The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20251215AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 15, 2025 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A Safe Passage Presentation I.B ComDev Development Review Process Improvements Update ** An attachment to Exhibit A was sent to City Council directly due to formatting issues. The attachment will be presented during the Work Session, but if anyone from the public would like to review it, please reach out to Ben Anderson (ben.anderson@aspen.gov). II.Council discussion of the items published in the most recent information update, as needed Zoom Meeting Instructions Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88188597088?pwd=sbydhSiA6jmExZ4fpxYuHDbygY46aW.1 Passcode:81611 Join via audio: +1 346 248 7799 US Webinar ID: 881 8859 7088 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/k45gKb3WZ RFSP - SH82 Airport-Aspen Village project update 12-15-2025.pdf Staff Memo Development Review 12_15_25.pdf Exhibit A_Executive Summary.pdf 1 1 SH 82, Airport to Aspen Village Mitigation Strategy & Next Steps City of Aspen December 15, 2025 2 From 2012 – 2021 in the Roaring Fork Valley, •Wildlife-vehicle collisions were the leading cause of crashes reported to law enforcement, accounting for 30% of all crashes •As many as 2-4 more collisions with wildlife are never recorded Credit: Mark Gocke 3 The estimated cost of these collisions is $5.2 million each year Credit: Mark Gocke 4 Why local advocacy & funding? CDOT has a backlog of projects Many successful crossings are supported by local advocacy and philanthropy When a local community initiates at an early stage, State and Federal Funds becomes more accessible 5 Examples of local partnerships Annenberg Wallis Wildlife Crossing – Los Angeles, CA SH 9, Grand County, CO I-70 East Vail Pass, Summit County, CO 6 Priority areas Tier 1: may be feasible for wildlife crossing systems SH 82: Airport to Woody Creek •Mileposts 32.5 – 373 SH 82: Emma •Mileposts 21 – 22.5 SH 133: Crystal River North •Mileposts 62 – 64.5 7 Mitigation planning and implementation 2023 2024 – 2025 Future Wildlife Mitigation Prioritization Study Mitigation Plan Development Complete Design & Construction Partner, Stakeholder, and Public Engagement Pursue Funding Engineering: Design Development (30%) Develop & Evaluate Mitigation Alternatives Engineering: Final Design (95%) ✓ Watershed Scale Project Scale 8 Mitigation goals 1.Reduce wildlife -vehicle conflict and enhance driver safety 2.Improve and preserve long -term permeability for wildlife across SH 82 3.Support landscape -scale habitat connectivity for wildlife L. Mitchell 9 Wildlife-Vehicle Conflict Wildlife-vehicle collisions account for over half (55%) of all reported accidents between the Airport and Aspen Village Elk account for 34% of all wildlife-vehicle collisions 10 Elk Movement Patterns 11 Mitigation Phases Near-term Improvements Phase 1 Phase 2 12 Near-term Improvements Location Recommendation Existing Wildlife Fence (Airport to Shale Bluffs) Improve existing wildlife fence: •Remove 1 -way gates and replace with escape ramps •Extend west fence end to discourage end -around movements •Implement fence end treatments at east fence end •Improve river access Entire Segment Improve driver sight lines: •Remove/reduce vegetation or other visual obstructions Design and Construction Cost Estimate: $500,000 - $725,000 13 Phase 1 Airport to Cozy Point Two new wildlife crossings •Bridge underpass at Sky Mountain •Overpass at Brush Creek Wildlife Fencing •Airport to Smith Hill Rd Design and Construction Cost Estimate: $22.4M - $32.5M 14 15 Sky Mountain Underpass 16 Sky Mountain Underpass 17 Brush Creek Overpass 18 Brush Creek Overpass 19 Brush Creek Overpass 20 Phase 2 Cozy Point to Aspen Village Up to 3 new wildlife crossings •Bridge underpasses at Woods Road •Wildlife overpass at Wildcat •Wildlife overpass at Aspen Village Wildlife Fencing •Smith Hill Rd to north of Aspen Village Design and Construction Cost Estimate: $34.5M - $50M21 Woods Road Underpass 22 Wildcat Overpass 23 Aspen Village Overpass 24 Highway 82 Wildlife Crossings Public Input Survey 96% support wildlife crossings (87.4% strongly support) 94% consider collision reduction extremely or very important 77% have personal experience or close calls with wildlife- vehicle incidents 85% believe this project would improve quality of life 732 Responses | July-September 2025 25 “I have witnessed many problems in this section during my tenure as sheriff’s deputy and later” “There is way less reported accidents vs what actually occurs. As a Pitkin Deputy, I can promise you there is under reporting.” “Wildlife should be number one priority. It's part of the Aspen pledge.” “I grew up in this valley and the most serious car accidents I have been in and have had family in, have all been with wildlife…. There is a quality plan and this is the right time to save lives.” V. Loeffler 26 “We need more! Wildlife collisions have gotten so bad the past few years.” S. Guynup 27 Development Review Update Page 1 of 14 STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director MEETING DATE: December 15, 2025 SUBJECT: Work Session - Development Review Update Land Use and Permit Process Improvements and request for Council direction __________________________________________________________________ INTENDED OUTCOME: The development review process (Land Use Applications and Building Permits) has been and remains a topic of interest for the community and City Council. In this Work Session, ComDev staff intends to update Council on current trends in Aspen’s development context including permitting data points and to describe ongoing efforts toward improvements in both the land use and building permit processes. This topic has been central in previous Council discussions related to the working principle in Council’s 2025 -2027 Priority Projects and Council Goals: Improvement of core service delivery through process improvement with the customer in mind. Staff requests direction on two questions as part of the Work Session: 1) Is Council supportive of staff’s efforts and current path in making incremental but important improvements to permit and land use review? 2) What data points related to the development review process would Council like to receive on a regular basis and at what frequency? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Community Development and the development review process are asked to balance a number of competing interests: a robust and intentional regulatory environment, a desire to maintain a vibrant and diverse community that supports local residents and a world-class destination resort, and a highly valuable real estate and development 28 Development Review Update Page 2 of 14 context. There have been on-going debates about the interaction of these interests for decades. In this context and in response to previous Council and City Manager direction, Community Development staff have pursued two significant efforts to evaluate and improve elements of the development review process. First, in mid-2024, with budget approval for an additional FTE, ComDev in collaboration with Engineering, created a new Development Services function. This three-person team coordinates across development review agencies to facilitate permit intake – but also to holistically evaluate the permit review process, identify points of friction and inefficiency, and make necessary improvements to our permitting software (Salesforce) and process flow. Described more fully below, there have been small and large improvements that have pursued two outcomes: 1) a better and more predictable customer experience, and 2) improving efficiencies throughout the permitting process. It is important to note that while ComDev is