HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.worksession.20090922C AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS &
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Sister Cities
Aspen, Colorado
September 22, 2009
4:30 PM WORKSESSION
Review of the Aspen Area Community Plan update
a. Review of Managing Growth - AABC/West Maroon area Philosophy
Discussion
b. Review of Managing Growth -Vision & Philosophy
7:30 PM ADJOURN WORKSESSION
C
,..,- MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission;
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Plauner
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: September 17, 2009
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2009, 4:30pm in Sister Cities
RE: Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability
SUMMARY: At the September 8`h meeting, the P&Zs agreed to start the September 22 meeting
with the last "open discussion" on Intent and Philosophy, focusing on the AABC area. Staff has
invited people who have been involved in recent Pitkin County meetings on the future of the
AABC to attend. (The P&Zs should consider all references to the "AABC area" as the entire area
between Maroon Creek Road and the western end of the airport on both sides of Highway 82.)
After the discussion on the AABC area, the P&Zs can begin their review of the Intent and
Philosophy section of the Managing Growth and Economic Sustainability chapter. Staff will
return to the technique of showing the wording on-screen and making revisions based on the
input of the P&Zs. (A hard copy of this draft statement was provided at the September 8
meeting, and e-mailed as well. Another copy is provided electronically as Exhibit E. Please
contact staff if you need another hard copy.)
Staff does not expect there will be time remaining to get into a discussion on Goals and Action
Items. Staff intends to generate a complete list of Goals and Action Items for P&Z revision on
October 13`".
QUESTIONS FOR SEPTEMBER 22: The following includes important background
information as well as suggested questions to help guide discussion on September 22.
Draft Intent and Philosophy for Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability: Sub-section on
the future of the AABC area
The area west of the Maroon Creek Bridge along Highway 82 to the end of the airport is a
unique area of Pitkin County that is located within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. This area
provides a transition between the urban resort community of Aspen and the rural portions of
Pitkin County. It has evolved from being primarily a service center for Aspen in the 1970s, to
Page 1 of 3
being a complex mix of residential, commercial, public, institutional, light industrial and
recreational uses, and functions literally and figuratively as the "Entrance to Aspen."
This update is the first time that the AABC area will have its own chapter in the AACP, due to
the changing mix of land uses in this area during the last 10 years, the potential for additional
growth -and the resulting potential for change in the function of this area as it relates to Aspen.
Based on the recognition that any changes to zoning in this area could have significant impacts
on uses within the commercial core of Aspen, Pitkin County has delayed consideration of zoning
changes in recent years until it could work cooperatively with the City in developing asub-area
plan as part of the update to the AACP.
On September 22, the P&Zs will discuss how the future of the AABC area fits in with its
philosophy of Managing Growth and Economic Sustainability. But it's important to recognize
that the P&Zs will also have an opportunity to talk about how the future of the AABC area fits in
with its philosophy of Affordable Housing -and with its Philosophy of Transportation.
Finally, once we have drafted the chapters on Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability,
Affordable Housing and Transportation, we will then go into further detail when drafting a
chapter on the future of the AABC area. As will be true for other interrelated topics, we are
likely to end up revising current drafts as we continue to go through this process chapter-by-
chapter.
As the P&Zs discuss what they would like to say about the AABC area in the Philosophy section
of Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability, it will be helpful to consider the questions
posed in the "Clicker" sessions and the Community Survey (please see exhibits B and C) as well
as the following:
Question 1) Considering the mix of uses in the AABC area today, what are the most important
kinds of uses and characteristics for the future?
• Affordable Housing
• Free market residential
• Service commercial small business park uses (non-retail)
• The visual and physical entrance and transition from rural to resort area
• An incubator for affordable businesses
• Part of the tourist economy (lodging, base of Buttermilk)
• A hub for public/institutional uses (airport, CMC, ACSD, RFTA, etc.)
• A potential civic center (Pitkin County)
Question 2) What is the impact of growth in the AABC area on Aspen's commercial core? Are
there types of uses that will draw vitality out of the commercial core? Are there types of uses that
will compliment the commercial core?
Page 2 of 3
Draft Intent and Philosophy for Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability
Question 3) Has staff missed anything important in its draft of the Vision/Intent and Philosophy
section for Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability? Are there any red flags for P&Z
members? Does it accurately reflect the P&Zs discussions to this point? Has it answered the
questions regarding what types of uses we want to encourage, and what types of uses we want to
limit? Is it close enough to completion so the P&Zs can comfortably move on to a discussion of
Goals and Action Items on October 13?
