Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160913 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 13, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Civic Space Options II. Land Use Code Revisions P1 Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Rob Taylor, NV5 & Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager DATE OF MEMO: September 09, 2016 MEETING DATE: September 13, 2016 RE: Aspen City Hall Direction REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Two Aspen City Hall options are being presented today for design direction and discussion from Council: 1) Galena Option – One Roof Option 2) Armory Reuse – Three roof option, Armory, Rio, Galena The goal of today’s session is to find out if Council would like to change the direction given to staff on November 16, 2015 that was to “take the Galena Plaza Option solution to detailed design” or move to the Armory Reuse Option as the long term Space solution. . PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: THE GALENA OPTION August 23, 2016 – Staff presented the Galena Option alongside two Armory Reuse Options, one with, and one without Powerhouse use. Council had 4 members in attendance, with Art Dailey absent. No definitive decision was made of Armory Reuse, or Galena Option, however Council confirmed to staff that the Powerhouse would only be a temporary use and not part of a long term City Hall solution, this narrowed the decision to two options. The Galena Option and the Armory Reuse Option. July 19, 2016 – Galena Option previously approved was shown with additional requested options of the Galena Alternate and an Armory Re-use Option with a Purchase of Space. Council directed staff to produce more information on the use of the Armory as City Hall. July 5, 2016 – Update on the Galena Option and Galena Reuse Option 2.0. Council requested additional phasing and cost information on these options as well as the Galena Alternate. March 7, 2016 – Worksession update on the Galena Option. Council requested to keep modest and humble. Nov 16, 2015 - Worksession. Confirmed - Move the city office project “the Galena Option” at Galena Plaza forward to detailed design. November 3, 2015 - The community was asked in an advisory vote if the Armory building should be used as city offices, or for community use. Community use was preferred. August 3, 2015 – Worksession - Programing of 51,900 sf at Galena Plaza including reuse of the existing Armory for community use was approved to move to detailed design by a vote of 4-1. July 14, 2015 – Worksession – Options of Armory Option, the Galena Option, and the Galena Alternate conceptual designs. Council discussed each design and was in favor of the staff recommendation for the Galena Option 3-2. P2 I. BACKGROUND: • 2015 Final Facilities Master P typical national space standards and current departmental space: • 2014 Facilities Master Plan conducted a detailed departmental analysis and showed need for 14,900 square feet (sf) for the • 2012 Aspen Area Community P preservation of Historic assets, connections with parks) • Civic Master Plan 2006 adopted; space needs. • Purchased Zupancis property in (note: Aspen Police Department is approved by Council to proceed on DISCUSSION: In the past three months Option where city offices utilize our current assets. Based on public sentiment, there appears to be a degree of community support that the Armory remains City Hall and also that assets are re-utilized. While we do have a Armory, there has been no process to guarantee future. Whatever happens, the City owns a exposure of maintenance, management, operational costs and capital replacement. A process for assessing needs and a sustainable operation not fully remove any exposure of ongoing costs of the current City owned Armory. Process steps for assessing Armory use for the community • Engage an outreach consultant • Community need and outreach study • Proof of need • Financial viability of business plan • Request for proposals • Proposals and proof of funding ‘ • Selection of operator • Confirmation and contracts Asset’s conclusion is that the City still owns the and the community never is eliminated without operation and maintenance of the building. This does not include any renovation costs Page 2 of 7 Facilities Master Plan program issued. Current space allocation per person is less than space standards and recommended departmental space actually decreases from : lan conducted a detailed departmental analysis and showed need for for the Aspen Police Department and 51,900 sf for City services. 