessity of this Commission
or building review at all at least on the fact that the building
inspector is to determine whether or not projects submitted need
the zoning law. And to hold a public hearing on something that
is existing law seems like a total waste of time. You can have
opiniuns forever, but it is that law that exists at the time that
is critical. Now if valuable time of very busy people is being
wasted for this sort of situation, I feel it would be a lot better
if individual members of the P & Z board took that same time and
made sure that these laws are what they want, and not after,
because that is a waste of time.
Bob Stevens - I think it would facilitate the building inspector's
job and probably P & Z's job. I think P & Z on some plans when
somebody comes in with an 8 unit apartment it meets all the re-
quirements it is pretty much an automatic deal and the Building
Inspector sees that it is an automatic deal, it would facilitate
him issuing a permit and it wouldn't necessarily have to go through
P & Z. I think on a small scale project which doesn't have as
much influence on the surrounding property and so forth, it might
facilitate things for you to delete it.
Clark - I did not elaborate on one point there if you pass this
motion in its entirety, the political football still maintains
because all certain people do is go down the list that has been
supplied by the building inspector and pick those out and you are
right back to the same thing. This project would have been
picked out obviously, the Murray block. Picked out and said we
want to examine that one. Well my objection is the political
football. If you are going to take it out, take it completely
out. If you want to give it to another body and you don't feel
like the building inspector can handle it, there seems to be some
question from the Mayor, then give it to somebody and I don't
know how you're going to set it up, maybe some more study needs to
be done on it, but give it to some board or non-interested people
who look at it realiztically and look at it legally. I am tired
of being a taxpayer in this town of defending the City's law suits.
I am just getting fed up with it. I would rather see it go into
parks, streets or mall areas. And I think everybody here feels
the same way. Its about time we took it out of the arena I think.
Hans Gramiger - I have sat here at many meetings of the P & Z and
I could have two opinions about it. I feel that a lot of time has
been spent on looking at plans and I wish my further comment not
to be against the building inspector, but I feel that even he
would feel better if occasionally you could double check with other
people about it. And I think a reqUirement that any building per-
mit in the C-l. C-2 and AR-l should be posted or public notice.
- 24 -
--
.
Public Hearin~, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Hans Gramiger - continued - Now over in Switzerland any building
permit must be in the local paper. And then it goes a step
further, a building must be erected by 2 x 4s so that a neighbor
could look at the roof line to see how much view he will lose.
Now I don't think we want to ~o that far, but I believe that all
adjoining landowners and interested citizens should have the op-
portunity to know that a building permit has been applied for.
And I think the best thin~ would be a public notice in the paper.
Clark - Not that particular point but the earlier point that he
brought up. Leave it to the Building Inspector and if there is
any question in his mind then he may request a meeting of the
P & Z Board for review. Then if there is any grey area let him
do it. But on the ones that are just pure and simple le~al and
people bought the land for that use then it should be ~ranted.
If you don't like the use of the land then change it but if it
complies in every respect and in P & Z the review board has to
fall back on the lame duck sentence that health, welfare of the
City, this is not a democracy. This is making a sham of it.
But the solution could be building inspector asking for review.
Chairman - Any further comments (No further comments) All right
the public hearing is closed and discussion is confined to the mem-
bersof the Commission.
Wurl - I agree, I think it should be eliminated for the reasons
that I expounded upon before but I will cover them quickly once
more. I feel that at the time the Planning and Zoning devotes to
building review could be better spent in planning and antici-
pating and reviewing the codes so that we do get the horse before
the cart and we can study the problem areas and provide recommen-
dations to the Council. The solving of some of the problems we
keep consistently running into. I also feel that it would be a
better situation to have review of the plans in the hands and full
responsibility of the buildin~ inspector. I think that there has
been another having been allowed to do something which was ob-
viously against the code which was not caught in building review
or by the Building Inspector. I think it would make a lot less
confusion. If he knows that that is his total responsibility and
so do we.
Francis - The reason for building review and you are probably
familiar with this Mr. Doremus vias to replace an archi tectual
control section in the code. The other reason was, at that time
the building inspector wanted some help, and it was partly at
the demand of the building inspector's request that the section
was put in. The other reason is that some of the requirements of
the zoning law had been ignored by the building inspector at the
direction of the City Council at that time. I would like to ask
the building inspector how he feels about it.
