HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20111205 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
Chris Hendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2011
MEETING DATE: December 5, 2011, 5pm, Council Chambers
December 6, 2011, 4:30pm, Council Chambers
RE: Review of 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan - Housing and
Managing Growth for Community and Economic
Sustainability
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is requested at this time. These are the final two work
sessions to review the 2011 AACP before Council public hearings and adoption. The meeting on
Monday, Dec 5th will focus on the Housing chapter, and the Managing Growth for Community
& Economic Sustainability chapter if time allows. The meeting on Tuesday, Dec 6th will focus
on the Managing Growth for Community and Economic Sustainability chapter.
REVIEW OF AACP CHAPTERS: Each chapter review is organized in the following format:
1. Overview of the chapter's main concepts and policy direction.
2. Review the evolution of the chapter's major policies and themes over the past three years.
3. Highlight changes the P &Zs have made to the chapter since Council received the August
15` draft.
4. Staff recommendation on changes to the chapter. Each chapter will be attached to the
work session memo and staff changes will be incorporated into them using track changes.
Housing:
1. The Housing chapter focuses on the importance of Community Workforce Housing (CWH)
to ensure a strong and diverse year -round community. The AACP uses the term "Community
Workforce Housing" in place of affordable housing, deed - restricted housing, or workforce
housing. This change was made to reflect the fact that housing serves both our workforce and
our community in general. The policies are consistent with the 2000 AACP, and includes a
number of references and direct quotes from that plan.
2. This chapter has remained consistent throughout the P &Z's review. There were some
changes in language related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), outlined in Table 1 on
page 2.
3. The P &Zs made a few minor changes to this chapter after the August 15 draft. These
changes were made to clarify the document and were not substantive.
Page 1 of 12
4. Staff from APCHA and the City have a number of comments on this chapter. There were
some concerns expressed regarding some of the policies as they relate to ADUs and Buy -
downs, which are outlined below.
Retirees in Housing: The chapter states that we need to prepare for the growing trend of
retirees in CWH (Program Improvements Policy II.2). Some city staff expressed concern
that this policy may result in a shift in focus in the housing program away from housing
employees to housing retirees. The intention of the language is to recognize the growing
trend of retirees in housing units and to ensure that in the future the community explores how
to address the trend. City Council may want to consider language changes given the
questions raised by city staff.
Buy- downs: APCHA staff expressed concerns regarding how buy -downs are addressed in
the plan. The P &Z draft includes a policy (Program Improvements Policy IL5) that states we
should "redefine and improve our buy -down policy of re -using existing housing inventory."
APCHA staff has expressed concerns that a buy -down policy is not feasible because of the
high cost of free - market units in our community. Planning staff is supportive of the P &Z's
language because it calls for a thorough study and evaluation of buy -downs as well as for the
creation of a formal policy related to buy - downs. The Implementation Steps outline a
number of steps that could be used to evaluate the option and create a formal policy. The
intent of the policy is to "finally determine if the community is willing to pay the price for
providing long -term CWH by converting existing free - market homes, and/or CWH, rather
than building new development." (Housing chapter, pg 20) Staff believes this is a
responsible approach.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The P &Z draft includes a policy (Program
Improvements Policy 11.6) that calls for eliminating the ADU program unless mandatory
occupancy is required.
Table 1: Accessory Dwelling Units
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution of Increase the rate of Same as Sept 2010 Eliminate the
draft policy occupancy for existing Accessory
language Accessory Dwelling Dwelling Unit
Units and Caretaker (ADU) program,
Dwelling Units and unless mandatory
ensure new ADUs and occupancy is
CDUs are occupied by required.
local working residents. (Proposed Code
Amendment)
APCHA staff has expressed support for eliminating the ADU program, possibly by allowing
current ADU owners to "buy out their ADU, with the proceeds going into the housing fund.
Table 1, above, outlines the evolution of language changes related to ADUs. Planning Staff
Page 2 of 12
recommends two new policies, combining elements from the September 2010 and November
2011 drafts. The first policy would remain in the housing chapter, and the second policy
would be moved to the "Mitigating Impacts" policy section in the Managing Growth for
Community & Economic Sustainability chapter.
1) Increase the rate of occupancy for existing Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker
Dwelling Units.
2) Evaluate the ADU, Cash in Lieu and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
program in terms of providing effective housing mitigation, and consider program
changes based on the findings.
Staff supports a survey on the current occupancy rate of ADUs. A 15- year -old study that
found a 30% occupancy rate is still quoted today. Regardless of the future direction of the
ADU program, updated occupancy information would be helpful.
Staff is open to the possibility of eliminating the ADU program, as well as APCHA's
suggested "buy out" option, especially in light of the new mitigation option represented by
the new Affordable Housing Certificate program which reflects a fundamentally better
housing mitigation method compared to the voluntarily rented ADU. However, staff believes
an evaluation of the existing program is an important first step.
Staff has completed a white paper on the subject, which outlines the history of the program,
and is intended to assist Council in evaluating the effectiveness of the ADU, Cash in Lieu
and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit programs. This is attached as Exhibit D.
Location of Housing: Land Use and Zoning Policy IV.2 states that all CWH should be
located within the Urban Growth Boundary. This is a policy issue that has been discussed in
the community for a number of years. In the 2007 Housing Summit, there was direction to
pursue down- valley housing opportunities. If this is the direction City Council wishes, the
policy could be changed to state "CWH should be located in the Aspen Area UGB whenever
possible" or "CWH should be located within community UGBs, including Aspen and
Basalt." Planning staff is supportive of the current P &Z language and recommends it remain
unchanged, especially as it relates to housing provided as mitigation.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability:
1. The Managing Growth for Community and Economic Sustainability chapter focuses on
supporting a healthy year -round community and a vibrant resort economy. The chapter
combines managing growth and economic considerations because of the close inter-
relatedness of the two topics. The chapter addresses development in the residential,
commercial, lodging, and public /non - profit sectors, as well as mitigation of various
development impacts. The chapter includes a policy section related to the land use review
process and attempts to ensure clarity and consistency in the land use review process.
2. This chapter has evolved throughout the P &Z review. There are a number of specific policies
that was significantly changed during the review, including mitigation, pacing construction,
Page 3 of 12
and house size. The evolution of various policies are outlined below. In addition, the P &Zs
added new sections related to the Urban Growth Boundary and Mitigation, and added a
definition for Mass & Scale.
Table 2: Economic Sustainability
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Maintain and Maintain and I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure
of draft improve the improve the the long -term viability and stability of our
policy Aspen Area's Aspen Area's community and diverse visitor -based economy.
language tourist -based tourist -based
economy. economy. I.2. Ensure there is an on -going economic analysis
of the Aspen Area economy that uses a consistent
metric and provides broad community
understanding of the state of the economy.
I.3. Explore and evaluate qualitative improvements
to the Aspen area's visitor -based economy, that
address the interests of future generations.
I.4. Identify opportunities to reduce the "boom -
bust" nature of the economy.
I.S. Through good land use planning and sound
decision making, ensure that the ultimate
population density of the Aspen Area does not
degrade the quality of life for residents and the
enjoyment of visitors.
I.6 Establish lower maximum building heights to
maintain Aspen's small town character.
I.7 Our public policies should be informed by
reliable data on population segments and their
impacts.
I.9. Our public policies should be informed by
reliable data on population segments and their
impacts.
Page 4 of 12
Table 3: Size of Homes
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Control the location and Preserve and protect Control the location and
of draft reduce the size of homes in environmentally limit the mass and scale of
policy order to: sensitive and scenic homes, in order to:
language • Protect the natural visual areas by controlling • Protect visual quality of
quality of river and the location and size rivers and mountains
stream corridors and of homes in those • Protect small town
mountainsides; areas. character
• Protect our small town • Reduce environmental
community character degradation
and historical heritage; • Limit energy consumption
• Reduce environmental • Limit burden on public
degradation and protect infrastructure
the quality of our rivers • Reduce job generation
and streams; impacts
• Limit consumption of • Limit zoning variances to
energy and building reduce neighborhood
materials; impacts
• Limit the burden on • Limit site coverage
public infrastructure and
ongoing public operating
costs;
• Reduce short- and long-
term job generation
impacts, such as traffic
congestion and demand
for affordable housing;
and
• Limit zoning variances
to reduce impacts on the
neighborhood and the
community.
Table 4: Lodging Policy
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Maintain and encourage a Replenish declining Replenish the
of draft diverse lodging inventory. lodging base w/ declining lodging
policy emphasis on a base w/ an
language diverse & balanced emphasis on a
inventory balanced inventory,
and diverse price
points.
Page 5 of 12
Table 5: Lodging Design
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Lodging should be New lodging should Zoning and land use
of draft modest in bulk, mass & be compatible and in processes should result in
policy scale, harmony with the lodging development that
language in order to: massing, scale and is compatible and
• Prioritize mountain character of the appropriate within the
views neighborhood. context of the neighbor-
• Protect community hood, in order to:
character • Prioritize mountain
• Limit energy views
consumption • Protect community
• Reduce impacts of job character
generation • Limit energy
• Limit burden on public consumption
infrastructure • Reduce impacts of job
• Protect existing lodges generation
• Create certainty in land • Limit burden on Public
development infrastructure
• Protect existing lodges
• Create certainty in land
development
Table 6: Design of Commercial Buildings
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Ensure that the Ensure that the Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in
of draft City code supports City code (commercial) development that reflects our
policy (commercial) supports architectural heritage in terms of site
language development that innovative coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity
reflects the (commercial) of heights, in order to:
contextual development • Create certainty in land development
architectural that respects our • Prioritize maintaining our mountain views
heritage in terms architectural • Protect our small town community character
of site coverage, heritage in and historical heritage
mass, scale, form terms of site • Limit consumption of energy and building
and a diversity of coverage, mass, materials
heights. scale, form and • Limit the burden on public infrastructure
a diversity of and ongoing public operating costs, and
heights. • Reduce short- and long -term job generation
impacts, such as traffic congestion and
demand for Community Workforce Housing
Page 6 of 12
Table 7: Mitigation of Community Impacts
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution All development Ensure that new residential VII.1. Study and quantify all
of draft should provide development and impacts that are directly
policy housing to redevelopment mitigates all related to all types of
language accommodate reasonable, directly - related development.
100% of its housing impacts. (See Colorado
employees. Revised Statutes 29 -20- VII.2. Ensure that new
104.5) development and
redevelopment mitigates all
Ensure that impact fees fully reasonable, directly - related
offset the associated costs impacts.
of development on the
community. VII.3. Allow abatements in
mitigation for certain types of
All development should provide development that provide
housing to accommodate 100% significant community benefits
of the employees it generates. and are in the public interest.
Table 8: Pace of Construction
Draft: September 2010 March 2011 November 2011
Evolution Establish a Explore better methods Develop better
of draft construction pacing to manage adverse methods to manage
policy system that respects the construction impacts, adverse construction
language quiet enjoyment of our including a impacts, including a
community and construction pacing construction pacing
neighborhoods. system that respects the system that respects
quiet enjoyment of our the quiet enjoyment of
community and our community and
neighborhoods. neighborhoods.
•
3. The P &Zs have made a number of changes since Council received the August 15` draft.
These include relocating some policies to a new policy section called "Urban Growth
Boundary." In addition, the P &Zs made significant changes to the "What's Changed Since
2000" section related to infill code changes. The P &Zs refined and clarified language related
to population caps in the "What's New in the 2011 AACP" section. A new Policy regarding
lowering building heights has been added (Achieving Community & Economic Sustainability
Policy 1.6).
4. Staff has a number of proposed changes to the chapter. Language changes related to specific
policy sections are outlined below. In addition, staff recommends returning to language in the
March 2011 draft for the "What's Changed Since 2000" section. Staff believes the current
language is confusing and has a slightly negative tone. The draft chapter has been redlined to
reflect this change. In addition, public feedback figures that are relevant to some of the
policies outlined below have been included in Exhibit C.
Page 7 of 12
Economic Sustainability: There were a number of changes throughout the P &Z review
process related to Economic Sustainability. Table 2, above outlines the evolution of this
policy area. Relevant public feedback on this topic is located in Exhibit C.
Staff recommends adding the policy from the September and March drafts to the document,
as this is a general policy that provides general direction for this policy area. Staff
recommends some changes to the language in the November draft, including moving some of
the policies to Implementation Steps. Staff supports the following Policies:
• Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist - based economy. (From the Sept 2010 and
March 2011 draft)
• Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure the long term viability and stability of our
community and diverse visitor -based economy. (From Nov 2011 draft)
• Explore and evaluate qualitative improvements to the Aspen area's visitor -based
economy that address the interests offuture generations. (From Nov 2011 draft)
• Explore changes to all dimensional requirements in order to maintain Aspen's small
town character. (Edited from Nov 2011 draft)
• Our public policies should be informed by reliable data on population segments and their
impacts. (From Nov 2011 draft)
Staff recommends that Policy I.4, "Identify opportunities to reduce the "boom- bust" nature of
the economy." become an Implementation Step under Policy I.1.
Staff recommends that Policy 1.3, "Ensure there is ongoing economic analysis of the Aspen
Area economy that uses a consistent metric and provides broad community understanding of
the economy" become an Implementation Step under Policy I.1.
Staff recommends eliminating Policy I.5, "Through good land use planning and sound
decision making, ensure that the ultimate population of the Aspen Area does not degrade the
quality of life for residents and the enjoyment of visitors." because it is too vague to provide
helpful direction. Staff is unsure how this would be implemented.
Staff suggests Council consider amending Policy 1.8, "Establish lower maximum building
heights to maintain Aspen's small town character." Staff believes that direction on
dimensional limits, including heights, should grow out of a community dialogue called for in
other policies, including Lodging Sector policy IV.4 and Commercial Sector policy V.3.
Staff supports Implementation Steps IV.4.a and V.3.a, which encourage the use of Sketch -Up
technology to examine the implications of the Commercial and Lodging Design Guidelines.
There was no public feedback related to maximum heights. Staff believes height should be
included as part of future code amendment discussions related to the design of development.
Staff is not philosophically opposed to lower maximum heights, but staff believes it should
Page 8 of 12
be comprehensively examined in the context of other dimensional requirements, including
floor area, open space, site coverage, etc. Potential revised language could be: "Explore
changes to all dimensional requirements in order to maintain Aspen's small town character."
Many of the existing Implementation Steps appropriately focus on steps that local
government can take to improve the long -term sustainability of the local economy. Focusing
on realistic parameters of action is important, including the type and style of special events,
which helps to define and reinforce Aspen's character and identity. Other Implementation
Steps include a welcoming and accessible Visitor's Center, adequate way - finding and
aesthetically pleasing and multi - functional public spaces.
It is important to recognize that there are limits to what local government can do regarding
the strength or weakness of the local economy. "The Aspen Economy" white paper clearly
shows that the Aspen Area thrives when the national economy is strong, and suffers when the
national economy is slumping.
House Size: There were a number of changes throughout the P &Z review process related to
house size. Table 3, above outlines the evolution of this policy. Relevant public feedback on
this topic is located in Exhibit C.
Staff supports returning to the March 2011 policy language. The redlined draft has been
updated to reflect this change.
The P &Zs supported an across - the -board approach to reducing house size in the September
2010 draft. After hearing direction from Council and Commissioners in January 2011, and
after similar extensive public feedback, the P &Zs shifted their approach. The March draft
focused on the location and size of homes only in scenic and environmentally sensitive areas.
However, the current draft reflects a return to the September 2010 policy.
The March draft is consistent with long -held community values of preserving scenic and
visual quality, including mountainsides and natural riparian areas. While extensive and
protective regulations were adopted in the 1970s, staff recognizes deficiencies in the code,
and believes significant improvements could be made.
Overall, the focus on protecting "natural capital" has been a fundamental aesthetic and
economic benefit to the area. The March draft ties new regulation to an environmental
purpose, as well as retaining the remaining scenic qualities of the area. The Implementation
Steps in the current draft appropriately reflect a focus on environmentally sensitive and
scenic areas.
Lodging Policy: The chapter states that we need to replenish our declining lodging base,
with an emphasis on price - points (Lodging Sector Policy IV.2). Table 4, above outlines the
evolution of this policy.
Staff supports the March 2011 version of the policy, and the document has been redlined to
reflect this change. Staff is concerned about the reference to "price- points" in the current
Page 9 of 12
draft, as staff does not believe the public sector should involve itself in attempting to
establish lodging rates. Past discussions have typically encouraged a wide range of product
types in order to achieve a diverse and balanced inventory. Considerations can include room
size, flexibility of units, overall size of lodge, location, historic integrity etc.
Lodging Design: The chapter addresses how new lodging should be designed (Lodging
Sector Policy IV.4). This language has evolved throughout the process. Table 5, above
outlines the evolution of this policy.
Staff suggests Council consider whether they are comfortable with the bullet points in the
November 2011 draft. Staff has some concern that the bullets are all limiting and do not
describe a vision for new lodging development.
Design of Commercial Buildings: The chapter addresses how new lodging should be
designed (Lodging Sector Policy IV.4). This language has evolved throughout the process,
and has been the subject of significant community discussion. Table 6, above outlines the
evolution of this policy. Relevant public feedback on this topic is located in Exhibit C.
