HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.PublicDevelopment.A021.00I,ublfc Development — code
amendment A021-00
I
/ / LI
f' , o�� 'A c3ti,
171
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER A021-00
PARCEL ID NUMBER
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER Joyce Ohlson
CASE DESCRIPTION Code Amendment -Public Development
REPRESENTATIVE John P. Worcester, City Attorney
DATE OF FINAL ACTION _394/00-
CLOSED BY Amy DeVault
PARCEL ID: 2/25/00 r , CASE, A021-00
CASE NAME: Public Development Review Process Pta Joyce Ohlson
PROJ ADDR: s� CASE TYP: Code Amendment i STEPS-
OWNIAPP:' City of Aspen Comm ADRI C/S2: PHN:
REP: ADR: C/S/Z: Ft-PHN:
FEES DUE: None FEES RCVD:j None STATJAL
REFERRALS
MTG DATE
REMARKS
CLOSED:
PLAT SUBMITD:
REFI BY DUE:
REV BODY PH NOTICE''`
DATE OF FINAL AC'
CITY COUNCIL:
PZ:
BOA:
DRAC:
PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN,
ORDINANCE NO. 07
(Series of 2000)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ASPEN LAND USE
CODE) TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW LAND USE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS DETERNII ED TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the
Aspen Municipal Code to provide a simplified and flexible process for reviewing development
projects that the Cite Council determines to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public: and
WHEREAS, the Plannina and Zoning Commission of the Cit<' of Aspen has re%iewed
the proposed language of this ordinance and has recommended its adoption by the City Council
in order to provide a simplified, comprehensive and flexible process for reviewing
development proposals that are determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and
welfare of the public and to allow for greater public participation in the approval of public
projects; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of
amendments to Sections 26.208.010, 26.304.060, and the addition of Section 26.500 of the
Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
That Section 26.208.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth the
powers and duties of the City Council, is hereby amended by the insertion of a new subsection
N to read as follows, and the renumbering of existing subsection N to O:
N. To determine if a development proposal is reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public pursuant to Section 26.500.040, and thereafter review
such proposal in accordance with Section 26.500.050 (B).
Section 2.
That Section 26.304.060 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth
permissible modifications of normal review procedures, is hereby amended by the addition of
a new subsection 3, to read as follows:
3. Development Determined to be Reasonablv Necessary for the Public
Convenience or Welfare of the Public. If the Community Development Director.
in consultation with the applicant, determines that a proposed development may be
eligible for consideration as a development that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public in accordance with Section 26.500.040, the
Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in accordance
with Section 26.500.050.
Section 3.
That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a new Section 26.500 which shall read as
follows:
Chapter 26.500
DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
26.500.010 Purpose. It is the purpose, of this Chapter to exempt certain types of
development from all applicable sections, except as herein noted, of Title 26 and to establish
an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of
developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose
in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for
such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review
and approval process, and to allow for greater public participation in the review process when
it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the City to do so.
26.500.020 Authority. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and
power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code. Title 26 of the
Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1984); City of
Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030. Applicability. Only those development applications determined by the
City Council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public shall be
eligible for review and approval in accordance with this Chapter. Only those portions of Title
26 which are specifically incorporated in the ordinance granting final approval of a
development order shall be applicable to a project determined to be reasonably necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
26.500.040. Standards for Determination. A development may be determined to be
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public if the applicant for
development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the City of Aspen authorized by the City
Council to proceed under this Chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of
the City of Aspen is a co -applicant with a private party for the development of land which
constitutes an essential public facility. provides essential services to the public. and which is in
the best interests of the City of Aspen to be completed. By way of example and not limitation,
the following types of developments may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public: (a) affordable housing projects developed by the City of
Aspen by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer: (b) the development of
public utilities; (c) park and recreational facilities development; (d) public infrastructure
improvements; (e) public buildings and structures; or (f) transportation improvements.
26.500.050. Procedure.
A. Community Development Director. The Community Development Director. upon
determining that the proposed development application may be eligible for consideration as a
project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public may consult with the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposed development's eligibility and shall
thereafter prepare a memorandum for the City Council that: (a) outlines the reasons for
consideration as an eligible project; (b) sets forth the conclusions of any referral comments
received by the Community Development Director, if any; (c) includes the procedures the
applicant would be required to follow if the project is determined not to be an eligible project;
(d) includes a recommendation on the alternative procedure to be followed should the project
be determined to be an eligible project; and (e) includes a recommendation as to the
appropriate City boards and commissions and other interested parties necessary for the review
of the project. The Community Development Director, before preparing such a memorandum
for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of the applicant, the
applicant's representative, City staff members, consultants, and any other persons for the
purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of
utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation,
anticipated public concerns, and any other technical information which would assist the
Community Development Director to prepare the initial memorandum to the City Council. The
Community Development Director shall formally notify the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Historic Preservation Commission, and, if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, in writing, of the date of the hearing before the City Council at which time a
determination is to be made concerning eligibility of the proposed development pursuant to this
Chapter. The Community Development Director shall provide notice to the public. including
publication, posting and mailing. in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E).
B. City Council Determination of Eligibility. Following a public hearing in accordance
with Section 26.304.060(C). the City Council shall by resolution (a) make a determination
whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of
the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.040; (b) establish a procedure for
review of the proposed project to include standards of review; (c) establish a Task Force Team
to review the development proposal and identify members of City boards, commissions. and
other interested parties. (including at least tw-o (2) members of the public at large) to be
included as members of the Task Force Team. which shall include representation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and. (d) establish a timeframe for the procedures to be used
to review the proposed development. If the proposed project proposes development subject to
Chapter 26.415 (Development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, or Involving the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures), or Chapter 26.420 (Historic Overlay District and
Historic Landmarks), the City Council shall include in the review procedures the requirement
for an application for review of the eligible project to the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the applicable sections of the Land Use Code. The City Council may. in
appropriate circumstances, include as pan of the review process it adopts a separate referral to
the Planning and Zoning Commission, or any other Citv board and commission for their
separate review and recommendation. Should the City Council determine that the proposed
development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public. the
application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of this Land Use
Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon the request of the
applicant, the Community Development Director, or upon its own motion.
C. Community Development Technical Staff Review. Following a determination by the
City Council that a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public, the Community Development Director shall convene a staff level,
interdepartmental development review committee meeting for the purpose of identifying and
resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of utilities and services,
environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of an application
for further review. Following the technical staff review process, the Community
Development Director shall assist the applicant in preparing a formal application and
preparation for submission of the development application to the appropriate boards,
commissions and other interested parties identified by the City Council for such reviews.
D. Review of Application by Task Team. The members of the task team, composed
of members of City boards and commissions, and interested parties identified by the City
Council resolution shall meet and review the proposed development application using the
standards of review identified in the resolution adopted by the City Council in accordance with
subsection (B), above. The chair of the Task Force Team shall be the Director of the
Community Development Department. The chair of the Task Force Team shall prepare
meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the Task Force Team, and facilitate all
meetings. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community
Development Director believes that further review would not significantly improve the overall
development proposal, the Community Development Director shall report to the City Council
the recommendations of the boards, commissions, and interested members of the public which
participated in the review of the proposed project. The Community Development Director's
report to Council shall include: (a) a recommendation as to whether the proposed development
should continue to be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare
of the public; (b) all of the land use decisions and approvals that need to be made for the
proposed development; (c) a report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the
Task Force Team; and (d) any conditions of approval that may be necessary for the land use
approvals. The Community Development Director shall present to the City Council a proposed
ordinance that incorporates all of the applicable recommendations of the report.
E. City Council Adoption of Ordinance. The City Council upon receipt of the report
and proposed ordinance from the Community Development Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or disapprove an ordinance granting a development order for the proposed
development. In the event that the City Council determines that the application should no
longer be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public,
the applicant shall be granted the option of filing a new application with the Community
Development Director for review and consideration in accordance with Chapter 26.304.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as
an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of any ordinance
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6.
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 10`h day of April, 2000, at 5:00
o'clock pm in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Prior to such
hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within
the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 27`h day of March, 2000.
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
INTRODUCED and FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 10`'
day of April, 2000.
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
G:planning. aspen. ord. COWOPfinal.doc
•
•
Q & A Sheet
Review Process for Public "COWOP" Projects
(Projects for the convenience or welfare of the public)
1. What current steps and/or procedures of the current process would be
negated or changed if the COWOP process were put in place?
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC), Housing Board (HB) and any other designated advisory
board, would involve themselves in the very front end or "conceptual stage"
in the design of a project. As proposed, the COWOP process would eliminate
the formal Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation
Commission processes as we know them today. However, given that, should
the Council determine that a specific review before a full body of an
advisory board is necessary to a certain project, then that could be directed
by Council. The Community Development staff would continue to utilize the
development standards contained with the land use code for the review and
evaluation of a project and present them in memoranda to the review team
and Council.
2. If implemented, would the COWOP process make the review process
shorter and/or more efficient.
Without a doubt, one of the goals of the COWOP process is to make the
review process shorter, more cost effective and more efficient. Attaining
this goal has more to do with the effectiveness of the team in a.) running a
well structured meeting, b.) focusing on key conceptual issues, c.) the ability
of the team to reach consensus and formulate a clear position on those key
issues, and d.) the applicant responding to the input of the team by amending
the plan.
3. When the P d Z or other advisory group is unanimously against the
philosophy of a public project, what happens then?
Should a particular faction or the entire review team not agree with the
intent or philosophy of a certain project, the group should forward that
recommendation to the Council as soon as possible. As with all
0
recommendations to the Council, it is most beneficial when the Council can
understand the thoughts and concerns of the advisory boards, in this case
through the review team. These can be included in any written
recommendation and come in the form of "concerns", "outstanding issues",
"conditions", etc. An applicant has the right to proceed through a process to
gain a decision by the appropriate decision maker (in this case Council).
