1

AGENDA

ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

July 2, 2019

4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room130 S Galena Street, Aspen

I. SITE VISIT

II. ROLL CALL

III. COMMENTS

IV. MINUTES

IV.A. Minutes from June 4th, 2019 Meetingminutes.apz.20190604.docx

V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

VII. OTHER BUSINESS

VII.A. P&Z Public Comment PolicyFINAL Memo re P&Z public comment code of conduct.docxFINAL reso re code of conduct.docx

VIII. BOARD REPORTS

IX. ADJOURN

Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings

1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)3) Staff presentation4) Board questions and clarifications of staff5) Applicant presentation6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant7) Public comments8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 1

2

9) Close public comment portion of bearing10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification

End of fact finding.Deliberation by the commission commences.No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public

12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.13) Discussion between commissioners*14) Motion*

*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.

Revised April 2, 2014

2

Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2019

Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.

Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Jimmy Marcus, Don Love, Brittanie Rockhill Absent: Ruth Carver, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid

Staff present:Jeannine Stickle, Records ManagerAndrea Bryan, Assistant City AttorneyJennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning DirectorKevin Rayes, Planner

STAFF COMMENTSNone.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTSNone.

PUBLIC COMMENTSNone.

APPROVAL OF MINUTESMs. McGovern voted to approve the minutes from May 21st, 2019. Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTMs. Rockhill stated that she has worked with an owner at Shadow Mountain. She does not have a current working relationship and feels she can be fair and impartial.

PUBLIC HEARINGMajor Subdivision Approval to Vacate the Western Half of South Aspen Street

Kevin Rayes introduced himself as a planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that this process is a major subdivision, meaning that it’s a two-part process. First it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission’s recommendation goes to City Council for final review and approval. This is a request to vacate a single road, but there are a lot of moving parts. Shadow mountain condos is located in the lodge zone district. It has 21 condominium units and the lodge is just over 31,000 square feet. To the west of the property is the Barbee Open Space, which consists of a network of trails that are accessed via the Aspen Mountain cutoff road as well as other points of access within Aspen. To the north are the South Aspen Townhomes, which are being built right now. To the east is South Aspen Street and Summit Street. Summit Street does not currently function as any sort of public right-of-wayas it’s located between two private parcels, but that is City owned land. He showed the current location of Lift 1A and the future development of the Gorsuch Haus on a map on the slide. He stated that, as part of the development, Gorsuch Haus had to be pushed slightly into South Aspen Street and take over all of Summit Street. That was a vacation that was given to that development, which is a total of 8200 square feet. The reason that it’s pushed into South Aspen Street is because the development had to

3

accommodate the extension of the lift to the north. The Gorsuch Haus had to accommodate that and allow enough room for a proper ski corridor for people to ski down to that area. As part of the negotiations between City Council and the developers of this project, a dedication of 3400 square feet was given to the City to build a cul-de-sac along the eastern side of South Aspen Street as a way to access the front of the Gorsuch Haus. This is functioning as private property, but it will be given to the City as part of this development.

Ms. Phalen stated that it is happening as a public dedication for a right-of-way to improve the terminating of South Aspen Street at the top. Right now, you basically drive into a parking lot.

Mr. Rayes stated that Shadow Mountain Condos is requesting to vacate the western side of South Aspen street as a way to compliment the vacation that was granted to the Gorsuch Haus. The request is approximately 3900 square feet in area. The applicant is still working with the HOA to determine exactly how many square feet they would like to vacate and try to be accommodating to the Gorsuch Haus development. Several years ago, the Shadow Mountain Condos built several improvements in the public right-of-way without obtaining any sort of approvals or permission from the City to do that. In2007, the Engineering department issued a permanent revocable encroachment license for those improvements to be legalized in that area. Those improvements include a wooden deck, a staircase, and several retaining walls. He showed the area of the encroachment license on a map on the slide. In addition to those improvements that are of benefit to the Shadow Mountain Condos, the City of Aspen has some public infrastructure in the area, which he showed on the map.

Mr. Rayes stated that the applicant is requesting to vacate South Aspen Street. He noted that the area of the request has now been amended to be about half the size of their original request. The area is about 3900 square feet, but the details still need to be worked out.

