HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160229
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 29, 2016
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Land Use Code Revisions
P1
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
MEETING DATE: February 29, 2016
RE: Implementing the AACP into the Land Use Code
SUMMARY:
In August 2015 City Council adopted a set of “Top Ten Goals” to work on for the next two years. One of the
goals is to “Reconcile the Land Use Code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the Land Use Code delivers
what the AACP promises.”
This work session provides an update to Council about work related to this goal. Council is also asked to
provide feedback on potential next steps related to some of the specific work program items. Specific questions
are highlighted in bold. Council is asked to prioritize the work listed below. Staff has provided suggestions on
which items to move forward with at this time, but requests formal direction from Council. In addition, staff
met with the Planning & Zoning Commission earlier in the month to get their initial feedback on prioritization.
Their comments are included below and their meeting minutes are attached in Exhibit E.
BACKGROUND:
Staff hired land use consultant Bob Schultz to assist in identification of AACP implementation priorities. He
met with Council members in October to discuss each member’s initial thoughts about this goal, and facilitated
a November 17th work session with Council. At that meeting City Council identified a number of general code
amendment and policy areas for staff work in response to the Council Top Ten goal of better aligning the Land
Use Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan. The work session follow up memo is attached as Exhibit C.
While the Council was interested in a number of topics, there was agreement to make the commercial
core/downtown area as the first priority for action on the Land Use Code. Council members discussed seven
work program areas related to the commercial core/downtown. There was recognition that many of the items
will require consultant assistance, and Council supported staff beginning to work on finding appropriate
consultant help. There was also support for broad community input on the efforts. The prioritized work areas
are discussed in more detail below. Attached as Exhibit D is a list of AACP implementation items completed
since 2012.
PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AREAS:
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
The specific work program areas identified previously by City Council are listed below. In order to provide
some additional consistency and oversight of the entire goal effort, staff proposes that a consultant be hired to
work with staff to manage the code re-writes. This approach was helpful during the 2006-2007 land use
moratorium when the City hired national land use attorney Mark White to review code changes and provide
background on potential use mix code revisions. A basic estimate for this work would require 200-250 hours
and cost approximately $40,000 - $50,000.
P2
I.
Page 2 of 6
In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sign codes will require the City to examine the sign code
this year. Staff suggests that the firm hired for general code revision oversight could assist in this effort as well.
Each of the efforts below will require extensive community engagement. Rather than utilize only traditional
small group meetings or open houses in City Hall, staff is suggesting broad community engagement
opportunities for each item to provide as much opportunity for people to participate. This could include the use
of pop-up workshops throughout town, a potential speaker series, kitchen table discussions, meeting in a box,
online surveys, engaging visual preference surveys, Photovoice submissions, as well as more traditional open
houses and small group meetings. Staff has included some initial thoughts regarding potential outreach for each
item below, and can provide additional detail on the different types of outreach at the work session.
ZONING REVIEW
Council expressed interest in understanding the forms of buildings that are likely to be produced based on
current zoning standards/dimensions. Council was also interested in reviewing exceptions to standards and
dimensions that exist in the current code. Some Council members expressed an interest in understanding
whether a cap on development could create the environment for using transferable development rights to
accommodate new growth without increasing the overall development rights in the community. In general,
Council indicated an interest in reducing ambiguity and uncertainty in the land use review process.
Current Status: Staff issued a report on the History of Zoning in Aspen earlier this month. The report, attached
as Exhibit A and available online at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-
Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/, details zoning changes and planning changes
through the years since the first zoning ordinance of 1956. If there is one common theme over the years, it is
the commitment to preserving Aspen’s heritage and unique character. A future work session could be
scheduled to discuss zoning history in more depth.
Questions for Council:
1. Does Council want a separate work session to discuss zoning history, or does Council prefer the
report only?
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES & PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE
Council expressed interest in updating the Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since
their adoption in 2007. A number of zoning changes have been approved since the adoption of the Commercial
Design Guidelines which need to be incorporated into the document. This includes reductions in allowed
heights and changes in allowed uses.
In addition, Council expressed an interest in examining the Public Amenity requirements. At this time, staff
anticipates this work being completed as part of the update to the Commercial Design Guidelines and would
include an examination of Public Amenity requirements generally, as well as specifically along the Pedestrian
Malls.
Current Status: Staff issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for a comprehensive update to the
Commercial Design Standards and Public Amenity Requirements. Three submissions were received for the
RFP, but no selection has been made. There is currently no budget for this work. The original Guidelines cost
approximately $100,000 to create. The budget estimates in the submittals is between $40,000 and $75,000.
Staff requests Council direction regarding funding in order to move forward, or not, with the work. Because the
Commercial Design Guidelines provide the basis for what development looks like in town and because there is
an RFP out for this work, staff recommends moving forward with this work.
P3
I.
Page 3 of 6
The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that while this is an important potential work item, that
examining off street parking and use mix would be their priorities.
Potential public outreach techniques for this work include mobile workshops, a dedicated project website, small
focus groups with representative from HPC, P&Z, Council, business owners, and design professionals, walking
tours, and visual preference surveys.
Questions for Council:
2. Should this work move forward at this time?
3. Can Council provide general direction on a budget amount for this update?
MOBILITY-PARKING
Council expressed an interest in regulations that support City policies to limit traffic and reduce traffic
congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and maximum parking
requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the City’s transportation mitigation
requirements into parking standards. This work is on-going in conjunction with Council’s transportation-related
goals.
Current Status: Staff issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for an examination and potential update to
the mobility and off-street parking requirements for development. Staff is currently in contract negotiations
with national transportation firm Nelson/Nygaard to refine the scope of work. The scope will include extensive
community outreach and engagement on parking, including intercept interviews, pop-up workshops, community
open houses and illustrations of existing and potential proposed code changes.
Council allocated a total budget of $100,000 for 2016. Nelson/Nygaard has proposed some additional data
gathering of parking utilization, which staff is evaluating the need for. Additional budget monies of up to
$20,000 may be needed to accommodate this additional data gathering. Because this has been previously
identified as a priority through a 2016 regular budget allocation and ties into multiple Top Ten Goals staff
recommends moving forward with this work. Staff anticipates the contract will be ready for Council approval
at the March 14th Council meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Commission identified this item as their top recommended work program item.
Questions for Council:
4. Does Council need any additional information related to this item?
EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACES
Council members have raised questions and concerns about mitigation requirements related to existing
commercial spaces. Council expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of how
existing commercial spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation.
Current Status: Planning staff is working with the City Attorney’s office to address this issue and expects to
have information for Council soon. Staff believes this work can continue at this time and recommends moving
forward with the initial information collection and checking again with Council to see if any additional work
should be done.
Questions for Council:
5. Does Council need any additional information related to this item?
REGULATE USE
P4
I.
Page 4 of 6
Council expressed a desire to understand the opportunities and constraints related to regulating use in
commercial buildings. There is a general concern that the unfettered market will result in exclusionary
commercial opportunities that will fail to serve locals and a diverse base of visitors. Council members expressed
concern that over time it could threaten Aspen’s vitality and economy. There is also an interest in understanding
the “nooks and crannies” around town and how they create opportunity for small business and vitality.
Current Status: Past Councils have discussed these issues, specifically around implementing quotas for different
types of businesses, providing direct subsidies to businesses, regulating chain retail, creating public-private
partnerships, tax incentives, and creating incubator commercial spaces, and decided not to move forward on
them. At this time, staff recommends hiring a consultant to assist in crafting potential solutions to preserve
Aspen businesses as well as updating background information related to businesses entering and existing the
market.
The last time this issue was discussed was during the 2006-2007 moratorium. At that time, the city worked
with a land use attorney who spent approximately 450 hours on the project. Staff recommends working with a
consultant again to understand what approaches have been successful or not in other communities, but
anticipates fewer required hours because the work can build off of what was completed in 2006/7. At that time
a number of potential approaches to address use mix were identified, ranging from quotas and chain regulations,
to small business loans and commercial rent control. Ultimately, no code changes or new program were
implemented.
Staff recommends moving forward with this work at this time, as there are a number of buildings that appear to
be moving toward long-term commercial vacancies. Staff is concerned that some of the impacts of free-market
residential units that have been seen in the commercial core are beginning to filter into other zone districts,
particularly the Mixed-Use Zone District. Staff believes some examination of free-market residential floor area,
location, and unit size allowances in the NC and MU zones should be examined as part of this work.
The Planning and Zoning Commission identified this item as their second priority work program item at their
February meeting.
