Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Aspen Hills redevelopment despite neighborhood objections
Summary
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission approved the Aspen Hills redevelopment (331–338 Midland Ave) on Aug. 6, 2024, after staff and the applicant said the project met land‑use code requirements; neighbors raised concerns about parking, safety, scale and lighting. The motion passed with one dissenting vote.
The City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission voted on Aug. 6 to approve Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2024), clearing the Aspen Hills redevelopment at 331–338 Midland Avenue for the next steps of permitting. The proposal calls for demolition of the existing building and construction of 22 units: 11 deed‑restricted affordable (including RO/employee housing categories) and 11 free‑market units.
Commissioners and staff framed the decision around whether the application met the land‑use code's three review criteria and the growth management quota system. Planning staff and the applicant told the commission the application meets those standards and that replacement and mitigation calculations comply with city rules. In discussion, one commissioner summarized the panel’s dilemma: while neighborhood impacts such as parking and construction disruption were real, the project conformed to the standards before the commission.
Residents and the Midland Park Homeowners Association urged the commission to deny approval or impose stronger conditions. Public commenters cited safety at a busy bus intersection, insufficient parking and snow‑removal impacts if the project is approved. One resident urged a completion bond to prevent the site from sitting empty; another warned rooftop decks could create noise and light issues.
Applicant counsel emphasized the project's compliance with the RMF zoning district and said the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is aspirational rather than regulatory. Staff and the applicant also noted that the city and APHA treat RO (resident‑occupied / employee housing) as an affordable housing category for purposes of replacement requirements.
After deliberation and legal guidance on the limits of the commission's authority (notably that the commission can recommend how mitigation funds are spent but cannot compel the city to spend them in a particular neighborhood), the panel took a roll call vote. The motion carried with a single opposing vote; the commission directed staff to convey commissioners’ preference that parking‑mitigation funds be considered for the affected corridor where feasible.
Next steps: the approved resolution will be processed under normal permitting and compliance checks; commissioners indicated they plan follow‑up conversations with City Council on recurring issues such as parking mitigation and construction impacts.