With this in mind, the review team should strive to communicate their
position quickly, clearly and in a manner which would assist both the applicant
and Council. There may be times when the Council requests that a project go
back to the review team with a major change in scope. There may also be
times when the Council likes what they see as owner and moves the project
forward despite the concerns raised. The fact that some members of
Council will serve on the review team should assist in communicating between
the members of different boards.
4. Representation by various advisory boards.2 How many people should
represent agroup? How many vote.2
It is not essential to have a hard and fast, predetermined number of
representatives from advisory boards. The initial reviewing team for most
projects will probably be several (or all) members of Council and P&Z
(Housing, HPC as necessary). What is important is that there is
representation, especially by members who might have a special interest in a
project, special expertise to lend, or understanding of neighborhood issues,
etc. It is expected that representatives on the review team will report back
to their full board and give project review updates and seek input as
necessary. Remember that the benefit to the COWOP process is in having
the development plan evolve with the assistance of `he advisory boards as
part of the review team. The greater the amount of sharing of ideas and
concerns the better a project will likely be. This should also minimize the
chances that an applicant will get way off base creating a plan that is
unacceptable.
It is expected that the team will come to consensus on their
recommendation to the Council. It is possible that there will be suggested
conditions, alternative concepts and additional matters for Council to
consider which fall within only Council's purview (financial, acquisition issues,
etc.).
2
0
•
5. When is the 'review team "part of the process over,
As a practical matter, this may not be a problem in most instances. It
should be evident in most cases whether additional time to review an
application will be fruitful. If there is consensus, the process is over, but
even if there is an impasse, most people will recognize that fact and argue
that further time to review a project will not yield anything useful. In that
members of the Council will be present on the review team, the
determination that the process is over should not be a problem.
6. What does the applicant present initially to the review team?
The applicant enters into this process with the understanding that they are
there to evolve a plan, drawing upon the variety of expertise and input of
the collective group, including neighbors. However, this doesn't mean
starting with a totally blank piece of paper. The idea is to get the discussion
rolling with an understanding of the land and concepts for the development.
The applicant would present the following: a.) existing conditions/site
constraints map of the subject property, including such things as
topography, vegetation, water courses, rock outcroppings etc.; b.) a
utility/facility map showing how the subject property potentially be served
and any contemplated line extensions, c.) general vicinity map of existing
development, roads, parks etc.; and d.) conceptual level schematic drawings
of potential development scenarios. Ideally, the applicant would present
several alternatives for discussion purposes. The intent is to not require a
large expenditure of money at this level on survey work, engineering, or
detailed drawings.
7. -Will there be yet more volunteer meetings to attend.
Yes, there would be additional meetings to attend for the sole review of
public COWOP projects. It is anticipated that because public projects
would be eliminated from the heavy loaded agendas of the regular P&Z and
HPC meetings that these meetings would be shorter in duration. This would
not always be the case if a project was required to be specifically addressed
by an advisory board.
•
u
7Lj
THE CITY OF ASPEN
"COWOP" Development Review Process
(COMP is pronounced "co-op", as in cooperation)
■ What is COWOP?
COWOP is a development review process for "public" projects. Only
those development applications determined by the City Council to be
reasonably necessary "for the convenience and welfare of the public"
(COWOP) are eligible for this special process. These projects might be
affordable housing, parks and recreation, public buildings or transportation
projects. As a home rule municipality the City is vested with the authority
and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land
Use Code.
■ Why is COWOP necessary? What was the problem being solved?
COWOP came to be because certain City initiated applications created
the situation where the City Council was both owner/applicant/financier as
well as final judge in the formal development review process. This
presented both legal and political problems. The Planning and Zoning
Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other affected
interests felt that these projects were "cooked" before receiving their
review and that their expertise and recommendations were being
overlooked in the process. There needed to be a way to involve the
various interested entities up front to assist in making the public project
the best it could be.
■ What's different about the COWOP process?
Development review occurs by assembling a team of representatives from
City Council, pertinent commissions/boards, the applicant, applicant's
consultants, 2 members of the public at large, neighbors and other
affected interests. The purpose of this group is to "evolve the
development plan". The applicant (e.g. Housing Authority, Parks Dept.,
etc.) brings to the team enough information about the subject property,
vicinity and the general development program being sought. Very
conceptual alternative plans can be presented to the team to help initiate
discussion and evolution of a preferred alternative. The idea in the team
approach is to draw upon the expertise and the concerns of the team,
including the neighborhood, to bring about a plan that is acceptable. The
team forwards a recommendation to the City Council who can take action
in one step. The standard process for a major Planned Unit Development
(PUD) is at a minimum 5 steps (2 with P&Z, 2 with Council, 1 with Growth
Management Commission) but could even include reviews and approvals
by the Housing Board and the Historic Preservation Commission.
What is not different is the standards to which the application is reviewed
and judged. All applications are still held to the same PUD, subdivision,
special review etc. development review standards of the Land Use Code
as would apply to applications going through the standard process.
■ What are the strengths and benefits of the process?
10, Better Quality Projects
Potentially a shorter development review timeframe
Potentially fewer soft costs therefore better use of public funds
Issues are identified up front and resolved
Less bouncing back and forth between commissions & boards
Cross fertilization of ideas by affected interests and commission & board
areas of expertise
All meetings are considered public hearings and neighbors are
encouraged to get involved early
Council representation and presence allows Council to better understand
the breadth of issues that were discussed by the team
■ What are the potential weaknesses of the process?
Public mistrust in what could be perceived as a streamlined process for
government only
Possible "design by committee"
Potentially a longer development review timeframe if things bog down
More meetings for volunteer commission/board members
■ Basic Steps to the COWOP Process:
1. Community Development Director recommends project for eligibility,
prepares memorandum outlining a.) reasons for eligibility, b.) referral
comments from other departments (if any), c.) outlines procedures for
handling and, d.) recommends appropriate "team" representation for
the given project. CD Director notifies P&Z & HPC of hearing date
before Council and handles legal notice by mailing, posting and
publication.
2. City Council conducts public hearing on eligibility and determines if
project is "reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of
the public", establishes a procedure, team representation, and
timeframe for review.
3. Community Development Department conducts interdepartmental
technical issue identification/review with applicant.
4. Team process begins. Staff evaluation and report provided. Plan
evolves through iterative process. Team recommendation and report
with plans, including any conditions, forwarded to Council.
5. Council takes action through ordinance at a public hearing.
•
THE CITY OF ASPEN
OFFICE OF THE CrrY MANAGER
RECENED
MAY 2 - Inn
May 1, 2003 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Innovations in American Government
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street _
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am pleased to submit on behalf of the City of Aspen the enclosed application for an,
Innovations in American Government Award.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please feel free to contact me or
John Worcester at this address or phone number. '
Thank you for considering our application.
Sinc ely,
��z
Steve Barwick,
City Manager
JPW-05/01 /2003-G:\john\word\letters\innovations.doc
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 •. PHONE 970.920.5212' • FAx 970.920.5T19
Primed w Reryded Paper
2 0 0 3 APPLICATION: P& RAM DATA SHEET
Before filling out the application, please detach this sheet and
read the instructions on pages 4 and 6.
1. Program's Start Date: 3/ 2 7/ 2000
.....................................................................
2. Polity Specification Number: I 1 1 0 1 0 1 9 1 3. Jurisdiction: 4
•
Fee..,
HARVARD_-- r.
UNIVERSITY." ; JOHN F. KENNEDY
SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
4. Name of Jurisdiction (selected above): City of Aspen, Colorado
.............................................................
5. Name of Sponsoring Unit: ............... Community Development Department
.....................
6. Population of Jurisdiction: ..............7.r..50,0..
7. Program Name:...., Planning....for....the Convenience and Welfare of the.: Public (COWOP)
........................................................................................................
8. Prior Application Status:
If
,, the program has previously applied for an InnovationsAward, list year(s) and w what stage it a& wed.
9. Contact Information: MR. / MS. DR Mr John P. Worcester
N...AM.......E............. .................................................................................. ................................................................................................................
City Attorney
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TITLE DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
....................................................................................................................
SUITE/ROOM NUMBER
.............. ��.p.... South ... Ga.lem.a.... Street
ADDRESS 1
rJ.lH9ii��
10. Agency Director Information:
Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director
..................................................................................
NAME O F AGENCY DIRECTOR T I T L E
Community Development
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
AGENCY
11. Application Source: „ nno.v..atlo.n.s.....Com.f—exen.ce............
NAME OF SOURCE
For internal use.
m1 m2 m3 nA
City of Aspen, Colorado
Application Essav Questions
Planning for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public
1. Please provide a two -sentence summary of the program. (30 words)
This program is an innovative method for engaging the public -and interested property owners in
a simplified, comprehensive and flexible planning and land use approval process for public
development projects and public/private partnership projects. The City calls the alternative
process "planning for the convenience and welfare of the public". (COWOP)
2. Describe the program. Please emphasize its creative elements. What is the
innovation? (400 words)
The COWOP program described herein was the adoption of new land use regulations that.
exempt certain types of development from all applicable sections of the land use code and
provide an alternative process and standards for review, analysis and approval of those types of
development determined eligible for such treatment. Development eligible for this alternative
land use review process are those determined by the City Council to be for the convenience and
welfare of the public. They typically include development proposed by the City itself or
development in which the City has joined in a public -private partnership to develop property
which constitutes an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, or which is
in the best interests of the City to be completed. (Public affordable housing projects,
development of public utilities, park and recreational facilities, public infrastructure and public
buildings.)
