Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160426 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 26, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. 2017 World Cup Finals II. Land Use Code Revisions P1 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Events and Marketing DATE OF MEMO: April 13, 2016 MEETING DATE: April 26, 2016 RE: World Cup 2017 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting direction from Council on the items below as they pertain to the planning and permitting of 2017 FIS Ski World Cup Finals which are being hosted by the Aspen Skiing Company. The ski races are to be held in Aspen, CO on Aspen Mountain starting Wednesday, March 15th – Sunday, March 19th, 2017. • The use of Wagner Park • Snowmaking in Wagner Park • Street Closures • Parking • Transit • Fireworks • Community Event Programming • City staff assisting in operations of event BACKGROUND: The Aspen Skiing Company, and Aspen, Colorado have been awarded the rights to host the 2017 FIS Ski World Cup Finals. This competition will take place on Aspen Mountain with teams arriving on Sunday, March 12th, competition starting on Wednesday, March 15th and running through Sunday, March 19th. While the competition is certain to be intense, the real part of this event is the opportunity for the community to host an amazing festival and experience around the races. Because of the proximity to the race course, Wagner Park is a natural location to host all off-hill aspects of this event. Community events, daily après-ski, music, sponsor booths, merchandise, food and alcohol, art, and a big screen would all be part of what could be programmed in Wagner Park. The Aspen Skiing Company is vetting the following community and kids activities (as the schools have parent/teacher conferences during the competition days): parade, bonfire, live music, coach/athlete soccer game, art displays, kids decorating project, and several themed parties focused on families. The 2017 FIS Ski World Cup Finals will attract a live global broadcast audience of tens of millions, with the USSA partnering P2 I. Page 2 of 3 with NBC to provide extensive coverage of the five day event including live broadcast and digital streaming. DISCUSSION: Staff would like to continue the event permitting process including the following. Wagner Park/Snow Making Aspen Skiing Company is seeking permission to use Wagner Park for the event village and community programming from Saturday, March 11th through Wednesday, March 22nd. Use of Wagner Park will most likely require the Aspen Skiing Company, with direction from the Parks Department to make/blow snow into the Park in order to protect the turf. Staff would like the flexibility to make snow as early and often as needed. Staff will follow protocol and neighbor noticing prior to starting, but for planning purposes would like to be able to use the entire winter calendar. Over the past 3 years Aspen Skiing Company has been hired by Snow Polo to make snow in both Wagner and Rio Grande Park without any noise complaints. We’d utilize the snow fans again, rather than the snow guns, which are much quieter. As a reminder to Council, due to the temperature requirements, most of the snow making occurs at night. Street Closures Staff is in the early stages of exploring community activities that might entail street closures. Aspen Street, from Aspen Mountain to Durant, Monarch from Durant to Hyman are all part of the current discussion. Parking There will be tremendous coordination between the Aspen Skiing Company and the Parking Department. The historic occupancy numbers show that Aspen has an 80% occupancy rate for this same week. This event will require parking to accommodate TV compound, staff, teams, support, and vendor village. Transit While not on the same scale of Winter X Games, this event could perhaps trigger additional transit needs. Staff and the Aspen Skiing Company and RFTA will work together to determine when, where and how long additional services will be needed. Fireworks/Environmental Health/Noise During this five day event, the Aspen Skiing Company would like to have the ability to shoot fireworks one evening of the 5 day event. They would shoot them off from Aspen Mountain, using the same vendor they have used previously and would follow our strict procedures and guidelines. Community Events The Aspen Skiing Company is vetting the following community and kids activities including (as the schools have parent/teacher conferences during the competition days): parade, bonfire, live music, coach/athlete soccer game, skijoring, art displays, kids decorating project, and several themed parties focused on families. P3 I. Page 3 of 3 City Staff Assistance Staff is looking for direction on the level of assistance given by the City of Aspen staff. There are a few models to look at; Minor, Moderate or Major. A minor level would be ushering this event through the event application process like we do for so many other events, for example Jazz Aspen. Staff would be involved to ensure safety and compliance. A moderate level would be something similar to Food and Wine where a lot of City staff is on hand to assist in the set up and ensure compliance and safety. All City fees including Parks, Parking, Transit fees are paid by the applicant. The major level would look like the USA Pro Challenge. Staff is heavily involved and it becomes part of their job and all costs are to be in-kind. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Depending on how Council directs staff to be involved (see paragraph above) could determine financial impacts. All of the requests listed out in this memo would be a charge (per normal business) to the Aspen Skiing Company. In addition to the prospective in kind contribution, the Aspen Skiing Company may request an additional financial contribution. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The largest potential environmental impacts from this event will likely be related to the waste generation. An event of this size will generate a sizeable waste stream. This is a great opportunity for the Aspen Skiing Company and the City of Aspen to put our waste reduction efforts on display for event attendees to see. Recycling, composting and reduction/elimination of single use items will be key to an environmentally successful event. To do this effectively, significant staff time will need to be dedicated from lead organizations. In addition, the event will have impacts related to air and ground travel, though at this point it doesn’t appear that travel impact will be significantly greater than other busy stretches of the winter season in the Aspen area. P4 I. 4.12.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 1 of 4 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Justin Barker, Senior Planner Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 RE: Land Use Code Revisions – Zoning History, Free-Market Uses REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The main purpose of this work session is to discuss the history of zoning in Aspen. If time allows, staff will update Council on progress in other work areas, specifically free- market residential uses, which are discussed in more detail below. Specific questions for council are listed in bold throughout the memo. BACKGROUND: City Council has a top ten goal to update the Land Use Code to better reflect that Aspen Area Community Plan. During a November 2015 work session, Council identified seven policy areas that should be updated in the Land Use Code. These included: • Review of Zoning History • Commercial Design Standards • Public Amenity • View Planes • Land Uses and Commercial Mix • Off-Street Parking and Mobility • Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces These work areas were reaffirmed during a February 29, 2016 work session where City Council agreed to move forward with funding for consultants to assist in the efforts. Following that work session, on March 15, City Council adopted a temporary moratorium on new land use applications to enable open discussion about the potential code changes, including the items previously identified as well as newer concerns related to free-market residential uses. A number of consultants have been hired to assist in updating the Land Use Code. All consultants should be in place by mid-May, and at this time staff anticipates that all code amendments currently contemplated will be completed by the end of 2016. SUMMARY: There are two main topics of discussion for this work session: the history of zoning in Aspen and free- market residential uses in commercial zone districts. A summary of these topics as well as updates on other efforts is provided below. In addition, staff has begun initial outreach for the Off-Street Parking and Mobility project gathering data from key technical stakeholders. Staff has also begun its online outreach through the posting of a discussion topic on Open City Hall at http://cityofaspen.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/. The discussion topic P5 II. 4.12.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 2 of 4 requests feedback on land use types in the commercial zone districts. Staff will continue to add topics specific to each of the policy areas throughout the spring/summer. HISTORY OF ZONING: Council expressed an interest in discussing the history of zoning in Aspen during the February 29th work session. Staff completed a History of Zoning report, attached as Exhibit A 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. Alan Richman will be at the work session to provide a detailed presentation on the history of zoning in Aspen – from the 1950s to today. Former staff planners and directors have been invited to share their thoughts on the main issues of the day when they worked for the City. FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL USES: If time allows, staff would like to continue the discussion on free-market residential uses. One of the main reasons the moratorium was established was to address the impact free-market residential uses have on commercial uses in the same building. Part of the thoughts behind the 2004 infill regulations was to allow free-market residential uses in the downtown area and other commercial zones in an effort to enable reinvestment in a deteriorating commercial base. In the time since infill, redevelopment projects have resulted in mixed-use buildings that include commercial space and free-market residential units in the same building. Many buildings also include affordable housing units. In some of these buildings, the owners of the free-market residential component have been able to also purchase the commercial component and sometimes have chosen to leave commercial spaces vacant or change condominium documents to not allow certain commercial uses such as restaurants, bars, or night clubs. 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. At the April 12th work session, Council discussed this topic and gave staff the following direction: 1. Research more information regarding what “micro units” are and how they have been used in other communities. 2. Explore required physical separation of free-market / Resident-Occupied (RO) residential units from commercial spaces within the Mixed Use zone district. 3. Work with APCHA regarding deed-restricted free-market units as RO and how they might be used. Staff requested feedback on this topic from P&Z at their April 19th regular meeting. P&Z strongly supported exploring occupancy restrictions as a way to invest in the local workforce and ensure vibrancy. P&Z felt that required physical separation could be difficult to achieve on many lots and might P6 II. 4.12.