HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160419
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
April 19, 2016
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. March 15th Draft Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Land Use Code Revisions
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution 3
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
1
Mr. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Spencer McNight, Jesse Morris, Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, and Skippy Mesirow.
Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jason Elliott and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated the April 5th meeting will need to be cancelled and
if additional time is required for items on tonight’s agenda, she wanted to know if P&Z would be
available for a special meeting on April 12th. Mr. Goode replied he would be out of town but the other
members did not voice any scheduling concerns.
Ms. Phelan then provided a brief summary of the item to be discussed at tonight’s Council meeting. She
stated Council is considering a moratorium for a year that would affect any land use application for
properties located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone, Commercial (C-1) zone,
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone, and Mixed Use (MU) zone as well as any major amendments
to a planned development (PD). Applications in the lodge zone district are not impacted. In regards to
building permits, the same zone districts apply. Permits will only be provided for increases to floor area,
height, net leasable, net livable area when a development order is already in place or the application is
already in the process of being reviewed.
Mr. Goode asked if this is being considered to give Staff time to update the code. Ms. Phelan stated Staff
has noticed some trends happening with development and Council feels a moratorium is needed to
address some of their goals.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ms. Toni Kronberg, wanted to make sure P&Z was aware of the Aspen to Snowmass Aerial Connection.
She stated it has been an ongoing project for the past ten years. She mentioned a recent article in the
Aspen Times and noted it will come before P&Z and she wanted everyone to become a little familiar
with it. Mr. Scott Condon, Aspen Times Reporter, interviewed Mike Kaplan from the Aspen Skiing
Company and Dan Blankenship from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) for the article. At
last night’s Council meeting, the Mayor of Aspen discussed they want to start to move forward with
preferred alternatives for a solution to the entrance to Aspen. She stated it sounds like the four lane
asphalt is off the table and two ideas will be discussed. One of the ideas is a light rail tram and the other
is an aerial connection. They want to have if from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and Aspen will take the
lead on the entrance to Aspen. She stated at last night’s Council meeting, Mayor Skadron stated at the
end of April, the Aspen Institute will have a two-day seminar. Day one will be a discussion of the
preferred alternatives. Day two will be taking comments from the leading experts in the field,
consolidate them and then bring them forward as to what they think will work for the community. She
noted the entrance to Aspen has been a 40-50 year dilemma. It started 40 years ago, when people
wanted to connect the top of the mountains and it wasn’t going to happen. She proposed with the
tramway engineers out of Glenwood and the Ski Company as did Mr. Blankenship. They discussed an
aerial connection from Aspen to the airport, then to the Brush Creek Intercept lot and then up to the
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
2
Snowmass Base Village. She personally has been working on identifying the easements and any hiccups
that might occur. One of the big issues with one of the projects to be discussed tonight is the existing lift
1A. She wants to keep everyone in the loop. She noted the airport as part of the environmental
assessment, they included spots for multi-modal locations. She then handed out a two-page handout
(Exhibit Public Comment 1).
MINUTES – March 1, 2016
Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes for March 1st with the noted word correction on page 6 and
was seconded. All in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Continued Public Hearing
Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing for the Lift One Lodge and turned the floor over to
Staff.
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Community Development Planner, is filling in for Ms. Jessica Garrow. She reviewed
the application, noting tonight’ hearing was continued from the March 1st hearing. She stated the
project was originally approved by Ordinance 28, Series 2011. The current application is an amendment
to the approved project. They are requesting the following.
• Minor amendment to a PD review
• Commercial design amendment
• Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) review for commercial space and affordable
housing
• Conditional use review for commercial space
The amendments would include the conversion of lodge space previously associated with a private club
to commercial net leasable, reconfiguration of the interior floor plan, architectural changes, material
changes, the addition of a green roof and minor setback changes resulting in no changes to the overall
floor area ratio (FAR).
She then reviewed the items P&Z had asked the applicant to further explore at the March 1st hearing.
• Options to reduce glazing
• Alternatives to the glass railing materials
• Material samples shown in the renderings
• Additional views of the ski corridor from Lift One Park
She stated the applicant is providing two options of the renderings at today’s meeting.
Staff continues to believe other design changes to the building are appropriate to ensure the building’s
fit with the character of the area and would like to see more articulation in the mass including pitched or
sloping roofs. While Staff believes these changes would improve the buildings relationship to the
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
3
surrounding area, P&Z did not support significant roof form changes. Given the two options the
applicant has brought forth for tonight’s hearing; Staff feels option one meets P&Z’s request for a
reduction in the glazing.
Staff has provided two proposed motions in the agenda packet on p 12 of Staff’s memo.
Mr. Goode asked the members if they have any questions for Staff.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff why they feel option one is better suited. Ms. Seminick replied Staff did
not like the appearance of the railings in option two and felt option one better suited the area.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, along with Mr.
Scott Glass, Guerin Glass Architects were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Michael Brown, the
applicant, was also present.
Mr. Vann asked Mr. Goode if there was a motion to approve, he would like time to comment prior to a
vote.
Mr. Glass stated they appreciated the discussion from the previous meeting and felt it pushed them to
get to some places earlier.
He stated the three things they focused on included the following.
1. Amount of glazing and amount of light from the building
2. Materiality
3. Sense of the ski corridor
Mr. Brown added they also looked at options for the railing designs. Mr. Glass stated they can discuss
details of the railing options and they used Staff’s leaning toward option one to develop their
presentation.
Mr. Glass then displayed the following slides with comments:
a. Glazing reduction slide – Mr. Glass noted they looked at this a number of ways, but they did not
want to change the identity of the building, because the form seemed to be acceptable.
• Introduced detail surrounding each bay to shrink the size of the bay but keep the thinness
• Introduced a screen panel over the glass on select bays to reduce the amount of light
coming out
• On the outside of the wood frame, they added projecting fins to reduce glazing
• For each bay, they were able to reduce the amount of glazing by about 25%
b. 3D diagram of the bay demonstrating glazing reduction methods including panels on some bays.
Mr. Brown pointed out the location of the old and new apertures.
c. Close up rendering of a bay to show how the extra outline helps to shrink the bay, screens,
curtains and glass. Mr. Glass pointed out the copper colored trim material.
d. Another view of entire window walls on the upper and lower levels of the building including the
ski slope level.
e. Materiality slide including the following.
• Rusticated, oversize granite base (examples available) sourced regionally
• Dressed / stacked granite on top of the base
• Wood frame will be a clear cedar cladding
• Solid clear cedar trim surrounding the frame
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
4
• Blackened steel used on fascia and for accents
• Patinated copper metal screened panels
• Antiqued bronze hardware & accents
f. Slide showing where the materials would appear. Discussed where they would appear on the
windows and upper levels of the building
g. Another slide showing elevation from S Aspen St including the levels as it steps down the hill.