Potential public outreach techniques for this work could include:
• A “what business would you like to see here” pop-up workshop or walking tour
• Host entrepreneur event to understand local market of ideas
• Informal surveys of business start-up/retention barriers
• Intercept surveys of favorite businesses for locals and visitors to learn what successes to emulate
Questions for Council:
6. How would Council like to proceed?
7. Should this work focus on the immediate downtown, or should it focus on all commercial zones?
VIEW PLANES
Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for effectiveness and assess the
community’s priorities for view plan protection.
Current Status: At this time, staff recommends moving forward with public outreach efforts around the
community’s overall goals related to view planes and which views are important to preserve later in 2016.
Much of this work will likely be influenced by work on the Commercial Design Guidelines and staff believes it
is important to begin that work first.
P5
I.
Page 5 of 6
When work does begin, staff recommends that the public outreach take a step back from the specific protected
view planes in the Land Use Code and instead ask the community to identify what views they believe are most
critical to protect. Outreach methodology for this could include asking the community to nominate the views
they should be protected through Open City Hall and smart phone technology. At this time there is $25,000
available for an update to the entire Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Chapter, so a portion of that money
could fund work in this area.
Questions for Council:
8. How would Council like to proceed?
9. Are there any other outreach methodologies Council would like to employ for this effort?
10. Should this work focus on the immediate downtown, or should it focus on other parts of town?
OTHER ITEMS:
Since the November 17, 2015 work session, the Historic Preservation Commission made a motion asking the
City to initiate historic designations for City-owned properties that are eligible through the AspenModern
program. A copy of HPC’s meeting minutes from December 2, 2015 is attached as Exhibit B. Section 6 of the
AspenModern Ordinance (Ordinance 28, Series 2010) lists four (4) City-owned properties that are eligible for
designation and directs the City to move forward on designations. Additional City sites, including the
Pedestrian Malls are also eligible under the AspenModern program. The Ordinance specifically states:
Initiating designations for City-owned buildings has been raised as a potential Community Development
Department work program item with City Council in the past (most recently in July 2015) and Council has not
added it to the Department’s work program. Staff is raising this issue at this time due to HPC’s motion, and
because the topic is included in the AACP: AACP Historic Preservation Policy III.1 states “The public sector
should set an example as a responsible steward of preservation and adaptive re-use of historic buildings.”
If Council desires to move forward with historic designations of any City-owned properties, staff recommends a
consultant be hired to process local and any national designations. At this time staff estimates this would cost
between $1,000 and $2,000 per property for a consultant to compile the application and participate in the public
hearings on the designations.
Questions for Council:
11. Does Council wish to move forward with designation of any City-owned properties at this time?
12. If so, is there direction on which properties?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends moving forward on the following items at this time:
1. Information on Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements for Existing Commercial Spaces
2. Use Mix Regulations
3. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Updates
P6
I.
Page 6 of 6
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
____________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – History of Zoning Report
Exhibit B – HPC Meeting Minutes
Exhibit C – Nov 17 Work Session Follow Up Memo
Exhibit D – AACP Implementation since 2012
Exhibit E – Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, February 2, 2016
P7
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 1February 2016
Aspen Planning & Zoning
History
The Aspen Area has a long history of planning for the future – from
the first growth management codes in the 1970s to the first Aspen
Area Community Plan in 1993. Throughout the years the City’s land
use codes have attempted to reflect and address the issues of the
day. This document is not intended to list every code change and
comprehensive planning effort in Aspen over the years. Instead, it
provides a snapshot of community issues and sentiments through the
decades, and explains how the community and elected and appointed
leaders attempted to continue to move the city forward and maintain
its small mountain-town character. If there is one common theme
over the years, it is the commitment to preserving Aspen’s heritage
and unique character. This document tracks changes through the
decades:
City of Aspen
Community Development
Department
• 1960s: The Advent of Zoning - pg 2
• 1970s: Managing Growth and Development- pg 3
• 1980s: Comprehensive Planning and Refined Regulations - pg 4
• 1990s: The First Aspen Area Community Plan - pg 5
• 2000 - 2006: Infill Development - pg 6
• 2006 - Today: Downzoning and Refining Regulations - pg 8
• Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional History - 11
P8
I.
2 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
1960s: The Advent of Zoning
Copy of the 1966 General Plan;
the first plan for the Aspen Area.
The history of zoning and land use planning in Aspen dates back
sixty years to 1956 when the first zoning ordinance was adopted.
The ordinance, approved on July 2, 1956, established several
zone districts with permitted uses and area and bulk limitations.
It also adopted procedures for nonconforming uses, a method
for building review, and established a Board of Adjustment and a
Building Inspector. Planning during this time in Aspen, and across
the country, was primarily focused on separating industrial and
residential uses and addressing nuisances.
Increasing growth pressures throughout the 1960s led the
community to begin its first comprehensive planning efforts. In
1966, the Aspen Area General Plan was adopted. The plan was
designed to accommodate growth, focusing commercial and lodging
development in the downtown area as well as the base of Aspen
Mountain and along Shadow Mountain, and recognizing the growth
of Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk, and Little Annie as lodging and
recreation centers. The General Plan was seen as “the only method
by which a framework to accommodate future urban growth can be
established to direct the expansion in such a manner as to retain
the fine balance between man and his environment, the essence of
Aspen’s character.” The General Plan included a number of policy
recommendations, including:
• Focus commercial and lodging growth in the Aspen townsite.
• Implement transportation improvements throughout the
upper valley, including updating Highway-82 with a median
from Aspen to Basalt, creation of a transit system serving all
ski areas, and improvements to Owl Creek and Brush Creek
roads.
• Create a trail system along the Roaring Fork River to connect
parks and open spaces.
• Build a Civic Center for the City and County on the
Courthouse block.
• Build a transportation center in the Wheeler Opera House,
with parking garages under Wagner Park, City Hall, and near
the Little Nell Lift.
Following adoption of the General Plan, new land use codes were
introduced to provide basic development regulation, including the
first subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations, and the
creation of additional residential and commercial zone districts.
P9
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 3February 2016
1970s: Managing Growth and
Development
As the 1960s came to a close, community sentiment around growth
began to change from accommodating growth to managing growth.
In 1970 a joint City-County Planning Office was formed, and a
1972 Task Force began examining the role development played
in the community with particular concern over the public facilities
needed to serve the current level of growth. The goals of the Task
Force formed the basis of the 1973 Land Use Plan which was “not a
zoning map which details rigid guidelines…but constitutes a general
design for future land use and is a continuing step in effectively
responding to the challenge of building a quality environment in the
Upper Roaring Fork Valley.” The Regional Transportation Plan and
the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan were also adopted in 1973. The
goals of these plans included:
• Maintain a growth rate substantially below that of 1960.
• Focus on preserving environmental assets including historic
buildings, aesthetic design, scenic views, and air and water
quality.
• Provide a balanced community with housing for permanent
employees, neighborhood oriented development, and diverse
recreational and cultural offerings.
• Provide a mass transit system that prioritized pedestrian and
transit over the automobile.
• Develop a downtown pedestrian mall.
Together, these three plans set the stage for dramatic Land Use
Code changes in the 1970s that resulted in a code similar to what is
in place today, including adoption of:
• Environmental standards, including Stream Margin, 8040
Greenline, and Mountain View Planes.
• Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts.
• The Historic designation of 9 individual properties, including
the original Lift 1 chairlift.
• New review procedures, including Specially Planned Areas
and Special Review.
• A Growth Management Quota System (GMQS).
• Open Space requirements to provide some open areas on all
commercial developments.
• Affordable housing mitigation requirements.
During the 1970s other zoning changes were made in an effort to
consolidate growth to the downtown area. New commercial and
lodging zone districts were created, and lodging properties located
throughout the City’s neighborhoods were downzoned. This decade
also resulted in planning for and implementation of the pedestrian
malls.
A Growth Management System
was introduced in the 1970s with
the Growth Management Policy
Plan (1976) and the Growth
Management Quota System (1977)
The Hyman Ave Pedestrian Mall,
built in 1976.
View of Aspen, looking west, from
the 1973 Land Use Plan.
P10
I.
4 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
1980s: Comprehensive Planning and
Refined Regulations
The Hotel Lenado was redeveloped
in the mid-1980s under the City’s
first Lodge Preservation Program.
The 1980s included expansions and refinements to the Land Use
Code provisions that were first implemented the decade prior, as
well as the advent of Comprehensive Planning. Throughout the
1980s, Land Use Plans for neighborhoods including Smuggler and
Roaring Fork East were adopted, as well as Comprehensive Plan
Elements ranging from Open Space to Transportation and Housing
to Historic Preservation. These efforts formed the basis for many of
the decade’s Land Use Code changes.
The City’s first Lodge Preservation Program was implemented in
1982 to address concerns about the loss of Aspen’s bed base. This
included the City’s first timeshare regulations, an effort to improve
the quality of lodging accommodations, and the addition of a new
Lodging zone district and rezoning of nearly 30 small lodges located
throughout Aspen’s neighborhoods to reverse the downzonings that
occurred in the 1970s.
