Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.L3 Zone District Lodge Quota System.1983Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado ''81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Owners of Lodges in the L -3 District FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: New L -3 Quota and Scoring System DATE: August 10, 1983 Attached for your information is a copy of Ordinance 35, Series of 1983, adopted by City Council on August 8. This Ordinance accomplishes the following two tasks: 1. Establishes a new 10 unit per year quota which is specifically ear- marked only for L -3 lodges. 2. Revises the scoring system such that proposals for small additions to existing facilities are placed on an equal competitive footing with large projects to build new lodges and /or totally rehabilitate an existing lodge. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission, in their deliberations on this matter requested that the Planning Office personally contact the L -3 Lodge owners following the adoption of the code amendment. Council and P &Z wanted you to be aware of their thinking in hopes of encouraging you to apply for small expansions to your facilities as a means of justifying continued upgrading of Aspen's smaller lodges. The major point the Planning Office was asked to indicate to you is in reference to the 10 unit quota. The Council and P &Z spent considerable time discussing the tradeoffs between the size of the quota and its affect on our growth rate versus the very real economic needs of the small lodge. The 10 unit quota was finally chosen by both groups due to their commitment to the community's growth policy. However, Council and P &Z wanted you to know that they are genuinely interested in seeing applications for small lodge expansions in the L -3 district and hope New L -3 Quota and Scoring System Page Two August 10, 1983 that you do not view the size of the adopted quota as a disincentive to such applications. In fact, both Council and P &Z have indicated their willingness to consider the award of bonus quotas and /or to consider the use of future years of quota if several high quality projects are submitted this year whose total quota request exceeds the 10 units available at this time. In summary, we have completed the long promised task of revising the growth management system in response to the needs of and limitations upon the lodges located in the L -3 district. Applications for the 10 unit quota are due on October 1st. I would suggest that any lodge owner who is interested in sub- mitting an application in 1983 contact me at City Hall, extension 224 so that I can assist you in the preparation of your proposal. I look forward to hearing from you soon! cc: City Council Aspen P &Z David Jones Molly Gibson Lodge 120 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Steen Gantzel Christiana of Aspen 501 West Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Neil Bennett Copper Horse Associates P.O. Box 4948 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Little Red Ski Haus Marge Riley 118 East Cooper Aspen, Coloarado 81611 Irma Prodinger Hearthstone House 134 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Barbara Fasching Bavarian Inn Christmas Inn 232 West Main Erwin Knirberger Aspen, Colorado 81611 801 West Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lou and Francis Willie Charles Patterson Tyrolean Lodge Boomerang Lodge 200 West Main 500 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Heinz Coordes Norma Dolle Innsbruck Inn Snowqueen Lodge 233 West Main 123 East Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Larry Dempsey Nancy Capella Aspen Ski Lodge Bell Mountain Lodge 101 West Main Box 328 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Daniel Delano Edelweiss Associates 609 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 Michael Behrendt St. Moritz Lodge 334 W. Hyman Aspen, Colorado John Werning Endeavor Lodge 905 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Len Olender Brass Bed Inn 81611 926 East Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 Fireside Lodge Roland Parker Peter Mocklin Northstar Lodge Box 807 914 Waters Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Johann Riegel Alpine Lodge Box 716 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Horst Balke Cresthaus Lodge Box 630 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mary McCarten Coachlight Chalet 232 West Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Cantrup Estate (Cortina, Nugget, Holiday House) c/o Spence Shiffer Box 7955 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Chuck Torinus The Applejack Inn 311 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 2nd Reading - L -3 Quota System DATE: August 8, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attached for your consideration is an amended versiM of Ordinance 35, reflecting the work session held on this topic on July 25. The changes to the ordinance are quite minor based on the comments of Councilmembers at that time. In general, no particular opposition to the scoring system approach proposed in the ordinance has been voiced by the public or by members of the Council. The issue which has received the most attention is that of the size of the L -3 quota. As you know, the Planning Commission is recommend- ing the establishment of an L -3 quota of 10 units per year, in addition to the existing 35 unit quota, which would apply to the L- 1, L -2, CC and CL zones. If you agree with this recommendation, you need make no further changes to the ordinance as it already reflects this approach. If, however, you agree with the Planning Office that the new 10 unit quota should be offset by a reduction in one of our other quotas (either the lodge or residential) it will be necessary to amend the ordinance at this time. The Planning Office believes that a 10 unit L -3 quota and 25 unit L -1, L -2, CC and CL quota is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The recent survey of tourist accommodations in the metro area found that our existing inventory "is neither far too small nor far too large for the recreational amenities available at the period of peak demand, but is, in fact, more than adequate for the typical ski day." (GMPP Update, p.40). However, despite the fact that our inventory contains an adequate quantity of units in what is viewed as a diverse mix of unit types, sizes and prices, there is good reason to be concerned about the quality and value of those units. Therefore, the quota for lodge expansion has been designed to accommodate small increases in the total number of units in order to justify the expenditure of funds by lodge owners to upgrade existing units. we believe that a total lodge quota of 35 units is more than adequate for these purposes and does not justify an increase at this time. 2. The quota system contains substantial flexibility to permit the approval of quality lodge projects in any zone district if Council so chooses. The features in the system include the ability to award up to a 33 percent quota bonus in any year (33% of 35 units = 12 units) and to award multiple years of quota to satisfy large requests which meet the point thresholds. The Planning and Zoning Commission has indicated a willingness to utilize these tools in the event that several quality projects are proposed simultaneously in the L -3 zone, in order to make up for the prior restrictions on these facilities. 3. The quota system is a dynamic regulatory tool which was recently amended in 1982. The Planning Office and the Planning Commission are committed to regularly reviewing the growth management quotas to ensure that they are consistent with current public priorities. Therefore, if in the future the Council finds it necessary to increase the L -3 quota beyond the 10 unit level, a mechanism will be available to accommodate this desire. Memo: L -3 Quota System Page Two August 8, 1983 4. The likely buildout potential in the L -3 zone is relatively small as compared to our other lodge zone districts. Following is a comparison of current buildout and the future potential in the districts in which lodges currently exist. Zone L -1, L -2, CC and CL L-3 0 and RMF TOTAL: Existinq Buildout 664 units 531 units 81 units 1,276 units Approximate Future Potential 900 units 230 units 0 units 1,130 units In sum, the Planning Office believes that the main issue associated with this ordinance is that of the communitywide growth rate. The rate at which Aspen and Pitkin County grow has been of concern to the residents of this community for the last decade and has resulted in an innovative regulatory system which limits our annual rate of growth to about 3.5 percent per year. This growth rate has provided a benchmark for the planning of such capital facilities as our water and sewer plants, and also allows citizens to anticipate the rate at which they see their community grow and change over time. We feel that any decision to change this rate must be done within a context that recognizes the implications of that action from a social, fiscal and environmental prospective. Our previous memos to you on this topic have identified the pros and cons of this action and suggest that the total lodge quota should remain at 35 units and not be increased to 45 units. Planninq Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that you approve on second reading Ordinance 35, Series of 1983, to include an amendment reducing the L -1, L -2, CC, CL quota to 25 units by the following motion: "Move to adopt Ordinance 35, Series of 1983 on second reading." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: L -3 Quota System Work Session DATE: July 25, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: The purpose of the memorandum is to identify what the Planning Office sees as the major issues associated with Ordinance 35, Series of 1983, the L -3 Quota System Code Amendments. The work session is scheduled for Monday, July 25 at 12 :30 p.m. while the second reading of the Ordinance will take place on August 8. To refresh your memory, this proposed Code amendment is a follow - up activity to the 1982 L -3 rezoning which the Council directed the Planning Office to undertake. The Planning Office was asked to review the GMP regulations concerning lodge development to determine whether they provided the lodge owner in the L -3 district with an equitable opportunity to compete for new rooms with lodge owners in our other zone districts. In approaching this issue, the Planning Office and Planning Commis- sion recognized that it included two distinct aspects, as follows: 1. Should the 35 unit lodge quota be altered to distinguish between projects which fall into different zone districts? r 2. Should the scoring system be altered to differentiate between projects which involve entirely new facilities or major expansions from those which involve minor remodels or additions? As we indicated to you at the first reading of Ordinance 35 on July 11, the conclusion reached by the Planning Office and P &Z as regards the above questions was that the answer to each is yes. The reasons for this conclusion include the following: 1. The L -3 lodge owner has been procedurally disqualified for many years from requesting any expansion of his or her facilities. By establishing a quota for the L -3 facilities which is separate from that available in the other zones, we ensure that a certain number of units will be available to the L -3 competitor and not be "swallowed up" by a large project in another zone. This approach has precedent in the Code since we have previously separated the commercial development quota according to zone district and also recognizes that the L -3 lodge is somewhat unique in its conception. 