Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge GMP.1982MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 24-11.6 -- Lodge GMP DATE: April 14, 1982 Attached for your review are the proposed changes to Section 24-11.6 of the Code concerning the lodge GMP scoring system. As you may recall, in 1981 we proposed changes to the commercial and residential GMP scoring systems to which you concurred and which City Council adopted. The proposals before you tonight are similar in intent to those you have previously reviewed by following these basic themes: 1. The criteria and categories have been clarified whenever possible to eliminate ambiguous references and to simplify the administration of the scoring system. 2. The criteria and categories which appeared to be out of date have been replaced with new considerations which better reflect current policy concerns of the City of Aspen. 3. The technical changes embodied in the new commercial and residential scoring systems have been carried forward to the lodge scoring system. 4. Criteria evaluating services over which an applicant has little control have been de-emphasized in favor of those which the applicant can affect and which provide direct public benefit, particularly as regards tourist services. Following is a summary of the existing and proposed scoring categories and the points associated with each category: Existing System Proposed Svstem Public Facilities and Services 15 Public Facilities and Services 17 Social Facilities and Services 10 Proximity to Support Services -9 ~~ Quality of Design 15 Quality of Design 15 Services for Guests 6 Services for Guests 9 Public Policy Goal Conformance 12 Public Policy Goal Conformance 20 Subtotal 58 Subtotal 6560 Bonus Points 12 Bonus Points b ~ Total 70 Total ~ ~~ Following is a detailed summary of the changes proposed to each category: 1. Public Facilities and Services The changes in this section are simply technical clarifications of existing language. The scoring system is proposed to be revised from a 0 to 3 basis to a 0 to 2 basis, as was done in the residential and commercial areas. The language of the criteria has been updated to provide a more positive light to their review whereby when an applicant clearly improves a system to the community's benefit, the score will reflect this improvement. This category is proposed to continue to evaluate the adequacy of water, sewer, drainage, fire protection and road services, and also to evaluate a new area -- sidewalks, which are an important consideration to the CCLC and to the tourist population in general. 2. Proximity to Support Services This category, formerly called availability of social facilities and services. has been revised to emphasize proximity to services rather than an applicant's impact on the service. Previously, this category included public transportation, police protection and commercial facilities. It is now proposed to include Memo: Proposed Amendments to Section 24-11.6 -- Lodge GMP Page Two April 14, 1982 public transportation, ski lifts and commercial facilities. The scoring system has been clarified for the purposes of measuring distance, including that it be measured from the lobby of the lodge to the point at which the service is accessed, and that it be measured by walking and not crow flying distances. 3. Quality of Design No changes are proposed for this category. 4. Services Provided for Guests There are two major changes proposed for this section. First, the Commission has been provided with criteria for evaluating each of the basic guest services, based on the quality and spaciousness of the applicant's proposal. The other major change is that the existing six considerations have been condensed into but three concerns -- common meeting areas, dining facilities and recreational facilities. The areas which have been dropped include conference and banquet facilities, overall tourist appeal, and ski trails, because these features are evaluated by criteria in this category and in category 2. 5. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals This section has been proposed to receive major technical changes. First, the award of points for reduction in tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal FAR has been eliminated. This change reflects the desirability of having the buildout in areas zoned for lodge use so as to preserve other areas of the community for residential, commercial, institutional and open space needs. This change also reflects the difficulty of accurately calculating the points available in this category. The above category has been replaced by a new area called demolition and reconstruction of existing units. This new public policy goal reflects the ongoing concern with the quality of our existing lodges. It is hoped that by providing points for demolition and reconstruction of units we can give an added incentive to the upgrading of our lodging quality. The second public policy goal, that of employee housing, has been left basically untouched, although we propose to now require documentation by the applicant of the number of employees who will serve the project. Finally, the auto disincentive category has been revised to focus simply on the provision of limousines. The revision requires that parking to meet Code be provided at the lodge. 6. Bonus Points Two changes have been proposed for this section. First, the total number of bonus points available has been reduced from 12 to 7, reflecting 10% rather than 20% of the total award in the previous categories. A second change is that bonus points will only be awarded when a majority of the voting members who are present concur in the appropriateness and size of the award. This change responds to P & Z's concern about the method of awarding bonus points under the GMP and is only one of a variety of possible methods of approaching this problem. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss these and any other changes that you may be interested in considering at your next meeting. Incidentally, tonight's public hearing was also advertised to consider Section 24-11.1(c) of the code concerning the new commercial quota. We have been unable, as yet, to complete the work associated with this issue and ask you to please continue this portion of the public hearing to your next meeting on May 4. Y MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Lodge GMP Scoring System; Commercial and Lodge Quotas DATE: April 29, 1982 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is two-fold. first, we have responded to your ideas concerning the proposed revisions to the lodge GMP scoring system. Second, we are asking you to schedule a special meeting (how about May 11 at 5:00 p.m.?) to discuss the proposed concept for revising our quotas, in advance of a scheduled public hearing on this matter at your regular meeting on May 18. It is essential that we move forward with these changes in timely fashion so that they will be available to applicants in advance of the September 1 deadline for the submission of lodge and commercial GMP applications. Lodge GMP Scoring System Following are the major changes you have requested which are reflected in the new proposed scoring system: 1. Instead of creating a new category for scoring the availability of sidewalks in the vicinity of a project, we have proposed an amendment to Section 19-98 of the Code to include the L-1, L-2 and CL zone districts in the group of zones where sidewalks are mandatory for new developments. In the absence of any "hard data and any material in house upon which to base a parkinc code amendment, we have instead decided to contact other nearby ski areas (Vail, Snowmass) to obtain insights into their approach to this issue. We will keep you informed of our progress on this matter and hope to have a recommendation in advance of this year's lodge competition. 2. The section regarding proximity to services has been revised following a careful analysis of a map of the lodge district (to be available at your meeting). Measurements indicate that the furthest distance from any point in the lodge district to an existing bus route is only about 1000 feet. The farthest distance to a ski lift to a lodge is about 1300 feet, but the average distance is closer to 800 feet. Finally, the farthest distance from any lodge to the downtown commercial facilities is about 1100 feet. Based on these distances, we have reduced the distances involved in the awarding of points from a maximum of 6 blocks (1500 feet) to a maximum of 3 or 4 blocks for the award of 2 points, the standard measure. 3. The public policy goal conformance section has been revised in three respects. First, the demolition and reconstruction of units category has been reduced from 10 to 5 points. Second, the employee housing section has been increased from 6 to 15 points, based on a new scoring scale, and now indicates that the Planning Office will advise the applicant of the expected employee generation. finally, the auto disincentive scoring category has been eliminated entirely, since it is an operational feature which we cannot monitor adequately. 4. We have returned to the original system concerning bonus points whereby individual Commission members may award these points, although only up to 10 percent of the total available in the previous sections. 5. We have developed a multiplier system for placing weights on certain criteria to increase the points available for the highest priority items. This system represents nothing more than an example for you to revise, reflecting our own biases as to priorities. Please be prepared to discuss the weights we have proposed. 6. We have considered several revisions to the total scoring system as it applies to the final ranking of applicants. We are concerned about any system which drops the high and low scores of Commission members because of the possibility, however unlikely, that members may be absent from Memo: Lodge GMP Scoring System; Commercial and Lodge Qutoas Page Two April 29, 1982 the scoring session. The result might be, for example, that of five members present, the scores of only three persons would determine the winner of an allocation. Furthermore, this system unfairly eliminates the scores of members as if they were LLinvalid" which is not an appropriate judgement upon any member's scoring approach. A second, much preferred alternative is the "ice skating- approach proposed by Olof. Under this approach, rather than averaging the points awarded to each applicant by each member and ranking the highest total as first, we would instead compare the score given by each member to the competing projects and award a "1°, "2" or "3", etc. based on which scored highest for each member. The resulting lowest total points would be declared the winner. In the case of ties, we would revert to the existing system-and the highest average would win. Of course, applicants would still have to meet the minimum competitive threshold to even be eligible to be ranked. Following is an example of how this system would have worked for last year's commercial competition: Project G.O. C.P. R.O. Scores (Rank) Average Total Score Rank 25(2) 24(1) 27(1) 27(1) 22(7) 29(1) 27(1) 25.8 27(1) 23(2) 24(2) 26(2) 22(1) 19(3) 27(1) 24.0 20.5(3) 21(3) 19(3) 17(3) 16(3) 23(2) 23(3) 19 8 12 20 As can be seen, the final result would be the same in this case. In a case where a member had given a particularly high or low score to any project, this system would eliminate the skewing effect that one score can have on the averaging system. For this reason, we support this revision to the scoring system. We have not altered the Code to reflect this change and will not do so until you concur with it, since the language will be rather technical and need only be written if you wish to support it. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LODGE GMP SCORING PROCEDURES Resolution No. 82 - 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Office has been engaged in an update of the Growth Management Plan since June, 1981 and has worked with the Planning Commission to revise the Growth Management Quota System, including the method of scoring and administering GMP applications, and WHEREAS, September 1 has been established as the annual deadline for the submission of lodge development applications, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold.a public hearing on April 20, 1982 to consider amendments to Section 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code far the purpose of revising the Lodge GMP scoring procedures, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does wish to recommend that City Council adopt amendments to Section 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code for the purpose of revising the Lodge GMP scoring procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. Planning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby recort~nend that City Council repeal and reenact Section 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: Sec. 24-11.6 Lodge development application procedures. No lodge development shall occur within the city, except lodge development exempted pursuant to section 24-11.2, until the proposed development shall have received a development allotment pursuant to the fallowing procedures: (a) All applicants for lodge allotments shall file with the city planning office, on or before September 1st of each year, a completed application which shall be submitted with the following maps, documents and information: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as'to: (aa) Type of water system to be used and including information on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess capacity available for such public system; the location of the nearest main; the estimated water demand of the building; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanYs. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, if public, the existing excess capacity available from such public system; the location of the nearest tnmk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building. (cc) :Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters. (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 uses and 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 insure 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 historic district boundary lines, if any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of September, reject those that are ineligible under section 24-11.3(c) and present its recommendations at the planning and zoning commission no later than October 1st of each year or at the commission s first regular meeting subsequent to that date. 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 its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: O--Project requires the Rrovision 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 is 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 if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering 2 the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 paints) 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 of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Considering the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows. Considering 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. Considering the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. (2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: O--Indicates a totally deficient design. l--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) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed 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) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices,passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. (dd) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, 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 buildings 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 overall size of the proposed lodging project. The commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: O--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 on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies .and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodgtrtg project (maximum 3 paints). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 20 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units (maximum 5 points). The commission shall award 1 point to each applicant who agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct 5 existing lodge rooms, to a maximum of 25 total units. 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. 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 restoration or rebuilding. (bb) 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 project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage 4 of employees housed on site. The planning office shall inform 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. (5) Bonus points (maximum 5 points). The commission members may, when any one shall determine that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of sections 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections -and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. ' (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 outli ned in section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), after hav ing multiplied the number of points ass igned under each of the following sections by the corresponding multiplier: Points .Section ~ Multiplier A vailable 24-11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water -- 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(bb) (Sewer -- 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drainage -- 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire protection 1 2 -- 2 points) 24-11.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads -- 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design 3 9 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(2)(bb)' (Site design -- 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(2)(cc) (Energy conservation 1 3 --. 