Mr. Rayes stated that, when reviewing a vacation request, there are several review criteria to consider. The first is related to the general subdivision review standards and is: “to guarantee access to a public right-of-way.” This states that all subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. When it comes to guaranteeing access to a public right-of-way, the Aspen Mountain cutoff road is accessed at the terminus of South Aspen Street. That is a road that Aspen SkiCo uses to conduct maintenance on the mountain. Staff feels that, if this vacation is granted, the access to that road would be negatively impacted. Staff feels that the proposal to vacate the road is based on the assumption that the Gorsuch Haus approvals are going to go through at some point in the near future. It’s important to point out that that development still needs to go through final review by City Council. At this point, it’s impossible to know if or when that development is ever going to happen.

The second criterion is related to vehicular rights-of-way. There are several criteria associated with this. The first is: the design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code 29 Engineering Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved projects for the area, such as Highway Access policy. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. Engineering design standards leave open corridors for utilities and drainage. The Engineering Department does consider this a drainage and mud flow corridor. The City likes to maintain public infrastructure that’s within the public right-of-way. The proposed vacation would cut off this corridor from being publicly accessed. The Shadow Mountain Condos already has an encroachment license that was issued in 2007, legalizing the

4

improvements onsite. When the condo association submitted that encroachment license, the HOA representative submitted a letter that clearly articulated the intention to legalize the existing improvements that were built without an encroachment license. That letter stated that “the improvements do not impede the right-of-way on Aspen Street or otherwise impair the City’s property.” The City issued that permit with the understanding that the right-of-way was going to continue to be retained with the issuance of the encroachment license. Staff feels that, by vacating this road, that contradicts the objective of pursuing an encroachment license and it goes against prior agreements thatthe City has had with the HOA associated with this condo facility.

The next criterion states: the proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control capabilities accessed by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating needs of the City including snow removal. This is an area that is currently being used for snow storage and it’s important for the continued use of snow removal. That might change with the development of the Gorsuch Haus, but at this point it’s uncertain if or when that development will occur. This will continue to be an important corridor for snow storage. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.

The next criterion states that, for partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate that the right-of-way or portion thereof has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular right-of-way, pedestrian or bikeway, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the applicant and the City can be achieved through a closure of the right-of-way. This right-of-way serves multiple public purposes in town and the area that’s being requested to be vacated has a lot of unknown implications, especially related to the voter-approved site plan that’s related to the Gorsuch Haus. Until the construction of the Gorsuch Haus and other easements are put into place, this corridor’s going to continue to function as an important pedestrian connection to the Barbee Open Space, a utility corridor, and a drainage corridor. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.

Lastly: the proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and is in the best interest of the City of Aspen. At a very high level, giving away this public right-of-way is not in the best interest of the City of Aspen and does not create a benefit for the City. One of the reasons that the City was able to vacate the other side of South Aspen Street for the Gorsuch Haus development was because there was understanding that a lift was going to be built on Dean Street. Additionally, the City also received some land in exchange for that vacation. The request to vacate the western half of South Aspen Street is based on the fundamental assumption that the Lift One Gorsuch Haus project is going to happen sometime in the very near future. At this point, there are a of unknowns in that area. Staff feels that this is not only not a benefit to the Community, but it’s also very premature. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.

Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning recommend denial of the proposed vacation of South Aspen Street.

Ms. Phalen stated that this request is premature as voter approved improvements for the Lift One Corridor have not been built yet. We need to see what happens with that. Also, in some instances, the City has vacated rights of ways or land that may have some utilities in it and will allow for just maintaining an easement on it. In this instance, that puts the City at a disadvantage. The current conditions are that the City owns this land, the infrastructure is already on this land, and the City has the

5

ability to regulate that land as an owner. If the land is vacated, the City loses some control of that property. Thirdly, the request to approve the vacation of a right-of-way is completely discretional. The criteria are just providing some guidance to a very discretionary request. Staff have written the recommendation to the P&Z as if the Commission will make a recommendation to approve the request to City Council. However, staff have suggested changes that the Commission can make in a motion for the resolution if you agree with staff that this is not in the best interest of the City.

Mr. McKnight thanked Mr. Rayes. He asked the commissioners if they have questions for staff.

