HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110707 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
& PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, July 7, 2011
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. Aspen Area Community Plan — Managing Growth for
Community & Economic Sustainability
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
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 Hendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 1, 2011
MEETING DATE: Thursday, July 7, 2011
4:30 — 7:00 pm, Sister Cities
RE: Joint Public Hearing on new draft of AACP
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
BACKGROUND: The P &Zs agreed to review the document chapter -by- chapter. This memo
addresses the "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" chapter. All P &Z
members have been given a hard copy of the plan, so an additional copy is not provided with this
packet. A direct link to the chapter is at: Managing Growth for Community & Economic
Sustainability.
At the May 10 meeting, the P &Zs reviewed some items from this chapter, including 100%
Affordable Housing Mitigation, and Economy/Moderate Lodging. The meeting was intended to
review the "hot button" issues in the plan. A copy of that packet is available at: May 10, 2011
P &Z Meeting. This memo includes highlights from the P &Z's discussions from the May 10
meeting. In addition, the meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit A.
There are probably dozens of ways to approach a review of this chapter, due to its inherent
complexity and because topics have far - reaching implications and ramifications that reach across
much of the AACP document.
Recognizing the need to identify and focus on discrete topics is the reason why this chapter was
ultimately organized into discrete sections. However, after working through each one, there
should be an opportunity to look at the chapter in a broader sense, and to ensure internal
consistency within the overall AACP. In short, staff recognizes the need to strike a balance
between discrete topics and the big picture. This exercise might be most appropriate when the
P &Zs review the "Linkages" section, currently scheduled for July 14. See Exhibit B for a list of
Vision Statements in the AACP; this may assist in the "Linkages" discussion.
PROPOSED REVIEW PROCESS: There are currently 3 meetings scheduled to review the
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability chapter: July 7, July 12, and July
14. Staff believes the approach to reviewing chapters during the last two meetings has been very
Page 1 of 7
productive, and suggests we continue largely in the same manner, with some changes due to the
complexity of this chapter.
July 7: Begin the meeting with a review of the section on "What's Changed Since 2000." The
P &Zs have had numerous discussions about the events of the last 10 years, and staffs perception
is that a common understanding of the facts and agreement on what this section should say
would be helpful at the outset.
From there, staff suggests reviewing the Vision Statement, and then Philosophy. The Managing
Growth chapter is the only one in which the Philosophy section is broken down into distinct
topics. This memo will provide brief overviews of each topic, including bulleted information on:
• "What's Changed Since 2000"
• Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
July 12: Continue review of the Philosophy section of the chapter, as necessary. Proceed to
Policy statements. (Staff is not expecting a full review of Action Items at this time. However, a
quick review of Action Items during P &Z discussion can sometimes be helpful as reminders
regarding the intent of a policy.)
July 14: Continue review of Policy statements, as necessary. Review "What's New in the 2011
AACP," to reflect any changes the P &Z has made. Review the section on "Linkages," partly as a
way to ensure that the reader understands the far - reaching nature of this chapter — and also so the
P &Zs can effectively double -check for internal consistency in the AACP as a whole.
INTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT: This chapter was re- written for tone and to ensure it is
forward looking. The last draft focused more on the things that we don't like or don't want to
happen, and much of the public feedback questioned whether this approach was appropriate for a
document that is intended to be aspirational and goal- oriented. This does not mean the entire
chapter is positive at all times; in fact, the draft identifies challenges and problems faced by the
community, while incorporating guidance and future direction for meeting these challenges.
The new draft focuses more on our goals for the community, such as the language in the Vision
Statement: "In the broadest terms, these goals include a thriving and sustainable year -round
community and a unique and vibrant resort in the context of a healthy natural environment."
For example, the previous language that characterized "infill" as a mistake has been dropped for
two reasons:
1. To fit with the direction that the document should be more forward looking, The
discussion of infill as misguided or mistaken has been replaced in favor of an aspirational
discussion of managing future development so that it contributes to the long -term
viability of a sustainable, diverse tourist -based economy and a strong year -round
community. If concerns remain on the topic of infill, staff encourages the P &Zs to focus
on a specific concern, and discuss language that affirms a positive future direction, such
as: "The downtown should continue to feature an appealing diversity of heights,
densities, open spaces and architectural styles," or, "Iconic downtown buildings act as
Page 2 of 7
unmistakable landmarks, and future development should complement these historic
buildings in a manner that is creative and innovative, but also subordinate and
respectful."
2. The concept of "infill" has been replaced in the City's land use code by the concept of
"compatibility." " Infill" was a response to language in the 2000 AACP, including "The
City agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation
of important open spaces in the outlying County and key parcels in the City, maintaining
separation between communities, and the preservation of sprawl."
In 2006, in response to community concern, an Emergency Ordinance was passed that
placed a moratorium on all land use applications in the City's commercial and lodging
zone districts. After over a year of work, the City Council adopted a series of code
amendments that rolled back many of the provisions that were part of the "infill codes,"
including lowering heights, lowering floor areas, and creating new Commercial Design
Guidelines that are more prescriptive than the design standards under infill.
Simply put, the new, 140 -page Commercial and Lodging Design Guidelines emphasized
compatibility over across - the -board increases in height, mass and density. In other words,
the current city code replaced infill with compatibility as the primary driving concept. See
Exhibit D for an overview of the evolution of the City's Commercial and Lodging zone
districts since 2000. This was previously provided to the commissions in August of
2010.
SUB - SECTIONS OF THE CHAPTER: The following is a review of each sub- section of this
chapter.
Maintaining our Tourist -Based Economy:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
The new AACP recognizes that how we manage growth has an impact both on our community
and our three economies (resort tourism, development, and year round community). This is the
primary purpose for combining the concepts of managing growth and a sustainable economy into
one chapter.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
This was partially addressed in the section above: "Intent of the New Draft." Also, new Action
Items have been added under the "Maintaining our Tourist -Based Economy" policy. These
additions were discussed by the P &Z in February, and include items like wayfinding, and
improving the visitor center.
Residential Sector:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
Compared to the 2000 AACP, the new AACP emphasizes stronger regulation on residential
development in environmentally sensitive areas, including scenic areas.
Page 3 of 7
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The new draft has eliminated the call for an overall decrease in house size across the UGB, and
instead focuses on protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive areas and scenic areas,
including potential reductions in house size and density in such areas. This was direction from
the P &Z in February. Some Policies and Action Items have been changed to reflect this
direction.
A Policy and associated Action Items on TDRS were added based on recent direction received
from P &Z; many of the TDR- related Action Items were already written and simply moved under
the new policy.
