Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160919 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 19, 2016 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Branding of City Communications II. Land Use Code Revisions P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mitzi Rapkin, Community Relations Director THRU: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 13, 2015 MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 RE: City of Aspen Branding SUMMARY: This memo addresses the issue of the City’s branding and outreach materials. Currently as they exist, they are not cohesive and until now have never been evaluated and looked at comprehensively. In this day and age branding is essential to any business, including government. It assists with an organization’s identity, outreach, personality, service, and priorities as well as helps the public recognize and build a relationship with the core values of that business. The building of collateral, such as logos and other branded items, have happened piecemeal in the City. Other items such as a style guide and ad templates have never been created. This has created a stratified look to our organization and a perception of a lack of unity. This memo recommends unifying and updating the City’s branding and logo as well as creating a style guide and consistent ad templates to create more cohesion in the organization, with the ultimate goal of more recognizable City communication for our citizens and guests. This is a critical time to do this as our new website redesign process is underway with a vendor coming on board in the next few months. These design guidelines will be important as our new website comes online for the public to interact with. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION: In late 2014, Mayor Steven Skadron was interested in an effort to unify the City’s branding. The mayor noticed in the newspaper that several advertisements side-by-side from various City departments had completely different graphic elements and no one looking at the ads would recognize they were all from the same organization. Overall, the City has an array of logos and webpages and no uniformity in style or policy. In addition, there are no style guides for using our branding and our graphic elements, which leads to inconsistent messaging and appearances for City communications. In addition, at the City Council’s annual retreat, Mayor Skadron listed not accomplishing our branding goals as one of his big disappointments of the last year. DISCUSSION: Since I started at the City (2005-2007 and 2010-present), there has never been a style guide or any uniform policy regarding visual representation of the City’s brand and logo. Like much of the City, the graphic representation of the City has been left up to each department. In addition, I have found no one at the City who knows who made our current logo and when. P2 I. The City also has no high resolution files of the logo, which can be a problem when branding some of our projects. This memo presents a summary and some analysis of survey questions posed to nine different City departments on their branding efforts, primarily their use of logos and graphic elements in their printed materials. It also presents a recommendation for issuing and RFP for logo and branding services. The departments include: APCHA, HR, Kids First, Transportation, ARC, Parks, Canary, Environmental Health and Sustainability and Utilities. In order to get a better sense of how the various departments were operating and approaching their logo use, I interviewed eight departments on how they used the logo and their thoughts about graphic design and branding. I tried to mimic what an outside consultant might ask first in an effort to get a “lay of the land” and employees’ feelings and ideas about how they are graphically representing their departments. To be clear, a brand is a significant, intangible asset. Typically, it is the most valuable asset for an organization. Simply defined, it is what people think about you and your product; it is shorthand for who we are. In our case, the City and its governance and services. It is how people identify with the City and it is the City’s identity. It is distinguishing and unique. A brand requires long term stewardship and management so it keeps its value and continues to be relevant. It is important for any brand to be managed. Consistency is also of significant importance in a brand and is not something the City currently has within and among its various departments. Via branding an organization can manage perceptions, reputation, protect its value and build on its success. Over the course of 2015 I interviewed nine departments and asked each these questions: 1. When did you make your department logo? 2. Why separate from the City’s logo? 3. How important is it to you to have a separate logo from the City? 4. Is the logo your identity of just a logo? 5. How much do you associate your identity with your logo? 6. What do you want to ultimately communicate with your logo? 7. Do you think it is working? 8. What do you want your brand to say/communicate? 9. Do you have any anecdotes positive or negative around the logo? 10. Who is your target audience? 11. Where do you use your logo? 12. How do you feel about the idea that we brand the City more uniformly? The exact notes from those discussions are in Exhibit A. P3 I. A general summary of the sentiments and philosophies of the departments are as follows. • Most departments made their own logo between 10-13 years ago but some as recently as in the last year or so. • Most departments made their own logo because they felt the City’s did not graphically represent what they did on the department level, although there is also a notion that the City’s logo is not catchy enough. • Most departments did not feel that it was ultimately necessary to have a different logo from the City but they wanted to see an improved City logo as well as one that could be altered slightly to represent departments more individually, either with color or type as distinguishers. • The departments who did feel it was very necessary to have a different logo were extremely passionate about their separate identity from the City. • People felt particularly strongly that specific programs, like Aspen Tap and Car to Go, that had their own logos were very successful, which is a differentiation between department and department programs. • All departments, even the ones deeply attached to their logo, indicated it would be beneficial to have something that attached them to the City, either a graphic representation to be added to their logo, a type indicating the City, or a City tagline. • The biggest difference in opinions about the logo was between ARC and Parks, who share a logo. ARC feels very represented by the logo and Parks does not • All departments are worried about the cost of rebranding (putting a new logo on signs, cars, stationary, bills, buses, etc.) • The ARC was by far the most passionate about their logo and not wanting to change it. • APCHA, Kids First and to some extent ARC had the strongest argument for having their own logo. • All departments like the idea of branding the City more uniformly, although they all want room within that to identify their department somehow. • Some departments are undergoing their own logo/web redevelopment including The Wheeler and APCHA Other feedback that was powerful included