12 Aspen Area Community Plan is aligned with current Galena Option (services in core, preservation of Historic assets, connections with parks). Civic Master Plan 2006 adopted; recommended utilization of Galena site for bulk of City Hall upancis property in 2000 with the purpose of providing a public facility on the site (note: Aspen Police Department is approved by Council to proceed on the Zupancis In the past three months Council has requested more information on the Armory Option where city offices utilize our current assets. Based on public sentiment, there appears to be a degree of community support that the Armory remains City Hall and also that as many as possible utilized. While we do have a community group with some momentum to repurpose the Armory, there has been no process to guarantee Council that there will be no financial exposure in the future. Whatever happens, the City owns a 124 year old building where there will potentially be fina exposure of maintenance, management, operational costs and capital replacement. and a sustainable operation in the community could take time a any exposure of ongoing costs of the current City owned Armory. for assessing Armory use for the community that could take from 9 to 18 months are: consultant Community need and outreach study ility of business plan Proposals and proof of funding ‘ Asset’s conclusion is that the City still owns the Armory and our financial responsibility to the building never is eliminated without ongoing funding for about $250,000 per year for operation and maintenance of the building. This does not include any renovation costs, staffing and space allocation per person is less than departmental space actually decreases from lan conducted a detailed departmental analysis and showed need for City services. ption (services in core, Galena site for bulk of City Hall purpose of providing a public facility on the site the Zupancis site). requested more information on the Armory Reuse Option where city offices utilize our current assets. Based on public sentiment, there appears to be a as many as possible current community group with some momentum to repurpose the financial exposure in the old building where there will potentially be financial take time and may still to 18 months are: our financial responsibility to the building for about $250,000 per year for staffing and P3 I. Page 3 of 7 overhead, or cost of replacement space. Based on our immediate space need this study does not seem like a worthwhile endeavor. GALENA OPTION DISCUSSION: (Currently on Hold at Council direction) GALENA OPTION DESIGN Galena Option Schematic Design was issued at the end of May 2016 and is currently in Detailed Design Phase. Based on recent requests from Council for iterations, new program options, and a Master Plan review, the Galena Option design has been placed ON HOLD. As of the end of August 2016, approximately $990,000 will have been spent on design, survey, estimating and outreach for the Council approved Galena Option. This is within the current budget. Preliminary Galena Option site planning (Schematic Design) GALENA OPTION PROGRAM: The baseline program is on track for all departments and common spaces such as Council Chambers, Sister Cities, shared meeting rooms, locker rooms, flex spaces, mail etc. The program of 51,900 sf is met under one roof. There is an additional 2,700 sf of potential space that staff is seeking future Council direction on for ACRA, whether this should be co-located or be in an alternate lease or owned location. GALENA OPTION CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: The Galena Plaza Option has the least impact on the community as it is one project, which will be completed in 24 months. When complete, public services will move out of their current locations into the new building. Basically this option constructs space that does not affect City Services at all, and then the City moves into a new building. GALENA OPTION FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Galena Option current budget is at $31.3 million, on budget for the base program of 51,900 sf and still subject to ongoing value engineering efforts by the design team. The schematic design has been priced by Shaw Construction and is a more developed cost estimate than the Armory Reuse estimate being presented today. P4 I. Page 4 of 7 Per the City’s Finance Department, funding for one site at Galena at $31.3 million and would be financed through a combination of cash ($20.7 million) and financing ($10.6 million). The annual debt service payment would be mostly from the Asset Management Plan Fund, supported by departmental contributions. LOCATION GALENA OPTION Armory – Repurposed to community (19,800 sf) 0 Purchase space 0 455 Rio Grande and 425 Rio Grande 51,900 Powerhouse – Repurposed to community (8,000 sf) 0 TOTAL (GSF) 51,900 PROGRAM BUDGET Schematic Design $31.3Million* GALENA OPTION - PROS AND CONS: PROS CONS • Seamless transition of Public Service • All core services under one roof • Doesn’t discard sunk cost and time to date • Is consistent with the 2015 vote • Aligns with the Civic Master plan • Aligns with the Aspen Area Community Plan • Could push capital costs for the Armory to another party outside the General Fund • Relieves parking and traffic in the Core • Could accommodate long term ACRA offices in the Armory. • Does not lease property at market rate • Does not buy property tied with unknown future risks • Is offset by 10,900 sf of current ACRA and Rio (i.e. gross add is not 54,600 sf) • Fiscally responsible with no tax increase • Requires 43,700 sf of new building • Moves services to the other side of Main Street • Adds traffic and heavy use to Rio Grande Street ARMORY REUSE OPTION ARMORY REUSE OPTION DESIGN Given direction from July 19, 2016, this option enables a full refurbishment of the Armory AFTER a new component of City services is constructed at the Galena