The alternative land use review and analysis process requires the City Council to appoint a Task
Force and invites the Task Force to use an interactive and iterative format at which interested
members of the public, governmental officials (i.e., Planning and Zoning Commission and
Historic Preservation Commission members), stakeholders in the development, and even City
Council members participate in the actual design of the project using existing land use code
standards. The project as defined by the process then goes before the City Council for a final
formal review and approval.
3. What problem(s) does your program address? (250 words)
Typical land use approval processes require a "developer" to prepare an application that is
reviewed in a serial fashion by governmental review agencies such as the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment, and the
Affordable Housing Authority, before the proposed development even reaches the City Council
for review and approval. Each governmental review agency reviews the application to determine
compliance with enumerated standards designed to protect certain community values. This
traditional process does not work well for development proposals where the City itself is the
applicant or in instances where the City joins the private sector to develop property that has a
public interest component. In essence, the City is required to wear two hats; to wit, that of a
potential developer and at the same time, the reviewing and approving agency for land use
approvals. The traditional process requires the City, as the owner and developer, to prepare an
application. The public perception, upon the submission of the application, is that the project has
been "fully cooked" and input from the public and reviewing agencies are superfluous and
unwelcome as the City has already decided how the project will be developed.
Many proposed development projects initiated by the City are, by their very nature,
controversial. For example, the City sponsors many affordable housing projects, the
redevelopment of existing parks and recreational facilities, and public buildings. These projects
require the use of public lands and affect the historical uses of those lands. The traditional land
use approval process creates the appearance of a conflict of interest and invariably opens the City
to the charge that government officials give themselves preferences in the interpretation of the
land use code to foster their own projects. The alternative process avoids this problem by
engaging all members of the public in all phases of the design for the project, utilizing the
expertise of the City's board and commission members as well.
An important advantage of the alternative COWOP process is to avoid many provisions of the
land use code that do not provide the flexibility needed to foster innovative or exciting
developments that will ultimately be used for a public purpose. The standards contained in the
land use code become guidelines to be used to help guide the process.
4. Cite the best verifiable evidence of the most significant achievements of the
program. (250 words)
The City has used the COWOP process four times to date. The best verifiable evidence of its
success would include statements from City officials, members of the private development
community who have availed themselves of the process, and members of the public who have
participated in the process to help design development projects currently scheduled for
construction.
5. Who are the current and potential beneficiaries of the program? What are the
direct or indirect benefits to citizens. (200 words)
The most important beneficiaries of the COWOP process are members of the public, City
officials, and private developers who have availed themselves of the process. Citizens who have
participated in the process have been able to have their concerns addressed directly by the
developer (whether it be the City or private developer) as the potential development was
presented and refined through the process. Public officials responsible for approving land use
development proposals have avoided the charge that they have a conflict of interest in approving
such projects. In addition, public officials, when they approve a COWOP project, are assured
that the project has received full scrutiny from members of the public, representatives from the
traditional reviewing agencies, and that the proposed development has been tailored as best it
could to respond to all community values as represented in the existing land use code.
0 0
6. How replicable is the program or aspects thereof? What obstacles might others
encounter? (250 words)
The program is very replicable in terms of process if a community has the political will to
approach land use planning in an alternative way. The perception that government does things
differently for itself is a real one that must be overcome by community leaders when proposing
such regulatory changes to the public. The process also takes a high level of commitment in
terms of time, energy, and creativity by the members of each COWOP task force. The process
can sometimes take more time than the traditional development review process, but the outcome
is one that achieves greater community goals and quality.
7. For the current operating budget, list all current funding sources, with dollar and
percentage contributions for each source. (200 words)
The applicant herein is a municipality. All funding for the COWOP process comes from the
City's General Fund. The City's Community Development Department collects a processing fee
for all land use development applications. A copy of the City's annual budget is available upon
request.
8. Please list reports, articles, and/or audits (if any) that independenthy verify claims
made in your application.
The best source for verifying the claims made in this application is the personal statements of
applicants who have gone through the process as well as governmental officials responsible for
coordinating the process, evaluating development proposals and granting final approvals.
JP W-05/01/2003-G:\john\word\memos\lnnovations.doc
4
4
0
•
a +?
W.l
THRU
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Steve Barwick, City Manager
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
RE: Land Use Code Amendments re. a Development Review Process for Public
Projects — 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2000
DATE: April 10, 2000
+-) kK
SUMMARY: In November of 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission met in an
open session to discuss a variety of matters pertinent to both boards. One discussion item had
to do with the process for reviewing public development projects (especially affordable
housing) where the Council is both the applicant/owner and final approving authority and the
P&Z has regular review authority. The City Attorney and Community Development Staff
have pursued an amendment to the Land Use Code which would allow for an additional land
use review process addressing proposed developments determined to be necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public (COWOP).
The attached ordinance puts forth a new public project "COWOP" process. The concepts
contained within the ordinance were originally the product of several task force meetings that
included P & Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council members,
Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and Community
Development staff. The purpose of the task force was to try and establish a process that
would involve P & Z, HPC and Housing Board, other advisory boards and the public early on
in the process of a public development plan coming through the development review process.
The process could apply to such projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities,
recreational facilities, etc.
BACKGROUND: The proposed land use code amendments were taken to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Housing Board in worksessions
for their input. Full discussions ensued and the proposed amendments are reflective of the
input from these entities.
The City Council conducted and passed the 1" Reading of this Ordinance on March 27, 2000.
1
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
• Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text
amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and after
allowing for public comment in a public hearing. The City Council must conduct a
public hearing and consider public comment, the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the recommendation of the Community Development Director
and evaluate the proposed amendment based on the Review Standards (Section
26.310.040). Action by the Council shall be by ordinance, following a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS: On March 21, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended the adoption of code amendments as contained within P&Z Resolution
No 12, Series of 2000. The text language recommended by the P&Z Commission is the
same as that contained within City Council Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2000.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the legally noticed public hearing, then
review and approve the attached ordinance at 2nd Reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2000 at
second and final reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
" t_J
2
C
C�
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or the official zone district map, the City
Council and the Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments are new components to the Land Use Code allowing for a new
process for the review of public development proposals. Staff does not believe the proposed
code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal
Code. The development review standards contained within the Land Use Code will be
utilized in evaluating development proposals and in no way will be compromised by the
proposed new process in this text amendment.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments are designed to improve the quality of public projects by
allowing for greater participation by interested parities, citizens, advisory boards, staff and
applicants earlier in the development review process than exists in the current code. The
process requires that the development review standards of the Land Use Code are met and
does not minimize the depth or comprehensiveness of the review. Development projects will
be evaluated against the AACP to ensure that projects implement the stated goals of the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment,
except to note that the proposed development review procedure will continue to require the
evaluation of traffic generation and road safety as a development review standard.
3
P
0 •
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendments will not introduce additional demands on public services.
Under the proposed process, development standards are and will remain in place to evaluate
each development application on whether and how it will impose greater demands on public
facilities and services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendments will not introduce "significant adverse impacts on the natural
environment". Under the proposed process, development standards are and will remain in
place to evaluate each development application on whether and how it will impact the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments have to do with changes to a development review process for
public development projects and will not impact community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
There is no specific subject parcel or surrounding neighborhood, which is the subject of the
text amendment.
L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The purpose of these amendments is to create a development review process for public
projects which provides for a legal and public process, which is efficient, where the project
benefits from the input of interested citizens and other affected interests, and where the
project is of high quality level due to the involvement of the City's advisory boards and
commissions at an early stage in the formation of a project. Staff believes these amendments
promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest.
4
0 •
ORDINANCE NO. 07
(Series of 2000)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ASPEN LAND USE
CODE) TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW LAND USE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the
Aspen Municipal Code to provide a simplified and flexible process for reviewing development
projects that the City Council determines to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen has reviewed
the proposed language of this ordinance and has recommended its adoption by the City Council
in order to provide a simplified, comprehensive and flexible process for reviewing
development proposals that are determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and
welfare of the public and to allow for greater public participation in the approval of public
projects; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of
amendments to Sections 26.208.010, 26.304.060, and the addition of Section 26.500 of the
Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
•
�I
Section 1.
That Section 26.208.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth the
powers and duties of the City Council, is hereby amended by the insertion of a new subsection
N to read as follows, and the renumbering of existing subsection N to O:
N. To determine if a development proposal is reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public pursuant to Section 26.500.040, and thereafter review
such proposal in accordance with Section 26.500.050 (B).
Section 2.
That Section 26.304.060 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth
permissible modifications of normal review procedures, is hereby amended by the addition of
a new subsection 3, to read as follows:
3. Development Determined to be Reasonably Necessary . for the Public
Convenience or Welfare of the Public. If the Community Development Director,
in consultation with the applicant, determines that a proposed development may be
eligible for consideration as a development that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public in accordance with Section 26.500.040, the
Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in accordance
with Section 26.500.050.
Section 3.
That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a new Section 26.500 which shall read as
follows:
Chapter 26.500
DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
26.500.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of
development from all applicable sections, except as herein noted, of Title 26 and to establish
an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of
developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose
in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for
such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review
and approval process, and to allow for greater public participation in the review process when
it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the City to do so.