2. The L -3 lodge owner will typically be proposing a small addition to an existing facility which is designed to justify other expenses being incurred in the upgrading of existing portions of the lodge. The present Code is not sensitive to the fact that a small addition to a lodge will probably not justify major architectural, site design or tourist amenity improvements, nor require very significant additions in utilities, parking or employee housing. As a result, the typical small addition would find it difficult to effectively compete with a project on a vacant parcel, which can provide the entire range of amenities, or with a major expansion to an existing lodge. Memo: L -3 Quota System Work Session Page Two July 25, 1983 We believe that the language contained in Ordinance 35 adequately addresses both the scoring system and quota issues, with the exception of one problem which we will discuss below. We have attached a copy of the Ordinance and underlined those few sections where new language has been developed by P &Z to address these issues. The major problem which developed during the course of reviewing this item with P &Z was the size of the quota to be allocated to the L -3 district and how it would relate to our other quotas. The Planning Office originally felt that the 35 unit lodge quota, which was established in 1982 (the prior quota had been only 18 units per year) was adequate to meet the Community's needs and should simply be split into two components, a 25 unit allocation to the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones, and a 10 unit quota for the L -3 zone. While the P &Z agreed that the 10 unit L -3 quota was adequate, they disagreed as to the total which should be available by suggesting that the L -3 quota be added on to, not subtracted from the existing 35 unit quota. The Planning Office concern with P &Z's recommendation emerges from a concept included in the Growth Management Policy Plan Update, this being the idea of a total "pie" of growth which the community experiences each year. The pie reflects a series of policy decisions made by the Council and Board, any one of which can be changed, provided its implications are recognized and met. These decisions include funding decisions for basic capital facilities such as water, sewer, highways and the airport; social decisions as to the rate of change which the community is capable of tolerating; and quality of life and community balance considerations. The community can choose to alter the size of each of the pieces of the pie without affecting the basic policy decisions as long as an increase in one sector is offset by a decrease in another. To further illustrate our concern with P &Z's recommendation, we attach Table 9 from the GMPP Update which compares the original recommendations of the GMPP, Third Draft, to those which Aspen and Pitkin County adopted in their quota system revisions of 1982. As you can see, the new quotas amount to an overall growth rate of 3.72 percent due to the fact that they are more inclusive than those previously in effect (i.e., the new lodge quota for Pitkin County, employee housing). We find it difficult at this time to support an increase to the lodge quota without a commensurate decrease elsewhere, since this action will simply have the effect of accelerating the rate of depletion of available services. From the standpoint of overall balance, we cannot argue as to the need for substantial numbers of additional lodge rooms, based on the fact that we find that "the tourist accommodations inventory in existence in the metro area is neither far too small nor far too large for the recreational amenities available at the period of peak demand, but is, in fact, more than adequate for the typical ski day" (GMPP Update, page 40). Memo: L -3 Quota System Work Session Page Three July 25, 1983 Creek Downvalley 44 3.4% 24 1.9% TOTAL: 319 3.47% 342 3.72% Note: *The Pitkin County metro area quota, which formerly consisted of 27 residential units has been revised to include 33 residential and 20 lodge units. * *The City of Aspen quota, which formerly consisted of 39 residen- tial and 18 lodge units has been revised to include 39 residen- tial and 35 lodge units. Source: Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 1983. Given the above conclusions, we strongly recommend that you do not increase the available lodge quota from 35 to 45 units, an increase which would result in an overall Pitkin County residential and lodge quota of 352 units per year, a 3.83 percent annual simple growth rate. Instead, we suggest that you set the L -3 quota at 10 units and the L -1, L -2, CL and CC quota at 25 units. However, if you believe that for the short term, lodge improvement is a priority and should be given added emphasis in the quota system, we ask that you consider a short term 10 unit reduction of the residential quota to offset the increase in the lodge quota. This action would be consistent with the concept of the "pie" and with the policy that the quota system be "dynamic to adress changing priorities, be tied directly to the community's ability to provide public services and maintain the quality of life for its visitors and residents, and be designed to meet an annual Countywide growth rate of approximately 3.5 percent" (GMPP Update, page 59). In summary, the above discussion provides an introduction to the major issues associated with the L -3 quota system Code amendment. Recognizing the complexity of some of these concepts, we have prepared a series of graphic aids to our presentation of this topic. We look forward to meeting with you on this item on Monday. TABLE 9 Comparison of G11PP Residential and Lodge Quota Recommendations to Existing Quota System GMPP Recommendation Revised Quota System Division Adopted # Quota Rate Adopted # Quota Rate Aspen Metro 27 * 1.8% 53 * 3.5% City of Aspen 57 ** 1.3% 74 ** 1.7% Snowmass /Brush 191 10.0% 191 10.5% Creek Downvalley 44 3.4% 24 1.9% TOTAL: 319 3.47% 342 3.72% Note: *The Pitkin County metro area quota, which formerly consisted of 27 residential units has been revised to include 33 residential and 20 lodge units. * *The City of Aspen quota, which formerly consisted of 39 residen- tial and 18 lodge units has been revised to include 39 residen- tial and 35 lodge units. Source: Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 1983. Given the above conclusions, we strongly recommend that you do not increase the available lodge quota from 35 to 45 units, an increase which would result in an overall Pitkin County residential and lodge quota of 352 units per year, a 3.83 percent annual simple growth rate. Instead, we suggest that you set the L -3 quota at 10 units and the L -1, L -2, CL and CC quota at 25 units. However, if you believe that for the short term, lodge improvement is a priority and should be given added emphasis in the quota system, we ask that you consider a short term 10 unit reduction of the residential quota to offset the increase in the lodge quota. This action would be consistent with the concept of the "pie" and with the policy that the quota system be "dynamic to adress changing priorities, be tied directly to the community's ability to provide public services and maintain the quality of life for its visitors and residents, and be designed to meet an annual Countywide growth rate of approximately 3.5 percent" (GMPP Update, page 59). In summary, the above discussion provides an introduction to the major issues associated with the L -3 quota system Code amendment. Recognizing the complexity of some of these concepts, we have prepared a series of graphic aids to our presentation of this topic. We look forward to meeting with you on this item on Monday. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1983) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 24 -11.1 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTAS FOR INDIVIDUAL ZONE DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 24 -11.6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTA SYSTEM; AND AMENDING SECTION 24 -3.1 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR DORMITORY WHEREAS, on September 13, 1982, the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 38, Series of 1982, establishing an L -3 Lodge Preservation zone district, and WHEREAS, on December 27, 1982, the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 68, Series of 1982, rezoning 25 lodges from vari- ous districts in which they were nonconforming uses to L -3, Lodge Preservation, and WHEREAS, during the course of the establishment of the L -3, Lodge Preservation zone district, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council did indicate their intent to review the lodge development quota system in light of the needs of and the limitations upon the new zone district, and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council does wish to amend the lodge development quota system so as to ensure that projects designed to upgrade existing lodges in the L -3 zone district may equitably compete with lodge development projects in Aspen's other zones, and WHEREAS, the growth management approach which the Aspen City Council believes will best deal with the needs of and the limita- tions upon the L -3 zone district is the establishment of a separ- ate quota for L -3 lodges and the amendment of the evaluation cri- teria and informational requirements for lodge developments to differentiate between new lodge developments and projects which merely add to existing lodges. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That it does hereby amend Section 24 -11.1 of the Municipal Code by the adoption of a new subsection (b) and (c) , and the renumbering of the existing subsections (c) , (d) , (e) and (f) as (d), (e), (f) and (g) as follows: (b) Within the L -1 L -2 CC and CL zone district, tnirty- fiue (351 lodae or hotel units; (c) Section 2 That it does hereby amend Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of develop- ment allotments for lodges: (a) Applicants shall file a complete application with the city planning office, on or before October 1st of each year, which application shall include the following, where applicable, Provided that applicants are encour- [; (1) A written description of the proposed development including comment as to: (aa) Type of water system to be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply system to serve the proposed building or the addition thereto; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. roux .e c r. xororcrt o. e. e i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed building or the addition thereto; total number of vehi- cles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be sup- plied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disin- centive techniques incorporated into the pro- posed building or the addition thereto. (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adja- cent land uses in the vicinity of the project. (gg) The proposed construction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing con- struction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi- cient detail to show building size, height, material, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conserva- tion or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and loca- tion of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical district boundary lines, if any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of Octo- ber, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission at a regular meeting of the com- mission during November. The planning and zoning com- mission shall review all applications taking into con- sideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider {WMq L. f. Mnffll (I. B. P.f I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 700 Leaves each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon pub- lic facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. t -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improve- ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drain- age control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addi- tion of major equipment to an existing sta- tion, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa- city of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed develop- ment without substantially altering the exist- ing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves the increased usage attributable to the development. (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each appli- cation with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto. and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the use of insulation,, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (dd) Parking and cirulation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, includ- ing the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed build - ings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its pro- posed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each develop- ment by assigning points according to the following formula: . , rn;p •e .a e. e. e, i cu. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spacious- ness. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maxi- mum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 25 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional 10(190 0m121Qye PR generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the plan- ning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off - site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of appli- cations, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to gener- ate, based on the proposed size and level of vox.., ay. nnmxn n.. v.n i.c RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves services of the lodge. If the planning com- mission determines that the oronospd nrnipet (bb) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units (maximum 5 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 508 of the total existing unit inventory To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebilding which provides that the rebuilt por- tions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred dur- ing the previous twenty -four (24) months and documenting that the expenditures have re- sulted in substantial upgrading of the inven- tory of tourist units in the lodge, and /or its or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or re- construct - 1 point for each 108 rehabil- itated or reconstructed. 51 to 1008 of the total existing unit inven- tory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruction - 1 point for each 108 rehabilitated or reconstructed. For the purposes of this section, rehabilita- tion shall include the upgrading of the struc- Q`%k" . ture and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a \ 5 substantially higher quality status, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this sec- tion, reconstruction shall include the partial hQ ^� or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. In the case of both rehabilita- tion and reconstruction, the units and the non -unit space shall be required to meet all other provisions of this zoning code and other applicable codes. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebilding which provides that the rebuilt por- tions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred dur- ing the previous twenty -four (24) months and documenting that the expenditures have re- sulted in substantial upgrading of the inven- tory of tourist units in the lodge, and /or its RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves guest facilities. Points shall only be awarded under this section to applicants located in the L -3 zone and not to those in the L -1, L -2, CC or Cl-zone districts. (5) Bonus points (maximum 6 points). The commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the cor- responding multiplier. Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written jus- tification of that award for the public hearing record. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), after having multiplied the number of points assigned under each of the following sections by the corresponding mul- tiplier: Points Section Multiplier Available 24- 11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(bb) (Sewer -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drain - age-2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire protec- tion-2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(bb) (Site design - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(cc) (Energy conser- vation-3 pts.) 1 3 24- 11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and cir- culation-3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(aa) (Common meeting areas -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational facil- ities-3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Employee housing - 15 pts.) 1 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 24- 11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Rehabilitation and reconstruction - 15 pts.) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(5) (Bonus pts. -6 pts.) 1 6 TOTAL: 91* 106 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) per- cent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) or a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the points available under each of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall no longer be con- sidered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commisson member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commission mem- bers shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city coun- cil shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the pub- lic hearing by the planning ad zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolu- tion and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or any'other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24- 11.6(x) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24- 11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24 -11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1983 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. Section 3 That it does hereby amend Section 24 -3.1 of the Municipal Code by the addition of a new subsection (gg) to read as follows: (gg) Dormitory: A building or space within a bu are rs ina racitities. uccupancv or a dormitory unit sna 1 lmited to no more than eight persons. Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1983, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1983. . Mayor i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 1983. Herman Edel, mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director RE: Quota System Code Amendments Concerning L -3 I DATE: July 11, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction In 1982, the Aspen City Council adopted the L -3 Lodge Preservation zone district and initiated a class rezoning action by which 25 lodges were rezoned to L -3. The reason for these actions was a desire by City Council to remove the stigma of nonconformity from many of our small lodges which were downzoned in the 1970's so as to encourage their rehabilitation and reconstruction. During the course of implementing the L -3 concept, it was recognized that the rezoning, by permitting the expansion of the small lodges, was an important first step in the effort at providing the lodge owner with an opportunity to upgrade the quality of his or her facilities. The L -3 zone gives lodge owners who were previously limited by their nonconforming status an opportunity to increase the square footage of their facilities, up to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1:1. Two lodges, the Edelweiss Chalet and the Endeavor Lodge are currently taking advantage of these provisions. The L -3 zone also gives lodge owners an opportunity to compete under the GMP to add rooms to their facilities, as limited by the constraints of the applicable area and bulk requirements of the district. However, since the actual rezoning was not completed until December, 1982, the L -3 owners were unable to submit applications in time for last year's October 1 deadline for lodge quota requests. Table 1 identifies the current buildout of the 25 L -3 lodges and their theoretical buildout potential under existing conditions. Since the lodge quota system was originally developed to deal with the lodge districts which were already in existence, and not with the L -3 district in mind, the Planning Office felt that it would be