location (current ACRA at 425 Rio Grande Place). This option offers provides almost seamless service for current City Services in that after the new structure is built, the Armory program can move to Galena, while the Armory gets its necessary Code, ADA, Structural, Safety, Functional, and Performance upgrades, where the City can then be consolidated under the three roof scenario of “Galena, Rio and the Armory”. ARMORY REUSE OPTION CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: The Reuse Option without Powerhouse will be two major construction projects at Galena and the Armory, and a minor upgrade of the current Rio Grande building to reconfigure for City Offices. P5 I. Page 5 of 7 ARMORY REUSE OPTION FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Per the City’s Finance Department, funding for the City’s reuse of the Armory, basic renovation of the Rio Grande and a new 28,400 sf building at Galena at a TOTAL COST of $36 to $39 mil would require cash of $21 mil and financing of $15 to $18 mil. LOCATION ARMORY REUSE OPTION Armory - full remodel (+ small addition) - REUSE 19,800 Rio – (455 Rio Grande – existing space) - REUSE 6,400 Galena – (425 Rio Grande Place current ACRA) – NEW SPACE 28,400 Powerhouse (full community use at 8,000 sf, REUSE) 0 sf for City 0 TOTAL (Gross Square Footage)** 54,600 PROGRAM BUDGET rough order of magnitude* $35.9 - $38.6 Million* *ROM unit pricing and current market pricing ** Gross Square footage impact of 5%-10% could occur due to multiple locations Phasing costs for this Armory Reuse Option are reduced, given the current City configuration can be held wwhile enabling full continuity of City services. ACRA will move to Powerhouse during construction of Phase1. ARMORY REUSE - PROS AND CONS: PROS CONS • Uses current configuration for City offices • Can Maintain the seat of government at the Historic Armory • Keeps government in the Downtown Core • Can be phased • Reduces GSF of new construction by 19,800 sf • Aligns with the Aspen Area Community Plan • Aligns with the Civic Master Plan • No tax increase • Is $5 - $8 million more expensive, is difficult to pay for over the next 10 years. • Three roofs (Galena, Rio, Armory) = confusing municipal planning, disparate customer service, difficult parking, loss of efficiency • Six roofs during temporary use • Against the vote for Armory Community use • Loss of +/- $1,000,000 sunk costs to date on Council approved Galena Option • Large construction risk incurred with Armory renovation • Potential increase in Gross Square Footage due to multiple buildings i.e. more stairs, elevators, corridors, bathrooms, etc. • Less efficient staff utilization if travel time is factored P6 I. Page 6 of 7 The impacts of each the option as related to new square footage in town is shown below • With multiple locations there is risk of square footage increase RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Armory Reuse Option, where approximately 20,000 sf is located in the reused Armory, 28,000 sf new construction at Galena and 6,000 sf reused at Rio Grande Place. This resolves the immediate need for a robust long term space solution utilizing current City Assets, with the least financial risk and least new square footage built. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment Exhibit A – Pros and Cons Exhibit B – Presentation P7 I. Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A – PROS AND CONS Galena Option Armory Reuse Parking Reduces parking and traffic in core Some reduction of parking and traffic in core Construction More new construction by COA Least new construction by COA Shorter Construction on one site Longest Construction on 2 sites Construction activity affects fewer people Construction activity affects more people Less square feet needed for building appropriate facilities due to building/design efficiency Most square feet needed to building appropriate facilities due to building/design inefficiency ( Multiple locations) Fewer building systems and spaces to build and maintain Most building systems and spaces to build and maintain Allows for best future flexibility Allows for future flexibility Civic Most effectively activates underutilized city assets (parking garage/plaza) Effectively activates underutilized city assets (parking garage/plaza) Completes “civic blocks” and consolidates public services Less “Civic Block” orientation with 2 sites and fractured service. Although does still allow connection to Galena. Potentially allows Armory to be used as public functions Keeps City Hall in Armory location Efficiency Best building/space efficiency Less building/space efficiency Best energy efficiency Less energy efficiency Best staff efficiency Less staff efficiency Cost Less cost assumed for LEED/WELL design and construction More cost needed for LEED/WELL design and construction as well as Historic construction needs and multiple mobilizations as well as escalation Safety More ability to manage staff safety in one location Challenges with two locations, safety will be more costly. Customer Service Better Good P8 I. P9I. P10I. P11I. P12I. P13I. P14I. P15I. P16I. P17I. P18I. P19I. P20I. P21I. P22I. P23I. P24I. P25I. P26I. P27I. P28I. P29I. P30I. P31I. P32I. P33I. P34I. P35I. P36I. P37I. P38I. P39I. P40I. P41I. P42I. P43I. P44I. P45I. P46I. P47I. P48I. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 1 of 9 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech Meeting Date: September 13, 2016, 4:00 PM RE: AACP Land Use Code Revisions Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests direction from Council on specific proposals for changes to the Commercial Design Guidelines, the affordable housing mitigation rate, and the process for developing amendments to the View Plane regulations. BACKGROUND: At their August 29th, 2016 work session, Council directed staff to continue developing amended Commercial Design Guidelines (CDS) as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process and sought clarification on specific issues. In particular, Council requested additional information about the relationship between CDS Character Areas and the Zone Districts boundaries. Following a request for information from Council, staff provided preliminary feedback at the August 29th work session about the process required for increasing the affordable housing mitigation rate. Council requested that staff return with more information about the process and the impact of a potential increase to the mitigation rate. That discussion follows the Commercial Design section of this memo. Also at the August 29th study session, Council tabled discussion of the View Plane regulation revision process to the September 13th work session. Based on initial Council direction, staff has devised a process to survey View Plane preservation regulations in other communities, analyze the impact of existing regulations and propose amendments to clarify and improve the effectiveness of Aspen’s regulations. That process and specific questions for Council are described below. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We want to 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. This will help create certainty in land development, prioritize maintaining our mountain views, and protect our small town community character and historical heritage. Philosophy: Preservation of historic structures and sites, the historic town layout, landscapes, and neighborhood ditches connect us to the people, patterns and events that are the fabric of our town. In preserving our history, we ensure our culture and legacy is imparted to future generations. P49 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 2 of 9 Policy: Development should “…reflect our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights…” (Growth Management Policy V.3) At the August 29 work session, Council had several questions related to the Commercial Design Guidelines material. Staff has provided additional information and responses to these questions below. Zoning vs. Design Guidelines: Council requested additional information on the difference between Commercial Character Areas and Zone Districts. These two systems are currently in place, and work in concert with one another to ensure development meets design objectives and requirements as well as dimensional and use requirements. As part of the updates to the Commercial Design Standards, some minor changes to Character Area boundaries are proposed. No changes to Zone District boundaries are proposed. Both zoning and design guidelines serve distinct purposes: Zoning: regulates the overall uses and dimensions of development, including setbacks, height, floor area, and unit sizes. It establishes the maximum size a building can be and the general location it can be placed on a property. It creates the “box”. Design guidelines: provide detailed requirements for the character of building, landscape, site layout, materials, etc. They work to preserve character and history of existing and new development and foster consistency and cohesiveness between neighboring developments. They shape the “box”. As a general rule, all properties in the same zone district have the same basic allowed development rights in terms of height and floor area. However, their context may necessitate different treatment in terms of material, roof forms, window pattern, etc. Design contexts do not necessarily follow the strict boundaries of the zone districts, creating the need for a more fine grained approach in the Commercial Design Guidelines. This is where the “Character Areas” come into play. The purpose of the Character Area map is to reflect and encourage similar context and patterns of development. In some areas this aligns with zoning (such as the Commercial Core) but in several areas it does not. This is largely due to the unpredictability of the zoning for an individual property and the scattered nature of zone districts throughout town. There are several examples in town where a property’s zoning is sometimes isolated and does not reflect the pattern of development that surrounds it. For instance, there are four areas of Mixed Use zoning surrounding the core – one to the east, one to the west, one on Mill Street, and one along Main Street. The allowed dimensions are the same in these areas, but their contexts in terms of design (roof forms, public amenity, etc.) are different, necessitating different design requirements. Staff will provide a brief presentation at the work