HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.011-98 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION AND THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION ADOPTING THE ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN AS
AN UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE 1993 ASPEN AREA
COMMUNITY PLAN
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION R.ESOLUTION NO. 98- Il
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
vz-9s- I I
1. Pursuant to Colorado State Statute, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commissions")
have the responsibility and the authority to adopt comprehensive plans for the City of
Aspen and the unincorporated portions of Pitkin County, respectively.
2. Colorado statutes state that Planning Commissions may adopt their master plans
in whole, or as the work progresses, in parts thereof, and may amend, extend or add to
their master plans.
3. The Aspen Area Community Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "AACP") was
jointly adopted by the City of Aspen and Pitkin Count3' in 1993 pursuant to Resolution
#93-1 (Aspen) and # PZ-93-2 (Pitkin County). The AACP identified a specific need for
affordable housing and identified potential development sites, but provided no criteria
upon which to rank potential affordable housing sites or areas in the context of overall
Community goals and policies.
a. The Citizen Housing Plan was drafted to establish affordable housing
development criteria to be used in determining the most appropriate location for
affordable housing in the context of broader Commtm/ty goals. The following public
meetings and public hearings were held by the Planning and Zoning Commissions in
order to solicit public comment on the adoption of the Housing Plan:
February 10, 1998 Joint Worksession
February 24, 1998 Joint Worksession
April 21, 1998 Public Hearing
June 2, 1998 Public Hearing
June 30, 1998 Public Heating
5. In general, the Housing Plan promotes transit oriented development, carrying
capacity analysis for potential housing sites, and compact development which minimizes
sprawl.
I Illlll Illll Illlll IIIIII Illll Illli IIIll Ill IIIll IIll Illl
4195'/8 eT/2e/1398 o2:I8p RF. SOLUT! DRYZ$ $ZL¥1'
~. of 22 I~ e.ee o e.ee N e.ee PXTKXN COUNTY CO
Aspen Resolution No.
Pitkin Resolution No. PZ-98-
Page 2
6. Upon adoption, the Housing Plan will apply to all ~roperties within the Aspen
Metro Area as identified on mp Exhibit "B," except those which currently have a vested
site specific development plan.
NOW THEREFO .RE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby
adopt the Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan(attached as Exhibit "A") as an amendment
to the housing element of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan. The Citizen Housing
Plan shall function as an Interim Plan to be used in conjunction with the Housing
Element ofthe 1993 AACP until such time as the Aspen Area Community Plan as a
whole is updated.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES on
the 17th day of March, 1998.
INTRODUCED. AND CO1VITNUED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a special
meeting on the 21st day of April, 1998.
FIRST READ AND CONTINIYED on the 2nd day of June. 1998.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT SECOND READING ON THE 30TH
DAY OF JUNE, 1998.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN _ '. -. -' ',': _-: ._ on the ~-- day
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
Marcella Larson, Chairperson
DATE "1,~
ATTEST:
Lance Clarke,
Community Development Deputy Director --
I Illlll IIIII Illlll Illlll !lie Illll Illll III IIIll
2 of 22 I1 8.88 D B,~8 N O,~O PI:TICIN COUNTY ¢0
2
Aspen Resolution No. 98- i'l
Pitkin Resolution No. PZ-98-.
Page 3
ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
Sara Garton.,C_h. airpersonD 3o
ATTEST:
C/Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cindy Houben ~Oohnun~tt
Pitldn County Community Developmem Director omey
APPROV_/EBI AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stan Clauson John ~. l,~drcester
City o£Aspen Community Developmem Director City Attorney
PLAN:INTERIMpARTAsPENI AREA ¢ITIZ I HOUSING I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIII IIII
419576 07/28/199~ 82: ~.SP RESOLUT! DI:IVZ$ S~LVZ ·
· 4 or'* 22 R 0.88 D e. 88 H 0.08 PZTKZN COUNTY CO
INTRODUCTION Planning and providing for citizen housing in the Aspen area is
necessary to create a balanced community representative of the
various types of people that live, work and retire in the area. This
interim plan is intended to serve as a framework and guide to local
officials, staff members and private prope~ owner/developers in the
identification, purchase and development of citizen housing sites.
To this end. part one of the interim plan establishes a 'set of Citizen
Housing Philosophies and Criteda to assist in the evaluation of
~otential citizen housing sites. Three PhilosOphies and Criteda have
been identified as the most important for the future acquisition and
development of citizen housing: (1) location within an identified metro
area; (2) proximity to available public mass transit; and (3) containable
development. The remaining Philosophies and Criteria are identified
by the letters A through K in no particular order of significance, but are
to be considered along with the three pdonty Phiiosophies and
Criteria.
Part two of the interim plan', which will be enacted at a later date, will
consider a vadety of potential citizen housing sites in light of the
Citizen Housing Philosophies and Criteria. The AACP set forth a goal
of creating and preserving a certain number of citizen housing units by
the year 2015. The progress with respect to that goal is presently
ascertainable, so a plan that identifies sites that will allow the
2roduction of those units by the year 2015 is appropriate now.