Mr. Brown described how the Lift One Park and where retail, possibly a coffee shop may be
located. Mr. Glass pointed out where the materials would be used as well as the fins separating
the glazing units. Mr. Brown also pointed out the green roof which Mr. Glass stated would be
covered with snow in the winter to connect with the landscape.
h. Another slide demonstrating where materials would exist on the structure. Mr. Glass pointed
out there are many types of glazing but they are trying to maintain a balance between heat,
insulation, light bleed, and reflection.
i. Another slide showing the corner of the building from the park. Mr. Glass pointed out the
planters, depth of the wooden frame, stepping of dressed stone verticals and the setback of the
upper levels.
j. Another close up of showing the façade and materials.
k. Another view looking down the ski corridor showing the composition of materials.
l. Another slide showing how the stone will be used for different areas of the structure.
m. Updated Lift One Park renderings noting:
• Space to be fully controlled by City Parks and Open Space
• Ski corridor width was determined and approved by the tramway board
• Planting scope is minimal so it can read as part of the ski slope coming down
n. Diagram showing the area with the top having a width of 50-55 ft and keeps opening up as you
come down the corridor.
o. Close up view of the park.
p. Rendering looking from the lower portion of Lift One Park up between the two buildings. Mr.
Brown stated it is a space that has nice width to it for skiing.
q. Another couple of slides looking up slope depicting a new lift and one with the existing red barn.
r. Another set of slides looking down the mountain with a new lift and one with the existing red
barn. Mr. Glass pointed out the amenities that would be available from the top of the building.
s. Another slide to demonstrate how open and connected to park.
t. Updated renderings from the first meeting showing the updates.
Mr. Vann stated he asked Ms. Garrow to clarify section three of the proposed resolution prior to
tonight’s hearing. He wanted to make sure the clarification had been added to the resolution and was
distributed to P&Z. He stated since the full extent of the use of the commercial space has not been
determined, the applicant took as much space that would likely ever be commercial. As the project
progresses, the amount of commercial space may be scaled back. He added in the application it was
noted they would clarify the amount during the building permit process to the extent that if smaller, the
commercial quota would be reinstated and the affordable housing mitigation would be adjusted
accordingly. Ms. Garrow agreed to add the following words (underlined) to the last sentence of section
three.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
5
Final net leasable square footage and associated FTE generation shall be verified by the zoning
officer and FTE mitigation requirement adjustments as may be required, during building permit
review.
Mr. Vann then asked to address one other issue. When the original project was approved, there was an
additional affordable housing mitigation requirement over and above that which was being provided in
the skier chalet building. The condition Council placed on it was that it could be met by purchasing
affordable housing certificates, building or purchasing housing within the roundabout, or by provision of
cash-in-lieu. But cash-in-lieu in excess of a fraction of an employee would require a subsequent approval
of City Council. When this application with the increased amount of commercial, was sent to APCHA for
review, APCHA recommended the cash-in-lieu option be eliminated. The applicant is concerned they
have unilaterally recommended the elimination of something which Council specifically allowed the
applicant to do subject to their approval. The applicant would like to maintain the ability to ask Council if
in fact, cash-in-lieu is a subcomponent of the solution. The current version of the resolution eliminates
the option to use cash-in-lieu for the additional requirement. Mr. Vann requested the same condition
that was placed on the original project regarding affordable housing.
Mr. Goode asked Staff for comments regarding the two requests. Ms. Seminick stated Staff’s
recommendation regarding affordable housing mitigation remains unchanged with regard to this
additional mitigation requirement in that they would prefer to see either affordable housing certificates
or buy-down units for the mitigation requirement. The prior approval does still stand and the applicant
does have the option of going to Council for the mitigation required of the 2011 approval. However, for
this approval Staff would like to stand with their recommendation and APCHA’s recommendation and
not allow for the Council option.
Mr. Brown stated their goal with converting the space from accessory to commercial was to create
vitality. The amount of affordable housing required as a result of the change, is extraordinary. There are
not enough certificates available so they would like to have a mechanism available so the project can be
built with the level of commercial vitality rather than reverting the space back to accessory. Mr. Vann
added that in leaving the language as originally approved, they do not have the unilateral ability to
provide cash-in-lieu because it is subject to Council approval. They would like to have to opportunity to
talk to Council. He also reminded P&Z they are voluntarily mitigating at a 100% which is a challenging
requirement.
Mr. Mesirow asked Staff why they do not think it is appropriate. Ms. Seminick stated it is consistent with
what is required by today’s code and APCHA’s recommendation.
Ms. Tygre asked the applicant why they prefer glass railings. Mr. Brown stated to achieve the reduction
in light, they looked at several options and felt the glass railings worked best with the building and
achieved the reduction in light. Ms. Tygre asked about using railings that were not glass. Mr. Glass asked
if she was referring to some type of picket railing at which she responded yes. Mr. Glass stated they
have placed a frame around the glass rail which helps to dematerialize the glass. He displayed an image
of a picket railing studied and reiterated they had studied several options including a picket rail and felt
the glass railing was visually a bit tighter.
Mr. Morris asked if staff had concerns with the project moving forward without any changes to the roof
forms as stated in their recommendation and asked Staff to articulate their position. Ms. Seminick
stated Staff wanted to be consistent with their original recommendation which included greater
articulation in the mass relating to roof forms and having a more alpine appearance. However, option
one does meet P&Z request for a reduction in glazing.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
6
Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant about Staff’s comment regarding alternative roof forms. Mr. Brown
replied the height reductions at points of the building were up to five ft. They met with their neighbors,
particularly the three buildings to the west showing them the reduced height. They also felt they heard
support at the previous P&Z hearing regarding the forms. Mr. Vann stated the other issue is the
neighborhood was pretty much void of anything with an alpine design at this time and the approved
Aspen One residential project extends from the top of S Aspen St down to Dean St is a very
contemporary design solution.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
Ms. Toni Kronberg stated she would like to see the project move forward and her statements are not an
attempt to stop the project. Her goal is to have bona fide skier access both up and down the hill and the
vitality is accessible. She searched and located the tramway board’s approval of the variance. She called
Mr. Bob Daniels who was the original planner for the project and found in the subdivision agreement
the recorded variance from the board that had been approved at the time. She provided a copy of the
recorded variance (Exhibit Public Comment 2). She noted on p 2 of the variance, the tramway board
noted a requirement to close skiing traffic while the platter lift was operating. She then handed out a
copy of an email from a program manager at the tramway board (Exhibit Public Comment 3) which
states another variance would have to be requested since the variance is 7-8 years old and the lift was
never built. She then stated the variance is one of the conditions of the approval for the development
order, subdivision plat and PUD agreement, building permit, and certificate of occupancy. This project
happened because the ski corridor was preserved. She added she would like to see an aerial connection
built and handed out a copy of the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board Rules/Annexes (Exhibit
Public Comment 4). She stated the requirements are the same for a platter surface lift as they are for an
aerial connection. She stated she spoke with Mr. Jim True, City of Aspen Attorney, and she is not sure
who would apply for the platter lift; City of Aspen, the Ski Company or the applicant. She feels the City
and the applicant are responsible for applying for the variance. Her next question is who will pay for it.