session showing examples of these properties. Staff strongly recommends continued use of Character Areas to identify areas of similar development and geographical context. Public Amenity: Council was interested in understanding how the cash-in-lieu that is collected for public amenity is currently used. The funds are collected with the building permit and transferred to an account where they are held until needed for a public improvement project. Recent projects that used these funds include the Gondola Plaza renovation, pedestrian crossings on Main Street and the Mill Street Complete Streets improvements. Public Amenity funds were collected from 625 E. Main Street, 308 E. Hopkins, 508 E. Cooper and the Limelight totaling $848,382 and were used to fund these P50 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 3 of 9 projects. The cash-in-lieu option provides the City the ability to fund improvement projects with a public or pedestrian benefit. Staff and the consultant teams believe that it is important to provide an alternative to on-site Pedestrian Amenity, particularly when the property is very small or constrained, or when there are several additional Pedestrian Amenity sites nearby. Allowing for cash-in-lieu of Public Amenity also provides properties the opportunity to explore design options that may have significant public and architectural benefit that may not otherwise be possible if Public Amenity were required on site. Additional requirements could be added to the cash-in-lieu option requiring the funds be used in a specific geographic area or for a specific project type – for instance, on the pedestrian malls, within a certain block radius, or for sidewalk or streetscape improvements. There were several suggestions from the public outreach conducted that arcades in the right-of-way could be considered as pedestrian amenity, as they provide useful benefits to the community such as protection from the weather, protection from vehicles, and reducing the perceived scale of a building. Examples of existing arcades in town include the Woods building, Bidwell (Kemo Sabe) and Aspen Square. Arcades have not recently been supported because of the location in the right-of-way, but could potentially be revisited as an option if Council is interested. If so, staff will start to explore potential issues such as location limitations, drainage, maintenance, etc. Call-up: Both Council and the review boards have expressed some dissatisfaction with the current call- up procedure. Under the current call-up process, either P&Z or HPC approves a conceptual design. City Council has the opportunity to either call-up the project for additional review, or to accept the board’s decision. If a project is called up, Council may either accept the board’s decision after review, or remand back to the board with direction for further consideration. As part of the Commercial Design update, staff and the consultants have researched other ways to handle the process. There are a number of different options that Council could pursue: 1. Leave the call-up process as it is (described above), 2. Eliminate the call-up process (all design decisions would be completed by HPC and P&Z), or 3. Update the review procedures and decision making standards for call-up (process would remain largely the same but would be further clarified). Some examples of ways to further clarify include: a. Require a statement of reasons for a call-up and hearing (Council would need to provide clear purpose for call-up), b. Establish a time limit to make a decision (the project would be deemed approved if a decision is not made within the time limit), c. Restrict call-up to a certain set of thresholds (thresholds could be certain decisions, reviews, or project size, density, location, etc.), or d. Restrict call-up to issues that were not raised, and could not have been raised, before the underlying agency (serves as a back-up review only if something was never addressed by HPC or P&Z). While it is customary for a local legislative body (such as the City Council) to hear rezoning applications, their involvement in other types of zoning procedures is less common. It is understandable for Council to want to respond directly to complaints and concerns by their P51 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 4 of 9 constituents. It is worth discussing whether to continue Council involvement in design review, and if so, whether reforms are needed that would improve the approval process. HPC update: At a special meeting on September 7, HPC was asked to provide feedback and direction regarding proposed changes to the Design Guidelines and their application in the Historic Districts. HPC was supportive of the proposed changes to the Character Area map and layout of the document. HPC generally supported the creation of nook and cranny spaces, but with clear limitations on location and design. One member suggested designating practical areas where these types of spaces might be more successful. Corner lots were strongly suggested as inappropriate locations for below grade courtyards. HPC also supported retaining the cash-in-lieu option for pedestrian amenity, but creating more clarity around what the money is used for in the