HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.worksession.20101130 a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
DATE OF MEMO: November 22, 2010
MEETING DATE: November 30, 2010
RE: Update on AACP Public Process
REQUEST OF COUNCIL /COMMISSIONERS: No action is requested at this time, although
staff would like direction on how the review bodies would like to proceed with regard to the fmal
review and adoption process. Staff would like to cover a number of agenda items, including:
1) Will the AACP be guiding or regulatory, or both?
2) Whether a statistically accurate survey is desired.
3) Potential study re: economic implications of the draft AACP.
4) Process for review and adoption phase.
5) Summary of controversial topics
BACKGROUND: The most recent public process phase of the 2010 AACP public process was
the Large Group Meetings at the Wheeler, from November 15 -17. Results are attached as Exhibit
A. The questions posed came from the topics most often discussed by the public at the eleven
Small Group Meetings, held from October 11 — 22. The overall intent of the "clicker" sessions
was to focus the public and the review bodies on the issues that appear to be of primary
importance as the plan moves into the final adoption process.
Staff would like to reiterate that the "clicker" results are not considered to be a statistically
accurate reflection of the community's position. Instant keypad voting is just one more method
- of public feedback to be weighed and considered as the final review and adoption phase begins.
Because there was a malfunction with the clicker equipment during the regularly schedule
November 17 session, staff has made an online survey version of the questions available to the
public. Responses are limited to one per IP address, and we have asked that individuals who
attended a clicker session do not participate in the online version.
Page 1 of 7
SUMMARY: Staff believes that a key issue to resolve before proceeding with work sessions
and public hearings is determining whether the 2010 AACP should be identified as a "guiding"
document, a "regulatory" document, or both.
If this question is not resolved soon, staff believes this lack of resolution will contribute to
confusion and significantly extend the discussions. In contrast, if the public and reviewing bodies
understand exactly how the 2010 AACP will be used, discussion and debate can focus more
easily on the merits of the draft Visions, Philosophies and Policies.
For this reason, staff has prepared the following analysis and recommendation regarding whether
the 2010 AACP should be "regulatory," "guiding," or both.
City staff recommends that the AACP be adopted as a guiding document that directs city budgets
and work programs for the next ten years. In the interim, because the code includes references to
consistency with the AACP, the 2000 AACP would remain in effect. This could be
accomplished as part of the whereas clauses in the Ordinance adopting the plan.
County staff recommends the AACP be adopted as an "advisory" document. However, where the
County Land Use Code specifically requires consideration of Comprehensive Plans as a criterion
of approval for land use reviews, Comprehensive Plans, including the AACP may be used as a
basis for reviewing and taking action on a land use applications.
The following analysis and recommendation comes from City staff, and applies to the City P &Z
and City Council. A separate analysis and recommendation by County staff follows later in the
memo, for the County P &Z and Board of County Commissioners.
REGULATORY V. GUIDING: CITY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Recent developments in state law and court cases
In the last three years in the State of Colorado, several critically important new factors have
emerged regarding whether a Community Plan should be considered "guiding," or "regulatory,"
or both.
The current practice in Aspen is to use the AACP as both a guiding (aspirational) document and
a regulatory supplement to the land use code. For example, there exists provisions in the AACP
that are clearly intended to provide guidance (i.e., the focus on pursuing public /private
partnerships when possible). There are also specific provisions in our land use code that makes
compatibility with the AACP a standard of review (i.e., the subdivision section of our land use
code specifically requires that a development be compatible with the AACP to be approved.)
In April 2007, the Colorado Legislature approved HB 07 -1246, The Predictability in Local
Government Act, requiring cities and towns to clearly identify a Community Plan as regulatory if
the Community Plan can be cited as a basis for denying a development application.
Page 2 of 7
In March 2008, the Aspen City Council denied the Weinerstube subdivision application, finding
that the application did not comply with the AACP. Council cited three reasons for the failure to
comply with the AACP: (1) the project was not compatible with the neighborhood, (2) the
project would adversely affect future development; and (3) the project was not compatible with
the land uses in the neighborhood.
