HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160928
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 27, 2016
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Conditional Water Storage Rights
II. Land Use Code
P1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dave Hornbacher, Director Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Jim True, City Attorney;
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
DATE OF MEMO: September 23, 2016
MEETING DATE: September 27, 2016
RE: Conditional Water Rights (Maroon Creek Reservoir and Castle Creek Reservoir)
SUMMARY: Staff requests City Council guidance regarding a water court application that must
be filed on or before October 31, 2016, in order to maintain the City of Aspen’s conditional
storage rights for the Castle Creek Reservoir and the Maroon Creek Reservoir for another six-
year period.
BACKGROUND: Staff has planned a two-step process for presenting information to City
Council.
• Step One (Complete): Work Session on 9/20/2016 for staff and consultant to present
initial information and answer questions.
• Step Two (Today’s Work Session): Work Session on 9/27/2016 to review additional data
and arrive at a decision.
• October 10th Council Meeting – finalize actions per Council direction from work
sessions, as applicable.
DISCUSSION: Typically, filing the required diligence applications for these conditional water
rights is a task that staff has been directed to undertake as a part of its on-going mission to
provide a legal, safe and reliable water supply to the Aspen community. In 2016, the City’s
heightened efforts related to water planning focused attention on future water needs and future
supplies, including these long-held reservoir storage rights. In its ongoing efforts to encourage
community participation and transparency, Council directed staff to initiate a public process in
the complex analysis required to respond to climate change and to plan for an unknown future.
Staff is thankful for the opportunity to work with the community to plan for the future together.
P2
I.
The support and involvement of the community helps to ensure that Aspen’s future water needs
will be met in a well-planned and environmentally conscious manner. The public process
reaffirmed that our community holds existing wilderness and other environmental values in high
regard. In addition to local input, these conditional water rights received attention from outside
groups, such as the Washington D.C. based American Rivers advocacy group.
Recommendations for path forward
The City has embraced an integrated water supply approach to planning which aims to increase
system resiliency while decreasing vulnerability during times of shortage through the use of all
available tools. Staff continues to diligently identify, develop and implement these tools to meet
its mission of providing a safe and reliable water supply for current and future citizens of Aspen,
while remaining sensitive to environmental values and impacts. The City’s integrated water
supply plan relies on the Maroon and Castle Creek storage rights as a tool to reliably satisfy
future water needs. Water retained in the valley through storage can be released to bridge the
gap between available water in the streams and community demand, while maintaining minimum
instream flow requirements. Additionally, the impact to the community during periods of
extended drought will be less if stored water is available.
Recent studies, climate research and modeling, validated by local data, indicate a future with
increasing temperatures. This trend suggests earlier snowpack melt and runoff, which will lessen
the available streamflow in late summer and fall. Warmer temperatures will also lengthen the
growing season and increase transpiration rates of vegetation. Further, projected population
increases, potential extended use by 2nd homeowners, and likely increased tourism place further
demand on a finite water resource.
Climate and growth uncertainties will influence the future of year 2066 in ways beyond those
which can be fully contemplated in year 2016. However, given what we know now about
Aspen’s changing climate and other variables and influences, it is prudent to retain the City of
Aspen’s conditional water storage rights. More immediately, the City should actively and
aggressively identify and develop new, reliable water sources and tools and forge partnerships
whose impacts can diminish the scope and perhaps the necessity of these water storage projects.
Staff is requesting that Council consider adoption of a Resolution which directs staff to:
• Continue implementation of its integrated water supply system, including Water
Conservation Measures (including, but not limited to, rate revisions and a new landscape
ordinance); the Reuse Project, the well system, and other current plans for development
of water supplies.
• Initiate a collaborative process to evaluate existing and identify new alternatives and any
other necessary actions to fill the projected future water supply and demand gap.
• Investigate alternative locations and sizing requirements of the Maroon Creek Reservoir
and/or Castle Creek Reservoir, and, and to report its findings back to City Council for
further consideration and action as appropriate.
P3
I.
• Proceed with the filing of the diligence application for the City’s conditional water
storage rights on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek.
At its September 20, 2016 Work Session, Council directed staff to continue their public outreach
efforts and provide interested parties factual information on the project in the form of a
frequently asked questions sheet (FAQ sheet). A draft of this FAQ is provided as Attachment A
for Council review.
Additional supplemental information tied to specific legal guidance for this conditional water
right will be distributed as part of an executive session.
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED: Staff requests Council direction on how to proceed
in the upcoming filing for its conditional storage rights.
In addition, staff requests council feedback to expand, improve, or otherwise clarify the attached
draft FAQ responses. Council should note, this attachment is labeled draft and is intended to
promote further discussion.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A - Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (DRAFT)
P4
I.
Frequently Asked Questions about the City of Aspen’s
Conditional Water Storage Rights
1. What is the feedback from the public and stakeholders to City Council about this decision?
The City received a wide spectrum of feedback from the public and stakeholders. Feedback
from 15 stakeholders (local and national water managers and environmental groups) ranged
from support of the City’s conditional water storage rights to requests to relinquish them.
Likewise, 40-plus members of the public attended a public meeting and shared a broad
spectrum of feedback, with some members of the public strongly stating that the City should
retain its conditional water storage rights in light of uncertain climate and water futures, while
others felt strongly that the City should not have an option to propose dams in the future for
environmental reasons. The City also received 50-plus emails from the public in opposition to
completing its diligence filing in October, largely for environmental reasons. Media about this
project has focused largely on the public’s emails to the City. However, with respect to the
many citizens that attended the public open house and the stakeholder meetings, it must be
noted that the spectrum of feedback on the City’s decision was very broad and complex,
ranging from retention to relinquishment of the conditional water storage rights.
2. The City of Aspen hasn’t needed a reservoir for water storage in the past. Why might the
community need a reservoir or water storage of some type as an option 50 years from now?
It is well-known that the City of Aspen does not have any current water storage – meaning the
community is living “paycheck to paycheck” with snowpack and snowmelt as the main water
sources for everyone’s use. The City is protecting its ability to construct traditional storage, and
to develop its conditional water rights to ensure the City of Aspen can meet the demands of the
community and the environment for future generations.
Climate change has already driven up temperatures in the Western US, and models show Aspen
can expect a 6 degree Fahrenheit increase by 2050. Although these models show a high
variability in future precipitation, they do indicate that more precipitation will come to Aspen in
the form of rain, instead of snow. We are currently seeing higher temperatures and fewer
frost-freeze days in the Valley, which are leading to changes in water need and use patterns.
These changing climate conditions continue to add vulnerability to Aspen’s water system and
show that water storage is an increasing need in Aspen to ensure a secure water system for
future years.
Based on population trends, including increasing summer populations, we also anticipate that
people will spend more time in Aspen throughout the year, which will require more water for
P5
I.
their commercial, personal, and recreational uses, increasing the overall amount of water
demanded by the community.
For these reasons, the City would like to retain its storage options, recognizing that if these
conditional storage rights are relinquished, Aspen has no other meaningful water storage
rights, should storage be needed in the future.
3. What does the “can and will” clause mean with respect to conditional water storage
rights?
Colorado water law for conditional water rights contains a phrase “can and will”. This means
that the City of Aspen must demonstrate that it “can and will” divert water under the
conditional storage rights and place it to “beneficial use” within a reasonable time. “Beneficial
use” includes municipal uses, which encompass the many water needs served by Aspen’s
municipal water supply. “Reasonable time” depends on the circumstances of each situation;
there is not a defined period of time as each situation can be very complex. Every six years, one
who holds a conditional water right (in this case, the City of Aspen) must show the water court
that it is proceeding with reasonable diligence to develop the conditional water rights. This
may include showing work done on Aspen’s overall water supply system, which integrates a
number of different structures and sources of supply, and site-specific work, such as research,
studies, permitting, planning or designing of infrastructure specifically required for the
conditional water right itself.
The requirement to demonstrate “can and will” is a requirement of maintaining a conditional
water right – a right that has not yet been put to beneficial use. This is different from the
concept of “use it or lose it,” which is used to broadly describe limitations on absolute water
rights. Absolute rights, unlike conditional water rights, have been developed and put to
beneficial use. Over time, however, some or all of an absolute water right may be lost if it is not
utilized to its full decreed extent. The term “abandonment” is applied to the loss of some or all
of an absolute water right.
4. Does the City of Aspen want to store water to keep lawns green?
We take conservation very seriously and to that end have adopted tiered rates, programs to
assist commercial and residential customers use less water, and we’re currently working on a
landscape ordinance to further promote efficiency.
The City received some letters from citizens who thought the City wants the ability to store
water so that “people can water their lawns” or expressed similar sentiments indicating that
the City wants to build the reservoirs so that people can use water extravagantly. In fact, the
primary reason the City wants to protect its conditional water storage rights is to ensure that
P6
I.
these storage options remain available as a tool to help the City prepare for and respond to
uncertain futures in climate, water supply, and population demand.
In addition to supplying for the water needs of Aspen’s residents, businesses and visitors, the
City also provides municipal water for multiple public amenities including open space,
recreation, our urban forest, and historic ditches. Our community’s high regard for this area’s
beauty and resilience were cited by many members of the public in their comments at the
public open house or in their letters.
5. How would the City of Aspen address impacts associated with the construction of these
reservoirs?
Many laws, regulations, and permit requirements inform the selection, design and construction
of reservoirs. These include the following:
• Compliance with an array of state and federal environmental laws, cultural and historic
resource laws, and related regulations are required.
• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires extensive environmental impact
analysis, including a comprehensive analysis of environmental effects, prior to any
construction.
• A thorough, legally mandated, and broad public process would be an essential part of
constructing a reservoir.
• Environmental impacts, and impacts to cultural resources and socioeconomic factors
would be identified and analyzed in context of any proposal.
Throughout the process, alternatives and mitigation actions would be developed with input
from technical experts, land and water managers, advocacy organizations, and the public
working together.
6. What happens if the City does not maintain these conditional storage rights?
These conditional storage rights were decreed in 1971, with 1965 appropriation dates. This
means that they are senior to all water rights later appropriated and decreed on Castle Creek,
Maroon Creek, and downstream on the Roaring Fork River. The largest of these later water
rights are the Pitkin County RICD water right, and the instream flows on the Roaring Fork River,
Maroon Creek, and Castle Creek.
If these conditional water rights are cancelled, Aspen will have no meaningful municipal water
storage options. It will continue to operate “paycheck to paycheck” unless and until it develops
other water storage options.
P7
I.
If the conditional storage rights are cancelled, and the City later determines it needs storage
rights, it could apply for new junior storage rights. New storage rights would be junior in
priority to all water rights decreed or filed for before Aspen applied for the new water rights. It
is possible, depending on then-existing water rights and on the snowpack and streamflow
patterns at the time, that Aspen would have limited opportunities to actually store water under
those new rights. The City could also buy and dry irrigated farmland and store water historically
consumed by the crops, or enter into an interruptible water supply agreement with irrigators.