A number of substantive changes were made throughout the 1980s
to the City’s Growth Management Quota System. This included
expanding the applicability of the City’s Growth Management
Quota System to all commercial zone districts, increasing lodging
allotments, revising the GMQS scoring requirements, adding a
cash-in-lieu mitigation option, and increasing employee housing
mitigation requirements. In 1988, the City adopted the Multi-
Family Replacement Program, which required affordable housing
mitigation for any free-market multi-family housing unit that
was demolished, redeveloped, or combined. This program is still
in place and serves to provide continued housing options when
existing residential units are demolished, combined, or converted.
Following the adoption of the Historic Preservation Comprehensive
Plan Element in 1986, the City made significant updates to the
City’s historic preservation regulations. Stricter demolition and
relocation standards and the first Historic District and Historic
Landmark Development Guidelines were adopted to ensure greater
purview over Historic Landmarks and properties within the Historic
Districts. New incentives for designations on residential properties
were adopted, including allowed variations to setback and floor
area requirements, a grant program, allowing bed and breakfasts
and boarding houses as a conditional use on historic properties, and
allowing a duplex or two detached single-family homes on a historic
lot where only one single-family home was previously allowed.
In terms of dimensional regulations, the first residential floor area
regulations were adopted in 1982, and then reduced for the R-6
zone district in 1987. Given the many policy changes in the 1980s,
the City adopted a reorganization and recodification of the Land Use
Code in 1988.
Multiple Comprehensive Plan
Elements were adopted in the
1980s, including the Parks /
Recreation / Open Space / Trails
Element
P11
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 5February 2016
1990s: The First Aspen Area
Community Plan
Building on the comprehensive planning efforts of the 1980s,
the 1990s began with the creation of the first Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). Adopted in 1993, the plan pulled all
of the comprehensive planning elements into one document. It
focused on the need to maintain a “critical mass” of local residents,
defined in the plan as 60% of the workforce, to sustain a sense
of place and community. The plan identified a peak population of
30,000 residents and visitors and called for a 2% limit on annual
growth. The 1993 AACP recognized the importance of Aspen’s
“messy vitality” and strove to “avoid an environment that is too
structured, too perfect, and that eliminated the funkiness that once
characterized this town.”
Following adoption of the 1993 AACP, a number of major code
amendments were adopted related to design and growth
management. The GMQS scoring system was amended to reflect
goals in the AACP, the allowed growth quotas were reduced to
reflect the prescribed 2% growth rate, and new growth ceilings
were adopted. During this time, the City’s Accessory Dwelling
Unit program was created, and new regulations requiring 60% of
new residential developments be developed as affordable housing
were adopted. In terms of design review, the City adopted the
first Residential Design Guidelines, and adopted the Downtown
Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) which resulted in street
and sidewalk improvements throughout downtown.
During this time, changes to the historic preservation rules required
design review of all structures on the City’s inventory. During
the 1980s and 1990s there was a comprehensive approach to
protecting historically significant buildings and sites, with more than
200 individual properties historically designated.
On the environmental side, the City updated the Stream Margin
standards and added a review for all properties along Hallam Lake.
These new regulations were intended to provide greater protections
for critical riparian areas and habitats.
A major goal of the 1993 AACP
was to limit trips over the Castle
Creek Bridge to 1993 levels. The
City has continued to meet this
goal every year since 1993.
The cover of the first Aspen Area
Community Plan, adopted in 1993.
P12
I.
6 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
2000 - 2006: Infill Development
As the 1990s came to a close, the community began an update to
the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2000, the updated
AACP called for a renewed focus on a healthy, vibrant, and diverse
economy that supports the community. The Plan also called for
managing growth in a way that provided a “critical mass” of people
living and working in Aspen. It called for encouraging more density
in the City and for preserving important open spaces in the County.
The Plan included 100 Action Items, many of which related to “infill
development.”
In general terms, “infill” refers to focusing growth and development
into existing downtown areas that can take advantage of existing
infrastructure, while discouraging suburban-style sprawling
development. One of the top implementation Action Items was
to establish an Infill Advisory Group to examine the trend of
decreasing vibrancy and vitality in the downtown. Established by
City Council in June 2000, the group met for 18 months crafting
a “comprehensive strategy that aims to restore a sense of vitality
to city neighborhoods.” The group’s work coincided with the
economic downturn of 2001 and culminated in the Infill Report,
which built on the 2000 AACP and outlined the goals and strategies
of an Infill Program.
The group reviewed the history of planning in Aspen, and found
that at the time “the City requires more from a developer than
can physically be provided on most properties.” There was also
a trend of converting commercial spaces, lodges, and multi-
family homes in the downtown area to large second homes.
The group was concerned about these trends and the resulting
decrease in pedestrian vitality, and proposed a set of Land Use
Code Amendments intended to combat them. A set of “infill
code amendments” were approved between 2003 – 2005. These
codes amended allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and uses
in many of the city’s zone districts, as well as amended parking
requirements, affordable housing requirements, and on-site open
space requirements. Specifically, they:
• Eliminated the ability to build a single-family or duplex home
in the Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts (unless the
C-1 property was a historic landmark), and focused instead
on building commercial, lodging, and multi-family residential
uses.
• Reduced the allowed multi-family residential floor area to
approximately a third of what was previously allowed.
• Increased the required affordable housing mitigation.
• Created the City’s first Commercial Design Standards. The
criteria included basic design principles, including building
relationship to the street, street-level building elements,
parking, and pedestrian improvements.
• Updated “open space” requirements to “pedestrian amenity”
standards that required at-grade pedestrian amenity spaces
and eliminated the ability to build a sunken moat-like space
along the sidewalk.
The second AACP, approved
in 2000, focused on reducing
sprawl and encouraging infill
development.
The building at 517 E Hopkins,
originally built in 1983, features a
sunken “open space” that was no
longer allowed following the infill
code changes.
P13
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 7February 2016
• Overhauled parking requirements to meet AACP goals of
reducing traffic in town, reducing trips over the Castle
Creek Bridge, and encouraging alternative modes of
transportation. The changes allowed cash-in-lieu by right
for all properties located south of the Roaring Fork River and
east of Castle Creek (referred to as the Infill Area). The
changes also allowed cash-in-lieu monies to be used for
mobility enhancements such as car-to-go and in-town transit,
rather than just parking. All commercial and lodging parking
requirements were reduced by between .5 and 3 spaces
depending on location and use, while parking requirements
for lodging and multi-family residential uses in the CC and
C-1 zones were eliminated.
• Changed the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)
to increase the number of available growth allotments for
commercial, lodging, and free-market residential uses, and
replace a scoring system to objective criteria.
• Increased the allowable heights and floor area in commercial
and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes
a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes”
through today.
• Adoption of a maximum residential unit size cap in the
downtown.
The Historic TDR Program was established in 2003. The program
allowed a property that is designated Historic to sever development
rights through the creation of a Transferable Development Right
(TDR) and send those development rights to another non-historic
property in the city. The code amendment specified that each TDR
is worth 250 square feet of floor area, and could be landed in most
residential zone districts. One TDR is permitted per dwelling unit.
Other code changes during this period included an update to the
timeshare regulations to ensure new timeshare developments are
available for short-term accommodations, and the creation of the
COWOP process to provide for greater community involvements in
major development projects. COWOP reviews were conducted for
the Obermeyer redevelopment, the Fire Station, and the Lift One
area.
Following the economic downturn of 2001, Aspen’s economy
significantly rebounded and the community began seeing more
development in the downtown than had existed in many years.
These new development pressures prompted the City Council to
adopt a Land Use Moratorium in April 2006, which lasted through
the summer of 2007.
An illustration from the Obermeyer
Place COWOP process, one of the
first redevelopment projects to be
reviewed under the regulations.
The property at 430 W Main is
historically designated and has
severed development rights
through the City’s TDR Program.
P14
I.
8 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
A number of major code changes were adopted during the first
half of 2007, rolling back many of the dimensional changes of the
“infill codes.” These changes were made during the 2006 - 2007
moratorium and included:
• Reduction of allowed heights and floor areas in all commercial
and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes
a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes”
through today.
• Adoption of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives and Guidelines. This document, coupled
with changes to the Commercial Design Standards provided
significantly more regulatory oversight of building design and
site planning. The document divides the City into character
areas, each with a specific set of Conceptual and Final Design
Guidelines.
• Expansion of the Historic TDR program, allowing a TDR to be
used to increase a free-market residential unit by no more
than 500 square feet above the set zone district cap.