central to these efforts, several City departments are directly involved in permit review. Secondly, with specific budget approval, Planning staff have been working with Baseline Engineering to study, evaluate, and provide recommendations for process and policy improvements within the review of Land Use applications. In arriving at these recommendations, the Baseline team talked extensively with our customers, with other stakeholders including internal customers and City Council members, and with staff. The findings are included in Exhibit A (Executive Summary) and Exhibit B (Spreadsheet identifying prioritized areas for projects and specific interventions). Staff have already made progress on some of these identified areas for improvement – while others will require code changes and further support from Baseline. In the discussion section below, Council will find detailed descriptions of completed and pending improvements within the permitting process, a summary of the prioritized work that will result from the Baseline analysis, and data on the current state of permit review. DISCUSSION: Staffing Updates: On a very positive note, with the onboarding of a newly hired planner in the new year, ComDev’s development review team – plans examiners, inspectors, planners, administrative staff and department leadership – will be at full staffing for the first time in 29 Development Review Update Page 3 of 14 many years. Bonnie Muhigirwa, Chief Building Official, and Dan Folke, Planning Director, have done a great job in recent hiring processes and in working to retain our valued employees. Now that we have these talented and dedicated new members on our team, we are focused on specific training and professional development opportunities to expedite the building of staff efficacy and efficiency in their work. Additionally, with this recent dynamic of full staffing, across ComDev review functions, management is re-evaluating specific job functions and giving new thought to how to best utilize our existing staff resources. Building Permit Trends: Discussion of specific data points and process improvements will follow, but a few trends are important to highlight: 1) Permit volume and valuation remains high and 2025 has generally been consistent with 2023 and 2024 in these measures. 2) Large commercial permits (Lift One corridor, Mountain Chalet, Aspen Club, White Elephant, Aspen Alps – building 300, and other long standing and ongoing projects in the core) are creating capacity issues and extended review timelines for our most experienced reviewers across review agencies. These are complex projects that require a level of expertise that the newer members of our staff are not yet prepared for. Additionally, we have struggled to identify consistent and reliable 3rd party, contracted reviewers to fill in any gaps. Currently, this is workable, but department management is monitoring this dynamic closely and is actively searching for new potential vendors in support of our staff reviewers. 3) Significant change orders to many of these projects remain a concern for both applicants and staff in terms of keeping projects moving forward. These reviews are time consumptive and are often taking place in the midst of critical construction timelines. 4) Positively, most projects are experiencing fewer rounds of review. 5) Review agencies across the board have further reduced and held onto previously realized gains in Round 1 review times. This is particularly true of smaller permits that do not fit into the category of more complex permits described above. Building Permit Process Improvements: The Development Services team has worked with staff across review agencies to develop and implement these process improvements. More sophisticated and 30 Development Review Update Page 4 of 14 intentional use of data from Salesforce (SF) to identify the areas in our process that needed intervention has been central to these successes. Internal review queues and processes • Multiple teams have reorganized queues for more clarity around like-for-like replacement and repair reviews and other permit types with quicker review expectations • Administrative & review standard operating procedures (SOP) revamp efforts • Formal queue check-ins, workshops, & blitz days implemented with different review agencies • Continual adjustments to internal review groups around process and SF enhancement prioritizations & project management Removing Steps from Admin and Review Processes • Like-for-like replacement and repair marker created in SF. This allows this type of work to be more easily distinguished for reviewers and treated differently from more complex reviews. Water & Utilities SOP adjustments underway to take advantage of this new capacity. • Licensing fees added to SF for Environmental Health reviews, consolidating payment efforts for new/updated restaurants for staff & public • Reporting agreements modified and streamlined for County Assessor’s office, saving time for City permit coordinators on each permit. • More intentionally distinguishing between properties that are historically designated from non-historic properties that are located in one of our historic districts. This reduces time-consumptive HP review from properties that are already bound by other important provisions in the Land Use Code. Public Information • Timeline page contains updated graphics for public and customer expectation setting • Mix and mingle for plans reviewers & public hosted in July of 2025. This was well received and attended and we are planning a to do this twice a year with the next in January. 31 Development Review Update Page 5 of 14 • New cover stamps and revamped email templates to clarify frequently misunderstood areas of concern for construction projects at various milestones in a project’s lifespan. • Continual adjustments and additions to relevant website-based information in response to customer feedback and common requests. As a consequence of these efforts, ComDev’s website is fundamentally improved resource for our customers – and translates into improved quality of submitted permits. Affidavit Program (aka over-the-counter permits) These efforts place additional submission and compliance requirements on the applicant, but significantly reduce staff review burden and timelines for relatively simple improvements that require permits. • Like-for-like fenestration (doors and windows) -50 permits issued since implementation in 2024 -Continued inquiry around Historic Preservation • Like-for-like water reviews (plumbing fixtures) -Designated and prioritized in the Water queue -Continued inquiry around fee and documentation requirements for Utilities review • Condo remodels (interior only) -This is a work in progress that should be ready in the first half of 2026. It will significantly reduce staff and applicant burden and permit issuance timelines for this very frequent permit type Pending Enhancements (2026) • Reworking of EPIC process (Specific permit type for interior improvements/tenant finishes to downtown core commercial spaces). • Further additions to affidavit programs – require a significant amount of discussion and coordination across review agencies to ensure review requirements are not being missed and process can be appropriately built out in Salesforce. • 3rd party vendor assessment of SF system is in progress. This work will clear the way for easier to implement process enhancements. Currently, even small process improvements in SF are a major undertaking for staff and vendor support resources. 