In June 2009, District Court Judge Gail H. Nichols found that a legislative body such as the
Aspen City Council has the legal authority to rely on a Community Plan to deny a development
application. She further held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Council's
first two reasons set forth above, but found that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to
support the third reason cited.
Council can't rely on the AACP for "unfettered discretion"
However, it's important to recognize that Judge Nichols' ruling stated that a Community Plan is
not intended to allow "unfettered discretion" when review bodies are voting on a land use
application. The ruling stated that when citations of a Community Plan are used to deny an
application, the specific citations must be "sufficiently exact" to serve as the legal basis for a
denial. In other words, they cannot be vague.
In the Weinerstube case, Judge Nichols found that provisions of the 2000 AACP were
"sufficiently exact" for Council to find that the project was not consistent with the AACP.
In a similar vein, Staff recommends that language in the 2010 AACP which is "sufficiently
exact" should be called out and clearly identified so that developers are made aware of the
specific provisions of the AACP that they need to address in their applications and which may be
considered by the reviewing authorities. This effort is intended to meet the intent and spirit of the
Predictability in Local Government Act of 2007, and to avoid legal challenges claiming the
AACP being unconstitutionally vague.
What about the 2010 draft AACP?
Staff has outlined three options below for the Council and P &Zs to consider regarding the
adoption of the AACP. Staff recommends option 3.
1. Adopt the entire 2010 draft AACP as a regulatory document. The entire document would
be incorporated by reference in portions of the City Land Use Code that require
consistency with the Aspen Area Community /Comprehensive Plan.
a. Staff does not recommend this option because there are a number of items in the
plan that are not intended to be regulatory. For instance, the references in the
Lifelong Aspenite chapter about healthy food systems and dental coverage are
good community goals, but are not something a developer should be required to
provide as part of their project.
2. Adopt the 2010 draft AACP as both guiding and regulatory with specific references to the
items that are considered regulatory. These would need to be "sufficiently exact" in
order to comply with case law.
a. Initially staff thought this was an appropriate path to take regarding the adoption
of the plan. It allows the last two years of staff and P &Z work on the plan to
Page 3 of 7
remain intact while providing clear guidance to the community about which
sections of the plan a developer must comply with. However, identifying the
specific statements in the plan that are regulatory will likely take a great deal of
additional time as these would likely be contentious issues. Staff is not against
having a discussion of these issues, but, staff believes the discussion of these
issues is more appropriate for code amendments when the actual Land Use Code
is being revised, rather than having those conversations as part of the community
plan adoption process. Overall, staff believes incorporating language into the
Land Use Code creates a more powerful set of laws than leaving language in the
community plan.
3. Adopt the 2010 draft AACP as a guiding document with a list of potential code
amendments to begin working on immediately following its adoption.
a. Staff recommends this option. The document is intended to provide direction for
work programs and budget priorities. This approach would allow city
departments, city council, and the community to start working on the many items
that are in the plan that provide clear guidance. These include items related to
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Trails, which encourage the creation of new
recreation programs, and acquiring land for new trail connections, as well as items
in the Environmental Quality Chapter, such as working to improve our air and
water quality. In addition, this would free staff time in the Community
Development Department to start working on the many code changes and policy
discussions that are in the plan, including examining mitigation requirements, and
creating a 3 -D model of the City to help inform potential zone district changes.
Staff recognizes that there may be a concern that adopting the 2010 AACP as
guiding could create a period of time between adoption of the plan and the
adoption of code amendments when consistency with the AACP would not be
required. Staff believes the gaps that were the subject of the Weinerstube case are
covered by the code amendments that were adopted as part of the 2006 — 2007
Moratorium.
The new Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines address height, mass,
scale, materials, etc. These Standards, which did not exist during the Weinerstube
review, provide discretion to consider neighborhood compatibility and enable
discussion of mass and scale in a more detailed way than consistency with the
AACP could ever accommodate.
