HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Growth Management Plan.1977 71 Jr I l P 71 Jii.t
Box E
Aspen, Colorado
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
) as. Copy of Notice
County of Pitkin )
I William R. Dunaway do solemnly swear that
I ant the . ._Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; • - •
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, public notice
and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has
a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there
lashed continuously and uinterruptedly in said County of Pitktn, will be held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 19, 1977, at 5 pm before the Aspen
for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior planning and Zoning Commission in the
to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- City Council Chamber. An City Hall,
ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States 130 South Galena Sleet, Aspen, to consider
the adoE u.,n of Artr'.e X of the A.v*n Lon -
mails' as sceond -class matter under the provisions of the Act of mg Code. which pr.pored amendment to
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news - the Code 14,11 inclure the following'
Article X estabIn ned a limnat.cn on re
paper Is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal sidential and commercial development in
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the the city by prohibiting the construction of
State of Colorado. more that 39 residential dwelling units, 18
lodge units and 24,000 square feet of com-
mercial and office space tin the CC and C -1
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published districts only) per year. To implement this
in the regular and entire issue of every number of said' weekly rate of growth the proposal includes a re-
quired annual review Ball building permit
applications and assignment of "points" to
newspapers for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and each proposal representing an evaluation of
the project's desirability in terms of la) the
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said availability of public and social services
and facilities 1bl its compatibility ya with pate
ability to
• 1k services already provided (c)
newspaper dated .Tune - - .3Q A. D., 19 27.. and that i m sin
the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- (d) Prov its de site low a n en d etdtitectur oderate al income demg h qua ou lity g
(e) its ability to provide additional needed •
public facilities, and other criteria,
paper dated A. D.. 19 specified in the proposal. The proposed
I amendment further provides for the award
for development permission only after re-
�9 / //f • t view by the planning office, planning and
FGK. `n.. /ar , (G r
Inning commission and dtycauncil; and the of
revocation of atilt development permission
if not exercined within a etatedpen 1f
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary publi i d f
_ be av time. , A ropy of the mPlenn PrePo • s ion detail, y
w ailable m the City begi TueOffice. day. rmen
� ��S5 1977 Jul 5,
A .
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �/ day of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado, during normal office hours. 9 A. D., 19.77 • e-Kethryn S Hunter
/ /��(
Ample City Clerk
4 „di .`..".-.�.' Published in the AspenTimeeon June 30,
i
Notary Public 1977.
My commission expires ,i Y..Cw,;. • ii -- 3,
193x.
•
•
. 9 • • •
•RADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 19, 1977
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on July 19,
1977, at 5:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Chic
Collins, Roger Hunt, Olaf Hedstrom and John Schuhmacher. Also present from
the Planning Office were Bill Kane and Karen Smith and County Attorney Sandy
Stuller.and City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall.
Approval of Hunt moved to approve the minutes of 15 February 1977,
Minutes 22 February 1977, and 5 July 1977 with corrections.
Schuhmacher seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
passed.
Moore Building Kane stated that this was a requested use for an educationa].
toy store in the Moore Building in the space previously
occupied by World Savings Co. The'toy store would be a
higher use than World Savings. The theory of conformity
and non - conformity should be applied to an entire building.
When the Planning Office rezoned that block C -1 we decided
to deal with each building on a case -by -case basis. Nuttall
stated that the P &Z could only act in an advisory role on
this case.
Hunt did not feel that the code gave sufficient latitude
to permit certain uses within an area. Kane said that there
has to be some prescribed word as to what is allowed in
certain districts.
Hunt moved to affirm the use of the Moore Building for a
toy store as the proposed use represented a lesser use
or less intense. Hedstrom seconded. All in favor; motion
passed.
Holy Cross and Kane discussed the proposal to locate an old steel truss
Rio Grande bridge between the Rio Grande property and the Holy Cross
bridge property. The bridge is currently 121 feet long. We
propose to cut 2 sections out of it so that it will fit
across the Rio Grande at that point. It will be high enough
to convey the 100 year flood. The County would assist
• the City. The Stream Margin Review requires that P &Z
review this proposal. Kane said that any motion would
require vegetaion.
Collins abstained from the discussion, Hunt said that
it would be nice to cover up the abutments with boulders.
Hunt moved to approve the Stream Margin Review of the Rio
Grande bridge where it crosses between the Rio Grande proper
to the Holy Cross property provided that concrete
abutments are returned to their vegetative or covered
with boulders upon completion. Hedstrom seconded. All
in favor; motion passed.
CondamtmiumSzatkon Stuller highlighted the changes she had made in the new
Public Hearing draft of the ordinance. Kane asked that the public
hearing begin as there was no need for further explanation.
Bob George Bob George, from Mason and Morse, felt rather distressed
with the quota system. The timing of applications and the
information process is not correct. One could go through
the whole process without knowing if there is a building
allotment. Detailed plans are asked for which will not be
approved unless they include moderate or low income
housing. Half of the building season is blown if the
schedule in the ordinance is adhered to. Essential
government buildings are included in the quota - why?
Stuller answered that if the government builds a commercial
building, then it should be recognized in subsequent years.
Regul Meeti Planning and Zoning Commission July 19, 1977
It was decided that Section 24- 10.2(d) could be struck
from the ordinance.
Kane stated that as far as employee housing, City Council
has an ordinance before them to establish a Housing Authorit
Thus criteria for different housing types will be published
far in advance of application deadlines.
Bob George In part 24 -10.3 paragraph 1 the allotment, if not fulfilled
during one year, should not be recinded after two years.
It creates a further erosion of allotments. If a builder
receives an allotment that commitment should be made to
that builder for at least two years. •
Kane stated that it was included to keep people from
speculating. Stuller did not recommend dropping that
section from the ordinance due to the common law premise.
Joe Porter Joe Porter, from Design Workshop, did not see the point
of a mixed use plan. The process is confusing.
Kane stated that this process presumes that you will put
the best use for the property. It will be weighed against
other bests.
Bob George Bob George did not think there were enough points. There
is a need for shades of gray. Thus more points should be
added. The Planning Office seems opposed to the design
review process in CC and C -1. The community should be
involved in this process so that the community will support
this system.
Kane said after the framework is established then the
process could be opened to a broader base in the community.
Our goal is to produce medium income housing. If it fails,
we will shuck this plan.
Bob George then questioned the remodeling or restoration
of any existing building in Section 24- 10.2(a) and (b).
He suggested adding reconstruction. Kane agreed. Jim
Curtis, Design Workshop, asked why quota was against
reconstruction if there is no increase in the building
area. Kane said that it would exempt the commercial core.
Curtis said that most historic designated buildings do not
need work to be done to them. Stuller stated that any
additional floor space should be recognized. Reconstructio-
should be dropped and enlargement added.
A discussion of the difference between historic designation
and historic district followed.
Employee housing was brought up again. Kane said that any
employee housing provided as a bonus in the commerical
core should not be included as part of the FAR bonus in
CC and C -1 districts.
Joe Porter did not feel there was much incentive to provide
employee housing since it cut into the normal rental space.
Curtis wanted the allotment forwarded for a five year
period. Stuller agreed, The language allows City Council
to carry over the allotment or not, as they see fit, Kane
said that it could state that the applicant could qualify
for the unused allotment from the previous year, The
Board agreed that allotments should carry over.
Porter then questioned the schedule. Stuller said it was
not designed to lose a building year. Commerical should
be at one time and residential at another.
® 4
■
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 19, 1977
Andy Hecht, attorney, questioned the employee housing in
L -1. L -1 precludes multi - family dwellings. Employee
housing in L -2 is incompatible. Kane said that the L-1
option for employee housing is that the common space can
be reduced.
Porter thought that lodge and condominium space requirements
should be the same. It should be in square foot limitation,.
Collins closed the public hearing.
Hunt moved to make 26 June 1977 a special meeting to
discuss the Growth Management Plan on specific points.
Hedstrom seconded the motion. All in favor; motion passed.
Hedstrom moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15, seconded
by Hunt. All in favor; meeting adjourned.
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Cler'.
• 0
•RAD,ORD IO•LI•NING CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 1977
A special meeting was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 26 July
1977 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers in City Hall. Commission
members Chic Collins, Roger Hunt, Olaf Hedstrom, Tom Isaac, John Schuhmacher,
and Dick Kienast were present. Also present was Mayor Stacy Standley,
County Attorney Sandy Stuller, Planners Bill Kane and Karen Smith,
Nelson Owen from the Parks Department, and City Manager Mick Mahoney.
Collins brought the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The
first item was the Triangle Park public hearing.
Triangle Park Bill Kane presented the facts about Triangle Park. The
Public Hearing code requires that a public hearing be for parks in
the R -6 zone since it is a conditional use. The notice
was in the Aspen Times on 7 July 1977. The application is
for a master plan for Triangle Park. It is an open site
of about 6000 square feet on which a few pieces of play
equipment are located. The City acquired the site this
year. City Council minutes authorizing the purchase of
the land, discussing the conditions, sale prices, etc.
were submitted for the record. They include 13 December
1976, 10 January 1977, and 27 June 1977. They may be
viewed in the City Clerk's office. Fonda Paterson
engaged Georgianne Waggaman to draw plans for the Triangle
Park. The central issue is to determine proposed plans
to see if the use complies with the zoning code (R -6),
if it is consistent with the zoning code, or if it is
consistent with the surrounding land uses. There are
3 plans for the park: the original plan, the amended plan
and the proposed plan presented by the neighborhood. Kane
presented a West End Home Owner's Association petition
signed by 53 people against the City proposal for the'park
for the record. There were also 17 letters in opposition
to the park. Another petition writen by Fonda Paterson
supporting the park plan signed by 70 people was entered
into the record. 16 letters supporting the park were
included.
Georgianne Waggaman with the aid of drawings discussed
the original plan and amended plan for Triangle Park.
The amended plan left more open space, no paved areas,
2 lowered play areas and heavy shrubbery in the play areas.
Collins asked if there was a use study of the parks. Kane
said that in January 1974, Armstrong presented a
comprehensive plan for the park system. There are present
'
3 active parks. There is a need for an active park in
the west end. Hunt felt the park would be too intensive
a use as presented. He questioned the Parks Department
rationale for choosing this location. Nelson Owen said
that it would be the only park in a central location in
town the other three are more outside of town. Hunt
reiterated his doubts. Isaac did not want the point
belaboured. Who wants kids playing in the street. Hunt
then said it might be underusd. Why spend $20,000 on
something which might not be used. Kaud said that the
basic issue is whether it can be in a residential area
or not. The elementary school does not have a grass play
area. It is in the center of town. It is an informal
use of the property. The facility can he used at any
time.
Ann Salter Ann Salter presented the design proposed by the West
End Home Owner's Association. There would only be a
16 foot sunken sandbox which could be flooded in the winter
to skate on. In the City plan the play areas cannot be
used all year round.
•
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 1977
Collins opened the meeting the the public.
Nancy Lundy Nancy Lundy expressed concern about the 4 foot pit.
Toddlers could easily fall into it. The main thing is
to keep it as simple as possible for the aesthetics of
.. the neighborhood. Children do not need structured play.
A fresh and unstructured approach is the basis of our
community.
Waggaman interjected that the small structures in the
sand area could be removed. The 4 foot pit is a sloping
hill, not a steep drop.
Anne Schwind Anne Schwind read a letter from Irene Tagert which stated
that the park should be for children as well as adults.
The emphasis should be on open space.
Robie Harris Robie Harris, home owner on the west end, said that the
amended city plan is not just a summer plan. Lots of
children live on the west end. It will be nice to have
an active play area so that the children can stay in the
neighborhood. The other areas are difficult to reach
except by crossing busy streets or by car. Harris supports
the amended plan.
Chic August Chic August from the Hobbit House liked the idea for a new
park but felt that it was irrational to be spending more
money when the other parks are in such disrepair. Ute Park
is a mess. The park at the golf course had equipment in
broken condition. The old parks should be taken care of.
Anne Schwind Anne Schwind could not envision the City keeping the park
clear of snow. The park will be immobilized for seven
months. $12,000 is a horrendous price to pay to develop
5800 square feet.
Kane stated that City Council alloted $10,000 for equipment
and $10,000 for landscaping and other improvements. The
existing vegetation will remain.
Schwind questioned the practicality of an underground
sprinkler system. Kane stated that the ditch system
doesn't work in that part of the city. Schwind said a
tap could be put in.
Stacy Standley Stacy Standley, mayor of Aspen, made a presentation for the
city. The property was purchased for $] in January
1977. Armstrong's 1974 master plan pin pointed what the
city needed vis a vis recreation: 1) tennis and handball
courts, 2) toddler play areas and 3) passive parks. There
should be 5 acres of open space per 1,000 population.
Fonda Paterson, Parks Association, is the proponent of the
park. The Parks Association has approved and endorsed the
purchase and development of Triangle Park. Waggaman has
designed parks before. Thus her credibility is high. The
plan was presented in April. An expensive investment was
made. $7,000 was appropriated for equipment. The other
$10,000 will be spent whether or not use is given. It will
be cleaned up, upgraded and will make an attractive area
of the west end. That area needs a tot lot. It is the
most dense area in the city and the kids need a recreational
facility. Hallam Lake is an education facility. The
school areas are black topped and used for tennis in the
summer. The equipment, effort and City Council support is
there for the park.
