Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.PublicDevelopment.A021.00--, City of Aspen Community Devebpment Department CASE NUMBER A021-00 PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION Joyce Ohlson Code Amendment-Public Development John P. Worcester, City Attorney 31Z~)~~ CLOSED BY Amy DeVault .... ,, 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 DETER_'~IINED TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. WHEREAS, the Ciry 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 recottmiended its adoption by the Ciry Council in order to provide a simplified, comprehensive and flexible process for reviewins 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 l~funicipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: - Secfinn 1. That Section 26.208.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section sets forth the powers and duties of the Ciry 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). Cvctinn 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 anew subsection 3, to read as follows: 3. Development Determined to be Reasonab[v ~Vecessarv 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 26.00.040, the Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in accordance with Section 26.500.00. CPrtinn 3_ That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a new Section 26.500 which shall read as follows: Chapter 26.500 DEVELOPiVIENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVEV~NCE A_ND 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 Ciry Council to be in the best interests of the Ciry 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 Totivn of Estes Park, 68b 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 anent of the Ciry of Aspen authorized by the City Council to proceed under this Chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or went 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 Ciry 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 [he public may consult with the Planning and Zoning Corrunission regarding the proposed developmen['s eligibility and shall thereafter prepare a memorandum for the Ciry 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, Ciry 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 [he initial memorandum to the Ciry 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 Ciry Council shall by resolution (a) make a determination whether [he 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 Tzam to review the development proposal and identify members of City boards, commissions, and other interested parties, (including at least two (2) members of the public at laraei to be included as members of the Task Force Team. which shall include representation b~ the Planning and Zoning Commission; and. (d) establish a timeframe for the procedures to bz used to review the proposed development. If the proposed project proposes development subjza to Chapter 26.41 (Development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, or Involving thz Inventory of Historic Sires and Structures), or Chapter 26.420 (Historic Overlay District and Historic Landmarks), the City Council shall include in the review procedures thz requirement for an application for review of the eligible project to thz 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 separare refzrral 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 thz proposed development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public. thz application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of this Land lise Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon the request of the applicant, the Cotnmuniry 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 Ciry 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 si,Qnificantly 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 eranted 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 existins 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. Sertinn 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 Ciry 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 PLBLIC HEARING on the 10`" day of April, 2000. Rachel E. Richards, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, Ciry Clerk G:planning.aspen.ord.CO W OPfinal.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 p/ace? 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 n.) 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 & Zor other advisorygroup 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 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 n 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 n 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. How many people should represent agroup? How many vote. It is not essential to have n 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 ns 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 the 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 5. When is the 'review team "port 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 opplicant present initially to the review team? The applicant enters into this process with the understanding that they are there to evolve n 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: n.) 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 Inrge expenditure of money at this level on survey work, engineering, or detailed drawings. 7. Will there beYet 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 specificntly addressed by nn advisory board. m THE CITY OF ,ASPEN "COWOP" Development Review Process (COWOP is pronounced "w-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? - 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 2 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. 