HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.GMP Commercial.1981
..,
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
Aspen City Council
Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Small Commercial Projects GMP Exception
DATE: December 10, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ x`--~~~ ` ~/"`
-- - _ ,,
Background
At the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Planning Office has
been looking into mechanisms for providing a competitive edge to the very small
commercial projects which appear to 6e unable to score highly under our new
GMP criteria. The two mechanisms which appeared to have merit were (1) the
creation of a small commercial projects GMP competition, consisting of an
abbreviated set of criteria and a shortened application procedure; or (2) the
formulation of an exception from the GMP, predicated on the negligible impacts
of small projects on the community.
P & Z rejected the proposal to create an additional GMP competition as being
too administratively cumbersome. Therefore, we concentrated on the approach of
formulating a new GMP exception, despite our basic distaste for new exceptions,
for the following reasons:
1. We had recently been presented with several proposals to add small amounts
of mechanical or storage space to existing buildings which, clearly, would
never be competitive in any proposed scoring system.
2. We believe that by forcing applicants who wish to slightly expand their
operations to compete, we may push them to demolish the entire building and
start over again, with a credit for the existing space. We would prefer
to encourage preservation of existing buildings instead of providing an
incentive for a small project to become part of a larger, more competitive
application.
The Planning Office proposed language to P & Z for a code amendment which. would
have permitted expansions of non-commercial space only (i.e., mechanical or
storage) and with a defined limit of 250 square feet upon any such request. P & Z
was insistent that the exception allow for commercial and non-commercial expansions
and be eligible to any project which can document a minimal impact on the community
(in terms of employees generated, parking needed, water and sewer services
required and visual appearance of the building). Therefore, the Planning Office
is bringing both the P & Z and our alternatives to you so that you can choose which
features among the two proposals are desired by you.
Following are the key features of the two alternatives and an explanation of why
the differences exist. The Planning Office discussed each of these differences
with you at your special meeting on December 9 to permit us to return to you with
the ordinance which is under consideration at tonight's meeting.
Review Concerns
Following is a summary of the concerns which you addressed at the meeting on
December 9:
1. The exception should apply to all commercial buildings.
2. The exception should permit commercial and non-commercial expansions.
3. There should be a maximum limit of 500 square feet upon the expansion,
which should be allowed only once for any building.
4. The square footage should be deducted from the appropriate quota.
Council Acti
The Ordinance which we have drafted reflects the concerns which you voiced at the
previous meeting. Should you concur with the need for this proposed code amendment,
the appropriate motion is as follows:
"Move to read Ordinance Series of 1981."
"Move to approve on first reading Ordinance _, Series of 1981."
~.,,
Ol Ut W N
,o g J < w w <<
c a ~ X ~ a
~ N O (D
h n E fD ~
wrr J J -sc ~ o
~
nv v ~ @ ~ -h
o e T
O O ~ X X
O M 'a C
f ~ ~
7 O (D fD a -fi a
•. T a~ n ~ nw
• w
C .. O n ~
N S N N ~p j
(D
"S •• 'S O S O
w w o w o
_~ c+
J. c+ ..
O O O
3 = a
a a n o w o
m a rr
N -n ~ z cn w co -+, w ~ o ~. w ~ ro T -~ m ro ~
oT ~ cmmn •• o<in~~ .. m~ .. x
~ o ~ v..o ~ rr ~ -s ro n m .n a a ~
fD ~ C c+ c fD w fD ~ 'Y O' C w O
w ~• 'S O ~• N ~ O fD ~G ~ N O" rr fD c+: 3 ~ ~ O 3
n~ •S s S w o 7~ ~ O 'S N O X (D ~+ N C O n 3 N 3
~° < n o rr o -~ ~• o rr w co ~ w w
~ o z
~-r -n ° n ~
J ~ ° w w -n ~ -~ ~ rr c+ ~ ~
-swo w. m < T~-J cn show ~~-r s~ cn~
nac~r o ny~ ~0 3w~nc o -~•~ c+o ~0 3-~
~• w ..
o ~ o rr rr a w o ~ o o-a c rr ~ o a
Y
3
O' ~ O 3 C 0 0 O~ (D ~G ~ N j n (D w 0 w n
~ "5 O
(D a ~
C w ~ ~ c'F !D '$ N w U N f+ ~
~ a ~
a J ~ N i-h (D fD n O ~ (D j (n -~ -• n w f) (D O
c o ~-r w w ° n ~ n~ -n w s v, v. ~ n i
c+ (D a (D ~ w w fD c+ N Z c+ d C O O S N fD w O
w n ~. o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~- ~ c in ro rr -~ 3
~ w ,-r -s -n m a w ~ w in ~ -~ m ~
~.v+ a T o o ~ m rrnm o w -s ~ .n o m ro m
~ 3 wwro ~5 aX ~o<Tronm o f c3 in x T
w ~oru~ wa ru c-~ Xro o w3 w a ~
rr-~ ~+n n~ ~ w o ro way -n ~ T m ~
cw
s-~ m m o o m ~ f~ w m ~ m o _
~~ a
o' ~+, 3~
• a -J ~n s e-r w w -n m m
~
w ro ~• o w w w ~• m a r+ m n f v+ o
a mv~m c0~ ofoHO o am m ono
-o n x m g 3N ~ ono o T T -s rr`r w h
~s ro a -s 'a r+ c ro o . r ~ is w
o n w<-~ w oci~~ ~•<-~ « w ~
ac ~~.o ss ~sw~-+fn~.co mm ~+ n-•
T n v.~~ wo ~ mv+ n ~m
..,. ,-r ~. m m < c ro o -n E N T o w
wm owm m-~ ~n-no ~•w wT
c+ n ~ v. n ~s ~, ~ -s
m w co <<
~ o- -~• m n
m rr o ~
o ~ o
~w ~~, ~c
a w c -~
w ~s in •s o a
n o m
c* c o .n ~-r ~
c+ O C ~ fD
O ~ (D <
N ~ S
,~+ n '
6 N N ~ O
S S _ w Ul fD O" ~
_
(l ~ S (D (D N f+ C1 c+
O fD fD [) X O ~ O w o
~ f O a ~ C n~ ~• O
C ~ 3
w X
O 3 S O N N
J~ amp w ro J ~ n
• n w o ~ o- o
~+ ~ n o -n ro <* ro ~
~ o w w ~ ~ m ~+~
cn cn ro .... rr v. a ro ~n < n co
w w w fD O~ < c'F S (D Z
~ a o n ° o v, o o ~ ~n
m co n ~ s S
7 O ~ 3 N ~ w
V+ O c+ C ~ ~ w
o n fi -• m
cv n ~ ~-~ wx
-mac -.•o- w as
n •5 ~-r ro -~ in ~ a w
n ~ o -~ o
'< w
(o ~ n~ 3 X ~
o< a n m o
Trr c ~ w m-5 ~
(D S 7 (D A a C'I N
< (D f7 f c+
.
c+ -~
.o .w
fD a -+ n O •--~ ~
n --~ f SG 5 Q" X ~'
• s m w a w
n ~. v ~s w w ~
~ m m ~
~ sm ~+, non
0 o w
n ~h N 'S O O
~.
u (D ~ 7 ..
(D 3 .. N
(/~ w f lrt N
<< A ~G S
D ~ w ro w
o cn T in
SG `5 Vf (D N ~ (D
w S ~ fD v
(D O O C L
X c'f c (D O (D fI
w n rt z
O w O Z
N ~ N
w s a ~ n
O n ]r O S O O
O cD fD c O ~ 'S
3 v. N
~. w a m
m n
u+ ~+
R~
N
S
w
°
w
m
t0 Z
(D (D
ct F
h~
~. ~
~ v
w
z
O c+
c
~ M
o_ w
n
h ~.
~- --~
(D -~
~ ~.
3 (D
a cn
v in
c s
`t c
o
o n
~ o-
m
-n
o w
z o-
w m
n
d ci
T o
0
N w
~~
~. ~
~ ~•
S a
w w
S rF
no
N
S ci
~. T
a m
~.
O
m
n
N
w
n
w
°
c~F
3
N
S
O
c
n
0
O'
fD
w
3
fD
s
w
N
O
Z
m
O'
W
C
_n
. ~
~n o+
~ ~
c
N ~
l"F
o- w
m o
n
w
~+ N
_ o
(D
w ~
N
ci
("')
-h O
G ~_
0
N
~G ~_
O
w o
T ~
N
0
O_
0
a
~+
(D
T
w
~-+
m
O
3
a
w
T
w
0
0 0
n -n
0
a m
3 <<
m
7 T
n o
S w
ro r+
~ ~ c
rF Z
.~ O
a N
O
O S
O O
a ~,
m
,.j O
~ w
w
w
.~ ~
0
S
O
M
n
(n a
C w
~ O
m ~
N
O
'$
(D O
~ -h
w -n
T
n n
°
m
N
O
-h
w
(D
r
4,n.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING ANU
ZONING COMMISSION RECOi1MENDING TFIE ADOPTIOIJ
OF A SMALL COMMERCIAL PROJECTS GMP EXCEPTIOW
Resolution No. 81 - 17
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has indicated to the
Planning Office that it does believe that small, low impact commercial projects
are unduly disadvantaged by the requirement that all commercial-office expansions
must compete under the GMP; and
WHEREAS, .the Commission believes that it is in the best interest of the
community to provide incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of existiny
commercial and office buildings by allowing small additions to them, rather than
forcing applicants for such additions to compete under the GMP, which may lead to
the destruction rather than the preservation of existing buildings by encouraging
larger, more competitive projects, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the reservations of the Planning
Office regarding the proposal to exempt small comunercial projects on the basis
of their size, as opposed to distinguishing among projects on the basis of
their type. (that is mechanical and storage space versus commercial and office
space),..and
WHEREAS, the Commission concludes that there~will•be a justifiable community
benefit which will result from the creation of a procedure to except small
commercial projects from competition under the GMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 6y the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council
adopt the following language as a new Section 24-11.2(1) of the Aspen Municipal
Code:
"The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a buildiny
-which is at least five years old for the purposes of providing a
small addition of space which can be shown to have no impact upon
the community. For expansions which involve less than 250 square
feet and are for the purposes of providing space which is accessory
to or incidental to the principal-use (i.e., mechanical, storage,
corridors, stairs) the expansion shall be subject to staff-level
review only. For expansions which involve any request for commercial
or office space, or which involve an expansion of any type of space
in excess of 250 square feet, the expansion shall be subject to the
special approval of city council, based on the recommendation of the
planning and zoning caiu»ission. Tire review of any request for the
expansion of an existing commercial or office use shall include a
dnLermination of minimal or no impact on the community, considering
but not limited to findings that no additional employees will be
generated by the expansion; that no additional parking demand will
be created or that parking can he accommodated on-site; that there
will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood due to the project,
,~,, -.
,.,, ..
and that no new demand is placed on services available at the site
such as water, sewer, drainage and fire protection. Applications
for expansion shall be limited to a single such commercial addition
for any building within the city of Aspen. Applicants are
recommended to submit requests which do not exceed 500 square feet
of expansion, although requests which exceed this size but can be
shown to have minimal or no impact will be considered.