32 Development Review Update Page 6 of 14 • Automated permit expiration alert system within SF. • Implementation of regular SOP reviews across review agencies • Evaluation of Land Use planning approvals that could be handled administratively during permit review instead of requiring a standalone and formal Land Use application process. Land Use (Planning) Review – Policy and Process Improvements It has been apparent for some time that long standing and often code required review processes and policies have become impediments to efficiency and may no longer reflect community priorities on some topics. There have been regular staff efforts to bring episodic improvements to some issues – both through internal process evaluation and policy updates – but the crucial word is episodic. We have not until recently conducted a comprehensive evaluation of how the planning function works. Baseline Engineering spent more than a year taking a deep dive into planning’s process flow and standard practices. They held extensive interviews with staff, with internal and external customers, with members of the community, and with City leadership including City Council. They looked closely at staff’s utilization of Salesforce, they analyzed our forms, our templates, our approval documents, our overall business function, and customer perceptions of our work. The consultant team compared Aspen’s planning function to other communities in Colorado through the filter of industry best practices. From this work they identified a significant number of specific topics that were in need of improvement or rethinking. The primary deliverable from this work is a list of more than 130 specific and actionable recommendations. These recommendations were prioritized using a matrix categorizing the actions using importance, and ease and timeframe of work necessary to implement as the weighting factors. The work is summarized in a executive summary attached as Exhibit A and the detailed priority work is included as a spreadsheet in Exhibit B. Staff was encouraged by the outcomes of this study as several items were things that staff were already working on and have made strides toward resolving. Examples of items in this category were necessary improvements to the land use application form, improving the resources available to customers on-line – including Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests for archived property records, creating SOPs for regular processes, and being more consistently accountable to already established customer service standards. 33 Development Review Update Page 7 of 14 From the larger list, the following categories of recommendations have been further prioritized by staff for our most immediate response – with implementation intended over the next six months or so. The following are summaries that individually reflect a number of the specific recommendations from the study. Policy shifts that will likely require code changes: • Historic Preservation Amending several components of our historic preservation review process to include reducing requirements for non-designated properties in historic districts and moving types of development needing minimal review to evaluation during building permit rather than necessitating a land use application. These two actions would result in reducing frequent bottlenecks during both land use and permit review. • Review level thresholds This effort would evaluate and recommend changes to the level of review for different types of development. Examples would include moving more simple reviews that currently require Council review to instead be reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission – and reviews that currently require P&Z or HPC review to be instead reviewed administratively – or as part of building permit review. An example of this type of consideration would be reviews for longer term temporary structures, variations to fence heights that exceed code provisions, or appeals of demolition allotment denials. In aggregate, this could involve significant code changes and some may necessitate public outreach to confirm staff recommendations. Improved standardization of planning process and customer service outcomes: • Establishing more consistent timelines and process flows There is a fair amount of variability in land use cases that can translate into vastly different timelines for application and review. This creates unpredictability for applicants, uneven distribution of staff caseloads, and inefficient use of planner capacity. There are a number of specific interventions that can reduce the factors that lead to this dynamic – including resetting expectations of staff and applicants. This will also apply Salesforce tools utilized in the permit process to the land use process in new ways. 34 Development Review Update Page 8 of 14 • Revisiting and bringing new expectations and accountability to communication with applicants Staff understands and was confirmed by Baseline’s work that communication with staff and the timeliness of this communication can be a very different experience for applicants from one case to another. Sometimes we are exceptional, sometimes we are less so. This is not intentional but is a result in the variability of cases we receive, varying caseloads across planning staff, underutilization of planning staff resources, and absence of dedicated tools to ensure consistent review management by planners. Staff organization, training, and professional development: • Eliminating remaining bright lines between “planning” and “zoning” This is a nuanced but important move. It has been the tradition in the department over time to have distinct staff dedicated to either land use review or permit review. We have previously made changes to job descriptions and career pathways in support of a more thoughtful blending of these functions but have not taken the steps to fully implement within actual work distribution and responsibilities across staff. This will require professional development, cross training and a reorganization of staff queues and process flows. • Intentional and Structured Staff Development An internal saying within Aspen’s planning staff is that it takes two years for a new staff member to feel comfortable operating within Aspen’s context. Baseline rightfully identified that this is an unusual dynamic and one that is an impediment to resolving several issues that arose in their analysis. On several fronts, management and the planning team need to create a program of mechanisms to speed up this process of staff development and efficacy. Administrative and Record Keeping Improvements: • Staff spend an inordinate amount of time searching in multiple locations for historic records and approvals for specific properties. Baseline recommended a series of improvements that could be made to reduce burdens on staff and the public in identifying necessary information and gaining access to these records. To complete the whole spectrum of Baseline recommendations will take years, potentially. Staff is being as strategic as possible in identifying the improvements that will most immediately translate into noticeable outcomes for our customers’ experience and staff effectiveness. The efforts described above are a start and seem manageable in the near term as we balance staff capacity to implement these changes while keeping up with case and permit review demands. 35 Development Review Update Page 9 of 14 Permit Review Data Building Permits Submitted Issued Valuation Issued 2022 448 407 $276,819,772.12 2023 535 495 $302,767,506.19 2024 475 476 $337,584,608.50 2025 553 505 $267,945,577.24 Table 1. Total Permit Volume and Valuation. 