the suggestion that the City hire an in-house graphic designer. All the departments I talked to hire graphic designers often and it would be interesting to see how much money is spent on these contracts. One in-house designer could help unify the City’s look, alleviate outside contractors and would better coordinate simultaneous graphic projects (like advertisements). In addition, there were suggestions to have a webmaster at the City and to implement a style-guide and protocol for City projects. There are several options for pursuing a more uniform branding and graphic concept for the City. 1. Bring in a branding and graphic design professional. The initial research from the eight departments could serve as background for a contractor to get started. The City would issue an RFP for graphic design research and implementation of a logo for the City that is flexible enough to be slightly altered for the departments while still keeping a uniform P4 I. look. The goal is to create a sustainable branding effort that would apply for decades to come and to create something that reflects Aspen’s values as a City and organization. The contractor would also develop a style guide for the City that would include templates for ads, fonts and rules for using Aspen’s graphic elements. In addition, the RFP will ask for recommendations for implementation and tracking results. Follow up with suggestions for City tagline. 2. Hire a firm to create collateral and a style guide around current City logos. 3. The City could continue with current status quo. 4. Hire in-house graphic designer. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is time for the City to get its graphics in order with number one being the recommended option. The look and feel of any business and government and how that is communicated graphically is essential to its branding and customer relations as well as how the City’s story is depicted. The City’s look does not represent its status as a world-class destination and a government with cutting edge programming and services as well as a strong environmental ethic. The City should issue an RFP and solicit graphic services that include a new logo that is flexible enough for all departments to still distinguish themselves via color or copy. The contractor would work in concert with community relations to write and implement a style guide and provide templates for ads, websites, social media, email, and printed materials, including signs. FINANCIAL/ BUDGET IMPACTS: My estimation of branding services is between $10,000 and $40,000 based on conversations with Steve Skadron, a marketing/branding firm in Denver, and the Wheeler’s marketing company. There will be further budget implications to replacing letterhead and other collateral and assets with the current logo but this could be done over time and when items need replacing. ALTERNATIVES: Any of the other choices presented as well as some combination of all the four offerings. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Notes from each department meeting organized by question P5 I. EXHIBIT A WHEN DID YOU MAKE LOGO? Housing The new one was 2014 and the house in the circle was probably about 10 or 11 years ago HR Just recently; we have special business cards that are different than the city, it's pretty and easy to give out to people and good for recruiting but we understand consistency of the City brand; we have a website on the HR Kids First Green logo with leaf, use it in cards, emails, envelopes, cards, letterhead, developed it 3 or 4 years ago, we found if people didn't see your name embedded in your logo, then it didn't get used, had an old logo that didn't say kids first and most people got one or other, when Kids first was formed it always had our own logo, a bit of a removal more so now then now Transit Didn’t want to send people to aspenpitkin with a backslash – domains that go to transit because it’s a mouthfull Always wanted a name for car to go, wanted something on the cars besides a leaf,wanted to brand it Logos for car to go and commuter connect ARC 2003 with the new ARC - parks and recreation, special events, ice, Separated golf three years ago - under aspen golf club we have tennis and golf course, tennis uses parks and rec - use golf and tennis together because it's the same fund We don't want to be separate from Parks and when Jeff came along it improved our efforts so much, I am adamantly opposed to separating from Parks We do have different figures for inside the leaf I like adding a tag line that ties us together A negative to all this talk, when patrons start seeing city of aspen trucks they might think the govt. is too big. P6 I. Tagline is a big connector to me Parks More than ten years ago Canary and EH 2004 2008 – Ada made it, and thought more about branding, came from long logo that said everything we did and wanted to distinguish ourselves and brand EH as a resource and we took the City logo and made it unique, old logo with photos of water drop, etc. A lot of separate logos on G drive Utility It was about 2006 WHY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY? Housing Because we're a joint department, multi-jurisdictional housing authority State doesn't look at us as just City department - Has to do with our product and in order to be recognized where we get section 8 assistance vouchers is because we are a housing authority - having a clear identity helps and is important Legal and practical and political reasons Our customers are from both HR Not attractive enough or catchy enough, it's just blah, Kids First We updated from old one, it was concentric circles and was supposed to represent kids, so we did incorporate the aspen leaf because we wanted that identity but we wanted them to know we were KF, it doesn't matter to folks if we are a department of the city or not, for a while we used City logo and added kids first and it looked too governmental and wasn't kids first friendly Transit P7 I. Use city logo on everything ARC Biggest part was for the website and facility, we needed something to start marketing, golf and arc and it was to market the facility and needed a whole new website because the City wouldn't work so we came up with a new logo and identity for the web I hate finding recreation on the City site and you can't dial in so it's better to have a recreation specific site and through the town it's not good Parks Maybe it was to meld the ARC into the City Canary and EH Idea was to represent things specific to the department with the logo, show what the dept did and no one knew what we did and this helped start our give-aways so it was an effort to distinguish ourselves and say what we did, not like just health inspector, Utility We really wanted to advertise the fact we were getting into efficiencies, which was new for water and electric utilities and we were honing in on renewable goal and that was embedded in new logo, showing the public we’re going off in these new directions Wanted people to know we had these different divisions, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU TO HAVE A SEPARATE LOGO FROM COA? Housing Very important, if not just for legal reasons then for our board and the county and it has to do with being recognized as a housing authority and we can build and ask for our own taxes and the City cannot, we need to maintain diversity For our customers realizing we are our own identity and we don't deal with City issues we just