1
•
ofte
4 A
..o,oIM,,,NL„HMO CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 1977
Fonda Paterson said that the sand area in the city's plan
is an active area, in the West End plan it is inactive.
Ann Salter wondered why a public hearing notice did not
come out until after the play structures were delivered.
Paterson said that there was an article in the paper
about the city adopting plans for the park in April.
There was no response to that article.
Waggaman described the play materials to be installed in
the park and their scale within the park. Lundy felt
that the equipment crowded the play area too much.
Hunt wondered which plan was approved for the park. Standle
said that City Council does not care which plan is used.
The amended would not cost as much. Kane said that P &Z
should be voting on the amended plan.
Jennifer Pedersen Jennifer Pedersen said that she was responsible for making
the motion to purchase Traingle Park. First to utilize
it as a passive park would be to overload the west end
with passive parks which would be a mistake. Secondly,
this was once a mining community and not a Victorian
community, thus massive would is a ridiculous argument.
Thirdly, there is a large auto disincentive. Children
can ride their bikes or walk to the park. If you object
to the squeeking of tennis shoes, then you can drive your
car to one of the other parks. Fourthly, there is a need
for a children's park in this residential neighborhood.
Are children not residents? Fifthly, perhaps it is easier
for many of the residents in the West End to have a passive
park to look at. Children represent growth and change
which is not passive.
Fonda Paterson Fonda Paterson said that for thirty years this land has bee
in private ownership. There was equipment there for kids.
For some reason now that it is an official park, people
do not want it to be developed for children.
Collins closed the public hearing.
Collins said that the park should be compatible and low
key. The intensity of the use with the City plan is
questionable. A children's park is appropriate. To
dig a pit to hide something which is heavy for that park
a bit much. Could deal with smaller children only. There
are other places for larger children. A structure as large
as planned does not stand out as much at Waggoner's Park.
Action on this request should be tabled until there is a
site inspection.
Hunt concurred with Collins. Hunt had seen the park used
for larger activities like baseball and frisbee. The plan
cuts out much of the usable area. Collins didn't think
that frisbee and baseball were appropriate for a children's
park.
Hedstrom thought that a children's park was appropriate.
It would be nicer as a children -adult park. It should be
designed to discourage older park activities. Activities
for all ages cannot be combined successfully in one park.
Schuhmacher said it should be a children's park. He wanted
a site inspection to see what open space would be left.
It seems to be heavy gear going into a small site.
N
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 1977
Tom Isaac said that the issue is the use for the park.
It is a good location for a children's park. There is
no need for cars. It is an appropriate use. The equipment
is worth discussing. It would be a crime to have it sit
there and not have kids using it. The architecture would
add more variety to the neighborhood. He did not feel it
would be harmful.
Hunt reiterated that the intensity would be greater than
it should be.
Kienast said that the other parks are in objectionable
condition. If this is going to turn out like the other
parks then he was against developing it. It is appropriate
to have parks as the city becomes more crowded. He objected
to putting kids in pits. You can't watch them. It is
appropriate to put anything there. He would like to see
a playground there. Open space and empty lots are
disappearing in the West End.
Hunt moved to table action and to have an inspection on
Thursday at noon. Isaac seconded the motion. All in
favor; motion passed.
Dick Kienast Chic Collins accepted a letter of resignation from Dick
letter of resig. Kienast and thanked him for his fine work and laborious
hours on the Commission.
Copper Horse The Copper Horse is a boarding house in the 0 office
district which is requesting conditional use approval.
They must fulfill three conditions: 1) historic
designation which it received on 28 March 1977; 2) off-
street parking for 15 spaces; and 3) no objections from
neighbors. After conditional use is permitted the
Copper Horse can be issued a building permit to add new
windows to two existing rooms making them habitable as
employee housing.
Karen Smith submitted for the record a letter from Brian
Goodheim in support of the 2 units as employee housing.
PO felt that parking requirements could be waived because
most of the renters did not have cars. It is housing
which accomodates guests at a lower price close to town.
the Planning Office supports the conditional use.
Neil Bennett, owner of the Copper Horse, said he purchased
the building in 1974. Neither of the rooms in the basement
were being used. He decided to let his employees stay
there free of charge. They cannot be used by guests ever
since that is where he keeps his supplies. He has kept
a record of cars. The employees average 1.13 cars per
employee per winter. Guests average 6.29 cars per month.
Other businessmen on Main Street do not have off- street
parking. Bennett would like to install windows in his
employees rooms so that they have adequate egress and ingre:;
Collins opened the meeting to the public.
Ruth Wyatt, a neighbor, had no objections to window
building. She has never had a problem with the parking
since most people who live there do not have cars.
•
es
aflimma
•
•0A0/0110 rusueMina co., DENVER
RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 1977
Hunt moved to approve the expansion of conditional use
for the Copper House boarding house specifically
recognizing the addition of two windows for existing
employee units on the basis of the units being employee
type housing once and the history of significantly lower
auto usage than normal. It is the Commission's
determination that auto parking need not be expanded.
Kienast seconded the motion. All in favor; motion
passed.
Kienast moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m., seconded by Isaac.
All in favor; meeting adjourned.
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk
•
0 orT 0
nnAOrono PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 1977
Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting at 5:15 PM on August
9, 1977 in City Council chambers. Members present were Chic Collins, Olaf
Hedstrom, Tom Isaac, Donald Ensign and Joan Klar. Others present were Bill
Kane, John Stanford, and Karen Smith from the Planning Office and County
Attorney Sandy Stuller.
Collins brought the meeting to order at 5:15. He welcomed
the new members to the Commission. He stated that they
would have the mock review panel first instead of the
review and discussion of the Growth Management Ordinance.
Mock Review City Planner Kane gave a brief synopsis of the allotment
Panel for building in residential, commercial and lodging
zones as permitted by the Growth Management Ordinance.
Kane discussed the residential allotments using Aspen
Villas as the example. It was decided to separate roads
and parking -for different criteria.
The Commission decided that it would be helpful if the
Planning Office did recommend and assign points to the
various projects when they are submitted for review.
John Stanford discussed the Aspen Plaza Building as a
commercial project. He suggested that the maximum of two
points be changed to three points for the HPC section of
the commercial area.
Kane suggested adding an EE under section 1 of Quality
of Design in Commercial and Lodging and make it visual
impact of view plane worth two points. Collins suggested
combining two categories in the Historical Section so as
to reduce the total number of possible points to 15.
Stanford said that texture and massing were the same
and could thus be combined. Stuller dropped texture.
Karen Smith used the Glory Hole Lodge to discuss lodging.
The Commission felt that there were not enough substantial
points on which to judge lodges. More criteria should be
included beside just visual aspects.
The requirement of a conceptual plat was questioned.
Kane said that it was a lot cheaper than requiring a
final plat for the first step.
•
Ensign moved to continue this meeting until Thursday,
August 11 at 11:30 AM. Hedstrom seconded the motion.
All in favor: motion passed.
Hedstrom moved to adjourn at 1:35 PM, seconded by Isaac.
All in favor; meeting adjourned.
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk.
•• .1
PUnLISHING CO., DENVER _ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting -- - Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1977
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on August 11, 1977,
at 11:30 AM in City Council chambers. Members present were Chic Collins,
Olaf Hedstrom, Tom Isaac, Frank Baranko, Donald Ensign and Joan Klar.
Also present were Bill Kane and Karen Smith from the Planning Office and
County Attorney Sandy Stuller.
Growth Sandy Stuller discussed her memo of July 20, 1977. The first
Management Plan request was that 24- 10.2(a) be amended to read: The
remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any existing
building (provided there is no expansion of floor area nor
creation of new dwelling units). This would mean that any
building would be exempt from review procedures. The
second amendment of section 24- 10.2(b)- was written to include
only historic structures which would be exempt from review
when: The enlargement of, or change of use in, a structure
which has received individual historic designation. Section
24- 10.2(g) shows that employee housing in C or lodge districts
would be automatically exempt from the allotment procedure
in order to encourage employee housing. However,_ all of this
build out will be offset -the following year.
Joe Porter, from the Design Workshop, stated that he did not
feel-that the employee - bonus - units in district
should not come out of the quota for_ the following year,-
Stuller said that then -it- - should -cut into the present year
which would be even more restrictive. Porter said that if
the Growth Management Plan is emphasizing employee housing,
then it is not fulfilling its purpose. Stuller said that
the -purpose is to control all- construction. - Employee - housing
should_be recognized as a growth- indicator..____ -_
Collins - stated that employee housing had never been discussed
as to-- whether -it should - :be_included -=in :the quota. - Hedstrom
said if it is under (g) as, a bonus then they should -not be
counted forever. Isaac said that the employee housing would
not detract from the quota for lodging - units. - - It: would be
detracted from the_quota_ -for residential. -- _Collins.did- want_
to see it included in the total build_out quota. -:Klar
suggested that -the ordinance could be amended if it creates
a huge problem.
Stuller read the last paragraph of Section 24- 10.2 which
was amended to read: provided that the building inspector
shall, as required by Section 24 -10.7, annually report the
amount of residential, commercial and office construction
exempted by reason of Sections 24- 10.2(b), (c) and (g) within
the previous year and those totals shall be deducted from the
quota of allowable development in the succeeding year. When
reporting exempted construction pursuant to subparagraph (b),
the inspector shall calculate only the additional floor space
or dwelling units resulting from such construction.
Stuller said that Section 24 -10.6 was amended to read: "Any
expired allotments shall be added to available allotments in t,.
year of expiration (or thereafter) and-be awarded pursuant to
the procedures established in this Article." Collins said
that the idea was to carry them over to the following year,
but to not necessarily assign them the following year.
It was decided that the unawarded quota shall be carried over.
Isaac said that the rate of growth should be steady. Collins
said that carryover should continue for the life of_the_
ordinance. Stuller then said that it was resolved that the
excess would be carried over and could be alloted anytime.
The Commission agreed.
•
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1977
Section 24- 10.4(b) (3) reset the dates for the deadlines for
application, etc. Joe Porter presented a case against the
dates which Stuller had recommended. Porter's dates would
make it easier for the projects to be constructed during a
building season rather than losing a building season. Porter
suggested a January 1 application deadline date. The whole
process would take 14 months. A lengthy discussion of the
submission date pursued. Stuller suggested that everything
be scheduled for January 1. The Commission agreed.
Bill Kane discussed his memo of 29 July 1977 to the P &Z
. Commission. The first question dealt with condominiumization
in the lodging district. Presently a land owner could elect
to condominiumize in the lodging district and build under the
RMF guidelines for density or could build lodging. On the
one hand condominiums should compete for the permanent
residential units. The requirements fora competitive position
in -the multi family pool would require them to install
employee housing. Purely lodging projects with no- kitchen-
etc. should go for the lodging pool of 18 units. Multi family
units should compete for the residential lodging with the
understanding that employee housing could be located off site.
The Planning Office is recommending- against square
limitations in the lodging district ;'unit restriction is much
simpler. The Commission discussed locating low and moderate
--
income "housing off- site:= - � -- - -_- -- - -- -- -- -"-
--
Porter said =that it was- much more= efficient £o haVel all the
•
teurists`located - ih the lodging- districts which are next'to
the -lifts and restaurants; -etc =.The land -is -also- very expensive
and cheaper housing could be built -en less expensive land.
Kane said that if it is multi family condominium then it must
meet the residential criteria.- -12 :it is a lodge then it -Must
meet -lodge criteria. - This - eliminates- cendominiumization for
short term purposes.
• &amber 2 of- Kane's memo was - changed to readi- "That multi- family
condominiums muust apply for the--permanent housing- allotment
of -39 units per year to include the requirement for -low
and moderate housing." - - -
Kane - said that the next question is- whether -or not there should
be a building allotment for 77- in -78- since =77 was - missed due
to an administrative delay. The Commission discussed it.
Kane suggested that the 77 allotment should be distributed in
October. Kane wanted an allotment in October for 77 which woul:
take care of the administrative'delay. Then -in January 1978
the allotment could start fresh." The Commission agreed with
this plan. -
Joe Porter suggested that there were approximately 250 approved
undeveloped lots which could come up for permits in a year.
There was a short discussion and it was decided that they
could be offset over a -15 year - period. -
Kane discussed the last section of his memo. There can either
be an evaluation which could pass with 6 percent of -the total
or with 30 percent of each section. He- suggested -the 60 -
percent.. The 60 guarantees a minimum in the housing.
Isaac -moved to continue this meeting Tuesday, 16 August, at
11 :30 AM.- Baranko seconded the motion. All in favor; motion
p assed. - ,- ;.__ = _ _ __. -::_ _
Redstrom -moved to- adjourn- Isaac- seconded the motion. All
in- favor; meeting adjourned at -1 :40 PM. _
6 (-
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clc.
0 ,." 1
BRADFORD PDELI•NIND CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 19-
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a Special Meeting on 16 August
1977 at 11:45 AM in the City Council chambers. Members present were Chic
Collins, Tom Isaac, Frank Baranko, Donald Ensign, Joan Klar and Olaf Hedstrom.
