Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20161010 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 10, 2016 2:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Land Use Code Revisions P1 10.10.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 1 of 5 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Meeting Date: October 10, 2016, 2:00 PM RE: AACP Land Use Code Revisions Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks direction and preliminary policy support for potential changes to the Land Use Code effecting dimensional standards, use mix, and View Plane regulations. BACKGROUND: As Council and staff continue the work of coordinating the AACP (Aspen Area Community Plan) and Land Use Code (LUC), analysis of the linkages between elements becomes more fined grained, and the strategies and tactics required to achieve Council’s goals for the moratorium are coming into view. Having received final policy direction on use mix and off-street parking at the September 27th work session, the remaining elements of the coordination process, View Planes and zoning code dimensional standards, require additional discussion. Through these discussions, staff hopes to ensure that the policy proposals brought before Council on October 24th reflect Council’s vision and direction to date. On September 27th, Council was presented with background information about View Plane regulations in Aspen and communities around the Country. Staff illustrated the regulatory and design-based approaches to view plane preservation taken by example communities and was provided with initial suggestions for appropriate revisions to Aspen’s View Plane regulations. At that meeting, Council directed staff to return with additional visual and regulatory information for further consideration. Council suggested that based on the information presented, they would direct staff to clarify the LUC language in the View Planes section, add helpful visual depictions of the planes and compliance techniques and assess whether any of the View Planes required modification to reflect current condition. Additional information and questions for Council are provided in this memo. Also at the September 27th work session, Council directed staff to develop revised building height and floor area ratio (FAR) maximums for commercial zones to reflect existing regulations and Council direction for code amendments under the moratorium. Council directed staff to eliminate the height ranges allowed under certain scenarios in the LUC, reduce maximum building height to 28 feet in all zones except SCI, which would remain at 35 feet. Staff has developed alternative FAR maximums to reflect the revised building heights, and they are proposed in this memo for consideration. As has been stressed throughout the process, the Commercial Design Guidelines are an essential tool for achieving a number of Council’s goals for use mix through the creation of second tier spaces, the development of meaningful and accessible public amenity spaces and guiding commercial development that reflects the character and economic needs of the City. The draft Commercial Design Guidelines are working their way through staff review before being presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission at two meetings in mid-October and mid-November. Following P2 I. 10.10.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 2 of 5 their review, the final draft will be polished and presented to Council at the December 5th Council meeting. November 2nd is the final work session prior to first and second readings of and could be used to review the draft Guidelines if Council desires. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: Attached as Exhibit A is a list of dimensions in the commercial zones since 2000, including draft proposed dimensions. These dimensions include reduced floor are ratios, reductions in allowed heights, maintenance of parking and public amenity requirements, and limits on various uses. This is intended as an initial draft of all dimensions, and will be refined as staff and the consultants move toward final code language for use mix and commercial design standards. Table A, below, outlines the draft proposed heights and floor areas for each commercial zone district. It should be noted that all properties are governed by the Maximum Total FAR, with individual use types falling underneath that ultimate cap. Additionally, maximum residential unit sizes are reduced in the MU and SCI zones to align with that allowed in the NC, but CC and C1 have been left as is. Table A: Draft Proposed Dimensions CC C-1 MU NC SCI Height (Feet) 28 28 28 28 35 Maximum Total FAR 2:1 1.75:1 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review Non-Historic: 1.5:1 1.5:1 2.25:1 Commercial FAR 2:1 1.75:1 Hist. District: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review Non-Hist. District: 1:1, may be increased to 1:1.5 by Special Review 1:1 1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary care offices if 0.75:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel Arts/Civic FAR 2:1 1.75:1 1:1 - Lodging FAR 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review - - AH Res. FAR 0.25:1; cannot create housing credits 0.25:1; cannot create housing credits No limitation 0.5:1; cannot create housing credits 0.5:1; cannot create housing credits FM Res. FAR Limited to existing FAR Limited to existing FAR Mixed Use Building: Limited to existing FAR; For stand-alone building: 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Limited to existing FAR Single Family FAR - - 100% - 80% of R-6 - - Duplex FAR - - 100% - 80% of R-6 - - P3 I. 10.10.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 3 of 5 LINKAGES: Dimensional standards are directly related to all the other policy areas being discussed as part of the moratorium. Dimensional standards are used in concert with use mix regulations to ensure use types are encouraged or discouraged related to overall community goals. For instance, the allowed floor area for free-market residential uses is proposed to be limited to existing floor area in all commercial zone districts. This is done to encourage commercial uses in these zones. Similarly, lodging is proposed to be removed as an allowed use in the NC and SCI zone districts, requiring elimination of allowed floor area for the use. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council have any feedback on the draft proposed dimensional standards? VIEW PLANES: Along with the project consultants, staff has gathered additional visual information about the location, extent and effect of View Planes in downtown Aspen. Panoramic photos (included as Exhibit B) taken from the surveyed location and base elevation show the current condition of each View Plane. With the exception of the Glory Hole Park View Plane, they show well preserved mountain views framed by contextually appropriate development. The Glory Hole View Plane is obstructed by a two story building and mature trees. The panoramic photographs, along with the maps showing surveyed locations of each View Plane and the overlay of all planes combines, paints a clear portrait of the extent of the View Planes and the effect the regulations have on the built environment relative to the downtown viewshed. At the September 27th Council work session, Council directed staff to commence with the visual analysis portion of the project and return with those depictions. Council also directed staff to limit the View Planes project to assessing the effectiveness of each plane, defining “minimal impact,” revising the code language to enable ease of interpretation and administration, and developing useful diagrams to aid in the use and application of the regulations. With the mapping and panoramic photographs provided, staff seeks additional Council direction on the scope and intent of the View Planes project. LINKAGES: The relationship between View Planes and the CDS have a direct relationship to commercial use mix and parking. The presence of a View Plane over a commercial property may significantly reduce the development potential of that property, limiting the availability of commercial spaces while preserving character-defining views from downtown Aspen to the surrounding landscape. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 2. Does Council have any questions about the current locations and extent of the View Planes? 3. Does Council support leaving the regulations intact while rewriting and clarifying the specific code language. 4. Is the Glory Hole Park View Plane serving its intended purpose? Does Council wish to retain it in its current description or alter the description to better reflect existing condition? USE MIX: During the public outreach process conducted as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process, staff received comments from the public about the importance of fostering a healthy commercial use mix in downtown. In many instances, the comments have supported the idea of defining and restricting chain stores from commercial areas. At the August 29th work session, staff presented to Council conceptual policies designed to do just that, and staff described some of the legal complications P4 I. 10.10.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 4 of 5 associated with developing and adopting such regulations. Council direction at that time was to focus attention in the Commercial Use Mix process on other options. Since that discussion, staff has continued to receive comments in support of regulations to restrict chain stores. Given the ongoing interest in doing so and the opportunity presented by the AACP-LUC coordination process to undertake such work, staff is following up with Council to ask whether the current policy direction remains unchanged. If Council is interested in pursuing chain regulations, one option is to add a definition of chain (or formula) businesses and require a conditional use review, dimensional restrictions or design standards for any chain store meeting the definition. LINKAGES: Chain stores are perceived by many to have a negative impact on the health and vitality of the commercial use mix in downtown. Others have commented that chain stores have a place in the commercial mix. While some chain stores may drive up rents or fail to create vibrant commercial opportunities, other chains are vital or locally grown businesses. Regulating chain stores may provide benefits in terms of offering commercial opportunities to other businesses while limiting the opportunity for other desired chain stores from locating downtown. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 5. Does Council wish to explore the possibility of regulating chain stores? DRAFT POLICY LANGUAGE: Staff has begun to assemble the documentation to support the Policy Resolution hearing scheduled for October 24th. Staff is also developing public outreach materials to encourage participation in the policy and code amendment process, which will be published in the local papers and included in the City of Aspen November utility billing cycle. Staff has included in the memorandum as Exhibit C a copy of the distilled policy language to be used in those materials. The intent of the text is to provide a snapshot of the definition of the issue, the majority public comments received for each topic, and proposed policies associated with each code change. The list is not comprehensive of all of the policies up for consideration on the 24th or code amendments being drafted for consideration in November, but is intended to reflect primary policy direction in the areas under discussion. Staff seeks to ensure that each item reflects Council’s direction to this point so that the Policy Resolution is accurate and the outreach materials are engaging. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 6. Does Council have any questions about the draft policy language? 7. Are there any policy items which Council feels should be added or removed from the list? NEXT STEPS: Barring any additional feedback or Council direction, the proposed amendments to the dimensional standards in the zoning code will be included in the Policy Resolution on October 24th and ordinances scheduled for first reading on November 14th. There are public outreach events scheduled for October 31st at the Fire Station Boo-Bash and November 9th at the Limelight Hotel. Following additional Council direction, staff will continue with the View Planes project and expects to return with code proposals at the November 29th work session. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Dimensions – 2000 to today, including draft proposed dimensional standards Exhibit B: View Plane Survey Maps Exhibit C: View Plane Survey Panoramic Photographs P5 I. 10.10.