PURPOSE The purpose of the interim plan is to address citizen housing needs
and opportunities, particularly in the context of sound land use
planning and planned and available public transportation. This interim
plan will be used to evaluate citizen housing opportunities and site-
specific proposals while the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan
("DVCP"), the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") and the Woody
Creek Master Plan are being amended, updated and adopted.
iThe purpose of the intedm plan is to establish Philosophies and
Cdteda to evaluate potential citizen housing development sites and
actual development proposals. The intention is not to preclude the
development of citizen housing outside of the metro areas if it is
appropriate considering all of the Philosophies and Criteria.
AFFECTED AREAS The intedm plan addresses the Aspen metro area from a citizen
housing and transportation perspective only.
APPLICABILITY The interim plan is applicable to all site-specific applications that art
pending at the time of final adoption of the plan and all applications
filed thereafter. The interim plan.is intended as a complement to and a
tool to be used along with the other adopted plans. Consistency with
other applicable plans should be considered along with this interim
FINAL ADOI~ VERSION PAGE 1 OF '~ 8
INTERIM ASPEN AREA cmZEN HOUSING OVERVIEW
PLAN: PART I ~
-:XISTING ADOPTED 1984 White River National Forest Management Plan
PLANS 1985 Highway 82 Corridor Plan
1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan
1991 Woody Creek Master Plan
1993 Asl3en Area Community Plan
1996 Basalt 3 Mile Plan
OTHER PENDING Aspen Area Community Plan Update
PLANS Basalt Comprehensive Plan
Carbondale Master Plan
Down Valley Comprehensive Plan Update
Pitkin County Strategic Plan
Corridor investment Study
Snowmass Comprehensive Plan
White River National Forest Update
Woody Creek Master Plan Update
I IIIIII IIIII II!111 ilIHI IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIII IIII
4X957~ 8'J'/28//,g~8 82: XSP I~SOLUT~ DAV~S S~LV!
5 o~ ~'J ~ 8.~ D 8.88 N 8.88 PX~CXN COUNI~ CO
PAGE 2 OF 18
FINAL ADOPTED VERSION
INTERIM ASPEN AREA Crt/ZEN HOUSING
pLAN: PART I
DEFINITIONS ~'~
AFFORDABLE HouSING Affordable housing is a household paying ]ess than 18-28% of its
gross annual income for monthly housing costs. For owner occupied
housing costs, the percentage would include, by month, mortgage
payments, taxes, insurance and utilities; The purchase 'pdce of the
home wouid also not exceed 2.7 times the househotd's gross annual
income. For renter occupied housing costs, this percentage would
include monthly contract rent and utilities.
CARRYING CAPACITY Carrying capacity is a term borrowed from ecology that represents
the upper limit of population gro~vth that can be achieved in a
particular area when individuals are introduced into that area.
Carrying capacity is used in determining the potential of an area to
absorb development. Specifically, the term includes, but is not
limited to: (1) the level of land use, human activity, or development
for a specific area that can be accommodated permanently without
an irreversible change in the quality of air, water, land or plant and
animal habitats; (2) the upper limits of development beyond which
the quaiity of human life, health, welfare, safety, or community
character within an area will be impaired; (3) the maximum level of
~ ~ development allowable under current zoning considering the canying
~'~>' capacity of the land from a physical and character based ~--'
· ~-~ --, ~erspective.
.. '" := CHARACTER haracter means the distinct physical characteristics of a structure or
i~__, area that set it apart from its surroundings and contribute to its
individuality. Specifically with respect to structures, character means
.....a= the density, height, coverage, setback, massing, fenestration,
=maa. ~ materials and scale of materials. With respect to an area, character
~' means the nature of the area in terms of intensity of the use using
i~~ the terms rural, suburban or urban.
~ ~ CITIZEN HOUSING Citizen housing is any housing that is affordable housing or housing
that is reasonablY attainable for persons employed, or formedy
~;~_-. employed retirees, in Pitkin County. Citizen housing includes deed
~ '" restricted units as Well as free market units, so long as such units are
""""~. ~ affordable housing.
,=. ~e COMPATIBLE Compatible means capable of existing together without conflict or ill
effects. Specifically with respect to structures, compatible means
;consistent with, harmonious with, similar to and/or enhances the
mixture of complimentary architectural styles, either of an individual
structure of the character of the surrounding structures.
CONTAINABLE Containable development means development that will not
DEVELOPMENT fundamentally change or be incompatible with the character of a
neighborhood or area. Containable development is also development
Idl'tStlU ASPEN AREA Cmzla~l HOUSING DEFINITIONS
PLAa: PART I
that does not promote sprawl and which can be confined (or held)
within its area.