Present from the Planning Office were Bill Kane, Karen Smith and John
Stanford.
Lodging Collins brought the meeting to order at 11:45 AM. He stated
Growth Management that this was a continued meeting on the Growth Management
Plan Plan.
Kane presented a memo on lodging to the members. He felt tha',
the previous criteria for judgement of projects was weak.
Everyone had expressed disatisfaction with the previous
scoring system. The new criteria would be section 24- 10.5(c)
of the ordinance. It would consist of 60 points spread thru
five sections. •
1. Public Facilities and Services. (aa) Water; (bb) Sewer;
(cc) Storm Drainage; (dd) Fire Protection; (ee) School
Capacity; and (ff) Roads. Each section was worth 3 points.
Tom Isaac said that it had been decided before to drop (ee)
School Capacity and add parking. Kane said it would
be best to drop it altogether and make public facilities
worth a maximum of 15 points.
2. Social Facilities and Services. (aa) Public Transportatio.
(bb) Police Protection; and (cc) Proximity to commercial
support facilities. Each section was worth 2 points for a
total of 6 points.
3. Quality of Design. (aa) Architectural design; (bb) Site
design; (cc) Energy; and (cc) Amenties. Each section was
worth 3 points for a total of 12 points. Isaac suggested
that fireplaces be added in the energy section. Kane had
no objection as long as the fireplace contributed to the
energy. Standard fireplaces are energy consuming. It was
decided to add to (cc) "degree to which fireplace energy
efficiency is considered."
4. Amenities and services provided for guests for a total
of 6 points. This is a bonus section. This makes the
distinction of a lodge from a condominium, since it considers
what is done with the open space and encourages common areas.
5. Conformance to local public policy goals. (aa) Reduction
below maximum allowable internal FAR; (bb) Provision of
bonus employee housing; and (cc) Auto disincentive. Each .
is worth 3 points for a total of 9 points. Ensign stated
that if parking areas were reduced it would mitigate against
summer use. Kane said that the goals for summer were the
same for winter although it was a good point.
Hedstrom said that 4 and 5(aa) were hard to balance against
one another. Kane said that there was a mistake. "For touri::•
rental space" should be added on 5(aa).
Andy Hecht, a lawyer, wanted to know the difference between
a vacant lot and one with some development. Kane stated
that Cantrup wanted some consideration to be given to existing
projects as opposed to new ones. Kane felt it would not be
equitable if there was a bias toward existing projects. Only
additions would be evaluated separately.
Hecht then asked if a lodge owner wanted to rebuild his lodge
with larger rooms would that be feasible. Kane said if rooms
were added or the project expanded, then it would come under
r•N
the ordinance. Hecht questioned Stuller's memo page 1,
- paragraph 1 where it says there can be "remodeling,
restoration or reconstruction of any existing building
(provided there is no expansion of floor area nor creation
of new dwelling units)." Isaac said it was up to the
Board to give exemptions. Kane said that Meyring decides if
• a project is exempt. Since there are FAR controls in the
lodge district, it should make no difference. Hecht stated
that lodge owners are not going to tear down buildings unless
they can build larger rooms. Kane said if you tear down a
lodge_ you cannot expand the floor area. The FAR has to be
recognized. Cantrup said there has to be an encouragement of
some sort to make it feasible for lodge owners to rebuild.
Kane said that provided there are no new dwelling units
should be the only criteria. Stanford said that the lodge
owners could expand to the full FAR. It was decided to change
Section 24- 10.2(a) to read "The remodeling, restoration - or
reconstruction of any existing building (provided there is
no creation of new dwelling units.)"
Joe Porter, Design Workshop, said that transportation in
2(aa)_ and (cc) should be worth at least 3 points -each since
they are_the most important criteria. Kane said_(aa) could
be 6 points and (cc) could be 4 points. 5(bb) could be 6
points (employee housing). This now brings to total back up
to 60.points.- Porter said -that (ea) should include - being
near_ski lifts. Kane agreed. _2(aa) was changed - to read
6 points:shall be assigned any project within walking distance
of skiing and on a bus route, 4 points for reasonable walking
distance of skiing and_of bus, _2 points for reasonable walking
distance to one or the other and 0 points_if-outside of walking
distance. _
Hecht wanted to have moderate income housing clarified.
Kane said -that there was a study which had been_.done, Cantrup
said that land costs were a big deterant to moderate income
housing. Kane said that, the ordinance anticipates the Robin
Hood theory of housing:, split the.mix. _Porter said if there
are - real- numbers then it- would -be easier . for the-developer.
Kane stated that that was -the pointof the housing authority.
Collins- wondered why_the Institute was not named as an
exclusion from the Growth Management Plan. Kane said that
City -- Council:-- can_chose -to write an__ordinance- excluding them
from this plan anytime they wish. P &Z had not wanted the
Institute to be exempt when this was first discussed.
Hedstrom wanted 24- 10.3(b) which was referred to throughout
the ordinance to be explained. Kane said it was_supposed to
be 24- 10.3(c). -
Ensign wondered why the Institute should not be exempt if
that would stand in the way of someone buying and developing
the Institute. Collins said that the best approach was
not to get in to specific exemptions. Kane said he had
never advised anyone who had queried that they would have to
follow the GMP. City Council had wanted to make the Institute
exempt.- Collins said that it would be best if the project
came before the exemption.- Kane -said that exemptions should
not be stated unless they are very clear. Stuller had felt
it could, be :a _legal
problem.--Ensign-said that the Institute
ais - ao£ - - large public concern._ - _Augmenting the summer program
-is- a for the City. _Additional time process could
-potentially - slow a developer down._ Isaac_stated he would -
-like to see a plan first. Baranko wanted to set
u-an exemptio:
Eso- as- not--to • lose the Institute. - -Kane said that the Institute
had been reluctant to be zoned academic. When the Commission
passes the resolution recommending this ordinance they could
include a statement about the Institute. -
•RAD•ORD RORLI•NIND CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 1977
Hedstrom moved to continue this special meeting on 30 August
1977 at 11:30 AM. Baranko seconded the motion. All in
favor; motion passed.
Isaac moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Baranko.
All in favor; meeting adjourned at 1:20 PM.
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk
0 0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
x e. .. ,.arc ll O. • • C. Ca.
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 30, 1977
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on August 30, 1977, at 11:30 AM
in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Chic Collins, Olaf Hedstrom, Tom Isaac,
Don Ensign and Joan Klar. Also present was County Attorney Sandy Stuller and from the
Planning Office were Karen Smith and John Stanford.
Gignoux Lynch Collins stated that first on the agenda was the Gignoux Lynch preliminary
1 preliminary plat plat continuation of a public hearing which could be combined with
the conditional use public hearing for the Sears Catalogue Store which
I Sears Catalogue will be located on Lot 1 of that property. Smith said that the Board
Store - conditional of Adjustments had granted a variance from the open space requirements
use public hearing for 1000 square feet. Because of the variance the Planning Office
could now recommend approval of the preliminary plat. The Board had
said that if the subdivision was considered together then there was
enough open space. The only requirement is that the open space remain
open space.
Patrick Lynch, appellant, said that the Board of Adjustments had not
considered the lots as subdivided together. Lot 1 and Lot 2 should stand
alone as separate units. Lot 2 has the 1000 square foot variance which
brings it into conformance with Lot 1. Although the open space is not
contiguous there is an excess of 400 feet of open space. Thus the intent
of the open space is met.
Collins received an affirmation that the open space on Lot 1 would
remain as open space.
Smith said that there were several outstanding concerns. The plat shows
several revised concerns. Before the final plat the following concerns
have to be met: 1) change the dimension of alley right -of -way;
2) provide electrical and communication easement for Lynch building;
3) define common access easement; 4) more detail on grading, drainage,
. and landscaping; and 5) stake corners in the field to resolve discrepancy
on Bleeker. Dick Fallin, architect, pointed out several of the problems
and what had been done to correct them. There is enough.easement for
Mountain Bell. The alley right -of -way has to be approved by Gignoux
before the dimensions can be changed. The corner on Bleeker has been
staked, but there is still a discrepancy in the measurements. Smith
said that the Planning Office would recommend approval.
Collins opened the continued public hearing. There were no comments.
•
He closed the public hearing.
• Smith submitted the Planning Office memo of August 25 for the record.
Isaac moved to grant the preliminary plat approval to the Gignoux
Lynch subdivision subject to the conditions as outlined by Karen Smith
of the Planning Office relating to 1) common access easement, 2) detail
on grading, drainage and landscaping, 3) through access for fire
vehicles, 4) clarification of the corner stakes, and 5) letter indicatin
the amount of electric power demand for the building and a commitment
to pay for the undergrounding of wires. Hedstrom seconded. All in
favor; motion approved.
Sears Roebuck Collins summarized the Planning Office memo concerning the Sears Roebuck
conditional use conditional use in the S /C /I district, which would be on the Gignoux
Lynch subdivision. Previous conditional use was granted for the Sears
store in the Vilcor Building on Mill Street. It is a useful service to
locals. The new site is more appropriate.
Smith said that the new location is more preferable than the old since
it is better located, closer to town and has no nuisance characteristics.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the conditional use.
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 30, 1977
Klar asked if the Rio Grande delivered daily and where they would deliver.
Lynch stated that yes they delivered daily and the loading dock would
be in the rear of the building with access through the alley. Isaac
wondered what sort of business would be located upstairs and if it might
be used for employee housing. Lynch stated that it would not be used for
employee housing and that hopefully appliance repair shops could be
located upstairs.
Collins opened the meeting to the public hearing. There were no comments.
Collins closed the public portion of the hearing,
Ensign moved to grant approval to the Sears Catalogue store for
conditional use in the S /C /I Gignoux Lynch subdivision, Klar seconded.
All in favor; motion approved. - - - _
Growth Management County Attorney Sandy Stuller presented the changes in the Growth
Ordinance Management Ordinance which includes all _suggestions to date.
Stuller said that the question of the Institute . was still unresolved.
The new draft incorporates 1) the new lodge district as a separate-.
section 24 -10.6 rather than being integrated in to the commercial;
2) comments from the July 20 memo; 3) on page 6 school capacity criteria
has been changed to parking design criteria; 4) page 8 employee housing
unit has been changed to percentage of project units as opposed to
percentage of bedrooms; 5)_ in commercial (page 11 ee) massing has been
included with reference to the preservation of public views.. Ensign
suggested that it should_ be visual impact instead. Stuller changed :it
to view planes. Stuller brought up the question of what to do about
the transition from 1977 to 1978 as far as building allotments. The
.ordinance has been set up to read -- that- -1978 would_ start with a fresh
tally. -
Ensign said that he was against that idea. It would be more equitable
to include 1977 in the five year plan. Stuller said that would mean
that building in 1977 would be offset in 1978. In 19.77 t -here are
39 dwelling units, 18 lodge units and 39,000 commercial square feet
available. Ensign stated - that he assumed there_ would be.s.. carry
.- over because of the moratorium.- - -Kane had -recommended- that only the -
build out on previously approved subdivided lots be counted. The unused
allotments was unresolved. Collins said that if there is no building
this year it should accrue to next year since the growth rate is only
an average of five years. Whatever- is e_asiest_-to get the plan started
is the way it should be done. __Isaac said it would_ be- an:-unfair burden
to have the quota -- filled this year since the applications are due
October 1. Stuller said that in provisions 4, 5 and 6 for 1977 the
last line which states that the unused allotments will not be carried
over must be stricken. In section 10.2 where it directs the building
inspector to do the inventory it excludes the year 1977. That exception
•
will have to be stricken. _- -_ - - _ -
Andy Hecht suggested that on page 14 where it reads that allotments
may be carried over it should read shall be carried over. The same thing
appears on page 20. Stuller said that should be changed. __
Stuller stated that all the dates for permit applications were changed:
January 1 for lodge, commercial and residential for applications,
February 1 for Planning Office comments, May 1. for P &Z recommendations,
and May -1 for City Council action.
Stuller said -that she did not understand section 2 4- 10.2-(a). The P &Z did
not address the question of expansion . of commercial floor area. -
Stuller interpreted what P &Z said about lodge and residential to mean than
the floor area could expand as long as there are no additional units and
0
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - 100 Leaves
RM V C. r. xnaKa O. O. • L. ca -
Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 30, 1977
in the commericial districts as long as it does not expand the commercial
floor area.
Stuller continued that on page 17 the formula for point allocation
does not go up to four points and in subsection 2 the availibility
of social facilities gives a maximum of 12 points. In (cc) section
there is a maximum of four points addressed to commercial support
facilities. The formula could be expanded or struck or drop to two point::
Isaac said drop to two. Klar stated that if it were left at four points
it would weight the system in favor of points which should be stressed.
It was decided to drop (cc) to two points. The section would have a total
of 10 points.
Stuller pointed out other changes. The building inspector - only has to
report_once rather than two different times for residential and
commerical. Thus April 15 will be the reporting date for the building
inspector and the housing_ authority.
