The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.worksession.20110222 AACP Review (P &Z) • February 22: P &Zs review draft document. 4:30 - 7 :30 in Sister Cities. • March 8: P &Zs review draft document. 4:30 - 7:30 in Rio Grande. • March 22: P &Zs review draft document. 4:30 - 7:30 in Sister Cities. • March 29: P &Zs review draft document. 4:30 - 7:30 in Sister Cities. • April 12: P &Zs review draft document. 4:30 - 7:30 in Rio Grande. MEMORANDUM TO: City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: February 15, 2011 MEETING DATE: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 RE: Review of AACP Public Comments BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: The joint P &Zs, BOCC, and City Council met on February 2" to complete the discussion that began on January 5 At this meeting the groups discussed the substance of the plan, focusing on Lodging, the Development Review Process, Transportation, and the UGB. In addition, representatives from ACRA attended to provide some feedback on the plan. A summary of this meeting is attached as Exhibit A. Staff proposes the following agenda for the meeting on February 22 " 1. Review and discuss the February 2 " 2011 meeting 2. Review and discuss the attached public comments 3. Take additional public comments at the meeting Feb 2 " Meeting: Staff requests that the P &Zs review the meeting summary and provide staff with direction on the items covered in it. This will assist staff in editing the draft document. Public Comments: Since the Large Group Meetings in November staff has received some comments from the public on the plan. These comments have been forwarded to the P &Zs, but staff wanted to provide a time for the P &Zs to review the comments and take any additional public comment on the plan thus far. This packet includes comments from ACRA, David Corbin, Barbara Owen, Shae Singer, Howie Mallory, Cathy Markle, Junee Kirk, Michael Berhendt, Tim Malloy, Barbara Newton, and Tom Schwerin. Within theses public comments staff has provided comments, as appropriate. ACRA comments were received at the packet deadline, so staff did not have an opportunity to provide comments. Staff can provide comments at the meeting if appropriate. P &Z REVIEW SCHEDULE: Staff has proposed a change in schedule to incorporate the P &Z direction into the document, and to provide a comprehensive revised draft to the P &Zs (rather than reviewing each chapter individually). The P &Zs have requested this type of approach in the past, as it enables review of each chapter in a larger context, rather than in a vacuum. Page 1 of 2 In addition, Staff has become concerned about the number of Commissioners able to attend the AACP meetings. Our hope is that by providing a complete draft at one time, the review process can be more streamlined and focused. Staff recommends that a quorum of each P &Z be the minimum number of P &Z members required to continue review of the document. In the City that would be four (4) Commissioners and in the County that would be three (3) Commissioners. The schedule is outlined as follows: • February 22: P &Zs review Public Comments 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Sister Cities. • March 28: P &Zs receive revised document. • April 12: P &Zs review entire document (PH). 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Rio Grande Meeting Room. • April 26: P &Zs review entire document (PH). 4:30 — 7:30 pm (room TDB). • May 10: P &Zs review entire document (PH). 4:30 — 7:30 pm in (Room TBD). • May 24: P &Zs review entire document (PH). 4:30 — 7:30 pm in (Room TBD). ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Summary of 2/2/2011 joint BOCC /Council/P &Z meeting Exhibit B: Public Comments Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A February 2, 2011 BOCC / Council /Joint P &Z Meeting re -cap In attendance: Council BOCC County P &Z City P &Z Mick Ireland George Newman Marcella Larsen Stan Gibbs Steve Skadron Michael Owsley Mirte Mallory U Erspamer Torre Rachel Richards Jay Murphy Bert Myrin Rob Ittner Joe Krabacher Jim DeFrancia The meeting began with a summary of a meeting held January 31 among staff, P &Z members and the ACRA Executive Committee. ACRA members expressed concern that "economic consequences" should be analyzed as part of the plan. ACRA members acknowledged that the draft is being changed and the P &Zs agreed that ACRA input will be heard and discussed by the P &Z in coming weeks as the draft is finalized. P &Z requested that ACRA provide specific language suggestions and comments in writing. ACRA representatives agreed to this request with the understanding that the P &Z would be willing to have a dialogue with them. The group discussed the topic areas identified in the memo for the meeting, which are outlined below. Lodging: The memo asked if more lodging should be developed to replenish the 27% loss in inventory since 1994, and whether efforts should be made to re- balance the inventory with economy and moderate lodging. Commissioner Newman said land costs make it very difficult to produce economy /moderate lodging without substantial incentives. Commissioner Richards noted that local government can't legally limit pricing, and can only address the economy /moderate lodge issue by encouraging smaller rooms, adding that does not always mean attainable prices. She added that if the current plan desires small -scale projects and high mitigation, it is probably impossible to produce economy /moderate lodging. Ittner said the loss of economy /moderate lodging reflects a "shift in customer demand." Councilman Torre asked for a clear aspirational statement explaining why the plan wants a diverse lodging inventory. Mayor Ireland offered an answer, saying there should be "entry-level access" for visitors who aren't necessarily wealthy. He added that Aspen should look forward to the next generation of guests "who won't come here if we shut the door." He said smaller rooms and fewer on -site lodge amenities mean people will spend their time outside and in town, and the unit is less likely to be converted to a condo use. Torre agreed with the entry-level concept. Ittner said he liked the idea, but was very skeptical about how it could happen economically. Ireland summed up, saying the answer to the memo's questions was yes, we want to replenish inventory, yes we want more economy /moderate lodging, but we need some economic model that can realistically achieve the goals. Exhibit A Development Process: The underlying question was whether the development review process should be more like a checklist exercise with rigid requirements, or whether there should be negotiation on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Richards noted that if you want economy /moderate lodging, you're going to need to negotiate things like lower housing mitigation, height, setbacks etc. Councilman Torre agreed. Commissioner Newman agreed but said that "boundaries" are needed to keep negotiations within reasonable limits. Ireland agreed there should be "ultimate limits," adding that flexibility is needed because no code can anticipate everything that we might want. The consensus was to favor a flexible approach, but to establish boundaries and limits to negotiations. (Staff note: There is an action item proposed by Cliff that would set upper limits on height for PUDs etc.) Entrance to Aspen: The consensus was that there is no consensus in the community on a preferred physical solution for the Entrance to Aspen, and therefore it's appropriate that the plan does not endorse a specific solution. Commissioner Richards said the vision now says the transportation experience should reflect small town character, adding that it should also add, "while functioning as a resort." There was agreement about maintaining the goal of limiting traffic to 1993 levels, although some said the length of back -ups at peak hours and longer peak hours made them question whether we are really keeping traffic to 1993 levels. (Staff note: The goal in the current plan differs from past plans in that it also strives to limit "peak hour" vehicle trips.) There was agreement that the wording in Policy IV.1 should be changed so that we don't wait until all TDM measures are exhausted before we start planning a physical solution, as delaying physical solutions too long may result in a more reactive approach to resolving congestion issues and higher costs that could be avoided with more proactive planning. Urban Growth Boundary: The Board of County Commissioners was willing to wait until the West of Castle Creek Master Plan is developed to make final decisions about whether to include the 10 -acre County parcel north of the airport inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Commissioner Richards suggested a potential UGB expansion or reserve zone that would allow the county to consider an office complex if efforts to expand in the downtown are unsuccessful. She added that she supports a transition from urban to rural, but questioned whether the county land north of Highway 82 could be considered rural when it is across the highway from an airport. Commissioner Owsley agreed. The consensus was that future development at the county site shouldn't be precluded and could be identified as a UGB "reserve" of some kind when the Master Plan for the West of Castle Creek area is developed. Other Comments: Commissioner Richards requested that a copy of all the vision statements from the 1993 and 2000 AACPs be included in the update in order to provide some context and history. Exhibit B — Public Comments From: Kathy Strickland To: Chris Bendon; Jessica Garrow; Cindy Houben Cc: Kathy Strickland Sent: Thu Feb 17 08:06:20 2011 Subject: new AACP document The CCLC would like this motion to be submitted in your packet for the next meeting Feb. 22 Thank you The Commercial Core & Lodging Commission (CCLC) met with Debbie Braun (ACRA) and they agree with the ACRA's position that the AACP should contain more substance in respect to a sustainable resort economy. MOTION: Andrew made the motion to respectfully suggest a stand alone Resort Economy Section be added to the new AACP document; second by Don Sheeley. All in favor, motion carried. Debbie Braun said the ACRA is willing to work with the boards for the best possible outcome. Kathleen Strickland City of Aspen Chief Deputy City Clerk, CMC 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colo. 81611 970- 429 -2687 AS P EN6' CHA MBER RESORT ASSOCIATION To: City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions Through: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner From: Debbie Braun, President of ACRA Warren Klug, Chairman of the Board Date of Memo: February 15, 2011 RE: ACRA comments on the AACP. General Outline of ACRA concerns: ➢ Too much focus on Aspen as a small town and doesn't distinguish we are an internationally renowned resort. ➢ Overall tenor of plan seems too punitive in nature and very backward thinking. ➢ No economic report included in the current plan, what will this cost us? ➢ Thought the plan was an update, it's become more of a full rewrite. ➢ Does not take into account the extremely competitive marketplace. ➢ Worried about the regulatory portion of the plan, seems to belong in the land use code not the aspirational document. ➢ No outside consultants used in areas of the resort and economics. ➢ The executive committee thought some of the survey work which was recently sent out was relying on the community, who might not have any expertise - i.e. size of lodging units, etc... ➢ Document does not address what a 21 Century resort should look like. Our feedback reflects concerns on what is lacking in the document. We wish to reinforce that this should be a visionary and aspirational document, and that regulations should be in the code rather than in this guiding document. It should provide a better textual connection with previous plans. The Aspen Idea does not appear until page 74, but we believe it should move to the front of the document and provide the context for the AACP. 1 Managing Growth and Economic Sustainability Section: Maintaining our Tourist -Based Economy. • We should not confuse "growing the economy" and "growing or expanding the physical size of the community." They are not the same and the AACP should distinguish between the two. • Other metrics of quantifying the resort economy should possibly include: • Visitor Research studies conducted by ACRA and ASC; • Lodging/Sales tax collection reports; • # of jobs in the local economy relating to tourism, recreation, hospitality and services. These activities are perhaps "larger," more impactful, or significant in many ways than real estate and construction; • A SWOT analysis of the Tourism Economy; and • Skiing, commercial recreation, activities, and events that were not directly covered in the 2000 AACP economic section. As fundamental components of our economy, and key attractions to our guests and locals, this should be addressed in the update. Special Events - are vital to the economy — over the last two years the City of Aspen has expended resources and cash on new and existing events and studied their impacts. It is important to stimulate growth in visitor days while maintaining optimum balance among the needs of the community, the environment, and visitors. Through a public /private partnership we should all move forward in an effort to reduce pressures on tourism and community resources and infrastructure during peak visitation, to better balance the economic and environmental considerations, and to ensure marketing resources are being optimized. A formal occupancy survey is recommended to help determine "strike zone" parameters for support and funding. Not every event may benefit each business sector; it's valuable to the community to consider a mix of different types of events throughout the year. Destination Marketing — is an important element in economic sustainability and should be viewed as a revenue center not a cost center and included in the community plan. The foundation of Aspen's economy is a resort economy that depends on a strong tourism sector to sustain lodging, retail, restaurant, and other tourism business; as well as music, arts and special events. The future of Aspen's vitality relies on recognizing the tourism economy and supporting it with a solid sales and marketing campaign that continues to attract visitors and groups to the resort throughout the year. While Aspen enjoys a solid brand perception and benefits from a high rate of return visitors, the tourism industry has become increasingly competitive and will remain so for some time. 2 Aspen is a great destination all year round and that it is uniquely positioned with the amount of special events, arts, culture, dining, music, family and outdoor activities for visitors to enjoy. • We recommend a separate but related three -year Strategic Marketing Plan to further refine marketing, sales, and related objectives and strategies, from which annual marketing action plans can be developed and implemented. (ACRA, ASC) • Aspen should cooperatively promote tourism based on shared objectives among and between participating businesses and constituents, which are more effectively and efficiently accomplished collectively than independently. ACRA should continue to conduct market research and brand development, along with the development of targeted niche markets with growth potential. Recognizing the need to balance economic and environmental considerations, a concerted effort has been made by ACRA to set tourism and promotional goals, and maximize tourism economics, while working to minimize environmental impact. However, the ACRA will need significant industry, community, political, and governmental support to fully achieve the balance desired. Visitor and Community Facilities and Services — These services can influence a visitor's choice of location to visit, activities in which to engage during that stay, and the quality and diversity of the overall travel experience. These facilities typically include visitor welcome and information centers, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and amenities, arts and cultural events, attractions, convenient public transportation and public parking, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bike trails, public parks and plazas, and coordinated directional and informational signage. We would like to see included in the AACP: • Existing situational report for all assets; • Visitor Information Centers —these centers are highly visible, easily accessible, serve as a welcome center, provide orientation to the area, and provide information on activities and attractions in the area and offers business referrals. Visitor Centers also provide a good venue for regional interpretive and educational exhibits, information, and programs. The US Forest service is upgrading the 7` and Main facility and should be included in visitor services; • Goals of the AACP should include improvements to facilities and services for the benefit of Aspen's tourism -based economy and residents; and • Coordinated Signage Program — many first time visitors report confusion and congestion resulting from the lack of coordinated directional and informational signage. We recommend a coordinated signage program that will improve the flow of traffic and mobility, help visitors find attractions and destinations, and draw attention to underutilized areas, reducing congestion and pressure on more well - known areas. Interpretive signage along biking and hiking trails and in public locations will continue to enhance the visitor experience and provide a more cohesive look and feel to the entire resort community. 3 Retail Sector: Don't try to micro - manage the retail mix. If the City /County wishes to promote or support retail, it could help by: • Reducing the costs of being in business - reducing fees and taxes; • Supporting the creation of "incubator retail" where possible, to let small, nimble entrepreneurs invent and try new concepts; and • Considering new open air, or quasi -open pedestrian "market places" that touch upon the City's public spaces or commons. The Lodging Sector: Many of the mountain resort facilities are becoming outdated and falling short in meeting the needs of visitors and residents. To remedy this, the City should: • Support the replacement of lost bed base with a variety of contemporary lodging products, suitable to today's economic and investment realities; • Support redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging; • Encourage and provide incentives for all types of mixed -use lodging product types, including hotel keys, fractional, club, and fee simple residential lodging units;and • If the City /County wishes to create low cost, affordable lodging, particularly for younger, less affluent visitors, consider approving lodging of sufficient mass and scale necessary to support a financial viable hotel, or contributing the land and provide public financing to a private sector partner for such development. Economic Impact: In the opinion of ACRA, what is missing from the plan is an economic impact study, and specific recommendations for key problem areas in the built environment. These include the Lift One area, Buttermilk and the ABC, and the Entrance to Aspen. If as a community we tackle these big issues, many others will fall into place. To support this activity: • ACRA is willing to engage in a Public /Private partnership to lead the charge on an economic impact study; • ACRA also recommends that a Public /Private partnership be created with the Roaring Fork Business Resource Center as a clearinghouse for all the variety of plans and studies. This group would be charged with updating and championing new and existing plans and would serve as a "one -stop shop;" and • ACRA would like to see some type of policy statement and future commitment to tackle the Lift One area, Buttermilk and the ABC, and the Entrance to Aspen. 