Provided that the building inspector shall, as required by section
24-11.8, annually repart the amount of residential, commercial,
office and lodge construction exempted by reason of section 24-11.2(b),
(c), (d) and (1) and the nondeed restricted portion of the residential
construction exempted by reason of section 24-11.2(i) and (k) within
the previous year and these totals shall be deducted from the quota
of allowable development in succeeding years. When reporting exempted
construction pursuant to subsection (b), the inspector shall calculate
only the additional commercial floor area or dwelling units resulting
from such construction."
Approved at a special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on November 24, 1981.
ASPEN PLAtJNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOiJ
By:
Olof Hedstrom, Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
DATE: November 9, 1981
Background: At your meeting on October 20, we presented to you a proposal
to create a new exception to the GMP for the purposes of per-
mitting small, low impact commercial or office projects to
proceed without having to compete for an allocation. The major
features of our proposal were as follows:
1. included impact evaluation criteria regarding employees,
parking, visual appearance and physical services;
2. limited the size of any request for an exception to
250 square feet of new mechanical, storage or other
nonbusiness space and required that the addition be a
one-time only application; and
3. established a review procedure by P & Z and City Council
and indicated that the approved square footage be sub-
tracted from the available quota.
You had several suggested changes to this Code Amendment,
including the following points:
1. The expansion should only be permitted in buildings which
are at least five years old.
2. The exception should permit requests for not only mechanical
and storage space, but also for commercial and office space.
3. The review procedure should provide that for expansions of
less than 250 square feet which are non-commercial, staff
should handle the entire request. Expansions of over
250 square feet or expansions of any size which involve
commercial space should 6e required to be reviewed by
P & Z and City Council.
4. There should not 6e a maximum size limitation to be eligible
for the exception; instead the review should concern itself
with any project as long as no impact or minimal impact on
the community can be documented.
Planning Office The Planning Office recognizes your motives in broadening the
Review: extent of the proposed small commercial projects GMP exception.
We understand and clearly hear your claim that small projects
cannot successfully compete in the GMP, whether they are for
storage, mechanical or business purposes. Nevertheless, we
have serious reservations regarding your suggestions, which
appear to us to make the procedure too wide open and too
easily abused.
Our main objection to your proposal is that it directly contra-
dicts the approach we all worked so hard to achieve, that is,
a comprehensive and legally defensible GMP. The GMP sets out
to establish a balanced community by phasing the impacts of
growth in such. a manner that we can effectively serve develop-
ment. The GMP sets up a competitive procedure whereby those
projects which have the least negative impact and the greatest
positive impact on the community are those which receive develop-
ment allocations.
We have also established exceptions to the GMP for projects whose
benefit to the community is judged to be so important (i.e.,
employee housing, preservation of an historically designated
~~,
.....
Memo: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
Page Two
November 9, 1981
structure) that they merit special consideration. However,
we have not previously created an exception to the GMP simply
because the competition may discriminate against smaller versus
larger projects. We believe that expansions of stores, offices,
restaurants and the like with small business additions (rather
than mechanical or storage) will have an impact on the community,
and that this impact (in employees generated, parking spaces
needed, services required, etc.) should be met by the applicant.
The best method to insure that only projects which successfully
accommodate their needs are approved is to place them under
competition.
A second factor for you to consider is that each time we create
an exception to the GMP, we may be bringing the legal defensi-
bility of our plan further into question. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon us, each time we consider an exception, to
question whether a valid public purpose is being served and
whether a defensible distinction exists between projects
which are eligible for the exception and those which are not.
When we first brought this Code Amendment to you we put our
proposal to these two tests and found that:
1. It would serve a valid public purpose by allowing the
efficiency of our commercial and office sectors to
improve without any substantial impact upon the community.
2. There is a readily apparent distinction between mechanical-
storage space and strictly commercial-office space, since
a mechanical-storage addition is not the type of expansion
contemplated in formulating the GPdP criteria and such a
project would obviously not be competitive with other
requests.
We pUt your proposal up to these tests and found that it did
not fare as well as ours. We can see the public purpose of
allowing existing businesses to slightly expand their opera-
tions, but we are greatly concerned about the cumulative
impact of many such small expansions outside of the GMP and
of the difficulty to administer an exception which will
likely be frequently used. Having worked so hard to move the
office-commercial competition from one which is basically con-
cerned with only architecture and historic compatibility to
one which measures how well community impacts upon employee
housing and physical services are taken care of by the appli-
cant, we cannot support an exception which may provide no
mechanism to mitigate these impacts. We do not know of any
mechanism, other than the GMP, which will require the applicant
to accommodate the impacts; simple review by P & Z and Council
will only identify but not mitigate the impacts.
We also question whether your proposal meets the legal defensi-
bility test. It does not seem to us that the distinction of
the size of the project is nearly as strong as the distinction
of the type of the project. If we require a project of, for
example, 1250 square feet to compete and it does not get an
allocation, while a project of, for example, 950 square feet
receives your approval for an exception, can we defend our
plan against a claim of arbitrariness? Would a court of law
be able to find a valid distinction between the nature of our
actions simply on the basis of size? Does a businessman have
an inherent right to a small expansion but not to a somewhat
larger expansion? We believe that questions such as these
are one basis for our concern to the approach you propose.
As a final point for you to consider, we have been inventorying
the City to evaluate the potential 6uildout of commercial space
for the purposes of establishing our new quotas. We are
finding that there are not many vacant, commercially zoned
,.,.m
Memo: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
Page Three
November 9, 1981
sites left in the City for which large developments can be
proposed. Instead, we find many sites which are underutilized
according to current zoning and for which small expansions can
be anticipated. We feel that an open-ended exception such as
has been proposed will be widely utilized and will lead to
cumulative impacts outside of the GMP which we cannot accommo-
date, even if we subtract the square footage of each addition
from the quota. Projects which involve expansions of businesses
will create employees, will accelerate the need for expansion
of our water and sewer facilities, and will place us further
into a parking deficit. Furthermore, by subtracting numerous
small projects from our quota, we take the chance of precluding
better projects which may wish to compete and which will accom-
modate their impacts.
Planning Office
Recommendation: The Planning Office still believes that it is important that
we get this GMP exception on the books in the near future.
We are currently aware of businesses facing a severe hardship
if we cannot provide them a mechanism to construct storage
or mechanical space outside of the GMP. We recommend that
you reconsider. the language we have proposed for this limited
exception to the GMP. We have changed the language of the
proposed Code Amendment to incorporate two of your proposals,
these being the limitation that the applicant's building be
at least five years old, and the removal of the absolute
250 foot maximum size, replacing it with a recommendation that
the project not exceed 500 square feet but considering any
request which can be shown to have minimal or no impact. The
revised language for section 24-11.2(1) of the Code is now
proposed to read as follows:
"The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in
a building which is at least five years old for the
purposes of providing space which is accessory to or
incidental to the principal use (i.e., mechanical,
storage, corridors, stairs). The expansion shall be
subject to the special approval of the city council,
based upon the recommendation of the planning and
zoning commission, which approval shall include a
determination of minimal or no impact upon the community,
considering but not limited to findings that no addi-
tional employees will be generated by the expansion;
that no additional parking demand will be created or that
parking can be accommodated on-site; that there will be
minimal visual impact on the neighborhood due to the
project; and that no new demand is placed on services
available at the site such as water, sewer, drainage and
fire protection. Applications for expansion shall be
limited to a single such commercial addition for any
building wi hin the city of Aspen. Applicants are
recommended to submit requests which do not exceed 500
square feet of expansion, although requests which exceed
this size but can be shown to have minimal or no impact
will be considered.
Provided that the building inspector shall, as required
6y section 24-11.8, annually report the amount of resi-
dential, commercial, office and lodge construction
exempted by reason of section 24-11.2(6), (c) (d) and (1)
and the nondeed restricted portion of the residential
construction exempted by reason of section 24-11.2(i) and
~k) within the previous year and these totals shall be
deducted from the quota of allowable development in
succeeding years. When reporting exempted construction
pursuant to subsection (b), the inspector shall calculate
only the additional commercial floor area or dwelling units
resulting from such construction."
~.~
:,~,
Memo: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
Page Four
November 9, 1981
We further recommend that if you continue to believe that the
small project merits special consideration, that you direct
us to study the feasibility of setting up a competition
exclusively for all small commercial additions to existing
buildings. We can conceive of an abbreviated set of criteria
and a shortened application procedure by which we could
competitively score these projects and insure that the small
project offers the community some positive features which
are equitable based on the magnitude of the project proposed.
We believe that this approach could take care of your concerns
regarding the GMP competition process and would be willing to
return to you with a proposed system if you concur with this
approach.
PIEMORANDUM
~./
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
DATE: October 8, 1981
Background: As you are well aware, City Council adopted amendments to the
Commercial and Office GMP which make the competition compre-
hensive across all zones throughout the City of Aspen. At the
time of the hearings on these amendments, both P & Z and City
Council expressed an interest in having the Planning Office
process an exception to the GMP for commercial and office pro-
jects whose impact upon the community will be negligible. We
had generally concurred with the need for this amendment but
had not seen it as a pressing item until just recently.
Immediately prior to and just following the implementation of
the comprehensive Commercial and Office GMP (October 2) we had
the following requests:
1. The First National Bank, which had received allocation of
over 4,000 square feet during the September, 1979 competi-
tion, allowed its award to expire when it was determined
that all it needed was a link between its existing
buildings and a small storage space, amounting to
165 square feet.
2. The Pitkin County Granery wanted to enclose a small
space in the front of the store for the purposes of heat-
ing the building, either by solar orientation or by placing
some type of a heater within that 125 square foot space.
These two examples reflect one type of hardship which. we had
expected as a result of extending the coverage of the GMP.
As you may recall, we discussed the problem of existing businesses
which want to develop small amounts of mechanical or storage
(,e., non-retail or office) space at the time of the hearings
on the Office and Commercial GMP. You asked us at that time
to return to you with a proposed new exception, since it was
clear that such small projects would never be competitive under
the new scoring system, even though they clearly do serve a
valid public purpose by improving the quality and efficiency
of the commercial and office sector of our economy.
Review Criteria: The key factor in evaluating the appropriateness of any proposal
for this exception would be the impact on the community:
Measures of impact which appear reasonable to the Planning
Office include:
- Project generates no addi Tonal employees for the business;
- Project requires no additional parking demand;
- Project has minimal visual impact on the neighborhood;
- Project places no new demands on services available at
the site (i.e „ water, sewer, drainage. and fire protecti_on).
We also feel that i;t i5 i;mpRrtdnt that a m}Xi7RUJq square
footage provision be included in the proposed amendment,
relating directly back to the impact of the expansion on the
community. We would suggest that a limit of 250 square feet
be placed on the development of new commercial space, based on
our parking requirements in the NC, SCI, 0, L=1, and L=2 zones
and based on anticipated employee generation factors which will
be computed this winter. We are not suggesting any mechanism
Memo: Exception to GMP - Small Commercial Projects
Page Two
October 8, 1981
by which an applicant may exceed this 250 square foot limit,
recognizing that an applicant could go before the Board of
Adjustment if this provision becomes a hardship. However, we
are not anxious to provide any basis for appeal before P & Z and
Council, since we are already concerned that it may be possible
to request mechanical or storage space but build commercial or
office space. We feel that as long as we keep the expansion
potential limited in its size, the likelihood of abuse of this
exception can be held down.
