Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.GMP Competition.1982,-, MEMORANDUM T0: FROM: RE: DATE: Building Department Planning Office Alan Richman, Planning Office Recently Adopted Ordinance 53 November 23, 1982 City Council recently adopted Ordinance 53, Series of 1982, re- codifying Section 24-11.2 of the Code, "GMP Exemptions". Several provisions of this ordinance require clo o-or ion between our two departments and so I wanted to summarize these for each of you. 1. Sections 24-11.2(a) allows the reconstruction of demolished buildings without GMP competition. The section now states that applicants proposing to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of a building must verify the number of dwelling units or the commercial floor area of the building. Verification of a single family or duplex unit must be done by obtaining a demolition permit from you. Verification of a multi-family, lodge or commercial use must be submitted to the Planning Office and the Building Department so that records can be established. Failure to follow this procedure results in the loss of reconstruction credit by the applicant. Please be sure to send any applicant through the Planning Office if a demolition is to occur for a multi-family, lodge or commercial use. 2. Section 24-11.2(h) maintains the "small commercial expansions" exemption. As you recall, expansions of up to 250 square feet which are non-commercial can be approved by our two departments while any commercial expansion up to 500 square feet or any non- commercial expansion of from 250 to 500 square feet must go before P&Z. 3. We have codified the procedure by which your monthly build- ing report summary is aggregated into our annual growth rate data. I cannot overestimate the importance of your reports to us and the need we have for the reports to be accurate and complete. Specifically, I must be aware of every new dwelling unit which is created, employee and free market, and every square foot of new commercial space that is built. Audrey and I have been getting these reports to reflect more directly our needs as well as yours and I hope we can continue to improve this monitoring system. If you have any questions about this new piece of legislation, copies can be obtained via the City Clerk or I can repond to you directly. MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Ordinance 53 - GMP Exemptions, 2nd Reading / DATE: November 2, 1982 /, APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~/~lU v Background On October 12 you approved, on first reading, Ordinance 53, Series of 1982 revising the GMP exemption procedures. Subsequently, on October 20 we held a work session at which time we discussed the details of this ordinance and you directed us to make several changes to its content. The purpose of this memo is to trace the changes we have made and respond to several questions you raised. Exemption Procedures At the work session on October 20, we stressed the point that Ordinance 53 contains mostly language which already exists in the Code. The attached revised version of the ordinance identifies and underlines those few sections of this proposal which represent language not presently codified. For your understanding, following is a description of what these new sections imply, utilizing the numbers we have handwritten into the ordinance. Please also note that the ordinance eliminates five sections of the Code which have been discussed with you earlier. This section establishes a process by which applicants can verify the contents of their building prior to its demolition so that they need not be subject to GMP competition to rebuild their existing use. As you have requested, this process will not be subject to P & Z review but instead will be handled by the Planning Office and Building Department. This section adds a review mechanism to the exemption for essential governmental projects such that the government must mitigate the impacts of its developments. This procedure ensures that the public sector is treated in the same fashion as a private developer and will help you by demonstrating your accountability to the public and the justification for and appropriateness of the project in question. This section codifies the existing "bookkeeping" method for calcula- tion of GMP quotas from year-to-year. The method itself is not regula- tory but instead is an administrative procedure for keeping track of the growth rate. The language in this section provides that all development which is exempt from competition is nonetheless deducted from the appropriate quota. This section provides Council with the power to exempt the infrequent, large employee housing proposal from the quota. Due to the concern you expressed that you might be continually asked to exempt any project which contains employee housing from the quota, we have limited the applicability of this provision to only 70:30 and 100 percent employee housing projects, as these are the type of projects which help to meet the employee housing shortfall while other projects merely offset the impacts of their free market development. This section guarantees that if due to deductions from the quota for projects exempt from competition there is less than 30 percent of the original quota available, then a minimum of 30 percent of the original quota will be available for competition during that year. The Planning Office has revised this percentage from 20 to 30 percent (thus guaranteeing the availability of a minimum of 12 rather than 8 units for competition purposes) and will explain below the rationale for this revision. Memo: Ordinance 53 - GMP Exemptions, 2nd Reading November 2, 1982 Page Two Deduction of Employee Housing Units Most of the discussion of this ordinance has centered on the concept of whether we can afford to deduct employee units from the quota and still meet our employee housing goals. The Planning Office has introduced several concepts which support the proposal to deduct employee housing from the quota including the following: 1. Based on the carry-over of units from previous years, the current low rate of residential development in Aspen and the expiration of previously approved projects, the quota for 1983 is expected to be at least 100 units. Therefore, unless we experience substantial requests for units under the GMP this year (to date we have had no pre-application meetings requested) you can expect to see a large quota available for free market competition in the coming years. 2. As you requested, we are providing you with an historical summary of previous quotas which have been available for competition. The attached table provides a year-by-year summary of the quotas we have experienced in prior years. In summary, the quota available from 1977 has varied as follows: 50*, 0, 21, 39 and 42 units, for an average of 25 per year. The quota allocated during these years is as follows: 65*, 0, 0, 45 and 3 units, for an average of 19 per year. (*Note: the 1978 quota was in fact the 1977/1978 competition). It is difficult, at best, to discern a clear trend line from the above statistics. However, when identifying the wide range of quota and allocation variations, we felt that by having a minimum quota guarantee of 12 (and not 8) units we would be within the mainstream of previous competition quota availabilities and allocations. 3. The City of Aspen has an existing backlog of approved employee housing projects containing 159 employee units. The County is currently considering the development of 150 to almost 275 new units at Silverking Phase IV. We believe that the development of the full complement of these units will go a long way toward the achievement of Housing Action Plan goals. If the units approved within the City are not built, they will expire and be returned to the quota and therefore be available for competition again. 4. Our bookkeeping method provides that units exempt from competition are deducted from the quota not when they are approved but instead when they are built. Therefore, no matter what quota is available within the GMP itself, there is always the ability to apply for 70:30, 100 percent and other employee housing exemptions. Upon the review of such a request, if sufficient quota is available, then the project would be recommended to be deducted from the quota. If no quota was available but it was felt that the project met an important public need, we would recommend the infrequent use of the provision exempting the project from the quota. In either case, quota availability would not interfere with our ability to meet our employee housing goals or to provide units for free market competition. Summary Both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission have gone on record as supporting the proposal to deduct employee units from the residential quota. In fact, at several recent meetings concerning Silverking Phase IV, many citizens have expressed their support of the concept of including employee housing within the GMP. The most reasonable argument in favor of this position is that there is no distinction between free market and employee housing as regards impacts on our service capacities and therefore on our fiscal resources. The development of either type of unit represents growth and therefore contri- butes to the change in character of Aspen from small town to more of an urbanizing atmosphere. We believe that to ensure achievement of our GMP goal of community balance we must eliminate the dual rate of growth and continue to move forward with a comprehensive, internally consistent growth management quota system. Should you concur with these conclusions, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to adopt Ordinance 53, Series of 1982 on 2nd reading." ~. ~. TABLE 1 The Yearly Status of the Residential Quota 1978 Quota available - 78 units (1977 and 1978 competitions) Units deducted - 28 units (27 in 1977, 1 in early 1978) Resulting Quota - 50 units Quota requested - 99 units Quota allocated - 65 units 1979 Quota available - 39 units Units deducted - 39 units (24 constructed in remainder of 1978 plus offset prior bonus of 15) Resulting quota - 0 units Quota requested - 0 units Quota allocated - 0 units 1980 Quota available - 39 units Units deducted - 21 units Resulting quota - 18 units Quota requested - 21 units Quota allocated - 0 units 1981 Quota available - 57 units (18 unit carryover from 1980) Units deducted - 18 units Resulting quota - 39 units Quota requested - 53 units Quota allocated - 45 units 1982 Quota available - 33 units (offset prior bonus of 6) Units deducted - 17 units Units expired - 26 units (top of Mill) Resulting quota - 42 units Quota requested - 3 units Quota allocated - 3 units 1983 Quota available - 78 units (carryover of 39 units from 1982) Units deducted - 5 units (as of end of September, 1982) Units about to expire - 36 units (Swiss Chalet/3rd and Main) Resulting quota - 109 units Quota requested - ? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rp. v c. c. xntac~ e. e. a c. cu _ _ ORDINANCE NO. ~,3 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-11.2 AND 24-11.3 AND REPEALING SECTIONS 24-11.8 and 24-11.10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM AND THE METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTAS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, Section 24-11.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code cur- rently provides for exemptions from the Growth Management Quota System competition procedures, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ,h as re- viewed the growth management exemptions as part of a comprehensive update of the growth management regulations in the City of Aspen and by its Resolution No. 82-9 did recommend that the City Council revise the exemptions to the Growth Management Quota System, and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council does wish to accept the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissison by revising the exemptions to the Growth Management Quota System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-11.