deal with housing issues Most people see us as City dept. P8 I. HR New logo for block ads, we want to stand out and have people see it and have it scream "Aspen", we want to see a logo that pops for our purposes Kids First If the city's just said city of aspen under it it still seems harsh in design, and governmental city of aspen and we work to support kids and families so we don't want to be just government, but it's important for people to know we are a department of the city, it was hard to fit everything in on it, if I register for a conference I do a hyphenated, I'm with COA - Kids First There probably is a happy medium, which aspen leaf we use and a color and if there is space, if it said city of aspen and here's your space for car to go and police and to add in the department, I would urge toward friendlier less institutional logo Transit Car to go, commuter connect, campaign but Rubey Park is the city ARC Extremely critical and it ties to so many different things Parks Our logo is more rec driven than parks driven; I'd like to see something more natural, what we do is more nature driven and feels outdoorsy rather than 100% fun Canary and EH Canary – use the City of Aspen logo, for presentations, letter head, people know it’s the City and they don’t have to figure out what department, especially when I talk other places and canary doesn’t mean anything to people anymore, don’t like being in the middle with Canary, we have to commit to it or not, are we EH or not, how can we distinguish ourselves from EH, does Canary have its own name, people love the costume, Canary is willing to get rid of a logo but it needs to be replaces with something, it’s easier outside of Aspen to be City of Aspen, what is internal branding for the City, the canary is on buses and police cars and all over the community, did not intentionally brand our resiliency with City of Aspen because I thought no one would go to the link, sometimes we want to be under the radar of government and be fun and creative, What is our identity? P9 I. EH – We don’t need our own separate log, it’s really an internal issue, I’m done with having so many logos, it would be nice to have our own logo, we’re all part of the City of Aspen, we can work to get the word out better about our story but our logo is not what is going to make or break that effort, Don’t want to lose the audience with not branding as the City, I want to continue with that How do we identify us though, be consistent and let people know what we do and not be too unwieldy I would challenge our need for the community to know us as EHS, as long as they know where to get resources do they need to know our department name? Does it matter that they know they have an EH dept. working for us? What is success measure? Utility Why wouldn’t it be important to us, we are trying to further our identity and have a communication tool, we want to identify that we are part of a utility group, the logos we use now, You wouldn’t recognize our ad unless we have a standardized template Business cards are a classic example of where everyone uses the same logo and color, and no one has an issue with that When we do a clothing logo we use classic logo and it says our department on it P10 I. IS THE LOGO YOU USE YOUR IDENTITY OR JUST A LOGO? Housing Just a logo, not our identity, the name APCHA is our identity but not the logo We want a logo for us but not necessarily this one HR I don't know, I don't have a relationship with the logo, but businesses should be consistent in their business cards Kids First I don't think people think of the logo as Kids First, not to a serious level, the work we put into it and the reasons we made were important, we would be okay if it changed, We all really like our current logo Transit Car To Go really has a strong ID, commuter connect not such a strong ID, but the logo is okay, it’s a brand, it’s who we are ARC Merchandising is an opportunity we haven't taken up yet and we could sell items with this logo that says Aspen Tennis or Aspen Ice etc. More may be better than Aspen Parks and Rec so maybe a family of logos related to the big one Parks I want to embrace mountain culture, we've embraced alpine skiing and golf and ball fields but not mountain culture heritage, hiking, climbing, mountain biking, paragliding, rafting, It's just a logo, I see recreation, it's not my identity, it does set us apart from other departments in the city, Why doesn't it look like a park on our shirt, why doesn't it have a tree, why is it not natural? P11 I. Canary and EH It’s just a logo, we don’t really use it, it doesn’t really identify us Utility The only logo we use is Aspen Tap or city logo, we don’t use that other one, we lost some of the departments we originally made our logos for P12 I. HOW MUCH DO YOU ASSOCIATE YOUR IDENTITY WITH YOUR LOGO? Housing No answer HR Not at all Kids First We are not inseparable, we'd want to be part of a process to make sure it's not institutional again, there has been a fair amount of investment into letterhead, website, email addresses, cards, let's be thoughtful about how many times you are asking people to spend department money to make all those changes and time Transit Want more design and color and cute name and an easy website ARC I put it on everything, emails, it's on everything Parks No answer Canary and EH No answer Utility We are utilities and environmental initiatives and we are working hard to be just that instead of water and electric and renewables, and I’m comfortable with that, Aspen Tap is promotional and has its own branding style and is promotional and ownership in there P13 I. P14 I. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ULTIMATELY COMMUNICATE WITH A LOGO? Housing That we are a joint department and a authority, that it is both, house is not important as part of the pictorial ID It would be nice to have employee on there, workforce housing Could have a tagline under the logo Want people to see us as more than an entitlement project but something that is making community, this is for businesses, this housing is what provides year-round population That we are a joint department and a authority, that it is both, house is not important as part of the pictorial ID It would be nice to have employee on there, workforce housing Could have a tagline under the logo Want people to see us as more than an entitlement project but something that is making community, this is for businesses, this housing is what provides year-round population HR From HR recruiting standpoint it should embody pride, that we're proud to work here and you should want to work here too, recognition, there's a lot of Aspen leaves in this town already Kids First Kid friendly, professional, association with aspen leaf, we like the color, often the city is in black and white, softness, the leaf that we chose looked like a drawn leaf so it wasn't a hard print, so it was more kid friendly, we wanted more friendly in general, it's simple but it's nice, elegant, it's not edgy or institutional, Transit We want to drive people to our programs, the names and colors are meant to drive people to check it out Not a huge marriage to that logo ARC P15 I. 100% pure fun, activity, rec center, that's the stem for the aspen leaf, but it's an active figure, We want to communicate activity, action, fun, Aspen, and mind, body, spirit And what department it is without words Our grocery bags, when I send it out I want them to know exactly