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE A fundamental change in cnaracter means that the citizen housing
tN CHARACTER development proposed is likely to result Jrl a c~ange in the character
of an area so fundamental that its classification as rural, suDurban or
urban will change. For example, a citizen housing project that
transforms an area from rural to suburban rurai to urban or
suburban to urban classification, would result in a fundamental
.change in character of the area.
INFRASTRUCTUR! Infrastructure means public facilities and urban services, such as
sewage-disposal systems, wa~er-supply systems, other utility
systems anc~ roads.
~ METRO AREA The metro area is defined for each .udsdiction as follows:
~ · The Aspen metro area is: the eastern property boundary of the
= Preserve Subdivision on Independence Pass, northwest to Brush
~ Creek Road where it intersects with Highway 82. The Aspen
metro area covers the valley floor between those two points and
~ is inclusive of the West Buttermilk Subdivision, Maroon Creek
Ranch Subdivision and the private portion of Smuggter Mountain,
= to the Red Mountain ddge line down to Slaughterhouse Bridge.
~ where the boundary coincides with Roadng Fork River until it
.~.,_~.~,., intersects with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Wally
Mills proverb/ Tines and heads northwest until it intersects with
~ ,~ Brush Creek Road.
~= · The Basalt metro area is: the "urban growth boundary" delineated
~,m,~,.~ in the 1996 Basalt Three Mile Plan, adopted by Basalt, or any
~, Master Plan or siting criteria adopted by the Town of Basalt that
supercedes or supplements this plan.
· The Snowiness metro area is: the annexation boundary that will
be established as part of the pending Snowiness Master Plan.
PUBLIC FAClU'nES AND Public facilities and urban services are amenities provided typically
URBAN SERVICES on]y tO urban development, including but not limited to: civic facilities,
publicly-owned community parks, artedal and collector road facilities,
police protection, emergency services, health services, recreation
facilities and services, schools; and publicly and privately-owned
potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater management,
and mass transit facilities that provide services to the public.
RURAL Rural means country-like or agricultural Rural areas are generally
characterized by lower density residential development and
agricultural uses.
SPRAWL Sprawl is the continuous, haphazard, uncoordinated development
outside of an urban area that does not provide or properly plan for
INTERIM ASPEN AREA CrrEEN HOUSING [~ :~FINI~ONS
PLAN: PART I
concentration of more intense uses'and the efficient and economical -~-~
provision of public facilities and urban services. Sprawl development
tends to promote additional development, especially in connection
with the provision of public facilities and urban services.
SUBURBAN Suburban means a predominantly Iow-density residential area
located immediately outside of and physically and socio-
economically associated with an urban area, municipality or a city.
URBAN Urban means of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a
municipality or city. Urban areas are generally characterized by
moderate and higher density residential development, commercial
development and industrial development.
URBAN LAND Urban land means land inside and adjacent to municipalities or cities
that is served by public facilities and urban services and is
intensively developed.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIII IIII
41.9576 07/28/1.998 82:1.8P RESOLUTZ DRVZ$ SZLV!
8 =¢ 22 R 8.88 D 8.95 N 8.88 P]~TKZN COUNTY CO
FINAL. ADOPTED VERSION PAGE 5 OF 18
INTERIM ASPEN AREA Cra'ZEN HOUSING EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS
P~N: PART~ AND OPPORTUNITIES
;ITIZEN HOUSING
Existing Plans
AACP The AACP established an upper limit to the desired population of the
Aspen Metro Area of 30.000 people ~3y the year 2015. (The 30,000
person CaD inctuded full-time residents, second home owners and
tourists at peak season around Christmas-time.)
The AACP also established the community goat of housing 60% of
the working residents upvalley of Aspen Village by the year 2015.
The AACP further stated that the majority of future residential and
commercial growth should be community odented with the residential
sector being ma(:e up of a mixture of aconomic levels. In order to
reach the 60% goal. the AAGP recommenoed four primary actions:
· The AACP identified a housing shortfall that called for the
creation of approximately 450 new deed restricted employee
housing units within the Aspen Metro Area and 200 units
outside of the metro area upvalley of Aspen Village;
· The AACP called for 750 units of free market housing currently
~'"'-. occupied by working residents to be preserved within the Aspen
Metro Area:
· The AACP identified the need for 200 occupied ADUs in the
City of Aspen: and
· The AACP ~roscfibed mitigation for commercial, lodge and
residential growth to keep in step with the 60% goal.
Aspen and Pltkin County are currently updating the AACP.
Basalt Three The two main purposes of the Basalt Three Mile Plan were: (1) to
Mile Plan provide guidance in the Town's consideration of future growth and
development and establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries; and
(2) to help coordinate the actions of Pltkin, Eagle and Garfield
Counties regarding growth and development in the three-mile area.
The four underlying concepts used in creating the plan included:
creation and conservation of sense of community; social, economic
and environmental sustainability; livability of the community and
quality of life for residents; and quality in man made and natural
environments. The Plan recommends policies that establish that
55% of the housing created will be attainable by a median income
family spending no more than 35% of their income for housing.