To aid in enforcement, we suggest that the following also be
provisions of the ordinance:
That the expansion 6e a one-time only option for any
building in Aspen to prevent cumulative impacts outside
of the GMP.
That the square footage requested be subtracted from the
quota available in the particular zone for the following
year.
That the exception be processed as a two-step review, with
the Planning and Zoning Commission making a finding on the
appropriateness of the request and then recommending to
City Council whether or not it should be approved.
Planning Office Based on all the concerns discussed above, the Planning Office
Recommendation: recommends that you consider the following as the language
for a new subsection of the code, 24-11.2(1):
"The expansion of an existing commercial or office use by
not more than 250 square feet for the purposes of providing
new mechanical, storage or other non-business space. The
expansion shall be subject to the special approval of the
city council, based upon the recommendation of the planning
and zoning comeni:ssion, which approval shall include a deter-
mination of minimal or no impact upon the community, consider-
ing but not limited to findings that no additional employees
will be generated by the expansion or conversion; that no
additional parking demand will be created or that parking
can be accommodated on-site; that there will be minimal
visual impact on the neighborhood due to the project; and
that no new demand is placed on services available at the
site such as water, sewer, drainage and fire protection.
Applications for expansion shall be limited to a single such
commercial addition for any building within the City of
Aspen.
Provided that the building inspector shall, as required by
section 24-11,8, annually report the amount of residential,
commercial, office and lodge construction exempted by
reason of section 24-11,2(6), (c), (d) and O) and the
nondeed restricted portion of the residential construction
exempted by reason of section 24-11.2(.1) and (k) within
the previous year and these totals shall be deducted from
the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. When
reporting exempted construction pursuant to subsection (6),
the inspector shall calculate only the additional commercial
floor area or dwelling units resulting from such construction..
Should you concur with the Planning Office in the need for
this proposed code amendment, we would recommend that you
direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution of
approval, including findings regarding this proposal.
Aspen/Pitki
130 s
aspe
T0: Building Department
Herb Paddock
Clayton Meyring
Bill Dreuding
i.~'lnning Office
~l~y street
81611
~~ ~~_
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Commercial GMP Code Amendment
DATE: September 29, 1981
Last night City Council finally adopted our proposed changes to the City
Commercial GMP, The effect of this regulation is to make the GMP compre-
hensive across the entire city. No new commercial or office space can be
developed anwhere in Aspen without first competing through the GMP process.
This regulation covers expansions of commercial and office buildings as
well as construction of new office and commercial buildings, The effective
date of this regulation is this Friday, October 2, 1981. This should be the
last date on which you accept any building permit request anywhere in Aspen
for construction of office and commercial space. Please inform me of any
requests which come in before that date. We will be getting three GMP
applications on October 1 which will also precede this new regulation,
although these will be for buildings i.n the CC or C-1 zones only. After
that date, all zones will be covered. Please call me if you have any
questions. Thanks.
/ans
.y.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Commercial GMP Code Amendment
DATE: September 22, 1981 APPROVED AS TO
,~
~.
At your meeting on August 24, 1981, you approved Ordinance 49, Series of 1981
on first reading. This Ordinance proposes several major changes to the
commercial GMP competition to take effect on October 2, 1981. As you know,
these changes include making the commercial competition comprehensive across
the entire city and increasing the importance of providing employee housing as
part of commercial developments by making it mandatory that applicants score
points in this area.
At the previous meeting,yau had three important questions regarding the proposed
ordinance. First, you wanted to know whether the employee housing space in the
development would be included in the commercial/office quota or if it would be
exempt from that quota. We agreed with you that since all new commercial space
will generate further employee housing problems that any expansions to the
quota are not appropriate at this time. Therefore, we are suggesting that the
employee housing space be included within the 24,000 square foot quota for this
year and the new quotas which are to be developed for next year.
The second question you had was whether or not we could identify for you the
employee housing generation factors which will be used next year. We suggested
to you that the exact figures would not be available, particularly since the
city does not have a housing office at this time and due to staffing problems
within the county office at this point in time. Nevertheless, the Planning
Office will provide you with these numbers at your meeting on Monday so that
you can make a well-informed decision.
Finally, a question had come up regarding the development of employee housing
off-site and outside of the City under the GMP. We all were in agreement that
this concept is acceptable and may be pursued by any applicant beginning this
year.
Planning Gffice staff will be available at your meeting to answer any additional
questions you may have.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Commercial GMP Code Amendment
DATE: August 1$, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~t/~~' ~ (x - ~~` ~ `~ %~ ~«~`"~~~~
Background: At your meeting on July 27, 1981, you a proved Ord Hance 48,
Series of 1981 on first reading. This ordinance establishes
some new review procedures and evaluation criteria for the
upcoming GMP commercial competition, which you determined
should have a submission deadline of October 1, 1981. That
same night you initiated a review of Ordinance 49, Series of
1981, which repeals: Ordinance 48 by further revising the
review procedure and evaluation criteria for the commercial
GMP and which extends the coverage of the competition to all
commercial development in the City of Aspen. This ordinance
was scheduled to go into effect on October 2, 1981, following
the submission of this year's applications, and therefore not
impacting anyone whe has been relying on the existing rules.
You expressed several problems with Ordinance 49, as it was
written, and asked us to come back to you in a study session
to resolve some of these concerns. To refresh your memory,
following are the concerns which you expressed:
1. Is it appropriate to have a single competition for all
commercial space, particularly since the SCI zone dis-
trict is intended to provide for low cost space for
local service and industrial types of operations?
2. Is 50% of the total employees generated the proper
basis for evaluating the points awarded in the category
"Employee Housing Need" or should we be looking at trying
to house 100% of the total employees generated?
3. In formulating a factor by which we may calculate the
number of employees generated by a development, is the
most appropriate differentiation the zone in which the
development is to be located, the type of use (retail,
office, restaurant) or some other measure?
4. If an existing commercial or office use is applying to
construct a new building, how can we control the genera-
tion of employees by the use which occupies the vacant
space, particularly when the use which is moving claims
a credit for already housing its employees?
5. The present code permits a density bonus of an additional
0.5:1 F.A.R. in the CC and C-1 zone districts and 0.25:1
in the office district if a portion of that bonus is
applied to employee housing. If an applicant proposes
to provide all of the project`s employee housing off-
site, should he be able to take advantage of the full
extent of the bonus or only that portion which would
have been permitted for commercial space?
6. Is a fifty year deed restriction for employee housing
appropriate for employee housing created as part of
commercial developments?
These six issues represent the focus of our discussions to
the point at which the ordinance was tabled. The Planning
Office has prepared responses to each concern, as discussed
at our work session on August 18, 1981.
*sy, 4
Y
Memo: Commercial GMP Code Amendment
Page Two
August 18, 1981
Planning Office 1. Se arate Com etitions -- The Planning Office feels that
Responses: the concept o creating individual quotas for the zone dis-
tricts while maintaining one uniform set of evaluation cri-
teria and points categories is one that can work quite
effectively. We would be prepared to return to you early in
1982 with an analysis of the potential buildout in these
zones and some alternative approaches to an annual quota
for each one, We would not anticipate changing the basic
submission dates or the requirements for any of the zones,
but only to split the overall quota among the zones which.
would all compete simultaneously.
2. 50% Universe -- The Planning Office feels that it is only
fair t a- t~ cautious i:n our first step, maKi.ng i:t mandatory
that an applicant provide employee housing to successfully
compete in the commercial GMP but setting the points based on
housing only 50% of the employees generated. Based on the
requirement that you must score at least 30% of the points
avai able in this category, this will mean that an applicant
must house a minimum of 15ia of the total employees generated
by the project, P & Z also felt that this was a good starting
point but that we should move, over time, in the direction of
a 75-100% universe for points evaluation, Counc%1 should note,
though, that if an applicant proposes to house more than 50%
of the employees generated, incentive points are provided in
category 4, to a maximum of 10 additional points (1 for each
10% of the total employees generated up to 150%).
3. Generation Factors -- The Planning Office originally pro-
posed that we calculate the number of employees a project will
generate by developing factors for various commercial and office
uses and multiplying these by the proposed square footage con-
tained in the applicant's development program. It was pointed
out at the P & Z hearing that this would lead to applicants
proposing buildings containing uses which generate the least
number of employees and then building a different mix after the
project is approved, We decided, therefore, that we would
instead develop factors for the zones in which commercial and
office development takes place and use these in our calculations.
We believe that these factors should create average values which
apply to the variety of uses which currently exist or could be
contemplated. We also could provide language in this section
permitting an applicant to contest the factors as they apply to
his project by submitting data on the employees expected to
be generated, based on the proposed development program. Should
an applicant change the mix of uses,following receipt of an
allocation,in a way which would affect the number of employees
the project would generate, this would constitute an amendment
to the application which P & Z and Council would have to review
and approve if the development is to proceed.
4. Commercial Moves -- The Planning Office poses the follow-
ing solution to this problem. The evaluation of points
awarded under category 3, "Employee Housing Need" should not
include any credit for employees already housed. Since the
applicant fora commercial or office development is making
a net addition of space to our community, it should be
required that there is also a net addition of employee
housing to our existing pool. However, if an applicant does
already house employees in deed restricted units, there
should be a credit available for that action. Therefore,
we propose that the credit be applied only to the points
available in category 4, "Employee Housing Incentive" which
is actually a bonus type of category rather than one in
which an applicant must score points to reach the minimum
threshold.
~>
_~
Memo: Commercial GMP Code Amendment
Page Three
August 18, 1981
5, Density Bonus -- The regulations proposed for this year's
competition as well as for next year provide, far the first
time, that employee housing may be provided not just on the
conunercial development site, but also off-site. The regulations
also provide that should an applicant built off-site employee
housing, the density FAR bonus is available, but only to the
maximum commercial FAR available in the zone district (i.e.,
1,7:1 i;n the CC, 1.2:1 in the C-1 and 0.85:1 in the 0). The
Planning Office recommends that you maintain this level of
bonus and not provide the further conmercial increase which
would have otherwise been on-site employee housing. We are
concerned that we have only begun assessing the ultimate build-
out of our commercial districts and we are reluctant to
authorize an arbitrary i1ncrease in the potential commercial
space in these zones. We also note that the added commercial
space would result i.n additional employee generation and further
exasperate our existing problem in keeping up with employee
hous%ng demand,
6. Deed Restri,cti;ons -- As with the previous density bonus
concern, the Planning Office is extremely reluctant to revise
the existing requirement fora 50 year deed restriction for
employee housing without a complete analysis of the implica-
tions of our actions. We strongly recommend that you not
initiate this change at this point i,n time.
r.->
~.. -
MEMORAtJDUt!I
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: GMP Commercial Code Amendments
DATE: July 21, 1981
;:. ~
..,.
APPROVED AS TO FOR ~.~y~-~
The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission have been meeting on
a weekly basis over the past five weeks (June 23, June 30, July 7, July 14 and
July 21) in an effort to develop a consensus regarding proposed changes to the
office and commercial development application procedures under the Growth PAan-
agement Quota System. The two ordinances before you are the result of many
hours of collective effort aimed at modifying the scoring system to be more
consistent with City policies and to streamline the overall administration
of the competitive application process.