There is $600,000 already placed in an escrow account for the platter lift and her understanding if the
lift is not built in five years, the money goes away. She is concerned and feels the community and the Ski
Company would like to see the lift come all the way down. She also questioned if the lift would be better
on S Aspen St. She asked P&Z if they can move forward on this application if the variance has not been
granted by the tramway board. Her goal is to pull everyone together to determine the best solution to
get people up and down.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
At this time a copy of the resolution modified since the agenda packet was provided (Exhibit I) and a
copy of an email from Ms. McNicholas Kury (Exhibit J) stating her opinions of the application was
provided to the P&Z members.
Mr. Goode asked Staff for any comments to the public comment. Ms. Seminick stated the amendments
being requested today are for lot one and do not concern lot three. Nothing is being requested of the
easement at this time so Staff feels the component of the project is up for discussion.
Mr. Vann stated the poma lift is dictated by the width of lot three, known as Lift One Park, which is
owned by the City. In order to demonstrate a poma could function in the narrowest part of the corridor
with the project as proposed initially, the applicant went to the tramway board and obtained a variance
stating it could be done. This was sufficient for Council to allow them to move forward with the approval
of the project. As a condition of the approval, the applicant agreed to pay $600,000 for the construction
of the poma lift. They are not involved in the operation or maintenance of the lift, which will be
operated by the Skiing Company and the lift will exist on City’s Willoughby and Lift One Parks. He stated
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
7
Ms. Kronberg is correct in that if at the end of five years, no one has made any progress on the lift, the
money could be used on potentially another method of moving people up the hill. He added the money
is committed, but it is not the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the variance stays current. Mr. Vann
stated the applicant is in compliance with the original requirements of the project.
Mr. Mesirow asked the other P&Z members to refresh their opinions since he was not at the previous
meeting.
Ms. Tygre appreciates the attempt to reduce the glazing. Her big problem from the previous meeting
was the amount of light leakage and the amount of glass on the project. She does not have the concerns
regarding Staff’s request for alpine roof forms. She likes how the project sits into the hill and sloped
roofs would require a taller building. She finds this an acceptable trade-off for lower heights. She feels
the applicant has addressed her light and glass concerns pretty well, but she dislikes the glass railings.
She feels they are non-functional and feels there is a bit of a privacy issue having floor to ceiling glass.
She feels adding bronze and copper to the materials for warmth is a nice touch. She also feels there is a
nice variation in the materials. She stated if the applicant does something with the railings, they would
have her approval. In regards to the original approval allowing the applicant to ask for partial cash-in-
lieu mitigation, she feels it is appropriate considering the amount of mitigation they are providing.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he voiced in opposition of Ms. Tygre’s position at the last meeting. He feels the
applicant has done a spectacular job of taking a footprint and height from a previous time and refining it
in a cohesive and developed concept. He does not want to see P&Z go through and hack it apart to try to
turn it into some form of a building surrounding it. The height of the building blends completely with the
other projects adjacent to it. The planted rooftop, as you come down from Aspen Mountain, will be the
elevation of the building you will see as part of the guidelines discussed that the plane of the building
needs to be designed as well. He would much prefer to see usable space than either mechanical systems
or sloped roofs. In regards to the previously discussed gabled forms seen in alpine conditions are
typically more in rural areas not adjacent to a ski mountain. He feels the concept brought forward is
extremely well presented. He feels the square trellis across the building as defined by the glass railings
harkens back to the mining days when you would see that trellis form. He feels it is a better building
than the originally approved building. Mr. Walterscheid stated last time he cautioned the members to
not make decisions on their biased and sometimes arbitrary thoughts. P&Z should have very defined
reasons why they state something. Currently, there is nothing in the code restricting the amount of glass
on a building. There are lighting codes which keep the light pointing down and restricted to within a
property line. He feels members are stepping outside their boundary when they state they feel or they
don’t like something about an application. Mr. Walterscheid then stated the guidelines state the
materials must be durable and there must be variation. Beyond that, he does not feel P&Z has grounds
to comment on the materials. He feels they have an excellent palette and the materials can be sourced
from this area and speaks well of the region. He is in full support of the project moving forward.
Mr. Goode loves the materials presented and agrees with Mr. Walterscheid regarding the glass. He feels
the glazing will reduce light more than the type of railing. His only concern is if the poma lift will be ever
be built and realizes it is not part of this hearing. He concluded he is on board with the application.
Mr. McNight asked how the glazing came up at the last meeting. Mr. Goode stated Ms. Tygre had issues
with it and he was concerned how the building would look at night from downtown. The last thing he
wants is a huge light box. He stated he has reflected on Mr. Walterscheid’s comment about
contemporary architecture vs. looking fake like Vail.
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
8
Mr. McNight feels it is one of the nicer looking buildings he has seen in a while. He feels it fits in well and
it’s a building of our time. He does not see any issues with it fitting in with the surrounding buildings. He
also does not have too much of an issue with the cash-in-lieu option.
Mr. Morris also feels the same regarding the cash-in-lieu option and he agrees with Mr. Walterscheid
regarding micromanaging design choices like glass railings.
Mr. Mesirow feels it is a very elegant building and will fit in well in the area. The project will have his
support and he prefers the glass railings even though he feels it is not in their purview.
Mr. Goode asked Mr. Walterscheid his thoughts on the cash-in-lieu option. Mr. Walterscheid is not
aware of any certificates currently available so he is curious how they would provide affordable housing.
Ms. Phelan expects there will be some available within three months. Depending on the supply, he
prefers they should be built or certificates be provided, but anything over and above he doesn’t want to
see the project stop so he would support keeping the option available. Ms. Quinn clarified the proposed
language allows for the proposal go before Council.
Mr. Mesirow added he would also support leaving the option open to the applicant. He trusts Council to
make a decision and appreciates the applicant going above and beyond what is required for mitigation.
Mr. Goode asked for clarification on what section in the draft resolution needs to be changed. Ms.
Phelan stated section three had been modified as shown on the edited resolution handed out to staff at
the meeting (Exhibit I). Ms. Phelan noted the second sentence should read as follows (additions
underlined):
The 55.84 FTEs generated by this amendment may be satisfied through the provision of
off-site units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of an FTE unless
approved by City Council).
Ms. Tygre asked where in the resolution it identifies which of the options proposed by the applicant are
approved. Mr. Vann stated in section five, it states the materials and architecture as represented at the
planning and zoning meeting and the exhibits will be attached to the resolution.
Mr. Goode asked for a motion.
Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve Resolution 2, Series 2016 as revised. Mr. Morris seconded the
motion. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr.
Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of six Yes and zero No (6-0).
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
P8
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
9
200 S Aspen St - Hotel Lenado - Remand
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for the Hotel Lenado remand. Mr. Walterscheid was not present
for this hearing.
Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application, noting it is a remand of Resolution 20,
Series 2015.
She provided background of the project saying P&Z granted conceptual commercial design review on
November 17, 2015. Any commercial design reviews granted by P&Z or the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) is referred to City Council. City Council has the ability to call up the decision and
discuss it, which is what happened with the Hotel Lenado. When Council calls up a decision by a
commission, they have three options.
1. Accept the decision made by the commission
2. Remand it back to the commission with direction
3. Request additional information
City Council called up the project in January, 2016. After discussion, Council decided to remand back the
decision to P&Z, asking the commission to reconsider their decision. Specifically, the issues outlined in
the memo were to consider the following:
1. The third floor height of the building
2. The mass and scale of the building
3. Specifying one of the affordable housing units as a for sale unit
4. Verify the dimensional requirements be met
Council also wants P&Z to consider how the property best relates to the neighborhood as a single family
home or a duplex.
In reconsidering the decision, P&Z may:
1. Uphold the resolution granted
2. Request changes of the projects by the applicant
3. Ask for additional information to be provided
Ms. Phelan pointed out Exhibit E which is the public notice of the remand indicating notice was properly
provided. She also noted Exhibit F which includes two public comments, one from Ms. McNicholas Kury
from P&Z and one from the applicant.
Ms. Phelan then touched on the issues brought up by Staff during the previous hearings and their
recommendations. With regard to height, parts of the third story still appear taller than other floors of
the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy building, particularly in the south free market unit and
recommends a reduction in floor height be required so the floors are more in line with each other.
Overall, Staff still has an issue with the mass, scale and design of the project. Staff feels with the
continued refinement it gets better, but believes the building is too big for the context of the
neighborhood and requires a serious redesign rather than continued the minor adjustments which seem
to be a push and pull of pieces on the building. The overall mass has not been reduced enough to fit into
the neighborhood context. Staff does not feel guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 are met which is to develop a
building with variation in height, scale and modulation in the roof scape. With regards to growth
management, Staff still recommends one of the affordable housing units be for sale. Staff is not
P9
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
10
recommending any changes to the dimensional requirements and feels they can be memorialized and
verified during the final design review.
There was also discussion by Council regarding the appropriate development for the property. Staff
recognizes a mixed use building is permitted in the zoned district and their bigger issue is in regard to
the actual scale and massing of the building. The Mayor brought up a concern regarding the mass and he
felt a single family home or duplex would be more appropriate development for the site.
Staff’s recommendation is to reduce the third floor height, really look at the mass and scale of the
building, stop the push and pull, and complete a serious redesign and to require one affordable housing
unit be for sale.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked how the commission can conceptually look at the application differently. He feels
they have looked at the code and determined what P&Z believes it meant for the project. He is not
aware any of the underlying code has changed so he is not sure how the commission can come to a
different conclusion based on the same evidence. Ms. Phelan believes for a remanded application; P&Z
has the ability to make a different determination based on reflection.
Mr. McNight noted all the members of P&Z had struggled with the context. He was not present for the
approval, but attended the previous meetings. He could see how Council would come to their decision.
Ms. Quinn noted when an application is remanded, Council is saying please reconsider. It does not mean
P&Z has to change its decision. P&Z may reconsider and stay with their original decision. Mr. Morris
asked what happens with the application if P&Z stays with their original decision. Ms. Quinn and Ms.
Phelan answered it is done and the conceptual approval will stand and the applicant may apply for final.
The final review only goes to P&Z.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He stated the building and logic remains the
exact same. He wanted to run through other design options. They did come up with options because
they were asked by Council to consider the Hopkins St façade.
Mr. Wilson showed the following slides for his presentation and described the design options.
1) Vicinity and zoning map demonstrating types of surrounding uses and size of surrounding
buildings noting it is a transitional neighborhood
2) Existing structure noting the number of stories, challenges with the entrance, not up to code or
ADA requirements
3) Slides depicting the iterations of the design from the previous P&Z meetings
4) Slide of the project facts:
• Nine specific rooms
• Each room is 435 sf
• Gross area is about the same
• Residential free market units are larger
• Produces more affordable housing than required
• Increases curb appeal
• Increases public amenity space
• Minimizes parking without asking for a variance
P10
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
11
5) Slide with table listing the allowable sf, floor area ratios, affordable housing, height for the
existing building and each of the four submittals
6) Elevations from each side of proposed building showing how it meets the height requirement
7) Elevations from each side of proposed building showing the height of the proposed building
compared with the heights of the neighboring buildings
8) Façade from Hopkins St showing the heights
9) Façade of existing building and the approved building
10) Amenity space on Hopkins Ave
11) Amenity space on the park side
12) Amenity space on the entrance side on Aspen St (existing and proposed)
13) Building perspectives as you walk around the building
14) Approved building – He commented they heard similar concerns from Council
In response to City Council’s comments from the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting:
• The applicant respectfully disagrees with the duplex comment because they do not feel it is the
right use for the site and Aspen doesn’t need another single family home this close to the core.
• Reducing the heights, mass, scale and design as it relates to the neighborhood - Includes the 5.5
and 5.7 guidelines
• Meeting the growth management – The applicant feels this will be determined at the final
review.
• Verifying the dimensions - The applicant feels this will be determined at the final review.
Mr. Wilson then displayed an image of the new Hotel Lenado with the latest design options. He
acknowledged it is yet another push/pull on the original theme the last four meetings. They tried to
incorporate more residential materials, a little more variation in the height of the building. Mr. Wilson
stated the net lodge area will increase a bit but everything else remains the same.
This design version includes:
• The FAR remains close to 10,900 sf
• The net lodging area and affordable housing sf has increased
• The free market sf was reduced
• The height of the building remains at 28 ft.
He then showed a slides noting the heights of different points of the building and noting the heights are
based on the proposed grade. The moats will be removed and along Aspen St there a first story element
will exist with the grade walking up Aspen St. Along Hopkins St they broke the central gable into two
smaller gable elements pulling the gable element up the hill. Along the park side, they have flattened
out the side. He noted the third story is 16 ft back from the edge to give the building more of a
residential mass and scale. They have also pushed back the stair tower to the roof and eroded the
presentation to the corner to include balconies and porches.
He displayed slides comparing the height of the proposed building with the neighboring structures to
demonstrate they are keeping within the scale of the neighboring buildings. He added it has been
difficult to accomplish this due to the sloping site.
He then displayed slides and discussed the setbacks and how the setbacks are increased with the upper
levels facades pushed back.
He then displayed a slide of the Hopkins St façade and pointed out the variation and residential feel. He
feels the materials have helped to quieten down the façade quite a bit.