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Exceptions" be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: "Sec. 24-11.2. Exemptions. The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Commis- .. sion and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifi- i cally indicated: ~ (a) The remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any building existing as of November 14, 1977, provided ! there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor crea- tion of additional dwelling units. Applicants proposing O __ ~ Mti_~ 1"1 .,0~_ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Ip1Y % C / NOECR EI I1. t ! L. CA O (b) (c) The construction of one single family or duplex struc- tore on townsite lots or lot subdivided prior to Novem- ber 14, 1977. _~ (d) The construction of one single family residence on a lot subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land which was subdivided had a pre- existing dwelling unit; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the sub- division. (e) All construction of essential governmental projects f (2) All employee housing units deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines which are constructed pursuant to the residential, com- mercial and lodge development allotment procedures or pursuant to the density bonus provisions of this Code, and all units constructed as part of a pure employee housing project (that is, one containing all deed re- stricted and no free market housing development) subject to the special approval of the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. The review of any request for exemption of units from the development allotment procedures shall include a determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance with any adopted housing plan, including the number of units proposed and their location and the type of units proposed, specifi- cally regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit and 2 / , L The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received individual historic designation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves raw n a r, enecea e. e. s ~. ca. the size of the unit, the rental/sale mix of the devel- opment and the proposed price categories to which the units are to be deed restricted. (g) All residential dwelling units constructed in a mixed free market/deed restricted housing project wherein at least seventy (70) percent of the units are constructed and deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines (in projects where seventy (70) percent represents proportions of units, from 0 to .49 are rounded down, .5 to .99 are rounded up to the next whole dwelling unit), subject to the special approval of the City Council, based upon the recommenda- tion of the Planning and Zoning Commission which approval shall include a determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compli- ance with any adopted housing plan, specifically the number of units to be constructed, unit type, unit mix, the rental/sale mix of the development, and proposed price and rental categories. Applicants are recommended to submit an application wherein there is maintained an average of one and one-half (1-1/2) to two (2) bedrooms per unit within the deed restricted portion of the pro- ject (a studio shall be considered a three-quarter bed- room) and where at least fifty (50) percent of the resi- dential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. I (h) The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building by not more than five hundred (500) square feet, excluding employee housing, for the purposes of providing a small addition of space which can be shown to have minimal or manageable impact upon the community and can be justified by the benefit which will accrue to the community. For expansions which involve less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet and are for the pur- poses of providing space which is accessory to or inci- dental to the principal use, such as mechanical, stor- age, corridors and stairs, the expansion shall be approved jointly by the Planning Director and the Chief Building Inspector. For expansions which inolve any request for commercial or office space, or which involve expansions of any type of space of two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (SOU) square feet, the expansion shall be subject to the special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for the expansion of an existing commercial or office use shall include a determination of minimal or manageable impact on the community, considering but not limited to findings that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the expansion or the applicant will provide additional employee housing; that a minimal amount of additional parking demand will be created or that parking can be accommodated on site; that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighbrohood due to the project; and that minimal new demand is placed on services available at the site such as water, sewer, roads, drainage and fire protection. Applications for expansion shall be limited to a maximum cumulative com- mercial addition of five hundred (500) square feet with- in any building in the City of Aspen, provided that the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ran. • e. r. xncaec e. e. a ~. cu Planning Commission shall evaluate the cumulative impact of the entire expansion as a whole. (i) All development not limited by the provisions of Section 24-11.1. i O Section 2 That Section 24-11.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "General Provisions" be and the same is hereby amended to create the following subsections: "Sec. 24-11.3. General Provisions. S~.n1l (]) i (k) If, as a result of develo ment exem t from the develo - men a omen proce ures w is is a ucte ro C, a ro ria'te uota erifF~e sfal'r~e available less than t lrtyy percent o t e a otments in any area i en- ti~ie8 in ection ~~'r t en t ere s a e availaTY 4 e _.,~ 1 '~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ru. r c r nncc.a e e. i. ca V Section 3 That Section 24-11.8 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled ", "Report of Building Inspector" and Section 24-11.10 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Employee Housing" be and the same are • hereby repealed and that Section 24-11.9 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Regulations" be renumbered Section 24-11.8, that Section 24-11.11 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Public Hearings"_be renumbered Se^tion 24--11.9, and that Section 24-11.12 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Reserved" be renumbered Sec- tion 24-11.10. - __-_ _ _ -Section 4 = - - . - _- - - - - - If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any .reason held. invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of rnmpetent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por- tions thereof. Section 5 - i A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council _.. _ _ _ - _ - -- J Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 139 South Galena Street, Aspen,- I, - Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. - - - - - -- - - L 5 - .. .,~ • i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held _ , 1982• Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kat ryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this , 1982. day o3= Herman Ed el, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 6 W~y (~ll~ J ~\f.p \~ ` \~ a y - w.~.~.oft eno\\ce~2a~ J L~/~`^,-+w1e S, `k ~ ~~~~ ~ s ~-~ ~o t.,~,,,.,.y~ S - Avo\U.`` 4v.,n ~-n\ c.o...,~,pl.t... ,.. ~•i'K ~ fZ¢S .\~acht..~.5 v~o\ A~a.1.n~T"- - '~iT p, \ v\ iA ~~ ~ Q.X 10--..[i ~.^S ~ .,q ~. w~-y.~~'.~ ~ o r ~D ~ - ~.,,_~ 6~,Q Q-~.,.t.~ Q -.~ ~.,A,~S-~ ~ b-..off,, ~~~~,e ~~) ~ ® ~ ~J .~\ \ V. ' \w~`~w "`e. ~w`~4 lie ~`~-.~ ~~ ~b 7 -°-7l ~ "--^~~~"'~!!! ~.,.\ ~ , ~ ` n /~ - M f~~ 2 ¢~elt,R.~%JlJ ~ \ Q K O \A. v. ~ CA +n,n~ ~ S ~ S"e~- ` ~ „'t. t~~ {~ " ~ f~_.r w. Urn 3S ~~-~~ r~/4 ~ J t1~ (1 ~. r 3 "~ `r . w~ . F ~o 1 F^•ta ~-q,. uax u..,,JL~.~ nQ .~~. ...J'.i.R •S ~4X~ 2 b a.._Pt,o~s 1 ~ n 1 \'~o W -.. ~~ A`So ~a~T 2.1,.. 7 IeSS h.iw.~~. ~4F_ ~h. -~., b ~ ~~ . A~ .,.•~ - ` (~ 1. t o,~.~ .Q \ »~ a ...~ `1 ~..e ,..,•~ ~ .av .n .~.A..r+.i ~-° ",~.s} ~ Ce 2 C -4 R-~+ - n( - t. ~~ `M ..J°h 1I /( \ f ~ \ u rr, ~OLL /A lo w~ ~'C \S ~w~,~ t \I O-. C..4h /4 \..J 4„S ~r I f L.a-S ~ -~' •~.~ l ~{ . A 1 0 •- 3 a ` A c,o .....~ ~9 --P .... a ~ k.t.. ~ ~ . ~ ~ R ~-C .. , \ ~j a bt.arlY - `~ L/-~ML ~ q wo ~A ,SR S --t, ~ ti . . C c ~ 1w ~.,. `_ Q....a ~ ~.~ ~+1 Q ,, V \'~f `A' S~ ~ ~. oC ~-0 ....5~ 7.c \4~+1E o ~- \A t.K ~ J ~tq~,~S ~ 1 (~ O ~ C.• ... fqi+~ (~ a~ / [ ` c A aL 2+C .-.4~ 4 F \ 'm O S- ~ - 1 \ ~ 7 -- ~ \ l ~. ~.A-1~.1 M 7 aa~u ~~' ~ ~ 1` i .n ~t ~tc ~ C'c q ~..„o ~\ 4 2. a.,1 ~T k.J n .~ ~ ~0... cA- -{l . \ ( Q r~ ~.~-~...~1 6 wA. (rro,.,, ~- w~ - ~~ ~S U1..• \ c ~4,t.., t F t ~ ~ -~ ( \~,.t_ F ~x •-e,.\W w --y..a.~ . ~4?L A g A-S 4 v~T..~ 1~ 11 . 5 ~-(t A+l ~ ~At'C~ M1....h. < isc fo tS ll~Q 1... o ~ of V ~E ~ ` ~ ^^ (( .~ ~c.~.~-.. Q .i.~. t .\,.,-~\ t~ Q-.a....`....~.~ ~V~..vL ~A ~tw~ .~,~.,,e(., P.vl '. GX~L~ 4~...0 ~'4 SA-,_\ tea ~~ Ql.o...a~ W~ L~+~/~ .~.-. C A .,. Qsco¢-..ta~~` '7 0 ". '+~O D ~ \e e i . Qro ~ .J~o.-X t t .. A...h o .a ~ .. 2, o ~t a B,~,c .,. ~ . ~ t ._ S..-..~ S I'k'+ ~'F t Z A-S ~~ ~ rf ~ lie ...~w.~s, ~1.. ~(\t~{ \ S R vt ~ -.-~,w[.,~+...~ o .K~ ..-D..J w "W av a ~J2 W`ve- ~ t_I a/Q (~ i'w ..~ 1./`~' Ho S ~ ~~ c~ \s.,..~t.c,'\7~-(1~-\ /(~ o G L f~ . o .,. ~..e [,ter ._ /~, s ~s ~ o . l ` e ! 11~ s ~ . K J ll w `^~ lJ `k ,.f,~ a ..rS..e A ~. A ~ . `,.(~ttX M C/'\i.p ~~ ~. vV ^.c ~1 '~a u.x .^.nl a f 4 ~ ~.(R `-+~ ~et.~' ~^S ~ -,2 G,....,-~ Pr2 ~ ~o cl "t^q ~\~ o ~~~ ~.~ i O..v\2 ~c F~ 61.x- /~~ .~q ~~ ,~ t J1. .... S ~ .. s . ~~Je~- N 1 n nGL. ;li s 7 S'I~, ,,,.~/_'E' t ~ c~/~~/a~Y .. ' '"CS r¢._ T- ~ e ~~~a.. ~.r~ , '~K S ~c~ 2 `>. ! 1 IS /f1~ ~ ~ t! s~(.~"~X Ap`p`) t,~ t ~Q...S 'S~ ~L. ~ ~ r 1.,y1` U ~~"N .~..'MX ~~~ ~,e7r l~ s . OA.~ o ~ s.c.Q '1 ~ '4 c-~o'1/.~ a c (.~P,..,,~c,~ t C~.M P C,c~~-x.0_5 ~~ 0.." "\ \ ~-T. \~..~0\ ~\nQS~w~..S \ n4V~ 5~..(Q wC `~.qv~ <~o~ w.A~ 1+ ` ~ \~.QW+ P ~~ 5 ,~ p~,O Xv~Il\ ~22.~ J _ ~\ <~OM ~( \ w tVl~ ~! ~O L~...4\ 1tiA\~S \~~v. ` ` (~ (~ U-tn0.\ 0.S 4.,lS S.oV.S A S NeC~SSA~ . I t 0 `^ (\ n \ O F V~ ~e -o O //~'~ CJ_ t®- ~ JLc7SP. \4 of ~ ~~ o~.Y ~...~. . ~¢ w\~.. ~5+ 4<~l Q4~~c~ Q4<\~ Q..~y~ n1 ~ ` v~~~l<on ~o~. .~q-~ [ \ ,4~ ~\~L wPti~L t4SS ~o,~ ~.~.~AF`O..S ,T S\ V~ MAM \\ W ~T\ T~AA \ \~``T ~.n\A{~-a .nS .~ . ~ -o S'C ~~S `n1 0~~.~gyCQ `K rrtS ~n`a~ (U~~2.1'fF2 1n Q,~J ~ti.pu.~1 A\~G.v. gTwC.S ~a ~tb ta..t p~ pF V \^Q ~n p„y \•A <-<~.<q,b 1^,1 A CaJ ~0..<4~.. a~ CvC 4`M "^"~~v ~ `+ `-~! (\G.A~ ....p ~.Qa gC.Fo..+t `co... \S p... RQ~. Z J~<c~ S Vu..s ~4 ~-o ~~.t ¢~ ~.0.,.. ~ ~ .~~ `~--~ 2.. ~`~-- `t ~ ~ , .,, .3\9 W~ ~~.e rc \ ((~~ `/,~S\ U\,~A~ 1Q '~ `` ( ~ \ 1` 1 [~ ~/ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~} c7- 4?4 ~ L W JO_ ~'~n S( s`5~+~ S~.~Sp o N~ S 'i C o ~ <\+n y .~ V ""` " `~w..~ \ t v, "t'o "~-2 ~ u"°an\ . ~ lo~-~S.o~t a A:~w.. \..?a JT0. <ouS g 1/,\ \ ~ \.~.Sw~ \1 "L ` ` \ OF `a..., AVq-<~A Pi.~.'!~ ~.- ~ FOK C'\Ca `-A1tc Qy CU.-"{. a~~ ~- ',.~A ....a ~ ((~~ \ n ( p p U\-.d~ c. --~~.o.`eC \~.w5-~ \~..oY-,.<c~.u ~ t S ...~ f~~.2 c~~..X<.Y . T -, `\A\\L..^r~ . .~.~,. ~e_ti`A~ 1 w~ti A5~ ~~ ~`\c- A'F ~ \ S l /J tioV ~ti. o.. w\..<` A\~e.JS Ua... 'SO px~~ ` `..R \...~~ ay ~.C.~T \A~ \ o \ 6 ~~~ a \~O..S ~ S, ~ "~ q <.w~4 . ~Q ~-_ w- ~. wa~ `~e `4.--ov ~~ -\ Q~•-o ~ ~ ^~-a_ v o 0 a 0 C ~° 1 1\ ¢ _`,._ (,~p~ C.N_\\ ('~FL Q7 ~~ O.. 2 ~c~...(a A ~.nA~ CS..~~ \ v 1 1^` ; 9 ~~ 4_ Y ~`\ ` a /~ ~\ r n SX r~ ha ~ V~~e.l ~ r~,p v .i\a. YO.~ Se V N ~.L ~II '- 'I r II ((~~ ~j ~ S u W P ~ Y-~a..J ~`~ / ~.o4c]l \ Y ~ p..~ 'TU n/V r,o)4 t0 \`'~l.<R_~~t. C \ \\ ~~ qn ~- ` V .... t.....~ ~ oSr /_~~R A,~ce ~A'!«a,~ Av ti.~AN~ 40~ c.o ..Y,,t,~.~ F.~, \\ \L -to ~.~~ \1 Lo ~l . ~ a TI p e~ ~iS> ~f <4-...x i5 ~ Yw MK4Y. (\(~~ \ <„rt ~Oa\•C.~L A'\ \\ p (~ QkSk ~'TP'S ~"7..~ ~ o... (I h.l. Zs oG v\-e-{.,,,.~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Ordinance 53 - GMP Exemptions DATE: October 18, 1982 Introduction The purpose of this memo is to provide you with background information for discussion at the work session scheduled for Wednesday, October 20 at noon. The Planning Office would like to thank you for the opportunity you have given us by allowing this item to proceed to second reading while continuing its detailed review at work sessions. Recap of 1st Reading At your regular meeting on October 12, there were two principal arguments raised by members of Council as regards the proposed ordinance. First, in response to the data that we presented in support of including employee housing within the quota system, you questioned whether this approach would permit us to continue meeting our housing action plan objectives. Second, it was argued that the ordinance was full of a lot of unnecessary and confusing language and should deal with this issue in a much simpler format which is understandable by the average citizen. Since we spent so much of the prior meeting defending the proposal concerning employee housing and paid no attention whatsoever to the details of the ordinance, we propose to use today's work session to deal with this issue. Detailed Analysis of Ordinance 53 I have attached a copy of Ordinance 53 for your review and have underlined those portions of it which represent language already in the Code. As you can see, the majority of this ordinance simply re-enacts existing legislation and does not create new regulations. We believe that not only is this proposal not the confusing and unnecessary nightmare that some may think, but also that it exhibits the following positive features: 1. We have maintained those exemptions (employee housing, historic buildings, government projects) which are important to the community. We have created impact mitigation features only in the case of historic structures and government projects because of the potential consequences of expansions whose impacts . are not anticipated. We have created no new exemptions. 2. We have not tied the hands of developers by creating excess regulations. Instead, we have preserved those exemptions which are valid, thereby giving the private sector a viable series of alternatives to the competition process. 