HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20161004
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
October 04, 2016
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 705 W Hopkins Ave - Planned Development and Associated Reviews -
WITHDRAWN
B. 100 Puppy Smith Street (ACES) Stream Margin Review
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. AACP-LUC Revisions Update
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 8, 2016
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
RE: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue – Planned Development and Associated Reviews
MEETING
DATE: October 4, 2016
The Applicants have elected to withdraw the proposed land use application for 705 W. Hopkins
Avenue Planned Development and associated reviews. The Notice of Withdrawal is attached to
this memo as Exhibit A. There will be no public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Application withdrawal letter 10.4.16
P1
VI.A.
HOLLAND&HART= 1111111
September 29, 2016
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL City of Aspen Community Development Department Attention: Jessica Garrow, Planning Director Justin Barker, Senior Planner 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 City of Aspen City Attorney's Office Attention: James R. True, Esq. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611
Thomas J. Todd
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (970) 925-9367
ttodd@hollandhart.com
Re: Notice of Withdrawal of 705 West Hookins Avenue Annexation Petition and Planned Development-Project Review Application Ladies and Gentlemen: Holland & Hart LLP represents Starford Investments, LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation and Westchester Investments, Inc., the three landowners who are the named petitioners under the above referenced Annexation Petition (the "Annexation Petition") well as the applicants under the above referenced Planned Development-Project Review Application (the "Project Review Application"). Enclosed with this letter is a formal written notice of our clients' notice to withdraw and terminate the Annexation Petition and the Project Review Application, effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
� 2on2J. Todd of Holland & Hart LLP TJT cc: Patrick Freeman, Cisneros Real Estate Will Hentschel, 359 Design, LLC Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
9081218_2
Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law
Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com
600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991
Aspen Billings Boise Boulder (arson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C.
EXHIBIT A
P2
VI.A.
STARFORDINVESTMENTSLLC
121 Alhambi·a Plaza, Suite 1400
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC.
121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION
121 Alhamb1·a Plaza, Suite 1400
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
September 28, 2016 Ms. Jessica Ganow, Director Mr. Justin Barker, Planner Community Development Departmentand to James R. True, Esq., City Attorney Deborah Quinn, Esq., Assistant City Attomey130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Notice of Termination and Withdrawal·of Annexation Petition and Planned Development -Project Review Application for 705 West Hopkins
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned are the owners of the three (3) parcels ofland that are the subject of the Annexation Petition and Planned Development-Project Review Application for the projectcommonly known as the 705 West Hopkins Avenue Property.
Please consider this letter as our fo1mal te1mination and withdrawal of the AnnexationPetition and Planned Development-Project Review Application, effective im mediately.
Sincerely,
STARFORD �V�STMEN0S L <;.-a-De. a are limited liability company..,..,,,., _/ 1' /,,7
�/� / �/
. ,, / _,,,..-,.,,, .,/' By. � « ,_...'_/' . ,_/ . . 7 / WESTCH. E�TER INVESTMJ;:NJS, �_9.-, �aJ)�laware corporation
M /Y, / ,;::;: {?"/ /.,•" ./ By:c;,-£1.�, :.c{' �, r-----�
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORP{).RA1JO ,-a:Delaware corporation.... , / ,,.:< ,/_ .. ,· .. • · 2· / 4,/ A;. ,, . .,.....,,_-By: Y �=·.....:;_, /' /Y·-� ./
- ,?''"".,/ .,, / .
// 7862310_1
P3
VI.A.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Reilly Thimons, Planning Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2016
RE: 100 Puppy Smith Street– Stream Margin Review and
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
REPRESENTATIVE:
Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe
Architects
LOCATION:
100 Puppy Smith Street, ACES
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is zoned Academic (A) with
a Planned Development (PD) overlay.
There is currently an education center and
several employee housing units located on
site, with an educational viewing platform
(see photo).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is proposing the
replacement of an existing viewing
platform with an increase to its size and
encroachment into the stream margin
area.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning
and Zoning Commission a
recommendation of approval for the
replacement and expansion of the existing
viewing platform located within the 100-
year flood plain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the request for variations from
the Stream Margin Review.
Figure A: Existing viewing platform conditions
P4
VI.B.
2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
Special Review
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.C, Stream Margin Review standards. The
applicant is requesting a variance from the Stream Margin Standards. The Planning and Zoning
Commission will determine if the proposed development meets the intent of the Stream Margin
Review standards and may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on
conformance with the review criteria.
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
Pursuant to the Land Use Code Section 26.445.110.A, an insubstantial amendment to an
approved Project Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community
Development Director. This request has been combined with to be reviewed with the Special
Review request. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
BACKGROUND:
100 Puppy Smith Street is zoned Academic (A) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The
nearly 21.5 acre property shown in Figure B is located near the Roaring Fork River and includes
Hallam Lake and is entirely within the Stream Margin Review Area. An existing viewing
platform sits within the 100-year floodplain and floodway and is the subject of this review.
Stream Margin Review applies to areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured
horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or
within the one-hundred-year floodplain. As noted in the Land Use Code, “development in these
areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood
while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage
development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural
features.”
The age of the existing viewing platform is unknown; however, the platform was in place prior
to the annexation of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) from the County to the
City in 1997. The applicant has also submitted a notarized letter from the Chief Executive
Officer stating that ACES staff believe it was constructed prior to 1993. The building permit file
for the property contains no evidence of permitting for the viewing platform. The existing
viewing platform is within the floodplain, within the top of slope as defined by City Stream
Margin Review Maps, and nearing the edge of water line, Figure C.
P5
VI.B.
3
Figure C: Existing and Proposed structures proximity to edge of water
Figure B: Vicinity Map
P6
VI.B.
4
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing viewing platform to expand the structure to contain three
additional viewing platforms and a widened staircase. The existing viewing platform is within the 100-
year FEMA floodplain and top of slope as dictated by the Stream Margin Review Maps. The applicant
has proposed an alternative top of slope that is not supported by the Engineering Department. The
proposed expansion of the existing viewing platform will further encroach into the floodplain and towards
the high water line.
The existing structure consists of a staircase and platform that total 166.36 square feet in area. The height
of the structure to the base of the viewing platform stands between 10’8”-11’2” depending on elevation
with an additional 3’6” of guard railing. The platform and staircase are supported by 6 timber columns on
concrete footings.
The proposed design expands the area of viewing platform by approximately 350.42 square feet (Table
1). The height of the platform will remain in the range of 10’8” but the additional bird blind architectural
details surrounding the guard rails would increase the height above the minimum standards required by
Building Code. The proposed design incorporating the additional platforms and widened staircase would
require an additional 8 support columns bringing the total to 14, significantly expanding the footprint of
the structure. Additionally, there will be use of polygal for platform railings. Side by side perspectives
are illustrated in Figure D, and the footprint expansion and additional columns are illustrated in Figure E.
Based upon the applicant’s alternative top of slope, the existing platform is within the progressive height
limit, and the proposed expansion would expand even further into this limit.
Table 1: Dimensions of Existing vs. Proposed
Existing
Support Columns 6
Platform 109.00 sq. ft.
Stairs 57.36 sq. ft.
Total Square Footage 166.36 sq. ft.
Proposed
Support Columns 14
Platform #1 23.67 sq. ft.
Platform #2 54.00 sq. ft.
Platform#3 36.44 sq. ft.
Addition to Existing Platform 36.48 sq. ft.
Increase to Main Level Stair 87.25 sq. ft.
Increase to Upper Stair 36.02 sq. ft.
Raised Platform Main Level (6” above
grade) 74.56 sq. ft.
Total Additional Square Footage Proposed 350.42 sq. ft.
% Area Increase 68%
P7
VI.B.
5
Figure D: Existing vs. Proposed footprint and massing
P8
VI.B.
6
Figure E: Existing vs. proposed footprint and additional infrastructure
STAFF COMMENTS
Stream Margin Review, Section 26.435.040.
According to section 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review of the Land Use Code, all development
must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the top of slope or the high water line, whichever is
more restrictive. Based upon measurements provided the proposed viewing platform
replacement will be located approximately 1’-2’ from the alternative top of slope the applicant
has declared. Additionally, it will be located only 4-5’ from the mean high water line. There are
eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin Review. Staff findings for these
criteria are summarized below and full responses are in Exhibit A. The application was also
referred to the Engineering and Parks Departments for review and comment. These comments
are included in Exhibit B.
The applicant is requesting an exemption under Stream Margin Review Exemptions Section
26.435.040.B.3 which allows for expansion, remodeling, or reconstructing of an existing
development. However, the applicant does not meet the criteria for this exemption and is
therefore subject to full Stream Margin Review criteria. As the applicant does not meet certain
review criteria standards they are asking for variances from those standards through a Special
Review. The applicant is also requesting an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
through which any approvals could be memorialized.
P9
VI.B.
7
Staff Comments
In reviewing Stream Margin Review Standards Section 26.435.040.C.1-11 staff found the
following. The applicant has not provided sufficient response to demonstrating that there will be
no rise to the base flood elevation within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. There are no proposed
changes to the natural course of the river during construction. The proposal for expansion does
expand into the driplines and root systems of several surrounding trees, see Figure F, and is a
concern of the Parks Department. Figure G, illustrates that the additional platforms will further
infringe on the 45 degree angle from which height is measured, increasing a non-conformity
based on the alternative top of sloep proposed by the applicant. There is no lighting associated
with this project. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence of placement of structure within
riparian and wetland areas.
While Criteria 5, 6, and 10 do not apply, the proposal has not met the majority of the Stream
Margin Review Standards (Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11).
Figure F: Impacts of proposed expansion on surrounding trees
The applicant has not supplied an authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed
surveyor showing a different determination of top of slope than the Stream Margin Map under
the special review criteria.
P10
VI.B.
8
Figure G: 45 degree progressive height from applicant’s alternative top of slope
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
The application was referred to both the Parks Department and the Engineering Department for
review and formal comments. The Engineering Department does not support the expansion of
viewing platform die to the structure being beyond the Hallam Lake Bluff and top of slope
designation, being within the floodplain, and thus being a non-conformity.The Parks Department
also does not support the footprint expansion and proposed design due to its further
encroachment towards the high water line and alternative top of slope.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed project does not meet the review criteria of Section 26.435.040.B Exemptions.
Additionally it does meet Stream Margin Review Criteria: 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11. The project also
lacks support from both the Engineering and Parks Departments because it is located within the
stream margin and the floodplain. The Planning Department has additional concerns about
materiality in a riparian area.
The City has allowed other applicants the ability to maintain an existing structure in the
floodplain rather than expand or enhance. Staff recommends similar treatment of this platform.
As such, Community Development Department staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the Applicant’s request for expansion of the viewing platform. Any
replacement or redevelopment should be like-for-like in order to bring the structure into Building
P11
VI.B.
9
Code standards and not expand its footprint, massing, or encroachment on top of slope or the
mean high water line.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
denial for the request, they may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to deny the
requests for variance from Stream Margin Review at 100 Puppy Smith Street.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Stream Margin – Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Revised Existing and Proposed Viewing Platform Drawings
Exhibit E – Plat to be amended
Exhibit F – Resolution
P12
VI.B.
1
Resolution No. __
(SERIES OF 2016)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A STREAM MARGIN AND A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND A VIEWING PLATFORM AT 100
PUPPY SMITH STREET (ACES), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273707300801
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Marina Skiles, requesting Stream Margin Review Exemption approval, Special Review approval,
and an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development for the expansion of the viewing
platform at 100 Puppy Smith Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s property is an education center, zoned Academic (A) with a
PD overlay in an Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards, Special Review Standards, and
Insubstantial Amendment Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, site visits, and the applicable Land Use
Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Stream
Margin Review, and Special Review, and an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned
Development, finding that the review standards for the requests have not been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval
of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves with conditions, the Special
Review request for Stream Margin Review request to expand the existing viewing platform as
shown in Exhibit A, by a vote of ______ to ______(__ – __), and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
P13
VI.B.
2
Section 1: General Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Special Review which grants variances from
the Stream Margin Review standards request and approves the Planned Development
Amendment. These approvals, with conditions, will allow the Applicant expand the existing
viewing platform at 100 Puppy Smith Street (ACES) as represented at the public hearing held
October 4, 2016.
Section 2: Conditions of Approval
A. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail
location of fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of
barrier fencing at the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing
installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be
necessary depending upon the site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of
slope. The Applicant shall provide a detailed tree protection fencing plan at the time
of building permit submittal and have the City of Aspen Parks Department inspect
and approve of the erected silt and tree protection fencing prior to commencing
construction.
B. There shall be no excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree
on the site.
C. An approved tree permit is required before approval of the building permit. An
approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal
and means and schedule for mitigation.
D. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree
or groupings of trees remaining on site.
1) A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection shall be required in
the building permit set.
E. The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by
the Engineering Department. Additionally, the following items are required:
1) A no rise certificate.
2) Any federal and state permits associated with development in the floodplain shall
be submitted, as necessary.
F. A building envelope be recorded outlining the footprint of the permitted viewing
platform prior to building permit submission.
Section 3:
P14
VI.B.
3
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on October 4, 2016.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney Keith Good, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 approved viewing platform and location
P15
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review
standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed
as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in
Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has
been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream
Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City
Engineering Department; and
Staff finding: The viewing platform is located within the 100-year floodplain as
delineated by City of Aspen Stream Margin Maps. The applicant was required to have
an area survey conducted to illustrate the structure’s location relative to the Roaring
Fork River. The applicant has declared a top of slope that has not been confirmed by
the Engineering Department. The alternative top of slope is not supported as it is too
close to the river. Staff finds this criterion not met.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
The proposed development does not meet certain review criteria of Section
26.435.040.C, Stream Margin Review Criteria: Staff finds this criterion not met as
noted below.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques
on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
Staff finding: The existing and proposed viewing platform is located within the FEMA
floodplain. While it is not advisable to build within the floodplain, structures may be
permitted provided it is demonstrated that the structure has no negative effect on the
P16
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
base flood elevation. A typical structure would need to submit a no-rise certificate
which shows the BFE is not altered by the development, the floodwater elevation
remains the same as to not negatively impact surrounding or downstream properties.