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 5 of 5 Exhibit D: Draft Policy Language P6 I. Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Proposed Dimensions 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 28 for 2-story buildings 25%25%25%25% 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res. 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 2:1 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 2:1 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units No limitation No limitation No limitation 0.25:1; cannot create housing credits 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Limited to existing FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 1.5:1 Use removed --- Use removed --- 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Proposed Dimensions 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 28 for 2-story buildings 25%25%25%25% 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res. 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 1.75:1 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.75:1 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 1.75:1 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units Where pre-infill code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories Public Amenity 25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet) 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 2/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1.5, may be increased to 2:1 by S.R. & 60% AH Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR Arts/Civic FAR Lodging FAR AH Res. FAR FM Res. FAR Commercial to Residential ratio - Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft) No limitation Where pre-infill code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories Public Amenity 25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet) 0 Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1.1, may be increased to 1.5:1 by S.R. & 60% AH Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR Arts/Civic FAR Lodging FAR Commercial Core (CC) Zone District The immediate downtown. Main to Durant, from Monarch to Hunter Streets. Commercial (C-1) Zone District A one-block strip east of the Commercial Core. Main to Cooper, from Hunter to Spring streets. P 7 I . No limitation No limitation No limitation 0.25:1; cannot create housing credits 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Limited to existing FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 1.5:1 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed - 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed - No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Where 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Proposed Dimensions Height (Feet)35 35 35 Public Amenity 25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet) 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Maximum Total FAR 2.25:1 2.25:1 2.25:1 Commercial FAR 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 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; cannot create housing credits FM Res. FAR 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 Limited to existing FAR Commercial to Residential ratio --- Single Family FAR --- Duplex FAR --- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft) 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Proposed Dimensions 25 to 32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28 Commercial to Residential ratio - Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft) No limitation Governed by Maximum Total FARAH Res. FAR FM Res. FAR pre-infill code Infill Code 35 35, may be increased to 40 through S.R. No requirement No requirement 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 1.5/1000 1/1000 1:1, may be increased to 2:1 if minimum of 1:1 is AH 2:1 Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1 -- -- -0.5:1 -0.5:1 only if a min. of 0.75:1 commercial uses on parcel -- -- -- -No limitation Where pre-infill code Height (Feet)25 Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I) Obermeyer Place, North Mill and Puppy Smith area, and the US Post Office. Mixed-Use (MU) 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. P 8 I . 25%25%25%25% 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 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 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by S.R. Non-Historic: 1.5:1 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. 1:1, may be increased to 1:1.25 in Hist Dist or 1:1.5 in Non-Hist District 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. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 1:1, may be increased to 1:1.25 in Hist Dist or 1:1.5 in Non-Hist District 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. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. No limitation No limitation No limitation No limitation 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 Mixed Use Building: Limited to existing FAR; For stand-alone building: 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 Mixed Use Building: 1.5:1 80%of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Proposed Dimensions 32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28 25%25%25%25% 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 - 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1; cannot create housing credits0.5:1 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 ---- ---- 2,000 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR Public Amenity No requirement Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet) 10, 15, 5 Commercial Parking 3/1000 Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. & 60% AH Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR Arts/Civic FAR Lodging FAR AH Res. FAR FM Res. FAR Commercial to Residential ratio N/A Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft) No limitation Where Arts/Civic FAR Lodging FAR AH Res. FAR FM Res. FAR pre-infill code Height (Feet)28, may be increased to 32 by S.R. Public Amenity 25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet) 10, 5, 5 Commercial to Residential ratio N/A Single Family FAR - Duplex FAR - Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft) No limitation Neighborhood Commercial (NC) The City Market block and the Clark's Market area. Commercial Parking 4/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR P 9 I . P 1 0 I . P 1 1 I . P 1 2 I . P 1 3 I . P 1 4 I . P 1 5 I . P 1 6 I . P 1 7 I . P 1 8 I . P 1 9 I . P 2 0 I . P 2 1 I . P 2 2 I . P 2 3 I . 