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Summary of September 8 P&Zs meeting
Exhibit B: Clicker session results on AABC area
Exhibit C: Community Survey results on AABC area
Exhibit D: Excerpts from AABC community meetings
Exhibit E: Copy of Draft Managing Growth and Economy Intent and Philosophy Section
r - Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A
'~°~~ Summary of Joint Planning and Zonins Commissions Meeting
Rio Grande Meeting Room /September 8, 2009
The following is not intended to serve as minutes, but to summarize P&Z discussion on the
questions posed in the memo. The summary of P&Z responses incorporate elements of previous
P&2 discussions.
Cliff Weiss Presentation: City P&Z Commissioner Cliff Weiss gave a presentation on house size
in the UBG and areas adjacent to the UBG. Cliff's presentation included numerous photographs
of large homes under construction as well as new roads into the backcountry. His comments
included a desire to:
• Establish "scenic zones' in the County in areas immediately adjacent to the UGB
that would limit scenic impacts in areas outside of the UGB;
• Establish a hard cap of 7,500 square feet in FAR for residential development;
• Look at the City and County TDR programs and possibly lower the amount of floor
area one gets from a TDR (with the expectation that when the house size cap is
lowered, the amount of floor area gained from landing a TDR is also lowered but is
equally/more valuable);
• Amend the County TDR program to establish a floor area scale so that more floor
area is awarded for a TDR if it originates in a "scenic zone';
• Require mining claim owners to turn the mining claims into TDRs and not allow
1,000 square foot cabins;
• Ensure the back country remains rural in nature and is not over developed;
• Make it more difficult to have two story "great rooms" by capturing those areas in
volumetric FAR calculations.
P&Z Response to the Presentation: There were several areas of consensus, including:
• House sizes in the UGB should be lowered. We should examine how TDRS might
play a role in allowing property owners to increase their house size.
• We should examine adding volumetric calculations into how we calculate floor area.
Staff was directed to bring back information on why the city eliminated Volumetric
FAR calculations.
• Both the City and County land use codes should be strengthened to minimize
development on slopes and in scenic areas (i.e. amend City Code so there is no
development on 30% slopes, strengthen the 8040 Greenline Review). Identify any
"loopholes" in the codes that allow for degradation of visual quality.
• The City and County codes should be examined for differences. To the extent
possible, the codes should be the same for the area within the UGB , in terms of
how they treat development on slopes, in scenic areas, and how they count floor
area.
• Examine the fees, especially the affordable housing fees, and determine if there are
ways to make the field more level for locals and second homeowners.
Areas that need further discussion/follow up: There were several ideas that were discussed,
but a consensus was not reached, including:
• Should there be an "exponential curve' applied to fees (housing, environmental,
etc) as house size gets bigger? There was some agreement on this idea, but also
`"'~ 9.22.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
concern that larger homes cause negative impacts and more mitigation leads to the
need for more housing in a region where we are nearing build-out.
• Should we define the maximum house size as well as an exact "hard cap," and if so,
at what square footage is going to work in the best interest of preserving historic
integrity and quality of life?
• Should sub grade space be allowed? There were some members who wanted to
limit it due to job-generation and other impacts. Other members thought it was
more important to limit the visual impacts of mass and scale above grade, so sub-
grade space should be allowed and perhaps encouraged.
• Look at the "scenic zones" idea and standardize it in the UGB area. Need to
determine where the boundary of these areas might be.
• Consider allowing local property owners to defer mitigation until the property is
sold, and allow such property owners to "go to the front of the line" with regard to a
potential building permit allocation system.
Next meeting:
The P&Zs agreed to finish the philosophical discussion on Growth by discussing the AABC area.
There was agreement that the discussion should include the area west of Maroon Creek Road
and not just the AABC itself. Following the AABC discussion the group will review the draft
Intent and Philosophy for Managing Growth and Economic Sustainability. If there is time, the
P&Zs will review Goals and Action Items. The group agreed to have staff draft some initial goals
and action items that the P&Zs could use as a starting point for their discussion. It was also
agreed that prior to the meeting on September 18th, Commissioners would submit ideas to be
incorporated in Staff's first draft of goals and action items.
"" " 9.22.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
.~ .
Exhibit B
"Clicker" Session Results Regarding the AABC Area
42.) Regardless of the pace of growth or the type of growth (assuming there will be
some growth in the future) where should rowth occur? Select u to three
The core commercial areas -
from the river to the
mountain.
The neighborhoods
surrounding the core
commercial areas.
The traditional lodging area -
base of the mountain.
The Buttermilk/AABC area.
Downvalley from the airport.