During this period City Council approved a number of historic
preservation related Ordinances in an effort to preserve buildings
and interiors that were important to Aspen’s history. In December
2006 an emergency moratorium was approved which halted all
building permits in the Commercial Core and was intended to
preserve the character-defining interior spaces of Aspen’s historic
buildings. No interior preservation program was ultimately
adopted, but the moratorium did result in the interior preservation
of the Red Onion.
Until this time, the primary focus of the City’s historic preservation
program was on Victorian-era buildings. By the mid-2000s,
however, it became clear that important parts of Aspen’s post-
war history were being lost through demolition. In July 2007,
City Council placed temporary protections on post-war properties
that might be worthy of preservation. A Historic Preservation
Task Force was convened in 2008 and met for 18-months
crafting recommendations on changes to the City’s historic
preservation program. In 2010 the City reorganized and updated
the historic preservation regulations. The program was divided
into Aspen Victorian, focused on Aspen’s 19th century Victorian
and mining-era history, and AspenModern, focused on Aspen’s
20th century post-war era history. Both programs include a
set of benefits and incentives for designated properties. Aspen
Victorian allows for involuntary designations, while AspenModern
requires owner consent for a designation. Following the Task
Force recommendations, the AspenModern designation process
allows for a negotiation between the City and property owner to
ensure appropriate incentives and requirements are placed on the
property. To date, there are 254 Victorian era landmarks and 36
AspenModern era landmarks.
2006 - Today: Downzoning and
Refining Regulations
Commonly known as the Crandall
Building, the building at 630
E Hyman is an AspenModern
designated building built in 1969
and designed by local architect
Tom Benton.
The cover of the City’s
Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Objectives and
Guidelines, adopted in 2007.
P15
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 9February 2016
During this period, in 2010, the City adopted what is believed to be
the country’s first Affordable Housing Credit Program. Functioning
much like the Historic TDR Program, the Housing Credits program
allows developers of affordable housing to get a “Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit” equal to the number of employees
housed by their development, which they can sell to other
developers to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. To date,
nearly 50 full-time equivalent employees have been housed through
this program.
The second half of 2007 was the beginning of the “Great Recession”
which lasted through June 2009 and significantly decreased the
amount of development occurring throughout Aspen and the
country as a whole. This laid the backdrop for the latest update
to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2012, the current
AACP seeks “to guide future development so that it contributes
to the long-term sustainability of a vibrant and diverse tourism
economy and a strong year-round community.” The plan reaffirms
many of the community’s long-held beliefs – protect natural
ecosystems and scenic settings, provide for a critical mass of year-
round residents, improve and link alternative transportation modes,
maintain Aspen’s small-town community character – and recognizes
that these beliefs “root the community in its underlying values, and
keep a steady course” regardless of economic or environmental
fluctuations.
Following the adoption of the 2012 AACP, the City embarked on a
number of significant code changes, including:
• Amendments to the downtown zone districts (CC and C-1
zones) to reduce the scale of development. This included
reducing building heights on the south side of the street from
40 feet to 28 feet, and reducing building heights on the north
side of the street from 40 feet to 28 feet unless it was a lodge
project. In an effort to protect Aspen’s vibrant commercial
mix, the amendments also eliminated the ability to build any
new free-market residential units downtown.
• An update to the employee mitigation figures for all
commercial and lodging development and eliminated the
“double dip” provision of the code that allowed a developer to
only mitigate for one of their requirements. Now a developer
must mitigate for every portion of their new development, not
just the largest requirement.
• Adoption of completely new Planned Development and
Subdivision Chapters that provide a “yes” or a “no” on a
development proposal sooner in the process, thereby creating
more certainty in the review process which was a major goal
of the AACP.
• Elimination of the ability to build double depth basements in
single-family and duplex homes. This change was in an effort
to maintain Aspen’s small town character and reduce the
environmental and construction impacts created by double
basements.
The first Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit were established
for the affordable housing project
at 301 W Hyman.
The cover of the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan.
P16
I.
10 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
• Adoption of a transportation mitigation system that requires
new development to mitigate ALL of their car trips, thereby
helping to ensure traffic levels remain at 1993 levels and
that development is paying its own way on the transportation
front. This program has won a state planning award for
its innovation and ability to meaningfully mitigate the
transportation impacts of development.
• Changes to the COWOP process, including renaming the
chapter Public Projects, and updating the review process to
comply with state law.
• Adoption of a Small Lodge Preservation Program in an effort
to help Aspen’s existing small lodges remain in operation.
• A re-write and update of the Residential Design Standards to
ensure more predictability in the process and to ensure new
development matches Aspen’s small town character.
While the City has done a great deal to implement the 2012 AACP,
that work is not yet complete, as the AACP is a long-term guide for
the future, not a static set of code requirements. Moving forward,
City Council adopted a 2015-2017 Top Ten Goal to “Reconcile the
land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use
code delivers what the AACP promises.” Proposed work over the
next year includes:
• Updating the ten-year old Commercial Design Standards to
address recent changes in the commercial zone districts and
to ensure new development matches Aspen’s small town
character, particularly in the Commercial Core and around the
Pedestrian Malls.
• Examining the City’s Pedestrian Amenity requirements to
ensure they enable community-shared places that promote
interaction and sense of place.
• Examining Off-Street Parking requirements to ensure they
support AACP goals around improving mobility, reducing
automobile trips, and encouraging alternative transportation
modes.
• Examining potential changes to use regulations in an effort to
retain and support Aspen’s unique and vibrant business mix.
• Reviewing the City’s 30-year old View Plane regulations to
ensure they remain effective at protecting important views of
the mountains.
Counting automobile trips for the
City’s transportation mitigation
program. The program, known as
the TIA, requires programmatic
and infrastructure improvements
to offset automobile trips
generated by development.
The St. Moritz Lodge is one of four
small lodges who have participated
in the most recent Small Lodge
Preservation Program. The lodge
received grant money to upgrade
their boiler.
P17
I.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 11February 2016
Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional
History
This map illustrates the location of Aspen’s
Commercial Zone Districts. These Districts
include: Commercial Core (CC), Commercial
(C-1), Service, Commercial, Industrial
(S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Mixed-Use (MU).
The pages that follow list the dimensional
changes in these zone districts since 2000.
The following abbreviations are used:
• FAR = Floor Area Ratio. This is the ratio
of what can be built relative to a parcel’s
size.
• SR = Special Review. This review is
conducted by the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
• AH = Affordable Housing
• FM - Free-market residential housing
• Res = residential; both affordable housing
and free-market residential
• Sm. Units = Small Units. Refers to
individual lodge unit size of 500 sq ft or
less
• TDR = Transferable Development Right
P
1
8
I
.
12 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Where The immediate downtown. Main to Durant, from Monarch to Hunter Streets.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 42, 46 for areas setback
15 feet
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories 38, which may
be increased to 42 by
Commercial Design Review
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories up to 40 allowed
on n side of street if for
lodging
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0
Commercial Parking 2/1000 1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.
Maximum Total FAR 1.5, may be increased to
2:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1.5:1, may be increased
to 2:1 if 60% additional
FAR is AH
2:1 2:1
Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1
Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2.5:1 w/ sm. units
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR
Commercial to
Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Use removed --
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Use removed --
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District
P
1
9
I
.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 13February 2016
Where A one-block strip east of the Commercial Core. Main to Cooper, from Hunter to Spring streets.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 38 - pitched, 42 - flat
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories 36, which may
be increased to 40 by
Commercial Design Review
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories up to 38 allowed
on n side of street if for
lodging
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0 0 0 0
Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.
Maximum Total FAR 1.1, may be increased to
1.5:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1.5:1, may be increased
to 2:1 if 60% additional
FAR is AH
1.5:1 1.5:1
Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1
Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2:1 w/ sm. units
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR
Commercial to
Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Commercial (C-1) Zone District
P
2
0
I
.
14 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Where Obermeyer Place, North Mill and Puppy Smith area, and the US Post Office.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)35 35, may be increased to
40 through S.R.35 35
Public Amenity No requirement No requirement 25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0
Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
Maximum Total FAR
1:1, may be increased to
2:1 if minimum of 1:1 is
AH
2:1 2.25:1 2.25:1
Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum
Total FAR 1.5:1
1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary
care offices if 0.75:1 of
other commercial uses on
same parcel
1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary
care offices if 0.75:1 of
other commercial uses on
same parcel
Arts/Civic FAR ----
Lodging FAR ----
AH Res. FAR -0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1
FM Res. FAR -
0.5:1 only if a min. of
0.75:1 commercial uses on
parcel
0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 -
1:1 of other commercial
uses on same parcel
0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 -
1:1 of other commercial
uses on same parcel
Commercial to
Residential ratio ----
Single Family FAR ----
Duplex FAR ----
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)-No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I)
P
2
1
I
.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 15February 2016
Mixed-Use (MU)
Where Main Street, a one-block strip west of the CC between Main and Hyman, and one-block strip east of the C1
between Main and Cooper.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)25 25 to 32
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
Public Amenity No requirement 25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)10, 15, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5
Commercial Parking 3/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000
Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R. & 60% AH
Historic Dist.: 1:1
Non-Historic: 2:1
Historic Dist.: 1:1, may
be increased to 1.25:1 by
S.R.