The applicant has not provided a no-rise certificate at this time. Engineering will allow
the applicant to provide this documentation at building permit. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that this certificate be provided at time of building permit, as
noted in the Resolution. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic
public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A
fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of
the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Staff finding: An easement has not been proposed as part of this application. A
fisherman’s easement cannot be required as a condition of approval. Staff finds this
criterion not met.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
Staff finding: There are no applicable building envelopes associated with this proposal.
Applicant has stated that there will be no removal of vegetation or slope changes. The
submitted survey indicates no change to slope but does indicate interference with
several surrounding tree root systems which indicates potential for damage both during
construction and long-term. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a
building envelope be established based upon the footprint of the existing viewing
platform. This building envelope will need to be recorded before submission of building
permit, as noted in the Resolution. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside
of the designated building envelope; and
Staff finding: The applicant states the proposal will not alter natural changes in the
river through erosion or sedimentation during construction. Construction is proposed
to take place off-site to minimize impact during assembly. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that a construction management plan be required, as noted in
the Resolution. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.
P17
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
Staff finding: No alternation of the water course is proposed; therefore written notice
to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and copies to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency are not required. Staff finds this not applicable.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
Staff finding: There will be no alteration to the water course, therefore this
requirement is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
Staff finding: The applicant has provided documentation of a previous stream margin
exemption (Rec # 619489) provided by the Community Development Director, which
was for a patio surrounding an educational pond and met the necessary review criteria.
However, the provided documentation is not relevant to federal or state permitting
relating to work within the 100-year floodplain. There is no documentation for the
original construction of the platform. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval
the applicant provide documentation of all necessary federal and state permitting
relating to proposed works at the time of building permit. Staff finds this criterion
conditionally met.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork
River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community
Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
Staff finding: The applicant has not proposed any native vegetation planting, however,
the proposed viewing platform is already below the top of slope as defined by the City of
Aspen Stream Margin Maps, and near the high water line. Expanding the development
will create further encroachment. Staff is concerned about the expansion of a non-
conformity within the floodplain and tope of slope, as Engineering has not confirmed
the alternative top of slope that was declared by the applicant. The City Parks
Department has stated that due to the footprint of this project moving closer to the
river’s edge, and that only landscaping with an approved planting mix and species is
P18
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
allowed along the river’s edge, Parks cannot approve the newly proposed design. Staff
finds this criterion not met.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Staff finding: As previously outlined, the applicant has declared an alternative top of
slope that will need to be confirmed by Engineering. If the Planning and Zoning
Commission determines this alternative top of slope to be acceptable, the existing
structure is already within into the progressive height limit. The proposed viewing
platform would further encroach into the progressive height limit. The illustration
below shows the existing and proposed platforms. Staff finds this criterion not met.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
P19
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Staff finding: The applicant is not proposing any lighting for this project therefore this
criterion is not applicable.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Staff finding: The applicant has provided a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetlands Inventory illustrating riparian areas, but has not indicated the location of the
development on the wetlands / riparian map. Staff finds this criterion not met.
26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved
Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below.
Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-
Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures
outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure
most-applicable to the requested amendment.
A. Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project
Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development
Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria:
1. The request does not change the use or character of the development.
Staff finding: The proposal does not change the existing use of the viewing platform
which is used for education programming, however the proposed footprint expansion
and additional massing would significantly change the character of the development.
Staff finds this criterion not met.
3. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original
approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff finding: There is no original approval, building permit, or other documentation
for the existing viewing platform. Staff finds this criterion not met.
3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s) and
does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area.
Staff finding: The request does not require granting a variance form the project’s
allowed use, however it does request an increase to both height and usable area. The
height will be increased by the architectural detailing proposed, and the usable area
will increase from 166.36 square feet to 350.42 square feet with the addition of three
platforms and a widened staircase. Staff finds this criterion not met.
4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a
technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during
P20
VI.B.
Exhibit A
ACES Review Criteria
the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project
Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff finding: The proposal does not have any approved dimensional requirements
from the original Project Review. The changes proposed are expected to bring the
viewing platform into current Building Code and additional expand its use. These
changes are not limited to a technical nature or responding to a design parameter that
could not have been foreseen during Project Review. Staff finds this criterion not met.
5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
Staff finding: The applicant is not applying for a Detailed Review at this time. Staff
finds this criterion not applicable.
P21
VI.B.
Exhibit B
Referral Comments
REFERRAL COMMENTS
Engineering Department
The existing and proposed viewing platform is located within the FEMA floodplain. While it is
not advisable to build within the floodplain, structures may be permitted provided it is
demonstrated that the structure has no negative effect on the base flood elevation. A typical
structure would need to submit a no-rise certificate which shows the BFE is not altered by the
development, the floodwater elevation remains the same as to not negatively impact surrounding
or downstream properties.
However, this structure is beyond the top of slope and thus is a nonconformity. Properties along
Hallam Bluff would not be permitted to construct beyond top of slope. The expansion of the
structure should not be permitted. Repairs could be done to the structure not exceeding 10% of
the cost to replace the entire structure. The Engineering Department supports denial.
• The structure is beyond the Hallam Lake Bluff and top of slope designation, and is thus a
nonconformity.
• The structure is within the floodplain.
Parks Department
The Parks Department has expressed the following concerns:
• The footprint of this project has moved closer to the river’s edge, and as such, Parks
cannot approve the newly proposed design.
• The original proposal was approved by Parks Staff due to the existing platform basically
remaining in the same footprint with minor changes to the stairs.
• Landscaping with an approved planting mix and species is the only activity allowed
along the river’s edge, and these must be hand dug as no machinery is allowed in this
area.
P22
VI.B.
ACES VIEWING PLATFORM
April 22, 2016
June 28, 2016
August 11, 2016
Reilly Thimons/Justin Barker
Planning Technician / Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: ACES Viewing Platform, Hallam Lake
Description: The Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) desires to upgrade an
existing viewing platform near Hallam Lake. Serving as a teaching space and wildlife
observation station, ACES wishes to bring the existing platform up to code for the safety
of the children and ACES staff utilizing the platform.
The existing structure will remain - no change will be made to the existing
footprint.
The railings and stair treads will be replaced to meet code and safety standards.
o In addition to creating a safe learning environment on the existing
structure, ACES proposes an innovative railing system that blends the
wooden platform into its natural surroundings.
The existing platform was built prior to the annexation of Hallam Lake and the
ACES property into Aspen city limits; see attached affidavit from ACES CEO.
The existing platform lies within the 100-year food plain, as does all of ACES
property; according to the City of Aspen Engineering Department, an addition
or renovation to an existing-non-conforming structure must cost less than 10% the
purported cost to replace the existing non-conforming structure.
o CCA, working with Hansen Construction, has determined that a new
viewing platform would cost approximately $9,000.00, while the proposed
new railings and steps will come in at approximately $700.00. Detailed
cost estimates are not available at this time.
The proposed new railing and stairs will not encroach further into wetlands or
riparian area. With our area survey, we have located the existing structure and
proposed addition in relation to the center line of the Roaring Fork River, the
high-water line, the edge of bank, and the flood plain.
The existing structure has been deemed structurally sound by KL&A, our structural
engineer; the new railing will only strengthen the existing conditions. 4 new posts
will be required to support the proposed new railing system.
The flood plain elevation will remain unchanged.
P23
VI.B.
ACES VIEWING PLATFORM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover letter
Table of contents
Vicinity Map
Pre-application summary
Title Commitment
Letter of authorization
HOA Compliance Form
Revised Fee Agreement
Affidavit of existing platform existing non-conformance
Written Responses to Review Criteria
Stamped Survey – overview
Stamped Survey – area of existing platform
Survey overlay
Wetlands Map
Wetlands Overlay
FEMA Flood Zones Map
Architectural Drawings, existing and proposed
FIRM Map
FIRM Map enlarged
First Addendum to ACES Specially Planned Area Final Development Plan
First Addendum to ACES Specially Planned Area Final Development Plan Legal
Description
Notice of Approval for Stream Margin Review Exemption
Map of Hallam Lake Annexation
Ordinance No. 7
P24
VI.B.
P25VI.B.
ASLU
Stream Margin
1431 Crystal Lake Rd
PID # 273718131007
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Justin Barker, 429.2797 DATE: 4/7/16
PROJECT: 100 Puppy Smith St (ACES)
REPRESENTATIVE: Marina Skiles, 925.5590
REQUEST: Stream Margin Review
DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 100 Puppy Smith Street and is occupied by the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
(ACES). The property is zoned Academic (A) and contains a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. There are currently several
existing structure and platforms located around the property, one of which is a viewing platform located along the Roaring Fork
River. The applicant would like to remodel and expand the platform in order to make it code-compliant and more amenable for
the summer kids’ education program.
The proposed development is located within the Stream Margin Review Area, which is inclusive of both the 100-year flood plain
and 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. It appears from the provided documentation that the proposed
development is located within the 100-year flood plain and would be subject to P&Z review. The applicant will need to respond
to the criteria in Section 26.435.040.C.
Since this property is within a Planned Development, the expansion of this structure will also require an amendment to the
Planned Development. The amendment will be combined with the Stream Margin Review at P&Z.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.435.040 Stream Margin review
26.445 Planned Development
Review by: Staff for complete application
Referrals: Engineering, Parks
Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Fees: Planning Deposit – ESA review $4,550 for 10 hours
Referral Fees: Engineering (per hour) - $325
Parks (flat fee) - $975
Total Deposit: $5,850 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour;
additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate of $325/hour)
P26
VI.B.
Customer Distribution
Our Order Number: QPR62007446
Date: 04-22-2016
Property Address: 100 PUPPY SMITH STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611
For Title Assistance
KIM SHULTZ
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-927-0405 (phone)
970-925-6243 (fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Attention: KATIE SCHWOERER
100 PUPPY SMITH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-5756 (work)
970-925-4819 (work fax)
kschwoerer@aspennature.org
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
P27
VI.B.
Land Title Guarantee Company
Property Report
Order Number: 62007446
This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal
description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the
purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of
the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee
of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other
person, and (2) the amount paid for the report.
Prepared For:
A LENDER TO BE DETERMINED
This Report is dated:
04-20-2016 at 5:00 P.M.
Address:
100 PUPPY SMITH STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611
Legal Description:
HALLAM LAKE NATURE PRESERVE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Record Owner:
We find the following documents of record affecting subject property:
CHARITABLE LAND -- EXEMPT
***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION **********************
PARCEL NO.: 273707300801
2016 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $706,570.00
2016 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $196,200.00
2015 REAL PROPERTY TAXES CHARITABLE LAND --- EXEMPT IN THE AMOUNT OF .
****************************************************************
P28
VI.B.
22 April 2015
Justin Barker
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: ACES – educational platform
Dear Mr. Barker,
This letter is to confirm that I am the authorized representative for Aspen Center of Environmental Studies, the
owner of the referenced property in the attached application. I hereby designate Charles Cunniffe Architects to
represent the owner in all matters pertaining to the application for review by City Staff and any pertinent board
and hearings forthwith.
Sincerely,
Chris Lane
CEO
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
P29
VI.B.
P30
VI.B.
P31VI.B.
P32
VI.B.
P33
VI.B.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – ESA
Page 1
Chapter 26.435
DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA)
Sections:
Sec. 26.435.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.435.020. Authority.
Sec. 26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review.
Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
Sec. 26.435.050. Mountain view plane review.
Sec. 26.440.060. Application.
Sec. 26.435.070. Procedure for approval of development in ESA.
Sec. 26.435.080. Application.
Sec. 26.435.090. Conditions.
Sec. 26.435.100. Amendment of an ESA development order.
26.435.010. Purpose.
Certain land areas within the City are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic
significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to heightened review procedures
and standards as set forth in this Chapter. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA) and shall include the following:
A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and
including that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below, measured horizontally, the 8040
Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts
on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche,
unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to
urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and
that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum.
B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within the one -hundred-year
floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) fe et from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River
and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard Area (stream margin). Development in these areas
shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring
the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land
uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features.
C. Mountain view planes. Development within designated mountain view plan es as set forth in
Section 26.435.050 shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from
obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property
values and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain
community.
D. Hallam Lake Bluff. That bluff area running approximately on a north-south axis bordering and/or
overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Nature Preserve and bounded on the
P34
VI.B.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Approval Documents
Page 2
east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured
horizontally, up slope and there terminating and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot
7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street.
Development in this area shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts
on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff,
maintain views to and from the nature preserve and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of
Hallam Lake and the nature preserve.
Note: All elevations used in this Section are based on the U.S. Coast and Geologic Survey (USC & GS)
benchmark located in the southwesterly corner of the county courthouse foundation at an elevation of
7,906.80 feet above mean sea level.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, § 6)
26.435.040. Stream margin review.
A. Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development within
one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork Ri ver and
its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100 -year
flood plain.
B. Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of
development within the stream margin review area:
1. Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation,
drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and specifications
are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is engineered to prevent
blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Community Development Director
determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin
review standards.
Not applicable
2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably
accommodated outside of the "no development area" prescribed by this Section including,
but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems
provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies, to the
extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
Not applicable
3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development pro vided the
following standards are met:
a) The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing
structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by
more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin exemptions are cumulative. Once
a development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission is required; and
The square footage of the existing structure is remaining the same at 109 sf. The only expansion
is occurring on the stairs in order to bring them up to code and add educational landing spaces.
P35
VI.B.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Approval Documents
Page 3
City of Aspe
b) The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be
required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
No trees will be removed during the construction of this education station/treehouse
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development;
Verification of the high-water line proximity pending improvement survey result s. For the
purposes of this application we will assume we are within the flood plain.
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been
designated through a prior review; and
No previously designated building envelope
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground
coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plain.