The two ordinances reflect the fact that the Planning Office recommended to
PAZ that some of the more controversial changes not be implemented until
after this year's projects have been submitted. As we moved further into
July and heard public comments that applicants had begun planning their pro-
jects six months in advance and had relied on the existing scoring system,
we became concerned with the fairness of making certain of the proposed changes
effective this year. We also became concerned with our proposal to extend the
coverage of zone districts beyond the CC and C-1 zones to include the tJC, 0,
CL and SCI zones without at the same time having the opportunity to fully
reassess the implications of this change upon the quota.
Based on these concerns, we made recommendations to P & Z and they concurred
in making the following recommendations to City Council:
1. The scoring system should be partially revised at this time by eliminating
the scoring of historic features (15 points which are largely arbitrary in
their evaluation, the substance of which are reviewed by FtPC in the archi-
tectural review of the project anyway) and by the creation of two new
scoring categories - compatibility with community plans and land use regu-
lations (5 points) and applicant's previous performance (minus 5 points).
2. The review procedures for applications should be revised to
(a) require only conceptual approval by HPC prior to submission of a
commercial or office GMP application,
(b) define the basis for an applicant to challenge the scoring of projects
byP&Z, and
(c) specify when an applicant can be deemed to have deviated substantially
from the original GMP proposal and be restored by P & Z and/or have
the allocation rescinded by Council.
3. The submission date for office and commercial GP1P applications for this
year only should be October 1. -City Council should not carry over any of
the previously unallocated or expired quota (20,121 sq. ft.) to this year's
competition, and should, in fact, offset last year's 6,000 sq. ft. bonus
by reducing that amount available from prior years to 14,121 sq. ft. There
should only be 24,000 sq. ft. of commercial and office space available for
competition this year with, if necessary, a 6,000 sq. ft. bonus available
at Council's discretion.
4. The remaining changes to the office and commercial GMP procedures should be
implemented effective October 2, 1981. These changes include
(a) the extension of coverage of the competition to the remaining com-
mercial and office zones,
(b) the creation of a category to evaluate the availability of physical
services, and
i'.~ ,,.R
\..+ ~ .J
Memo: GMP Commercial Code Amendments
July 21, 1981
Page Two
(c) the establishment of a new basis to evaluate an applicant's employee
housing proposal, with 20 rather than 3 points being available in
this area and with off-site employee housing options encouraged.
The Planning Office feels that the changes proposed for the competition this
year and next are a step forward in improving both the scoring system and admin-
istrative review procedures for the GMP. In fact, the chairman of P & Z sum-
marized the work done on the GMP revisions at their meeting on July 14 by
saying that P & Z wants Council to know that a great deal of time has been spent
on this issue and that it feels that every idea contained in its resolution is
important and has been thoroughly considered.
These changes before you are only the first in a series of procedural changes
which we will be bringing to you regarding the GMP. {Je have scheduled a public
hearing before P & Z on August 4 regarding the residential competition and hope
to have code changes in this area before you in September. We also anticipate
changes to the lodge competition prior to next year's submissions. Finally,
we expect to be making substantive changes to the quota and to the exceptions to
the competition process as part of our overall update of the Growth htanagement
Policy Plan.
....
u t
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Commercial GMP Code Amendments
DATE: June 9, 1981
Applications to compete for the 1982 City GMP Commercial quota are due to be submitted
to the Planning Office on September 1, 1981. There are several areas of the existing
GMP Code which the Planning Office has been studying in hopes of revising the system
to better meet the adopted policies of the City of Aspen. Should you concur with our
proposals to revise the Code, we will return for a public hearing at a special meeting
on June 30, 1981, with specific language for your review. The major areas we are
considering include:
1) uota
A. Evaluate the coverage of the commercial growth limitation to include currently
unrestricted zones in addition to the existing CC and C-1 zones;
B. Examine the adequacy of the limitation that only 24,000 square feet of com-
mercial and office space be available each year in light of the possible
extension of the zone coverage of the quota; and
C. Develop alternatives to the provision that Council can carry over unallocated
or expired allotments to the next year.
2) Scoring System
A. Revise the relative point values to better reflect the importance of employee
housing as a feature of a commercial GMP application;
B. Refine the basis for determining that the proposed commercial uses supply
locally oriented versus tourist oriented needs of the community;
C. Develop anew category to evaluate the adequacy of services (water, sewer,
transportation, drainage and fire protection) at the proposed development
site;
D. Consider elimination of historic features as a scoring category but require
HPC conceptual approval prior to the submission of an application
E. Determine the applicability of current information requirements in light of
revised evaluation criteria.
3) Other General Procedures
A. Develop a basis for having an applicant's previous performance as a con-
dition for competing for further allocdtions; and
B. Develop a specific, uniform set of cirteria to determine when an approved
GMP application should be brought back to P & Z and/or City Council for
review and possible rescoring due to a deviation from the original proposal.
As an attachment to this memo we have included a copy of the existing Commercial
GMP Code which identifies the location of each of the proposed changes, with notes
regarding each amendment. Following is an evaluation of each of these proposed
changes.
lA) Extension of Coverage
In a report to Council and P & Z dated September 17, 1980, Karen Smith provided
the initial update of the residential and commercial buildout which has occured
since the implementation of the GMP. She points out that while the rate of
commercial growth in the CC and C-1 zones has been low (ranging from 0.8 to 3.6
percent from 1977 through 1979), the rate of commercial growth in the other zones
in the City has been as high as 20.9 percent in one of these years. The Housing
e > ~.' /
Memo: Commercial GMP Code Amendments
June 9, 1981
Page Two
Action Plan identifies commercial growth as the single most significant generator
of employees and it therefore is a major determinant of employee housing demand.
Our ability to provide employee housing to meet the growing demand has proven to
be limited while our capacity to provide such services as water, sewer and trans-
portation at increasing rates has also been constrained. These problems point
clearly toward the need to extend the comprehensiveness of our limitations upon
commercial development and to reevaluate the rates of growth permitted by the
quotas. The Planning Office recommends that you extend the coverage of the
commercial GMP competition to include the 0 zone (excluding the CL, NC and SCI
zones which are limited in geographical scope and are largely built out) to make
the limitation on the commercial development more comprehensive in nature. The
0 zone district has experienced significant development pressure, which can be
expected to intensify as available areas in the CC and C-1 zones are filled up.
16. Quota Change
The original quota for the City of Aspen (39 residential units, 18 lodge units
and 24,000 square feet in the CC and C-1 zones) was established by determining
the potential buildout in the controlled zones and then phasing this buildout
by permitting 80% of this total over the 15 year planning period. However,
the underlying premise of the GMP is to provide a mechanism to control the
timing of growth to coincide with the availability of the community to
accommodate that growth with urban services while maintaining Aspen's high
quality of life standards. It would therefore seem inappropriate at this
time to expand the quota beyond the present level of 24,000 square feet per
year due to the previous high. rates of commercial growth outside of the quota
in the City which is placing demands upon available water, sewer, transporta-
tion and housing resources. The Planning Office recommends that no expansion
of the quota be implemented this year to compliment the extension of the
zonal coverage or the commercial GMP allotment. We have just initiated
our GMP Policy Plan Update which should provide further data regarding the
need to change the quota for residential, lodge and commercial development.
We would therefore recommend that final resolution of this issue be deferred
until next year.
1C. Carry Over of Allotments
The Planning Office has completed a thorough analysis of all commercial GMP
allotments awarded over the five year history of competition. This analysis
indicates that 108,063 square feet of commercial space have been allocated since
1977 while 17,937 square feet have been left unallocated. This total of 126,000
square feet reflects 24,000 square feet available during each year plus a 6,000
square foot bonus awarded last year. Among the 17 approved projects, 3 projects,
which recieved a total of 2,184 square feet among them, have seen their awarded
allotments expire. Therefore, at the present time, a total of 20,121 square feet
in unallocated or expired quota is available for allocation this year, in addition
to the 24,000 available each and every year. For your information, among the
other 14 approved projects, 6 have been built, 2 are under construcz7on, 4 are
completing reviews prior to obtaining a building permit and 2 are on line to lose
their allocation if they do not submit plans to the Building Department by
August 31 of this year.
The Planning Office believes that the availability of 44,121 square feet of
commercial space for allotment this year supports our argument that no expansion
of the quota to match the extension of its coverage is necessary. However, many
have argued that the availability of the large carry-over for distribution from
year-to-year poses a threat to our ability to logically plan our services, since
in any one year an enormous commercial development could be created, which would
be unable to be matched by a similar level of employee housing. The Planning
Office would therefore recommend that you consider the following alternatives
to mitigate the impact of the large amount of commercial quota which is unallocated
or expiredo
-~,.
~....
Memo: Commercial G Code Amendments
June 9, 1981
Page Three
A. Recommend to Council that they not carry over any of the previously avail-
able but unused allocations allowing the Planning Office to re-compute
the commercial quota based on the availability of physical services and
fiscal capacity as part of the ongoing GMP update.
B. Provide a method by which the unused allocations may be reduced over time.
One method would be to subtract all exempt commercial development (i.e.,
that in the CL, SCI and WC zones) which occured during the previous year
from the unused allocations from previous years. If development in these
exempt zones exceeds that available from unused allocations, it would then
be subtracted from the 24,000 square feet available for that year. This
procedure would be comparable to that for residential units exempted from
competition during the previous year which are subtracted from the residential
quota available for that year; or
C. At a minimum, the Planning Office would suggest that you request that Council
offset the 6,000 square foot bonus awarded last year by removing this total
from the 44,121 square feet which is potentially available for this year.
This would still leave 38,121 square feet of commercial space to allocate
this year, a total which we view as excessive.
The Planning Office would recommend that you choose option "B" above and con-
sider combining it with option "C" to limit the carry-over of allocations
for this and future commercial competitions.
2A. Employee Housing
At the present time the following points are available in scoring a commercial
GMP application:
A. Quality of Design - 18 points, including architectural design, site design,
energy, amenities, visual impact and trash and utilities access.
B. Historic features - 15 points, including massing, exterior building materials,
architectural detail, color and architecture.
C. Community Commercial Uses - 6 points, including employee housing and medical
and other service needs.
D. Gonus points - 8 points (20 percent of total above).
The present points system provides a maximum of 3 points for the provision of
employee housing and does not distinguish between units designated as low, moderate
or middle income housing. As stated above, commercial growth is the primary
generator of employee housing demand. It would seem reasonable and in the com-
munity's best interest that commercial projects take up a larger share of the
employee housing need which they generate.
In examining some recently approved commercial GMP projects, it appears that anywhere
from 20-30 percent of the total proposed space has been designated as employee housing,
typically involving 1 - 5 employee units. Under the present arrangement it is unfair
to expect any more than this amount of employee housing from the applicants for the
following reasons:
- Only 3 points has been awarded for employee housing in thA past, forcing the
applicants to concentrate most of their attention on the design-oriented fea-
tures of the proposal.
- Within the commercial districts, employee housing is viewed as an accessory use.
These locations have not been identified as truly appropriate locations for
large amounts of employee housing.
- Several commercial projects in the past have involved relatively small additions
to existing businesses where it has been economically unfeasible for them to
provide employee housing within the development site. Furthermore such small
projects are unable to compete with larger projects which can internalize the
costs of providing a substantial share of their employee housing demand.