If there remain concerns that other gaps exist, those areas should be identified
before adoption of the AACP so staff can analyze if they have been covered by
the moratorium code changes, or if other steps need to be taken to address them.
Page 4 of 7
Adopting the 2010 as a guiding document
As part of the adoption of a new AACP by the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City
of Aspen Land Use Code requires "a determination of whether the document will be used as a
guiding or regulatory document "
The current draft includes a section called "How to Use the Plan" (page 9 of the draft) that does
not specifically call out this issue. The draft does state, however, that "the Aspen Area
Community Plan regulates certain development — both the City and County land use codes
include references to the AACP." Based on the reasoning outlined in this memo, City staff is
recommending that the 2010 AACP be adopted as a guiding document.
Staff believes this will result in a shorter review and adoption process, and will allow the P &Z
and City Council to begin the work of implementing the AACP in a meaningful way during the
next 10 years.
The Attorney's Office points out that the .City could re -adopt the 2000 AACP for use in
reviewing land use applications and simultaneously approve the 2010 AACP as the guiding
document for Council's future legislative agenda. Ultimately, the 2000 AACP would need to be
phased -out at some point. There is an opportunity for confusion or conflict with two documents;
however, if written appropriately this could be minimized.
REGULATORY / GUIDING: COUNTY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The County recognizes the AACP as an advisory document that may be implemented differently
by the respective jurisdictions (Aspen and Pitkin). The County Land Use Code (Code)
specifically requires consideration of Comprehensive Plans as a criterion of approval for certain
types of land use reviews, (including special review, location and extent review, Code
amendments, rezoning, activities of local and state interest, and growth management
exemptions.) All applications are subject to the Land Use Policies in the Code, including one
that says "It is the policy to ensure consideration of Pitkin County's Comprehensive
Plan." The County Attorney believes that reference to Comprehensive Plans in the Land Use
Code as a basis for reviewing and taking action on a land use application has the force of law,
and that where such reference is made, Plans (including the AACP) may be used accordingly.
ADDITIONAL SURVEYS?
There has been some discussion of whether a statistically accurate survey should be conducted as
part of the process for review and final adoption of the 2010 AACP. Staff is prepared to use the
same or similar questions asked at the "clicker" sessions on Nov. 15 and 17 to quickly draft a
survey for random mailing. The City Council allocated $15,000 to conduct a survey.
It is staff's opinion that a statistically accurate survey is not needed at this phase of the AACP
public feedback process and recommends not conducting one and not using the newly allocated
monies.
The two -year AACP process has included elements of direct democracy and representative
government. Staff believes the most appropriate time to use direct democracy methods was at the
beginning of the public feedback process, when staff used the 2008 Community Survey and the
Page 5 of 7
2009 Large Group Meetings to identify somewhat broad community values that were intended to
inform the drafting of the new AACP.
As we move toward the end of the public process, and ultimate adoption by the City and County
P &Zs, the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, staff believes it is more
appropriate to shift to a process that reflects the concept of representative government.
Staff believes it could add confusion to the process if a statistically accurate survey was
conducted at this particular time, by raising expectations that local representatives would exactly
follow the advice of the survey. Staff believes this is not how representative government should
function, and that ultimately local representatives should be unfettered in relying on their
informed personal judgment.
To that end, staff suggests that Council and Commissioners review the initial public feedback
from the 2008 survey and 2009 clicker sessions, and consider whether the draft plan appears to
be generally in -line with public sentiment, or not. This could be a useful exercise for individual
representatives, and could effectively leverage what was an extensive and award- winning effort
in 2008 and 2009.
STUDY ON ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF 2010 AACP
The question has been raised on whether there should be some kind of "economic viability"
study of the implications of the draft 2010 AACP. At this time, staff believes while some kind of
study could be done, it would take months to prepare and complete — and at the end of the day,
the results may have as much to do with national economic conditions as they do with the policy
implications of the 2010 AACP.