3. We have not added substantial new language to the Code. In fact, of the four pages of actual Code language in the ordinance, only about a total of one page represents new legislation. Furthermore, we have synthesized the existing 12 exemptions into only 9 in the proposed ordinance and are repealing two other sections of the Code. The net addition to the Code is therefore minimal and, we believe, amply justified by the benefit to the community through a more clearly defined process and due to a more effective impact mitigation process. For your information, following is a section-by-section summary of the contents of the proposed ordinance. l` 1 ~\ Memo: Ordinance October 18, 1982 Page Two Section 1 53 - GMP Exemptions This section of the ordinance repeals and re-enacts Section 24-11.2 of the Code entitled "Exemptions", including the following subsections: (a) This exemption permits the reconstruction of existing buildings without requiring GMP competition. We have added a P & Z review process called "veri- fication' at the request of the City Attorney. Verification of single family and duplex units which are to be demolished is done simply by requesting a demolition permit while verification of multi-family and lodge units or commercial square footage is done by P & Z. The exemption seeks to protect applicants from losing credit for their existing development and to ensure that abuses of the quota system via unsupported claims for credits are avoided. Therefore, this section is not a regulation but instead is an administrative process which is being codified. (b) This exemption permits the enlargement of, or change of use in structures which are individually historically designated. We have added a review process by P & Z and Council to determine whether such proposals require impact mitigation. The need for such a process has been evidenced by the mitigation measures proposed from the Hotel Jerome expansion but the lack of such mitigation by the Sport Stalker and Epicure Building conversions from residential to commercial use. (c) This is the exemption for previously subdivided lots. (d) This exemption permits the construction of a single-family resi management. (e) This exemption permits the construction of essential governmental projects such as the fire station, parking garage, etc. Our experience with a similar exemption to the County's GMP is that private applicants who must compete for their developments expect the public sector to be treated in a similar fashion. We have therefore added a review of such projects by P & Z and Council to see that the impacts of such expansions are met. We believe that this process will help to .demonstrate your accountability to the public and provide justification of the need for and appropriateness of the project in question. (f) This exemption synthesizes most of the existing employee housing exemptions into a single section. Exempted here are employee units created via GMP projects, via RBO or other density bonus provisions and via 100% employee housing projects. (g) This exemption is the 70:30 employee housing/free market housing provision. No changes are proposed here. Note, however, that the 85:15 provision has been eliminated since it has limited potential for use in the community, though it did apply to the Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve projects. (h) This exemption permits small expansions to be made to existing commercial bu_i_ldings outside of the competition process. No changes have been recommended here. (i) This exemption indicates that any development not identified within the uotas is exem t from the com etition rocess. The paragraph following subsection i merely identifies the bookkeeping method the Planning Office uses in deducting exempted development from the quotas each year. This methodology has been used by staff since the implementation of the GMP and has been codified to clarify questions raised by P & Z and applicants, as well as to ensure its understanding by staff in the future. Section 2 We are proposing two new subsections to the Code section entitled "General Provisions," including the following: Memo: Ordinance 53 - GMP Exemptions October 18, 1982 Page Three This section permits Ci entirel utilize future ears' uota. This section would likely apply to only the very largest projects i.e., Marolt) which could not be accommodated by tfie c;uota and which help to meet our housing shortfall. (k) This section of the orioinal quota for tree market competition it the quota is entirely or nearly urea up by units exempted from competition. Therefore, based on our existing 39 unit quota, no less than 8 units can ever be available for competition as free market units in the residential GMP. This section provides the developer greater assurance of the availability of units for competition than now exists in the Code. Section 3 This section eliminates two sections of the Code which are redundant and unnecessary based on the changes proposed above. Conclusion We hope that this analysis helps in your understanding of the proposed ordinance on which we have spent so much time, including five meetings with P & Z. We will be prepared to answer any questions you may have on this topic on October 20 and then to meet again to discuss the geustion of including employee housing within the quotas. MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman/Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Exemptions from Growth Management Plan DATE: September 16, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction Over the last 12 months the Planning Office has initialed several major legislative amendments to revise our growth management regulations. During this time, we have streamlined the scoring procedures for residential, commercial and lodge development applications. We have expanded the zonal coverage of the commercial quota system and adopted new commercial and lodge quotas, while retaining our residential quota. Finally, we have developed new administrative provisions which address various procedural problems which have emerged during five years of handling GMP applications. Today we begin to review with you the final major piece of legislation associated with the GMP update, concerning exemptions from the GMP. In certain respects, this piece of legislation is one of the most important proposals we have made, since it reflects directly upon the way we calculate our growth rate and what avenues development applicants have outside of the growth management competitions. During our review of this topic with the Planning and Zoning Commission at five separate meetings, following have been the major themes of discussion: 1. Should employee housing be deducted from the residential quota while maintaining its exemption from the competition process? 2. Are there any exemptions which are inappropriate and should be eliminated? 3. What procedural modifications should be made to the exemptions which remain? Before we explain the recommendations which P & Z has developed concerning these themes, it is important that you are familiar with the GMP exemptions currently in effect. We then intend to introduce you to the major concepts associated with the proposed code amendment, leaving the specifics of the ordinance to a later meeting. Existing Exemptions At present there are 12 separate exemptions from the quota system, some of which result in development which is exempt from competition but deducted from the quota and some of which are not limited by either the competition or the quota system. These exemptions can be briefly summarized as follows: (a) Remodeling, restoration or reconstruction which adds no commercial square footage or dwelling units; (b) Enlargement or change of use in historic structures; (c) Single family or duplex residences on previously subdivided lots; (d) Single family residence constructed in connection with a lot split; (e) Essential governmental projects other than housing; (f) Construction pursuant to pre-GMP building permits; (g) Employee housing pursuant to density bonus provisions; Memo: Exemptions from GMP Page Two September 16, 1982 (h) Employee housing associated with GMP projects; (i) 70:30 employee/free market housing projects; (j) All development not specifically limited by the quotas; (k) 85:15 free market/employee housing projects; (1) Small commercial projects expansion. Of these 12 exemptions, all or part of the development associated with Sections (b), (c), (d), (i), (k) and (1) is deducted from the appropriate quota. The major types of development which are not deducted from the quota are employee housing and essential governmental projects. It is important that you recognize how the 12 existing exemptions came into effect. At the time the Growth Management Policy Plan was adopted, it was realized that the City and County had made certain legal commitments to allow growth on lots which were already subdivided and therefore the quota system should establish a built-in bias for building out existing subdivisions prior to considering substantial new ones (page 42). When the City adopted Ordinance 48, Series of 1977, implementing a quota system, it included an exemption for construction on previously subdivided lots. In fact, the original ordinance identified eight exemptions, identi- fied above as subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (f ), (g), (h) and (j ). Since that time four additional exemptions have been created. However, it should be recognized that while the plan indicated the need for exemptions based on legal requirements, the legislation has gone one step further by pro- viding exemptions for projects meeting community priorities. These two concepts, of providing exemptions from competition projects which cannot or should not compete; and of providing preferential treatment to projects which meet public objectives, result in very different types of exemptions. Of the above 12 listed exemptions, six represent what could be considered legal commitments, including subsections (a), (c), (d), (f), (j) and (1). For various reasons, these provisions were created in the belief that certain types of projects should not, or could not be made to compete. On the other hand, there are six exemptions, including four for employee housing, one for governmental projects and one for historic structures, which represent priorities and have not been required to compete, though in many cases these projects could be taken successfully through the compe- tition process. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The major conclusions reached by P & Z in their review of the GMP exemptions include the following: It is appropriate to provide preferential treatment to types of development which meet public objectives by exempting them from competition under the GMP. However, since there is no distinction between employee and free market housing in terms of impacts upon the community's ability to provide services, development which obtains an exemption from competition should nevertheless be deducted from the quotas. Since it is proposed that employee units be deducted from the quota system, it is necessary to provide flexibility in the regulations to ensure that units are available for competition on the free market. P&Z created two methods of ensuring that free market units are available, regardless of the rate of employee housing development. The basic philosophy contained within the is that the best application is one which impacts of development upon the community this position, P & Z has recommended that exemption, applicants also be required to their impacts. GMP competition procedures entirely mitigates the To remain consistent with to be eligible for a GMP document the mitigation of ,~ ~ ._, Memo: Exemptions from GMP Page Three September 16, 1982 The conclusions reached by P & Z and forwarded to you in were based on a comprehensive analysis of historical grog of the likelihood for future growth at rates at or above the recent past. This presentation of data was based on since most of our services will be affected by growth in vicinity. Following is a brief summary of that data. their resolution 82-9 with data and a projection that experienced in a metro area perspective, Aspen and the surrounding Growth Trends and Ongoing Growth Commitments and Priorities Historical growth trends in the metro area from 1977 to 1981 are that we have experienced about 60 residential units per year in the City (34 free market and 26 employee) and about 54 residential units per year in unincorporated Pitkin County (28 free market and 26 employee) whereas, the quotas would have suggested that 39 units be developed in Aspen and 27 in Pitkin County on an annual basis. The total growth of about 114 units per year substantially exceeds the total quota of 66 units per year despite the fact that many units which have been approved have not yet been built. 2. We have created commitments to projects which are approved but have not yet been built, mostly in the City of Aspen, including the following: - Swiss Chalets/Third and Main - 36 employee, 36 free market - 700 Galena/925 Durant - 13 employee, 16 free market - Ute City Place - 14 employee, 8 free market - The Lodge at Aspen - 4 employee, 31 free market - Sunny Park - 4 employee, 3 free market - Marolt - 70 employee, 30 free market - Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve - 18 employee, 12 free market The above total of 295 units (159 employee and 136 free market) will predispose our ability to achieve our planned growth rate. Further- more, this total will increase by approximately 200 units if the Hotel Jerome and Highlands Inn Renewal projects are finally approved, and by almost an additional 200 units if the Silverking Phase IV project receives approval. 3. Our recent analysis of City and County buildout potential indicates the likelihood of substantial future growth under current zoning. We find that there are 146 lots which are currently vacant in Aspen on which duplexes can be built and 289 lots which are vacant on which single family units can be built, for a total potential of 581 new units. We find that there are an additional 191 previously subdivided but undeveloped lots in the unincorporated portion of the metro area. Since the implementation of the GMP we have experienced, on the average, about 15-20 new units each year in the City and a similar number in the County metro area on previously subdivided lots, exempt from the GMP. Our findings concerning buildout potential support the hypothesis that we will continue to experience considerable growth on previously subdivided lots for the coming years. 4. Though the adopted water and sewer management plans are based on a 3.47 rate of growth, we have experienced a more rapid depletion of capacity of these basic services than the plans had originally anticipated. The above indicated residential growth rates, combined with the commercial growth we have experienced (45,000 square feet per year in Aspen and 25,000 square feet per year in unincorporated Pitkin County since 1977) help to explain why this depletion has occurred. Memo: Exemptions from GMP Page Three September 16, 1982 The conclusions reached by P & Z and forwarded to you in their resolution 82-9 were based on a comprehensive analysis of historical growth data and a projection of the likelihood for future growth at rates at or above that experienced in the recent past. This presentation of data was based on a metro area perspective, since most of our services will be affected by growth in Aspen and the surrounding vicinity. Following is a brief summary of that data. Growth Trends and Ongoing Growth Commitments and Priorities 1. Historical growth trends in the metro area from 1977 to 1981 are that we have experienced about 60 residential units per year in the City (34 free market and 26 employee) and about 54 residential units per year in unincorporated Pitkin County (28 free market and 26 employee) whereas, the quotas would have suggested that 39 units be developed in Aspen and 27 in Pitkin County on an annual basis. The total growth of about 114 units per year substantially exceeds the total quota of 66 units per year despite the fact that many units which have been approved have not yet been built. 