HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20101207 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
DATE OF MEMO: December 1, 2010
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2010, 4pm Council Chambers
RE: Update on AACP Public Process
REQUEST OF COUNCIL /COMMISSIONERS: No action is requested at this time, although
staff would like direction on how the review bodies would like to proceed with regard to the final
review and adoption process. Staff would like to cover a number of agenda items, including:
I) Will the AACP be guiding or regulatory, or both?
2) Potential study re: economic implications of the draft AACP.
3) Process for review and adoption phase.
4) Summary of controversial topics
BACKGROUND: The most recent public process phase of the 2010 AACP public process was
the Large Group Meetings at the Wheeler, from November 15 -17. Results are attached as Exhibit
A. The questions posed came from the topics most often discussed by the public at the eleven
Small Group Meetings, held from October 11 — 22. The overall intent of the "clicker" sessions
was to focus the public and the review bodies on the issues that appear to be of primary
importance as the plan moves into the final adoption process.
Staff would like to reiterate that the "clicker" results are not considered to be a statistically
accurate reflection of the community's position. Instant keypad voting is just one more method
of public feedback to be weighed and considered as the final review and adoption phase begins.
Because there was a malfunction with the clicker equipment during the regularly schedule
November 17`" session, staff has made an online survey version of the questions available to the
public. Responses are limited to one per IP address, and we have asked that individuals who
attended a clicker session do not participate in the online version. To date 170 people have taken
the online survey.
The P &Zs are drafting a letter to the participants of the small and large group meetings to thank
them for their involvement and update them on the next steps.
Page 1 of 5
SUMMARY: Staff believes that a key issue to resolve before proceeding with work sessions
and public hearings is determining whether the 2010 AACP should be identified as a "guiding"
document, a "regulatory" document, or both.
If this question is not resolved soon, staff believes this lack of resolution will contribute to
confusion and significantly extend the discussions. In contrast, if the public and reviewing bodies
understand exactly how the 2010 AACP will be used, discussion and debate can focus more
easily on the merits of the draft Visions, Philosophies and Policies.
Staff met with the joint P &Zs on November 30 to discuss the use of the plan. After a lengthy
discussion, the City P &Z recommended going through all the policies in the document and
identifying specific statements that should be regulatory. In other words, when a future
development in the City is required to be "consistent" with the new AACP, there would be a
specific list of policies identified in the plan that the application would have to show
" concictency" with.. All other parts of the plan would be considered guiding. The City P &Z
understands that as they go through the policies in the new AACP, the wording may be adjusted
so that it is "sufficiently exact" to essentially serve as standards of review.
Although the County P &Z does not anticipate specifically identifying policies in the new AACP
in this way, the County P &Z. believes going through this exercise of adjusting wording for
improved clarity and exactness would be a productive and helpful exercise. Effectively, both
City and County P &Zs will go through this exercise, but would ultimately use the plans in
slightly different ways.
In the City, the P &Z is a recommending body for the AACP and City Council ultimately adopts
the plan by Ordinance. This is a requirement of both the Land Use Code and the City Charter.
In the County, the AACP is adopted as an "advisory" document by the P &Z. Where the County
Land Use Code specifically requires consideration of Comprehensive Plans as a criterion of
approval for land use reviews, Comprehensive Plans, including the AACP may be used as a basis
for reviewing and taking action on land use applications.
REGULATORY V. GUIDING: CITY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff has outlined three options below for the Council and P &Zs to consider regarding the
adoption of the AACP. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommend option 2.
1. Adopt the entire 2010 draft AACP as a regulatory document. The entire document would
be incorporated by reference in portions of the City Land Use Code that require
consistency with the Aspen Area Community/Comprehensive Plan.
a. Staff does not recommend this option because there are a number of items in the
plan that are not intended to be regulatory. For instance, the references in the
Lifelong Aspenite chapter about healthy food systems and dental coverage are
good community goals, but are not something a developer should be required to
provide as part of their project. Adopting the entire plan as regulatory would
create confusion for applicants, staff, the public and reviewing entities about
which parts of the plan should apply to a particular development application.