Mr. Love asked if there is compensation being discussed.

Ms. Phalen responded that there could potentially be a discussion at the Council table about what the value of that land is. At this point in time, it hasn’t been discussed.

Mr. Marcoux asked if staff was approached by anyone other than the applicant to try to work it out as a neighborhood.

Ms. Phalen replied that there was a lot of coordination with the applicants for the Lift One Corridor Project to create a plan that would, in City Council’s mind, bring community benefit. With regard to this subject area, the City wasn’t looking at vacating this area because it does have City infrastructure in it.

Mr. McKnight asked what happens to the current infrastructure if this project is approved.

Ms. Phalen stated that the infrastructure would stay there, and the City would put easements in place.

Reilly Thimons introduced herself as a representative from Bendon-Adams. She introduced Chris Bendon and Karen Hartman, the HOA president for the Shadow Mountain Townhomes.

Ms. Thimons showed on the slide the location of the townhomes and the area requested to be vacated. She stated that Lift One opened in 1946 which launched this neighborhood as the epicenter for skiing within Aspen. Subsequent zoning throughout the 1960s through the ‘80’s and early 2000s emphasized that it’s a tourist zone. It’s important to note that, in 2006 there was a coop master planning effort which involved many of the Lift One Corridor parties. It changed the face of and created a master plan for this neighborhood. The progression of that vision has resulted in the approval of the South Aspen Townhomes and voter approval for Lift One Corridor and Gorsuch Haus.

Mr. Bendon stated that the Coop masterplan was an effort that he was involved in when he was at the City. The plan was to return a base of skiing to this side of the mountain. It was four parties: the Lift One Lodge, the Aspen Skiing Company, what was the Lodge at Aspen Mountain and now is Aspen One Townhomes, and the City of Aspen. The breakthrough that was made was to stick with the current alignment of the original Lift One and make that the ski corridor and push all the development to the side of that. That resulted in the masterplan which involved vacating the major piece of South Aspen Street. The Gorsuch Haus teamed up with Lift One Lodge and resulted in the current masterplan that was just approved by voters. Mr. Bendon addressed staff’s concern about timing with the overall deployment of the masterplan. He stated that, if the applicants need to file everything concurrent with Gorsuch Haus, that’s totally fine with them.

6

Ms. Thimons stated that the applicants are requesting a piece of the second half of the right-of-way on South Aspen Street and to preserve the existing improvements that live within the encroachment license granted by the City and the open space. The area requested is now approximately half of what it was initially. The applicants will be working with Sopris Engineering to define what exactly the area will be. The applicants will likely be able to bring those revised drawings to Council for clarification. In terms of the proposed conditions, the applicants are really wanting to align with the neighborhood masterplan. The applicants feel that the vacation is in alignment with the proposed site plan and the proposed public improvements. Shadow Mountain homeowners have felt a sense of stewardship over the space and have maintained it over time. Everything that they’re proposing, they’re wanting to compliment what’s already been approved. Ms. Thimons stated that she will address the concerns from the staff memo.

Regarding access, the applicants are working within the masterplan that’s been approved. The applicants feel that the request does not hinder access to any of the adjacent parcels. There’s no threat or change to anything for health, public safety, or welfare of the community. She stated that Shadow Mountain voluntarily came forward to seek out the Encroachment License. The applicants felt that, with the approval of Gorsuch Haus and the Lift One Corridor, it was the appropriate to try to memorialize the encroachments and improvements in addition to the open space and access to Aspen Mountain.

Ms. Thimons stated that staff had concerns over ski-in access. She showed a picture on the slide of where the ski-in ski-out and vehicular access would be if this project is approved. Gorsuch Haus and Lift One went through extensive reviews with the City and the vacation request is in compliance with the neighborhood master plan. Additionally, the applicants understand that there are constraints and questions of utility and future access to drainage and mud flow. They have no issue with any of that. They are looking to move forward and work with Gorsuch Haus and the City and better understand what this could look like in terms of the vacation right-of-way and easements to maintain access.