where you got that and who from Parks More natural element, organic and natural, always be abstract, modern looking, not too much going on, Canary and EH No answer Utility We’ve moved away from communicating anything other than we’re the city of aspen, we use city of aspen leaf and they still say water or electric underneath, that’s how we modify, we use standard logo and we put department underneath it and also uniforms have logos and it will say electric and water It’s good for people to know who they are DO YOU THINK IT IS WORKING? Housing Logo now is NOT working, its outdated and quaint but its not the direction we need to focus on HR I'm neutral, I don't know if I were a citizen not related to City if I would recognize it, not that I would know Seattle's logo either Kids First Yes, I think people recognize it and it's relatively easy, we have a small file size, black and white and color and its easy for other people to use on our marketing materials and P16 I. newsletters, it fits nicely because it's one color and we designed it so its a rectangle, we don't want it to take too much space up on the page, the city was more challenging to get it fit on paper, Transit CTG is working, it’s easy, it’s what it says it is, the name says fast, easy and more tied to the name than the logo ARC Yes, I don't know how we measure that but I think people recognize it and know who we are, you learn to recognize it and people see it and know it's aspen parks and rec Parks People recognize it and know who we are, most people like the regular old city logo, sometimes people ask if we can change, Canary and EH No answer Utility I wouldn’t want a different logo than City of Aspen, we want credibility that we’re with the City It’s not hindering Clothing is more helpful than badges WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR BRAND TO SAY/COMMUNICATE? Housing No answer HR No answer Kids First P17 I. Childcare resource center, friendly resource, helpful, about kids, proud to be part of the City and use that a little bit, connection is important but more so that it's about kids, early childhood, parent resource, education, early childhood resource center, Transit Want people to check out our programs, want cohesive understanding of all our programs and have people try them ARC We think we should have a tagline for everything in the City, so we all know that these programs are in the City Good to separate the Golf course because people have images of municipal golf courses that aren't good We need a tagline Parks Environmental, the best of all the departments, take pride in what we do, best parks in the world Canary and EH I don’t think EHS is not a great name, we expect too much from our logo and our department names We don’t want a template because it’s boring autocracy and we have had some success because we break away from that It says something about professionalism – having a good logo and having it be professional and look good and be unified Want to be proud of what we do Utility We haven’t talked about us having a brand, it’s the city of aspen brand, sub branding was utilities and EH and a group of professionals working in those areas then we have Water, Electric and EHA We want to exude pride in ownership, community care and professionalism P18 I. DO YOU HAVE ANY ANECDOTES, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, AROUND THE LOGO? Housing I like the mountains in the background, but it's not necessary, I hate it, People love the sign on the street which is different from our logo HR No answer Kids First Sometimes when you see it for an event with half a dozen other people I think our color is relatively unique, I've had people say, "oooh you have a logo now on your email", it makes a difference if everyone in the department uses this on their email, what we do and our mission doesn't really connect with people that this is the City of Aspen, they have to come together, City and Kids First - people don't get if I say City or if I say Kids First but they can get that it's a city department Transit If we had to redo everything it would be expensive and logistically difficult Cars advertise themselves and when we got catchy graphics people starting calling, more about color than logo, a plain city logo wouldn’t work ARC I know parks feels like it's too childlike, I don't but I work with a lot of kids, I like it because of things we discussed, it's versatile and simple, it prints well, embroiders well and, Very, very concerned that parks wants its own logo Maybe there's a version for the parks We're talking about marketability not necessarily branding or we are talking about both, we need something to market Parks Keep it simple, I like the golf logo P19 I. Canary and EH Waste free roaring fork is successful, the aspen tap logo was a huge success Utility I just know when we did our last jackets, there’s different camps, some who don’t want anything with organization, people wonder what it will say (EH or Water) and where was the logo, that was a painful discussion. WHO IS YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE? Housing workforce, employers within Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, we serve the community ultimately by providing this service, our biggest client is taxpayers who pay for it HR Recruiting, professionals in whatever field they may be in, regular full-time people but parks may need seasonal so it should be flexible Internal to make things official Kids First Parents of young children, people in childcare programs who care for those kids, teachers, community, pre-schools, collaborators, our people are here for a few years and then they move on, voters every 30 years, as an agency voters are less of our goal, more for our board and whoever takes on election effort Transit No one knows our shuttles are City, they think it’s RFTA ARC Three - residents, seasonal workers and residents, and visitors All ages, we want all ages - everyone that recreates Recreation is the recreation of life P20 I. Parks Everyone Canary and EH No answer Utility Citizens of aspen, customers, even utility bill has logo and matches the logo, blue and black on white paper, trying to make it look better Anything that is going out to customers we try to make sure it has the logo on there, even billing inserts and we stick with the classic We’re providing a service to all residents, businesses and visitors so we interact with each differently but we show up with the ethic that everything we do is caring about this community WHERE DO YOU USE YOUR LOGO? Housing Cards, letterheads, ads, memos, signs, applications, forms, website, apparel for managers and maintenance, We also equal housing opportunity logo that is in our ads and that is national logo and application HR HR forms, job ads, external places like LinkedIn, newspapers, professional organizations, using both now, website, Kids First Transit CTG – cars, brochure, web, newspaper, bus ads, enewsletters and invoices, member manuals CC – brochures, web, newspapers, ads, e-newsletter ARC P21 I. Website, uniforms, flyers, ads, products, newsletters, emails, shirts for events, facebook, instagram, on signatures on email Parks shirts, some cars, aspen leaf on open space, all construction board, all over the internet, stationary is old logo, maps is City of Aspen, not uniform within the department Canary and EH Aspenairquality.com ZGreen newsletter and ZGreen logo which we haven’t fully shut