I don't know enough to have
an opinion
This does not matter to me
Totals
Responses
ercent count
23.60% 194
18.25% 150
20.19% 166
23.97% 197
10.58% 87
2.55% 21
0.85% 7
100% 822
63.) In 20 ears, the Airport Business Center (AABC) should have: (Select one)
Responses
percent) (count)
A focus on residential development 3.46% 14
A balance of residential and commercial/office/li ht industrial 77.78% 315
A focus on commercial/office/light industrial 16.54% 67
I don't know enough to have an opinion 1.23% 5
This does not matter to me 0.99% 4
TOtaIS 100% 405
64.) What level of growth are you willing to see along the Highway 82 corridor between the
roundabout and the airport if there are no substantial improvements to today's
trans ortation s stem? Select one
Responses
(percent) (count)
Much more than exists toda 13.42% 53
A little bit more than exists today 23.04% 91
About the same rate as toda 25.57% 101
There should be no new growth in this area 35.70% 141
I don't know enough to have an opinion 1.27% 5
This does not matter to me 1.01 % 4
Totals 100% 395
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit B
Page 1 of 3
55.) What level of growth are you willing to see along the Highway 82 cornaor between [ne
roundabout and the airport If there are substantial improvements to today's transportation
system? (Select one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Much mare than exists today 34.00% 136
A little bit more than exists today 28.25% 113
About the same rate as toda 18.25% 73
There should be no new growth in this area 18.50% 74
I don't know enough to have an opinion 0.75% 3
This does not matter to me 0.25% 1
Totals 100% 400
66.) An increased number of lodging units should be built in the area between the
Airport/AABC and the roundabout to provide more lodging options in the Aspen Area.
(Select one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Strongl agree 14.39% 59
A ree 33.41% 137
Disa ree 31.46% 129
Stron ly disa ree 16.34% 67
I don't know enough to have an opinion 1.95% 8
This does not matter to me 2.44% 10
Totals 100% 410
67.) Most of the AABC is one to two stories in height. Are you willing to accept one
additional story at the AABC7 (Select one)
Res onses
(percent) (count)
Yes 83.63% 332
No 12.85% 51
I don't know enough to have an opinion 2.02% 8
This does not matter to me 1.51 % 6
Totals 100% 397
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit B
w~. Page 2 of 3
68.) The public can currently access government services for both the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County in Downtown Aspen. In terms of the location of government services, which
statement do you agree with the most9 (Select one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Pitkin County government services should remain in the 48.13% 193
downtown as they have been historically.
Pitkin County government services should be located outside of 47.63% 191
Aspen in the AABC area to serve the county wide population.
I don't know enou h to have an opinion. 4.24% 17
Totals 100% 401
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit B
~ Page 3 of 3
.~ Exhibit C
Community Survey Results Regarding the AABC Area
Question #58 asked if the Aspen Airport Business Center should be
primarily Commercial/Light Industrial or primarily Residential, or
somewhere in between...
Trade offs: AABC #1
Voters
ALL Homeowners
2nd Homeowners
Ful I-tl me Homeowners
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Full-time 2nd Homeowners ALL Homeowners Voters
Homeowners
~ 5 Residential 3.39% 1.80% 2.75% 1.75%
^ q 7.34% 6.31% 6.53% 7.42%
- 3 47.46% 32.43% 40.89% 45.41%
^ 2 23.16% 33.33% 26.80% 24.89%
^1COmmercial/light industrial 18.64% 26.13% 23.02% 20.52%
^ 1 Commercial/light industrial ^ 2 -' 3 ^ 4 ~ 5 Residential
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit C
""-' Page 1 of 2
Question #59 asked if the Aspen Airport Business Center should be
primarily a "satellite of Aspen" or primarily "like a small town" or
somewhere in between ...