P11
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
12
He displayed slides of the other facades and discussed the setbacks, materials and variation.
Mr. Wilson then noted excerpts from an email (Exhibit F) from Ms. Cindy Christensen, Aspen / Pitkin
County Housing Authority, regarding the purchasability and why she is recommending for rental units
because loans for units within buildings are more difficult to obtain. He feels they have already made a
great case why they want to keep both units as rentals. Ms. Phelan added she had a conversation with
Ms. Christensen who remarked people have been able to purchase units within mixed use buildings.
He then showed slides pertaining to guidelines 5.5 and 5.7. He feels they have come a long way on their
design while respecting the original scale and modulation.
He concluded stating they would like P&Z to uphold the previous approval as modified in option two.
Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant.
Mr. Goode asked if the height had been adjusted for the third story at which Mr. Wilson stated there
had been some height adjustments made. Ms. Phelan asked what the floor to ceiling height was for the
south unit. Mr. Wilson did not know exactly, but was certain if conformed with the height limit. Ms.
Phelan asked if it is higher than the other floors at which Mr. Wilson replied it is higher on the rear south
corner.
Mr. Goode noted Council’s comment stating the height of the third level should be reduced to in line
with the entry and park levels. Mr. Goode asked if it was or not. Mr. Wilson stated there is a
fundamental problem because the building is a split level so as you move towards the back, it would not
be possible. Ms. Phelan asked the height of the floor to ceiling of the third floor and Mr. Wilson stated
11 ft. Ms. Phelan noted this is a couple of feet higher than the other floors. Mr. Wilson responded it is
one ft higher.
Mr. McNight asked if the heights of 11 ft in the basement, then nine ft throughout the rest of the
building from option one or not. Mr. Wilson responded the heights are for option two.
Mr. Goode asked if the affordable housing units meet the management requirements for above grade
net livable space at which Ms. Phelan responded Staff will be able to verify that at the final review.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
Mr. Scott Davidson, Member of the Park Central West Condo Association Board (building located across
the alley from the proposed building) felt the alley side did not receive as much attention as the other
three sides. He asked for a view of the alley side and asked if the garage doors open to below grade
space. Mr. Wilson pointed out the door leading to a car elevator, the doors to the trash, the electrical
service area and the doors for the two above grade parking spaces. Mr. Davidson stated an earlier
version showing the east corner of the alley showed a big deck and a Jacuzzi on the roof near the alley.
Mr. Wilson displayed an image showing approximately the location of the deck setback over the lower
floors. Mr. Wilson then showed a layout of the roof and the location of the Jacuzzi. Mr. Davidson is
concerned about the noise late at night from the roof because the Park Central West units on the alley
are all residential. Mr. Davidson asked if there are any restrictions on the hours of the Jacuzzi. Mr.
Wilson stated City code covers this. Mr. Davidson then stated they would prefer the affordable housing
units be owned instead of rented. They feel owners take better care of the units than renters.
Ms. Ruth Carver lives at the corner of Aspen St and Hopkins St. She feels the side facing Hopkins is the
main face of the building. She noted there is a commercial building on the corner of Monarch St and the
Hotel Lenado, and otherwise it is residential and parks. She feels visitors admire the homes on the street
P12
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
13
and feels it is important to blend in. She prefers option two and feels option one is too dark. She does
not want Aspen to be cookie cutter and turn out like Vail. She quoted from a report by City Planning
which concluded saying the common theme of zoning in Aspen over the decades is a commitment to
preserving the heritage and unique character.
Mr. Davidson asked to possibly work with the applicant on replacing a transformer.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment section and opened for commissioner discussion.
Mr. Wilson wanted to note the hot tub is set back considerably from the side of the building and it sits
down behind some walls.
Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Phelan about her conversations with Ms. Christensen and if there was anything
to support a unit being a for sale unit. He also wanted to know if Council had commented on it. Ms.
Phelan stated Council remanded back based on the bullet points from the November meeting and one
of the points was the for sale unit. Ms. Phelan stated Councilman Daily showed concern. She stated the
Community Development Department and APCHA disagree on this point based on their interest how
units operate and the department is following a code requirement that units are for sale unless the unit
is for a lodge. In this case, the mitigation for the lodge is only one unit and the mitigation for the two
free market units is the other affordable housing unit.
Ms. Tygre feels City Council has been specific about certain points to be reviewed but she feels it’s a bit
of buyer’s remorse allowing additional dimensions for hotel uses because if the hotel use disappears,
the City is stuck with a larger building with a use that is not wanted. This change of use has been a
suspension whether it is justified or not. She feels the code allows this to happen and Council is
regretting the fact they have this provision and the applicant decided to the use the hotel dimensions
instead of residential dimensions. She also shares in the regret but feels it is the result of a mistake
made a long time ago. She feels the height of the upper level is not a problem for her. She does not care
for the architecture but that’s not here or there. She feels the applicant has done even more to break up
the mass along Hopkins St in the proposal presented tonight. Based on the current code, whether we
like it or not, she feels it meets the code. In regards to the affordable housing unit as a renter and a
landlord, she feels there is an advantage of having a renter because when a renter is bad, you don’t
renew their lease and you can evict them. She is inclined to go with APCHA’s recommendation.
Mr. Morris does not have a problem with the height, supports both units as rentals. He likes Ms. Tygre’s
buyer’s remorse description regarding the mass and scale. He stated it feels like P&Z is being asked with
the remand to make a political decision which is completely inappropriate. He does not like the history
of how this project came to be, but feels it meets the code.
Mr. Mesirow feels his comments from the last meeting were pointed and they haven’t changed. He does
not feel it is a good project for the town. Although it meets the height requirements, it is smaller and
offers fewer rooms. In regards to Council’s comments, he feels a house would be significantly worse
than what has been proposed. He does not feel it is right, but reflects a problem with the code and feels
that would be addressed by Council and not P&Z. He feels it is important to follow the code and provide
a level of certainty for applicants. Mr. Mesirow stated the applicant has his support for all the previous
reasons he has stated despite not liking the project.
Mr. McKnight agrees with the other P&Z members and feels the only thing to have a discussion on is the
latest design and the neighborhood context. He does feel the project has improved with each iteration.
He still supports approving the application.
P13
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016
14
Ms. Carver asked to say one more thing. She feels it could be improved with different materials that are
not so dark. Ms. Phelan explained P&Z is only looking at the mass. The final review includes materials in
more detail.
Mr. Goode stated he likes the latest proposal and agrees with the others. He feels it was kicked back
because they did not like it either.
Mr. Goode noted Ms. McNicholas Kury’s letter was pointed as well.
Mr. Goode asked the group which option they were looking at and most of the members replied
number two. Ms. Tygre stated the options are either to uphold Resolution 20, Series 2015 as written,
request changes but that does not seem to be where the commission is headed. Ms. Quinn stated they
could approve the resolution as it exists with the new design presented tonight.