appropriate to re- examine that system. The Council directed the Planning Office to complete such an evaluation sufficiently in advance of the October 1, 1983 GMP submission deadline as to enable the L -3 lodge owner to compete for additional lodge rooms if he or she wished to do so. The purpose of the review would be to determine whether the existing quota system provides the small lodge owner in the L -3 district with the opportunity to equitably compete with lodge owners in our other zone districts. The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission have just completed their work in reviewing the provisions of the Code and recommending the necessary changes to deal with the unique situation of the L -3 lodges. We met on four separate occasions during May and June to consider a variety of alternative approaches and specific solutions to the problems which might face an L -3 owner in meeting the requirements of the Code. The resulting recommendation of P &Z is contained in their attached Resolution 83 -6. We have underlined those portions of the resolution which represent actual changes to highlight them to your attention. The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly review the approach which P &Z is recommending to provide you with some background information for the first reading of an ordinance on this topic, now scheduled for your regular meeting on July 11. Although we had hoped to schedule a work session on this topic prior to its first reading consideration, your meeting dates were already full by the time P &Z completed its action. We would therefore expect that it Memo: Quota System Code Amendments Concerning L -3 Lodges Page Two July 11, 1983 will be necessary to meet with you between first and second readings to clear up any issues which may arise from your review of this matter. Approach The approach which the Planning Office and Planning Commission are recommending on this topic contains two interrelated elements. The approach includes the proposed creation of a separate quota for the L -3 lodges, distinct from that applicable to the L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodges, and the amendment of the scoring system for all lodges. This latter change is intended to provide a method for equitably comparing, under the same criteria, proposals for brand new lodges built on previously vacant sites with those for complete renovations or small additions to existing lodges. The reason for creating a separate L -3 quota, recommended to be 10 units per year, is to specifically designate some number of units which will be available only to the small ldoges which previously were disenfranchised as regards expansion. This approach ensures that the L -3 lodges do not compete directly against the facilities in the other zones which are typically larger and therefore have the flexibility to provide better amenity packages, site design and similar features than the more constrained L -3 facilities. We would like to hold off for the time being on any discussion of the actual size of the quota and whether it should be taken from or in addition to the existing 35 unit lodge quota. We believe that the quota issue is sufficiently complex as to warrant its own work session. The second aspect of the proposed Code amendment is the changes suggested to the scoring system itself. We are recommending that rather than creating a second lodge scoring system, we should instead amend the existing system to reflect the conditions present on both vacant and already built upon sites. This approach eliminates the need to duplicate and complicate the Code and is consistent with the provisions regulating commercial development where several quotas exist for the various zone districts but one scoring system applies to any project, regardless of its location. Specifically, the approach recommended by the Planning Office and Planning Commission involves the use of the language "or any addition thereto" and "improvements to the existing" to the current Code language so that if a lodge owner is simply adding on to an existing facility (rather than building an entirely new one or tearing down and rebuilding an existing one) he or she is not penalized by the shortcomings of the existing building. In the case of additions, the revisions provide that we only evaluate the impacts associated with the growth, not those already existant. These evaluations include such diverse features as water and sewer, parking, employee housing, guest amenities, site design and architecture. Beyond these rather straightforward changes designed to make the system more equitable, one other important change in the scoring system has been proposed. The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend the implementation of a criterion which awards points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units or guest facilities in a lodge. This criteria is designed to be an incentive to the owner to upgrade his facility, consistent with the intent of the rezoning to L -3. The points under this section are recommended to only be available to applicants in the L -3 competition, since all potential applicants in this zone are existing lodges while potential applicants in our other lodge zones could own vacant land or existing lodges. It was decided by Council in 1982 that implementation Memo: Quota System Code Amendments Concerning L -3 Lodges Page Three July 11, 1983 of this criterion for zones where some applicants would be automatically precluded from fairly competing due to their existing circumstances would be discriminatory. Therefore, we recommend limiting this change only to L -3 applicants, permitting applicants in other zones to compete in areas where they can be reasonably effective. Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that when this item comes before you at your meeting on July 11, you grant first reading approval to the ordinance reflecting the P &Z resolution. This action will keep us on track toward implementing these Code provisions in August, well in advance of the October 1 lodge quota submission deadline, and will give us time to go through the details of the ordinance at work sessions later this month. Should you concur with this recom- mendation, the appropriate motions are as follows: "Move to read Ordinance 957 , Series of 1983." "Move to approve on first reading Ordinance % rj Series of 1983." RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Resolution No. 83 - 6 WHEREAS, on September 13, 1982 the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 38, Series of 1982, establishing an L -3 Lodge Preservation zone district, and WHEREAS, on December 27, 1982 the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 68, Series of 1982, rezoning 25 lodges from various districts in which they were nonconforming uses to L -3, Lodge Preservation, and WHEREAS, during the course of the establishment of the L -3, Lodge Preservation zone district, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council did indicate their intent to review the lodge development quota system in light of the needs of and the limitations upon the new zone district, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does wish to amend the lodge development quota system so as to ensure that projects designed to upgrade existing lodges in the L -3 zone district may equitably compete with lodge development projects in Aspen's other zones, and WHEREAS, the growth management approach which the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission believes will best deal with the needs of and the limitations upon the L -3 zone district is the establishment of a separate quota for L -3 lodges and the amendment of the evaluation criteria and informational requirements for lodge developments to differentiate between new lodge developments and projects which merely add to existing lodges, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does believe that the need for upgrading in the quality of Aspen's lodging facilities is of such importance that lodging merits a high priority within the quota system and should therefore receive an increased share of the total allocation of units, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby indicate its willingness to consider recommending the use of multiple years of lodge development allocations and /or bonus allocations to facilitate the approval of quality projects in the L -3 zone district. -2- NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -11.1 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: "Sec. 24 -11.1. Limitations on development. All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following: (a) Within all zone districts, thirty -nine (39) residential units; EG�I Within the L -1 NOTICE 4rr� �w five (35) lodg 0 e or hotel units. Within the L -3 zone distri (d) Within the CC and C -1 zone districts, ten thousand (10,000) provided that these maximums may be deviated from under those conditions specified in Section 24- 11.3(a). No construction, except for that described in Section 24 -11.2, shall proceed until the project shall have been awarded a development allot - ment pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, Section 5, Ord. No. 26- 1982, Section 1)." BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of development allotments for lodges: (a) Applicants shall file a complete application with the city planning office, on or before October lst of each year, which application shall include the following, where applicable, provided that applicants are encouraged to engage in a pre - application conference with the planning office to clarify the intent and purpose of the informa- tional requirements and evaluation criteria: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: square feet of commercial and office space; (e) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, seven thousand (7,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (f) Within the O zone district, four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and (g) Within the CL and all other zone districts, three thousand (3,000) square feet of commercial and office space; provided that these maximums may be deviated from under those conditions specified in Section 24- 11.3(a). No construction, except for that described in Section 24 -11.2, shall proceed until the project shall have been awarded a development allot - ment pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, Section 5, Ord. No. 26- 1982, Section 1)." BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of development allotments for lodges: (a) Applicants shall file a complete application with the city planning office, on or before October lst of each year, which application shall include the following, where applicable, provided