Trade offs: AABC #2
_~
voters - -~~-~
ALL Homeowners
2nd Homeowners
Full-time Homeowners
~~- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Full-time 2nd Homeowners ALL Homeowners Vo[ers
Homeowners
~ 5 Likea small town 10.86% 7.34% 5.71% 11.16%
^ q 12.00% 8.26% 10.45% 10.27%
~= 3 22.86% 22.02% 22.30% 25.45%
^ 2 21.71% 33.03% 26.48% 24.55%
^16atellite of Aspen 32.57% 29.36% - -. 32.06% 28.57%
^ 1 Satellite of Aspen ^ 2 3 ^ 4 ~ 5 Like a small town
.., 9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit C
~'""'" Page 2 of 2
__
~xhib~FD
w-. Notes From November 13, 2008 AABC
Meeting
Visioning Exercise for the Aspen Airport Business Center
• Better sidewalks
• More village like, better look with cobblestone
• Protect and create green space
• Safe connection for kids to bike path
• Commercial vitality, local serving businesses
• Sustainable residential, business, commercial economy
• Take lead on creating environmentally sustainable practices
• Efficient shuttle to surrounding areas
• Do not want to become overloaded with spillover from Aspen
• People who live here can work here
• Car free community
• Maintain connections with surrounding communities
• People who live here can work here and shop here
• Wider streets and sidewalks
• Recreational facilities
• Separate road access for business and residents
• Integrating uses
• As many cars below grade as possible
• Maintain three story height restriction for buildings
• Mix of free market and deed restricted housing
• Develop master plan that is flexible
• Stay affordable for business so community will be a good place for startups
Parking (within AABC)
• Incentivize the development of underground parking
• Need to be mindful of construction workers with parking solutions
• Centralized employee parking
• Creating more parking will only bring in more cars
• By developing more parking the AABC will be more important to Aspen
• Parking is past capacity on 400 Road
• Only allow parking for residents and businesses
• Sticker system
• CDOT should be involved with creating underground parking
~...-
.,,.. • New developments should included parking
• People use AABC for free airport parking
• Enforce parking regulations
• Tear down RFTA and use for parking
Parking (surrounding areas)
• Overflow parking in intercept lot with shuttle
Circulation
• Extend 400 rd to bus barn and animal shelter
• Bring over European transportation planner
• Trail to Burlingame
• Enforce signage
• Double left out to 82
• Secondary roadway in order to decentralize primary roadway
• No more traffic lights on 82
• Problem is only during rush hour
• Rush hour lasts all day
.~ Notes from December 4 2008 North 40 AABC/AirnorlButtermilk Community Meeting
Presentations regarding current needs and plans for the immediate future were made by
representatives from [he Airport, Aspen Skiing Co., RFTA, Inn at Aspen and the Animal
Shelter. The intent was to put planning for the AABC in the broader context of needs and
plans for the immediately surrounding area; and to start to define how the area and issues
are (or should be) interconnected.
Brief Summary:
Aspen Skiine Com~anv -David Corbin
Possible improvements anticipated:
• Replacement/enhancement ofpublic parking
• Improvements to Powder Panda Ski School
• Improvements to operations, including vehicle maintenance, skier services
• Accommodation of ski rental needs?
• Some possible supplemental development
Hope to see the following issues addressed in the Plan:
• Integrated transportation solutions for the whole area
• More affordable workforce housing
Inn at Aspen -Stan Clausen
Possible improvements anticipated:
• Replacement of existing "Inn" with improved, larger condominiums units,
hotel rooms, conference and spa facilities;
• Some affordable housing on-site, and some off-site, possibly in the Business
Center
Hope to see the following issues addressed in the Plan:
• Integrated transportation solution with a component at Base of Buttermilk,
with parking garage, special event and skier buses, park-and-ride; facilitating
a car-free guest
• Recognition of the Inn at Aspen & Buttermilk Base as the Gateway to Aspen;
the first resort amenity you see as you come into Aspen
• Affordable Housing
Airport -Tim Malloy
Possible improvements anticipated:
• Runway extension
• Improvements [o Traffic Control Tower
• Terminal and parking redevelopment
• Transportation Facilities -facilitating mass transit and parking?
Hope to see the following issues addressed in the Plan:
• Transit and trails solutions that serve regional needs and provide greater
connectivity; reducing reliance upon and impacts from the car
~,.~ - • Measures to improve quality of life for residents of the area, including a
comprehensive approach for addressing both highway and airport noise;
Potential opportunities for trails & active recreation and other amenities;
• Move towards aself-sustaining community; providing a broader range of
goods & services for residents, creating a more fitting entry to the Aspen area;
weaving together the residential, business, recreation and community facility
uses to benefit everyone in area while continuing to serve the broader region.
(Some needs possibly accomplished on Airport parcel)
Animal Shelter-Seth Sachson
Hope to see the following issues addressed in the Plan:
• Sage Way Rd. extended to Animal Shelter
• Dogwalker trail through North 40 improved to access the Roaring Fork River
• Vacant land at the snow dump turned into a dog park
• Better signage at the ABC
• Entrance to AABC more user friendly
• Emphasis placed on the AABC asset of access to river and rio grande trail
Pitkin County/Public Works -Brian Pettit
Possible improvements anticipated:
• County offices, facilities (possibly in AABC/public works vicinity;)
• Affordable Housing
Hope to see the following issues addressed in the Plan:
• Better Access to the Rio Grande Trail
• Better access to Highway 82
• Re-alignment of intersections to address stacking and safety concerns
• Mass transit solutions (possibly looking at Airport as a transit hub?)