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 3 of 4 not be a practical requirement. P&Z also expressed hesitation regarding micro units. There is concern that these type of units could have the same issues as traditional free-market, where an owner purchases several of the units to create one larger unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the concerns from both Council and P&Z about micro units, staff recommends not pursuing these types of units any further. Staff will continue to explore required physical separation of residential units from commercial spaces to understand potential difficulties/limitations. Staff will also continue to work with APCHA on how occupancy restrictions might be used on free-market units. Staff is prepared to move forward with code amendments to ban free-market residential uses in Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC). If Council desires to move forward with these code amendments, staff will schedule a Policy Resolution Hearing for the first meeting in May, followed by 1st and 2nd Readings on an Ordinance. Staff believes the elimination of free-market residential units is the primary issue that needs to be addressed in the NC and SCI zone districts, and that other potential code amendments regarding design standards, parking, and use mix do not necessarily require the protection of the moratorium. In addition, lifting of the moratorium in these areas enables greater focus on the downtown core and Main Street, which were the areas Council initially wanted to focus the code amendment efforts. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council support staff’s recommendation to not pursue micro units at this time? 2. Would Council like to move forward with code amendments to ban free-market residential uses in SCI and NC? If so, does Council wish to lift the moratorium in these areas? OTHER TOPICS: Staff continues to work with consultants on the other items covered in the moratorium. Below is a brief update on those other efforts. OFF-STREET PARKING: Staff requested feedback from P&Z on April 19th regarding the off-street parking concepts that were presented to Council at the April 18th work session. In general, P&Z was supportive of exploring shared parking options as long as they are permanent solutions. Hotels/lodges were suggested as a premium opportunity for this concept. P&Z felt that it was important to create an obvious and convenient alternative to traditional parking. Some P&Z members suggested providing free or discounted parking in the Rio Grande garage to local working employees to incentivize parking there instead of on-street spaces. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: One of the proposed outreach methods for the Commercial Design Standards update is to form small focus groups that include members of Council, P&Z, HPC, NextGen, design professionals and business owners. The purpose of this is to gain a fresh perspective by mixing up the typical group setting and create new understandings and collaborations between the community, commissions and elected officials. Several members of P&Z expressed interest in participating in these groups. QUESTION FOR COUNCIL: P7 II. 4.12.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 4 of 4 1. Is Council interested in participating in these Commercial Design focus groups? NEXT STEPS: Staff anticipates the overall consultant contract will be on the May 9th Council agenda for review. A work session is scheduled for May 10th to discuss Commercial Design Standards and commercial use mix. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – History of Zoning Report P8 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 1February 2016 Aspen Planning & Zoning History The Aspen Area has a long history of planning for the future – from the first growth management codes in the 1970s to the first Aspen Area Community Plan in 1993. Throughout the years the City’s land use codes have attempted to reflect and address the issues of the day. This document is not intended to list every code change and comprehensive planning effort in Aspen over the years. Instead, it provides a snapshot of community issues and sentiments through the decades, and explains how the community and elected and appointed leaders attempted to continue to move the city forward and maintain its small mountain-town character. If there is one common theme over the years, it is the commitment to preserving Aspen’s heritage and unique character. This document tracks changes through the decades: City of Aspen Community Development Department • 1960s: The Advent of Zoning - pg 2 • 1970s: Managing Growth and Development- pg 3 • 1980s: Comprehensive Planning and Refined Regulations - pg 4 • 1990s: The First Aspen Area Community Plan - pg 5 • 2000 - 2006: Infill Development - pg 6 • 2006 - Today: Downzoning and Refining Regulations - pg 8 • Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional History - 11 P9 II. 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 1960s: The Advent of Zoning Copy of the 1966 General Plan; the first plan for the Aspen Area. The history of zoning and land use planning in Aspen dates back sixty years to 1956 when the first zoning ordinance was adopted. The ordinance, approved on July 2, 1956, established several zone districts with permitted uses and area and bulk limitations. It also adopted procedures for nonconforming uses, a method for building review, and established a Board of Adjustment and a Building Inspector. Planning during this time in Aspen, and across the country, was primarily focused on separating industrial and residential uses and addressing nuisances. Increasing growth pressures throughout the 1960s led the community to begin its first comprehensive planning efforts. In 1966, the Aspen Area General Plan was adopted. The plan was designed to accommodate growth, focusing commercial and lodging development in the downtown area as well as the base of Aspen Mountain and along Shadow Mountain, and recognizing the growth of Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk, and Little Annie as lodging and recreation centers. The General Plan was seen as “the only method by