Stuller said that the last major policy question was how to deal with
the_Institute. Stuller thought the City - Council wanted the Institute
to be_exempt_from the Growth Management Plan. Ensign'asked if the City
Council had not made the Institute exempt: Klar said that CC had_
philosophically exempt the Institute from_the - Stuller said - that
the Institute could not do anything without a permit - and they could not
get a permit without an allotment. The Institute should have filed a
formal request for exemption and filed a master plan. Ensign wondered
if all SPA areas could be excluded from the plan. Stuller said that
the exemption would have to be compatible with the Management Plan.
Ensign felt the community should support the development of summer
program._ They_are philosophical objectives.
The state of the Institute's_previous applications was discussed.
Stuller said that the Council could allot a certain amount of development
per year for the Institute, but this would wipe. out the entire lodging
allotment for about 15 years.__ Stuller said that the main question is
the_Institute plan compatible with the GMP.- .Collins said that we cannot
control only a.small portion of the development in the area, it must all
be controlled._ -
-
Ensign wanted to know if a resolution to City Council could be made
requesting that the Institute be exempt. Stuller said she could not
write a resolution without P &Z articulating the rationale. Ensign
said that he felt Council did not want to lose the Institute. If
development is hindered, then it will become a danger. Stuller suggested
that there might be a new area of legislation or a new zone. Ensign
said that SPA was automatically excluded from the GMP, since it is not
spelled out in the plan. Stuller said this does not address zones but
the type of activity in which one is engaged. Ensign added that since
it is SPA does not P &Z have control of what is built at the. Institute.
Smith said that if the Institute is exempt, then the- Institute is not
considered in the GIP growth rate. The only method for reviewing it
and dealing with the Institute is in the GMP. Collins did not feel that
an applicant should be exempt before a plan is submitted. We should
study the impact of the proposed conference center. Ensign felt that
it would be a minimal impact on Aspen since most of the people who would
attend a conference would be spending the majority of their time at the
conference center. Collins said that he thought that the Institute and
Aspen were interactive. The entire area should be addressed by the
GMP. If it is a special project then it should be given special
•
•
1
j ,.l�l HrrtlnB Planning and Zoning Commission August 30, 1977
consideration. The Institute has advantages and disadvantages from
bringing a large amount of people into the area.
Stuller said that an exemption would require an amendment to the
ordinance. Ensign thought that anything which would prevent a
developer from considering the Institute would be detrimental to the
community. Hedstrom suggested that if the Institute needs insurance
that they are exempt from the GMP then they should ask for it. Smith
said that a separate developer than the Institute could not develop
the land because City Council did not pass the Institute's request for
subdivision. Klar said that Council had come to an agreement with the
Institute on the total number of units and what a unit is. Isaac said
that it was done on the conceptual level. Stuller said that it was
only a gesture.
Collins requested that action on the Growth Management Plan be
tabled.
Joe Porter questioned what would P &Z do about the 250 subdivided lots
which have been approved. There is no way to control them although they
have to be accounted for. Twelve units could be counted per year. They
would all be counted eventually. Ensign felt that there should be
some definite subtraction of individual residences built. It was
decided to see what happened the first year.
Isaac questioned section 3 at the bottom of page 12. Stuller stated that
it only discussed the plans favoring of residents over tourists. Isaac
stated that he did not have a specific problem, but just did not agree
with the concept.
Isaac moved to adjourn the meeting. Hedstrom seconded. All in
favor; the meeting adjourned at 1:40 PM.
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk
i
i
i
4
a
L r
III 0
0
RRADIORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1977
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on September 6, 1977 at 5:00
PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Chic Collins, Tom Isaac, Donald Ensign,
Olaf Hedstrom, Frank Baranko and Joan Klar. Also present were city planners Karen Smith and
John Stanford. County Attorney Sandra Stuller was present.
Approval of Tom Isaac moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 16 and 23 as
Minutes corrected, seconded by Hedstrom. All were in favor; motion passed.
Condominiumization Smith presented the condominiumization policy for the final time to P &Z.
Policy There are three separate issues: 1) the overall goal is to increase the
supply of moderate income housing, 2) condominiumization should be consider:
on a case by case basis, and 3) general criteria should exist which a
developer can meet. Page two of the resolution states the general policy,
the method of review and lists the generalized criteria which Brian Goodheim
presented on July 5, 1977. Dorothy Nuttall commends P &Z on their good
job on the condominiumization policy. Isaac wondered when the developer
would have to show intent. Smith said at the preliminary plat stage.
Collins wanted to include that in paragraph four. It should read
The housing code by providing specific information at the time of
conceptual presentation on any of the following generalized criteria." It
was suggested to strike generalized. All agreed on that point.
Isaac said that a former member requested that separation of utilities
be added to the general criteria. Each unit would have individual
meters which would promote the conservation of energy. Smith said that
Kane had suggested that Markalunas should discuss this with the P &Z, but
this resolution does not deal with this problem. Collins said it was
required on all new constructions. Smith stated that individual meters
were not required.
Baranko suggested that as an alternative to the tenant not buying the
condominium the tenant could be offered a long term lease. Smith said
that it could be stated "In the event that the existing tenant not purchase
the unit, evidence regarding a long term lease to existing tenants will
be given instead." This would also be a means of controlling speculation
by regulating the income that would flow from that development. PP
Isaac wanted an addition to number three: "as determined by the housing
authority." Low and moderate income housing does not mean anything without
definition. Smith said that P &Z can wait until the Housing Authority
makes determinations.
Klar stated that section 4 (e) and (f) were very ambiguous and that
the Housing Authority would have difficulty in administering these
sections. Smith said that the Housing Authority would not have an
enforcement function. Enforcement would be under the jurisdiction of
Clayton Meyring. Baranko suggested that the points could be included in
the leases. Collins said that it is a continual problem of resolutions
that there is no enforcement body.
Hedstrom moved to adopt the resolution on the policy of condominiumization
of multi family and duplex dwelling units with the following corrections
as noted in paragraphthreeand four (f). Isaac seconded the motion.
All in favor; motion passed.
Rio Grande SPA John Stanford submitted to the record 1) the list of property owners within
300 feet of the property, 2) the notice sent to the property owners, and
3) notes of publication. Stanford then went on to discuss the present
state of the Rio Grande property. The plan involves dividing the property
into four general areas: 1) SPA for recreation, parking and future buildin,;;
2) SPA greenway located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River; 3) SPA
service, commercial, industrial PW ; and 4) SPA designated for a fraternal
lodge. We are asking for a very general master plan to he adopted for this
area. The SPA plan requires area and bulk requirements for each area.
There are no heighth limits or uses set within the zoning code. A
recommendation is also being submitted for the SPA area set aside for
recreation, parking and future building.
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1977
Stanford discussed the various development areas on a map which had the
areas outlined. The history of several land trades was discussed. When
the owners of the Aspen One property and the City could not agree on an
equitable trade, it was put off for a while. The owners of the Aspen
Tire and Auto Center came in with a new proposal to provide new access,
additional parking for his facility and to redo his buildings. The City
has always considered this property as potential acquisition for the
greenway and to eliminate the problems which exist there now of traffic
backing out onto Mill Street. He was approached for trade for a piece of
land more directly behind the County Courthouse. These negotiations are
still under consideration. The other land trade is the land where the
present bus station is and directly east of there. Andre Ulrich
developed four residential lots in exchange for the bus station land
which Andre exchanged for the Eagles building. Today the Planning Office
is requesting general recommendations for uses. In the parking area there
are 167 spaces and a new ball field. Access would be provided through the
SCI and PUD property from Spring Street. The plan includes maintenance
of the trail system on the Rio Grande property. Eventually the trail would
like Herron Park to Mill Street. It seems as though it is to the public
benefit to acquire the land along the river. •
Collins opened the meeting to the public.
Remo Lavagnino, landowner in Oklahoma Flats, stated that a small path was
not worth the detriment to other property. It is in the SCI zone and there
is no reason to expand the SCI zone. He suggested buying the Andrews
Macfarland property since the City was not going to buy Aspen One property.
Stanford said that the City might buy the Aspen One property outright.
Lavagnino said the purchase of the Rio Grande property occurred with the
•
seventh cent of the tax. This could be in violation of the purpose of the
seventh cent. The Andrews MacFarland land trade is a rip off to the City.
Andrews would acquire 53,7000 square feet which is five times more than the
piece of property which they own. They would be allowed three times as much
building space. Joe Wells, from the Planning Office, said that the land
might not be the square footage which he quoted as he was busy during the
time when Lavagnino asked him the square footage. The existing land is
improved. An appraisal was done and it was decided that it was a
reasonable land trade.
Alice Volk, a landowner in Oklahoma Flats said that her vision of
Andrews MacFarland was tires and automobiles and noise. The river needs
to be beautified, not destroyed.
Paula Mayer, a landowner in Oklahoma Flats, said that ten years ago the
land to be traded was a garbage dump and a concrete company. This caused
a lot of dead fish. This area should not be commercial. Auto and tire
companies should be on the main streets so that in the winter they can
provide easy access and have availability to plowing. The land on the
river should be fore picnics and other pleasurable activities.
Julie Hane, a landowner in Oklahoma Flats, stated that she agreed with
Remo. There will be a problem with the auto place. It should not be
placed on the river.
George Mansfield, a landowner in Oklahoma Flats, said that since the tire
store is on Mill Street which is a commerical street it ought to remain
there. There is no sense to try to hide a tire store.
Mayer that Oklahoma Flats is sparcely populated. It is that way because
the landowner want it that way. They do not want a noisy tire and auto
store across the river from them.
Frank Tonofu, a renter in Oklahoma Flats, said that this town is drunk
with success. The people in Oklahoma Flats are fighting for the aesthetic
quality of the town. Aspen Tire and Auto can be redone on Mill Street.
The nice area along the river does not have to be torn up. It would only
be selling outselves out. There shouldn't be a hodge podge of buildings.
.rte
•RADYORD •uuLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1977
Julie Hane wanted to know how many parking spaces there were presently on
the Rio Grande property. Stanford said 200. Hane said that parking should
be considered seriously. There is a problem now. Stanford said this was
only an interim plan.
Klar suggested moving the MacFarland property further up Mill Street and
acquiring the land adjacent to the river for the greenway. Stanford said
that is what was originally proposed. Both parties eventually decided that
the present trade was a better idea. Klar said that moving it away from
the main road, the traffic problem would be greater.
Baranko said that parcel one could be moved away from the river. Stanford
retorted that access had to be maintained. The Planning Office wanted
a green strip by the ball park.
Mayer said that the river was totally abused before when businesses were
in that location.
Bill Dunaway objected to having access to parking only on Mill Street.
Parking should have access from Spring Street as the original plan showed.
The traffic light is getting worse.
Collins suggested continuing the public hearing at a future date.
Isaac moved to table the Rio Grande SPA until the October 4, 1977, meeting.
Hedstrom seconded the motion. All in favor.
Frank Baranko excused himself. PP
Irving Biers Smith presented Irving Biers case for a use determination for an
Use determination expresso coffee house in the C -1 district in the Hunter Square Building..
The determination to be made is to include or not a coffee house in the
C -1 district. It is similar to Garrard's pastry shop which was conditional
use. Food could be sold but not consumed on the site. Kane recommend
approval subject to conditions that use would not expand to a full
•
restaurant facility and that there be a deed covenant. It should not be
a tourist trade. Casa Expresso was a local function. The Planning Office
recommends that as a stipulation the Casa Expresso be permitted as a con-
ditional use as opposed to a permitted use. PP
Collins said that the present code allows for no conditional uses in the
C -1 district. Smith stated that Say Frommage and Garrards were conditional
uses. Collins said that desire in the past was to keep restaurants from
expanding into the C -1 district. Isaac felt that by allowing a coffee shop
to go in under special review would be increasing the concept of C -1.
Collins said that restaurants were best suited in CC. He read the uses
listed in the code book for C -1. The closest use was for a catering service-.
Klar thought that a coffee shop was service - employee oriented which is the
intent of C -1.
Irving Biers said that the idea is to carry on that type of shop since
Casa Expresso closed. It would be used by a lot of locals. It is away
from the tourist area and is accessible to civil employees. The location
lends itself to locals due to the lack of parking in the downtown area.
The limiting factor would be the fact that there will be no kitchen..
A microwave oven would be the only cooking instrument and that would only
be used to warm pastries.
Isaac wondered if they would need a liquor license. Biers said no, but
said that he would like to serve things like Irish coffee. Mixed drinks
don't go with a coffee house.
Collins said that a new conditional use would have to be added to the
code for C -1 - something like a specialty food shop. The Planning Office
will have to determine what can be done and what has been done from past
food store allowances.
Hedstrom moved to table Irving Bier's request for use determination pending
the proposal of a conditional use for limited food consumption in the C -1
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1977
didtrict as prepared by the Planning Office. Isaac seconded the motion.
All in favor; motion passed.
Pioneer Condos Collins opened the meeting to public hearing,
AEM - public
hearing Hedstrom moved to continue the public hearing and table action until
September 13, 1977. Isaac seconded the motion. All in favor; motion
passed.