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circulation 3 9 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact 3 9 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(3)(aa) (Common meeting areas 3 9 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities 2 6 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational facilities 2 6 -- 3 points) 24-11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Rehabilitation and 2 10 reconstruction -- 5 points) 24-11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Employee housing 1 15 -- 15 points) 24-11.6(b)(5) (Bonus points -- 5 points) 1 5 .Total 100 Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) per cent of the total points available under section 24-11.5(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), shall no longer:ije considered for a development allotment and•the application.3ha11 be considered denied. (d) All projects stall ire ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall estab lish 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 gn,---The ranleiag-thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 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 5 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 many amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate 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(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 1982 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by •the Planning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby recommend that City Council repeal and reenact Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code to read as. follows: Sec. 19-98. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter required for all new construction in certain districts. The building inspector shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for any new construction in the CC, C1, NC, L-1, L-2, and CL zone districts or other area as designated on the adopted sidewalk, curb and gutter plan unless sidewalk, curb, and gutter has been constructed in the right-of- way adjoining the building site. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen at its regular meeting on June 8, 1982. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By:~ ~(/~'~ C~ 41e ton Ander on,~lcting C-'~irman ATTEST: ~~ Dep y City Cl rk 6 MEMORANDUM TO: GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director RE: Short Term Accommodations Buildout Potential DATE: April 30, 1982 The attached map indicates the extent of the existing zoning in the City of Aspen for lodging, the existing land use in the area and the locations of lots which are known to be underutilized based on existing development and allowable floor area ratios. Following is an itemized description of each of these parcels. A. Mine Dum Apartments. This site has a GMP allocation (1981 residential for 36 one bedroom free market units and 12 low income employee one bedroom units. The site contains 45,000 square feet. If this allocation should lapse on January 1, 1983, the site could support approximately 60 lodge rooms at an FAR of 0.67:1 tourist space and a room size of 450 to 500 square feet. B. 601 Aspen. This site applied for a GMP allocation (1982 residential) for 24 one bedroom free market units and 24 low income employee one bedroom units but was rejected due to the applicant's previous performance regarding the Top of Mill pro- ject. The site contains 50,700 square feet. This site could support 75 lodge rooms at an FAR of 0.67:1 tourist space with a room size of 450 square feet. C. Shadow Mountain R-15 Lodge PUD. This site is essentially vacant although it does contain 3 single family residences and a tennis court. The site contains about 238,000 square feet. Since the R-15 zone requires 10,000 square feet per unit, this site could support 20 units beyond those already in existence. D. Sabbatini. This site contains a 6,000 square foot building, Formerly part of the Pines, which is used for lodging purposes. The site contains 15,000 square feet. The remaining Buildout potential on this site for tourist purposes is 4,050 square feet, which would support 8-10 additional rooms. The likely Buildout on this site would involve demolition and reconstruction of the existing units. E. Above Lift 1. This site is essentially vacant, although it does ino ud~ingle family residence. The site contains 31,000 square feet. The site could support 40 lodge rooms at an FAR of 0.67:1 tourist space with a room size of 450-500 square feet. F. Aspen Inn. This site includes the Aspen Inn construction project which has been halted by stop work orders and a lawsuit. It is difficult, at best, to state at this time how many units exist on the site. The owner reports 46 units as the extent of the existing Aspen Inn, with 36 new units under construction in a configuration which has been converted into 71 units and with 35 units in existence at the Blue Spruce. The site itself has also been reported as various sizes, including the Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn Chalets, at 111,270 square feet. The Buildout potential for this site is not determinable at this time. G. Top of Mill. The 1978 residential GMP allocation for this site lapsed on February 1, 1982. That applic ation indicated a site size of 36,000 square feet. The Planning Office indications are that this site contains in the range of 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. The site could support 65-70 lodge rooms at an FAR Of 0.67:1 tourist space with a room size of 500 square feet and a lot size of 50,000 square feet. Short Term Accommodations Buildout Potential Page Two April 30, 1982 H. Along Mill Street. This site contains two single family residences. The site contains 24,000 square feet. The site could support 30-35 lodge rooms at an FAR of 0.67:1 tourist space with a room size of 500 square feet. I. Along Durant Avenue. This site contains the Aspen Skiing Company employee housing building, two commercial buildings and the parking lot for the Continental Inn. The site contains 27,000 square feet. The site is currently zoned L-2 on 9,000 square feet and CL on 18,000 square feet. There is currently an application requesting rezoning of the entire parcel to CL which would permit a buildout of 54,000 square feet on this site. With the first floor used for commercial purposes, this site could support 70 lodge rooms with a room size of 500 square feet. J. 700 S. Galena. This site was recently granted approval to build 16 