Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Cdus Tdrs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and caucus representatives press county on CDUs, TDRs and mapping as draft Vision 2050 raises housing questions
Summary
Public speakers and caucus representatives asked the county to clarify CDU rules and to consider policy changes including larger CDU sizes; caucus leaders also raised mapping and floor-area cap concerns and urged stronger enforcement and clearer Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) guidance.
Public commenters and caucus representatives used the joint Vision 2050 workshop to press Pitkin County staff for clearer rules on Community Dwelling Units (CDUs), Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) and caucus-area mapping.
Jamie Gull, who identified himself as born in Aspen and now living in Los Angeles, told the meeting his family hopes to return to the valley but cannot afford local housing. He asked staff to support increasing the maximum CDU size on appropriate lots from the county’s current limit to 1,500 square feet. “The current limitation of a thousand square feet is maybe workable, but barely,” Gull said. He urged allowing detached CDUs and enclosed garages on lots that can accommodate a larger unit.
A parent who spoke with Gull supported the request and noted their East Side lot could easily accommodate a larger CDU if the code allowed it to be detached. Gull and the accompanying speakers said increasing CDU capacity and allowing detached units would broaden options for working professionals who cannot fit into existing employee housing categories.
Caucus representatives raised separate but related concerns. Melanie Buckholtz, Frying Pan caucus area representative, said she believes a recent revision removed previously stated caps on maximum floor area in chapter 3 of the land use code and on the caucus overlay map and asked staff to identify whether that was an error. "I believe that I have identified an error in both the land use code and on the mapping of our caucus area," Buckholtz said, asking for a staff review.
Marcela, a caucus representative who spoke at length, pressed staff to produce a future land-use map for caucus areas and said some caucus master plans lack clear parcel-level mapping. Staff replied they do not plan a county-wide parcel-by-parcel future land-use map but will produce a mapping product that indicates character zones and will retain or incorporate caucus-area maps where they exist.
Several Planning & Zoning board members and other participants emphasized enforcement and program integrity. One work-group member said enforcement is a major problem for occupancy limits and other restrictions tied to CDUs and similar units and urged that any expansion of CDU allowances include enforceable occupancy provisions. Another participant asked for clearer exposition of residential TDRs and the mechanics of how TDRs would be used to allow additional floor area above baseline caps.
County staff acknowledged those concerns and said the draft plan calls for incentives and code changes to encourage smaller homes and to use TDRs as a rural-preservation tool, but that detailed code language and enforcement mechanisms will be worked out during forthcoming Planning & Zoning sessions and public hearings.
The meeting closed with staff asking caucus representatives to participate in upcoming outreach and to share the story map and survey with their constituents so the county can collect community input during the draft-plan review period.