Non-Historic: 2:1
Historic Dist.: 1:1, may
be increased to 1.25:1 by
S.R.
Non-Historic: 2:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
Arts/Civic FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
Lodging FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 0.75:1; 1:1 w/ S.R.0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
Commercial to
Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80%of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
P
2
2
I
.
16 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Where The City Market block and the Clark's Market area.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)28, may be increased to
32 by S.R.32
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)10, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5
Commercial Parking 4/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1:1 1:1 1:1
Arts/Civic FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1
Lodging FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1
AH Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1
FM Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
Commercial to
Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR ----
Duplex FAR ----
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR
P
2
3
I
.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon.
Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Jim
DeFrancia, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Absent were Sallie Golden,
John Whipple and Gretchen Greenwood.
Staff present:
Jim True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 11, 2015; second by
Jim. All in favor, motion carried.
Public: Brent Gardner-Smith introduced himself as a reporter.
Nora said the work session with City Council was great. The Aspen Modern
Ordinance #28 section 6 specified that there are five properties owned by the
city that should be designated. In 2016 we should get those five properties
protected; Red Brick, Yellow Brick, Mountain Rescue, mall and Hildur
Anderson Park. We need to lead by example.
Amy said there would be a hearing before HPC and City Council.
MOTION: Nora made the motion that HPC recommends that staff take steps
to designate the 5 properties in 2016, motion second by Bob. All in favor,
motion carried.
Guidelines
Amy summarized the memo in the guidelines. We have tried to improve the
guidelines with better clarity. This is basically a re-write of the entire
document.
We have dropped the glossary. In the introduction we have trimmed out
anything that refers to the code because the code could change tomorrow.
We tried to be more general. We want passion behind the design and a good
explanation of what the proposal is.
Bob suggested that there be a link to the National Register on page 20.
P24
I.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
2
Amy said there are about 25 properties on the register from Aspen.
Patrick suggested that the purpose and intent of preservation from the land
use code be added to the guidelines so that there is a natural transition.
Patrick discussed adding when the guidelines should be revised.
Jim said you could say that the guidelines can be reviewed every so many
years. They are an advisory document.
Nora said the guidelines give us the ability to say no. We need to know how
the next generation gets protected.
Historic Overview
Amy said we replaced the images to show different aspects of the town’s
history.
Bob said he particularly liked the incorporation of the International Design
Conference in the guidelines.
Architectural styles
Willis suggested that applicant write a description or narrative of how their
project contributes to the sense of place of Aspen.
Amy said this could be added to page 25.
Chapter I is more of a perspective as to how the project fits into the town
and neighborhood looking at maps, diagrams and site planning.
1.1 talks about setback to setback with nothing left.
1.2 Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
Amy said we will add a corner diagram including the front diagram.
1.25 discusses art work
1.8 is the addition of storm water
Chapters 2-8 are chapters on rehabilitation
P25
I.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
3
9.4 avoid making design decisions that require code related alternations
which could have been avoided.
Amy said the dormer statement should be moved to 7.6 guideline
Chapter 9 is the relocation chapter
9.1 was added to address where people are underpinning and excavating .
Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
Chapter 10 building additions
Amy said this addresses that the addition can’t be doubled in size. We also
talk about corner lots and heights of the addition on a corner.
Chapter 11
Amy said the only change is design a structure to be a product of its own
time.
Chapter 12
Amy said this chapter is the catch all chapter.
MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P26
I.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP, Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner; Chris Bendon, Community
Development Director, Consultant: Bob Schultz
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert
Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
The City Council Work Session on November 17, 2015 resulted in priorities for staff work in response
to the Council Top Ten goal of better aligning the Land Use Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan.
While the Council was interested in a number of topics, there was agreement to make the commercial
core/downtown area as the first priority for action on the Land Use Code. Council members discussed
seven work areas related to the commercial core/downtown. There was discussion and interest in staff
presenting a range of options for action that included “bold” steps to achieve the desired future
expressed in the AACP. There was recognition that many of the items will require consultant assistance,
and Council supported staff beginning to work on finding appropriate consultant help. There was also
support for broad community input on the efforts. The prioritized work areas are discussed in more
detail below.
Commercial Design Guidelines
Council expressed interest in updating the Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated
since 2007. This work area may best be addressed in conjunction with the zoning review (below) as the
zoning standards/dimensions and design guidelines work together to influence the form and appearance
of commercial buildings.
Zoning Review
Council expressed interest in understanding the forms of buildings that are likely to be produced based
on current zoning standards/dimensions. Council was also interested in reviewing exceptions to
standards and dimensions that exist in the current code. Some Council members expressed an interest in
understanding whether a cap on development could create the environment for using transferable
development rights to accommodate new growth without increasing the overall development rights in
the community. In general, Council is interested in reducing ambiguity and uncertainty in the land use
review process.
View Planes
Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for effectiveness and
assess the community’s priorities for view plan protection.
P27
I.
2
Public Amenities
Council expressed interest to examine the Public Amenity requirements, an effort that could be
combined with an examination of the Commercial Design Standards. There is a desire to promote
community-shared places that promote interaction and sense of place.
Regulate Use
Council expressed a desire to understand the opportunities and constraints related to regulating use in
commercial buildings. There is a general concern that the unfettered market will result in exclusionary
commercial opportunities that will fail to serve locals and a diverse base of visitors. Over time, that
could threaten Aspen’s vitality and economy. There is also an interest in understanding the “nooks and
crannies” around town and how they create opportunity for small business and vitality.
Mobility-Parking
There is an interest in regulations that support Council policies to limit traffic and reduce traffic
congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and maximum parking
requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the TIA into parking standards. This
work is on-going in conjunction with Council’s transportation-related goals.
Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces
There have been questions and concerns raised about mitigation requirements related to existing
commercial spaces. Council expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of
how existing commercial spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation.
Next Steps:
Staff will work on an overall strategy to involve the community as broadly as possible. Staff will return at
a January 26th work session to discuss next steps, funding needs, and consultant needs.
P28
I.
AACP WORK COMPLETED SINCE 2012
Since the adoption of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in 2012, there have been a number
of items reviewed and implemented by City Departments and City Council. The AACP includes
many policy priorities and a variety of policy direction on topics from growth to the transportation
to historic preservation to the environment. Every year since the AACP adoption, City Council
has prioritized various work program items from the AACP. Some items have been made into
City Council goals or processed as code amendments, while others have not yet been selected by
City Council for implementation. This exhibit outlines the AACP policies the City has completed
worked on since 2012.1
Master Plan Process – Added a new chapter outlining the process for any master plan. (Ord 31,
2012). AACP: General implementation from the overall 2012 AACP Process.
Aspen Idea Chapter:
• Uphill Economy – In 2015 the City began work to support the “Uphill Economy.” The effort
builds on the popularity of this outdoor movement by attracting events and businesses to Aspen
and the Roaring Fork Valley that can provide economic development that is not tied to the built
environment. In February 2015 the City hosted a successful uphill event and expo that
coincided with the Power of Four race. AACP: Aspen Idea Policies I.3-4; Managing Growth
Policy I.4.
Managing Growth For Community & Economic Sustainability Chapter:
• Code Amendment Process – Updated process for code amendments, allowing more Council
oversight and more immediate action (Ord 11, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies
VIII.1-2.
• Downtown heights & uses – Reduced heights to 28 feet, eliminated SFR/Duplex as allowed
use in C-1, reduced allowed Free-market FAR (Ord 12, 2012), and amended heights to address
south/north sides of street, eliminated Free-market residential as an allowed use in CC and C-
1 (Ord 25, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies I.6 and V.3.
• Mitigating Impacts of Development Report – Report analyzing the impacts of development
on Parks/Open Space/Recreation/Trails, Transportation, the Environment, Affordable
Housing, Construction, and Public Health/Human Services. Council chose to move forward
on Housing and Transportation. (Report issued May 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies
VII.1-2.
• Lodging Charrette & Report – Provided an analysis of existing conditions in the lodging
sector (Report issued August 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2.
1 While the AACP is a joint plan between the City and the County and includes potential work items for the City,
County, and community non-profits, this exhibit focuses only on the work conducted by the City of Aspen.
AACP Implementation
Page 1 of 7
P29
I.
• Employee Generation and Double Dipping – Updated the City’s Employee Generation
Study for commercial and lodging zones, and eliminated the so-called “double-dip provision”
in Growth Management that had allowed project to only mitigate for their highest requirement
(Ord 4, 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.2.