The ground coverage is remaining the same within the 100 year flood plain. An improved
platform located about 10’2” above grade is within the 100-year flood plain. The existing
structure is elevated above grade with columns and the proposed renovations maintain the
same relationship to the ground.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin
of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the
proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard
Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This
shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered
to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including,
but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any
base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and
Reference Survey attached in packet
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River
Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest exten t
practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement
for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water
boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Not applicable – the site is used for academic purposes.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of
a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review
and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a
plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
No trees or vegetation are to be removed during this construction project.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river,
stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased
on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto
its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and
P36
VI.B.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Approval Documents
Page 4
The modest proposal will not alter the natural changes in the river through erosion or sedimentation
during construction as the majority of construction will be produced off-site, limiting the amount
of construction next to Hallam Lake and the Roaring Fork River.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or
relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
Not applicable
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that th e flood carrying capacity on
the parcel is not diminished; and
Not applicable
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100 - year
flood plain; and
A copy of the most recent exemption by the Community Development Director in 2015 is provided.
Prior to this exemption, all work occurred before permits were required.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the
top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most
restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New
plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope
on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will
be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100 - year flood plain
elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the
Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
No proposed vegetation planting.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a
height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top
of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director
using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set
forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Unenclosed platform should not encroach on the height restriction delineated by 45 degree angle
line.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located
down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be
submitted with all development applications; and
Not applicable
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Reference survey and additional drawings in Application Set
P37
VI.B.
P38VI.B.
P39VI.B.
ELV=7842.0'TOP OF DECKELV=7830.0'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7830.1'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.6'ELV=7829.9'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7829.7'ELV=7826.3'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7826.4'LIMITS OF ROOT BALLOF DOWNED TREEEDGE OF WATERMEAN HIGH WATER +/‐TOP OF BANK 17"x34' 10.2"x20' 7.7"x15' 33.3"x56' 37.6"x74' 8.6"x16' 11.9"x21' 7"x14' 9.5"x19'CENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISCENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/9/2016 11:15:41 AMA2.41602OVERLAYEDSITE PLANACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN SURVEY OVERLAYP40
VI.B.
ACES VIEWING PLATFORM09 AUGUST 20162ACES Wetland MapAug 9, 2016This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is notresponsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. Allwetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found onthe Wetlands Mapper web site.User Remarks:WETLANDSP41
VI.B.
ELV=7842.0'TOP OF DECKELV=7830.0'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7830.1'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.6'ELV=7829.9'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7829.7'ELV=7826.3'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7826.4'LIMITS OF ROOT BALLOF DOWNED TREEEDGE OF WATERMEAN HIGH WATER +/‐TOP OF BANK 17"x34' 10.2"x20' 7.7"x15' 33.3"x56' 37.6"x74' 8.6"x16' 11.9"x21' 7"x14' 9.5"x19'CENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISCENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISN23° 34' 26"E632.18'LOCATION OF EXISTING ANDPROPOSED PLATFORM IS WITHINTHE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/9/2016 1:29:35 PMA1.41602EXISTINGFLOODPLAINSACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1" = 40'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLANP42
VI.B.
ELV=7842.0'TOP OF DECKELV=7830.0'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7830.1'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.6'ELV=7829.9'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7829.7'ELV=7826.3'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7826.4'LIMITS OF ROOT BALLOF DOWNED TREEEDGE OF WATERMEAN HIGH WATER +/‐TOP OF BANK 17"x34' 10.2"x20' 7.7"x15' 33.3"x56' 37.6"x74' 8.6"x16' 11.9"x21' 7"x14' 9.5"x19'CENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISCENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GIS7'-9 1/4"9'-4"12'-4 1/2"41'-8"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/9/2016 1:29:38 PMA2.41602OVERLAYEDSITE PLANACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN SURVEY OVERLAYP43
VI.B.
ELV=7842.0'TOP OF DECKELV=7830.0'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7830.1'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7830.4'ELV=7829.6'ELV=7829.9'ELV=7830.6'ELV=7829.7'ELV=7826.3'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7829.8'ELV=7829.5'ELV=7826.4'LIMITS OF ROOT BALLOF DOWNED TREEEDGE OF WATERMEAN HIGH WATER +/‐TOP OF BANK 17"x34' 10.2"x20' 7.7"x15' 33.3"x56' 37.6"x74' 8.6"x16' 11.9"x21' 7"x14' 9.5"x19'CENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISCENTER OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GISEDGE OF RIVER PER PITKIN COUNTY GIS7'-9 1/4"9'-4"12'-4 1/2"45'-9 1/2"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/9/2016 1:29:38 PMA2.51602OVERLAYEDSITE PLANACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLAN SURVEY OVERLAYP44
VI.B.
Aspen Center forEnvironmental StudiesMap by:Date:Aspen Center forEnvironmental StudiesViewing Platform Improvement ExhibitProjection: ESRI, FEMA, Pitkin County, ACES, SGMData Sources: File:H:\Aspen Center Enviro Studies\Deck Improvement Exhibit.mxdThe information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations.®RKKNAD 1983 StatePlane Colorado Central FIPS 0502 Ft USWater2ft ContoursApproximate Viewing Platform LoctaionParcelsFlood Zones (FEMA)0.2 Pct Annual Chance Fld HazardAEX (Hollow)FLOODWAY, AE2016-176.00104/29/2016Lambert Conformal Conic1 of 1Page:Coordinate System:Job No.0240480Feet1 inch = 185 feet78227824
7826
78207818
7828
78247822
7826782678247824
7824
7 8 2 4
78267826
7822
78247828Area of Detail1 inch = 40 feetP45
VI.B.
EXISTING PLATFORM7822782678287 8 2 67824
7 8 2 4
7 8 2 4 78267828782678 2678227818 7 8 2 0
7 8 2 4
7 8 2 27824
7824FLOODWAY, AE AE0.2 PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARDFEMA FLOOD ZONESWATER2 FT CONTOURSTO CENTER OF RIVER/PROPERTY LINE50'-10 1/2"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.6/28/2016 10:22:05 AMA1.11602EXISTINGARCHITECTURALSITE PLANACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE:LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16NORTH 1" = 40'-0"2EXISTING SITE PLANP46
VI.B.
A3.11A3.13A3.14A3.123'-0"6'-11 7/8"10'-10"EXISTING PLATFORM ABOVEEXISTING TIMBER COLUMNS ONCONCRETE FOOTINGSA3.51A3.52A3.53A3.5410'-3"8'-1"15'-2 1/2"3'-8 1/2"3'-1 1/2"14'-6 3/4"3'-0"EXISTING 2X WOOD PLATFORM TO REMAINEXISTING STAIRS TO BE REPLACEDA3.31A3.32A3.33A3.34109 SFEXISTINGPLATFORMA3.51A3.52A3.54NORTHCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.6/28/2016 10:22:09 AMA2.11602EXISTING FLOORPLANSACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADO 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLANKEY PLAN HALLAM LAKEN.T.S.3EXISTING VIEW UP TO PLATFORM4EXISTING AERIAL PERSPECTIVEISSUE: DATE:CONCEPTUAL SET 03/23/16LAND USE SET 04/04/16LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16P47
VI.B.
T.O.FF MAIN LEVEL100'-0"UPPER LEVEL110'-8"T.O. EXIST. PLATFORM (TO REMAIN)10'-9 1/2"10'-8"3'-6"8 1/2"6 1/2"T.O.FF MAIN LEVEL100'-0"UPPER LEVEL110'-8"10'-8"1 1/2"2'-7 1/2"3'-6"7'-7 9/16"3'-8"45 degree anglefrom Top of BankRIVER3'-6"10'-9 1/2"8 1/2"7'-9 9/16"45 degree anglefrom Top of BankRIVER3'-6"7'-9 9/16"3'-6"10'-9 1/2"8 1/2"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/12/2016 10:02:15 AMA3.51602EXISTINGEXTERIORELEVATIONSACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE:LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"4EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONP48
VI.B.
7822782678287 8 2 67824
7 8 2 4
7 8 2 4 78267828782678 2678227818 7 8 2 0
7 8 2 4
7 8 2 27824
7824TO CENTER OF RIVER/PROPERTY LINE45'-4 1/4"FLOODWAY, AE AE0.2 PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARDFEMA FLOOD ZONESWATER2 FT CONTOURSTO EXISTING PLATFORM6'-0"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.6/28/2016 10:22:08 AMA1.21602PROPOSEDARCHITECTURALSITE PLANACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE:LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16NORTH 1" = 40'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANP49
VI.B.
6'-11 7/8"10'-8"A3.31A3.32A3.33A3.342X4 PLATFORMEXISTING TIMBER COLUMNS TO REMAIN2X4 PLATFORM RAISED 6" OFF GROUND4'-0"6'-1"5'-11"4'-0"8'-1"PLATFORM 3PLATFORM 2PLATFORM 1EL. 10'-9 1/2"EXISTING TOP PLATFORMA3.31A3.32A3.33A3.342x4 PLATFORM1-1/8" PLYWOOD CNC MILLEDPLACED AT VARYINGINTERVALS2X4 PLATFORM9'-0"6'-0"6'-0 7/8"6'-0"4'-0"8'-1"4'-0"5'-11"CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/12/2016 11:51:05 AMA2.31602MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLANOPT 2ACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADO 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLANISSUE: DATE:CONCEPTUAL SET 03/23/16LAND USE SET 04/04/16LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16P50
VI.B.
CHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.6/28/2016 10:22:34 AMA3.41602EXTERIORPERSPECTIVESOPT 2ACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADO1AERIAL PERSPECTIVE OPT 22UPPER LEVEL VIEW OPT 23VIEW AT BASE OPT 24VIEW TO PLATFORM 1 AND 2 OPT 25VIEW UP TO PLATFORM OPT 2ISSUE: DATE:CONCEPTUAL SET 03/23/16LAND USE SET 04/04/16LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16POLYGALCNC-MILLED PLYWOOD INVARYING SHAPE FOR ORGANICRAILING FORMEXISTING TIMBER COLUMNS TO REMAINUPDATED STAIRS FOR SAFETY ANDGATHERING SPACES FOR STUDENTSEXISTING UPPER PLATFORMWITH UPDATED RAILINGSFOR SAFETY AND SPATIALVARIATIONPOLYGAL RAILINGP51
VI.B.
T.O.FF MAIN LEVEL100'-0"UPPER LEVEL110'-8"4x4 SUPPORT COLUMNSLOCATED AT EACH PLATFORMT.O. PLY EXIST. PLATFORM (TO REMAIN)10'-9 1/2"T.O.FF MAIN LEVEL100'-0"UPPER LEVEL110'-8"10'-8"POLY-GAL PANELCNC 3/4" PLYWOOD SPACED ATVARYING INTERVALS4X4 SUPPORT COLUMNS UNDEREACH PLATFORM10'-8"45 degree anglefrom Top of BankRIVER4x4 SUPPORT COLUMNSLOCATED AT EACH PLATFORMPOLY-GAL PANEL LOCATED BEYONDCNC 3/4" PLYOOD SLATS SPACED ATVARYING INTERVALS10'-8"1 1/2"45 degree anglefrom Top of BankRIVERPOLY-GAL PANELCNC MILLED 1-1/8" PLYWOOD SLATSPOLY-GAL PANELNOTCH CNC PLYWOODINTO HORIZONTAL FRAMECHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comSHEET NO.JOB NO.8/11/2016 5:25:22 PMA3.31602EXTERIORELEVATIONSOPT 2ACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADO 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION OPT 2 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION OPT 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION OPT 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPT 2ISSUE: DATE:CONCEPTUAL SET 03/23/16LAND USE SET 04/04/16LAND USERESUBMISSION06/22/16P52
VI.B.
8'-1"EL. 10'-9 1/2"EXISTING TOP PLATFORM2x4 PLATFORM1-1/8" PLYWOODCNC MILLEDPLACED ATVARYINGINTERVALS2X4 PLATFORMplatformsstairs33 SFPLATFORM 437 SFPLATFORM 354 SFPLATFORM 224 SFPLATFORM 1CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557A1.3ACES VIEWING PLATFORM100 PUPPY SMITH STREETASPEN, COLORADO1PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLANP53
VI.B.
D
D
D
D
D
))))))))))))¤¤¤
¤
¤¤¤¤))))))))))))))))¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤))))))))¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤))))¤¤¤¤))))¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!!!%,D
%,K
%,DG%,B
%,DU%,A
%,C
%,E
%,F
%,G
%,H
%,I%,J
%,K
%,L
%,M
%,DH%,DJ%,DK%,DL%,D M
%,DN%,DO%,DP%,DQ%,DR
%,D S
%,DT%,DV%,DW
%,DX%,DY%,DZ%,EC%,EB%,EA
%,DI
%,I%,H%,F%,E
%,D
%,A %,G%,D S
%,J%,C%,BSalvation Canal
Unnamed Pond
Roaring Fork River
Hunter Creek
Roaring Fork River
Castle Creek
Castle Creek
Roaring Fork River
Roaring Fork River
Castle Creek
Castle Creek
Salvation CanalSlaughterhouse GulchHunter Creek
Slaughterhouse Gulch
Hallam Lake
NeubursPondUnnamed TributaryUnnamed Tributary
Unnamed PondUnnamedTributary Unnamed Pond
Unnamed Pond
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
BridgeBridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge Bridge
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE A
ZONE A
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY78707865786378607852784978467842783