Growth Sandy Stuller presented the Growth Management Ordinance as it had been
Management revised. On page two in the middle paragraph all of the information in
Ordinance 'parenthesis will be stricken. On page 9 subparagraph (h) will end with
...and the annual limitation established in Section 24- 10(a). On page 11
subparagraph (ee) the word massing will be replaced with 'visual impact ".
Page 14 subparagraph (e) in the third to last line will read "unallocated
allotments shall." In subparagraph (g) the sentence beginning with provided
will be stricken. On page 17 paragraph 2 line 2 should read a maximum of
10 points. Subparagraph (cc) should read a maximum of two points. On
page 18 subparagraph (ee) the word massing will be replaced with visual
impact. On page 20 paragraph 1 the third to last line should read
unallocated allotments shall. In subparagraph (g) strike "provided however
....to successive years."
Collins questioned the change on page 9. Stuller said that the Planning Offi
in determining the number of used allotments had used only single family
and duplex units which came out to be 17, Multi family units were not
counted thus it was dropped from the statement. It now reads "There shall
be available for distribution in the year 1977 allotments in number equal
to the difference between the number of single and duplex dwelling units
constructed in 1977 and the annual limitation established in section
24- 10.8."
Julie Hanes questioned the effect on the Institute. Collins said that,
it would not effect the Institute. The P &Z has discussed exempting the
Institute, but decided that a resolution or recommendation to Council would
be better. The present resolution has no exemptions. Klar wondered if
the Institute might not come under provision gas historic designation.
The Jerome qualifies. Collins said when the Jerome came through one of
the conditions was that they qualify for historic designation. Stanford
explained that the Jerome Hotel is in the historic district, The back
portion is not designated historic.
Isaac moved to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the Aspen
Growth Management Ordinance as corrected and amended on the fifth draft.
Hedstrom seconded the motion.
Klar wondered if the ordinance was accepted and some members wanted the
Institute exempted what could they do. Stuller said it would take a change
to the ordinance. The present code does not have an exemption procedure.
An exemption cannot be articulated which does not effect the symmetry of
the ordinance. The CC can consider an amendment without having the
ordinance come back to P &Z. Baranko suggested academic zoning. Stuller
said that would not be useful to the Institute. The problem is lodging.
Hedstrom said that he was in favor of the ordinance and resolution as they
stand. It is a good result. The Institute problem is real. P &Z would
welcome an application from the Institute for separate consideration from
the GMP ordinance on the merits of the plan submitted. Stuller said that
it could be a whole new area of land use. How they fit in the GMP
depends on how their goals are articulated. Isaac said that it is up to
the Institute to make clear why they are different. Hedstrom said there must
be a means to indicate receptiveness. Collins agreed with Hedstrom and
Stuller. This should go forward as is. A separate resolution can be
considered. Ensign felt not adding something to the present resolution could
keep the Institute from staying in this community. Collins said CC will
take the final action. They are aware of our position. The lack of a
statement does not mean that we are opposed to the Institute.
m
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
c r. xnrcrn e. e.e c. co.
eeguiar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1977
Klar supported the development of a conference center. Should not a
clear friendly statement be articulated. Stuller suggested drafting
a minority report to Council. Hedstrom said that P &Z was on record
for approving the conceptual plan of the Institute for 356 rooms.
Stanford said the nature of the units was non tourist. The attempt
is for an education oriented conference center. Isaac said he would
be in favor of exemption when there is a more precise plan.
Collins said it was time to vote on the motion. All were in favor
except Ensign. The motion passed.
Collins thanked Stuller for her time and help.
Isaac moved to adjourn. Ensign seconded the motion. All in favor;
meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
• Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk
r
{
•
i
i
i
i
I
V
•
raj
•
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ASPEN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission is
responsible for guiding the location and densitites of land uses,
public facilities, and services as well as the mode and routing
of forms of transportation, and
WHEREAS, the adopted 1966 Aspen Area General Plan
designated that the two urban centers of Aspen and Snowmass were
to receive the greatest densities with densities decreasing in
. intensity as distance from the centers increase, and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the masterplan
from 1967 to 1972, Aspen and Pitkin County experienced rapid rates
of growth shown through various indices of growth such as new
housing starts (10 to 11 %), skier visits (22 %), employment (14%),
and population (12 to 15 %), and
WHEREAS, the resulting rapid transition from a small
rural town to an intense urban area created a variety of community
imbalances such as lagging public facilities, housing shortages,
higher living and housing costs, lack of community identity,
environmental degradation and traffic congestion, and
WHEREAS, subsequent to amending the zoning codes and
maps of both the City and County it became apparent that traditional
planning, zoning and subdivision tools were limited in affecting
rapid growth rates, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office has
drafted a preliminary. Growth Management Plan which limits growth
to an average of 3.4% overall growth per year for Pitkin County,
and which plan specifies different growth rates in specified
areas of Pitkin County based upon such area's ability to accept
JOP
additional growth at minimal public cost, and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Plan was studied by both
City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions, the Board of
County Commissioners and City Council, resulting in a final third
draft which was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1977, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission under-
took the task of developing an evaluation system for purposes of
implementing the Growth Management Plan whereby future residential,
commercial and lodging developments could be evaluated as to their
liabilities and benefits to the community, and
WHEREAS, this evaluation system has been incorporated
into an ordinance to be titled "Growth Management Quota System"
and to be incorporated into the Aspen Zoning Code as Article X,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance was properly noticed and
published in the Aspen Times on June 30, 1977, for a Public Hearing
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 19, 1977,
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing the Commission
held additional study sessions and special meetings for the purpose
of further refining the quota system and overall administration
of the proposed growth management process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval and prompt implementation
- of the proposed "Growth Management Quota System" (fifth draft) for
incorporation into the Aspen Zoning Code. 470::42/
Approved at its special meeting held 4;
1977.
THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By it 444
Chairman'
ATTEST: i
(
R '
Secretary To The Commission
.ry
• RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN (TIHIRD DRAFT)
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning Commission pursuant
to its authority found in C.R.S. 1973, Section 30 -28 -106,
et seq., has considered, as a further amendment to the
Aspen Area General Plan Final Report adopted on June 6, 1966,
the, Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan
(Third Draft) dated November 1976 and prepared by the Aspen/
Pitkin County Planning Office, and
WHEREAS, as part of its review of the Plan, the
Commission, in conjunction with the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, did conduct public meetings on March
15, 22, 29 and April 15, 1977, with a noticed public hearing
having been conducted May 5, 1977, and
WHEREAS, the Commission, at the conclusion of these
hearings, solicited from the Board of County Commissioners
its comments, recommendations and advice, all • of which was
given, as well as a conditional endorsement of the Plan,
in the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 77 -83,
approved on July 11, 1977 and of record in Book 331 Page
911 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the continents
and recommendations of the public, Pitkin County Planning
Office, Board of County Commissioners, and those of its
own membership, and has reached certain conclusions with
respect to the Plan and the desirability of adopting the
same for the benefit of the residents of Pitkin County,
namely:
1. The Growth Management Plan correctly identifies
a need to control the distribution and rate of growth (as
- 2 -
well as the quantity, quality, and kind of growth now
addressed in the provisions of the Pitkin County Land
Use Code) in order to correlate development and available
. public facilities inasmuch as:
(a) The conditions described in paragraph 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 of the Resolution No, 74 -16 (Re:
Zoning Resolution and Map Amendments) remain
(all as further described in Growth Management
Plan) making it apparent that techniques in addition
to traditional zoning and subdivision regulations
are needed to fully achieve the land use objectives
of this community.
(b) It has been discovered that in general "down -
zoning" techniques provide an imperfect solution
to overall community planning and that large lot
zoning specifically only deals with the spatial
9
dharacteristics of growth without control of the
community impacts of sudden bursts of growth which
in turn put local government in an untenable position
with respect to the provision of needed public
facilities to include: (1) sanitation facilities;
(2) water; (3) schools; (4) roads; (5) hospital
and health care services; (6) transportation facil-
ities; (7) airport; (8) recreational facilities
and parks and (9) miscellaneous social services.
(c) The Growth Management Plan recognizes that the
community's growth pattern results from the inter-
action of several factors (e.g. new residential
construction, new business formations, development
and expansion of ski facilities, availability of
community facilities including transportation,
hospital, school, sewer and water and airport services)
none of which is comprehensible in a vacuum and
which must be controlled, if at all, in the context
oeN
. ..r
3
of location and timing; and the Growth Management
Plan has as its goal to manage these factors to
achieve a reasonable community balance.
(d) Pitkin County has, historically, been a "boom
community" with recent rapid increases in population,
housing starts and skier days which result in (if
not controlled) (1) a constant shortage of low and
moderate income housing (2) critical shortages of
essential governmental services and (3) the tendency
to ignore environmental concerns in order to supply
needed housing, employment and public facilities,
all of which consequences can be mitigated by the
control of the rate and location of development
as described in the Growth Management Plan.
(e) The Plan correctly identifies the areas of
immediate community concern and attempts to coor-
dinate housing and business starts and construction
of public facilities in a manner which results in
positive fiscal effects to the governments and
taxing districts involved (all of which substantiates
the validity of the proposed identification of
growth management areas and permitted rates of
growth within these areas).
(f) Pitkin County has had, in the past, intense
growth pressure and it is clearly in the best interests
of Pitkin County to anticipate future pressures for
a rapid growth rate and to establish guidelines that
allow for the phasing of private growth in conjunction
with the provision of public facilities.
2. The Growth Management Plan correctly identifies a
need to control the distribution and rate of growth in order
to assure that the market demands do not overwhelm the County's
ability to (a) protect its small town /recreational character
and surrounding open spaces (b) insure that development over
+� - 4 -
the next fifteen (15) years will take place in a reasonable,
orderly and attractive manner rather than in an accellerated,
haphazard fashion (c) direct development so that it is
balanced throughout the County, does not create urban
sprawl (infilling in existing urbanized areas), and provides
for a variety of densities and building types and (d) avoid
social and environmental problems caused by an uncontrolled
growth rate.
3. The Growth Management Plan, while adopting stringent
limitations on new housing starts, does not constitute a
rejection of any recognized responsibility to satisfy ex-
cessive demands for new housing inasmuch as:
(a) Pitkin County is largely a self- contained,
rural area, very environmentally sensitive, which
is near "to reaching its capacity to absorb new
residents.
(b) Pitkin County does not serve as a residential
reservoir for people who work in other job centers
within the region or state; that is, Pitkin County
does not serve as a suburb in a major, interrelated
metropolitan housing market, nor as a housing pro-
ducer in an urbanized region in which first -home
production is an essential ingredient.
Consequently the Plan does not ignore any obligation to
absorb large numbers of new residents in excess of this
community's ability to accommodate the same, all as described
in the Growth Management Plan.
4. While it is acknowledged that any restraint on
new housing starts may precipitate an increase in cost of
purchasing and renting housing, the Commission is satisfied
that this County government has taken adequate steps to
insure that new development is not exclusionary and that
low and moderate income residents are not precluded from
participating in the acquisition and rental of housing
`r
•
- 5-
•
in the area. The dedication of the County to the prevention
of exclusive residential development is evidenced in, among
other things (a) its adoption of Section 5.30 ( "Housing -
Guidelines for Administration ") and Section 3.01.07 (Perm-
anent Moderate Housing (PMH) Zone Category) of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code (b) the establishment of the Pitkin
County Housing Authority and (c) its participation in the
marketing and /or development of low cost housing developments
in the area.
5. The adoption of the Plan is a logical outcome of
the history of land use planning in Pitkin County to date
as demonstrated by:
(a) Elements of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan
which designated appropriate areas for different
land uses and public facilities, identified public
transportation paths and modes, and provided that
"Residential densities shall generally be more
intense close to the two major centers, Aspen and
Snowmass, and decrease in intensity as distances
from the centers decrease (page 2)."
(b) An objective of the 1975 general plan amendments
(for the Roaring Fork East and Buttermilk areas)
that "lot size standards should be related to trans-
portation patterns, the availability of public
utilities, and future population objectives" (the
Aspen Times 7/24/75 pg. 16 -B).
(c) A goal of the 1972 Goal Task Force to establish
an optimum population growth rate and do so by (1)
analyzing past growth rates for the purpose of
determining an optimum population increase and
(2) determining a median construction year so as
to establish a "normal" construction growth rate.
(d) A stated objective in the 1973 Pitkin County
Commissioners' Action Plan calling for a master plan
- 6 -
•
•
revision regulating allowable growth by establishing
a yearly quota so that master plan densities pro -
jected for 1931 at any given location will not occur
before that date particularly where other public
support facilities assumed by the (1966) plan are
absent.
(e) An element of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan which
stated as goals of the plan to (1) hold the rate
of growth substantially,below that experienced in
the late sixties and (2) to insure against a growth
rate which does not occur in harmony with the plan.
(f) A proposed amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning
Resolution and Building Code, considered in 1973,
which would establish a development control system
similiar to that found in the pending Growth
Management Plan.
•
(g) The Growth Management Plan dated December, 1975
which was referred by the Board of County Commissioners
to the Pitkin County Planning Commission, special
taxing districts, local skiing corporations, the
United States Forest Service, affected municipalities
and the State of Colorado, for comment.