3 ~°~"`" THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF T44HE COY MANAGER rfi L - MAY 2 - 2003 May 1, 2003 - f~.54~'i=-`d Innovations in American Government John F. Kennedy School of Government , Harvazd University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Deaz Sir/Madam: , I am pleased to submit on behalf of the City of Aspen the enclosed application for an, Innovations in American Government Awazd. If you have any questions regarding this application, please feel .free to contact Jrie or John Worcester at this address or phone number. Thank you for considering our application. Sinc ely, ,~ ~~',~ Steve~8arwick, City Manager JP W-OS/01 /2003-G:\john\word\letters\innova[ions. doc r ISO SOUTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO HI6II-I97S '. PHONE 970.92O.S2IY ' FAX 9~O.ezO.Sn9 ' Primed on Rxyded Paper 2003 APPLICATION: Pr~ GRAM 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.. /.. 2 0.0 0,,,,,.,,,,. 2. Polity Specification Number: 1 0 0 9 3. Jurisdiction: 4. Name of Jurisdiction (selected above): City of Aspen, Colorado eq[r®E HAAVAR,~~~^'. _ UNIV EASI~Y'I:"e} )OHN E_KENNEDY ~~~ SCHOOL Of GOVERNMENT 5. Name of Sponsoring Unit :................Communitx Development Department ............................................................................ 6. Population of Jurisdiction: ~. Program Name: ..,._Plannng.,._for....the...ConYenance.._and.._Welfare .of .the:?Public (COWOP) 8. Prior Application Status; ,,,,,,;, ,;,;;;,,;,,,,,,,;;,,;, ~ ~ . IJthe program has previously applied for an InnowlionsAuard, Hst yrvr(s) and to L4 kU stage it adwnad. 9. Contactlnformation: MR. ~ Ms. ~ oR.Mr John P. WOrcesteT City Attorney .......~ ~.g....Smuth....Galena...8tre e.t .................................................................................................... AOOR E55 1 ...ASP.~.#1 ........................................................................................................ CO.........................8.1611...............:.................... CITY STATE ZIP CODE (970) 920-5055 (970) 920-5119 ifLEPHONE fAX johnw@c,i.._aspen,..co. us. ... EMAIL 10. Agenry Director Information: ...Julie...Ann...Woods ..........................................................Community .Development Director .... NAME Of AGENCY OIRFCTOR TITLE Community Development AGENCY 11. Application Source: ~ ,.IriT10.V.dt.lO.A.S....CO.n.~2S~.I1.G~............ NAME OF SOU0.CE For internal use. m1 m2 m3 m4 City of Aspen, Colorado Application Essay Questions Planning for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public 1. Please provide atwo-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 aze 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 apublic-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 prepaze 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 aze, by their very nature, controversial. For example, the City sponsors many affordable housing projects, the redevelopment of existing pazks 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 appeazance of a conflict of interest and invariably opens the City to the chazge 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 aze 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 chazge 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. 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 independently 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-OS/Ol /2003-G:\john\word\memos\Innovations.doc MEMORANDUM To: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council Steve Barwick, City Manager .Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Ad 9'/r~/oo . ~w~a+l.~.m~ ~., KK Land Use Code Amendments re. a Development Review Process for Public Projects - 2°`' Reading of Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2000 April 10, 2000 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. 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 R 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 t/ris 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 witfi surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffrc 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. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and dre 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 whit/t 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 tl:e 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 wlriclr 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. ~ o 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: • 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). ~ertinn 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 anew subsection 3. to read as follows: 3. Development Determined to be Reasonably Necessary .for the Public Convenience or Welfare o_f 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. SPrtlnn 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 infrastructurev~ improvements; or (e) public buildings and structures. --~-~~~~~'8,.~ ~~y~ ~ 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 26.30 .060(E . Z ~~~`+~ B. City Council Determination of Eligibility. Following a ~iublic hearing in accordance Ali C~ with Section 26.304.060(C), the City Council shall by resoht'tion (a) make a deternimation ~" t whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary fob the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.04,b; (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. n ~' E. Ciry Council Adoption of Ordinance. The City Council upon receipt of the report and proposed ordinance from the Community Development Director shall approve, approve 'th d't' d' ~ ~ofi~ ~ ~~6~~~ 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. w~ con i ions, or isapprove an ordnance 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. ~P['tlnn 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. A,. ~J 1~ . J 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`h day of March, 2000. Rachel E. Richards, Mayor INTRODUCED and FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the day of , 2000. Rachel E. Richards, Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Cajoyce/homelattachlcowop2.doc J~ MEMORANDUM ~rs -~ '~" ~ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission .r yvys THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~Q~ FROM: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo~v 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 No~~Series of 2000." . a _.. 