Storage of water available from dry up of irrigation, whether as a result of “buy and dry” or an
interruptible water supply agreement, results in loss of irrigated lands, and the associated
environmental consequences.
7. Others have relinquished conditional water rights, such as those on the Crystal River. How
was the decision made by other entities different from the decision before the City of Aspen?
Aspen is a water provider, but unlike most water providers, it does not have storage to enable it
to mitigate the effect of fluctuating supplies and demands. Aside from these conditional rights,
Aspen has no other water storage rights that could be used to supply its customers or allow it
the flexibility to help the CWCB protect instream flows. The reasons water providers relinquish
conditional water rights are varied, and unique to the provider itself, requiring consideration of
both future projections, and relative the merits, costs and benefits of alternative options.
Several years ago, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, which is not a water
provider, and the West Divide Water Conservancy District, relinquished large conditional
storage rights for two large reservoirs on the Crystal River, the Osgood Reservoir and the Placita
Reservoir. These very large projects, totaling almost 200,000 acre-feet (twice as large as Ruedi
Reservoir) were included in a plan to store water from the Crystal River at Redstone, inundating
Redstone, and deliver the water to Divide Creek to be used for irrigation and oil shale uses.
Ultimately, the districts determined that because the project was not economical, and there
was lack of support for the project, especially locally, and because the River District has various
other water projects, storage reservoirs, and supplies, most of these rights could be
relinquished. The potential remains for a much smaller Placita Reservoir – around 4,000 acre-
feet – at the bottom of McClure Pass.
P8
I.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 1 of 15
Memorandum
To: Mayor Skadron and City Council
From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech
Meeting Date: September 27, 2016, 4:00 PM
RE: AACP Land Use Code Revisions Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests policy direction from Council on specific proposals for
changes to the Use Mix and Off-street Parking regulations provided in the Land Use Code.
Additionally, staff seeks direction from Council on the proposed meeting schedule for the development
of draft code amendments and ordinances for completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process.
BACKGROUND: The AACP-LUC coordination process continues. Since August 9th, staff has met in
work session with Council five times to seek direction in anticipation of the development of the Policy
Resolution and LUC amendments needed to complete the scope of work established under the
Commercial Development Moratorium. With Policy Resolution scheduled for October 24th, there are
two opportunities (including this work session) to vet staff proposals and garner additional direction
before Policy Resolution is presented.
The coordination process has revealed a number of vital linkages between elements of the topic areas
under review: the relationship between commercial use mix, commercial design, public amenity spaces
and parking; the relationship between dimensional standards, open space and viewshed; the importance
of accessibility and human-scale development to commercial success and community character. These
concepts underpin the work of staff and the various consultant teams, and they will be reflected in the
policies and code amendments ultimately put forth to Council.
The use mix and parking inquiries are the two elements closest to the formal policy development phase,
and therefore the two elements ready for final Council blessing. The discussions that follow in this
memorandum reflect the refined direction provided by Council in previous work sessions in August and
September. Following this final discussion, staff and the consultants intend to integrate any additional
Council direction into the policies presented to Council on October 24th.
Also included in the memorandum is an executive summary of the draft Public Outreach Report, which
will be delivered to Council as part of the Policy Resolution. Public outreach is an essential component
of The City of Aspen’s approach to land use and community development planning, and the public
outreach strategies and tactics employed as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process represent a
robust and conscientious effort by staff to seek-out and integrate the public’s vision into the policies and
code amendments that will result from this process. Following the public outreach summary, the
remaining steps of the coordination process are outlined in further detail.
P9
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 2 of 15
USE MIX: The last time Council discussed use mix with staff on August 9th, 2016, Council gave clear
direction as to the regulatory and incentive tools preferred to achieve the desired mix of commercial uses
in downtown. Favoring an incentive-based approach, Council directed staff to develop a suite of
policies to achieve the over-arching goals of creating second tier commercial spaces, preventing the
erosion of commercial uses by residential uses, clarifying the allowed and desired uses in specific zones
and preserving the NC and SCI zones for predominantly locally serving commercial uses. Staff and the
project consultants have developed that suite of policies and regulatory tools, and seeks direction from
Council as to whether those draft policies should be included in the Policy Resolution in late October.
Residential Uses
In order to preserve commercial areas for predominantly commercial uses, Council directed staff to
eliminate new free-market residential uses from the SCI and NC zones, and amend the MU zone to
allow new free-market uses when not part of a commercial development, and limit new free-market uses
in the MU zone to resident-occupied. Council has supported continuing to allow affordable housing in
commercial zones, but as an ancillary use. Affordable housing would remain allowed uses in
commercial zones, but with lower allowed floor area ratios to ensure commercial zones remain primarily
commercial. The policies and draft code language will ensure that affordable housing in the CC and C1
zones is located only on upper floors and that the cumulative square footage of such uses will be
subordinate to commercial uses.
Additionally, staff has looked closely at the potential for allowing optional second or third floors
containing affordable housing in commercial zones. The negative relationship between free-market
residential uses and commercial uses in mixed-use buildings downtown is well documented. However,
the AACP and Council’s goals for affordable housing and second tier spaces make the option for
housing-based height bonuses feasible. The AACP calls for affordable housing which “bolsters our
socioeconomic diversity,” (AACP Housing II.1) and “on-site housing mitigation is preferred” (AACP
Housing IV.3) for affordable housing in the Urban Growth Boundary. Allowing third floor affordable
housing in conjunction with second tier space incentives allows development in commercial zones to
meet both of Councils goals regarding affordable housing and second tier spaces while following the
housing policies of the AACP.
LSB Overlay Zone
The Locally Serving Business Overlay Zone (LSB) is an incentive-based tool to promote the creation of
space for desired uses. Staff and consultants propose that this would be a voluntary overlay in the SCI
and NC zones. In analyzing the existing condition of the NC and SCI zones, staff and consultants found
there are cohesive individual developments in these zones that function well and meet community
commercial needs. However, those locations do not necessarily create a cohesive zone district. The
LSB provides an additional tool with new strategies to allow for quality redevelopment to achieve
desired use and form outcomes. The LSB would allow for redevelopment on a parcel by parcel basis
that meets owners and City’s needs without undermining or significantly altering the nature of the zones
and their existing uses through a wholesale rezoning process.
The LSB would function as a floating zone, able to be applied through a formal rezoning process that
would supersede but not eliminate the underlying zoning designation. The LSB would provide
alternative dimensional and use standards from the underlying zoning to allow redevelopment to create
spaces useful to locally serving businesses at potentially a lower cost per square foot. The LSB could
also provide opportunities for public-private partnerships, where agencies and developers partner to
P10
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 3 of 15
create useful spaces, including live-work, cohousing and other mixed-use development models. The
City’s existing rezoning process, including Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council review,
would be required to obtain the LSB designation for a property, and approval would be contingent upon
meeting very specific use and design criteria.
Second Tier Spaces
In addition to the LSB, staff proposes developing definitions and standards for second tier (nook-and-
cranny) spaces to support the LSB and Commercial Design Guideline-based incentives for the
development of those spaces. The definitions and standards would identify the location and percentage
of net leasable area within a development where second tier spaces may be located. For example,
basement, alley, second floor, and mid-block arcade spaces may qualify, and at least 25% of net leasable
space shall be dedicated to those spaces. These definitions and standards may also provide incentives
through reductions in exactions or other requirements (such as affordable housing mitigation rate,
parking, or public amenity space) in exchange for the creation of such spaces in a development.
Ensuring coordination between the Land Use Code and Commercial Design Guidelines with regard to
second tier spaces will provide the strongest possible approach to incentivizing the creation of those
spaces in new and redevelopment projects.
Revisions to Commercial Zones
The final area of policy and code amendment is to the allowed uses in various commercial zones and the
methodology for presenting that information in the LUC. Council directed staff to develop generalized
use categories for the CC, C1, MU, SCI and NC zones, in order to ensure that the permitted and
conditional uses allowed in those zones meets the community’s commercial needs. Within the general
category descriptions, permitted and allowed uses will be identified in a table which more clearly
conveys the information to the user. As part of this revision, certain uses (beyond the residential uses
described previously) would be eliminated or added to zones to ensure that the proliferation of no single
use can undermine the integrity of the zone district.
Additionally, staff proposes revising the definition of certain zones, particularly the NC zone, to better
reflect both the existing development pattern and use mix, as well as to promote the development of
desired uses in the future. We may need to revise the intent section of the NC zone district, and perhaps
some of the other zones, to eliminate reference to residential as part of the zone's basic intent. While not
necessarily the highest profile amendment in the larger AACP-LUC coordination process, the intent and
use list amendments will ensure that what Council has identified as being desired uses and part of the
healthy use mix called for in the AACP will be more likely to obtain in those zones over time.
Finally, the Commercial Core and Commercial (C-1) zone districts allow a third floor on the north side
of the street if it is for lodge or associated lodge space. Staff questions if lodging uses are the only uses
that should be allowed the ability to go to a third floor, or if three floors should continue to be allowed.
Third floors could potentially be a location for affordable housing uses or second tier (nook and cranny)
spaces. Staff asks for further direction from City Council on this issue.
LINKAGES: The work on this element of the AACP-LUC coordination process is supported by the
following 2012 AACP policies:
Managing Growth for Community and Economic Sustainability
P11
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 4 of 15
V.1. Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the needs of year-
round residents and visitors.
V.2. Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs.
VII.2. Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly-related
impacts.
VII.3. Allow abatements in mitigation for certain types of development that provide significant
community benefits and are in the public interest.
There are myriad linkages between the proposals in the use mix arena and other aspects of the AACP-
LUC coordination process. The linkage between properly written Commercial Design Guidelines,
zoning standards, commercial mix and second-tier spaces has become one of the primary features of
Council’s approach to achieving many desired outcomes of the moratorium. Staff believes that the
policies proposed above, in concert with the Commercial Design Guidelines, are likely to bring the
commercial mix in downtown Aspen closer to that called for in the AACP policies listed above.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council support the proposed changes to permitted residential uses in the CC, C1,
MU, NC and SCI zones?
2. Does Council support the development of the LSB Overlay Zone described above?
3. Does Council support the strategies and tactics described above for incentivizing the
development of second tier commercial spaces?
4. Does Council support the proposed changes to the use lists in the Zoning chapter of the
Land Use Code?
5. Does Council support third floors in the CC and C-1 zone district? If so, what uses should
be allowed on a third floor?
OFF-STREET PARKING: Following the August 29th Council work session, staff and consultants
finalized draft recommendations responding to Council’s direction for amendments to the off-street
parking regulations. Specifically, Council directed staff to better coordinate the City’s mobility goals
and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, develop regulations to promote shared
parking, better integrate Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and parking requirements, and explore
the potential impacts of creating ‘soft’ parking maximums.