Ms. Tygre moved to uphold Resolution 20, Series 2015 as amended in the application as presented at
the meeting today with option two. Mr. Mesirow seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre wanted to clarify it
includes APCHA’s recommendation. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms.
Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of five Yes and zero No (5-0).
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
ADJOURN
Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P14
IV.A.
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2016
RE: AACP / Land Use Code Revisions Update
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. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide initial feedback on the
proposed work. Specific questions for council are listed in bold throughout the memo.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2015 City Council adopted a set of “Top Ten Goals” to work on for the next two years. One
of the goals is to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code
delivers what the AACP promises.” 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 copy of the Moratorium Ordinance and Map is
attached as Exhibit A and B, respectively.
A number of RFPs have been released to request consultant assistance on updating the Land Use Code.
All consultants are anticipated to be in place by early May, and at this time staff anticipates that all code
amendments currently contemplated will be completed by the end of 2016.
Staff met with City Council on April 12th to begin discussions on the Land Use Code changes. A
summary of the discussion is attached as Exhibit C. Specific comments from Council related to free-
market residential uses are included in the discussion below.
P15
VII.A.
Page 2 of 5
SUMMARY:
A general outline of the anticipated work is highlighted below, with a more detailed timeline included as
Exhibit D. 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
addition, staff is working to coordinate check-ins with P&Z and HPC to ensure 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
• April 26: Continuation of residential use discussion, History of Zoning review
• May 10: Commercial Design Standards and Public Amenity discussion, Commercial Mix
discussion
• 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 E 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
Online engagement will begin on April 19th, with a topic on Open City Hall
(http://aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/) related to use mix. Other
engagement opportunities will follow on Open City Hall, as well as through in-person events. HPC and
P16
VII.A.
Page 3 of 5
P&Z members will be asked to join inter-disciplinary small groups as part of the update to the
Commercial Design Standards.
QUESTION FOR P&Z:
1. Does P&Z have questions about the draft schedule or community outreach?
2. Are there 3-4 P&Z members interested in serving as P&Z representatives on the
Commercial Design Standards small groups?
HISTORY OF ZONING: Staff completed a History of Zoning report, attached as Exhibit F and available
online at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/, which details zoning changes and planning changes through the years
since the first zoning ordinance of 1956. If there is one common theme over the years, it is the
commitment to preserving Aspen’s heritage and unique character.
OFF-STREET PARKING: There is an interest in regulations that support Council policies to limit traffic
and reduce traffic congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and
maximum parking requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the city’s
transportation mitigation requirements into parking standards.
Work on Off-Street Parking requirements is currently underway with consultant Nelson/Nygaard. Staff
and the consultant will be meeting with Council on April 18th to begin a discussion of potential changes
to the regulations, best practices, and general trends in parking. Staff will be able to update P&Z on
these efforts at the April 19th meeting.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES & PUBLIC AMENITY: Council expressed interest in updating the
Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since their initial adoption in 2007.
Rowland + Broughton has been hired to lead the effort to update the Guidelines, which includes videos
describing the character areas, small group meetings, intercept interviews, and pop-up workshops. As
mentioned above, both P&Z and HPC members will be asked to serve on the small groups.
VIEW PLANES: Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for
effectiveness and assess the community’s priorities for view plan protection. This work will occur later
in the summer and into the fall to address the impact that vegetation has on the view planes, as well as to
be completed in the context of the work on the Commercial Design Standards.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACES: There have been questions
and concerns raised about mitigation requirements related to existing commercial spaces. Council
expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of how existing commercial
spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation. Staff and the City Attorney’s
office will coordinate with the consultant assisting on the use mix discussion to address this issue.
USE MIX: During the initial Council discussion related to this work, the use discussion focused on
commercial mix – how do we ensure the mix of uses downtown creates an interesting place with
pedestrian vitality. A consultant will be hired by early May to assist in amendments to address the
commercial mix.
P17
VII.A.
Page 4 of 5
FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL USES: Since the original use mix discussions, the conversation has been
broadened to include free-market residential uses. The main focus of Council’s April 12th work session
was related to where and under what conditions free-market residential uses should be permitted in
commercial zone districts. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the
potential free-market residential code amendments.
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.
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 options that can be pursued 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.
P18
VII.A.
Page 5 of 5
5. Require an occupancy restriction on the unit. This is potentially a Resident Occupied (RO) deed
restriction.
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, from above)
• 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. (Options 2 & 3, from
above)
During their April 12th work session, City Council members supported:
• Banning free-market residential units in the SCI and NC zone districts. (Option 1, from above)
• Exploring requirements for physical separation for any free-market unit in the MU zone district
(Options 2 & 3, from above)
• Exploring options for size limitations and occupancy requirements for any free-market
residential component in the MU zone district. Council was particularly interested in finding
ways to ensure any residential component in the MU zone is lived-in. (Options 4 & 5, from
above)
QUESTIONS FOR P&Z:
3. Does P&Z recommend pursuing any of the five (5) options listed above?
4. Does P&Z have any additional ideas regarding limits to free-market residential units in the
commercial zone districts?
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance 7, Series 2016, Moratorium Ordinance
Exhibit B – Moratorium Area Map
Exhibit C – Summary of April 12 Council Work Session
Exhibit D – Summary of Moratorium Work Plan
Exhibit E – Draft Online Content Plan
Exhibit F – History of Zoning Report
P19
VII.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 7
(Series of 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY NEW LAND
USE APPLICATION SEEKING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
THE COMMERCIAL CORE (CC), COMMERCIAL (C-1), SERVICE/
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (S/C/I), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC), MIXED USE
(MU) ZONE DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; AND, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the “City”) is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11 of the Charter authorizes the City Council to enact emergency
ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety upon the unanimous vote
of City Council members present or upon a vote of four (4) Council members, whichever is less;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, §§29-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and
WHEREAS, the character of development activity in the City of Aspen is having a negative
impact upon the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen;
and
WHEREAS, recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in various City Zone
Districts do not appear to be consistent with the goals and vision as expressed by the 2012 Aspen
Area Community Plan, including:
“We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character.” (pg 20); and
“Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability of
our community and diverse visitor-based economy.” (pg 24); and
“Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the
needs of year-round residents and visitors.” (pg 26); and
“Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community
needs.” (pg 26); and
“Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity
of heights, in order to:
“Create certainty in land development.
“Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
“Protect our small town community character and historical heritage.
“Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
P20
VII.A.
2
“Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating
costs.
“Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic
congestion and demand for affordable housing.” (pg 26)
and,
WHEREAS, recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in various City Zone
Districts are having the following negative effects upon the community:
Recent development activity indicates that locally serving and unique businesses are
being negatively impacted and pushed out of existence thereby losing an essential
character to the City’s retail economy; and
Recent development activity has resulted in basement and first floor commercial
spaces being left vacant due to free-market residential uses/owners above thereby
creating large areas of dead space in the commercial zones that degrade the City’s
commercial vitality; and
Recent development activity has been out of scale and character with the
community’s architectural heritage, mountain views and small town character;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department require a
period of time in which to review all existing land use codes and regulations as they affect land use
development in certain Zone Districts within the City of Aspen to ensure that all land use
development proceeds in a manner that is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the staff of the Community Development
Department conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of the Land Use Code and regulations
affecting the development of land within certain Zone Districts of the City of Aspen with particular
attention to commercial design, public amenity, off-street parking, use mix, and view planes to
ensure consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, a moratorium through an emergency ordinance on all development
applications will enable a reasoned discussion and consideration of desired amendments to the
Land Use Code without creating a rush of development applications and the related impacts upon
the community; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department may need assistance from third
party consultants to complete the task of analyzing the current Land Use Code and regulations as
contemplated herein, the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to authorize the expenditure
of City funds to engage one or more consultants to assist the Community Development Department;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to declare an emergency
for the preservation of public property, health, peace, and safety with the imposition of a temporary
moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of land use applications for development
P21
VII.A.
3
orders by the City of Aspen Community Development Department and City Council and on the
acceptance of certain building permit applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Moratorium on new land use applications within certain zone districts.
There is hereby imposed a temporary moratorium on the acceptance by the Community
Development Department of new land use applications for a Development Order affecting property
within the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I),
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU) Zone Districts of the City of Aspen. This
moratorium shall apply to all new land use applications for a Development Order in the above
referenced zones including but not limited to the following land use reviews: Chapters 26.412,
Commercial Design Review, 26.415, Historic Preservation, 26.435, Development in
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), 26.445, Planned Development, 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), and 26.480, Subdivision. Any application for a major
amendment, as defined in Section 26.304.070 A.2., of the Aspen Municipal Code, to an existing
development order or pending application shall be considered a new application under this
ordinance.
Section 2. Moratorium on certain building permit applications.
There is hereby imposed a temporary moratorium on the acceptance by the Community
Development Department of any building permit application for development within the
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU) Zone Districts of the City of Aspen that would have the effect
of increasing the Floor area or Height, Net leasable area or Net livable area of any building. These
terms shall have the same meaning in this ordinance as the definition of those terms as set forth at
§26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 3. Exemptions from Moratorium.
A. The following land use applications shall be exempt from this temporary moratorium:
1. Any land use application for a Development Order submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to final passage of this ordinance and deemed to be
complete by the Director of the Community Development Department Director.
2. Any land use application seeking a Development Order for a project consisting of 100%
Affordable Housing as that term is defined at §26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Code.
P22
VII.A.
4
3. Any land use application limited to the development of a single family or duplex
building where that use was legally established as of the effective date of this
ordinance.
B. The following applications for building permits shall be exempt from this temporary
moratorium:
1. Building permit applications for projects that do not require a land use application
and will not have the effect of increasing the Floor area, Net leasable area or Net
livable area of any building.
2. Building permit applications for projects that do not require a land use application
and will not have the effect of increasing the Height of any building, not including
additions to or replacement of mechanical equipment or energy efficiency systems
pursuant to height exemptions as set forth at §26.575.020 of the Aspen Municipal
Code.
3. Building permit applications for Single-Family and Duplex development.
4. Building permit applications for any project that has received a Development Order
prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or has a land use development application
pending and may become eligible to receive a Development Order at a later date.
5. Building permit applications for demolition of accessory, non-habitable structures.
C. Any land use or building permit application submitted to correct a matter that is
determined by the Community Development Director to be necessary to repair a condition that
threatens the immediate health or safety of the community shall be exempt from this moratorium.
Under no circumstance shall this provision allow an increase in the height, floor area, net livable
area or net leasable area of a building.
Section 4. Effect on Development Applications
A. A land use development application shall be defined for the purpose of this ordinance as the
initial land use application determined to be complete by the Community Development Director,
pursuant to §26.304.050(A) of the Aspen Municipal Code (“Determination of Completeness”). All
land use applications filed subsequent to the initial application for the same development project,
except for a major amendment excluded in Section 1, above, that are necessary to obtain a final
Development Order may proceed pursuant to the review procedures and standards as set forth in
Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Land use applications determined complete shall be
reviewed and processed according to the provisions of the Land Use Code and building code, as
applicable, in effect on the date of submission.
P23
VII.A.
5
B. Pre-Application Conferences, Pre-Application Conference Summary reports, pre-submittal
conferences, or formal or informal discussions with Community Development staff or review
Boards shall not constitute a complete application or any other official status. Applications
submitted after the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance and
of the Land Use Code and building code, as amended.
Section 5. Appeals Concerning Moratorium.
Any property owner who wishes to appeal a determination by the Community Development
Director that this moratorium applies to his or her property or plans for development on his or her
property may appeal to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316 of the Aspen Municipal
Code (“Appeals”), following any administrative action by the Community Development
Director.
Section 6. Emergency Declaration
It is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the City Council, an emergency exists; there is a need for
the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety of the City of Aspen, its residents, and
guests; and, this temporary moratorium adopted as an emergency ordinance provides the time
necessary to prepare a review of all current land use regulations and for the City Council and staff
of the City of Aspen to consider amendments, if any are required, to the Land Use Code of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 7. Effective Date and Duration of Moratorium.
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and shall terminate on February
28, 2017 unless extended by a duly adopted ordinance of the City Council.
Section 8. Publication.
The City Clerk is directed that publication of this ordinance shall be made as soon as practical and
no later than ten (10) days following final passage.
Section 9. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
P24
VII.A.
6
Section 10. Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law as an emergency ordinance by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2016.
_______________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _______ day of ______________, 2016, by
the unanimous vote of all City Council members present; or
a vote of four (4) council members.
_______________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P25
VII.A.