26.500.020 Authority. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and
power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the
Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1984); City of
Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030. Applicability. Only those development applications determined by the
City Council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public shall be
eligible for review and approval in accordance with this Chapter. Only those portions of Title
26 which are specifically incorporated in the ordinance granting final approval of a
development order shall be applicable to a project determined to be reasonably necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
26.500.040. Standards for Determination. A development may be determined to be
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public if the applicant for
development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the City of Aspen authorized by the City
Council to proceed under this Chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of
the City of Aspen is a co -applicant with a private party for the development of land which
constitutes an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, and which is in
the best interests of the City of Aspen to be completed. By way of example and not limitation,
the following types of developments may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public: (a) affordable housing projects developed by the City of
Aspen by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer; (b) the development of
public utilities; (c) park and recreational facilities development; (d) public infrastructure`s
improvements; or (e) public buildings and structures.
26.500.050. Procedure. I ��
A. Community Development Director. The Community Development Director, upon
determining that the proposed development application may be eligible for consideration as a
project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public may consult with the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposed development's eligibility and shall
thereafter prepare a memorandum for the City Council that: (a) outlines the reasons for
consideration as an eligible project; (b) sets forth the conclusions of any referral comments
received by the Community Development Director, if any; (c) includes the procedures the
applicant would be required to follow if the project is determined not to be an eligible project;
(d) includes a recommendation on the alternative procedure to be followed should the project
be determined to be an eligible project; and (e) includes a recommendation as to the
appropriate City boards and commissions and other interested parties necessary for the review
of the project. The Community Development Director, before preparing such a memorandum
for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of the applicant, the
applicant's representative, City staff members, consultants, and any other persons for the
c
purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of
utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation,
anticipated public concerns, and any other technical information which would assist the
Community Development Director to prepare the initial memorandum to the City Council. The
Community Development Director shall formally notify the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Historic Preservation Commission, and, if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, in writing, of the date of the hearing before the City Council at which time a
determination is to be made concerning eligibility of the proposed development pursuant to this
Chapter. The Community Development Director shall provide notice to the public, including
publication, posting and mailing, in accordance with Section 26.3 .060(E . Z .
q-
B. City Council Determination of Eligibility. Following a &blic hearing in accordance Ali
with Section 26.304.060(C), the City Council shall by resole ion (a) make a determination
whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary fo the convenience and welfare of
the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.04,4; (b) establish a procedure for
review of the proposed project to include standards of reviev�; (c) establish a Task Force Team
to review the development proposal and identify members/of City boards, commissions and
other interested parties to be included as members of the Task Force Team, which shall
include representation by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, (d) establish a timeframe
for the procedures to be used to review the proposed development. If the proposed project
proposes development subject to Chapter 26.415 (Development in an "H", Historic Overlay
District, or Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures), or Chapter 26.420
(Historic Overlay District and Historic Landmarks), the City Council shall include in the
review procedures the requirement for an application for review of the eligible project to the
Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the applicable sections of the Land Use
Code. The City Council may, in appropriate circumstances, include as part of the review
process it adopts a separate referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or any other City
board and commission for their separate review and recommendation. Should the City Council
determine that the proposed development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and
welfare of the public, the application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable
sections of this Land Use Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon
the request of the applicant, the Community Development Director, or upon its own motion.
C. Community Development Technical Staff Review. Following a determination by the
City Council that a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public, the Community Development Director shall convene a staff level,
interdepartmental development review committee meeting for the purpose of identifying and
resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of utilities and services,
environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of an application
for further review. Following the technical staff review process, the Community
Development Director shall assist the applicant in preparing a formal application and
preparation for submission of the development application to the appropriate boards,
commissions and other interested parties identified by the City Council for such reviews.
D. Review of Application by Task Team. The members of the task team, composed
of members of City boards and commissions, and interested parties identified by the City
Council resolution shall meet and review the proposed development application using the
standards of review identified in the resolution adopted by the City Council in accordance with
subsection (B), above. The chair of the Task Force Team shall be the Director of the
Community Development Department. The chair of the Task Force Team shall prepare
meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the Task Force Team, and facilitate all
meetings. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community
Development Director believes that further review would not significantly improve the overall
development proposal, the Community Development Director shall report to the City Council
the recommendations of the boards, commissions, and interested members of the public which
participated in the review of the proposed project. The Community Development Director's
report to Council shall include: (a) a recommendation as to whether the proposed development
should continue to be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare
of the public; (b) all of the land use decisions and approvals that need to be made for the
proposed development; (c) a report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the
Task Force Team; and (d) any conditions of approval that may be necessary for the land use
approvals. The Community Development Director shall present to the City Council a proposed
ordinance that incorporates all of the applicable recommendations of the report.
E. City Council Adoption of Ordinance. The City Council upon receipt of the report
and proposed ordinance from the Community Development Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or disapprove an ordinance granting a development order for the proposed
development. In the event that the City Council determines that the application should no
longer be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public,
the applicant shall be granted the option of filing a new application with the Community
Development Director for review and consideration in accordance with Chapter 26.304.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as
an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of any ordinance
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6.
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 10" day of April, 2000, at 5:00
o'clock pm in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Prior to such
hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within
the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 27`' day of March, 2000.
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
INTRODUCED and FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the
day of , 2000.
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
C: \joyce/home/attach/cowop2.doc
• • .ice
MEMORANDUM t
IL S
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission A- 1
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director �A j
FROM: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
RE: Land Use Code Amendments re. a Development Review Process for Public
Projects — Public Hearing
DATE: March 28, 2000
BACKGROUND: Attached is a revised resolution based upon the Commission's discussion
and recommendations to Staff at your meeting of March 14`h
On February 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the City Staff
pursue an amendment to the Land Use Code which would allow for an additional land use
review process addressing proposed developments determined to be necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public. The attached resolution is intended to establish this
process as conceptualized in the attached paper. The concepts contained within the paper
were originally the product of several task force meetings that included P & Z Commission
members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council members, Tony Hershey and Tom
McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and Community Development staff. The purpose
of the task force was to try and establish a process that would involve P & Z, HPC and
Housing Board, other advisory boards and the public early on in the process of a public
development plan coming through the development review process. The process could apply
to such projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities, recreational facilities and other
public projects.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
• Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution
recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land
Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development
Director and after allowing for public comment in a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review and approve the attached resolution thereby forwarding the Land
Use Code amendments with a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that the City Council adopt the
amendments to the Land Use Code as put forth in Resolution N f Ll Series of 2000."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Concept Paper and Q&A Sheet
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or the official zone district map, the City
Council and the Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments are new components to the Land Use Code allowing for a new
process for the review of public development proposals. Staff does not believe the proposed
code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal
Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments are designed to improve the quality of public projects by
allowing for greater participation by interested parities, citizens, advisory boards, staff and
applicants earlier in the development review process than exists in the current code. The
process requires that the development review standards of the Land Use Code are met and
does not minimize the depth or comprehensiveness of the review. Development projects will
be evaluated against the AACP to ensure that projects implement the stated goals of the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment,
except to note that the proposed development review procedure will continue to require the
evaluation of traffic generation and road safety as a development review standard.
2
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendments will not introduce additional demands on public services.
Under the proposed process, development standards are and will remain in place to evaluate
each development application on whether and how it will impose greater demands on public
facilities and services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendments will not introduce "significant adverse impacts on the natural
environment". Under the proposed process, development standards are and will remain in
place to evaluate each development application on whether and how it will impact the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments have to do with changes to a development review process for
public development projects and will not impact community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
There is no specific subject parcel or surrounding neighborhood, which is the subject of the
text amendment.
I Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The purpose of these amendments is to create a development review process for public
projects which provides for a legal and public process, which is efficient, where the project
benefits from the input of interested citizens and other affected interests, and where the
project is of high quality level due to the involvement of the City's advisory boards and
commissions at an early stage in the formation of a project. Staff believes these amendments
promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest.
N
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES 2000
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ASPEN
LAND USE CODE) TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW LAND USE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING SECTION
26.208.010, CITY COUNCIL POWERS AND DUTIES, SECTION 26.304.060,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW
SECTION 26.500, DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development Department to amend
the Land Use Code to provide for a simplified and flexible process for reviewing development
projects that the City Council determines to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen has reviewed
the proposed language of this resolution and has recommended its adoption by the City
Council in order to provide a simplified, comprehensive and flexible process for reviewing
development .proposals that are determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and
Vp LGu✓�r`1,r`
welfare of the public; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.208, 26.304.060, and the
addition of Section 26.500 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of
the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
•
•
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by the City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommends approval of amendments to Sections
26.208.010, 26.304.060, and the addition of Section 26.500 of the Land Use Code of the
Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of Aspen, Colorado:
That the Aspen City Council should adopt the Amendments to Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code (Aspen Land Use Code) to provide for a new land use approval process for proposed
developments determined to be necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public by
amending the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code, as follows:
CPrtinn 1
That Section 26.208.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth the
powers and duties of the City Council, is hereby amended by the insertion of a new subsection
N to read as follows, and the renumbering of existing subsection N to O:
N. To determine if a development proposal is reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public pursuant to Section 26.500.040, and thereafter review
such proposal in accordance with Section 26.500.050 (B).
Section 2.
That Section 26.304.060 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth
permissible modifications of normal review procedures, is hereby amended by the addition of
a new subsection 3, to read as follows:
•
•
3. Development Determined to be Reasonably Necessary for the Public
Convenience or Welfare of the Public. If the Community Development Director,
in consultation with the applicant, determines that a proposed development may be
eligible for consideration as a development that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public in accordance with Section 26.500.040Chaptar-
15AA, the Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in
accordance with Section 26.500.050.
%,w- inn I
That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a new Section 26.500 which shall read as
follows:
Chapter 26.500
DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
26.500.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of
development from all applicable sections, except as herein noted, of Title 26 and to establish
an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of
developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose
in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for
such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review
and approval process when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of
the City to do so.