The following policies have been identified as priority opportunities from which new regulations may be
developed:
• Avoid Oversupply of Private Parking: The current parking supply is inefficient and a direct
reflection of minimum parking requirements. The city’s off-street parking regulations have
placed an emphasis on inefficient facilities managed as private resources. Policy should focus on
meeting area-wide needs and promoting efficient shared parking facilities.
• Avoid Undersupply of Public Parking: Tracking of parking outcomes should focus on public
parking supply, and use a combination of incentives and requirements to ensure investment in
new public parking supplies either through cash-in-lieu fees or TDM investments. Policy should
focus on opportunities to increase availability of existing facilities to create more parking
without actually increasing supply.
P12
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 5 of 15
• Build Upon Cash-in-Lieu: Cash-in-Lieu programs provide unique funding opportunities for the
development of public parking. The City of Aspen’s cash-in-lieu program, which already is
successful, can be used to further reduce car dependency and parking demand through investing
in mobility programs and TDM. Policy should focus on creating more robust investment
scenarios that will aid in creating a ‘park once’ environment and funnel off-street parking from
private to public facilities and encourage alternative transportation for local trips.
• Continue to Emphasize Mobility over Parking Alone: Expanding the flexibility of the Cash-
In-Lieu fee program will underscore that the provision of on-site parking is only one option to
make new developments accessible. Policy should focus on creating additional options and a
scaled fee structure to promote economic benefits of the Cash-in-Lieu program while generating
opportunities for alternative uses of space on development sites.
Using these policy statements as a framework, the following draft policies address current gaps in off-
street parking policies and expand on existing successful programs to create a more cohesive and
efficient off-street parking system. Specifically, these proposed amendments will support City of Aspen
Goals to reduce transportation sector emissions and car dependency, reduce congestion in town and over
Castle Creek Bridge, and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Barring further direction from
Council, these proposed code change updates will be included in the October 24th Policy Resolution and
provide the basis for Land Use Code amendments. The draft policies are listed below:
1. Maintain minimum parking requirements. Review of the current off-street parking minimum
requirements has indicated a need to maintain minimum parking requirements, as they have not
had an impact on the amount of private parking built by developers due to the success of the
Cash-In-Lieu (CIL) program. Maintaining these requirements will assist in funding potential
shared parking, Mobility, and TDM programs.
2. Add a “soft” private parking maximum. To supplement the success of minimum parking
requirements, adding a “soft” private parking maximum ratio, which allows developers to
provide more parking than required through the payment of a CIL fee, will assist in right-sizing
parking for different developments and collects needed funds to achieve related transit and
mobility goals. Overage fees collected from exceeding soft parking maximums can be combined
with other parking revenue sources to expand the availability of public parking funds.
3. Allow Cash-in-Lieu to meet parking requirements in the Infill Area. Building upon the
success of the current Cash-In-Lieu program, code updates could include allowing CIL for all
parking requirements within the Infill Area in order to minimize inefficient “stand alone”
residential parking facilities.
4. Establish a Progressive Cash-in-Lieu Rate. A progressive CIL rate structure which would
create a per-space fee increasing with the project’s total parking requirements. This update would
have two benefits: creating an attractive option for small scale projects that have limited
solutions for on-site parking, and making CIL fees less attractive for very large projects that can
provide more efficient and accessible on-site parking facilities.
P13
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 6 of 15
5. Mandate Cash-in-Lieu in certain areas. In conjunction with the progressive fee structure,
another Cash-In-Lieu option calls out the opportunity to identify areas where a mandated CIL fee
may be suitable (such as on the pedestrian malls) in order to deter on-site parking in areas where
it is not the most efficient or highest-and-best use of land.
6. Updating Shared Parking Credits. Allowing mixed-use developments can submit a shared
parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute model to calculate reductions to their parking
requirements and mitigation. This would take into account the different parking patterns of
various uses within a development to improve the efficiency of new parking facilities.
7. Off-Peak Shared Parking. Requiring parking spaces to be shared during off-peak hours will
increase efficiency of our current parking supplies for existing developments and can be applied
retroactively. This focuses on the opportunities presented in the current off-street parking
system; there are two potential code updates that could maximize opportunities for shared
parking without increasing the over-all supply in downtown.
8. Alternative Transportation Incentives. The proposed addition of bike, car-share, and a credit
system for community-focused driving alternative incentives aligns with the City’s existing
alternative transportation goals and policies. These alternative transportation strategies focus on
building public infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation using private resources,
further strengthening our multi-modal network at minimal cost to the public.
a. Bike Share. Bike parking would require either Class 1 secure, weather protected
facilities for long-term storage, or Class 2 publicly accessible and highly visible facilities
intended for short-term storage.
b. Car-Share. Car-share requirements would specify that on-site facilities containing some
minimum number of spaces make spaces available to car-sharing providers free of
charge.
c. Incentives. The credit system would incentivize shared parking for mixed use facilities,
un-bundling of residential parking (reduce requirements for multi-family residential when
they are sold or rented separately to residential units), car-sharing, creation of bike-share
facilities, and electric car charging facilities.
9. TIA Strategies. To supplement and enhance the current Transportation Impact Analysis
program, code amendments could be made to the Transportation Demand Management Program
for the Infill Area. These Category additions to the existing TIA system provide incentives to
share parking, create alternative transportation ‘hubs’, and promote the walkability of the
downtown area.
a. Parking-Plan Category. The Parking-Plan Category would determine how much
parking will be met through CIL fees and what proportion of parking will be made
available to the public for a minimum of 12 hours in any 24-hour period.
b. Resident-Trip Reduction Category. The Resident-Trip-Reduction Category would
analyze cycling facilities, bike-share, car-share, and transit amenities.
c. Lodging-Trip Reduction Category. The Lodging-Trip-Reduction Category would
examine promotions and information provided to guests regarding alternative modes of
transport, and ride-share and bike-share programs.
P14
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 7 of 15
LINKAGES: The work on this element of the AACP-LUC coordination process is supported by the
following 2012 AACP policies:
Transportation
I.3. Actively promote public awareness of transit alternatives for visitors and second homeowners,
including bus routes and the pedestrian/bicycle trail system.
I.4. Maintain the reliability and improve the convenience of City of Aspen transit services.
II.2. Expand and improve bicycle parking and storage in the UGB.
III.3 Require development to mitigate for its transportation impacts.
V.1 Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse
impacts of the automobile.
The relationship between City parking regulations and the built environment in downtown Aspen is well
established. The proposed policies and code amendments relate directly to a number of the goals for
other aspects of the AACP-LUC coordination process (see Table 1 below). Current off-street parking
requirements promote on-site mitigation for new development, which directly impacts height, massing,
and commercial design outcomes. Due to high land costs and limited development yield, mitigating for
off-street parking on-site displaces valuable space that could be utilized for Council goals and
community goods such as public amenity space, affordable housing, lodging and locally serving
businesses, effectively creating missed opportunities for more vibrant use mix in the infill area.
The suite of code options described above works together to ensure that off-street parking is right-sized for
individual developments. Together, they will ensure that future development meets community parking
needs while providing opportunities to create more on-site public amenity, reduce building massing and
height, and create more efficient site planning that can support alternative transportation nodes (bike-share,
car-share, facilities). Shared parking programs are another avenue to create more vitality in the downtown
area through intensifying the use of specific facilities while reducing curb cuts, vehicle trips and
transportation mode conflicts downtown. Providing alternatives to traditional, private surface parking for
developments in the downtown area will support a number of Council’s goals for the AACP-LUC
coordination process.
P15
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 8 of 15
TABLE 1: PARKING LINKAGES TABLE
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
6. Does Council support amendments that retain parking minimums and add ‘soft’
maximums to right-size parking?
7. Does Council support amendments that restructure our current Cash-In-Lieu program to
increase efficiency and create more flexibility for different types of development?
8. Does Council support the expansion of shared parking opportunities to improve the
efficiency of parking facilities in downtown and reduce the impact of new surface parking
on the built environment?
9. Does Council support amendments that create an alternative transportation credit system
to incentivize bike-share, car-share, and reduce parking requirements for multi-family
residential?
P16
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 9 of 15
10. Does Council support amendments that update the TIA program to include new categories
addressing parking, residential, and lodging?
DRAFT PUBLIC OUTREACH REPORT: Following the adoption of the moratorium, city staff and
the project consultants outlined the community outreach approach required for a complex, multi-tiered
code update and policy adoption process. What emerged was a two-pronged approach employing a new
outreach website and various activities to engage with a broad range of the public including local
residents, tourists and technical stakeholders. Based upon feedback from Council, staff focused
community outreach on the following topic areas:
TABLE 2: AACP-LUC COORDINATION TOPICS
Timeline and Events
The timeline for outreach is illustrated below (Table 3) and outlines the types of events and activities
that city staff and consultants hosted with the public. Additionally, activities and events were updated
and changed during the process in order to capture meaningful representative segments of the public and
ensure ample opportunity to provide feedback for different stakeholder groups in the community. Staff
used best practices to create a phased process to inform, consult, and collaborate with the community on
policy directions, the policy adoption process, and code updates.
In total, city staff and consultants hosted 20 Pop-Up Workshops, small community meetings, focus
groups, and open houses. Additionally, Staff has conducted 14 meetings (and counting) with City
Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, CCLC, and the
NextGen Commission.
Project Scope
Commercial Design Standards and Public
Amenity
Update to reflect zoning changes since 2007
Use Regulations in commercial zone districts Update zoning to better regulate and propagate a variety
of uses in the commercial zones that serve both the local
and tourist economies
Review inclusion of free-market and affordable housing
Mobility and Off-Street Parking Update requirements to create a more efficient parking
mix while supporting overarching City sustainability and
transportation goals
Mountain View Planes
Update language to reflect current development patterns
and inform future development impacting views from
downtown Aspen
P17
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 10 of 15
TABLE 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
Onl
ine
Out
rea
ch
Asp
en
Co
mm
unit
y
Voi
ce
(A
CV
),
was
lau
nch
ed
Jun
e
15,
2016 and serves as an information hub for all projects under the moratorium. ACV hosts project pages
for each of the targeted code amendment areas with project information, background documents, key
dates, and project manager contact information. Aspen Community Voice has served as a supplemental
vehicle for soliciting feedback with 1,153 project page visits, over 190 survey submissions, 29 quick
poll responses, and 30 contributions to other activities. Additionally, 162 background documents were
downloaded, and 92 users accessed key dates and event information throughout the summer.
Participants
Throughout the summer there were 277 community members who participated in events, 120 who
contributed to Open City Hall surveys, and 90 who actively engaged in surveys and activities on ACV.