7
7834
78607855
7855
784776707
6
7
4 7678768276867690
7694
76987702
771177167717
7943
7 7 7 7
7774
77807783 7783
7771
7767
7760 7760
7763
7787
7791
7 7 9 9
77967793
7802
7 8 0 87805
7812
7816
7821
7825
7827
783778 337830
7840
7841
7844
7851
7848
7 8 5 5
7858786278647 8 6 7
78707886
787378827881 787578777916
7 9 1 9
79137910
7907
7904
7901 7995
7889
79927998
7956
79537950
7959
7 9 4 7
7941
7938
7944
7934
7923792679287931
7959796379677971
7805
7802
784177207 7 2 4
77297734773777417746
7748
77517751775 477577760
7763
7765
7 7 6 8
777977757771778877837786
77927796780078047808
7 8 1 3
7 8 1 8
782 0
78 23
78267831
78337835783878427 8 4 978477850
78547845785 27855
7 8 6 47861 7867
7 8 8 4
7880
78967 8 9 2
7889
78757872 78777878
7899 79037907791179157924
79297931
7926
79347938
7886
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
CITY OF ASPEN080143
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
CITY OF ASPEN080143
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
CITY OF ASPEN080143
CITY OF ASPEN080143
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
CITY OF ASPEN080143
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
PITKIN COUNTYUNINCORPORATED AREAS080287
1
12
7
62
11
13 18
36
31
14
35 R. 85 W.R. 84 W.T. 09 S.T. 10 S.R. 85 W.R. 84 W. R. 85 W.R. 84 W.T. 09 S.T. 10 S.
T. 09 S.T. 10 S.
T. 09 S.T. 10 S.
PITKIN COUNTYCITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTYCITY OF ASPEN
CITY OF ASPENPITKIN COUNTYKL0306
KL0305
KL0304 KL0303BONITA DRSILVER KING DR
W
IL
L
O
U
G
H
B
Y WA
Y
MTN VIEW DR
HOMESTAKE DR
RIDGE RD
VINE ST
HEATHER LN
SNOWBUNNY LN
BENNETT BENCH RD
CASTLE CREEK DRPRIM ROSEPATH
HERRON HOLLOWRD
PUPPY SMITH STPITKIN MESA DROVERLOOK DRSAGE CTART PKWYWALNUT ST
S 5TH STS 4TH STS 6TH STN 3RD STDOOLITTLE CIR N MILL STPEARL CT
LONE
PI
NE RDSAWMILL CT
FOUNDERS PL
S A L V A T IO N C IR
W NORTH ST
BUNNY CT
ALTA VISTA DRBARNARD PARK CTWOOD DUCK LN
DEAN ST
COTTONWOOD CIR
TWIN RIDGE DRGROVECTRIOGRANDEPL
R O A R IN G FO R K R D
N 4TH STW MAIN ST E HALLAM ST
RED MTN RD
W HALLAM ST
W SMUGGLER ST
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y L
N
W FRANCIS ST
LAKE AVE
MAGNIFICO RD
N 1ST ST¬«82
MAROONCREEK RD
NORTH STBUS
L
NCASTL
E CREEK RDN 8TH STN 6TH STPOWER PLANT RD N 3RD STREDMT
N
R
D
MEADOWOOD DRSIERRAVISTADR¬«82
WILLOUGHBY
WAY
S GALENA STE BLEEKER ST
WILLOUGHBY WAY
E FRANCIS STCEMETERY LNW MAIN ST RE
D MT
N
R
DRIDGE RDGILLESPIE ST
GIBSON AVE
S MILL STS HUNTER STQUEEN ST
HARBOUR LN
MINERS TRAIL RDBENNETT PLN SPRING STINDEPENDENCE PLW COOPER AVE
SOUTH AVE
OBERMEYER PLACE DRN 4TH STS 2ND STW BLEEKER ST
W HOPKINS AVE
E HYMAN AVE
S ASPEN STS ASPEN STBAY STBENNETT
CTS SPRING STTOBY LNRIVER DR
RIDGE PLMAGNIFICO RDNIGHTHAWK DR
E HOPKINS AVE E
FR AN C IS S TBLACK BIRCH DR
N GARMISCH STN ASPEN STRED MTN RD
N 8TH STRECYCLE CIR
E DURANT AVE
LITTLECLOUD T R L RACE STV IN E S T VINE STHUNTERCREEK RD
SPRUCESTBRENDEN CTWILLIAMS WAY
SPRUCE CT
C
O
WE
N
H
O
V
E
N
C
T
H
A
R
O
L
D
R
O
S
S C
TBROWN LNNICHOLAS LN
BLUEBONNETTRL
E MAIN STS 7TH STE MAIN STN 2ND STMEADOWOOD DR
MCLAIN FLATS RD
S GARMISCH STS MONARCH STN 5TH STD O O L IT T L E D R N 7TH STS 1ST STMCLAINFLATSRD
HEATHER LNTRUSCOTT PL
SILVER KING DR
¬«82
HOMESTAKE DR
CASTLE CREEK RDJUAN ST
GILBERT ST
W WATER PL E W A T E R P L
S MILL STE COOPER AVE
S SPRING STS ORIGINAL STM EADO W OODDRE COOPER AVES WEST END STS MONARCH STS GALENA STE DURANT AVE
S WEST END STDEAN ST
RED MTN RD
KING ST
E REDS RD
AJ
AX AVEMA
P
L
E
L
NC
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
L
NOAK LNH
U
N
T
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
GIBSON AVE
MATCHLESS DR
E HYMAN AVEWRIGHTS RDW REDS RD
M
C
L
A
I
N
F
L
A
T
SRD
E REDS RD
RANCH RD
R
E
D
M
T
N
R
D
PIT
KIN
WAY
SNEAKYLNDRAW DR
S
A
BIN D
RCEMETERY LNNELL ERICKSON RD
MAROLT PL
ISABEL HAY RD
S 7TH STRED BUTTE DRMEADOWS RDSHADY LNP
L
A
C
E
R
L
N
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NFIP
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAMNotice to User: The Map Number shown below should beused when placing map orders: the Community Numbershown above should be used on insurance applications for thesubject community.
FIRMFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADOAND INCORPORATED AREAS
CONTAINS
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MAP REVISED
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It doesnot necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainagesources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted forpossible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the FloodProfiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables containedwithin the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report that accompanies this FIRM. Usersshould be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-footelevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only andshould not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,flood elevation data presented in the FIS report should be utilized in conjunction withthe FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Users of this FIRM should beaware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of StillwaterElevations table in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. Elevationsshown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for constructionand/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevationsshown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolatedbetween cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations withregard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widthsand other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study reportfor this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood controlstructures. Refer to section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood InsuranceStudy report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal TransverseMercator (UTM) zone 13. The horizontal datum was NAD83, GRS80 spheroid.Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the production ofFIRMs for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in mapfeatures across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracyof this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datumof 1988 (NAVD88). These flood elevations must be compared to structure andground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regardingconversion between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the NorthAmerican Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website athttp://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the followingaddress:
NGS Information ServicesNOAA, N/NGS12National Geodetic SurveySSMC-2, #92021315 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910-3282
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marksshown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NationalGeodetic Survey at (301) 713-3242 or visit its website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/.
Base Map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format byAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. These data are current as of 2010.
This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations andfloodplain delineations than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction.The floodplains and floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM mayhave been adjusted to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As aresult, the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables in the Flood Insurance StudyReport (which contains authoritative hydraulic data)may reflect stream channeldistances that differ from what is shown on this map.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the timeof publication. Because changes due to annexations or de-annexations may haveoccurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriatecommunity officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the countyshowing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses; and aListing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates foreach community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community islocated.
Contact FEMA Map Service Center (MSC) via the FEMA Map Information eXchange(FMIX) 1-877-336-2627 for information on available products associated with thisFIRM. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change,aFlood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. The MSC mayalso be reached by Fax at 1-800-358-9620 and its website athttp://www.msc.fema.gov/.
If you have questions about this map or questions concerning the National FloodInsurance Program in general, please call 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627) orvisit the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip.
NOTES TO USERS
[COUNTY NAME] County Vertical Datum Offset Table
Flooding Source Vertical DatumOffset (ft)Lower SnowmassUpper SnowmassLower Crystal CreekUpper Crystal CreekRoaring Fork in AspenMaroon CreekSouth Side Split FlowRoaring Fork in BasaltBrush CreekHunter Creek
4.95.35.05.35.15.24.84.95.15.3
This Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) was produced through aCooperating Technical Partner (CTP) agreement between the State of ColoradoWater Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA).
Additional Flood Hazard information and resources areavailable from local communities and the ColoradoWater Conservation Board.
LEGEND
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); averagedepths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities alsodetermined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Area Formerly protected from the 1% annual chanceflood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. ZoneAR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored toprovide protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal floodprotection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevationsdetermined.ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base FloodElevations determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base FloodElevations determined.
The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), also known as the base flood, is the floodthat has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special FloodHazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas ofSpecial Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base FloodElevation is the water-surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAS) SUBJECT TOINUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must bekept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried withoutsubstantial increases in flood heights.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood withaverage depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs)
CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Floodplain boundary
Floodway boundary
Zone D Boundary
!!!!!!!!!!!!CBRS and OPA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different BaseFlood Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities.
Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*513
Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone;elevation in feet*(EL 987)
* Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)
Cross section line
Transect line(23
,A ,A
(23
97° 07' 30.00"32° 22' 30.00"Geographic coordinates referenced to the North AmericanDatum of 1983 (NAD 83)
4275000mN 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,zone 13
6000000 FT 5000-foot grid ticks: Colorado State Plane coordinatesystem, central zone (FIPSZONE 0502), Lambert Conformal Conic Projection
DDX5510 Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section ofthis FIRM panel)
M1.5 River Mile
FEET25005001000
METERS1500150300
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the CommunityMap History Table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insuranceagent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base FloodElevations determined.
Example: To convert Chicken Creek elevations to NAVD 88, 4.02 feet were added to the NGVD 29 elevations.
Panel Location Map
PANEL 0354 OF 0725
PANEL 0354E
MAP SCALE 1" = 500'
MAP NUMBER08097C0354E
341000mE 342000mE 343000mE
4340000mN
4341000mN
4342000mN
2620000 FT 2625000 FT
1925000 FT
1930000 FT
39° 13' 7.50"
-106° 48' 45.00"39° 13' 7.50"
-106° 50' 37.50"
39° 11' 15.00"
-106° 50' 37.50"39° 11' 15.00"
-106° 48' 45.00"
JOINS PANEL 0352
JOINS PANEL 0362 JOINS PANEL 0358JOINS PANEL 0353ASPEN, CITY OF 080143 0354 E
PITKIN COUNTY(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)080287 0354 E
Roaring Fork River
QUEEN ST
PRELIMINARY
JUNE 11 2015
MAP REPOSITORIESRefer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDEFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPEFFECTIVE DATEJune 4, 1987EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL:MAP REVISION DATE:to update corporate limits, to update roads and road names, tochange Special Flood Hazard Areas, to change floodway, to reflect updated topographicinformation, to change Base Flood Elevations, to incorporate previously issued Letters ofMap Revision, and to incorporate previously issued Letters of Map AmendmentP54 VI.B.
P55VI.B.
P56VI.B.
P57VI.B.
P58VI.B.
P59
VI.B.
P60
VI.B.
P61VI.B.
P62VI.B.
P63VI.B.
P64VI.B.
Aerial Side Aerial View Up to Platform
Existing Viewing Platform P65VI.B.
Aerial Side Aerial View Up to Platform
Proposed Viewing Platform
P66VI.B.
= Existing Footprint
= Additional Proposed Support Beams
Footprint Expansion
P67VI.B.
Proposed Tree Impacts
P68VI.B.
Proposed Platform
41’8” from Center
of River
Existing Platform
45’9.5” from
Center of River
Key:= Mean High Water = Declared Top of Bank
Encroachment towards edge of water
P69VI.B.
Existing Proposed
Progressive height limit
P70VI.B.
P71VI.B.
P72VI.B.
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2016
RE: AACP / Land Use Code Revisions Update
REQUEST OF P&Z:
The purpose of this meeting is to provide a general overview of the work to update the Land Use Code.
Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting outlining the direction received to date – this is also
summarized in Exhibits A-E to this memo. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide
initial feedback.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
In August 2015, City Council adopted a set of “Top Ten Goals” to work on for the next two years. One
of the goals is to “reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code
delivers what the AACP promises.” During a November 2015 work session, Council identified seven
policy areas that should be updated in the Land Use Code. These included:
• Commercial Design Standards
• Public Amenity
• View Planes
• Land Uses and Commercial Mix
• Off-Street Parking and Mobility
• Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces
City Council has been meeting in a number of work sessions over the summer and into the fall on the
issues above. Attached as Exhibit A-E are the most recent work session summaries that highlight the
general direction Council has provided to date. Staff will present the initial direction on each of the
topic areas at the meeting and will ask for P&Z feedback on the work. Additional meetings in October
and November will also be scheduled to ensure P&Z is able to provide feedback on the code
amendments.
In addition, significant public outreach has been conducted to gather community feedback on the
project. Initial findings from that outreach are included below. A complete Public Outreach Report will
be available later in October.
Also attached are the dimensional standards from 2000 to today, as well as the initial draft policy
recommendations from the off-street parking consultants.
P73
VII.A.
Page 2 of 6
DRAFT PUBLIC OUTREACH REPORT: Following the adoption of the moratorium, city staff and
the project consultants outlined the community outreach approach required for a complex, multi-tiered
code update and policy adoption process. What emerged was a two-pronged approach employing a new
outreach website and various activities to engage with a broad range of the public including local
residents, tourists and technical stakeholders. Based upon feedback from Council, staff focused
community outreach on the following topic areas:
TABLE 1: AACP-LUC COORDINATION TOPICS
Timeline and Events
In total, city staff and consultants hosted 20 Pop-Up Workshops, small community meetings, focus
groups, and open houses. Additionally, Staff has conducted 14 meetings (and counting) with City
Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, CCLC, and the
NextGen Commission.
TABLE 2: PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
Project Scope
Commercial Design Standards and Public
Amenity
Update to reflect zoning changes since 2007
Use Regulations in commercial zone
districts
Update zoning to better regulate and propagate a variety of
uses in the commercial zones that serve both the local and
tourist economies
Review inclusion of free-market and affordable housing
Mobility and Off-Street Parking Update requirements to create a more efficient parking mix
while supporting overarching City sustainability and
transportation goals
Mountain View Planes
Update language to reflect current development patterns and
inform future development impacting views from
downtown Aspen
Month Purpose Event
April Inform • Consultant work and outreach planning begins
• Off-Street Parking small community meetings
May Inform
• Project timelines developed
• Materials for new outreach website are developed
• Kick-off meetings and focus groups conducted
June Consult
• Aspen Community Voice launches
• Pop-Up workshops on the Pedestrian Mall
• Off-Street Parking community meetings, intercept surveys,
data collection
P74
VII.A.