down, how can we use ZGreen more in the future… ZGreen is a really good logo Utility Clothing, bills, cards, mailers, cars, hats, old logos on website, some tents for Saturday market, We moved away from specialist ones a while ago HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE BRAND THE CITY MORE UNIFORMLY? Housing It’s been talked about for years and it's a good idea and having too many things out there confuses the public, it's fine with me, we want to maintain our identity but we understand this effort, we are independent but I like the idea from an organizational standpoint that fewer is better from a marketing and branding standpoint, I agree with mayor and this is the right thing, especially when we are competing with so many other organizations for attention, etc. For tagline we can say nobody has a program like us, leading the nation in providing ... Check with county because we are so closely related to them... we don't want to be small town, parochial, cute logo we need world-class, cutting edge logo, we should leverage that for our logo and our identity, we are a world-wide brand that we should leverage for our advantage P22 I. HR I support it, it would be good for our department and it would be a lot easier, we can't spend time reinventing the wheel so a template would be helpful, we see everyone's uniform being different from department to department and it's not, it should be identifiable, It would be a good to have a menu of graphics for ads, etc. That's not our background but we really think we need it so we use time we don't' really have and expertise we don't have to make things We have part time graphics help I'm on board and how it can help get us unified Kids First I think it would have more recognition for other people and if you saw that logo people would get it, it gives it more unity, tying them together is important but if it was just city of aspen we would lose and if it were just kids first we would lose, a universally agreed upon logo with departments underneath would be good, I'd want to have input, I'm not tied to the font or the color, some departments would like something harsher, How are we going to get out of this design, in terms of money, Transit I get it, it’s a good idea, probably wasting a lot of money trying to brand all programs, it’s easier and less expensive to use City logo instead of creating a new one Hard time to get rid of brands that have recognition Hate website – hard to use, I have to call IT all the time, I have to have a designer go in to deal with it, plus the name, design and slashing (too much), it’s clunky, too many people managing it 18 pieces of rolling stock to brand and we’re letting that go Itching to brand City buses, separate from RFTA – RIDE GWS does it and there is pride and people know it City leaf is fine and leaf could get ubiquitous in this town, wouldn’t mind if it is modernized with some color option, get creative within leaf or new design ARC Tagline, It's positive, we need to, I want to be tied to the City, P23 I. It depends on what it is, it needs to be explored for example the finance department has such different needs and we are the opposite, It would depend, I don't know what there is out there that wouldn't constrain someone where it didn't work We want a way to emphasize that we are the best and we want that I'd like to look at it and explore it and see what it's like, for example with NYC they have the apple and it is everywhere and I like that and i don't want to exclude anything I agree with having us under the same umbrella The logo doesn't matter it's the job we're doing so I'm split but if we're doing a great job and we're all tied together Parks I think it would be great, I'm trying to brand golf course, divided, more so the City logo, maybe add your department to the logo, all the interpretative signs have the PR logo on it, Easier to have city border for advertisements Maybe a color scheme and would be helpful in our efforts to have outreach, it would save me time to have a template Canary and Eh Important to program certain projects separate from the City like Aspen Tap was very successful, sometimes we need specific programs to be their own branded stand-alone thing Car to Go is another good example Utilities I like the uniformity, otherwise it creates separation and confusion and from a financial standpoint, how much money are we spending on logos and I would rather see the city done uniformly and we all pitch in and contribute to a new look, because some of them they try to make so original and unusual I don’t even recognize them, it’s gotten way out of hand and I like the classic look a lot better, I think I would be on board with just using a set logo because when I started here there was one logo and that was it. I do think that it’s classy looking, I know the one we did with our different departments was cute but it was too busy, so there has to be other ways to be an individual without it involving the logo P24 I. I still appreciate having some individuality at the electric and water level for those in the field, for their truck or on their shirt, once you get beyond that it’s about us as a group and how we work together and broad based stuff in the newspaper, I’m fine with templates, as long as they still allow for creativity in conveying the information in the most useful fashion, if it’s too uniform it looks like an invitation to bid, we want to express ourselves, I think it would be very effective and easy to integrate if it was simple, like where to put logo and font, Don’t want it to be so generic so somebody didn’t read your message I like City logo, I don’t want anything too foo-fooey if it changes, I don’t want to change the whole bill, It’s fine, I see City of Aspen, more earth tone connected to the environment, P25 I. MISCELLANEOUS Do you like your current logo? ARC Yes we like the current logo, we may be sick of it but people are just trying to get people to recognize it, we have opportunities to do other things with it There is chamber, institute, museum, ski co and so many people say they are a part of aspen but what is aspen, how big is that? Have a unique identity but threading it Other comments from all departments Bigger question is of identity of the City and that we need to be aspirational in the future of who we want to be with our logo and how people perceive us Don’t put anything out until it gets vetted, PR dept – source for writing and editor, messaging across the board Paying a lot to have graphics done City should have graphic designer We should have standards and a style manual I want to see a City webmaster People come to town and there is no welcome and they don't know they're in aspen until they're way downtown Every dept. has a mini-marketing manager What is protocol for projects? Why don’t we have city wide project updates P26 I. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 1 of 8 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech Meeting Date: September 19, 2016, 4:00 PM RE: AACP Land Use Code Revisions Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests direction from Council on specific proposals for changes to the affordable housing mitigation rate, the process for developing amendments to the View Plane regulations and changes to the commercial building dimensional standards provided in the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: Following a request for information from Council, staff provided preliminary feedback at the August 29th work session about the process required for increasing the affordable housing mitigation rate. Council requested that staff return with more information about the process and the impact of a potential increase to the mitigation rate. This memorandum provides some preliminary information on that issue. Also at the August 29th study session and again on September 13th, Council tabled discussion of the View Plane regulation revision process to the September 19th work session. Based on initial Council direction, staff has devised a process to survey View Plane preservation regulations in other communities, analyze the impact of existing regulations and propose amendments to clarify and improve the effectiveness of Aspen’s regulations. That process and specific questions for Council are described below. Another priority item for Council under the moratorium is adjustments to the commercial building dimensional standards provided in the zoning section of the LUC. Dimensions, particularly in the Commercial Core and Commercial Zone Districts, need to be updated to account for past reductions in height that did not include associated reductions in allowed floor area. In addition, changes to other broad policies under discussion in the moratorium - parking, commercial design, public amenity, and uses – will likely impact the final dimensions. Given that inter-relationship, staff has delayed discussion of changes to the dimensional standards until the process for the other topic areas yields preliminary findings. At this point, initial direction on these other topics is substantive enough to enable discussion of potential changes to the allowed dimensions in the commercial zone districts. VIEW PLANES: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: The density, size and scale of new all development and redevelopment should maintain and, if possible, enhance the views of the natural environment. Preserving the natural P27 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 2 of 8 environment, scenic views and biodiversity are important to our attractiveness as a community and a resort. Philosophy: Scenic views of the natural environment, easy access to public lands and a range of recreational opportunities are among our greatest assets and the reasons many people choose to visitor make the Aspen Area their home. Policy: Zoning and land use processes should result in commercial and lodging development that is “compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood” and that “reflects our architectural heritage.” We should “Create certainty in zoning and the land use process.” (AACP Managing Growth Policies IV.4, V.3, and VIII.2) Updates to the View Plane regulations are recommended to clarify the applicability and review process. The city has seven (7) protected view planes, illustrated below in Figure 1. These were established in the 1970s and the review process has not been meaningfully updated since. The current process allows for development in a view plane if the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission determines that a proposed development’s impact on the view plane in “minimal.” There are no clear standards for this review. Figure 1. Existing View Planes As part of the update to view planes, staff and consultants have reviewed how view planes are used in other communities. The approach taken in each community varies depending on social and spatial P28 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 3 of 8 factors, such as community conservation values and the proximity of the conserved view shed to areas subject to new development. In general, the regulations limit the height and design of development located within set locations (similar to Aspen’s regulations), and the regulations typically require additional review and permitting for new development within those areas. The differences from one community’s regulations to another are in the details, such as the parameters for establishing a View Plane (i.e. from a public space, as in Denver and Seattle, or to a surrounding landscape, as in Napa County, Calif. and Teton County, Wyo.), and the means of enforcement (i.e. permitting, heightened design review or prescriptive design standards). Some of those differences in approach are described in Table 1 on the following page. TABLE 1: Overview of View Plane Preservation Regulations in U.S. Cities and Counties. Jurisdiction Purpose Methodology Review & Permitting Denver, Colo. Protect views of the Front Range from public parks and open space Height restrictions for properties west of established points within delineated view planes; Maximum height relative to elevation of fixed view plane; assessed at time of normal development review; Honolulu, H.I. Preserve views of Diamond Head from the impact of building height throughout the City Restrict over-all building height and require stepped and sloped roofs on buildings with the Special District Requires Special Districts Development Permit; additional design review Seattle, Wash. Protect views of the Cascade Range, Puget Sound and other points of interest from public parks and open space Case-by-case analysis of "prominence, public accessibility and contribution" to City landscape Staff and Planning Commission review prior to normal development review Vancouver, B.C. Preserve views while allowing for vertical community growth Limit height and mass within defined view corridors extending from a locus to the protected resource; Height maximum relative to locus elevation; TDR program for properties effected by regulations Special review required to assess impact of view plane on proposed development; additional review required to establish site-specific maximum height Napa County, Calif. Preserve views of surrounding hillsides and topography from points throughout the county Height limits on development on slopes>15% or on ridgelines; height limits on buildings visible from specified points Viewshed Permit requires special review based on specified design guidelines Teton County, Wyo. Preserve scenic resources visible from roadways a public spaces throughout the county Special commercial and residential design guidelines, heightened review criteria (visual Scenic Resource Overlay Zone applied, additional staff and Planning Commission review P29 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 4 of 8 resource analysis) and development standards Defining the purpose and rationale for Aspen’s View Plane regulations and clearly establishing the location and extent of the protected View Planes will inform the regulatory approach taken to enforce those View Plane standards. Some communities take a prescriptive approach to regulating development within view planes, where the maximum height of buildings is static or relative to the baseline elevation of the view plane locus. This is similar to the approach taken in Aspen’s current regulations, insofar as Aspen’s view planes are established at a surveyed elevation and height is prescribed by the angle of the plane over a given property. Other communities provide a conditional process to review the specific impacts to protected resources from specific development proposals. While these review processes may increase risk for developers, they provide opportunity for new development to create design solutions to mitigate View Plane impacts and for subjective analysis of actual impacts to