Please note these numbers do not include those who did not register with demographic information, and
are indicative of only a fraction of those who were engaged in community meetings and pop-up
workshops and those who visited the ACV website. Of those who provided us with information, 79%
were valley residents, 61% being Aspen community members. There was an even split between male
and female (50% / 50%) respondents and a relatively even age distribution with a concentration of
respondents aged between 30-49 years of age.
Month Purpose Event
April Inform
• Consultant work and outreach planning begins
• Off-Street Parking small community meetings
May Inform
• Project timelines developed
• Materials for new outreach website are developed
• Kick-off meetings and focus groups conducted
June Consult
• Aspen Community Voice launches
• Pop-Up workshops on the Pedestrian Mall
• Off-Street Parking community meetings, intercept surveys, data
collection
July Consult /
Collaborate
• Pop-Up workshop at Yellow Brick
• Commercial Design Standards community meetings, focus groups
• Pop-Up workshop at Aspen Saturday market
August Consult /
Collaborate
• Pop-Up workshops (Aspen Saturday Market, Pedestrian Mall)
• Community meetings, Open House on all project areas
September Inform • City staff begins preliminary feedback analysis
October Inform
• Community meeting (policy direction)
• Community Outreach Report publication
• Policy Resolution
November Inform • Final community meeting
• 1st Reading of Ordinances
Nov - Jan Inform • 2nd Readings of Ordinances
P18
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 11 of 15
What We Asked
Community outreach topics focused on the following areas:
TABLE 4: COMMUNITY OUTREACH TOPICS
Key Findings
In the analysis of the community feedback to date, staff have discerned two overarching themes
regarding the community’s preferences when it comes to the built form of Aspen: access and community
values. Respondents reiterated across all the projects the need for access; access to affordable parking
options, access to transportation, access to affordable housing, access to public amenity spaces and
access to affordable retail. The desire for access spanned stakeholder groups and often was ‘tailored’ to
individual needs, where the idea of community values appeared to be more of a universal perspective.
Respondents feel a strong affinity for ‘their’ Aspen, whether residents or visitors, and have a clear
perspective on what should be reflected in the architecture and development patterns based upon their
experiential interactions with the town itself. Expounding upon these sentiments, project key findings
have been summarized below in Table 5.
Project Questions
Commercial Design
Standards
• Identifying favorite building, spaces, and parks
• Discussing the appropriateness of a variety of architectural styles in Aspen
• Determining the biggest impact on the look and feel of Aspen’s downtown
• Collecting community feedback on the types of new development preferred as
well as opinions on existing buildings and spaces
Use Mix
• Identifying the most important function and uses of Aspen’s commercial areas
• Discussing the appropriateness of housing, both affordable and free market,
downtown
• Determining whether or not Aspen’s commercial areas meet the community’s
needs
• Collecting community feedback on preferred lot layouts as well as the
organization of uses within a building.
Off-Street Parking
• Determining the public’s use of off and on-street parking
• Discussing the factors that impact a person’s decision on where to park
• Determining when and where parking is hardest to find in Aspen
• Collecting community feedback on the sufficiency of off-street parking in Aspen
• Gathering community feedback on the appropriateness of different types of off-
street parking within Aspen
Mountain View
Planes
• Evaluating the appropriateness of the view planes that currently exist
• Reviewing view plane preservation regulations in other communities
• Evaluating Aspen’s View Plane regulations for clarity and effectiveness
P19
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 12 of 15
TABLE 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FINDINGS
Project Key Findings
Commercial
Design
Standards
Building Design Preferences: Participants were widely divided on their vision for Aspen
desiring historic, contemporary, and modern designs. This is reflected both in the current stock
of buildings and what participants would like to see in the future. Despite the diversity of
opinions on specific buildings, participants supported design that respects historic character
and responds to neighborhood context.
Public Amenity: Participants overwhelmingly supported increasing public amenity space with
a focus on experiential spaces such as outdoor dining and gathering spaces.
Character Areas: Participants supported further clarification of the character areas, as long as
the history of each was taken into account when creating specific guidelines.
Use Mix
Success/failures of current commercial services: Participants were split on whether current
commercial offerings met their needs. Many wanted a focus on local ownership but there was
acknowledgement that high end retail helps support Aspen’s economy.
Function of commercial services: A majority of participants felt that the most important
function of Aspen’s commercial areas was to provide goods and services to residents. SCI and
NC zone districts were highlighted as target areas for locally serving businesses.
Most important uses to have in Aspen: The following were identified in order of importance:
restaurants, public and open spaces, retail, community services, arts and cultural facilities, and
offices. Participants recognized business in Aspen can be challenging due to a seasonal tourist
economy and high land costs.
Uses within building and structure of lots: Participants preferred two story buildings with an
option for a third floor primarily containing commercial space on the ground floor, residential
and office spaces on top floors. The majority supported affordable housing over free-market in
mixed use buildings and expressed interest in subgrade parking options.
Housing in commercial zones: Participants generally supported affordable and resident-
occupied housing in commercial zones. Participants were concerned over cost and possibly
detracting from commercial inventory. Participants felt that residential uses should not alter the
character of buildings and should be a subordinate use.
Off-Street
Parking
Parking Preferences: Participants who park on-street chose to do so for proximity to their
destination and for convenience for errands, while those who parked off-street did so because
of ‘permits, carpool passes, or lodging guest passes’. Many participants employ a mix of
parking on-street, off-street, and taking public or alternative transit, while a minority only use
alternative modes of transport due to either not having a car or an aversion to congestion.
Parking Facilities: Participants expressed strong support for subgrade parking facilities often
referencing Wagner Park. While most participants were aware of current parking facilities,
many felt they are inconvenient because location or congestion (Rio Grande and City Market).
Cost: The majority of participants expressed concern over the affordability of both on-street
and off-street parking, especially those who are required to drive for work and need to transport
items into town.
Access: Participants were universally concerned with access to parking with many noting the
distance of the Rio Grande to primary destinations.
P20
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 13 of 15
The process of compiling the data and assembling the final Public Outreach Report will correspond with
the drafting of the Policy Resolution. The final report will provide Council with a clear portrait of the
extent of the public outreach effort, detailed findings and linkages between those findings and the
specific policies contained in the Policy Resolution. Both items will be delivered to Council on October
24th as part of the formal Policy Resolution process.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
11. Does Council have any questions about the community outreach process?
NEXT STEPS: The AACP-LUC coordination process is entering its third phase, the legislative
process, which includes policy resolution and the development of code amendments for all of the topic
areas included in the moratorium. Presently, staff has identified at least 12 ordinances (see Table 6)
which will be required to amend the various LUC code sections impacted by the work conducted under
the moratorium. The general policies to support those resolutions, along with documentation of the
public outreach element of the coordination process, will be included in the October 24th Policy
Resolution presented to Council. Once the policy resolution has been passed, the general direction for
all subsequent code amendments will be set. Therefore, it is important that the direction provided from
Council to staff in the next month reflect Councils desired outcomes and vision. It is important to note
that the second reading dates listed below indicate the first public hearing (second reading) date, and that
staff anticipates there will be two to three public hearings on each Ordinance to ensure the code
language matches Council’s goals and to ensure adequate opportunities for public comment.
P21
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 14 of 15
TABLE 6: AACP-LUC COORDINATION ORDINANCES SCHEDULE
LUC CHAPTER &
CORRESPONDING
ORDINANCE
TOPIC LINKAGES DATES
1 Part 100: General Provisions use mix First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
2 Part 200: City Council CDGs, call-up, First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
3 Part 400: Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
view planes First Reading: 12/5
Second Reading: TBD
4 Part 400: Growth Management affordable housing, mitigation, First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
5 Part 400: Commercial Design
Review
CDGs First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
6 Part 400: Special Review use mix, CDGs, off-street parking First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
7 Part 500: Off-street Parking use mix, CDGs, off-street parking First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
8 Part 500: Miscellaneous
Regulations
use mix, CDGs, off-street parking First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
9 Part 600: Impact Fees affordable housing, mitigation First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
10 Part 600: Transportation Impact
Analysis
off-street parking First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
11 Part 700: Zone Districts dimensional standards, use mix First Reading: 11/14
Second Reading: 11/28
12 Commercial Design Guidelines CDGs Policy Resolution: 10/24
Adoption Resolution: TBD
Based on feedback provided by Council at the September 19th work session, proposed changes to the
Zoning chapter commercial dimensional standards (specifically floor area, building height and setbacks)
will be presented to Council on October 5th. That meeting will also include additional discussion of the
View Planes process based on preliminary visual analysis. As the view plane element of the AACP-
LUC coordination process is on a different timeline from the other elements, staff expects to return to
Council with findings and proposals for policy and code amendments to the View Plane regulations in
late November.
The October 5th work session will be the last opportunity for Council to provide policy direction to staff
on Dimensional Standards, Off-Street Parking and Use Mix before the Policy Resolution is presented to
Council for a vote on October 24th. (See Table 7 below for a complete Calendar through December.)
Following the October 5th Work Session, staff and the project consultants will develop the Policy
Resolution and begin drafting amended code language.
P22
II.
9.27.16 Council Work Session
AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update
Page 15 of 15
TABLE 7: AACP-LUC COORDINATION SCHEDULE
DATE MEETING TOPIC
10/5 Council work session View planes, dimensional standards
10/24 Council work session Policy Resolution
10/31 Public outreach event Policy & process update
Late Oct /
Early Nov
P&Z, HPC Commercial design, use mix, dimensional
standards
11/2 Council work session View planes, draft code language
11/7 Council work session Draft code language
11/9 Public outreach event Policy & process update
11/14 Council meeting Ordinances first reading
11/15 P&Z Commercial design
11/16 HPC Commercial design
11/28 Council meeting Ordinances second reading
View planes draft code language
12/5 Council meeting Code language amendments
12/12 Council meeting View planes ordinance first reading
As shown on Table 7, staff has scheduled meetings in October and November with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. In particular, P&Z will look at draft
Commercial Design Guidelines and LUC amendments, and HPC will review those elements of the
Commercial Design Guidelines that effect historic districts and properties. These meetings will provide
both commissions the opportunity to review and comment on the policies and draft code amendments
before they are presented to Council. This process reflects the traditional methodology of using Boards
and Commissions to provide expert guidance and oversight on issues within their purview.
Also in October and November, staff will conduct two additional public outreach events to inform the
public of draft policies and code amendments and seek their input before bringing those items to
Council. Following those meetings and the Board and Commission reviews, staff anticipates bringing
first draft ordinances to Council for a First Reading on November 14th. Following first reading, staff and
the consultants will make the necessary edits to the proposed code language before bringing final
ordinances to Council for review on November 28th.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Nelson\Nygaard Parking Memorandum – Technical Memo #6
Exhibit B: August 9, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit C: August 29, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit D: September 13, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
Exhibit E: September 19, 2016 Work Session Follow-up Memo
P23
II.
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i
DRAFT UPDATES
Recommendations for Parking Code Reform
Off-Street Parking & Mobility Updates Study
City of Aspen
September 2016
P24
II.