2. We have created commitments to projects which are approved but have not yet been built, mostly in the City of Aspen, including the following: - Swiss Chalets/Third and Main - 36 employee, 36 free market - 700 Galena/925 Durant - 13 employee, 16 free market - Ute City Place - 14 employee, 8 free market - The Lodge at Aspen - 4 employee, 31 free market - Sunny Park - 4 employee, 3 free market - Marolt - 70 employee, 30 free market - Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve - 18 employee, 12 free market The above total of 295 units (159 employee and 136 free market) will predispose our ability to achieve our planned growth rate. Further- more, this total will increase by approximately 200 units if the Hotel Jerome and Highlands Inn Renewal projects are finally approved, and by almost an additional 200 units if the Silverking Phase IV project receives approval. 3. Our recent analysis of City and County buildout potential indicates the likelihood of substantial future growth under current zoning. We find that there are 146 lots which are currently vacant in Aspen on which duplexes can be built and 289 lots which are vacant on which single family units can be built, fora total potential of 581 new units. We find that there are an additional 191 previously subdivided but undeveloped lots in the unincorporated portion of the metro area. Since the implementation of the GMP we have experienced, on the average, about 15-20 new units each year in the Ciay and a similar number in the County metro area on previously subdivided lots, exempt from the GMP. Our findings concerning buildout potential support the hypothesis that we will continue to experience considerable growth on previously subdivided lots for the coming years. 4. Though the adopted water and sewer management plans are based on a 3.47% rate of growth, we have experienced a more rapid depletion of capacity of these basic services than the plans had originally anticipated. The above indicated residential growth rates, combined with the commercial growth we have experienced (45,000 square feet per year in Aspen and 25,000 square feet per year in unincorporated Pitkin County since 1977) help to explain why this depletion has occurred. Memo: Exemptions from GMP Page Four September 16, 1982 5. It is conceivable that we will be experiencing substantial employee housing development from GMP projects in the future. Our analysis indicates that if the full 24,000 square foot commercial quota is allocated and if applicants try to maximize the number of points they receive in the area of employee housing, as many as 21 employee units could be generated each year. However, in this first year of the new scoring system, with three applicants requesting about 30,000 square feet of space, only three employee units are being proposed. Furthermore, this year's lodge development proposal for 26 units, only proposes five employee units. 6. The scenario which we presented to you previously regarding the most operative constraint to growth at the present time, sewage treatment, was based on a continuation of historic growth trends. We concluded that these trends would necessitate the expansion of the AMSD plant to 4.0 MGD by about 1985 which would provide capacity at this plant to about 1995. However, if we experience a buildout of previously approved projects and of previously subdivided lots while continuing to exempt employee units from the quota, it is apparent that we will again deplete our available capacity more rapidly than was otherwise expected. Furthermore, we believe that our analysis of the sewage treatment constraint is symptomatic of the situation which potentially may exist for other basic services. For example, the report of the busway feasibility consultant concludes that at existing growth rates Highway 82 will be at or beyond breakdown conditions by the 1990's unless additional road capacity is provided in the Aspen metro area. Sustainability of the Proposal We believe that the above analysis documents why P & Z and the Planning Office are concerned that in trying to meet our various public priorities for employee housing, quality lodging and basic institutional facilities, we run the risk of precluding our ability to achieve the goals of our growth management policy. We are also concerned about the fiscal impacts of providing services to meet our planned growth rate while also having to reserve some unknown quantity for those units which are outside of this planned rate. While we feel that including employee housing within the quotas will help us in meeting our growth management goals, we recognize that there are two concerns , which have been voiced in response to this proposal, summarized as follows: 1. Will the inclusion of employee housing within the quotas be a disincentive to the continued development of this most important commodity in Aspen? 2. Will the inclusion of employee housing within the quotas preclude the ability of developers to build free market housing in Aspen? The Planning Office and P & Z are both convinced that the answer to the above questions is no. To understand our reasoning, you must be clear on what deducting units from the quota actually means. We only deduct a unit from the quota when a building permit is issued for that unit. Each year we start out with 39 units available, and subtract from that the units which have obtained building permits but were exempted from the GMP (i.e. have not received an allocation) with the remainder being available for free market competition. The number of employee units which may be requested is not affected by the quota which is available for competition because employee units do not compete for the quota. The only way that deducting employee units from the quota will affect the level of their production will be that somewhat fewer free market units may be available for competition, and applicants typically provide a l:l match between employee and free market units requested. Historically, you should be aware that only five employee and eight free market units have been produced through the resi- dential GMP. This insignificant contribution to our housing shortfall does not argue well for the concerns which have been voiced about how this proposal will impact employee housing production. 1 Memo: Exemptions from GMP Page Five September 16, 1982 Our records also indicate that we have 13 units which we did not allocate last year and 10 whose allocation just expired, along with 44 units which are likely to expire at year's end. Since we carry over these units to the next competition, we believe that it is obvious that for the short term, there will be many units available for competition. Indeed, the Building Department records for this year indicate the likelihood that no more than 10 units will be built this year which are exempt from the GMP, leaving an additional 30 units available for competition. Therefore, there may be as many as 90 to 100 units available for the upcoming competition and carrying over to future competitions, a total well beyond any which has been available in the past. Nevertheless, if the economy should improve and substantial free market and employee housing development were to occur, we have proposed two provisions which would ensure the availability of free market competitive units. First, in the event that a large employee housing project is proposed which would wipe out future quotas even if phased over several years, the Council can choose to exempt it from the quotas. Such a decision would trigger a Planning Office re- evaluation of the quotas and a recommendation either to adjust the quotas for future years or that certain facilities and services will need to be improved earlier than was otherwise anticipated. The second provision only takes place when the level of development outside the quota is so substantial that it is nearly equal to or greater than the quota itself. In cases where less than 20 percent of the original quota is available for free market competition (i. e., less than eight units), this provision ensures that 20 percent of the original quota will be available in that year. Therefore, in no case will the competition be precluded on the basis of development which is exempt from the competition. Conclusion We have provided you with the rationale for the Planning Office/Planning Commission recommendation regarding exemptions to the GMP. In summary, the points in support of deducting employee housing from the residential quota are as follows: 1. There is no distinction between free market and employee housing as regards impacts on our service capacities and therefore on our fiscal resources. 2. From an equal protection standpoint, sustaining a growth management plan which permits a "dual rate of growth" is more difficult than would be one which is inclusive of all types of development. 3. The inclusion of employee housing within the quotas will not prevent its development outside of the competition process nor prohibit the development of free market units. Since the explanation of these concepts has proven to be rather complex, we have been unable, at this time, to provide you with a detailed analysis of much of the new language included in the P & Z resolution and draft ordinance. Therefore, we would hope that in the interests of keeping this legislation on track, you would approve it on first reading and allow us to set a second work session, to occur between first and second readings, to continue to work on these concepts and to answer any questions you may have regarding the details of this proposal. If you concur with this approach, the appropriate motions are as follows: "Move to read Ordinance ~ 3 Series of 1982." "Move to approve, on first reading, Ordinance J~ 3 , Series of 1982." ~ ~ l ~` + ~ N q ~- ~ ~ ~20 O ~ .I~ G~ ~ i ~ Z S 3 P ~' c 1 ~ ~ s i ~' J f i J^ s .P ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ L ~1 6 ~ ~ >f a ' '~ 44 N ~a- 7 D ~ I F S a' ! RI l ~ ~ d ~ W ~ J ~ " N x r a° , 6 u , C j ~ ~S' ~ f ~ ~ ; ~ \~ s ~ e ~ ~ ~ { f! i j 1 J ~,~1. I +~ N ~ `"' r. o i ~ d e i ~ r .1° ?' ~ F °O s J ~ f Sy N O l .. 1 ~ ! ~ / ~ ~ V ~ S .~/ q ~ t ~ ~' o J A 0 ,~ '" P w ? I T I ~ E P l r 4 l "" ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~. . ,: RESOLUTION OF TIIC ASPEN PLANWING AND ZONING COMP1ISSION RECOPIMENOING AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Resolution No. 82 - 9 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the 1977- 1981 historic growth rate data produced by the Planning Office during the course of the Growth Management Plan Update, and WHEREAS, Che Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that since 1977 the City of Aspen has exceeded its annual residential quota of 39 units and has, in fact, experienced a growth rate of approximately 60 residential dwelling units per year, due in large part to the projects which have been exempted from the GMP quota system, and WHEREAS the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it is essential to the cornmunity's welfare that employee housing be produced to meet the critical shortfall identified by the Housing Office and, as such, that employee housing receive preferential treatment within the GMP by its exemption from the competition procedures, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledges that all types of growth have impacts on the ability of the Community to provide basic services and therefore must be accounted for within the growth rates adopted for Aspen within the quota system, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission indicates that its intent to include the growth from all GMP exemptions within the quota system reflects a commitment to a dynamic GMP which must be monitored and updated regularly and frequently to insure that the quotas are in accord with current community priorities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 The Commissibn recommends that the Aspen City Council repeal and re-enact Section 24-11.2 of the Municipal Code as follows: Sec. 24-11.2 Exemptions The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifically indicated: ~..