4 Funding the Master Plan: A final chapter addressing how the recommendations of the master plan will be funded needs to be added. Many of the recommendations in the document will have a cost associated with them. Although an independent, external review would be best, at a minimum, we are asking that the City and County Finance directors review the plan and make comments on funding. We also ask that the City and County Financial Advisory boards review and make recommendations. • Would like to see a cost /benefit analysis of all regulatory changes called for in the Plan. 5 ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN October, 2010 draft Comments by David Corbin Vice President Planning & Development Aspen Skiing Company 11 -20 -10 INTRODUCTION: • The description of Aspen as a "small town community" (page 2) is a central theme of the draft plan. The "small town" reference is implicitly construed and frequently described within the draft to mean `the Aspen community' is co- terminous with both the area and those residents of the Urban Growth Boundary. o COMMENT — I,Aspen is not simply a "small town." It is also a regional center and an internationally renowned resort. As a consequence, its r - Comment [CHI]: The first two sentences of reach and vision extend far beyond the upper valley. The AACP should old ily be dad in the Y PP Y iMoavld's roducllon section commentc o the eas plan and incla holds reflect and speak to that reality and it fails to focus on it. describe all that Aspen includes. This s addressed in the new draft intro. o The `Aspen community' is larger, broader, more populous and more Comment [0121: varied than just the UGB and its residents. Comment [013]: NI the comments telow are true and could be succinctly added into the iMroductlon by as statement such as: 'Aspen is • The `Aspen community' includes a great number of people who dependent upon those who work here as linked through h a the region, second reside outside of the UGB who are inextricably g homeowners, tourist and those who co full work or avocation to Aspen as the central urban and recreational time within the community. As a result, this plan core of the Valley. The residences, physical connections and fe p•ov Aspen pllelwho einterconnectedness woco r infrastructure of this community stretch to Glenwood and beyond. and as a . In addition, n. the the public process was designed to include and incorporate everyone. The • Our second home owners, guests and visitors, domestic and revisions will reflect that the plan is for international, should also be considered part of the community for , everyone. their economic contributions and effects, as well as their interests, desires, appreciation, patronage and support of the community, its infrastructure and activities. • The draft plan should recognize and speak to these other members of the community, just as it speaks to and for those people who reside within the UGB. • Too often the draft plan speaks solely for and only with the voice of residents within the UGB and is silent on behalf of our other constituents and their interests. o The physical area affected by the plan is not merely that within the UGB either, standing alone, without context. The vision of Aspen area 1 planning should not be limited to the upper valley, but must be linked to our region, for reasons of housing and transportation alone. Efforts to downsize or constrict density and mass in the upper valley have very real effects on the downvalley in the form of sprawl and other land use impacts We in the upper valley must not be blind to such effects, but .1 Comment MHO]: This is a true statement. must make choices in u valley land use recognizing them. We should The Wan m fact does try to deal with these PP Y IP' g Issues by limiting its demand on employment consider land use patterns that concentrate and increase density and and providing fora within the UGB. That is one centers such as the City of Aspen and dis- incent down of the pivotal s . Perhaps Issues that the plan mass in existing Y P Ines to express. Perhaps a aarlfying statement valley sprawl. to that affect would be helpful in order :o fink the issues and intent. Such as:" We recognize that we are linked regionally relative to jobs and • Preface to Refocusing Growth (page 2), the principle, "We continue to believe housing and transportation. It is our intent to must slow and final) stop" is coupled conceptually with the definition ensure z s andtherest ...growth Y P' P P Y recognizes our impacts on the rest a rte of growth (page 11) which includes "any increase in the size or activity of the region. It Is not our intent to push sprawl and Em hasis supplied] poor and use through external pressure community." P pP I throughout the region. Thus, the various components of this plan are intended to work rowth is very broad) defined and the notion that the sustainable community in every sense of the growth of "activity" or specific uses must necessarily slow and stop is too wort. generalized, overreaching, and misguided. While this Is not a regional plan. we can recognize that our action have impact: beyond • For example, should an increase in public transit or alternative our borders. transportation necessarily slow or stop? Should an increase in the Comment [ens]: This language has been inserted from other plans and probably should "activity" of bus ridership slow or stop? Should an increase in the be replaced. Perhaps as statement to clarity use and enjoyment of walking, bicycling or other use of the public could read: The intension of Growth management Is to manage growth based on 1) trails slow and stop? pre - determined limits on NEW development as established by zoning.2) the management of the pace of redevelopment." • ASC suffered a significant decline in skier days with the loss of ��- bedbase in the '90's; should skier day "growth" now slow or stop? What if fewer numbers of people, even fewer numbers of local residents, should happen to ski more days on average in the future than they did in the past; should that increased use slow or stop? 1 would strenuously argue "no" in each case. o Increases in activity, utilization or operational efficiencies should not necessarily be defined as growth and presumptively slowed or stopped" Greater discernment of what constitutes growth, its impacts and desired - comment [CN61: It would be helpful if PZ ationshouldbeemployed inthe philosophies, public policies growth .SafffIscidfMitywhwththehhaes mitigation P P P P c row d s Sag a comfortable identify w with the definition in action steps considered here" the plan: "Growth is any increase in the size or activity of the community. Growth can be an Increase in population. jobs, infrastructure. o Finally, the draft's presumptive bias against "growth," broadly defined, demand for public services, or increase in should be weighed, considered and distinguished from related the l tzo or use v of t o ment, Growth ng in ubea g , g Canoe of new development, charges in use, community attributes or characteristics, such as vitality, currency, redevelopment, or fluctuations in the Economy adaptability, change and diversity, which may be desirable and critically of growth are l addre es ssed may How diner nt. but necessary for a healthy and sustainable community and economy. all types of growth should beldenimecl. MANAGING GROWTH & ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY: 2 Philosophy: • Definition of Growth (page 11) See above. o COMMENT — Growth is too broadly defined given the aim to curtail or cease all "growth" as defined. See above. AACP �redevelopment was a significant policy change emerging from the 2000 - -( Comment ]p]: This will be addressed in the . Though motivated by good ends...the result was far more mixed. A l revision . great deal of public anger and frustration was expressed...1andI to lessen public divisiveness...infill must be re- examined..." (page 12) o COMMENT — What is the factual and rational basis for this very subjective and pejorative critique? Whose conclusion is this and are the personal opinions of the drafting members of the joint Planning Commissions presumptively conclusive on the value and merits of infill? o infill, the repurposing and reuse of land and resources within a built environment, is a legitimate land use tool and one that should be considered seriously as an alternative to sprawl or green field development elsewhere in the region. o Projects such as the Limelight and Dancing Bear are valuable and worthy additions to Aspen's built environment, have contributed needed bedbase, and fit the built environment context quite well. Similar projects of purpose and quality are desirable. o Lastly, why should the possibility of disagreement among the public pre- emptively strike down, discourage or constrain infill as a land use policy? What land use policy in Aspen is without divisiveness? Conversely, by this same logic we might just as easily go the opposite route and eliminate all land use policies from the Code to avoid disagreement concerning them. Managing Growth and Pace of Construction: • The draft plan seeks to control the pace of all development and construction through GMQS building quotas for residential demolition and replacement, permit caps, permit issuance timing limitations, and other tools, including Action Items 1.1.a — c, IH.l.a — c, in order to "...limits 1 traffic congestion, noise, dust, disturbances, air pollution and the disruption of the visual and aesthetic character of our neighborhoods and the downtown area." (Philosophy page 12; Policies and Action Items pages 14, 15) o COMMENT - The tools proposed, particularly those related to pacing, building permit caps, and "points" for public benefits would effect an 3 undue hardship on a substantial number of properties and home owners and are out of scale to the problems and needs described.) Comment [CHS]: Given the past experience of CC it is evident that an acceptable method of managing redevelopment has not been , ound to • The entitlement and permitting processes in Aspen are already date. However, It does not mean that the complex, time consuming, costly, rigorous, and complicated impacts intent of he p lan i s to pare out that:tteet. com p g y g P The imam of the plan is to point out that the enough. Adding the burdens and extra costs (including interest impacts do exist and provide potential carry) of the timing uncertainties of residential GMQS, waiting i p methods to help resolve the for the lottery of permit issuance, and operating under the _.. constraints of fixed permit caps is simply excessive, out of scale, and are unnecessary regulatory burdens to meet the tasks at hand. o If the impacts of noise, congestion, traffic, etc. are the unwanted public burdens of construction, deal with, manage and mitigate those issues directly in construction management plans and regulatory coordination thereof. o More broadly, these provisions ignore, fail to take into account and do not moderate for the ever changing effects of the market place. In times such as these when a national recession has cooled economic activity and reduced demand for real estate and construction improvements, there is little to no quality of life disruption to mitigate. Yet, this new layer of complicated and unnecessary regulatory structure and its costly bureaucracy would remain in place and effect, without reason. More limited, targeted and flexible solutions should be employed to address the perceived problems. - - — • Comment [CH9]: At some level Constwction management techniques no longer are • Action Item 1.2.c. — "Amend the PUD regulations to address the placement of eaedive. allowable mass and scale, rather than using the process to exceed underlying Can GMQS be redeveloped to be a tool that is more flexible for the highs and lows in the dimensional requirements." (page 14) and Action Item 1.2.d — "...establish an economy thereby sustaining an appropriate, absolute height limit that can be achieved through a PUD or other process." even, balanced level of development at any given time? Is this a concept that the P Z would (page 1 4) like to express in the plan? o COMMENT — The intention and effect of these provisions would be to negate the very purposes and value of PUD application and review which are to provide ppportunities for flexibility, creativity and originality in _ land use decisions and the built environment. To do so would be to .. - -i Comment [CH10]: This is a valid cdtque, and 1 was the subject of much discussion at he 2/2 compel a common "sameness" of dubious desirability in the urban joint BOCC /Council work session. How do you environment. balance the certainty issue for the various neighbors? • Action Item 11.1.1. "Establish a percentage square footage increase that is allowable per year." (page 15) o COMMENT — A fixed percentage of allowable floor area growth per year I comment [CHU]: This is a method that the County has used for a number of years in the ignores the market place overall, is blind to the timing costs of a property and use code and it has not stopped growth to owner's efforts to improve his or her property, is an arbitrary standard date. disconnected from the conditions sought to be mitigated, and could serve 4 to unfairly impede and restrict the rights of property owners who can and would otherwise mitigate the impacts of noise, traffic, dust, etc. on the community and the environment during the course of their property improvements. • Action Item 111.1.c. "Explore mechanisms for a joint review of development in the Urban Growth Boundary." (page 15) o COMMENT - Sufficient opportunities exist today for both the City and County to participate as referring agencies in any given land use review within the jurisdiction of the other. Joint review by both jurisdictions would be unreasonably complicated, costly and time consuming for applicants. Moreover, if as suggested, City and County codes are made consistent (identical ?) within the UGB then joint review is also patently i Comment [C1112I: Good question. Another duplicative and an inherently unreasonable burden on property owners. option is to expand the referral system xtween the city and county. Residential Sector: • Action Item I11.2.h. "Amend ...codes to address proper location and solar ---- -- orientation of homes." (page 16) comment [1131: The intent is to proviie direction for future code amendments, with a recognition that flexibility is important. o COMMENT - New building code provisions regarding energy and efficiency requirements already go a long way to improve the efficiencies and sustainability of our housing stock. o Solar orientation or the use of passive or active solar techniques and equipment may not be universally possible, desirable or even the first and best choice of energy management for any given residence. o This provision unnecessarily micro-manages residential siting that may be of no use and fails to take into account the highly variable conditions of any particular lot or site. For example, what might such a code provision say about the proper solar orientation of a home literally in the shadow of Shadow Mountain? Proper solar orientation should be left to design professionals; energy efficiencies should best be handled by building codes. • (Policies 111.3 "Protect the visual quality and character of residential neighborhoods by reducing site coverage, mass and scale." (page 17) .. i comment [1141: Paz is now emphasising —I environmentally sensitive areas. o COMMENT - There is no intrinsic and inarguable qualitative link between "visual quality and character" and reduced site coverage, mass and scale. Whatever subjective standard one wishes to employ when gauging what is "small" or "large" does not by itself determine visual quality or appealing character. Examples can be found all over the world of arguably `large" residential structures which are beautiful, are of the 5 highest visual quality and character and fit their place and context well. This policy is too broad, lacks a justifiable regulatory rationale, recognizes no Flexibility and should be eliminated or substantively rewritten. Lodging:,, — Comment [CH15R Start sat down and discussed lhls section in detail with David. There was a great deal of discussion around • Philosophy: "During the last 10 —15 years, the market has favored, emphasis what are market could actually achieve today lied and the...codes have allowed man small to mid -sized lodges to new that western resorts are full with high end supplied! � Y g resort lodging. This warrants PZ discussion. convert to other uses..." (page 13) Specifically. the term modest remains ill- defined for many who have provided verbal comments. o COMMENT — It may be true that the market has "favored" conversion Direction from DOCC /Council at the 2/2 meeting was to explore economy /moderate lodgng of small to mid lodge properties to other uses, but this statement begs the -- - - - -- - - -- question whether that is the driving reason these older lodges have converted to other uses. It is entirely possible, perhaps probable, that the business model is no longer profitable for small to mid -size, "mom and pop" type lodges, some little more than aged motels of poor construction quality, inadequate product quality, insufficient key counts, and limited revenue opportunities. For that matter, such properties may no longer even be desirable by guests, compelling them to change or fail. The philosophy of the section should consider these possibilities, respond to the full range of lodging challenges and seek to define realistic new opportunities and solutions in the lodging sector of our economy. • Policy IV. 1 "Lodging should be modest in bulk, mass and scale in order to...create certainty in land development, prioritize maintaining...views, protect existing lodges; protect our small town community character and historical heritage,...letc.J" (page 17) o COMMENT — The lodging policies and action items proposed here and throughout pages 17 and 18 are ostensibly aimed at maintaining an appealing, intimate, diverse and affordable bedbase. They are grounded on an undefined and false presumption of purpose, fail to consistently connect aspiration with reality, and will likely fail to protect existing bedbase or allow for the critical evolution of lodging. • What does "modest" mean as a land planning or legal term? How comment [i161: This has been discussed at precisely does it lead to land use certainty, define or views, view length, and the revised dart will use arpe multiple p y ty, protect + words to tlescribe This concept (like tort pebble, save existing lodges, or once again, conserve small town character? consistent, etc) What, for that matter, does "modest" mean as a descriptive hospitality term? Does "modest" definitively describe lodging that is attractive, desired by guests, or viable as a business enterprise? Unfortunately, "modest" means nothing here... It is undefined, without meaning for any of these purposes, and is counter- productive as a useful land use planning or public decision making tool. 6 • Action Item IV. I a and b propose to use 3 -D modeling technology to evaluate currently permissible development and then to "amend... Lodging & Commercial Design Guidelines based on the findings...to ensure modest and appropriate development. emphasis supplied. Why bother with the fiction of a study if a `modesty standard,' whatever that is, has already been grounded and required in the regulatory purposes of the plan? • The policies and action items of this section do not consider the development, re- development or operational economics of the lodging industry. Nor are market studies or basic matters of supply and demand accounted for in this "front end "articulation of policy. The City is not without information or resources in this regard, having undertaken studies and considered financial and market information on past projects. Before lodging policies are articulated a Community Lodging Business Plan should be researched, studied and written to ground the aspirational policies. • Action Item IV. 3. b "Explore amendments to the Land Use Code that places a priority on lodges that replace what is being eliminated." • Action Item IV. 3. g "Explore amendments to the...Codes that would incentivize small room sizes and diversity of room sizes through increases in floor area and building height." (page 18) o COMMENT '.