viewsheds. Conditional review processes also provide developers with an opportunity to discuss with officials the reduced redevelopment potential under View Plane regulations and negotiate development allowances to off-set those impacts. Both processes (prescriptive or conditional) require permitting and review processes that will have to be developed to support the regulatory approach favored by Council. Another major consideration in revising the City’s View Plane regulations is the extent of the View Planes relative to the protected resource. In some contexts, the protected resource is relatively close to the area of proposed development, as in Honolulu, Hawaii or Teton County, Wyo. Therefore, the View Planes often extend to the resource being protected. In other communities, the protected resource is far enough from the development area that the View Planes extend a specified distance from the established locus sufficient to provide views without stretching across the city. The later approach provides an unobstructed foreground to viewsheds while allowing development in the mid and background to occur without compromising the viewshed. The regulation of fore, mid and background preservation and site context are important considerations in setting the parameters for Aspen’s review of local View Plane regulations. Council is asked to provide additional direction regarding the goals and intent of the View Plane amendment process and outcomes. For instance, does Council believe the revised View Plane regulations should address foreground and background buildings differently? How should elements like foreground, background and the focus of the View Plane be defined? Once the over-all goals and direction have been established, staff and the consultants will commence with the analysis and depictions of the existing regulations relative to Council’s goals through the fall. Following this initial analysis, staff will check-in with Council about findings and draft proposals before bringing proposed View Plane amendments to Council prior to the expiration of the moratorium. This project is on a later timeline than the other items under consideration in the AACP-LUC coordination process. LINKAGES: The impact of View Plane preservation regulations on commercial development in and around the commercial core is dramatic. The Popcorn Wagon, which falls within the Wheeler Opera Housing View Plane is an example of the effect that View Planes have on commercial design. Depending on where a View Plane falls on an existing lot, it can limit the height, massing or orientation P30 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 5 of 8 of a building. Understanding the proposals in the revised Commercial Design Standards will inform how the View Plane code amendments ought to be written so the two work in concert. The relationship between View Planes and the CDS also have a linkage to commercial use mix and parking, insofar as the design of a building, the available and suitability of commercial spaces therein and the leasable square footage needed to make it financially viable all depend on the over-all design. Site improvements such as off-street parking and public amenity may further restrict the developable area of lots subject to View Plane regulations, reducing net-leasable area and increasing cost per square foot for commercial uses. These linkages will be taken into account in the View Plane amendment process. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. What are Council’s goals for the View Plane revisions? Some questions to consider: a. Are they intended to protect a view from a specific location or to protect general views of the mountains? b. Is the view back to the point where a view plane originates also important to consider? c. Are view planes intended to protect the foreground (i.e. immediately across the street) as well as the background (i.e. development further away that might not be seen from the view plan origination point)? d. At what distance does development within a view plane no longer have a material impact on its character or quality (i.e. lifts on Aspen Mountain or existing houses on Red Mountain)? AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We are committed to achieving sustainable land use practices that support a healthy year-round community and a thriving, vibrant visitor based economy. Additionally, we believe that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community. Philosophy: The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the community reach desired goals. Growth within a community needs to be like that of an individual, with the need to keep various functions balanced. Policy: “Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly- related impacts.” (AACP Managing Growth Policy VII) Presently, the affordable housing mitigation rate for expansions or new construction is set by AACP policy at 60% of actual demand. Therefore, for every 10 FTEs generated, the City of Aspen requires 6 FTEs be mitigated through built units, fee-in-lieu payments, or use of housing certificates. The units are made available for occupancy by the work force and the cash is made available for the construction of new affordable housing units. Council has inquired about the feasibility and process for raising that rate from its current 60%. The potential impact in units or cash-in-lieu amounts can be quantified to provide a framework for discussion of the impact of adjusting the mitigation rate. P31 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 6 of 8 Assume that a theoretical commercial property proposes an expansion of net leasable area of 213 square feet, which generates an additional one full-time equivalent (FTE) of affordable housing demand, based on the requirement that 4.7 FTEs are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The new FTE created by the new commercial net leasable area is required to be mitigated at the Category 4 rate, which is equivalent to 400 square feet of net livable area for a built unit or $223,072 worth of fee-in-lieu money. Therefore, the required amount of fee-in-lieu money at various mitigation rates would be as follows: • 60% = 240 square feet or $133,843 (current rate) • 80% = 320 square feet or $178,458 • 100% = 400 square feet or $223,072 Under this hypothetical scenario, an increase from 60% to 100% in the mitigation rate would yield a $89,229 increase in the fee required to cover the FTE generated, which translates to $419 per square foot of additional affordable housing mitigation cost for the 213 square foot addition. Council has four options regarding changes to mitigation rates: 1. Reduce the required mitigation below 60%. 2. Maintain the current mitigation level of 60%. 