HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160412
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 12, 2016
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Land Use Code Revisions
P1
4.12.16 Council Work Session
Moratorium Discussion
Page 1 of 5
Memorandum
To: Mayor Skadron and City Council
From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
Meeting Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Land Use Code Revisions – General Overview
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide a general overview of the
work that will be completed to update the Land Use Code and to highlight some potential code
amendments that can be completed in the immediate term. Council is asked to provide initial feedback
on the proposed work. Specific questions for council are listed in bold throughout the memo.
BACKGROUND: City Council has a top ten goal to update the Land Use Code to better reflect that
Aspen Area Community Plan. During a November 2015 work session, Council identified seven policy
areas that should be updated in the Land Use Code. These included:
• Review of Zoning History
• Commercial Design Standards
• Public Amenity
• View Planes
• Land Uses and Commercial Mix
• Off-Street Parking and Mobility
• Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces
These work areas were reaffirmed during a February 29, 2016 work session where City Council agreed
to move forward with funding for consultants to assist in the efforts. Following that work session, on
March 15, City Council adopted a temporary moratorium on new land use applications to enable open
discussion about the potential code changes, including the items previously identified as well as newer
concerns related to free-market residential uses. A number of RFPs have been released to request
consultant assistance on updating the Land Use Code. All consultants should be in place by the end of
April, and at this time staff anticipates that all code amendments currently contemplated will be
completed by the end of 2016.
SUMMARY: A general outline of the anticipated work is highlighted below, with a more detailed
timeline included as Exhibit A. In addition, specific code amendments that could be completed in the
immediate term are outlined below.
OVERALL SCHEDULE: Staff has scheduled a number of work sessions with City Council beginning in
April to ensure continued Council oversight and participation in the code amendment process. In
P2
I.
4.12.16 Council Work Session
Moratorium Discussion
Page 2 of 5
addition, staff is working to coordinate check-ins with P&Z and HPC to ensure they have involvement
in the efforts.
Council Work Session Schedule:
• April 12: General overview of effort, request for direction on free-market residential uses
• April 18: Off-street parking discussion (consultant in attendance), continuation of residential use
discussion
• April 26: Commercial Design Standards and Public Amenity discussion, History of Zoning
review (consultant anticipated to be in attendance)
• May 10: Commercial Mix discussion (consultant anticipated to be in attendance)
• Additional work sessions will be scheduled throughout the summer and fall
Given the breadth of code amendments anticipated, a significant amount of community engagement and
outreach is anticipated. This includes traditional work sessions and meetings with City Council, as well
as intercept surveys, targeted small group meetings, and online engagement. Staff is working with the
consultants to coordinate the outreach timeframes to minimize the potential for engagement-fatigue.
Outlined below are the current anticipated timeframes for the overall engagement efforts, broken down
by topic. Attached as Exhibit B is a draft online content plan for the overall efforts.
Table 1: Outreach Timeline
April May June July August September
History of Zoning Council
Free-Market Residential Use Council, P&Z
Off-Street Parking Council, P&Z, HPC,
Stakeholders Council, P&Z, HPC, Community
Commercial Design
Standards, Public Amenity
Council,
P&Z Council, P&Z, HPC, Community
Commercial Use Mix Council, P&Z Council, P&Z, HPC, Community
Employee Mitigation Council
View Planes Community Council,
P&Z, HPC Community
QUESTION FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council have questions about the draft schedule or community outreach?
FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL USES: One of the main reasons the moratorium was established was to
address the impact free-market residential uses have on commercial uses in the same building. Part of
the thoughts behind the 2004 infill regulations was to allow free-market residential uses in the
downtown area and other commercial zones in an effort to enable reinvestment in a deteriorating
commercial base. In the time since infill, redevelopment projects have resulted in mixed-use buildings
that include commercial space and free-market residential units in the same building. Many buildings
also include affordable housing units. In some of these buildings, the owners of the free-market
residential component have been able to also purchase the commercial component and sometimes have
chosen to leave commercial spaces vacant or change condominium documents to not allow certain
commercial uses such as restaurants, bars, or night clubs.