Page 3 of 6
Onl
ine
Out
rea
ch
Asp
en
Co
mm
unit
y
Voi
ce
(A
CV
),
was
launched on June 15, 2016 and serves as an information hub for all projects under the moratorium. ACV
hosts project pages for each of the targeted code amendment areas with project information, background
documents, key dates, and project manager contact information. Aspen Community Voice has served as
a supplemental vehicle for soliciting feedback with 1,153 project page visits, over 190 survey
submissions, 29 quick poll responses, and 30 contributions to other activities. Additionally, 162
background documents were downloaded, and 92 users accessed key dates and event information
throughout the summer.
Participants
Throughout the summer there were 277 community members who participated in events, 120 who
contributed to Open City Hall surveys, and 90 who actively engaged in surveys and activities on ACV.
Please note these numbers do not include those who did not register with demographic information, and
are indicative of only a fraction of those who were engaged in community meetings and pop-up
workshops and those who visited the ACV website. Of those who provided us with information, 79%
were valley residents, 61% being Aspen community members. There was an even split between male
and female (50% / 50%) respondents and a relatively even age distribution with a concentration of
respondents aged between 30-49 years of age.
Key Findings
In the analysis of the community feedback to date, staff have discerned two overarching themes
regarding the community’s preferences when it comes to the built form of Aspen: access and community
values. Respondents reiterated across all the projects the need for access; access to affordable parking
options, access to transportation, access to affordable housing, access to public amenity spaces and
access to affordable retail. The desire for access spanned stakeholder groups and often was ‘tailored’ to
individual needs, where the idea of community values appeared to be more of a universal perspective.
Respondents feel a strong affinity for ‘their’ Aspen, whether residents or visitors, and have a clear
perspective on what should be reflected in the architecture and development patterns based upon their
July Consult /
Collaborate
• Pop-Up workshop at Yellow Brick
• Commercial Design Standards community meetings, focus
groups
• Pop-Up workshop at Aspen Saturday market
August Consult /
Collaborate
• Pop-Up workshops (Aspen Saturday Market, Pedestrian
Mall)
• Community meetings, Open House on all project areas
September Inform • City staff begins preliminary feedback analysis
October Inform
• Community meeting (policy direction)
• Community Outreach Report publication
• Policy Resolution
November Inform • Final community meeting
• 1st Reading of Ordinances
Nov - Jan Inform • 2nd Readings of Ordinances
P75
VII.A.
Page 4 of 6
experiential interactions with the town itself. Expounding upon these sentiments, project key findings
have been summarized below in Table 3.
TABLE 3: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Project Key Findings
Commercial
Design
Standards
Building Design Preferences: Participants were widely divided on their vision for
Aspen desiring historic, contemporary, and modern designs. This is reflected both in
the current stock of buildings and what participants would like to see in the future.
Despite the diversity of opinions on specific buildings, participants supported design
that respects historic character and responds to neighborhood context.
Public Amenity: Participants overwhelmingly supported increasing public amenity
space with a focus on experiential spaces such as outdoor dining and gathering spaces.
Character Areas: Participants supported further clarification of the character areas, as
long as the history of each was taken into account when creating specific guidelines.
Use Mix
Success/failures of current commercial services: Participants were split on whether
current commercial offerings met their needs. Many wanted a focus on local ownership
but there was acknowledgement that high end retail helps support Aspen’s economy.
Function of commercial services: A majority of participants felt that the most
important function of Aspen’s commercial areas was to provide goods and services to
residents. SCI and NC zone districts were highlighted as target areas for locally serving
businesses.
Most important uses to have in Aspen: The following were identified in order of
importance: restaurants, public and open spaces, retail, community services, arts and
cultural facilities, and offices. Participants recognized business in Aspen can be
challenging due to a seasonal tourist economy and high land costs.
Uses within building and structure of lots: Participants preferred two story buildings
with an option for a third floor primarily containing commercial space on the ground
floor, residential and office spaces on top floors. The majority supported affordable
housing over free-market in mixed use buildings and expressed interest in subgrade
parking options.
Housing in commercial zones: Participants generally supported affordable and
resident-occupied housing in commercial zones. Participants were concerned over cost
and possibly detracting from commercial inventory. Participants felt that residential
uses should not alter the character of buildings and should be a subordinate use.
Off-Street
Parking
Parking Preferences: Participants who park on-street chose to do so for proximity to
their destination and for convenience for errands, while those who parked off-street did
so because of ‘permits, carpool passes, or lodging guest passes’. Many participants
P76
VII.A.
Page 5 of 6
The process of compiling the data and assembling the final Public Outreach Report will correspond with
the drafting of the Policy Resolution. The final report will provide Council with a clear portrait of the
extent of the public outreach effort, detailed findings and linkages between those findings and the
specific policies contained in the Policy Resolution. Both items will be delivered to Council on October
24th as part of the formal Policy Resolution process.
NEXT STEPS: The AACP-LUC coordination process is entering its third phase, the legislative
process, which includes policy resolution and the development of code amendments for all of the topic
areas included in the moratorium. A draft timeline is included in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4: AACP-LUC COORDINATION SCHEDULE
DATE MEETING TOPIC
Week of
10/10
Council work session View planes, dimensional standards
10/24 Council work session Policy Resolution
10/31 Public outreach event Policy & process update
Late Oct /
Early Nov
P&Z, HPC Commercial design, use mix, dimensional
standards
11/2 Council work session View planes, draft code language
11/7 Council work session Draft code language
11/9 Public outreach event Policy & process update
11/14 Council meeting Ordinances first reading
11/15 P&Z Commercial design
11/16 HPC Commercial design
11/28 Council meeting Ordinances second reading
View planes draft code language
employ a mix of parking on-street, off-street, and taking public or alternative transit,
while a minority only use alternative modes of transport due to either not having a car
or an aversion to congestion.
Parking Facilities: Participants expressed strong support for subgrade parking
facilities often referencing Wagner Park. While most participants were aware of current
parking facilities, many felt they are inconvenient because location or congestion (Rio
Grande and City Market).
Cost: The majority of participants expressed concern over the affordability of both on-
street and off-street parking, especially those who are required to drive for work and
need to transport items into town.
Access: Participants were universally concerned with access to parking with many
noting the distance of the Rio Grande to primary destinations.
P77
VII.A.
Page 6 of 6
12/5 Council meeting Code language amendments
12/12 Council meeting View planes ordinance first reading
In October and November, staff will conduct two additional public outreach events to inform the public
of draft policies and code amendments and seek their input before bringing those items to Council.
Following those meetings and the Board and Commission reviews, staff anticipates bringing first draft
ordinances to Council for a First Reading on November 14th. Following first reading, staff and the
consultants will make the necessary edits to the proposed code language before bringing final ordinances
to Council for review on November 28th.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: August 9, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit B: August 29, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit C: September 13, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit D: September 19, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit E: September 27, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit F: Dimensional Requirements 2000 to today
Exhibit G: Nelson\Nygaard Parking Memorandum – Technical Memo #6
P78
VII.A.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Phillip Supino, Long-Range
Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and consultant Alan Richman presented to City
Council an update on the various aspects of the process of coordinating the Aspen Area Community Plan and
the Land Use Code. The specific agenda items are discussed in more detail below. Staff also provided Council
with updates and information regarding the timeline for completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process.
COMMERCIAL USE MIX: Following a presentation by Richman of the various regulatory tools available to
create the desired commercial use mix in Aspen, Council discussed the effect of those options and expressed
interest in some of the 15 tools listed. A majority of Council members supported the following items for
additional research and discussion: expand/modify NC and SCI boundaries, amendments to the zone use lists or
dimensional standards, creation of a locally serving business district or overlay, modification of the commercial
design standards, a GMQS scoring system, a legacy business program, and commercial replacement
requirements. Staff will return to Council at the August 29th work session with additional information and
options for Council consideration.
RESIDENTIAL USES AND REGULATIONS: Council discussed four issues related to residential uses in
mixed-use and commercial areas: micro housing, physical separation of residential from commercial uses,
occupancy restrictions, and banning free-market residential in commercial areas. Council agreed to defer
further discussion of micro housing until the expiration of the moratorium. Council supported banning free-
market residential uses from all commercial zones. A majority of Council members supported potentially
allowing “free-market” residential uses in a commercial building in the mixed-use zone district with some
additional restrictions, including occupancy restrictions or physical separation. Council agreed with the staff
position that the issue of physical separation should be based on the outcome of the revision of the Commercial
Design Standards; potentially requiring it along Main Street where the historic development pattern includes
detached residential dwellings. A majority of Council also supported allowing limited affordable housing in
commercial zone districts in an effort to have “lights on” in these areas. In general, however, Council supported
prioritizing commercial uses in the commercial zone districts.
VIEW PLANES: Council supported a thorough analysis and revision of the View Plane regulations, including
clarifying the description of the various View Planes, and analyzing the effectiveness of current View Plane
designations. Staff agreed to develop a scope of work and plan for the View Plane amendment process for
Council consideration at the August 29th Work Session, and noted that the process supported by Council would
extend into 2017, but is anticipated to be completed under the moratorium timeframe.
NEXT STEPS: Staff and the consultant teams will respond to Council direction on the aforementioned items and
return with updates and additional information for Council consideration at the August 29th Work Session.
P79
VII.A.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Mark White, White and Smith;
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services; Thomas Brown, Nelson\Nygaard; Sara Adams,
BendonAdams; Sara Broughton, Rowland + Broughton
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and the consultants for the various topic areas
presented to City Council an update on the various aspects of the process of coordinating the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the Land Use Code. The specific agenda items are discussed in more detail below.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: Following a presentation of the draft revised Commercial Design
Guidelines, Council discussed the relationship between Character Area boundaries and zone district boundaries.
Council suggested focusing the Main Street guidelines on favoring residential character, ensuring the guidelines
preserve and enhance each character area and requested more information on architectural outcomes from the
new guidelines. Council expressed support for accessible, useable, meaningful public amenity spaces, and
supported allowing cash-in-lieu of public amenity on the pedestrian malls to ensure the pedestrian experience
on the malls is reinforced with strong building edges that are consistent with the 19th century building character
in the district. In addition, Council strongly supported guidelines to encourage ‘nooks-and-crannies,’ including
allowing certain buildings to have second floor or basement public amenity spaces. Council also asked for
additional information about the interrelationship between Character Areas and Zoning.
COMMERCIAL USE MIX: Based on the direction provided at the August 9th study session, Mark White
described to Council the regulatory tools and incentives proposed to preserve and enhance the commercial use
mix in downtown. Council favored focusing the allowed uses in the SCI and NC zones on commercial uses,
eliminating free-market residential uses in all commercial zones and suggesting that affordable housing was not
appropriate except as ancillary to commercial uses. Council supported using general use tables in the zone
districts, as opposed to a very specific use list, and supported removing or further restricting lodge uses in
commercial zones. There was some support for a Locally Serving Business Overlay in certain areas, perhaps
the Neighborhood Commercial zone, but specific direction was not given. Additional information will be
presented at a future work session about this issue. Council also supported using the Commercial Design
Guidelines to provide incentives for the creation of desired commercial spaces, particularly “nooks and
crannies.” Finally, Council chose not to pursue consideration of the Legacy Business Program, or regulation of
pop-up retail uses.
RESIDENTIAL USES AND MITIGATION: Council supported allowing resident-occupied, free-market
housing as an ancillary use in mixed-use buildings on Main Street which does not create use conflicts. Council
also supported continuing to allow multi-family housing as a single use in the Mixed Use zone district. Council
also reiterated support for limited affordable housing in commercial zones. The discussion of whether and how
to increase the affordable housing mitigation rate resulted in direction to staff to explore what the process would
require and whether it could be accomplished under the moratorium.
P80
VII.A.
2
OFF-STREET PARKING: Council supported the concepts presented by Nelson/Nygaard, including better
coordinating the City’s mobility and TDM objectives with the parking regulations, developing regulations to
better incentivize and regulate shared parking, allowing greater flexibility in achieving TIA and parking
requirements and exploring the impact of soft-maximum parking requirements. In general Council supported
parking requirements that lead to an overall mobility shift.
NEXT STEPS: Counselors Myrin and Frisch requested the staff bring to Council proposals to reduce the
maximum Floor Area Ratio for commercial buildings, as well as any other potential dimensional changes. These
issues will be discussed in an upcoming September work session. The next AACP-LUC coordination work
session is scheduled for September 13th, 2016.
P81
VII.A.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: September 13, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Justin Barker, Senior Planner;
Phillip Supino, Long-Range Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and Mr. Richman discussed the scheduling for future
work sessions and public hearings needed for the completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process, aspects
of the draft Commercial Design Guidelines revisions and potential changes to the process for Council call-up of
land uses cases before boards and commissions. Discussion of View Planes and Affordable Housing Mitigation
were moved to September 19.
AACP-LUC COORDINATION SCHEDULE: Given the constraints of the current timeline to bring Policy
Resolution to Council on October 10, 2016, Council suggested extending that deadline to October 24th and
adding work sessions in October and November to ensure there is sufficient time to discuss draft code language
during the ordinance adoption process. Council supported extending the timeline, favored adding Wednesday
or Thursday work sessions to avoid extending the moratorium.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: Council supported the continued use of Character Areas in the
Commercial Design Guidelines (CDG) to provide fine-grained design guidance to projects beyond simply using
the basic dimensional standards provided in the zoning section of the LUC. Council also supported the
proposed changes to the Character Area boundaries as presented at the August 29th Work Session. Regarding
cash-in-lieu of providing public amenity, Council supported continuing to allow it as an option for properties
where on-site is not feasible. Council suggested adding the cash-in-lieu standards to the criteria for call-up of
projects and directed staff to create clearer standards for when cash-in-lieu might be permitted. Council
reiterated support for having development on the pedestrian malls at the lot line to reinforce the pedestrian
experience, and supported alternative methods of public amenity in these areas, including second level, off-site
on the pedestrian malls, or cash-in-lieu to support maintenance of the pedestrian malls. Council supported
allowing architectural arcades to meet public amenity requirements in certain circumstances. They directed
staff to draft language allowing arcades in limited circumstances while not allowing them to become pervasive
in downtown. In addition, Council supported exploring unit size limitations for commercial spaces accessed off
of an arcade or mid-block walkway.