3. Increase the current mitigation level. This would be an outright increase to a percentage larger than the current 60% rate. 4. Implement a “conditional increase” to the mitigation level. This would increase the mitigation rate above the current 60% rate, and would allow development implementing desired community goals, such as increased pedestrian amenity space, “nook and cranny” commercial space, locally serving business space, etc., to be “reduced” back to today’s 60% rate. If Council is interested in increasing the required mitigation rate, staff recommends this option. The current 60% mitigation rate originated in the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan, and has been incorporated into the Land Use Code since. The current AACP does not include the policy goal of housing 60% of the local workforces. Instead, the AACP calls for “provide a critical mass of year-round residents,” “create a sustainable community that enables people to live their lives here,” and “ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly related impacts.” If Council is interested in increasing the mitigation requirements, staff and the consultant believe a rational basis can be articulated using these and other AACP policy statements. If Council is interested in exploring whether the current mitigation requirements are adequate, staff and the consultant believe that alternative mitigation requirements are supportable by these and other AACP policy statements. In 2013, the City completed an update to the FTE generation study for all commercial and lodging development. That study included an analysis of mitigation rates in other Colorado mountain communities, showing that Aspen currently has the highest mitigation requirements of any community surveyed.1 Any additional analysis of other similar communities or updated analysis will require additional time and resources. 1 Surveyed communities included: Telluride (40%), San Miguel County (15%), Vail (20%), and Steamboat Springs (0% - dismantled program during recession) P32 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 7 of 8 LINKAGES: There is a direct relationship between exactions assessed on new development and the availability of affordable commercial spaces, which should be considered holistically when considering adjustments to the affordable housing mitigation rate. The additional affordable housing revenue generated from an increase in mitigation rate would be used to finance the development of units to meet housing demand. However, the additional project development cost to cover the increased affordable housing mitigation rate could raise the rents for space in that building. As with other aspects of the AACP-LUC coordination process, there are important connections between affordable housing mitigation rates and Council’s other goals as they relate to commercial development. A balance is required to ensure that policy goals do not work at cross purposes. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 2. Is further assessment of the affordable housing mitigation rate a priority project under the moratorium? 3. Does Council wish to pursue further analysis of the relationship between its use mix and affordable housing objectives? DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: While the dimensional standards provided in the zoning section of the Land Use Code, such as FAR and building height, have a strong influence on the over-all form of commercial buildings in Aspen, the relationship between those standards and other development requirements is the driving force behind commercial building mass and scale. Relative to amending code sections such as off-street parking and permitted land uses by zone, the process for amending the dimensional standards is fairly simple. The amount of public amenity and surface parking required for a development site have a significant effect on the resulting building form and mass, and the code sections for those requirements are far more complex to amend. As such, the AACP-LUC coordination process is designed to address the most complex items first, which will inform the approach taken to amending simpler items such as FAR later in the process. A copy of the allowed dimensions since 2000 in all commercial zone districts is attached as Exhibit A. Heights: Currently the commercial zone districts include a range of allowed heights. For instance, the Mixed-Use Zone District allows a height of twenty-eight (28) to thirty-two (32) feet, as approved through commercial design review. Staff and the commercial design consultants recommend reducing or removing this range in all commercial zone districts, as it tends to result in all development proposals being designed to the higher number. Floor Area: At a minimum, changes to the overall allowed floor area are needed in the Commercial Core and Commercial zone districts to better reflect the current allowed heights, which were reduced in 2012. In addition, changes to internal ratios for allowed uses should be updated to reflect priorities for uses to encourage or discourage. For instance, as discussed in April, if free-market residential uses are not permitted in commercial zones, those allowed floor area numbers need to be removed from the zone districts. Finally, staff proposed in April and continues to support aligning the Mixed-Use zone district allowed floor areas. Currently, the Mixed-Use zone district has lower allowed FARs on Main Street than all other areas zoned Mixed-Use. Staff recommends that the dimensions for the Mixed-Use zone district be more closely aligned, with areas not located in the Main Street Historic District reduced by some amount. P33 II. 9.19.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 8 of 8 Setbacks: At this time, no changes to setbacks are proposed. Both staff and the consultant teams believe the setback requirements result in development that is consistent with historic development patterns in various zone districts. However, changes to parking, use, and public amenity requirements, may necessitate potential changes, which should be discussed once final direction is reached on these issues. Once Council has given staff clear direction that the proposed amendments to Parking, Use Mix, Commercial Design Standards and View Planes accurately reflect Council’s goals and vision, staff and the consultants will complete a more detailed assessment of what dimensional standards amendments are required. With the tentative date of October 24th for presenting Policy Resolution to Council, staff anticipates conducting the dimensional standards analysis and presenting it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council in October. Following P&Z and Council direction, staff will include final dimensional standard amendments alongside the other code amendment ordinances in November. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 4. Does Council support the initial direction for dimensional changes? NEXT STEPS: Following the August 29th work session, staff and the various consultants have begun the process of refining Council’s policy direction into draft policy and code language. The various project teams are coordinating with one another to ensure draft policies and regulations that work together toward Council’s goals. At the next scheduled Council work session on September 27th, draft off-street parking and use mix amendments will be discussed prior to the Policy Resolution meeting scheduled for October 24th. The View Planes analysis will be conducted through October and staff expects to return to Council with preliminary findings and additional discussion in November. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: “Dimensional Requirements 2000 to Today” P34 II. 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 Right P 3 5 I I . 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 P 3 6 I I . 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 P 3 7 I I . 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) P 3 8 I I . 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/ TDR P 3 9 I I . 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/ TDR P 4 0 I I .