1 Exhibit C: DRAFT POLICY OUTREACH LANGUAGE One of Council’s Top Ten Goals is to “Reconcile the Land Use Code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the Land Use Code delivers what the AACP promises.” Council has focused on seven policy areas, including: • Commercial Use Mix (what type of businesses should be encouraged or discouraged in Aspen) • Commercial Design Standards (what buildings look like) • Dimensional Standards (how big buildings are) • Off-Street Parking and Mobility (how people get where they’re going) • Residential Use Mix (should residential units be allowed in commercial zones) • View Planes (views of the mountains from downtown) • Affordable Housing Mitigation (how much affordable housing is required of development) Commercial Use Mix Definition: Provide a mix of uses in the City’s commercial districts that supports locally serving and unique businesses. Public Feedback: Participants felt that the most important function of Aspen’s commercial areas was to provide goods and services to residents, while also recognizing the importance of Aspen’s tourist economy. The following were identified in order of importance: restaurants, public and open spaces, retail, community services, arts and cultural facilities, and offices. Current Policy Direction: Consider a new zoning overlay to encourage businesses that accommodate the basic consumer needs of Aspen residents and visitors. Support the provision of “second tier” commercial spaces, such as along an alley, in a basement, on a second floor, or on a mid-block walkway, to allow for spaces that cater to a greater diversity of businesses. Add a “commercial replacement” requirement that any redevelopment preserve its existing ratio of second tier commercial spaces, and that all new development or redevelopment devote a given proportion of its commercial space toward second tier spaces. Establish unit size limitations for commercial spaces accessed from an arcade or mid-block walkway. Revise the allowed uses in commercial zones to limit unwanted uses, such as high end commercial businesses, and encourage desired uses, such as restaurants and businesses providing basic consumer needs. Commercial Design Standards Definition: Update requirements to reflect development that enhances, supports and is compatible with Aspen’s historic development pattern. P24 I. 2 Public Feedback: Participants supported design that respects historic character and responds to neighborhood context and supported public amenity spaces that are accessible, useable, and meaningful. Current Policy Direction: Provide guidelines that ensure public amenity spaces are accessible, useable, and meaningful. Reinforce the pedestrian experience on the Pedestrian Malls by allowing alternative public amenity spaces such as second level, off-site, or cash-in- lieu. Allow second tier commercial spaces through public amenity space requirements that support the use mix policies. Provide guidelines that reinforce the historic character of the downtown and Main Street, and allow additional flexibility for properties outside of downtown. Dimensional Standards Definition: Ensure the zoning code results in mass and scale that reflect Aspen’s small town character. Public Feedback: 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 upper floors. Current Policy Direction: Limit commercial and mixed-use development to two stories throughout Aspen. Update dimensional standards to match lower building heights. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Definition: Revise the off-street parking regulations to coordinate with the City’s sustainability and mobility priorities. Public Feedback: Many participants employ a mix of parking on-street, off-street, and taking public or alternative transit. Current Policy Direction: Increase the availability of off-street parking while encouraging development of facilities that promote alternative transportation modes, such as walking, biking, and transit. Mandate cash-in-lieu for mobility enhancements for properties on pedestrian malls, and retain it as option in other commercial zones. Maintain existing parking requirements, while adding a “soft” maximum ratio to the required number of parking spaces, where a given number of parking spaces provided on a site triggers alternative transportation and mobility mitigation requirements. Provide for and encourage shared parking as an option for commercial development, and coordinate shared spaces with the management of on-street parking spaces. P25 I. 3 Residential Use Mix Definition: Prioritize commercial uses in Aspen’s commercial zone districts by limiting residential uses. Public Feedback: A majority of participants supported affordable housing over free-market in mixed use buildings and felt that residential uses should not alter the character of buildings and should be a subordinate use Current Policy Direction: Eliminate new free-market residential uses in the CC, C1, MU, SCI and NC zones while allowing existing free market residential uses to continue. Allow free market residential uses as an ancillary use in mixed-use buildings in the MU zone with a requirement they house a local resident. Continue to allow single-family, duplex and multi-family housing as a single use in the Mixed Use zone district. View Planes Definition: Reinforce the importance of Mountain View Planes by simplifying and clarifying the regulations. Public Feedback: Participants supported preserving views from downtown Aspen. Current Policy Direction: Provide a clearer process when development is located in a protected view plane. Include additional visual information on protected view planes. Affordable Housing Mitigation Definition: Ensure development mitigates its impacts. Public Feedback: Most participants supported affordable housing requirements. Current Policy Direction: Require affordable housing mitigation for existing spaces that have not previously mitigated when the building is redeveloped. Explore an increase in current commercial and lodging mitigation requirements that can be reduced to today’s mitigation rate of 60% in exchange for valued public goods such as public amenity space, second-tier commercial space and similar assets. P26 I.