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Parking Minimums and Maximums ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 Public Parking Replaced for Private Parking at Residential Development ....................... 9
Figure 3 Allow CIL Option for All Parking Minimums ......................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Example CIL Fee Rates....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5 Restrictions Reduce the Effective Capacity of Existing Parking Supplies ....................... 13
Figure 6 Minimum Requirements for Bike Parking ......................................................................... 14
Figure 7 Driveways Can Significantly Disrupt Pedestrian Facilities ............................................... 22
Figure 8 Guidelines Should Seek Sidewalk Continuity Across Driveways ..................................... 22
Figure 9: Curb Extension Provides Place for Drivers to Wait Beyond Sidewalk .............................. 23
Figure 10: Double Stop Signs Buffer Sidewalk Traffic ....................................................................... 23
Figure 11 The City’s Pay-by-Phone Vendor Facilitates Shared Parking in Asheville, NC ................. 27
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Code Change Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4
Priority Opportunities ............................................................................................................................ 4
Infill Area Code Updates ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Retain Minimum Parking Requirements ............................................................................................. 6
Add a “Soft” Maximum on Private Parking .......................................................................................... 6
Allow CIL for All Parking Requirements ............................................................................................... 8
Adopt a Progressive CIL Rate Structure ............................................................................................ 10
Require CIL In Apprporiate Sub-Districts ........................................................................................... 11
Update Shared Parking Credits .......................................................................................................... 12
Allow Off-Peak Sharing of Required Parking ..................................................................................... 12
Add Bike Parking Requirements ........................................................................................................ 13
Add A Car-share Parking Requirement .............................................................................................. 14
Incentivize Multimodal MObility Amentities ...................................................................................... 15
TIA Strategies ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Add a Parking-Plan Category .............................................................................................................. 19
Add a Resident-Trip-Reduction Category ........................................................................................... 19
Add Lodging-Trip-Reduction Category ................................................................................................ 20
Design Standards ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Shared Parking ................................................................................................................................... 21
Driveways ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Buffer-Area CoDe Updates ................................................................................................................................ 24
Expand CIL Option .............................................................................................................................. 24
Incentivize Driving Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 24
Supportive Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Integrate Parking, TDM, & Mobility PLanning ................................................................................... 25
Coordinate with Private-Parking Owners ........................................................................................... 27
Coordinate with TIA Outcomes & Commitments ............................................................................... 28
Coordinate with Curb-Management Programs .................................................................................. 29
Transition Away from Monthly Permits .............................................................................................. 31
P25
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 12 Downtown Parking Map with Shared Facilities (Davis, CA) .............................................. 28
Figure 13 Track TDM & Mobility Conditions to Guide Private & Public Investments ...................... 29
Figure 14 Balancing Long- and Short-Term Demand at the Curbside ............................................. 29
Figure 15 High-Capacity Parking Areas Expand Curbside Parking Access ....................................... 30
P26
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
INTRODUCTION
This document presents a set of recommended changes to update the parking code for
development within Aspen’s Infill Area. This set of recommendations is followed by
complementary sets of strategies, selected for their potential to help further the effectiveness and
benefits of the recommended Infill Area code changes. These represent the final results of the
City’s Off-Street Parking and Mobility study.
OBJECTIVES
The recommendations included in this document were identified to serve the following objectives,
as identified by the City of Aspen for the Off-Street Parking and Mobility study.
Reduce Car Dependency.
Support Community Plan Goals for:
Reducing traffic in town,
Reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and
Encouraging alternative modes of transportation .
Expand the Code’s Focus Beyond Parking.
Emphasize parking as but one option to ensure access to new land uses, and
mobility for a project’s residents, tenants and visitors.
PRIORITY OPPORTUNITIES
During the study, a set of priority code-update opportunities emerged during through an analysis
of conditions and a series of stakeholder outreach activities. Those opportunities, identified
below, guided the development of the recommendations identified in this document.
Avoid Oversupply of Private Parking
The current parking supply within the Infill Area was constructed, and is
managed, in direct response to code-based minimum parking requirements.
When supplies are managed as private resources, they provide far less effective-
capacity in meeting area-wide parking needs.
The 2005 code update significantly reduced the development of such parking
over the last 10+ years.
Additional code strategies can further this important transition from private
parking toward public parking and mobility resources.
Avoid Undersupply of Public Parking
To the extent that the City tracks parking supply sufficiency as a performance
measure for its development code, it should focus on public pa rking supplies,
rather than overall supplies, which are predominantly private today.
A combination of incentives and requirements should provide resources to
ensure adequate investments in new, public parking supplies, whether via on -site
P27
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
parking at new development, or via Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) contributions for public
parking, TDM, and mobility investments.
An updated code can also create opportunities to make existing facilities more
broadly available, expanding the supply of public parking without any net
increase in overall supply.
Build Upon Cash-in-Lieu Progress
The CIL program provides a unique and essential funding source for the
development of public parking.
Counterintuitively, adding public parking can reduce car dependency, if it
shifts more parking activity into City-managed facilities, and reduces activity
captured in private facilities.
By ultimately creating a Park Once environment, the provision of public
parking will facilitate and encourage walking, cycling, and transit for short
trips in the Infill Area, reducing local traffic and activating the public realm
Public parking can also reduce car-ownership and driving rates by shifting
more parking activity into facilities that are priced, and managed in
coordination with Mobility and TDM programs.
The CIL also provides funding to directly reduce car dependency and parking
demand through investments in Mobility improvements and TDM programs.
The fact that the CIL is already working to minimize on-site parking at new
development is an important accomplishment that should be fully embraced in
order to realize its full potential.
Continue to Emphasize Efficiency over Redundancy
Discourage the provision of private/reserved parking spaces at new development,
in favor of contributions to shared parking and mobility resources.
Address the poor efficiency of existing private/reserved parking facilities through
encouragement of shared parking.
Continue to Emphasize Mobility over Parking Alone
Facilitating the CIL option as the normative choice among developers in the Infill
Area supports and promotes the policy that providing parking is but one way to
make new developments accessible to residents, employees, and visitors.
Adding requirements and incentives to provide on-site mobility amenities as part
of Infill Area projects will help to further expand the Code’s focus beyond parking
requirements to emphasize mobility.
P28
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6
INFILL AREA CODE UPDATES
RETAIN MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The current parking requirements appear to have little impact on how much on-
site parking developers provide at their projects.
Because most developers opt for the CIL option, these requirements trigger, and
determine the level of contributions to a fund maintained for investments in
Shared Parking, Mobility, and TDM.
The current minimum requirements are at levels generally considered
appropriate for walkable, downtown districts.
ADD A “SOFT” MAXIMUM ON PRIVATE PARKING
Add a maximum parking ratio to complement the current minimum-parking
ratios.
Set this ratio at 125% of the minimum requirement ratio — see examples in
table below.
Allow developers to provide more parking by either paying a CIL fee or by
allowing shared access to all spaces, minus those required to meet the
minimum requirement for residential uses.
Link the fee option to the CIL for the minimum parking requirement, and
capture resulting revenue within the same fund.
P29
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
Figure 1 Parking Minimums and Maximums
* 100% may be provided by cash in lieu.
Land Uses
Aspen Infill Area
Spaces Required Private Parking Maximum
Commercial 1/1,000 sf net leasable
space*
1.25 /1,000 sf net leasable
space
Single-Family and Duplex Lesser of 1/bedroom or
2/unit
Greater of 1.25/bedroom or
2.5/unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Carriage Houses 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family (as a single
use) 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family within a
mixed-use building
1/unit*
None in CC or C-1 Districts
1.25/unit
Hotel/Lodge 0.5/unit
None in CC and C-1 Districts 0.625/unit
All Other Uses Established by special review 125% of the minimum required
Code Example 1: Arlington County, VA
The Parking Maximum for the Columbia Pike Form-Based Code:
A maximum of one space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential GFA or two
spaces per residential dwelling unit may be made available for reserved parking.
Reserved parking above the maximum may be provided upon payment to
the County.
The County Manager shall establish the amount of payment annually based
on the approximate cost to build structured parking.
There are no maximums on Shared Parking.
Any limitations on the Shared Parking (time limits or hours of the day) shall
be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
At least 12 hours of public parking must be provided in any 24-hour period,
and at least 8 of those hours must be provided during either business or
nighttime hours depending on whether the Zoning Administrator
determines that the primary public use will be for commercial or residential
uses.
P30
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
ALLOW CIL FOR ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Some of the most inefficient private parking facilities in the Infill Area are linked to “stand alone”
residential developments, for which the CIL option remains unavailable. See image below.
Code Example 2: Orlando, FL
Definition. For purposes of this Part, "Parking Bonus" shall mean authorization
given by the City to a landowner to provide parking spaces in excess of the
maximum requirements set forth in (a) above, in exchange for a payment.
Purpose. The Parking Bonus system is established to further the following
objectives:
Ensure that uses and proposed uses in the Downtown Parking Area are
competitive in the local real estate market;
Discourage the provision of parking spaces in excess of absolute need; an d
Ensure that off-street parking spaces are available for use by Downtown
Parking Area residents and the general public.
Bonus Payment. The total amount of a Parking Bonus payment shall be calculated
by multiplying the total number of parking spaces provided in excess of the
maximums…, by the corresponding payment per space amount indicated in the
tables below.
Uses
Payment Per Space
West of I-4 East of I-4
Residential $1,500 $1,500
Non-Residential $0 $1,500
P31
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 2 Public Parking Replaced by Private Parking at Residential Development
Allow the CIL option for all land uses allowed within the Infill Area, for up to
100% of a project’s parking requirements.
Figure 3 Allow CIL Option for All Parking Minimums
* 100% may be provided by cash in lieu.
Land Uses
Aspen Infill Area
Spaces Required* Private Parking Maximum
Commercial 1/1,000 sf net leasable space 1.25 /1,000 sf net leasable
space
Single-Family and Duplex Lesser of 1/bedroom or 2/unit Greater of 1.25/bedroom or
2.5/unit
Accessory Dwelling Units and
Carriage Houses 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family (as a single use) 1/unit 1.25/unit
Multi-Family within a mixed-
use building
1/unit
None in CC or C-1 Districts
1.25/unit
Hotel/Lodge 0.5/unit
None in CC and C-1 Districts 0.625/unit
All Other Uses Established by special review 125% of the minimum
required
P32
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
ADOPT A PROGRESSIVE CIL RATE STRUCTURE
For a CIL option to be successful, it must offer meaningful cost savings compared to meeting
minimum requirements via on-site parking. Nonetheless, the fee must be significant enough to
provide sufficient revenue for the City to accommodate the parking and travel demand created by
the approved development project; whether that accommodation is in the for m of added public
parking capacity, mobility improvements, or expanded and enhanced TDM programs.