Memo: Commercial GMP Code Amendments
June 9, 1981
Page Four
It appears necessary, then, to design a scoring system which increases the relative
weight given to employee housing in the total GMP competition to induce applicants
to increase their contributions to the housing stock. The syster, should also
provide flexibility to the applicant to provide the housing on or off site. Finally,
the system should not require a specific amount of each project as employee housing,
but instead should provide points on the basis of the percent of the total new em-
ployees generated. Vde therefore recommend that a total of 15 points be available
under the employee housing category and that the applicants be scored with 3 points
for each 20 percent of the new employees generated by the project for which housing
is provided on or off-site. 4Je would determine the number of new employees by using
indicators obtained from the 1981 County Housing Authority Survey of employee housing
needs. The applicant would not have to designate the housing guidelines to which
the units will be restricted, with this determination instead being made, based on
specific criteria, when the exemption from the GMP for the employee units is requested.
This approach is deemed preferable to providing points for designation in advance of
the housing guideline since at the time of construction of the units the available
housing mix may dictate the need for housing priced in a different category than was
previously anticipated.
ro ects
- - oints top j
o provides a maximum of three
intended to serve the routine
.ce need ~ ~`""1erc'al space rather that the needs of the tointst
• Durin °f the commum ty ro ects haveroeect ed p
•'s categor g past competi;*•ions, numerous p ~ is built,
°~ie develo y However s been found that whenbusinesses can't afford
pers frequentl ~t ha hat the local-serving
the rents and so the y claim t, The Planning Office
r~~o?mends that an~affPaa~i ends u; ba uiredUtosbeSeroYided by the, aRp~c;aii re-
ceived points a~ t be q ~~~e $rfidavit should indicate that
the project owner will be wii~~r~ to take whatever steps are necessary to make
the space available to local serving businesses including reduction of rents
to local-serving businesses to insure that they are accommodated in the project.
The applicant may also provide copies of pre-construction leases as evidence
that the spaces will be available to local serving businesses.
As a further inducement to the applicant, the Planning Office recommends that
five rather than three points be available in this category, with the applicant
receiving one point for each 20 percent of the project which is designated in
an affidavit as being utilized by local-serving businesses.
2C. Adequacy of Services
One premise which underlies the GMP scoring system is that projects in locations
which require no utility or other service extensions are preferable to those
which are not adequately served. The present commercial GMP competition makes
no reference to basic services because we have heretofore only been concerned
with the CC and C-1 zones in the downtown business district. Should you concur
with our reromnendation to expand the coverage of the competition to include
the 0 zone district, then the differences in service provision across the affected
areas will become more noticable. Vde recommend that a new scoring category-
availability of public facilities and services, be created, evaluating the following
key physical features:
- water
- sewer
- transportation
- drainage
- fire protection
The Planning Office recommends that 0-2 points be available for each feature,
resulting in a total of ten new points for competition in this category. These
points should be awarded on the following basis:
Memo: Commercial
June 9, 1981
Page Five
GMP``~ode Amendments
~•,
~,,,
0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense.
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area.
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
4Jhile it might be argued that this approach provides a penalty to applicants
located in well services locations and a possible incentive to locate in an area
where services need to be improved, it does also reward those who must go to the
added expense of providing water system interconnects and the like. Applicants
who do not have to incur these expenditures can be more competitive in terms
of design features and local services, allowing the types of tradeoffs which have
always characterized GMP applications. The Planning Office would therefore
recommend that you add physical services as anew category in the commercial
GMP competition process.
2D. Historic Features/HPC Review
Presently, the evaluation and scoring of the 15 points available for "Historic
Features" is performed by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). The
criteria for evaluating historic features, including massing, exterior building
materials, architectural detail, color and architecture, are quite subjective
in nature and often come down to whether or not an individual likes the way
a particular building looks. Additionally, since the HPC review and approval of
the compatibility of the building with the historic character of Aspen is re-
quired in any case, the scoring by HPC is redundant.
lde recommend that the scoring of Historic Features as a GMP commercial category
be eliminated. We further recommend that applicants should be required to re-
ceive conceptual approval from HPC prior to the deadline for submission of a
commercial GtdP application to the Planning Office. This will insure that any
major changes that need to be made to the building can avoid the limitation that
GMP applications cannot be substantially changed once they are submitted. HPC
comments on the applications would be forwarded to the Planning Office and
thereby to P & Z to assist in the scoring of applicants. These conments
would continue to apply to all commercial GMP applications, since despite the
proposed expansion in coverage of zone districts, applications would still be
within or adjacent to designated historic districts and evaluation of the
compatibility of a project with historic guidelines would be appropriate.
In cases where an application is submitted for a location not within a
designated historic district HPC should still review the request and forward
its comments, though its approval would not be required.
2E. Information Requirements
Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations regarding employee
housing, local versus tourist oriented commercial uses and physical services,
there will definitely need to be changes made to the information required to
be submitted with all future commercial GMP aplications. The Planning Office
will develop appropriate language to meet these new informational requirements
should you concur with our recommendations regarding the revised scoring cate-
gories.
3A. Applicant's Previous Performance
During the 1981 Residential GMP Competition, several members of P J'< Z, as well
as private citizens, suggested that if an applicant holds a GMP allotment and
has not progressed satisfactorily toward obtaining a building permit for that
project, he should not be permitted to compete for further allotments. The
present Code (Section 24-11.3) provides three conditions upon which the Planning
Office shall reject an application for an allotment, including:
- Failure to satisfy minimum utility or access requirements;
- Failure to comply with an approved master plan; and
- Failure to comply with the zoning, building and other codes of the City of Aspen.
The Planning Office approach to the issue of previous performance would be to
make it a fourth condition for rejection of an application. t•Je would require
that the applicant provide a disclosure of ownership certificate as is required
for a conceptual subdivision application. The applicant would be defined as the
owner of the property. The Planning Office, based on information from the
Me
Pao: Commercial GMP ie Amendments
~e 9, 1981
~e Six
Building Department, would determine whether the applicant has been proceedn
positively toward utilizing accumulated allotments. If the applicant has r.~g
submitted plans sufficient for obtaining a building permit within two years
of the original application, his new application would be rejected. This ~t
requirement would not cut across the types of applications. That is, if an
applicant is holding a lodge allocation, he could still apply for a residen- '~
tial allocation and so on.
3B. Amendment Criteria
The Code provides that once an application is submitted, it may only be amended
or modified in insubstantial part for purposes of clarification or technical
correctiono The Code further provides that if an applicant awarded an allotment
should deviate from any essential element of his proposal or fail to satisfy any
material condition of the award or not meet the proposed development schedule, it
shall be a basis for Council to determine whether the allotment should be re-
scinded.
It has been an informal policy of the Planning Office that any change which
would have affected the points awarded by P & Z and Council should be reviewed
by Councilo This Planning Office interpretation of the Code provides no
specific guidance to Council as to how to review the applicant's request,
requiring them to balance the objectives of the original allotment in a policy
vacuum. The Planning Office would therefore recommend that, at a minimum, we
develop language to the effect that any change which would affect the points
score of the original award should be brought back to P & Z for restoring.
Should P & Z find that the scoring change is such that,
1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum threshold he must achieve
in each category; or
2) The applicant's position relative to the other applicant's during the ,
competition would have changed;
then the P & Z would send the application to Council with the revised score
to determine whether the allotment should be rescinded. If P & Z finds that
the change from the original application would not have affected the scoring
in either manner suggested above, it may recommend that the applicant proceed
with the project as proposed.
A second approach to this problem is suggested through a review of Section 24-8.26
of the Code, Amendment to PUD Plan. This Section sets specific criteria for
deviation from an approved PUD which must be brought Hack to P & Z for a recommenda-
tion to City Council. These criteria include a change in the use or character
of the development, an increase in the overall coverage of structures, a reduction
of approved open space by greater then 3% and an increase of greater than I% in
the approved residential density.
Applying this approach to an amendment to an approved GMP project, the following
changes would have to be brought back to P & Z for a recommendation to City
Council:
- Any change which would pptentially alter the points originally awarded
during the GMP scoring;
- Any change from the approved architecture and site design of the project;
- A deviation of 5% or more from the approved FAR and/or square footage of the
project;
- Any change in the number, size and type of employee units; and
- Any modification to the type and level of physical services and facilities
of the project.
The Planning Office prefers this more comprehensive and detailed approach to the
problem and recommends that you pursue this alternative to the less complex one
suggested previously. We anticipate the need to further clarify and refine
these criteria and bring back more exact language for your review of this and
all the other suggested code amendments,
MEMORAPIDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Commercial GMP Code Amendments
DATE: July 2, 1981
At your meeting on June 23, 1981, we presented a series of proposals to modify
the commercial and office development GP4P application procedures. The conclusions
of that meeting were as follows:
1. All commercial zones should be incorporated in the competition process.
2. The 24,000 square foot quota should not be increased for the upcoming
competition; the 20,000 square feet of unallocated or expired quota available
from previous years should preferably not be used this year but should be
left flexible due to the increased zonal coverage.
3. The scoring system should be changed to increase the points available for
employee housing, eliminate the local serving commercial uses and the historic
features categories and add a new category evaluating physical services at
the site.
4. Definitive criteria should be established for the award of bonus and penalty
points by the Commission.
5. The Planning Office should carry the proposed code changes forward, despite
the tight time schedule to implement the system prior to the submission
deadline of September 1 for applications. It would be preferable to move
the deadline, for this year only,for submissions back to October 1 than to
continue with the existing procedures.
Subsequent to that meeting, the Planning Office met in work sessions with City
Council on June 24 and July 1. At those times, the proposed GMP amendments were
refined and appropriate ordinance language developed. Based on the comments by
P & Z and City Council, we offer the following Resolution Qf Approval, providing
the language proposed to be enacted as the new Sections 2~-11.5, 24-11.7, 24-11.3
and 24-11.10. To assist you in the review, we have indicated those sections
which we have amended in any substantive manner.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION PROCEDURES OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 81 -
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that there has
been considerable commercial construction in zones other than CC and C-1
which has not been regulated by the provisions of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS), and
WHEREAS, the Housing Action Plan has identified commercial growth as a
major generator of housing demand and recommended that amendments be prepared
to the GMQS requiring new businesses to house a substantial proportion of the
employees generated, and
WHEREAS, the substantial level of unregulated commercial growth has had
the effect of producing a "dual" growth rate and has caused an imbalance in
the provision of key services such as water and sewer which were predicated on
the existence of a single, controlled rate of growth in Aspen, and --
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the existing
quota is sufficient and does not warrant an expansion since 24,000 square feet
of commercial space is available for competition on an annual basis, while an
additional 20,121 square feet is available due to unallocated or expired allo-
cations from previous years, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that certain modi-
fications to the scoring system for the GMP process are necessary to more
accurately reflect current policies of the City of Aspen and to meet certain
administrative problems which have developed since the implementation of the
GMQS, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission desires that certain of
the amendments to the commercial GMQS be processed by the Planning Office prior
to submission of applications for the 1982 competition while the implementation
of others should be delayed beyond the upcoming competition, recognizing that
it will nevertheless be necessary to change the submission deadline for the
1981 competition to October 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen recommends that City Council repeal and reenact Section
24-11.5 of the Municipal Code as follows:
...~
Sec. 24-11.5. Commercial and office development application procedures.