— I applaud this incentive to diversify lodging, but how does . Comment um: aazs are aware of me need ro osed Code changes increasing to revise w be incorporated language i th e revis intent and one reconcile this action item and its P P g g Lois will be languagt in daily revision floor area and height with prescriptions for "modest" scale and height - - - -- and other language in the draft capping heights, reducing site coverage, and limiting development standards in PUD's to underlying district standards? The running current of the draft is going an entirely different direction and this provision is left high and dry on the far bank. To save the purpose of this provision, one must rethink the pro forma restriction that all structures must be "modest" in size, scale and height. • Action Item IV. 4. c "Amend the City and County Codes to eliminate the provision of free - market residential incentives in the lodge program. emphasis supplied] (page 18) o COMMENT — In the first place, what are the residential "incentives" referred to in the draft? Does the language here refer to the mere possibility of an economic generator in mixed use development, i.e. including residential, for -sale units (whether fee simple and /or fractional) 7 mixed with more conventional lodging? This Action Item provides no clear direction and infers a significant bias against a wide range of lodging product types and the economic means and necessities of hotel development and redevelopment. o The draft should acknowledge and recognize the wide range and purposes of hospitality and lodging products that exist in the resort world today. • Such lodging products include conventional hotels with overnight keys for rent, condo lodges (some with lock - offs), time share, fractional and residence club products. Often these products are "sold" or mixed with for -sale residential products, sometimes for programmatic reasons and sometimes because for -sale products are necessary to generate a sufficient revenue stream at the front end of a project to render it financially viable. The economic options should not be strangled by a blanket prohibition of this sort. • Action Item IV. 4. d `Amend the City and County ...Codes to eliminate the -- ability to convert lodging to other uses." (page 18) [ Comment 1118]; Limiting zoning nghts to one use is unusual. Ni action item could be added that states economic modeling should be done o COMMENT — The underlying philosophy of the section and Action Item If code changes along these fines aro ptrsuod. renders alternative land uses impossible, crushing the land value out of the real estate underlying existing lodges, which will then leave no other higher or better use or economic purpose available to them and they will by necessity remain lodges. o While there is some logic to the idea that eliminating the return on investment opportunity of other real estate use "incentivizes" the retention of historic lodging, it begs the question of whether or not the economic model of the small to mid -size historic lodges works regardless of the cost or value of underlying land. It is unfortunate, but small to mid -size lodges can often not bear their own costs of operation profitably, even before the costs of development, redevelopment, major refurbishment and / or remodeling are considered. o At ASC, we have modeled many different local lodge purchase or development scenarios, where even without land cost the economics simply do not work. Consider this hypothetical question: If, for example, the Sardy House was never allowed to convert to another use, would that ensure that it was operated as a lodge if its revenue stream did not profitably cover the cost of operations? How long do such properties operate at a loss and at what level of loss before they simply go dark and reduce their costs of holding to maintenance, taxes and insurance? Do owners bother to maintain such properties forever? A restrictive 8 prohibition on alternative uses might ensure that the buildings remain in place until they collapse, but it does not ensure they are run as lodges. To protect and enhance the lodging sector the AACP and our codes should encourage greater land use flexibility and creativity than provisions such as this allow. • Policy V.1 "Ensure that the City code supports development that reflects the contextual architectural heritaee ]emphasis supplied] in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and a diversity of heights." Comment p191: Staff believes Policy V.1 is ed o Action Item V.1 c "Re- evaluate the assumptions behind the turn] codes, De g Guideline the terms Code and Land U such as what is the appropriate historic pattern of development to 'architectural context "seems inclusive of model." ]emphasis supplied] (page 19) heritage. o Action Item V.I. d "Engage in a community dialogue about the appearance and function of the commercial zone districts and amend codes to reflect the community will." (page 19) • COMMENT - This policy and the action items implicitly aim to roll back commercial and lodging Infill codes. Whatever the purpose, these provisions are too narrowly drawn as land use principles. • The City code should quite logically consider "architectural context" in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and diversity of heights. However, a contextual review should not be limited simply to "history" or "heritage" as its guide. How are contemporary and new needs and uses to be met and future direction to be found if only the past is to be mined for ideas and context? For that matter, which past? The silver mining past of the late 1800's? The Pre -1950 quiet era? The 70's? • While respecting and understanding the past, land use policy and the City codes must understand the needs of the present and look forward to the future in crafting guiding regulatory tools. These provisions appear to be planning tools employing only our rear view mirror. Commercial Sector: • Policy V. 3 "Create a commercial mix that is affordable, balanced; diverse, vital, and meets the needs of year -round residents and visitors." • Action Item V. 3 f "Explore creating a program to require a portion of development to be restricted to a limited list of commercial uses, which would be charged lower rents..." • Action Item V. 3. g "Explore adopting an Existing Use Zone District in specific areas in order to prohibit new uses from displacing existing ones..." (page 20) o COMMENT — While a separate Action Item also proposes conducting a market study to identify levels of demand and availability for "products 9 and services Idesiredi by residents" (V. 3. a.) the economics of the retail sector and commercial leasing are largely ignored by the draft plan. o Compelling lower rents by code or allowing only certain uses will not necessarily result in the products or services desired by residents or serve broader commercial purposes if the underlying retail economics do not work. The proposed Action Items should all be subject to the provision that retail economic studies be undertaken and examined when the City considers incentives, restrictions and regulatory management of the _. commercial mix in the City or portions of it -- comment [I201: staff proposes that his idea be included in the introduction. Whenever code changes are considered is should be based on Public, Institutional and Non -Profit Sector reliable economic data (in addition to physical modeling. as applicable, and community Lsuppon.) • Policy VI. 1 "Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in tangible community benefits and do not...significantly exceed land use code standards." (page 21) • Action Item VI. 1. a "Amend COWOP ...code to include full IP &Z) review..." • Action Item VI. 1. b "Review...[PUD] and COWOP chapters...to...limit the _... capacity to exceed land use code standards." (page 21) - t comment 021]: cocacounc l comments at their 2/2 meeting focused on retaining negotiating ability, with potential upper limits on o COMMENT — The draft policy and action items conflict badly with and zoning. severely undermine current Code. The purpose of the City's PUD process (City Code 26.445.010) is to "encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land," including promoting the "purposes, goals and objectives of the (AACPI" and achieving a "greater variety in the type and character of development..." o Similarly, the COWOP process purpose (City Code 26.500.010) is intended to "establish an alternative process and standards for review...The purpose in ...applying alternative review standards for certain developments... is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review and approval process, and to allow for greater public participation..." o The effect of the proposed policy and action items is to render useless and stifle the purpose and practice of PUD and COWOP land use application and review processes. o Whether by adding unnecessary layers of review, restricting the development standards or hollowing out the very purpose and use of the PUD and COWOP Code chapters, the result would be that flexibility, innovation, variety and alternatives, including those serving the goals and objectives of the AACP, would be lost. Aspen prides itself on its vision, creativity and purpose, surely we do not wish to lose such tools in our land use procedures in the service of ensuring conformity throughout our built environment. 10 • Maintain our Tourist Based Economy • policy VIII. 1 "Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist -based economy." (page 23) ! Comment [CH22): These comments seem appropriate and could easily be incorporated into the plan as follows: o COMMENT — The policy as written fails to provide any guidance or Bullet one: This could be incorporated into the or policy makers. It doesn't enumerate and introduction of the Growth and Economic direction to the community P Y section; describe the elements or components of our tourist -based economy. The Bullet two: This could be included as an action draft does not define a baseline of health for the resort economy. Nor item In the 11 Growth and Economic and economic does the Y• plan; Perhaps it should be called aM r conomic does the draft opine on what elements of our resort economy might be development strategy vs. a business plan. strong or weak, where we should concentrate our efforts, or what we the This thought could be a abtl to g fft ht the action Hem developed for bullet two above, should seek to improve. These subjects should be addressed in the draft. • I suggest that areas for economic consideration should include Destination Transportation lair, etc.], Lodging, Activities and Resort Programming, Local Transportation and Infrastructure, Marketing, Sales and Guest Communication, Competitive Environment, etc. • The Action Items should include a provision which calls for the "working group" to write a community wide Strategic Resort Analysis and Plan, the equivalent of a comprehensive resort business plan. • As a subsequent Action Item, resort wide business development initiatives should be deliverable by- products of the community business plan. WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR: Philosophy: • The draft Philosophy for planning this area emphasizes its "transitional character" and "gateway experience" and to a lesser degree acknowledges function and "nodes" of activity in the area. The draft heavily prioritizes views, - Comment [CH231: This needs clarity or preservation of visual character and the "support of a well - defined visual is t o pr ohi it explanation that rfringe i The intention the P PP additional di to nal sprawl in the urban ae states: "The and to pattern," going so far as to describe the visual experience to be of "critical allow development of less density and intensity importancem[ and]... paramount when it comes to future planning." ]emphasis than theASpenCore _ supplied] (page 24) Comment [0124]: The PZ has Deer very Gear that the visual quality of the West of castle Creek area is of great importance. The specgcs o COMMENT — While the preservation of important and commonly of how the visual quality is maintained will be expressed in the West of Castle plan with view recognized view corridors and planes of high aesthetic quality is one valid plan studies and desirable land use goal among many, the predominating prioritization of views and visual character is too much and too limiting as expressed in the draft. The functional land uses in the area, which are 11 varied and often unique and critical to the community have been minimized and rendered subservient to but one land planning principle. A more balanced and multi - faceted assessment of land planning criteria and values should be employed here. The functions, purposes, needs and manner of activities and uses within the area, if not addressed as first principles, should at least be given equal weight to aesthetic concerns in the planning efforts for the area. Transportation: • Policy I. 1. "Improve the convenience, reliability, comfort, affordability, safety, capacity and quality of...transit services...in the...Corridor." • ;Action Item I.1.a. "Create a comprehensive transportation master plan for the...Corridor...land] coordinate and improve all aspects of auto, air, transit, parking and trail function in the context of planned development or -_ ._.__......_... men redevelo t..." Comment ICH25]: Staff agrees that a redevelopment..." transportation plan of the • Action Item I. 1. d. "Explore the creation of a transportation district in coMdor needs to be developed now with data the...Area to ensure that development pays for transportation improvements in that will serve a baseline for future development. Specifically a plan analyzing the the corridor." traffic between the airport and AABC and town needs to be completed in order to understand the reasons for the traffic and perhaps f nd o COMMENT — Certainly the policy goal is laudable and probably solutions such as additional shuttles and universally acceptable to the Aspen community as a whole. However, Interface with new development at the airport and the base of Buttermilk. „J years, even decades of disagreement over the Entrance to Aspen solution - - evidence the complexity of transportation planning in the Corridor and the political obstacles to implementation. • A well coordinated transportation master plan, incorporating all modes and nodes of transportation in the area is a very good Action Item. However, a coordinated transportation plan for the sub -area is needed now and is neither dependent upon nor necessitated solely by development or re- development. Improvements to capacity, convenience, connection, etc. might be deemed necessary now and would be welcomed as improvements to the system today. The "context" of future development, while certainly a planning factor should not be inferred to be the catalyst for improvements needed today. • Proposing the creation of a transportation district land a specific tax base one assumes] and ensuring that "...development pays for...improvements in the corridor," as written, presumptively assumes or infers that property owners and local development can and should pay for all such improvements, whether necessitated by today's needs and demands or by future growth. The role and importance of the transportation improvements contemplated for the Corridor extend well beyond just those property owners and occupants of the West of Castle Creek Area; costs for such 12 improvements and service should be borne more broadly than these provisions infer. • Given the scope and magnitude of potential improvements, including those related to air transportation, funding sources for transportation should include all options, including federal, state, regional, and local sources of all types. Scenic: • Policy 11.1 " Density, size and scale of new development and redevelopment in the...Corridor should maintain the open views of the natural environment seen — as one travels through this portion of the Highway 82 corridor." (page 28) - ( comment [CH26]? See comment to above o COMMENT — The policy is written too broadly. What is meant by "maintainlingl the open views ?" Does this mean no change in present views is contemplated or permissible? From what view point? Are all the views one sees as one travels the corridor to be preserved as they exist today? In every direction and at every angle? To what backdrop or natural panorama of note? o Simply stating "the open views" should be maintained does not distinguish between views of scenic aesthetic value or experiential importance and ordinary, mundane or non - compelling views. o The policy should more narrowly target preserving only views of high scenic character and value. The action items for the section, which do include visual modeling and evaluation of view corridors, should define what views are worthy of protection and then propose specific scenic view corridors or view planes for such protection. Land Use: • Policy III. 1. "Planning for the West of Castle Creek Corridor should support a well defined visual pattern for a series of distinctly different `nodes' of activity supporting limited uses that are physically separated by open space." (page 29) o COMMENT — As previously noted, the underlying philosophy and this policy place too much emphasis and "paramount" importance on the visual aspects of master land planning, out of balance with other land use planning considerations, all of which must be considered and integrated into a coherent plan. The very important uses of this area, many of which are singular placements within the community and which include an irreplaceable airport, a ski area, lodging, light industrial, commercial, service, office and affordable housing are conceptually subordinated to a 13 dominating visual planning ethos. The visual pattern of land use should only be one element of a master plan, not its single dominating principle. • I Item 111. 