free market units and 1 employee unit. The site con- tains 21,600 square feet. K. Little Nell R-15 Lodge PUD. This site is essentially vacant, although it does contain two single family residences and a por- tion of the Durant Condos. The site contains about 114,700 square feet. Presuming that the buildout potential for this site has not been used by the Durant Condos. This site could support an additional 8 units. L. Little Nell's. This site contains the commercial uses of Little Nell's plus the Aspen Ski Co. maintenance and other buildings. The site contains 55,000 square feet and is zoned CCSPA. Hotels are a conditional use in the CC zone. The site could support 175 hotel rooms at an FAR of 1.5:1 and a room size of 450-500 square feet. M. The Lodge at Aspen. This site is vacant with the exception of a small single family residence. The site has a GMP alloca- tion (1982 Lodge) for 31 tourist units. The site contains 15,386 square feet. Beyond these areas of the City, tourist accommodations expansions can also be anticipated at the Hotel Jerome, where the existing 39 units are to be rebuilt and a new wing added for a total of 105 rooms, and at the base of the Highlands, where the Highlands Inn has 49 units which are to be torn down and reconstructed as 126 new units. Zoning potential at this location indicates the possibility of about 625 units beyond those at the Highlands Inn, under current regulations. Finally, the Mountain Edge (Koch Lumber Co.) property has been mentioned as a site of short term units, with an application now under consideration for 27 free market units. The following table summarizes the short term accommodations buildout potential discussed above. .-,. ro •rl J-~ G .~ ro O O 11 +~ N ~" N ~i v i~ .~ L'. 3 v z ~. n. + + <r ~n o 0 0 ~o o ~n o io m vi ~ io r M r m ~o N r N ri d' M r M r rl r M l0 N O r N O ~ r ~o r UI U1 UI N {~ {J l~ 1~ O ~ G C C '~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ U Ol Ul Ul N O •.~ 0 0 0 0 •.~ 0 0 0 •.a o o •~ 0 0 •~ s~ H u ~, ~ ~ 7 ~ 7 O o o O +~ +~ +~ +~ a C~ N M rl M N .~ Sa 7 H Ga W cn b' 0 0 0 0 rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o ~. tf1 p OJ M ""~ ~ O d-~ N O UI 1~ •~ '~ ~ k ~ W D U1 N '~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ o O O O O r O O O O O O O O O O r O O O N O O O l0 r O d' r O N +' ~n o m ~n ~ .a o ~ r r-i e~ ~n ~n ~ o '~ d' lf) M r-I M rl In N N N r-I lfl rl d' lD ~ N .-I r-I ai ~ ~n > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i +~ ro a ro ro a r-I ~ r-I f. Ul H .-i N E '~ +~ ~ ~ ro .~ ~+ ~ ~ o w G +~ ~.~ w ~ •.~ .-i s~ ro v ro ~a ~ ~ .i H ~ C7 2 Z h Oa • ~ l i- ~ O ro Q ~ ~ ~ FC O ro N G O ~ ~ cn N H N N 2S A D U1 ~ C +~ +~ iP N ~ ~ q H ro A O CL LL O 0 0 +~ +~ r0 +~ ~ z •~ o ,C ro A N O H H o ~~ •~ O O O ~ ~o m cn ~ ~ E FC ~ r a a a x ~ .-I N U u ro a FC fA U A W W C7 x H h P4 ~l ~ 2 O 0 0 Ol rl ~ ~ m N N Sd N U u ro U ro ~ ~ M N ro v y, m C N I a ro H P7 ro ro ~ ro H H ~ ~ ~ .~ •~I x x ro ~ +~ ro o +~ E O E >• ~ a a ~ ~.~ o U U MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Revisions to Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures DATE: June 21, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /,%~ ~ h~~.N Introduction During 1981 you adopted procedural and substantive revisions to both the commercial and residential growth management quota systems. We indicated to you at that time that we would be returning to you during mid-1982 with revisions to the lodge scoring mechanism. P & Z has recently completed their work on this code amendment and by their resolution 82-5 recommends that you adopt revisions to the lodge scoring mechanism. Since these revisions contain some rather significant variations from the existing language, we feel that it is important to highlight the major new concepts. Overall Scoring System The attached figure illustrates how the existing and proposed lodge GMP scoring systems compare in terms of categories, evaluation criteria and points available. This figure illustrates that the following are the major changes in these aspects of the scoring system: The points available in evaluating public facilities and services have been reduced from 15 to 10 by making 2 rather than 3 points available concerning each of 5 criteria. This revision reflects a better defined formula for awarding points than was previously employed, a change we have already made in the commercial and residential systems. This change also reflects the fact that there is not a great deal that an applicant can do to improve the physical services and facilities and that therefore this area should not receive primary emphasis in the overall scoring system. 2. The entire category labeled "availability of social facilities and services" has been eliminated. The rationale for this proposal is that a careful review of the geographical extent of the L-1 and L-2 zones indicates that virtually all sites are proximate to transportation and commercial support services or ski lifts and can receive adequate police protection. We do not believe that it will be useful to review these features if all applications receive virtually identical ratings on them by documenting adjacency to a bus route in one case, or a ski lift, in another. Since no applicant will be adjacent to all of the features, their combination makes the scoring meaningless. The category labeled "Quality of Design" has received only minor changes since it is one which has functioned quite effectively in past competitions. The criterion concerning "Amenities" such as open space and paths has been eliminated since these features are already evaluated in "Site Design". In its place we have proposed to evaluate internal parking and circulation for tourist and service vehicles since this is a matter of much concern in the already congested lodge zones. We are proposing substantial changes in terms of reviewing the services provided for. guests. Fist since common meeting areas and conference and banquet facilities evaluate the same basic spaces, we have merged these two concerns into one criterion. Next, we have eliminated proximity to ski trails as a scoring area for the reasons mentioned above. Finally we have eliminated overall tourist appeal as a scoring area since this is quite a nebulous criterion which becomes quite judgemental and potentially arbitrary for the Commissioners. We have also established a specific points formula for rating the three criteria which remain in this category to evaluate the quality and spaciousness of the proposed amenity in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. ~ a w f <~ Z a a x < Z n w ~ ~. ~ r+ w ~ ~. ~ r+ I • 1-r r•+ c m • c+ rr c m J -~ In row eo -~ In m w co ~ w zrr o w z1-+ o ~ ao ~`o ~ ao ~ m ~ m ~ N Z `if V1 In f (~ w W S J N N f J w I o • rr m a .