P3
I.
4.12.16 Council Work Session
Moratorium Discussion
Page 3 of 5
Land use codes have changed since infill, and new free-market residential units are no longer allowed in
the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts. While the issue was partially resolved
in the CC and C-1 zone districts through the code changes, the demand for free-market residential units
near the downtown has not gone away. Staff has become concerned that the impacts of free-market
residential uses previously seen in the CC and C-1 zones will spread to the other commercial zone
districts. There are a number of possibilities Council can pursue related to free-market residential uses
in the remaining commercial zone districts:
1. Prohibit in all commercial zone districts.
2. Allow in some commercial zone districts, but not others. For instance, prohibit the use in the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts as
these zones are primarily intended for commercial uses where free-market residential is either a
conditional use or only permitted on upper floors, but not in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district
because it is part of the historic development pattern and is intended to serve as a transition
between the commercial core and surrounding residential areas.
3. Allow on the same property as commercial or other uses, but not the same building. This option
is most logical in the MU zone, where it’s more consistent with the historic development pattern
of side by side detached buildings and is more in line with the purpose of the zone district.
4. Allow only if the units are “micro units.” Micro units have been seen in larger cities as a way to
provide additional housing options in tight housing markets. These units tend to be 200-300
square feet and include a small living/bedroom area, a small bathroom, and a kitchenette. This
option might help facilitate upgrades of a building or property, and the smaller unit size might
encourage a different type of owner than have traditionally been seen in the larger 2,500 sq ft
units that have previously been allowed.
5. Allow free-market residential uses for AspenModern Designations. This has been one of the
benefits sought by applicants and has been helpful to facilitate designation of a number of
structures, including the Aspen Athletic Building (in MU) and the Ellie Brikham Building (in C-
1).
Staff recommends a combination of the options above:
• Prohibit new free-market residential units in the SCI and NC zone districts. This is consistent
with the existing ban in the CC and C-1 zone districts, and would clearly prioritize commercial
uses for these areas. (Option 1)
• Allow some free-market residential units to be built in the Mixed-Use zone district, but require
these units to be physically separated from commercial uses. This likely means a side-by-side or
front-back configuration with two buildings built on a site. This is consistent with the historic
development pattern, particularly in the Main Street Historic District. If this option is selected,
staff also recommends associated dimensional changes for this zone district, which are discussed
in more detail below. (Option 2)
P4
I.
4.12.16 Council Work Session
Moratorium Discussion
Page 4 of 5
• Continue to allow free-market residential units through an AspenModern designation process.
City Council would continue to be the final review authority for these units. (Option 3)
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
2. Does Council support the direction suggested by staff, or would Council prefer a different
approach?
3. Is Council interested in exploring the concepts in Options 3 and 4 in more detail?
FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONS: The dimensions allowed for free-market residential units
have changed over time, as illustrated at the end of the History of Zoning Report attached in Exhibit C.
Overall dimensions for the Mixed-Use zone district are significantly lower for the Main Street Historic
District than for other areas zoned Mixed-Use. The MU district serves not only as a transition in uses,
from commercial to residential, but can also provide transition in the scaling of buildings. Staff
recommends that the dimensions for the Mixed-Use zone district be more closely aligned, with areas not
located in the Main Street Historic District reduced by some amount. The current dimensions for free-
market residential uses are below:
Table 2: Mixed-Use Floor Area and Unit Size Dimensions
Main Street Historic District Other Mixed-Use Areas
Overall FAR Cap
1:1, may be increase to 1.25:1
through special review 2:1
Free-Market Residential FAR
Cap
0.5:1, may be increased to
0.75:1 if affordable FAR =
free-market FAR
0.5:1, may be increased to 0.75:1
if affordable FAR = free-market
FAR
Unit Size Cap without TDRs 2,000 sf 2,000 sf
Unit Size Cap with TDRs* 2,500 sf 2,500 sf
*TDRs may only be used on non-historic properties
Staff believes it is important that landing sites for TDRs exist. If free-market residential units are
permitted in the MU zone, staff recommends TDRs should be allowed to be landed to increase the
individual unit size, but not the floor area (as is allowed in the code now). Including landing sites for
TDRs is important to ensure the market for this important historic preservation incentive is maintained.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
4. Does Council support reducing the Floor Area Ration for free-market residential units in
the MU zone?