• Parking
• Pedestrian facilities
• Consideration of maintenance requirements of sidewalks or other
improvements that may be implemented in the area;
RFTA -Jason White
Improvements anticipated:
• Plans solidified for spending recently approved tax dollars for Bus Rapid
Transit improvements
• Additional bus stations; creation of hubs; and improvements to existing bus
stops (including safety of getting to and from); estimated timeline for station
improvements = 201 1
• Expansion of bus barn to include more bus storage
• Coordinated/shared space with Pitkin County for maintenance and storage of
vehicles and large equipment?
+~
;~ SELECT NOTES FROM THE JANUARY 20 2009 COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING AT THE HICKORY HOUSE
RE' Aspen Community Vision Plan &-AABC North 40 Buttermilk Airport Sub Area
Plan
Present:
Commissioners Augello, Howard, Mallory, Rudnick
Staff Houben, Sassano
1. Relocate most or all County offices to West of Maroon Creek Bridge area
(Location to be determined, but possibly consider County-owned land? Stapleton
lot at Buttermilk? BMC West in trade with City for in-town site vacated by
County?) Open up space in town currently occupied by County for other uses and
reduce the volume of cars coming into Town for County business, and eliminate
some of the air quality issues associated with cars sitting in traffic on Highway
82.
2. The Aspen Urban Growth Boundary should be the limit for dense development.
3. Transportation into and out of Aspen is a critical issue to address. 32,000 cars
coming and going have many significant impacts; Consider intercepting cars
before they get to Aspen, at the Airport or another feasible location; This
approach will only work if there is a sexy mass transit alternative into town.
Efficient transit links and safe access across the Highway are critical to this area.
4. County offices, jail, courthouse, etc. should not be in the City. Locating in the
West of Maroon area will take a lot of cars off the Highway; and better serve
County customers who don't want or have a need to go into Aspen.
5. The County gets dwarfed by Aspen; Let's build a County community with a focus
on Counry; Build a whole new center and identity for the County.
6. At least a portion of the County facilities should move to the West of Maroon
area; some services like the Clerk and recorder may be better left in Town.
7. Continue the evolution of the AABC over time. As the Business center becomes
more of a destination in and of itself, traffic and related pollution issues will be
resolved, and the public will benefit as they will save time currently spent getting
in and out of Aspen
8. Build housing and increase density in general in the AABC area;
9. Require every public building built to have ancillary affordable housing built, too.
10. Develop AABC as a vibrant, separate, distinct community with a new sense of
place, complete with pre-school, day care, movie theatre, restaurants, etc.
11. Recognize that the cost of restoration at the AABC, including the upgrade to
buildings, roads, parking, etc. will be significant. Who will pay for it?
12. Envision Buttermilk as more of resort-type development, and AABC as a more
dense "community."
13. A new, vibrant community west of maroon creek bridge would be beneficial to
the Aspen core in the following ways:
Aspen would be less congested (fewer cars and traffic;)
.w.. • Sufficating growth in Aspen would be alleviated, and the AABC would
function as a relief valve; allowing for new energy in Aspen; possibly
more locally serving commercial businesses in Town;
• At the same time, AABC grows but doesn't lose it's vitality; It is a lively
socialized area; it's own community.
14. It's important to have clusters of density and preservation of open space (like the
golf course and airport) to avoid asprawl-like development pattern in this area.
15. This is realistically a 30-50 year vision.
+s..-
Notes from February 26 2009 North 40/AABC/Airport/Buttermilk Community Meetin¢
Agenda/Schedule: Ellen reviewed the agenda for the day and the schedule for completing the plan
Four meetings are anticipated to cover the future scenarios toying the Airport, Buttermilk, etc.
Following this step, Ellen & Cindy will draft Plan text and a future land use map to bring back for review.
The goal is to go before the P & Z in June to adopt the plan. More time may be needed, but we are not
anticipating too much more. We still need continued participation, up to & including the P & Z
meeting(s).
Summary/Results of "Dots" Exercise:
At the last meeting, the dot exercise used to gauge support for alternative planning scenarios for the
airport and AABC was not a statistically accurate method of obtaining results, but rather a way to get
people involved with feedback. Recognizing that some elements of the alternatives shown may require
funding that's not currently allocated, we may ultimately want to provide two recommendations for
land use in the area: one that requires new funding sources, and one that does not.