Ms. Thimons showed the vehicular traffic flow and emergency access for the cul-de-sac on the map on the slide and stated that it is approved to Engineering standards. She showed the area walkway that would be the start of the area that the applicants are requesting for vacation. It will also be a retaining wall of up to 15 feet. There is already a retaining wall there, but, when this development is built, it will definitively end vehicular access to that portion of South Aspen Street. They are proposing a staircase leading up for pedestrian access in addition to skier access during winter. She also pointed out the existing switchgear. The plan is requesting to relocate the switchgear and some of the drainage inlet into South Aspen Townhomes.

Ms. Thimons showed satellite images from 1999 before improvements into the encroachment area were constructed. She stated that this area has always been a green space. It has not been used for vehicular access up to Aspen Mountain. It has provided pedestrian and bike access. The applicants are not proposing for any of that to change.

In summary, this proposal will still provide access to Aspen Mountain. There are still some things to work out with the adjacent site development plan. The pedestrians will also maintain access to the Barbee conservation parcel in question.

With that, Ms. Thimons turned the meeting over to Karen Hartman about her experience growing up at the Shadow Mountain Townhomes.

7

Ms. Hartman thanked the commissioners for their service. She stated that her dad was one of the original owners at Shadow Mountain and she is a second-generation owner. She stated that the area is really important to Shadow Mountain. They keep it green and maintain it for open space. It’s their ski-in ski-out access right now, which they are hoping to keep. They rely on that area and keep it as nice looking as possible so that there’s a greenway up to the mountain. They have a sense of stewardship over the area. They completely understand the needs of the City are they aren’t opposed to any utilities there. Their main goal is to keep the space open and have it be a green space.

Ms. Rockhill asked if the floor area ratio would increase if the lot size increased.

Mr. Bendon stated that it would not. The City doesn’t give additional development rights for rights-of-way. They do not benefit by additional floor area or density. They can’t even park a car there.

Ms. Phelan stated that there might not be additional development rights, she is not sure if the floor area is maxed out on this site. There is the potential that improvements could occur in that right-of-way area.

Mr. Love asked if the applicants are wanting to maintain ownership of that land so that they can control its future so that it provides a lift to the property value.

Mr. Bendon replied that that is right. The applicants have access that goes on that property. They do have an interest in making sure that the improvements are sustainable in terms of improvements to the deck area. They aren’t looking for vertical construction. There is a drainage and mudflow need. Regardless of easements and property lines, the mud will go where it goes, and it would not be wise to impede it in any way. That area functions as the outdoor greenspace. They want to provide it with some status quo.

Mr. Love asked if all the utilities being provided in that area are in vaults or underground.

Mr. Bendon stated that he would hope so. He has not been involved in the technical planning Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge. That switchgear is massive. Under this proposal, that would be somewhere where vehicles could not get to it, so that would need to be moved.

Mr. Love asked if the applicants are willing to delay to see what happens with Gorsuch Haus.

Mr. Bendon stated that there are two things that caused staff anxiety. One was the thought that theapplicants want a piece of the cul-de-sac. The applicants do not want to impede the cul-de-sac in any regard. The second is the belief that they would be doing this in advance of everyone lese. That’s not their interest. They understand that all the pieces need to come together at the same time.

Mr. Love asked if they would consider paying something for the land.

Mr. Bendon stated that they would pay what Gorsuch Haus paid for their land.

Mr. Phelan stated that they gave land in exchange and there’s community benefit to that project that’s on a different level.

8

Mr. Bendon stated that they are not opposed to a conversation about compensation. They’re probably not in a position to fund other priorities of the City. They’re open to deals that are reasonable and rational. Mr. Bendon questioned the value of the land considering that it does not come with development rights and there is some liability that comes along with the area.

Mr. Love asked if there is any way to tie the retaining walls into the process and mitigate something there.

Mr. Bendon stated that he would expect that there won’t be a 15-foot wall. It will likely be some kind of terraced thing. There’s a significant amount of slope there to create a flat platform. They don’t have interest in owning that area.

Ms. Rockhill asked if there is currently an easement for ski access into Shadow Mountain.

Ms. Phelan said that there isn’t. People just use it.

Mr. Bendon stated that they don’t have issue with the ski back. They expect that people might do it once might not do it again. It will be more difficult than using the ski corridor that takes you to that lift.

Ms. Rockhill stated that, short of a vacation, if the applicants could secure an easement so that the homeowners know that they will always have access to ski into their property, it could be more immediate.

Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants’ ultimate goal is to translate their sense of ownership into actual ownership. They want to have control over what happens on that land.

Ms. Phalen stated that staff received a letter which needs to be entered into the public record. The letter is from Holland and Hart representing Gorsuch Haus. They are not necessarily opposed to the vacation, they would ask that some conditions be included in the Ordinance if it goes in that direction. This will be Exhibit D for this letter being introduced into the record.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. David Corbin from Aspen Skiing Company introduced himself. He thanked staff and the applicantsfor their presentations. He stated that Aspen Skiing Company had concerns with the project as it was first proposed. They have no objection at all to the manner or ways in which Shadow Mountain condos uses that area now. Their concerns as first proposed on the right-of-way vacation was that it did appear to preclude or terribly compromise the improvements that were in the Lift One Corridor Project. Cutting back that proposed vacation alleviates their concern with respect to that. His worries with respect to their abilities to make those street improvements have been alleviated. Their other concern was access to the mountain. Until and when the Gorsuch Haus is built, they wanted to make sure that existing mountain road access is maintained and that any vacation of the right-of-way would not impinge upon access to the mountain. In looking at the existing conditions, it appears that the vacation would not impinge on the ability to access the mountain on the road today. Unless that’s mistaken, he does not have any concern about that. Their last concern was to make sure that, with the vacation ofthe right-of-way, there was really no substantial change or obstruction that might be created with respect to utility improvements that were contemplated for Gorsuch Haus. He stated that he can’t really speak to their design. Skiing Company owns all of the underlying land today. As was noted, there

9

are several more finalization and plan details that have to occur. They just want to make sure that there would be no impairment of the ability to do utilities.

Carly Klein introduced herself as being with Design Workshop. She stated that she represents the groupthat submitted the letter today. Generally, on the whole they are not opposed to this vacation request. They do ask that the commission consider limiting it to the areas where the improvements occur. She stated that they are looking at terracing to try to reduce the side of that wall. Approving something that this point would make any design changes in that area a little bit more difficult. In addition, the public staircase is close to the property line and there will be grading and excavation required in the right of way. They ask that, if this vacation was granted, there would be some consideration for the temporary construction that needs to occur.

Toni Kronberg introduced herself and stated that she would like to give support to the public who spoke tonight who did not express any real concerns. She stated that it appears that a compromise can be worked out and it can happen. The biggest caveat is the fact that everyone is willing to wait until the final design review. She stated that she was one of the people who was on the original coop to revitalize that area. She stated that that’s going to be a huge building all up and down South Aspen Street. The little piece of greenspace that is characteristic of South Aspen Street is right at the top where the vacation area is. She does not believe that Shadow Mountain Townhomes is going to do anything that’s going to compromise that. She asked what could potentially happen to that area if the vacation is not granted. It sounds like most people want to leave it as the status quo. If vacation is not granted, what would the City’s plans be for that?

Hailey Guglielmo from the Engineering Department stated that they want to maintain public infrastructure in a public right-of-way. They have concerns with what could be done with it if it is vacated.

Mr. Bendon stated that, in response to Mr. Corbin’s comment, the applicants are not proposing any impairment to the ability to install utilities. In response to Ms. Klein’s comment, he stated that the applicants are fine with construction activities that will occur on that property. They might even curtail their vacation request if there are some elements of design that happen within that area to minimize the wall. Lastly, to the extent that the City, community, and applicants have an interest in this continuing to be a drainage and mudflow area, the applicants don’t have any issues with those functions.

Mr. Rayes stated that there was concern about keeping this as a ski-in ski-out corridor. If this was to be maintained as a City public right-of-way space, that would be something continue to happen in the future while also maintaining the public benefits. The Norway run comes in and is a bit of a tight turn to get into the main corridor to access the lift. There is a stairwell along the side of the Gorsuch Haus, but there might be some preference for some people to try to ski down to access the roundabout. By vacating it, it takes away the option for people who don’t live at the Shadow Mountain Condos.

Mr. McKnight addressed Ms. Kronberg’s concern about what happens if it’s not vacated.

Ms. Phelan stated that it’s going to be maintained in the same way that it is now.