2025 numbers are year to date. These permit totals include Major and Minor permits for commercial and residential projects, repairs, roofing, change orders, demolitions and IFFRs (interior finishes and fixtures). The numbers do not include standalone mechanical and electrical permits. Because they have not yet been issued, valuation figures for 2025 do not include Lift One Lodge, Aman, Aspen Club change order, Aspen Alps Bldg. 300, and other large projects currently in review. Issued Residential Commercial Minor Major Change Minor Major Change 2025 279 24 85 69 3 16 Table 2. Distribution of Permits Issued between Residential and Commercial Projects. While large commercial projects are prominent in staff review queues, residential projects continue to constitute a majority of overall permit volumes. 36 Development Review Update Page 10 of 14 Figure 3. First Round, Average Queue Timelines for All Review Agencies, 2023 – 2025. Each line in this chart depicts individual review agencies’ (building, zoning, HP, Engineering, Utilities, Parks, etc.) progress over time in reducing and making more consistent first round review timelines across permit types. Efforts continue to be made to make these timelines shorter and more consistent. Figure 4. Excerpt from Community Development’s Website. These estimated timelines for completion of First Round of review are evaluated and updated on a quarterly basis. 37 Development Review Update Page 11 of 14 Figures 5 and 6. 2024 (top) v. 2025 (bottom), Average Number of Rounds of Review by Permit Type. One data point that staff is pleased with is that over the last year we have made concerted efforts to reduce the number of review rounds. These graphics reflect this effort for most permit types. More permits are requiring fewer rounds of review. This reflects improved submission quality from applicants and efforts by staff to make more comprehensive comments in early rounds and implement targeted process improvements to this effect. 38 Development Review Update Page 12 of 14 39 Development Review Update Page 13 of 14 Figures 8 and 9, above show a considerable amount of information related to the whole of the permit processes and staff’s efforts to identify and resolve some of the friction points within these processes. Staff will discuss these figures in more detail during the Work Session discussion Staff looks forward to this Work Session and a comprehensive discussion about the development review process, any concerns that Council may have about development review, and ideas for how we might continue to work on these topics together. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None, directly ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None, directly RECOMMENDATIONS: No specific recommendations at this time – just a request for direction on the two questions idenitified at the beginning of the memo. ALTERNATIVES: Council is asked to provide direction on the general approach that staff is taking in making improvements to the development review process. Staff has been making efforts toward continuous improvement in an incremental and targeted ways – but importantly this is based within frameworks and process that have guided review in Aspen for at least a couple of decades. Should Council desire a different approach in pursuit of a priority toward faster review timelines the following strategies could be pursued: 1) A reduction and simplification of provisions within our regulatory framework. This would involve making significant changes to the Land Use Code, our building codes, and other provisions across development standards used by the Engineering, Utilities, and Parks Departments. 2) Place much more responsibility and risk on applicants to development projects in conformance with our codes. One of the reasons our complex projects take several rounds of review before issuance is that we do not issue permits until all submitted plans show full conformance with all regulatory requirements. Many communities issue permits with redline comments from staff – and assume that the applicants address the comments sufficiently during construction. In this case, inspection of projects during construction 40 Development Review Update Page 14 of 14 after the work has been completed – is the mechanism through which conformance is evaluated. 3) Centralize review to fewer or a single member of staff. Development review on complex projects in Aspen is a high touch endeavor. Depending on a project’s components, as many as ten different staff members have direct review responsibilities on a permit. Many communities conduct more cursory reviews utilizing fewer staff members. While we have made some efforts toward this, (for example building department staff have included elements of Environmental Health and Utilities code within their review queues) it would be a major shift to do this more comprehensively. There are other potential topics that could translate into impactful reductions of review timelines. However, in staff’s view, these types of interventions like the three specific strategies described above would involve important trade-offs and would require fundamental changes in our permitting software, staffing organization and training, and cultural shifts within how development review happens more broadly. Staff is open to ideas and welcomes further discussion. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: These documents describe the work of consultants from Baseline Engineering in their evaluation of ComDev’s Land Use Planning function. Attachment A – Executive Summary (PDF) Attachment B – Detail of Recommendations (Excel Spreadsheet) 41 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING SUPPORT SERVICES PROCESS IMPROVEMENT: RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT www.baselinecorp.com 112 N. RUBEY DRIVE, #210 GOLDEN, CO 80403 October 18, 2025 Prepared For The City of Aspen Community Development Department 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 42 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 1 | PAGE CITY OF ASPEN 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 City of Aspen Project Team: Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director Sophie Varga Zoning Administrator Daniel Folke Planning Director Baseline Project Team: Tez Hawkins, AICP Project Manager Andrew Baker, AICP Senior Planner Julie Esterl Senior Planner City of Aspen Planning Support Services Process Improvement Recommendations Report Table of Contents Introduction & Intent ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 How to Use this Recommendations Report ................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Implementation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Metrics and Measures of Success .................................................................................................................................... 14 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Attachments........