future. HPC supported retaining the distinctive Victorian character of the Core through massing, materiality, architectural features, but still recognize the importance of the mid-century modern architecture to Aspen’s identity. It was suggested that additional language that can help a designer “skin” a building would be very useful. HPC did not have too many concerns with the current call-up process, but was highly in favor of adding thresholds for call-up such as location or size. The board also suggested included providing more clear criteria on what the purpose is for a call-up. LINKAGES: There is a direct relationship between requirements for public amenity spaces and availability of spaces for nook and cranny commercial spaces. Requirements for on-site public amenity and allowances for a variety of public amenity creates the opportunity for additional nook and cranny commercial spaces, however it does not guarantee that they will occupy them. If these spaces are unoccupied, they can have a detrimental impact on the pedestrian experience and overall design. Additional use mix measures may need to be considered to further encourage occupancy of these spaces. Additionally, requirements for commercial design can have a strong impact on what is feasible within a view plane, and vice versa. Certain requirements or limitations on height and massing may conflict for properties located within both a view plane and a Character Area and should be carefully considered in tandem going forward. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council support continuing with and updating the Character Areas? 2. Should cash-in-lieu still be an option for pedestrian amenity requirement? Should the criteria for approving cash-in-lieu be stricter and better defined? 3. Is Council interested in allowing arcades in the right-of-way? 4. Does Council agree that changes are needed to the current call-up system? If so, which option(s) for call-up does Council support? AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We are committed to achieving sustainable land use practices that support a healthy year-round community and a thriving, vibrant visitor based economy. Additionally, we believe that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community. P52 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 5 of 9 Philosophy: The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the community reach desired goals. Growth within a community needs to be like that of an individual, with the need to keep various functions balanced. Policy: “Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly- related impacts.” (AACP Managing Growth Policy VII) Presently, the affordable housing mitigation rate for expansions or new construction is set by AACP policy at 60% of actual demand. Therefore, for every 10 units of demand for housing (i.e. full-time employees filling new jobs created by growth) the City of Aspen requires 6 units be built or mitigated for with fee-in- lieu payments or use of housing certificates. The units are made available for occupancy by the work force and the cash is made available for the construction of new affordable housing units. Council has inquired about the feasibility and process for raising that rate from its current 60%. The potential impact (in units or cash-in-lieu amounts) can be quantified to provide a framework for discussion of the impact of adjusting the mitigation rate. Assume that a theoretical commercial property proposes an expansion of net leasable area of 213 square feet, which generates an additional one full-time equivalent (FTE) of affordable housing demand, based on the requirement that 4.7 FTEs are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The new FTE created by the new commercial net leasable area is required to be mitigated at the Category 4 rate, which is equivalent to 400 square feet of net livable area (if the project mitigated its affordable housing on-site) or $223,072 worth of fee-in-lieu money. Therefore, the required amount of fee-in-lieu money at various mitigation rates would be as follows: • 60% = 240 square feet or $133,843 (current rate) • 80% = 320 square feet or $178,458 • 100% = 400 square feet or $223,072 Under this hypothetical scenario, an increase from 60& to 100% in the mitigation rate would yield a $89,229 increase in the fee required to cover the FTE generated, which translates to $419 per square foot of additional affordable housing mitigation cost for the 213 square foot addition. LINKAGES: There is a direct relationship between exactions assessed on new development and the availability of affordable commercial spaces, which should be considered holistically when considering adjustments to the affordable housing mitigation rate. The additional affordable housing revenue generated from an increase in mitigation rate would be used to finance the development of units to meet housing demand. However, the additional project development cost to cover the increased affordable housing mitigation rate could raise the rents for space in that building. As with other aspects of the AACP-LUC coordination process, there are important connections between affordable housing mitigation rates and Council’s other goals as they relate to commercial development. A balance is required to ensure that policy goals do not work at cross purposes. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 5. Is further assessment of the affordable housing mitigation rate a priority project under the moratorium? P53 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 6 of 9 6. Does Council wish to pursue further analysis of the relationship between its use mix and affordable housing objectives? VIEW PLANES: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: The density, size and scale of new all development and redevelopment should maintain and, if possible, enhance the views of the natural environment. Preserving the natural environment, scenic views and biodiversity are important to our attractiveness as a community and a resort. Philosophy: Scenic views of the natural environment, easy access to public lands and a range of recreational opportunities are among our greatest assets and the reasons many people choose to visitor make the Aspen Area their home. Policy: Zoning and land use processes should result in commercial and lodging development that is “compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood” and that “reflects our architectural heritage.” We should “Create certainty in zoning and the land use process.” (AACP Managing Growth Policies IV.4, V.3, and VIII.2) There are a number of communities around the Country that regulate View Planes. The approach taken in each community varies depending on social and spatial factors, such as community conservation values and the proximity of the conserved view shed to areas subject to new development. In general, the regulations limit the height and design of development located within set locations (similar to Aspen’s regulations), and the regulations typically require additional review and permitting for new development within those areas. The differences from one community’s regulations to another are in the details, such as the parameters for establishing a View Plane (i.e. from a public space, as in Denver and Seattle, or to a surrounding landscape, as in Napa County, Calif. and Teton County, Wyo.), and the means of enforcement (i.e. permitting, heightened design review or prescriptive design standards). Some of those differences in approach are described in Table 1 on the following page. P54 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 7 of 9 TABLE 1: Overview of View Plane Preservation Regulations in U.S. Cities and Counties. Jurisdiction Purpose Methodology Review & Permitting Denver, Colo. Protect views of the Front Range from public parks and open space Height restrictions for properties west of established points within delineated view planes; Maximum height relative to elevation of fixed view plane; assessed at time of normal development review; Honolulu, H.I. Preserve views of Diamond Head from the impact of building height throughout the City Restrict over-all building height and require stepped and sloped roofs on buildings with the Special District Requires Special Districts Development Permit; additional design review Seattle, Wash. Protect views of the Cascade Range, Puget Sound and other points of interest from public parks and open space Case-by-case analysis of "prominence, public accessibility and contribution" to City landscape Staff and Planning Commission review prior to normal development review Vancouver, B.C. Preserve views while allowing for vertical community growth Limit height and mass within defined view cooridors extending from a locus to the protected resource; Height maximum relative to locus elevation; TDR program for properties effected by regulations Special review required to assess impact of view plane on proposed development; additional review required to establish site-specific maximum height Napa County, Calif. Preserve views of surrounding hillsides and topography from points throughout the county Height limits on development on slopes>15% or on ridgelines; height limits on buildings visible from specified points Viewshed Permit requires special review based on specifed design guidelines Teton County, Wyo. Preserve scenic resources visible from roadways a public spaces throughout the county Special commercial and residential design guidelines, heightened review criteria (visual resource analysis) and development standards Scenic Resource Overlay Zone applied, additional staff and Planning Commission review Defining the purpose and rationale for Aspen’s View Plane regulations and clearly establishing the location and extent of the protected View Planes will inform the regulatory approach taken to enforce those View Plane standards. Some communities take a prescriptive approach to regulating development within view planes, where the maximum height of buildings is static or relative to the baseline elevation of the view plane locus. This is similar to the approach taken in Aspen’s current regulations, insofar as P55 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 8 of 9 Aspen’s view planes are established at a surveyed elevation and height is prescribed by the angle of the plane over a given property. Other communities provide a conditional process to review the specific impacts to protected