CALL-UP: After some discussion, Council favored continuing to use call-ups as a way to provide additional
over-sight to specific land use applications under consideration by boards and commissions. Council directed
staff to develop clearer standards for when projects might be called-up, requirements for Council to provide a
clearer rationale for the call-up and allow opportunities for Council to provide more detailed direction when
remanding call-ups back to the appropriate board or commission. Some Council members also supported
moving any substantive changes to the call-up process to after the moratorium.
P82
VII.A.
2
NEXT STEPS: The next AACP-LUC Coordination work session is schedule to cover View Planes and
Affordable Housing Mitigation on September 19, 2016. The September 27th work session is scheduled to cover
draft policy language on Off-Street Parking and Use Mix, as well as provide additional details on the anticipated
timeline for completion of the Coordination process. More information and dates for public meetings, work
sessions and public hearings will be made available at the September 19th work session.
P83
VII.A.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Phillip Supino, Long-Range
Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff presented to Council information relevant to the coordination of the Aspen
Area Community Plan (AACP) with the Land Use Code (LUC) including the following topics: View Plane
regulations, Affordable Housing mitigation rate and dimensional standards.
VIEW PLANES: Staff provided an over-view of the current view plane regulations, a survey of view plane
preservation regulations in other communities and facilitated a discussion about the purpose and intent of
revised View Plane standards. Council acknowledged the importance of the View Plane regulations to
achieving a number of AACP goals, and that the language in the current regulations requires adjustment to
improve ease of use. Council also noted the importance of dimensional standards and Commercial Design
Guidelines relative to the preservation of the downtown viewshed, and directed staff to prioritize revisions to
those standards and guidelines above revisions to the View Plane regulations. Council directed staff to include
in the revisions a definition of “minimal impact,” and Council supported staff commencing with the visual
analysis portion of the View Plane revision process on the timeline provided in the memorandum.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION RATE: Staff presented background information on how the
current mitigation rate was established, its administration and scenarios of how adjusted mitigation rates would
play-out in a hypothetical development. Staff requested direction from Council as to whether they desired to
adjust the current mitigation rate, and provided options for potential adjustments. Staff suggested that any
adjustment be tied to the assessment that the present rate does not achieve AACP policy goals. Council
requested that staff assemble additional background information from existing studies and documents on the
need for affordable housing relative to the existing stock. Conceptually, Council favored offering a reduced rate
in exchange for valued public goods such as public amenity space, second-tier commercial space and similar
assets. Staff will return with additional information at a subsequent meeting.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: Council discussed commercial building height, floor area ratio and setbacks.
Council reiterated their preference for focusing on ‘right-sizing’ commercial development through revised
dimensional standards and requested that staff return to Council with proposals for reduced floor area ratios and
new public amenity space requirements for commercial buildings in the commercial and mixed-use zones.
Council supported the maintenance of the 28-foot height limit for commercial buildings in most zones, and
continuing to allow for 35 feet in the SCI zone. Council discussed and directed staff to return with additional
information about the potential for allowing a third floor in exchange for desired uses in commercial buildings.
NEXT STEPS: There is a Council work session scheduled for 9/27/16, at which Use Mix and Off-street Parking
will be discussed. The specially scheduled 10/5 work session will focus on Commercial Design Guidelines and
additional policy issues prior to the Policy Resolution hearing on 10/24/16.
P84
VII.A.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: September 27, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Phillip Supino, Long-Range
Planner; Reilly Thimons, Planning Technician, Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff presented to Council information relevant to the coordination of the Aspen
Area Community Plan (AACP) with the Land Use Code (LUC) including off-street parking standards and
commercial use mix.
OFF-STREET PARKING: Staff outlined the policy proposals for amendments to the off-street parking
regulations, which include changes to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Transportation Demand Management
and cash-in-lieu of parking policies and regulations in addition to the parking section of the LUC. Council
supported maintaining the current parking minimums and adding a soft maximum standard. Council supported
updating the regulations for and encouraging shared parking as an option for commercial development, but
expressed that they would like more information on how these policy options would coordinate with on-street
parking management. Council supported mandating cash-in-lieu of parking for properties on pedestrian malls,
leaving it as optional in other commercial zones. Council suggested analyzing whether the cash-in-lieu rate is
appropriate for Aspen and the impacts of parking and supported using cash-in-lieu funds for the development and
maintenance of alternative transportation infrastructure and programs. Council expressed interest in changing
parking requirements to a ‘mobility’ requirement which encapsulates both parking requirements and alternative
transit incentives and programming.
COMMERCIAL USE MIX: Staff presented to Council five proposals for promoting a diverse mix of
commercial uses in the CC, C1, MU, SCI and NC zones. For residential uses, Council supported eliminating free-
market residential in the SCI and NC zones. Council requested further analysis of how resident-occupied free-
market housing would function in the MU, SCI and NC zones. Council supported the presence of but requested
further analysis and specific proposals regarding the allowed proportion of affordable housing relative to
commercial spaces in mixed-use projects in the CC and C1 zones. The concept of allowing dimensional incentives
for desired uses in commercial zones was not supported. The Locally Serving Business Overlay Zone was
supported in concept, and more information was requested about how it would function, including what
dimensional standards may be included. Council continued to back the development of Commercial Design
Guidelines which allow for the development of second tier commercial spaces through public amenity space
requirements, the allowance of basement and alley commercial spaces, form and massing that generates second
floor spaces and other techniques. Finally, Council supported revisions to the allowed use lists, zone purpose and
intent descriptions and the development of use categories for the commercial zones.
NEXT STEPS: Given his anticipated absence, Mayor Skadron requested that the October 5th work session be
rescheduled to a later date. As of this writing, that date has not been determined. The next work session will
include follow-up discussion on the items requested at the September 27th work session, proposals for changes to
some of the dimensional standards contained in the Zoning chapter of the LUC and presentation of a draft Public
Outreach Report.
P85
VII.A.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 11February 2016
Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional
History
This map illustrates the location of Aspen’s
Commercial Zone Districts. These Districts
include: Commercial Core (CC), Commercial
(C-1), Service, Commercial, Industrial
(S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Mixed-Use (MU).
The pages that follow list the dimensional
changes in these zone districts since 2000.
The following abbreviations are used:
• FAR = Floor Area Ratio. This is the ratio
of what can be built relative to a parcel’s
size.
• SR = Special Review. This review is
conducted by the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
• AH = Affordable Housing
• FM - Free-market residential housing
• Res = residential; both affordable housing
and free-market residential
• Sm. Units = Small Units. Refers to
individual lodge unit size of 500 sq ft or
less
• TDR = Transferable Development RightP86 VII.A.
12 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Where The immediate downtown. Main to Durant, from Monarch to Hunter Streets.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 42, 46 for areas setback
15 feet
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories 38, which may
be increased to 42 by
Commercial Design Review
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories up to 40 allowed
on n side of street if for
lodging
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0
Commercial Parking 2/1000 1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.
Maximum Total FAR 1.5, may be increased to
2:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1.5:1, may be increased
to 2:1 if 60% additional
FAR is AH
2:1 2:1
Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1
Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2.5:1 w/ sm. units
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR
Commercial to
Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Use removed --
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Use removed --
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District
P87VII.A.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 13February 2016
Where A one-block strip east of the Commercial Core. Main to Cooper, from Hunter to Spring streets.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 38 - pitched, 42 - flat
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories 36, which may
be increased to 40 by
Commercial Design Review
28 for 2-story buildings;
3 stories up to 38 allowed
on n side of street if for
lodging
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0 0 0 0
Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.
Maximum Total FAR 1.1, may be increased to
1.5:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1.5:1, may be increased
to 2:1 if 60% additional
FAR is AH
1.5:1 1.5:1
Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1
Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2:1 w/ sm. units
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR
Commercial to
Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Commercial (C-1) Zone District
P88VII.A.
14 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Where Obermeyer Place, North Mill and Puppy Smith area, and the US Post Office.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)35 35, may be increased to
40 through S.R.35 35
Public Amenity No requirement No requirement 25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0
Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
Maximum Total FAR
1:1, may be increased to
2:1 if minimum of 1:1 is
AH
2:1 2.25:1 2.25:1
Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum
Total FAR 1.5:1
1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary
care offices if 0.75:1 of
other commercial uses on
same parcel
1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary
care offices if 0.75:1 of
other commercial uses on
same parcel
Arts/Civic FAR ----
Lodging FAR ----
AH Res. FAR -0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1
FM Res. FAR -
0.5:1 only if a min. of
0.75:1 commercial uses on
parcel
0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 -
1:1 of other commercial
uses on same parcel
0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 -
1:1 of other commercial
uses on same parcel
Commercial to
Residential ratio ----
Single Family FAR ----
Duplex FAR ----
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)-No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR
Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I)P89VII.A.
Aspen Planning & Zoning History 15February 2016
Mixed-Use (MU)
Where Main Street, a one-block strip west of the CC between Main and Hyman, and one-block strip east of the C1
between Main and Cooper.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)25 25 to 32
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
Public Amenity No requirement 25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)10, 15, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5
Commercial Parking 3/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000
Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R. & 60% AH
Historic Dist.: 1:1
Non-Historic: 2:1
Historic Dist.: 1:1, may
be increased to 1.25:1 by
S.R.
Non-Historic: 2:1
Historic Dist.: 1:1, may
be increased to 1.25:1 by
S.R.
Non-Historic: 2:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
Arts/Civic FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
Lodging FAR 0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
0.75:1, may be increased
to 1:1 by S.R.
AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation
FM Res. FAR 0.75:1; 1:1 w/ S.R.0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
Commercial to
Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80%of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6
Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDRP90 VII.A.
16 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Where The City Market block and the Clark's Market area.
pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium
Changes Current Code
Height (Feet)28, may be increased to
32 by S.R.32
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
28, may be increased to
32 by Commercial Design
Review
Public Amenity 25%25%25%25%
Setbacks: Front, Rear,
Sides (Feet)10, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5
Commercial Parking 4/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
Commercial FAR
Governed by Maximum
Total FAR
1:1 1:1 1:1
Arts/Civic FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1
Lodging FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1
AH Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1
FM Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal
amounts FM & AH
Commercial to
Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1:1 1:1
Single Family FAR ----
Duplex FAR ----
Max. Residential unit
size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDRP91
VII.A.
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i
DRAFT UPDATES
Recommendations for Parking Code Reform
Off-Street Parking & Mobility Updates Study
City of Aspen
September 2016
P92
VII.A.
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Parking Minimums and Maximums ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 Public Parking Replaced for Private Parking at Residential Development ....................... 9
Figure 3 Allow CIL Option for All Parking Minimums ......................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Example CIL Fee Rates....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5 Restrictions Reduce the Effective Capacity of Existing Parking Supplies ....................... 13
Figure 6 Minimum Requirements for Bike Parking ......................................................................... 14
Figure 7 Driveways Can Significantly Disrupt Pedestrian Facilities ............................................... 22
Figure 8 Guidelines Should Seek Sidewalk Continuity Across Driveways ..................................... 22
Figure 9: Curb Extension Provides Place for Drivers to Wait Beyond Sidewalk .............................. 23
Figure 10: Double Stop Signs Buffer Sidewalk Traffic ....................................................................... 23
Figure 11 The City’s Pay-by-Phone Vendor Facilitates Shared Parking in Asheville, NC ................. 27
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Code Change Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4
Priority Opportunities ............................................................................................................................ 4
Infill Area Code Updates ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Retain Minimum Parking Requirements ............................................................................................. 6
Add a “Soft” Maximum on Private Parking .......................................................................................... 6
Allow CIL for All Parking Requirements ............................................................................................... 8
Adopt a Progressive CIL Rate Structure ............................................................................................ 10
Require CIL In Apprporiate Sub-Districts ........................................................................................... 11
Update Shared Parking Credits .......................................................................................................... 12
Allow Off-Peak Sharing of Required Parking ..................................................................................... 12
Add Bike Parking Requirements ........................................................................................................ 13
Add A Car-share Parking Requirement .............................................................................................. 14
Incentivize Multimodal MObility Amentities ...................................................................................... 15
TIA Strategies ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Add a Parking-Plan Category .............................................................................................................. 19
Add a Resident-Trip-Reduction Category ........................................................................................... 19
Add Lodging-Trip-Reduction Category ................................................................................................ 20
Design Standards ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Shared Parking ................................................................................................................................... 21
Driveways ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Buffer-Area CoDe Updates ................................................................................................................................ 24
Expand CIL Option .............................................................................................................................. 24
Incentivize Driving Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 24
Supportive Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Integrate Parking, TDM, & Mobility PLanning ................................................................................... 25
Coordinate with Private-Parking Owners ........................................................................................... 27
Coordinate with TIA Outcomes & Commitments ............................................................................... 28
Coordinate with Curb-Management Programs .................................................................................. 29
Transition Away from Monthly Permits .............................................................................................. 31
P93
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 12 Downtown Parking Map with Shared Facilities (Davis, CA) .............................................. 28
Figure 13 Track TDM & Mobility Conditions to Guide Private & Public Investments ...................... 29
Figure 14 Balancing Long- and Short-Term Demand at the Curbside ............................................. 29
Figure 15 High-Capacity Parking Areas Expand Curbside Parking Access ....................................... 30
P94
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
INTRODUCTION
This document presents a set of recommended changes to update the parking code for
development within Aspen’s Infill Area. This set of recommendations is followed by
complementary sets of strategies, selected for their potential to help further the effectiveness and
benefits of the recommended Infill Area code changes. These represent the final results of the
City’s Off-Street Parking and Mobility study.
OBJECTIVES
The recommendations included in this document were identified to serve the following objectives,
as identified by the City of Aspen for the Off-Street Parking and Mobility study.
Reduce Car Dependency.
Support Community Plan Goals for:
Reducing traffic in town,
Reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and
Encouraging alternative modes of transportation .
Expand the Code’s Focus Beyond Parking.
Emphasize parking as but one option to ensure access to new land uses, and
mobility for a project’s residents, tenants and visitors.
PRIORITY OPPORTUNITIES
During the study, a set of priority code-update opportunities emerged during through an analysis
of conditions and a series of stakeholder outreach activities. Those opportunities, identified
below, guided the development of the recommendations identified in this document.
Avoid Oversupply of Private Parking
The current parking supply within the Infill Area was constructed, and is
managed, in direct response to code-based minimum parking requirements.