Staff suggests Council consider whether they are comfortable with the bullet points in the
November 2011 draft. Staff has some concern that the bullets are all limiting and do not
describe a vision for new commercial development. The document has been redlined to
return to the March 2011 draft, which staff believes is a clearer and more direct policy and is
a better reflection of the community feedback.
Mitigation: The chapter includes a section related to mitigation. The Policy Section, titled
"Mitigating Community Impacts" is intended to address all types of mitigation, including
affordable housing mitigation. The language related to mitigation has evolved throughout
the process, and has been the subject of significant community discussion. Table 7, above
outlines the evolution of this policy. Relevant public feedback on this topic is located in
Exhibit C.
Staff supports the changes made by the P &Z in the November draft. Staff believes is reflects
the community feedback throughout the public process, and establishes a reasonable and
thorough method for updating our mitigation standards. Policy VI.1 calls for a re- evaluation
of community impacts, which staff believes is an important first step in updating and refining
mitigation requirements.
Staff also believes Policy VI.2 calling for mitigation of "reasonable, directly related impacts"
is a good starting point for any future discussion on appropriate rates of mitigation. In the
interest of consistency, staff suggests a minor change to the Philosophy section of the
chapter, which is included in the redlines: The first sentence of paragraph four on page 5,
under "Mitigating Impacts on Community Infrastructure" should read: " ... private sector
development should not place a financial burden on the tax - paying public, and should
mitigate for all reasonable, directly related impacts."
Page 10 of 12
Finally, Policy VI.3 is consistent with current practices, and recognizes that some
development creates community benefits that might not be created unless some tradeoffs in
mitigation are made.
Pace of Construction: The "Mitigating Impacts" policy section includes a policy related to
managing construction impacts. The current language evolved from earlier policy statements
that called for a construction pacing system. Table 8, above outlines the evolution of this
policy. Relevant public feedback on this topic is located in Exhibit C.
Staff supports the current draft, with minor changes. Staff suggests two separate policies:
I) Develop better methods to manage adverse construction impacts.
2) Explore a construction pacing system.
Although significant improvements were made in managing construction impacts from 2006-
2008, learning from the past and making continual improvements is vital to the health of the
community and resort.
An annual construction pacing system has been a stated goal since at least 1977, and has
been explored several times, most recently in 2006/07. While it has been a challenging
subject, further research and public discussion could result in effective new concepts.
PUDs & COWOPs: The P &Zs included a number of Policies and Implementation Steps
regarding the PUD and COWOP processes. In general, staff believes the Policies outline
worthwhile goals related to making the land use review process clearer and fairer. Review
Process Policy VIII.1 calls for "Restor(ing) public confidence in the development process."
Staff believes this is an important goal.
However, staff recommends amending or eliminating a number of Implementation Steps.
Implementation Step VIII.1.e under this policy calls for amending the PUD process so
significantly as to render it pointless. Basic zoning is important, but it is a blunt tool. PUDs,
COWOPs, and SPAs provide added flexibility that staff believes is important. Staff supports
exploring amendments to these processes, including a maximum height for the PUD process.
Staff does not support eliminating the COWOP process and believes the current liaison role
of the P &Z is effective.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: Staff is currently working on a layman's guide to the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) since its inception in 1977, including historical
themes, trends and context. Staff has completed papers are on lodging, the commercial sector
and mitigation for residential -only zone districts (including the history of the ADU). Staff
thought it may be helpful to include this optional reading in the packet, as they provide some
context for Council's review of the new AACP.
Page 11 of 12
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Housing Chapter - proposed staff changes
Exhibit B: Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Chapter - proposed
staff changes
Exhibit C: Relevant Public Feedback
Exhibit D: White Paper on ADUs
Exhibit E: White Paper on Lodging
Exhibit F: White Paper on Commercial Sector
Page 12 of 12
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Vision
We believe that a strong and diverse year -round community and a
-• ri viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for
el „' "` -t . the s ustainability of the Aspen Area community.
:
Philosophy
_. . , ._ ". We are committed to providing Community Workforce Housing (CWH)
` t • - because it supports:
• A stable community that is invested in the present and future of
► -. '�.�•`"' the Aspen Area
• A reliable workforce, also resulting in greater economic
i - sustainability
.,...- • Opportunities for people to live in close proximity to where they
work
• A reduction in adverse transportation impacts
• Improved environmental sustainability
• A reduction in downvalley growth pressures
al
• Increased citizen participation in civic affairs, non -profit activities
and recreation programs
?`”, • A better visitor experience, including trran appreciation of our
lc .. genuine, lights -on community, and
• A healthy mix of people, including singles, families and seniors.
. It's important to note that this plan refers to Community Workforce
Housing (CWH), rather than employee housing or affordable housing.
Lq) This is an effort to acknowledge that housing is intended both to
encourage a local workforce and to build a sense of community.
Although the name has changed, many of the philosophical statements
= . -
ti -+1,: in the 2000 AACP still ring true today:
"We believe it is important for Aspen to maintain a sense of
O if I opportunity and hope (not a guarantee) for our workforce to
` become vested members of the community. .. (We seek) to
* preserve and enhance those qualities that has made Aspen a
special place by investing in our most valuable asset - people."
"Our housing policy should bolster our economic and social
diversity, reinforce variety, and enhance our sense of community
by integrating affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A
healthy social balance includes all income ranges and types of
14
people. Each project should endeavor to further that mix and to
i avoid segregation of economic and social classes ... "
Living in Community Workforce Housing is not a right or a guarantee,
' but a privilege, carrying with it responsibilities to future generations,
f � such as long -term maintenance and regulatory compliance.
' Ire `=
The creation of Community Workforce Housing (CWH) is the
responsibility of our entire community, not just government. We
1 ^ should continue to explore methods that spread accountability and
' . responsibility for CWH to the private sector, local taxing districts and
{{ - (' others.
p ,_ i We continue to support the following statements from the 1993
t: ' • and 2000 AACP: "Housing should be compatible with the scale and
f , r �•- .... character of the community and should emphasize quality construction
- _.,. and design even if that emphasis increases (initial) costs and lessens
., "'-"ii production, [within reason]. "At the same time, new construction
should emphasize the use of durable and renewable materials in order
to improve our environmental stewardship.
1 R Housina
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
We should demonstrate our commitment to future generations by
providing educational outreach regarding Tong -term maintenance and Definitions
regulatory compliance, by adopting a strategic plan for long -term
maintenance of publicly -owned rental properties, and for handling Community Workforce
"unique" properties, such as those with a sunset on deed restrictions. Housing (CWH): Housing
At the same time, we need a new focus on the issues surrounding created to support a strong
retirement in CWH, as we are on the brink of a rising retiree
year-round community and a
demographic. In addition, we should continue to provide housing that strong workforce. Also known
accommodates the needs of people with disabilities. as deed restricted housing,
The provision of CWH remains important due to several factors, and Affordable Housing.
including the continued conversion of locally -owned homes to second
homes, a trend of a more costly down - valley housing market and the On the Horizon
upcoming trend towards retirement in CWH. With limited vacant land
in the Aspen Area and limited public funds, we cannot build our way As the community continues
out of this challenge. to provide Community
Workforce Housing, it is
Our CWH program is continually encountering new crossroads that important to recognize and
demand creative thinking, understanding and thoughtful action. understand future challenges.
We must continue to track
changes to the Colorado
Common Interest Ownership
What's Changed Since 2000 Act ( CCIOA) and update our
housing policies on a timely
Since the adoption of the 2000 AACP, a total of 652 new community basis.
workforce housing units have been constructed, with another 181 APCHA should vigorously
approved but not yet built. By any measure, these are impressive promote adoption of CCIOA
accomplishments, but various relevant trends have continued to by existing associations, and
challenge the goal of establishing and maintaining a "critical mass" of require new associations to
working residents, as stated in the 2000 AACP. adopt CCIOA.
While the ratio of local workers living in Community Workforce Housing Lending practices are
units increased from 25% to 32% from 2000 to 2008, the ratio of local changing, resulting in new and
workers living in free market homes dropped from 22% to 13 %, the g
potentially difficult financing.
result of continued conversion of locally -owned free market homes to
second homes.
At the same time, the economic boom period of 2004 to 2007 saw a
dramatic increase in the cost of downvalley land and homes, reducing
opportunities for Aspen workers to find free market ownership options
in the valley. While the recession has rolled back prices, this plan must
assume that the economy will experience another period of prosperity
during the life of the plan. In addition, the number of retirees in deed -
restricted housing is estimated to jump from approximately 310 today
to more than 800 in 2021.
The 2007 Housing Summit considered all these factors and more. The
primary outcome of the Summit was to encourage additional "land -
banking," which ultimately resulted in the purchase of the BMC West
property, a parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road and others. The 2008
Affordable Housing Plan evaluated 15 potential sites for community
workforce housing units, identifying a range of up to 685 possible
housing units.
Housing
19
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
What's New in the 2011 AACP
The re -use of philosophical language from past community plans is
due largely to the long -term support in the Aspen Area for Community
Workforce Housing as a critical tool to maintain a strong year -round
community.
Some shifts in policy direction for the 2011 AACP can be attributed to
the long -term growth and maturation of the housing program, bringing
greater awareness of the need for long -term capital reserves and
maintenance for individually -owned and rental properties, as well as
publicly -owned rental properties.
Another difference in the 2011 AACP is the decision not to establish a
specific number of housing units to be developed during the 10 -year
life of the plan. This should not be perceived as a wavering of support
for community workforce housing units. The plan calls for exploring the
potential of a new housing unit goal, but specific research on this topic
was not conducted as part of this update.
This plan focuses on the ongoing challenges of establishing and
maintaining a "critical mass" of working residents. The policies outlined
in the Housing chapter and related housing mitigation policies in the
Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability chapter are intended to
meet these challenges as the community continues to provide CWH.
At the same time, the 2011 AACP calls for further research on the
physical limits to development in the form of ultimate build -out,
projected future impacts related to job generation, demographic
trends, the conversion of local free market homes and other factors.
This kind of statistical analysis will help inform future decision - making
and goal- setting in a more meaningful way.
Instead, tThis plan emphasizes the need to spread accountability
and responsibility for providing community workforce housing units
beyond the City and County governmental structures, and continuing
to pursue CWH projects on available public land through a transparent
and accountable public process.
While past plans have supported "buy-down" alternatives, there has
been little comprehensive effort in this regard. A "buy- down" program
may be an expensive proposition, but this plan calls for exploring it
more thoroughly. The idea is to finally determine if the community is
willing to pay the price for providing long -term CWH by converting
existing free market homes, and/or CWH, rather than building new
development.
Linkages
Housing
is is
4 011 Growth & The creation of Community Workforce Housing can help reduce
Econom pressures on the valley -wide transportation system by providing
housing opportunities for our local workforce in the Aspen Area, while
reducing air quality impacts associated with a commuting workforce.
• CWH is also critical to a viable economy, and helps to ensure a vital,
. demographically diverse year -round community. At the same time,
Communit limited opportunities and funds mean we cannot build our way out
Ch arac t e r of the housing problem, and we recognize that new CWH includes
infrastructure costs ranging from transportation to government
Transportation services, schools and other basic needs. Controlling growth and job
generation can reduce the pressure to provide CWH.
r wn Housing
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Housing Policies Policy
Categories
I. SUSTAINABILITY AND MAINTENANCE
I.1. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should have adequate Collaborative Initiative
capital reserves for major repairs and significant capital projects.
I.2. Deed - restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum Collaborative Initiative, Work
degree possible. Program forAPCHA
I.3. Deed - restricted housing units should be used and maintained for Collaborative Initiative, Work
as long as possible, while considering functionality and obsolescence. Program forAPCHA
I.4. Provide educational opportunities to potential and current
homeowners regarding the rights, obligations and responsibilities of Collaborative Initiative
homeownership.
I.S. Emphasize the use of durable and environmentally responsible Incentive Program, Proposed
materials, while recognizing the realistic lifecycle of the buildings. Code Amendment
II. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. Community Goal
II.2. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be prepared for the Community Goal, Work
growing number of retiring Aspenites. Program forAPCHA
II.3. Employers should participate in the creation of seasonal rental Collaborative Initiative,
housing. Incentive Program
II.4. Employers who provide housing for their workers through Collaborative Initiative,
publicly -owned seasonal rental housing should assume proportionate Incentive Program
responsibility for the maintenance and management of the facility.
II.5. Redefine and improve our buy -down policy of re -using existing Work Program forAPCHA
housing inventory.
II.6. Increase the rate of occupancy for existing and new Accessory Proposed Code Amendment
Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDUs),Climinatc
the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program, unless mandatory
occupancy is rcquircd.
III. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
III.1. Ensure fiscal responsibility regarding the development of Collaborative Initiative
publicly- funded housing.
III.2. Promote broader support and involvement in the creation of Collaborative Initiative,
non - mitigation Community Workforce Housing, including public - private Incentive Program
partnerships.
Housing
7 1
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Housing Policies Policy
Categories
IV. LAND USE & ZONING
IV.1. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be designed for the Incentive Program, Proposed
highest practical energy efficiency and livability. Code Amendment
IV.2. All CWH must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. Proposed Code Amendment
IV.3. Track trends in housing inventory and job generation to better Data Needs
inform public policy discussions.
IV.4. The design of new CWH should optimize density while Proposed Code Amendment
demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale and character of
the neighborhood.
IV.5. The residents of CWH and free - market housing in the same Proposed Code Amendment
neighborhood should be treated fairly, equally and consistently with
regard to any restrictions or conditions on development such as
parking, pet ownership. etc.
V. HOUSING RULES AND REGULATIONS
V.1. The rules, regulations and penalties of Community Workforce Work Program forAPCHA
Housing (CWH) should be clear, understandable and enforceable.
V.2. Ensure effective management of CWH assets. Work Program forAPCHA
Housing
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Aspen Area Housing
History
In the early 1970's, free-
market housing that had
primarily housed local
employees was being
demolished and redeveloped
as second homes. By
1974, the City and County
began addressing this trend
by establishing separate
affordable housing programs
and 14 years later formed
the joint Aspen /Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA).
APCHA is currently funded
through a City of Aspen sales
tax and a Real Estate Transfer
Tax (RETT).
The State enacted legislation
in 2001 granting Housing
Authorizes across the state
specific powers to raise
revenue through sales taxes,
use taxes, an ad valorem
(property) tax, and /or a
development impact fee. To
date, APCHA has not pursued
these revenue sources. The
City of Aspen has a housing
sales tax, and both the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County have
Housing Mitigation fees.
APCHA operates under the 4th
Amended Intergovernmental
Agreement between the
City of Aspen and Pitkin
County. This agreement has
eliminated APCHA's role as an .
active developer of workforce
housing; that role has been
assumed by the City of Aspen.
Currently, APCHA is principally
involved in the qualification,
sales, and enforcement
of the workforce housing
program and is involved in the
oversight of over 2,800 units
of deed - restricted housing.
The APCHA Board of Directors
alone, or in concert with
other entities, suggests new
policy, programmatic changes,
and legislation, or makes
recommendations, as required
by the City, County or State.
Housing
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Hniicinn Implementation Steps
L SUSTAINABILITY AND MAINTENANCE
I.1. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should have adequate capital reserves for major repairs
and significant capital projects. (Collaborative Initiative)
I.1.a Require new CWH to complete a Capital Reserve Study and regular updates. (I - APCHA)
I.1.b Ensure CWH assess adequately for major repairs and reserves based on the study. (I - APCHA)
I.1.c Conduct Capital Reserve Studies of publicly -owned rental inventory and set priorities for maintenance
of existing housing stock. (I - APCHA, City Manager, County Manager)
I.1.d Create a requirement for existing HOAs to prepare Capital Reserve Studies. (I - APCHA)
I.2. All deed - restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum degree possible.