Fortunately, City-built parking capacities tend to be much more cost effective than private, on -site
parking capacities, providing a significant range within which a CIL fee rate can be effective. This
range is even wider if the City has the option to invest in mobility improvements and TDM, as well
as public parking.
Based on available information, stakeholder feedback, and a survey of comparable rates across
the country, the current rate of $30,000 per replaced space is appropriate and in line with
standards. The table below presents a range of CIL fee rates from representative cities.
Figure 4 Non-Peer CIL Fee Rates
The current fee level has also proven effective in generating meaningful revenue for public
investment. As such, should the City choose to retain a flat fee rate, we do not recommend any
adjustment to this rate.
However, we recommend considering a progressive rate structure in which the per-space fee
increases with the project’s parking requirement. Such an approach would make the CIL option
highly attractive to those proposing “infill” and other smaller scale projects, which tend to have
very limited options for on-site parking. The same rate structure can make the fee less attractive
for developers of very large projects, which will tend to have more suitable site dimensions for the
efficient inclusion of on-site parking, and also present the best opportunities to effectively provide
shared parking, perhaps in coordination with the City’s parking program.
Breckenridge, CO Mountain View, CA Palo Alto, CA
$19,236 $26,000.00 $67,100
P33
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
REQUIRE CIL IN APPRPORIATE SUB-DISTRICTS
TO BE UPDATED AS SUCH SUB-DISTRICTS ARE IDENTIFIED
It is anticipated that the City’s overall LUC update will include the identification
of areas in which private, on-site parking is unwanted.
On-site parking should be prohibited as an on-site use for developments in any
such areas.
CIL payment should be required, and set based on what the minimum
requirement would be in any other area of the Infill Area.
Code Example: Needham, MA
The amount of the fee to be paid shall be… subject to the following fee schedule:
Number of Spaces Replaced by Fee Fee Per Space
For spaces 1 thru 10 $5,000.00
For spaces 11 thru 20 $7,500.00
For spaces 21 thru 35 $10,000.00
For spaces 36 thru 49 $15,000.00
For spaces 50 or more $20,000.00
Code Example: To Come
P34
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12
UPDATE SHARED PARKING CREDITS
Use the Shared Parking Model developed by the Urban Land Institute to calculate
reductions to minimum parking requirements for mixed-use projects. 1
ALLOW OFF-PEAK SHARING OF REQUIRED PARKING
Allow required parking spaces to be shared.
Make retroactive for existing developments and the parking spaces provided on-
site to meet parking requirements.
1 https://uli.bookstore.ipgbook.com/shared-parking-cd-products-9780874202618.php?page_id=21
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
Shared Parking
a. An applicant proposing development with more than one use may submit a
shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Model
(Second Edition, 2005) instead of using the parking table in Section 6.2.4.B.
Code Example: Arlington County, VA
Shared Parking
Parking spaces in C, C-O, M, RA-H or R-C districts which are required by this
zoning ordinance may be used by persons other than persons engaging in uses on
the site, provided that said spaces shall be made available at all times to persons
engaging in uses on the site at least at the same rates as to persons not engaging in
uses on the site, and provided that there is no demand for said spaces by persons
engaging in uses on the site.
P35
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13
Figure 5 Restrictions Reduce the Effective Capacity of Existing Parking Supplies
ADD BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Include distinctions between Class 1 and Class 2 facilities, as noted below.
Class One facilities are secure, weather-protected facilities intended for use
as long-term, overnight, and work-day bicycle storage by dwelling unit
residents, non-residential occupants, and employees.
Class Two facilities are located in a publicly-accessible, highly visible location
intended for transient or short-term use by visitors, guests, and patrons to
the building or use.
P36
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14
Figure 6 Minimum Requirements for Bike Parking
ADD A CAR-SHARE PARKING REQUIREMENT
As car-sharing becomes a more prominent local mobility option, an updated code can support the
expansion of available vehicle stocks by providing free parking within larger private parking
facilities included in new development projects.
Require that on-site facilities containing at least 50 spaces make a minimum
number of spaces available to any recognized car-share service provider, free of
charge, on a “right of first refusal” basis. This allows the property owner to use
these spaces until they become occupied by an interested car-share service
provider.
Land Uses
Bike Spaces Required
Min. Requirement % in Class 1 Facilities
Commercial (Office) 1 / 5K SF Net Leasable Space 85%
Commercial (Other) 1 / 10K SF Net Leasable Space 15%
Single-Family and
Duplex No Requirement
Accessory Dwelling
Units and Carriage
Houses
No Requirement
Multi-Family (as a
single use) 1 / 2 units 95%
Multi-Family within a
mixed-use building 1 / 2 units 95%
Hotel/Lodge 1 / 10 Guest Rooms 100%
All Other Uses Established by special review
P37
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15
CREDIT UNBUNDLED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Reduce parking requirements by 25% for multifamily uses when spaces are sold
or rented separately from the purchase or lease of a residential unit.
When parking is charged separately some residents will reduce how much
parking they use, and how many cars they own
Similarly, charging separately for parking helps to attract residents who
already own fewer cars, by reducing their housing costs compared to options
that build in the cost of parking.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
1. A parking facility with 50 to 149 parking spaces must have a minimum of one
car-share parking space. One additional car-share parking space is required for
each 100 parking spaces more than 149, up to a maximum requirement of 5. A
parking facility may provide more car-share parking spaces than required.
2. If the property owner cannot find a car-share organization willing to make use of
the spaces, the property owner may use the spaces for publicly -available parking. If
a County recognized car-share organization notifies the property owner that the
organization wants to use the car-share spaces, the property owner must make the
spaces available to the car-share organization within 90 days after receiving
written notice of interest from the County recognized car-share organization.
P38
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16
INCENTIVIZE MULTIMODAL MOBILITY AMENTITIES
Provide parking requirement credits/reductions in exchange for the inclusion of amenities that
improve and/or expand on-site mobility options. Allow a total reduction of 25% for these
amenity-based credits.
Credit Car-Share Parking
Reduce minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential uses where
car-share parking is provided on-site.
Begin with a 2-space reduction for each on-site car-share vehicle
and increase the reduction level as car-sharing expands within
the Infill Area.
Credit Bike-Share Facilities
Credit a bike-share facility with a minimum of 10 spaces as equal to 3 vehicle
parking spaces.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
In a Parking Lot District or Reduced Parking Area, if residential parking for
Townhouse Living and Multi-Unit Living is sold or rented separately from the
purchase or lease of a residential unit, the baseline minimum parking requirement
is:
Use Spaces Required
Townhouse 0.75
Efficiency or 1-Bedroom 0.5
2-bedroom or larger 0.75
Code Example: Bozeman, MT
A car-sharing agreement may be used to meet the required number of parking
spaces in developments with more than five dwellings.
Each vehicle provided through a car-sharing agreement (with its
corresponding space) will count as five standard spaces.
The maximum reduction is set at 50% of the total.
P39
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17
Credit Changing Facilities
Reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces for non-
residential uses by 3 spaces for each changing facility that
includes a shower and set of lockers.
Code Example: Portland, OR
Substitution of a bike sharing facility for required parking is allowed if all of the
following are met:
A bike sharing station providing 15 docks and eight shared bicycles reduces
the motor vehicle parking requirement by three spaces. The provision of
each addition of four docks and two shared bicycles reduces the motor
vehicle parking requirement by an additional space, up to a maximum of 25
percent of the required parking spaces;
The bike sharing facility must be adjacent to, and visible from the street,
and must be publicly accessible;
The bike sharing facility must be shown on the building plans; and
Bike sharing agreement.
The property owner must have a bike sharing agreement with a bike -
sharing company;
The bike sharing agreement must be approved by the Portland Bureau
of Transportation; and
A copy of the signed agreement between the property owner and the
bikesharing company, accompanied by a letter of approval from the
Bureau of Transportation, must be submitted before the building
permit is approved.
Code Example: Montgomery County, MD
The deciding body may reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces by 3
spaces for each additional changing facility provided above the minimum required
under Section 6.2.6.A.4. A changing facility must include a shower and lockers
provided separately for each gender.
P40
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18
Credit Transit Proximity
Reduce parking requirements by up to 10% for land uses developed within 800
feet of a Roaring Fork Transportation Agency, fixed-route transit stop.
Code Example: Bozeman, MT
Transit availability. Required parking may be reduced by ten percent in
circumstances where the development is within 800 feet of a developed and serviced
transit stop. For the purpose of this subsection a transit stop is eligible when it has
publicly available cover from weather approved by the transit provider to be
equivalent to a transit shelter, and service is provided on not less than an hourly
schedule a minimum of five days per week.
P41
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19
TIA STRATEGIES
The following changes are recommended to enhance the existing TIA program in complement to
the Code changes recommended above. All recommendations are proposed for the TDM Input
Page, completed for proposed Infill Area projects.
ADD A PARKING-PLAN CATEGORY
Sub-category: Proportion of parking that will be shared
Questions:
What proportion of the project’s minimum parking requirement will be met
through a “cash in lieu” payment?
What proportion of on-site parking spaces will be provided as public parking
(publicly accessible for a minimum of 12 hours in any 24-hour period, with an
hourly rate set equivalent to the base rate in effect at the nearest City of Aspen
off-street facility)?
Sub-category: Proportion of parking that will be unbundled
Question:
What proportion of on-site parking spaces will be provided inclusive of the
purchase or lease of building space or dwelling units?
ADD A RESIDENT-TRIP-REDUCTION CATEGORY
Sub-category: Cycling Amenities
Questions:
What is the ratio of Class A bike parking spaces, per dwelling unit?
Will a sheltered bicycle repair station be provided?
Sub-category: Carshare Program
Questions:
Is carshare participation being implemented?
How many resident memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of residents are eligible?
P42
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20
Sub-category: Bikeshare Program
Questions:
Is bike-share participation being implemented?
How many resident memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of residents are eligible?
Sub-category: Transit Amenities
Questions:
Will a “Transit Screen” display, or similar, be maintained in the lobby to display
“real time” transit arrival, departure, and “next ride” information?
Will there be a dedicated room, or area off the lobby for waiting on rides, and
monitoring the Transit Screen display?2
ADD LODGING-TRIP-REDUCTION CATEGORY
Sub-category: Promotions & Information
Questions:
Will driving-alternatives be actively promoted to guests?
Transit, taxi, ride-hailing services, bike-share, car-share, walkability, etc.
promoted on Home and Reservations web-pages, including links to relevant
programs
When relevant: The same webpages also provide links to the City’s TDM
program’s Car-Free Stays program
Sub-category: Ride-share Program
Questions:
Will guests be provided with Uber or Lyft allowances?
One complimentary ride for each night’s stay
Sub-category: Bikeshare Program
Questions:
Will guests be provided with bike-share memberships?