1. c. "Amend...zoning in the area to discourage additional development of new free - market single family and duplex homes." (page 29) - comment [CH27]: This is a directional statement that helps with the development of the West of Castle plan. Staff Is comfortable o COMMENT — There may be areas within the West of Castle Creek with the direction but asks PZ a they foal it is Corridor where single family or duplex homes would be a perfectly , are mature given the comment below. suitable and appropriate use. Without first undertaking and finalizing a comprehensive analysis and master land use plan for the area it is premature to presumptively seek to amend zoning to prohibit such uses. • Action Item III. 1. e. "Maintain the existing use mix Viand b_ alance at the Airport I Comment [CH28]: County staff proposed the 1 Business Center." (page 29) - term use mix' be changed to 'zoning". Comment 029]: City staff recommends this be discussed as part of the future masler plan. o COMMENT — While it would seem wise given the importance of existing _ - -- — commercial operations in the AABC to provide for and allow the unique land uses, small businesses, and the zoning that permits them, it is unclear how the "existing mix and balance" is to be "maintaintedl." There are no suggested land use policies or tools to do so, whether of a prohibitory, regulatory or incentivized nature. o The Action Item also fails to consider that the mix and balance of commercial uses at the AABC might necessarily change over time due to changing demand and other economic factors. There is need for substance and a principle of flexibility in this Action Item. • Action Item III. 1. g. "Ensure any redevelopment of the Inn at Aspen and the _ Base of Buttermilk is coordinated." emphasis supplied (page 29) i {Commnt [CH38]: This could use beaer Intent language /Is the intent of this action item to ensure the connectivity of the uses from a o COMMENT — What does this Action Item mean? Does this mean ( vehicular and orpedesman relationship? __ something more than each property owner's property should be included within a comprehensive area plan? Does it seek to impose common timing and /or development standards upon the properties? Given the proximity of the properties and surrounding public infrastructure, certain utility services and infrastructure elements may very well require coordination, common planning and shared execution. Beyond such possible considerations however, the Action Item is nebulous and the compunction too broad. TRANSPORTATION: • Philosophy — "Our transportation philosophy comes largely from our desire to maintain a quality of life that reflects how a small town looks, feels and functions. We must continue to limit the number of vehicles coming into town and reduce daily traffic... We must continue to make our mass transit and 14 • pedestrian/ bike trail system more convenient, efficient, comprehensive and enjoyable." (page 30) o COMMENT — Probably no one in the Aspen area, when asked, favors more vehicles, increased traffic or local gridlock on the streets. And, there is obviously wide community consensus to improve mass transit and alternate means of transportation that would reduce reliance on the private automobile. However, the underlying premise of the philosophy demonstrates once again the inwardly focused attention and purpose of the plan...maintaining a quality of life that reflects how a "small town" looks, feels and functions. Again, Aspen is more than simply a "small town" and its transportation system links to and is part of a larger valley transit system and also international air systems well beyond Pitkin County. Comment fj31]: This was addressed in - - -- - -- - - - -- comments at the 2/2 meeting with BOCC /Council, where similar comments were o The philosophy itself does not focus on the transportation system and made. A suggestion was to include larguage ur oses, program stating that the functionality of the react Is what it should be or do. Nor does it focus on its P P P g important. elements and integration or even its users and constituents per se. Instead, the language focuses upon the perceived annoyances and traffic impacts on the residents within the UGB. The Policies and Action Items widen the scope somewhat, but it is telling that the presence and needs of guests and working commuters are not articulated, recognized or promoted in the Philosophy statement. Do these constituents and their needs not matter? • The Vision and Philosophy sections of the draft should identify the fundamental purposes of the transportation system, which should include the goal of safely, quickly, and conveniently moving all users of the system through a variety of means and methods to and from their intended destinations, whatever they might be, including guests who arrive by air, working locals who commute from down - valley to upper valley jobs, the service and delivery vehicles which are essential to supplying a functioning economy and those biking or walking from place to place. • Fortunately, some of the Policies and Action Items touch upon these subjects and speak to a wider group of system constituents, but the Philosophy should be expanded in scope to reach these - subjects. Comment [CH321: The philosophy section in - - -- transportation can be expanded similaly to comment 3 above noting the need to recognize Public Transit: ; the interconnectedness of the people and ways in which they travel into, out of and around the community. • Action Item 1.1.a "The City, County, Snowmass Village, EOTC, SkiCo and . - -" RFTA must be active partners [emphasis supplied[ to implement Bust Rapid Transit (BRT)." (page 32) 15 o COMMENT — What does "active partners" mean? What is being suggested, requested or implied by this statement? If specific cooperative action steps are required to implement BRT those should be articulated in the Action Item. User Groups and Transportation Demand Management: • Policy III. 1. "Reduce vehicular trips through the Entrance to Aspen and in the neighborhoods...generated by employment, special events, school, recreation or other activites." o COMMENT — Certainly the goal of reducing vehicle trips throughout the community is a laudable and commonly shared goal, but is this enough? Shouldn't the Policy goal be to both (a) reduce vehicular trips, and (b) meet the transportation needs and demands of every user group within the service area? Don't we need to move people to and from their places of employment, events, schools, recreation and other activities and shouldn't we proactively articulate and aspire to meet those needs through transit solutions, rather than just constricting private vehicular trips? o Standing alone, reducing vehicular trips, doesn't solve the underlying problem or need. Whether in this section or another we should positively set a goal of meeting transportation needs and demand with system technologies that are desirable, acceptable, adequate and affordably. Comment [J331: This is the goal of TDM measures in general This language could be `added to the TOM sedion. • Policy III. 2. "Reduce the impacts of construction - related congestion at the Entrance to Aspen and in our neighborhoods." And Action Item III. 2. a "Update the City and County's Construction Management Plans and related codes to address construction - related trips and impacts using principles of TDM." o COMMENT — The Policy and Action Item presumptively assume that traffic congestion at the Entrance and in the neighborhoods is construction - related. Traffic study data and reports discerning causes and effects of congestion should be obtained first and incorporated in any Construction Management Plans and codes update. - -1 Comment [Cn34]: See comment 26 Managing Growth: • Policy V. 2. "Require development to lenable and support ([emphasis supplied] _ - [ Comment [Cn35]: It would clarify the policy to by bicycle public be more specific such as: 'Require and travel b foot, bit cle and ublic and Action Item V.1.a incentivize development to ensure physical "Amend City and County codes to adopt this standard of review." design components that enable travel by foot 16 o COMMENT — What does the nebulous phrase, "enable and support" mean and how does this comprise a comprehensible "standard of review" which could be adopted in City and County code? • Action Items V.2 c and V.2 d require that development "mitigate for short and long term transportation impacts" and to mitigate for "all costs, including physical and long -term operational costs." (page 37 ) o COMMENT — In general, the sale of newly developed or redeveloped property is a limited economic driver to generate revenue streams that might fund on -going operations of public infrastructure, including the routine operational costs of transit. New development or redevelopment of "for sale" properties typically generates single event revenues. Thereafter the development assets are like any other real property and taxed to pay for public benefits. Comment [CH315]: Staff agrees with the plan's general direction, but recommends clarifying the expectations of development o Given limited "one time" fee revenues available from development, through a comprehensive examination of operational public transportation funding should be broadly taxed base transportation mitigation polices to adequately fund the infrastructure and transit operations that benefit all residents and guests, including those who pre -exist new development. Airport Policies: • I Item VIII. 2. b — "Study the necessity of redeveloping the airport _ terminal." (page 39) j Comment [CH37]: Jim Elwood, Pitkii County 1 - - - Airport director does feel that this statements could be eliminated now that a process Is o COMMENT — Is this study necessary or redundant? Does the airport not underway to review the terminal. already have purpose and need statements, together with supporting demand study data, associated with NEPA reviews and / or market study analyses for airport improvements? Isn't additional public scoping and review being undertaken now? Do existing reports already exist which might be utilized in local public review? Funding: • Policy IX. 1. "Increase funding for public transit so that service is consistent and reliable with a preference for stable and sustainable revenue sources;" and Action Item IX. 1. g "1n addition to the TDM / Air Quality impact fee, explore implementing a fee that can be used for operational costs." (page 41) o COMMENT — The suggestion to explore the imposition of "fees" of some kind, to be imposed on unidentified entities to defray transit operating costs is vague, inadequate and potentially inequitable. In addition to "fees" as a funding source for transit operations, every possible sort of revenue alternative, including taxes, bonds, grants, tolls, etc. should be 17 identified, ou r sources for desired transportation rttats on tm and compared is ments o f every sort. funding - ' Comment Is t por: explore methods goal of these ensure m on e soucs foired tans oati improvements every s c nt x The oat to action ni o stable sources of Transportation funding. The HOUSING: action items list a myriad of ways to do this, Including user fees, development fees, and taxes. This should also be part of the study Philosophy: , discussed in Comment 39. • The Housing Philosophy policy tools are summarized in one paragraph, which reads: "We need to focus our efforts on growth policies that limit or reduce the need for more housing. These policies should include expanding our ability to limit growth, maximizing our ability to require housing mitigation, and limiting the types of uses that result in excessive job generation We believe it is - Comment 0391: Stan believes this is more important to mitigate our impacts within the UGB, rather than pushing them chapter ate for the growth management elsewhere. This means increasing mitigation requirements and continuing to pursue greater private sector participation in the creation of Community Workforce Housing." (page 43 ) o COMMENT — The draft fails to articulate a simple, positive goal: Meet, intent or provide, through a combination of public and private sector efforts, the affordable housing needs of the community within the area of the UGB. A positive goal of this sort should be, incorporated in the . - - Comment iyta]: Staff recommends adding J Community Plan. ,this language to the plan. o The Philosophy and growth policies expressed are consistent with other land use principles of the draft and with the philosophy and practice of housing mitigation over the past twenty or more years. Yet after many years, the problems, challenges and needs of providing affordable employee housing have not been fully alleviated or met using these policies and principles. Unfortunately, the draft doggedly repeats the thrust and direction of the past policies, just more so. Perhaps the palette of solutions should be broadened and land planning principles loosened to increase affordable housing stock. • Despite the creation of substantial workforce housing over the past few decades, significant demand still exists today and appears imminent in the future. The draft's comment that 850 affordable units have been created in the past ten years, while at the same time 600 free market units have been lost, largely to conversion to second homes, typifies the on -going problem. Add to this demand, the projection that 634 additional units of affordable housing will be necessary by 2037 due to retirement of employees in APCHA - housing,today hints at the magnitude of a growing shortfall. . Comment pen This trend will be addressed 1 Factor in retirement of community members in unrestricted, free { mmerevision. market housing and the need for affordable employee housing appears even more acute, regardless of new job generation. 18 • Demand thus remains significant in our planning horizon, yet the Philosophy is ever more reductively restrictive, focusing on "... limit[ingl annual growth, maximizing...mitigation, and limiting...uses that result in... job generation." These "defensive" policy directions fail to target or solve the needs we have now or can reasonably foresee, let alone increase housing stock in the upper valley to alleviate the effects of down valley sprawl and resulting traffic and transportation impacts and costs. • When the Philosophy fails to state an over - arching positive goal and the "solution" is crafted almost entirely in the language of negation, limitation and restriction, we can hardly expect to see positive, pro- active answers to the complex challenges posed by affordable housing needs in a rarified free market economy such as ours. • Though the stated aspiration to avoid down valley sprawl and solve the problem within the UGB is commendable, restrictions on supply, e.g. limited site availability, the very real constraints of preferred on -site mitigation and the physical and economic limitations of "modest" scale greatly hamper both public and private sector ability to deliver affordable housing in the upper valley. • It is heresy in the context of past policy and this plan, but perhaps the "supply side" of the housing question should be addressed and promoted. In a built environment of very few "footprint opportunities" greater density, height and scale should be considered and permitted to incent and create affordable housing within the UGB. In choosing between density and down valley sprawl, it seems the time has long since arrived to revisit the advantages of density. _. - Comment [C442]: All of the hosing comments above basically state that the same techniques we have been using will ncl gel us Land Use & Zoning: where we want to ga. These last two comments challenge a new way of looking at the ssue. Perhaps two revisions would acknowledge the • !policy IV. 1 "All development should provide housing to accommodate 100% of housing dilemma we face as noted in the comments: it employees." (page 49) 1) In the introduction section: insert bullet one above and add that new solutions must be expbred as well as maintaining the existing o COMMENT — An understandable goal in principle, seeking to keep pace , techniques that produce housing and balance with housing demand, but perhaps overstated and economically the demand for new housing. 