Page 2 of 5
2. Adopt the 2010 draft AACP as both guiding and regulatory with specific references to the
items that are considered regulatory. The portions that would be considered regulatory
would need to be "sufficiently exact" in order to comply with case law.
a. This is the option the Planning and Zoning Commissions prefer, and staff is
comfortable with this approach. This option would allow the last two years of
staff and P &Z work on the plan to remain intact while providing clear guidance to
the community about which sections of the plan a developer must comply with.
Staff and the P &Zs are meeting on December 2 to review some of the policy
statements in the plan that could be considered regulatory, and others that would
be considered guiding, and will be prepared to present these various examples at
the December 7 work session. After the initial exercise, staff will have a better
idea of the timeframe required to conduct this exercise for the entire document.
With this option, staff believes the development review process will be more
predictable and fair because a land use applicant, as well as the community, will
have a clear set of statements that are used to judge if a development is consistent
with the community plan.
In addition, this approach allows city departments, city council, and the
community to start working on the many items that are in the plan that provide
clear guidance. These include items related to Parks, Recreation, Open Space, &
Trails, which encourage the creation of new recreation programs, and acquiring
land for new trail connections, as well as items in the Environmental Quality
Chapter, such as working to improve our air and water quality, and numerous
others.
3. Adopt the 2010 draft AACP as a guiding document with a list of potential code
amendments to begin working on immediately following its adoption.
a. Many of the polices and action items call for future work, such as amending the
land use code. Overall, staff believes incorporating language into the Land Use
Code creates a more powerful set of laws than simply leaving language in the
community plan. However, staff also recognizes the need to have the community
plan as a tool to review development applications against.
If the new AACP is adopted as a strictly guiding document it would create a
period of time when the 2000 AACP could still be used as a regulatory document.
The City Attorney's Office points out that the City could continue to rely on the
2000 AACP as a regulatory document for use in reviewing land use applications
and simultaneously approve the 2010 AACP as the guiding document for
Council's future legislative agenda. Ultimately, the 2000 AACP would need to be
phased -out at some point. However, this could result in confusion and /or conflict
between the two documents — city and county departments would be working off
of the new AACP as it provides direction to work programs and budget priorities,
but development applications would be considered against the old plan. If we go
this route, the task of determining what aspects of the old plan are sufficiently
Page 3 of 5
exact enough to be used as standards will be necessary. This task will be difficult
because the old plan was not written with this level of scrutiny in mind.
REGULATORY / GUIDING: COUNTY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The County recognizes the AACP as an advisory document that may be implemented differently
by the respective jurisdictions (Aspen and Pitkin). The County Land Use Code (Code)
specifically requires consideration of Comprehensive Plans as a criterion of approval for certain
types of land use reviews, (including special review, location and extent review, Code
amendments, rezoning, activities of local and state interest, and growth management
exemptions.) All applications are subject to the Land Use Policies in the Code, including one
that says "It is the policy to ensure consideration of Pitkin County's Comprehensive
Plan." The County Attorney believes that reference to Comprehensive Plans in the Land Use
Code as a basis for reviewing and taking action on a land use application has the force of law,
and that where such reference is made, Plans (including the AACP) may be used accordingly.
ADDITIONAL SURVEY
There has been some discussion of whether a statistically accurate survey should be conducted as
part of the process for review and final adoption of the 2010 AACP. Staff is working with
Design Workshop to conduct a statistically valid mail survey. The City Council recently
allocated $15,000 to conduct the survey. The Planning and Zoning Commissions will continue
with their process of review and editing before the results of the survey are available. Staff
anticipates the survey results will be available in February 2011.
STUDY ON ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF 2010 AACP
The question has been raised on whether there should be some kind of "economic viability"
study of the implications of the draft 2010 AACP. At this time, staff believes while some kind of
study could be done, it would take months to prepare and complete — and at the end of the day,
the results may have as much to do with national economic conditions as they do with the policy
implications of the 2010 AACP.