Lodeine Sector:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
While the 2000 AACP places little focus on lodging, the new AACP calls for preventing further
loss of inventory, and re- balancing the lodging inventory to make up for a substantial loss of
moderate lodging.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The new draft provides more background and explanation regarding the goal of balancing the
lodging inventory. Based on the many discussions with the public, P &Zs, and elected officials,
the reference to "modest" was deleted from the chapter, and replaced with "compatible and in
harmony with." This section includes one of the two regulatory statements in this chapter: "New
lodging should be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale, and character of the
neighborhood."
Lodging was part of the P &Zs' discussion on May 10` but no changes to the language or
direction were discussed. A full copy of the minutes is attached as Exhibit A.
Commercial Sector:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
While the 2000 AACP mentioned the importance of local- serving business, the new AACP
identifies a concern about the recent trend toward redevelopment and displacement of businesses
that provide basic necessities. This plan calls for explore the existing balance between local -
serving and tourist - serving businesses, and to determine if the level of local- serving business is
appropriate to serve year -round residents.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The changes in the new draft reflect a change in tone. There is little if any difference in the
substance of this section.
Public, Institutional, and Non -Profit Sector:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
Aside from general support from arts and cultural facilities, the 2000 AACP makes little mention
of the Public, Institutional and Non -Profit Sector. The new AACP draws a link between and non-
profit organizations, the Aspen Idea and economic sustainability.
Page 4 of 7
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The concepts in this section are unchanged. Some minor clarifications in language were made to
the Policies, but no content changes were made.
Managing Growth:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
There is no sub - heading for "Managing Growth" in the Philosophy section, but there are four
policies under this heading. One difference with the 2000 AACP is reflected in Policy VI.I, to
"Restore public confidence in the development process." Policy VI.4, that "New development
should be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale and character of the
neighborhood," is a stronger and more specific version of language in the Design Quality chapter
of the 2000 AACP.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The Policies and Action Items in this section are largely unchanged. Policy VIA was re- written
for clarity and to be consistent with the overall tone changes.
Pace of Construction:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
The concept of pacing construction has been featured in long range community plans dating back
to 1977. The challenge has always been in implementation.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
The new draft acknowledges the challenges in implementation of a pacing concept, and new
language states that a "comprehensive effort to explore pacing models must be deliberate and
transparent, including substantial public outreach and feedback." The new draft also places a
greater emphasis on continuing to improve construction management practices. The Policy is
unchanged, but some minor clarifications have been made to the Action Items.
Mitigating Impacts on Community Infrastructure:
"What's New in the 2011 AACP"
The new AACP currently calls for "every new development — public or private — to offset its job
generation by providing affordable housing for 100% of all new employees." This is a
substantial departure from the 2000 AACP and current codes, which provide exemptions for
mitigation based on community benefits.
This section also states that various city and county housing mitigation strategies may not be
"achieving community goals in the most efficient manner" and should be revisited in a
comprehensive manner.
Differences between the September 2010 and March 2011 Draft
In the September 2010 draft, the goal of 100% mitigation was referenced in the Philosophy and
Policy sections of the Housing chapter, but was not clearly reflected in the Managing Growth
chapter. Because the concept of mitigation is central to managing growth, staff relocated and
Page 5 of 7
further clarified this goal to reflect the P &Zs position, in the Philosophy section of Managing
Growth, and as Policy VII1.3.
A Policy that called for using mitigation as a tool to bring the lodging inventory into balance was
deleted because it is in conflict with the P &Z's direction to have 100% mitigation for all new
development.
It is important to note that during a joint meeting of the P &Zs on May 10, 2011, an informal vote
was taken reflecting a shift in the 100% mitigation policy. The vote supported allowing adjusting
mitigation requirements for new development based on the provision of community benefits. See
minutes, attached as Exhibit A.
KEY POLICY AREAS: This section outlines some key policy areas in the Managing Growth
for Community & Economic Sustainability chapter that do not clearly fit under a specific
category in the chapter. This is not an exhaustive list, but is intended to help inform the P &Z's
discussion of the chapter.
Types of Growth: One of the fundamental concepts of managing growth is placing different
community values on different types of growth. Since 1977, the Growth Management system has
sought to encourage certain kinds of growth while placing substantial restrictions and exactions
on other types of growth. A recent example was the incentive lodge program, established in 2005
and modified in 2007, which lowered mitigation on a sliding scale in exchange for smaller lodge
rooms.
This differentiation between different types of growth has been reflected in community feedback,
which is summarized in Exhibit C.
Population Cap: The current draft does not include a population cap. The P &Zs have discussed
this issue previously, and had decided not to include a cap. Staff believes that establishing a
population cap could provide a false sense of control that might distract us from exploring
realistic and effective tools that can help shape the future, like zoning. The P &Zs have discussed
the important of not simply relying on a number, but on setting out policies that will help shape a
desirable community.
The P &Zs discussed this issue at the June 16 meeting, and determined that it is important to
include a discussion of why a "scientific number" is not being used in the 2011 AACP because it
is a departure from the 2000 AACP, which called for a maximum population cap. Please see
Exhibit E to review possible language to address — as the P &Z described it — "the elephant in
the room."
Page 6 of 7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION USED BY P &Z: There were a number of documents the
P &Z used in the initial drafting of these topics. These include:
• State of the Aspen Area Report Managing Growth Chapter,
• State of the Aspen Area Report Economics Chapter.
• State of the Aspen Area Report Housing Chapter,
• Economic White Paper,
• Build -out Analysis,
• Population Estimates,
• History of Managing Growth Paper,
• Carrying Capacity White Paper,
• 2009 Clicker Session data, and
• 2008 Survey data.
All are available at www.AspenCommunityVision.com. In addition, all the past P &Z packets
are available under the Adoption section of the website, or by clicking the links below:
Growth Packets:
• April 7.2009 • October 13, 2009
• August 18, 2009 • October 27, 2009
• August 25, 2009 • November 10, 2009
• September I, 2009 • November 24, 2009
• September 8, 2009 • December 1, 2009
• September 8, 2009 Addendum • December 8, 2009
• September 22, 2009 • January 12, 2010
Recent Review Packets:
• January 5, 2011 (review of house size, pace of construction, affordable housing
mitigation)
• January 18, 2011 (review of revised introduction, and chapter re- formatting)
• February 2, 2011 (review of Lodging, Development Review Process, Transportation,
UGB Changes)
• February 22, 2011 (review public comments)
The most recent clicker sessions (Nov 2010) and survey (March 2011) are also available
online.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Minutes from May 10, 2011 P &Z meeting
Exhibit B: Vision Statements
Exhibit C: Public Feedback related to Types of Growth
Exhibit D: Evolution of City Lodging and Commercial zones (2000 — today)
Exhibit E: Potential language addressing population cap.