~. ~. o • ~r m w . ~. -~ ~ m w -z o ~ rr -~ -~ -~ 3 m w •s o f rr .~ .~ as w o_m z m m ~•w cnw w am -s m m ' ~.w J n N ~ `T `S j Q j f1 to 3 T 'S I, ~ Q ~ S ~ 3 '6 ~ i .03 ! zn. ion oB ! -50. ~ m~ : i • c o I o -s In ~. • c o o -s w -~• i ~ ~ I n ~~ v i O n~ ~I 7 w o ~ 7 I -n ~ w a o I -n ~r w n o .~ I ~, ~.~ -1, ~ O rD N 'I O O '. N ''. 7 ~ N~ ~. 7 I (D •O I T c ~ 'S O I r ~ ~ ~ ',, n• ~ ', A r ~. '' I 1 1 I ~ m a ~'~~ w < ~ '.. m rn I v v 'o ~ w '; n " ~ .Jg wv -e~o -~ ~ ' r3 O w N ~ w O j ~• O -J ~ w '6 ~ ~ m nn ~' ~ c+Q w ~ .w J• ~ u ' s w o 3 ~ •-'~ rp ~ In .~ r rD 3 3 rF tJ ~< 'S ~• Z c+ ~'-~ O n N J• N 7 O N O rD w" c'F C'F -' 7 . .. -h O In •--~ O rD ~• N d O O ~ ~ -h -fi In fi c+ O N c -~• N -s I m w I m -o o cr z o -o ~ w < n O ~} ~. J. J• VI -s ~ w ~ l"1' O ~ ~ 3 N 7 t T ,,S 1 1 I I I 1 p I 11 I I 1 A O ~ ' c C '6 c w ',< •o min w w w <wmin w a o -s ~ ~~ m in ~ z rrm rr nn ~. ~~ m w m m ~-r o_t~ ~• m cnww c.-• -~•-sm ms rr cnww c ~zm m~ c•r o_ x n ~ J z • o~ J << x n w -.•In J -~• c< v ~.s ~ ~ ~~ a .h .~- --~~~ n. •~+ r o a c In m ro m o .-. 0 3 ro co m o ---~ o ~. c O ~ A In 7 A ' ~ N O • rD N O C) '-h W n ~ ~ -s ~. ~ w w o ~. rr ~ ~ ~ -s ~ In ~ ~r .... ~ rr ~ c+ ~ ~ co c o rr •o Ip c ~ o 0 -h n O N J N -tl A J N G7 e+ O .S e1. .+. 3 < (O (Q ~ w 3 ~ I w -- ~ 1 1 I 1 "6 I 1 I 1 I 1 I O N ~ ~ p w •s o. n s m ` -~ o v n z o_ ~ 's -s rn m ~ o ~ < z o m~ o < io3 m ' -hn -nom w - ~ o~• ~+~ m w m rro -nv~ -nn ~ w w - w ~ -s ~ • c>~. c [~ w w Ivxc~ w s w -~•z ~m~~mo '~ c J m w w ~~ o z z~ w -oww •~~ z - • n m Jm~mo mm o • s • w •~ a ~ In m.-. o • s m .~ ~. 3 ...~ -s • w ~ w ~ rn w .-. v rrS -z Corr m v c+~-s r+ <<~rr n~oa m Z (n •~ -+ rD S N O rD 7 J N O O rD w rD ~+ O O C t+ rD rD w e-F < -al N .~ to < -h 'S O In w In ~ .~ ~ -~. 3 J• ~ ~ n tp d (A N O. t•h lp fD rD c+ T. d Q ~• (D VI 1 1 I ~(7 I 1 1 I ~ (.7 c O c O vl m -s v~ w w m -s o' ~ ow ~ ~~ -nm w ~ ~s Nw rn o ~o c ~ -s xfl. o ~• ~v ~ x ocn ~ v ~ r-r m o ~ w _ • w n << -s ~ v w -~. c U't fD N -~. .-+ C) ~ C d j O N O •--~ /7 v ~ ~ N e'F ci ~• rD ~ 7 ~ 1-F 7 •-'• rD c+ O In O Z ~ J 'S w O • c J !1 k t+ t-F W N O 7 3 n O m ~• n << c+ -11 C O f) O -h O ro C E O O J `°~ ~ ~~ A o ~ or • r ~ o w o ~,~ y o ~ ~ o n « n z rn w ro In w 1 1 W I I O O c O 9 c O E 0 X ~ VtX WO 1 n ~-. ~ ~-' N y, ~' N ~ ~' aH w o ~ 3 w o v ~ J O N ~ •~ O~ --~ O ~ a N O O 7 O O c+ O •P N\ e+ 7 0 Cn W o c+ N "h ~ N ci yf v N N O -fi Memo: Revisions to Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures Page Two June 21, 1982 5. There are also substantial changes proposed for the public policy goal category. Two existing criteria have been eliminated and replaced by one new area. Reduction in tourist FAR below that allowed in the zone has been eliminated for two reasons, these being the frequent disputes which have emerged over the calculation of FAR and, more importantly, the desirability of having lodges build out fully in the already quite limited land area zoned for tourist accommodations. The auto disincentive criterion has also been eliminated (despite it being an ongoing public policy concern) since it evaluates an operational and not a physical feature, and therefore becomes an enforcement problem in ensuring that promised measures are actually operated as proposed. The new critierion proposed concerns the rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing lodge units. As an incentive to lodge owners to upgrade the quality of existing units as part of an expansion project, we propose to award 1 point for each 5 rooms so upgraded to a maximum of 25 rooms (5 points). The Planning Office originally recommended that 10 points be available in this area to deal with a maximum of 50 rooms at a time. We still support this recommendation due to the current concern regarding the quality and value of our lodging and would hope that you would change the recommendation by P & Z that only 5 points be avilable in this area. The last change proposed in this category is that we now propose that 15 rather than 6 points be available to evaluate the applicant's employee housing proposal. Where previously an applicant was awarded 2 points for each 25% of the employees housed, to a maximum of 25% of the total, we are now proposing a graduated formula where an applicant receives 1 point for each 10% housed, up to 50% (5 points maximum) and 1 point for each 5% housed from 51% to 100% of the total (maximum 10 points) as an incentive to go beyond housing some employees to housing all emplyees. An administrative change concerning employee housing also proposed by P & Z is that in addition to requiring that applicants document their employee needs for the project, the Planning Office will be required to provide employee generation factors to establish the number of new employees the project will require. While this approach is consistent with the one which we adopted for commercial expansions, we see some problems associated with transferring it to lodging. First, while we have collected data and established employee rates for our commercial zones, this task was placed on our work program without including a survey of lodging operations. We are currently reviewing data available in the Housing Office to see if it might help in establishing the appropriate rates. However, we are somewhat concerned about trying to establish blanket rates for employee need for lodges (presumably by size of operation) since the level of service and type of operation proposed by each applicant will actually determine the need. It does not seem likely that we will be able to develop