2) Action Items: Hold public workshops to unrealistic. The Policy might be broadened to read: "All development •. further understand the public's input on density should provide, contribute towards, subsidize as necessary, or vs. limitations on housing demand. demonstrate satisfactory supply of housing for 100% of its employees." Comment [04431: This is an area that has where Broadening the means, manner, nature, extent and even location of the I been discussed a and d e elect ed officials is may n th and ana then t elected full range of housing required in new development or redevelopment is ! agree. more likely to result in real world solutions, rather than prescriptively 19 and prohibitively serve to stop all development, redevelopment, refurbishments, and remodeling (all of which are necessary at some point in time because buildings do not have infinitely long useful lives and their purposes, uses and occupants change). o What does the term "all development..." mean in this context? Is a small comment pe41: Stan believes the P8Z meant retail or restaurant redevelopment re to meet the 100% standard? all new development (commercial, lodge, multi- p required family, single-family, etc). Remodeling s not A refurbishment? A slight remodel? Do we realistically expect that such subject to mitigation unless it increases the size of the building. projects can afford to mitigate 100% of the businesses' employee - - - - -- housing? Particularly if the solution priority or preference is on -site (Policy IV. 2. and Action Item IV. 2. a. i., page 49) and within a modestly scaled structure? (Managing Growth Philosophy, page 11 and referenced throughout the plan). Can a lodge project realistically be expected to meet such a mitigation requirement? o Action Items IV. 1. a through IV. 2. e (page 49) describe in greater detail the requirement, code direction, potential trade -offs or exemptions, tiered mitigation and tools to make compliance more strenuous or perhaps impossible (including, prohibition of conversion of existing lodge units to affordable housing, rejection of offered mitigation when it does not meet APCHA guidelines / policies, requirement of a (separate l special review process, and a requirement to provide mitigation within the UGB). • Once again, the tenor and thrust of solving for a housing shortage is entirely restrictive, prohibitory and increasingly regulatory. • Increasing supply, stimulating opportunity, and incenting housing solutions within the UGB through increases in density, height and mass and economies of scale should be considered if additional housing is to be created in the upper valley sufficient to meet current and anticipated demand. o The Policies and Action Items associated with the Housing Chapter and the Land Use & Zoning section are entirely bereft of suggestions, solutions or directions which Identify where housing (of any significant scale) might be specifically located and appropriately developed or what comment housing : (sua Public d mhos said h a e considerations must be successfully achieved to affordably UGB, and the pla supports concept. create, offer and provide such housing to residents, either through sale or lease. • Policy IV. 3. "The design of new Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be compatible with the massing, scale and character of the neighborhood while, optimizing density." (page 50) o COMMENT — To rebalance our communities' housing challenges, needs and land use solutions, perhaps it is time to adaptively evolve Aspen's 20 built environment and re -think the massing, scale and character of our neighborhoods, becoming more flexible, dynamic and tolerant in the range and variety of our land uses and the aesthetics of our urban landscape,. -- Comment [CH46]: This comment challenges P the notion of the cumeM preservation of existing scale within the community. To date the 'Z has PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS: not wanted to expand the scale to address additional need That is derived from new 1 development. See comment 44 number 2. • Several Action Items, e.g. 1. a (page 53), III.2. c. (page 55) and IV. 1. d (page 56) refer to "using the] development review processes" for "the acquisition and -- r Comment 047]: "Acquisition' refers to negations over large project, typically PLIDS and development of parks," securing "scenic, recreational or agricultural COWOPS, not every developmeM application. easements," and to "acquire trail easements." o COMMENT — In the Policies and Action Items there is no suggestion that any particular adverse impacts can be foreseen for presently unknown parcels subject to future land use approval processes. Without obvious and detrimental impact, no mitigation requirements can be pre- supposed either. Yet the Action Items infer, if not directly state, that the review process itself is a method to extract dedication or contribution from those subject to the process itself. This sounds very much like an opportunistic and predatory taking of property, rather than a legitimate and rationally related regulatory control of land use. The desired or contemplated "acquisitions" should be negotiated with land owners "for fair value," rather than leveraged and taken as exactions through an approval process. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY: Greenhouse Gases: • Policy 1.2 reads, "Incentivize alternative forms of transportation to reduce reliance on fossil - fuels;" and Action Item 1.2 b reads, "Incentivize the use and purchase of hybrid and electric vehicles by the public, including rental car companies." (page 59) o COMMENT — Incentivize how? What action items or proposed .. -- - Comment 048]: The plan often refers to incentWaing things. The precise methods programs might actually "incentivize" the use and purchase of should be discussed when the programs/code alternative forms of transportation? Transportation Action Item VI. 1. f amendments are being looked at, not 11 this plan (page 38) calls for "... [phasing] out preferential parking for hybrid and - -- —- - -- electric vehicles to reduce the number of vehicle trips." If the use of private hybrid vehicles is not made more inviting or otherwise preferenced, what incentives are contemplated by Action Item I. 2. b here? Economic subsidies? Something else? The Action Item repeats the Policy, specifically in reference to private vehicles, but does not actually propose a course of action. 21 o Although a very specific recommendation is made for City and County vehicles which carry relatively few people (Action Item 1.2. a, page 59), there is no Action Item promoting or suggesting innovative incentive programs for acquiring or utilizing hybrid or electric RFTA transit vehicles although maximizing the use of mass transit alternative vehicles might have a significant positive effect on green house gas emissions. ] (comment [C1449]: FYI -The current City and County policy provides bus passes as an incentive for employee ridership and pirchase • Policy 1. (page minimize 0) a s, "Strive for all development to meet the highest hybrid vehicles where possible_ P3 to Y greenhouse gas emissions." Action Item I.3.d proposes to f comment U50]: The P&Z reviewed this "Establish a sliding scale of environmental thresholds for development." Action t." Acti language and agreed to amend it for clarity: p j "Ensure all development and uses minimize Item 1.3.c proposes to "Amend the City and County land use codes to require all greenhouse gases, to the greatest extent development to go through an environmental review that ensures it will meet the poearole — j established thresholds." o COMMENT — Building efficiencies, energy consumption, sources of energy and fuels, emissions from and environmental compliance of mechanical systems and equipment are more properly building code standards and compliance issues than they are land use issues. Local jurisdictions, in accord with the evolution and adoption of building and energy codes, have already taken steps to define and apply stringent energy standards to new construction. Generally, local building departments are the proper forums for technical building performance review, rather than land use review processes. Water Pollution: • Policy s development to tt its stormwater runoff on site; comment um]: The P&Z reviewed This y III.2 "Re q uir ��) new treat _ language and agreed to amend it for c adry: and Action Item III. 2. a, proposes amending the land use and building codes to "Require new development to treat its require "development and redevelopment to incorporate best management stormwater runoff, whh a preference for on-site treatment. practices that will permanently manage and treat stormwater on site." (page 61). Policy III. 3. goes on to suggest a treatment preference; "Increase the natural absorption of storm- and meltwater. (page 61) o COMMENT — Best management practices might not find or hold in every case that stormwater can or should be managed and treated "on site." In the existing urban context of the City's commercial core natural absorption to soil through the use of pervious surfaces may not be possible. • Typically BMP's describe a number and range of recommended practices, including options and alternatives, which could be employed to manage and treat any particular environmental challenge. Physical constraints, opportunities, and feasibility are all considerations in the choice and implementation of best practices. 22 • On -site treatment might be the best and most appropriate treatment in some cases and physically or economically impossible in others, particularly in the case of urban "redevelopment" where existing site conditions might not allow for capture and treatment of stormwater on site, but for which collection and treatment is more appropriate in common public systems. • The Policy and Action Item should both be restated to allow for greater flexibility of capture and treatment options using BMP's, on or off -site, in separate or common collecting and treatment systems, using both mechanical and natural means as appropriate to the site and context. Waste Management and Reduction: • Policy IV. 3 proposes to "Increase the amount of construction ... materials that are diverted from the landfill, reused or recycled." Action Item IV. 3. a. states however, "Amend City and County codes to require deconstruction ['emphasis - Comment ICH51]: Perhaps this should be lied rather than demolition of existing structures so that materials and Co i nt ym den B uyui gCode has The supplied], �+ g County Efficient Building Code hes components that can be reused are separated and made available for salvage and deconstruction as one of a number of choices to recycled materials are handled appropriately." R eq m In . Trio iden with the w Building coile reuse, and rec Y pic i k fro m nts e t E t ompn hhe code was recently eliminated from the City ,and the in the reuse and recycling of materials is County islap in requirements in t ne o COMMENT — Encouraging g Y g to an overlap in requirements in the newly certainly an environmentally sound goal. However, to suggest all adopted 2009 International Building Codes. s should be deconstructed, rather than razed, demolished There is I for c built into the land old wood buildings The is for contractors to bring in old wood ground up, or some combination thereof is to go too far. Not all buildings that can then be chipped at the land fill. contain physically or commercially reusable or recyclable materials and The PBZS reviewed this language and agreed some materials are simply not reusable. If the constituent materials can to revise it to focus ondivertingmatedals from not be effectively reused or recycled deconstruction is inefficient Y decensWCio cost) de landfill t that a stria focus on . and unnecessary. The Action Item should be broadened to allow for more options in the reuse, recycling and disposal of existing structures. Renewable Energy: • Policy V. 3. "Encourage existing development and require [emphasis supplied new development and redevelopment to mitigate their energy usage with on -site renewable energies." - { Comment [CH531: The P&Z reviewed this l language and agreed to amend it for carity: existing development and o COMMENT — What standard of mitigation is proposed here by require new development to minimize their requiring energy usage for new development and redevelopment to be energies usage and use sl renewaole re 9 g gY g P P �ertargias, as the site allows.' generated via on -site renewables? Is all energy supposed to be generated on-site? Some? How much? Does the requirement vary depending upon the site and circumstances? o COMMENT - Renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, ground sources, etc.) may simply be unavailable to every new development and 23 redevelopment project undertaken in the UGB, rendering compliance impossible. What then? How does a retail commercial redevelopment, a restaurant for example, meet such a requirement if renewable options are unavailable or insufficient to meet demand? How might a small redeveloped lodge meet the requirement if hydro and wind resources are not feasible and roof borne photo - voltaic panels are insufficient to generate enough power to meet the building's electrical demand? The prospect of exceptions and flexibility in meeting the mitigation "requirement" should be incorporated into the Policy language. HISTORIC PRESERVATION: • Policy 1. ',Preserve exceptional character - defining historic interiors in publicly . accessible buildin [ Comment U ]: expects e cone amendments are s (page 72) _.. _ _... building n." (P g ? forward. o COMMENT — Simply because a building's interior is "publicly accessible" does not mean it is a "public building" or "public property" that then gives a governmental body the right or power to determine what the interior of a private property should be, how it should function, how it should be enjoyed by its owners and their invitees, or what it should look like. This Policy and its attempted regulatory reach seem well beyond the "police powers" of government protecting public health, safety and welfare and should be removed from the draft. PLANNING FOR A LIFELONG ASPENITE: • The Vision, Philosophy and Policy sections of this Chapter seek to "strengthen the quality of life and well -being for the people in our community," including access to services from education to public safety and health for all phases of life. The Chapter articulates aspirations for affordable, quality childcare, public assistance programs, transitional and permanent low income housing, access to quality food, the promotion of local sustainable agriculture, a social "safety net" for "all at risk" Aspenites, a reduction in crime, a comprehensive health care system, including mental health and dental care, and the promotion of "healthy family functioning." o COMMENT — The chapter describes a very wide menu of social services and includes many specific Action Items. Unfortunately, the draft is silent concerning the costs of such services or even discerning those costs and is nearly as silent regarding funding sources, particularly the prospect of the taxation necessary to deliver services of this scope and magnitude. By failing to address costs, funding requirements and the __ __..._. _ ................. means of implementation the draft can hardly be considered a "plan" for - Comment [CH55]: The goals stated in the plan have not been articulated before in such a these subjects. .' comprehensive fashion and will need to be further developed from a funding perspective The P&Zs asked that a reference to costs be added to the background section. 24 • Policy 1. 2 reads, "The impacts on public health and welfare from development, _..._.....__.__. activities, events and policy changes shall be mitigated." Action Items I.2.a, b Comment U561: This is an innovative step and c go on to suggest exploration of code changes, the creation of fees to pursued i extensive tatonsston it if s mitigate impacts and the addition of Health and Human Services to the regular internal review of land use applications. (page 79) o COMMENT - This lonely reference to mitigation fees for impacts from "development, activities / events and policy changes" is virtually the only citation to funding sources in the Chapter for the vast scope of aspirational social services described. One might only look at recreation district fees and the costs of district operation to realize that fees of this nature typically fall short of funding requirements to be self- sustaining. Comprehensive health care, low income housing and the other programs described in this Chapter would require very sizeable and continuous funding sources; it is unrealistic to assume the burden can be fairly attributed and off- loaded to new development, activities and events. 25 Comments regarding the AACP 2010 for the Aspen Area, Barbara Owen 340 Silverlode Drive Aspen, CO 81611 January 25, 2011 I. GENERAL— • The questions on the survey that just went out to 2000 city dwellers do not reflect the objectives of the town meetings or the results of the clicker fests I have attend over the last 2 years. • Furthermore, it appears that the vision and action items written in many of the sections are the opinions of a select few who have their own vision of what they would like to see Aspen become. • 1 don't understand why it takes over 100 pages to communicate the vision of this town. The reason you have poor feedback is that no one wants to print out over 100 pages ($30 -$50 in computer ink) to read this, and the information on line is hard to read because of the nature of the layout. If you intended to have everyone read this book, then you should have printed and distributed hard copies. • If you want people to participate, then you have to boil this thing down to key points. Why can't you create an executive summary? I remember a college professor who once said that "If they can't dazzle you with brilliance, they'll try to baffle you with bullshit " This appears to be the case with this process and document. If you can't boil this down, it appears to me that you are attempting to baffle voters with a disincentive to read the plan. 2. TRANSPORTATION- • The people who wrote this plan indicate clearly that there is no direction to permanently solve the issue of traffic at the Entrance to Aspen. It states that they intend to continue to try to reduce traffic levels via mass transportation and after all options are exhausted, they will consider built options. There is no time frame for exhausting all options, leading one to assume that this will never happen. If polled, and I did my own informal study among friends, 1 would bet that not one person understands that this is the proposed and accepted approach for the S- Curves. • PUBLIC SAFETY — I find it troublesome that in the entire Transportation Section of the AACP, the word "SAFE" if written once, pertaining to the offering of safe bus stops. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN A VISIONARY DOCUMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY SHOULD BE OF FIRST CONCERN! • ICE ON THE S- CURVES AND DURANT AVE. — In considering Public Safety a priority in our town, why isn't there any mention of correcting the safety issues at the S -Curves and Durant Ave. The present system at the S -Curves is a bad joke, and we continue to have buses crashing into each other on Durant when the roads turn to ice. THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO GIVE OFFICIALS PERMISSION TO USE EFFECTIVE ICE REMOVERS TO INSURE PUBLIC SAFETY. I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF ASPEN VALUE THE PRESERVATION OF HUMAN LIFE AND WELL BEING Comment [CH1I: In discussion with Barbara OVER THE POSSIBLE NEED TO GO TO THE CARWASH AFTER A SNOW was understood that the specifics mightb5t be located in other City documents. Staff will work with STORM,DON'TYOU? other City staff in order to determine m hich document /plan (such as a neighborhood ioad plan) these comments should be placed. Page 1 of 3 • k above, one of the Action Items for the IV. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN should read: • Comment U In addition, public safety is - - - - -- -- - addressed in the Lifelong Aspenite Chapter. Insure public safety by making sure that Durant Ave. and the S -Curves are free - -- of snow and ice, and that cross walks are clearly marked and traffic enforced on a year round basis. -- { comment [013]: See comment 1 • Who decided that it was a goal to phase out preferential parking for hybrid and electric vehicles to reduce the number of vehicle trips in town? This was never asked in the clicker fest or city meetings I attended. 1 believe that this would be voted down if it went to voters today. • Action Item VI. In the Transportation section suggests that Aspen is in favor of expanding the pedestrian malls. This was not a clicker fest topic, nor was it discussed during city sessions. BEFORE THIS GETS LISTED AS A VISION FOR THE COMMUNITY, IT SHOULD BE VOTED UPON. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING TOWN JUST AS IT IS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CREATING CONTINUITY IN THE CROSSING SYSTEM SO THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. THE PRESENT LACK OF A SYTEM HAS CREATED WHAT APPEARS TO BE A VILLAGE IDIOTS CONVENTION IN THE CORE DURING PEAK VACATION TIMES. THERE ARE NO CLEAR RULES AND THE COMBINATION OF SELF- ENTITLED PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, _ SKATEBOARDERS AND CARS IS LETHAL! Comment [C114]: Transportation Sect on v1 of the plan discusses expansion of the malls There would be a tremendous amount of public discussion i 3. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY before that could occur. The bolded secticn of the • In regards to renewable energy, it makes sense for the area to work in that Transp"rs`"n be taken u ta. engmxnng and , Transportation departments. direction. However, our government works in the opposite direction when it comes to the Deed Restricted Housing market. You should ad an Action Item that says "Encourage all deed restricted home owners to add solar panels for hot water and electricity to their homes by allowing them to add the costs to the resale value of their home regardless of the 10% home improvement cap presently in place." Presently, the government offers to help find non - gouging Comment [CBs]: In speaking with the housing , but what good is that if you can't add the cost onto the value of our authority, they do allow some improvements logo financing, g Y Y beyond the they d cap but it has impro on go home? THE ASPEN AREA VISION PLAN SHOULD TAKE A individual basis. It is APCHA's role to al .m insure PROACTIVE STANCE IN THE DEED RESTRICTED AREA AS WELL! that the home prices remain affordable. Tens, it isa balancing ace. 4. MANAGING GROWTH & ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY • Why does the AACP suggest that Aspen reduce employment generation? The US Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers as of January 13, 2011 indicate that the Unemployment Rate for Pitkin County has gone from annual averages of 5% in 2005 to 3.2% in 2006, to 2.8% in 2007, to 3.3% in 2008, to 6.3% in 2009, to 10.4% in 2010. This does not take into effect the people who are under- employed, including real estate brokers and office workers, builders, appraisers, construction workers, etc. Many people in these groups have suffered huge losses of income in the past 3 years. People who have not filed for unemployment are not included in the government numbers. The real effect is far more devastating and would likely more than double the 2010 numbers. Page 2 of 3 • If growth in employment numbers is not to come from building or real estate sales, then where do the VISIONARIES of this plan suggest they come h'rom? '.. .. -- I Comment Ij6I: The PZ's have recognized the • ryry e �nder Commercial Sector Action Items V.3., there should be a point that says, The aocm aaa Bust nature ofthe economy m area I� �'. and are addressing a more sustainable les s volat le City and County governments should be held to the same standards and scrutiny of l amain. plans for development as the private sector. Failure to do so is destructive and creates 'Comment 071: The intent of the plan is not to suspicion and distrust of any policy or lack thereof." (read Aspen Art Museum favor high unemployment rates. The underlying concerns are focused on the capacity of ot.r approvals) It should be the same for the Residential Sector, Action Items I1I.2. (read transportation system during economic cycles and Given Institute re- zoning & °ver me long term. 5. EMPLOYEE HOUSING Comment Ijal: The discussion with Barbara was that rules are always changing and people have to • Po you really think you need to continue to build Employee Housing at this rate if may on the defensive. This relates back to nothing is done to encourage job growth? People will be leaving to find jobs and determining appropriate zoning and sticking with it. "Zone it like you mean it ". That way the public longer require housing understands the playing field. - - -- � Comment 091: This 1 D -year plan mus assume -. ) that there will be economic changes. We also need to anticipate the challenge of retirement it affordable housing Page 3 of 3 0 o N 0 O 0 0 ` ° # ' ° v ° ° 0 o . y ^�'^ d '� N N d c m g N N / X Call) o m•c s o v co — ryAN Nm N`G N�i m3 •/ _ CD Du " F N � _ v ti N N m o = o- y O . C 3 p1 m 0 6i ` o m= A ca �, �- m ( mo o m n ' D ro a s n m m ' , g. 03 O w m m m ° A s Q. a m m 7 N = m 8 o m v ° • g 0 -. 0 cs2 0 '° 0 o o N 0 a (D 0 > N N D N 'y o a. < O -. v m ro N to (D n n O O' , - 7 S m o N o m @ o •-•‘• O (A 0) 5. o N 00 O 0 N N j Q N O N n ° -o N to o �' � N a 7r a N N GO O N g n 8 V o < N yy m 3 m o o , 3 0 0 5 0 N a O N N O N n CD O ` N 0 0 o ` '< 0 3 y 0 3 n °O O' 0_ - O C n m p v m = 0 ° a0- 0 3 3 O 7" o m 0 ° o m 3 N ' N = = o O - 1 ° O Q. (D a 0 0 0 o m D� O (0 �- m 0 N y CD 0 O - _ to 0 0 1' a y ° 0 0) m a a m o Cr 0 0 o Ov ° c+ *= an d N m g. - m -o (D H � Q p Q M W 71 N O 0 1a C CD r a W 3 Li d O. N •t 0 O fD _ O — al 0 (0 r 50 2 N m 3 m 8 m 2 ca 2 o o n a a 04 H '° m° F 0 5 �' , y cn N m r a h1 �' 8 m E m 0 N y 01 r CI O+ a r- 0 a Dl 0 ° m a w n m rt u, x °c , �, b o o o . y m . G 1 N • r' - o . N ° o y y • 10 m n w m a 3 a S. m 0 0 ° . ( o a N 5 N rt m (D v r, m O CD O 2 0 y N O C N r7 w N '_" a 0 0 a P. y O. 0 o 0 rt H- N (0 < G n 3 a 5 3 N 5t Ho rh n 0'o 0 3 cz o - o N E £ w 1 O 0 O N r 0 a m + • c CD Cr - m N S S rt O m < K o6 m c N II 0 , < , v o r p m o o 5. 0 O n rt ro c0 3.a. 571 m y w rh rh (D w (D co 0 8 C G n r n 7 . (D Dt 0 0 DI . 0 y ° ( a N rt (T r o y 0 y n 00 m i 0 r r a Cn Ho -O O a O N 0 J a o ca co r• rt f'' _ ° d p (0 4 A m E a J 0 0) 00 0 v 0 03 03 m 1q O. ` C w m (0 3 m ' N 5 A a (D 0 j 0 5 s 0 (1 (D H- a 0 " o , O m m o r . .. b r c 1 ON 0 N 0 H 'O — N < o Z o co `o r rd M " a m w H w cD' (� o. H O a 3 x a C 0 Z s o rt p r (D ° o T 0 m 0 O n H- O o ? 0 li O. ^ (D n G 3 0 p 0 co o ' 0) cr co NJ 3 p, r . H N. o O0 CO 0 G H • p $ N 0 (D N N 0 a 3 c) (D 0' V N (D '0 J O O. 0 N N 0 M N re N -1 s s H (7 m m 0 (A N 0 -I (D -1 W co N a (D (° m 0 a C O O M 0 3 0 J r.n ea ? h m A v J n ° C� Si 0 No 0 a 4u p m 2 c o o cr C a a 0 y V J �, d o (D O a J N O J d m n o < ° A s S a co F. CD 0 Q o m` » a o o m 8 ( 3 D » n (U » c '� n a (n J ( CD 0 0 O = J 0 0 • m N '< 2 0 0 w S 0 4y W EA .0. '< N o 0 Vi J a N W n a N N N ° 3 c s 0. 0 0 O. CO j 0 0 <. O5 , 03 CD 3 ° '< O N 3 N N O 0 O lT . N N N .m 0 O A N j N j a O ° 3 N N N . N y w N d Cr' N J V N N O N $ 0 N _ T C N= 5. V 411 ° y CD d n N 7 O .< DC = 0 0 0 3< CO d 5 a o' a �0 - D w Q ( z.; CO 0 m (a 0 CD O `< x. J N N < 6 5 0° 7 (0 CO A (fl N= N J o 0� i O " (p CO 0) CL a m ' c o s _ o A 8 N J o m CO N as O . N a N . N O ti N. N W J 0 O - 6 O 0 N S y (D o S S O ( U S C 411 a N . ` 0 G -, O N O s (0 N 7 " 1 O C O N O J 8 N J N op 0 C CD 01 03 CO i (%1 0 0 a U 0 co a.' .J. (U 0 Q. C f0 y O J V _ O '< a a Do co fa co S N J 5 N S W J C N N 0 o n 0- 0 0 m N J m S c �' _ � i m 3' S o 2 = m (° SS ' J < td a '< a ° S. co O N 0 n V ° O. co 3 S c 0 CO o m 0) J w 3 N N 4Y a J O N (O '4 ° DJ 0 g. O c �. a y J 0 (13 '< y 0 f a , o U J a a x ", CD a to o ° c 0 "0 C a F N L 10 0 3 s a N (7 < ° 8 < » ° m o (0 - N 76 a a m a u m 8 a ° J 3 6a T7 a °_- ' N 0 - F O J 91 n N a O 0 o S.': ° M S N 91 0 °' ° O = U 0_ 4U CO 0 J tor °: m y o - m a a S. S J y ,.� 0 (0 N. O S O N, (p J co N `< (D 4v a N N N O � J 5 en : O N ( o O N 2 -4 O f CD 7- N a ° j ° 2 N d n, N d at 5 o" J a (0 `f a 0 J O y a 0 '.� (p (O 0 0 0 S J a 0. n < to ' � N c O co 0 O co O- II o j j N S ?. N < < 5 O g c N E . N N 0 < < ry N O J H y 0 J .f 7i d R y n s N 3° v 0 1 5 co v s m W 0 ? N C S N J 3 In N N N 0 N N W 0 O' O _ W N N o O 9 O cD 0 � O O W y R 3 N f R. W O a a N c ° o O = .„ N C N O' y 3 ° N N ? a y CD b O d > N N << (p N 0 0 N C = O d y 2 3 f O a. K° (3 A ai m 0 m „ J N m °' M 0° N - 0 y c N O N 5 m (d = s w 4 i d y < c _ 0. 0 N N a j O c .. n O W N -w a N CL b0 0 I� N 0 J O a, D t K • 0 o 1 L., 4 p 47. qi O r 9 n a n d O N CD O N C Z O . -CD N O- 5 N O O n m N N 0 a o =_,. m N 33a �� 7-•"" m m Oaf m�J o y"o. ?mom CD (/ � - 0 a. gym_ o <x v °`! a 03 f.- f c 3 0m 'p v ' v a N . _ 8 o is •0 m N o, ,y,' = a N .< * al CD O * CO o m m < . -. N 3 A 0 E. N "O o e (13 t< S N m -IS N al . O = N • 0 0 ' O *< 0 m N g, al co J -p O= co m N O = O . m 3 N C S `- - - °' w O m , a 3 N o N N N . '< `< m O 0- m * a to o r? N O ` .z < ' / m � 13) -. a ° p o o N j o 0 a 0 `° m o S o m a S. la el' is a t 0 t cD O N CD o * °° o -fr. -,, O 0 O (D n ° N Q ` C < o 0 0 S N m N- O N' `< S G J D m o o: m e x c m Th. m n..< a = m * N _ a o s< m� CO m 3 co c _ O N N D S j C 0 N? N O S N 3 < a 3. .'S N O N O N ° C 0 - N -- a `0 O m CO . . = • g N CD N a O C' n n co o N O m O O m S C 6 C a p f 1 CL IT to o f cDN 0 a mw N c am s 3 d O co S m N p j 0 O a a N o_ N al -0 0 a N ID 0 6 cD Cr O• m a j ° < � o c � O ° ? 0 3 � � m ,- g o ° w o 0 co — 5 0 3' (o o S 0 Q (D N N O o' O m p * j .= 0 (D N m co _ m 8 O a . 0 0 j j . N `< N .O+ (D J .J.. N -Q m C J a1 J m O CO cp G p , 0 co N m .N+ O o (D c N - 0 N a •O ` J cD a S co O a m a S I n O CO a N N 0 -Cp 0 D N O <• O M N N C Fir p N. ? N S m o ' 0 a) O g I m aNCO 3o N o� 03 OOC.N m N - , = o O T N j 0 0 co < m 3 CD - a m' .< J < c o a m ow .. N = (D930,_ cD 3 J O a N m O D 0 N= va< 5 m : m g- a N o a o , � . p N. * N 3 6 Cr N 91 o D a.. O N O m? o cD c F 0. N al O m x al (D m „. < S N C J J O ' O 4 m g -< m a S C m S O O CD J m N N O• cD N 0 W N c ' 000 - CD O at to if < m J asd O to O o �m � ? �O . � p ti ; y am a 0.rp d m m S 5 8 o3 N m m al c 0 D O c m N m 0= D O m a a ) O N N 0 N d O (D O N N N o N. O C — _ m m O- a) V7 Z N O < c • N '6 0 .O. N m al N x N O C ( O m m m 0 m N O N to 0 O O O N N m J ° m C .N. 0 J O O O • S '� 0 O 0 0 m 5 <. N N N N x d m -a N r< C .— 3 7 .... a com jm (O N no na�j n 3 � _ m X < O ��3' v mn � s • v U o 3 CD W m o -p _ = z r . c . n a j l n N F N 5' o N ' N C ' (12. ({D O n N CI- CD in CD d a J CO _ <° m N a' N a m � ^ ' 0 O eg 8 f _ ° a ° ° s m �7 N' d CD m d m �c o c a - CD s n = m 0 0 a m m Z • J = N _ o � _ �m o ° 3 $ S 3NC r o o o r r J O . m 2 5 a N J O `Z m N a = -{ O Rt '° ° ° m o ° v CO q a hi s 3 < ° N r s w co = o 0 m v m Nom d w � 3 a, m N.. an d c N o E m m co ..•. W Z c £ y o. a 5 N = •"O = m = II m r 7 o - °c o a 3_m(o .� v O N m c0 < 0- (Q = "O O- N O? o 7 N w m O (0 m O < . O N =* N O • c0 m ` = n * •o N O� aO (SD 0_"'O tir = = 0=�0' O 7 N = m - o m f N° m s f o m d a c O (� a m a) n 0 0 J M N O .. 3 O CD ti m (o o m m 5 m is m n CO ? R N 3° o• o (0 m S N o ti o 3 I O v N - n CO t in m ca., A ex . 0 N 0 w 4 P i ,St c J D fn o m 0 W. 0 D 00 - w n u w (D 9'v O. I-- n r- PI m N N N w K n m w H en- w H (D (D 0 P' m w 0 rr i (0 0 Po 0 n ° o ro m� a n ro w° 0 n rr • N 11 H. rr 4 N rr N n N N H (D N I-` N O ro 0' < O R+ H. (D (n --- ° N 3 N N H h U 0 N O r N ti 'O 3 m r- w ' b n a n n o s n w m n (- 0 rr rr rr (q 0 rr H. O D 0'93 0 (D (D 0 b < O n H (A H 6 0 (D r- (D m H- a N • 0 H- 0) O H Hi P p. rr H 0 — (D (D r- rr R. H 0 N (D • (A 0 Cr) s 1 tic 0 0 N 0 0 5 C N II W J 0 A co 0 O O 5. R 41 E N N 0 0 S • 0 0 N g. 9 N O^ N 0 U W 0 U N 4 A T n 3 2 I 3 s_ 2 6 c F B a a R o : n A° C --c Y -- o n t r m° - N o 3 3 m c o c o c a a . q mc . i s S = .Z n ^ e Sin ''n o s° c n 3 �' O, Ro 6 ` F a AF Yin 2 a 2 r n — 3 m s C N 4 c£ 3 a e _ c v c 0- o ,c c o>„ '8 t r $ c " o n ,. g 07 ° g y o ' d R 3 ? e 3 R . ^ ° n o+ 3 ? 5 I z o_ o - 0 3 - S & g^ 5_ =-,72.g2 aa° n. a" . d i s 0 S 3' A- D ry i K 0. n ° ^ �� v d 3 3 u s i oc ,s�>gz n to m c -3 „- 3 m ai n EaaF, ” - 3 odd 3 ,- 3o a 3 ;5 - co 3 a = ==8t. ":3am . 0 1$ m s �a 0,2.54 N WO, 5 z = „ 0.EIK 0 sa gaais 5 p E �:- 3 3d = `da F'O go m ¢ oz=s,; a a msm'g O 2 °a 3 ^g- 7 42=3 5. 5. Fr 4V:11 0 P a Pr, 0 Ng Ya= s o ' 11 L= 5h15 3 u Ras= 0 to Li A = a 0 a =; Comments from Cathy Markle on AACP and Housing Affordable housing has been a passion of mine since the 80's and I have studied it through ULI, APA and ASLA resources, as well as through reviewing various government policies. In addition, I have lived in employee housing here since 1994 and am president of my 87 unit HOA. Our people who live in affordable housing are professionals, business owners, doctors, laywers, waiters, bankers, builders, and public servants. Don't we want to create the most desirable living environment for our friends, neighbors, co- workers and servers? ,-- a whole benefit from excellent living conditions for our i H— comment Gal: under Land is addressed o n ty g f i Housing Chapter n Storage ar a i sd Use and Zoning. Doesn't our community employees and their families? ' Policy IV.4 states "CWH should be designed for the highest energy efficiency and livability.' Action Item IV.4.b states, "Amend the Housing There seem to be some basic premises that are overlooked in affordable housing: Guidelines to establish livability standards that 1. People, particularly in our community need storage. Sports equipment, baby I promote pride of living in CWH. These could alternate transportation equipment and seasonal wardrobe include soundproofing, and storage that meets equipment, P the needs of a community that enjoys an active, storage in a climate that has a 100 degree fluctuation from summer to winter ! outdoor lifestyle' temperatures. -i: Comment [j2]: Staff believes this comments 2. People in America are accustomed to space and our employees need space is addressed related to storage needs )see a. Home offices are the norm not the exception. Sustainability practices above). The draft does not address any to changes encourage commuting from home. the size o units mts the num adding i g g bedrooms t t aunit. t Staff ts recommends r the m atlinga b. Spare bedrooms are needed to accommodate family members, grown policy or action item that calls for analyzing the children and their families, and potential aging parents. Our community housing demand and ensuring that the housing stock responds -that tlemana does not offer lots of alternatives to the spare bedroom. -- Comment 03]: Staff believes these comments c. There is an unspoken delineation between the well -to -do having space are addressed in the draft. The draft includes and the poor having none. references to energy efficiency in affordable 3. Our community should be emphasizing energy efficient design housing, Action Item IV.4.a states, "Amend Housing Guidelines to establish standards for a. Building orientation !. materials, equipment and utility systems that b. Drive and parking orientation for maximum solar capture emphasize durability, environmental c. Thermal windows and doors stewardship, while keeping pace with technological improvements." In addition, d. High R value walls and roofs Policy 1.3 under Sustainability and Maintenance e. Covered parking and accesses to reduce snow removal and maintenance states, "Emphasize the use of durable and f. Hi efficiency appliances for individual units and common supply needs recognizing tereali tic of the g. Efficient trash storage and removal L bundings' h. Grading and drainage to maximize water penetration and retention on f Comment U41: Staff believes this comment is site. ' I addressed in the draft. In addition to the items 4. Our community should be emphasizing long term sustainability of the I dted above related to materials, Policy 1.5 1 states "Provide educational opportunities to investment for the buyers by using the best quality materials to achieve 1 potential and current homeowners regarding the tangible long -term maintenance goals. i rights, obligations, and responsibilities of 5. Our community should be emphasizing and reinforcing a budding industry in Comment recycled, renewable, and recyclable construction materials. e omment fjs]: Stall believes these comments 6. Our community should be emphasizing the use of renewable energy are addressed in the Hems cited above related to materials. In addition, the Environmental resources for our consumptive uses. Stewardship addresses renewable energies and 7. People have cars. construction materials for all uses, including 8. People drive and park their cars. affordable housing. 9. o Landscape should be beautiful and designed for maximum enjoyment of Comment Ue]: Staff believes this comment is P 9 j y address through Policy IV.5. "Ensure that residents and ease of maintenance. This does not mean trees stuck in native 1 residents of Cl M/ and free- market housing in 'weeds'. ! the same neighborhood are treated fairy, equally, and consistently regarding quality of life issues." This includes things like cars, pets, etc. ; • a. This does mean drainage can be directed to bioswales with appropriate plantings for color and interest. b. This does mean children need to have grass to play on, but grass only needs to be where it is usable. • . c. There are many options for landscaping that are neither' tract -home turf • and a tree' nor'zero- scape'. (The correct term is xeriscape) 10. Accesses and doorways should be interior to the building to improve energy � comment 071: Staff believes this comment is ' efficiency and winter maintenance. too specific for the MCP. However. the energy j Y efficiency items are address above. 11. All units should relate to the natural environment, allowing real, usable, - - -- access to the outdoors – not tiny decks and patios. ; Comment US]: Staff believes this is address Y P in the livability items addressed above 12. Housing should help develop a sense of community while maintaining _ — -- - - -— - �' individual privacy. i- 13. People should be glad to get home, and feel their home is a sanctuary. l Comment 091: Staff believes this is / • 14. Open space should be functional, not just 20 feet between buildings. addressed in Policy IV .3: The design of new CWH should be compatible with the massing. 