Basalt is currently updating its Master Plan.
I IIiill IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II/11111 IIII IIII
41.~78 ~'/'/28/1998 02:18P RESOLUT! DRVZS SZLV!
g o,F 22 R 0.08 D e.ee N 8.88 PXTKXH COUNTY CO
PAGEGOF18
INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmzEN HOUSING EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS
PLAN: PARTI AND OPPORTUNITIES
DVCP The DVCP did not formally address the provision of citizen housing.
Rather. the DVCP's pdmary philosophy was land preservation
oriented and one of its main goals was "[t]o identify the highest
priority land for preservation and suggest preservation strategies
while recommending the ,most suitable locations for development."
The "employee housing" section of the DVCP states only Pitkin
County's general policy of encouraging such housing closer to
Aspen. The DVCP's exolanation for that policy is the transportation
,,,~° problem created 0y having employees commute to work in Aspen
~ from down valley. The DVCP also suggested that Pi+kin County
___ revisit citizen housing preferences because some down valley sites
-,- ,~ might provide more of a family lifestyle than is provided by the citizen
~: z housing in Aspen. The DVCP's cluster-residential designation also
~ might provide some opportunities for citizen housing.
m e Pitkin County is currently updating the DVCP.
~z~ Creek The Creek Master Plan did address the of
Woody
Woody
provision
"-= -. ~ Master Plan citizen housing, except to identify Woody Creek's preferred pattern of
mm~'~ growth: disperse(]. Iow-density housing. The Plan states as its
~m housing policy that: "Affordable housing in Woody Creek should be
.. . mixed in with existing units (infill and dispersal by the pdvate sector,
instead of government housing projects)."
The 1991 Woody Creek Master Plan adopted by the Pitkin County
...a~, G Planning & Zoning Commission deteted the DVCP's cluster
....._~,.,'~ residential designation on Pitkin iron.
Woody Creek is in the process of finalizing its Master Plan which will
then be forwarded to the Pi+kin County Planning and Zoning
Commission for its consideration.
Existing Conditions
GENERAL There is a general pemeption that the population composition of the
area is changing. It is also perceived that along with this
composition shift that there has been an increase in the level of
services demanded. The demand for a higher level of service is not
necessarily linked with any physical growth in the commercial or
residential sectors other than the addition of employees.
Consequently, some of the employees generated in connection with
the demand for a higher level of service may be unmitigated. ~-.
The data is not complete regarding the existing housing and
employee conditions.. For example, information is available
regarding the number of jobs in Pi+kin County as a whole, but a
breakdown for each of the employment centers (i.e., Aspen, Basalt
and Snowmass) has not been compiled. Various groups are
FINAl. ADOP¥~D VERSION PAGE 7 OF 18
~TERIM'ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS
PLAN: PARTI AND OPPORTUNITIES
currently conducting studies that may provide the data and statistical
information that is currently lacking. This interim plan will likely need
to be revisitect once complete information regarding existing
conditions is available.
PROGRESS The existing conditions backed by sufficient data as of June 1998 are
as follows:
· The 1996 pop.ulation of Pitkin County was approximately 14,119
persons.
· In 1996. 14.@29 wage-paying jobs in Pitkin County were
reported. In 1995. approximately 4.000 propnetor jobs in Pitkin
County were reported.
· Since 1990 through 1996. the job growth rate in Pitkin County
has been approximately 17.1%.
· Much of the job growth rate is believed to be unrelated to actual
physical growth in the commemial or residential sectors.
· Since 1993, the Aspen Metro Area (includes some County
projects) has seen the production of 152 new units. Additionally,
40 units have been approved, but not built, and 86 potential
units are in the review process. No new deed restricted
employee units have been created in the non-metro area.
,/ Total New Unit Shortfall (considering only built units):
498 units, 298 Metro and 200 Non-Metro.
~/ Total New Unit Shortfall (counting all units approved
and projects still in the review process): 372 units,
172 Metro and 200 Non. Metro.
· Outside the metro area, 150 units have been preserved at
Aspen Village and another 50 units may be preserved at the
Woody Creek Trailer Park. If the 100 units at Lazy Glen are
also considered, a total of 300 units have been preserved in the
non-metro area. The City of Aspen has or will preserve 6 units.
v' Total Preservation Unit Shortfall (including Lazy Glen):
~.~.~. units.
50 ADUs have been constructed in the City and 50 EDUs more
have been created in the County for a total of 100 ADUs/EDUs.
Note that the actual available stock of this type of housing may
be slightly higher because County caretaker units are not
included in these numbers. A problem in the occupancy rates in
the City (somewhere below 30%) has been identified. The units
in the County are occupied in excess of 80% of the time.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III IIII
45g~T8 87/2~/1998 ~2:18P RESOLUT! DAVZS SZLV!