24-hour pass for single-night stays
3-day passes for all others
2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/08/17/this-new-apartment-building-has-an-uber-room-to-
wait-for-your-ride/
P43
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21
DESIGN STANDARDS
The following elements of parking-facility design are recommended for consideration for the
City’s update to the Infill Area’s development desig n guidelines.
SHARED PARKING
Establish facility-design standards for on-site parking facilities approved as Shared parking
within the Infill Area. At a minimum, these should cover the following facility-design
components.
Location and visibility relative to the building’s primary entrance
Identification and way-finding signage
Signage identifying any restrictions on public access
DRIVEWAYS
Establish design standards for all Infill Area projects that emphasize restrictions on driveway
placement and design to preserve sidewalk continuity, especially on primary streets.
Minimize the disruption of sidewalks at points of intersection with project
driveways.
Sidewalk-driveway interface design should reflect the reality that legally drivers
must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks.
Varying the paving treatments between the sidewalk and driveway can help
delineate these areas more clearly for motorists and pedestrians.
Driveways should ramp up to sidewalk level at the curb; the sidewalk should not
ramp down to meet the driveway.
Driveway design should be used to make location of pedestrian traffic clear to
drivers and prevent idling in the driveway areas.
P44
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22
Figure 7 Driveways Can Significantly Disrupt Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 8 Guidelines Should Seek Sidewalk Continuity Across Driveways
P45
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23
Figure 9: Curb Extension Provides Place for Drivers to Wait Beyond Sidewalk
Figure 10: Double Stop Signs Buffer Sidewalk Traffic
P46
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24
BUFFER-AREA CODE UPDATES
The following recommendations are proposed for areas adjacent to the Infill Area, acknowledging
and enhancing the influence of Aspen’s downtown district on the travel mode-choice patterns
within these surrounding areas.
EXPAND CIL OPTION
Allow the CIL option for non-residential uses in areas immediately surrounding
the Infill Area.
The recommended progressive rate structure will be particularly amenable to
encouraging this option among smaller developments, which might
otherwise remain physically or financially infeasible if parking requirements
must be met on-site.
CREDIT UNBUNDLED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Reduce parking requirements by 25%, for multifamily uses when spaces are sold
or rented separately from the purchase or lease of a residential unit.
INCENTIVIZE DRIVING ALTERNATIVES
Credit Shared Parking
Use the Shared Parking Model developed by the Urban Land Institute to calculate
reductions to minimum parking requirements for mixed-use projects.
Credit Car-Share Parking
Credit each car-share space as equal to 2 required parking spaces for all uses.
Credit Bike-Share Facilities
Credit a bike-share facility with a minimum of 10 spaces as equal to 3 vehicle
parking spaces.
Credit Changing Facilities
Reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces for non-residential uses by
3 spaces for each changing facility that includes a shower and set of lockers.
P47
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25
SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES
INTEGRATE PARKING, TDM & MOBILITY PLANNING
An integrated Parking, TDM, and Mobility, program would raise the profile of the benefits
generated by CIL fees. It would also facilitate a strategic process for developing investment
strategies for the enterprise fund into which these fees are collected. This would allow the City to
weigh the relative benefits of options to expand parking supplies, expand TDM programs and
benefits, and/or make strategic investments in mobility improvements across the Infill Area, as
the area’s parking and transportation needs and opportunities evolve.
Short-Term: Formalize Coordination
There are several viable models for integrating Parking, TDM, and Mobility planning, programs,
and activities within the Infill Area. At a minimum, and for the short-term, the City’s should
identify a Mobility Coordinator to initiate coordination among the following.
Key City departments, including Parking, Transportation, Community
Development, and Engineering
Roaring Fork Transportation Agency
Third-Party programs and service providers, including We Cycle, Downtowner,
Uber, etc.
The Mobility Coordinator would also provide a single point of contact for information and
engagement regarding Parking, TDM, and Mobility. This would include:
Visitors seeking information about getting around the Infill Area without a car
Prospective residents seeking information on non-driving mobiltiy programs and
services
Developers seeking help in developing Parking, TDM, and Mobility components
for their proposals
Service providers seeking support for potential new mobility services or programs
Property owners seeking input on expanding access to their property through
effective provision and design of pedestrian, bike, and transit amenities
Employers seeking non-driving programs and information to aid in employee
attraction and retention
Medium-Term: Formalize a Parking, TDM, & Mobility Program
Use the funding provided by CIL and similar fees to develop a formal Parking, TDM, and Mobility
program. To maximize the complementary nature of parking and mobility programs, the program
should either be incorporated within the City’s Parking Department, or identified as a
complementary program that is closely coordinated with it.
P48
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26
http://www.commuterpage.com/pages/about/arlington-county-commuter-services/
Program Precedent: Arlington County, VA
Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) is the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) agency of Arlington County, Virginia. Established in 1989, its
mission is to provide Arlington residents, employees, business, and visitors with
transportation information and services to support a vibrant and livable
community. ACCS implements programs and strategies that promote public
transit, walking, biking, carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and other options
that reduce the demand for vehicular travel, lessen congestion and air pollution,
and improve accessibility. ACCS serves as an information and educational resource
center for residents, employees, and visitors who travel to and within the County.
ACCS is a bureau of Arlington County's Transportation Division in the Department
of Environmental Services. ACCS is funded in part by grants from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Its
programs and services include the following.
Commuter Store – Online, mobile, and retail storefronts that offer transit
fare sales, printed transit schedules and maps, and staff to provide
information on transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, teleworking, and
other commute/mobility options.
BikeArlington – Promoting cycling options, including coordination with the
DC Region’s bike-share program.
Arlington Transportation Partners - Free services for Arlington employers,
residential buildings/communities, developers, and hotels to set up
commuter benefits programs.
TDM for Site Plan Development - Mitigates the transportation impacts of
real estate development by ensuring that development proposals include
TDM commitments in their Site Plan submissions, a nd monitoring and
enforcing those commitments post construction.
Research – Surveys and studies to document evolving conditions, as well as
funding for The Mobility Lab, a program that researches innovative
opportunities to develop and highlight “advanced transportation options”.
Marketing and Promotions – For all ACCS programs as well as
complementary transportation services and programs.
P49
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27
COORDINATE WITH PRIVATE-PARKING OWNERS
Figure 11 The City’s Pay-by-Phone Vendor Facilitates Shared Parking in Asheville, NC
The City can play a vital role in encouraging
more shared parking within the Infill Area.
This will be essential for extracting greater
value from existing parking facilities, most of
which are privately controlled. Management
coordination and strategy development will
help generate “buy in” among private facility
owners, and facilitate use of these options
when they are available as public parking.
Coordinate with owners of private
parking facilities to encourage
shared/public access to more of the
Infill Area parking inventory.
Help document peak and off-peak
demand conditions and schedules
at private facilities
Identify opportunities to provide
and manage shared access during
off-peak times
This can include controlled-
sharing strategies, such as
“employee parking” and
public valet coordination
It can also include facilitating
commercial parking
opportunities, utilizing the
City’s “pay by phone” system
to allow paid public parking
during “off hours” – see image
to the right.
Develop coordinated information,
signage, and branding strategies to
identify these parking options when
they are available.
Include information on shared parking facilities on the City’s parking maps
and web-pages
Develop on-site signage and information to make these options clear, and
clearly identify when they are accessible as public parking – see map below.
P50
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
Figure 12 Downtown Parking Map with Shared Facilities (Davis, CA)
Image source: City of Davis, California via http://davisdowntown.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Downtown-Parking-Map.jpg
COORDINATE WITH TIA OUTCOMES & COMMITMENTS
The current CIL program provides an important opportunity to complement private TDM and
Mobility initiatives and investments with broader, public programs. An integrated Parking, TDM,
and Mobility program can enhance this complementarity by tracking patterns of TDM and
Mobility initiatives among developers and property owners, to ensure that public investments
enhance their benefits, and to address additional opportunities and constraints. For example, this
could include advising TIA-developers on the relative benefits of providing bike-share
memberships, compared to providing space and funding for an on-site bike-share station, at any
particular proposed-development site, based on the specific needs and opportunities of the public
bike-share program.
P51
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29
Figure 13 Track TDM & Mobility Conditions to Guide Private & Public Investments
COORDINATE WITH CURB-MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Figure 14 Balancing Long- and Short-Term Demand at the Curbside
Off-Street parking is often a “fallback” option for drivers who could not find suitable curbside
parking. Conversely, curbside parking capacities can be overwhelmed by demand created by a
lack of suitable off-street parking options, or a resistance to off-street regulations or cost.
Coordination with curb-management programs is therefore essential to ensure the effectiveness
of the proposed Parking, TDM, and Mobility program.
P52
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30
The City currently employs several curbside management best practices, includin g the following.
Performance-based Pricing – Setting rates in response to documented supply and
demand conditions, in pursuit of optimal levels of availability, a practice that was
enhanced through a pilot program in the summer of 2015.
Residential Permit Parking – Restricting the allowed parking duration in
residential areas, and providing an exemption for vehicles displaying permits that
are made available only to area residents.
Employee Permit Parking – Making use of excess capacities along blocks
regulated via Resident Permit Parking restrictions by making a limited number of
permits available to local employees.
The City should formalize coordination with these and future management strategies as part of an
Integrated Parking, TDM, and Mobility program. This should include an emphasis on curbside
management strategies that can reduce the need for on -site parking facilities. This would include
permit strategies, such as those noted above, as well as other options worth considering, such as
the following.
Curbside loading strategies, including metering loading zones during peak hours,
and incentivizing off-peak deliveries through generous, early-morning and
overnight loading zones on primary commercial streets
High-Capacity parking facilities, including bike corrals, bike-share stations, car-
share spaces, and motorcycle/scooter parking areas
Figure 15 High-Capacity Parking Areas Expand Curbside Parking Access
P53
II.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #6 – Recommended Code Updates| DRAFT
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31
TRANSITION AWAY FROM MONTHLY PERMITS
Replacing monthly passes with pay-as-you-go options, such as debit cards, can help promote non-
driving modes among Infill Area commuters who use City parking options. Once a commuter has
secured a monthly permit, there is no cost-based incentive to not use that permit , every day. Even
free cycling and transit options offer no opportunity to reduce commute costs.
And, without a comparably-priced daily parking option, commuters face the choice of procuring a
monthly permit, or committing to a full month of riding a bike or a bus every day. This
encourages commuters who might otherwise split their commutes between driving and available
alternatives to buy a parking pass each month, with the result that they drive far more frequently
than they might if offered a different set of options.
A viable daily parking option addresses both of these barriers to part -time use of alternative
modes, allowing commuters to assess their options each day and choose the right combination of
cost, convenience, and level of service to meet their fluctuating needs. Boulder, Colorado recently
converted their monthly pass system to a daily parking system, for this reason. Alternatively,
promoting the City’s “10-Visit” pass to commuters might be a viable short-term strategy, as this
provides enough parking to drive “half time”, at less than half the cost of a monthly pass.