15. A density of what? ..... _...? Should trigger the installation of some ; scale, and character of the neighborhood while commercial amenities (grocery) to lessen vehicle trips. optimizing density,' Staff believes this is a 16. Density is dirty word comment that could be better incorporated into tY s not a rtY wor I the Philosophy section. 17. Provisions for non - related owners and room -mates should be intrinsic, don't — - -- - - , Comment 0101: Staff believes this it.m is design just for families. l specific and open space should be discussed a. This means bathrooms. Americans expect bathrooms, unrelated owners ; on aprojea -by -project basis, based Ott what fits and room -mates need independent bathrooms in the neighborhood (Policy IV 3) .._..� . ...— - -- , • Comment 0111: The draft does not address 18. Mother -in -law apts that can be rented or used for family are not a dirty word. what density triggers commercial development. P Y rtY I This would likely be determined on a project -by- j Why not allow residents to recap some monthly costs? project basis based on neighborhood; characteristics. • • dose 3 z "c 53 e5- an < c m ^g1 -m y s ° .. 3 - 3 m m3 " "? c_ o .5,-,5a " qn 203 m �� _ g =gg n 3 a "hall n m" o c o x !s a ° _ o "a O a8 4 S. m mt. man ;4m m ° '3 c =.na 3w ° " g a ° °- f > - 2 ra a. 3�? " z n g a : "3 63.3 i 11aoa - " IU as s. €N ° >4. 6 °3a`= Q3 ap 2 :mEaa g a D £ i Z'S Wi! LF; m 8a 1 W S o ° 3 me o 4 q i m"-s g o mm ° 0 m ' n $ d$5 3 0 : m . m s .s g-. 6 ac s o'o ° 3 .xaa 52 e. °. ' HE. 50 0 L) " g : mai m "a n`o 0 m aeon - a ° S m n3a ° 0 n n$m °io o g 3 g s m0 S ay °a 0 8 YU 'ate gy O Q3 � in >d :� g a air = " =_m 2.3 3 0 3 ° sx .' s ° "' 7 , 2 2!95g: V a q G s i i g c ° a6 3 35 8 1:1 a�N S- 3a'4 Sp m c fc aa'n a y e m 3 .- fi11 o n m_ kin!! s !4 0 8 i s Qa "°sa . " wFn 9 ° m 3 "g 3 2` " a $u :e °- a m g I m — 21- 8 3 � � az 3 - ` o . z 3m' Ei8 3. - 3 a g E nms w ffi ae m 33 -' a° 3 ap , 3 , s n o mm o3 g � ° S fa!' ° gym wt <' 5 °R v $o a - _ " g s°"s d Ra 3 a N " co ; _ � ao 3m- 3 m x od a 3 6 t n +. gm = g m e§ mA ° om m asn g ag ^ 9L1,4' " n. sSm� 38 ^1. mo s, \ "gm.0 - T N i 111 ni Si ti if m 3 3 , Mks"; i 3 E' R0E'SgE m 1 8, a s r 1 ` $r n a! ! : 0 1 3 1: }7 €e1 Ec :i 3 ar p tie fa l: 2 SS N . i €i s£ p l 'o : 1 5 ° O c s 0 e ! x 3 0 3 i ' ` i CD E s CD 1 z i : 0 ' f a i a i 0 1 Y d 3 0 Y X 1 - € 1 3 : E a D s • • 4 1 & 3 • E 6 (I) 3 .7 1 RC 5 g a p S n m° ° F d d 3 � °a ° „3-ra o m A r, gd;a - =o an Y m . a `6P' .. O ' m ( a`m Otte _ ,m z ° Kon Fa " 'd mg6= 1 =g g ° 0.... 6 co. p °c 3 g m D _. 6 o �C g�5.y o�� mpg _ Fagg' A m$ sn21 P1 r a h ii i 2 P nag om n9m ° . 3& y ��e 3 3'� $S � Od ' O m' 'Z38J n .. zF z o 8 uaao � o3 !., s =gal 3! "H n ° �g w Re. z Q 3i° p P2, 71-2 q B 'ill in O 3 as a8 a a g ?: °' S n 3 ^ ° ox ' 3 m rig a i m o u1 v oo= g(i� o ` _ ° o 'aF mo �3 RT F'g a i n< m 9 n o = T m 9 3. 6 A a 6 m 3 3 v 1» a s a °So 1._ z f' I 1 11' ! $ a 3 ,'moon 33 g fit q8 F r7. u § _ - o a m3m 8m . ma n _ 3 ag °nn 2. o° g ° 33 ' g_ ^' � 3 3 y m ° N • i3°3 H 13 ° .° g ° s m °L m a r ii ng QV _ mo oq m g a• . il 5 °p e a „Da �� Sg z gz° E$ a e `� m2a qq 1 mm ° 3cm n m - u g ?° 33 ° QgY gig/ P. 3 - ° sm ae gp °m 3n 6:9:U; = - o E ,<Co . mS m mo aary b . Sn `a 4 _ g g ¢. a o d y} 1 ' � a 1 z' N } B i A } Y 1# !I a g ? 1g11 1 �'z _ e$ *. '- ° A » E 3 �y es � +m y aS )Y }'} 3 r} 1 a 3 8 9 S 2 1 - 1 8 4 2_ ° Q 3 A Y 1 A fi 1 Michael Behrendt's lodging comments (from the HP Task Force) DRAFT 3/10/09 This examination of the history of Aspen's lodging structures reveals a dynamic industry. Older, cheaply built and used up lodges are torn down, while the best older buildings are recycled by remodeling them into other uses, mostly employee housing. A few have been historically designated, but the majority are protected by a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district. This carefully lays out permitted uses by right, a few conditional uses, and some special incentives unique to Lodges so zoned. Any major changes to buildings in this zone must be approved by the building department and, ultimately, the city council. Occasionally the city council will give permission to tear down an otherwise still useful building to allow construction of a new similarly purposed structure. page 54 of 71 DRAFT 3/10/09 ASPEN LODGING HISTORY This first groups' history entirely precedes 1965 and so is not included in the following survey. Does To 1965 Change by 2009 Orig Bldg Lodging Property Est, Bedrooms Disposition Est. Bedrooms +,- Exist? Agate Lodge -7 was Waterman's Cbns 15 to private homes -15 N Aspen Courts ? unknown ? ? � ? Brown House ? unknown Ed's Beds- various locations ? torn down ? ? Jerome Chalets - Bleeker & Garmish 6 to Paintbrush -6 N Martz Hillside Cabins ? unknown ? ? Potter House ? unknown ? ? Quakers - Hallem & Garmish ? torn down ? ? Ski Bam (house) ? unknown ? ? Shadow Hill Lodge- to Christiana ? to Condos ? ? Ski & Spur 4 to Limelite -4 N Ski More Lodge -near jumps ? to Snow Chase ? ? Slaven's Cabins -east end ? torn down ? ? Snobble's Cabins 4 expanded to Deep Powder -4 N Snow Chase -dorm 6 was Ski More, torn down -6 N Stone's Throw (house) ? unknown ? ? P Sunset Cabins ? expanded to Bavarian ? ? Waterman's Cabins -7 & Hallam ? expanded to Agate, tom down ? ? Westerner Courts -to Christmas Inn ? to Annabelle Inn ? N The following tells the modern lodciinq story — with the notable exception that very many not named Condos, townhouses and private residences that do rent, most being managed by some 11 major management companies, are not included. All hotels and condos that run with an on- site front desk are included. Dates not noted are estimated. Many properties predate 1965. We are tracking buildings (for historical purposes) and the change in the number of rooms since 1965. Putting aside the major problems with condos and fractionals of who does or doesn't rent and the incomparability of luxury and economy rooms these are the unit counts: Does 1965 -2009 Change by 2009 Orig Bldg Lodging Property Max Bedrooms Disposition Bedrooms Exist? r -40 Y ffa #�iaSr$= 40 , _ 3 i e Alpine Lodge -east hwy 82 15 ii; ,../•.:,'•:'; -15 N Annabelle Inn('05)- Westerner,Christmas 35 exists +13 Y page 55of71 Does 1965 -2009 Change by 2009 Orig Bldg . Lodging Property Max Bedrooms Disposition Bedrooms Exist? , a -'a r7� '64) 193 exists 0 Y „t"-m 14 "- - " a 15 Sala -15 Y Aspen Inn & Condos -Dean 42 to St Regis -42 N Aspen Manor - Durant 42 to Dancing Bear -42 N tiews 102 exists 0 Y . #" x ",..x = in Lodge -311 Main 32 was Applejack Inn- to Condos +2 Y i.Yj:T.. i.i= r- 'Condos('68) 130 exists +130 Y a _ _,. East 18 Condos 0 Y - = e.-'r % st *` West 4 Condos 0 Y lGtiar%F7 14 $..j < ."+. *;E -14 Y Bell Mtn Lode -Spring & Cooper 17 to town houses -17 N r 2 ;. ,.'' ondos 9 Condos 0 Y Blue Spruce 33 to St Regis -33 N ! 7 nd floor Condos 6 exists - housing to lodging +6 Y rang Lodge- Hopkins 40 torn down, to fractionals? -40 part .ge 9 �. t`� n -S Y Chateau Kirk - Highlands Inn? 30 to Ritz Carlton -30 N 21 Condos 0 Y I n c 27 exists 0 Y $fn' *hr_ ,°r58) 10 expanded +4 Y Christiania Lodge -was Shadow Mtn Ldg 18 to Condos (also was Aspenhof) -18 part Christmas Inn -from Westerner Courts 22 to Annabelle Inn -22 N Coachlight Chalet -Hyman 9 to Shadow Mtn Lodge -9 N -1,.ge -east of Sardy house ? to real estate office ? Y Continental Inn 155 to Grand Aspen, to Hyatt -155 N 9 =i ('09) 27 will be 30 more in 2010 +27- Y Deep Powder 13 to Monarch -13 N Edelweiss Inn -Aspen & Hopkins 14 expanded to Hotel Lenado -14 N "a°tn, became Copper Horse 8 Bonita -8 Y 32 Condos 0 Y Fireside Lodge ('61) 20 to townhouses -20 N a ."--.1= --; imes, to lodge 20 to restaurant, to offices -20 Y - = r t t! near tent) ? to private home ? Y R- . L1 (140 units) 304 exists +304 Y Glory Hole -to Aspen Mtn Lodge 35 to Sky Hotel -35 N •ti -. t ' ' = Lodge & Rest 10 to offices & -10 Y $ .` - Psi -"Ohaus -to Beaumont Inn 17 to hospital Me -17 Y r-yii - ° ghlands 18 to housing, Ski Company -18 Y t 16 exists 0 Y Hillside Lodge-Mill & Dean, was jail 14 g * r _ r� , - ^ ' -14 N 15 (d t ' , ,s i „.f then fire -15 similar Holland House ('56) 25 torn down -25 N ;g 7 ra A r:.'® ° "a 45 expanded +15 Y page 56of71 Does 1965 -2009 Change by 2009 OrigBldg Lodging Property Max Bedrooms Disposition Bedrooms Exist? • r m ®c _, , mormezvous('62),Inverness19 exists 0 Y a `• 4('83) -was Edelweiss 19 exists +19 Y ra6. -t =:• t•en( wasContinental128 exists - fractionals +128 Y Plots tf 89) 94 exists remodeled 0 Y tpgepetpdenc quare -from Prince Albt 28 exists -7 Y Inn.'atAspen -*as Holiday Inn 127 exists, to fractionals 0 Y Innsbruck Suttds('08) -was Innsbruck 30 rebuilt to Condos +7 part Ka har ('62) North of library alley 12 telleafflito Condos -12 part hi -Hynian 15 . , s. ca; .. ftfr -15 Y L`. a etse4'estn Swiss Chalet 18 expanded +9 Y L ° 4 Condos 0 Y Lst;Qnn Condos 66 exists 0 Y Limelite ('56) 36 to new Limelight -36 N I? yLC08$was Limelite /Snowflake 127 exists +127 Y 'Lit: •,_ Ifio '89) 94 exists +94 Y °t Ski Fkouse 13 expanded then closed -13 Y Maroon Creek Lodge 24 - t='rrti a;- Highlands -24 N Midnight9&B 5 Closed '97 -5 Y 5 Condos 0 Y A ltGlbson- Hopkins & Main bldgs 53 joined Smuggler a' Y fStotif -Main & Monarch ? to retail ? Y t :t ^ 171- P 1. „rs; • ki View, Deep Powder 33 exists +33 Y g. i Ian u 2,- ..1 63 exists +16 Y Y.i...i e I efti: -('74) 25 exists +13 Y Mouse House 5 expanded 0 i. •. +r: -5Y N Nortttstat- `ed -914 Waters 20 «fin .. m.' - -20 Y North of NellCoMos('68) 103 exists +103 Y Norway Lodge, became Mine Dump 22 ; 41 ;9.a ;1. burned down -22 N Nugget Lodge -Main 32 to Hotel Aspen, expanded +13 Y Paintbrush ('56) -moved to Boomerang 6 torn down -6 N Park Meadows -on hwy 82 16 ,> 1_ * - _'_:,- courts -16 N Pines Lodge -2 sides Aspen © Durant 17 to townhouses & Condos -17 N Pcrriegranate,1 18 exp to Condos & ; r L -18` Y . Prince Albert Hotel 35 to Independence Square -7 Y Prospector Lodge 19 to Prospector- fractionals +2 N • t ,,. : Lodge -at goif,to Red Roof Inn50 then to Truscott :u v : , tr -50 Y Refklifilta4tas Aspen Block Lodging 11 then Ross Hotel -3 Y SIces at1Jttle Nell('09)- fractionals 93 replaced Tipple Inn +93 Y t t Itltbt ti) -from Chateau Kirk 163 exists +163 Y Waring Fork Dorm('89) -above Paragon 20 to Condos, then pvt home -20 Y St 38 expanded +13 Y t � 53 � page 57of71 Does 1965 -2009 Change by 2009 OrigBldg Lodging Property Max Bedrooms Disposition Bedrooms Exist? St Regid'92) Was Aspen Inn 239 hotel & 60- fractionals +239 Y SardyHouse 12 to private home again -12 Y $ha4cw Mountain Condos -near lift 40 exists 0 Y Eftagow Mountain Lodge -2 & Hyman 16 from Coachlight to fractionals +4° Y a Io 52 exists- Condos 0 Y Silver Qtteen 7 exists 0 Y Ski View 27 to Monarch -27 N Skierschalet - %$dgs 21 closed -21 Y Sky HotelAS Glory Hole 90 exists +90 Y Smuggler -Main 34 to Molly Gibson ` -34 Y Snow Eagle 8 -t#' Y Snowflake Inn 38 to Limelight -38' N Stallard House 4 to Historical Museum -4 Y Swiss Chalet 9 expanded to L'Auberge -9 Y ' -l. t =1c83) estimated 32 :s l §i "s -32 Y Tipple Inn 12 expanded to Residences at L.N. 14 12 ` N Town Place Condos -top of Mill 6 to pvt houses -6 N Wean 16 exists' Y x i - 108' Y 14 to Brass Bed ondos 44 Y Villa Lamarr- on 82 40 to Aspen Villa Condos -46 N Do not total total change +412 - duplicates- Yielding: f 75 +3 partial are Existing /Saved buildings (no successive names double counted). T" 27 of the above 72+ changed to housing or public purposes. 78 are small Lodge type buildings of 45 or less rooms. Of these: 45 buildings remain 5 buildings partially or similarly remain. 25 buildings are gone, 14 of which were replaced by other lodging. Over the period from 1965 to 2009 there has been at least a net gain of 412 lodging rooms. Obviously, very many new uncounted homes, townhouses and condominiums would add to that total. If there is any error to the above list, where the "change by 2009" list reads "0 ", which means the property already existed by 1965 — but was actually built later, then those rooms would add to the net gain. We leave it to the Ski Company and Central Reservations to track the fluctuations from year to year — but the net gain stands, refuting the common wisdom that rooms have been lost. Types of rooms have always changed to larger and better. Sources: obscure 1954 map of lodging, 1966 compilation by Charles Paterson, 2/22/06 Stay Aspen Snowmass Unit Count, H.M.Behrendt author. page 58of71 Draft 9 March 2009 Other ways to look at and sort out the previous lists are as follows: The structures for the following lodging properties are either intact or have been remodeled with approvals. Their current use is lodging with front desks. Name: Notes: Annabelle Inn Formerly Westerner & Christmas Inn Aspen Alps Aspen Meadows Aspen Mountain Lodge Formerly Applejack Inn — to condos Aspen Square Condos Brand Hotel Chalet Lisle Fifth Avenue Gant Hearthstone Hotel Aspen Includes Nugget Lodge Hotel Durant Formerly Dormezvous & Inverness Hotel Lenado Hotel Jerome Independence Square Formerly Prince Albert L'Auberge Formerly Swiss Chalet Lift One Condos Little Nell Hotel Little Red Ski House Closed Molly Gibson (Hopkins & Main) _ Formerly Smuggler Mountain Chalet Mountain House North of Nell Residence Aspen Block Lodging then Ross Hotel St Moritz Shadow Mountain Silver Queen Tyrolean page 59 of 71 1 The structure for the following small lodges is either intact or has been remodeled with approvals. Their current use is elderly, affordable and /or employee Housing. Aipina House Aspen Cortina Hotel Jerome housing Bavarian (7 St.) Buckhom Lodge Edelweiss (Main became Copper Horse Guido's Swiss Lodge & Rest Housing & offices Guido's Crestahaus (to Beaumont Inn) Hospital housing Heatherbed (Highlands) Skico Housing Holiday House (fire) Skico Housing Kandahar Kitzbuehl (Hyman) North Star Lodge (914 Waters) Norway Lodge _ Became Mine Dump - burned Pomegranate Elderly housing Ptarmigan Lodge (golf course) was RedRooflnn,then Truscott housing_ Snow Eagle T-Lazy-7 Ullr Vagabond (Durant) Formerly Brass Bed The structure for the following small lodges is either intact or has been remodeled with approvals. Their current use is condominiums. Aspen Townhouse East Aspen Townhouse West Der Berghof Chateau Aspen Chateau Blanc Christiania Lodge Formerly Aspenhof & Shadow Mtn. Innsbruck Suites Formerly Innsbruck Kandahar (north of library alley) Formerly housing Le Clairvaux Mittendorf Silverglow The structure for the following small lodges is either intact or has been remodeled with approvals. Their current use is fractionals. Boomerang Lodge Under construction Inn at Aspen Formerly Holiday Inn Shadow Mountain Lodge (2ThHyman) Formerly Coachlight _ page 69 of 71 The structure for the following small lodges is either intact or has been remodeled with approvals. Their current use is as noted. Columbine Lodge (Main St.) Real Estate Office Floradora Offices Gay Nineties (near tent) Private home Midnight B & B (closed '97) Private home Moore Courts (Main & Monarch) Retail Roaring Fork Dorm (above Paragon) Private home _ Sardy House Private Horne Skier's Chalet Closed — planned museum Stallard House Historical Museum The structure for the following small lodges has been demolished. The property was used to build Affordable Housing. Alpine Lodge (east hwy 82) Mouse House (on Hyman) Maroon Creek Lodge for Highlands housing The structure for the following small lodges has been demolished. The property was used to build public amenities. Hillside Lodge (Mill & Dean) —jail Skating Rink Park Meadows (hwy 82) City Tennis Courts The structure for the following small lodges has been demolished. The property was used to build new hotels/lodging. Aspen Inn & Condos (Dean) Property used for St. Regis Aspen Manor (Durant) Property used for Dancing Bear Blue Spruce Property used for St. Regis Chateau Kirk (Highlands Inn) Property used for Ritz Carlton Christmas Inn (Westerner Courts) Property used for Annabelle Inn Coachlight Chalet (Hyman) Property used for Shadow Mtn. Lodge Continental Inn Property used for Grand Aspen — Hyatt Deep Powder Property used for Monarch Edelweiss Inn (Aspen & Hopkins) Property used for Hotel Lenado Glory Hole (to Aspen Mtn. Lod . _._ Property used for Sky Hotel Holland House Planned Lift One development Limelite Property used for Limelight Snowflake Property used for Limelight Norway Lodge /Mine Dump Planned Lift One development Paintbrush Structure moved to Boomerang Tipple Inn Property for Residence at Little Nell Ski View Property used for Limelight page 61 of 71 3 The following Hotels/Lodging replaced lodges identified above. Dancing Bear Formerly Aspen Manor Hyatt Grand Aspen Formerly Continental Limelight Formerly Limelite & Snowflake Monarch Formerly Ski View & Deep Powder Residences at Little Nell Formerly Tipple Inn Ritz Carlton Formerly Chateau Kirk St Regis Formerly Aspen Inn & Blue Spruce Sky Hotel Formerly_Glory Hole The structure for the following small lodges has been demolished. The property was used to build other things. Bell Mountain Lodge (Spring & Cooper) Property used for town houses Fireside Lodge _ Property used for town houses Pines Lodge (Aspen & Durant) Property used for town houses /condos Prospector Lodge Property used for fractionals Town Place Condos — top of Mill Property used for private homes Villa Lamarr (hwy 82) Property used for condos — Aspen Villa page 62 of 71 26.710320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevel- opment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses acces- sory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage develop- ment which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto ad- jacent properties. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the 12 Overlay zone district 1. The uses permitted in the underlying zone district. 2. Hotel or Lodge. 3. Timeshare Lodge. 4. Exempt Timesharing. 5. Bed and Breakfast 6. Dormitory. 7. Offices and activities accessory to timeshare unit sales (see Section 26.590). 8. Conference facilities. 9. Uses associated with outdoor recreation facilities and events. 10. Accessory uses and structures. (Food service for on -site lodge guests is an accessory use.) 11. Storage accessory to a permitted use. 12. Affordable Housing accessory to a lodging or timeshare operation and for employees of the operation. 13. Free - Market Multi- Family Housing. C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425 of this Code: 1. The rises allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district. 2. Affordable housing intended for the general public. 