•
26.500.020 Authority. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and
power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the
Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1984); City of
Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030. Applicability. Only those development applications determined by the
City Council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public shall be
eligible for review and approval in accordance with this Chapter. Only those portions of Title
26 which are specifically incorporated in the ordinance granting final approval of a
development order shall be applicable to a project determined to be reasonably necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
26.500.040. Standards for Determination. A development may be determined to be
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public if the applicant for
development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the City of Aspen authorized by the City
Council to proceed under this Chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of
the City of Aspen is a co -applicant with a private party for the development of laV which
constitutes an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, 0 which is in
the best interests of the City- of Aspen to be completed. By way of example and not limitation,
the following types of developments may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public: (a) affordable housing projects developed by the City of
Aspen by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer; (b) the development of
public utilities; (c) park and recreational facilities development; (d) public infrastructure
improvements; or (e) public buildings and structures.
26.500.050. Procedure.
A. Community Development Director. The Community Development Director, upon
determining that the proposed development application may be eligible for consideration as a
project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public may consult with the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposed development's eligibility and shall
thereafter prepare a memorandum for the City Council that: (a) outlines the reasons for
consideration as an eligible project; (b) sets forth the conclusions of any referral comments
received by the Community Development Director, if any; (c) includes the procedures the
applicant would be required to follow if the project is determined not to be an eligible project;
(d) includes a recommendation on the alternative procedure to be followed should the project
be determined to be an eligible project; and (e) includes a recommendation as to the
appropriate City boards and commissions and other interested parties necessary for the review
of the project. The Community Development Director, before preparing such a memorandum
for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of the applicant, the
applicant's representative, City staff members, consultants, and any other persons for the
purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of
utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation,
anticipated public concerns, and any other technical information which would assist the
Community Development Director to prepare the initial memorandum to the City Council. The
Community Development Director shall formally notify the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Historic Preservation Commission, and, if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, in writing, of the date of the hearing before the City Council at which time a
determination is to be made concerning eligibility of the proposed development pursuant to this
Chapter. The Community Development Director shall provide notice to the public, including
publication, posting and mailing, in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E). k
Jj]
B. City Council Determination of Eligibility. Following a public hearing in accordance
with Section 26.304.060(C), the City Council shall by resolution (a) make a determination
whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of
the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.040; (b) establish a procedure for
review of the proposed project to include standards of review; (c) establish a Task Force Team
to review the development proposal and -a d the identifyisa4oa- members of City boards,
commissions and other interested parties to be included as members of the Task Force Teamin
t ; and, (ds) establish a timeframe for the procedures to be used to review the
proposed development. If the proposed project proposes development subject to Chapter
26.415 (Development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, or Involving the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures), or Chapter 26.420 (Historic Overlay District and Historic
Landmarks), the City Council shall include in the review procedures the requirement for an
application for review of the eligible project to the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the applicable sections of the Land Use Code. The City Council may, in
appropriate circumstances, include as part of the review process it adopts a separate referral to
the Planning and Zoning Commission, or any other City board and commission for their
separate review and recommendation. Should the City Council determine that the proposed
development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public, the
application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of this Land Use
Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon the request of the
applicant, the Community Development Director, or upon its own motion.
C. Community Development Technical Staff Review. Following a determination by the City
Council that a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of
the public, the Community Development Director shall convene a staff level, interdepartmental
development review committee meeting for the purpose of identifying and resolving any
potential issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other technical
information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of an application for further
review. Following the technical staff review process, the Community Development Director
shall assist the applicant in preparing a formal application and preparation for submission of
the development application to the appropriate boards, commissions and other interested
parties identified by the City Council for such reviews.
D. Review of Application by Task Team. The members of the task team, composed
of members of City boards and- commissions, and interested parties identified by the City
Council resolution shall meet and review the proposed development application using the
standards of review identified in the resolution adopted by the City Council in accordance with
subsection (B), above. The cl a'i%r ofjfh�Task Forceemm shall be the Mayor,
,ram
senior member r
of the City Council present at a meeting, pfthe Director of the
Department if no member of City Council is present. - a- orce eam shall
prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the Task Force Team, and facilitate all
meetings. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community
Development Director believes that further review would not significantly improve the overall
development proposal, the Community Development Director shall report to the City Council
the recommendations of the boards, commissions, and interested members of the public which
participated in the review of the proposed project. The Community Development Director's
report to Council shall include: (a) a recommendation as to whether the proposed development
should continue to be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare
of the public; (b) all of the land use decisions and approvals that need to be made for the
proposed development; and (c) any co�diti�"s of approval that may be necessary for the land
use approvals. The �Omrmqnit Develo ment Director shall resent to the Cit Council a
PPY P P Y
proposed ordinance which incorporates all of the applicable recommendations of the report.
E. Ci�Council Adoption of Ordinance Adoption of Ordinance. The City Council upon receipt of the report
and proposed ordinance from the Community Development Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or disapprove an ordinance granting a development order for the proposed
development. In the event that the City Council determines that the application should no
longer be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public,
the applicant shall be granted the option of filing a new application with the Community
Development Director for review and consideration in accordance with Chapter 26.304.
•
QPetinn a
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5.
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.208.010, City Council
Powers and Duties, Section 26.304.060, Development Review Procedures and add Section
26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public by
adding the language as put forth in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this Resolution.
APPROVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing
on March 14, 2000, by a vote of to
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
JPW-03/ 16/00-G: \john\word\resos\CO WOP-P&Z-Corr.doe
Robert Blaich, Chair
C,OWD f Pro3/7,7-/ 0-0
ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. -Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
From: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director
Re: Land Use Code Amendment -Public Development Review Process
Date: March 7, 2000
SUMMARY: Back in November of 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission
met in an open session to discuss a variety of matters pertinent to both boards. One
discussion item had to do with the process for reviewing public development projects
(especially affordable housing) where the Council is both the applicant/owner and final
approving authority and the P&Z has regular review authority. The City Attorney and
Community Development Staff have pursued an amendment to the Land Use Code
which would allow for an additional land use review process addressing proposed
developments determined to be necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public
(COWOP). The attached paper outlines this proposed COWOP process. The concepts
contained within the paper were originally the product of several task force meetings that
included P & Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council
members, Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and
Community Development staff. The purpose of the task force was to try and establish a
process that would involve P & Z, HPC and Housing Board, other advisory boards and
the public early on in the process of a public development plan coming through the
development review process. The process could apply to such projects as affordable
housing, public utility facilities, recreational facilities, etc.
County of Pitkin AFF�aVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
L) od , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner:
h 2 I. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _ day of , 199_ (which is
days prior to the public hearing date of ).
h l Z 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen
from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the day of , 199_. Must be posted for at least ten (10) full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
PUBt 1,
RE: LAND USE APPROVAL PROCFJ�- WK DEVEL-
OPMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY
FOR THE. CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE
PUBLIC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, at a
meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to con-
sider an application submitted by the City of
Aspen Community Development Department to
Land Use Code development review process.
For further information, contact Joyce Ohlson at
the Aspen/ Pitkin County Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920-5062,
joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us.
< <'BoD Blaich, Chair
m Aspen Pla'I . oning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 12.
2000.(59393)
afore
Sig d b fore me this2_9 day
kQql- by
V " 1 S---g V 1
WITNESS MY HAiND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expiresi5: 3
J
COWOP Process/Alternative Process Outline
Establish "convenience and welfare of the public" based on previously determined standards,
i.e., land development for an essential public facility or to provide essential public services. This
could include: affordable housing developed by a public entity, public utilities, park and
recreational facilities, public infrastructure, public buildings and structures, transportation
improvements, etc.
Identify special interest groups and technical assistance needs and form as a review/
recommending task force that works with staff to prepare and analyze development options.
Develop site evaluation and all necessary documentation, i.e., market analyses, environmental
assessments, legal constraints. Present an "existing conditions report" to task force.
Identify with task force programmatic goals: unit type, density, target markets, transportation
needs, environmental goals, infrastructure needs, etc.
Based on programmatic goals, develop alternative schematic site designs and order of magnitude
costs (i.e., more roadways cost more $, less dense development pattern has greater infrastructure
costs, proximity of existing utility lines minimize extension costs, clustering of buildings lower
costs, significant grading increases costs, etc.).
Obtain consensus from task force regarding the elements to include in the development program,
refine per outcome of alternatives discussion.
Present program recommendation to elected officials.
Prepare RFP's for conceptual site design plan and select design team.
Develop alternative designs meeting program elements and identify cost estimates (order of
magnitude).
W Review alternative conceptual designs with task force and obtain recommendations.
,-r Forward recommendations to elected officials.
Prepare construction bid documents and final cost estimates.
Prepare final budget based on cost estimates.
Prepare RFP for construction contract.
Review construction bids, select contractor, identify areas for value engineering if necessary.
CRevise final budget based on construction bids.
Submit construction contract and final budget for elected officials approval.
To:
Thru:
From:
Re:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director
Land Use Code Amendment -Public Development Review Process
February 29, 2000
BACKGROUND: On February 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission
requested that the City Staff pursue an amendment to the Land Use Code which would
allow for an additional land use review process that would address proposed
developments determined to be necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
The attached resolution is intended to establish this process as conceptualized in the
attached paper. The concepts contained within the paper were originally the product of
several task force meetings that included P & Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and
Tim Mooney; City Council members, Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney,
John Worcester, and Community Development staff. The purpose of the task force was
to try and establish a process that would involve P & Z, HPC and Housing Board, other
advisory boards and the public early on in the process of a public development plan
coming through the development review process. The process could apply to such
projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities, recreational facilities, etc.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached resolution and approve.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend the amendments to the Land
Use Code as put forth in Resolution No. , Series of 2000."