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 t&le. 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 w \ Y 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 standazds 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 chazacter. 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 t#le. 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 boazds 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. RESOLUTION NO.~p1 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 Ciry 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, 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: 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). CnMinn 7 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 anew 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 X589, 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 when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the City to do so. ,., r 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 lan which constitutes an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, ~ 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 thereafrer 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). o.~l v~.~ Gam.. B. City Council Determination o/'EliRibility. 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 ~ identifyfsatie~-e€ members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties to be included as members of the Task Force Team cuss; 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 Sta[f 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 ands 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~he c]~a'r ofjflr~~Task Force~n shall be the Mayor, tvwPw'~"~ senior member ~ .. ~ p/' B24A~xLL of the City Council present at a mee 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 conditio s of approval that may be necessary for the land use approvals. The ~ommilnity Development Director shall present to the City Council a proposed ordinance which 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. Cnr4inn d 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 Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk IPW-03/Ib/00-G: \john\word\resos\COWOP-P&Z-Corr.doc fidwoP Procea~ 3~2~~ o~ 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. \+:J 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: Mazch 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 welfaze 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 eazly 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 } AFFIuAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LA:~ID USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) I, ~ ' (~ (~ ~S ~~ N~~ ~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the Ctty 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: Vi ~ 2 1. 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 (^v 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 hearins date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. `3. ~~o~ls~~ec~ ~c~~~c~ (Attach photograph here) ature Sim d b fore me this_~~day ~v~1d~~ . ~s WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission espires~'f~~~v~ 3 Notary P,ublisss~sai~ ~,, .,. ~Y~ ~~ ~~ - n ~i . ~~ COWOP Process/Alternative Process Outline Establish "convenience and welfare of the public" based on previously determined standazds, 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 prepaze and analyze development options. Develop site evaluation and all necessary documentation, i.e., mazket analyses, environmental assessments, legal constraints. Present an "existing conditions report" to task force. Identify with task force programmatic goals: unit type, density, tazget mazkets, 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 regazding 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). / ~y,s?-rte viceview alternative conceptual designs with task force and obtain recommendations. / ,uiForward recommendations to elected officials. Prepaze construction bid documents and final cost estimates. Prepaze final budget based on cost estimates. Prepaze RFP for construction contract. r Review construction bids, select contractor, identify areas for value engineering if necessary. L ~ Revise final budget based on construction bids. Submit construction contract and final budget for elected officials approval. .... -., ...~ ,, MEMORANDUM To: Thru: From: Re: Date: Planning and Zoning Commission ~J~~~ 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 welfaze 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 eazly 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." .,~... °fu..Y 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 welfaze 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 is for+'th powers and duties of the City Council, is hereby amended by the insertion f a w 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 ~o• ~~0, and thereafter review such proposal in accordance with Section ~~O lap . p S~ ~~~ Crrtinn 7 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. to be 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 welfaze of the public in accordance P&Z Reso. 00- ,page 2 ~b with Chapter 26.500, the Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in accordance with Section 26.500.050 . Section i That Title 26 be amended by the addition of a new~ection 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 altemative process and standazds 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 mle 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); Ciry 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 w ..