Page 7 of 7
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 10, 2011
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
Aspen Area Community Plan 2
1
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 10, 2011
Joe Krabacher opened the special meeting of the joint Planning & Zoning
Commissions Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:30 in Council Chambers. Joe Krabacher
said they had a quorum so they didn't need a roll call. Staff in attendance: Jessica
Garrow and Chris Bendon, City Community Development; Ellen Sassano and
Cindy Houben, County Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy
City Clerk.
Aspen Area Community Plan
Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing for the Aspen Area Community Plan. Joe
Krabacher asked if the commissioners had any revisions for the Aspen Ideas
Section. Marcela Larsen gave Jessica her notes and said Policy 1.4, which was a
new addition last time, she thought that we were trying to be very clear in terms of
buildings and this is unclear if you look up the definition of infrastructure. Jessica
Garrow stated that Exhibit A, Aspen Idea, was included in the packet. Chris
Bendon said there were things that would be consistent. LJ Erspamer said that the
March 28 draft talks about affordable housing, lodging inventory and he did not
want to belabor this. Marcela Larsen said it is listing buildings. Stan Gibbs said
they did talk about those buildings, related types of concepts and moved into the
facilities part. Jessica Garrow stated either way works; we just need to hear from a
majority of the commission in which direction to go. Cindy Houben said her notes
reflected on page 2 support, encourage and promote community infrastructure
activities and land uses that enable, actualizes the Aspen Idea. Marcela Larsen said
that the commission didn't feel comfortable with that language because buildings
would follow, not that they are bad. Joe Krabacher said they would take out both
social and physical. Marcela Larsen said she wanted it to say social infrastructure.
Stan Gibbs suggested taking out infrastructure and replacing it with resources.
Marcela Larsen agreed. Joe Krabacher asked if anyone was opposed and said there
is your straw poll.
Jessica Garrow entered 2 public comments into the record: Tim Semaru and Bob
Bowden. Jessica Garrow stated the large policy issues for the commission to
comment on were included in the packet and there would not be staff presentation.
Joe Krabacher asked for public comments:
1. Warren Klug said he was in part representing the Aspen Chamber and their
basic concern was with the economic health of the Aspen Community.
Warren Klug said they don't want to see the door closed on necessary
renovations and the community does need additional lodging but not
economy lodging. Warren Klug said that the plan addresses the past and not
2
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — Mav 10, 2011
the future. Warren Klug requested an economic review of lodging costs and
the mitigation costs were excessive and should be negotiated.
2. Helen Klanderud said 6 of the items are included in the Aspen Ideas part of
the plan as promoting what we need to preserve and promote. Helen
Klariderud said we need to design a plan that serves us in all situations in
good and bad times and broad enough for aspirations. Helen Klanderud
voiced concerns insuring residents of the community work force housing
and free market housing in the same neighborhood are treated fairly, equally
and consistently; how broad is that and there are other sections in this plan
that the economic ramifications need to be analyzed.
3. Scott Writer said the integration of commerce was a big deal to the
Paepcke's and recognized the fact that there were cultural ideas and being
self sustaining economic drivers. Scott Writer said larger hotel rooms were
worldwide.
4. John Speers said he was the general manager of the Little Nell and a
member of the ACRA board. John Speers said employee housing was
important, they use it, however 100% is overkill; many people work 2 jobs
and many are seasonal.
5. John Corcoran stated that he managed the Aspen Alps and he agreed with
the other people who spoke about the mitigation at 100% was too much and
understanding the market was important.
6. Penny Evans Carruth agreed with Warren and Helen and the big concern
that she was hearing focused around the economic study and take a second
look at what the economics are in the valley. Penny Evan Carruth said
hopefully we can turn the economy around for people getting jobs.
7. Donnie said he substantiated what was said and the aspirational message and
how do we integrate where we want to be. Donnie said how Aspen is as a
community relate as a whole.
8. Marcia Goshorn said this was intended as a visionary document and not
regulatory, that is what land use codes are for. Marcia Goshorn said when
an existing hotel is renovating they should not be subjected to 100%
employee mitigation and it was a whole different thing when someone takes
down a block and proposes a huge hotel.
9. Chris Kiley said he was from the Aspen Skiing Company and concurs with
staff that this should guide and be an aspirational not a regulatory document.
Chris Kiley said the 100% for employee housing mitigation goal posed
shared concerns listed in the memo but not every employee wants to live in
employee housing and there is a place and role for down valley.
3
County & City Planning & Zoning Meetine — Minutes — May 10, 2011
Cliff Weiss wanted a dialogue. LJ Erspamer agreed and wanted to know if they
couldn't go through this document as we were progressing and engage in bilateral
conversation as we go through each point. Cliff Weiss said like Helen said
knowing where we are at.
LJ Erspamer asked that they stay on one subject and not bounce all over.
Joe Krabacher said let's talk about the regulatory, advisory or aspirational. LJ
Erspamer stated that he can't wait to hear the City Attorney's legal opinion on
guiding or regulatory. Jim True responded that they do not have a legal opinion on
advisory or regulatory document. Jim True said the P &Z cannot create a
regulatory document; City Council can create a regulatory document if it adopts by
ordinance which are sufficiently stated to provide a regulation and notice to a
property owner as to what is required of it. Jim True said the staff is
recommending that this be created as a guiding document that it not be proposed to
Council as a regulatory document; Council could adopt it by ordinance and have
provisions of it become regulatory. Jim True said it was up to the commission on
how you want to present it to Council.
John Howard said that any applications that come before the land use code
satisfying those requirements that are consistent or compliant with the Master
Plans which will include the AACP. John Howard said they can call it guiding and
that's what all are master plans are in the county but a lot of instances they enforce
regulation.
Bert Myrin passed out the part of the City code that they are familiar with and went
through parts of the chapters. Bert Myrin said the AACP is used to represent the
community and he would like to see all development be consistent with the Plan
and we need to incorporate what is in the code.
Marcela Larsen encouraged the commissions to take this plan seriously from a
legal perspective.
John Howard said the requirement for onsite employee housing was not there.
John Howard asked what really is the need for affordable housing to be built; what
is the demand. John Howard said full mitigation to him is some number less than
100 %; in all the discussions no one has ever told him why the 100% mitigation.
Bert Myrin passed along the memo for the Housing Chapter we had August 26
and it talks about the 2007 Housing Summit where the Housing Authority has
4
County & City Planninu & Zoning Meetin¢ — Minutes — May 10, 2011
taken the stance that 100% mitigation is a preference. Bert Myrin asked how much
housing would be required if something was being redeveloped or renovated like
the Little Nell or City Market to move the community forward. Ben Gagnon
replied that if you are reconstructing space that already exists then there is no net
additional mitigation; it is only when you create new net additional square footage.