When supplies are managed as private resources, they provide far less effective-
capacity in meeting area-wide parking needs.
The 2005 code update significantly reduced the development of such parking
over the last 10+ years.
Additional code strategies can further this important transition from private
parking toward public parking and mobility resources.
Avoid Undersupply of Public Parking
To the extent that the City tracks parking supply sufficiency as a performance
measure for its development code, it should focus on public pa rking supplies,
rather than overall supplies, which are predominantly private today.
A combination of incentives and requirements should provide resources to
ensure adequate investments in new, public parking supplies, whether via on -site
P95
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
parking at new development, or via Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) contributions for public
parking, TDM, and mobility investments.
An updated code can also create opportunities to make existing facilities more
broadly available, expanding the supply of public parking without any net
increase in overall supply.
Build Upon Cash-in-Lieu Progress
The CIL program provides a unique and essential funding source for the
development of public parking.
Counterintuitively, adding public parking can reduce car dependency, if it
shifts more parking activity into City-managed facilities, and reduces activity
captured in private facilities.
By ultimately creating a Park Once environment, the provision of public
parking will facilitate and encourage walking, cycling, and transit for short
trips in the Infill Area, reducing local traffic and activating the public realm
Public parking can also reduce car-ownership and driving rates by shifting
more parking activity into facilities that are priced, and managed in
coordination with Mobility and TDM programs.
The CIL also provides funding to directly reduce car dependency and parking
demand through investments in Mobility improvements and TDM programs.
The fact that the CIL is already working to minimize on-site parking at new
development is an important accomplishment that should be fully embraced in
order to realize its full potential.
Continue to Emphasize Efficiency over Redundancy
Discourage the provision of private/reserved parking spaces at new development,
in favor of contributions to shared parking and mobility resources.
Address the poor efficiency of existing private/reserved parking facilities through
encouragement of shared parking.
Continue to Emphasize Mobility over Parking Alone
Facilitating the CIL option as the normative choice among developers in the Infill
Area supports and promotes the policy that providing parking is but one way to
make new developments accessible to residents, employees, and visitors.
Adding requirements and incentives to provide on-site mobility amenities as part
of Infill Area projects will help to further expand the Code’s focus beyond parking
requirements to emphasize mobility.
P96
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6
INFILL AREA CODE UPDATES
RETAIN MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The current parking requirements appear to have little impact on how much on-
site parking developers provide at their projects.
Because most developers opt for the CIL option, these requirements trigger, and
determine the level of contributions to a fund maintained for investments in
Shared Parking, Mobility, and TDM.
The current minimum requirements are at levels generally considered
appropriate for walkable, downtown districts.
ADD A “SOFT” MAXIMUM ON PRIVATE PARKING
Add a maximum parking ratio to complement the current minimum-parking
ratios.
Set this ratio at 125% of the minimum requirement ratio — see examples in
table below.
Allow developers to provide more parking by either paying a CIL fee or by
allowing shared access to all spaces, minus those required to meet the
minimum requirement for residential uses.
Link the fee option to the CIL for the minimum parking requirement, and
capture resulting revenue within the same fund.
P97
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
Figure 1 Parking Minimums and Maximums
* 100% may be provided by cash in lieu.
Land Uses
Aspen Infill Area
Spaces Required Private Parking Maximum
Commercial 1/1,000 sf net leasable
space*
1.25 /1,000 sf net leasable
space
Single-Family and Duplex Lesser of 1/bedroom or
2/unit
Greater of 1.25/bedroom or
2.5/unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Carriage Houses 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family (as a single
use) 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family within a
mixed-use building
1/unit*
None in CC or C-1 Districts
1.25/unit
Hotel/Lodge 0.5/unit
None in CC and C-1 Districts 0.625/unit
All Other Uses Established by special review 125% of the minimum required
Code Example 1: Arlington County, VA
The Parking Maximum for the Columbia Pike Form-Based Code:
A maximum of one space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential GFA or two
spaces per residential dwelling unit may be made available for reserved parking.
Reserved parking above the maximum may be provided upon payment to
the County.
The County Manager shall establish the amount of payment annually based
on the approximate cost to build structured parking.
There are no maximums on Shared Parking.
Any limitations on the Shared Parking (time limits or hours of the day) shall
be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
At least 12 hours of public parking must be provided in any 24-hour period,
and at least 8 of those hours must be provided during either business or
nighttime hours depending on whether the Zoning Administrator
determines that the primary public use will be for commercial or residential
uses.
P98
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
ALLOW CIL FOR ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Some of the most inefficient private parking facilities in the Infill Area are linked to “stand alone”
residential developments, for which the CIL option remains unavailable. See image below.
Code Example 2: Orlando, FL
Definition. For purposes of this Part, "Parking Bonus" shall mean authorization
given by the City to a landowner to provide parking spaces in excess of the
maximum requirements set forth in (a) above, in exchange for a payment.
Purpose. The Parking Bonus system is established to further the following
objectives:
Ensure that uses and proposed uses in the Downtown Parking Area are
competitive in the local real estate market;
Discourage the provision of parking spaces in excess of absolute need; an d
Ensure that off-street parking spaces are available for use by Downtown
Parking Area residents and the general public.
Bonus Payment. The total amount of a Parking Bonus payment shall be calculated
by multiplying the total number of parking spaces provided in excess of the
maximums…, by the corresponding payment per space amount indicated in the
tables below.
Uses
Payment Per Space
West of I-4 East of I-4
Residential $1,500 $1,500
Non-Residential $0 $1,500
P99
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 2 Public Parking Replaced by Private Parking at Residential Development
Allow the CIL option for all land uses allowed within the Infill Area, for up to
100% of a project’s parking requirements.
Figure 3 Allow CIL Option for All Parking Minimums
* 100% may be provided by cash in lieu.
Land Uses
Aspen Infill Area
Spaces Required* Private Parking Maximum
Commercial 1/1,000 sf net leasable space 1.25 /1,000 sf net leasable
space
Single-Family and Duplex Lesser of 1/bedroom or 2/unit Greater of 1.25/bedroom or
2.5/unit
Accessory Dwelling Units and
Carriage Houses 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family (as a single use) 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family within a mixed-
use building
1/unit
None in CC or C-1 Districts
1.25/unit
Hotel/Lodge 0.5/unit
None in CC and C-1 Districts 0.625/unit
All Other Uses Established by special review 125% of the minimum
required
P100
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
ADOPT A PROGRESSIVE CIL RATE STRUCTURE
For a CIL option to be successful, it must offer meaningful cost savings compared to meeting
minimum requirements via on-site parking. Nonetheless, the fee must be significant enough to
provide sufficient revenue for the City to accommodate the parking and travel demand created by
the approved development project; whether that accommodation is in the for m of added public
parking capacity, mobility improvements, or expanded and enhanced TDM programs.
Fortunately, City-built parking capacities tend to be much more cost effective than private, on -site
parking capacities, providing a significant range within which a CIL fee rate can be effective. This
range is even wider if the City has the option to invest in mobility improvements and TDM, as well
as public parking.
Based on available information, stakeholder feedback, and a survey of comparable rates across
the country, the current rate of $30,000 per replaced space is appropriate and in line with
standards. The table below presents a range of CIL fee rates from representative cities.
Figure 4 Non-Peer CIL Fee Rates
The current fee level has also proven effective in generating meaningful revenue for public
investment. As such, should the City choose to retain a flat fee rate, we do not recommend any
adjustment to this rate.
However, we recommend considering a progressive rate structure in which the per-space fee
increases with the project’s parking requirement. Such an approach would make the CIL option
highly attractive to those proposing “infill” and other smaller scale projects, which tend to have
very limited options for on-site parking. The same rate structure can make the fee less attractive
for developers of very large projects, which will tend to have more suitable site dimensions for the
efficient inclusion of on-site parking, and also present the best opportunities to effectively provide
shared parking, perhaps in coordination with the City’s parking program.
Breckenridge, CO Mountain View, CA Palo Alto, CA
$19,236 $26,000.00 $67,100
P101
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
REQUIRE CIL IN APPRPORIATE SUB-DISTRICTS
TO BE UPDATED AS SUCH SUB-DISTRICTS ARE IDENTIFIED
It is anticipated that the City’s overall LUC update will include the identification
of areas in which private, on-site parking is unwanted.
On-site parking should be prohibited as an on-site use for developments in any
such areas.
CIL payment should be required, and set based on what the minimum
requirement would be in any other area of the Infill Area.
Code Example: Needham, MA
The amount of the fee to be paid shall be… subject to the following fee schedule:
Number of Spaces Replaced by Fee Fee Per Space
For spaces 1 thru 10 $5,000.00
For spaces 11 thru 20 $7,500.00
For spaces 21 thru 35 $10,000.00
For spaces 36 thru 49 $15,000.00
For spaces 50 or more $20,000.00
Code Example: To Come
P102
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12
UPDATE SHARED PARKING CREDITS
Use the Shared Parking Model developed by the Urban Land Institute to calculate
reductions to minimum parking requirements for mixed-use projects. 1
ALLOW OFF-PEAK SHARING OF REQUIRED PARKING
Allow required parking spaces to be shared.
Make retroactive for existing developments and the parking spaces provided on-
site to meet parking requirements.
1 https://uli.bookstore.ipgbook.com/shared-parking-cd-products-9780874202618.php?page_id=21
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
Shared Parking
a. An applicant proposing development with more than one use may submit a
shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Model
(Second Edition, 2005) instead of using the parking table in Section 6.2.4.B.
Code Example: Arlington County, VA
Shared Parking
Parking spaces in C, C-O, M, RA-H or R-C districts which are required by this
zoning ordinance may be used by persons other than persons engaging in uses on
the site, provided that said spaces shall be made available at all times to persons
engaging in uses on the site at least at the same rates as to persons not engaging in
uses on the site, and provided that there is no demand for said spaces by persons
engaging in uses on the site.
P103
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13
Figure 5 Restrictions Reduce the Effective Capacity of Existing Parking Supplies
ADD BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Include distinctions between Class 1 and Class 2 facilities, as noted below.
Class One facilities are secure, weather-protected facilities intended for use
as long-term, overnight, and work-day bicycle storage by dwelling unit
residents, non-residential occupants, and employees.
Class Two facilities are located in a publicly-accessible, highly visible location
intended for transient or short-term use by visitors, guests, and patrons to
the building or use.
P104
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14
Figure 6 Minimum Requirements for Bike Parking
ADD A CAR-SHARE PARKING REQUIREMENT
As car-sharing becomes a more prominent local mobility option, an updated code can support the
expansion of available vehicle stocks by providing free parking within larger private parking
facilities included in new development projects.
Require that on-site facilities containing at least 50 spaces make a minimum
number of spaces available to any recognized car-share service provider, free of
charge, on a “right of first refusal” basis. This allows the property owner to use
these spaces until they become occupied by an interested car-share service
provider.
Land Uses
Bike Spaces Required
Min. Requirement % in Class 1 Facilities
Commercial (Office) 1 / 5K SF Net Leasable Space 85%
Commercial (Other) 1 / 10K SF Net Leasable Space 15%
Single-Family and
Duplex No Requirement
Accessory Dwelling
Units and Carriage
Houses
No Requirement
Multi-Family (as a
single use) 1 / 2 units 95%
Multi-Family within a
mixed-use building 1 / 2 units 95%
Hotel/Lodge 1 / 10 Guest Rooms 100%
All Other Uses Established by special review
P105
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15
CREDIT UNBUNDLED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Reduce parking requirements by 25% for multifamily uses when spaces are sold
or rented separately from the purchase or lease of a residential unit.
When parking is charged separately some residents will reduce how much
parking they use, and how many cars they own
Similarly, charging separately for parking helps to attract residents who
already own fewer cars, by reducing their housing costs compared to options
that build in the cost of parking.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
1. A parking facility with 50 to 149 parking spaces must have a minimum of one
car-share parking space. One additional car-share parking space is required for
each 100 parking spaces more than 149, up to a maximum requirement of 5. A
parking facility may provide more car-share parking spaces than required.
2. If the property owner cannot find a car-share organization willing to make use of
the spaces, the property owner may use the spaces for publicly -available parking. If
a County recognized car-share organization notifies the property owner that the
organization wants to use the car-share spaces, the property owner must make the
spaces available to the car-share organization within 90 days after receiving
written notice of interest from the County recognized car-share organization.
P106
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16
INCENTIVIZE MULTIMODAL MOBILITY AMENTITIES
Provide parking requirement credits/reductions in exchange for the inclusion of amenities that
improve and/or expand on-site mobility options. Allow a total reduction of 25% for these
amenity-based credits.
Credit Car-Share Parking
Reduce minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential uses where
car-share parking is provided on-site.
Begin with a 2-space reduction for each on-site car-share vehicle
and increase the reduction level as car-sharing expands within
the Infill Area.
Credit Bike-Share Facilities
Credit a bike-share facility with a minimum of 10 spaces as equal to 3 vehicle
parking spaces.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
In a Parking Lot District or Reduced Parking Area, if residential parking for
Townhouse Living and Multi-Unit Living is sold or rented separately from the
purchase or lease of a residential unit, the baseline minimum parking requirement
is:
Use Spaces Required
Townhouse 0.75
Efficiency or 1-Bedroom 0.5
2-bedroom or larger 0.75
Code Example: Bozeman, MT
A car-sharing agreement may be used to meet the required number of parking
spaces in developments with more than five dwellings.
Each vehicle provided through a car-sharing agreement (with its
corresponding space) will count as five standard spaces.
The maximum reduction is set at 50% of the total.
P107
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17
Credit Changing Facilities
Reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces for non-
residential uses by 3 spaces for each changing facility that
includes a shower and set of lockers.
Code Example: Portland, OR
Substitution of a bike sharing facility for required parking is allowed if all of the
following are met:
A bike sharing station providing 15 docks and eight shared bicycles reduces
the motor vehicle parking requirement by three spaces. The provision of
each addition of four docks and two shared bicycles reduces the motor
vehicle parking requirement by an additional space, up to a maximum of 25
percent of the required parking spaces;
The bike sharing facility must be adjacent to, and visible from the street,
and must be publicly accessible;
The bike sharing facility must be shown on the building plans; and
Bike sharing agreement.