At the same time, staff believes that economic viability studies can be very useful for planning,
especially when considering code changes. Staff advises that the current focus should be on the
public policy implications of the AACP. Once a plan is adopted, both the City and County will
deliberate on what policies should be implemented, and during that process, economic viability
studies can be very helpful in ultimate decision - making. For instance, the plan calls for various
types of lodging that should be encouraged under the land use code. A study about lodging types
could be very useful when a policy discussion on lodging occurs.
As another example, Managing Growth Action Item V.3.a suggests conducting a Market
Demand Study to identify the level of local- resident demand for products and services, and the
amount of products and services locally available. This study could help inform future
discussions on the need for more locally- serving businesses.
ESTABLISHING THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The adoption process includes time for the Planning and Zoning Commissions to review the
public feedback and make changes to the document before it is formally adopted. These are
Page 4 of 5
scheduled to occur on December 2 (work session), and December 7 (first public hearing), with
additional public hearing to be scheduled as needed and as holiday schedules will allow.
The City and County adopt the plan differently — the County P &Z adopts the plan and the BOCC
ratifies it, while the City P &Z recommends to Council, and the Council formally adopts the plan.
Staff would like direction from City Council regarding additional meetings to review the plan
with the P &Zs and other community groups that are interested in specific chapters. This will
help staff in scheduling the final adoption hearing on the plan.
SUMMARY OF CONTOVERSIAL TOPICS: The following is a list of items that staff has
identified as areas that community members or staff have expressed interest in discussing further
as part of the formal adoption process. Many of these items were discussed by the P &Zs during
their drafting of the document and the group decided on the language that it in the draft AACP,
which is sometimes contrary to the direction requested by members of the community and staff.
• The recommendations regarding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line. The Airport,
Public Works, and County Administration have comments on the P &Zs decision to not
add the County 10 Acre parcel to the UGB, and City staff has comments on the P &Zs
decision to exclude the Snow Dump parcel which is currently partially in and partially
out of the UGB.
• The plan does not include specific reference to a Continuing Care Retirement Community
(CCRC), and members of the group working on bringing this idea to the community may
want to comment on including a reference to it in the plan.
• The ARC Advisory Board is interested in adding and expanding language in the
recreation chapter.
• There are community members interested in adding and amending language regarding
healthy food systems.
• Some community members have expressed interest in including language in the
Transportation chapter on electric vehicles and other alternative forms of transportation.
Staff will be prepared to highlight other additional areas members of the public have made
specific comments on at the December 7 meeting.
In addition, staff recommends focusing on the five major areas that were discussed in the small
group meetings and at the recent clicker sessions. These include,
• The Development Process
• Affordable Housing Mitigation
• Pacing Construction
• House Size
• Lodging Regulations
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Results of Instant Voting Keypad Sessions / Nov. 15 & 17
Page 5 of 5
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
Turning Results by Question
Session Name: ALL AACP SESSIONS
Created: 11/18/2010 3:10 PM
1.) Test Slide: How did you get here today?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I walked. 27.08 % 39
I rode my bike. 4.17% 6
I drove. 50.00% 72
I used my jet -pack. 13 89% 20
I took the bus. 4,86% 7
(Totals 100.00% 144
2.) Where do you live?