LJ Erspamer asked for a show of hands from what Tim Semaru said that the Aspen
economy by research associates which the AACP was based on that research. LJ
Erspamer said even theatrically it is not based on. LJ Erspamer asked about FTEs
and how accurate are we with that impact and if the Chamber wants to do that but
he would like to see a Performa on what the impact is of growth on development
and it would have to be a little different on commercial lodging as opposed to
residential but a study could be something very direct to get a good idea.
Marcella Larsen said we need to address this on a real broad level and people ask
why are we doing this, what is the purpose, is it the right thing to do; that is the
first question to ask. Then as a subset what happens if we don't do it, what
happens if we do and it would have to be enacted by City Council and is just a
recommendation to the Aspen Area Community Plan. The issue is can an
economic study realistically model this; perhaps maybe on the development side
but that is only one side of the issue and you would have to look at from the public
side, what does it cost the public when these issues are not mitigated. Marcella
Larsen said that you can put a dollar figure on it with a fiscal impact study; if you
are going to look at one side you must look at the other. Pitkin County since 2001
has required 100% mitigation for residential structures; the question is who is
going to pay for development, the public or is the developer going to pay. We
have to be careful about externalizing our impacts; they go way beyond affordable
housing when we are generating employees and not providing housing and not
dealing with road impacts, health and human services; a huge mushroom effect so
let's keep our eyes on the big picture and not how the big hotels will be able to fit
this into their Performa. Marcella Larsen said that she would like to take another
look at the affordable housing requirement.
Cliff Weiss said that he couldn't agree with the lodging community more and when
Scott developed the Grand Hyatt how much mitigation was at the Bavarian Inn; the
number of FTEs mitigated for. Scott Writer replied there was a combination of 3
different aspects; they did 2.9 million in lieu, the units at Bavarian and the units in
the Hyatt and the Top of Mill was a separate project with more affordable housing.
Cliff Weiss asked the number of units at the Bavarian. Scott Writer said he
believed it was 100% mitigation. Cliff Weiss said there was a difference with an
5
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — Mav 10, 2011
upscale lodge and an economy lodge and mitigation needs to slide a little bit and
the economy of an economy lodge is different than an upscale lodge. Cliff Weiss
said the average Aspen guest does want lager rooms but it is a belief here that
needs to be discussed here but it is too late to get cheaper lodges in Aspen. The
Ski Company needs to bring in young skiers in their 20s and they did the most
business with 3, 4 and 5 year olds and those kids are going to be the base of our
business forever. Cliff Weiss asked Marcia how many people apply for Category
2, 3 homes or 4, 5 and RO. Marcia Goshorn replied in the lower category units we
still have from 40 to 80 depending upon the unit; the higher categories meaning the
RO units have no limit on what they can spend to build it so if somebody built a
million three house in the RO category it is not selling; the higher categories we
have from 5 to 15 people bidding on them. Marcia Goshorn said the seasonal
housing has had occupancy but the long term rentals haven't. Cliff Weiss said that
he has always felt that mitigation should be based on community benefit; if you
want economy lodges that is a community benefit and there should be much less
mitigation or even incentives however the code has to reflect that. Cliff Weiss said
if you are building a 15,000 square foot house next to the Ute Trail, he doesn't see
what the public benefit is there; what he is getting at is at is that some things have
much more community benefit and should have lower mitigation and that applies
to lodging, commercial or anything.
Scott Writer asked to clarify one thing on that they mitigated for 100% of the
employees generated but excluded uses that they would have like to have had;
there were community benefits of not having a restaurant there because then the
restaurants in town got more business.
Helen Klanderud said the Economic Study was done because there was a question
at that time in 2001/2002 as to whether or not the 60% was good; it may be worth
looking at and seeing if it could be brought up to date. Helen Klanderud noted
that's what that study was about. Helen Klanderud said the 100% that came out of
the Housing Summit you have to remember that came out of the boom times and
she didn't recall why or for what reason the 100% came out of that summit. Helen
Klanderud said there were no moderate lodges represented here tonight and they
had concerns about competitions and there was a strong move several years ago to
designate these historic, that was not an incentive to improve your lodge; in the
1970s all lodges on Main Street were considered non - conforming uses.
John Howard said he didn't understand why you would incentivize an economy
lodge as opposed to a higher level of lodging; it just makes no sense to him.
6
County & City Plannin¢ & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 10, 2011
Cliff Weiss said there was a feeling that we have all the upscale that we need and
we just keep building what is in demand for economy lodges. Cliff Weiss said that
he needed to have an operations perspective.
Joe Krabacher said that what everyone wants to do is grow the resort economy
here and to create a sustainable future and there are different ways people have in
mind to do it. Joe Krabacher said some people feel that if there are more moderate
housing or lodge opportunities that will develop a new guest to come to Aspen and
continue to come to Aspen and help make it a more sustainable resort over time,
whether that is true or not I guess can be debated. There are costs with
development in a perfect world development would pay its own costs and if
development doesn't pay those cost then those costs are imposed on the public;
that is kind of a counterbalancing situation. Joe Krabacher said part of the formula
is what is the use, what is the employee generation based on that use, what is the
mitigation number for an employee. Joe Krabacher said in his view they shouldn't
go to 100% mitigation without looking at all of these factors and we don't want to
end up with a fantastic code that is basically obsolesce because nobody's doing
anything. Joe Krabacher said that discussion is going to take a long time and he
didn't know if they will be able to fit that into the AACP.
LJ Erspamer said that he has been preaching what Joe said for the last 2 months
and agrees with what he said; we are not going to resolve that issue right now and
he suggested City Council and the BOCC create a knowledgeable group to
investigate the direct and indirect impacts of growth and make recommendation to
the BOCC and City Council on appropriate and reasonable mitigation. LJ
Erspamer agreed with John on the study of existing bed base and the ACRA and
Lodging Community had some great data on it; we can't make decisions about
moderate economic lodging until we have thorough knowledge and understanding
of that; we need to establish a group of visitors that has a tie to town and to
understand in the lodging market and where we need to go. LJ Erspamer said he
went to talk to the Wille brothers who said their lodging occupancy was going
down, why should we build economic lodges when they can't even fill theirs. We
should have a short, medium and long term plan on how we need to address each
segment of this lodging community and have it phased in how we can approve it
and how it can be done. Once we do that we have a better agreement with one
another which is another time or group to pursue it.