No development of commercial or office space within the CC, C-1, NC,
0, SCI and CL zone districts except office and commercial development
exempted pursuant to section 24-11.2, shall occur until the proposed
development shall have received a development allotment pursuant to the
following procedures:
(a) All applicants for commercial and office 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 including information
on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess
capacity available from such public system; the loca-
tion of the nearest main; the estimated water demand
of the building.
(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
trunk 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 increases 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) All proposed uses for the structure identifying not
only anticipated initial users but all uses that
potentially may be made of the building (description
by category is sufficient) without substantial building
changes,
(gg) Effects of the proposed development on adjacent uses
and land uses in the vicinity of the project.
(hh) The proposed construction schedule including, if appli-
cable, a schedule for phasing construction.
(ii) The applicant's proposal to house employees which are
generated as a result of the commercial development.
(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.
,,
Y .r '/
(dd) Any major street or road links to 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 to 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) Quality of design (exclusive of historic features) (maximum
18 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:
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 features 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 arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles)
and increased safety and privacy.
(cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insula-
tion, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
(dd) Amenities (maximum 3 points) considering the provision
of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
(ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale
and location of buildings to maximize public views of
surrounding scenic areas.
(ff) Trash and utility access areas (maximum 3 points) con-
sidering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash
and utility access areas which are required by section
24-3.4 (Area and Bulk Requirements) and 24-3.7(h)(4)
(Miscellaneous Provisions). An applicant who proposes
a reduction from these requirements must secure special
review approval from the planning and zoning commission
under the provisions of section 24-3.5 prior to sub-
mission of an application for a development allotment
under the provisions of this Article.
(2) 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.
k , ,~
1 -- Project may be handled by 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.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two service features (i.e., water supply and
fire protection) the determination of points shall be made
by averaging the scores for each feature.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
(aa) Water supply/fire protection (maximum 2 points) con-
sidering the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development with-
out system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading, Also considering the ability
of the appropriate fire protection district to provide
service according to established response times without
the necessity of upgrading available facilities.
(bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of
sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the pro-
posed development without system extensions and without
treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
(cc) Public transportation/roads (maximum 2 points) consider-
ing the ability of the project to be served by existing
city or county bus routes. Also considering the capacity
of major streets to provide for the needs of the pro-
posed development without substantially altering existing
traffic patterns or overloading the existing street
system or causing a need to extend the existing road
network,
(dd) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the
capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop-
ment without system extension.
(ee) Parking (maximum 2 points) considering the provision
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or resi-
dential needs of the proposed development and consider-
ing the design of said spaces with respect to visual
impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
(3) Employee housing need (maximum of 10 points).
(aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant
who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for
employees for a period of fifty years to rental and
sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the city council and to eligibility
limitations within housing income-eligibility guide-
lines established by the city council.
(bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following
schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5~) of the employees
of the project who are provided with employee housing
either on- or off-site through a net addition to the
employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new
deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
(cc) For the purposes of this section, one percent (1~) of
the total employees shall be computed annually by the
planning office based on a determination of the number
of employees generated per square foot of commercial
space in each. zone district included within section
(a) above. The evaluation shall only consider the
.,
square footage being requested under the current appli-
cation and shall not compute the employee housing
need based on existing commercial space.
(dd) The planning office shall inform the applicant, at
the time of the pre-application conference, of the
number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the square footage of commercial space requested.
In those cases where an applicant displaces existing
housing for employees, defined as units which rent or
are sold at rates which fall within the adopted housing
price guidelines of the city of Aspen, the planning
office shall add that number of employees displaced to
those expected to be generated by the project in
determining the overall employee housing need of the
applicant.
(ee) In those cases where an applicant already houses
employees as defined in section (aa) above, and can
demonstrate that as a result of the square footage
being requested as compared to the space previously
occupied by the commercial or office use, no new
employees will be generated as a result of this pro-
ject, the applicant may use the percentage of existing
employees housed as a credit towards the points avail-
able in section (bb) above.
(ff) No requirement of this section shall imply that an
applicant is required to house the actual employees
of the project itself but only that the applicant
offset the increase in new employees by housing quali-
fied employees of the community in general.
(gg) Applicants for commercial development in the CC, C-1
and 0 zones who propose to provide off-site employee
housing, as defined in section (aa) above, may use the
square footage of the employee housing project as the
basis of a special review to increase the FAR for the
commercial site to the maximum commercial square
footage allowable by the code in that zone district.
(4) Employee housing incentives (maximum 10 points)
(aa) In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide
housing for more than 50% of the employees generated
by the project, as evaluated in section (3) above, the
commission shall assign additional points based on the
following formula:
1 point for each. ten percent (10%) of the employees
of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%)
who are provided with employee housing either on-
or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred and fifty
percent (150%) of the employees generated by the
project.
(5) Compatibility with community plans and land use regulations
(maximum 5 points)
(aa) The commission shall evaluate the degree to which each
application is in conformance with the adopted plans,
policies and land use regulations of the city of Aspen
and thereby will enhance the neighborhood in which the
project is located and/or the community in general.
(bb) The commission shall award up to five points to any
project which is determined to meet the criteria below:
Project furthers the policies and conforms to the
intent and purpose of the land use categories of
the Aspen Land Use Plan; and
.-, ~ ~
V a~
- Project is compatible with the neighborhood and
surrounding land uses; and
- Project is in keeping with the intent of the zone
district in which it is located; and
- Project is compatible with the Aspen Area General
Plan, as amended.
(cc) The Planning office shall provide the commission with
information sufficient to permit the objective deter-
mination of the degree to which the project is consis-
tent with the criteria in section (bb) above.
(5) Applicant's previous performance (maximum minus five points)
(aa) Any applicant who has been awarded a development allo-
cation during a previous commercial competition and
who, within two years from the date of submission of
that application, has not submitted plans to the building
department sufficient for the issuance of a building
permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless
the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual
hardship., such submission has not been possible.
(7) Bonus points (maximum B points)
(aa) The commission members may, when any one determines
that a project has..not only incorporated and met the
substantive criteria of sections 24-11.5(b)(1), (2)-and
(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these
sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition, award additional points not
exceedingly twenty percent (20%) of the total points
awarded under sections 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3).
(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 24-11.5(b)(1), (2), (3), (4),
(5), (6) and (7), and the total number of points awarded by all
members, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute
the total points awarded to the project. Any project not re-
ceiving a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total points
available under section 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3), or a minimum
of thirty percent (30%) of the points available under each of
section 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3), shall no longer be considered
fora development allotment and the application shall be considered
denied.
(d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points received
(highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the com-
mission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before
November 1st of each year.
(e) Having received the cormission`s report, the city council shall
consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however,
that the only challenges which may be heard shall be based on
denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission
in its scoring of the applications.
(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 December 1st of each year, allo-
cate 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 develop-
ment approvals required by the zoning, building or other regulations
of the city. Unallocated allotments shall be carried over to the
following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time.
(g) IJo applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant
to section 24-11.5(a) amend, modify or change his application ex-
cept in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or
technical correction only. Section 24-11.7(b) shall be used to
~~,
-•,,
determine whether or not a change is deemed to be insubstantial.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
that City Council repeal and reenact Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal
Code as follows:
(b) Should an applicant previously awarded a development
allotment deviate from any essential element of his pro-
posal, or fail to satisfy any material condition imposed
on the -allotment received, or fail to comply with the
development schedule submitted with his application, the
planning office shall notify the planning and zoning commis-
sion, which may, after hearing, recormiend to city council
that all or any part of the allotment be rescinded. The
criteria for determination of when an application has de-
viated substantially fron the original GPiP proposal shall
include the following:
- Any change which would potentially alter the points
originally awarded during the GMP scoring;
- Any change from the approved architecture and site
design of the project;
- Any change in the number, size and type of employee
units; and
- Any modification to the type and level of physical ser-
vices and facilities of the project.
Should a change in an approved application fall within any of
these criteria, the planning and zoning commission shall
hold a public hearing to determine the appropriateness of
the amendment to the original plan. The planning and zoning
commission shall restore the original application in order
to determine whether,
- the applicant would no longer meet the minimum threshold
he must achieve in each category or for all categories
to receive an allocation; or
- The applicant's position relative to the other applicant's
during the competition would have changed.
Should either of the above two conditions be met, the
commission shall make a recommendation to the city council
as to whether the applicant's allocation should be rescinded.
Should the above conditions not be met, the commission shall
make a recommendation to city council as to the appropriateness
of the amendments to the original proposal and any further con-
ditions of approval which the applicant shall meet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the planning and zoning commission recommends
that city council repeal and reeenact Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code
as follows:
Sec. 24-11.10. Employee housing.
Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the
provisions of section 24-11.4(b)(3), 24-11.5(b)(3) and 24-11.6(b)(6),
r~
shall be allowed in addition to those housing units authorized
by section 24-11,1 (a) above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the planning and honing commission recommends
that City Council repeal and reenact
Section 24-11.3(d) of the Municipal
Code as follows:
In the event historic preservation committee (HPC) approval is needed for
any proposed project, the committee's conceptual approval must be secured
prior to submitting an application for a development allotment under the
provisions of this article. However, nothing herein notwithstanding, an
applicant shall still be required to secure final approval of the project
from the committee prior to submission of an application for a building
permit.
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
that City Council determine that for the purposes of the 1982 commercial GMP
competition only, the submission deadline for applications shall be October 1,
1981. The Planning and Zoning Corronission shall score the applications at their
first meeting in November and City Council shall award allocations at the first
available meeting thereafter, but no later than their first meeting in December.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council implement the
above described changes far the purposes of the 1982 commercial GMP competition
only in the following manner:
1. The extension of coverage of section 24-11.5 to include not only the
CC and C-1 zone districts, but also the 0, NC, SCI and CL zone dis-
tricts should not take place until October 2, 1981.
2. The scoring system currently contained in section 24-11.5(b) should
continue to apply through October 1, 1981, with the exception that
the evaluation of historic features should be eliminated immediately
and the evaluation of compatibility with community plans and land use
regulations, and the evaluation of an applicant's previous performance
should be implemented for this year. The remaining changes proposed to
the scoring system should take effect on October 2, 1981.
3. All other changes recommended for sections 24-11.3, 24-11.5, 24-11.7
and 24-11.10 of the code not described in 1 or 2 above should be imple-
mented immediately.
The Planning and Zoning Commission lastly recommends that for the purposes
of the 1982 commercial GMP competition only, Council not carry over any of the
unallocated or expired allotments from previous years and that the 6,000 square
foot bonus awarded last year be subtracted from the 20,121 square feet remaining
from previous years. This action would leave 24,000 square feet of commercial
and office space and an optional 6,000 square foot bonus available for competi-
tion and possible award in the CC and C-1 zone districts this year.
Approved this twenty-first day of July, 1981, by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By:
Olof Hedstrom, Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Resolution Regarding Commercial Gt1P Code Amendments
DATE: July 10, 1981
Attached is a copy of ~ reviceri Reenlu±inn for your consideration, based
on the comments we received from you at your meeting on July 7, 1981. This
new approach responds to your request that w~establi~n three ecnrino areas,
c
scoring we proposeo.