5. Does Council support continuing to allow TDRs to be landed to increase individual unit
sizes for free-market residential units in the MU zone?
6. Does Council want to explore changes to the maximum unit size cap for free-market
residential units?
NEXT STEPS:
P5
I.
4.12.16 Council Work Session
Moratorium Discussion
Page 5 of 5
The Commercial Design Standards contract is scheduled to be reviewed by City Council at the April
11th work session. Staff anticipates all other contracts will be on the April 25th Council agenda for
review.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Summary of Moratorium Work Plan
Exhibit B – Draft Online Content Plan
Exhibit C – History of Zoning Report
P6
I.
Project April May June July August September October November December
History of Zoning Initial Council discussion
Free-Market
Residential Use
Initial Council Discussion; P&Z
check-in Code Amendments
Off-Street Parking
Data Gathering; Initial
stakeholder outreach; Initial
Council Discussion; P&Z check-
in
Community
Engagement
Community
Engagement Draft Report Draft Code
Language Code Amendments
Commercial
Design Standards,
Public Amenity
Initial Council
Discussion;
P&Z check-in;
Data Gathering
Data
Gathering;
Community
Engagement
Data
Gathering;
Community
Engagement
Community
Engagement;
Identify
solutions
Identify
Solutions;
Draft Code
Language
Draft Code
Language Code Amendments
Commercial Use
Mix
Initial Council Discussion; P&Z
check-in
Community
Engagement
Community
Engagement Draft Report Draft Code
Language Code Amendments
Employee
Mitigation Determine if code amendments are needed
View Planes Community
Engagement
Council
Discussion
Determine if code
amendments are needed
P7
I.
D
R
A
F
T
O
N
L
I
N
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
2
0
1
6
PR
O
J
E
C
T
/
E
V
E
N
T
ON
L
I
N
E
E
N
G
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
OR
G
A
N
I
Z
E
R
CO
M
D
E
V
On
l
i
n
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
o
n
a
t
o
p
i
c
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
an
d
r
o
l
l
e
d
o
u
t
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
A
p
r
i
l
1
8
th
.
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
v
i
s
u
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
po
l
l
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
H
A
S
E
S
T
A
R
T
I
N
G
E
N
D
I
N
G
OF
F
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
4.
1
8
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
0
.
2
0
1
6
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
5.
2
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
0
.
2
0
1
6
US
E
M
I
X
5.
1
3
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
0
.
2
0
1
6
VI
E
W
P
L
A
N
E
S
5.
2
5
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
0
.
2
0
1
6
IN
T
E
R
I
M
V
I
S
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
6.
1
5
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
7
.
2
0
1
6
ON
L
I
N
E
E
N
G
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
CA
M
P
A
I
G
N
4.
1
8
.
2
0
1
6
8.
1
0
.
2
0
1
6
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
OF
F
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
V
I
S
U
A
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
QU
I
C
K
P
O
L
L
S
/
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
RA
N
K
I
N
G
E
X
E
R
C
I
S
E
(
W
H
A
T
W
O
U
L
D
Y
O
U
L
I
K
E
T
O
S
E
E
M
O
S
T
)
PH
O
T
O
V
O
I
C
E
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
ON
E
P
A
G
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
O
N
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
T
O
D
A
T
E
CO
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
T
O
T
H
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
AP
R
I
L
M
A
Y
J
U
N
E
J
U
L
Y
A
U
G
U
S
T
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
1
2
13
1
4
1
5
1
6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
1
2
1
3
14
1
5
1
6
17
1
8
1
9
2
0
21
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
28
2
9
3
0
3
1
P8
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
P9
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.
P10
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.
P11
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
P12
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.
P13
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.
P14
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.
P15
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.
P16
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.
P17
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.
P18
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
9
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
2
0
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
I
.