P54
II.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Phillip Supino, Long-Range
Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and consultant Alan Richman presented to City
Council an update on the various aspects of the process of coordinating the Aspen Area Community Plan and
the Land Use Code. The specific agenda items are discussed in more detail below. Staff also provided Council
with updates and information regarding the timeline for completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process.
COMMERCIAL USE MIX: Following a presentation by Richman of the various regulatory tools available to
create the desired commercial use mix in Aspen, Council discussed the effect of those options and expressed
interest in some of the 15 tools listed. A majority of Council members supported the following items for
additional research and discussion: expand/modify NC and SCI boundaries, amendments to the zone use lists or
dimensional standards, creation of a locally serving business district or overlay, modification of the commercial
design standards, a GMQS scoring system, a legacy business program, and commercial replacement
requirements. Staff will return to Council at the August 29th work session with additional information and
options for Council consideration.
RESIDENTIAL USES AND REGULATIONS: Council discussed four issues related to residential uses in
mixed-use and commercial areas: micro housing, physical separation of residential from commercial uses,
occupancy restrictions, and banning free-market residential in commercial areas. Council agreed to defer
further discussion of micro housing until the expiration of the moratorium. Council supported banning free-
market residential uses from all commercial zones. A majority of Council members supported potentially
allowing “free-market” residential uses in a commercial building in the mixed-use zone district with some
additional restrictions, including occupancy restrictions or physical separation. Council agreed with the staff
position that the issue of physical separation should be based on the outcome of the revision of the Commercial
Design Standards; potentially requiring it along Main Street where the historic development pattern includes
detached residential dwellings. A majority of Council also supported allowing limited affordable housing in
commercial zone districts in an effort to have “lights on” in these areas. In general, however, Council supported
prioritizing commercial uses in the commercial zone districts.
VIEW PLANES: Council supported a thorough analysis and revision of the View Plane regulations, including
clarifying the description of the various View Planes, and analyzing the effectiveness of current View Plane
designations. Staff agreed to develop a scope of work and plan for the View Plane amendment process for
Council consideration at the August 29th Work Session, and noted that the process supported by Council would
extend into 2017, but is anticipated to be completed under the moratorium timeframe.
NEXT STEPS: Staff and the consultant teams will respond to Council direction on the aforementioned items and
return with updates and additional information for Council consideration at the August 29th Work Session.
P55
II.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Mark White, White and Smith;
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services; Thomas Brown, Nelson\Nygaard; Sara Adams,
BendonAdams; Sara Broughton, Rowland + Broughton
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and the consultants for the various topic areas
presented to City Council an update on the various aspects of the process of coordinating the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the Land Use Code. The specific agenda items are discussed in more detail below.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: Following a presentation of the draft revised Commercial Design
Guidelines, Council discussed the relationship between Character Area boundaries and zone district boundaries.
Council suggested focusing the Main Street guidelines on favoring residential character, ensuring the guidelines
preserve and enhance each character area and requested more information on architectural outcomes from the
new guidelines. Council expressed support for accessible, useable, meaningful public amenity spaces, and
supported allowing cash-in-lieu of public amenity on the pedestrian malls to ensure the pedestrian experience
on the malls is reinforced with strong building edges that are consistent with the 19th century building character
in the district. In addition, Council strongly supported guidelines to encourage ‘nooks-and-crannies,’ including
allowing certain buildings to have second floor or basement public amenity spaces. Council also asked for
additional information about the interrelationship between Character Areas and Zoning.
COMMERCIAL USE MIX: Based on the direction provided at the August 9th study session, Mark White
described to Council the regulatory tools and incentives proposed to preserve and enhance the commercial use
mix in downtown. Council favored focusing the allowed uses in the SCI and NC zones on commercial uses,
eliminating free-market residential uses in all commercial zones and suggesting that affordable housing was not
appropriate except as ancillary to commercial uses. Council supported using general use tables in the zone
districts, as opposed to a very specific use list, and supported removing or further restricting lodge uses in
commercial zones. There was some support for a Locally Serving Business Overlay in certain areas, perhaps
the Neighborhood Commercial zone, but specific direction was not given. Additional information will be
presented at a future work session about this issue. Council also supported using the Commercial Design
Guidelines to provide incentives for the creation of desired commercial spaces, particularly “nooks and
crannies.” Finally, Council chose not to pursue consideration of the Legacy Business Program, or regulation of
pop-up retail uses.
RESIDENTIAL USES AND MITIGATION: Council supported allowing resident-occupied, free-market
housing as an ancillary use in mixed-use buildings on Main Street which does not create use conflicts. Council
also supported continuing to allow multi-family housing as a single use in the Mixed Use zone district. Council
also reiterated support for limited affordable housing in commercial zones. The discussion of whether and how
to increase the affordable housing mitigation rate resulted in direction to staff to explore what the process would
require and whether it could be accomplished under the moratorium.
P56
II.
2
OFF-STREET PARKING: Council supported the concepts presented by Nelson/Nygaard, including better
coordinating the City’s mobility and TDM objectives with the parking regulations, developing regulations to
better incentivize and regulate shared parking, allowing greater flexibility in achieving TIA and parking
requirements and exploring the impact of soft-maximum parking requirements. In general Council supported
parking requirements that lead to an overall mobility shift.
NEXT STEPS: Counselors Myrin and Frisch requested the staff bring to Council proposals to reduce the
maximum Floor Area Ratio for commercial buildings, as well as any other potential dimensional changes. These
issues will be discussed in an upcoming September work session. The next AACP-LUC coordination work
session is scheduled for September 13th, 2016.
P57
II.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: September 13, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Justin Barker, Senior Planner;
Phillip Supino, Long-Range Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Planning staff members and Mr. Richman discussed the scheduling for future
work sessions and public hearings needed for the completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process, aspects
of the draft Commercial Design Guidelines revisions and potential changes to the process for Council call-up of
land uses cases before boards and commissions. Discussion of View Planes and Affordable Housing Mitigation
were moved to September 19.
AACP-LUC COORDINATION SCHEDULE: Given the constraints of the current timeline to bring Policy
Resolution to Council on October 10, 2016, Council suggested extending that deadline to October 24th and
adding work sessions in October and November to ensure there is sufficient time to discuss draft code language
during the ordinance adoption process. Council supported extending the timeline, favored adding Wednesday
or Thursday work sessions to avoid extending the moratorium.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: Council supported the continued use of Character Areas in the
Commercial Design Guidelines (CDG) to provide fine-grained design guidance to projects beyond simply using
the basic dimensional standards provided in the zoning section of the LUC. Council also supported the
proposed changes to the Character Area boundaries as presented at the August 29th Work Session. Regarding
cash-in-lieu of providing public amenity, Council supported continuing to allow it as an option for properties
where on-site is not feasible. Council suggested adding the cash-in-lieu standards to the criteria for call-up of
projects and directed staff to create clearer standards for when cash-in-lieu might be permitted. Council
reiterated support for having development on the pedestrian malls at the lot line to reinforce the pedestrian
experience, and supported alternative methods of public amenity in these areas, including second level, off-site
on the pedestrian malls, or cash-in-lieu to support maintenance of the pedestrian malls. Council supported
allowing architectural arcades to meet public amenity requirements in certain circumstances. They directed
staff to draft language allowing arcades in limited circumstances while not allowing them to become pervasive
in downtown. In addition, Council supported exploring unit size limitations for commercial spaces accessed off
of an arcade or mid-block walkway.
CALL-UP: After some discussion, Council favored continuing to use call-ups as a way to provide additional
over-sight to specific land use applications under consideration by boards and commissions. Council directed
staff to develop clearer standards for when projects might be called-up, requirements for Council to provide a
clearer rationale for the call-up and allow opportunities for Council to provide more detailed direction when
remanding call-ups back to the appropriate board or commission. Some Council members also supported
moving any substantive changes to the call-up process to after the moratorium.
P58
II.
2
NEXT STEPS: The next AACP-LUC Coordination work session is schedule to cover View Planes and
Affordable Housing Mitigation on September 19, 2016. The September 27th work session is scheduled to cover
draft policy language on Off-Street Parking and Use Mix, as well as provide additional details on the anticipated
timeline for completion of the Coordination process. More information and dates for public meetings, work
sessions and public hearings will be made available at the September 19th work session.
P59
II.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016
AGENDA TOPIC: AACP - Land Use Code coordination
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director; Phillip Supino, Long-Range
Planner; Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff presented to Council information relevant to the coordination of the Aspen
Area Community Plan (AACP) with the Land Use Code (LUC) including the following topics: View Plane
regulations, Affordable Housing mitigation rate and dimensional standards.
VIEW PLANES: Staff provided an over-view of the current view plane regulations, a survey of view plane
preservation regulations in other communities and facilitated a discussion about the purpose and intent of
revised View Plane standards. Council acknowledged the importance of the View Plane regulations to
achieving a number of AACP goals, and that the language in the current regulations requires adjustment to
improve ease of use. Council also noted the importance of dimensional standards and Commercial Design
Guidelines relative to the preservation of the downtown viewshed, and directed staff to prioritize revisions to
those standards and guidelines above revisions to the View Plane regulations. Council directed staff to include
in the revisions a definition of “minimal impact,” and Council supported staff commencing with the visual
analysis portion of the View Plane revision process on the timeline provided in the memorandum.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION RATE: Staff presented background information on how the
current mitigation rate was established, its administration and scenarios of how adjusted mitigation rates would
play-out in a hypothetical development. Staff requested direction from Council as to whether they desired to
adjust the current mitigation rate, and provided options for potential adjustments. Staff suggested that any
adjustment be tied to the assessment that the present rate does not achieve AACP policy goals. Council
requested that staff assemble additional background information from existing studies and documents on the
need for affordable housing relative to the existing stock. Conceptually, Council favored offering a reduced rate
in exchange for valued public goods such as public amenity space, second-tier commercial space and similar
assets. Staff will return with additional information at a subsequent meeting.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: Council discussed commercial building height, floor area ratio and setbacks.
Council reiterated their preference for focusing on ‘right-sizing’ commercial development through revised
dimensional standards and requested that staff return to Council with proposals for reduced floor area ratios and
new public amenity space requirements for commercial buildings in the commercial and mixed-use zones.
Council supported the maintenance of the 28-foot height limit for commercial buildings in most zones, and
continuing to allow for 35 feet in the SCI zone. Council discussed and directed staff to return with additional
information about the potential for allowing a third floor in exchange for desired uses in commercial buildings.
NEXT STEPS: There is a Council work session scheduled for 9/27/16, at which Use Mix and Off-street Parking
will be discussed. The specially scheduled 10/5 work session will focus on Commercial Design Guidelines and
additional policy issues prior to the Policy Resolution hearing on 10/24/16.
P60
II.