- 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 welfaze 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 ~~ ~}'..,. ~~` '# \~ 1 ~~i `•a ~ ~@ 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 ~~ ~ necessazy 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 shall 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 ~ierector, if any; anA (c)an alysis Ic.c. y JJ1s.,Or~ a! f(tt .ta.. of the procedures the applicant would . 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 ~.... __ ~,~,;~ e,~u,`a;~ ~,;r-~,s ~ ` ,:1 t ;_>., :-,• ,~r~*.~d`uewc~.tj ~G,a ~' ~ , u iGl~''tGu~ ,'.lr'~rtllcu' 2 ,~ _ ~-u~a+t .c~, „Stuee.~v raj ~Zu, ~ L~Q ~GlSis'~' L~ `xl. `Glx2rti~+? f" ftr.~rA~ik~ r' ~ O (/ ~ ~a-Gt~e ~ r4~cuu sluLt~L ni.2 ~~~sLu~eCr.¢ l¢ the applicant, the applicant's representative, City staff members, sultants, an and~~~~, other persons for the purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated GG~x~-• ~~ with the provision of utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, ~""~ ~~ access and circulation, anticipated public concerns, and any other technical information i '~''~" ~ ~ which would assist the Community Development Director to prepare the initial ~~ ~ ~y'~ memorandum to the City Council. The Community Development Director shall formally ~~x~ I ~ fi~ ro notify the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and, ~~.t/it,Q, ` if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, in writing, of the date of the ~~ _ v'~ hearing before the City Council at which time a determination is to be made concerning ~id~1,Gs-+t.G;<' eligibility of the proposed development pursuant to this Chapter. The Community at. } 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 o EliRibili Following a public hearing in ''~~ " accordance with Section 26.304.060(C), the City Council shall by resolution (a) make a ~y~~~~+4pr `determination whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for the~~~~"" A convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.060; ~^~^~/ '~~ '`'y (b) establish a procedure for review of the proposed project to include standards of review t,?.tt« ~ji ~ and the identification of City boards, commissions and other interested parties to be f~tutt~l.Gdkex h ~S included in the review process; and, (c) establish a timeframe for the procedures to be ~9'1 ~L.tit ~-~-- - 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 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 ,~-GtntttJ~ ~~ 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 ofApplication. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home\Joyce\CO WOP_Reso.doc 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. 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. z 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, astaff-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 s ,, 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 a .~.., .~ w 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 ~~, 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`d 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. a 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, astaff-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 3 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 a j, 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 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@oi.aspen.co.us> 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 1 Edward Sadler, 02:24 PM 2/3/00 -, COWOP X-Sender: edwards@commons Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:24:90 -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, NOOSING 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 ' __ - - L 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 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 aze 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 eazly 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 3rd 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 CO WOP 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. a 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, astaff-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 plari 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 3 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. 5 ,r^ '^ AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITK/N COUNTY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 The Meeting will be held in the Plaza1 Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza Building 530 East Main, 1st Floor Aspen, Colorado 5:00 p.m. I. Call Regular Meeting to Orcter 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. 726 E. Hopkins Housing Replacement & Special Review - 6:30 - 7:00 VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Revised Land Use Approval Process for Public Projects - 7:00 - 7:30 IX. WORKSESSION: Guidelines (7:30 - 6:00) To identiy 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 MEETINGNVORKSESSION MARCH 1, 2000 r^^ "^~ ASPEN/PITIGN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM To: Housing Boazd 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 forwazded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for adoption into the Land Use Code later this month. .~~ -~ - ~ ~~ I I ~.. ,--vlti4~=B~ ~ ~W 2 ~.~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ry For Discussion Purposes: 1/19!00 ` ~, . ~P (,ice ~'~~ a~G~.~d-er,F, ~Ff~,--~~-b STREAMLINING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCES FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS: - ~e.