Marcella Larsen said that they need to be careful about focusing on one segment of
the mitigation possibility here; if you look solely at lodging it might significantly
skew your perspective on this and if just take a step back and look at our chapter in
7
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 10, 2011
general she would argue that it substantially weakened from what we saw in 1993
and in 2000. Marcella Larsen said both of those plans have a very affirmative
statement that we were trying to create a critical mass of residents that could
actually live here. We all know that perhaps new people moving in will buy the
free market but certainly not people that are employed in Aspen; they are not going
to be able to buy free market. Marcella Larsen said in 1993 we said we would try
and house 60% of the work force by 2000 that went to just a finite number of units.
It is the job of this plan to identify what the housing goals are, to address
philosophically whether or not 100% mitigation is appropriate, is that the right
thing to do, is that what a responsible community does. And then the regulation
should flow from that philosophy; if we want growth to pay its own way and don't
want to lose that, are there some exceptions that we want to encourage that are so
important that we would actually take a slide on the mitigation. It's not just
lodging and that is part of what the county looked at in house size but if you want
economical lodging that probably generates more employees and if we are engaged
in public subsidy that's where we should be giving that public dollar.
Bert Myrin said LJ mentioned a committee to look at the 100% and a committee
did look at that in 2007 and Helen was part of that and the staff memo said that
was 100 %; he asked for more background on that. He asked the amount of
affordable housing required in the Christmas Inn renovation. He asked where you
come up with the 100 %.
John Howard said that he would like to get off of the 100% mitigation and
development is required to mitigate reasonably, whatever that works out to be.
Ben Gagnon said they were close to the different policy in this plan that would be
helpful for staff; he has heard 3 different people say that mitigation should slide
and that is different than the plan right now but it helps staff if they could get some
sense if people are good with that community benefit being provided by the
specific.
John Howard said that in the meetings at the Wheeler that regardless where the
mitigation was set there should be some kind of sliding scale if there were
community benefits. Ben Gagnon said that was a question that if we could get an
across the board answer on would help us. Marcella Larsen supported that;
support looking at it. Joe Krabacher asked who supported that. Joe, Marcella,
John, Jay, Monty, Bert, Cliff supported and LJ and Stan did not. Stan Gibbs said
with the ability to bring it down if you provide community benefits. Ben Gagnon
replied that what he was talking about. Stan Gibbs said that wasn't the way he
8
County & City Planning & Zonin2 Meetine — Minutes — May 10, 2011
heard it. LJ Erspamer asked the definition of community benefit. Ben Gagnon
responded it could be a number of things, like local serving business that could still
be talked about. Cindy Houben said that she also heard around the room the fact
that John and Marcella said that in fact we were not going to be tied to a number;
what we are trying to get out of the overall approach, what are we talking about
sustainability. Cindy Houben asked what are the impacts, what are we trying to
address and how are we doing that; so what is the cost from a transportation,
energy, air quality and those other true impacts. Cindy Houben said she would like
to add the financial leakage when we export people as a community employee
taking that resource that dollar somewhere else what is that leakage in terms of
that; there is a whole list of things that you are saying maybe it should be based
upon community attributes but also what is it in terms of that overall balance and
cost to the community; housing, transportation, air quality, social costs and what
this community wants to see.
Scott Writer said he hadn't heard anybody talk about another 2400 employee
housing units and the local need; if you use APCHA numbers they average 1.8
FTEs per unit and if you do the math we have 5000 employees now theoretically
housed and you have to end up at 9400 to get to 60 %. Scott Writer said that we
have to think about the population goals and how they affect infrastructure and
schools.
Cliff Weiss said that was misleading because we fill our schools from all over the
valley. Scott Writer said the schools were down in enrollment all over the valley
and there are 2 sides to this coin if you decide that you want 100% mitigation and
you were deciding.
John Howard said that Scott's point was that he brought up from last week's
discussion that we still need to have on the whole concept of carrying capacity as
well. John Howard said there is a positive aspect of that job creation because even
employees that live down valley are going to spend a certain amount of money
here in town for lunches or shopping for something but also the new development
that comes in, the redevelopment will pay increased property taxes and higher end
properties are paying a bigger share of property taxes even though if their impacts
are proportional to the property taxes and we aren't going to solve that issue but we
are looking at all of this stuff we need to look at the good and the bad and how we
play and try to come up with true value of what incremental development is going
to cost us as a community.
9
County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 10, 2011
Bert Myrin said that Scott Writer was not correct in looking backwards because we
were looking forward with full mitigation. The distance between 60% and 100%
maybe a much smaller number than everyone's theory and may not be another
5,000 or 10,000 people in the schools so that is information that we need to know
and we need to know the positive impacts. Bert Myrin said the idea that more
development means more property taxes; I believe that the property taxes are lower
in rural Colorado than they are in Manhattan because just the opposite is true, more
development means more property taxes.
Marcella Larsen said the fiscal impact study that she was talking about before does
look at both sides of that; it is a way that you can actually analyze what your
zoning does and what it is going to cost government and what it is going to give
government in terms of revenue and how does that work together. Let's look what
our existing zoning really means in terms of population; in terms of potential tax
revenue and then what it costs.
Marcella Larsen suggested tabling the discussion about lodging and proceed with
the remainder of this plan as scheduled. We gave some direction on affordable
housing and there was no direction on the other.
MOTION: Marcella Larsen moved to continue the County portion of the AACP
Hearing be continued to May 19 at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities seconded by John
Howard. All in favor.
MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to continue the City portion of the AACP
Hearing be continued to May 19 at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities seconded by Cliff
Weiss. All in favor.
Adjourned at 7:45 pm.
Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10
Exhibit B, Draft AACP Vision Statements
The Aspen Idea
We are committed to sustaining and revitalizing the Aspen Idea.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
We are committed to managing growth in order to achieve the community values and goals that
are expressed in this plan. In the broadest terms, these goals include a thriving and sustainable
year -round community and a unique and vibrant resort in the context of a healthy natural
environment. We recognize that all of our community goals can and should benefit those who
live and work here, as well as those who visit.
The community goals we seek to achieve in this chapter include (in no particular order):
• Providing affordable housing for a "critical mass" of local residents.
• Managing the impacts of development to maintain a high quality of life.
• Preserving mountain views and the natural ecosystems, including riparian areas.
• Maintaining a high quality of life and resort experience.
• Planning for a tourism economy that is supported by future generations of diverse
visitors.
• Facilitating a diverse, unique and vital downtown area.
• Supporting a vibrant non - profit sector, including arts and cultural organizations.
• Preserving the historic character of the built environment so we can "tell the story" of
Aspen to future generations.
• Replenishing the lodging base with a focus on diversifying the lodging inventory.
• Encouraging a local business sector that provides basic products and services for
everyone, and encouraging an appropriate level of local- serving business.