~ I (a) The remodeling, restoration or• reconstructi.on of any building existing as of November 14, 1977, provided there is no expansion of conunercial floor area nor creation of additional dwelling units. Applicants proposing to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of a building shall. be required to verify the conunercial floor area and/or number of dwelling units which comprise the building to be demolished, and shall be limited to reconstruction of no more than the verified total within five years of the date of demolition. Any building which is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same site or on a contiguous site owned by the same individual. Applicants proposing to demolish single family or duplex units may verify the number of units to be demolished through an application for a demolition permit through the Building Department. Applications to verify the number of units contained within a multi-family or lodge use, or to verify the commercial square footage of an existing building shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission so that a record of that which is to be demolished can be established. Failure to verify the number of dwelling units and/or commercial square footage prior to their demolition shall result in the loss of the credit for their reconstruction. (b) The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received individual historic designation, provided that an applicant proposing to create additional dwelling units, expand the commercial floor area or change the use of such a structure shall be subject to the special review of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The approval shall include a finding that the applicant has mitigated the impacts of the proposed expansion or change in use in terms of employee housing, parking needs and basic services such as water, sewer, roads, drainage and fire protection. (c) The construction of one single family or duplex structure on townsite. lots or lot subdivided prior to November 14, 1977. (d) The construction of one single family residence on a lot subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land which was subdivided had a pre-existing dwelling unit; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision. (e) All construction of essential governmental projects other than housing, subject to the special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. To be eligible for said exemption, the applicant shall be required to document that the impacts of the project will be mitigated, including the employee housing generation, parking demand and the basic service provision. (f) All employee housing units deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines which are constructed pursuant to the residential, commercial and lodge development allotment procedures or pursuant to the density bonus provisions of this Code, and all units constructed as part of a pure employee housing project (that is, one containing all deed restricted and no free market housing development) subject to the special approval of the City Council, based on, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for exemption of units from the development allotment procedures shall include a determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance with any adopted housing plan, including the number of units proposed and their location and the type of units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit and the size of the unit, the rental/ sale mix of the development and the proposed price categories to which the units are to be deed restricted. (g) All residential dwelling units constructed in a mixed free market/ deed restricted housing project wherein at least seventy (70) percent of the units are constructed and deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines, 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 -2- e „ determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance with any adopted housing plan, specifically the number of units to be constructed, unit type, unit mix, the rental/ sale mix of the development, and proposed price and rental categories. Applicants are recommended to submit an application wherein there is maintained an average of one and one-half (1'z) to two (2) bedrooms per unit within the deed restricted portion of the project (a studio shall be considered a three-quarter bedroom) and where at least fifty (50) percent of the residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. (h) The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building by not more than five hundred (500) square feet, excluding employee housing, for the purposes of providing a small addition of space which can be shown to have minimal or manageable impact upon the community and can be justified by the benefit which will accrue to the community. For expansions which involve less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet and are for the purposes of providing space which is accessory to or incidential to the principal use, such as mechanical, storage, corridors and stairs, the expansion shall be approved jointly by the Planning Director and the Chief Building Inspector. For expansions which involve any request for commercial or office space, or which involve expansions of any type of space of two .hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) square feet, the expansion shall be subject to the special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for the expansion of an existing commercial or office use shall include a determination of minimal or manageable impact on the community, considering but not limited to findings that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the expansion or the applicant will provide additional employee housing; that a minimal amount of 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 minimal new demand is placed on services available at the site such as water, sewer, roads, drainage and fire protection. Applications far expanions shall be limited to a maximum cumulative commercial addition of 500 square feet within any building in the City of Aspen, provided that the Planning Commission shall evaluate the cumulative impact of the entire expansion as a whole. (i) All development not limited by the provisions of Section 24-11.1. Provided that the Building Inspector shall report to the Planning Office each month the amount of construction and demolition of residential and lodge dwelling units and commercial and office square footage exempted from complying with the development allotment procedures hereinafter provided for which has received building permits. The Planning Office shall compile these monthly reports on an annual basis, providing a report summarizing the amount of exempted construction and demolition of residential and lodge dwelling units and commercial and office square footage which has received building permits during the 12 months prior to the date of submission of applications for development allotments. It shall be the purpose of the report to summarize the amount of construction which shall be deducted from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years and the amount of demolition which should be added to the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. The Planning Office shall also add any allotments which have been rescinded or have expired to the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. Any expansion of commercial or office uses which does not increase the computation of floor area fora building shall not be deducted from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. Section 2 The Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24- 11.3 of the Municipal Code by creating the following new sections: Sec. 24-11.3 General Provisions (j) The City Council may, upon the recommendation. of the Planning and Zoning Commission, permit the construction of projects designed to meet the documented shortfall of employee housing in the community -~- • ~4 without the employee units beiny deducted from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years if it can be shown that the deduction of said units from the quota would entirely utilize the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. In the event that the Council shall consider the granting of such an exemption from the quota system, it shall require that the Planning Office evaluate the limitations on development in Aspen and report to the Council on the need for revisions to these limitations which would take effect during the subsequent year(s). (k) If, as a result of development exempt from the development allotment procedures which is deducted from the appropriate quota there shall be available less than twenty (20) percent of the allotments in any area identified in Section 24-11.1, then there shall be available twenty (20) percent (rounded up to the next whole number) of the annual quota originally provided for that area in Section 24-11.1, it being the intention of this section that at no time shall the com- petition for development allotments be entirely precluded by reason of buildout on previously subdivided lots, the development of employee housing units or the development of projects within individually historically designated buildings. Any allotments made available and awarded pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the quota available in successive year(s) under Section 24-11.1. Section 3 The .Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council repeal Section 24- 11.8 of the Municipal Code, "Report of Building Inspection" and 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code, "Employee Nousing". Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on September 13, 1982. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Perry Harv y, Chairman ATTEST: Depu City Cler4. ,, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: GMP Exceptions Code Amendment DATE: August 9, 1982 Introduction At your last meeting on August 3rd a public hearing was initiated to consider proposed changes to the exceptions to the GMP, Section 24-11.2 of the Municipal Code. While many of the questions raised that night were technical in nature, there was also a broader concern raised which questioned the very premise of our proposal to include employee units within our residential quota. You asked us to provide you with a comprehensive accounting of the potential for growth in all sectors, including units which are approved but not yet built and the potential for future growth under zoning. Tonight's continued public hearing is for the purpose of responding to this general concern as well as to the specific issues raised at the last meeting. Rationale for Proposed Approach The approach which the Planning Office has been advocating throughout the update of the GMP is founded upon the principles of comprehensiveness and consistency in our planning and regulation.. We believe that all types of development have impacts upon our community and therefore should be reflected within our adopted growth rate. We have particularly emphasized the degree to which growth has depleted our basic service capacities and have therefore taken a metro area perspective in evaluating the constraints to future development. Finally, we have examined the various priorities which the community has established regarding growth which have resulted in preferential treatment being given to certain types of development. We continue to support the provision of preferential treatment to certain projects by exemption from competition but do not feel that it is also necessary to place these projects outside of the quota system. The argument for a comprehensive growth management system is based on the following findings: 1. Historical growth trends in the metro area from 1977 to 1981 are that we have experienced about 60 residential units per year in the City (34 free market and 26 employee) and about 54 residential units per year in unincorporated Pitkin County (28 free market and 26 employee) whereas, the quotas would have suggested that 39 units be developed in Aspen and 27 in Pitkin County on an annual basis. The total growth of about 114 units per year substantially exceeds the total quota of 66 units per year despite the fact that many units which have been approved have not yet been built. 2. We have created commitments to projects which are approved but have not yet been built, mostly in the City of Aspen, including the following: - Swiss Chalets/Third and Main - 36 employee, 36 free market - 700 Galena/925 Durant - 13 employee, 16 free market - Ute City Place - 14 employee, 8 free market - The Lodge at Aspen - 4 employee, 31 free market - Sunny Park - 4 employee, 3 free market - Marolt - 70 employee, 30 free market - Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve - 18 employee, 12 free market ~~ Memo: GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Two August 9, 1982 The above total of 295 units (159. employee and 136 free market) will predispose our ability to achieve our planned growth rate. Furthermore, this total will increase by approximately 200 units if the Hotel Jerome and Highlands Inn Renewal projects are finally approved, giving us a backlog of almost 500 approved but not yet built units. 3. Our recent analysis of City and County buildout potential indicates the likelihood of substantial future growth under current zoning. We find that there are 146 lots which are currently vacant in Aspen on which duplexes can be built and 289.1ots which are vacant on which single family units can be built, fora total potential of 581 new units. We find that there are an additional 191 previously subdivided but undeveloped lots in the unincorporated portion of the metro area. Since the implementation of the GMP we have experienced, on the average, about 15-20 new units each year in the City and a similar number in the County metro area on previously subdivided lots, exempt from the GMP. Our findings concerning buildout potential support the hypothesis that we will continue to experience considerable growth on previously subdivided lots for the coming years. 4. Though the adopted water and sewer management plans are based on the .GMP quotas, .we have experienced amore rapid depletion of capacity of these basic services than the plans had originally anticipated. The above indicated residential growth rates, combined with the commercial growth we have experienced (45,000 square feet per year in Aspen and 25,000 square feet per year in unincorporated Pitkin County since 1977) helps to explain why this depletion has occurred. 5. It is likely that we will be experiencing substantial employee housing development from GMP projects, including, if the full quota is allocated, about 21 units per year associated with commercial development plus the employee units associated with lodges and residential projects. However, with the units unallocated or expired from previous years (23) plus the likelihood that less than 10 units -will be built via exemptions this year, it appears that for the short term there will be available a quota which is adequate to allow for competition for free market multi-family units. 