• PUD/PD – A complete re-write of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapter, renamed
chapter to “Planned Development”, established new review criteria, Council decision on
projects made sooner in process, went from 4 required review steps to 3 (Ord 36,
2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VIII.2-3.
• Subdivision & Development Documents – A complete rewrite of Subdivision chapter,
updated review criteria, established clearer requirements for development documents through
creation of a new chapter, established clearer subdivision review types (Ord 37, 2013 –
Subdivision; Ord 41, 2013 – Development Documents). AACP: Managing Growth Policy
VIII.2.
• Lodging Economics & Demand Report – Report outlining the economics and general
demand around the lodging and short-term rental sector in Aspen and other resort communities
(Report issued June 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2.
• Double Basement – Eliminated the ability to build double basements in single-family and
duplex development (Ord 31, 2014). AACP: Managing Growth Policy III.2.
• Lodge Incentive Program – Created program intended to provide incentives for existing
lodges and condominiums to upgrade, and to enable new lodging products to be developed
(Ord 19, Series 2014 – rescinded). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-4 and VII.3.
• Public Projects – Updated the COWOP Chapter to address all Public Projects and to address
state law (Ord 11, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.3.
• Small Lodge Preservation Program – Created a 5-year program to assist existing small
lodges to upgrade, refurbish, and expand, in an effort to enable them to remain a lodge. (Ord
15, Series 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2.
• Downtown Residential Uses – Legalized existing free-market residential units, while
prohibiting any new free-market residential units and any expansion of free-market residential
space to address non-conforming status created by Ordinance 25, Series 2012 (Ord 25, Series
2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies III.2 and VIII.2.
Transportation Chapter:
• Transportation Mitigation Requirements – Implemented a new system for all new
development to mitigate its new trips through TDM and MMLOS measures (Ord 8,
2014). AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2, and Policies III.1, III.3; Environmental
Sustainability Policies I.3, II.1 and II.4; Managing Growth Policy VII.2.
AACP Implementation
Page 2 of 7
P30
I.
• Bus Stop Improvements – Remodel and updates of Rubey Park, and replacements and
updates of stops along the Hunter Creek route. AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2,
and Policy I.1.
• Bus Service Improvements – Includes the remodel of Rubey Park, and ongoing efforts
including “shopping of routes,” ongoing discussions and coordination with RFTA regarding
customer and service issues, and promotion of BRT. AACP: Transportation Policies I.4 and
VI.3.
• Education and Outreach Efforts – Ongoing efforts by Transportation Department to make
more people aware of bus system and incentivize use. This has included contests, appreciation
events, and outreach and marketing to hotels. AACP: Transportation Policies I.3 and VI.1.
Housing Chapter:
• Capital Reserves Policy – Policy development is currently in process, with timing associated
with resolution of issues at Centennial. APCHA partly funded capital reserve studies for those
HOA’s who opted in. This enabled some of the HOA’s to create capital reserves and begin to
collect the funds. AACP: Housing Policies I.1 and I.3.
• ADUs – Ongoing work to address the ADU option for housing mitigation. AACP: Housing
Policies II.5-6.
• AH Credits Conversion – Provide a system of conversion between categories (Ord 32,
2012). AACP: Housing Policy III.2.
• Non-mitigation units – APCHA and City continue to work on ways to partner on housing and
increase community involvement in creation on non-mitigation housing. This includes
ongoing discussions with Habitat for Humanity, continued refinements to the Housing Credits
Program, and RFPs for the City’s land-banked properties. AACP: Housing Policy III.2.
• Housing Guidelines – Updated Housing Guidelines to make them easier to understand and to
include new procedural information (anticipated effective date August 2015). AACP: Housing
Policy V.1.
• Community Outreach and Engagement – The Housing Office has provided a number of
seminars and other educational opportunities for homeowners, including information on
CCIOA. AACP: Housing Policies I.4 and V.1.
• Management and Enforcement – Increased audits and inventorying of each unit as to
household size, employment, etc. Increases in qualified tenants. AACP: Housing Policy V.2.
• AH Credits Update – Update program to limit creation of affordable housing credits to private
sector developers, to full units (no dorm units), to within city limits, to Categories with cash-
in-lieu figures in the Housing Guidelines, and to address the creation of fractional credits in
AACP Implementation
Page 3 of 7
P31
I.
mixed-use buildings (Ord 34, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.2 and Housing
Policies IV.2 and V.1.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Chapter:
• Park Acquisitions – Acquired a number of parcels for both active and passive parks, including
the Dolinsek property, the Lindsey parcel, and Smuggler Mineral Rights. AACP: Parks
Policies I.1 and III.2-3.
• Park Balance – Continue to maintain a balance between active recreational parks and passive
parks, this has included efforts at Ajax Park, Pioneer Park, Bugsy Bernard Park, and Garrish
open space. AACP: Parks Policy I.2.
• Recreation Business Plan – The Recreation Department is working on an update to their
business plan. AACP: Recreation Policies II.1-2.
• Protecting Open Space – Implement improved noxious weed management, enforcement of
illegal camping, and clean-up efforts at Cozy Point. AACP: Parks Policy III.1, and
Environmental Stewardship Policies VI.1 and VII.1.
• Trail Improvements – Implemented trail enhancements and new connections, including
Cozyline, Airline, Ditchline, Deer Hill trail, Burlingame connector, Hummingbird traverse,
Lollipop extension, and Hunter Creek Extension. AACP: Parks Policies IV.1 and IV.3.
• Regional Trail Planning – On going work on the Upper Roaring Fork trails plan (draft
expected September 2015), and coordination with multiple jurisdictions on trail planning,
including Pitkin County, US Forest Service, Snowmass Village, and Aspen Skiing
Company. AACP: Parks Policy IV.2.
• Community Outreach – Enhanced communications and outreach efforts regarding city parks,
open space, trails, and recreation, including online surveys, new summer and winter trail maps,
new Smuggler self-guided tour map, and a new Nordic website. AACP: Parks Policy V.1.
Environmental Stewardship Chapter:
• Greenhouse Gases – GHG emissions were down by 7.4% in 2014 from the baseline year.
Voluntary programs exist to encourage energy reduction. AACP: Environmental Stewardship
Policies I.1-4 and V.1-5.
• Complete Streets – Adopted and implemented a “complete streets” policy that encourages
street design for all form of transportation, including bikes and pedestrians. Implementation
has included the work along the Main Street corridor. AACP: Environmental Stewardship
Policy I.3
AACP Implementation
Page 4 of 7
P32
I.
• Air Quality Monitoring – Participate in the Colorado State Patrol’s biannual Heavy Duty
Diesel Vehicles safety checks, including performing emissions checks on all trucks to
determine if they meet state air quality standards. Conduct weekly vehicle idling surveillance
throughout the winter. Provide air quality trainings to all new RFTA bus drivers. AACP:
Environmental Stewardship Policy II.1
• Ozone Monitoring – Implement updated air quality monitoring system to provide accurate
real-time data to the public. Real-time ozone and particulate data in both a health based form
as well as raw form is available at www.aspenairquality.com. AACP: Environmental
Stewardship Policy II.1-2.
• Stormwater Updates –Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) requires all development
sites to treat stormwater runoff with a preference for on-site treatment. Larger scale
community projects have also been completed to help treat water in the rivers, including at Rio
Grande Park and the John Denver Sanctuary. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policies
III.4, III.6 and III.7.
• Trash & Recycling Requirements – Updated requirements for trash and recycling for all use
types (Ord 13, Series 2013). In addition, the city has been working with Pitkin County and
Waste Management staff to encourage use of the Rio Grande Recycling Center. AACP:
Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1.
• Bag Ban – Instituted a ban on plastic bags in May 2012. The Bag Bank program continues to
offer free reusable shopping bags to residents and visitors through 12 different locations.
Environmental Health staff has also been training the checkout personnel at the two grocery
stores to ensure they are complying with the Waste Reduction Ordinance. AACP:
Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1.
• Composting – The City’s Environmental Health Department and Pitkin County Solid Waste
Center were awarded a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment to expand the compost collection program (SCRAPS). Funds from this program
are making a wider array of curbside collection containers available to residents and businesses
at no charge. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1.
• Deconstruction Requirements – Instituted a tracking and reporting system as part of the
Construction Management Plan process to track the amount of deconstruction and to encourage
reuse and recycling of materials. Approximately 60% of the total waste brought to the landfill
is diverted. 63% of the waste brought to the landfill is Construction and Demolition waste.
This has helped in efforts to increase the life of the landfill. AACP: Environmental
Stewardship Policy IV.2 and IV.4
• Snow Storage Requirements – The Engineering Department has updated requirements to
address snow storage requirements, requiring a minimum functional area of 30% of the paved
area to be provided for snow storage on site. Detached sidewalk requirements also provide
areas for snow storage. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.3
AACP Implementation
Page 5 of 7
P33
I.