Marvin - Well, it is like we discussed at that last meeting. My
feeling on this is that both in delay of contractor and along with
that I can interpret the zoning ordinances, it is very simple to do
this, I have to anyway. On anything that comes in that conforms
100% they will get a permit. If there is any question in my
mind or whoever is the building inspector you can consult the City
Attorney for interpretation of the zoning ordinances and make a
determination at that time.
Barnard - I think it will be a great mistake to have Planning and
Zoning people give up this function. My reason for saying that is
because the P & Z is the only watchdog you've got to keep track
of things to see what is going on. No offense to Marv but this
is just too much responsibility to put on one man's shoulders.
Francis - I would like to say that if the Planning Commission had
any actual authority that it might be wise to keep the review but
the Commission has no authority. They review and make a recom-
mendation to the building inspector. He can accept or reject it.
-25 -
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
Barnard - It is in Title XI.
Francis
It is to recommend, it isn't authorized.
Barnard - I still say the P & Z acts as a watchdog.
Clark - What if the P & Z recommends against it and the Building
Inspector goes ahead and does it;
Barnard - Well, that happened once and that is in court.
Wurl - Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we reCOM-
mend to the City Council the elimination of building review.
Francis - I'll second the motion.
Roll Call vote - Mayor Barnard nay; Tharp aye; Heneghan aye;
Wurl aye; Whitaker aye. Hartmeister nay. Motion carried.
ZONING OF NORTH SIDE ANNEXATION.
Chairman - That concludes the public hearing on building review.
The next subject for hearing is the zoning of the North Side
Annexation. The public hearing is now open to discussion.
Stevens - I live in the North Side Annexation and I just wonder
if we could have somebody read what is proposed.
(Jerry Brown explained the categories on the zoning map and the
zoning proposed for each area.)
Jerry Brown - One change from the County zoning is over between
the Roaring Fork that was zoned R-15, its platted into small lots
and I felt that R-15 was a little out of wack there so I changed
it to R-6. The purple proposed C-2 by the City is presently
County business. There is a chunk that was zoned tourist in the
County west of the Court House which I have changed to C-l and
C-lA. The one chunk that is presently Neal Avenue Park I have
indicated it as multiple family.
Doremus - I am opposed to the multiple family dwelling classi-
fication on Neal Avenue Park. It looks to me like spot zoning.
Also I would like to read a resolution which was address to the
Pitkin County Commissioners and Aspen City Council.
"Upon motion being made, seconded and unanimously being
adopted it is resolved that the Pitkin County Park Asso-
ciation is actively engageQ in preserving land for park
use. Whereas proposals have been made to erect structures
inconsistent with park use on b.ro local parks, Wagner
Park and Neal Avenue Park, we therefore, resolve that the
Pitkin County Park Association expresses its unqualified
opposition to either structures or land use on our parks
inconsistent with established park use. Be it further
resolved that the Pitkin County Park Association request
the Pitkin County Commissioners and the Aspen City Council
so dedicate and zone our local parks so that they may be
preserved for park use only both now and in the future."
This Board of Directors represents over 100 members.
Stevens - Is this now a dedicated park.
Doremus - Yes it is.
Stevens - From my own standpoint I would like to see it remain
a park.
- 26 -
Public Hearin~, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
Clark - I would too. Grant & Company has been doing business since
1953 in Aspen, present location since 1957. Title XI in 1967 made
the present location non..conforming which I \\"asn r t too much against.
In fact, I didn't say a word about that because I don't think that
we should be there in the downtown area. So in 1965, I bought the
operation in 1964, I went down in the area which is purple on the
map and bought 2-~ acres down there by the river in order to expand
our operation , put it down there and develop this downtown site
into something I hope very, very attractive. We are trying very
desperately to get our building down there this spring which is
going to make a lot of people happy and especially me. I don't
mind being thrown out up there, I don't even mind fighting your
general plan which is used as a guideline in every argument based
in this town, okay, I accept that. The Master Plan calls for my
property to be six acres of industrial and proposal says C-2.
There is a lot of difference between light industrial. I don't
want to put heavy industrial down there. But I may wart to manu-
facture somethi~ I don't know what I want to do down there. Light
industrial is not C-2, Jerry Brown, and you know it. You can't
convince me because you are wrong and you know it. So you are
going against the Master Plan. First time since it was inaugurated.
So you are going to go against it and say light industrial shouldn't
be down there, it should be C-2. You kicked me out of my property
up town vhich I went along with I own that land down there which
is business in the County and I can do anything I want to do.