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 43 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 2 | PAGE Introduction & Intent Baseline, along with the City of Aspen (the “City”) Community Development Department (the “Community Development” or “ComDev”), is pleased to present this Recommendations Report as Task 6 in the ongoing efforts to streamline the department’s land use application process, optimize its role and functions within the City, and provide guidance on implementation of short- and long-term goals. The purpose of this report is to provide a background and summary of the recommendations to improve the City’s development review process, as well as prioritization of the recommendations and steps for implementation. The previous installment of the Work plan, Task 5, titled “City of Aspen Planning Support Services Process Improvements Summary of Findings Report,” outlined the purpose of the collaboration between the City and Baseline, and how Baseline’s Community Development team worked with – and served as an extension of – City of Aspen Community Development staff to analyze and document current issues and areas for improvement. This was achieved through interviews, meetings, and active-listening sessions, which were extended to members of City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, City of Aspen staff involved with development review, permitting, and IT, as well as select, frequent applicants. The Summary of Findings Report is included as Attachment A. The information and responses gathered from these efforts were cross-analyzed with observations made by Baseline planners, along with the City’s code, current processes and procedures/policies, regulations, informational material, and digital review/archive techniques – resulting in an organized summary of findings and takeaways. The Summary of Findings Report states the following regarding the recommendations and prioritization of implementation strategies: “The results of Baseline’s findings allowed us to work with the Community Development staff to produce a priority matrix that delineates where Baseline will focus our efforts during the next steps of the project, which are the recommendations for improvements and the implementation of said improvements. Priority Tiers 1 and 2 are considered the most important areas for improvement. They have the highest potential for quick and effective wins and implementation. Additionally, improvements in these areas will have the most impact on the efficiency of the development review process as identified by community development staff, elected officials, and applicants. Priority Tiers 3-4 are secondary improvements identified by community development staff, elected officials, and applicants as components of the planning process that may not be working effectively. These are no less important, however, improving these components requires complex solutions and analysis, coordination with elected officials or the public, or, by nature, is a long-term approach.” The priority matrix referenced is shown below as Figure 1. Work Plan Task 1: Initial, On-Site meeting  1.1 Work Plan & Official Kick-Off Meeting  1.2 Initial On-Site Meeting Task 2: Follow-Up On-Site Meeting  2.1 Work Plan Revisions  2.2 Individual Staff Interviews  2.3 Stakeholder Interviews  2.4 Salesforce Software Interview Task 3: Progress Report and Meeting  3.1 Work Plan Revisions  3.2 Progress Report Meeting and Documentation Task 4: Land Use Code Process and Procedural Review Task 5: Summary of Findings Report Task 6: Recommendations for Improvements 44 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 3 | PAGE The Summary Report goes on to further explain the method of implementation and how priorities may be efficiently and effectively distributed: “Simultaneous Implementation (left-right/horizontal arrows in the table): After specific and more detailed recommendations for improvement are generated from the priority list, implementation of those recommendations can occur simultaneously, and, in many cases, there will be overlapping implementation efforts. Trickle-Down Improvements (top-down/vertical arrows in the table): Implementation of recommendations generated from the priorities list will have a “Trickle-Down” effect, meaning the higher priority process improvements from Tiers 1-2 will, in some cases, naturally overlap or “trickle down” to the lower priority improvements from Tiers 3-4. The trickle-down improvement scenario will create a simultaneous implementation of improvements between the top priorities and lower priorities. In some scenarios, the implementation of Baseline’s recommendations for the high-priority improvements may not have a direct path to a solution due to their intersections with other components of the development review process; in these scenarios, additional steps are necessary to address low-priority improvements or previously unidentified improvements and generate comprehensive solutions to ensure the functionality and longevity of changes made to the development review process.” Figure 1. Summary of Findings, Priority of Improvements 45 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 4 | PAGE Summary of Findings The Summary of Findings Report defined the following areas for attention, improvement, and/or acknowledgement, which have been utilized as the categories referred to by this Recommendations Report and associated Implementation Priority Matrix: These topics are fully defined in the attached Summary of Findings Report: · Planning Application Review Process (Non-Code Related) · Building Application Review Process (Non-Code Related) · Planning/Building Application Review Process (Land Use Code Revisions) · Socioeconomic Trends · Salesforce Integration & Use · Record Keeping · Additional Software/Salesforce (Software Improvements) · Fee Calculation & Charges · Staff Training & Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) · Interdepartmental & Applicant Coordination · Applicant/Customer Responsibilities · Perception of Community Development These topics could be found as areas for improvement in most municipalities, and generally, Baseline found that Community Development and administration have taken steps in recent years in these areas of improvement. These efforts continued throughout the year during which Baseline conducted the analysis of data and worked with City staff, and as of the drafting of this report, certain improvements listed are expected to have already been implemented. Another twenty-five subtopics were also cited and will be referred to in the following assessment, many of which applied to many “main” topics, providing valuable insight into the complex dynamics of certain issues and discussions. Subtopic title definitions and further explanations of the qualitative methods used to categorize and analyze these items are discussed in the Summary of Findings Report. This report will also demonstrate how topics have been prioritized and lay the groundwork for making improvements. As Baseline and the City Aspen’s project team generated recommendations, some of the primary topics and areas of improvement above were consolidated or renamed to better identify, simplify, and categorize priorities. For example, many recommendations under the topic of the “Planning/Land Use Application Review Process” have known and actionable items that can be prioritized immediately by the City; however, there are areas of the recommendations that are somewhat actionable but require additional analysis, complex or long-term solutions, or, in some cases, Code amendments. So, the “Planning/Building Application Review Process (Land Use Code Revisions)” above was removed and mostly consolidated into the topic of “Planning/Land Use Application Review Process.” The final primary topics and areas for improvement are listed in Table 1, along with the topics they were derived from. 46 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 5 | PAGE Table 1. Consolidated Topic Areas of Improvement Primary Topic Name Primary Topic Name- Summary of Findings Additional Notes Planning/Land Use Application Review Process - Planning Application Review Process (Non-Code Related) Baseline found that many actions could be taken that do not require code revisions. However, there were more complex actions that may require revisiting the Code, and therefore, this topic was renamed. Salesforce Integration & Use - Salesforce Integration & Use No Change. Staffing - Staff Training & SOPs This topic was renamed for clarity and to be more comprehensive. Building & Zoning Application Review Process - Building Application Review Process (Non-Code Related) Baseline found that many actions could be taken that do not require code revisions. However, there were more complex actions that may require revisiting the code, and therefore, this topic was renamed. Record Keeping - Record Keeping No Change. Interdepartmental & Applicant Coordination - Interdepartmental & Applicant Coordination - Applicant/Customer Responsibilities These two topics were consolidated due to similarities. Land Use Code & Historic Preservation - Planning/Building Application Review Process (Land Use Code Revisions) Historic Preservation was added to the topic’s title because it played a larger and more independent role in the development review process than Baseline anticipated. Additionally, the topic was renamed for clarity. Salesforce & Software Improvements - Additional Software/Salesforce (Software Improvements) The topic was renamed for clarity. Socioeconomic Trends (Comprehensive Long-Range Planning) - Socioeconomic Trends No change. Fee Calculation & Process - Fee Calculation & Charges The topic was renamed for clarity. Perception of Community Development - Perception of Community Development No Change. 