Mr. Rayes stated that, if there was a significant change to that area, there would be a public process. If it’s vacated, there’s no public process.

10

COMISSIONER DELIBERATION

Ms. McGovern stated that she does not see any reason to change the status quo. The townhomes currently have an encroachment license that memorializes some previously noncompliant items that they have since rectified. There is no need to transfer City property to private property.

Ms. Rockhill stated that she is sympathetic to the request. She stated that it’s early and no one knowswhere the survey lines are going to fall with proposed developments. It’s appropriate to deal with this down the road.

Mr. Love stated that he would concur with delaying this process. He would be interested in using and easement structure to accommodate the needs of the City.

Mr. Marcoux stated that he also believes this timing to be premature.

Mr. McKnight stated that he is on the same page with everyone else. He appreciates everyone who came out to give public comment. He likes the idea of waiting to file, but he does not feel comfortable recommending to City Council at this time either.

Mr. Love moved to recommend denial for a major subdivision to vacate the westerly 36.65 feet of South Aspen Street with incorporating the comments for denial in the staff memorandum adding that the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that this request is premature at this time. Ms. McGovern seconded. All commissioners vote yea for denial.

ADJOURNMr. Marcoux motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:38. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

Jeannine StickleRecords Manager

11

MEMORANDUM

TO: Planning and Zoning Commission

FROM: Andrea S. Bryan, Assistant City Attorney

DATE OF MEMO: June 13, 2019

MEETING DATE: June 18, 2019

RE: Resolution #9, 2019, Code of Conduct for Citizen Comments at Public Meetings

SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission has expressed an interest in adopting a code of conduct applicable to public comment during public meetings to preserve a civil environment during public meetings and to ensure the efficient and orderly administration of Commission meetings.

DISCUSSION: Attached hereto is a resolution adopting a proposed code of conduct intended to address concerns that have been raised in recent months regarding, among other things, the timing and manner of citizen comment. The Commission expressed a desire to have a more formal policy to guide both the public and the Commission during public comment periods of public meetings and hearings. The attached content-neutral decorum policy is intended to balance the public’s first amendment speech rights in a limited public forum such as P &Z meetings, with the need for effective, efficient meetings that are free from intimidation or disorderly conduct. The following is the proposed policy, which has been put together from samples that have been adopted by other boards and City Councils:

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS:

Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues.

Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting.

Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute presentation per speaker. This “three minute” rule shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items.

12

The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is not designated as a public hearing.

All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public.

Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is up to P&Z to decide whether to adopt rules of decorum or a code of conduct for citizen comments. A public comment policy may result in more efficient, effective meetings, which will benefit not only the Commission, but the public as a whole. As stated above, the policy that has been drafted has been put together using other similar policies adopted by other boards and councils as a guide. P&Z may wish to adopt the policy as drafted, make changes to the policy before adopting it, or decide not to adopt a public comment policy.

13

RESOLUTION NO. 9(Series of 2019)

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ADOPTING A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN

COMMENTS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS

WHEREAS, it is the general practice of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (the “Commission”) to include an agenda item at regular Commission meetings allowing citizens to address the Commission on topics not related to specific items on the agenda

WHEREAS, the Commission also accepts citizen comments at public hearing and other situations where comments may be invited for specific agenda items; and

WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes and encourages the right of its citizens and members of the public to address the Commission pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the Commission is a limited public forum in which the Commission has authority to impose reasonable, content-neutral regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of public speech; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on Citizen comments and citizen presentations in order to provide for the efficient management of public meetings and to allow sufficient time and attention to address specific agenda items and to conduct the business of the Commission,

WHEREAS, the Commission has the authority, pursuant to Section 26.212.010(M) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, to adopt its own rules of procedure necessary for the administration of its responsibilities; and

WHEREAS, the Commission desires to adopt a uniform policy to regulate Citizen comments at its meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:

Section 1: The Commission adopts the following Code of Conduct, which shall be posted or made available to members of the public at any meeting where members of the public may be permitted to address the Commission:

14

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS:

Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues.

Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting.

Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items.

The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is not designated as a public hearing.

All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public.

Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting.

INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on June ____, 2019.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:

______________________________ ___________________________Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair

ATTEST:

____________________________Jeannine Stickle, Deputy City Clerk

15

16