OAKLN
S O R I G I N A L S T
P O W E R P L A N T R D
R O A R I N G
F O R K R D
LONEPINERD
MEADOWSRD
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
6
T
H
S
T
B
R
E
N
D
E
N
C
T
R
E
D
M
T
N
R
D
N G A L E NAST MATC
H
L
E
S
S
D
R
F
O
U
N
D
E
R
S
PL
S
2
N
D
S
T
SAWMI
L
L
C
T
DEAN
S
T
RI O GRANDEPL
S
1
S
T
S
T
N G A R M I S C H
S T
SOUTH AVE
S 7 T H S T
C L E V E L A N D S T
N
8 T H
S T
N
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
S GALENAST
S H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
N
4 T H S T
S
3
R
D
S
T
N
1
S
T
S
T
N
7 T H S T
S
G A L E N A S T
N
A S P E N
S T
S
4
T
H
S
T
N
5
T
H
S
T
S
6
T
H
S
T
S M O N A R C H
S T
S
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
S
T
S A S P E N S T
N
2
N
D
S
T
S G A R M I S C H S T
S P R U C E S T
S S P R I N G
S T
N MIL
L
S
T
S 5 T H
S T
N
3 R D
S T
E F RANCISST
W BLE
E
K
E
R
S
T
S M I L L
S T
NSPRINGST
BAY
S
T
E JUA
N
I
T
A
S
T
ESNARKST
I N D E P E N D E N C E
P L
A S P E N
M T N
C U
T
O
F
F
R
D
EFRANCISST
EHYMANAVE
NEALEAV E
E BLE
E
K
E
R
S
T
WFRANCISST
A J A X AVE
T
R
A
I
NORSLNDG
N
3
R
D
S
T
WSMUGGLERST
GIBSONAVE
RE
C
Y
C
L
E
C
I
R
DEANST
N
R I V E R S I D E
A V E
PEARL CT
GILLESPIE ST
WNORTHST
SUMM
I
T
S
T
S
R I V E R S I D E A V E
W FRA
N
C
I
S
S
T
EHYMANAVE
W HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E DUR
A
N
T
A
V
E
E MAI
N
S
T
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
W HAL
L
A
M
S
T
W MAI
N
S
T
E BLE
E
K
E
R
S
T
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
LA
K
E
A
V
E
WILLIAMS WAY
GILBERTST
W HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
PARK CIR
DEAN
S
T
E HAL
L
A
M
S
T
W CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
MINERS TRA I L R D
JUAN S
T
QUEEN ST
SN
E
A
K
Y
L
N
SHAD Y L N
S
P
R
U
C
E
C
T
WALNUT ST
KINGST
RACE ST
COTT
O
N
W
O
O
D
L
N
LIT TLE CL O U D T R L
PUPPY SMIT
H
S
T
V IN E S T
MAPLE LN
MU
MU
CC
C-1
MU
MU
NC
NC
SCI
C-1
SCI
Date: 3/16/2016
City of Aspen
Geographic Information Systems
Planning and Zoning
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS
0 375 750187.5
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
When printed at 24"x36"
4
Lands Subject to
City of Aspen
Temporary
Moratorium
(2016
Ordinance 7)
This map is a representation of ordinances
and actions taken by the Aspen City Council.
It may or may not accurately identify the zoning
of a parcel with the City of Aspen. Please refer
to the ordinances that relate to a property to
determine its correct zoning, or any approved
special uses. This map does NOT depict
properties that are designated historic, within
historic districts, or near mountain viewplanes.
Separate maps for each of these areas are available.
SCI
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
PA
S
S
G
O
L
N
W
O
O
D
W
A
R
D
L
N
A
ABC200
H
W
Y
8
2
AABC 10
0 AAB C 2 0 0
H
W
Y
8
2
AABC 200
HW
Y
8
2
Zone District Designation
MU Mixed Use
NC Neighborhood
Commercial
CC Commercial
Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service
Commercial
Industrial
Legend
Roads
Greenline 8040
2012 Orthophoto
City of Aspen
P
2
6
V
I
I
.
A
.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: April 12, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: Land Use Code Revisions
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
__
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
This work session was the first in what will be a series of work sessions and discussion related to the
moratorium and Council’s goal to further integrate the AACP into the Land Use Code. Community
Development staff provided an overview of the schedule and public outreach, which was supported by Council.
At the April 12, 2016 work session, staff requested direction regarding free-market residential uses within the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and Mixed Use (MU) zone districts.
Council expressed a desire to ban free-market residential uses from NC and SCI entirely. Affordable housing
units would continue to be allowed in these zone districts. Council was also supportive of aligning the overall
dimensions in MU in order to create one unified district. This will be coordinated with the discussions on
Commercial Design Standards.
Council expressed interest in allowing residential units in MU, but wanted to explore either “micro units” with a
low unit size cap or resident-occupied (RO) units to encourage more consistent occupancy. Council requested
staff further research these options for future discussion.
Council supported ensuring the AspenModern program is successful. Related to free-market residential
expressed concern over allowing free-market residential units through an AspenModern designation process.
Council suggested removing the free-market residential component from negotiations, and instead allow RO
units and other incentives (such as fees, etc). Council requested further discussion on this topic as a separate
conversation.
Council expressed desire to ensure there are landing sites for the TDR program. Council was interested in what
would happen to the surrounding zone districts if TDRs could not land in the commercial zones. Council
supported researching other ways that TDRs could be used, i.e. parking, commercial space, existing free-
market, etc.
NEXT STEPS:
• Staff will research more information regarding what “micro units” are and how they have been used in
other communities.
• Staff will explore required physical separation of free-market / RO residential units from commercial
spaces within the Mixed Use zone district.
P27
VII.A.
2
• Staff will work with APCHA regarding deed-restricted free-market units as Resident-Occupied (RO)
and how they might be used.
• Staff will research the potential impacts of eliminating free-market uses in all commercial zones on the
TDR program and what other options exist.
NEXT WORK SESSIONS:
• April 18 – Off-Street Parking
• April 26 – Continuation of free-market residential discussion; History of Zoning Review
• May 10 – Commercial Design Standards & Public Amenity Space; Commercial Mix discussion
• Additional work sessions will be scheduled throughout the summer and fall
P28
VII.A.
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
P29
VII.A.
DRAFT ONLINE CONTENT PLAN 2016
PROJECT/EVENT ONLINE ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM
ORGANIZER COMDEV
Online content will be created in conjunction with consultants on a topical basis and rolled out starting April 18th. Content will include mapping, visual surveys, poll questions, surveys, and submissions.
PROJECT PHASE STARTING ENDING
OFF-STREET PARKING 4.18.2016 8.10.2016
COMMERCIAL DESIGN 5.2.2016 8.10.2016
USE MIX 4.19.2016 8.10.2016
VIEW PLANES 5.25.2016 8.10.2016
INTERIM VISUAL REPORTS 6.15.2016 8.17.2016
ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
CAMPAIGN
4.18.2016 8.10.2016
CONTENT
OFF-STREET PARKING VISUAL SURVEY PREFERENCE SURVEY
QUICK POLLS / SUBMISSIONS
RANKING EXERCISE (WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MOST)
PHOTOVOICE SUBMISSIONS
ONE PAGE REPORTS ON FEEDBACK TO DATE
CONTINUOUS CONTENT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
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 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 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
P
3
0
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
P31
VII.A.
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.
P32
VII.A.
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.
P33
VII.A.
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
P34
VII.A.
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.
P35
VII.A.
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.
P36
VII.A.
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.
P37
VII.A.
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.
P38
VII.A.
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.
P39
VII.A.
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.
P40
VII.A.
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
4
1
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
4
2
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
4
3
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
4
4
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
4
5
V
I
I
.
A
.
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
4
6
V
I
I
.
A
.