West of Castle Creek Corridor
The West of Castle Creek Corridor area should provide a transition from the rural expanses of
Pitkin County to the urbanized atmosphere of downtown Aspen. The area should feature separate
and recognizable nodes of unique uses and functions, maintaining a land use pattern and scenic
quality along the Highway corridor that creates a distinct series of visual experiences that signal
arrival to the Aspen Area.
Transportation
We are committed to providing an efficient, multi -modal and integrated transportation system
that reduces congestion and air pollution.
Housing
We believe that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and healthy local
workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails
We believe in preserving and enhancing our enjoyment of and access to parks, recreational
opportunities, open space, and trails.
Environmental Stewardship
The Aspen Area will be a local, regional, state and national leader in all aspects of environmental
stewardship.
Historic Preservation
Historic preservation connects us to our heritage, enabling us to learn from and appreciate the
stories and context of our past. Preserving our historic resources differentiates us as a community
and contributes to our long -term cultural awareness and sustainability as a community.
The Lifelong Aspenite
We will strengthen the quality of life and well -being for the people in our community by
providing or promoting opportunities in housing, jobs and access to services through all phases
of life, from education to public safety and health.
{! | §[§
ts!! -
!! , / ] \
zoo § { § a \ } .• (
| | | _ .
§ -a § § f 1
• - :
o
/ /! § §!!! §) \ \ \ } \ \ \
Mu |§f! \ !) §! \ \. \ \ \ \ \
2.- : !§!)§!!
11 7 t t g 43
ot b <rkf <!
F. t !i |r! •} h _ -
W - - -
\ { §!!r \f!! \ \ \ \ :g 0 .. \
2 !{!||!!,;§s } \ \
iia|r!#&. C _ c
!! } }> \ : - _
� ) \� \ \) ) \ \ } \ ) \ \
.c L
U 0 U U
O 9 O . _ 0
'O > 0 o ) 0 > al
co co " 0 3 ` ;? ` 3
c n e e e h Q a a y Q 2 8. o
n P
c • N N N u Z , N O v Z m e
O O .._ 0 Eqt' -'
a . E a o.
N . 3
u 0 0 C
it Q Q Q Vi Q a) a.) Q Vi Q y,. '8 0 O U y
.� z Z Z '7 Z E o .. m z Z o o y o
O O 4, O. O' h ^
b0 O C o ai o o o o O 4 O o
• [A CM U g . .N - O
w y ° O O C O E 69 E. E &. t O
'0 o 'n O o . �' 'c ` o .N L v, .a. g
d v m = s ai o = cc ❑ t ❑ °L 'c m c cc. G ° o o °c a `° = z E c c c ° O z o 5 o" o> D o
o .ry y 7 o N N .ry C t� m y
,c 2 E U me o u � , m M to °o en o ._
x E E o o o L E E L
w y _
c F °p '-' °D D C '3 0 O O N cia E
3 ..- > > E N .--. r N —9 ❑
2 f
EA Y A ai U 0 cc o v o "E v iA
cep
8 --• t y 3 - a" . > c e Y 3 c
° m E E� m z . n .; 7. � E . o m v?
w v c o o. '� ,c. - �.°. u e as o `
7 "1'. m v` m v .. E G v v O y m v-, °� v O v
• oo d • 9 d Q " o .. u 'm • „' Q .c 13 a E d Q m e °a c m �' ^> m
o N Z. 0 z E J o.c E ry o E v c E o 5 .. 0
y al N y 0 0 3 O O E C = v
o V. a "LT. U . o E 3 U 4 c 0 U w ro U U o or , o U a
"c .x E o-" E v in E E E.. E -° c E
0 0 .-1 �� m .. ‘' o o ..w • v EE E o X E o 3 E_ y E y X E ^ '� d �
° o g v- ' ~ g ti 7 �tC N g r O d �[Cr • .2. ~ r;-; 2 G 2 L N 9 C.
CI V N 3 L O N , ^ O ,^
v %-i 6 ! _ u a! V a t U a) two L .. 0 U
ct to
L N N N y Q_ N H G Q N c ' E C 3 E .. 6 C
' S ' Z ` a ' w ° Z E° o E° o ' A
.'Ti 5 ‘ c oo , `^ U O U O N
rn • E • U U
U m v m E U c0
0. c E U v, a .E E v.
0 Q c� C 5 - Q N 'c�, - E -
O
0 >. G L >. U U . 0 T U U
to
• ='� E N L
$ '° d 3 0 - 3 0 .
_ v. 5 _ w o G 5 w 0_ E
co 0
to
d E O ti u • U O O v m . U O O O E
'J. zn ..] 7.. Cn V� c E .-.) .a :z. L cn C E .7 ...] ."] W
• C y
cli o C o p
N N W N E
o u 'O
.7 .. C .a a
O O. C O W
C s
0 N . _ i N . U
•o = v ... 17 ... .
d o o > 3 >> 0
d N d 'p 0 0 d - 0 O p
R . U . v .0 O m . d . G , R . U . C R
a „ a d a d a to.
d a
L R R en
C
Cr T L o 0 o TN ' C >.N ''-
d 0 o 8 U .- d m o d m
0 E o m 0 s E
_ .c 0 - s
c s v c .• w c ! ao
N u N 3 U 4-1 3 U
.. `
d ` ▪ m d d
N R R N a l o R tee
4i 6 d ` 4i- Cr 4. • 4
d d . . - L E F N iee .� 3 E R
N E E to
z Q z ¢ .. y D O W . z Q O o 0 0 W
-...• z G z e: o U d •C Z 0 tee -- U
6' .U. U . O Q' .., U p.,
CO O N bO C O N ell C
O Y 0 d 0 O 1 A 0
O 0 L O t 0 t
N Ew • - N Ew
O
O
O
,_, 0
ae+ N r t
m Q Q n' O ¢ m a
• a) • z z • E o z 0 z
o ° o a c
.42 9 6
> d
cn
W W ....
D d '. O y d .-. .-.