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE
26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE) TO
PROVIDE FOR A NEW LAND USE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING SECTION
26.208.010, CITY COUNCIL POWERS AND DUTIES, SECTION 26.304.060,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW
SECTION 26.500, DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
Resolution #00 -
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development
Department to provide a simplified and flexible process for reviewing development
projects that the City Council determines to be reasonably necessary for the convenience
or welfare of the public; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen has
reviewed the proposed language of this resolution and has recommended its adoption by
the City Council in order to provide a simplified, comprehensive and flexible process for
reviewing development proposals that are determined to be reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public.
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.208, 26.304.060,
and the addition of Section 26.500 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
P&Z Reso. 00-_, page 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommends approval of amendments to
Sections 26.208.010, 26.304.060, and the addition of Section 26.500 of the Land Use
Code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should adopt the Amendments to the Title 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code (Aspen Land Use Code) to provide for a new land use approval process
for proposed developments determined to be necessary for the convenience or welfare of
the public by amending the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code, as follows:
Section 1.
That Section 26.208.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section s 0aw
powers and duties of the City Council, is hereby amended by the insertion
subsection N to read as follows, and the renumbering of existing subsection N to O:
N. To determine if a development proposal is reasonably necessary for the
convenience and welfare of the public pursuant to Section • �,f0, and thereafter
review such proposal in accordance with Section'(
Section 2.
That Section 26.304.060 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth
permissible modifications of normal review procedures, is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 3, to read as follows:
3. Development Determined to be
For the Public
Convenience or Welfare of the Public. If the uCommunity Development
Director, in consultation with the applicant, determines that a proposed
development may be eligible for consideration as a development that is
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public in accordance
P&Z Reso. 00-_, page 2
•
•
with Chapter 26.500, the Community Development Director shall cause the
application to proceed in accordance with Section 26.500.050 .
Section 3.
That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a newsction 26.500 which shall
read as follows:
Chapter 26.500
DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE
AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
26.500.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of
development from all applicable sections of Title 26 and to establish an alternative
process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of
developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The
purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments
eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and
coordinated review and approval process when it is determined by the City Council to be
in the best interests of the City to do so.
26.500.020 Authority. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority
and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title
26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Colo.
1984); City of Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030. Applicability. Only those development applications determined by
the City Council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public
P&Z Reso. 00- , page 3
shall be eligible for review and approval in accordance with this Chapter. Only those
portions of Title 26 which are specifically incorporated in the ordinance granting final
approval of a development order shall be applicable to a project determined to be
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
26.500.040. Standards for Determination. A development may be determined
to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public if the applicant
for development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the City of Aspen authorized to proceed
under this Chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of the City of
Aspen is a co -applicant with a private party for the development of land which constitutes
an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, or which is in the
best interests of the City of Aspen to be completed. By way of example and not
limitation; the following types of developments may be determined to be reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public: (a) affordable housing projects
developed by the. City of Aspen by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private
developer; (b) the development of public utilities; (c) park and recreational facilities
development; (d) public infrastructure improvements; or (e) public buildings and
structures.
26.500.050. Procedure.
A. Community Development Director. The Community Development Director,
upon determining that the proposed development application may be eligible for
- a
consideration as a project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the
public shall prepare a memorandum for the City Council that: (a) outlines the reasons for
C
consideration as an eligible project; (b) sets forth the conclusions of any referral
1
comments received by the Community Develo ment erector, if any; mq& (c) an alysis
of the procedures the applicant wouldIW if
be The Community Development Director, before preparing such a
memorandum for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of
P&Z Reso. 00-_, page 4
the applicant, the applicant's representative, City staff members,Xsaultadnt�san any
other persons for the purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated
with the provision of utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, &�'"�
access and circulation, anticipated public concerns, and any other technical information U
which would assist the Community Development Director to prepare the initial
memorandum to the City Council. The Community Development Director shall formally &c -ems
notify the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and,
if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, in writing, of the date of the �
hearing before the City Council at which time a determination is to be made concerning le �, 114
eligibility of the proposed development pursuant to this Chapter. The Community 0—
Development Director shall provide notice to the public, including publication, posting
and mailing, in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E).
B. City Council Determination of Eligibility. Following a public hearing in
accordance with Section 26.304.060(C), the City Council shall by resolution (a) make a
determination whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for the J"p
nvenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.060;�
(b) establish a procedure for review of the proposed project to include standards of review
and the identification of City boards, commissions and other interested parties to be 1
included in the review process; and, (c) establish a timeframe for the procedures to be /01 /11C
used to review the proposed development. Should the City Council determine that the
proposed development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the
public, the application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of this �C
Land Use Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon the request
of the applicant, the Community Development Director, or upon its own motion.
C. Community Development Technical Staff Review. Following a determination by
the City Council that a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public, the Community Development Director shall
convene a staff level, interdepartmental development review committee meeting for the
P&Z Reso. 00- , page 5
purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of
utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation
and for providing any other technical information to the applicant which would assist in
the preparation of an application for further review. Following the technical staff review
process, the Community Development Director shall assist the applicant in preparing a
formal application and preparation for submission of the development application to the
appropriate boards, commissions and other interested parties identified by the City
Council for such reviews.
D. Review of Application. The boards, commissions, and interested parties
identified by the City Council resolution shall meet and review the proposed development
application using the standards of review identified in the resolution adopted by the City
Council in accordance with subsection (B), above. Following a review of the proposed
development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that
further review would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the
Community Development Director shall report to the City Council the recommendations
of the boards, commissions, and interested members of the public which participated in
the review of the proposed project. The Community Development Director's report to
Council shall include: (a) a recommendation as to whether the proposed development
should continue to be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and
welfare of the public; (b) all of the land use decisions and approvals that need to be made
for the proposed development; and (c) any conditions of approval that may be necessary
for the land use approvals. The Community Development Director shall present to the
City Council a proposed ordinance which incorporates all of the applicable
recommendations of the report.
Section 4..
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
P&Z Reso. 00-_, page 6
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5.
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.208.010 City
Council Powers and Duties, Section 26.304.060 Development Review Procedures and
add Section 26.500, Development Reasonably necessary for the Convenience and
Welfare of the Public by adding the language as put forth in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this
Resolution.
APPROVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission during a public
hearing on February 29, 1999 by a vote of to
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
C:\home\Joyce\COWOP—Reso.doc
COMMISSION:
Robert Blaich, Chair
P&Z Reso. 00- , page 7
•
A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC
PROJECTS:
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review
procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule
Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling
legislation.
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
F
•
What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review?
■ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships)
■ Park development
■ Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels
Can a joint public -private project qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
How does the COWOP process work?
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other advisory
entities in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council, earlier in the
process than the standard development review process allows.
Step 1: Determination of COWOP Status
The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for
COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding
the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the
threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific
proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation,
affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step
3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process.
Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a
resolution.
Step 2: Technical Staff Meetinq Conducted -Issue Identification
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the
subject property and vicinity, conceptual site plan alternative(s) and a
statement of what program elements are desirable.
Step 3: Team Meetings
The Community Development Department schedules and coordinates a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified in writing at least 15 days prior to the team
meeting. Meetings are run by Community Development Department staff,
however, complex development projects may require the use of a facilitator to
guide and lead the meeting to a productive outcome. Ground rules for the
conduct of the meeting are established by the team at the start of each
meeting.
As with the presentation before the DRC, the applicant should be prepared to
present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, alternative site plans
designed at a very conceptual level, and a statement of program element
objectives. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
I
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council representatives is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in
order to be submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Aspen Area Community Plan
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards, Density
■ General design and architectural features
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
■ Neighborhood or other Masterplan Compatibility
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following:
■ General Development plan objectives
■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
The most desirable outcome of the team meeting is a recommendation on a
particular preferred alternative development plan. Should consensus not be
attained by the group arriving at a preferred alternative, multiple
recommendations may be forwarded. Advisory board representatives may
wish to inform their full board of the team review process in advance of a
recommendation and seek the input of other members.
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
4
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this
step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City
Council may make a determination that the project cannot be considered a
COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the
standard application process.
Step 3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
ordinance approving the development proposal.
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Thru: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
From: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director--'� `
Re: Framework for Public Review Processes
Date: February 1, 2000
Attached is a paper regarding a proposed process for use in the review of public projects.
The concepts contained within the paper are the product of several task force meetings
that included P & Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council
members, Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and
Community Development staff. The purpose of the task force was to try and establish a
process that would involve P & Z and other advisory boards early on in the process of a
public development plan coming through the development review process. The process
could apply to such projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities, recreational
facilities, etc.
This process will be the focus of our discussion on Thursday, February 3`a in the Council
Chambers at 12 noon. Lunch will be provided.
For Discussion Purposes: 2/3/00
A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC
PROJECTS:
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review
procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule
Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling
legislation.
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review?
■ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships)
■ Park development
■ Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels
Can a joint public -private project qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
How does the COWOP process work?
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other advisory
entities in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council, earlier in the
process than the standard development review process allows.
Stea 1: Determination of COWOP Status
The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for
COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding
the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the
threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific
proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation,
affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step
3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process.
Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a
resolution.
Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted -Issue Identification
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the
subject property and vicinity, conceptual site plan alternative(s) and a
statement of what program elements are desirable.
Ster) I Team Meetinas
The Community Development Department schedules and coordinates a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified in writing at least 15 days prior to the team
meeting. Meetings are run by Community Development Department staff;
however, complex development projects may require the use of a facilitator to
guide and lead the meeting to a productive outcome. Ground rules for the
conduct of the meeting are established by the team at the start of each
meeting.