You come along and annex me which I wasn't very happy about, now
you want to go against the !'laster Plan and say kinp:s X. I get
kicked around in this town rather often but that one I am not
going to take lying down. And I know that you don't like me and
I have fought you all the way, Jerry Brown, but I am sure as hell
going to fight you on this one.
Jerry - According to my wide experience, first of all zoning has
to resemble the Master Plan but doesn't have to be completely as
in the Master Plan because the Master Plan doesn't take as detailed
a look at it. We spent as much time on zoning as we probably did
in developing the Master Plan. So the uses that I have mentioned
would continue what is down there, contractor's yards, lumber
yards, cabinet shops, etc. It never was my intention to rule
them out and it isn't now. But in the interest of simplifying the
oridnance which is the current trend in zoning, is to have as few
districts as broad as possible, rather than as many districts as
possible. When we came to the zoninf study it seemed like a fairly
small district. When I first developed the area it looked like
it might go for a purely retail center because the D & RGW was
interested so I thought there should be a division there. After
the Master Plan was developed the D & RGVI backed away and I don't,
well they haven't done anything with it yet, so we wrote the C-2
to be in effect a commercial industrial district and I don't care
to argue on semantics on what we call the district is is commercial
industrial district. I would quote from 11-1-7 under (3) Permitted
Uses - limited industrial uses including the following - builders'
supply and lumber yards, contractors yards, dry cleaning plant and
laundry and fabrication and repair of building materials and com-
ponents. To me this would mean prefabing buildings anything of that
nature. But I see purely industrial business as being basicly
chemical in Aspen or the iron ore operation down Woody Creek and
I didn't feel,in other words when we got down to writing the dis-
tricts we got to the pure industrial uses, we felt we really didn't
want them in there, wide open processing. So I don't see Mr. Clark
anything in the C-2 that would prevent you from doing the type of
building fabrication, components, repair that I imagine you had in
mind.
Clark - What if I wanted to put a pre-mix plant, can't do it.
Porto-mix adjoins me. What is wron~ with doing what is presently
being done down there? During the Master Plan we had very long
discussions on that industrial area and now you are saying that
there are a few things you can't build. Generally speaking, what
you are saying basically is that you don't have a light industrial
- 27 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Clark continued - and you are going to have to have it someday.
Guys like Stan Anderson you just can't shut out. I'm not saying
that I won't build one chances are that I won't. But I may wa,t
,
to. That's what I bought the land for. Supposedly it is still a
democracy where you buy a lot and it is zoned a particular way and
you can do certain things with it and that is what it was and you
assured me that that was going to stay that way. When we talked
about the Master Plan, Jerry, you assured me that it would stay
light industrial. Master Plan calls for it and that is what is
there. Now you're going to depart from it. Show me one other
place that you made a departure such as this. You have loosened it
up in certain areas but you haven't tightened it up until you came
to my property and I resent that.
Jerry.. I question if a batch plant would be light industrial use.
Doremus .. I worry about that river and frontage and I hope that
there are a few other people that are worried about it. Maybe a
compromise over the use might be determined in that purple area.
I know Clark would be willing to go along with it because I talked
to him about it. Some modest kind of set-back along the river so
possibly a public path or bridle path might go through the area.
Are set-backs of that kind legal?
Jerry - I would have to look into it.
Doremus - Clark could accommodate the community and others by
agreeing to a modest set-back along the river. Perhaps this could
be adopted in all that zoned area where there is frontage on the
river. I am not talking about much just enough for a walk-way
perhaps.
Clark - I intend to have a walk ~;ay around, I am not going to set-
back but will probably have 4 or 5 ft. that will be past the building
Otherwise would have a straight concrete retaining wall.
Doremus - Well, I would like to see a little bit more than that. I
would like to suggest this for your consideration.
Jerry - If you have gone down and looked at the batch plant you
will see that they fill their truck with water and dump it into the
river. So I wonder if you want to continue that type of thing.
Clark - I agree that that is bad.
not be a batch plant that I want.
But I also say Jerry, that it may
I really haven't looked into this.
Stevens - I think Trout Unlimited should look at that and could
stop that.
Clark - I am just saying that it was said that light industrial
was what I could have and it is kind of swap deal as I remember.
Get the hell out of town and we will give you what you want down
where we can't see you. And I said sold because I don't really
want to be uptown and I think there are a lot better uses for that
property than what I am putting it to. Let me operate, let me
exist. This is going to be a very dangerour precedpnt, gentlemen,
that you are going to set. You zone against me and what is in the
Master Code and you are saying, in effect, we can do whatever we
want to about the Master Code and it is going to be a little
tough on the next one that I am sitting in on. Those are the two
objections I see, wiping out Neal Avenue Park and C-2 district.