R C L ' N e y 0 V] v1 yj L
N U O ttl ~ O O p -p .. at d N h m
W
U 0 Cl. b U CL w m .� ,--.. O '
� d 'O 4 � d = ' C O ` .E N V ? d m G
i n d W � N W ' ,--i tee d j d O> 0 ,>. ' 0 "et To - e m E .= fl. . C 3 U U
con
E
• C Y O d . O U L. W • 3 0 O = d G d 0
E m Ica w 3 c. `. To E no? W.1 E E boo
- 3 cd E d c, : ° - m 5 . E o ° U m
.. d q. E `. ,E E cee
'" te r ¢ ... �j
• m 7 ..0 CA 1--
h
m
tie t c
• .-• d .1a• .• 3 d . o
d ° to Lo `� to E N E a
^ M U
y H 0
d
O G G
c c c
m c o m 0 o w 0 o
0.
c c • E
0 a 2 a 0 0 g a
m d 0 0 m ❑ iee
▪ e:4 w X cC O w t rC 0 w
E 0 0 ' 0
' .: "' - ci . " 1-1 - U S CI 3 • ~J W 3
a cG 0 0 0. cG 0 c 0 d 0 2 c °
o 1 -o
U P. U o
U U _ . U w
o 0' m °
1.• m
N N . 6i N r 2 ,
as 0 U . id 0 0 9 3 3
u u L. > u u L. > d
V] a Vi •O n. C 3 V1 •O a G
C G V R .. O G E v N O
u 7
Cie le c N C N 0 V
ea GI. O N a LI
eu N tC m . d A
t O m g m o
E o$ E o o
v w w N a> w a
N N W L 0 N 1 ' . " N
V] Q V Q = ei O V Q R 3 R O
z z g o o .. z o o" `
O O tl3% 0 GO id
O�� ] � �� 5 sni c21o c -0
g C E
O .. U OU N .. O
CI U
o y"
Or M o
y c ii c0
E 45 ° w � d d aO o '9 Q Q
t Z Z 0 9 z o z
c 0.Toa o a o
0
^ .O N
> w
w o
« a te . O . 5 J j Cl. .d C ti G Mt 0 C > ' y 9 . III 3 w o
n U O id
— 7-6. 3Qa � 7, Q.. 2 >
, yea ❑ 4 n ' ^
`o m o m w .n ` Upp M S a o a- E o rn > ` o U ri 1- X ere .
o a o m o 0, 9 '� s_ e m . n o d d : c i E do az • Q.
° A w E E 3 mC E o E ❑
^ u b �O R E 7 " g R -r O O N U [�
CL 0 U N V t et
a N
O ,�
C. 'O .. a U G 3
IA .. v °' = b o o v w •o '�bo v m 3 a'"i .�,E
° o — o U a
O T T
T m
5 N R
A .0 w w
w v .1
A • "0 m y d 5 9
[
LI N m Q 7 ` 0 0 " A o
y
p m 9 X 'fl A C
O '0 m 0 m - O 0 - c ` � a`a
t .0 . k U k a U E a — o 0 .
E v 0. :a W— ."- a
ea d Q. @;? ° u o'
I. • u 3 o m w 3 c 0 v w , ❑ u u .... o ce
E
O e C
o — 'C y o
U U ta U i
o eo
o o oov o o2 , a'
N N C0 (-4 X
o
U L L� .0 N N na
p q .L' ii
c a _c ; 3 m TO 2 3
O d 0 U 0
c Z C ... 0 A c Z - 9 C
Ca a � d _ c., O .O. d 0 0 i .o
0 0 N 6 0 N o •
t 6 —
O m O O
N 5 O .4
5 0 E `° 0 0 E
E
v m o v A ` o CO v v Ca
N N F - CJ p N ` p .Y
V1 Q y ¢ Q [C N O 4�. r Q Q m v^ .3 N ca
I z .E Z Z ° 7 la ' Z Z ° 9 '
a a a ° S= a °, A
Q U
O U cr y O
o N y O N N
o C C
Q T N O 0 OO' 0
.- y CS 0
4 9 Q Q G p Q cd Q
N
cc w d m u ° '.Z 2 c v y u: Z q Z
V V.
C. A P. O ° Q O• O o. 0
O 9 0 ..
tu 0 7 - n t 7 7
o
O
0
_ w G
v > c -v`.t .7L i;; 3 gl' .. v; 3 — c
NI l x j N T 3 N • i .-. y > h 7
S F La , L • .E — •N y _ y _ y J]
y .O q O t A VO > W O y aO eC _ O U td U .0 0 7
c4 5 a Q L 9 Q t...• 7 7 7 v d u. 7 �.. 6 y C q y O
• V. 0 9 W L O E < . . O E O Vl q O Vl O -
O U 3 0 y.. O 0 = N O 0 9 .s- 7 Vl 9 t
o E "- CI 0 U o 'r'n
e U ' .n 0 .- e c
U c E '= c v
W r -' w [i. 00 E `� y a c ° m E U $ 'S
-I
o 7 'a ... " 7 ._ 3 .� -� T 9 CS 0
c° " Y E ti o E N E puo o E
U
s T '
y d N d w N m 'y et Ire 4 N E ta N E 0
x` x x co o00a
N („)
O O T O T vll
T e➢ T Ty '�
7 � [C 6. g v' l ` o U J '� c., O ct
C . m m 9 C 2 c !
c O� C '� 2
a ` v y v F V y a ` N ' A cc A y - 0 v
'fl E S y Y t 7 G Q 7 U X v '� ao '> d d m O ` r o v E v 5 8 .o t. t. x E ; e ' E = E • 0 E m = v v v .". E m e ° 9 6. E v ° -' . ° 0 u
Y 3 % 4�`-. 7 ' E L N ° ' q .k y., 4 y U 0 E O C O 0- , v , • Cr
099 i O I O a 0. 3 o a f O a a 0'0 TI U OS U20 .-.
7 . e
a o a'C o
0 .0
0 £ 0 7 Cg rl Cg
0
o o q m o m
o o 1 0 1
N N .... z N C
.s D; Ta
_ „ a
w
.O aa-1 C J . 0 u r= N
O N a y m Y
O C _ O c
a .- w O O C C a 0
a
i L - L E •
. 0 v y 000 N N _o Y O c -o YO
o 'co Y L71 m ° fO m
a DO J u C C V . Y
-c Y_ N E O V 00 m N a C
C E m m a a a a
o a ?' O OD 0 0 E
0
M 0 O a a •N 0 N C - O
U
� m G E L Y Y E a, c
E m 2
C L 00 N h 0 U J a 0 c
O t0 :a+ Y u C _ > C is
- E O a 0 C a '� +-' 0
a m E > ' v. 0 L a c
v. c ° c b ° >o ° O E O
a a a L a a
3 a w m a n m C (0 0
in O "O T . N N —
u Y 4' C ° u o 61 o 3 oon d
0
a
v °- E m u Y a ° d > > .c o v
m c o E '� m a a n a
C o a E c > >@ s O ° O w
= p w a O a Y a Y
a E _ ' c v N in ' u
u E v o a a c - o a o
c O a c
c x m o` u a '_ ° el E n v f a c
.0 N R 6- 0 N O0 a a C L O
N m a a> u H F- c V a ro Y w
Vf 0) N a O - & a W m a _ H 3 L
a in E m Y >, > a 2 a m E Y 4-.. Y v o i d E u '" n =' > E C O -c 0 a c J u 0
_ a D c -o m m v `a E
a s u a ' a c 3 `m .o O0
o _ ° .' ai E v O O v v L . 3 0 a) 3 " ' °- o
O a C 00 O a U C :I-. _ to a U a a > E O 0D
E o a o c o n c a> a 3 m m
O 3 "o a s rt N DD > N m 0 N 4 cc
a '6 C '� C O
> a« E E Y o p v ` n 0 c u c c m > '7 J
u_i C . Y
'O o o a) in _ > m U' a v o
. m E O "O J N d o R O c
C m _c"....