factors which apply equally to the expansion of existing lodges as to the development of a new lodge. We propose the following solution to this administrative problem. We believe that it will be useful for the Planning Office to have data available in house to use as a guideline for evaluating an applicant's employee housing proposal. We believe that the responsibility should be on the applicant to demonstrate employee needs for the project. If we or P & Z feel the need to question the applicant, we would use our data as the guideline for our inquiries. In fact, this is the approach we intend to take with this year's commercial applicants, allowing them to indicate to us the number of employees they will generate and then we would evaluate their proposal based on our existing data. Should you concur with this approach we will continue to look at the data in the Housing Office and return to you with employee generation rates for the second reading. 6. We proposed that only 5 bonus points be available for future lodge competitions by allowing this provision to be based on 10 percent (rather than 20%) of the points available in the other four sections. Memo: Revisions to Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures Page Three June 21, 1982 Additional Administrative Revisions Beyond the revisions proposed for the scoring categories, criteria and point formulas, we are also proposing 3 additional administrative changes to improve the evaluation of lodge development applications. These changes can be summarized as follows: 1. Multipliers - The City GMP quota system has not previously employed the concept of multipliers, although the County residential scoring system does have this feature. The purpose of multipliers is to attach weights to those criteria which are viewed as important public policy considerations as opposed to those which are less significant. The reason for using a multiplier is that it is simpler and more justifiable for a Commissioner to score a project on its design on a 0 to 3 scale and multiply this value by 3 than to rate a project on a 0 to 9 scale. The proposed system of multipliers is shown on page 7 of the attached ordinance. The values suggested should be carefully reviewed by you since it represents a principal opportunity for Council to introduce its priorities into the scoring system by attaching weights to features you feel are important, recognizing that it is P & Z that actually scores the projects. Ranking Methods - In the past the final ranking of projects after Commissioners score them has been done by totalling the points awarded to each project by each member, with the highest total being ranked first, the next highest second and so on. It has been found that this approach opens up the possibility that a single member's scoring can skew the scoring by the total Commission if he or she gives an unusually high or low score to any one project. P & Z has developed a new ranking approach which eliminates the ability of any one member to so influence the entire Commission's scoring. In what will always be known as the "Olof Hedstrom Memorial Ice Skating Scoring Method" P & Z recommends that after each member totals the scores for each project, we then identify the project each member scored as first, second, third and so on and drop the actual total values. We would then add up the first, seconds and thirds, rather than the points, and the project with the lowest actual ranking would be the first priority project. In the case of ties, we would revert back to the total points awarded to the tying projects to establish the final ranking. The Planning Office finds this to be a well conceived, yet simple solution to an ongoing problem and believes that you should adopt it. Sidewalks - The Planning Office originally recommended that the provision of sidewalks be added to the scoring system as a criterion of the public facilities and services category. The P & Z countered this proposal with a suggestion that we simply make it mandatory that sidewalks be provided in the lodge zones by all applicants for development. In light of the concerns of the CCLC and many others, we find this to be an excellent suggestion. To implement this proposal, it is simply necessary to revise Section 19-98 of the Code to include not only the CC, CL, NC and CL zone districts, as requiring sidewalks for new developments, but also the L-1 and L-2 zone districts. Planning Office Recommendation We recommend that you concur with the above proposals by way of the following motions: "Move to read ordinance p4~", series of 1982." "Move to approve on first reading ordinance, series of 1982." MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures - Ordinance 27 DATE: July 15, 1982 Approved as to Form: Introducti On June 28, 1982, you approved, on first reading, Ordinance 27, Series of 1982 which revises the procedures by which lodge GMP applications are scored. At that time, an item was brought to our attention which had not occurred to us during the process of developing the revisions to the existing language. This concern, regarding a provision we called "rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing units" was briefly discussed at that previous meeting without having us fully understanding (and therefore fully explaining to you) the implications of the issue. We would like to take this opportunity to inform you of the issue and provide you with several alternatives from which to choose the proper solution at the second reading of the ordinance on July 26, 1982. The Nature of the Problem In our discussions of short-term accommodations during the past few months it has become clear that there is a principal concern in Aspen with the quality and value of our existing lodge facilities. We concluded that it would be desirable to provide incentives to the owners of existing lodges to upgrade the quality of their units. One approach we proposed to implement this emerging policy was to provide points within the GMP competition process to applicants agreeing to upgrade existing units. It is this new approach that has been questioned by several local attorneys representing