6. The scenario which we presented to you previously regarding the most operative constraint to growth at the present time, sewage treatment, was based on a continuation of historic growth trends. We concluded that these trends would necessitate the expansion of the AMSD plant to 4.0 MGD by about 1985-which would provide capacity at this plant beyond 1990. However, if we experience a buildout of previously approved projects and of previously subdivided lots while continuing to exempt employee units from the quota, it is apparent that we will again deplete our available capacity more rapidly than was otherwise expected. This conclusion is reinforced by proposals for major new developments which may be submitted in the near future, including Silverking Phase IV and a major hotel at the base of Aspen Mountain. We are concerned that in .trying to meet our various priorities for employee housing, quality lodging and other institutional facilities, we not also preclude our ability to achieve the goals of our growth management policy. We are also concerned about the fiscal impacts of providing services to meet our planned growth rate in addition to some unknown quantity reserved for those units outside of this planned rate. We recommend that you recommend that City Council bring all types of growth under the quota system. Response to Detailed Concerns We have attached a draft resolution for your review which is meant simply to focus the discussion of the proposed exemptions.. We identify, below, the major issues you asked that we address and explain our responses to each and every issue. Memo: GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Three August 9, 1982 Accounting Method - Several individuals questioned the method by which we account for units which are built through exemptions from the GMP but are deducted from the quota. In the past this has been accomplished on the basis of administrative procedure but we have provided language which codifies these procedures in a formal manner. Reconstruction/Change In Use - Our proposed revision to the language involving the exemption for reconstruction of existing dwelling units on commercial square footage introduced the concept of "change in use". The original language permitted the reconstruction of demolished buildings "provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor creation of additional dwelling units". This language actually takes care of the situation where an existing residence is converted into a commercial use or vice versa. The only situation not accounted for by this language is the change in use between short and long term residential, an issue which may not be best approached through a GMP exemption anyway. Historic Structures - The existing language regarding deductions for historic structures requires that the quota be reduced by "the additional floor area or dwelling units resulting from such con- struction". Since the definition of a dwelling unit in Section 24- 3.1(9) of the Code is "one or more rooms, in addition to a kitchen and/or bath facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests..." it is clear that the Code now requires the deduction from the quota of residential and lodge dwelling units created as a result of this exemption. In our revision we have chosen to clarify this statement since we believe that all units should be deducted from the quota. 4. Minor Clarifications - You .have asked that we make various minor changes to our proposed language which are included in our draft resolution. Please remember that one change from the existing Code which is included in this draft is the elimination of the 85:15 provision. Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that you direct us to return at your next meeting with a revised draft resolution, based on your comments on this first draft. .--, oenF~ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Resolution No. 82 - 9 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the data produced by the Planning Office during the course of the Growth Management Plan Update, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that since 1977 the City of Aspen has exceeded its annual residential quota of 39 units and has, in fact, experienced a growth rate of approximately 60 residential dwelling units per year, and WHEREAS the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it is essential to the community's welfare that employee housing be produced to meet the critical shortfall identifed by the Housing Office and as such that employee housing receive preferential treatment within the GMP by its exemption from the competition procedures, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledges that all types of growth have impacts on the ability of the community to provide basic services and therefore must be accounted for within the growth rates adopted for Aspen within the quota system, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission indicates that its intent to include the growth from all GMP exemptions within the quota system reflects a commitment to a dynamic GMP which will need to be monitored and updated regularly and frequently to insure that the quotas are in accord with current community priorities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 The Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council repeal and re-enact Section 24-11.2 of the Municipal Code as follows: Sec. 24-11.2 Exemptions The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for: ~. (a) The remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any building existing at the time of this regulation, provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor creation of additional dwelling units . Applicants proposing to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of a building shall be required to verify the commercial floor area and/or number of dwelling units which comprise the building to be demolished, and shall be limited to reconstruction of no more than the verified total within five years of the date of demolition. Applications to verify the contents of the existing building shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission so that a record of that which is to be demolished can be established. (b) The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received individual historic designation, provided that applicants proposing to create additional dwelling units, expand the commercial floor area or change the use of such a structure shall be subject to the special review of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The approval shall include a finding that the applicant has mitigated the impacts of the proposed expansion or change in use in terms of employee housing, parking needs and basic services such as water, sewer, drainage and fire protection. (c) The construction of one single family or duplex structure on town- site lots or lot subdivided prior to November 14, 1977. (d) The construction of one single family residence on a lot subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land which was subdivided had a pre-existing dwelling; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision. (e) All construction of essential governmental projects other than housing. (f) All employee housing units deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines which are constructed pursuant to the residential, commercial and lodge development allotment procedures or pursuant to the density bonus provisions of this Code, and all units constructed as part of a pure employee housing project (that is, one containing all deed restricted and no free market housing development) subject to the special approval of the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for exemption of employee units from the development allotment procedures shall include a determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance with any adopted housing plan, including the number of units proposed and their location and the type of units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit and the size of the unit, the rental/sale mix of the development and the desired price categories to which the units are to be deed restricted. (g) All residential dwelling units constructed in a mixed free market/ deed restricted housing project wherein at least seventy (70) per- cent of the units are constructed and deed restricted in accordance with the City's adopted employee housing guidelines, 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 community need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance with any adopted housing plan, specifically the number of units to be constructed, unit type, unit mix, the rental/sale mix of the development, and desired price and rental categories. Applicants are recommended to submit an application wherein there is maintained an average of one and one-half (12) to two (2) bQirooms per unit within the deed restricted portion of the project (a studio shall be considered a three-quarter bedroom) and where at least fifty (50) percent of the residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. (h) The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building by not more than five hundred (500) square feet, excluding employee housing, for the purposes of providing a small addition of space which can be shown to have minimal or manageable impact upon the community and can be justified by the benefit which will accrue to the community. For expansions which involve less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet and are for the purposes of providing space which is accessory to or incidental to the principal use, such as mechanical, storage, corridors and stairs, the expansion shall be approved jointly by the Planning Director and the Chief Building Inspector. For expansions which involve any request for commercial or office space, or which involve expansions of any type of space of two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) square feet, the expansion shall be subject to the special approval of City Council, based on the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for the expansion of an existing commercial or office use shall include a determination of minimal or manageable impact on the community, considering but not limited to findings that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the expansion or the applicant will provide additional employee housing; that a minimal amount of additional parking demand will be created or that parking can be accomodated on site; that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood due to the project; and that minimal new demand is placed on services available at the site such as water, sewer, drainage and fire protection. Applications for expansions shall be limited to a one time only commercial addition to any building within the City of Aspen. (i) All development not limited by the provisions of Section 24-11.1. Provided that the Building Inspector shall report to the Planning Office each month the amount of construction and demolition of residential and lodge dwelling units and commercial and office square footage exempted from complying with the development allotment procedures hereinafter provided for which has received building permits. The Planning Office shall compile these monthly reports on an annual basis, providing a report summarizing the amount of exempted construction and demolition of residential and lodge dwelling units and commercial and office square footage which has received building permits during the 12 months prior to the date of submission of applications for development allotment. It shall be the purpose of the report to summarize the amount of construction which shall be deducted from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years and the amount of demolition which should be added to the quota of allowable development in succeeding years. Section 2 The Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council amend Section 24- 1.1.3 of the Municipal Code by creating the following new sections: Sec. 24-11.3 General Provisions (j) The City Council may upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission permit the construction of projects designed to meet the documented shortfall of employee housing in the community without the employee units being deducted from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years if it can be shown that the deduction of said units from the quota would prevent the development of free market units entirely in succeeding years. In the event that the Council shall consider the granting of such an exemption from the quota system, it shall require that the Planning Office evaluate the limitations on development in Aspen and report to the Council on the need for revisions to these limitations which would take effect during the subsequent year(s). (k) If, as a result of development exempt from the development allotment procedures which is deducted from the appropriate quota there shall be available no development allotments in any area identified in Section 24-11.1, then there shall be available twenty percent (rounded up to the next whole number) of the annual quota originally provided for that area in Section 24-11.1, it being the intention of this section that at no time shall the competition for development allotments be entirely precluded by reason of buildout on previously subdivided lots, the development of employee housing units or the development of projects within individually historically designated buildings. Any allotments made available and awarded pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the quota available in successive year(s) under Section 24-11.1. Section 3 The Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council repeal Section 24- 11.8 of the Municipal Code, "Report of Building Inspection" and 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code, "Employee Housing". Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on 1982. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: Perry Harvey, Chairman ATTEST: Deputy C-y Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: GMP Exceptions Code Amendment DATE: July 28, 1982 Attached are the proposed revisions to Section 24-11.2 of the Code concerning GMP exceptions, along with minor changes to Sections 24-11.3, 24-11.8 and 24-11.10 to remain consistent with the remainder of our GMP strategy. Following are the major changes involved in this proposal: 1. Eliminated provisions include subsection (f), involving building permits issued prior to the GMP; and subsection (k), the 85:15 provision; while subsections (g) and (h) have been combined into a unified employee housing exception. The 70:30 provision, subsection (i}, has also been retained. 2. Revised provisions include subsection (a) where a review pro- cedure for reconstruction has been proposed; subsection (b) where a review procedure and mitigation requirement has been proposed for historically designated structures and the new employee housing exception, formerly subsections (g) and'(h). 3. Expanded deductions of exempt development from the quotas in- cluding development in historic structures, on previously subdivided lots, on lots formed by lot split, of employee housing and for small commercial expansions, provided that the infrequent, large employee housing project may be exempted from the quotas by formal decision of City Council and provided that if the quota shall be used up by projects exempt from the competition procedures, then 20g of the original quota will automatically be available for the competitions. As you are aware, the key issue which we are dealing with related to these proposals is that of deducting all development from the quota. This approach recognizes that all types of development have impacts upon the community and should be included within 'our growth rates. We support the provision of preferential treatment to developments which meet key community objectives but believe that exemption from the competition procedures is a sufficient incentive without also exempting the development from the quotas. This position was supported by a recent (July 22) editorial in the Aspen Times, attached for your information. Our GMP revisions over the past year have had the effect of making growth management comprehensive in Aspen. We have reintroduced you to the "services as limits to growth" concept and portrayed growth to you in terms of varying priorities competing for a limited pie. For these concepts to be effective planning tools we believe it is necessary that the entire growth management system be internally consistent. The only remaining inconsistency is that involving the GMP exceptions which presently are outside of our "limited pie". By approving the proposed revisions to Section 24-11.2 of the Code you will have completed the unification of our dual growth rate which will permit us to plan for the future needs of the community without any qualifying or limiting variables as unknowns. We urge you to continue in the direction you have initiated when we expanded the coverage of the commercial quota system city-wide and when we adopted new quotas based on the community's ability to sustain growth. .. _ N _ Memo: GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Two July 28, 1982 The major concern associated with bringing all units under the quota system is the degree to which this proposal will limit the future production of employee units. As we indicated to you at the last meeting we believe that the 39-unit residential quota can accomodate the. residential growth rate we can expect in Aspen for the next few years. Now that Council has adopted the 24,000 square foot commercial quota we feel confident in projecting the need for no more than 21 new employee units each year to offset the maximum allocation of quota. Additional units will also likely be produced as a result of the lodge and residential compe- titions. However, the following data, which you requested indicates the degree of free market housing we have experienced since 1977 which, during the .last 2 ~ years, has been substantially belcxa the 39 unit quota. Recent Residential Growth Rates In Aspen 1977 Free Market 70 Units Deed Restrict- 0 ed Units Total Units 70 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982(.'0 Total Average 28 39 16 18 2 173 31 0 4 88 37 2 131 24 28 43 104 55 4 304 55 Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 1982, based on Building Department Files. Though we recognize that the last few years have not been typical economic times, we also feel that they are representative of what may occur in the near future. Please remember that the idea of bringing employee units under the GMP is born of the dynamic approach we propose, where we try actions which our data shows are in the community's best interest, with a willingness to come back with additional changes to our quota system if the need arises. However, based on the units unallocated from last year (13), the units which recently expired (10), the units which may expire this year (44) and the low development total in Aspen during 1982 (4) we do not think any such problem will arise over the short-term. We hope that we can move this Code amendment toward a resolution at your next meeting so that we may stick to our legislative agenda with City Council. housing has. impacts When Aspen and Pitkin County approved their growth management plan in 1977 they recognized that "because the phenomenon of community growth is imperfectly understood, any attempt to regulate it will be imperfect," and they made provisions for periodic review which could lead to changes, if needed. During the past year the planning office, with city and county planning and zoning commissions, has studied several GMP changes, many of which have since been adopted. They covered annual quotas, general administ- ration, residential scoring, commercial scoring, lodge scoring, expired permits and employee housing. Now the planners are looking at the list of 12 exemp- tions which were included in the original code, or added since its initial adoption. Included in the list are those for employee housing. Last month the county agreed with planning office recommendations that employee housing is beneficial and should be encouraged by being exempt from GMP competition, but that it does impact the community and should not be exempt from annual quotas. This week the city PZ began studying the same ques- tion. At the moment employee housing is exempt from GMP competition as wel I as from GMP quotas in the city. Planners recommend that the city adopt the county pro- cedures for housing exemptions. We concur. Although this newspaper is a strong sup- porter of employee housing and strengthening all zoning and GMP inducements for its creation, we recognize that any housing, no matter how beneficial, has impacts and should be included in the annual GMP quota if the pur- pose of the plan itself is not to be subverted. July 22, 1982 The Aspen Times w. e C O .N .; N C V v N O O i O_ UJ ro N Y Ot > N ro I C O V T^ C L O ro 1 i Ol O i i 1 •r I U I C Y i L C RY r• d 0 o v c ro d•r r- o. v v aro nY ro E 4- >> i ro N 'D r N i t O ~ E 16 Ol E 16 O C n Ul Of ~ i Y N ro N N ^ ro 1 Ql E U7 3 O i "O ro~ i C O r ro 41 O •r C L i C C O L O N +~ Y 4- Ul ro ro Y •r L Y 3 0 N C X 0 0 Y U L •r 4-. N C "O IF C L 3 i Y O Y •r •r ro N F- E O ro r -O •r O O i U U.a O -O ~ Y O1•r U Y Y Ul O i N> r 0 C O N N ro ro C N O ro •r i +> N N L Y O C Y O L •r ro ~ N Y Y U •r N i C 'O ro N ro E U L a i O ro •- O N ~ •r •r O •r 'O •r -O Y O» Y L C L i O ~. E d r- 4- C O IF i E +~ •- r• E d N •r ep i U Y O N N X i U ~r• N O ro E ~~ a. O O N ro N N O •7 C N C N C N N 7 N ro ++ i C •r O N¢ .a U •r -O Y ~ L O N ro C N ro +~ i i •r r 0_ O D U Ql •r >r ro IF- O a•r U •r U N 4- Y U C i L N- ~ mL r U N N 7 •r _ L ro N N i J N Y N L 1= != ro r i r ^~ C> Ol C C •r N +> U U r i G •~ •r +~ ~ Ul i U ro U! ~ O d O i .... r •r O L ~ Ol C O •r N O Y C N N O L U f].•r N C N U Y C ro i O L ro> N O v ~ Y O U U ro N N 0 N rt) i N O •r U Y U 3 L Y •r N N Y i r- C O) C C L N i 4- U r• •r N N N •r X d 4- •r N r- J C U1 ro U Y N L O G Ql N L r- N'O L O L ~ ro O •r L n.•.- U ~ .O i 4- UJ L]. O L Y 'D Y O C C L U C +> X N N E .. ~ N 0 0 0 3 O. U Y •r != E N ro C N'- •r O N O N ro +~ O N Y N E "6 ¢ d ~ ro C N L ro O) ro N U T N +~ L O U 3 r i C •r C i >a ~ ro 'D Y O1 U C 7 0 U/ +~ ro "O i O >> O Y O r 4- ^L C ro'D n N i •r ~ L U7 'O d ~ r r-O r ro N•r O1VY4-4-•r N L•r OL 7U GY N C Cr- Y Ql Y 41 N C ~~ L i C N O O~ U U> i Y Y ro O ro N ro U V ro L C O D7 Y N •r t UJ C C r d U N Ot d i 4- 16 O i Y ro •r C > r- N i N N ro N i~ 'O 7 L Ol C O N •r i O n Y •r a •r O Y Y '- Y O G N C i Y C •r i V 4- 4- N Yn YY x•rvrooa~r-Eros=dN rY ro+> rv nv ~--ro C N ro N V .- .- Y 3 0 'O d c n N 4. C C N 'C N Y N 'O •r Q1 -p E O Y Ul X 4. 'O ro X O C •r N t= != p>.-. O N N C ro~ V N i =t O O; V N ro row- ro C 4- . C 4-~ Y ~ v O E 4- C i 0 4- Y V N Y •r r- ^ L ro n ro C UJ Y Y O) Y N O N N r N O >> Y C N n N V> 4- •r O) N C N N O C N •r L L O i a 4- N .n •r N U nY 7 0 N N 0 ~G ro r 0 C > r• C Y Y O' N C O L E N ro •r N i L~ i C X •r O U/ ~-- ~ X N O Ul L O O Y 'O 4- N i C O. Y O N ro •r U) Y r v ro N UJ i •r y-. -p i E +~ •r N Ul O Ol Y~ 4- n r- Y n ro U Y 'O N Y O C ~ Y i a 3 i N ro O ro 4- V U i N UJ 41 OJ N o_ rna~ ornLro roa~crnc~rov-aiv roroLO~ ocla ^v rn rn rn YN E C L E c Y v a~ a C A N •r •r- i S L Y C N D ram c o c ro w OJ +~ N •r i N L i •r i >> i> O C •r N ro C ^ E ~ L t L x 3 i V'O V o N~ ovY v a~ v (u L'p r• ~•r o~-• i . ~~ W O L r• N •r ~~ ~ N d> i 4J U N r U •r r N N U U U E r• Y v •r -p i v y ro'O •r t= > i N •r -p N d N Y ro N 0 r N r L 7 •r O L O L != O O O N L L 3 L n ro L L O Ul O O O N • 0 3 F- .n > C Y E N ro L U 4- Y L ro {- 3> V Y N~ N +~ L N Z Z Z W C .- 4- rn i v c _ _ _ _ _ _ V L •r ro d U~ N 4- N {- ~ ~..~ v ~ v v n U E a~ o to U e~ d ro c ro J c +~ N X w F ~ p~ w ... O ~F Yp a Y' F m w ~ N q .Oa c°~, m '~ ~ N % H 7 y ~ ~ U y F ~ a Y d N ~ ~ o d ~ y d ~ Y W a .Fa ej c B ~I'1 O ~ "' N d .-• O ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~' O d ~ ~i' O •~ b a o ~a CS ya 7 d 'd F o z~ y q c3 COJ ..N. O ti ti o O •~ ~ Y ~ ~ b U N F. Yin > q O a d iOi ~ bo I, .r.»` b b •p ^• A ~ 41 n d F d F ja ~ 7 d N ~• ~ ~°d8.~ ~~i M ~ N V rq O ~~ z ~ y ~ p ~ ~ ca q ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ o '~ p ~ '^ia y o.,F°, ~ m at ... y •.. ~; z7 Q ~ ~ ~ ctl R1 ~ N V R N °v ~ o O W .0..' N ov o,"o~ ~ 'a o U ~ ~ N ~ 7 ~ h ~ N Y O O1 ~ ~ q ri N 'C'' V yyO ~~•i N ..0. N M F ~ a FAA v v a ~ .~ ~ _~°, a C w a d '6 y d U~,,, .G Da A d y ~ .fl d w 3 ~ ~ ~ A v .. N n ~ w '" ro 3 b0 ~ ~ D c. x ~ O O ^ •~ .a .C v a~ ~ y B o a ~ ~ eo 3 °Z d .^a ~ q y,~ Jr W N td p y W O B .C yaw m ya b .,.a cl ~ O ti ~ O O d n •1.> ~ pb a ~ d zb N .a ap .-. n ~ m .~ v N V d •M a Y d d 0 CO a~i m v O ~ q q ti ~ O V ~ W ~ m O ~ V {,~ ~o v yN ~ ~ ~ a V b ti O K ~ Y x ~ v +a O O q ~ ~ Y Y b ~ ~t~ y ~'G u ti m °a~ N ~''ac. o qq ~+ U U O yp ~yU•°'c m A. y ~ 'O ~ ~ O r0 Ri Zi CO b w ~ C. o ,~ o O O ~ ~ N y W U Y •~ .,y O 7 O O O ty ..N. F~ F ~ ~ ~ a d o •p ~ w P. v a'~a d •O w0 N d OJ P..--i ~ Ir +~~' x ~ ~ ~ O N v •Q m T•• y F y ti V .h dp Vli ~ Qi F m '3 ~ .. :~ N •[•' ~ F' Y .yi g~N'~~~ w ~ y .p N ~ O dt U Cd b ~ o d to ~ o ~ ~ y ~ ~ y F' m N q w ~ ro ~ ~ a 7 ~--~ ~tl U A 'Cy .-Oi a ro. q ~ o u oo++ O a'O ~ ~ ~ F V y CCC. '•~ C. y ±a ~'' F V ~+ K. a0 y 7 ~ ~' O e ~ O m d ti G~ N yA uj ~ d ~ V .Q M ^~ Q Fo ~ d bQ ~i ••~ IO.r U +a Y a v C O N .~ N 0: v v N O O i d N ~v tp Y Y T r •r L O > N O S ~ ro i acv YN aiomm i Ev- Yo U •r r- Y N i L 7 r• C E O O C Ol Ct roY•rY iaY O'ro 70~ N41 ro 3 •r C C U 4- a N E U N i Y V U rt O N ro 4- i Y E U d 4- ~O i N i~ •~ O O C O N L >> O N U O N N N r O C .--• T N V- .~..~ Y L U C E i ~ L ro C C E Y i Y N U •r ~ ro d'O •r O ro dw U p~ Ul N U ro r O a C U •r O O N~ L L ^ N U v rn ro N Y 4- ~ •r~.r Y E Y i C'6 i C C dro O N C O-p 7•r d r ~~ N v c 3 v•r n,- c ~v ar 'O ~ ro N ^ O Y N N N 'O Y U ro d N Y N N N O U L ro N O L N YO)Y iVL Y >NCL•r CYL• U C C 7 0 i O N L •r +~ O Y N i r N •O U N +~ O U i Y E ^. m O1 Y i N V N UJ N Y d i C Y C 4- 'O N +.> > •r U N >> N i N E N 0 ro ro •r O N NONO•rO iY LOYY~U'O Ni N L N i L ~ U N ~--~ i d a 0 i N L i i dY dV NL 4-V V ~ ro N YV UJ E N •7 Y N Ol m•r N ~ 41 N Y 4- N N L N rt5 Y C i N N V N 4J >> L C O •O ~ C C Y r i C ~O N O Y d N N O O •r N E N Ol v ro 'O~ E N i ~ r C•O •r OL TL N aoY c 7~~'O•N ~ ~~ oYr•YYa N E Y O O a ro Y v N L r C Y N C N •r N U Y V ro '~ N O Y r N ro O1 N ro EE N C O 'O C U G E Y •c v c ro •r c E a E T•r c a~ ro •r ro a ~ a~ ro > v- •r d o o Y 4- o v Y~ Y o o c o U r• .- Y av •r Y r-- i m d N C i ar 3 0 N U •r N ro C O i N d Y ro d ~- Ot E ro n V N O~> r'O O E i Y> •r C N L ro O d O N N N ro d a N ro C N U •r N d N 'O Y 7 O O d 0 "O C C 4. Of T O L O N 'O r C U 7 0 0 N C C i ^ U Q1 C L- al N O N m O N v •.- ro d "~ ro L 7 >> Y» ro Ql C U C i i U/ N Y v Y V N C •r V O A 41 L N N N N •r O •O >~~ O N >> C •r -O -p Y Y O C 4- L TU i Y N 3 Y ro Y Ol •r • r d•r O Y o Y v •r ++ ^ o •r a U N 3 ~_ o at ~v c~ ~LU c v~ o v nE ~ v v EY o o a~ i Y v•~ x aU Uv. o E•r 41 U r 'O Y Y N L C N C O N O L Y L N ro Y +~ C Y 'O ro Y i Ql ; C ~ Y N "O 41 C L i ro i C N •r i •r •p O r i C L O Y ro 4- r O d d r Ul C N t6 O U ¢ 3 ro ro ++ U~ E o a w E c a~ ~ a N Y 4- r ~ •r~ IIf ~ Ol C C C Y Y Y N N N •r k X X v a~ a~ N N N ro ro ro E E E ro ro ro N N N m t e~ d ro C ro J c ~-+ N X w L d p td p [V F' U N ,G V ,O+ ~ •LS O d N N O k .,~,~ >oq.p..~•G ~ Mad q~gMoFO~a~ a,~~•°oy •o as ~ '~ ~' ro ~ ~ a~i ~ q K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~'g m. •p d M~ ,., p o U 'd N •d .V. •~ w N G R~ A d d G~ •o w a ca ~~ y q~ m F~J v d y V \ ~ L V ~ .dG U 'p' ~+ ~ O y m .~ ~ ~ 1~ .-1 V R ~ ~ v aGi v m m g q d G c' •p d' ~ y ~' N a w a m N~ v A N :+ ~ p0 m ,A.+ d O .d y~ R q ~ b V O Y A G p 'b p V LO ... y cd F~ 1~ d .r.. •= eM R a3 cd q 0.R .X.. y R q '~ v pOo ~ ~ Q .~ b '~ m r1, U b0 d •1•i O ~ V~ O R y F• i"" CC$4 y N F'. M d~ •~'' q ~ .n GC y .p. ~ C. O it y N .L7 A Y q ~ ,s7 +> 'O ~> b~ •U q ~ O0 '' m m g N d~ •r' ~ w~ N qq~' y"v U„ ~ mb~ ~ ~,oa d E ~ ~ p~'qo.,,~yy Cw ~ ~ m o~ m'm g o k ~ m a ~~ a~i ~a',a3 $~~;;;;~°wdg.cccay°d3 Goo= .,'^,• ... CL °" o G •, d m ~ •g a`3 d °G' q •~ G" G agi d~ d ~ ~ o ~ ao ° E gib„ m Gy.3 ";;.~ m G °~ . e ~ o v ~ ~ a~i ~ c"i coy 'G a ~ o o w C aGi ~ G e a~ a v~ '~ c s .n m .e o~ E -°'° 6° .