47 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 6 | PAGE How to Use this Recommendations Report The recommendations provided have been vetted through an initial review process with the City, and this report is intended to be a ‘living document’ that will serve as a directional guide with room for additions and revisions through the implementation phase of the recommendations. Baseline’s recommendations are based on individual career experience and our experience working in different municipalities; however, the Community Development Department may find that the recommendations are not suited for their operations or preferences, current standings, or personnel dynamics. Additionally, through the implementation phase, Baseline expects further input from the City of Aspen Community Development team, other departments, and public officials. Baseline has provided the recommendations in an Excel spreadsheet to allow for the aforementioned additions and revisions. The areas of improvement, topic areas, and ultimately the recommendations contain substantial intersections between one another, relying on one or more steps to be taken as a critical path; furthermore, the successful implementation of any improvement/recommendation in these areas must be mirrored horizontally across the other topic areas to ensure consistency and avoid unexpected conflicts. Priorities were chosen based on a few factors, mainly those early recommendations presented to Aspen staff, which were already in motion, identified as “low-hanging fruit” based on the known and clear actionable solutions, or were clearly of importance to the City and Baseline. Lower priorities include items that may be more nuanced in nature or relate to a larger topic that must be addressed first, and lastly, certain recommendations will require code analysis and amendment, long-range planning efforts, and public outreach/process. As noted previously, many of these recommendations have been under discussion with Baseline and internally among the City of Aspen Staff for more than a year, as of the writing of this report, some efforts were already underway to address the topics included. Continuous updates and revisions will be necessary to ensure this snapshot-in-time retains long-term relevance. Summary of Recommendations Comprehensively, Baseline worked with the Community Development project team to generate recommendations that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the development review process. In total, there are 137 recommendations that are derived from Baseline experience in working with different municipalities across Colorado and facilitating development review support, targeted process improvements, or short-range and long-range planning support. The full list of recommendations, their intersections, and implementation steps is in Attachment B of this report, organized by the topic or area for improvement. Attachment C of this report provides all 137 priorities arranged in priority order. Overall Baseline found that the City should adopt and carry out supplemental standard operating procedures that would significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the development review process. To summarize the recommendations for each area of improvement, Baseline generated the following key takeaways for improving the City’s Development review process: 1. The Planning/Land Use Application Review Process requires additional structure and standard operating procedures to establish a consistent and predictable review for staff and applicants, sufficient record keeping, and reliable communication and coordination. 48 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 7 | PAGE 2. Salesforce or another adequate development review software should be integrated into all development review processes as an anchor to the standard operating procedures. 3. One of Baseline’s foremost recommendations was to combine the Planning and Zoning departments and cross-train and allow staff to undertake planning and land use review as well as the building and zoning review to improve efficiency and balance workloads; Community Development made these changes during Baseline’s initial analysis and summary of findings. Maintaining and recruiting adequate staff poses challenges for most Mountain Communities, especially resort or remote communities that have a higher cost of living or may lack resources that potential residents may deem necessary. However, within Baseline’s scope of work, we’ve found that there are improvements that can be made to facilitate staff’s ability to implement an effective and efficient development review process including consistent and adequate training for new staff, standard operating procedures for existing staff, continued outside education and training opportunities, continued in-house training and leadership, and maintenance of in-house informational resources. 4. The Building & Zoning Application Review Process has standard operating procedures; however, some improvements can be made for Internal and departmental coordination. 5. Current record-keeping practices require standard operating procedures. Historical or past record-keeping practices in previous decades also require retrofitting and collection to be consistent as the City revises its record-keeping standards; both actions will substantially improve the efficiency of the development review process. 6. Interdepartmental & Applicant Coordination during the pre-application and review process needs standard operating procedures to improve customer service and project management. Standard operating procedures for coordination include utilizing available development software communication capabilities, establishing conflict resolution procedures, meeting with other departments regularly, and establishing and communicating expectations for conduct and requirements with applicants. 7. Recommendations targeted at the Land Use Code & Historic Preservation Guidelines are primarily targeted at removing non-essential decision-making authority and approval measures, simplifying code language, and providing clarity to the code with guidance documents. The recommendations also include conducting long-range planning to understand if the community still values certain development standards that cause inefficiencies in the ability of staff to administer them and applicants to demonstrate them. 8. Salesforce & Software Improvements recommendations aim to improve or upgrade the City’s development review software to operate as it was intended and as Baseline has observed or improved in other municipalities. The software should be a facilitator and expeditor for staff in the development review process, including adding enhancements for improved record keeping, communication, and coordination, customer service, and standard operating procedures. Due to uncertainty around the City’s third-party software capabilities, it’s important to note that the 49 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 8 | PAGE implementation of recommendations that reference Salesforce or other software will experience delays, retrofitting, or may become unapplicable. 