Responses
(percent) (count)
"Innie" - inside of the Roundabout. 70.78 % 109
"Outie" - outside of the Roundabout as far as the Airport/AABC 15. SB% 24
"Far Outie" - I live past the Airpon /AABC. 13 64% 21
(Totals 100.00 % 154
3.) lam:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Male 58 33% 91
Female 41.67% 65
I Totals 100.00% 156
4.) lam:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Under 20 1.25% 2
20 -24 2.50% 4
25 -34 10.63% 17
35 -44 9.38% 15
45 -54 16.25% 26
55 - 64 35.63% 57
65 -74 19.38% 31
75 + 5.00% 8
(Totals 100 .00 % 160
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
5.) I live in:
Responses
Aspen (percent) (count)
spen -Full Time
73.58% 117
Aspen - Part Time 1.89% 3
Pitkin County - Full Time 15.72% 25
Pitkin County - Part Time 0.00% 0
Snowmass Village 1 26% 2
Basalt/Carbondale /Glenwood Springs 6.92% 11
Other 0 63% 1
(Totals 100 00% 159
6.) I've lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for:
Responses
(percent) (count)
3 years or less 4.40% 7
3 -5 years 8.18% 13
6 -10 years 11.95% 19
11 - 20 years 15.09% 24
21 or more 60.38% 96
(Totals 100 00% 159
7.) 1. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.45 % 50
Affordable housing 13.23% 70
Larger lodging units 4.73 % 25
Smaller lodging units 15.69% 83
Tounst- oriented retail space 5 67% 30
Day -to -day retail services (basics, essentials) 18.34 % 97
Office space 1.70% 9
Public/Institutional 5.29% 28
Arts and cultural facilities 12.67 % 67
Let the market decide 13.23% 70
Totals 100.00% 1 529
8.) 2. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 8.13% 13
Affordable housing 13.75% 22
Larger lodging units 2.50% 4
Smaller lodging units 10 63% 17
Tourist - oriented retail space 1.88% 3
Day -to -day retail services (basics, essentials) 21 88% 35
Office space 0.63% 1
Public/Institutional 1.88% 3
Arts and cultural facilities 10.63% 17
Let the market decide 28.13% 45
(Totals 100 00% 160
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
9.) 3. I would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.81% 41
Affordable housing 14.11 % 59
Larger lodging units 19 14% 60
Smaller lodging units 2.39% 10
Tourist- oriented retail space 12.92% 54
Day -to -day retail services (basics. essentials) 1.44 % 6
Office space 12 20% 51
Public /Institutional 11 72% 49
Arts and cultural facilities 6.46% 27
Let the market decide. 9 81%. 41
!Totals 100.00% 418
10.) 4. I would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 6.29% 10
Affordable housing 28.93% 46
Larger lodging units 27.04% 43
Smaller lodging units 2 52% 4
Tourist- oriented retail space 6.92% 11
Day -to -day retail services (basics, essentials) 0.00 % 0
Office space 5.03% 8
Public/Institutional 8 81% 14
Arts and cultural facilities 1 89% 3
Let the market decide 12.58% 20
(Totals 100.00% 159
11.) 5. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 38.89% 63
New development should be modest in bulk, mass, and scale. 32.72% 53
Neither of these statements reflect my opinion. 26.54% 43
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.85% 3
(Totals 100.00% 162
12.) 6. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New downtown buildings should reflect the Victorian era only 13 75% 22
New downtown buildings should be allowed to evolve past the Victorian era. 80.00% 128
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 6 25% 10
(Totals 100.00% 160
13.) 7. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base?
Responses
(percent) (count)
We should replenish what we've lost, but only focus on moderate and economy
28.40% 46
lodges.
We should replenish what we've lost without focusing on any one type Any
51.23% 83
lodge we can get, even if it's in the deluxe category, is important
I don't think we need to try to replenish our bed base. 17.28% 28
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion 3.09% 5
'Totals 100 00% 162
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
14.) 8. Which of the reasons below do you agree with the most as reasons to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in land development. 7.28% 33
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. 16.56% 75
Protect our existing lodges. 7.51% 34
Protect our small town character and historical heritage. 21.19 % 96
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 13.91% 63
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 11.48% 52
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 8 61% 39
and demand for affordable housing.
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 13.47 % 61
(Totals 100.00% 453
15.) 9. Please choose the one reason you agree with the most as a reason to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in land development. 1.24% 2
Proritize maintaining our mountain views. 13.66% 22
Protect our existing lodges. 1.24% 2
Protect our small town character and historical heritage. 37.89% 61
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 5.59% 9
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.11% 5
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts. such as traffic congestion
5.59% 9
and demand for affordable housing
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 31.68% 51
'Totals 100.00% 161
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
16.) 10. What should be done with the mastodon, woolly mammoth, ground sloth and mouse
bones they're digging up in Snowmass Village?