At the same time, staff believes that economic viability studies can be very useful for planning,
especially when considering code changes. Staff advises that the current focus should be on the
public policy implications of the AACP. Once a plan is adopted, both the City and County will
deliberate on what policies should be implemented, and during that process, economic viability
studies can be very helpful in ultimate decision - making. For instance, the plan calls for various
types of lodging that should be encouraged under the land use code. A study about lodging types
could be very useful when a policy discussion on lodging occurs.
As another example, Managing Growth Action Item V.3.a suggests conducting a Market
Demand Study to identify the level of local- resident demand for products and services, and the
amount of products and services locally available. This study could help inform future
discussions on the need for more locally- serving businesses.
ESTABLISHING THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The adoption process includes time for the Planning and Zoning Commissions to review the
public feedback and make changes to the document before it is formally adopted. These are
scheduled to occur on December 2 (work session), and December 7 (first public hearing), with
additional public hearing to be scheduled as needed and as holiday schedules will allow.
Page 6 of 7
The City and County adopt the plan differently — the County P &Z adopts the plan and the BOCC
ratifies it, while the City P &Z recommends to Council, and the Council formally adopts the plan.
Staff would like direction from City Council regarding additional meetings to review the plan
with the P &Zs and other community groups that are interested in specific chapters. This will
help staff in scheduling the final adoption hearing on the plan.
SUMMARY OF CONTOVERSIAL TOPICS: The following is a list of items that staff has
identified as areas that members of the public or staff have expressed interest in discussing
further as part of the formal adoption process.
• The recommendations regarding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line. The Airport,
Public Works, and County Administration have comments on the P &Zs decision to not
add the County 10 Acre parcel to the UGB, and City staff has comments on the P &Zs
decision to exclude the Snow Dump parcel which is currently partially in and partially
out of the UGB.
• The plan does not include specific reference to a Continuing Care Retirement Community
(CCRC), and members of the group working on bringing this idea to the community may
want to comment on including a reference to it in the plan.
• The ARC Advisory Board is interested in adding and expanding language in the
recreation chapter.
• There are members of the public interested in adding and amending Language regarding
healthy food systems.
Staff will be prepared to highlight other additional areas members of the public have made
specific comments on at the November 30 meeting.
In addition, staff recommends focusing on the five major areas that were discussed in the small
group meetings and at the recent clicker sessions. These include,
• The Development Process
• Affordable Housing Mitigation
• Pacing Construction
• House Size
• Lodging Regulations
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Results of Instant Voting Keypad Sessions / Nov. 15 & 17
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A November 15 -17 AACP Results
Turning Results by Question
Session Name: ALL AACP SESSIONS
Created: 11/1812010 3:10 PM
1.) Test Slide: How did you pet here today?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I walked. 27.08% 39
I rode my bike. 4.17% 6
I drove. 50.00% 72
I used my jet -pack. 13.89% 20
I took the bus. 4.86% 7
(Totals 100.00% 144
2.) Where do you live?