6. In addition to the plans and studies which have
been officially adopted and /or noted above, the Commission
has obtained additional planning and impact studies relating
to Pitkin County, a list of which is attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A. The adoption
of the proposed Growth Management Plan is necessary to begin
the implementation of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan (and
amendments thereto) and the various other goals, plans,
studies and reports herein described.
7. Enabling authority exists for adoption of the
elements of the Plan and can be found in various sources
including, in addition to general statutory authority
•
_ . 4.w�
therefore, the following
(a) C.R.S. 1973 Sections 29- 20- 104(e) (f) (g) and
(h) which read as follows:
(1) Without limiting or superseding any power
or authority presently exercised or previously
granted, each local government within its retro-
spective jurisdiction has the authority to plan
for and regulate the use of land by ..
(e) Regulating the location of activities and
developments which may result in significant
changes in population density;
(f) Providing for phased development of services
and facilities;
(g) Regulating the use of land on the basis of
the impact thereof on'the community or surrounding
areas; and
(h) Otherwise planning for and regulating the
use of land so as to provide planned and orderly
use of land and protection of the environment in
• a manner consistent with constitutional rights.
(b) C.R.S. 1973 Section 30 -28 -107 (concerning the
adoption of County masterplans) which reads as
follows:
The County or regional masterplan shall be made
with the general purpose of guiding and accom-
plishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious
development of the County or region which, in
accordance with present and future needs and
resources, will best promote health, safety,
morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or
general welfare of the inhabitants, as well as
efficiency and economy in the process of
development...
•
(c) Section 2.25 of the Pitkin County Land Use Plan
which reads as follows:
It is the policy of the County to provide for
efficient phasing of public services and facil-
ities at a reasonable annual growth rate in each
planning area of the County (taking into consid-
eration growth in unincorporated areas not subject
to County control); to prevent the location
of activities and developments which may result
in significant changes in population densities
(including visitor accommodations or facilities)
not consistent with the foregoing and, if necessary,
to apply building or development phasing or allot-
ment procedures designed to assure that the fore-
going shall not be exceeded.
8. In addition, courts throughout the country have
endorsed both the rationale for and techniques of growth
management described in the Plan as evidenced, among others,
by the following: Steel Hill Development Inc. v. Town of
1,
L er
8
Sanbornton, 469 F2d 956 (First Circuit 1972); Southern
Burlington County NAACP v Mt. Laural Township, 67 N.J.
151, 336 A2d 713, appeal dismissed, 46 L.Ed2d 28 (1975);
Segal Construction Co. v Borough of Wenonah, 134 N.J. Super.
421, 341 A.2d 667 (1975); Village of Belle Terre v Borass,
416 U.S. 1 (1974); CREED v California Coastal Zone Conser-
vation Commission, 43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 118 Cal. Rpt. 315
(1974); and Construction Industry Association of Sonoma
County v The City of Petaluma, 522 F2d 897 (Aug. 13, 1975),
certiorari denied by the U.S. Sup. Ct. on February 23, 1976).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby adopt,
pursuant to the procedures and authority established by
C.R.S. 1973 Sections 30 -28 -106 through 30 -28 -108, the Aspen/
Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan (Third Draft)
dated November 1976 and prepared by the Aspen /Pitkin County
Planning Office.
Approved at its regular meeting held C /7 , 1977.
THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
By
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Commission
a
EXHIBIT "A"
1. Aspen - Pitkin County Airport - Demand Overload Analysis.
R. Dixon Spcas Assoc., September, 1976
2. Aspen - Pitkin County Airport Master Plan
Greg Isbill and Assoc., September, 1974
3. Aspen /Snowmass 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan - Draft
Environmental Statement
Weiner and Assoc., August, 1976
4. Aspen Metro - Wastewater Management Plan (201)
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, November, 1975
5. Snowmass- Wastewater Management Plan (201)
'Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, November, 1975
6. Water Quality Management Plan- Roaring Fork River Basin (303)
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, May, 1974
7. Water Systems Report - Aspen, Colorado
Briscoe /Maphis, Inc., March, 1974
8. Aspen /Pitkin County Population Study - 208 Water Quality
Management Program
Gail Weinberg - Franta for the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, July, 1976
9. Framework for Action - First annual growth policy report.
Montgomery County Planning Board, October, 1974
10. Economic Aspects of Population Density Growth in Aspen
and Pitkin County - A Thesis
Brian Stafford, Spring, 1976
11. Pitkin County Almanac
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, Larry Simmons,
John Faulkner, June, 1976
12. The Evolving Political Economy of Pitkin County:
Growth Management by Concensus in a Boom Community
John S. Gilmore and Mary K. Duff, D.R.I., University
of Denver, 1974
13. Housing Assistance Plan for Pitkin County -City of Aspen
Preliminary Working Paper
Brian L. Goodheim, June, 1976
14. Estimating the Capacity of Ski Areas in "Winter Sports
Symposium"
U.S.P.A. - F.S., R.O. Brandenberger, September, 1972
15. Quality Skiing at Aspen, Colorado - A Study of Recreational
Carrying Capacity
I.N.S.T.A.R.R., University of Colorado, Occ. Paper 114,
Coe Crum, London, 1975
16. Ski Growth Potential and Quality Levels
U.S.D.A., Forest Service, John Burns, July, 1973
17. City Housing Survey, Summer 1975
Joseph Wells, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
18. County Housing Survey, Summer 1974
Lance Allee, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
•
"Exhibit A"
•
/ ' Page 2
•
19. Colorado State Highway 82, Design Concept Study
Lawrence Halprin and Associates, June, 1975
20. Transit Incentives /Auto Disincentives: Program Element
Combinations and Preliminary Impact Estimates
21. Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Plan Draft
William G. Kane, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office,
.January, 1976
22. Regional Transportation Plan, City of Aspen and Pitkin
County
Alan M. Voorhees and Assoc., September, 1973
23. Light Rail Transit, Community Criteria for Final Design,
July, 1975
24. Aspen 1974 Traffic Counts
Aspen Engineering Department, December, 1974
25. Environmental Resource Analysis, A Tool for Planning,
Pitkin County
Colorado State University, July, 1974
•
ro
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ENDORSING
THE ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN (THIRD DRAFT)
Resolution No. 77- 53
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning Commission pursuant
to its authority found in C.R.S. 1973, Section 30 -28 -106,
et seq., has considered, as a further amendment to the Aspen
Area General Plan Final Report adopted on June 6, 1966,.the
Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan (Third
Draft) dated November 1976 and prepared by the Aspen /Pitkin
County Planning Office, and
WHEREAS, as part of its review of the Plan, the Commission,
in conjunction with the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, did conduct hearings on March 15, 22, 29 and April
15, 1977, with a noticed public hearing having been conducted
•
May 5, 1977, and
• WHEREAS, the Commission, at the conclusion of these
hearings, has solicited from the Board of County Commissioners
its comments, recommendations, advice, and, if appropriate,
its endorsement of the Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the matter initially at
its regular meeting held June 13, 1977, and has reviewed the
comments and recommendations of the Pitkin County Planning
Office as well as those of the Commission itself, and has
reached certain conclusions with respect to the Plan, namely:
1. The Growth Management Plan correctly identifies a
need to control the areas and rate of growth, as well as
the quantity, quality, and kind of growth now addressed in
the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code inasmuch as:
(a) The conditions described in paragraph 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 of the Resolution No. 74 -16 (Re: Zoning
Resolution and Map Amendments) remain (all as further
described in Growth Management Plan) making it
.
- 2 -
apparent that techniques in addition to
traditional zoning and subdivision regulations
are needed to fully achieve the land use objectives
of this community.
(b) It has been discovered that in general "down -
zoning" techniques provide an imperfect solution
to overall community planning and that large lot
zoning specifically only deals with the spatial
characteristics of growth without control of the
community impacts of sudden bursts of growth which
in turn put local government in an untenable position
with respect to the provision of needed public
facilities to include: (1) sanitation facilities;
(2) water; (3) schools; (4) roads; (5) hospital
and health care services; (6) transportation facil-
ities; (7) airport; (8) recreational facilities
and parks and (9) miscellaneous social services.
(c) The Growth Management Plan recognizes that
the community's growth pattern results from the
interaction of several factors (e.g. new residential
construction, new business formations, development
and expansion of ski facilities, availability of
community facilities including transportation,
hospital, school, sewer and water and airport services)
none of which is comprehensible in a vacuum and which must
be controlled, if at all, in the context of location
and timing; and the Growth Management Plan has as
its goal to manage these factors to achieve a
reasonable community balance.
(d) Pitkin County has, historically, been a "boom
community" with recent rapid increases in population,
housing starts and skier days which result in (if
not controlled) (1) a constant shortage of low and
moderate income housing (2) critical shortages of
- 3 -
essential governmental services and (3) the
tendency to ignore environmental concerns in order
to supply needed housing, employment and public
M1w}
l CrPCi
facilities, all of which consequences can be aed
by the control of the rate and location of develop-
ment as described in the Growth Management Plan.
(e) The Plan correctly identifies the areas of
immediate community concern, attempts to coordinate
housing and business starts and construction of
public facilities, and all in a manner which results
in positive fiscal effects to the governments and
taxing districts involved, and so as to substantiate
the validity of the proposed identification of growth
management areas and permitted rates of growth within
these areas.
(f) Pitkin County had, in the past, intense growth
pressure and it is clearly in the best interests of
Pitkin County to anticipate future pressures for a
rapid growth rate and to establish guidelines that
allow for the phasing of private growth in conjunction
with the provision of public facilities.
(g) The Board wishes, while agreeing that each area
of concern addressed in the Growth Management Plan
Wi5he5
needs the community's attention, to emphasise the
continuing critical lack of low and moderate income
housing which, with the area's high cost of living
and depressed wage scale, accentuates the need for
the adoption of the Growth Management Plan.
2. That adoption of the Plan is a logical outcome
of the history of land use planning in Pitkin County to date
as evidenced by:
a. Elements of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan
which designated appropriate areas for different
land uses and public facilities, identified public
transportation paths and modes, and provided that
"Residential densities shall generally be more
- 4
intense close to the two major centers, Aspen and
Snowmass, and decrease in intensity as distances
from the centers decrease (page 2)."
b. An objective of the 1975 general plan amendments
(for the Roaring Fork East and Buttermilk areas)
that "lot size standards should be related to
transportation patterns, the availability of public
utilities, and future population objectives" (the
Aspen Times 7/24/75 pg. 16-B).
c. A goal of the 1972 Goal Task Force to establish
an optimum population growth rate and do so by
(1) analyzing past growth rates for the purpose of
- determining an optimum population increase and
-(2) determining a median construction year so as
to establish a "normal" construction growth rate.
d. A stated objective in the 1973 Pitkin County
Commissioners' Action Plan calling for a master plan
revision regulating allowable growth by establishing
a yearly quota so that master plan densities projected
for 1981 at any given location will not occur before
that date particularly where other public support
facilities assumed by the (1966) plan are absent.
e. An element of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan which
stated as goals of the plan to (1) hold the rate of
growth substantially below that experienced in the
late sixties and (2) to insure against a growth
rate which does not occur in harmony with the plan.
f. A proposed amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning
Resolution and Building Code considered in 1973
which would establish a development control system
similar to that found in the pending Growth Management
Plan.
g. The Growth Management Plan dated December, 1975
•
- 5 -
which was referred by the Board of County
Commissioners to the Pitkin County Planning
Commission, special taxing districts, local skiing
corporations, the United States Forest Service,
affected municipalities and the State of Colorado,
for comment.
3. In addition to the plans and studies which have
been officially adopted and /or noted above, the Board has
obtained additional planning and impact studies relating to
Pitkin County, a list of which is attached hereto and incor-
porated by this reference as Exhibit A. The adoption of the
proposed Growth Management Plan is necessary to begin the
implementation of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan (and amend-
ments thereto) and the various other goals, plans, studies
and reports herein described.
4. That enabling authority exists for adoption of the
elements of the Plan and can be found in various sources
including, in addition to general statutory authority therefore,
the following -
a. C.R.S. 1973 Sections 29- 20- 104(e) (f)(g) and (h)
which read as follows:
(1) Without limiting or superseding any power
or authority presently exercised or previously
granted, each local government within its respective
jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and
regulate the use of land by ...
(e) Regulating the location of activities and
•
developments which may result in significant changes
in population density;
(f) Providing for phased development of services
and facilities;
(g) Regulating the use of land on the basis of the
impact thereof on the community or surrounding .
areas; and
- 6 -
(h) Otherwise planning for and regulating the
use of land so as to provide planned and orderly
use of land and protection of the environment in
a manner consistent with constitutional rights.
b. C.R.S. 1973 Section 30 -23 -107 (concerning the
adoption of County masterplans) which reads, as
follows:
The County or regional masterplan shall
be made with the general purpose of guiding
and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted,
and harmonious development of the County
or region which, in accordance with present
and future needs and resources, will best
promote the health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity, or general welfare
of the inhabitants, as well as efficiency
and / economy in the process of development...
c. Section 2.25 of the Pitkin County Land Use Plan
which reads, as follows:
It is the policy of the County to provide
for efficient phasing of public services
and facilities at a reasonable annual
growth rate in each planning area of the
County (taking into consideration growth
in unincorporated areas not subject to
County control); to prevent the location -
of activities and developments which may
result in significant changes in population
densities (including visitor accommodations
or facilities) not consistent with the
foregoing and, if necessary, to apply
building or development phasing or allotment
procedures designed to assure that the
foregoing shall not be exceeded.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby
endorse the adoption by the Pitkin County Planning Commission
of the Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan
(third draft) dated November, 1976 and prepared by the Aspen/
Pitkin County Planning Office, under and in satisfaction of
those procedures described in C.R.S. 1973 Sections 30-28 -106 -
30 -28 -108.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this endorsement is conditioned
upon the following:
a. That an allotment regulation be developed to
- 7 -
implement the plan at some future point after
adequate experience has been gained in reviewing
development proposals under the City's allotment program.
b. That publically supported and endorsed low and
moderate income housing projects should be exempted
from the plan and any implementation techniques which
may be developed.