(Collaborative Initiative, Work Program for APCHA)
I.2.a Update and standardize deed restrictions as practically as possible upon re- sales. (I - APCHA)
I.2.b Review seasonal and rental usage of CWH to ensure the policy is being implemented. (I - APCHA)
I.3. All deed - restricted housing units should be used and maintained for as long as possible, while
considering functionality and obsolescence. (Collaborative Initiative, Work Program for APCHA)
I.3.a Conduct a cost /benefit study of housing inventory to determine whether it is more cost effective to
maintain existing housing stock or to rebuild it. (I - APCHA)
I.4. Provide educational opportunities to potential and current homeowners regarding the rights,
obligations, and responsibilities of homeownership. (Collaborative Initiative)
I.4.a Create and implement an education program for buyers and existing owners of CWH that addresses
the issues of funding, buyer's rights and obligations, and homeowner's responsibility to maintain units for
future generations. (LT - APCHA)
I.4.b Create and implement a community education program that outlines the purpose of the CWH program
and the trade -offs made by the community to build CWH. (LT - APCHA)
I.4.c Educate applicants regarding all costs and ongoing expenses related to living in CWH, including taxes,
heating and water rates, snow removal, special assessments, etc. (LT - APCHA)
I.4.d Revise APCHA guidelines to ensure applicants can only purchase units in a category that is within their
financial means. (I - APCHA)
I.4.e Require professional home inspections by CWH home buyers when housing units are purchased. (I
- APCHA)
I.5. Emphasize the use of durable and environmentally responsible materials, while recognizing
the realistic Iifecycle of the buildings. (Incentive Program, Proposed Code Amendment)
I.5.a Educate CWH residents on existing energy efficiency and safety incentives, and create new ones. (I
- APCHA, EH, CI, B)
I.5.b Amend the Housing Guidelines to establish standards for materials, equipment and utility systems
that emphasize durability, environmental stewardship and safety. Allow for amendments to keep pace with
technological improvements. (I - APCHA, P, B, EH)
II. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. (Community Goal)
II.1.a Explore the value of creating a new housing unit goal, similar to goal included in the 2000 AACP. (I
- APCHA, City, County)
Housing - Appendix Anoendix - 35
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
II.1.b Review and revise APCHA Guidelines to reflect current and future category demand using 3 -5 year
projections. (I - APCHA)
II.1.c Create options to provide greater flexibility for movement of existing residents within APCHA
inventory to accommodate shifts in housing needs. (I - APCHA)
II.1.d Review current mix, categories, and incentives to ensure opportunities for a broad spectrum of
workers. (I - APCHA)
II.1.e Study the CWH model used by Aspen Volunteer Fire Department for possible implementation on a
larger scale. (I- APCHA)
II.2. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be prepared for the growing number of retiring
Aspenites. (Community Goal, Work Program for APCHA)
II.2.a Gather data on the current and future trend of retiring Aspenites and analyze the potential impacts
on CWH. Amend the Housing Guidelines to address those impacts. (LT - APCHA)
II.3. Encourage employers to participate in the creation of seasonal rental housing. (Collaborative
Initiative, Incentive Program)
II.3.a Create a working group of interested parties to explore the creation of new seasonal rental housing.
(I - APCHA, Housing Frontiers, City Manager, County Managers, private sector)
II.4. Employers who provide housing for their workers through publicly -owned seasonal rental
housing should assume proportionate responsibility for the maintenance and management of the
facility. (Collaborative Initiative, Incentive Program)
II.4.a Explore methods to place proportionate responsibility on employers for the management and use of
existing seasonal housing. (I - APCHA, City Manager, County Managers, private sector)
II.5. Redefine and improve our buy -down policy of re -using existing housing inventory. (Work
Program for APCHA)
II.5.a Amend the City and County Land Use Codes and Housing Guidelines to clarify the parameters of
buying down a property to address issues such as requirements of condominium declarations, allocation of
assessments, physical condition and long term maintenance. (I - P, APCHA)
II.5.b Explore amending the City and County land use codes to define the parameters of a buy -down
mitigation unit, in other words, whether buy -down applies solely to free market units, or can also occur
within CWH categories. (I - P)
II.5.c Conduct a study to determine the financial feasibility of the public sector engaging in the buy -down of
free - market units compared to constructing new CWH units. (LT - P, APCHA)
II.5.d Explore the creation of a buy -out program. (I - APCHA)
II.5.e Require a Capital Reserve Study, plan and adequate assessments for maintenance and
proportionately- funded reserves when a buy -down or buy -out is being considered. (I - APCHA)
II.6. Increase the rate of occupancy for existing and new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and
Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDUs), - - -
. (Proposed Code Amendments)
II.6.a Increase the rate of occupancy for existing Accessory Dwelling Units & Caretaker Dwelling Units.
Explore incentives and penalties. (I - APCHA)
II.6.b Explore buy -out program for existing ADUs. (I - APCHA)
II.6.c Conduct a study of the ADU and CDU program, including current occupancy rates to determine the
effectiveness of the program. Amend the City and County programs based on the findings of the study. (I
- APCHA, P)
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
III.1. Ensure fiscal responsibility regarding the development of publicly- funded housing.
(Collaborative Initiative)
y A..non.lk , - Housing - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
III.1.a Evaluate current funding sources for sustainability and develop a list of potential funding options. (I
- APCHA, City Manager, County Manager)
III.1.b Explore APCHA's taxing authority as an option to fund CWH. (I - APCHA)
III.1.c Explore the potential to obtain grants from FHA and other entities. (I - APCHA)
III.1.d Update housing cash -in -lieu fees to reflect the total cost of development. (I - APCHA)
III.1.e Establish criteria or attributes that help identify and rank desirable housing locations. (I - APCHA,
City Manager, County Manager)
III.1.f Conduct a cost /benefit analysis in order to prioritize existing publicly -owned property to be
developed for CWH within the UGB. (I - APCHA, City Manager, County Manager)
III.1.g Identify all housing that carries an expiration date on its deed - restrictions, such as Centennial,
Castle Ridge, and evaluate the feasibility of keeping them in the inventory. (I - APCHA, City Manager,
County Manager)
III.1.h Require the City and County engage a local real estate broker, appraiser and inspector as buyer's
agents before the purchase of any real estate. (I - City Manager, County Manager)
IIi.2 Promote broader support and involvement in the creation of non - mitigation Community
Workforce Housing, including public - private partnerships. (Collaborative Initiative, Incentive
Program)
III.2.a Establish a working group of people who represent the City, County, public agencies, and the
private sector in the development of CWH to implement the policy. Explore models of producing CWH units,
including quasi - public housing development corporations. (I - APCHA, Housing Frontiers, City and County
Managers, private sector, taxing districts)
III.2.b Explore the creation of a program where the City or County would provide a tax benefit, payment or
life- estate planning or other financial incentive to a free - market homeowner to include their property in the
City /County's land banking of future CWH. (I - City Manager, County Manager)
III.2.c Explore creating a program for deed restrictions for adefined duration. (I - APCHA)
III.2.d Explore the benefits of expediting specific CWH projects through the development and construction
phase. (I - P, B, APCHA)
I1...1:..atuf� � �F ZONING
IV.1. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be designed for the highest practical energy
efficiency and livability. (Incentive Program, Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.1.a Amend the Housing Guidelines to establish standards for materials, equipment and utility systems
that emphasize durability and environmental stewardship, while keeping pace with technological
improvements. (I - APCHA)
IV.1.b Amend the Housing Guidelines to establish livability standards that promote pride of living in CWH.
These could include soundproofing and storage that meets the needs of a community that enjoys an active,
outdoor lifestyle. (I - APCHA)
IV.2. All CWH must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. (Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.2.a Explore any code amendments required to implement this policy. (I - P)
IV.3. On -site housing mitigation is preferred. (Work Program for Planning & APCHA, Proposed
Amendment)
IV.3.a Amend the City and County codes to include the following prioritization for housing mitigation for all
types of development: on -site, off -site (buy -down, buy -out, and Housing Credits), and cash -in -lieu (I - P)
IV.3.b Explore amendingAd the City and County codes to prohibit the conversion of existing lodge units
to affordable housing. (I - P)
1
Housing - Appendix Annanriiv - '37
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
IV.3.c Update the Housing Guidelines to provide a mechanism to reject mitigation offered by developers
when it does not meet APCHA guidelines /policies. (I - APCHA)
IV.3.d Amend the City and County codes to allow off -site housing only through a special review process. (I
- P)
IV.3.e Amend the City and County codes to require all development that generates jobs within the Aspen
UGB to provide the required mitigation within the UGB. (I - P)
IV.4. Track trends in housing inventory and job generation to better inform public policy
discussions. (Data Needs)
IV.4.a Develop and implement a system to reliably track the gain and Toss in free - market housing
traditionally used by local workers. (I - P, City Manager, County Manager, APCHA) •
IV.4.b Gather information on the existing CWH inventory, include unit type, number of bedrooms, category
and track changes in the inventory. (I - APCHA)
IV.5. The design of new Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should optimize density while
demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale and character of the neighborhood. (Proposed
Code Amendment)
IV.5.a Examine the City and County codes to ensure they support the policy. (I - P)
IV.5.b Amend the code to define "neighborhood." (I - P)
IV.6. Residents of Community Workforce Housing (CWH) and free - market housing in the same
neighborhood are treated fairly, equally, and consistently, with regard to any restrictions or
conditions on development such as parking, pet ownership, etc..- (Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.6.a. During the review of any new CWH development, the prohibitions, constraints, and permissions
generally found in the neighborhood, such as those regarding parking and pets, should be consistently
applied to the proposal. New CWH development must not be the subject of discrimination. (I - P)
V. HOUSING RULES AND REGULATIONS
V.1. The rules, regulations and penalties of Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be clear,
understandable and enforceable. (Work Program for APCHA)
V.1.a Rewrite the Housing Guidelines (APCHA rules, regulations, and penalties) in a clear and concise
format. (LT - APCHA)
V.1.b Review and revise enforcement methods with specific placement of authority, recognizing monetary
resources needed to implement. (I - APCHA)
V.1.c Clarify the roles and authority of APCHA in the City- County Inter - Governmental Agreement (IGA),
and revise as necessary. Review the objectives of the IGA and determine how the IGA should operate.
This should be a meeting that is facilitated by an independent party. (LT - APCHA, City Manager, County
Manager)
V.1.d Amend the Housing Guidelines to require people to sell their free - market home before they are able
to move into CWH. (I - APCHA)
V.2. Ensure effective management of CWH assets. (Work Program for APCHA)
V.2.a Create a formal governance /management agreement between APCHA and individual homeowners
associations. (I - APCHA)
V.2.b Review local, state and federal guidelines and laws related to homeowners associations to ensure
compliance. (I - APCHA)
V.2.c APCHA should vigorously pursue requiring all associations to adopt the Colorado Common Interest
Ownership Act (CCIOA). (I - APCHA)
V.2.d Actively review state law, and lobby when appropriate, regarding the development and funding of
CWH. (LT - APCHA, City Manager, County Manager)
n.,nnrliv - '2 f2 Housing - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11) - W 01 +E.
Vision
We are committed to achieving sustainable land use practices that
U support a healthy year -round community and a thriving, vibrant
visitor -based economy.
L '
Philosophy
tim
0 This community plan recognizes that managing growth and economic
sustainability are closely related. And have therefore beery combined
these topics into one chapter for the first time.
Mr C
e -The Aspen Area has a longrstanding history and strong
ethic of growth management. Beginning in the mid- 1970s, land
use regulations were based on the desire to preserve the natural
0 IIII.1 environment, a socially diverse community, and the unique heritage of
our built environment.
V I Both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have a history of
implementing growth management and other land use tools to
- preserve open space and rural character, encourage a diverse lodging
base, and maintain a critical mass of permanent residents.
0L11' The City and County growth management systems are effective tools
IM c al
that can help the community reach desired goals. Growth within a
community needs to be like that of an individual, with the need to
keep various functions balanced. The economic impact of growth
management and other land use tools have been debated for many
I: years, and should continue to be a focus of discussion and study.
Since the mid 20th Century, Aspen's primary economy has been
II
C3 >4 ra
&I - visitor - based. Scenic views, riparian areas and a pristine natural
environment reflect the Aspen area's basic values. The preservation of
this natural capital has resulted in a highly attractive destination with
a competitive advantage in the resort industry. This has contributed
I: N •la - to substantial economic benefits, as well as continual development
pressure.
C But in many other ways we have fallen short of achieving important l in community goals. In the last 20 years, our economy has been eclipsed
CII 3
3 and surpassed by development- driven industries. Development has
played a positive role in the community, but at times we have seen
growth that is inconsistent with the history, scale, density, and context
in E (1) of our built environment; the social diversity of our residents and
C - '
mi E 1 j I I I i i i 1
._
. o
„,,.,..,_,,..
.,,,,,,,,,,_
(....) i I i II i
r
7 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
visitors; the provision of local- serving business; the outdoor lifestyle;
and small town character. The intensity of construction during booming Definitions
economic periods has made us more aware of the shortcomings of
our existing land use tools. Since the early 1970s, the Aspen area Growth: Any increase in
. has taken the position that managed growth is essential in order to the size or activity of the
maintain quality of life for residents and visitors to the community. community. Growth can be an
We feel that the time is fast approaching where we will be at the increase in population, jobs,
maximum in economy, physical space, and quality of life. infrastructure, demand for
Therefore, one of the broad themes of this plan is to manage future public services or an increase
development so that it contributes to the long -term viability of a in the size or use of buildings.
sustainable, demographically diverse visitor -based economy and a vital Growth can be a result of new
year-round community. development, changes in use,
redevelopment or fluctuations
in the economy (jobs and
The Urban Growth Boundary public services).
We continue to support an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where
density is concentrated in the commercial core and gradually tapers Infrastructure: The physical
to the boundary and rural area of the County. The UGB was first and operational systems that
adopted in the 2000 AACP, and provides an important tool against support the Aspen Area. This
sprawl. Additional density within the commercial core should result includes traditional concepts
in preservation of rural lands and must not erode our small town of infrastructure, such as
character. (See also the West of Castle Creek Corridor chapter) roads, the sewer system,
water system and the trail
system. Infrastructure
Managing Construction Activity also includes systems that
Intense periods of construction activity compromise our community make the Aspen Area a
character and the long -term sustainability of the visitor -based healthy, lively and socially
economy. Therefore, we must coordinate amendments to the City and balanced community, such as,
County codes to manage the impacts of construction. The purpose affordable housing, a balanced
of managing construction impacts is to maintain our high quality lodging inventory, a lively
of life by limiting traffic congestion, noise, dust, disturbances, air and interesting downtown,
pollution and the disruption of the visual and aesthetic character of our unique restaurants, historic
neighborhoods and the downtown area. This plan calls for a renewed landmarks, engaging
focus on managing the impacts of intense construction activity. outdoor areas, recycling
programs, clean air and water,
While citizen plans going back to 1976 have shown consistent support compelling special events,
for some kind of annual building permit pacing system, specific healthy civic and non -profit
methods have met substantial opposition in the past, and none have organizations, essential
been implemented. A comprehensive effort to explore pacing models businesses and renewable
must be deliberate and transparent, including substantial public energy systems.
outreach and feedback.
Density: The number of
The Residential Sector dwelling units per unit of land.
While some potential remains for the residential development on UGB: Urban Growth
vacant lots, the primary source of future residential construction will Boundary. The Aspen Area's
be redevelopment. History shows that residential redevelopment Urban Growth Boundary
typically means the demolition of existing homes which are then was adopted as part of the
replaced with expanded structures that are almost always built to the 2000 AACP. It delineates the
maximum square footage allowed, a trend that has had many negative boundary within which growth
impacts on our community. should be accommodated.
This plan focuses on the zoning on either side of City/County Infill: A planning concept
boundaries, where allowable house size differs dramatically and can that encourages new building/
result in sudden changes in neighborhood character. construction in already
developed areas rather than in or pristine lands.
Mass & Scale: Refers to
the dimensions of a building,
including height, width
By continuing to I+ regulate mass and scale of residential undeveloped
development, and more rigorously governing the location of homes in
environmentally sensitive areas, we will:
• Preserve scenic mountain views
• Protect the natural environment
• Limit the public financial burden of additional infrastructure and and length; also including
annual local government operations considerations such as the
• Manage construction impacts articulation of sections,
• Maintain the safety and enjoyment of our outdoor lifestyle modules and fenestration of a
• Limit the unnecessary use of resources and energy, and building.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability 1
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
• Rcducc short and long tcrm job gcncration impacts, such as
•
traffic congestion and dcmand for community workforce housing,
a
• Encourage a return to our visitor -base economy
The Lodging Sector
During the last 10 -15 years, the market has favored, and the land
use codes have allowed many small to mid -sized lodges to convert to
other uses. This has resulted in the development of projects that are
inconsistent with our town's bulk, mass, and scale
i The formulation of a strategy that replenishes the lodging base, and
favors a diverse lodging inventory is important to the long -term
sustainability of a visitor -based economy that purposefully seeks to
�' . 1 attract a diverse visitor base. Without a diversity of lodging options,
1 we limit the ability of future generations of visitors to experience the
Aspen Area and its surrounding public lands. Many of today's longtime
locals first experienced Aspen thanks to "entry- level" lodging. The
The Aspen Area is home to many concept of providing equal access to Aspen has been present in long
special events that draw a wide- range plans dating back to 1976.
range of visitors. These include
Food and Wine (pictured above), We seek a broader demographic in order to sustain a diverse visitor -
WinterX- Games, the Music based economy. Finally, we recognize that a diverse lodging inventory
Festival, Ruggerfest, Jazz Aspen ensures there are places to stay for those who produce and participate
Snowmass events, and events in many of our critically important special events, workshops, and
held by the Aspen Institute.
other activities.
The Commercial Sector
There is a concern that businesses providing basic necessities will be
replaced with businesses providing non - essential goods and services.
High - profile locations in the downtown have steadily converted from
restaurants to retail spaces, retail spaces over time have transformed
to offices, and high rents have resulted in a continuing shift towards
4
exclusivity. The character of our community is bolstered by a diverse
commercial mix. While we have taken some steps to increase retail
,`. diversity, we must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure
r4 • the needs of the community are met, and to preserve our unique
• ` i community character.
Public Institutional and Non -Profit
Sector
l r The Aspen Area has a rich history of active involvement in civic and
non -profit organizations, many of which arose from and further the
4 it Aspen Idea. Our non - profits are part of our community's distinct
_ , � 4t identity and their continued existence is integral to our character and
- _ economic health. Our sense of community depends on the continued
strength of these important and historically significant institutions. It is
critical the find methods of sustaining these organizations. In addition,
4 the public sector should be a model for the ideals reflected in this plan.