1.1 o~ 22 R 0.~ D 0.00 N 0.00 P'~TKZN COUNTY CO
FINAL ADOPT'ED VERSION PAGE 8 OF t8
IN,,~=.~,M ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING EXISTING PLANS, COND!TIONS
Pl..AN: PART! AND OPPORTUNITIE~
· The bNo most significant projects identified by the Housing
Office in terms of judging whether mitigation has been
successful are the Moore and Highlands projects. The Moore
PUD fell short of the 60% goal by 13 units. If the dormitory units
of the Highlands PUD are considered real. employee housing,
then Highlands probably did meet the 60°/6 goal. It should atso
be noted, however, that while the Highlands project includes a
large number of luxury free-market homes, 20 of those homes
were approved contingent upon the use of TDRs which will
result in the preservation of 20 former potential development
sites in the backcountry.
,/ Total Mitigation Shortfall: 13 Units.
· While the Moore and Highlands projects may have fallen short
of the 60% mitigation goal, more significant is the development
and re-development that is occurrfng in Aspen and Pitkin
County with no employee mitigation at all. For exampte, older
homes that are torn down and replaced with newer, often larger,
homes with no mitigation required.
FINAt. ADO~'Er.~ VERSION PAGE 9 OF 18
I.,~UM,AS;~ A;~ Cn'r~. HOUS;N~' EXISTING PLANS. CONDITIONS
PLAN: PARTI AND OPPORTUNITIES
TRANSPORTATION The following are the existing conditions and opportunities for mass
transit. This interim plan addresses only the orovision of citizen
housing within the context of available and planned mass transit, but
it does recognize that the creation of citizen housing may implicate
other infrastructure issues (e.g., schools, water, emergency rescue).
These other potential infrastructure issues, along with transportation.
are addressed more thoroughly by the vadous Aspen. Basalt. Pitkin
County and Snowmass regulations and plans, and are also
considered as one of the Philosophies and Criteria in locating citizen
housing sites. (See the Policies section, infra.)
Existing Plans 1996 Roadng Fork Transit Development Plan Entrance to Aspen EIS
1997 Roadng Fork Transit Agency Recommendation for System
ImprovemenTs
Existing Conditions Currently the only public transit that exists in Pitkin County is ~us
service provided by RFTA. The 1996 RFTA Development Plan and
the 1997 RFTA Recommendation for System Improvements
descdbe the basic available and planned service routes currently
provided by RFTA.
Under consideration ts a valley-wide train system that would
ultimately provide service from Glenwood into the City of Aspen.
Opportunities RFTA's [~lan for additionai servme is outlined in the 1997 RFTA
Recommendation for System Improvements.
The plans for a valley-wide train have identified a number of possible
station stops all of which are still being reviewed. In connection with
the Entrance to Aspen, the voters will be asked to consider some
transit issues that may affect the train.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII !1111 IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III IIII
419~78 07/2e/~-~J8 82.18P RESOLUTX DI:IVXS SXLVX
13 o¢ 22 R 8.88 D 0.00 N 8.88 PXTKXN ~U~ CO PAGElOOF18
INTERIM ASPE~ AREA C~ HOUSING G~,q~.~ ~ND POLICIES
PLAN-' PART I
GOALS To create and ensure the provision 'of a sufficient supply and vadety of~
a~tractive, dispersed, sound, safe, and affordable living units that are~.
appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods for the working (or retired)
citizens of the Aspen area.
'Fo create a livable community that is balanced from a socioeconomic
and resident/non-resident perspective.
To identify the actual present citizen housing sho~all and formulate a
~ian to encourage the development of the needed housing in
appropriate locations.
To provide a framework to identify the locations appropriate for citizen
housing through the application of Citizen Housing Philosophies and
Criteria.
'Fo identify a mechanism and set of policies to reduce the number of
unmitigated employees generated in the Aspen area.
'Fo encourage orderly growth and development in appropriate areas of
Aspen while protecting the character of the vadous areas of the
unincorporated Pitkin County, making efficient use of public services,
de-emphasizing automobile transit, and preventing deveiopment~-~.
sprawl.
To examine the appropriateness and desirability of the AACP's goal of
providing citizen housing for 60% of the Pitkin County workforce
upvailey of Aspen Village by the year ~.015.
To update the data and methodology behind the 60% goal of the
AACP (or provide updated data anc~ appropriate methodology for
whatever new goal may be established).
To ensure that housing issues are considered on a regional basis
including consistency with intergovernmental agreements and
commitments relating to joint planning issues.