Our response to your concerns was to le s,
quality of design, availability of pub is facilities and employee housing
as thev_wese__in the previous x~.inn and to ~Se_them the only areas in_which
an a ^~
t en established four other scoring areas, emnlo~ hQysing in n ices and
a~pli an ° a ~~o~s o_r nr~,ann=k-=~~icn you had seen before, and cnn_ pdtihi~.ty
and bonus points, which you had requested. An
examination of the points in these areas shows that e,,~,~ints are
available re arding the design of the buildin trr^nty points for em~oyee
h~i'~ een oo n ca services/nei ____ Y
ma~these are
and 5 points to remove due to an appli
The other major departure from our
we
pus version is that
eve
t
imp emen n a i o aving camp eted the review of the
u out and quota for all zones contemplated to be included'in the competition,
,vie dr,_e concerned about he defensa_bility of increasing. the c,Qyera_ae without
_c~ ~ We feel that by this tithe next year we will have the data
n3 hand to justify an appropriate quota for all corunercial zones.
ite these shifts in strategy, we still feel that it is very important that
a o u ion an r recommenda-
~rmiediately.~e woul~~'ike to implement these changes w i e a en ion is
nr~-.o~:.-ttaemt~.~ ~ ° thy'ni~~'""~~rcr~:ro=~-~;~"Te~t.„~i n
recommendati.on._for this year's comReti.t1,up (i.e., eliminating the historic
mission of an a pli_p 'cation; itemizin basis for C un i t n ienges
,~e~s~rina v~P°~~'a-'-naestablis i view roce ure for amendments to
,lets whic6_baYe _r~ e~ceY~ an__ . _ _, n lle a so You
soon as possible with changes for the residential G11P procedures so that
deadli'n'e tfiat`we do not'with~ss trfe~-°ag~f-n-
C ~~D ~
s~~ ~ ~ Q~~~ ,o
~~s
\ ~ O rv ~~
` J ~. R"~~ IP ~ V~~ ~ G] ~ ~ iii! Q.7` 0~ ~ ,,..e,t~ ~ ~L ~ /~/J~,
~q ti ~ \~ \,. ~ v~Q- wok /~ ~ ~ ~ f^.
V - to ~~i_ _ Q ~e~ 'TS (~ y~`. S ',NIL
ti ~~r~ ti ~1~ f-'~~~`y~„LJ o ~
V~~
0 -~o S ~
W 0 NBC- O SCy~p..
_._~
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEtJ PLAfJtJING AND ZOWIWG C06'UIISSION
RECOMMENDItJG AMEtJOMENTS TO THE
COt•4dERCIAL GMP APPLICATION PROCEDURES OF
T11E CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEtI
Resolution No. 81 - _,
WFIEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that there has
been considerable commercial construction in zones other than CC and C-1
which has not been regulated by the provisions of the Growth Management Quota
System (GP1QS), and
WHEREAS, the Housing Action Plan has identified commercial growth as a
major generator of housing demand and recommended that amendments be prepared
to the GMQS requiring new businesses to house a substantial proportion of the
employees generated, and
WHEREAS, the substantial level of unregulated commercial growth has had
the effect of producing a "dual" growth rate and has caused an imbalance in
the provision of key services such as water and sewer which were predicated on
the existence of a single, controlled rate of :growth in Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the existing
quota is sufficient and does not warrant an expansion since 24,000 square feet
of commercial space is available for competition on an annual basis, while an
additional 20,121 square feet is available due to unallocated or expired allo-
cations from previous years, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that certain modi-
ficiations to the scoring system for the GMP process are necessary to more
accurately reflect current policies of the City of Aspen and to meet certain
administrative problems which have developed since the implementation of the
GMQS, and ~`'"` °'~`~
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission desires that the amend- .~'~
ments to the commercial GMQS be processed by the Planning Office prior to
submission of applications for the 1982 competition, recognizing that it may
be necessary to change the submission deadline for the 1981 competition to
October 1.
NO1•J, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen recommends that City Council repeal and reenact Section
24-11.5 of the Municipal Code as follows:
.. w/
Sec. 24-11.5. Commercial and office development application procedures.
No development of commercial or office space within the CC, C-1, NC,
0, SCI and CL zone districts except office and commercial development
exempted pursuant to section 24-11.2, shall. occur until the proposed
development shall have received a development allotment pursuant to the
following procedures:
(a) All applicants for commercial and office 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 tfie proposed development including
comments as to:
- (aa) Type of water system to be used including information
on main size and pre-sure and, if public, the excess
capacity available from such public system; the loca-
tion of the nearest main; the estimated water demand
of the building.
(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
trunk 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) squaredfootageenandrareascdevotedlto openrspace~or~rnal
landscaping,
(ee) Estimated traffic count increases 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) All proposed uses for the structure identifying not
only anticipated initial users but all uses that
potentially may be made of the building (.description
by category is sufficient) without substantial building
changes,
(gg) Effects of the proposed development on adjacent uses
and land uses in the vicinity of the project.
(hh) The proposed construction schedule including, if appli-
cable, a schedule for phasing construction.
(~~) generatedcastasresuPtsof thehcommercPalydevelopmentre
(2) A site utilization map inc]uding:
(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) natu~aldterrainaandoopenrspace9~andtundergroundingrofn9
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 to 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 to 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) Quality of design (exclusive of historic features) (maximum
18 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:
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 features 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 arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles)
and increased safety and privacy.
(cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insula-
tion, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and
~ ,...,7t heating and cooling devices to. maximize conservation of
~~ ~ ~ +~^"'~ energy and use of solar energy sources.
(dd) Amenities (maximum 3 points) considering the provision
of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
(ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale
and location of buildings to .maximize public views of
surrounding scenic areas.
(ff) Trash and utility. access areas (maximum 3 points) con-
sidering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash
~~ ~`~~ and utility access areas which shall have been reviewed
"'~ by special review of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission prior to the growth management allocation
public hearing.
(2) 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 of
increased public expc~~se.
1 -- Project may be handled by 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.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two service features (i.e., water supply and
fire protection) the determination of points shall be made
by averaging the scores for each feature.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
(aa) Water supply/fire protection (maximum 2 points) con-
sidering the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development with-
out system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability
of the appropriate fire protection district to provide
service according to established response times without
the necessity of upgrading available facilities.
(bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of
sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the pro-
- posed development without system extensions and without
treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
(cc) Public transportation/roads (maximum 2 points) consider-
ing the ability of the project to be served by existing
city or county bus routes. Also considering the capacity
of major streets to provide for the needs of the pro-
posed development without substantially altering existing
traffic patterns or overloading the existing street
system or causing a need to extend the existing road
network.
(dd) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the
capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop-
ment without system extension.
(ee) Parking (maximum 2 points) considering the provision
of parking spaces to meet the conenercial and/or resi-
dential needs of the proposed development and consider-
. ing the design of said spaces. with respect to visual
impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
(3) Employee housing need (maximum of 10 points).
(aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant
who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for
employees for a period of fifty years to rental and
sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the city council and to eligibility
limitations within housing income-eligibility guidelines
established by the city council.
(bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following
schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees
of the project who are pp~rovided with employyee housing
~~
~
~`~
ff-site~l....o,,.~Lw w~ a.8-,ll
~l
either on- or
,
V
y
~w~
P
~
(cc) For the purposes of this section, one percent (1%) of
the total employees shall be computed annually by the ~ ,
~ Planning Office based•on a determination of the number w.~~.
~ tAr.~E~
~,,.,,_ of employees generated per square foot of commercial
,
~----------__~ space in each zone district included within Section
(a) above. The evaluation shall only consider the
square footage being requested under the current appli-
cation and shall not compute the employee housing
need based on existing commercial space.
• yv..va ~ w.Arw2- /4 ~.
,.. ~ ~
~ Q.~1.,~.a ~ ~
~....
°
w `~`--, W
w~ ~ ~P`~c`-1 P ~ C.-~ ~4~, ~ po ~ ...7t5
(dd) The Planning Office shall inform the applicant, at
the time of the pre-application conference, of the
number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the square footage of commercial space requested.
In those cases where an applicant displaces existing
~~ ~,~, housing for employees, defined as units which rent or
~._,.~'~ are sold at rates which fall witi~in the adopted housing
price guidelines of the City of Aspen, the Planning
Office shall add that number of employees displaced
to those expected to be generated by the project in
determining the overall employee housing need of the
_ applicant.
(ee) In those cases where an applicant already houses
employees as defined in Section (aa) above, and can
demonstrate that as a result of the square footage
v~Q-J being requested as compared to the space previously
_._:~ occupied by the commercial or office use, no new employees
~~~ ~ ~ t., will be generated as a result of this project, the
~t.F /^~ applicant may use the percentage of existing employees
t,le,,..G~ay housed as a credit towards the points available in
Section (bb) above. 5.,---~-~ hn~ iV°°~ ~ 1-°°
(ff) No requirement of this section shall imply that an
applicant is required to house the actual employees
of the project itself but only that the applicant
offset the increase ~n new employees by housing quali-
fied employees of the~com~unity in general.
(gg) Applicants for conanercial development in the CC, C-1
r•a...,~ and 0 zones who propose to provide off-site employee
w.t ~~ housing, as defined in Section (aa) above, may use the
^*t. square footage of the employee housing project as the
basis of a special review to increase the FAR for the
commercial site to the maximum allowable by the code.
~~ ~ The applicant may thereby use the entire FAR bonus in
~a r, the commercial district for commercial purposes if
(,p w-•" ~ ~ employee housing of a commensurate size is provided
po~s'^e off-site.
,,,,\„n fie, ~'"`1
(4) Employee housing incentives (maximum 10 points)
(aa) In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide
housing for more than 50~ of the employees generated
by the project, as evaluated in Section (3) above, the
commission shall assign additional points based on the
following formula:
T
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees
of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50~)
who are provided with employee housing either on-
or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred and fifty
percent (1501°) of the employees generated by the
project.
(5) Compatibility with community plans and land use regulations
(maximum 5 points)
~~ (aa) The commission shall evaluate the degree to which each
application is in conformance with the adopted plans,
policies and land use regulations of the City of Aspen
A~\ '` 1- ~~ and thereby will enhance the neighborhood in which the
project is located and/or the community in general.
(bb) The commission shall award up to five points to any
project which is determ' d to meet the criteria below:
~~~~`e~~ ~,~„Pi'~j'ect furthers the policies and conforms to the
intent and purpose of the land use .categories of
the Aspen Land Use Plan; and
Jy~~ - ...,_
O VWr~.S ~ t . Lo ~~M ~"`
~a ~ ~ o.. -~e ~..~~^-+""1 - Project i s i n keeping with the i ntent of the zone
a.4 district in which it is located; and
~ ~,,,,,~ q~~,~,,,q,.l - Project i s compatible with the l~s~8n^Ar~~eq
~1(Il~~a1AL~tt~6~ia y.tl,S~SoRlwwo ~SaMo~ wSR.
(cc) The Planning Office shall provide the commission with
information sufficient to permit the objective deter-
mination of the degree to which the project is consis-
tent with the criteria in Section (bb) above.
(6) Applicant's previous performance (maximum minus five points)
(aa) Any applicant who has been awarded a development allo-
cation during a previous commercial competition and
who, within two years from the date of submission of
that application, has not submitted plans to the building
department sufficient for the issuance of a building
permit, shall rece~~gg up to minus five (-5) points unless
~~1 i.y~`~ ®~~ the applicant sha31r"demonstrate~jthat for reasons of
• unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible.