As with the presentation before the DRC, the applicant should be prepared to
present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, alternative site plans
designed at a very conceptual level, and a statement of program element
objectives. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council representatives is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in
order to be submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Aspen Area Community Plan
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards, Density
■ General design and architectural features
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
■ Neighborhood or other Masterplan Compatibility
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following:
■ General Development plan objectives
■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
The most desirable outcome of the team meeting is a recommendation on a
particular preferred alternative development plan. Should consensus not be
attained by the group arriving at a preferred alternative, multiple
recommendations may be forwarded. Advisory board representatives may
wish to inform their full board of the team review process in advance of a
recommendation and seek the input of other members.
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
•
•
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this
step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City
Council may make a determination that the project cannot be considered a
COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the
standard application process.
3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
ordinance approving the development proposal.
- s •
Edward Sadler, 08:21 AM 2/4/00 -, Re: COWOP
X-Sender: edwards@commons
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:21:28 -0700
To: Steve Barwick <steveb@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Edward Sadler <edwards@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: COWOP
Cc: joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us, maryr@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us
I guess that I feel that prior to the process beginning on each
project that
there should be an agreement as to when they will wrap up their
recommendations, based upon the schedule for final approval. This may
then
get them focused on specific areas instead of letting them get
sidetracked.
Otherwise, I'm worried that they will spend an inordinant amount of
time on
selecting design teams, actually trying to design the whole project,
etc.
Much of this responsibility still falls to the Housing Board and
should stay
there.
At 05:02 PM 2/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Ed,
>I agree that we need to create a process that ensures timely
>results. Perhaps a commitment to whatever meetings are needed to
meet a
>specific schedule would help.
>Ideas?
>thanks,
> Steve
>At 02:24 PM 2/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>After listening to today's meeting on COWOP, I have some concerns
about
>>where we are heading. I realize that there are lots of concerns
about the
>>process that are attempting to be addressed by this process, however
I hope
>>we don't lose sight of one of the bigger driving forces. During the
last
>>election, a major issue was that we were not getting housing done
Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.•us> 1 1
fast
>>enough to meet the needs of the City. This was a driving force
behind the
>>housing study done, the joint goal setting done by Council and the
Housing
>>Board, and the addition of several staff. The joint Housing Board
and
>>Council meeting set some very lofty goals for completing new housing
>>projects. On the other hand, today I heard repeatedly that speed was
not the
>>issue, quality was. I tend to disagree! I do not believe that we
give up
>>quality in favor of speed, but I do believe that we heard from the
citizens
>>and the politicians that the process needs to go faster.
>>To strike while the iron was hot was the whole reason for us
approaching
>>Comm. Dev. about STREAMLINING the process while it was formost in
everyones
>>mind. Now that the election is over, the iron seems to have cooled
and we
>>are now looking at a process which many agreed today may be an even
longer
>>process (and I agree).
>>With no specific parameters as to what the TEAM is to review, and
their
>>expressed desire for taking the issues back to the full committees
(P&Z,
>>HPO, HOUSING ETC.), I fear the worst!
>> I truly believe that this process needs more guidelines to insure
that the
>>process has focus and some timeframes that will insure a desired
outcome .
Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 2
•
Edward Sadler, 02:24 PM 2/3/00 COWOP
X-Sender: edwards@commons
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:24:40 -0700
To: steveb@ci.aspen.co.us, joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us,
maryr@ci.aspen.co.us,
juliew@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Edward Sadler <edwards@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: COWOP
Cc: edwards@ci.aspen.co.us
After listening to today's meeting on COWOP, I have some concerns
about
where we are heading. I realize that there are lots of concerns about
the
process that are attempting to be addressed by this process, however I
hope
we don't lose sight of one of the bigger driving forces. During the
last
election, a major issue was that we were not getting housing done fast
enough to meet the needs of the City. This was a driving force behind
the
housing study done, the joint goal setting done by Council and the
Housing
Board, and the addition of several staff. The joint Housing Board and
Council meeting set some very lofty goals for completing new housing
projects. On the other hand, today I heard repeatedly that speed was
not the
issue, quality was. I tend to disagree! I do not believe that we give
up
quality in favor of speed, but I do believe that we heard from the
citizens
and the politicians that the process needs to go faster.
To strike while the iron was hot was the whole reason for us
approaching
Comm. Dev. about STREAMLINING the process while it was formost in
everyones
mind. Now that the election is over, the iron seems to have cooled and
we
are now looking at a process which many agreed today may be an even
longer
process (and I agree).
With no specific parameters as to what the TEAM is to review, and
their
expressed desire for taking the issues back to the full committees
(P&Z,
HPO, HOUSING ETC.), I fear the worst!
I truly believe that this process needs more guidelines to insure
that the
Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
•
process has focus and some timeframes that will insure a desired
outcome .
Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 2
Patsy Malone, 04:48 PM 2/9/00 -, Essential Facilitation skills
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:48:26 -0700 (MST)
X-Sender: patsym@finance
To: joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Patsy Malone <patsym@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Essential Facilitation skills training participants
The following individuals participated in the intensive Facilitation
Skills
training in April, 1999:
Lysa Usher
tim Ware
Mitch Haas
Stephanie Millar
Chris Bendon
Lee Novack
Mary Roberts
Gervaise Dupree
Ed Sadler
Steve Barwick
Tim Anderson
Brian Flynn
Kevin Dunnett
John Krueger
Nida Tautvydas
Hilary Smith
Nan Sundeen
Georgia Hanson (private sector), Hines Development
If you want more info, let me know.
Patsy
Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
9' •
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Thru: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
From: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director\'A(D ?4
•
Re: Framework for Public Review Processes
Date: February 1, 2000
Attached is a paper regarding a proposed process for use in the review of public projects.
The concepts contained within the paper are the product of several task force meetings
that included P & Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council
members, Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and
Community Development staff. The purpose of the task force was to try and establish a
process that would involve P & Z and other advisory boards early on in the process of a
public development plan coming through the development review process. The process
could apply to such projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities, recreational
facilities, etc.
This process will be the focus of our discussion on Thursday, February.) in the Council
Chambers at 12 noon. Lunch will be provided.
For Discussion Purposes: 2/3/00
A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC
PROJECTS:
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. _Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review
procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule
Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling
legislation.
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review?
■ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships)
■ Park development
■ Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels
Can a joint public -private project qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
How does the COINOP process work?
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input. advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other advisory
entities in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council, earlier in the
process than the standard development review process allows.
Step 1: Determination of COWOP Status
The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for
COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding
the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the
threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific
proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation,
affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step
3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process.
Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a
resolution.
Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted -Issue Identification
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the
subject property and vicinity, conceptual site plan alternative(s) and a
statement of what program elements are desirable.
Step 3: Team Meetings
The Community Development Department schedules and coordinates a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified in writing at least 15 days prior to the team
meeting. Meetings are run by Community Development Department staff,
however, complex development projects may require the use of a facilitator to
guide and lead the meeting to a productive outcome. Ground rules for the
conduct of the meeting are established by the team at the start of each
meeting.
As with the presentation before the DRC, the applicant should be prepared to
present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, alternative site plans
designed at a very conceptual level, and a statement of program element
objectives. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council representatives is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in
order to be submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Aspen Area Community Plan
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards, Density
■ General design and architectural features
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
■ Neighborhood or other Masterplan Compatibility
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following:
■ General Development plan objectives
■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
The most desirable outcome of the team meeting is a recommendation on a
particular preferred alternative development plan. Should consensus not be
attained by the group arriving at a preferred alternative, multiple
recommendations may be forwarded. Advisory board representatives may
wish to inform their full board of the team review process in advance of a
recommendation and seek the input of other members.
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
•
•
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this
step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City
Council may make a determination that the project cannot be considered a
COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the
standard application process.
Step 3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
ordinance approving the development proposal.
s
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY
WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 161 2000
The Meeting will be held in the
Plaza 1 Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza Building
530 East Main, 1st Floor
Aspen, Colorado
5:00 p.m.
I. Call Regular Meeting to Order at 5:00 p.m.
II. Minutes: Regular Meetings of January 19 and February 2, 2000
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
V. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss potential litigation (5:30 - 6:00)
VII. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Pet Policy at the Aspen Country Inn - 6:00 - 6:30
B. 728 E. Hopkins Housing Replacement & Special Review -
6:30 - 7:00
Vill. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Revised Land Use Approval Process for Public Projects - 7:00 - 7:30
IX. WORKSESSION: Guidelines (7:30 — 8:00)
To identify Guidelines provisions to be updated and to set a schedule for review of
proposed changes by functional area (i.e., Sales, Rentals, Development,
Qualifications)
SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 23, 2000
NEXT REGULAR MEETINGM/ORKSESSION
MARCH 1, 2000
•
:7
ASPEN/PITHIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Housing Board Date: 2/16/00
From: Mary J. Roberts, Executive Director
Re: Revised Land Use Approval Process for Public Projects
Attached to this memorandum is information from the City of Aspen Community Development
Department explaining a new land use approval process being proposed specifically for projects
declared by the City Council to be "in the Public Interest." This process has been discussed by
representatives of both the City Council and the City Planning and Zoning Commission. It has
been developed jointly by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney to
address the legal issues and concerns of involving the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier
in public projects that must also be reviewed and approved by that body.
A representative from the Community Development Department will be attending the Housing
Board meeting to explain the proposed process and the role of the Housing Board. Your
thoughts and comments about the process will be considered as the proposal is finalized. It is
anticipated that this process will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council for adoption into the Land Use Code later this month.