To consider the cross-jurisdictional impacts of the location of citizen
housing, particularly with respect to the provision of public facilities and
urban services.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII !1111 IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III IIII
418578 07/28/~,888 82.18P RESOLUT! DflVX8 81LVZ
~,4 of' 22 R 8.08 D 0.08 N 8.08 P~TK:~N COUNTY CO -~
~NAt. ADOI~ VE~SlOI¢ PAGE 11 OF 18
INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING GOAL5 AND POLICIES
PLAN: PART I
· ·
~OLICIES
Citizen Housing The following Philosophies and Criteria shall be used to evaluate all
Location citizen housing sites and site-specific development plans. Each of
Philosophies these Phiiosophie.s and Criteria shall be considered in the broader
And Criteria contexts of the AACP, the Basalt 3 Mile Plan and the DVCP. Three
priorities have been established for the location of citizen housing sites
and they are identified as PhiloSoPhy/Criteria 1-3. The remaining
Philosophies and Criteria are identified by the letters A through K and
Should be considered as well, but they are identified with no particular.
order of significance.
PRIORITY NO. 1:
METRO ARE~ LOCATION
eHn. osoPHY/Cm'r~a~ z Philosophy ~: Development of citizen housing is preferred within the
metro areas and employment centers of Aspen, Basalt and
Snowmass. Working (or retired) Aspen citizens should have an
opportunity to live close to where they work (or Worked). Further,
citizen housing located outside of metro areas may result in an
undesirable pattern of growth that negatively impacts the Aspen area
and may further compound the perception that locals do not live in our
metro areas anymore~ Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass are all significant
employment centers and, with the exception of sch0ois which are
over-capacity, these urban cores have the public facilities and urban
services necessarY to serve any additional development.
Criteria l: is the site or proposed development within an existing
metro area and employment center (Aspen, Basalt or Snowmass)? If
the site is outside of a metro area, consider whether there is
documentation or other credible evidence to support a present, urgent
need for citizen housing that can not realistically be fulfilled in the
metro areas? In considering whether there is a present, Urgent need,
the goal of the AArP to house 60% of the workforce upvalley of Aspen
Village shall be considered as shall the probability that such goal can
be accomplished by the year 2015.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII I!1 IIIIII III Ill
419576 87/2811998 ~2:18P RESOLUT! O~VI$ S{LV!
1.5 of ~ R 8,88 D 8.88 N 8.88 PXTKXN COUNTY O0
FINAL. ADOPTED VENSION PAGE 12 oF 18
INTERIM ASPEN AREA CitiZEN HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
PI.~N: PART I
PRIORITY NO. 2: ]
PROXIMITY TO AVAILABLE
PUBLIC MASS TRANSIT
PHILOSOPHYICRITERIA2 Philosophy 2: Citizen housing, particularly higher density citizen
housing, should Pe located adjacent to available public mass transit.
Because the issue of whether, when anti where a train will be built is
unresolved, it would be premature to premise the approval of any site-
specific development plans solely on the ultimate construction of the
train (i.e.. other interim public mass transportation should be
available).
Cr~terfa 2: Is the site or Dro;~osed development adjacent to available
public mass transit? if such transit is not currently available and is still
proposed, then consider:
1. is the provisio~ of =ublic mass transit realistic and
desirable?
2. Who will pay the cost to make the transit available?
3. When will the transit I~e available?
4. What impact will the provision of public transit in this location
have on:
a. The character of the surrounding neighborhood?
b. 'The safety of the public?
c. The public treasury?
d. The level of service and capacity of roads servicing
the location (before and after develooment}?
e. The environment?
f. The visual exoedence from the public viewptanes and
neighboring properties?
5. If there are significant negative impacts found in subsection
(4) above, consider whether a non-development or minimal
development is preferable to one that would require mass
transit. Also, consider whether the negative impacts are
outweighed by the advancement of citizen housing goals.
?RIOR/T¥ 1~O. 3:
CONTAIi';ABLE
t~m,oso~,m~/¢m-~-=~u~3 Philosophy 3: Citizen housing should only be permitted where such
development is containable and will not promote additional
development or sprawl.
C~fterfa 3: Is the site or proposed development plan containable
the sense that it will not tend to promote sprawl and that the
development can be confined (or held) within its area?
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII Illlll IIIII IIIII Illll III Ilml III
419578 87/28/1998 02:18P RESOLLIT! DRVIS SlLV!
FtNALAOOPTEDVER$10.16 Of' 22 R 8.08 D 0.00 H 0.00 PZTKZN COUNTY C0
iNTERIM,ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
PLAN: PART' I
CONSIDERATIONS
~OSO~rYlC~JT~A Philosophy A: The availability of public facilities and urban services
is critical To the provision of desirable citizen housing, however the
provision of those services may not be desirable 'n some instances.
Where public facilities and urban services are not fully available
concurrent with proposed citizen housing, issues regarding the fiscal
impact of providing such services arise. Further, even where the
developer proposes to pay the entire cost for the provision of public
facilities and urban services, where SUCh facilities and services are
proposed outside of the metro areas significant land use issues may
be implicated. For example, the provision of public facilities and urban
services outside of metro areas may fundamentally change the
character of the area and contribute to undesirable sprawl
development which has social financial and environmental
consequences that should be avoided.