O0 > vi ° N 0 .0 L al
op c " - Y oa a a O Y "O O C - 0 C 0 ° 0.
E . n c c ` 0 c — O a) m C D m c a ) t _ c m (5 - v 3
C m a a a N w a C o 'O .n m •n o0 u 3
O N �'
a s a 00 00 m m O 2 a s N « Y-a m .n L> u
"O L C C Y a a C p L J O 9 0 3 c U a O t L to to
m w °° E 3 3 m r O c - a � E c _ m E c -o E o' c a
Y 0./ m VI N a — " C m O W -0 E Y m ° Y u N ° u a Ta
Ln M O OD OC 17 a _ T a y C O t C C a LL 'O z U a u t j -O ' N Y
OD ' > O a m Lo 7
a CO- O a C a . = a N d a O 00 A W- Tv O
C c ` m >. > ° E o E 2 6 .J c a u N N E C c J E m c E E m d
v c C G a v a 00 m Cr m O in t m ' O a v O N 00 ° .- O `l m
E O O w 4- t v , 00 z = o O u o a VI
z l7 u C a in w 00_0
O m c 0 C
—y 00 N 00 0
OZ V 00 0 00 c 00 N 00
0 a 2 a = a v z c z CC m °C
a
OD E c E a E - ° ' E E E
Y VI 3 N 07 m V1 3 V I a o J
to 00 J 00, 'O 00 C 00 00 0D
W 0 O O a 0 a 0 m a O C a 0
` m i0 w m m m m m
O w O w O Q :C O u r= O 2 w O
4- C 2 a) c 2 Y c 2 a c. g aL+ C 2
3 o 10 0 0 0 b 0 7n o io o E o in o 3 0 L.0 0
0 (NI IN r4 0 .-1 o o N 0 O E 0 0 0 0 0 ,-1 u o 0 0 ¢ 0 0 o p o 0 0 u ° 0 0 0 l7 0 o 0
Exhibit E: The Limits of Carrying Capacity
From Cargo Ships to Consensus Building
The phrase that planners know today — "carrying capacity" — originally described the amount of
cargo that could be safely transported on a ship in the 19 century. It was primarily a
mathematical exercise.
Today, a cattle ranch might have a carrying capacity of 2,000 AU (Animal Units), based on how
many cattle can be sustained without eroding and damaging the grasslands. Similar models
determine whether deer and elk are so numerous as to be damaging ecosystems, and should be
culled through hunting.
In the 1970s, the planning profession began exploring other uses for carrying capacity, such as
establishing finite limits to growth. "For many years ... a carrying capacity study has intrigued
elected and appointed officials," wrote Aspen- Pitkin County Planner Alan Richman in 1992.
"This level of interest was also expressed during community meetings and it was determined the
concept should be fully examined..."
However, the planning profession (including Richman) soon encountered a myriad of problems.
If grasslands on a ranch reflected the infrastructure needed to sustain cattle, then water systems,
sewer systems and roads are some of the basic infrastructure elements that are needed to sustain
people.
The difference is that municipal infrastructure can almost always be improved and expanded
with the right engineering and enough funding — and can accommodate more and more people.
Even if one adds air quality as a basic human need, there are numerous ways to improve local air
quality without limiting human population (a dramatically improved transit system, for
example). Similarly, if affordable housing is a required infrastructure, there are usually ways to
provide more.
There are also legal issues: While a municipality can refuse to extend water lines beyond its
borders, it can't refuse to expand a water plant in an effort to limit growth. A central function of
local government is public safety, which means clean water, sanitation etc.
In addition, almost every piece of private property has at least some level of development rights.
Zoning can limit size, use and prescribe the location of a structure — but without compensation, at
least some development is a legal right. Therefore, when a peak population cap is reached, there
is no legally enforceable way to "close the gate."
Finally, establishing a population cap can provide a false sense of control that might distract us
from exploring realistic and effective tools that can help shape the future. Here are just a few
examples of what real zoning tools can do:
• Establish new setbacks from rivers and trails.
• Control the location/size of homes in environmentally sensitive /scenic areas.
• Ensure that new growth downtown is respectful of iconic buildings.
• Protect mountain/open space views.
• Require full housing mitigation to ease pressure on roads.
• Mitigate transportation impacts in any number of ways.
• Establish transitional densities /massing in the West of Castle Creek Corridor.
The Limits to Growth issue paper, contained in the appendix of the 1993 AACP, came to these
very same conclusions. The issue paper said that a "carrying capacity analysis is not the
appropriate technique to place real limits to growth in the Aspen Area."
In 1993, Aspen area planners focused instead on the ramifications of estimated build -out, based
on zoning at the time. They also focused on the Balanced Growth issue paper, which examined
any number of demographic trends, including the ratio of residential units occupied by
permanent residents versus tourists.
During the current AACP process, staff generated a similar study in the form of a Population
Segment Chart, tracking everything from commuter trends; the number of visitors staying in
lodging versus 2 " homes; the number of residents in free market housing versus affordable
housing.
The 2011 AACP calls for further research on the various impacts that estimated build -out could
have, from job generation to traffic congestion. Estimating and understanding those impacts will
help the community make critical decisions during the life of this plan.
Taking the carrying capacity concept to a broader level, many resorts have debated the issue first
raised in one of Aesop's Fables, called: "Killing the goose that laid the golden eggs." (The
subsequent English idiom means taking short- sighted actions that destroys the profitability of an
asset.) For the Aspen Area, the question might be: At what point does a resort erode its own
attractiveness by over - development or over - population?
This is not exactly a technical question.
"From a social perspective, carrying capacity refers to a destination's ability to absorb tourism
without unacceptable negative effects," according to Global Tourism, by William F. Theobald,
published in 2005. "Levels at which inappropriate impacts occur are dependent on values
determined by the community ... Identifying these values in a tourism destination requires
consensus building amongst community stakeholders."
Statistics can help tell us how we got to this point, and they can even project some of the impacts
of growth as we continue toward full build -out. But they can't tell us where we want to go as a
community.
It's through an institutionalized process of dialogue, compromises and value resolution that a
shared vision can be developed about how to balance future growth. There is no magic number
... we can only do our best to describe the desired conditions of our future community, and
implement zoning that helps achieve our goals.