Dot Exercise Results for Uses At AABC
General direction shows support for AABC to remain mixed use, with a similar balance to what exists
today with some additional housing needed to add enough of a consumer base to support "full service'
businesses (grocery stores etc) but that the housing mix should continue to be balanced with
commercial/light industrial uses, as it is today.
Zoning: Keep the same uses, but maybe allow for some increase in height to accommodate mare
housing and possibly to allow for structure parking; also perhaps increase the FAR (to allow a grocery
store). Allow for affordable housing zoning.
Redevelopment: Under vision C, it looked like there was some approval for a little bit of redevelopment
in the form of facade facelifts, but mostly direction is to keep the same FAR (with the exception of
changes required to allow for grocery). As to density, it looked like it was ok for some increases to
housing to support neighborhood services.
ParkinQ/Transportation: More on site, some offsite. Need upgrades for safe pedestrian access & to
accommodate commercial/light industrial business access.
Under current zoning if completely redeveloped -AABC could accommodate 173 mare residential units
& 146,S1g Square feet more comm'I use
Still some question as to where an additional story/level would that be acceptable in the ABC, given
topography, visibility from highway and covenents;
.. Progress on AACP Update:
Staff will be taking public feedback and draft text to the P &Z's in the next month, and working on
refining the vision. The AABC is one chapter of 10 covered in the AACP. The AACP draft text is online at
www aspencommunitvvision.com
John Galambos Presentation:
Lives in North 40, owns architectural firm in AABC. He wanted to share his idea of the AABC in a visual
way.
1) Transportation and Parking: Feels it's important to focus on this first. Currently the signalized
intersection gives one point in/out of the AABC. End up with backed up traffic to get into or out of
AABC.
At minimum, a bleeder is needed for RFTA -need 200' to connect to go down valley.
We should be looking for alternative ways to better connect the frontage road to the Hwy. (consider
intersections, buses, pit co public works and their collective use of the service rd)
2) Uses: Should Center around alive/work connection. AABC currently has concentrated areas of
residential and then also mixed areas including, free market residential, affordable housing, business
and institutions including CMC, Fire station, airport.
Ideas for transportation:
Create an efficient shuttle loop for public transportation to and from the business center and Town with
good headways (every 20 minutes?); Shuttle should be a local to include the AABC and Burlingame
Don't want to cross highway to get the bus. It's dangerous and a disincentive to use of the bus
Parking -need more
Ideas on Uses:
Zoning and future land use map should distinguish between 2 types of businesses, really "car centric" or
"dirty' and others
Car centric includes: Gas station, limo business, PitCo Automotive/auto repair/Vehicle (Cracks and
Racks), and Planted Earth as examples
Should adjust zoning to focus on car centric business at each end of AABC and put more
general/office/restaurants type businessesin the middle.
Also get pedestrian and car friendly throughout but move heavy use to either end to reduce impacts on
the middle.
<. Relocated and adequate pedestrian access is needed
Parking -put parking on nodes to encourage the use of public transportation/trails etc
Emphasize that there should be no more density in this area without additional, improved public
transportation, and improved pedestrian access to transportation;
Improve bike trail connections to and from the ABC
Connect the animal shelter to Rio Grande trail with a trail to accommodate dog walkers
Pitkin County owned land on the down valley side of the ABC is not a good location for housing, as it is
too isolated from the housing and services at the center of the ABC
Zoning
Shouldn't even build out to the floor area allowed under current zoning until access and traffic
congestion issues are addressed first
Less parking should be allowed on the streets -consider sidewalks with parking on one side
General:
Rents for businesses in AABC are less than downtown Aspen -with no speculating that's a good
thing
John McBride Comments Re ABC:
New grocery store 5,000 to 11,000 square feet -coming this summer
We should prioritize housing for business center workers
Commercial heart of the Business Center will stay the same
Need to study and address traffic flow
Trail/bikeway connection to Burlingame is very important, though design will be tough because of steep
slopes
Automotive business will be moving to back to AABC
County should consider walk ways with angled parking on streets
There are currently 180 businesses and 170 residences in the ABC
They all need parking! Roads don't work well now
Business Center should be aself-sufficient -balanced area; Focus more on housing those who already
work here
,.,
„„ AABC focus should be work/live in the same area (Rents are less here than in Aspen)
Dreams are important, but now especially is a hard time to implement given state of the economy
AABC was originally set up as a commercial/light industrial area, and should keep commercial focus
AABC is like small community-should keep as small community with balanced pods
Rest of valley is out of balance
A signalized light is better as an access point for the ABC than a roundabout
Interesting to consider multi level parking on RFTA/Public Works sites
RFTA service is at maximum already;
Traffic study for whole area is necessary prior to any increased use in ABC area,
Who pays for AABC shuttle concept/circulator bus?