You get into competition with private enterprise for one thing and
I told the Mayor, and he doesn't believe me, but I am working on
low cost housing and it has taken a long time and a lot of money
but I am going to try and solve the problem. I realize the problem
exists.
- 28 ...
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Jerry - Neal Park, the City Attorney is checking to see if it is
really a park, and it is not presently developed as a park. There
is a problem here in time. There is a proposal here for low cost
housing on this site. So the crux of the matter is you can put
park in a multiple family district but you can't put multiple
family dwellings in a park. So I looked at it this week and I
got the property lines and I started saying maybe well we should
have 100 ft. along one side and 50 feet along the other side in
continuation of the park. I! this would work it might be a chance
for low cost housing. To date no ,)ther scheme has come through
for low cost housing. So I proposed this, that we go ahead and
zone it multiple family but I am not saying that it has to be
multiple family housing. So I think that any proposal that comes
in for low cost housing should be clearly delineated as to what
is park and what is pUblic housing. Then at that time it could
be put into the paper for public hearing and we wouldn't be slowed
down by zoning problems of having to rezone it for multiple family.
Doremus - The City Council has dedicated it as a park.
Clark - Jerry, I have had two full time mer, working for the last
three months on my low cost housing project. I have reviewed it
with the Mayor and City Administrator and you look me in the eye
and say that you have not heard that I am working on the low cost
housing problem.
Jerry - I said nothing had come through yet.
Stevens - I think the people of Aspen might do well to get together
and try to keep that a park over there.
Doremus - That is what the Park Association feels.
Chairman - There is some legal question as to whether it could be
used for any other purpose than a park at this time according to
the owners.
Clark - Why can't we zone it park and then rezone it later, don't
get the cart before the horse.
Doremus - This is what the Association is asking.
Barnard - Would like to ask where the Pitkin County Park Association
was when the City Council was fighting to get that land away from
Mr. Buchanan. I didn't hear any speeches from you boys then. I
just wanted to point out how it happened that you are even talking
about this. Since you mentioned that you were acquiring parks,
I wonder who you is.
Doremus - Park Association.
Bill Stevenson - I am curious to know what uses are permitted in
light industrial that are not permitted in C-2.
Jerry - We have no light industrial zone. In answer to your
question, I couldn't see anything foreseeable in this area that I
felt was not covered in C-2.
Francis - Can you tell us briefly, Jerry, what is the difference
between present county zoning and proposed zoning of C-2.
Jerry - I wish that I had a copy of the county ordinance, it is not
generally available. I don't have it. But generally the County
business district allows this sort of thjng that we are proposing
here under our C-2.
Francis - Does it allow other things?
Jerry - That I would have to check into.
Clark - I also would like to check into it.
- 29 -
Public Hearin~, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
Bill Stevenson - The reason that I asked the question is I feel
that if there are some uses that might not be permitted, it might
be a mistake. It would be a help to the community, br9ader indus-
trial base would be much better for the community, provide more
jobs, tax base and better for everybody.
Vivian - I think there is a question on whether the City should be
in low cost housin~ to start with and why can't you put it down
there in that purple area. I just don't think you need to have
to take our parks. I think there are an awful lot of questions on
this thing.
Clark - It ~culd be interesting to me to analyze the Master Plan
and see what you would have to say about parks. I just have a
hunch, knowing you, Jerry, there is a lot of information in there
on parks, how they should be maintained, how new ones should be
formed, how and what areas should be established.
Francis - The County B which ttat area is presently zoned permits
any of the other district uses. Any general business or commercial
or wholesale activity including automobile repair shops, bakery,
bank, builders' su~ply, cleaning establishments, dairies, shops,
restaurants, printing and publishing establishment, storage and
warehouses and all retail sales outlets. And then certain places
that may create unusual traffic hazards, gas stations, billboard,
amusements places and drive-in restaurants. That is presently the
permitted use there.
Clark - Apparently they permit pre-mix plants there because as I
understand it there is no reason for not doing so. I may want to
put another pre-mix plant down there. Don't you think that you are
being a little unfair, everybody wants me down there, I want to
go down there and now you want to reverse what is in the master
plan on where I am going.
Francis - Mr. Clark, I think you have a perfectly valid point.