3. Restaurant. D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District shall be the dimensional requirements established for those uses in the un- derlying zone district. Where no specific dimensions have been established for the use, the permitted dimensions shall be limited to that of a single - family residence or multi - family residences where such uses are permitted in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of the neighborhood compatibil- ity and the dimensional requirements of surrounding zone districts, the dimensional requirements may be established pursuant to Chapter 26.445 — Planned Unit Development. As part of the PUD review, an adjustment of the "density standard" may be approved and the project shall remain qualified for the Growth Management incentives associated with this standard. The re- view shall consider the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 81 page 63 of 71 r 1. Thedensity standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to one lodge unitper 600 square feet of Lot Area. An adjustment in excess of this increase may be approved through adoption of a PUD plan, but the project shall no longer be qualified for the associated incentives. 2. The project includes a generous amount of non -unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can include both internal and external amenities. 3. The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to abroad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. The amount of associated free - market residential Floor Area to be included in a lodging project shall be as defined in the Lodge (L) Zone District — Section 26.710.190.D.11.A.5. (Ord No. 39 -1999 § 6; Ord. No. 41 -1999 §§ 8, 9; Ord. No. 21 -2002 § 3 and §§ 5 and 6 (part); Ord. No. 9 -2005; Ord. No. 10 -2007; 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 82 page 64of71 M re r a r,4 / 411111- Ai NO_ .,. lel" N all. 9 iffallaa. A k . ,,,affirltratoos ;,.....r • 0' pirt-e-e--4111111atillik ! r ' r4 42,44"...-;,111111M ■reli. 4W 4.. Cart ill r i 5. -"; *V "We• ISM ' Ila ‘ iktfroores !PP 41 S,..., : l ri4 - - iNti-tisigr4E*4 * A 40.9 art? 1 abet 1 :Ad at i 4' T$ir # • ', ' -_ Ili r.."« . W., ir IIIII I - siii ih ile111). el' * Fri' . 44 ' 4* . --- ,.. I '!" ---• --- - ---,?. ' \\\ .... Al- anis ' 1 5 aXaa ---71 ' - ..x s i j/Ctao/C4 r T -: ir z fraP,07411...., 4 S j arlt ...."... - - - d 4 0 . ..... , ,.- „45 ::$1 . 7-;: . NI *be " eiette" ' . 7 ire 4 ......„-- 1, ._ • -e'e lh° ° 4446 OP -.. . 4 _ .. „r• - - Ai ------ • .1411 1 41r i - . a lit - w '''' _„-e- -- - ■ Va. a r...... - - . -... ... 4 /3 \ liter !F *I r* IlP -4 ii....k.,, ... i ,:,... betr . • 0 4, PA e ••■ I IS P4 >s 117'4, ■ ft 11 0 as 0, ■ - , 44 . i ciA L i7:,- , of 71 \ 1 1 . _ . .., /AO . ......... i \ H ali - ..... 2009 Properties with the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District Overlay: Bavarian Inn Christiana Boomerang St. Moritz Shadow Mountain Lodge Innsbruck Christmas Inn 330 W. Main Street Aspen Bed and Breakfast Hotel Aspen Molly Gibson Hearthstone House Little Red Ski Haus Snow Queen Dancing Bear Cortina Lodge Hotel Lenado Mountain Chalet Bell Mountain (across from City Market on corner of Cooper and Spring) Mountain House 1301 East Cooper Street • page 66of71 - rGMALLOY CONSULTING, LLC LAND USE PLANNING • SITE DESIGN • GIS MAPPING • PUBLIC PROCESS Per direction at the joint BOCC /Council /P &Z meeting, !Memorandum the Airport parcel will be added to the UGB, while the Snow Dump and County loacre To: Ellen Sassano, Long Range Planner Parcel will be addressed at Cindy Houben, Community Development Director a later date • CC: Jim Elwood, Director of Aviation, Aspen - Pitkin County Airport Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director From: Tim Malloy, TG Malloy Consulting, LLC Date: November 4, 2010 Re: Rationale for Including the Airport East Parcel (lo- acres) within the 2010 AACP Urban Growth Boundary On behalf of the Aspen - Pitkin County Airport, Pitkin County Public Works Department and the Pitkin County Administration we would like to offer the following information for consideration by the Community Development Department and the Joint Planning Commissions regarding potential adjustments to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the 2010 AACP Update. In particular, the Airport, Public Works and County Administration are seeking inclusion of a portion of the Airport East Parcel within the UGB. We understand that the issue of whether to include a to-acre area near the Aspen Snow Dump within the UGB was briefly discussed during a recent joint meeting of the City and County Planning Commissions. We also understand that there was incomplete information about the exact location and configuration of the area in question but that the joint Planning Commission was reluctant to include any additional land north of the Animal Shelter due to concerns that development in this area would contribute to urban sprawl along Highway 82. We believe there are sound planning reasons for including a portion of the property owned by the County on the east side of the Highway. We hope you find the information in this memo helpful in your continued deliberations regarding the final configuration of the UGB. Figure 1 shows the location and configuration of the Airport East Parcel (purple area). The property is located along the east side of Highway 82 north of the Pitkin County Animal Shelter. In some areas the parcel is reduced to a narrow strip along the Highway. The portion of this parcel which the County is seeking to include in the UGB is outlined with a dashed orange line on Figure 1. This area contains slightly more than 10 acres and will be referred to as the "io -acre parcel" in this memo. The io -acre parcel encompasses the flat ground above the Roaring Fork River gorge. The property has access off of the road that serves the Pitkin County Animal Shelter. The property is also isolated from any sensitive land uses by open space, Highway 82, the Airport and the Aspen Snow Dump facility. 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E -MAIL TGMAL.t..OY @SOPRIS.NET Memo Regarding Airport East Parcel Inclusion in UGB 2 November 4, 2010 Figure 1 l ` .. \ <` ''` , red y • _ d '1� d , y 'VI e •. , aj v . 1 *, L - +3 - . "may i Y . six \f i . ��e y�1'� -'{ — N - 4 , - �y N ''''''' -4.0*..-, / itre ♦ ti x . dv r" A ,L 44 X , ,. , i ... 3 --: k. 1.1.,:-,-;;;;....?kk ,,.. jk. , ,,,...„. T.....:3„:„;:s...tc.irrti, ,,,,,...;.ii i . a ) i 11,. % lc' ' ..1.-;`: :k ‘4., •••� 9 k tt � A 4 ■ i. 2010 Aspen Area C om m u n it y Plan (AACP) IS , yrt parcel Airport East Parce (lo Acr /UGB A�ustments Ev,wny UGB - -` Airport UM Expansion October 25, 2010 Man County open space 402 P ARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLOR • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 'E-MAIL: TGMALLOY @SOPRIS. Memo Regarding Airport East Parcel Inclusion in UGB 3 November 4, 2010 The Airport East Parcel was part of a larger property that was acquired in 1993 from the Paepcke Family with a combination of Airport/FAA and Pitkin County Open Space funds. The larger land holding contained a total of approximately 204 acres. A majority of this land (184.8 acres), which represented the proportion paid for out of County Open Space funds, was conveyed to Pitkin County Open Space in 2005. The land conveyed to Pitkin County Open Space is shown with a green overlay on Figure 1. The remainder of the property (19.2 acres) was retained by the Airport and is referred to as the Airport East Parcel. The Airport retained the Airport East Parcel for several reasons. The acreage contained in this parcel represented the proportion paid for out of funds provided by the FAA for the original acquisition. Further, the northernmost triangular area shown on Figure 1 is contained within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the north end of the runway. The RPZ is a trapezoidal area of specific dimensions that is located off the runway end and is intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The FAA guidelines state that this area is to be kept clear of incompatible objects and activities and specifies that the best way to accomplish this is to acquire all lands within the RPZ. The property also includes a narrow strip of land adjacent to the Highway 82 right -of -way. This strip was retained as part of the strategy to prevent inappropriate development across from the north end of the airport runway. In recent years, the Airport has recognized the potential need for off- airport land to accommodate housing mitigation requirements associated with possible future expansions. This issue arose when the Airport sought to include employee housing units in the Airport Operations Center. During the land use review for the Operations Center, the Housing Office required employee housing mitigation for 5.25 FTE's. The Airport elected to satisfy the housing requirement on -site by incorporating three apartment units in the building. While the FAA ultimately permitted these units, they made it clear that they do not support the development of housing units on airport property purchased with FAA funds. Since that time, the Airport has considered the 10 -acre parcel as a potential site for future employee housing needs. This issue may soon come to the forefront depending on the outcome of the Airport Master Plan Update process which is currently ongoing. In addition to the airport - related uses of the property, the County has for many years considered thew-acre parcel a logical location for other future community facility uses such as expansion of the public works facilities or maintenance facilities for the Open Space and Trails Department, among others. These uses are compatible with the existing surrounding uses which include the Airport fuel farm, general aviation hangars and patio shelters, Pitkin County Animal Shelter, Public Works Maintenance Facility, Aspen Snow Dump and RFTA Bus Maintenance Facility. These are all public facility and service uses that are either totally or partially contained within the existing UGB. It should be noted that since FAA funds were used in the purchase of the Airport East Parcel use of the property is limited to aviation - related facilities and activities. In order for the County to develop the property for other uses the FAA's interest would have to be acquired. 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970 945 0832 ' (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOY @SOPRIS. NET Memo Regarding Airport East Parcel Inclusion in UGB 4 November 4, 2010 Over the 17 years since the Airport East Parcel was acquired, the County has taken several actions that demonstrate the intent to accommodate additional public facility uses in this area, including development of the Aspen Snow Dump and the Pitkin County Animal Shelter. In 2005, the County commissioned a study to evaluate consolidating the io -acre parcel with the Snow Dump and Public Works sites for the development of community facilities and affordable housing uses. This study considered combining administrative offices, maintenance and affordable housing uses as part of an overall county government campus in an effort to improve the efficiency of county government. Currently, the County has numerous, dispersed facilities, which results in duplicitous support staff, and burdensome infrastructure. In addition, many of the County's employees reside down valley and consolidating in the AABC area would reduce the trip length for these employees and impacts on area roads. This is consistent with several policies in the draft AACP that promote reducing traffic impacts within the UGB. While the County is no longer considering moving any offices to this area it is still very interested in preserving the potential for maintenance and public service facilities and employee housing on the 10-acre parcel. Due to changes in the Pitkin County Land Use Code, this potential would be greatly reduced if the property remains outside the UGB. The current zoning on the Airport East Parcel (including the 10-acre portion) is AR -10, which is intended for large -lot residential development (i du/io acres) and small -scale agricultural activities. These uses are inappropriate for this property given the fact that it is owned by a government entity and is located in close proximity to the Aspen Snow Dump, airport and other public facility uses. In addition, unless a shared access agreement could be reached with the Sardy family, this site would have to utilize the same access road that serves the RFTA Bus Barn, Snow Dump, Pitkin County Public Works facility and the Animal Shelter. These factors would severely limit the marketability of this property for large -lot residential use. Most importantly, the AR -10 zone district prohibits public facility uses and all forms of multi - family dwellings. Therefore, the current zoning severely limits the logical uses for the site given the current ownership, access and adjacent uses. Given the ownership status, adjacent uses, access, and likely palette of future uses (public facilities and services, aviation - related, and employee housing) the most appropriate zoning for the 10-acre parcel is Public Institutional (P -I). Public facility and service uses are prohibited in all but three other zone districts in the current Pitkin County Code. The other potential zone districts include the business zones (B -i and B -2) and the SKI -REC zone. These other zone districts allow uses that would represent a real threat in terms of urban sprawl, including retail sales, personal service outlets, restaurants, meeting halls conference centers (SKI -REC only), and bed and breakfast establishments (SKI -REC only). We would also point out that both the B- 2 zone district and the property's current zoning (AR -1o) would allow the site to be used as a junk yard (pending special use permit or master plan approval). All of these uses, including junk yards, are prohibited in the P -I zone district. A similar situation exists with regard to the potential for developing employee housing on the io -acre parcel. Multi- family units are prohibited in all but a few zone districts and those districts are either not available outside the UGB or they allow a broader set of inappropriate uses than does the P-1 district. 402 PARK DRIVE • GL ENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO 0 81601 (P) 970 - 945.0832 • (F) 970 - 945.0833 'E-MAIL: TGMALLOV @SOPRIS. NET • Memo Regarding Airport East Parcel Inclusion in UGB 5 November 4, 2ato The P -I zone district also carries with it the requirement for approval of a master plan before any development can occur. Of the other zone districts that permit public facility and service uses, only the SKI -REC district has a similar requirement. There are several advantages to the master plan approach that may alleviate concerns related to whether development can be managed in a way that minimizes the impacts of urban sprawl while still allowing the county reasonable use of the 10-acre parcel. For example, the master plan must consider the entire property and must identify all intended uses. Developing the master plan also requires that issues of site design, visual impacts, vehicle access and circulation, and open space be worked out in a comprehensive manner. Once approved, the master plan becomes the zoning for the property. Any use not identified in the master plan, or any other significant change to the site design, requires an amendment to the master plan. The existing public service and maintenance facility sites that surround the 10-acre parcel were all zoned Public (PUB) prior to the 2006 rewrite of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. At that time, the PUB zone district was considered the most appropriate zoning for public facility uses and was available for land anywhere in the County. The PUB zone district has been eliminated in the current Pitkin County Land Use Code and was replaced by the Public Institutional (P -I) zone district. The current Code states that "no new lands may be included in the Public (PUB) zone district." The most significant difference between the old PUB zone district and the current P -I district is that "Public and institutional uses may only be established in Urban Areas of the county." The term Urban Area means within an existing urban growth boundary. This is a significant change in the way public service facilities are regulated that has occurred since the last time the UGB was analyzed. When the current AACP was adopted, there was no issue regarding whether a potential public facility site was located inside or outside the UGB. The language in the current Land Use Code has made inclusion in the UGB a critical issue for the to- acre parcel! 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 *E-MAIL '. TGMALLOV @SOPRIS. NET Jessica Garrow From: Kathryn Koch Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:03 AM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: FW: AACP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Barbara Newton [ mailto :barbaralnewton ©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:33 PM To: Public_Comment Subject: AACP Wow! The AACP is scary... This proposed regulation of our lives and livelihoods is unconstitutional and goes against everything America stands for. You need to rework this plan — listen to the people of Aspen. Also," more rigorous regulations" are NOT needed here. It is almost impossible to get things done now. We don't want to stop growth. No growth means no jobs. That means the future extinction of our Aspen way of life! And by the way, we want to increase jobs, not decrease them! Did I read correctly "reduce employment generation ?" Are you guys NUTS? " Barbara L. Newton S Original St Aspen, CO 81612 BarbaraLNewton Pgmail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is for the receipt and use by the named recipient only, as it may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the named recipient, or are not authorifed to receive this message on behalf of the named recipient, you are prohibited from distributing or copving it. or use or dissemination of its contents_ In such instance, please reply to this message by email. and delete this message. Email secured by Check Point Jessica Garrow From: Kathryn Koch Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:34 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: FW: The Red Ant & the AACP Draft Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Tom Schwerin [mailto:tom.schwerin ©gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:24 AM To: Public_Comment Subject: The Red Ant & the AACP Draft For Public Comment: Downtown Aspen's hospitality section & its outlying residential land -users are transitioning into a 'new' mode: The friendly town. We must keep offering winter recreational with cultural summer - events mutually stimulating for global retireees. KEYWORDS: "friendly & global ": Tom Schwerin Aspen, Colorado 81611 1- 970 - 274 -3033 P.O. Box 3, Snowmass CO 81654 Email secured by Check Point