The property owner must have a bike sharing agreement with a bike -
sharing company;
The bike sharing agreement must be approved by the Portland Bureau
of Transportation; and
A copy of the signed agreement between the property owner and the
bikesharing company, accompanied by a letter of approval from the
Bureau of Transportation, must be submitted before the building
permit is approved.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
The deciding body may reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces by 3
spaces for each additional changing facility provided above the minimum required
under Section 6.2.6.A.4. A changing facility must include a shower and lockers
provided separately for each gender.
P108
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18
Credit Transit Proximity
Reduce parking requirements by up to 10% for land uses developed within 800
feet of a Roaring Fork Transportation Agency, fixed-route transit stop.
Code Example: Bozeman, MT
Transit availability. Required parking may be reduced by ten percent in
circumstances where the development is within 800 feet of a developed and serviced
transit stop. For the purpose of this subsection a transit stop is eligible when it has
publicly available cover from weather approved by the transit provider to be
equivalent to a transit shelter, and service is provided on not less than an hourly
schedule a minimum of five days per week.
P109
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19
TIA STRATEGIES
The following changes are recommended to enhance the existing TIA program in complement to
the Code changes recommended above. All recommendations are proposed for the TDM Input
Page, completed for proposed Infill Area projects.
ADD A PARKING-PLAN CATEGORY
Sub-category: Proportion of parking that will be shared
Questions:
What proportion of the project’s minimum parking requirement will be met
through a “cash in lieu” payment?
What proportion of on-site parking spaces will be provided as public parking
(publicly accessible for a minimum of 12 hours in any 24-hour period, with an
hourly rate set equivalent to the base rate in effect at the nearest City of Aspen
off-street facility)?
Sub-category: Proportion of parking that will be unbundled
Question:
What proportion of on-site parking spaces will be provided inclusive of the
purchase or lease of building space or dwelling units?
ADD A RESIDENT-TRIP-REDUCTION CATEGORY
Sub-category: Cycling Amenities
Questions:
What is the ratio of Class A bike parking spaces, per dwelling unit?
Will a sheltered bicycle repair station be provided?
Sub-category: Carshare Program
Questions:
Is carshare participation being implemented?
How many resident memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of residents are eligible?
P110
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20
Sub-category: Bikeshare Program
Questions:
Is bike-share participation being implemented?
How many resident memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of residents are eligible?
Sub-category: Transit Amenities
Questions:
Will a “Transit Screen” display, or similar, be maintained in the lobby to display
“real time” transit arrival, departure, and “next ride” information?
Will there be a dedicated room, or area off the lobby for waiting on rides, and
monitoring the Transit Screen display?2
ADD LODGING-TRIP-REDUCTION CATEGORY
Sub-category: Promotions & Information
Questions:
Will driving-alternatives be actively promoted to guests?
Transit, taxi, ride-hailing services, bike-share, car-share, walkability, etc.
promoted on Home and Reservations web-pages, including links to relevant
programs
When relevant: The same webpages also provide links to the City’s TDM
program’s Car-Free Stays program
Sub-category: Ride-share Program
Questions:
Will guests be provided with Uber or Lyft allowances?
One complimentary ride for each night’s stay
Sub-category: Bikeshare Program
Questions:
Will guests be provided with bike-share memberships?
24-hour pass for single-night stays
3-day passes for all others
2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/08/17/this-new-apartment-building-has-an-uber-room-to-
wait-for-your-ride/
P111
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21
DESIGN STANDARDS
The following elements of parking-facility design are recommended for consideration for the
City’s update to the Infill Area’s development desig n guidelines.
SHARED PARKING
Establish facility-design standards for on-site parking facilities approved as Shared parking
within the Infill Area. At a minimum, these should cover the following facility-design
components.
Location and visibility relative to the building’s primary entrance
Identification and way-finding signage
Signage identifying any restrictions on public access
DRIVEWAYS
Establish design standards for all Infill Area projects that emphasize restrictions on driveway
placement and design to preserve sidewalk continuity, especially on primary streets.
Minimize the disruption of sidewalks at points of intersection with project
driveways.
Sidewalk-driveway interface design should reflect the reality that legally drivers
must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks.
Varying the paving treatments between the sidewalk and driveway can help
delineate these areas more clearly for motorists and pedestrians.
Driveways should ramp up to sidewalk level at the curb; the sidewalk should not
ramp down to meet the driveway.
Driveway design should be used to make location of pedestrian traffic clear to
drivers and prevent idling in the driveway areas.
P112
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22
Figure 7 Driveways Can Significantly Disrupt Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 8 Guidelines Should Seek Sidewalk Continuity Across Driveways
P113
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23
Figure 9: Curb Extension Provides Place for Drivers to Wait Beyond Sidewalk
Figure 10: Double Stop Signs Buffer Sidewalk Traffic
P114
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24
BUFFER-AREA CODE UPDATES
The following recommendations are proposed for areas adjacent to the Infill Area, acknowledging
and enhancing the influence of Aspen’s downtown district on the travel mode-choice patterns
within these surrounding areas.
EXPAND CIL OPTION
Allow the CIL option for non-residential uses in areas immediately surrounding
the Infill Area.
The recommended progressive rate structure will be particularly amenable to
encouraging this option among smaller developments, which might
otherwise remain physically or financially infeasible if parking requirements
must be met on-site.
CREDIT UNBUNDLED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Reduce parking requirements by 25%, for multifamily uses when spaces are sold
or rented separately from the purchase or lease of a residential unit.
INCENTIVIZE DRIVING ALTERNATIVES
Credit Shared Parking
Use the Shared Parking Model developed by the Urban Land Institute to calculate
reductions to minimum parking requirements for mixed-use projects.
Credit Car-Share Parking
Credit each car-share space as equal to 2 required parking spaces for all uses.
Credit Bike-Share Facilities
Credit a bike-share facility with a minimum of 10 spaces as equal to 3 vehicle
parking spaces.
Credit Changing Facilities
Reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces for non-residential uses by
3 spaces for each changing facility that includes a shower and set of lockers.
P115
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25
SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES
INTEGRATE PARKING, TDM & MOBILITY PLANNING
An integrated Parking, TDM, and Mobility, program would raise the profile of the benefits
generated by CIL fees. It would also facilitate a strategic process for developing investment
strategies for the enterprise fund into which these fees are collected. This would allow the City to
weigh the relative benefits of options to expand parking supplies, expand TDM programs and
benefits, and/or make strategic investments in mobility improvements across the Infill Area, as
the area’s parking and transportation needs and opportunities evolve.
Short-Term: Formalize Coordination
There are several viable models for integrating Parking, TDM, and Mobility planning, programs,
and activities within the Infill Area. At a minimum, and for the short-term, the City’s should
identify a Mobility Coordinator to initiate coordination among the following.
Key City departments, including Parking, Transportation, Community
Development, and Engineering
Roaring Fork Transportation Agency
Third-Party programs and service providers, including We Cycle, Downtowner,
Uber, etc.
The Mobility Coordinator would also provide a single point of contact for information and
engagement regarding Parking, TDM, and Mobility. This would include:
Visitors seeking information about getting around the Infill Area without a car
Prospective residents seeking information on non-driving mobiltiy programs and
services
Developers seeking help in developing Parking, TDM, and Mobility components
for their proposals
Service providers seeking support for potential new mobility services or programs
Property owners seeking input on expanding access to their property through
effective provision and design of pedestrian, bike, and transit amenities
Employers seeking non-driving programs and information to aid in employee
attraction and retention
Medium-Term: Formalize a Parking, TDM, & Mobility Program
Use the funding provided by CIL and similar fees to develop a formal Parking, TDM, and Mobility
program. To maximize the complementary nature of parking and mobility programs, the program
should either be incorporated within the City’s Parking Department, or identified as a
complementary program that is closely coordinated with it.
P116
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26
http://www.commuterpage.com/pages/about/arlington-county-commuter-services/
Program Precedent: Arlington County, VA
Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) is the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) agency of Arlington County, Virginia. Established in 1989, its
mission is to provide Arlington residents, employees, business, and visitors with
transportation information and services to support a vibrant and livable
community. ACCS implements programs and strategies that promote public
transit, walking, biking, carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and other options
that reduce the demand for vehicular travel, lessen congestion and air pollution,
and improve accessibility. ACCS serves as an information and educational resource
center for residents, employees, and visitors who travel to and within the County.
ACCS is a bureau of Arlington County's Transportation Division in the Department
of Environmental Services. ACCS is funded in part by grants from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Its
programs and services include the following.
Commuter Store – Online, mobile, and retail storefronts that offer transit
fare sales, printed transit schedules and maps, and staff to provide
information on transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, teleworking, and
other commute/mobility options.
BikeArlington – Promoting cycling options, including coordination with the
DC Region’s bike-share program.
Arlington Transportation Partners - Free services for Arlington employers,
residential buildings/communities, developers, and hotels to set up
commuter benefits programs.
TDM for Site Plan Development - Mitigates the transportation impacts of
real estate development by ensuring that development proposals include
TDM commitments in their Site Plan submissions, a nd monitoring and
enforcing those commitments post construction.
Research – Surveys and studies to document evolving conditions, as well as
funding for The Mobility Lab, a program that researches innovative
opportunities to develop and highlight “advanced transportation options”.
Marketing and Promotions – For all ACCS programs as well as
complementary transportation services and programs.
P117
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27
COORDINATE WITH PRIVATE-PARKING OWNERS
Figure 11 The City’s Pay-by-Phone Vendor Facilitates Shared Parking in Asheville, NC
The City can play a vital role in encouraging
more shared parking within the Infill Area.
This will be essential for extracting greater
value from existing parking facilities, most of
which are privately controlled. Management
coordination and strategy development will
help generate “buy in” among private facility
owners, and facilitate use of these options
when they are available as public parking.
Coordinate with owners of private
parking facilities to encourage
shared/public access to more of the
Infill Area parking inventory.
Help document peak and off-peak
demand conditions and schedules
at private facilities
Identify opportunities to provide
and manage shared access during
off-peak times
This can include controlled-
sharing strategies, such as
“employee parking” and
public valet coordination
It can also include facilitating
commercial parking
opportunities, utilizing the
City’s “pay by phone” system
to allow paid public parking
during “off hours” – see image
to the right.
Develop coordinated information,
signage, and branding strategies to
identify these parking options when
they are available.
Include information on shared parking facilities on the City’s parking maps
and web-pages
Develop on-site signage and information to make these options clear, and
clearly identify when they are accessible as public parking – see map below.
P118
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
Figure 12 Downtown Parking Map with Shared Facilities (Davis, CA)
Image source: City of Davis, California via http://davisdowntown.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Downtown-Parking-Map.jpg
COORDINATE WITH TIA OUTCOMES & COMMITMENTS
The current CIL program provides an important opportunity to complement private TDM and
Mobility initiatives and investments with broader, public programs. An integrated Parking, TDM,
and Mobility program can enhance this complementarity by tracking patterns of TDM and
Mobility initiatives among developers and property owners, to ensure that public investments
enhance their benefits, and to address additional opportunities and constraints. For example, this
could include advising TIA-developers on the relative benefits of providing bike-share
memberships, compared to providing space and funding for an on-site bike-share station, at any
particular proposed-development site, based on the specific needs and opportunities of the public
bike-share program.
P119
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29
Figure 13 Track TDM & Mobility Conditions to Guide Private & Public Investments
COORDINATE WITH CURB-MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Figure 14 Balancing Long- and Short-Term Demand at the Curbside
Off-Street parking is often a “fallback” option for drivers who could not find suitable curbside
parking. Conversely, curbside parking capacities can be overwhelmed by demand created by a
lack of suitable off-street parking options, or a resistance to off-street regulations or cost.
Coordination with curb-management programs is therefore essential to ensure the effectiveness
of the proposed Parking, TDM, and Mobility program.
P120
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30
The City currently employs several curbside management best practices, includin g the following.
Performance-based Pricing – Setting rates in response to documented supply and
demand conditions, in pursuit of optimal levels of availability, a practice that was
enhanced through a pilot program in the summer of 2015.
Residential Permit Parking – Restricting the allowed parking duration in
residential areas, and providing an exemption for vehicles displaying permits that
are made available only to area residents.
Employee Permit Parking – Making use of excess capacities along blocks
regulated via Resident Permit Parking restrictions by making a limited number of
permits available to local employees.
The City should formalize coordination with these and future management strategies as part of an
Integrated Parking, TDM, and Mobility program. This should include an emphasis on curbside
management strategies that can reduce the need for on -site parking facilities. This would include
permit strategies, such as those noted above, as well as other options worth considering, such as
the following.
Curbside loading strategies, including metering loading zones during peak hours,
and incentivizing off-peak deliveries through generous, early-morning and
overnight loading zones on primary commercial streets
High-Capacity parking facilities, including bike corrals, bike-share stations, car-
share spaces, and motorcycle/scooter parking areas
Figure 15 High-Capacity Parking Areas Expand Curbside Parking Access
P121
VII.A.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31
TRANSITION AWAY FROM MONTHLY PERMITS
Replacing monthly passes with pay-as-you-go options, such as debit cards, can help promote non-
driving modes among Infill Area commuters who use City parking options. Once a commuter has
secured a monthly permit, there is no cost-based incentive to not use that permit , every day. Even
free cycling and transit options offer no opportunity to reduce commute costs.
And, without a comparably-priced daily parking option, commuters face the choice of procuring a
monthly permit, or committing to a full month of riding a bike or a bus every day. This
encourages commuters who might otherwise split their commutes between driving and available
alternatives to buy a parking pass each month, with the result that they drive far more frequently
than they might if offered a different set of options.
A viable daily parking option addresses both of these barriers to part -time use of alternative
modes, allowing commuters to assess their options each day and choose the right combination of
cost, convenience, and level of service to meet their fluctuating needs. Boulder, Colorado recently
converted their monthly pass system to a daily parking system, for this reason. Alternatively,
promoting the City’s “10-Visit” pass to commuters might be a viable short-term strategy, as this
provides enough parking to drive “half time”, at less than half the cost of a monthly pass.
P122
VII.A.