Marvin - I am not sure that the present zoning of business in that
area under County zoning, that a batch plant isn't a non-conforming
use. I believe that it is.
Heneghan - Mr. Clark has stated that we or someone is moving down
there but we are not moving his batch plant down there because he
doesn't have one.
Clark - George, I am moving my entire operation down there. One
year ago I didn't have an electric company either.
George - That is allowed down there.
Doremus - These are sticky problems in this community. I think the
toughest problem that should be faced in the County and you have
certainly faced. One tendency is to when you are up against a
brick wall like this, is to give in and say well he wants to go
there and he has a big chunk of land there is a lot of it that exists
there but whether or not it is the responsibility of the City espe-
cially since the City limits are small, this is always a problem.
Secondly just because the pressure is on a certain sP0~ and some
of it already exists; is this purple area good for the community
to have it there or changed to a broader use like light industrial.
T think the planners should look at it from the standpoint that it
18 going to be there for the next 100 years or so. Is it the right
place, not just because pressure is on it because some of it happen-
ed to have gotten there early. Is it really the right place, is
there no other place.
Clark - You don't understand the problem. When it was in the
County I was under the B-Business district, I was happy. I am
going down there when I get the money, I have to borrow the money
and the market is tight.
- 30 -
.
Public Hearing, P & Z, 3/1/68, continued.
Chairman - No further comments, public hearin~ is closed and
discussion is confined to the Commission.
Wurl - Can't believe that I would agree with John Doremus but I
am going to. I don't think that it is our responsibility to
foresee what everybody wants to do personally with their property
in any area. I think our responsibility is to zone an area, zone
the whole city and provide for all the things we need here to live.
I don't think that we have to say that maybe Butch Clark or Leon
Wurl or Jake or anybody might want to put a concrete plant in a
commercial district or down by the Institute or anywhere else. I
think the point that George made that the concern that is provided
in the ordinance for the things that are now existing in that zone
I think some additional items. If we added an "In zone which may
be the proper way to do it I would foresee that we would simply
take out item 3 and in lieu of listing that under C-2 make that
"I" Industrial. I don't think we want to see any more batch plants
or asphalt plants and they are pretty dear to my heart, to see
them located down in that area. I think the place that they are
locating down the valley and hidden is fine. I say that we should
accept Jerry's recommendation and suggest to Council that they
vote on it as presented. Except we may want to discuss C-lA a
little bit before we do that.
Francis - I think that if there are any basic differences between
the present County B and our existing C-2 that we should certainly
give Mr. Clark full consideration for the fact that he is moving
a large industrial enterprise down there. I don't know whether a
batch plant is considered part of a builders' supply. It might be,
I don't know. I don't know how we can resolve that because recom-
mendations have to be made on this zoning because it has been
annexed although I do understand there is another law suit on the
annexation. But we do have to make our recommendation and the Coun-
cil does have to act otherwise there will be no zoning on the pro-
perty at all. Neal Avenue Park clearly shows on the Master Plan
a park, it shows further in the text a recommendation for a park
and improvement. I understand from Mr. Doremus, that it has been
dedicated as a park which I did not know. To the north of that on
the Master Plan is proposed a large high density residential zone.
I understand the County Planning Commission is initiating studies
on low cost housing and has past it to the County Planning Commission.
Neal Avenue is the only real municipal land with direct access to
the Roaring Fork River that I know of in this whole area. Ute
Avenue Park goes to the river but the bank is very steep and you
can't get down to it. It is ideally located close to everywhere and
yet it is in a very remote spot. When the detour is removed,there
will be very little traffic down there. I understand a questionnaire
was sent out and I got one as a business man. I don't believe the
questionnaire was sent to any residents and there is no mention
in the questionnaire about low cost housing and that the proposal
was for a park. I think the residents of this community have very
strongly expressed their desire to keep our parks for parks only.
And there is also serious doubt as to the legality and in my
opinion the morality of zoning that particular piece for anything
but a park. I think that that should be included in the park zone
which is a little bit further up the river.
Barnard - I think this is ~egging the question here to debate whe-
ther or not a batch plant is actually an item of builders' supply.
I think that you have to make up your mind whether or not you want
batch plants down in that part of the town or whether you don't.