Criteria A: Ara all necessary public facilities and urban services
available concurrently with the development of the site or phasing of
the proposed development? Ifthera is not full public facility and urban
service concurrency at the time of the consideration of the site or
proposed development, or the developer proposes to provide such
services in a non-meTro area. then consider:
1. ls the provision of public facilities and urban facilities realistic
in this location?
2, [s the provision of public facilities and uroan services
desirable for the proposed location?
3. W'fll the introduction of public facilities and urban services
result in a dramatic change to the community character of
the area and/or a fundamental change in the type of
historical use of the property? If the proposed location is
rural in character, consider whether public facilities and
urban services are appropriate in that particular rural araa.
4. Who will pay the cost to make these services and facilities
available?
5. How would the provision of public facilities and urban
services in this particular location impact:.
a. The character of the surrounding neighborhood?
b. The safety of the public?
c. The public treasury?
/.~ d. The level of service and capacity of roads servicing
the location (before and after development)?
e. The environment?.
f, The visual experience from the public viewplanes and
neighboring properties?
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII mill IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III IIII
4~,957~ 07/28/1998 02:18P RESOLUT! DRVI$ SZLV!
FII, IAI. AOo~-,~JVEI~SlON 7,7 0¢ 22 R e.08 D 8.80
Ih'[~ua ASP~ ARF..A CmzF..N HOUS~,G GOALS ,AND PO~CIE~S
PLAN'. PART I
6. Would the provision of pQblic facilities and urban services
this particular location encourage a sprawl development
pattern?
7, If phasing, along with increases in services and facilities is
proposed, will these services and facilities reatly be available
concurrently with the completion of each phase of the
development (i.e., when the occupants really need it)?
~ Pm].osoPmz/c~-r[~u, ]~ i Philosophy B: While the provision of citizen housing is i.mportant, it is
equally important that we preserve the character of our community and
natural environment. Citizen houSing should not be developed where
such development will result in fundamental incompatibilities or
fundamental changes in the character of any neighborhood or area.
Particularly where rural lands located outside of the me~.ro areas are
implicated, careful consideration should be given to the issue of
whether citizen housing development will likely transform the character
of the area from rural to suburban or rural to urban,
Criteria B: Will the develoPment of the site with citizen housing be
compatible with the neighborhood or area in which it is proposed?
What will the effect of the development of citizen housing be on the
character of the neighborhood or area? Will such development likely
.~.~o= result in a fundamental change in the character of the neighborhood or----.
,.u area? (For example, will the development of citizen housing in the
'--"":= area transform the character of the area from rural to suburban or
"2 urban?)
~i~ t~L0soPm~/C~.z~C Philosophy C: Citizen housing developments should emphasize non-
.~. automotive transportation through site design that internally and
"-:= externally promotes alternative transportation modes (i.e., mass
~=~ ~ transit, walking, biking, etc.).
----~ Criteria C: Is the site or proposed development plan internally and
~.-~..~. externally oriented to promote alternative, non-automotive transport?.
="=""" ~ Specifically:
--'-,.~ 1. Can the proposed site accommodate an internal pedestrian-,
.,...,. ~ odented design? Or, if a specific deVelopment is proposed,
"="~ ~ is the site design pedestrian-oriented? Does the internal site
design promote alternative, non-automotive transport?.
2. Is the site or proposed development plan externally odented
to promote alternative, non-automotive transport?. Is it
reasonably accessible to existing and/or proposed
recreation/commuter trails, sidewalks and mass transit?.
t, uu.oso~,a.z/cm'r~]ux]) Philosophy D: Citizen housing should be visually compatible with its
surrounding environments, both built and unbuilt. The issue of visual
compatibility is particularly important from adjacent public and pdvate
viewplanes and along identified scenic corhdors.
FINAL ADOPTED VERSION PAGE 1 ~ OF 18
INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
PLAN: PART I
Criteria D: Is the site or proposed development plan visually
compatible with its surrounding environment (built and unbuilt) as seen
from the public and aojacent private viewplanes?
.~osoPm~/cm-r~.~. Philosophy E: The under*development of certain citizen housing
sites is undesirable. Considering the carrying capacity of the land,
citizen housing sites should attempt to optimize the density of the site
to produce the greatest number and variety of needed citizen housing
types.
Criteria E: Does the site or prooosed development plan optimize the
site's ~otentiai density, considering the maximum density appropriate
from a carrying capacity perspective {including transportation).
Pm~oso~,m~/c~,-rz~ ~' Philosophy F: While achieving the optimal number of citizen housing
units considering the carrying capacity of a given site ~s important, it is
also vital that the proposed density and housing types be the type of
units identified by the City of Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office in
their affordable housing guidelines and definitions and any applicable
local housing policies. (For example. 100 dormitory or 100 resident-
occupied units may not be as desirable as a mixture of category
types.)
Criteria F: Do the proposed density and housing types proposed
significantly contribute to the overall AspentPitkin County and regional
housing goals and needs as identified by the City of Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Office. and/or any subsequently created regional
housing authority, and/or applicable local housing policies?