Responses
(percent) (count)
9nnie' - inside of the Roundabout. 70.78% 109
'Dube' - outside of the Roundabout as far as the Airport/AABC. 15.58% 24
Tar Outie' - I live past the Airport/AABC. 13.64% 21
(Totals 100.00% 154
3.) I am:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Male 58.33% 91
Female 41.67% 65
(Totals 100.00% 156
4.) I am:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Under 20 1.25% 2
20 -24 2.50% 4
25 -34 10.63% 17
35 -44 9.38% 15
45 - 54 16.25% 26
55 - 64 35.63% 57
65 -74 19.38% 31
75 + 5.00% 8
'Totals 100.00% 160
• November 15 -17 AACP Results
5.) I live In:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Aspen - Full Time 73.58% 117
Aspen - Part Time 1.89% 3
Pitkin County - Full Time 15.72% 25
Pitkin County - Part Time 0.00% 0
Snowmass Village 1.26% 2
Basalt/Carbondale/Glenwood Springs 6.92% 11
Other 0.63% 1
Rotate 100.00% 159
6.) I've lived In the Roaring Fork Valley for:
Responses
(percent) (count)
3 years or less 4.40% 7
3 -5 years 8.18% 13
6 -10 years 11.95% 19
11 - 20 years 15.09% 24
21 or more 60.38% 96
(Totals 100.00% 159
7.) 1. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.45% 50
Affordable housing 13.23% 70
Larger lodging units 4.73% 25
Smaller lodging units 15.69% 83
Tourist - oriented retail space 5.67% 30
Day - to-day retail services (basics, essentials) 18.34% 97
Office space 1.70% 9
Public/Institutional 5.29% 28
Arts and cultural facilities 12.67% 67
Let the market decide 13.23% 70
Totals 100.00% 529
B.) 2. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 8.13% 13
Affordable housing 13.75% 22
Larger lodging units 2.50% 4
Smaller lodging units 10.63% 17
Tourist-oriented retail space 1.88% 3
Day - to-day retail services (basics, essentials) 21.88% 35
Office space 0.63% 1
Public/Institutional 1.88% 3
Arts and cultural facilities 10.63% 17
Let the market decide 28.13% 45
(Totals 100.00% 160
•
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
9.) 3. 1 would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.81% 41
Affordable housing 14.11% 59
Larger lodging units 19.14% 80
Smaller lodging units 2.39% 10
Tourist-oriented retail space 12.92% 54
Day - to-day retail services (basics, essentials) 1.44% 6
Office space 12.20% 51
Public/Institutional 11.72% 49
Arts and cultural facilities 8.46% 27
Let the market decide. 9.81% 41
(Totals 100.00% 418
10.) 4. I would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 6.29% 10
Affordable housing 28.93% 46
Larger lodging units 27.04% 43
Smaller lodging units 2.52% 4
Tourist-oriented retail space 6.92% 11
Day - to-day retail services (basics, essentials) 0.00% 0
Office space 5.03% 8
Public/Institutional 8.81% 14
Arts and cultural facilities 1.89% 3
Let the market decide 12.58% 20
(Totals 100.00% 159
11.) 9. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 38.89% 63
New development should be modest in bulk, mass, and scale. 32.72% 53
Neither of these statements reflect my opinion. 26.54% 43
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1'.85% 3
)Totals 100.00% 162
12.) 6. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New downtown buildings should reflect the Victorian era only. 13.75% 22
New downtown buildings should be allowed to evolve past the Victorian era. 80.00% 128
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 6.25% 10
(Totals 100.00% 160
13.) 7. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base?
Responses
(percent) (count)
We should replenish what we've lost, but only focus on moderate and economy 28.40% 46
lodges.
We should replenish what we've lost without focusing on any one type. Any
5123% 83
lodge we can get, even if it's in the deluxe category, is important
I don't think we need to try to replenish our bed base. 17.28% 28 •
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion 3.09% 5
iTotals 100.00% 162
•
November 15 -17 AACP Results
14.) 8. Which of the reasons below do you agree with the most as reasons to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in and development. 7.28% 33
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. 16.56% 75
Protect our existing lodges. 7.51% 34
Protect our small town character and historical heritage, 21.19% 96
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 13.91% 63
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 11.48% 52
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion
8.61% 39
and demand for affordable housing.
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 13.47% 61
(Totals 100.00% 453
15.) 9. Please choose the one reason you agree with the most as a reason to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in land development. 1.24% 2
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. 13.66% 22
Protect our existing lodges. 1.24% 2
Protect our small town character and historical heritage. 37.89% 61
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 5.59% 9
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.11% 5
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion
5.59% 9
and demand for affordable housing
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 31.66% 51
(Totals 100.00% 161
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
16.) 10. What should be done with the mastodon, woolly mammoth, ground sloth and mouse
bones they're digging up in Snowmass Village?