(7) Bonus points (maximum O points)
e.¢,~aotis ~c+~'e s
(aa) The commissioM may, when it shafil determine that a
project has not only incorporated and met the sub-
~ stantive criteria of Sections 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and
.°`~~ (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these
~, / sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition, award additional points rot
exceedingly twenty percent (20;x) of the total points
awarded under Sections 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) 'and (3).
(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 24-11.5(b)(1), (2), (3), (4),
(5), (6) and (7), and the total number of points awarded by all
members, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute
the total points awarded to the project. Any project not re-
ceiving a minimum of sixty percent (60~) of the total points
~~Z ,.~ ~~~ available under Section 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3), or a minimum
G ~ of thirty percent (30Y) of the points available under each of
Section 24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3), 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 received
(highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the com-
mission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before
November lst of each year.
(e) Having received the commission's report, the' city council shall
consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however,
that the only challenges which may be heard shall be based on
denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commissicr.
in its scoring of the applications.
(f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for
in this section, clurin9 which the city council may amend the number
of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council
shall by resolution and prior to December 1st of each year, allo-
cate 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 develop-
ment approvals required by the zoning, building or other regulations
of the city. Unallocated allotments shall be carried over to the
following year for possible distribution or that (or a later} time.
(g) Wo applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant
to Section 24-11.5(a) amend, modify or change his application ex-
cept in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or
technical correction only. Section 24-11.7(b) shall be used to
determine whether or not a change is deemed to be insubstantial.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
that City Council repeal and reenact that Section 24-11.7 of the Municipal
Code as follows:
Sec. 24-11.7. Rescinded and expired permits.
(a) All applicants who shall have been awarded allotments shall
submit plans sufficient for building permit issuance within
a period ending on the second anniversary of the deadline for
submission of the application for which the allotment was made.
Failure to do so shall cause the allotment to automatically
expire. Any expired allotments shall be added to available
allotments and may be awarded pursuant to the procedures
established in this article.
(b) Should an applicant previously awarded a development allotment
deviate from any essential element of his proposal, or fail
to satisfy any material condition imposed on the allotment
received, or fail to comply with the development schedule
submitted with his application, the planning office shall
notify the planning and zoning commission, which may, after
hearing, recommend to city council that all or any part of the
allotment be rescinded. The criteria for determination of
when an applicant has deviated substantially from the original
GMP proposal shall include the following:
- Any change which would potentially alter the points originally
awarded during the GMP scoring;
- Any change from the approved architecture and site design
of the project;
- Any change in the number, size and type of employee units;
and
- Any modification to the type and level of physical services
.and facilities of the project.
Should a change in an approved application fall within any
of these criteria, the planning and zoning commission shall
hold a public hearing to determine the appropriateness of
the amendment to the original plan. The planning and zoning
commission shall restore the original application in order
to .determine whether,
- the applicant would no longer meet the minimum threshold
he must achieve in each category or for all categories to
receive an allocation; or
- the applicant's position relative to the other applicant's
during the competition would have changed.
Should either of the above two conditions be met, the commission
shall make a recommendation to the city council as to whether
the applicant's allocation should be rescinded. Should the
above conditions not be met, the commission shall make a re-
comaendation to city council as to the appropriateness of
the amendments to the original proposal and any further con-
ditions of approval which the applicant shall meet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the planning and zoning commission recommends
that City Council repeal and reenact that Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal
Code as follows:
Sec. 24-11.10. Employee housing.
Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the
~ z
~4.e/
M
provisions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3), 24-11.5(b)(3) and 24-11.6(b)(6),
shall be allowed in addition to those housing units authorized by Section
24-11.(a) above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the planning and zoning commission recommends
that City Council repeal and reenact that Section 24-11.3(d) of the Municipal
Code as follows:
In the event historic preservation committee (HPC) approval is needed for
-any proposed project, the committee's conceptual approval must be secured
prior to submitting an application for a development allotment under the
provisions of this article. However, nothing herein notwithstanding, an
_applicant shall still be required to secure final approval of the project
from the committee prior to submission of an application for a building
permit.
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the planning and zoning commission recommends
that City Council determine that for the purposes of the 1982 commercial G`1P
competition only, the submission deadline for applications shall be October 1,
1981. The planning and zoning commission shall score the applications at their
first meeting in FJovember and city council shall award allocations at the first
availabel meeting thereafter, but no later than their first meeting in December.
The planhing and zoning commission recommends•that City Council implement the
above described changes for the purposes of the 1982 commercial Gh1P competition
only in the folloiwng manner:
1. The extension of coverage of Section 24-11.5 to include not only the
v o..~ ~ CC and C-1 zone districts, but also the 0, NC, SCI and CC zone dis- ~-
tx~}e„~Q ~~ tricts should not take place until October 2, 1981.
~~~ ~tAw.
2. The scoring. system currently contained in Section 24-11.5(b) should
! c•.1 i ~~~, continue to apply through October 1, 1981, with the exception that
(+,k~~„~.(,i„1 ,w{ the evaluation of historic features should be eliminated immediately.
~ The new scoring system should take effect on October 2, 1981.
~..o«~I°"'"~'"'°8. All other changes recommended for Sections 24-11.3, 24-11.5, 24-11.7
'A ~ _~-~~°'~~` and 24-11.10 of the code not described in 1 or 2 above should be im-
" '~"~ `"~ ~ plemented immediately..
The planning and zoning commission lastly recommends that for the purposes
of the 1982 commercial GMP competition only, Council not carry over any of the
unallocated or expired allotments from previous years and that the 6,000 square
foot bonus awarded last year be substracted from t;:e 20,121 square feet remaining
from previous yeas rs~~This action~vrould leave 24,000 square feet of commercial
_,,.,_-.....~ ~ti__~ --
and office space for competition and possible award in the CC and C-1 zone
districts this year.
Approved this fourteenth day of July, 1931, by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission.
ATTEST:
ASPE(J PLANWIiJG ACID ZONING COt4t+lISSION
By:
Olof Nedstrom, Chairman
eouty Citv Clerk
.-,
~ _ ~ „~,,
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
Wayne Chapman, City Manager
City Attorney .
FROM: Planning Office ,
RE: Miscellaneous Code Amendments -- Progress Report
DATE: January 5, 1981
In December, Karen Smith promised the Council she would report on the status
of certain code amendments requested by the Council. The following is her
progress report and recommended subsequent action on each amendment.
Commercial GMP -- Carry Over
Council asked the Planning Office to draft an amendment to the Code to elimi-
nate the carry over of unused commercial allotment be cause. of its potential
to create a massive allotment in any one year exacerbating employee housing
and public facilities impacts. Two features need to be looked at: (1)
unallocated allotment and (2) rescinded or expired allotment.
Regarding unallocated commercial allotment, Section 24-10.5(e) currently
reads that "Unallocated allotments shall be carried over to the following
year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time." Expired allot-
ments, those which have not been used after two years, and rescinded allot-
ments, those rescinded by Council due to an unacceptable plan amendment,
are handled by Sections 24-11.7(a) and (b) respectively by language staling
"expired (rescinded) allotments shall be added to available allotments and
may be awarded pursuant to procedures established in this article."
For each, the unallocated, expired, and rescinded allotments, the Code is
mandatory regarding carry over but permissive as to whether and when these
unallocated, expired, or rescinded allotments. In other words, Council can
still choose not to use these allotments in subsequent years. For this
reason, we do not believe a code amendment is absolutely necessary.
However, to prevent undue pressure for use of these allotments Council could
amend the Code by repealing the above-noted language for unallocated allotment
(Section 24-10.5(e), or for expired allotment (Section 24-11.7(a), or for
rescinded allotment (Section 24-11.7(b)), for all three. Repeal of any one
would ease the situation; repeal of all three would eliminate additional quota
entirely in any one year.
These options should be discussed further prior to referral to P & Z. Should
Council and P & Z wish to pursue these amendments, the data and policy recom-
mendations of the 1980 Housing Action Plan can be used to support the amend-
ments.
Commercial GMP -- Application to All Districts
Due to the substantial buildout of commercial space in districts other than
CC and C.l, Council asked us to look at an amendment making the quota system
applicable to all commercial districts. The argument again is that commercial
growth is outstripping the community's ability to handle the employee housing
and public service impacts.
At the time of adoption of the Aspen/Pitkin Growth hlanagement Policy Plan the
NC, SC1, and office districts were excluded because they were primarily
intended for needed local service-oriented commercial support. CL was also
excluded though we are uncertain as to why.
4!e think that argument is still valid for the NC and SC1 and both districts
are nearing buildout. But with development pressure and buildout stepping
up in the office and CL zones, we think that inclusion in the quota system
is warranted.
~,~'`^~
- _ MEMO: Miscellaneo~h.~ode Amendments -- Progress Repvfrt
January 5, 1981
Page Two
The language of the Code is simple to amend by the addition of 0, Office, and
CL, Commercial Lodge in Section 24-11.5 "No development of commercial or
office space in CC, C-1, 0, or CL districts . shall occur until the
proposed development shall have received an allotment. ."
However, other provisions must be handled prior to adopting an amendment:
(1.) The quota of commercial space should be increased because the CL
and C-1 24,000 sq. ft, quota was based on the buildout in those
two zones. The plan analysis should be studied carefully for
consistency of rationale,
(2.) Some of the review criteria may be amended if they are not equally
applicable to the new zones. For example, HPC review is required,
but the CL, parts of 0, or C-1, for that matter are included in
historic districts.
We recommend referring this proposal and the two questions to P & Z for recom-
mendation. This does not bind Council to an action, but does set the review and
comment process in motion.
Condominiumization
In November, the Council considered both the P & Z and Planning Office recom-
mendations regarding new Condominiumization controls, There was no consensus
over the P & Z vacancy rate method or the Planning Office method of requiring
one of several alternative means of mitigating displacement, The Mayor asked
each Council member to make suggestions.
The only suggestion we have received is that from Mayor Herman Edel that the
Planning Office recomendation be amended to simply require a cash contribution
into a housing development fund, The language can be easily amended.
However, we do know of some objection to this type of .approach from other
Council members, which is why it was dropped from the Planning Office's list of
alternative mitigation measures. Also, the utility of a fund diminishes over
time through inflation. In any event, the amity Attorney should advise on the
legality and specific language prior to further action, We suggest further
discussion at Council<
Open Space Requirement in Residential Zones
One mechanism for controlling bulk in residential zones is to implement an open
space requirement. Susan Michael and several other Council members asked us
to look into that. Sunny Vann believes this approach may also assist in the
resolution of the problem of overbuilding in the Marie Street historic district.
In order to make a valid decision Council needs to be shown -- graphically --
how different open space requirements would affect conforming extra-large
and substandard-size lots in the R-6, R-15, R-30 and R-40 (and office) zones.
Different construction options a landowner might choose, given other area and
bulk requirements, should be reviewed. Good and bad existing examples should
be evaluated to see what open space is provided.
Because this was not in our 1980 work program we were unable to make much prog-
ress given the necessity of meeting previously agreed upon commitments. Sunny
will report to you prospects for scheduling in 1981.