• Aspen Electric Utility – Aspen Electric has achieved 100% renewable energy. AACP:
Environmental Stewardship Policy V.1-2
Historic Preservation Chapter:
• Historic Districts – Clarified that non-historic properties located within a Historic District are
subject to the City’s historic preservation requirements. (Ord 33, 2012). AACP: Historic
Preservation Policy II.1.
• AspenModern Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Post-WWII era
properties. The website was completed in April 2014 and includes information on each style
of architecture and each architect modern properties (http://www.aspenmod.com/) Staff
continues to update the website as new properties are designated. AACP: Historic Preservation
Policies I.1-2.
• AspenVictorian Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Victorian era
properties (http://aspenvictorian.com/). The website went live in September 2014, and
continues to be updated with information. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2.
• TDRs – Expanded TDR landing sites by allowing up to 3 TDRs on large lots (Ord 33, 2014).
AACP: Historic Preservation Policies II.2-3; Managing Growth Policy III.3.
Lifelong Aspenite Chapter:
• Childcare Access – Kids First has ongoing efforts to ensure affordable child care is available
to residents and workers, including offering financial aid above the Colorado Childcare
Assistance Program maximum income. In 2014, 81 families received childcare financial aid,
with an average award of $31.93 per day. All the families live or work in Aspen. Kids First
financial aid serves approximately 15% of the total children enrolled in licensed childcare in
Pitkin County. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy I.1.
• Early Childhood Mental Health – Kids First provides early childhood mental health
consulting in the childcare programs; services include developmental screenings, behavioral
challenges, emotional challenges, and family concerns. Their consultant (MA, LPC) also
provides parent training and coaching sessions for childcare staff and families on social –
emotional development. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1 and III.4.
• Nurse Consulting Services – Kids First provides Nurse Consulting to the childcare programs
that includes topics such as safety, nutrition, disease prevention, immunization policy and
procedures, and medication administration. Their registered nurse also offers child dental,
vision and hearing screenings, as well as teaching CPR and First Aid to childcare staff. AACP:
Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1, III.4, and III.5.
• Continuing Education – Kids First offers scholarships and incentives to childcare staff to
attend college courses to advance their learning in early childhood education. In 2014 over
AACP Implementation
Page 6 of 7
P34
I.
70% of all staff working in licensed childcare programs took at least one 3-credit college
course. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy IV.1.
AACP Implementation
Page 7 of 7
P35
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
1
Mr. Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis.
Keith Goode, Skippy Mesirow Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Jim True, Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow.
OTHER BUSINESS
AACP Update
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Ms. Garrow for an update on the AACP.
Ms. Garrow stated each year City Council adopts a set of top ten goals. One of the goals is to better
coordinate the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) into the land use code and has been defined as a
two year goal (2015 to mid-2017). There have been a lot code amendments undertaken to implement
parts of the AACP, but Council would like to see additional work in this area.
In November 2015, Staff met with Council in a work session to narrow in on the top items to be better
incorporated from the AACP. Council outlined a number of work areas Staff is preparing to embark on
and Staff wanted to check in with P&Z to ask how they would like to be involved as they initiate and
move forward on the various efforts and does P&Z have suggestions for Council regarding the
prioritization of their efforts. She noted the department is currently down a couple of staff members so
their efforts may not progress as fast initially until they are fully staffed sometime in April or May. They
expect to hire consultants for most of the work because it does require some outside expertise.
The top items Council wants information on for implementing into the code include:
1. Develop an understanding of the zoning history including how we got where we are and why we
have the regulations we have. Staff is working on this internally and hopes to have a white paper
finished mid-month which will be shared with P&Z as well. The paper tracks from the first zoning
ordinance in 1956 and includes changes throughout the years including infill and the
moratorium until current time.
2. Update the commercial design guidelines which is now about ten years old. Specifically, this
efforts will look at public amenity space, call up provisions, a varied downtown area, pedestrian
malls, and public amenity space on the public malls. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from
a released a Request for Proposal (RFP). They anticipate starting work in the March \ April
timeframe and expect a 10-12 month process.
3. In regards to off street parking and mobility, explore how we can tie our new transportation
mitigation system to our parking requirements. The system requires any net new trips
generated by a development to be offset through transit services or bike pathways. And if the
applicant goes above and beyond their mitigation requirements, would there be ways to offset
the parking requirements. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from a released a RFP and
anticipates this will also be a yearlong project.
4. Look at housing mitigation and understand the rules currently in place. Staff is not sure this will
turn into a work program item or not.
5. Look into regulating use and if there are ways to encourage locally serving businesses. This may
include looking into an overlay regulating international chain stores and how do we make sure
the use mix keeps the town vibrant in the future.
P36
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
2
6. Explore view planes.
Staff is recommending moving forward on the parking and commercial design guidelines followed by
regulating the land use issue.
Staff is also looking into the possibility of hiring a single land use code expert firm or individual to help
oversize the whole rewriting of the code.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if this process would be similar to the one used recently to modify the
residential design guidelines including bringing in an outside firm to speak with architects, planners and
various commissions. Ms. Garrow answered yes, particularly on the design guidelines. She anticipates a
different public outreach and community engagement strategy for each item to connect with folks who
may be interested in the commercial use mix, but may not be interested in parking and mobility as an
example.
Mr. Walterscheid said he was involved in the residential design standards and after they were done, it
then came to P&Z and he feels it may have been more valuable to engage the commissions throughout
the process instead of at the end. Ms. Garrow added they are looking into doing something different
and asked in general if the commission would like to be involved more or would they prefer to view the
changes once the language is written. Ms. Tygre stated she would have to think more about it. Mr.
McNellis stated it would require a lot more work from the commissions and thinks it is fine but wants to
make sure the commissions are aware of the amount of time involved. Mr. Walterscheid feels P&Z has a
general understanding of what is going on and would benefit from being able to participate earlier in the
process before the drafting of the language. He added perhaps Council should also be involved earlier
than they currently are in the process.
Ms. Tygre asked if the outreach would be in the form of public hearings or informal clicker sessions. Ms.
Garrow did not feel clicker sessions would be used but the method used may depends on the topic. Ms.
Garrow thought it may make sense to have a couple of small technical advisory groups including a
member of council, historic preservation commission (HPC), P&Z, along with design professionals and
community members to identify the issues within the design guidelines. Additional public types of
outreach could be conducted possibly including small and large open house groups, walking tours to
identify likes and dislikes of particular buildings and character areas. She added they will also use a web
site and online surveys which have provided good feedback for recent projects. She noted another
initiative had success using chalk boards placed around the city to gather passerby comments from folks
who may not normally engage in a survey or meeting.
Mr. McNellis suggested P&Z and HPC commissions could each elect a representative to attend each of
the meetings and report back to their commission. Ms. McNicholas Kury was not sure one individual
could appropriately represent the different viewpoints of the P&Z members. Mr. McNellis thought
perhaps representative may not be the best word, but have someone there who could report back the
pulse of the initiative would be beneficial. He also suggested any member could attend at any time. Ms.
Garrow stated they have done this in the past with Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOPS)
projects where both boards elected a representative.
Ms. Garrow is interested to know if any of the items on the list identified by Council should be at the top
of the list. Ms. McNicholas asked if they have established any prioritization at which Ms. Garrow stated
the most recently scheduled slot at a January 26th work session with Council to discuss the list was
continued to the end of February. She hopes to provide some of P&Z’s feedback to Council at the work
session.
P37
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
3
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels they see a lot of comments with transportation and parking in regards to the
mitigation and how should it relate to an overall goal for the city in way that is non-conflicting. Mr.
McNellis agreed and feels it is a defining situation that will come into play with future development with
a lot of passion on both sides. Mr. Walterscheid feels it has been difficult to discuss because everyone
seems to be pulled in different directions and at times the direction from Council and Staff seem to be at
odds with one another.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the use question really jumps out regarding who should be operating and
where and feels it is an issue that will continue to gain energy. Mr. Walterscheid asked what discussions
have occurred regarding the use mix and is it done anywhere else. Ms. Garrow stated one of the goals is
to save the nooks and crannies, longer time local stores, and mom and pop stores while also recognizing
a number of now international chains now in Aspen so there needs to be a balance to ensure there is an
appropriate mix downtown including restaurants and retail. Our community has the conversation every
five to ten years with the last time about ten years ago. Other communities have tackled this including
Carmel and Martha’s Vineyard who have implemented quotas on specific uses. Another idea is to
identify community spaces subsidized by the government for a local business to start or move on. She
stated similar to Justice Snow’s operating out of the Wheeler at a subsidized rate. She stated currently
Aspen has the SEI zone district to define a finer set of use. She then mentioned Basalt has defined an
overlay to encourage different business in their historic downtown. She added legal counsel would have
to be hired for advisement to ensure there are no violations of existing legislation.