Responses
(percent) (count)
Change the name from Snowmass Village to Snowmasstadon Village. 30.30% 40
Aspen better dig up something soon or we'll never see a tourist again. 32.58% 43
The Veloci -RFTA logo Coincidence or clairvoyance? 11.36% 15
What's next? Jimmy Hoffa? 10.61% 14
If only Snowmass had started its affordable housing program earlier, maybe 15.15% 20
they'd all still be alive.
ITotals 100.00% _ 132
17.) 11. What is your preference for how development applications should be reviewed?
Responses
(percent) (count)
The appropriate height, mass, and scale of buildings should be established by
zoning, and should never be varied. We should remove most or all of the 47.55% 68
discretion from the review process.
Development should be negotiated on a case -by -case basis, with all issues on
the table, and enough discretion for the P&Zs and Councli/BOCC to bargain 49.65% 71
and negotiate.
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.80% 4
tTotals 100.00% 143
18.) 12. Remember your experience of 2005 — 2006. What were your feelings about
Responses
(percent) (count)
Very concerned. There was way too much going on. 32.30% 52
It was a nuisance, but I could live with it. 40.37% 65
It didn't bother me. 18.63% 30
I wasn't here then, so I don't know what you're talking about. 8.70% 14
(Totals 100.00% 161
19.) 13. What's your opinion on establishing a construction pacing system?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I'm against it. Everyone should have the right to build when they want. 24.54% . 40
We should focus on managing the impacts of construction instead. 43.56% 71
I support this. Intense construction activity ruins the quality of life for locals and 22 70% 37
visitors.
I'm not sure, but I'd like an informed and productive debate on this issue. 9.20% 15
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 0.00% 0
'Totals 100.00% 163
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
20.) 14. I would support a construction pacing system, but only If It placed annual limits on
only the following types of development. (pick the one you agree with the most)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Single - Family/Duplex Development 4.43% 7
Multi- Family Development 1.90% 3
Commercial Development 12.66% 20
Lodging Development 17.09% 27
All of the above 17.72% 28
None of the above. 44.94% 71
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.27% 2
(Totals 100.00% i 158
21.) 16. Willa of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most as reasons to limit the
slze of the largest homes? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and 14.20% 70
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 15.82% 78
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 15.01% 74
streams.
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 16.63% 82
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 7.71 % 38
Reduce short- and long -tens job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 5.27% 26
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 7.30% 36
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 8.11% 40
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential 9.94% 49
development.
(Totals 100 - .D0% 493
22.) 16. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most a reason to limit the size
of the largest homes? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and 8.55! 13
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 25.00% 38
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 724% 11
streams.
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 14.47% 22
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.95% 6
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion
1.97% 3
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 5.26%
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 11.18% 17
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential 22.37% 34
development.
ITotals 100.00 %_ 152
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
23.) 17. I believe the most Important reason to more strictly regulate future development on
mountainsides Is:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the scenic quality of the Aspen Area. 38.75% 62
Reduce environmental degradation. 31.88% 51
I don't think future development should be more strictly regulated in these 29.38% 47
areas.
)Totals 100.00% 160
24.) 18. Which statement do you agree with the most regarding visual impacts of development
along the Highway 82 corridor from the Airport to the round-about.
Responses
(percent) (count)
•
Protecting all views should be the primary consideration. 24.07% 39
Visual impacts are one of many important considerations. 42.59% 69
We should identify certain views that should remain unobstructed, but not all 25.93% 42
open views have to be maintained.
Views from Highway 82 should not be a consideration. 7.41% 12
(Totals 100.00% 162
25.) 19. Which statement regarding affordable housing mitigation do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
All development, regardless of type, should provide affordable housing for
100% of the jobs it generates. 1625% 26
The current level of mitigation is adequate. 13.75% 22
Whether the amount of affordable housing stays the same or is increased in
the future, there should always some flexibility to reduce these requirements 49.38% 79
for development that provides a valuable community benefit.
The current mitigation level should be lowered. 18.13% 29
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.50% 4
(Totals 100.00% 160
•