In March 2006, Aspen City
themes" to
Council identified Mitigating Impacts on Community
d four "themes"
explore as part of a moratorium Infrastructure
on land use applications: One
of them was "Commercial Mix." This plan calls for a comprehensive re- evaluation of the impacts that
Concerns ranged from whether development has on community infrastructure. We need a clear and
there were enough 'locally- reliable understanding of the wide range of impacts that development
serving" businesses for local can have on the Aspen area before we can make sound decisions on
residents, to whether retail stores fair and equitable mitigation.
1 were too "high -end" for tourists.
This Plan attempts to address
these concerns. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County currently require new
development and redevelopment to at least partially offset impacts
on the community, such as the need for parks, schools, air quality,
Community Workforce Housing, adequate roads, public transit, water,
sewer, stormwater runoff, etc.
4 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Some of our mitigation methods are sound and reliable, but others
may not be achieving community goals in an equitable or efficient way. Quality of Life
Generally speaking, private sector development should not place
"Quality of life" is a term used
a financial burden on the tax - paying public, and impacts should
be fully offset through various forms of mitigationshould mitigate to describe various factors,
for all reasonable, directly related impacts. At the same time, this sometimes intangible, that
plan recognizes that certain types of land uses are beneficial to the make a community attractive
community as a whole, and requiring fewer mitigation costs for such to live, work and visit. While
uses is in the public interest. In these cases, we must be fully aware of the term is hard to define, we
the level of public subsidies being granted in order to have an informed believe the Aspen Area has a
discussion on such issues. Being fully informed of how community high quality of life, and that
infrastructure costs are allocated is a basic responsibility to the public. the AACP helps to preserve
this for future generations.
Below is a list of just some of
Maintaining Our Visitor -Based Economy the things that contribute to
Our long -term sustainability as a community and visitor -based our high quality of life.
economy depends largely on our ability to remain an attractive,
welcoming, accessible and affordable place for future generations. Community Engagement:
We have an active, engaged
As a resort community, it is important to ask ourselves: How will Aspen community with diverse ideas
continue to be appealing in the next 10 -20 years? Aspen has a history and solutions, Whether it's
of innovation and reinvention, and that creative and groundbreaking for a social or environmental
spirit should serve us well in the future. cause, we have a strong ethic
of volunteerism and dedication
At the same time, there are a set of community values that are critical to the community. We
to sustain: These include preserving scenic landscapes, protecting the engage in broad, inclusive and
natural environment, creating an extensive trail network, providing respectful civic participation
unparalleled winter and summer recreational opportunities, preserving and we value and respect
our unique architectural heritage, supporting arts and cultural individuality.
institutions, maintaining a safe community, facilitating an interesting,
vital and walkable downtown and fostering a sense of small town Natural Environment: Our
character. commitment to environmental
quality is community -wide.
The Aspen Area is home
to many businesses and
non - profits dedicated to
What's Changed Since 2000 environmental stewardship,
and our local governments
have made significant strides
In 2000, the Aspen Area Community Plan re- adopted the Aspen Area in this area over the last 10
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), in an effort to prevent further urban years. The Aspen Area has
sprawl. The concept was to encourage higher density development clean water and air, and is
that met community goals in urbanized areas, with much lower density committed to preserving our
development outside of the UGB. natural environment. We
are all able to enjoy public
During the economic downturn of 2001-2003, the City of Aspen lands through the extensive
focused on allowing more "infill" within the City. At the same time, trails, parks and open space
a Economic Sustainability Committee identified its top priority as systems.
replenishing the lodging base.
Small Town Character: The
Just as new code changes were adopted to encourage infill and Aspen Area has many unique
lodging, the national economy dramatically improved and several buildings that contribute to
major land use applications for the downtown were submitted. The our small -town character.
public expressed serious concerns that the downtown would lose its Our built environment
character, and turn into a series of tall monolithic buildings. At the respects historical context
same time, some longtime local- serving businesses such as Aspen while allowing for innovation.
Drug were converting to other uses. The City Council responded by We have welcoming, non -
adopting a moratorium in April 2006. exclusive and casual
gathering places that
In 2007, the Council adopted new zoning regulations and extensive promote interaction among
changes to the Commercial and Lodging Design Standards, including locals and visitors. Our
new restrictive regulations and a mandate to substantially vary lively and diverse downtown
heights. No major development has come forward to put the 2007 is an important asset that
design standards into practice. contributes to our overall
character.
In 2000 the AACP called for an Urban Growth Boundary (UBC) "to
Manaoino Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
conscrvc resources." In connection with the UBG, the 2000 plan
boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open space
in the outlying County and kcy parcels in the City, maintaining thc
separation between communities, and thc prevention of sprawl." The
concept was that the City would accept County TDRs for incr ases in
density within thc urban ar o.
instanccs tripling the allowed floor area, as well as increasing allowed
heights. No TDRs were required in connection with thc rezonings and
mitigation rcquircmcnts were relaxed. A flurry of land use applications
resulted, primarily luxury fractional interest projects and high cnd
commercial with luxury penthouscs on top. Thcse developments met
r' thc underlying city code but many wcrc not supportcd by thc public.
-- In this plan, we call for an analysis along with computer modeling
-. _. y of thc city's zoning in the urban core. While the adopted design
standardz may be helpful on some Icvcl, thc initial premise for the
±� After the rczonings wcrc adoptcd, scveral major land use applications
for the downtown wcrc submitted. Thc public cxprcsscd scrious
concerns that thc downtown would lost its charactcr and turn into a
" • 411 series of tall monolithic buildings. At the same timc, somc longtime
` �► .. local serving businesses such as Aspen Drug wcrc converting to
+, . - other uses. Conccrncd about potential negative changes to the built .,
4
,s • _,. . -+ lila. . responded by adopting a moratorium in A -006..
_ - including some reductions in allowed floor ar a and hcights, along wi th
' thc adoption of "design standards." Nonethelcss, duc to the density
Ar
like IUDs and COWOPs, there continues to be considerable opposition
A new home being constructed in of most new dcvclopment under the code. This results in substantial
the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. uncertainty for both thc public and land owners.
Thc drawing at right (takcn i i � •
from thc 2000 AACP) illustrates ;;;;:..
llustrates ti ` 41'. , � ' ' i��� N r
the direction thc Aspen Ar a y ' , 1 g l i ! " .1
would like to grow, with grcotcr I + ®l
densities located in town and thc �F' �l�I
. s hit tom. r ° <•
downtown core and alternative * &,. a r..•.,t . v : jIb V�
devefepmcnt n ar transit I , ' . ,
sites. Transferable Development Z 1 1111i .;z",:',..,;::
Rights (TDRs) indicate thc desire 11111
to transfer dcvclopment rights ` may, :o�
developments within thc Urban f' .:., I J ti 11 r1 y ,,,, f I
Growth Boundary (UGB). b-, y Y j 1 I� y , ti ,%;,<� ..
- S T 4 ;<
A Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Between 2000 and 2010, the majority of construction activity
consisted of the demolition of over 270 homes and their replacement
with homes that nearly doubled the original square footage built on
the lot. Single- family homes that were demolished between 2000 and
2007 averaged about 3,000 square feet, while the home that replaced
it averaged about 5,500 square feet.
Since adoption of the 2000 AACP, Pitkin County modified the Land
Use Code to limit house size to 5,750 square feet, allowing larger
homes up to 15,000 square feet within the UGB only upon purchase
of transferable development rights (TDRs) from remote or agricultural
properties in the County or through an enhanced review process.
Since 2000, there has been a focus on public projects, including the
Aspen Recreation Center, Colorado Mountain College (CMC), the Pitkin
County Animal Shelter, extensive redevelopment at the Aspen School
District campus, a new downtown fire district headquarters and a new
fire district substation at the Aspen Airport Business Center. More
recently, City Council approved an expansion of Aspen Valley Hospital
and a new Aspen Art Museum. Today, preliminary planning continues
for a renovated Galena Plaza an expansion of the Pitkin County Library,
as well as implementation of the Airport Master Plan.
Regarding Community Workforce Housing (CWH), the continued
conversion of locally -owned homes to second homes and higher real
estate prices downvalley have limited options for Aspen area workers.
While the retirement of workers in Community Workforce Housing is a
minor phenomenon at this time, demographic projections clearly show
it will become a critical issue over the next 10 to 20 years.
In March 2010, the City Council adopted an Affordable Housing
Certificate Program to encourage private sector involvement in the
creation of Community Workforce Housing, and as a method to provide
mitigation in a more timely manner.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability 7
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
What's New in the 2011 AACP
One of the broad themes of the 2011 AACP is to ensure the
sustainability of a demographically diverse visitor -based industry as Proposed
the centerpiece of our local economy. Continuing to limit the mass and Addition
scale of homes is part of this long -term strategy. Regulating growth to UGB
in the interest of preserving small -town character as well as our
natural capital is in our economic self- interest, and provides a range of ,
economic benefits for property owners and businesses.
Seeking to replenish and diversify the lodging inventory is a significant
new policy compared to past AACPs. The intent is to ensure a broad
visitor base over the long -term, bolstering the sustainability of our
visitor -based industry. In addition, this plan calls for more aggressive
measures to ensure that the commercial sector provides essential
products and services, and to ensure balance between a local- serving
. and visitor - oriented commercial sector. Current
This plan also calls for a comprehensive re- evaluation of the impacts UGB Line
that development has on community infrastructure. Private sector
development should not place a financial burden on the tax - paying
public, but we also recognize that certain types of land uses are
beneficial to the community as a whole, and require fewer mitigation
costs for such uses in the public interest. Changes to the Urban Growth
Boundary -- The P &Zs reviewed
This plan continues to call for an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in an the existing Urban Growth
effort to limit and control sprawl. The UGB that was adopted in 2000 Boundary (UGB) and proposed
remains in effect, with one modification to include the entire airport one change to the boundary
runway. (See the image at right) in the West of Castle Creek
Corridor area. The map above
Unlike the 2000 AACP, this plan does not identify a recommended i to o add the pro hed change
dd a a port i on of the Airport
maximum population. This decision was not made lightly, but was Property into the UGB (in orange
based on several important conclusions. First, staff research showed hatching). The 2004 Airport
that population calculations made prior to the 2000 AACP were flawed, Master Plan covers the entire
and should not continue to be relied upon for planning purposes. Airport Property; the current UGB
Staff then conducted studies on population segments, such as the line bisects the Airport runway
number of year -round residents, commuters, lodging visitors, second and does not include all the areas
home visitors and others. The exercise of breakin in the 2004 Airport Master Plan.
g population down Tl 10.E . .d. This plan
into segments is a valuable way of illustrating important trends that recommends extending the UGB
can help the community in future decision - making. This population line to portions of the Airport
segment analysis is located in the Appendix. property that are zoned Public.
This plan also encourages examining a wide range of impacts on
infrastructure that could occur as we approach build -out. Additional
study to estimate and understand these impacts will help the
community make important decisions during the life of this plan.
Linkages
. Economy
We manage growth to ensure different community functions and uses Environment Community
are in balance, and to help reach community goals in the broadest
sense. When we discuss the different ways to manage growth, topics •
include ultimate build -out, job generation, affordable housing needs,
environmental impacts, infrastructure expansion, the transportation
system, and the viability of our visitor -based economy. We rely on Housing
the tools of growth management to encourage the uses needed by the
community, and to discourage uses that don't contribute to our vision Transportation
for the future.
R Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
•
Managing Growth f Policy
Community & Economic Categories
Sustainability Policies
I. ACHIEVING COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure the long -term Community Goal, Work
viability and stability of our community and diverse visitor -based Program for Planning
economy. Department
1.2. Cnsurc there is an on going economic analysis of thc Aspen Arce
cconomy that uses a consistcnt mctric and provides broad community Community Goal, Data
understanding of thc state of thc economy. Ga thering
I.32. Explore and evaluate qualitative improvements to the Aspen
area's visitor -based economy, that address the interests of future Community Goal,
generations. Collaborative Initiative
cconomy. Community Goal,
Collaborative Initiative
IL. Through good land use planning and sound dccision making,
• = = = - - = = = - - - - Community Goal, Proposcd
degrade the quality of lift for rcsidcnts and thc enjoyment of visitors. a ..
I.62 Establish lower maximum building heights Explore changes to
all dimensional requirements in order to maintain Aspen's small town Community Goal, Proposcd
character. Coat ....
^ t
I.74. Our public policies should be informed by reliable data on Data Gathering
population segments* and their impacts.
( *See Appendix)
Community Goal,
I.5. Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist -based economy. Collaborative Initiative
II. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB)
II.1. Maintain acne UGB to ensure development is contained and Community Goal
sprawl is minimized.
II.2. Urban densities should be located within the commercial core e-- Community Goal, Proposed
Aspen, and appropriate increases in density should only occur if they Code Amendment
result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the UGB through
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs� or other land use tools.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability q
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Managing Growth for Policy
Community & Economic Categories
Sustainability Policies
III. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
III.1. Protect the visual quality and character of neighborhoods by Proposed Code Amendment
minimizing site coverage, mass and scale.
III.2. Preserve and protect environmentally sensitive and scenic areas Proposed Code Amendment
by controlling the location and size of homes in those areas.
Control thc location and limit thc mass and scale of homcs in ordcr to:
river corridors and mountainsides, while also preventing
environmental degradation and protecting water quality
• Protect our small town community character and historical
heritage
• • - - - :. : - - - - a.: infrastructure and ongoing public
operating costs
• Reduce short and long tcrm job generation impacts, such as
traffic congcstion and demand for Community Workforce Housing
• Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on thc neighborhood
and thc community, and
• Limit site coverage
III.3. Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity Proposed Code Amendment
of City /County boundaries to prevent shifts in the character of
neighborhoods, and to encourage smoother cross - boundary transitions
regarding house size and density.
III.4. Ensure that the County and City Transferrable Development Work Program for Planning
Rights (TDR) programs continue to effectively preserve backcountry Department, Proposed Code
areas /agricultural lands and historic structures, respectively. Amendment
IV. LODGING SECTOR
. IV.1. Minimize the further loss of lodging inventory. Community Goal,
Collaborative Initiative,
Proposed Code Amendment
IV.2. Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a Community Goal, Proposed
balanced inventory and diverse price points. Code Amendment
IV.3. Lodging amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction Community Goal, Proposed
between visitors and residents. Code Amendment
IV.4. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging Community Goal, Proposed
development that is compatible and appropriate within the context of Code Amendment
the neighborhood„ in ordcr to:
• Cr ate certainty in land development
• Prioritize maintaining our mountain views
• Protect our existing lodges
• Protect our small town community character and historical
heritage
• Limit consumption of energy and building materials
• Limit thc burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public
operating costs, and
• Reduce short and long tcrm job gcncration impacts, such
Ilousing.
1n Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Managing Growth for Policy
Community & Economic Categories
Sustainability Policies
V. COMMERCIAL SECTOR
V.1. Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse, vital and Community Goal,
meets the needs of year -round residents and visitors. Collaborative Initiative
V.2. Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide Collaborative Initiative,
basic community needs. Incentive Program, Work
Program for Planning
Department
V.3. Ensure the Land Use Code supports innovative development that Work Program for Planning
respects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, Department, Proposed Code
scale, form and a diversity of heights. Amendment
Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that
. - : - - . .. . - . .f hcights, in order to:
• Cr ate certainty in land development
• Prioritize maintaining our mountain views
• Protect our small town community character and historical
heritage
• Limit consumption of energy and building materials
• Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public
operating costs, and
• Reduce short and long term job generation impacts, such
as traffic congestion and demand for Community Workforce
Housing.
VI. PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND NON - PROFIT SECTOR
VI.1. Zoning and land use processes should result in public, Community Goal, Proposed
institutional and non -profit development that is appropriate and Code Amendment
respectful within the context of the neighborhood, and should clearly
reflect its use.
Community Goal
VI.2. Public sector development should be a model for the ideals
reflected in this plan, and should comply with the Land Use Code.
Collaborative Initiative
VI.3 Preserve and enhance our non -profit and quasi - public facilities
and spaces. (see also Aspen Idea Chaptet)
Proposed Code Amendment
VI.4. New or expanded non -profit facilities in the UGB should be
located within the City limits, excepting non - profits with missions that
reflect rural values and activities.
Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability 11
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Managing Growth for Policy
Community & Economic Categories
Sustainability Policies
VII. MITIGATING IMPACTS
VII.1. Study and quantify all impacts that are directly related to all Community Goal, Work
types of development. Program for Planning
Department
VII.2. Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all
reasonable, directly - related impacts. Work Program for Planning
Department & APCHA,
Proposed Code Amendment
VII.3. Allow abatements in mitigation for certain types of development
that provide significant community benefits and are in the public Community Goal, Proposed
interest. Code Amendment
VII.4. Evaluate the ADU, cash -in -lieu, and Certificate of Affordable Work PrQaram for Planning
Housing Credit Program in terms of providing effective housing Department & APCHA,
mitigation and consider program changes based on the findings. Proposed Code Amendment
VII.45. Develop better methods to manage adverse construction Community Goal, Proposed
impacts, including a construction pacing systcm that respects quiet Code Amendment
enjoyment of our community and neighborhoods.