NEXT STEPS
Will focus on proposed land use at the Airport and Buttermilk base area
a.~~
M (Note to the P&Zs: You will notice that the approach to this section differs from the method used
in the 2000 AACP, which mixed specific goals into the statement of philosophy. Staff prefers to
open with a simple statement of Intent, followed by a section that is truly 'philosophical, "which
is then followed bysub-sections that address specific topics with somewhat more specificity, and
Then proceeding to very specific goals and action items. While this section may seem long,
remember that we are combining perhaps the most critical chapter !n the AACP -Managing
Growth -with the chapter on Economic sustainability.)
DRAFT VISION/INTENT
To ensure the sustainability of our genuine year-round community and avisitor-based economy
by protecting and maintaining the essential elements that create a high quality of life.
DRAFT PHILOSOPHY
The architectural, social and cultural character of modern Aspen reflects a Victorian Era western
mining town, a scenic Rocky Mountain landscape and the post-war foundations of skiing,
summer recreation and unique cultural institutions. These are the foundations of the Aspen Area
that draw people from across the country and around the world.
During the last 25 years, our visitor-based economy has become overshadowed by the real estate
and construction industry. The Aspen Area has a dual economy today: It includes both avisitor-
based economy and a development industry, and both will continue in the future. But it is our
responsibility to ensure there is balance between the two, and that one does not undercut the
other.
Today, we must recognize that the original pillars of our visitor-based economy remain the
foundation of our high quality of life, and is the only economy that is sustainable over the long-
term. Today, the responsibility of managing growth is to ensure that the development industry
does not cause damage to the long-term health and stability ofthe visitor-based economy.
Our character is defined by the architectural, social, cultural, scenic, recreational and strong
environmental ethics that originally attracted us and our visitors to enjoy a high quality of life.
We will not permit this unique character to be continually eroded by the impacts of intense
construction activity, or by a built environment that is out of context with the unique
architectural heritage of a small town in the Rocky Mountains.
As we focus on the long-term sustainability of the visitor-based economy, we are aware of the
extraordinary high level of loyalty shown by return visitors over the years, and we also recognize
that the Aspen Area is aging. Today, we need to lay the foundation for the next generation of
irreplaceable memories, we need to cultivate the ground so that same loyalty to Aspen will take
hold again in the future.
Preserving the character of the built environment is central to our philosophy of managing
growth, Aspen's genuine architectural heritage remains among the most powerful visual
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit E
~.~ Page 1 of4
impressions we create. To compromise this character is a threat to long-term sustainability. Even
our most important goals -- of providing affordable housing, of replenishing the lodging base, of
a lively downtown with a healthy balance of unique shops and restaurants -- should remain
subservient to a built environment that respects context and heritage.
Growth management is intended to create a healthy balance among a variety of uses. We also
manage growth to ensure that it does not outpace the community's basic ability to provide
necessary infrastructure that maintains a healthy level of basic public services and a high quality
of life.
Our roads and water system are part of infrastructure, but so are public trails, affordable housing,
lodging, a lively and interesting downtown, unique restaurants, recycling programs, renewable
energy systems and ski repair shops. Our infrastructure includes everything that is necessary to
maintain a high quality of life.
The Residential Sector
While some potential remains for the development of new dwelling units on existing vacant lots,
the primary source of new construction in the future will be in the area of residential
redevelopment. The track record in the Urban Growth Boundary shows that residential
redevelopment typically means the demolition of existing homes and replacement with expanded
homes that are almost always as large as current code allows.
1. Pace of Construction
History shows that the level of construction activity in the UGB follows the strength and
weakness of the national economy, and recent booms have resulted in a level of construction
activity that threatens the long-term sustainability of the visitor-based economy. Therefore, a
program that manages the pace of construction activity is essential.
The purpose of pacing construction is to maintain a high quality of life for residents and a high
quality experience for visitors by:
preventing traffic congestion, noise, dust, disturbances and reduction in air quality;
• creating a safe and enjoyable atmosphere for pedestrians and bicyclists in a community
that emphasizes alternate modes of transportation and an outdoor recreational lifestyle;
• preventing the disruption of the visual and aesthetic character of city and county
neighborhoods and the downtown area through the presence of construction trailers,
heavy truck parking, disruption of landscaping, construction fences, and port-o-johns.