Or whether you figure out some flimsy way to call it builders'
supply is totally subterfuge, I really think the bigger thing here
is what Leon said is whether or not this type of thing, asphalt
plants, call it what you may, should or shouldn't be down there in
the first place. I don't think they should. The other thing I
would like to say and it seems that there are only two controversial
points here, suddenly Neal Avenue Park Ras become a sacred cow. In
the first place it isn't even a park. The reason it was dedicated
as a park is because we acquired it from Mr. Herron after a lengthy
law suit. At the time he ~ave it to the City he expressed the
desire that it be made into a park. He said to the City I will
give it to you if you will make it a park. Whether or not John
- 31 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68. continued.
Barnard continued - feels all this strongly about it now, I don't
know because I haven't talked to him about it. But this business
of acting like this was some sacred thing that you are going to
jerk out from under the people is just foolishness. This will
provide us with something the people need. Leon, how many acres
of park did we dedicate or make available for improvement purposes
this last couple of years.
Leon - Close to 23 acres.
Heneghan - I feel that it is a sacred thing, that is the only
opportunity that I see in this whole length of river where the
City has the opportunity to allow people to enjoy the river and you
all know there are barbed wire fences across a great deal of the
river. You can't walk along it most places and that is the only
opportunity that I see that the City has in allowing people to
enjoy the river.
Chairman - It would seem somewhat a contradiction at a time when
all the cities are grabbing everything they possibly can to save
some parks to take some step which is in direct contradiction to
this. I will go back to the point that this may in point and fact
be a discussion for nothing because it was Mr. Herron's desire that
that remain a park. I still believe that we should accept his
desires although there may not be something in the deed which would
allow us to get around it. So until we find out what Mr. Herron
has to say about it and how he feels, I don't think we ought to
sit right here and vote a park right out from under Mr. Herron
without his being able to express what he would like to say on it.
He is in Mexico and we cannot get him here, I realize the problem.
At the same time this gentleman, who has done a great deal for
Aspen, does not want low cost housing on it. I for one would stronry-
ly object to it being placed on there regardless of our legal
grounds for doing so.
Wurl - I don't think anybody is proposing that we override the
wishes of Mr. Herron on that.
Barnard - Seeing that Mr. Herron is very much with us I certainly
don't think when he gave the land to the City that he could envi-
sion what the needs might be this year or 10 years from now. A
good way to find out is to as~ him. The point is that the Council
can't do anything unless you make some recommendation on it. If
you hand them a lot of nothing they will go into their meeting with
just exactly that.
Heneghan - I would like to make a motion that we recommend to
Council the zoning as proposed with the exception that that brown
area (Neal Avenue Park ) be re-colored park.
Francis - I'll second that motion.
Roll call vote - Hartmeister aye; Whitaker aye; Heneghan aye;
Barnard nay; Tharp aye: Wurl aye. Motion carried.
Francis - Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion that this
problem of Mr. Clark's be on our next agenda and that we try to
resolve any conflict that there might be between the present
County zoning and our existing C-2. We can't do anything other
than that because we have to get this zoning recommendation to
Council.
C-1A DISTRICT
Chairman - The next item and the last item for public hearing is
the C-IA District.
Wurl - With the exception of the small area that is in the City we
have already recommended to the City Council the biggest part of
C-IA.
- 32 -
Public Hearin~. P & z. 3/1/68, continued.
Chairman - The public hearing is now open on this C-IA District.
Any discussion from the floor?
(reviewed map)
Jerry - On the north side the third lot in from where Hunter Street
would be is a division of property ownership. There is also a
clause on the zoning map which says that any area not colored shall
be judged to be similar to the most restricted adjacent area.
Deane Billings - At the last hearing there was opposition to any-
thing in that block adjacent to the Catholic Church. I see that
you have most of it red there on the north side of Main Street
there or south side, excuse me. Barnard was at that hearing I know.
Barnard - But haven't you reversed your position there, you told
me that maybe the middle of the block would be a suitable compromise.
Billings - No, I didn't say that. One block was the feeling of
that mass of people. Just look at the mess you've got there now.
Look over there at Conoco, the last time I looked there were six
automobiles on the sidewalk and that is what you are going to have
right down there. The people have been harrassed about having to
park their cars parallel when they come to church on Sunday morning
I understand they have all been ticketed.
Barnard - If the people who are so concerned about the Catholic
Church and what is around it they should put their money where
their mouth is and buy the land then they can guarantee what goes
there. But I don't hear that as a proposal.
Billings - I didn't think of that, if there was somebody with the
money.
Barnard - That's just a suggestion. This is a way that you can
guarantee what goes next to the Catholic Church.