VII.6. Explore the creation of a construction paci g system. Work Program for Planning
Department, Proposed Code
Amendment
VIII. REVIEW PROCESS
VIII.1. Restore public confidence in the development process. Community Goal,
Collaborative Initiative
VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. Community Goal
VIII.3. Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in tangible, Community Goal, Proposed
long -term community benefits and do not degrade the built or natural Code Amendment
environment through mass and scale that exceeds Land Use Code
standards.
19 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
Managing Growth for Community & Economic
Implementation Steps
I. ACHIEVING COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure the long term viability and stability of our
community and diverse visitor -based economy. (Community Goal, Work Program for Planning_
Department)
I.1.ba Explore amending the GMQS objective points system to encourage community benefits. (I - P, AO)
I.1.ab Explore revisions torevisinq the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to include quotas for
residential demolition and replacement. (I - P, AO)
I.1.c Update the GMQS to reflect latest job generation and mitigation studies (see Mitigating Impacts Action
Items in Section VIII). (I - P)
I.1.d Examine City and County codes to ensure they reflect the ideals articulated in the plan. (LT - P)
I.1.e Establish a routine process and consistent metric to ensure an on -going economic analysis of our
economy is conducted. The analysis should take a holistic approach, including analysis of construction, job
Generation, business /economic sectors, tax revenues, etc. (I - P)
I.1.f Explore opportunities to reduce the "boom- bust" nature of the economy by diversifying the economy
and addressing "boom- bust" cycles. (LT - community groups, CM)
economy is conducted. Thc analysis should take a holistic approach, including analysis of construction, job
generation, business /economic sectors, tax revenues, etc. (I P)
I.32. Explore and evaluate qualitative improvements to the Aspen area's visitor -based economy,
that address the interests of future generations. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative)
I.32.a Proactively promote a diversity of community events, activities and experiences that broaden the
area's attractiveness as a destination and draw new visitors. (LT - P)
I.32.b Explore the creation of an "Aspencorps" that would draw visitors to learn new skills and volunteer
their time in the Aspen community and connect to the community. (LT- P)
I.32.c Explore the creation of a coordinated, attractive signage program that promotes way finding &
safety. (LT - P)
groups, CM}
maintain sustainability of the tourist cconomy. (LT P, ACRA, etc)
1.4.c Thc working group should conduct market research and amenity and lodging product demand
analysis, including examining what other resort communities arc doing to attract visitors. (I r, �E)
Annanrli e - 74 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
I.S.a Explore amendments to the Land Usc Codc that address the policy. (LT P)
I.62. Explore changes to all dimensional requirements in order
heir -to maintain Aspen's small town character. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
I.63.a Amend zoning, the Commercial Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines and Historic Design
Guidelines as needed to implement the policy. (I - P)
I.63.b AExplore a reduction in heights on the south side of the street to accomodate solar considerations. (I
- P)
I.44. Our public policies should be informed by reliable data on population segments and their
impacts. (Data Gathering)
I.74.a Use the Population Segment Chart as a starting point for tracking population data in the Urban
Growth Boundary. Require yearly updates to be included in City and County Annual Reports. (I - P)
I.4.4.b Project growth /decline in future population segments by using Population Segment Chart, build -out
studies, job generation estimates, Census tracking and State Demographer's Office reports. (LT - P)
Ensure there is a reliable method for tracking all new square footage and redeveloped square
footage, by use. Require yearly updates to be included in City and County Annual Reports. (I - P)
1.5. Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist -based economy. (Community Goal.
Collaborative Initiative)
I.5.a Establish a collaborative working group including major institutions, the public sector, ACRA, the retail
sector, the SkiCo and lodges, to develop a community -wide strategic resort analysis and plan to maintain
sustainability for the tourist economy. (LT - P)
I.5.b The working group should conduct market research and brand development, including examining
what other resort communities are doing to attract visitors. (I - P, SE)
I.5.c The working group should conduct periodic analyses of our competitive advantages and
disadvantages, and then explore ways to ensure that resort amenities appeal to visitors. (LT - P)
II. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB)
II.1 Maintain athe UGB to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized. (Community
Goal)
II.1.a Revise the Land Use Codes to require any amendments to the UBG to consider how it will increase
or decrease sprawl. (LT - P)
II.2 Urban densities should be located within the commercial core of Aspen, and appropriate
increases in density should only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of
the UGB through Transferable Development Rights (TDRs.), or other land use tools. (Community
Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
II.2.a Explore the potential to use County TDRs in the City to preserve more and build less. (I - P)
II.2.b Explore amend the City and County Land Use Codes as necessary to implement the policy. (I - P)
III. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
III.1. Protect the visual quality and character of residential neighborhoods by reducing site
coverage. (Proposed Code Amendment)
III.1.a Amend City and County Land Use Codes to reduce allowable site coverage and create Residential
Design Standards customized by neighborhood. (I - P)
III.1.b Explore amending the City and County Land Use Codes to the potential ofinclude form -based design
standards, and volumetric floor area calculations. (I - P)
III.1.c Study development in historic town -site areas of Aspen and other similar mountain communities in
order to create standards that preserve visual quality and character. (I - P)
Manaaina Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix A.,,,o.,,lis, - ��
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
III.1.d Amend the County Land Use Code to establish a sliding scale floor area ratio (FAR) for substandard
size parcels in the AR -10 zone. (I - P)
III.1.e Amend the City and County Land Use Codes to reduce or eliminate FAR exemptions for items such
as multi -level sub -grade space and garages. (I - P)
III.2. preserve and protect environmentally sensitive and scenic areas by controlling the location
and size of homes in those areas. - - : - _ _ - - - - - - • - - - .
• • - . - .. -- - :
El
(Proposed Code Amendment)
III.2.a City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions should jointly and comprehensively examine and
improve the following Land Use Code regulations:
• City 8040 Greenline regulations
• City and County slope requirements (FAR, Density)
• City and County Stream Margin Review
• County site plan review on slopes
• County scenic review (I - P, P /OS, AO)
III.2.b Explore prohibiting development on slopes of 30% or greater. (I - P, AO)
III.2.c Amend City and County Land Use Codes to address proper location and solar orientation of homes.
(I - P, B, CI)
III.2.d Expand and strengthen the County's scenic view protection standards, especially along roads such
as Highway 82 toward Independence Pass, up Castle Creek Road, and up Maroon Creek Road, to limit the
visual impacts of growth. (I - P)
III.2.e Explore amending the City's County's Scenic View Protection Standards to include additional roads.
(I - P)
III.2.f Explore amending City and County Land Usc Codes to establish a lower house size hard cap. (I P)
III.3. Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of City /County boundaries to
prevent shifts in the character of neighborhoods, and t .encourage smoother cross - boundary
transitions regarding house size and density. (Proposed Code Amendment)
III. 3.a Amend City and County Land Use Codes to implement the policy, including a smoother transition in
house sizes from the city to the county. (I - P)
II.3.b Establish an Inter - Governmental Agreement regarding an annexation policy in the area within the
UGB. (I - P)
III.3.c Explore mechanisms for a joint review by the City and County Planning & Zoning Commissions of
development in the UGB. (I - P)
III.3.d Amend City and County Land Use Codes to make variance criteria more stringent in order to limit
the impact of those variances on neighborhoods. (I - P)
III.4. Ensure that the County and City Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) programs continue
to effectively preserve backcountry areas /agricultural lands and historic structures, respectively.
(Work Program for Planning Department, Proposed Code Amendment)
III.4.a Evaluate the City and County TDR programs to ensure they are serving a valuable public purpose. (I
- P)
1
Anncnrl;v - - Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
III.4.b Ensure the viability of the County's Transferable Development Right (TDR) program. Scope of work
would include:
• Estimate future TDR supply
• Review potential adjustments such as reducing the FAR awarded for a TDR, to ensure adequate demand
• Explore a sliding FAR scale for TDR value based on scenic or other resources related to the sending site
• Explore potential for inter - jurisdictional TDR exchange between County and City
• Explore other possible uses for TDRs on receiving sites (aside from FAR). (I - P)
III.4.c Explore a new square footage buy -back program, such as a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
program or a conservation easement approach, for projects that are vested for more than 5,750 square
feet to encourage owners not to exceed or reduce that size. (LT - P)
III.4.d Explore expanding the City and County TDR Programs to address additional community goals,
including incentivizing locally - serving commercial spaces and moderately sized lodging. (LT - P)
IV. LODGING SECTOR
IV.1. Minimize the further loss of lodging inventory. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative,
Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.1.a Explore amending the City Land Use Code to eliminate the provision for new multifamily free market
residential as the sole non - lodging use on a parcel in the Lodge Zone District. (I - P)
IV.1.b Explore allowing the conversion of existing multi - family, free - market buildings to lodging uses. (I - P)
IV.1.c Explore amending the City and County Land Use Codes to eliminate the provision of free - market
residential incentives in lodging development. (I- P)
IV.1.d Explore amending the City and County Land Use Codes to limit the ability to convert lodging to other
uses. (I - P)
IV.2. Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory, -
priee- points. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.2.a Update the City and County lodging database, including information on room sizes, age, bed base
and amenities provided. (I - ACRA, SkiCo)
IV.2.b Identify and describe a desirable mix of lodging inventory and use this desired balance to incentivize
product type for new lodging development with a goal of establishing a balanced inventory. (I - P, ACRA,
SkiCo, SAS)
IV.2.c Explore methods to maintain the inventory of smaller lodges. (I- P)
IV.2.d Explore the potential for incentives to encourage voluntary deed - restricted economy /moderate
lodging. (I - P)
IV.2.f Amend the City Land Use Code to allow for flexibility in lodging unit sizes and configurations that can
respond to seasonal and economic change. (I - P)
IV.2.g Explore potential public /private partnerships to produce economy /moderate lodging. (I - P)
IV.3. Lodging amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction between visitors and residents.
(Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.3.a Amend the City and County Land Use Codes and design guidelines to incentivize publicly accessible,
on -site amenities to be conveniently accessible and welcoming to both visitors and residents. (I - P)
IV.3.b Encourage a diversity of lodging amenities between lodges to ensure a balance within the
community. (I - P)
Manaaina Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix Anncndiv - 'J7
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
IV.4. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is compatible and
appropriate within the context of the neighborhood „ t
• ,
•
• • - - . : - - .. - : . :- - - . - . - - -. : : . . .
(Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
IV.4.a Use the City's 3 -D model of the downtown area to illustrate the maximum development that could
result from the City's existing zoning and Lodging & Commercial Design Guidelines. (I - P)
IV.4.b Amend zoning and the City's Lodging & Commercial Design Guidelines based on the findings of IV.4.a
if necessary to ensure compatible and appropriate development. (I - P)
IV.4.c Explore the creation of new solar and view easements. (I - P)
V. COMMERCIAL SECTOR
V.1. Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse, vital and meets the needs of year -
round residents and visitors. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative)
V.1.a Conduct a Market Study to identify the aggregate retail demand of local residents and determine
whether there are adequate local- serving businesses to meet that demand, and if there are types of
business that are over - represented in the downtown and consider creating tools, such as quotas, limited
prohibitions, zoning, etc, to manage imbalances. (I - P)
V.1.b Explore incentives, such as Growth Management, for the use of non -prime commercial space
including basements, 2nd floors and alleys. (I - P)
V.1.c Explore amending zoning to encourage locations for products and services identified as needed in the
Market Study outlined in Implementation Step IV.1.a, above. (I - P)
V.1.d Explore creating a program to encourage limited -use commercial spaces, which would be charged
lower rents or rents based on a percentage of sales. (I - P)
V.1.e Explore adopting an Existing Use Zone District in specific areas in order to prohibit new uses from
displacing existing ones. The new Zone District might allow a limited list of commercial uses subject to a
conditional use process. (I - P)
V.1.f Explore the potential to use public sector or non -profit owned commercial spaces to implement policy.
(I - P)
V.2. Facilitate for the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs
(Collaborative Initiative, Incentive Program, Work Program for Planning Department)
V.2.a Identify products and services that are considered basic community needs. (I - P)
V.2.b Create an inventory of existing essential commercial uses and businesses and explore measures to
keep them viable. (I - P)
V.2.c Establish a working group including representatives of City, ACRA, Aspen Retail Association, CCLC and
other groups or individuals to reach out to property /business owners who provide essential products in an
effort to explore succession planning, including cooperatively owned stores. (LT - P)
V.3. Ensure the Land Use Code supports innovative development that respects our architectural
heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and a diversity of heights. that
•
•
A - 154 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
•
(Work Program for Planning Department, Proposed Code Amendment)
V.3.a Generate development scenarios using 3 -D modeling to test whether Commercial Design Guidelines
and Historic Preservation Guidelines would implement the policy. (I - P)
V.3.b Amend the Commercial Design Guidelines, Historic Design Guidelines and zoning as needed to
implement the policy. (I - P)
V.3.c Re- evaluate the assumptions behind the Infill codes, such as what is the appropriate historic pattern
of development to model. (I - P)
V.3.d Engage in a community dialogue about the appearance and function of the commercial zone districts
and amend our codes to reflect the community will. (I - P)
VI. PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND NON - PROFIT SECTOR
VI.1 Zoning and land use processes should result in public, institutional and non -profit
development that is appropriate and respectful within the context of the neighborhood, and should
clearly reflect its use. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
VI.1.a Amend zoning, the Commercial Design Guidelines, and Historic Design Guidelines as needed to
implement the policy. (I - P)
VI.1.b Explore changes to the and use review process as needed to implement the policy. (I - P)
VI.1.c Generate development scenarios using 3 -D modeling to test whether Commercial Design Guidelines
and Historic Preservation Guidelines would implement the policy. (I - P)
VI.2. Public sector development should be a model for the ideals reflected in this plan, and should
comply with the Land Use Code. (Community Goal)
VI.2.a Explore methods and projects that enable the City and County to model the ideals set forth in this
plan. (LT - CM)
VI.2.b Amend the Land Use Code as needed to implement the policy. (I - P)
VI.3. Preserve and enhance our non -profit and quasi - public facilities and spaces. (see also Aspen
Idea Chapter) (Collaborative Initiative)
VI.3.a Address the potential future loss of civic buildings and spaces through a variety of methods,
including public- private partnerships. (I - P, City Manager, County Manager, non -profit groups, etc)
VI.3.b Explore community partnerships, amendments to codes and other methods to ensure the
continuation of publicly- accessible spaces used and /or owned by non - profits, institutions and civic
organizations. (I - P, City Manager, County Manager; non -profit groups, etc.)
VI.3.c Explore the creation of a multiple -use community gathering place that serves as a hub for activities.
The center should be easily accessible and close to complimentary community amenities. (LT - SrS, non-
profit groups)
VI.3.d Explore the creation of new open air or quasi - pedestrian "market places" that utilize public spaces.
(LT - City Manager, P)
VI.3.e Explore establishing a highly visible and central visitor welcome and information center to provide
visitors with information on activities, attractions, businesses and lodging in the area. (LT - ACRA, P)
VI.3.f Encourage adaptable use of public spaces, including downtown streets, for events. (LT- P)
VI.4. New or expanded non -profit facilities in the UGB should be located within the City limits,
excepting non - profits with missions that reflect rural values and activities. (Proposed Code
Amendment)
VI.4.a Examine the Pitkin County Land Use Code to ensure it implements this policy and amend the code
accordingly. (I - P)
Mananinn rrnwth fnr Cnmmunity R Frnnnmir Suctainahility - Annanrlir
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
VII. MITIGATING IMPACTS
VII.1. Study and quantify all impacts that are directly related to all types of development.
(Community Goal, Work Program for Planning Department)
VII.1.a Conduct a comprehensive review and study of all impacts (both positive and negative) resulting
from new development. (I - P)
VII.1.b Explore amendments to the City and County Codes to address impacts. (I - P, AO)
VII.2. Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly - related
impacts. (Work Program for Planning Department & APCHA, Proposed Code Amendment)
VII.2.a Conduct a comprehensive review of all mitigation options. (I - P)
VII.2.b Review the effectiveness of existing impact fees in the City and County with regard to schools,
parks, roads, Transportation Demand Management, stormwater, etc, and revise as necessary. (LT - P, AO)
VII.2.c City and County shall conduct an updated study on short- and long -term job generation impacts
of both part- and full -time residential development. The study should account for different job generation
rates based on property types and neighborhoods, e.g., downtown condominiums, West End, larger county
properties, and should be updated as needed. (I - P, APCHA)
VII.2.d Create a "mitigation menu" based on the job generation study, including:
• Incentivize the provision of on -site Community Workforce Housing (CWH). This could include
prioritization in receiving a building permit, points in growth management, etc. (I - P)
• Recalculate City and County cash -in -lieu payment amount to reflect the job generation study, as well
as all actual costs of providing off -site CWH, such as the soft costs of locating developable property,
planning, designing, conducting the appropriate public processes, identifying buy -down properties, etc,
as well as the traditional hard costs of construction (I - P, APCHA)
• Consider establishing an official list of deed - restricted housing projects and potential buy -down
properties that developers could buy into to mitigate their CWH impacts. (I - P, APCHA)
• Explore public- private partnerships to create and manage CWH. (I - P, APCHA)
• Consider amending the County code to allow for the creation of housing credits that developers can buy
for their own mitigation. (I - P)
VII.2.e Examine the County's fee /mitigation policy regarding Resident - Occupied (RO) homes. (I - P, APCHA)
VII.2.f Explore an impact fee dedicated to capital improvements for health and human services. (I - P,
HHS, PH)
VII.3. Allow abatements in mitigation for certain types of development that provide significant
community benefits and are in the public interest. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
VII.3.a Explore the creation of a partial exemption process if clearly defined "community benefits" are
provided. If a partial exemption process is pursued, consider a minimum threshold of required housing
mitigation. (LT - P, APCHA)
VII.3.b Define "community benefits ". (I - P &Z, APCHA)
VII.3.c Develop and codify review standards that allow the mix of on -site versus off -site community
housing to be evaluated objectively based on the community housing benefits list. (LT - P)
VII.3.d Explore amendments to the City and County Codes to:
• Ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the categories of housing mitigation / cash -in -lieu fees match
the income level of the jobs created by the development.