2. Mitigation
Although both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County require mitigation for new dwelling units
and residential redevelopment, today's level and type of mitigation is not adequate. The
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program has provided some benefit in the form of rental units
that are spread out in neighborhoods, but the ratio of ADUs that are occupied by employees is
too low. The payment-in-lieu option does not adequately reflect the true cost of providing deed-
restricted housing, placing too high a burden on public entities to find locations, design, review
and build affordable housing.
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit E
-~ Page 2 of 4
~.. 3. House Size
The built environment defines a community's character and identity. The size of homes in the
UGB is out of context with the unique architectural heritage of a small town in the Rocky
Mountains. If there is no reduction in allowable house sizes, the Aspen area will continue to
degrade and diffuse the community's character and identity.
New limits on house size will preserve and maintain quality of life by:
• planning for a built environment that reflects the Aspen area's historic heritage,
• preserving scenic mountain views,
• limiting damage to the natural environment,
• limiting the public financial burden of additional infrastructure and annual local
government operations,
• limiting unnecessary use of resources and unnecessary future energy use,
• limiting carbon footprints,
• limiting construction impacts,
• reducing traffic congestion and
• maintaining the safety and enjoyment of our outdoor lifestyle.
4. Affordable Housing
We continue to believe, as was stated in the 2000 AACP, that, "Our housing inventory should
bolster our economic and social diversity, reinforce variety, and enhance our sense of community
by integrating affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A healthy social balance includes
all income ranges and types of people. Each project should endeavor to further that mix and to
avoid segregation of economic and social classes by project." (This is a placeholder, until the
P&Zs adopt a draft affordable housing chapter.)
The Lodgin S~ ector
During the last ]0-15 years, many small- to mid-sized lodges in Aspen have converted to other
uses, resulting in the loss of many economy/moderate lodges. At the same time, the market has
favored the development of deluxe lodges. We must replenish our lodging base to make our
visitor-based economy sustainable in the long-term.
At the same time, our primary goal is for the development or redevelopment of lodging to
respect the context of the built environment and the architectural heritage of the area.
While local government should not be in the business of developing or substantially subsidizing
lodge development or redevelopment, we must focus on tools that will prevent the further loss of
the small to mid-sized lodges that reflect Aspen's historic character.
New lodging development or redevelopment must encourage small room sizes and limited
amenities as a method of re-balancing the lodging inventory, encouraging visitors to recognize
the town and surrounding areas as their primary amenity, limiting job generation and its related
adverse impacts and limiting the mass and scale that high-amenity lodges require.
Different types of lodging, from deluxe to moderate and economy, should not be separated into
different location in the UGB. Lodging should integrate a mixture of different types of inventory.
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit E
~.~ Page 3 of 4
The Retail Sector
While many resort areas are dominated by the presence of chain stores and formula restaurants,
downtown Aspen still maintains a wide range of retail stores and restaurants that are unique to
the Aspen area. This uniqueness is an asset that must be encouraged and supported.
At the same time, the strong influence of high land costs and lease rates have limited the
opportunities for a wide range of merchants to open a business here, and have contributed to an
unmistakable shift towards exclusivity in the retail sector during the past 10-15 years. This shift
has altered the character and identity of the downtown.
High-profile locations in the downtown have converted from restaurants to retail uses that are no
longer frequented by local residents, while also reducing vitality in a visitor-based economy. The
number of restaurants and bars has dropped 22% since 2000, as retail stores are more able to
shoulder the burden of increasing rents.
The downtown is our "front porch" -- it is the place where we make our first impression on
visitors. As reflected in past AACPs, local residents have grown dissatisfied with the sense of
identity that is created by our retail sector. We are also concerned that business providing basic
necessities could be the next to be replaced with different uses, as illustrated by the closing of
Aspen Drug at the corner of Galena & Hyman.
While recognizing that government involvement in the commercial sector is a complex
undertaking, we must identify methods and explore partnerships to restore and maintain a
healthy and diverse balance of unique stores and restaurants - fostering a sense of vitality for
both residents and visitors.
Sustainability for Future Generations
The long-term sustainability of our visitor-based economy depends largely on our ability to
remain an attractive destination for future generations.
The foundations of our high quality of life must be solidly in place, including skiing, summer
recreation, scenic beauty, outdoor lifestyle, strong year-round community, compelling special
events, a diverse lodging inventory, our genuine architectural heritage, a vital downtown and a
wide range of arts & cultural offerings.
To remember Aspen's history is to recognize of a heritage of innovation -Aspen is always at a
crossroads that has never been encountered. We should once again have a clear intention to do
new things first, to cultivate the ground so the next foundational institution can shape our identity
into the future.
The Future of the AABC
To be drafted based on P&Z discussion.
9.22.09 P&Z meeting, Exhibit E
Page 4 of 4