which a framework to accommodate future urban growth can be established to direct the expansion in such a manner as to retain the fine balance between man and his environment, the essence of Aspen’s character.” The General Plan included a number of policy recommendations, including: • Focus commercial and lodging growth in the Aspen townsite. • Implement transportation improvements throughout the upper valley, including updating Highway-82 with a median from Aspen to Basalt, creation of a transit system serving all ski areas, and improvements to Owl Creek and Brush Creek roads. • Create a trail system along the Roaring Fork River to connect parks and open spaces. • Build a Civic Center for the City and County on the Courthouse block. • Build a transportation center in the Wheeler Opera House, with parking garages under Wagner Park, City Hall, and near the Little Nell Lift. Following adoption of the General Plan, new land use codes were introduced to provide basic development regulation, including the first subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations, and the creation of additional residential and commercial zone districts. P10 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 3February 2016 1970s: Managing Growth and Development As the 1960s came to a close, community sentiment around growth began to change from accommodating growth to managing growth. In 1970 a joint City-County Planning Office was formed, and a 1972 Task Force began examining the role development played in the community with particular concern over the public facilities needed to serve the current level of growth. The goals of the Task Force formed the basis of the 1973 Land Use Plan which was “not a zoning map which details rigid guidelines…but constitutes a general design for future land use and is a continuing step in effectively responding to the challenge of building a quality environment in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.” The Regional Transportation Plan and the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan were also adopted in 1973. The goals of these plans included: • Maintain a growth rate substantially below that of 1960. • Focus on preserving environmental assets including historic buildings, aesthetic design, scenic views, and air and water quality. • Provide a balanced community with housing for permanent employees, neighborhood oriented development, and diverse recreational and cultural offerings. • Provide a mass transit system that prioritized pedestrian and transit over the automobile. • Develop a downtown pedestrian mall. Together, these three plans set the stage for dramatic Land Use Code changes in the 1970s that resulted in a code similar to what is in place today, including adoption of: • Environmental standards, including Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Planes. • Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. • The Historic designation of 9 individual properties, including the original Lift 1 chairlift. • New review procedures, including Specially Planned Areas and Special Review. • A Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). • Open Space requirements to provide some open areas on all commercial developments. • Affordable housing mitigation requirements. During the 1970s other zoning changes were made in an effort to consolidate growth to the downtown area. New commercial and lodging zone districts were created, and lodging properties located throughout the City’s neighborhoods were downzoned. This decade also resulted in planning for and implementation of the pedestrian malls. A Growth Management System was introduced in the 1970s with the Growth Management Policy Plan (1976) and the Growth Management Quota System (1977) The Hyman Ave Pedestrian Mall, built in 1976. View of Aspen, looking west, from the 1973 Land Use Plan. P11 II. 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 1980s: Comprehensive Planning and Refined Regulations The Hotel Lenado was redeveloped in the mid-1980s under the City’s first Lodge Preservation Program. The 1980s included expansions and refinements to the Land Use Code provisions that were first implemented the decade prior, as well as the advent of Comprehensive Planning. Throughout the 1980s, Land Use Plans for neighborhoods including Smuggler and Roaring Fork East were adopted, as well as Comprehensive Plan Elements ranging from Open Space to Transportation and Housing to Historic Preservation. These efforts formed the basis for many of the decade’s Land Use Code changes. The City’s first Lodge Preservation Program was implemented in 1982 to address concerns about the loss of Aspen’s bed base. This included the City’s first timeshare regulations, an effort to improve the quality of lodging accommodations, and the addition of a new Lodging zone district and rezoning of nearly 30 small lodges located throughout Aspen’s neighborhoods to reverse the downzonings that occurred in the 1970s. A number of substantive changes were made throughout the 1980s to the City’s Growth Management Quota System. This included expanding the applicability of the City’s Growth Management Quota System to all commercial zone districts, increasing lodging allotments, revising the GMQS scoring requirements, adding a cash-in-lieu mitigation option, and increasing employee housing mitigation requirements. In 1988, the City adopted the Multi- Family Replacement Program, which required affordable housing mitigation for any free-market multi-family housing unit that was demolished, redeveloped, or combined. This program is still in place and serves to provide continued housing options when existing residential units are demolished, combined, or converted. Following the adoption of the Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Element in 1986, the City made significant updates to the City’s historic preservation regulations. Stricter demolition and relocation standards and the first Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines were adopted to ensure greater purview over Historic Landmarks and properties within the Historic Districts. New incentives for designations on residential properties were adopted, including allowed variations to setback and floor area requirements, a grant program, allowing bed and breakfasts and boarding houses as a conditional use on historic properties, and allowing a duplex or two detached single-family homes on a historic lot where only one single-family home was previously allowed. In terms of dimensional regulations, the first residential floor area regulations were adopted in 1982, and then reduced for the R-6 zone district in 1987. Given the many policy changes in the 1980s, the City adopted a reorganization and recodification of the Land Use Code in 1988. Multiple Comprehensive Plan Elements were adopted in the 1980s, including the Parks / Recreation / Open Space / Trails Element P12 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 5February 2016 1990s: The First Aspen Area Community Plan Building on the comprehensive planning efforts of the 1980s, the 1990s began with the creation of the first Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Adopted in 1993, the plan pulled all of the comprehensive planning elements into one document. It focused on the need to maintain a “critical mass” of local residents, defined in the plan as 60% of the workforce, to sustain a sense of place and community. The plan identified a peak population of 30,000 residents and visitors and called for a 2% limit on annual growth. The 1993 AACP recognized the importance of Aspen’s “messy vitality” and strove to “avoid an environment that is too structured, too perfect, and that eliminated the funkiness that once characterized this town.” Following adoption of the 1993 AACP, a number of major code amendments were adopted related to design and growth management. The GMQS scoring system was amended to reflect goals in the AACP, the allowed growth quotas were reduced to reflect the prescribed 2% growth rate, and new growth ceilings were adopted. During this time, the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit program was created, and new regulations requiring 60% of new residential developments be developed as affordable housing were adopted. In terms of design review, the City adopted the first Residential Design Guidelines, and adopted the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) which resulted in street and sidewalk improvements throughout downtown. During this time, changes to the historic preservation rules required design review of all structures on the City’s inventory. During the 1980s and 1990s there was a comprehensive approach to protecting historically significant buildings and sites, with more than 200 individual properties historically designated. On the environmental side, the City updated the Stream Margin standards and added a review for all properties along Hallam Lake. These new regulations were intended to provide greater protections for critical riparian areas and habitats. A major goal of the 1993 AACP was to limit trips over the Castle Creek Bridge to 1993 levels. The City has continued to meet this goal every year since 1993. The cover of the first Aspen Area Community Plan, adopted in 1993. P13 II. 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 2000 - 2006: Infill Development As the 1990s came to a close, the community began an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2000, the updated AACP called for a renewed focus on a healthy, vibrant, and diverse economy that supports the community. The Plan also called for managing growth in a way that provided a “critical mass” of people living and working in Aspen. It called for encouraging more density in the City and for preserving important open spaces in the County. The Plan included 100 Action Items, many of which related to “infill development.” In general terms, “infill” refers to focusing growth and development into existing downtown areas that can take advantage of existing infrastructure, while discouraging suburban-style sprawling development. One of the top implementation Action Items was to establish an Infill Advisory Group to examine the trend of decreasing vibrancy and vitality in the downtown. Established by City Council in June 2000, the group met for 18 months crafting a “comprehensive strategy that aims to restore a sense of vitality to city neighborhoods.” The group’s work coincided with the economic downturn of 2001 and culminated in the Infill Report, which built on the 2000 AACP and outlined the goals and strategies of an Infill Program. The group reviewed the history of planning in Aspen, and found that at the time “the City requires more from a developer than can physically be provided on most properties.” There was also a trend of converting commercial spaces, lodges, and multi- family homes in the downtown area to large second homes. The group was concerned about these trends and the resulting decrease in pedestrian vitality, and proposed a set of Land Use Code Amendments intended to combat them. A set of “infill code amendments” were approved between 2003 – 2005. These codes amended allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and uses in many of the city’s zone districts, as well as amended parking requirements, affordable housing requirements, and on-site open space requirements. Specifically, they: • Eliminated the ability to build a single-family or duplex home in the Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts (unless the C-1 property was a historic landmark), and focused instead on building commercial, lodging, and multi-family residential uses. • Reduced the allowed multi-family residential floor area to approximately a third of what was previously allowed. • Increased the required affordable housing mitigation. • Created the City’s first Commercial Design Standards. The criteria included basic