that applicants are encouraged to engage in a pre - application conference with the planning office to clarify the intent and purpose of the informa- tional requirements and evaluation criteria: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: -3- (aa) Type of water system to be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply system to serve the proposed building or the addition thereto; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed building or the addition thereto; total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed building or the addition thereto. (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project. (gg) The proposed construction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing construction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in sufficient detail to show building size, height, material, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical district boundary lines, if any. -4- (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of October, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission at a regular meeting of the commission during November. The planning and zoning commission shall review all applications taking into consideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. -5- (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each applica- tion with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) consid- ering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the im- provements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (dd) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 25 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 508 of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 108 housed. 51 to 1008 of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 58 housed. The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off - site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed_ project generates no new emolovees. it shall award to the anolinan avai s subsection. (bb) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units (maximum 5 points). The commission shall 9-� award points as follows: 0 to 508 of the total existing unit inventory 5 in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point �a a for each 108 rehabilitated or reconstructed. 51 to 1008 of the total existing unit inventory T �+[ in the lodge which the applicant agrees to NOr'y` ArrfN�oIAL rehabilitate each 58 rehabi reconstruct litatedorreconstructed. ' "�'�f torixs N For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and -7- appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a sub- stantially higher quality status, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided _ that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located NOTICE q, SVE on the same site. For the purposes of this 'St section, non -unit space shall include those ToTINSN areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. In the case of both rehabilitation and reconstruction, the units and the non -unit space shall be required to meet all other provisions of this zoning code and other applicable codes. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebuilding which provides that the rebuilt portions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior to or '!^ at the same time as the new units for which an NOT10E456' allotment has been requested. In the alternative, ToTwi °N an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred during the previous twenty - four (24) months and documenting that the expendi- tures have resulted in substantial upgrading of the inventory of tourist units in the lodge, and /or its guest facilities. Points shall only be awarded under this section to applicants located in the L -3 zone and not to those in the L -1, L -2, CC or CL zone districts. (5) B nus points (maximum 6 points). Tie commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), after having multiplied the number of points assigned under each of the following sections by the corresponding multiplier: Section 24- 11.6(b)(1)(aa) 24- 11.6(b)(1)(bb) 24- 11.6(b) (1) (cc) 24- 11. 6 (b) (1) (dd) 24- 11.6(b) (1) (ee) 24-11.6(b) (2) (aa) (Water -2 pts.) (sewer -2 pts.) (storm drainage - 2 pts.) (Fire protection- 2 pts.) (Roads -2 pts.) (Architectural design -3 pts.) Multiplier 1 1 1 1 1 3 Points Available 2 2 2 2 2 9 �E 24-11. 6 (b) (2) (bb) (Site design - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(cc) (Energy conserva- tion-3 pts.) 1 3 24- 11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circu- lation-3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b) (3) (aa) (Common meeting areas -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational faci- lities-( pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Employee housing - 15 pts.) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Rehabilitation and reconstruction - 15 points) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(5) (Bonus pts. -6 pts.) 1 6 TOTAL: 91* 106 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) or a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the points available under each of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commission member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority project and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, a building or any other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24- 11.6(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24- 11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24- 11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1983 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, section 5; Ord. No. 27 -1982, section 1; Ord. No. 54 -1982, Sections 9 -12)." BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -3.1 of the Municipal Code to include the following definition: (gg) Dormitory: A building or space within a building which provides group sleeping accommodations for persons who s" are not members of the same family group in one room or NOTICE 4rrtNTiO4 in a series of closely associated rooms under joint occu- IIllli'') 70TM1S pancy and single management without individual cooking facilities. Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight persons. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado at their special meeting on June 28, 1983. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: C� Welton Ande s n,. Acting Chairma ATTEST: y n Brooks, Assistance City Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Resolution No. 83 - 6 WHEREAS, on September 13, 1982 the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 38, Series of 1982, establishing an L -3 Lodge Preservation zone district, and WHEREAS, on December 27, 1982 the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 68, Series of 1982, rezoning 25 lodges from various districts in which they were nonconforming uses to L -3, Lodge Preservation, and WHEREAS, during the course of the establishment of the L -3, Lodge Preservation zone district, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council did indicate their intent to review the lodge development quota system in light of the needs of and the limitations upon the new zone district, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does wish to amend the lodge development quota system so as to ensure that projects designed to upgrade existing lodges in the L -3 zone district may equitably compete with lodge development projects in Aspen's other zones, and WHEREAS, the growth management approach which the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission believes will best deal with the needs of and the limitations upon the L -3 zone district is the establishment of a separate quota for L -3 lodges and the amendment of the evaluation criteria and informational requirements for lodge developments to differentiate between new lodge developments and projects which merely add to existing lodges, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does believe that the need for upgrading in the quality of Aspen's lodging facilities is of such importance that lodging merits a high priority within the quota system and should therefore receive an increased share of the total allocation of units, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby indicate its willingness to consider recommending the use of multiple years of lodge development allocations and /or bonus allocations to facilitate the approval of quality projects in the L -3 zone district. -2- NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -11.1 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: "Sec. 24 -11.1. Limitations on development. All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following: (a) Within all zone districts, thirty -nine (39) residential units; (b) Within the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts, thirty - five (35) lodge or hotel units; (c) Within the L -3 zone district, ten (10) lodge or tourist dormitory units; (d) Within the CC and C -1 zone districts, ten thousand (10,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (e) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, seven thousand (7,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (f) Within the O zone district, four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and (g) Within the CL and all other zone districts, three thousand (3,000) square feet of commercial and office space; provided that these maximums may be deviated from under those conditions specified in Section 24- 11.3(a). No construction, except for that described in Section 24 -11.2, shall proceed until the project shall have been awarded a development allot- ment pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, Section 5, Ord. No. 26- 1982, Section 1)." BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of development allotments for lodges: (a) Applicants shall file a complete application with the city planning office, on or before October 1st of each year, which application shall include the following, where applicable, provided that applicants are encouraged to engage in a pre - application conference with the planning office to clarify the intent and purpose of the informa- tional requirements and evaluation criteria: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: -3- (aa) Type of water system to be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply system to serve the proposed building or the addition thereto; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed building or the addition thereto; total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed building or the addition thereto. (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project. (gg) The proposed construction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing construction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in sufficient detail to show building size, height, material, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical district boundary lines, if any. -4- (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of October, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission at a regular meeting of the commission during November. The planning and zoning commission shall review all applications taking into consideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) water (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. -5- (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each applica- tion with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) consid- ering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. (bb) site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the im- provements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (dd) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. UM The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 25 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off - site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. (bb) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units (maximum 5 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 51 to 100% of the total existing unit inventor-, in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and -7- appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a sub- stantially higher quality status, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. In the case of both rehabilitation and reconstruction, the units and the non -unit space shall be required to meet all other provisions of this zoning code and other applicable codes. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebuilding which provides that the rebuilt portions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred during the previous twenty - four (24) months and documenting that the expendi- tures have resulted in substantial upgrading of the inventory of tourist units in the lodge, and /or its guest facilities. Points shall only be awarded under this section to applicants located in the L -3 zone and not to those in the L -1, L -2, CC or CL zone districts. (5) BQnus points (maximum 6 points). Tne commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), after having multiplied the number of points assigned under each of the following sections by the corresponding multiplier: Section 24- 11.6(b)(1)(aa) 24- 11.6(b)(1)(bb) 24- 11.6(b) (1) (cc) 24- 11.6(b) (1) (dd) 24- 11.6(b) (1) (ee) 24-11.6(b) (2) (aa) (Water -2 pts.) (sewer -2 pts.) (Storm drainage - 2 pts.) (Fire protection- 2 pts.) (Roads -2 pts.) (Architectural design -3 pts.) Multiplier 1 1 1 1 1 3 Points Available 2 2 2 2 2 9 24-11.6(b) (2) (bb) (Site design- TOTAL: 91* 106 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) or a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the points available under each of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commission member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority project and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(cc) (Energy conserva- tion-3 pts.) 1 3 24- 11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circu- lation-3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(ee) (visual impact - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b) (3) (aa) (Common meeting areas -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational faci- lities-( pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Employee housing - 15 pts.) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Rehabilitation and reconstruction - 15 points) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(5) (Bonus pts. -6 pts.) 1 6 TOTAL: 91* 106 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) or a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the points available under each of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commission member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority project and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, WE building or any other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24- 11.6(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24- 11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24- 11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1983 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, section 5; Ord. No. 27 -1982, section 1; Ord. No. 54 -1982, Sections 9 -12)." BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24 -3.1 of the Municipal Code to include the following definition: (gg) Dormitory: A building or space within a building which provides group sleeping accommodations for persons who are not members of the same family group in one room or in a series of closely associated rooms under joint occu- pancy and single management without individual cooking facilities. Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight persons. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado at their special meeting on June 28, 1983. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: () lfd I& /a,- Welton Ande s n, Acting Chairma ATTEST: Oy an Brooks, Assistance City Clerk TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and zoning Commission Alan Richman, Planning Office L -3 Quota System Code Amendment June 7, 1983 Introduction At your regularly scheduled meeting on May 4, 1983 you were presented with a series of alternatives for dealing with the issue of how best to regulate the expansion of the new L -3 lodges under the growth management quota system. The alternatives you considered included no change (that is, the lodges in the L -3 zone would continue to compete against lodges in all other zones for the existing 35 unit quota), a GMP exemption for small lodge expansions, and the establishment of a separate quota and competition system for L -3 lodges. Your decision at that time was that the Planning Office should develop the language necessary to establish a separate L -3 quota and scoring system. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with a first draft of the code amendments necessary to implement your decision. Approach The code amendments which follow include several basic concepts. First, we have included an amendment to Section 24 -11.1 of the Code, creating a ten unit quota for the L -3 zone in addition to the 35 unit quota for the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. Though the Planning Office does not support this approach (preferring to split the existing 35 unit quota into 25 unit and 10 unit components) it does represent the direction you gave to us. The appropriate language for this amendment is as follows (note: major changes are underlined): "ARTICLE XI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Sec. 24 -11.1. Limitations on development. All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following: (a) Within all zone districts, thirty -nine (39) residential units; (b) Within the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts, thirt five (35) lodge or hotel units; (c) Within the L -3 zone district, ten (10) lodge or tourist dormitory units; (d) Within the CC and C -1 zone districts, ten thousand (10,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (e) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, seven thousand (7,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (f) Within the 0 zone district, four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and (g) Within the CL and all other zone districts, three thousand (3,000) square feet of commercial and office space; Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Two June 7, 1983 provided that these maximums may be deviated from under those conditions specified in section 24- 11.3(a). No construction, except for that described in section 24 -11.2, shall proceed until the project shall have been awarded a development allotment pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, Section 5; Ord. No. 26 -1982, Section 1)." We are also proposing a series of changes to Section 24 -11.6 of the Code which make the scoring system equally applicable to additions to existing lodges as well as the construction of new lodges. The significant amendments include the following: 1. Use of the words "where applicable" within Section 24- 11.6(a) to indicate that the informational requirements need only be met if the information requested is pertinent to the review of the project proposed. 2. Use of the words "or the addition thereto" throughout the scoring system to distinguish between projects which are expansions versus those which are new construction. 3. Use of the words "or improvements to the existing" in the criteria for evaluating the quality of design and amenities for guests categories to ensure that an applicant proposing a small addition to an existing facility need not make expenditures which may be unnecessary or inappropriate in certain cases. 4. A new criterion, rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units" has been created, awarding one point for every two units which are proposed to be rebuilt or restored in conjunction with an expansion or total reconstruction of a lodge. These points are only being made available to facilities in the L -3 zone, where all potential competitors would have the opportunity to successfully compete for the available points. It was recognized during the 1982 GMP code amendment that this scoring criterion could not be used in the other lodge zones where both vacant and built upon sites exist and a discriminatory scoring situation could result. The appropriate language for this amendment is as follows: "Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of develop- ment allotments for lodges: (a) Applicants shall file a complete application with the city planning office, on or before October 1st of each year, which application shall include the following, where applicable: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: (aa) Type of water system to be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply system; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Three June 7, 1983 (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed development; total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development. (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project. (gg) The proposed construction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing construction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in sufficient detail to show building size, height, material, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical district boundary lines, if any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of October, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission at a regular meeting of the commission during November. The planning and zoning commission shall review all applications taking into consideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Four June 7, 1983 (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2-- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existin station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the propsoed develodpment without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Five June 7, 1983 (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each applica- tion with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1-- Indicates a major design flaw. 2-- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) consid- ering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (dd) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points) considering the quality of efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Six June 7, 1983 The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of or improvements to the existin on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of or improvements to the existin on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of or improvements to the existin on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of lodge employees housed on or off - site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of lodge employees housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on -site. The planning office, upon reasonable request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. (bb) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existi units maximum 10 points). The commission shall award 1 point for each ten percent of room the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or recon- struct. For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge room by an in -place restoration of the unit to a higher quality status, which may alter the size of the unit. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a unit which may be accomplished in a similar or different footprint and at a similar or different size to the original configuration provided that the unit is rebuilt on the same site. Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Seven June 7, 1983 In the case of both rehabilitation and reconstruction, the units shall be required to meet all other provisions of this zoning code and other applicable codes. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the unit and the timetable for its restorati or rebuilding which provides that the rebuilt units are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. Points shall only be awarded under this section to applicants located in the L -3 zone and not to those in the L -1, L -2, CC or CL zone districts. (5) Bonus points (maximum 6 points). The commission members may, when any one shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under those sections prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), after having multiplied the number of points assigned under each of the following sections by the corresponding multiplier: Section Multiplier Points Available 24- 11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(bb) (sewer -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drainage - 2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire protection - 2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(bb) (Site design - 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(cc) (Energy conserva- tion-3 pts.) 1 3 24- 11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circu- lation-3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact - 3 pts.) 3 9 24 -11.6 (b) (3) (aa) (Common meeting areas -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational faci- lities-3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Employee housing - 15 pts.) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units -10 pts.) 1 10 24- 11.6(b)(5) (Bonus pts. -6 pts.) 1 6 Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Eight June 7, 1983 TOTAL: 91* 101 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commission member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority project and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or any other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that Lor a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24- 11.6(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24- 11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24- 11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1983 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. (Ord. No. 48 -1977, section 1; Ord. No. 16 -1980, section 5; Ord. No. 27- 1982, section 1; Ord. No. 54 -1982, Sections 9 -12)." Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Nine June 7, 1983 Planning Office Recommendation The code amendments identified above represent a step forward in improving the competitive posture of the L -3 lodges with respect to the larger facilities in the other zones and therefore merit your support. The Planning Office fully supports the proposed changes to the scoring system, as well as the creation of a new L- 3 quota. However, we do believe that you should reconsider your decision to create a new 10 unit quota for the L -3 zone, in addition to the existing 35 unit lodge quota. To illustrate our concern with this decision, we attach Table 9 from the GMPP Update which compares the original recommendations of the GMPP, Third Draft, to those which Aspen and Pitkin County adopted in their quota system revisions of 1982. As you can see, the new quotas amount to an overall growth rate of 3.72 percent due to the fact that they are more inclusive than those previously in effect (i.e., the new lodge quota for Pitkin County, employee housing). We find it difficult at this time to support an increase to the lodge quota without a commensurate decrease elsewhere, since this action will simply have the effect of accelerating the rate of depletion of available services. From the standpoint of overall balance, we cannot argue as to the need for substantial numbers of additional lodge rooms, based on the fact that we find that "the tourist accommodations inventory in existence in the metro area is neither far too small nor far too large for the recreational amenities available at the period of peak demand, but is, in fact, more than adequate for the typical ski day" (GMPP Update, page 40). TABLE 9 Comparison of G11PP Residential and Lodge Quota Recommendations to Existing Quota System GMPP Recommendation Revised Quota System Division Adopted # Quota Rate Adopted # Quota Rate Aspen Metro 27 * 1.8% 53 * 3.5% City of Aspen 57 ** 1.3% 74 ** 1.7% Snowmass /Brush 191 10.0% 191 10.5% Creek Downvalley 44 3.4% 24 1.9% TOTAL: 319 3.47% 342 3.72% Note: *The Pitkin County metro area quota, which formerly consisted of 27 residential units has been revised to include 33 residential and 20 lodge units. * *The City of Aspen quota, which formerly consisted of 39 residen- tial and 18 lodge units has been revised to include 39 residen- tial and 35 lodge units. Source: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 1983. Memo: L -3 Quota System Code Amendment Page Ten June 7, 1983 Given the above conclusions, we strongly recommend that you reconsider your decision to increase the available lodge quota from 35 to 45 units. An increase which would result in an overall Pitkin County residential and lodge quota of 352 units per year, a 3.83 percent annual simple growth rate. However, if you believe that for the short term, lodge improvement is a priority and should be given added emphasis in the quota system, we ask that you consider a short term 10 unit reduction of the residential quota to offset the increase in the lodge quota. This action would be consistent with the policy that the quota system be "dymanic to address changing priorities, be tied directly to the community's ability to provide public services and maintain the quality of life for its visitors and residents, and be designed to meet an annual Countywide growth rate of approximately 3.5 percent" (GMPP Update, page 59). MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Discussion of L -3 Quota Options DATE: May 4, 1983 Introduction Ordinance 38, Series of 1982, adopted by City Council on September 13, 1982, created a new L -3, Lodge Preservation zone district in the City of Aspen. Subsequently, Ordinance 68, Series of 1982 adopted on December 27, 1982, rezoned 25 existing lodges from the various zones in which they were nonconforming uses to L -3 where they are permitted uses. Five lodges identified by the Planning Office for the L -3 class rezoning declined to participate in the action at that time. The L -3 zone district gives those facilities with an FAR below 1:1 the ability to expand the size of the lodge by obtaining the special approval of P &Z. To date, the Endeavor and Edelweiss have taken advantage of this provision. The L -3 zone district also gives these facilities the capability to add new lodge rooms, subject to the need to obtain an allocation under GMP. When the L -3 district was established, it was not also possible to deal with the question of whether the existing lodge development quota system is appropriate for evaluating the types of applications which would be submitted in this zone. We committed to dealing with this issue in advance of the 1983 competition, now scheduled for submission on October 1. The purpose of this memo is to introduce some of the planning issues associated with this question and to identify some of the options available to us in dealing with these issues. Buildout Potential Before we proceed with dealing with this question, it is first necessary to define the magnitude of the potential buildout we may experience from lodge expansion in the L -3 zone. Table 1 identifies the current buildout and the new unit buildout potential for the 25 L -3 lodges, based on some standards of current practice. As can be seen the total of almost 500 rooms in the L -3 zone could be increased by about 45 percent, or about 225 additional rooms, under current zoning. The table also demonstrates that among the 25 facilities, only three have no buildout potential whatsoever, while an additional five could only add one or two new units. Please note that the buildout potential does not include the additions which could take place if a lodge owner purchased adjacent property and was successful in having it rezoned to L -3. Planning Issues In dealing with the L -3 quota question, it is most important to remember the original impetus for pursuing the entire rezoning activity. City Council directed the Planning Office to resolve the problem of the nonconforming lodges by providing