Billings - When you come down Main Street what do you see, one
crappy thing after another except Sardy's place and the park until
you get to this block right here. There is a bit of old Aspen
left here and you are literally going to bottle that church up
with junk and noise like you've got right over here.
Sampson - What he is trying to say is just because he has a bunch
of junk down on his place, I should have a bunch of junk down on
my place. This isn't true because if Mr. Maddalone parks on the
street that doesn't mean that Mr. Albright has to or that I have to
in my business. My request'is that this P & Z extend one more lot
west than what is proposed on that map up there. This would create
a buffer zone. I hate to see the Catholic Church dictate what I do
with my property or what anyone does with their property. In
reality probatly the church is non-conforming use in the business
district. But I respectfully request that this commission extend
the red zone on that map there one additional lot west and leave
60 ft. as a buf~er zone to protect the Catholic Church.
Billings - I think that the feeling was that a block was the bare
minimum.
Wurl - I don't really remember it being that way. I don't remember
that they specified.
Marvin - I would just like to say that at the present time that is
zoned C-l and there is a lot of permitted uses that could go in
that whole block that could be in my opinion more offensive than the
proper structure of a filling station on that side, like a 7-11
store for instance which is open on Sunday.
- 33 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Sampson - I purchased those lots in 1959 and in 1959, I could have
built a filling station on those lots. And in 1961, I purchased
those other half lots behind. I can still do this. Mr. Clark
sits here and says now you are changing the zoning on me without
my permission. Well, this is what happened here, you changed the
zoning on me without me knowing anything about it. Never even
being notified. Father Bosch could have bought that property in
1959 if he had had any concern. He talks about the esthetics of
Aspen and yet he expressed no concern about the Community Church
when Hr. Sardy allowed or sold the property to the telephone company.
So he isn't consistent in his thinking about esthetics.
Hans Gramiger - I have a presentation to make and due to the hour
will try and cut it down. Religious institutions in general, are
even allowed in the highest protected residential zone. But that
doesn't mean when they all of a sudden are in the business zone
that they can be protected. Unfortunately they can't because the
town is growing and the Catholic Church is not on wheels. Otherwise
it could be moved to a more desireable location. I have a Colorado
Springs zoning code with me and in the neighborhood business zone
any uses which are allowed in 1\-5 which is a medium family resi-
dential zone are allowed in the business zone. Now I think that
if we want to use zoning in conjunction with planning we should
try to guide the uses. If we are staying anywhere whether it is
C-2 or C-IA with no minimum requirements then we are asking for
trouble because possibly someone could find two lots and could
apply for a building permit to build a service station and probably
legally get it. They would have a situation which would not be
any better than after Chevron will be when they renovate their
building. But two lots are two small. I have talked to many major
oil companies who have come to my office and they all say they want
4 or 5 lots and I think you can guide a service station into a
better design if you let them be allowed to buy 5 lots. The his-
tory of zoning here, the 1956 zoning ordinance established 4 dis-
tricts and in the business district gasoline stations were allowed.
When Title XI went into effect they were still allowed and only
after 11 years the Master Plan came up and decided that the center
of the City would be pedestrian oriented. Now the question is
should a gas station' be built on that block. We will say this
that we will voluntarily go 60 feet from the Catholic Church, no
curb cuts and a regular sidewalk on the side. I intended to have
a retaining wall and trees (showed a plan of a gas station), would
recommend that the block be split 7 to 2 with the absolute permission
that a gas station that would locate there would have to be a beau-
tiful building, a structure that will fit in.
Franklin - Is this not spot zoning?
Jerry - No, we are trying to stay away from spot zoning by making
the district as large as possible.
Chairman - No further comments and that ends the publiC hearing
on C-lA District. Comments confined to the Commission.
Francis - I think this proposed zone does not resolve the problem
of the 2 existing service stations on Main Street. And I don't
think we can just say that it will be up to the Board of Adjustment
to grant them a variance. I know that it is absolutely unreasonable
to expect service staticns to go anywhere else other than the
State Highway but I am concerned about getting traffic generated
east of Galena Street. Those two things are unresolved in my mind.
Should we not have some of that C-IA that would take care of the
existing stations 1/2 block or 5 blocks if you want to where those
places are and should we consider the effect of having service
stations where they are going to make more traffic go east of the
main part of the business district.
- 34 -
Public Hearing - P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Jerry - Traffic comes in on Main Street and sort of filters into
the business area. On the traffic counts, I have found that Mill
and Galena had about the same traffic and of course the highway
was not re-routed so there was very little over on this end of
town. My feeling is, that if we satisfy the highway frontage
requirement or highway location on an area that is a little removed
from the very heavily traveled intersection, which is probably
due to the detour Mill and Galena, I think that we are ahead.