Boom
Y
For Discussion Purposes: 1/19/00 ,
STREAMLINING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESr
FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS:
-- A1CA'51a� e01,�+ b c
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
�qUM c
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review
procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule
Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling
legislation.
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
• (•:� wa,wls �e�i-� /�pi,��6� W�P�"i'n� PW,�tar��
What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review?
■ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships)
■ Park development
■ Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels
Can a joint public -private project qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
How does the COWOP process work?
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council,
earlier in the process than the standard development review process allows.
Step 1: Determination of COWOP Status
The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for
COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding
the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the
threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific
proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation,
affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step
3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process.
Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a
resolution.
Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted -Issue Identification
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present a conceptual sketch
plan and an overview of what program elements are desirable.
Step 3: Team Meetings
The Community Development Department coordinates and schedules a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified. Complex development projects may
require the use of a facilitator to guide and lead the meeting to a productive
outcome. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in order to be
submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards
■ Density
■ General design features
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
■ Aspen Area Community Plan V\
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following:
■ General Development plan objectives
■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this
step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City
Council may make a determination that the project cannot be considered a
COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the
standard application process.
lS , SLta
_ V �C. am. �
i
Step 3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
\ ordinance approving the development proposal.
s �
•
•
For Discussion Purposes: 2/3/00
A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC
PROJECTS:
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review
procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule
Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling
legislation.
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
•
What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review?
■ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships)
■ Park development
■ Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels
Can a joint public -private project qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public.
How does the COWOP process work?
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. it is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other advisory
entities in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council, earlier in the
process than the standard development review process allows.
Step 1: Determination of COWOP Status
The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for
COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding
the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the
threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific
proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation,
affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step
3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process.
Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a
resolution.
Step 2: Technical Staff Meetinq Conducted -Issue Identification
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints. site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the
subject property and vicinity, conceptual site plan alternative(s) and a
statement of what program elements are desirable.
Step 3: Team Meetings
The Community Development Department schedules and coordinates a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified in writing at least 15 days prior to the team
meeting. 'Meetings are run by Community Development Department staff,
however, complex development projects may require the use of a facilitator to
guide and lead the meeting to a productive outcome. Ground rules for the
conduct of the meeting are established by the team at the start of each
meeting.
As with the presentation before the DRC, the applicant should be prepared to
present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, alternative site plans
designed at a very conceptual level, and a statement of program element
objectives. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council representatives is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in
order to be submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Aspen Area Community Plan
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards, Density
■ General design and architectural features
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
■ Neighborhood or other Masterplan Compatibility
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following:
■ General Development plan objectives
■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
The most desirable outcome of the team meeting is a recommendation on a
particular preferred alternative development plan. Should consensus not be
attained by the group arriving at a preferred alternative, multiple
recommendations may be forwarded. Advisory board representatives may
wish to inform their full board of the team review process in advance of a
recommendation and seek the input of other members.
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this
step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City
Councii may make a determination �ii� �at►o� � that the project cannot be considered a
COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the
standard application process.
Step 3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
ordinance approving the development proposal.
5
•
THE CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM JOYCE ALLGAIER OHLSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
44�
�Jl�tl� 1d� S k o /-
Y
e'� Gt� �-
���.�,� r Z7- csa rt �vv� a�
(/ l VA 74i�IITIITH
GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO H1161-
6j11I-/97i
r
THE CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM JOYCE ALLGAIER OHLSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975
For Discussion Purposes: 1/12/00
STREAMLINING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS:
A new approach to project review in order to achieve
community goals
What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public
projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects?
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power
states the following: "...for the purpose of promoting health, safety,
moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy
conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization. the
governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and
restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and
other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation,
and the location and use of buildings. structures, and land for
trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance
enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the
operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory
proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or
proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public."
(While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use
review procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home
Rule Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the
enabling legislation.)
These above -noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience
or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects
to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that
takes a different approach than that included in the current land use
regulations.
v �C
What t es of ro sects would I �f f COWOP 6�
yp p / qua y or review.
■ Affordable housing projects " a PI I cla I/
■ Park development --'
• Recreation facilities
■ Utility facilities
■ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP)
■ Public building upgrades,. additions, remodels
Cana joint bublic-private project'qualify for the COWOP process?
Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for
the convenience or welfare of the public. Pr�vofct WW �, A f
How does the COWOP process work? t-D f 3c7?'H
The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is
determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More
complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth
process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter. less
complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get
key decision -makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process
early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets
broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and
completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up
front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on
target" with community goals.
Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project,
including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in
providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP
process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both
applicant/owner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the
regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and
Zoning Commission in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council,
earlier in the process than the standard development review process allows.
2
/ WL
Step 1: Determination of COWOP tatus VV4,V,,o + �
5 Q s, s vor o� S� /P
The City Co ncil determines oa
es whether� Jrcject is a o riate for COWOP
review and also determines the necess r p a vis �oard�,, affected interests
and staff to be included in the "team" review process. Council establishes a
preferred timeline for the process. .
SA4- � w Ge�a-L
Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted
The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the
applicant, a staff -level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential
issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental
constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other
technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a
propoo �°� P�`�✓1
7 '
Step 3: Team Meetings
The Community Development Department coordinates and schedules a
meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper
and adjoining neighbors are notified. Complex development projects may
require the use of a facilitator to guide and lead the meeting to a productive
outcome. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by
committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative
for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all
attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where
the Council is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in order to be
submitted for official action by the Council.
Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of
"threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such
threshold items would include at a minimum the following:
■ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional
Standards
■ Density
M�General design features
W w�0 2 P �3
i
•
0
■ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts
■ Environmental and Landscaping features
■ Suitability of development to the neighborhood
■ Availability of utilities and services
Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a
guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit
Development Review Guidelines as appropriate.
Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the
following-
■ General Development plan objectives
j ■ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities
■ Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team
■ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal
Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which
recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and
directs the applicant to prepare a final application. 40e,
Step I Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal
At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of
an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an
ordinance �ptg the development proposal ,l �q
1 Opt- -t
Co tA r'� 171',
jv--- pt-,Je-t I -.(
v-, 10, w— I
h-c� A-SAV,
Q & A Sheet
J o IC -I --
Review Process for Public "COWOP" Projects
(projects for the convenience or welfare of the public)
1. What current steps and/or procedures of the current process would be
negated or changed if the COWOP process were put in place?
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC), Housing Board (HB) and any other designated advisory
board, would involve themselves in the very front end or "conceptual stage"
in the design of a project. As proposed, the COWOP process would eliminate
the formal Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation
Commission processes as we know them today. However, given that, should
the Council determine that a specific review before a full body of an
advisory board a certain project, then that could
be required. The Community Development staff would continue to utilize the
development standards contained with the land use code for the review and
evaluation of a project.
2. If implemented, would the COWOP process make the review process
shorter and/or more efficient.2
Without a doubt, one of the goals of the COWOP process is to make the
review process shorter and more efficient. Attaining this goal has more to
do with the effectiveness of the team in a.) running a well structured
meeting, b.) focusing on key conceptual issues, c.) the ability of the team to
reach consensus and #Iformulate a clear position on those key issues, and d.)
the applicant responding to the input of the team by amending the plan.
3. When the P d Z or other advisory group is unanimously against the
philosophy of a public project, what happens then.2
Should a particular faction or the entire team not agree with the intent or
philosophy of a certain project, the group should forward that
recommendation to the Council as soon as possible. As with all
recommendations to the Council, it is most beneficial when the Council can
understand the thoughts and concerns o i g f the advisory boards. These can be
included in any written recommendation and come in the form of "concerns",
"outstanding issues", "conditions", etc. An applicant has the right to
proceed through a process to gain a decision by the appropriate decision
maker (in this case Council). With this in mind, the review team should
• *,e strive to communicate their position quickly, clearly and in a manner which
would assist both the applicant and Council. There may be times when the
ounci I requests that a project go back to the review team with a major
change in scope. There may also be times when the Council likes what they ,, 1
see as owner andm�oyes the project forward despite the concerns raised. '/ /a-
k*_Oi A4 *U� 72�4
4. Representation b various adv9or boards. Ho n A4-�ci4
� v p y y w many people should
represent a group.2 How many vo te.2
It is not essential to have _a hard and fast, predetermined number of
representatives from advisory boards What is important is that there is /1
representation, especially by members who might have a special interest in a project, special expertise to lend, or understanding of neighborhood issues,
etc. It is expected that representatives on the review team will report back
to their full board and give project review updates and seek input.
Remember, the benefit to the COWOP process is in having the development
plan evolve with the assistance of the advisory boards. The greater the
amount of sharing of ideas and concerns the better a project will likely be.
This should also minimize the chances that an applicant will get way off base
from a plan that is acceptable.
It is expected that the team will come to consensus on their
recommendation to the Council. It is possible that there will be suggested
conditions, alternative concepts and additional matters for Council to
consider which fall within only Council's purview (financial, acquisition issues,
etc.).
5. When is the 'review team " par t of the process over.2
John -please help. ,C-
l/
A -CIA C�,xV Wav_,v NJ �
r
6. Will there be yet more meetings to attend.
Yes, there would be additional meetings to attend for the sole review of
public COWOP projects. It is anticipated that because public projects
would be eliminated from the heavy loaded agendas of the regular P&Z and
HPC meetings that these meetings would be shorter in duration. This would
not always be the case if a project was required to be specifically addressed
by an advisory board.
r�
r
_q
If
i
9 •
I�
A
AL
a
0
{
�a