I IIIIII IIIII I!1111 IIIIII II!11 IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III I!11
4Ig576 07/28/lg98 e2:18P RESOLUT! DI:IV~$
/.g of 22 I! 0.08 D B.BB N 0.88 PZTKZN COUNTY CO
I~u As;~ A;~ C~¢z~ Hous~,; GOAL~ AND POI. JCIES.
P~N: PA~ ~
~/c~G Philosophy G: ~e oppo~ni~ for a high quali~ of I~e in any citizen
housing development is a cri~cal component in a~ng employes
(and retirees) to live in such housing. ~nemhip housing repmsen~ a
more desired ~pe of housing and chance for a higher quali~ of life for
both the residents and their neighbom. ~e placement of citizen
housing within a neighborhood and also within a larger proje~ should
preferably be dispemed among frae manet units and other housing
~pes. Infill develoPment is highly desi~.
CnYeda G: Does the site or the proposed development plan provide
an oppoAuni~ for a high quali~ of life - both for those living in the
housing, as well as their neighbom? ~e ~pe of housing in te~s of
ownership versus rental units shall be considered in te~s of the
quati~ of life as shall the mix of housing (in te~s of catego~ ~pe and
integration/dispersal among ~ee manet units or other housing ~pes).
~OSOP~/C~H Philosophy H: Citizen housing should be of good quati~ design and
const~ction, stm~umlly sound and energy efficient. Quali~ design
and construction am impo~ant in te~s of pmse~ing ~e chara~er of
· e Aspen ama and also in terms of providing a lasting, high quali~ of
lee for the residents of citizen housing.
Cdteda H: Does the site present an oppo~uni~ for good qual~
design and constm~ion? Where a specific development plan is being
~nsidered, am good quaii~ design and const~ion propose? What
will the operating costs of the unit be (e.g., heating bills, etc.)?
Consider the likely economic ~ife of the units pmpos~ and weigh it
against the public subsidy for those units.
e~LmO~/C~] Philosophy I: ~e design of c~izen housing should utilize and
~nse~e the n~uml scenic features of the site. Site design should
~nse~e valuable and s~nic naomi features, and social
oppo~nities, based on site chara~ed~i~, should be pmmot~ and
utilized.
Cdteda I: Does the site or proposed development ~ilize and
~nse~e the n~ml scenic fea~ms of ~e site?
I IIIIll IIIII IIIIII IIIIII !llll IIIII IIIII III IIIIIII II IIII
4195'/6 8'//?.8/1998 ~2.18P RESOI. UT! OIIWS SZLV~
26 o~ 22 R 6.68 O 6.66 N 0.8~ PZTKIN COUNTY CO ~
FINAL.ADOPTED VERSION PAGE 17 OF 18
IN~a~a ASPEN A~.A CrnzsN HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
~ PLAN:~ PART I
t~a~oso~/Cm~J Philosophy J: The development of citizen housing usually results in a
neutral or negative flscat impact. However, the fiscal impact should
nonetheless be considered, particularly to the extent that such impact
varies by the type and location of the citizen housing developed. In
some instances where the negative fiscal impact of the development
of a particular site with citizen housing significantly exceeds the impact
of devetopmem of other citizen housing sites, consideration should be
given regarding the appropriateness of development in that instance.
Criteria J: What will the fiscal impact of the development of the site or
proposed development be? How does the fiscal impact of this
particular site or proposed development compare to other citizen
housing sites? if the proposed site has a negative fiscal impact that
significantly exceeds the fiscal impact of developing other citizen
housing sites, consider whether development is justified.
~.u.osoPmz/cm~u~K Philosophy K: Citizen housing sites should be consistent with the
AACP, the DVCP and the Basalt Three Mile Plan, and any plans that
supercede or supplement these documents. Citizen housing sites
should also be consistent with any intergovernmental agreements
among Aspen. Basalt. Pitkin County or Snowmass.
Criteria K: Is the site consistent with the AACP, the DVCP and the
Basalt Three Mile Plan. and any plans that supercede or supplement
these documents? Is the site consistent with ail adopted
intergovernmental agreements?
Employment n rewewing every development application, for commercial and/or
Generation residential uses. the effect of the proposeo use ott the generation of
Considerations eml~ioyees shall be considered. The type of person the use is
intended to attract an~. the likelihood that the proposed use will attract
persons who require a high level of service shall also be considered.
Employers of a significant number of employees who seek
development review approvals shall be required to provide housing for
substantially ail of their generated employees near the proposed
development. (Examples would be the Aspen Skiing Company and
the former Ritz.)
I IIIlll Illll IIIIII IIIIll IIIII IIIII IIIII III Iii!111 II IIII
4195'~ 87/28/1,998 e2:'lSP RES0LUT! DRVZ$ $~'l. VZ
21. o~ 22 R 8.e8 D e.oe N 8.08 PXTICXN COUNTY
FINAL ADOPTED VERSION ~'AGE '~8 OF 18