• Require housing mitigation to be provided prior to or concurrent with the development that generates it.
• Ensure that public sector projects are subject to housing mitigation requirements. (I - APCHA, P)
VII.4. Evaluate the ADU, cash -in -lieu, and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Program in
terms of providing effective housing mitigation and consider program changes based on the
findings. (Work Program for Planning Department & APCHA. Proposed Code Amendment)
VII.4.a Conduct a study of the ADU and CDU program. including current occupancy rates to determine the
effectiveness of the program. Amend the City and County programs based on the findings of the study. (I
- APCHA, P)
n.,rso.,a - 111 Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
VII.4.b Analyze the current housing cash -in -lieu requirements to determine if they accurately reflect the
cost of providing new housing. Amend the City and County code, and Housing Guidelines. based on the
findings of the study. (I - APCHA. P)
VII.4.c Analyze effectiveness of the City's Affordable Housing Certificate Program. Explore the creation of
a similar program in the County. (I - APCHA, P)
Develop better methods to manage adverse construction impacts,
_ - _ _ . . _ : -. (Community
Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
VII.4.a Review the effectiveness of recent construction management plan codes and expand and improve
as needed to address policy. (I - P, E)
VII.6. Explore the creation of a construction pacing system. (Work Program for Planning
Department. Proposed Code Amendment)
VII.46.b Explore amending and coordinating City and County codes to pace the level of construction activity
on an annual basis. (I - P)
VII.46.c Explore amending codes to include residential demolition and replacement ( "scrape and replace"
development) in the pacing system. (I - P)
VII.46.d Explore not pacing certain types of development, including Community Workforce Housing (CWH),
conversion of free - market housing to CWH, and projects that apply for a building permit and act on it
within one year of a development order. (I - P)
VII.46.e Explore generating an objective list of community benefits through which an applicant may earn
"points" under a pacing system to gain preferential treatment, such as being moved toward the "head of
the line." As an example, preferential treatment could be awarded for construction associated with older
homes that have not undergone significant redevelopment to date. (I - P)
VII.46.f Explore UGB -wide pacing system that is based on a percentage square footage increase that is
allowable per year . (I - P)
VII.46.g Explore the role of the duration of vested rights as a tool in a pacing system. (I - P, AO)
VII.46.h Explore a "target" year, determined to be acceptable in terms of construction activity, to be used
as baseline for a building permit cap. (I - P)
VII.46.i Where development quotas have been established to address inadequate infrastructure, explore
allowing the restriction to "sunset" at such time as specific infrastructure improvements or other
accomplishments have been made to ensure improved quality of life. (LT - P)
1 O VIII. REVIEW PROCESS
VIII.1. Restore public confidence in the development process. (Community Goal, Collaborative
Initiative)
VIII.1.a Amend City and County Land Use Codes to create a greater expectation of certainty and
predictability in the review process. (I - P)
VIII.1.b Create a publicly accessible UGB -wide 3 -D model that shows what development is permitted under
the City and County Land Use Codes. (I - P)
VIII.1.c Ament4Explore amending the PUD regulations to address the placement of allowable mass, scale
and density, rather than using the PUD process to exceed underlying dimensional requirements. (I - P)
VIII.1.d AmendExplore amendinq City and County codes to establish an absolute height limit that can be
achieved through a PUD or other process. (I - P)
VIII.1.c Amend City and County Land Use Codes to prohibit the use of the PUD process to exceed
underlying zone district requirements. (I P)
VIII.1.f Update standards for public notices to include a non - technical summary about proposed projects
and links to on -line development plans, staff reports, 3 -D modeling, and meeting schedules. (I - P)
Manaoina Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix Annendix - 31
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. (Community Goal)
VIII.2.a Explore amendments to the noticing and vested rights requirements as necessary to implement
the policy. (I - P, AO)
VIII.2.b Explore amendments to the City and County Land Use Code as necessary to implement the policy.
(I - P)
VIII.2.c Improve and codify a clear definition of what "conceptual" review and "final" review address. (I
- P)
VIII.3. Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in long -term community benefits and do
not degrade the built environment through mass and scale that exceed Land Use Code standards.
(Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment)
Zoning Commission review of projects as if the proposal were a Conceptual & Final PUD. (I P)
VIII.3.ba Review City and County Planned Unit Development (PUD) and COWOP land use code provisions
with the intention of strengthening language to require strong and demonstrable community benefits in
perpetuity in exchange for any dimensional variance, and limit the-capacity to exceed Land Use Codc
standards. (I - P)
VIII.3.eb Conduct a comprehensive study of PUD and COWOP projects from the past 5 years comparing the
code in place at the time and what was actually approved, e.g. dimensional standards, community benefits,
etc. (I - P)
1
1
4
Annanrii ' - Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability - Appendix
Exhibit C: Public Feedback
Commercial Building Feedback
2011 Survey, Opinion on Downtown Development
New building should be only 2 stories high 17.5%
New buildin_s should be only 3 stories hi•h 17.7%
Buildings can be taller if the public benefits justify it 18.3%
Affordable Housing Mitigation Feedback
2010 Keypad Polling: O 9 inionn on Affordable Housing Mitigation
Current mitigation rates should be lowered 18.1%
Housing should be provided for 100% of the jobs generated 16.3%
Current mitigation levels are adequate 13.8%
No opinion 2.5%
2011 Survey: Opinion on Affordable Housing Mitigation
^ Sul 1:111 gbeS ' flgxiliil ty `R 44"..
Current mitigation rates should be lowered 17.4%
Housing should be provided for 100% of the jobs generated 14.3%
Current mitigation levels are adequate 15.3%
No opinion 8.3%
Pace of Construction Feedback
2009 Keypad: Should there be an annual limit on homes being demolished and replaced?
Yes 31.7%
w r{ bU°14
No opinion
2010 Keypad: Should there be a pacing system on construction activity?
I'm against it 24.5%
! 9.0 9 9`fl'#, _.ate 7a'fo A oi9_ j9a ,
I support it 22.7 %A
2011 Survey: Should there be a pacing system on construction activity?
I'm against it 20.2%
impacts insfead '
I support it 30.6%
Page 1 of 2
House Size Feedback
2009 Keypad: Statement you agree with most for Aspen neighborhoods
Our neighborhoods are seeing larger houses that don't reflect my vision 53.8%
for the Aspen Area
Homes are getting larger and neighborhoods are changing but they are 35.4%
evolving in a way I can live with
No opinion 4.5%
Doesn't matter to me 9.5%
2009 Keypad: Statement you agree with most for County neighborhoods
around Aspen
Our neighborhoods are seeing larger houses that don't reflect my vision 47.6%
for the Aspen Area
Homes are getting larger and neighborhoods are changing but they are 38.35%
evolving in a way I can live with
No opinion 4.5%
Doesn't matter to me 9.5%
2010 Keypad: Which of the items below do you agree with the most as reasons
to limit the size of the largest homes? (Top 3 responses shown)
Small town character 25%
No need to limit house size 22.4%
Consumption of energy 14.5%
2011 Survey: Which of the items below do you agree with the most as reasons
to limit the size of the largest homes? (Top 3 responses shown)
Small town character 27.3%
Visual quality 21%
No need to limit house size 12%
2011 Survey
There is great benefit to limit the building of large homes 26%
There is little benefit to limit the building of large homes 31%
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit D
Growth Management & the Residential Lot:
ADUs, Cash in Lieu Fees and Affordable Housing Certificates
Offsetting the impacts of second homes has been one of the City of Aspen's biggest
challenges since the inception of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) in
November 1977.
From the beginning, the City exempted existing single- family and duplex lots from
GMQS, largely for legal reasons. But throughout the 1980s, a troubling phenomena
continued to repeat itself.
✓ Locals sold their property and disappeared from town and the workforce;
✓ Out -of -town buyers knocked down the modest old house and replaced it with a much
larger second home;
✓ The need for more employees was generated by the maintenance of the large homes
and the needs of their occupants.
It was this ongoing phenomena that attracted growing political support for affordable
housing. In 1989 and 1990, City voters approved a Real Estate Transfer Tax for
affordable housing, and a housing and day care sales tax. Amidst this backdrop, the City
Council adopted the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program in February 1989.
The concept of scattering small rental units throughout town came from the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which supported "small, dispersed housing opportunities rather than
in large complexes." I
Like many new concepts, the ADU program faltered out of the gate. First, they were not
required for mitigation, but were instead totally voluntary. Second, they required
approval from the P &Z. In the first year of the program, only one property owner applied
to build an ADU.
Requiring Mitigation, and Providing a `Menu'
In February 1990, the City Council took a critically important step:
The City started requiring affordable housing mitigation from those who demolished,
rebuilt and expanded a single - family home or duplex? An exemption from Growth
Management was granted only if the property owner:
• Constructed an on -site ADU; or
• Paid the new affordable housing impact fee; or
• Placed a Resident Occupancy deed restriction on the single - family dwelling.
(Property owners rarely, if ever, chose this last option.)
In November 1990, the Council adopted a square footage bonus up to 350 square feet for
ADUs that were totally above - grade, and entirely detached from the main house.
P &Z Resolution No. 2, Series of 1984
2 Council Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990
1
Exhibit D
However, ADUs were not required to be rented, partly because the City didn't believe it
could legally force a property owner to be a landlord. Even if the City offered the
mandatory occupancy ADU as an option, officials believed that property owners would
not choose it.
Instead, the City code ensured only that if the ADU was rented, the Housing Authority
had to confirm that the renter was an eligible working resident.
Property Owners Choose ADCs
ADU approvals jumped from two in 1990 to nine in 1991, and four more in 1992. And
the ADU option was about to become even more attractive.
In April 1993, the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office doubled the cash in lieu fee (applied to
net additional square footage, after demolition). The fee increase was partly in response
to the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan, which called for "making the cash -in -lieu
payment commensurate with the cost to build dwelling units."
The number of ADUs tripled from four in 1992 to 13 in 1993. Another 29 were approved
from 1994 to 1996.
1993: Home Demolished + Replaced + 2K sq. ft.
Property / \
Owner 's Mitigatio n Choice
i
uild ADU Pay Impact Fee
(300 sq. ft) OR
C onstruction cost
= approx. $45K $46,000
Receive up to 350
square feet in
bonus space; t
required to e
rente
At the same time, debates emerged over the usefulness of ADUs. Critics argued that the
City was granting valuable bonus square footage to property owners while receiving no
guarantee the ADUs would be rented out. A survey showed that 30% of ADUs were
being rented, a rate far lower than hoped.
3 Council Ordinance No. 60, Series of 1990
2
Exhibit D
"The structures are being built with no consequent benefit to the City and with negative
impacts on neighborhoods," said Housing Authority Director Dave Tolen, at the time.
Deputy Planning Director Julie Ann Woods added, " ... the frustration comes at the tail
end, because no one is living in these units."
On March 10, 1997, City Council changed the rules regarding occupancy, but the new
code did little to alleviate the problem . Square footage bonuses would now apply only if
the "units (are) deed restricted, registered with the Housing Office and available for
rental to an eligible working resident ... The owner retains the right to select the renter
for the unit."
P & Z Frustration Grows
While the new wording said ADUs had to be "available for rental," the City's
interpretation and practice remained the same — property owners were not required to rent
their ADU. Records suggest the P &Z remained confused and frustrated.
In May 1997, the P &Z granted two ADUs at 570/580 Riverside Dr., with the following
oddly worded condition: "Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a
qualified employee of his or her choosing in the ADU; however if the owners do not rent
the ADUs, the Housing Department will not take the initiative of finding a qualified
renter ... "
The issue came to a head on September 15, 1998, when the P &Z imposed mandatory
occupancy for two ADUs at 934 West Francis Street in exchange for bonus square
footage. But three months later the P &Z amended the Resolution and withdrew the
imposition of mandatory occupancy.
In November 1999, the Council finally clarified the occupancy question. They retained
the 350 square foot bonus for property owners who agreed to mandatory occupancy, but
eliminated the bonus for property owners who wished to rent the ADU on a voluntary
basis. At the same time, Council made the ADU process easier by allowing for
administrative review, rather than requiring P &Z review.
But the biggest impact on the ADU program may have been the 50% increase in the cash
in lieu fee — from $28.83 per net additional square foot in 1998, to $42.85 in 1999. The
dramatic jump in 1999 appeared to be based on increased land costs, according to
Appendix E of that year's Housing Guidelines.
Council Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997
5 P &Z Resolution No. 11, Series of 1997
6 P &Z Resolution No. 23, Series of 1997
P &Z Resolution No. 39, Series of 1997
8 Council Ordinance No. 44, Series 1999
3
Exhibit D
Higher Fees Make ADUs Popular
Now, the choice for homeowners was increasingly clear, especially for those who
planned to construct a substantially expanded home: Building an ADU was far cheaper
than paying the higher impact fee — and it could still be used as a "mother -in -law" unit.
1999: Home Demolished + Replaced + 2K sq. ft.
Property Owner 's Mitigation Choice
Build ADU Pay Impact Fee
(300 sq. ft) OR
Construction cost
= approx. $75K
Counts against $86,000
lot's total square
footage, but no
required to : -
The City approved 20 ADUs in 2000, the most ever for the program, followed by 10 each
in 2001 and 2002. The tide had turned towards ADUs: Action Item #2 in the 2000 Aspen
Area Community Plan stated a preference for ADUs, and called for discouraging cash in
lieu payments.
In an effort to attract interest in "mandatory occupancy" ADUs, the City Council doubled
the square footage bonus from 350 square feet to 700 square feet in 2001, and allowed
them to be sold as a separate property. Although records are difficult to research,
planning and housing staff say property owners very rarely chose the "mandatory
occupancy" option.
The OOs Trend: ADUs Grow Unpopular
It's unclear exactly why property owners stopped choosing ADUs as a mitigation option
after 2005. Although the housing impact fee continued to rise ($66.40 /sq. ft. in 2005), the
fee paled in significance for home buyers at a time when the cost of a home in Aspen
easily eclipsed $5 million. (Every square foot was worth about $1,500)
As new home buyers demolished old structures and designed their new second home,
they chose to utilize every square foot exactly the way they wanted — not for a tiny
apartment above the garage.
9 Council Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001
4
Exhibit D
2007: Home Demolished + Replaced + 2K sq. ft.
Property Owner 's Mitigation Choice
Build ADU P Impact Fee
(300 sq. ft) OR
Construction cost
= approx. $105K
Counts against $139,000
lot's total square
footage, but not
required to rented
Between 2003 and 2008, about 120 single - family homes and duplexes were demolished
and replaced with larger homes, but only 24 ADUs were approved during that time.
During those five years, the City collected $13,053,093 worth of cash in lieu payments
for affordable housing, or about $2.2 million a year.
Today, three things are certain about the ADU program: 1) The most recent occupancy
study was at least 15 years ago; 2) Despite the lack of new ADUs, there is a growing
frustration with the program, specifically regarding the lack of mandatory occupancy; and
3) There is a brand new option for the mitigation of replacement single - family and duplex
homes.
The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
In March 2010, the City Council approved the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
program. The "Purpose" statement of the new code section states: "Establishing this
transferable Certificate creates a new revenue stream that can make the development of
affordable housing more economically viable."
Previous to the new Certificate program, the private sector rarely volunteered to build
affordable housing, largely because of the artificially low sale or rental rates they were
allowed to charge for the units. The new Certificate program allows the private sector to
not only sell /rent the units, but also to sell the Certificates to others in the private sector
who needed to meet City mitigation requirements. This change made it more financially
viable for the private sector to build affordable housing.
Within 18 months of establishing the new program, Council approved two private sector
affordable housing projects — eight affordable housing units at 301 W. Hyman and 40
more at the former Boomerang Lodge.
10 Council Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010
5
Exhibit D
When both projects are completed and ready for sale or rent through the Housing
Authority, the City will issue Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit to the private
sector developers.
At that time, the developers holding the Certificates can sell them to other developers and
property owners who need to provide mitigation for other projects. Buying a Certificate
will be a new mitigation option for property owners who demolish a single - family home
or duplex and replace it with a bigger one.
"Establishing this transferable Certificate establishes a new option for mitigation that
reflects built and occupied affordable housing," said the Purpose statement of the new
code section.
2011: Home Demolished + Replaced + 2K sq. ft.