design principles, including building relationship to the street, street-level building elements, parking, and pedestrian improvements. • Updated “open space” requirements to “pedestrian amenity” standards that required at-grade pedestrian amenity spaces and eliminated the ability to build a sunken moat-like space along the sidewalk. The second AACP, approved in 2000, focused on reducing sprawl and encouraging infill development. The building at 517 E Hopkins, originally built in 1983, features a sunken “open space” that was no longer allowed following the infill code changes. P14 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 7February 2016 • Overhauled parking requirements to meet AACP goals of reducing traffic in town, reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The changes allowed cash-in-lieu by right for all properties located south of the Roaring Fork River and east of Castle Creek (referred to as the Infill Area). The changes also allowed cash-in-lieu monies to be used for mobility enhancements such as car-to-go and in-town transit, rather than just parking. All commercial and lodging parking requirements were reduced by between .5 and 3 spaces depending on location and use, while parking requirements for lodging and multi-family residential uses in the CC and C-1 zones were eliminated. • Changed the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to increase the number of available growth allotments for commercial, lodging, and free-market residential uses, and replace a scoring system to objective criteria. • Increased the allowable heights and floor area in commercial and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes” through today. • Adoption of a maximum residential unit size cap in the downtown. The Historic TDR Program was established in 2003. The program allowed a property that is designated Historic to sever development rights through the creation of a Transferable Development Right (TDR) and send those development rights to another non-historic property in the city. The code amendment specified that each TDR is worth 250 square feet of floor area, and could be landed in most residential zone districts. One TDR is permitted per dwelling unit. Other code changes during this period included an update to the timeshare regulations to ensure new timeshare developments are available for short-term accommodations, and the creation of the COWOP process to provide for greater community involvements in major development projects. COWOP reviews were conducted for the Obermeyer redevelopment, the Fire Station, and the Lift One area. Following the economic downturn of 2001, Aspen’s economy significantly rebounded and the community began seeing more development in the downtown than had existed in many years. These new development pressures prompted the City Council to adopt a Land Use Moratorium in April 2006, which lasted through the summer of 2007. An illustration from the Obermeyer Place COWOP process, one of the first redevelopment projects to be reviewed under the regulations. The property at 430 W Main is historically designated and has severed development rights through the City’s TDR Program. P15 II. 8 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 A number of major code changes were adopted during the first half of 2007, rolling back many of the dimensional changes of the “infill codes.” These changes were made during the 2006 - 2007 moratorium and included: • Reduction of allowed heights and floor areas in all commercial and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes” through today. • Adoption of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. This document, coupled with changes to the Commercial Design Standards provided significantly more regulatory oversight of building design and site planning. The document divides the City into character areas, each with a specific set of Conceptual and Final Design Guidelines. • Expansion of the Historic TDR program, allowing a TDR to be used to increase a free-market residential unit by no more than 500 square feet above the set zone district cap. During this period City Council approved a number of historic preservation related Ordinances in an effort to preserve buildings and interiors that were important to Aspen’s history. In December 2006 an emergency moratorium was approved which halted all building permits in the Commercial Core and was intended to preserve the character-defining interior spaces of Aspen’s historic buildings. No interior preservation program was ultimately adopted, but the moratorium did result in the interior preservation of the Red Onion. Until this time, the primary focus of the City’s historic preservation program was on Victorian-era buildings. By the mid-2000s, however, it became clear that important parts of Aspen’s post- war history were being lost through demolition. In July 2007, City Council placed temporary protections on post-war properties that might be worthy of preservation. A Historic Preservation Task Force was convened in 2008 and met for 18-months crafting recommendations on changes to the City’s historic preservation program. In 2010 the City reorganized and updated the historic preservation regulations. The program was divided into Aspen Victorian, focused on Aspen’s 19th century Victorian and mining-era history, and AspenModern, focused on Aspen’s 20th century post-war era history. Both programs include a set of benefits and incentives for designated properties. Aspen Victorian allows for involuntary designations, while AspenModern requires owner consent for a designation. Following the Task Force recommendations, the AspenModern designation process allows for a negotiation between the City and property owner to ensure appropriate incentives and requirements are placed on the property. To date, there are 254 Victorian era landmarks and 36 AspenModern era landmarks. 