greater flexibility to the owners of these facilities to upgrade and where desirable, slightly expand their operations. Those aspects of the Municipal Code which precluded the desired upgrading from occuring were to be examined and, if necessary, revised. By rezoning the lodges to conforming status and providing them with a mechanism for FAR expansion, the L -3 zone offers a much wider set of options to the owners of our small ldoges. However, if by the very nature of the lodge development quota system, an owner is unable to compete for the right to add new rooms to his or her lodge, then we have not fully succeeded in our task. Therefore, it is important that we look specifically at the current lodge competition scoring system to see if an L -3 lodge is likely to succeed in this requirement of the Code. Memo: L -3 Quota System Page Two May 4, 1983 Ordinance 27, Series of 1982 amended Section 24 -11.6 of the Code, by establishing a revised set of scoring categories for evaluating lodge applications to include the following criteria: Availability of Public Facilities and Services Water Sewer Storm Drainage Fire Protection Roads Quality of Design Architectural Design Site Design Energy Conservation Parking and Circulation Visual Impact Amenities Provided for Guests a. Meeting Areas b. Dining Facilities C. Recreational Facilities Employee Housing Provision A careful review of the above evaluation criteria leads one to the realization that an L -3 lodge expansion will likely have a very difficult time competing for an allocation with an L -1 or L -2 lodge project. The typical L -3 project will involve a small addition to an existing facility, although in some cases complete lodge reconstruction may occur. The L -3 lodges are already typically constrained by their existing architecture, amenity package and site limitations. It will be very difficult for a lodge owner to justify major expenditures in these areas to obtain a small expansion of lodge rooms. On the other hand, development in the L -1 and L -2 districts typically involves vacant sites or major additions to existing lodges, where greater opportunities are available to address each of the above criteria. Considering this problem which will likely be faced by the majority of develop- ment proposals in the L -3 zone, it seems apparent that some action is justifiable to give the L -3 lodge a greater opportunity to win a quota allocation. However, there are several caveats to consider before embarking upon a Code amendment process, including the following: There are many small lodges in existence in the L -1 and L -2 zones, such as the Deep Powder and Skier's Chalet. Any Code changes which may be considered to assist the owners of small lodges in the L -3 zone may unfairly discriminate against the owners of similar facilities in our other lodge zones. 2. Although the lodge quota was increased from 18 to 35 units per year in 1982, the Short Term Accommodations Report documents that a substantial addition to our lodging inventory is not warranted at this time. Therefore, any alternative which involves a revision to the lodge quota should be limited to the method in which the quota is awarded, including whether portions of the 35 unit total should be "earmarked" to various types of projects. Memo: L -3 Quota System Page Three May 4, 1983 Available Options Given the preceeding analysis, the Planning Office can conceive of at least five approaches to deal with the L -3 quota question, including the following: 1. No change (that is, all lodge developments, regardless of the zone in which they are located, would continue to compete under the criteria now in effect for the 35 unit per year quota). 2. Set up a separate L -3 quota by earmarking a portion of the 35 unit quota for the L -3 zone only, but have all lodge developments compete under the criteria now in-effect. 3. Set up a separate L -3 quota by earmarking a portion of the 35 unit quota for the L -3 zone only, and establish new scoring criteria for evaluating applications in the L -3 zone only. 4. Establish a GMP exemption designed to permit small expansions (for example, less than 10 units) to existing lodges without competition for an allocation. 5. Earmark portions of the 35 unit quota to expansions to existing lodges and to the construction of new lodges (to include the total reconstruction of existing lodges) and develop scoring criteria designed to evaluate these two types of lodge projects. Table 2 below provides an analysis of the pros and cons of each of the available options. As can be clearly discerned, each alternative has positive and negative features associated with it and none of the approaches identified repre- sents a perfect option. The Planning Office has not come to a firm conclusion as to which of the options should be chosen at this time. In fact, it is probably appropriate that two or three of the options be investigated in greater detail before any choice is made. We would like to use this meeting to narrow the options down to those most likely for implementation, including any options which we have not identified but which you believe have merit. Our intention would be to then return at your meeting on June 7 with a public hearing to choose the preferred option from among the narrowed field. N C O Y RE N M W I J J O N C O U v C ro O L [L T O i a Y V v O i d C � t v 3 Y L a) C C C O 0-0 0_•r C ro > C 0.- O i N •r n N E N C r > ro r O_ Y Y X 0.- a C Y v� N O m M U N v V O U ro C O Y V ro C N Y N C i E •r � O C N E C� ro L OR C Y Y > a) - ro ESN a) Y Y O •r C O C Y ro •r v U i n ro i Y O L L a) Y N r Q) a) Y E L i O + a V E 4� c E u J •r 3 C L E a) Y Y a Y tiL ro Y E v n C ro ro Y ro L > a) ro S- u O G) +� ro i •r M Y Y a1 ro N n L Y E Y •r o C V S- O M =4- 1 N O J C a) L a) L Y r 7 O 3 C Y a1 Y v n 4- O i O U a) v S- E C o L O I ro L J � d ro Y L Y r Y 0 ro n C m �.r aro N ro C 3 al E o m .--0 O N ro O L C v 3 ro a a N X Y m a) a) E O C U N N ro a) a) n a a N i O 0L I O = C] Y J 4- n L E Y a) al E V O L O a/ a O Y C L - 0 Y O Y O •.- C r O O_ Ol U Y Y Y E a) i a) ro (I)- L- Y U d Y ro N ro 3 C a) r C a ro Y CO ro CT ro > a ro L ro i a) +� o a > Y > C Q) S- S- ro Y Y ) vro a) N N n O C Y E a) ) E a1 •r O i O C V U 3 ro M a r 4 1 4- i 3 0 J O ro C ro ro Y O o- E v M Y I N J a N al Y Q1 ro C L •r ro L n0 a) U N N M U C a1 Y i C vroro•r r O a N 0 4- 00- Y> Y O O C C •r a)3 O N o N a) Y •r •r a)o a)CY a) L i N E ro L n u O Y Y S- L U N X ro na ro•r (U L E C CL 0 O O •r E -U () a) ro 4- U Y •�- O) a) n Y -O C N a) E L N O EL x) a �L al Y ax) O a) 3 -04- L S- 0 O a O •r ro L L O O E CT CL C Y I) N O E •r a) N L L Y ro ro + � Y • r ro m ro NL L Y aj U a X i S- Y C N a O a a) 4- 4- a N E N •r ro U S- U N al U Y Y i •r a) Y N N o.- a1 r On 3 L L O C C a •� nro•r N v v N a) r +� E ro aJ Y •r •r 0 V C U O S- •ro0 i N 'O L ro r-• V •r N ro C L Y E ro 3 N N O al Y V S- C: O na)-04- E E C r al ro N CL N L C a E > o rroY ro ro O a) V i Y -0 • r N 3 r C �L a)nO U E a•r U U ro •r b N O O Y C L i t ro CL o_ a) Y O_ 0-L •r X Q ro Y 3 v I [L E C7 N C E o o •r L N 4- C ro C O_ O X r a) Y E X E W N C C L L •r "a) O) L C a) Y > > 01 a).r a) O L rN- •r ro ro (a Y •r Y 3 L L ro N Y N 3 d r U O ro N Y O Y L• r L U N "O . r i O1 N al a) E Y Y C ()L MO V N C•rLUE-0-o•rroC a) LYro O> O E Ovw - - WOU U C i C 0 -0 Y C N o n. ro v 3 v n Y — EEa) ELN(d (1)U O a)a)C ro O Y "O a) Y Y 4- U N 0 4- 4- 00 N a) •r U 4- O r +M O 1— a) C Y Y ro i L a/ O MY U C •r d +� •r C r Q1 ro Y r Y• r 3• Y C C a) C N U L V o O N a) a) 3 O.r S- 5-- L >1 a) a -O i V 4- n O 3YY ()Y NtF C N 4- - Y C N .r 1p O 4- al a) C C 4- -O ro •r L C W a) O O C N "O ro a) Y U ro al C N N U C a) (L) L ro S- O 0 N a)•r i n_a1 3 n Y N N S. C 0.- n 3 _ 41 aa1 O aJ a 0-0 ro a) O 4- O L O -C, N N Uf U n0 0 YYY1p Ry > _a M a) N Y > Q) 0.- C O Y O Cr ro Ol N - C 4- S- •r ro M O S- E I a) N J � o E F • r O O C N U ro •r Y N L U 0 EN ro al L J • r O r O > L 10 O > 0-.- •.- r i S- ro 3 v n I Y L J a) ro 0 Y m L L O O L a -P +� 3 Y L Y L Y M-0 •r U L C C C ro Y C •r ro O) a) r i ro 3 O E E Y N N a N N aJ CLr- C (0-0 a Y ro •r a)Oa0Qm o - -0 Y a) ro CD I C 1 U r C O i ro S- o U x X N N a C O O ()U C Y ro ro 3 � v Y > O > N c a Q N O i Q) Y Y > > ro a) i al N • ro Y C C a N 00 v a•r •r fn N N Y LC) E CD Y ro N +� a O N O C7 0) M •r 1 L J O a) U O) a N C +� ro ro v L i U ro o CJ C C o •r O Z N N Y O r N a1 Y v n 4- O i O U a) v S- E C o L O I ro L J � d ro Y L Y r Y 0 ro n C m �.r aro N ro C 3 al E o m .--0 O N ro O L C v 3 ro a a N X Y m a) a) E O C U N N ro a) a) n a a N i O 0L I O = C] Y J 4- n L E Y a) al E V O L O a/ a O Y C L - 0 Y O Y O •.- C r O O_ Ol U Y Y Y E a) i a) ro (I)- L- Y U d Y ro N ro 3 C a) r C a ro Y CO ro CT ro > a ro L ro i a) +� o a > Y > C Q) S- S- ro Y Y ) vro a) N N n O C Y E a) ) E a1 •r O i O C V U 3 ro M a r 4 1 4- i 3 0 J O ro C ro ro Y O o- E v M Y I N J a N al Y Q1 ro C L •r ro L n0 a) U N N M U C a1 Y i C vroro•r r O a N 0 4- 00- Y> Y O O C C •r a)3 O N o N a) Y •r •r a)o a)CY a) L i N E ro L n u O Y Y S- L U N X ro na ro•r (U L E C CL 0 O O •r E -U () a) ro 4- U Y •�- O) a) n Y -O C N a) E L N O EL x) a �L al Y ax) O a) 3 -04- L S- 0 O a O •r ro L L O O E CT CL C Y I) N O E •r a) N L L Y ro ro + � Y • r ro m ro NL L Y aj U a X i S- Y C N a O a a) 4- 4- a N E N •r ro U S- U N al U Y Y i •r a) Y N N o.- a1 r On 3 L L O C C a •� nro•r N v v N a) r +� E ro aJ Y •r •r 0 V C U O S- •ro0 i N 'O L ro r-• V •r N ro C L Y E ro 3 N N O al Y V S- C: O na)-04- E E C r al ro N CL N L C a E > o rroY ro ro O a) V i Y -0 • r N 3 r C �L a)nO U E a•r U U ro •r b N O O Y C L i t ro CL o_ a) Y O_ 0-L •r X Q ro Y 3 v I [L E C7 N C E o o •r L N 4- C ro C O_ O X r a) Y E X E W N C C L L •r "a) O) L C a) Y > > 01 a).r a) O L rN- •r ro ro (a Y •r Y 3 L L ro N Y N 3 d r U O ro N Y O Y L• r L U N "O . r i O1 N al a) E Y Y C ()L MO V N C•rLUE-0-o•rroC a) LYro O> O E Ovw - - WOU U C i C 0 -0 Y C N o n. ro v 3 v n Y — EEa) ELN(d (1)U O a)a)C ro O Y "O a) Y Y 4- U N 0 4- 4- 00 N a) •r U 4- O r +M O 1— a) C Y Y ro i L a/ O MY U C •r d +� •r C r Q1 ro Y r Y• r 3• Y C C a) C N U L V o O N a) a) 3 O.r S- 5-- L >1 a) a -O i V 4- n O 3YY ()Y NtF C N 4- - Y C N .r 1p O 4- al a) C C 4- -O ro •r L C W a) O O C N "O ro a) Y U ro al C N N U C a) (L) L ro S- O 0 N a)•r i n_a1 3 n Y N N S. C 0.- n 3 _ 41 aa1 O aJ a 0-0 ro a) O 4- O L O -C, N N Uf U n0 0 YYY1p Ry > _a M a) N Y > Q) 0.- C O Y O Cr ro Ol N - C 4- S- •r ro M O S- E I a) N J � o E F • r O O C N U ro •r Y N L U 0 EN ro al L J • r O r O > L 10 O > 0-.- •.- r i S- ro 3 v n I Y L J a) ro 0 Y m L L O O L a -P +� 3 Y L Y L Y M-0 •r U L C C C ro Y C •r ro O) a) r i ro 3 O E E Y N N a N N aJ CLr- C (0-0 a Y ro •r a)Oa0Qm o - -0 Y a) ro CD I C 1 U r C O i ro S- o U x X N N a C O O ()U C Y ro ro 3 � v Y > O > N c a Q N O i Q) Y Y > > ro a) i al N • ro Y C C a N 00 v a•r •r fn N N Y LC)