Responses
(percent) (count)
Change the name from Snowmass Village to Snowmasstadon Village. 30.30% 40
Aspen better dig up something soon or we'll never see a tourist again. 32.58% 43
The Veloci -RFTA logo Coincidence or clairvoyance? 11.36% 15
What's next? Jimmy Hoffa? 10.61% 14
If only Snowmass had started its affordable housing program earlier. maybe
1S15% 20
they'd all still be alive.
Totals 100.00% 132
17.) 11. What is your preference for how development applications should be reviewed?
Responses
(percent) (count)
The appropriate height. mass, and scale of buildings should be established by
zoning, and should never be varied. We should remove most or all of the 47.55% 68
discretion from the review process.
Development should be negotiated on a case -by -case basis. with all issues on
the table, and enough discretion for the P &Zs and Council /BOCC to bargain 49.65% 71
and negotiate.
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.80% 4
[Totals 100.00% 143
18.) 12. Remember your experience of 2005 — 2006. What were your feelings about
Responses
(percent) (count)
Very concerned. There was way too much going on. 32.30% 52
It was a nuisance, but I could live with it. 40.37 % 65
It didn't bother me. 18.63% 30
I wasn't here then, so I don't know what you're talking about. 8.70 % 14
'Totals 100.00% 161
19.) 13. What's your opinion on establishing a construction pacing system?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I'm against it Everyone should have the right to build when they want. 24.54% 40
We should focus on managing the impacts of construction instead. 43.56% 71
I support this Intense construction activity ruins the quality of life for locals and 22 70% 37
visitors
I'm not sure, but IS like an informed and productive debate on this issue. 9.20% 15
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 0.00% 0
(Totals 100.00% 163
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
•
20.) 14. I would support a construction pacing system, but only if it placed annual limits on
only the following types of development. (pick the one you agree with the most)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Single - Family /Duplex Development 4 43% 7
Multi - Family Development 1.90% 3
Commercial Development 12 66% 20
Lodging Development 17.09% 27
All of the above 17.72 % 28
None of the above. 44.94% 71
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.27% 2
(Totals 100.00% 158
21.) 15. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most as reasons to limit the
size of the largest homes? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and
14.20% 70
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 15.82 % 78
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 15.01 % 74
streams
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 16.63% 82
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 7.71% 38
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts. such as traffic congestion
5.27% 26
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 7,30% 36
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 8.11 % 40
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential
9.94% 49
development
(Totals 100.00% 493
22.) 16. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most a reason to limit the size
of the largest homes? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and
8.55% 13
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 25.00 % 38
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 7 24% 11
streams.
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 14.47% 22
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.95% 6
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts. such as traffic congestion 1 97% 3
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 5.26% 6
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 11.18% 17
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential 22 37% 34
development.
(Totals 100.00% 152
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
23.) 17. I believe the most important reason to more strictly regulate future development on
mountainsides is:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the scenic quality of the Aspen Area. 38.75% 62
Reduce environmental degradation. 31.88% 51
I don't think future development should be more strictly regulated in these
29.38% 47
areas.
'Totals 100 00% 160
24.) 18. Which statement do you agree with the most regarding visual impacts of development
along the Highway 82 corridor from the Airport to the round- about.
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protecting all views should be the primary consideration. 24.07 % 39
Visual impacts are one of many important considerations 42.59 % 69
We should identify certain views that should remain unobstructed. but not all
25.93% 42
open views have to be maintained.
Views from Highway 82 should not be a consideration. 7.41% 12
(Totals 100.00% 162
25.) 19. Which statement regarding affordable housing mitigation do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
All development, regardless of type. should provide affordable housing for
16 25% 26
100% of the jobs it generates.
The current level of mitigation is adequate. 13 75% 22
Whether the amount of affordable housing stays the same or is increased in
the future, there should always some flexibility to reduce these requirements 49.38% 79
for development that provides a valuable community benefit.
The current mitigation level should be lowered. 18.13% 29
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.50% 4
(Totals 100.00% 160