9. The Socioeconomics and the direction of development trends in the City have changed since the last update of City’s Land Use Regulations and Aspen Area Community Plan, and to effectively administer the development review the City should implement long-range planning strategies, which include, first, revisiting the Aspen Area Community Plan to understand and document the current community vision, and subsequently revising the City’s Municipal Code and Land Use Regulations to reflect said vision. 10. The development application review fee calculation process is a time-consuming step for Community Development’s planners and reviewers and should be revisited with City officials to analyze how to streamline or create a more efficient way for planners and reviewers to calculate review fees. 11. The perception of the City’s Community Development Department’s ability to administer an effective and efficient development review process can be improved through the implementation of the recommendations and the above key takeaways. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS IS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]50 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 9 | PAGE Implementation To facilitate prioritization of the proposed recommendations, Baseline generated an implementation strategy. The goals of the implementation include allowing staff or consultants to implement recommendations while minimizing significant impacts to Community Development day-to-day operations; creating a perennial road map to implementation of the recommendations based on the City’s initial feedback and best practices adopted from Baseline’s previous experiences; highlighting priorities while creating an understanding of what’s straightforward versus what is complex. In Attachment A, Baseline also provided implementation steps. These implementation steps are intended to provide ideal direction and initial steps for staff, but are not intended to be completely prescriptive, as there could be unidentified complexities throughout the implementation phase that cause modifications to the recommendations or how they are implemented. Table 2. Implementation Matrix Implementation Matrix Implementation Strategy Issue Topics & Priority Known & Actionable (a) Complex & Somewhat Actionable (b) Code Amendment (c) Long Range Planning & Major Code Amendment/Rewrite (d) High (1) Planning/Land Use Application Review Process Salesforce Integration & Use Staffing 1a: These recommendations include topics identified as high priority, which have already been determined and may be in process, or were identified with relatively simple solutions, and will be the first set of action items to begin implementation. 1b: These recommendations include topics identified as high priority, and they require additional analysis or coordination that may involve stakeholders or decision-makers outside of Community Development. These recommendations also involve more complex solutions with less certainty around the path to a solution or a definition of success, and will be among the first or second set of action items to begin implementation. 1c: These recommendations include topics identified as high priority and will require a code amendment to implement. They have been identified as within the ability and capacity of Community Development or Baseline staff to draft and complete, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority. 1d: These recommendations include topics identified as high priority but will require a code amendment to implement. Different from recommendations labeled as "1c:", these will require additional consultation, public process, long-range planning efforts, or a major code rewrite to implement. and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority. 51 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 10 | PAGE Implementation Matrix Implementation Strategy Issue Topics & Priority Known & Actionable (a) Complex & Somewhat Actionable (b) Code Amendment (c) Long Range Planning & Major Code Amendment/Rewrite (d) Medium (2) * Building & Zoning Application Review Process Interdepartmental & Applicant Coordination Record Keeping 2a: These recommendations include topics identified as medium priority, which have already been determined and may be in process, or were identified with relatively simple solutions, and will be the second set of action items to begin implementation. 2b: These recommendations include topics identified as medium priority, and they require additional analysis or coordination that may involve stakeholders or decision-makers outside of Community Development. These recommendations also involve more complex solutions with less certainty around the path to a solution or a definition of success, and will be among the second set of action items to begin implementation. 2c: These recommendations include topics identified as medium priority and will require a code amendment to implement. They have been identified as within the ability and capacity of Community Development or Baseline staff to draft and complete, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority, generally after "1c" items have been completed. 2d: These recommendations include topics identified as medium priority but will require a code amendment to implement. Different from recommendations labeled as "2c:", these will require additional consultation, public process, long-range planning efforts, or a major code rewrite to implement. and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority. 52 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 11 | PAGE Implementation Matrix Implementation Strategy Issue Topics & Priority Known & Actionable (a) Complex & Somewhat Actionable (b) Code Amendment (c) Long Range Planning & Major Code Amendment/Rewrite (d) Low (3)* Fee Calculation & Process Perception of Community Development Socioeconomic Trends (Comprehensive Long-Range Planning) Salesforce & Software (Improvements) 3a: These recommendations include topics identified as low priority, which have already been determined and may be in process, or were identified with relatively simple solutions, and will be the last set of action items to begin implementation unless certain items are determined to be beneficial or timely enough to implement earlier. 3b: These recommendations include topics identified as low priority, and they require additional analysis or coordination that may involve stakeholders or decision-makers outside of Community Development. These recommendations also involve more complex solutions with less certainty around the path to a solution or a definition of success, and will be among the last set of action items to begin implementation. 3c: These recommendations include topics identified as low priority and will require a code amendment to implement. They have been identified as within the ability and capacity of Community Development or Baseline staff to draft and complete, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority, generally after "2c" items have been completed. 