owners of land within the lodge development zone districts. The complaint we have received is that this provision unfairly discriminates against the applicant who owns a vacant parcel of land as opposed to one who would be expanding an existing lodge. Ideally we would hope that an applicant with a vacant parcel would be willing to purchase a lodge elsewhere and upgrade it while at the same time developing a new facility. By providing 10 points in this category out of a total of 100 available, we have, in essence, forced applicants to take this posture or likely lose out to another competitor, given the highly competitive nature of the scoring process. While you could certainly take this policy stand, the question has been raised as to whether it is appropriate for us to impose a requirement upon an applicant which is not principally related to the development right for the parcel involved in the competition process. There appears to be at least some reason to question whether such a requirement is an "extraction" and unfair. Three Alternative Proposals The Planning Office has developed three alternative approaches to resolving this concern. We have discussed them with the City Attorney's office and were informed that any of the three proposals would be a reasonable and defensible approach. It was suggested at that time that we provide you with the language for each alternative so that you might choose among them at your meeting and not hold up the final approval of this ordinance. Following is an analysis of each alternative. Retain The Existing Language Despite the problems identified above, you could, as a policy determination, leave the language as it has currently been written. The rationale for this decision would be that this approach provides the City with newly remodeled lodge units without the addition of more units to the lodge inventory. This argument represents the fundamental reason we first proposed this provision and is essentially the conclusion to which you came during the first reading Memo: Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures - Ordinance 27 Page Two July 15, 1982 discussion. If you decide to take this approach, we recommend that you approve the following language within Ordinance 27, which includes a minor revision (as underlined) to simplify the administration of this provision: (aa) Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing units (maximum 5 points). The Commission shall award 1 point to each applicant agreeing to rehabilitate or reconstruct 5 existing lodge rooms, in accordance with the applicable code requirements, to a maximum of 25 total units. Rehabilitation means the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge room by an in-place restoration of the units to a higher quality status which may alter the size of the units. Reconstruction means the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of units which may be accomplished in a similar or different footprint at a similar or different size to the original configuration; provided that the units are rebuilt on the same site. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identi- fying the proposed improvements to be made to the units and the timetable for their restoration or rebuilding, provided that the rehabilitated or reconstructed units shall be completely restored or rebuilt before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new lodge rooms." Provide Ability For All To Compete A second alternative would be to relocate the rehabilitation/reconstruction provision within the scoring system in such a way that it is one of many features of a category in which all applicants can compete. For example, we could develop a criterion within the "Quality of Design" category entitled "Provision of Quality Units" which might be written as follows: (ff) Provision of Quality Units (maximum 3 points). Considering the extent to which the proposed project efficiently utilizes available land zoned for lodge development by proposing to provide quality lodge units. Said units may include existing units which the applicant proposes to rehabilitate or reconstruct as well as new units which the applicant proposes to build." Now You See It, Now You Don't The last alternative is one we have defined as "now you see it, now you don't." This approach would utilize the language contained within alternative 1, with one additional proviso to be included in Section (c) on page 7 of the ordinance concerning how to add up the points Commission members have awarded. This revision would state that in the event that there is an applicant in any given year who is incapable of competing under the reconstruction criterion due to having vacant land, then the entire criterion simply disappears from the scoring system. Following is the language associated with this alternative (new language is underlined): "Any project not receiving a minimum of points available under Section 24-11.6 longer be considered for a development shall be considered denied. Provided, sixty (60) percent of the total (b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall no allotment and the application anv aoolicant during a oiven vear is in rrently conta~m nq no lodge un a on or eligibility for an Memo: Lodge GMP Scoring Procedures - Ordinance 27 Page Three July 15, 1982 Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office feels that alternative #3 represents the most equitable solution to this problem. While we strongly support the concept of upgrading existing units, we do not want to place a provision into the scoring system which will make the entire competition subject to challenge. We fully expect that this provision will reappear when we discuss GMP alternatives for lodges which are now nonconforming, since in those cases all applicants will be lodge owners whose objective will be upgrading their facilities. Concil Motion Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to adopt Ordinance 27, Series of 1982 on second reading, to include the revisions to Sections 24-11.6(b)(4)(aa) and 24-11.6(c) of the Code which are indicated in the Planning Office memorandum dated July 15, 1982."