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, at its regular meeting held July 11, 1977.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
•
j OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
i/
By �G i.
Cha rman
ATTEST:
trq a Waif
Approved as to form:
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT "A"
1. Aspen - Pitkin County Airport - Demand Overload Analysis.
R. Dixon Speas Assoc., September, 1976
2. Aspen - Pitkin County Airport Master Plan
Greg Isbill and Assoc., September, 1974
3. Aspen /Snowmass 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan - Draft
Environmental Statement
Weiner and Assoc., August, 1976
4. Aspen Metro- Wastewater Management Plan (201)
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, November, 1975
5. Snowmass - Wastewater Management Plan (201)
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, November, 1975
6. Water Quality Management Plan- Roaring Fork River Basin (303)
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, May, 1974
7. Water Systems Report - Aspen, Colorado
Briscoe /Maphis, Inc., March, 1974
• 8. Aspen /Pitkin County Population Study - 208 Water Quality
Management Program
Gail Weinberg- Franta for the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, July, 1976
9. Framework for Action - First annual growth policy report.
Montgomery County Planning Board, October, 1974
10. Economic Aspects of Population Density Growth in Aspen
and Pitkin County - A Thesis
Brian Stafford, Spring, 1976
11. Pitkin County Almanac
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, Larry Simmons,
John Faulkner, June, 1976
12. The Evolving Political Economy of Pitkin County:
Growth Management by Concensus in a Boom Community
John S. Gilmore and Mary K. Duff, D.R.I., University
of Denver, 1974
13. Housing Assistance Plan for Pitkin County -City of Aspen
Preliminary Working Paper
Brian L. Goodheim, June, 1976
14. Estimating the Capacity of Ski Areas in "Winter Sports
Symposium"
U.S.P.A. - F.S., R.O. Brandenberger, September, 1972
15. Quality Skiing at Aspen, Colorado - A Study. of Recreational
Carrying Capacity
I.N.S.T.A.R.R., University of Colorado, Occ. Paper #14,
Coe Crum, London, 1975
16. Ski Growth Potential and Quality Levels
U.S.D.A., Forest Service, John Burns, July, 1973
17. City Housing Survey, Summer 1975
Joseph Wells, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
18. County Housing Survey, Summer 1974
Lance Allee, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
f >.
•
"Exhibit A"
Page 2
19. Colorado State Highway 82, Design Concept Study
Lawrence Halprin and Associates, June, 1975
20. Transit Incentives /Auto Disincentives: Program Element
Combinations and Preliminary Impact Estimates
21. Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Plan Draft
William G. Kane, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office,
January, 1976
22. Regional Transportation Plan, City of Aspen and Pitkin
County
Alan M. Voorhees and Assoc., September, 1973
23. Light Rail Transit, Community Criteria for Final Design,
July, 1975
24. Aspen 1974 Traffic Counts
Aspen Engineering Department, December, 1974
25. Environmental Resource Analysis, A Tool For Planning,
Pitkin County
Colorado State University, July, 1974
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
RE: ADOPTION OF THE ASPEN /PITKIN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
•
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen recognizes the need for compre-
hensive planning for or orderly future growth and development in the
public interest, and
WHEREAS, the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan, the adopted master
plan for the entire City of Aspen and portions of surrounding Pitkin
County, was created with a view toward guiding the location and densities
of various land uses, public facilities and services, as well as the
mode and routing of forms of transportation, and
WHEREAS, said plan specifically designated that the two
urban centers of Aspen and Snowmass were to receive the greatest
densities with densities decreasing in intensity as distances from the
centers increased (pg. 2, 1966 Aspen Area General Plan) and,
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the master plan from
1967 through 1972, Aspen and Pitkin County experienced rapid rates of
growth shown through various indices of growth such as a 10 to 11%
annual growth in new housing starts, a 22% annual growth rate in skier
visits, an estimated 14% annual growth rate in employment, and an
estimated 12 to 15% annual increase in population, and
WHEREAS, such boom growth conditions were unanticipated in
previous planning efforts and resulted in a variety of community
imbalances such as lagging public facilities, housing, shortages, under -
employemnt, environmental degradation and the psychological dislocation
of the transition from a rural small town to an urbanized area, and
WHEREAS, in the wake of such occurrences, it became apparent
that traditional planning, zoning and subdivision tools were limited
in dealing with the impacts of rapid rates of growth and consequently
and Aspen Metro Citizens Goals Task Force in 1972 recommended the
goal of establishing an optimum population growth rate which was
subsequently adopted, as a goal in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan as
follows:
CA . " , `\
1/2 of
GOAL: To hold the rate of growth substantially below that
experienced in the late sixties and insure growth that does occur is
in keeping with these same policies and the Land Use Plan, and
WHEREAS, growth timing controls have recently received
popular and legal support such as the timing mechanism adopted by the
City of Petaluma, California, which was upheld by the United States
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California as well as in Colorado
enabling legislation specifically HB 1034 (1974) which provides in
part under Article 8, Section 106 -8 -104, "Powers of Local Governments."
•
"1. Without limiting or superceding any power or
authority presently exercised or previously
granted each local government within its respec-
tive jurisdiction has the authority to plan for
and regulate the use of land by . . .
e) Regulating the location of activities
and developments which may result in
population density
f) Providing for phased development of
services and facilities.
g) Regulating the use of land on the
basis of the impact thereof on the
community or surrounding areas.
h) Otherwise planning for and regulating
the use of land so as to provide
planned and orderly use of land and
protection of the environment in a
" manner consistent with constitutional
rights.
WHEREAS, in 1975 the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office drafted a
preliminary Growth Management Plan which hypothesized a 3.4% overall
growth for Pitkin County which was based on separate analyses of the
Master Planned and non Master Planned Areas, to wit, in the Master
Planned areas, growth is allocated to 1985 as per the Master Plan. for
Buttermilk /Airport and Roaring Fork East and growth is based on 80%
of the Master planned growth for Aspen over the same ten year period;
in the non Master - planned areas, growth is based on a straight 3Z of
the existing housing based on the theory that in such areas there is
a relatively higher cost providing county services in areas remote
from urban centers, and
-2-
r
r
WHEREAS, the 1975 Growth Management Plan was studied by both
City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions, the Board of County
Commissioners and City Council who recommended further study of the
fiscal impact of the growth rate on special taxing districts, further
analysis of the plan's relation to transportation, and additional
evaluation of ski and business expansion policies, and
WHEREAS, the Second Draft Aspen /Pitkin Growth Management
Policy plan was completed in December 1976 and contained a more com-
prehensive set of policies describing and projecting the complex
interaction of population, new residential construction, new business
formations, development and expansion of skiing facilities and com-
munity facilities including transportation, hospital service, school
service, sewer and water service, and the airport, and
WHEREAS, in the preparation of the Growth Management Plan
second draft considerable review and incorporation of existing planning
documents and studies took place, a partial listing of those documents
is attached hereto as Appendix A, and
WHEREAS, the thesis of the plan is that community goal plan-
ning should aim at ensuring a balance among all the elements of
community listed above and that rapid residential growth upsets this
balance, and
WHEREAS, the plan is devised in three parts: 1) Theory, which
delineates the problem of rapid growth and the goals of community
balance, and quality of life; 2) Analysis, evaluating the impact of
a 3.4% growth rate on fiscal structures of taxing districts, housing,
skiing, and business expansion and community services, and 3) Policies
for setting, regulating, and harmonizing annual growth rate for the
construction of new housing, priorities for ski expansion and construction
of new tourist and commercial facilities and provision of transportation
services in the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, appropriate hearings have been conducted jointly by
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnission and the Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission on March 15, 22, 29 and April 5 with an
official Public Hearing having been conducted on May 5, and
WHEREAS, many changes have been incorporated into a third
draft of the plan which reflect the substantial public participation
which took place during the hearing and review process, and
-3-
C
•
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that:
1. Since the plan proposes to limit new housing
construction in Pitkin County to a total of
3.4% to include the Snowmass "General Submission"
plan, the public services for which the City
of Aspen is responsible can be more efficiently
supplied and managed with a predictable annual
rate which is substantially below the historically
high growth years of 1969, 1970 and 1971.
2. The proposed Growth Management Plan provides a
comprehensive view of the Aspen and Pitkin County
growth dynamics and attempts to control those
elements of growth which have traditionally
resulted in high costs to local govenment with
the resultant degradation of the area's environ-
ment and needs for more revenue to provide
local governmental services in a "catch up" fashion.
3. Flexibility exists to amend the plan with its pre-
scribed annual growth rates and any implementation
techniques which might be developed to support the
plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen City Council
endorses the adoption of the proposed Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Manage-
ment Plan, 3rd Draft and that such endorsement is meant to fulfill all
those requirements specified under the laws of Colorado which enable
and require such action, and that such endorsement is given with the
following conditions:
1. That an allotment regulation be developed to implement
the plan with adequate assurances that at least two-
thirds ( 2/3) of any new housing which is approved under
-4-
if
The Growth Management Plan and at least one -half (1/2)
of each individual project approved qualify as low and
moderate income housing as such may be defined by the
Housing Authority.
2. That the population limit for Aspen metro (25,500 persons)
as specified in the Growth Management Plan not be exceeded,
and to that end, that exemptions to the Growth anagement
Plan and allotment regulation be l ecifica ly discouraged.
"Ical---1 _ .
DATED: 1 1 ( C 7 - 7 ,. afar
acy St•ndley III ---- /
Illi Mayor,
I, Kathryn S. Hauter, duly appoint-d and acting City Clerk,
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of a resolution
- adopted by the City Council at its meeting held y_ //
, 1977.
AV
'Cathryn S. , auter
City Clerk
-5-
tt
•1
• )
ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD FOR TRANSPORTATION
RESOLUTION NO. 77- 3S
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Re: Recommendations on Development of the Aspen
Area Transportation System
WHEREAS, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen received funding
assistance from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in July 1976 for
some $197,780.00 to study alternative transportation systems for
service in the Aspen area, and
WHEREAS, it was felt necessary by officials of Pitkin County
-- � -u - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- -- _ = - - -- -and their-consultant advisors to form a broad based Citizens Advisory - - -
Board for the purpose of providing citizen participation in the
review of consultant and staff reports in the development of the
alternative study, and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1976, City Council of the City of Aspen
and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County did select 18
individuals and organizations to be represented on this Board, and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 1976, this Board was convened to
undertake a review of on -going work and reports, presentations and
recommendations of the staff and consulting team, and
WHEREAS, this Board was formed to include a broad -cross
section of the community interest to include the ski industry,
business community, United States Forest Service, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission,
Snowmass Resort, Volunteer Environmental Protection Organizations
to include the Sierra Club and Wilderness Workshop, League of Women
Voters, down valley residents, the Aspen Valley Improvement Association,
lodge owners and human and social interests, representatives from
six key subcommittees of the Citizens Transit Design Caucus to
include: (1) Service alignment,. (2) Urban Design, (3) Collector,
(4) Local financing feasibility, (5) Alternatives reevaluation, and
(6) Patronage, and
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
p:
•
4
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportat
Resolution No. 77- 35
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
WHEREAS, this Board did draw some immediate conclusions con-
cerning the make -up and characteristics of the Pitkin County -Aspen
Transportation problem, the reasons for its existence, and general
• solutions to that problem with the proper steps to reach some problem
solution, and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that the transportation problem is
the result of an extraordinarily high auto dependency in the area as
a result of the historical physical development pattern which has
resulted in congestion, pollution, visual impact, noise, impact and
sprawl on highway.82. This impact is a result of both visitors and
residents using the highway. This transportation problem continues
to be exacerbated by: (1) increased summer and winter visitors,
(2) growing residential population with automobiles, (3) unbalanced
ski slope and lodging capacity, (4) general travel patterns in the
valley with much down- valley to Aspen travel, and
WHEREAS, it has been the finding of this Board that any
solution must include five basic components: (1) auto disincentive
programs, (2) alternative mode incentives, (3) improved transit .�
service, (4) innovative funding, (5) rational land -use planning, and
WHEREAS, in the formation of this study four distinct steps
were identified and undertaken: (1) analysis of travel characteristics,
(2) identification of disincentive options, (3) identification of
transit options, and (4) the combination and evaluation of all of
these elements, and
WHEREAS, it was the conclusion of this Board that all transit
and transportation system management packages be evaluated along the
following criteria: (1) transit ridership, (2) potential diversion
from automobiles posed by each of the alternatives, (3) traveler
benefits, (4) capital cost, (5) operating cost, (6) financial . and
political feasibility and acceptability, and
• .