~,~s~ a~ ~OO~~~ f v~ee.2~e~ b~ ~ r ~ A new approach to project review in order to achieve community goals -, In to ~ b~ ~ v~e-~~~~~~ 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. i 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 CO WOP 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 proce~ than the standard development review process allows. ~~~ z 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, astaff-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 progra elements anre_,,de,~sirable. Step 3: Team Meetings ~ uv~ ~ ~V"~-"` `'~ 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. 3 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 ~ •r~ r ^ Aspen Area Com~mlunity Plan ~ lU ~' 'J~ ~J" I / Community Development sta"ff 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. 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 .,.-. , 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 CO WOP 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 CO WOP 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. z 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, astaff-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 plari 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 3 .~-,. 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. s ~~TV_pe P~eEh ~, 'SHE --' On~SON GELOYMF.'~~i pVCE ALLGAIER A OF CpMMUNffY DE 0 pgOMI pAFM DF.PUTV DlREC'[OR ~ ~ /p`~ ~~" ,l ~ ~ ~ ~~ . s~~" ~,s~ ~ ~ k~s ~~~- w~- w~~` sk°~~ ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ / ~ Y D~ Q /L.a A,.SouTn Aoo 81611~19'1`~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t T~" oR ~6r w}~^s4EN~ COOL XV`^~ YI THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM JOYCE ALLGAIER OHLSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR OP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~..~, „l,~d-- ~t ~''2 • ~~ ~u~ ~ ~ G~r-Ci ~ ~~~~~ ~Gr~a W ~uo~1 a~ ~`°!- ~,; C.~ r,~ :.b ~w ~I~ . 18O SOUTH GALENA STREET AsrEN, COL00.A00 81611-1975 ~~ v.y 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. ^ Park development ~~ ~ ~r`-Q"~-'~ ~`'"°- ~`-"" ^ Recreation facilities ^ Utility facilities ^ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP) ^ PubliG buildi~upgrades,, additiQng, remodels W~~en" P~~ /. ~'~J What types of projects would qu/alify for COWOP review? ~ U~~~ ^ Affordable housing projects ~ublic. a•-e~ puel~~/~n`~ ra~d-~a!p, Can ajoint bublic-private project~qualify for the COWOP process? Yes, if determined by the City Council to melt the test as being necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. 1'rlVt~. ; ~O~ ~,~, ~-}{ How does the COWOP process work? ~13n'?° }}"}~ 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 t~ ~4,~ ~~l ~~t~t W~~~~ ~~ ~ Ste 1: Determination of COWOP tatus N„~~p s,s ~ p~po ~~~~e~" . S yg he City Co ncil determines whether ro~ect 's ropriate for COWOP review and also determines the necessa a i ~~ affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process. Council establishes a preferrred timeline for the process. ~~~ S-d~ ve.c.s,~..~,~.-~ ~Ow~~, ~o~,tv~,l C~-P-Q.~ry-f~ v~~ Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted ~ - ~ss~ ~'~ The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the applicant, astaff-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 Step 3: Team Meetin s 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 ^ Ge~ esign features w III h~ r' l ~ p I 1 _ `Z ~ ', ^ 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 ^ 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. ~~~ ~ ~~ 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 ~prQving the development pr osal. ,C ~,~ der ~~ I~„~, t ~ r-u l ~,~- ~w~ ~~ ~ ~ cc ~~ I~.h."Lk.~~.yP~n ~"PG\ v-z-~ u~r'c- s-~u ~~f, "b ~` , ~, w~ Q & A Sheet `~ ° `~`~ Review Process for Public "COWOP" Projects (projects for the convenience or welfare of the public) 1. Whot current steps and/or procedures of the current process wou/d be negated or changed if the COWOP process were put in ploce? 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 isly z'"~s~ae~l~fo 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, wou/d the COWOP process moke the review process shorter and/or more efficient. Without n 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 n well structured meeting, b.) focusing on key conceptual issues, c.) the ability of the team to reach consensus and~fformulate 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 & Zor other advisorygroup is unanimously against the philosophy of a public project, whot hoppens then? Should n 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 - ~1 n- ~` N"~ recommendations to the Council, it is most beneficial when the Council can ~ ~ understand the thoughts and concerns of 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 strive to communicate their position quickly, clearly and in a manner which g~~ would assist both the applicant and Council. There may be times when the ~`~ouncil requests that a project go bock to the review team with a major change in scope. There may also be times when the Council likes what they see ns owner and m~oyes the project forward despite the concerns raised. ~ v 4. Representation by various adv ory boards. How many peop/e shou/d ~'+~~'~' represent agroup? How many vote? of v E ~7t~ ~~ It is not_essential to have n hard and fast, predetermined number of ,+littut.d~t.~. ..--------' representatives rom advisory board Whnt is important is that there is /~ I~~!'~4.Ge~ representation, especially by members who might have n special interest in a (J7(7( 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 full within only Council's purview (financial, acquisition issues, etc.). 5. When is the 'review team "pal prt of the process over? C~Jf-~~ John-please help. ~ ~^~' ~~ -., 6. Wi/l there be ~t more meetings to ottend.~ 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 n project was required to be specifically addressed by an advisory board.