Property Owner 's Mitigation Choice
Build ADU Pay Impact Buy A
(300 sq. ft) OR Fee OR Housing
Certificate
Construction cost
= approx. $60K
Counts against $152,000 Market
lot's total square rate
footage, but not
required to rented
The new Certificate is a legal instrument memorializing the fact that fully deed - restricted
affordable housing has been built. The City of Aspen issues the Certificates to the
development company that voluntarily built the affordable housing. The holder of the
Certificate can then sell them to someone who needs to provide housing mitigation in
connection with some other project. The sale price is determined between the buyer and
the seller of the Certificate.
For example, a property owner who plans to demolish a house and replace it with a much
larger structure would presumably be interested in buying a Certificate if it was priced
somewhat lower than the affordable housing cash in lieu fee.
From a public policy perspective, it can be argued that the Certificate program is a
superior form of mitigation compared to a voluntarily- rented ADU or cash that will
eventually be spent on building affordable housing.
6
Exhibit D
However, City code still gives property owners the option to construct an ADU that
won't necessarily be rented, as a way to fulfill required mitigation. During the most
recent construction boom (2003 - 2008), property owners routinely decided against the
ADU option, but there is no guarantee this trend will continue if the economy picks up
again. If the option to build an ADU remains in the code, it has the potential to undercut
the new market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
Ultimately, the stakes are high: A recent staff study showed there is more than 575,000
square feet that can be built in the form of larger single - family homes and duplexes in the
City of Aspen. Although all of this square footage may not be built for decades to come,
it is still a very significant amount for long -range planning purposes.
For example, if every property owner chose:
• To pay cash in lieu, it would generate more than $40 million;
• To build ADUs, it would mean about 200 -400 additional ADUs;
• To buy Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, it would translate into
fully deed - restricted affordable housing for 192 people.
New AACP Suggests Eliminating the ADU Program
After hearing input from the Housing Authority staff and board, the City and County
P &Zs final draft of the 2011 AACP endorsed the following policy statement: "Eliminate
the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program, unless mandatory occupancy is required."
If the ADU program is dropped, it would eliminate one mitigation option for property
owners who demolish older houses and replace them with larger ones. The options
remaining would include the cash in lieu payment and buying a Certificate. (Placing a
Resident Occupied deed restriction on at least one of the units, or providing a fully deed -
restricted affordable housing unit elsewhere within the Infill Area are the two other
options in the code, but they are rarely chosen).
Today, there are approximately 155 ADUs in the City of Aspen. There is no clear or
reliable understanding of how many are rented. There may be dozens of homeowners
who don't understand that the little apartment on top of their garage is a deed - restricted
ADU. There has been no comprehensive effort to match existing ADUs with potential
renters.
The Cash in Lieu Fee: History, Calculations & Context
There are several elements that are part of the methodology of establishing the Cash in
Lieu Fee, and some have changed over time.
The first step was estimating how many new jobs were created when new residential
square footage was constructed. City Council Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990,
established that for every 3,000 new square feet of free market residential, the need for
one Full -Time Employee (FTE) was generated."
" "The employee generation rate came from a political decision based on fairness and acceptability at the
time," according to Jim Curtis, Chair of the Housing Authority in 1990.
7
Exhibit D
The second step was determining how much cash subsidy was required to place one
person in affordable housing. In 1992, the Housing Authority reviewed the costs and sale
prices of the West Hopkins affordable housing project to establish a subsidy amount for
one FTE. In 1995, the Housing Authority looked at the costs and sale prices at the Juan
Street and Benedict Commons projects to further refine the subsidy estimate.
The per square foot fee is calculated by taking the subsidy amount necessary to house one
FTE and dividing it by 3,000 square feet. For 1996, the amount of subsidy needed to
place one FTE in affordable housing was $69,064. If 3,000 new square feet of free
market residential generates one FTE, then the Cash in Lieu Fee would be $69,064
divided by 3,000, or $23 per square foot. The fee for someone who tore down an old
house and replaced it with one that was 1,000 square feet larger would be $23,000.
Rather than continuing to perform subsidy studies, the Housing Authority has used the
Denver Area Consumer Price Index (CPI -W) for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers to approve annual increases in the fee since 2001. Using CPI has been a fairly
common practice in the public sector, but has been critiqued by groups such as the
Associated General Contractors of America.
A March 2008 article on the group's website' said the producer price index for inputs to
construction industries rose a cumulative 30.2 percent since 2004, compared to a 14.5
percent increase in the CPI.
12 Agc. org/ galleries /econ /AGC_CIA08_webFinal.pdf
8
Exhibit E
The City's Role in Aspen's Lodging Sector
Lodging as Resort Infrastructure v. Lodging as Growth
Alpine Lodge & Cabins: Enjoy rustic, intimate atmosphere.
With bath, $10. Shared bath, $8. Original Bavarian zither
music at fireside lounge. Breakfast $1.
-- 1970 advertisement
City government has played a wide variety of roles in Aspen's lodging sector over the
years, ranging from the philosopher - sociologist to the market economist — and at times,
financial supporter.
One of the earliest statements about lodging came in the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan,
which defined the purpose of the Accommodations /Recreation Zone District as " ...
encouraging varied and interesting development as a means of perpetuating Aspen's
prominence as a quality resort...."
This perspective reflected a belief that local government should treat lodging as
infrastructure for the local economy. Without a solid lodging base, a resort is not a resort
— and every other sector of the economy suffers. Over the years, this viewpoint meant
sometimes giving lodge development a break from Aspen's rigorous regulations and
mitigation requirements.
On the other hand, growth management advocates have supported annual development
limits and tough mitigation requirements on lodging, just as they would on any other kind
of private sector development. These different positions have been debated through the
years — often favoring lodging during economic slumps, and favoring stronger growth
restrictions during boom periods.
The philosophical side of the lodging debate emerged in the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth
Management Policy Plan of 1977:
"In short, we have a responsibility to vacationing, working Americans who hold the
vision of one or two weeks a year in a quality Colorado mountain environment ... (rather
than) a setting for the fortunate few who are wealthy enough ..." In other words, working
Americans are entitled to enjoy the public lands surrounding Aspen, and high costs
shouldn't act as a barrier.
The other side of this argument has been to let the market decide what kind of lodging is
built, how much it costs and what demographic is targeted. This viewpoint often takes
note that a destination resort is expensive by definition, due to high travel costs.
Evidence that this split in attitudes remains embedded in Aspen's political life was
illustrated in early 2009, when about 400 people attending an instant voting session:
1
Let's talk about price of lodging. Which statement do you agree with most? (Select one)
This is a world class resort, so we should focus on deluxe accommodations. 15%
We need to focus on inexpensive lodges that provide a place for the next
generation of ski bums to discover Aspen. 61%
I don't think prices are a problem. 24%
Early Growth Controls on Lodging
Beginning in 1977, the scoring of development applications under the Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS) reflects community priorities for lodging
development.
For example, the 1977 point system for lodging development valued the physical
compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood (3 pts.) and maximizing
public views of surrounding scenic areas (3 pts.) just as highly as "Services Provided for
Guests" (6 pts.), which included the "spaciousness and quality" of lobbies, restaurants,
conference facilities, proximity to skiing and "overall tourist appeal."
The political tension between lodging -as- resort - infrastructure and lodging-as- creating-
negative- growth- impacts is also found in the 1977 GMQS point system: Points were
awarded for "reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable (square
footage)."
In addition, affordable housing for lodging projects had to be provided on -site, potentially
creating conflict with the emphasis on limiting mass and scale, and physical compatibility
with the neighborhood.
As the national economy suffered, the Lodge at Aspen (26 rooms) was the only lodging
development to apply for GMQS approval between 1977 and 1981.
The City commissioned a lodging study in 1981, which concluded that "most of the
lodging available today was built many years ago and consequently do not reflect current
standards for maintaining a premier resort classification."
The report also found that a mid -1970s downzoning "resulted in severe limitations for
their opportunity to expand and modernize" in some neighborhoods, including the
Shadow Mountain area. The report claimed the City had lost about 4% of its lodging base
each year during the 1970s.
Loosening Regulations & Lodging as Infrastructure
City Council responded in July 1982, by increasing the annual lodging allotment from 18
to 35 units. A month later, Council stopped awarding GMQS points for smaller lodges,
Of Community Concern: Comprehensive Land Use Code Amendments and the Change in Aspen's Lodge
Inventory: 1981
2
removed the mandate for on -site affordable housing and increased the percentage of
points awarded for guest amenities from 10% to 20 %.
In August 1983, Council created a Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone, making it easier for
dozens of older lodges in areas such as Shadow Mountain to renovate and expand. At the
same time, Council awarded new GMQS points for "rehabilitation and reconstruction,"
and set aside a quota of 10 lodge units per year for development in the new Overlay
Zone.
Between 1982 and 1987, many lodges underwent renovations, including Independence
Square, Snowflake, Aspen Club Lodge, Endeavor Lodge, Shadow Mountain Lodge, the
Inn at Aspen, Red Roof and the Prospector Lodge.
Four lodges added units between 1982 and 1987: The Aspen ( +3), Hotel Lenado ( +4), the
Sardy House ( +21) and the Jerome Hotel ( +67). The Aspen Mountain Lodge project
essentially replaced the Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce, and The Little Nell (92 units)
opened in 1989.
In 1987, the City Council stepped squarely into the role of financial supporter for
lodging, by establishing the Aspen Lodge Area Special Improvement District. Council
authorized $5.4 million to pave streets, install storm drainage, sidewalks, landscaping,
streetlights etc., with the City picking up the large majority of the bill. The public works
project was focused on neighborhoods featuring small lodges and condos, including the
Shadow Mountain neighborhood, and from Spring Street to the Roaring Fork River.
Ritz - Carlton as Symbol: The Upscale Trend
As the 1980s wound down, the Aspen area was experiencing a whole new level of
popularity and celebrity. Home prices were increasing dramatically, many locals were
selling their modest houses — and the percentage of commuting workers jumped from
40% to 55% between 1987 and 1991.
During that same period, the proposal for a massive Ritz - Carlton Hotel was being hotly
debated, and was slowly making its ways through the City's review process. Council
approved non - binding Resolution No. 29 in 1988, setting the size at 294 units and
305,000 square feet.
In July 1989, City Council responded to growth management advocates by cutting the
annual quota for free market residential units from 39 to 20, and decreasing the lodging
quota from 45 to 22.
In February 1990, a much - debated City ballot election on the Ritz - Carlton was a snapshot
in time of political feeling about lodging:
2 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1982
3 Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1982
4 Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1983
5 Aspen Pitkin County Annual Growth, Population and Housing Report / 1987
3
➢ Option A would approve the 294 -unit Ritz - Carlton Hotel.
➢ Option B would reduce the size of the hotel by 60,413 square feet (about 20 %),
reduced the height and required much more employee housing.
Sixty percent chose Option A, with 1,561 in favor and 1,059 opposed.
The approval of the Ritz - Carlton symbolized a distinct trend away from economy or
moderate rate hotels, and towards more deluxe accommodations. The economy /moderate
rate Grand Aspen Hotel was demolished to make way for the Ritz - Carlton, which
partially met its mitigation requirements by converting the 43 -unit Alpina Haus Lodge
and the 14 -unit Copper Horse Lodge into affordable housing.
Perhaps in response to the controversy, the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
emphasized the importance of small lodges.
"Small lodges immediately set the stage for the guest experience in Aspen," according to
the AACP Growth Action Plan. "These lodges promote a sense of scale and feel that
provide the visitor with a transition into the uniqueness of Aspen."
The 1993 AACP called for lowering mitigation costs for small lodges, but it turned out to
be a losing battle. Throughout the 1990s, older lodges were converted either to free
market homes or affordable housing, including, to name a few:
• The 20 -unit Fireside Lodge converted to townhomes.
• The 22 -unit Bell Mountain Lodge converted to five free market homes and five
affordable units.
• The 11 -unit Alpine Lodge converted to four free market homes and 10 affordable
units.
• The Aspen Country Inn was converted entirely to affordable housing
All told, the number of "Economy" lodge pillows dropped from 1,012 to 704 during the
1990s, a 31% drop. By 1998, the percentage of "Economy" lodge pillows had dropped to
a mere 12% of the total.
Oddly, the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan barely touched on the subject of lodging.
The Economic Sustainability chapter called for "a lively, small -scale downtown with ...a
varied choice of accommodations, including small lodges."
In winter, taxable lodging sales eroded significantly between 1997 and 2003, a pattern
linked to a decline in skier visits and a slowdown in travel after 9/11. Winter lodging
rebounded after 2003, along with the national economy.
6 Aspen Area Community Plan: 1998 Existing Conditions Report
4
While Aspen's lodging inventory continued to shrink (a 27% decline from 1994 to 2007),
it was the "Economy" ( -79 %) and "Moderate" ( -47 %) lodges that were disappearing the
fastest. The decrease was smaller for "Deluxe" lodge" ( -7 %).
Despite the declining base, taxable lodging sales jumped 49% from 2003 to 2007,
reflecting an estimated 40% increase in average prices. It was no great surprise that new
lodges approved during this boom period featured large rooms and deluxe amenities,
including 40 units at the Residences at Little Nell, 21 units at The Chart House and 18 at
the Dancing Bear.
City Tries to Re- Balance the Lodging Inventory
While a few luxury lodges were being approved in the 2000s, city government was
launching an effort to replenish the overall inventory, and was also trying to encourage
the return of so- called "moderate" lodges.
In its 2002 report, the Economic Sustainability Committee made the deteriorating lodging
base its "# 1 Issue," at the same time the Infill Advisory Committee was drafting code
changes to encourage more downtown area development, including lodging.
In 2005, City Council approved the Lodge Incentive Program, encouraging the
development of lodging with rooms that averaged no more than 500 square -feet —
relatively small compared to recent deluxe lodge approvals.
The Lodge Incentive Program cut the housing mitigation rate in half, and allowed the
development of free market residential condos on 25% of the same parcel (also at half the
usual mitigation rate), to make the overall development financially viable.
Also in 2005, the Limelite Lodge applied to demolish its 60- year -old facility next to
Wagner Park, along with the similarly dilapidated Snowflake Inn next door, proposing to
replace 115 rooms with 125 rooms in one large new building. The development
application argued that "Preserving and expanding mid - priced lodges such as the
Limelite will allow the community to provide accommodations for a `diverse visitor
population,' as emphasized in the (2000) AACP." Along similar lines, the application
quoted the AACP Vision for the Aspen Area; "Our nature has been consciously inclusive
and has abhorred exclusivity ..."
In addition, the Limelite argued that mid - priced lodges are a "staging area for supporting
personnel and participants ... in the special events that are a vital element of the local
economy." (The point was made following the recent departure of the HBO Comedy
Festival, which publicly blamed the lack of affordable lodging for its relocation to Las
Vegas.)
Although the Limelite proposed to use 40% of its lot area to build condos (more than the
25% that code changes allowed), it did meet the incentive program's small -room
requirement. Other "Infill" code changes from 2005 allowed for greater height and
' The Aspen Economy white paper, by Economics Research Associates
5
massing in the Lodge Zone District, and the large Limelite building drew many critics,
but Council approved the project in 2005.
In 2007, Council adjusted the Lodge Incentive Program, creating a sliding scale that
reduced affordable housing mitigation as room size grew even smaller. Lodge projects
with room sizes of 300 square feet or less would have to mitigate only 10% of employees
generated, and additional GMQS points were awarded for projects that average 400
square -feet or less.
Current Status
As part of the 2008 State of the Aspen Area Report, a build -out analysis showed that
zoning could allow for about 330,000 square feet more lodging, with the most potential in
the Lift 1A neighborhood.
In November 2011, City Council approved a lodging proposal at in the Lift 1A
neighborhood, including 22 lodging units with a room configuration allowing them to be
broken down into 84 units averaging 524 square feet. Although technically eligible for
reduced housing mitigation (60% to 40 %, due to a room size between 500 and 600 square
feet), the developer proposed 100% housing mitigation for the lodging, five condos and
6,000 square feet of commercial space.
At the same time, former lodges continue to convert to other uses, the most recent being
the Boomerang Lodge, which received approval to convert its existing rooms and build
an expansion, all as affordable housing.
The 2011 AACP calls for "replenishing" the lodging base, while seeking to balance the
inventory by encouraging a wide range of product types. Aside from the Lift IA area, the
greatest potential for a new lodging development is at Buttermilk Ski Area, which is
under Pitkin County jurisdiction.
6
Exhibit F
Tourist - Oriented vs. Local- Serving
A Growth Management History of Aspen's Commercial Sector
The balance between serving the tourist population versus serving year -round residents
has always been at the center of debate when it comes to Aspen's downtown commercial
core.
Downtown Aspen in the mid -1970s still featured a lumber yard on Hopkins Street, light
industrial shops and vacant lots. The tourist experience was shaped by unique shops like
The Great White Buffalo Leather Co., Monika's Scandinavian Imports, 3 Corners of the
Earth and the Leather Dragon, to name a few.
When the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) was established in November
1977, the issue of tourist - oriented versus local- serving commercial uses first made its
way into the City Land Use Code.
New commercial applications could achieve a total of 42 points under GMQS, with 14%
of the total (6 out of 42) granted if the new commercial space was going to serve local
residents as opposed to tourists. At the time, providing affordable housing earned a
maximum of three points.