Mr. McNellis asked what specifically was Council interested in with regard to housing. Ms. Garrow
replied Council is interested in understanding why buildings get credit for existing space if they did not
mitigate for the space when it was originally developed. Right now in growth management, if you have a
historic building built in the 1800’s that was never mitigated and the owner now wants to expand it and
technically triggers demolition. The owner gets credit for what previously existed and they only have to
mitigate the net new area. Council wants to investigate if this has to be done or not. Ms. Tygre
responded this situation has always bothered her. Ms. Garrow stated she is working on this currently
with Mr. True. Both Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated they are interested in this item.
Mr. McNellis then asked about any discussions regarding subpar construction and that the housing stock
is getting a bit old and some HOA are suffering with upkeep without the revenue in their own budget to
address some of the recent failures. Ms. Garrow stated this is another Council goal to tackle this
separately. Mr. McNellis stated he would be interested in this item as it is being discussed.
Ms. Tygre stated she does not feel she is in a position to prioritize any of the items.
Mr. Elliott did not have anything to add at this time.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be interested in the commercial design guideline discussions. He
stated they talked a lot about the intent during the residential design guideline discussions. With intent
of each statement, they tried to outline specific ways to achieve them to remove subjectivity as much as
possible. He hopes this will be a goal for the commercial guidelines as well.
Ms. Garrow summarized stating parking, uses and commercial design guidelines are a rough
prioritization.
In regard to commercial guidelines, Mr. McNellis wanted to add the need to look closely at green roofs.
Mr. Walterscheid remarked it would be nice if the commercial guidelines were actually in the land use
code as the residential guidelines are now and not use references.
P38
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
4
Ms. Garrow followed by saying she would have an update after the meeting with Council later in the
month.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there is any energy to build public art as an amenity in our environment. Ms.
Garrow stated is something that hasn’t been looked at holistically. Occasionally, a member of the public
requests to have a piece of art in a public amenity space for a building. She thought it could come into
the commercial design guidelines conversation as well as with another Council goal which is looking at
the pedestrian malls and looking into a plan there for public art. Currently when the City is given art, it
goes on the mall without a lot of rhyme or reason. Mr. McNellis added Basalt is looking into public art
specifically with local artists for designated places for rotating pieces.
Ms. Garrow asked for anything else to pass onto Council related to AACP implementation. Ms. Tygre is
very happy Council is doing it and the other P&Z members agreed. Ms. Tygre thinks it’s important for
the public to know it is being worked on. Mr. Walterscheid stated until the AACP is codified, it is just a
recommendation that can be dismissed or accepted. Ms. Garrow stated it is difficult because it covers so
many topics and not all is specific to land use code, some is policy and programs the City, County and
other folks need to be involved in the implementation. Ms. Tygre added implementing the aspiration of
the AACP to code is challenging because of diverse opinions.
Mayor Steve Skadron then entered the meeting. He expressed thanks to the members for serving on the
commission.
Ms. Tygre reiterated how all the P&Z members agree that it is important for Council to address the
modifications to incorporate the AACP in the land use code and she feels it is important for the public to
know this is a priority. Mayor Skadron noted they have already completed quite a few.
Mayor Skadron asked Ms. Tygre if she had any priorities. Ms. Garrow noted parking had been identified
as a priority earlier in the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid explained the commission receives various
viewpoints and feels there is no clear direction; Council may want less parking spaces; some P&Z
members want even less parking spaces than minimum required and neighbors want more than the
minimum. Mayor Skadron asked what they would like to see and Mr. Walterscheid states clarity would
be nice and noted if someone comes in with more than the minimum, it is seen negatively as it may be
promoting traffic. Mr. McNellis and others noted this debate happens frequently between what is
desired and what is logical based on the use and the location. Mr. Walterscheid added the residential
neighbors get very upset when P&Z tries to minimize parking and then it just shuffles into the
neighborhood. Ms. Tygre added until all the members of P&Z and Council give up their cars, she does
not want to reduce parking because just saying no is not an answer. Mr. Walterscheid agreed and stated
for people living on the other side of the bridge or up the pass it is not as convenient to get around
without the use of a vehicle. Ms. Tygre stated back in the day, folks worked on the mountains during the
day and in restaurants at night and they needed to shower and change and it won’t work with a bus
schedule. The people need both jobs and to tell them to leave their car at home is arrogant. Mr.
Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated it is a similar situation for parenting and noted the winters
especially are very difficult to rely on public transportation. Mayor Skadron stated is a much bigger
discussion than how much parking a development should or should not be allowed. He added he is
attending a valley wide transportation summit with CDOT and valley participants to discuss parking and
transportation from a valley wide. He added the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) is
reaching capacity in regards to the parking and ridership. He has stated with both Council and with the
RFTA that he does not want any more bus trips coming into Aspen which is currently about 900 buses
per day. He does not want to burden the community any more. He feels it’s time to push next
generation solutions.
P39
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
5
Mayor Skadron noted in a broader discussion he thought the base lodge parking situation could have
been a classic test case for the community to be discuss the future of transportation. He thought it could
have been an interesting debate where the developer would have been required to come back with a
solution and felt it was lost opportunity. Mr. Elliott stated it seems we run into conflicting goals for
situations when the proposed development is for a lower price point that may be interesting to families
and sporting teams who would logically drive to their destination. But if we tell them they cannot park
at their destination, it seems to be conflicting. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted when visiting Telluride, they
ban all parking in town for big festival weekends. You can drop off things and then you are given a
location to leave your car. Shuttles are then available to take you to places. Mr. Elliott stated that may
not work for situations where a family is visiting town for a hockey tournament and needs there vehicle
to go between the venue and hotel. Mayor Skadron stated Mr. Hunt had proposed a next generation
hotel product Aspen does not yet have and it attracts a different audience. This audience has different
habits than what we have today. He thought it should be Mr. Hunt’s burden, not the city’s burden to
define it.
Ms. Tygre asked if anyone knew how the economy hotel in Basalt was doing at which Mayor Skadron
replied the Element hotel is a gigantic success and the patrons are using buses or driving to Aspen. Ms.
Tygre noted we had nothing to do with it being built and asked what could be learned from it to
incorporate it into something we’re doing in regards to parking and transportation. Mr. Walterscheid
responded the community probably would not accept the same approach because they are serving a
mass and scale of economy allowing them to build a larger building with parking all around it. The
community has been clear they don’t want anything that large.
Mayor Skadron relayed an interview between the Israeli President and the Palestinian Authority
President and how the actions by each entity was integrated and not independent of each other. He
wanted to respond to Ms. Tygre’s earlier comment stating Aspen had nothing to do with and he feels
the fact we don’t have a similar product, it creates an opportunity down valley and now Aspen has the
traffic impacts. Mr. Walterscheid noted the community really stretches from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs.
Mr. Walterscheid noted opponents of the Base 2 Lodge have stated town is at its maximum occupancy
during holidays and wanted to know how to limit who comes into town without stifling businesses.
Mayor Skadron replied the premise is you are always welcome in Aspen Colorado and he would never
support a direction stating don’t come here or you’re not welcome here. Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t want
it to feel like it is a country club where you have to pay dues to be a part of it but sometimes feels is a bit
of the dichotomy that goes on with those who want to live here and those that have lived here for some
time. Mayor Skadron mentioned the uphill economy discussed recently at Council and it really grows
from the idea around the preservation of a mountain town culture and a community retaining its core
values. He feels our core values are in our ski roots and it distinguishes us from everybody else and
fosters a community fabric.
Mayor Skadron also noted not everybody who wants to come here can come here. He feels we
shouldn’t build affordable housing for the sake of it and had a discussion with the Next Gen Commission
that just because they want to live here does not mean the community is responsible to build a house
for them. He mentioned at a micro level, the Chamber’s marketing program could be tweaked and at
the last Chamber Board Meeting he asked about the relevancy of the board which is happening with
chambers around the country. The chamber has an aggressive program and we have a lodging tax
generating $2 million towards marketing the community. He wondered if should be tweaked so it is not
about more and more and more.
P40
I.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
6
Mayor Skadron noted these conversations are happening in every ski town. The changing demographics
in the state is putting pressure on the ski towns and he feels the biggest challenge for the community is
the clash of values between the town’s unique character and from people moving here with
expectations similar to those from the suburban areas from which they came. Sometimes he feels
downtown is turning into Cherry Creek Mall. Ms. Tygre mentioned how the Thrift Shop is booming for
both locals and tourists. He mentioned there is a group that has gotten together to look at legislation to
limit retail chains.
ADJOURN
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P41
I.