3d: These recommendations include topics identified as low priority but will require a code amendment to implement. Different from recommendations labeled as "3c:", these will require additional consultation, public process, long-range planning efforts, or a major code rewrite to implement. and will be determined on a case-by-case basis for implementation and priority. *Recommendations labeled with the asterisks in Attachment A and in Table 2 may be redesignated as 'high priority' by the Community Development Director or Planning Director because the topic creates a consistent challenge or inconvenience for the Community Development Team. 53 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 12 | PAGE As described in the Summary of Findings, implementing many of Baseline’s proposed recommendations will generate intersections with other recommendations or areas of improvement; this was defined as the “Trickle-down Improvements” in the Summary of Findings Section above. These said intersections are identified for each recommendation in Attachment A. Each recommendation in Attachment A provides constraints and direct benefits that were identified City of Aspen Community Development Department as Baseline began discussing and refining the recommendations with them. Each direct benefit and constraint is defined below in Tables 3 and 4, and are typical outcomes or scenarios that the City can expect to see as recommendations are implemented. Table 3. Direct Benefits of Implementation Direct Benefits Label Definition Promotes Accountability Implementation of the recommendation provides clear expectations; therefore, the associated groups or individuals involved are held accountable for addressing the noted actions or tasks. Clarifies Expectations Implementation of the recommendation provides clear expectations in an area of the process or operations that were previously unclear. Generates Consistency Implementation of the recommendation will provide a uniform, structured, and more predictable review process for applicants and staff. Improves Effectiveness Implementation of the recommendation will produce a more effective outcome in the review process, administration of the Land Use Regulations and Community Vision, or the general actions and interactions of the Community Development Department. Improved Customer Satisfaction Implementation of the recommendation promotes an improved experience for the Community Development applicants or inquirers. Improved Communication Implementation of the recommendation allows for improved information exchange between Community Development, Applicants, other departments, elected and appointed officials, and the general public. Increased Efficiency Implementation of the recommendation improves the ability of Community Development to accomplish tasks with minimal waste of time, effort, or resources. Improved Organization & Structure Implementation of the recommendation provides additional guidelines, standard operating procedures, expectations, and a framework. Promotes Professional growth Implementation of the recommendation allows the Community Development department team the opportunity for continuous learning and development of new skills and knowledge to advance their career. Builds Team Rapport & Mentality Implementation of the recommendation improves the fluidity of working relationships, including the sharing of ideas, project updates, general communication, and individual needs. Promotes Transparency Implementation of the recommendation allows the community development review process to be easy to understand, predictable, and accessible. 54 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 13 | PAGE Table 4. Constraints to Implementation Potential Constraints Definitions Generates Additional Workload Implementation of the recommendation may result in additional workload for Community development or other departments. Generates Additional Upfront Effort Implementation of the recommendation may require additional time and effort from Community Development or other departments at the early stages of processing or reviewing an application. Requires Interdepartmental Coordination The recommendation may require feedback and coordination from other departments before it's implemented. Requires Public Process Implementation of the recommendation will require a public process that includes public meetings with elected and appointed officials, public and resident engagement, and coordination with internal departments or external organizations. Possibility of Resistance to Change Implementation of the recommendation may create pushback or resistance from Community development staff, other City departments, external organizations, elected and appointed officials, residents, or developers. Limited Software Capabilities The recommendation may be limited by the City's current software or software capabilities. Time Consuming Action Implementation of the recommendation will be a time-consuming effort. However, once the recommendation is implemented, it will generate efficiencies in the development review process. Unclear or Conflicting Goals It's not clear if the recommendation can achieve its purpose due to conflicting goals between Community Development staff, other City departments, external organizations, elected and appointed officials, residents, or developers. Unclear or Complex Solutions Implementation of the recommendation is not a direct solution but a step in the direction of a solution; the recommendation is constrained due to a substantial amount of unknown or complex factors. 55 BASELINE PLANNING, SURVEY, AND ENGINEERING 14 | PAGE Metrics and Measures of Success Success can be measured in many different ways, and while this Recommendations Report endeavors to quantify and categorize as best as possible, the overall intention is to streamline City development processes, eliminate/reduce redundancy, promote staff development and collaboration, attend to public perception and opinion, and optimize the department’s many important functions as technical review staff and highly-visible public representatives. As the recommendations are implemented, the City of Aspen can begin to make the following observations as measures of success: - The City’s Planners will show more availability to engage in things outside of development review, including long-range planning, continued education and training, and team-building activities. - Community Development will find a reduction in stress levels for staff. - A reduction in staff turnover. - Improved rapport with applicants, public officials, and other departments. - A reduction in excessive communication with new and existing applicants due to improved standard operating procedures, transparency, automated communication and functions, and customer-facing information or software interfaces. - Improved Development Review timelines. - Improved development outcomes, including the accurate execution of the community’s vision, adequate involvement and fulfillment of the decision-making of public officials, and fulfillment of the Community Development Staff. These observations can be reformatted as questions that Community Development can ask itself, public officials, or applicants. Next Steps 1. Mobilize: Identify the internal project team members who will be taking the initiative to begin implementing the proposed recommendations. 2. Generate a Schedule and Expectations: Build reasonable expectations for implementing the recommendations. An overly aggressive implementation schedule can put unnecessary strain or stress on the Community Development team, especially under known varying conditions such as heavy workloads or unforeseen staffing obstacles. 3. Advertise: Provide this report and recommendations or a summary of Community Development efforts to the City’s elected and appointed officials, other City Departments, applicants, and interested community members. Ensure that the schedule and expectations are communicated. 4. Initiate: Formalize an execution plan starting with high-priority recommendations, as well as those identified as “Medium” or “Low priority” that may intersect or have been identified as items that may need to be elevated immediately. 56