2006 - Today: Downzoning and Refining Regulations Commonly known as the Crandall Building, the building at 630 E Hyman is an AspenModern designated building built in 1969 and designed by local architect Tom Benton. The cover of the City’s Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, adopted in 2007. P16 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 9February 2016 During this period, in 2010, the City adopted what is believed to be the country’s first Affordable Housing Credit Program. Functioning much like the Historic TDR Program, the Housing Credits program allows developers of affordable housing to get a “Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit” equal to the number of employees housed by their development, which they can sell to other developers to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. To date, nearly 50 full-time equivalent employees have been housed through this program. The second half of 2007 was the beginning of the “Great Recession” which lasted through June 2009 and significantly decreased the amount of development occurring throughout Aspen and the country as a whole. This laid the backdrop for the latest update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2012, the current AACP seeks “to guide future development so that it contributes to the long-term sustainability of a vibrant and diverse tourism economy and a strong year-round community.” The plan reaffirms many of the community’s long-held beliefs – protect natural ecosystems and scenic settings, provide for a critical mass of year- round residents, improve and link alternative transportation modes, maintain Aspen’s small-town community character – and recognizes that these beliefs “root the community in its underlying values, and keep a steady course” regardless of economic or environmental fluctuations. Following the adoption of the 2012 AACP, the City embarked on a number of significant code changes, including: • Amendments to the downtown zone districts (CC and C-1 zones) to reduce the scale of development. This included reducing building heights on the south side of the street from 40 feet to 28 feet, and reducing building heights on the north side of the street from 40 feet to 28 feet unless it was a lodge project. In an effort to protect Aspen’s vibrant commercial mix, the amendments also eliminated the ability to build any new free-market residential units downtown. • An update to the employee mitigation figures for all commercial and lodging development and eliminated the “double dip” provision of the code that allowed a developer to only mitigate for one of their requirements. Now a developer must mitigate for every portion of their new development, not just the largest requirement. • Adoption of completely new Planned Development and Subdivision Chapters that provide a “yes” or a “no” on a development proposal sooner in the process, thereby creating more certainty in the review process which was a major goal of the AACP. • Elimination of the ability to build double depth basements in single-family and duplex homes. This change was in an effort to maintain Aspen’s small town character and reduce the environmental and construction impacts created by double basements. The first Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit were established for the affordable housing project at 301 W Hyman. The cover of the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. P17 II. 10 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 • Adoption of a transportation mitigation system that requires new development to mitigate ALL of their car trips, thereby helping to ensure traffic levels remain at 1993 levels and that development is paying its own way on the transportation front. This program has won a state planning award for its innovation and ability to meaningfully mitigate the transportation impacts of development. • Changes to the COWOP process, including renaming the chapter Public Projects, and updating the review process to comply with state law. • Adoption of a Small Lodge Preservation Program in an effort to help Aspen’s existing small lodges remain in operation. • A re-write and update of the Residential Design Standards to ensure more predictability in the process and to ensure new development matches Aspen’s small town character. While the City has done a great deal to implement the 2012 AACP, that work is not yet complete, as the AACP is a long-term guide for the future, not a static set of code requirements. Moving forward, City Council adopted a 2015-2017 Top Ten Goal to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code delivers what the AACP promises.” Proposed work over the next year includes: • Updating the ten-year old Commercial Design Standards to address recent changes in the commercial zone districts and to ensure new development matches Aspen’s small town character, particularly in the Commercial Core and around the Pedestrian Malls. • Examining the City’s Pedestrian Amenity requirements to ensure they enable community-shared places that promote interaction and sense of place. • Examining Off-Street Parking requirements to ensure they support AACP goals around improving mobility, reducing automobile trips, and encouraging alternative transportation modes. • Examining potential changes to use regulations in an effort to retain and support Aspen’s unique and vibrant business mix. • Reviewing the City’s 30-year old View Plane regulations to ensure they remain effective at protecting important views of the mountains. Counting automobile trips for the City’s transportation mitigation program. The program, known as the TIA, requires programmatic and infrastructure improvements to offset automobile trips generated by development. The St. Moritz Lodge is one of four small lodges who have participated in the most recent Small Lodge Preservation Program. The lodge received grant money to upgrade their boiler. P18 II. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 11February 2016 Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional History This map illustrates the location of Aspen’s Commercial Zone Districts. These Districts include: Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Mixed-Use (MU). The pages that follow list the dimensional changes in these zone districts since 2000. The following abbreviations are used: • FAR = Floor Area Ratio. This is the ratio of what can be built relative to a parcel’s size. • SR = Special Review. This review is conducted by the Planning & Zoning Commission. • AH = Affordable Housing • FM - Free-market residential housing • Res = residential; both affordable housing and free-market residential • Sm. Units = Small Units. Refers to individual lodge unit size of 500 sq ft or less • TDR = Transferable Development Right P 1 9 I I . 12 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Where The immediate downtown. Main to Durant, from Monarch to Hunter Streets. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 42, 46 for areas setback 15 feet 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories 38, which may be increased to 42 by Commercial Design Review 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories up to 40 allowed on n side of street if for lodging Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 2/1000 1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res. Maximum Total FAR 1.5, may be increased to 2:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 2:1 2:1 Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2.5:1 w/ sm. units AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Commercial to Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Use removed -- Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Use removed -- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Commercial Core (CC) Zone District P 2 0 I I . Aspen Planning & Zoning History 13February 2016 Where A one-block strip east of the Commercial Core. Main to Cooper, from Hunter to Spring streets. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 38 - pitched, 42 - flat 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories 36, which may be increased to 40 by Commercial Design Review 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories up to 38 allowed on n side of street if for lodging Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0 0 0 0 Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res. Maximum Total FAR 1.1, may be increased to 1.5:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 1.5:1 1.5:1 Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2:1 w/ sm. units AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Commercial to Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Commercial (C-1) Zone District P 2 1 I I . 14 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Where Obermeyer Place, North Mill and Puppy Smith area, and the US Post Office. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)35 35, may be increased to 40 through S.R.35 35 Public Amenity No requirement No requirement 25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1:1, may be increased to 2:1 if minimum of 1:1 is AH 2:1 2.25:1 2.25:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1 1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary care offices if 0.75:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel 1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary care offices if 0.75:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel Arts/Civic FAR ---- Lodging FAR ---- AH Res. FAR -0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 FM Res. FAR - 0.5:1 only if a min. of 0.75:1 commercial uses on parcel 0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 - 1:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel 0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 - 1:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel Commercial to Residential ratio ---- Single Family FAR ---- Duplex FAR ---- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)-No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I) P 2 2 I I . Aspen Planning & Zoning History 15February 2016 Mixed-Use (MU) Where Main Street, a one-block strip west of the CC between Main and Hyman, and one-block strip east of the C1 between Main and Cooper. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)25 25 to 32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review Public Amenity No requirement 25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)10, 15, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 Commercial Parking 3/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. & 60% AH Historic Dist.: 1:1 Non-Historic: 2:1 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by S.R. Non-Historic: 2:1 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by S.R. Non-Historic: 2:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. Arts/Civic FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. Lodging FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 0.75:1; 1:1 w/ S.R.0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Commercial to Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80%of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR P 2 3 I I . 16 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Where The City Market block and the Clark's Market area. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)28, may be increased to 32 by S.R.32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)10, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 Commercial Parking 4/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 Arts/Civic FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 Lodging FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 AH Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 FM Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Commercial to Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR ---- Duplex FAR ---- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR P 2 4 I I .