They do cause trafric pulling in and out, that is why I kind of like
this sort of removed corner.
Wurl - I agree with Francis's point that relates to the non-con-
forming uses. I agreed originally, that this area down here should
have been included in the C-IA and I still feel that way. Jerry,
what happens to us on 6 lots. I know you considered the ownership
there but realisticly what will happen? Is that more than one
station we'll have and less than 2?
Jerry - This is not envisioned as totally gas stations. Gas
stations are only an addition to the uses in the C-l.
Francis - Wouldn't it be better
instead of increasing it to 6?
opposition if it were 5 lots.
to cut it down to 4 or 5 lots
I think you would have less
Je~ry - A single owner would not necessarily sell all of his lots
to one gas station.
Wurl - The only reason we backed away from the original recommen-
dation was because of the church and their objection. My point
is truly what they might accept.
Wurl - I just wonder if it isn't worth it since that is the basis
for re-hearing, if it might not be worth discussing with Father
Bosch and determining where he stands. Maybe he won't agree with
60 feet. I suggest that if they are that interested, I think that
it should be bearing upon discussing it with Father Bosch and see
what he will do.
Barnard - If you absolutely want to control what happens on any
side of you, you go buy it. If this is that important to these
people then I think they should really consider doing just that.
But they are asking us to provide that at no cost to them.
Francis - We are not depriving those people who own those lots
adjacent to the church the use of the property. There are any
number of businesses that could go on there. I would just feel
better about the whole thinr, if we reduced the number to where
it would be realistic to a service station to 5 lots, that is
probably the maximum that any service station would require and
give consideration to the original propoeal that would remove the
two stations on the highway from being non-conforming. I think
that we would eliminate any criticism of spot zoning if we con-
sidered the whole problem of Main Street frontai!'e.
Barnard - Is there anything in the world short of the Board of
Adjustment that stop somebody from building a garage facility
connected with a gas station.
Francis - No, it would all be enclosed.
Wurl - From a planning standpoint apparently Jerry felt in the
first place and I feel that it should have started down at Chevron
and run all the way through one big zone, but that didn't work.
In the face of that I am trying to fiGure out what we could do
that would be acceptable.
Barnard - Well, we are bound to find some acceptable location.
- 35 -
Public Hearing, P & z, 3/1/68, continued.
Francis - Jerry what would you think about making a map that would
show not quite so many lots on that one block there and include what
you would consider reasonable amount of the other Main Street
frontage to the west?
Jerry - I would say go back to my original idea. I question if
you are really being honest.
Francis - I think it is unreasonable to zone the Court House
property and Catholic Church as C-IA. Does it necessarily have
to be a contiguous zone.
Jerry - No, as long as the parcels of it are large enou~h and are
facing each other.
Francis - Suppose you took it from the end of the business district
up to Galena Street.
Barnard - I make a motion that we recommend Jerry's original pro-
posal, three lots in on the south side of the street and the same
on the north side.
Chairman - Motion died for lack of second.
Wurl - I make a motion that the matter be tabled to give the pro-
ponets of a station close to that corner time to discuss it with
Father Bosch and determine his feelings on the matter.
Chairman - Motion died for lack of second.
Francis - I make a motion that we have a map incorporating this
proposal and a proposed C-IA zone west of Galena Street and submit
that to the Commission.
Chairman - Motion died for lack of second.
George - I make a motion that we have a study session next week
convenient to the Commission and talk about it.
Chairman - Motion died for lack of second.
Francis - I make a motion that we make no recommendation on C-IA
zone to the Council at the present time until we can come up with
a more acceptable proposal.
George - I'll second that.
Roll call vote - Barnard nay; Tharp aye; Hartmeister abstain;
Hen~ghan aye; Wurl aye; Whitaker aye.
Motion carried.
Barnard - Would just like to tell the Commission the position the
Council will be in on MOnday especially this vertical zoning with
no recommendation. They will be unable to act.
Discussed the information required to go on the vertical zoning.
Jerry to furnish Commission with information on creJits for retail
space as i8 presently done with arcades.
Administrator Wurl made a suggestion that another district be set
up excluding all types of residential dwellings.
Francis made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p. m., seconded by George
Heneghan. All in favor meeting adjourned.
Isl Lorraine Graves, Secretary
- 36 -