The "Community Commercial Uses" section of the point system "shall evaluate the
probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs
of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the
area's tourist needs ..."
The GMQS granted a new commercial project:
✓ One point if its "main emphasis (was) on supplying tourists services with little or no
on -site housing."
✓ Two points if it provided "housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations."
✓ Three points if "it is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the
community's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist
housing ...
An additional three (3) points could be awarded under "Medical and Other Service
Needs." This evaluation was based on "the extent to which the project supplies medical,
dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and
repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to
serve the routine trade and service needs of the community."
The balance of the GMQS process (30 out of 42 points) focused on more aesthetic
considerations, such as "Quality of Design," and "Historic Features," including massing,
visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, pedestrian and bikeways, maximizing public
1
views of the mountains and "compatible contemporary design as opposed to imitating
historic architectural features."
From 1975 to 1983, an impressive average of 46,213 square feet of commercial space
was added each year, or about 4.5% annually.
Growth management advocates pushed for a slowdown in commercial growth, and the
1977 GMQS established a quota of 24,000 square feet per year. Although the original
intent was to limit actual new square footage on an annual basis, the GMQS actually
limited the amount of Council - approved square footage on an annual basis. (Pre -GMQS
commercial projects were being built through the late 1970s and early 1980s.)
Commercial Growth Slowdown
As commercial development continued to proliferate in 1982, City Council reduced the
annual limit on commercial square footage approvals from 24,000 to 10,000 in the
downtown commercial core.'
Council also established annual caps for commercial zones that previously had no limits:
• 7,000 square feet in the Neighborhood Commercial and
Service /Commercial /Industrial zone districts;
• 4,000 square feet in the Office Zone District;
• 3,000 square feet in the Commercial Lodge and other zone districts.
From 1983 to 1990, annual commercial growth dropped dramatically to .07% per year, or
an average of 9,542 square feet annually. Whether the market had become saturated due
to previous high commercial growth rates, national economic slumps inhibited growth or
the GMQS review intimidated developers, no one can say for sure — perhaps some
combination of these factors.
In the late 1980s, the downvalley flight of locals and the need for affordable housing was
taking center stage.
City Council overhauled the GMQS points system, making affordable housing a primary
goal for new commercial projects. Before 1988, only three out of 42 GMQS points
focused on affordable housing, or just 7 %.
After 1988, the number of points for commercial projects focused on affordable housing
jumped to 15 out of 42, or 36 %. Even small commercial expansions (less than 500 square
feet) now had to offset housing impacts.
Although actual annual commercial growth was modest, growth management advocates
cited downtown/retail commercial growth as the greatest job - generator, at 5.25 jobs per
1,000 square feet, according to a study at the time. This was more than any other type of
commercial use, and critics argued that it was contributing to Aspen becoming more and
Ordinance 26, Series of 1982
2
more of a commuter - culture. In 1989, Council ratcheted down on commercial growth
quotas even more:
• For downtown commercial zones: from 10,000 Sq ft. to 8,000;
• For Neighborhood Commercial and S /C /I: from 7,000 sq ft. to 6,000;
• For Office: No change;
• For Commercial Lodge; from 3,000 sq ft. to 2,000
A Blow to `Local - Serving' Advocates
In 1988, Council had completely eliminated both the "Community Commercial Uses"
section and "Medical and other Service Needs" from the GMQS points system.
While housing was becoming the top issue, the difficulty of rating "Community
Commercial Uses" may have contributed to dropping the local- serving "points"
completely. Defining a local- serving use has always been a prickly challenge, as reflected
in the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan, Commercial /Retail Action Plan item #1:
Create an acceptable, enforceable definition of "locally serving" uses.
Even if an "enforceable" definition was established, guaranteeing that such a commercial
use remained local- serving in perpetuity was even more difficult, as reflected in
Commercial /Retail Action Plan item #2: Ensure that (neighborhood commercial)
projects receiving incentives are restricted as local serving uses.
Most current planners agree that these tasks have never quite been accomplished. In fact,
after the "local- serving" versus "tourist- oriented" language of the 1977 GMQS was
removed from the land use code in 1988, such language has never made its way back into
the code.
1993 AACP: Reversing the Trend?
But the "local- serving" debate was far from over. As more locals left town and the ratio
of commuters climbed, the economic demand for "local- serving" stores was declining,
and the 1993 AACP tried to address the problem.
The new plan said, "People should be able to shop in the community where they live,"
and worried about losing stores that provide basic, every -day merchandise.
"In order for Aspen to provide the basic essentials, the community must find ways to
strike a balance between the local and tourist shopping opportunities," according to the
Philosophy of the Commercial /Retail chapter.
Beyond providing basic necessities, the plan worried about quality of life: "Our small
town lifestyle would be significantly altered if we were not able to see our business
people on the streets of town as we walked from place to place." The 1993 AACP
included many prescriptions to reverse the trend:
• Study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial uses.
• Explore FAR bonuses ... for locally servicing uses.
• Explore buy down of commercial space for locally oriented uses and deed
3
restricted local space.
• Zone additional areas for Neighborhood Commercial.
• Halt the erosion of locally serving businesses through change in use:... prohibit
loss of local serving business through change in use.
• Study locations for vertical zoning (diff uses on diff floors) and businesses along
alleys for local serving uses.
• Study location for a Neighborhood Office zone district.
None of these goals were accomplished, although eventually the GMQS added a section
providing incentives for alley stores. (No one has ever applied for the alley store
incentive.)
The Gucci Era Arrives
At the same time, a new era of tourist - oriented retail was starting to take hold.
When the 1993 AACP was adopted, local maverick and property owner Harley Baldwin
was launching his personal effort to bring designer -brand luxury stores to Aspen.
Commercial brokers say Baldwin gave Gucci a very favorable lease in order to attract
other international chains. Within a few years, chains like Fendi, Brioni and Louis Vitton
had arrived, and downtown rents were exploding.
Although growth in new commercial space continued to crawl along at just under 1% a
year from 1983 to 1997 — total retail sales were growing dramatically at 8% each year
during that time. In other words, the price of merchandise being sold was climbing
steadily.
From 1993 to 1998, the City worked on a public - private partnership with City Market
and Bell Mountain Lodge to establish a major new retail and housing complex. The intent
was to expand City Market in a new, sub -grade complex, including parking. The project
also aimed for "a variety of locally -owned and locally- serving businesses at street level,
and arrange of affordable and free market units (above)," according to the "Aspen
`Superblock' Close -Out Report.
However, before city officials got into the details of how to limit the retail to locally -
owned and locally- serving, the partnership fell apart, as City Market backed away from
the sub -grade location, and the lodge chose to convert to free market townhomes.
Meanwhile, the trend toward specialty tourist retail continued, as sales from 1998 to 2007
increased for jewelry stores (43 %); galleries (89 %); fur stores (336 %); and general/home
furnishings (59 %). While the tourist - oriented "Specialty Retail" category dropped by
23 %, and "Clothing" increased only 1.9 %, a resort industry analyst believes this is
largely attributable to an increase in the practice of mailing costly merchandise directly to
out -of -state buyers, thereby avoiding the City's 8.5% sales tax.
4
The Aspen Retail Analysis and theinfill Concept
The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan reflected many of the same concerns as the 1993
AACP: " ... both residents and a diverse visitor population ... demand a lively, small -
scale downtown with diverse and unique shops ... local ownership of business helps
maintain our community's unique character ..."
As the national economy slumped due to the dot.com bubble and 9/11, the City focused
on ways to increase vitality in the downtown, including a study by BBC Research called
"Aspen Retail Analysis." The report identified a number of problems, including:
• Lack of downtown vibrancy
• Eroded store mix — loss of unique stores
• Narrow market niche — too many high -end stores
• Lack of entertainment, loss of nightlife
• No incubator space, difficult for start-ups
• High vacancy, high rent, too many offices
Several recommendations to counter the trends were to be implemented by forming a
Business Improvement District (BID). But when the study was issued in January 2004,
the economy was recovering, and the retailing community tended to focus again on
competition versus collaboration. The BID was never formed.
The City was also focusing on a mandate from the 2000 AACP to increase density in the
downtown core, while lowering density outside the Urban Growth Boundary — all part of
an anti - sprawl effort.
With the economy suffering in 2001 and 2002, the Infill Advisory Committee (IAC)
found that the City code was making it almost impossible to develop or redevelop
commercial space in the downtown due to the level of mitigation requirements and other
exactions. The last substantial commercial space constructed in the downtown was the
Boogies building in the early 1990s.
In fact, the code made it easier for developers to convert lodges or commercial space into
second homes than it was to develop or redevelop commercial space. Developers in the
extremely lucrative second home market were asking if they could build on the
pedestrian malls. The IAC was worried that the code was actually a recipe for less
commercial space, and more second homes that stand empty much of the time.
In the spring of 2005, as the economy was picking up dramatically, the code was changed
to make commercial development more viable — this meant less mitigation, greater
heights and massing and other changes.
With the economy on the upswing, development applications flooded into City Hall, and
the City Council shared a sense of nervousness with the public. All the applications were
for sizeable three or more story- buildings, and there was a concern that the downtown
would end up looking all the same — big, imposing and a barrier to mountain views.
5
In March 2006, the City Council adopted a moratorium on new development
applications. A year later, Council made some reductions in height and massing, and
adopted new Commercial Design Guidelines that included a focus on maintaining the
diversity of heights in the downtown.
Renewed Focus on Commercial Mix and Character
While some were focused on the physical appearance of downtown, others were even
more worried about what was happening inside the buildings. A series of beloved
businesses had closed or converted to new uses:
• Tipplers nightclub, the Smuggler Bar and the somewhat seedy but unique Roaring
Fork Tavern were gone;
• Favored local restaurants such as La Cocina and the Motherlode closed — they
were located in buildings targeted for redevelopment;
• A development application for Cooper St. Pier, with its two restaurants and 2 °d
floor pool hall, mean the space was likely to convert to retail;
• Aspen Drug became a real estate office, leaving one pharmacy in town;
• The historic and locally beloved Red Onion (bar /restaurant) was closing, with
renovations anticipated, and no guarantee that a restaurant would re -open at the
Pedestrian Mall site.
While Aspen's long roster of unique (non- chain) restaurants and bars has always been a
strong asset for the downtown, a study showed the number of restaurants, bars and
coffeehouses dropped from 87 in 1992 to 76 in 2006 — a 13% decline. Job statistics
confirm the trend, with a five percent drop in employment at restaurant/bars from 2001 to
2006. (A 5% increase in total taxable sales for restaurant/bars during the same period
suggests an increase in prices.)
From 1992 to 2006, there were 11 new beauty salons, eight additional clothing/accessory
stores, four additional jewelry stores and three new banks. The number of sporting goods
stores stayed about the same (one more).
In December 2006, Council adopted a moratorium prohibiting new building permits for
commercial space, an action that stalled the renovation of the Red Onion. The Council's
rationale was: "the preservation of the current vitality, character and history of the City's
central business area; (and) the preservation, conservation and protection of uses ...
within the central business area of the City 4
y ...'
At the same time, the City launched a "Commercial Mix" study, roughly based on two
Action Items in the 2000 AACP:
• Action Item #91: Support Locally Owned Businesses. Study and consider ways to
support a diversity of small, locally -owned businesses in the commercial core as
opposed to national chain stores and tourist - oriented retail.
• Action Item #94: Study Potential to Limit Chain Stores. Investigate efforts by
2 Report on State of the Aspen Area: 2000 -2008 / Economy chapter
3 Report on State of the Aspen Area: 2000 -2008 / Economy chapter
4 Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006
6
other communities for managing the impacts of chain stores.
Staff soon discovered that Aspen's situation was unique. Most other cities and towns
were trying to manage fast -food and retail chains like McDonalds, Hooters and Wal
Mart. These cities and towns were often looking for ways to keep the chains out of a
unique "historic district" they wanted to protect — to preserve a unique retail environment
for tourists.
In Aspen, the only type of chain store that was proliferating was selling international
designer -brand luxury goods. The City study included an instant keypad voting session at
the Jerome Hotel in 2007, attracting about 100 people. Some of the results were:
• 65% favored "a diversity of small businesses as opposed to national chain stores
and tourist- oriented retail."
• 64% agreed that the funky boutiques of Aspen's past were "part of the unique
charm that attracted tourists."
• 59% wanted to see more restaurant and nightclubs on the pedestrian malls.
• 50% agreed that the retail mix was too "high end"
• 44% favored a cap on the number of chain stores that sell "designer /luxury brand
merchandise."
The most popular tools to address the problem were "public /private partnerships" and
growth management incentives for new commercial space on 2 " floors, basements and
alleys. The idea was that these less -than-prime commercial locations would tend to be
locally- serving.
Ultimately, the City Council declined to adopt new regulatory tools such as quotas for
jewelry stores, galleries or designer -brand luxury chains. Arguments against local
government trying to interfere in the commercial market prevailed. The only code change
was a placeholder in GMQS: "D. Community Objective Scoring Criteria #4 —
Community Commercial. This section is reserved for a future community objective." 5
As the process wound down, staff focused on the potential of losing businesses that
provide every -day necessities. There was a concern that a property owner could get a
much higher return on a high -end retail space rather than a pharmacy or laundromat.
Locals recalled that the last gas station in Snowmass Village almost closed in recent
years. Staff suggested:
• Identifying stores that are needed to serve year -round residents;
• Exploring "succession planning" with such business owners, seeking to ensure
their continuation;
• Exploring options for creating space or raising revenues to ensure the
continuation of local- serving businesses needed by the local community.
5 Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007.
7
A Case -by -Case Basis
Without adopting sweeping new code rules, the City has intervened in the commercial
sector in specific cases, including the Isis Theatre, the Red Onion, the redevelopment of
the Weinerstube and the redevelopment of the Cooper St. Pier.
Isis Theatre: When the owners of the last cinema in town (Isis Theatre) threatened to
close it, the City stepped in and negotiated a redevelopment deal that retained three of
five screens and included local non - profits such as Aspenfilm.
The Red Onion: During the 2006/'07 moratorium, the City negotiated with the owners
of the Red Onion building, ultimately requiring that interior historic elements be retained,
along with a restaurant use. (The land use code could not require either action, but the
moratorium gave the City leverage to negotiate the agreement.)
The Weinerstube: As City Council prepared to reject this redevelopment application, the
applicant departed from the code, pledging to limit rents on certain, less -prime
commercial spaces. Council rejected the project. After the owners filed a lawsuit, the City
negotiated a settlement that included a new Aspen Art Museum.
Cooper St. Pier: After Council rejected a redevelopment application and the owners
filed suit, the parties reached a settlement that included a limit on food prices in a sub -
grade bar /restaurant: "The pricing of the tenant's menu shall be within the lower one -
third of the average price of food of all the restaurants in the City of Aspen," according to
the settlement.
Fiercely Local: The name of the restaurant that will replace Bentley's in the City -owned
Wheeler Opera House building. The City's Request for Proposals called for "an
affordable local - serving eating and drinking option at the Wheeler, preferably offering
lunch and dinner on a year -round basis."
Although other cases have raised the public's ire, such as the imminent closure of one of
two local bookstores (Explore Booksellers) several years ago, the Council declined to get
involved. Ultimately the property was purchased and the bookstore /restaurant was
retained by a philanthropist.
Overall Trends
The amount of new commercial space created since 1983 has been minimal.
From 1983 to 1997, annuaL growth in new commercial space was just under 1% a year, or
less than 10,000 square feet annually. From 1996 to 1999, not a single square foot of
commercial space was constructed. From 2000 to 2008, an average of less than 4,000
square feet was built each year.
Today, there is very little vacant space in the downtown core that could become
commercial. A build -out study conducted by City staff in 2009 showed the potential for
8
about 84,000 square feet of new commercial space in the downtown core, including
basements, and 1 and 2 " floors.
Perhaps the most significant vacant parcel is the 9,000 square foot parking lot at Hunter
and Hyman. An application to develop about 15,000 square feet of commercial on the 1st
and 2 floors was submitted to the City in November 2011.
Amidst this backdrop, the future of Aspen's downtown commercial core will continue to
be much more about conversion of existing uses than new commercial space. As the
availability of new commercial space dwindles, the GMQS becomes less and less of a
factor — as it provides incentives or imposes exactions based on new development.
As part of the educational portion of the 2011 AACP, the City commissioned a "white
paper" called The Aspen Economy, issued by Economics Research Associates in October
2008. It included an overall look at Aspen's retail sector:
" A spen's downtown retailing environment is crucial to the appeal and functioning of
Aspen as a resort community," the report said. "The importance of retailing to Aspen's
economic health is fully recognized by community leaders, and some of the trends in the
retailing environment are perceived to have eroded the traditional appeal of the
downtown district, such that the appropriate policies to improve the downtown
environment have been vigorously debated over the years."
The report noted that of all the money spent on commercial products and services in the
Aspen Area every year, only about 10% is spent by local residents. The 2011 AACP
includes Implementation Step V.1.a, calling for a "market study to identify the aggregate
retail demand of local residents and determine whether there are adequate local- serving
businesses to meet that demand ..."
Policy V.1 and V.2 reflect some of the perspectives from past AACPs:
• V.1) Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse, vital and meets the
needs of year -round residents and visitors.
• V.2) Facilitate for the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic
community needs.
9