. :
Citizens Advisory Board for Transpor Jon
Resolution No. 77-,55
• Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
WHEREAS, it was within this framework that five separate
study components were undertaken with five separate consultants
responsible to Pitkin County staff and Citizens Advisory Board for:
(1) mode alternatives, (2) transportation system management, (3)
light rail refinement, (4) funding, and (5) overall study coordi-
nation, and
WHEREAS, this study team did provide progressively specific
information to the Citizens Advisory Board and the general public
in the form of four public hearings and these hearings were used
as one way to receive' comment, criticism and review by the general
public on the on -going progress of the study, and
WHEREAS, the proposed City /County Growth Management Plan,
serving as a measure of goals and objectives is a more concise
statement than in traditional long range community plans, was reviewed
by the Citizens Advisory Board, and
WHEREAS, the study began with the identification of eleven
potential transportation systems and did include: (1) null alterna-
tive, (2) auto oriented alternative, (3) bus (mixed traffic), (4)
bus on busway, (5) dial -a -ride or demand responsive bus systems, (6)
trolley buses, (7) light rail transit, (8) personal rapid transit,
(9) automated kuideway transit, (10) monorails, (11) cable systems,
and
WHEREAS, it was against the background of these eleven basic
alternatives that an initial set of transportation system management
policies were proposed and these included generally two sets of
policies with varying degrees of stringency and did include one
moderate and one strong set of transit incentive and auto disincentive
programs which focused on general areas of pre - arrival marketing,
travel to recreational and wilderness areas, travel to lodging and
entertainment and a final area of general measures that could be
taken to reduce auto dependency, and
3 _
.y .. , .�+t .,, >< , =- +..s.4 -F'T --•,, :. .. -- •w•�Fx -fur. �-ns� Y., .
9
y
•
•
o
'c'Citizens Advisory Board for Transportat.. a
Resolution No. 77- 6
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
WHEREAS, in addition to mode alternatives and transportation
system management, three alternative futures were considered with
respect to land use planning and did include; (1) the city /county
growth management plan as currently proposed, (2) variations on
location of new skiing for different degrees of balance in the Aspen
and Snowmass areas, (3) variations on self - containment policies for
skiing and other activities in the Aspen and Snowmass areas, and
WHEREAS, in addition to the general alternatives outlined by
the consulting team, two alternatives were suggested and studied
- -- __ _ by members of the Citizens Advisory Board. The first of these _. .. .._ __..
included a proposal for an electric bus system to be operated between
Aspen and Snowmass and powered by a hydro - electric system which would
provide needed energy to recharge batteries on these buses and
additional consulting help was solicited from A.T.E. Management
Company and a report was presented which generally characterized
electric bus technology as incapable of coming on line within a
reasonable time frame. A second general alternative involving
stringent self - containment between Aspen and Snowmass was suggested,
studied and reported on by a subcommittee of this Board, and
WHEREAS, after six months of study and review by the consulting
team and the Citizens Advisory Board, a final set of alternatives were
identified and considered and consisted of: (1) the auto oriented
alternative, (2) the improved bus system alternative, (3) the busway
alternative No. 1 to include moderate automobile disincentives, (4)
a busway alternative No. 2 to include strong automobile disincentives,
(5) a light rail transit alternative No. 1 to include moderate automo-
bile disincentives, (6) a light rail transit alternative No. 2 to
include strong automobile disincentives, and
WHEREAS, each of these six final candidate systems was analyzed
from the standpoint of capital and operating costs, ridership potential
and a general statement of environmental impact, and
r.
• 9 ��,
•
r C I Citizens Advisory Board for Transport on
Resolution No. 77 -35
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
WHEREAS, the week of February 21, 1977, was devoted to a series
of public meetings to consider these various alternatives and feasi-
bilities for operation in Aspen and Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS, each of the six basic candidate transportation systems
was analyzed with respect to the financing that would be required in
terms of both capital and operating costs, and
WHEREAS, each was analyzed also with respect to total vehicle,
requirements, right -of -way requirements, total transit trips afforded
both summer and - winter, peak hour travel time between Aspen and
Snowmass for each system, and
WHEREAS, it is a finding of this Board that the development
of a mass public transportation system presents an opportunity for
substantial automobile travel reduction on Highway 82 with the poten-
tial for a 37% auto reduction at the peak hour at Castle Creek Bridge
with moderate disincentives and 57% auto reduction for peak hour auto
trips to Castle Creek Bridge with strong disincentives with both of
these on a bus -on- busway system for 1990 travel, and
WHEREAS, this Board fully recognizes that many inherent
characteristics of the Aspen / Pitkin County community requires a
continuing transportation program supported by all entities of the
community, and furthermore the primary problems to be contended
with are:
(1) The inevitable amount of growth that will be realized as a result
of the Snowmass development, (2) the high degree of auto dependence
which exists in the community due to historical settlement patterns,
and (3) the overall pattern of activity in the valley. It is the
conclusion of this Board that while mass transit may not present a
panacea to the transportation problems of the Roaring Fork Valley, the
recommendations herein are the first steps towards keeping pace with
the problem and presents the potential for developing Aspen /Pitkin
County as the most transit oriented community in the United States.
- 5 -
a
0
•
•
- •
_ S
•
Nimo
•
;1tizens Advisory Board for Transportat) .
r Resolution No. 77 -55
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
NOW, 1NEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen /Pitkin County
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation does hereby recommend to
the Aspen City Council and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County that the following five year program be undertaken as a first
phase in what must be an on -going long term evolutionary problem
solving for the area:
(1) Land Use
(a) consistent with the Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Manage-
ment Policy Plan, it is recommended that Snowmass be
developed in such a manner to provide all basic services
for a self - contained tourist and residential community, as
opposed to its continued reliance upon Aspen as the major
commercial and service center of the Upper Roaring Fork
Valley. This self - contained policy is further intended to
balance lodging capacity with skiing capacity, so that the
visitor /skier travel demand is kept at a minimum, thus
reducing the peak winter travel demand in the Aspen /Snowmass
corridor.
(b) Implicit in a Snowmass self- containment policy is the
requirement that the greater Aspen urban area develop its
own self - containment policy, whereby it balances its
commercial space allowance to the size of its lodging
capacity which, in turn, is balanced with its adjacent
ski capacity and summer recreational activity levels. All
attempts should be made to expand skiing capacity at both
ends of the Aspen /Snowmass corridor to insure a balance
between ski capacity and adjacent beds.
(c) To reinforce this concept, West Village expansion and
East Village should be developed as auto -free villages;
should any other development occur in the upper Roaring Fork
Valley, it, too, shall be developed in a similar manner.
(d) The current draft of the Aspen /Pitkin County Growth
Management Policy Plan, prepared by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
•
•
- B _
` 3
•
•
•
AO Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
Resolution No. 77 -3
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
Office, uses a 3.4% growth rate which appears to have an
overwhelming impact on the public's future transportation
Y • responsibility and should be given further consideration.
(e) It is recommended that Pitkin County and the City of
Aspen analyze the cost of propcLed development with regard
to the public liability incurred therein and, upon a clear
showing of the cost effectiveness, subsequently develop a
County -wide land acquisition /open space program, utilizing
all possible local governmental and private entities, plus
all available techniques, in * order to reduce the future
transportation and public services impact upon the Upper
Roaring Fork Valley. .
(2) Transportation Management Plan
(a) The basic objective of the Transportation Management
Plan is to improve mass transportation and discourage use
of the automobile.
(b) The ultimate goal is centralized management and main-
tenance for all transportation services in the valley. When
appropriate, the County appoint a transportation manager.
(c) It is recommended that Pitkin County upgrade bus
service as a preferred method of mass transportation
including service to down valley.
(d) An active pre - arrival visitor information program
shall be developed and maintained by the business
communities at Aspen and Snowmass to encourage visitors
to arrive by means Other than the automobile.
(e) A series of experimental programs be developed to
attempt to phase -in a strong transit incentive program
for purposes of reducing the impact of the automobile of
both residents and tourists. Each program will be evalua-
ted according to established criteria. Sample programs
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Summer bus service to Maroon Bells, Ashcroft,
Independence Pass, and the Crystal and Fryingpan Valleys
- 7 _
r
N.
'
]itlzens Advisory Board for Transported
' Resolution No. 77 - 35
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
This Board strongly recommends that summer bus service
to Maroon Bells be initiated in 1977.
(ii) Phased closure of ski arca parking lots.
• (iii) The development of intercept parking lots on
both the East and West sides of Aspen.
(iv) Summer highway information system emphasizing
transit incentives.
(v) Encourage express bus service between Walker Field
and Stapleton International airports and Aspen.
(f) State Highway 82 be improved to safe standards as a
_ two -lane facility, however, this improvement shall also
allow for the expansion to a four -lane facility in the
future, if necessary. The purposes are to immediately
improve the safety of the highway and to make the busway
the preferred method of travel. This should include
thoroughly planned improvement of SH 82 from Seventh Street
to, and including, Brush Creek Road.
(3) Capital Phasing Plan
(a) Pitkin County develop an express two -lane busway,
including buses and busway facility, from Aspen proper to
the Aspen /Pitkin County Airport. The alignment, to be
refined in a preliminary engineering study, would generally
parallel SH 82 along the Aspen /Airport corridor, with
emergency access for the new Aspen Valley Hospital, as
well as access to the Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk ski
areas, and the airport, and rejoining SH 82 near the
airport.
(b) A maintenance facility be developed to provide for
adequate storage, maintenance and handling of buses for
the immediate future, such facility being designed to
accomodate future expansion.
(c) Also, as part of the capital phasing plan, property
shall be immediately acquired and improved for park -and-
ride and intercept purposes; potential locations are Emma
-8-
1
'
Citizens Advisory Board for TransporL_.ion
Resolution No. 77 -35
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
Road and Old Snowmass intersection with SH 82, Woody Creek
Store, and East and West entrances to Aspen.
(d) Right -of -way be acquired as soon as possible for a
possible second phase busway from the airport to Snowmass
through the Ow1 Creek corridor.
(e) A further element of the Capital Phasing Plan is that
SH 82 be improved to safe standards as a two -lane facility,
• however, this improvement shall also allow for the expan-
sion to a four-lane facility in the future, if necessary.
This should include thoroughly planned improvement of
SR 82, from Seventh Street to, and including, Brush Creek -_
Road. ---
(f) The Transportation Management Plan is an integral part
of the Capital Phasing Plan. The benefits that justify
• the capital and operating costs of a Busway Project are
achieved only the - Transportation Management Plan and
strong disincentive programs are fully implemented and
then maintained_ -._
(4) Financial Plan -
(a) It Ys recognized that this community cannot afford more
than a 20% share of the capital costs of the Busway Project
without compromising its other public service responsibilities.
It is recommended that the County pursue a mix of State /Federal
Highway Administration and UMTA funds to finance 100% of the
capital costs of Busway Project as a demonstration of
joint funding by the various state and federal transportation
agencies.
(b) Furthermore, it is recommended that an independent
analysis be made of the benefits derived by all local public
and private entities, and that a financial breakdown of any
local match be developed, with local governments and industry
participating accordingly.
•
- 9 -
r Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
Resolution No, 77 -8!
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
(5) Summer Destination Resort Plan
(a) In order to encourage transit use by the summer visit.ir
and to reduce impact of the short -term auto -user, it is
Iecommended that the Aspen and Snowmass business interests
develop a program to attract destination resort - oriented
summer visitors, promoting the two communities' attractions,
and that the two business communities continue to work with
City and County government for support and assistance in
achieving this plan. It is imperative that the government
and private interests take an active role in developing
-- public facilities necessary _to.. develop this area as a destin-
ation resort. Examples of summer destination resort
facilities and advance marketing would include a performing
arts /conference center.
(6) Future Technologies
(a) The County should take advantage of changes in tech-
. nology that are non - polluting and energy- saving.
(7) Community Participation
(a) It is recommended that representatives from the
Citizens Advisory Board be allowed to continue their role
as the provider of public input into the County's Trans-
portation efforts, particularly in the development of a
County -Wide Transportation Development Plan and in any
design development study likely to occur on the Busway
Project.
(b) Conceptual agreement from the skiing corporations,
Snowmass and Aspen supportive of a staged implementation
of the Transportation Management Plan shall be secured.
Approved this pgday of I Z R/ , 1977.
Wilton Jaf n
- 10 -
•
•
•
•
•
7
rft.
L.
• Citizens Advisory Board for Transpo. ion . -
Resolution No. 77 -,35
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
Jim dams, Vice- Chairman
ATTEST:
County Clerk and Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
andra M. Stoller _ - - County Attorney •
Adopted and Accepted this 28th day of March, 1977, by the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkln County, Colorado.
Michael Kinsley, Chairman
N.
yer Co
• Robert W. Child, Commissioner
war. , Commiss ner
•
•
- 11
9 - •f
•
t
p