resources from specific development proposals. While these review processes may increase risk for developers, they provide opportunity for new development to create design solutions to mitigate View Plane impacts and for subjective analysis of actual impacts to viewsheds. Conditional review processes also provide developers with an opportunity to discuss with officials the reduced redevelopment potential under View Plane regulations and negotiate development allowances to off-set those impacts. Both processes (prescriptive or conditional) require permitting and review processes that will have to be developed to support the regulatory approach favored by Council. Another major consideration in revising the City’s View Plane regulations is the extent of the View Planes relative to the protected resource. In some contexts, the protected resource is relatively close to the area of proposed development, as in Honolulu, Hawaii or Teton County, Wyo. Therefore, the View Planes often extend to the resource being protected. In other communities, the protected resource is far enough from the development area that the View Planes extend a specified distance from the established locus sufficient to provide views without stretching across the city. The later approach provides an unobstructed foreground to viewsheds while allowing development in the mid and background to occur without compromising the viewshed. The regulation of fore, mid and background preservation and site context are important considerations in setting the parameters for Aspen’s review of local View Plane regulations. Council is asked to provide additional direction regarding the goals and intent of the View Plane amendment process and outcomes. For instance, does Council believe the revised View Plane regulations should address foreground and background buildings differently? How should elements like foreground, background and the focus of the View Plane be defined? Once the over-all goals and direction have been established, staff and the consultants will commence with the analysis and depictions of the existing regulations relative to Council’s goals through the fall. Following this initial analysis, staff will check-in with Council about findings and draft proposals before bringing proposed View Plane amendments to Council prior to the expiration of the moratorium in early 2016. This project is on a later timeline than the other items under consideration in the AACP-LUC coordination process. LINKAGES: The impact of View Plane preservation regulations on commercial development in and around the commercial core is dramatic. The Popcorn Wagon, which falls within the Wheeler Opera Housing View Plane is an example of the effect that View Planes have on commercial design. Depending on where a View Plane falls on an existing lot, it can limit the height, massing or orientation of a building. Understanding the proposals in the revised Commercial Design Standards will inform how the View Plane code amendments ought to be written so the two work in concert. The relationship between View Planes and the CDS also have a linkage to commercial use mix and parking, insofar as the design of a building, the available and suitability of commercial spaces therein and the leasable square footage needed to make it financially viable all depend on the over-all design. Site improvements such as off-street parking and public amenity may further restrict the developable area of lots subject to View Plane regulations, reducing net-leasable area and increasing cost per square foot for commercial uses. These linkages will be taken into account in the View Plane amendment process. P56 II. 9.13.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 9 of 9 QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 7. What are Council’s goals for the View Plane revisions? Some questions to consider: a. Are they intended to protect a view from a specific location or to protect general views of the mountains? b. Is the view back to the point where a view plane originates also important to consider? c. Are view planes intended to protect the foreground (i.e. immediately across the street) as well as the background (i.e. development further away that might not be seen from the view plan origination point)? d. At what distance does development within a view plane no longer have a material impact on its character or quality (i.e. lifts on Aspen Mountain or existing houses on Red Mountain)? NEXT STEPS: Following the August 29th work session, staff and the various consultants have begun the process of refining Council’s policy direction into draft code language. The various project teams are coordinating with one another to ensure draft policies and regulations that work together toward Council’s goals. At the scheduled September 27th Council work session, draft off-street parking and use mix amendments will be discussed prior to the Policy Resolution meeting scheduled for October 10th. The View Planes analysis will be conducted through October and staff expects to return to Council with preliminary findings and additional discussion in November. The AACP-LUC coordination process remains on schedule for completion prior to the expiration of the moratorium. P57 II.