~ w w 7 G~ w N ~• 4 p >' 7 N A O G C y~ Ci N '~ O~(•. m •~ 3 g 'a~~-• L •y' ~ y G •~ w .~Y. Nv~ O w d~ a~.+ y m" O C a y N N VC U y E,.. m W V 0 0~ d 7 tiy• V .V. ~' o0 (1 ~ K N Q G M •N ~• Y ~_ m C•i ~ M a+ Y ~'" H 'b a o~ y .y m °~ '~ °' ~~ ~ G o~ ~ .G C ,q '~ m w m F a~ a N T~ ~ 1. d w C O~ aA.. 'Ct as .b ~, w o w C .~ .`g a~i " m om 7 w O d u N '~q d a d Co G S i0 p ~' 7 ~~ d d O~ J. A~ C .~ m y a 7~ y v •~ «+ y s ~_ ~ N y v ° c. p, .ate. PG c o '~ a ~ ~ •o .~gmy ~ y •.~~.+ ~ ~ m «Rq v y ~tl. q w m i0 •C .C ~ C. "' ~ p~ ~ .~ p w N d b~ a~ G,o =~ a mm a a m ppc ~,b~i ~ o pry, V ~"~~ ~~ C m G G u :R ~ T -• ~ ' m 4 'M X ~ ~ o d 0.a a0. b >, ~ ,,, Sad a d fair. ~ ~ ~ gw^ 8~w m•c a~, 9.c ~.g ~ ~A ~ v M \/ •V v ~^ C O N .; N V v N O O i a v m c b J ~-+ N X w 1 1 I !T i~ .--I .~ I~ O I ~+ C -1 G U I r1 k k l y ~ ~.t t~ a.l •.~ C J~ rt -~ ^i •'c I ro 'D •^{ O v •U y G N V .~' -•a k •.a to O. o ro C C O. C 3 v 7 v 3 ro --1 7 ro k rp C '1d ~I k 0 y x t71 .C - O ro '~ ^i rf 'Z3 k •D C: y =L ro ovc'vorto-na~vNN~caa,.-1•.~wm.-~rovv roNx~'~ Cl --'-I •n = v a~ U C O' •.t x rf y'•i C L ~ .-i N U C V '~ -•~ •-i k N C 'O •'~ N N V C U 'O N b y O v 3 •~ ro 1~ O '1 k v ••+ o ro .q N O D CJ N- N ^J k> >i O C C .C -1 a.r >v G y O k k y y W ~1 = =' U C N ~ N > ^I ~ 1~ •••~ 7 ro N U} .:J O L .~ k 1~ -C N N O''-_ U7 ~i•i -~ N .~ 7 O ~•+ a 0 -'i >+ O 's-i rn O .C ro 'U -1 C E U ro k ~~ a~ w o cGVYo.vrokoc>~~cv•,-.,~vvvo,ro ~o ro o k v ro c v~ o~ a o a~ ro ~~ w a, >,.~ k~ ro ~i ~ ~.~ m~ ~' ~ ~c 3 c v p ok r 3a~ a;rowv -vx~co c rIJ-1 •-aromo~ aGVVO+~ kUl v»vv•aGwYm•~rl o,ro-~v•+~'v~.~-~>y -~c~-I>c+~ vo v•~r+vk Uro uE.-Irov.Ar•+,~vv a~c~ a7~roro c; -~-co••+~v ri,:~.~ crou•a•.+cv.^roo~-' ~ ••+ = v ro +~ o rl V>= c .C w W N w k J-1 0 3 N v U V U > >, o .; +~ ro~ C 3 7 +~ O v w 0 0 ~•~ v v 3 7 •'~ v k v o o.~ k~ k v-~ v•~ .c v 7 o c,~ o,-v c= v m-1 =~ v v > L• ~ ~.i U O >y'•+ ro G k - ~ ~ O' --I •~ ~ C C O W C y •rl . •' .~ O. C U N w L C D ar .G O O i~ row N k ro a~ ~~ .~ ro N O, a.l W W C 7 .D N O r6 N U 3 y> k 0~ 7 'J k N `D C .--I +~ ~ o w3 vvn-c -o~-+ -.avow •.cAroocvvoro~-+ vc U c 0 0 ~~~ k 01 U G C t v w k 0 >+•-1 C O 'U L G N G -~ rt o-a rovvoro3.•w oa c ro•.~Twcc ,rou-.+ o~ Tz„m .•~~ v v= im rt o v a.ln ro~~c e c o o T~ v c v c ~+ cuv 3»v rnkao, kroc v •'~ •'~vcoro••+coro-'~ •a 'n N y -I C rt N C O C to y ro- O w k w k k ul y •'~ '• O. c +~ ~.~ 3 L N O A D .G O ro ro v +~ O U 7 •-1 -~ O v O N y C >v .k ~ °_ +~ O •^Ni o s~.• c ~•~ c u•a t X avi•ai U O,tn•-a ~ 3' C~ F .ro7..° b OU•~-N U v w c x g~ ro c~~a v v v k c .+ rn va v o o N~ x a.c,u-1~ ,~'o--+ v a.vo3 vie ••+row -.ve•-lu•.~GGVe; roro,~vovv 1~ ]~ 1'. W U U1 v ~ L1r'W 'J-1 O -1a y > 11 O v rl '> r-1 k 1~ ^•1 O N .C 7 i1 U ••~ .C X 0 0 0 N ~ y a N U rl N ro y N •3 .J SL.~ ..i :7 C~ L• •.a ~.+ v -C - a~ a v vl 2 k C C ro~ ri C~ .,~ C ro 7 a~ ~.; ~ w D k 3 v C k v -- v O •~+ •^~ - G +~ ro O > rtf W 'v ~-~ D w >r ~ V y 3 ro N- "~ k 0 O. S U N a~ c >r •.~ G ••+ C •.+ k .-i O D St 3~ C 7 v 7 UI C O >+'O 1J y~ N k i~ C >v O 1~ ro •-1 •- •0 •a 7.1 O Qt C'1 N T V k C W .-I 11 N k H ••t N -'~ .~ ~ ~'~ •~ U n7 +~ > w v G 7++a v 'c '.~ C to :tl ~ ••a ro ro k O X s~ G 8 ~ 'O = U ro A b ~•+ i~,N ~ v~ N O. ~ W U C C A .C v 'O 7 ro N 'O ro C C 'n rn C •-1 O N~v~.vc,no •.+m kroc.uuc G G +~v •'~~•+ovrorl++ G~vm-~+~cln~+v vkv -cv o rtroo~+rorowx~kv m n ••+ w ~ m N G c -o ~ o w. v c •.+ v ro k o k a••+ v c c y O w ro ?r O, ~~•+ •.+ C a,+ +~ ~ O N •n O N w v ,C v v ro v > a N O x A v o v D x ~ k ro v o » a o v v u c v ~+ as v k ro •~ d k 7+ N >.••~ CL >~ N U N •a 7 '6 ••t 7~ v •~ C N Y C ul 1~ ro 4 C ~V "6 a~ > N 1] LL C w N N C -1 1! Ul T '> 7 +~ '•1 +~ N •'~ C "~ v DOCVkwOVk u1k0 N~OU O+ OO_rorl NO'O ~. C T••+ ~ •^r O •~ k~ O >~ C O •.+ O N ro 0 ••+ C C C tv k .C •^I O C k •~1 •O H~^~ u1a~ ~wWw O,NT1•~r••1w ma+AAU tA•.+ O•~A W~~ 3ar O ~ N ro ~ ~ {~~ ^ J .~• S O J Y j •c d • ~b w ~Np -p ~ -- v c o ro i v T V •r +.~ r V d C> O 7 •r b N 7 QN V i O' N v N ^ O. i i i~ ~ N O. ~ N L a4- E~L+> rt O N +•~ X E ~ C w •.- i ~ 3 cvLw IA s E ~ ^ W v rio vl R3 +> ~ •; N U1 U 'O i-~ ~ i v 3 ~ N U O L i +> O rn U In ~ E N • N+~ C U iV ~ d i O-~ N N of O U O. N N C O. L U ~--~ N v ^ T U i Ot•O C r 7 m 'O~•r~ N C T O N V b r L C V ~ N •r r• r0 "O r-- ~ r 3 C I L UI +> 7 C b d' r C m rt O N N~ E N U C 9 0 d L r O•r +~ O +~OJW•r v • w +> U v N }a r O V v N> IG r- N i 41 41 L 1 ^ V1 L •O +~ d• r- +~ N -pN ~ O ~"OrY- N C U L C L 'O O i C b 16 v os 3 > +~ ~ N U i O O U E /0 •r ep r i N O v L N ~ d fn U i 3 T b 1 ro G U C) - O •O N y k ti .-I N y 7 a y ro A ro N'p a+~ O~~ C k o,~ u v e> ,~-.+o kv>,'oxk~0v~ •.:~~ c v ao a~l+-r= c ~ o c v.~ ~mv c c v 6'k ra c vvv o_G -roo o..c u ~ v n v +~ NW =~-' rJ Ca~~.-.k U roov c.~ ~ v~ x'o k~ - G y k -y v c+~,~ O O :.u -IC rom•.,k .•aoN --I 7 G G~ w N +~ U G ro 0 0 - O k U O N ro 1~ .-1 aG N ~1 N ro v --.-1 -- u >, ~ c i k N~ ro 7 p V o.c k o~•+v 7 aN~-~ ~ v mrocrov~o-'~ v,~ c v ro~+~v E O, k O -- ~ -- v •O O Nou~.+-.~vv~ rok c~ ~cn--AVC w F-+vv vN vro v k a- k • .-i 7 0~ ~ T "O ~ 1 -~ N N +~ C •a .~1 ~ U C I C C 7 >r ~ •-1 ro •p - N C 7 •.a 7 c -~ as v +~ C O N 7 C ro~] O C -/ G O y ~.1 C ~ O ro y •.+ y k 10 Cl N C ~.~ +~ - J-1 L v V O++O~UroN C -..c .-i .~ U w O 7 .a w a.r a~ w ri u v ,1 k 0 ~-+ • w I k cn N N w U C ro~ N yw v v G rts -G I - o ~'a o v a }.1 cF -i G 'D iJ V C Nroovc v -i•+ a -.+ ... ~+ 0 3 ~ ~ ~ .-i v c v,~ v m c.D v ro.~ '~okv•'.rororo,~~v •.r •.i v v k v 3 ~. cn 3 O U~~ UI k ro O v k~ i+vOwv>.v~xOk Wu1OOUA >. rti d+~ O C O N .? N O 0 s d a~ ro c ro J :_ Y X w Y O ~ Y I c ro N c c ai I N Y ILr•Y airoYOOY a E l u Y cYro> > ror-v-u o n ^vYarY~ Inlnom 41 V O d L L N d v O r N O ul c 0 +~ Ln Y> E Y•r L4- V Y >'O 4- Nt r .'Or v V U c ro E EY +~ O N 3 Ol N 4- > Y O/ r• c .--~ rN- E ~-- N •r Y U i L; ro Y U L~ c o "O E N I O ro L O •3 0 0~ ro Y 41 N U +~ Y- •r c O O V A L Y Y r L i •r 7 0 r-• L n >~ O C O 0 0 U/ Y N L N `-~ c Ul Y a 7 VI O N N Y 7 ~--~ O' L ro L 4- O d 4-. > 4- c L i O'r- c N c L •r O' an d V1 Y Y Y c c Y E O N O d 4- 7 r• o LoYC csc v ocn v Eovnai I Y •r O N O c '6 E N N •r N O c c a N L V In InY EL ufYr••r Or- OY.r-Y Vr• O i O OYY~YN c VI ai E Y i s r• Y 3 L U L U s N •r O In r c ro N > o•rvo rorororor•o 4-~rovv>Y4-rovacv Ec o aEEUEa~LL Y•r3 vr•v~nalc o>Ernsoo i 7 E O >> O1 of •r U Y N •r 'O N c i Ul n•r ro i •r tl O O N i E c L av ro c >> Y O "O O N 3 IF. +~ U Y L 4- m d Y •r O V E > •r Y N c •r ~ r- N ro U Y Y c L •r r O •r N N ro c L •r Y L N N "O 'O N .o o rnv v•rY UL x•r a vY L > v vIn L c c N c 41 'O 4J 3 N N N 3 N •N "O +~ N >> c Y 4J r c •r Y N i E L N L .~ Y 4- L N N V r ro U L c "O c Ot U N N N Y L N Y U 4- O Y nv 7 N N N O •r Ot 7 U 'O Y Y c c •r r- • N ^r 7 ul N tp v 'O ~ c7 N N In c v U •r V1 U1 O N L .- Y r•~ tT 0 r• Y L U r• v c _ c a~•r UJ~ Vl >>Y O• E3ms=aLCU UOY•.-nvo •ovlnv.nclnroY++s n La~rom•r dr- Lro Y Y c 3 O O ro ro O N ul ~ r- L N N L t• O .- N ~-.. 7 ro U O Of c U ro r- Y Y d d r ELL nv p Y •r L N L Y L c •r Y ro i •r >> N L N r ro~ Y N of ro 'O O1 U r• O> O E >> L ro> c Y >>'O V1 •r > Y i c C N O N Y r O N n •r Y N 'O N N ro r Y L ro O ro ro >>'•" •n d L c ro O• N r c 'O N L L N r r• Ol > •~ C N ro c 0 >~ N L N L Ul U Y ro N ~- ro L •r c >> N >> E c i O N E vl N U d~ IF- O L O ro L •r 'O 7 r 'O r• •n ro nr• Y n L •r ~ to Q O L ro >> L N VI Y L r- ro r• N n•r o r• Y 4- c d N nY c r 3 L C O Of ro E ro> M r• ~. IF- E c r- •r 4- ro L N +~ O ro r• ro N N N C 3 L •r v oa~~aiuEO YL r•Y7 roY E rvln In In C v > C O C ~ 3 C 4• c L x L •~ N >> N •r +~ N 3 L c 4- d N 3 s O1 4J O N to N r u1 N V Y L r- >> c c 41 I O Y O O N 'O O 4- C n Y N E N C 7 N O •r N O U V U ~ U r Uf N s Y Y VI UJ VI O N 7 L a E •r U N 4-+~r• O N c C¢ VIL O roY L N cY O cYY ~ In ~ 0 7 ro n L L ~ ro C O Y ro r L Ol t Y ~ Y c^ p •r O U vl dl > N r• N c •r c i 4- E ro Y Y r IIl rn ro n E Y ro L N >I c r- of >> O U O Y Y N 3 n n r N c ro O Y O V I 1 0 •r ro c In i O Y E Y •r •r Y L O c Y Y Y O nr• L v1 ro Y N +~ c 0 UJ r ro N N C> L ^ c n r- C1 c ro .- n +~ U L ro O L L r' L X L N Ql ~ 4- d n r L a N L r• c E 'r C .C c N F- V U VI Y ro Y 41 Y E L T3 ~-+ E ro ro Y 3 E Y ro O N 3 Q Y •~ to N •r) Y z .... i 0 Y U UJ n N c Ol c v .? L 4- O N Y L 0 n N I V' N U N H '•s1 Y N Y O Y N N ~ L cYLr• ~ o E E Y ro naicv N •O O X •r v Y c r• UJ L i n ro N Y•r o > a~ •r n In v In3X Y 'O O N i Nr-YY L 40. d ~ O E O aioYYSv L r c N OJ araiYavc L> V U c 0 O dl •r N Ol•r •r 'Oa ac VY c 41 N •r N ro O N i N'O 41 U ^ ~ L i r• s O r O O L > >>~ r•4-YL Cro ro ro N L~ i 3"O L In c ro a~ In i ro~ U In ro 0 O r- VI r 4- Y roL4-•r r• U•r U4- N N ar u roo c 3r- a L N N L N N rn N N ro E4-. cL ror- E O •r o cap ^rt ~ U Y c > N > c N ro ro L ro Lr-rL Y ~ O n c N ~ i N U E ro 7 L ro L•r L ro 7 Y L Q) L N>>ro O3~•r L '•J Y VI N L ~ V N Y U~ 3 roLLN In N O O•nYY 4. n O N c 4. N N L ro d OL i nr• E w eu m as , . q ci7 !C q q~}do;S t, ~ 'd ~ ~ a> ~ r, M a y - b ~ m '> ~b d~d~ da °w ~ ob_o,~.zj q 00 ~ ,•,,, ~ ~ C ~i ~ o .9 -'a w d Y ~ ao t1f ca q p ~ " i0 eq i ~ 0.b Mb m C U~ w w •q O ~+ W .+ o FL a4 y~.. d w o~ q ~' 0.A y C ~ G :q w d +~ a ~ m 'O 'y w o aqi a ~ r°. O ev Aq O'~ ~w~: 'b ~a. AN N m M O O ~°e d m T W d N N N V d MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Revision to GMP Quotas - Ordinance 26 DATE: July 19, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction On June 26, 1982 you approved, on first reading, Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, revising the quotas for GMP allotments. At that time you concurred with our recommendation for the residential quota, which was that there be no change from the 39 units per year we permit. You also concurred with our recommenda- tion that the lodge quota be increased from 18 to 35 units per year. Finally, you directed us to revise the commercial quota such that the total square footage allowed in all zones annually would be 24,000 square feet, not 35,000 as we had recommended. The purpose of this memo is to address this one change in the ordinance. For those of you who wish to review our original arguments regarding the quotas, we have also attached the memo from the previous meeting. Commercial Quota Revisions The attached ordinance contains a revised recommendation regarding the commercial quota which follows your direction that the total development allowed should be 24,000 square feet. Following is a comparison of the two proposals: Zone Original Proposal Revised Proposal CC/C-1 15,000 10,000 NC/SCI 9,000 7,000 Office 6,000 4,000 CL and other 5,000 3,000 TOTAL: 35,000 24,000 The arguments which support this proposal follow below: 1. A premise of the original GMP was that the 24,000 square foot quota from the downtown area would be sufficient to meet the commercial and office needs of the entire metro area (see page 46 of the Growth Management Policy Plan). As we now recognize, this assumption did not take into account the fact that extensive growth would occur outside of the downtown area, in particular in the 0, NC and SCI zones. This does not in any way undermine the fact that 24,000 square feet of commercial growth is an appropriate rate to achieve the residential-commercial balance which is a goal of the GMP. Therefore, your decision to maintain the commercial quota at 24,000 square feet was entirely consistent with your adopted plan and is the most appropriate direction for the community to proceed. 2. In reducing the individual quotas, we have particularly downgraded the square footage available in the CC/C-1 zones since this has been the location of so many recent projects. However, in cutting any of the recommendations to fit within the 24,000 square foot guideline rae have been careful not to completely eliminate the possibility of a project being built under the competi- tion. In certain cases it may be necessary to award multiple years of quota to make a desirable project possible. In no case will it be permissable for quotas to be traded among the various zones. Please note that at the present time the CL zone is fully built out, although we have an application pending fora rezoning of property to CL. Also note that on occassions there will be commercial development in other zones (L-1, L-2) which is accomodated by this proposal. Memo: Revision to GMP Quotas - Ordinance 26 Page Two July 19, 1982 Council Moti The appropriate motion on this item is as follows: "Move to approve Ordinance 26, Series of 1982 on second reading." MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman/Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Update of GMP Quotas DATE: June 18, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /,~~ o~ AJ/ Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce you to the principles the Planning Office has been developing which we propose should form the basis of the updated growth management quota system. These principles were accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission when they unanimously adopted the revised quotas at their meeting on June 8, 1982. Your formal consideration of the revised quotas will take place at the first reading of an ordinance at your regular meeting on June 28, 1982. Why Revise the Quotas? There are several reasons that we must look at our quota system at this time, all of which have emerged from our ongoing update of the growth management quota system. First, as you recall, last year you adopted Ordinance 49, series of 1981, which expanded the coverage of the commercial GMP from just the CC and C-1 zone districts to all zones in which commercial projects can be built. At that time, we indicated that we would be returning with quotas for these zones at a later date. Since the date for submission of commercial development applications is September 1st, it is mandatory that we adopt the development quotas before that time. A second reason for re-evaluating our quotas relates to our study of short term accommodations in Aspen and Pitkin County. One recurring theme of our discussions of this issue has been the criticism of the 18 unit lodge quota as being impractical for the phasing of a new lodge, considering today's market conditions. Therefore, we have taken another look at the appropriate growth rate for the L-1 and L-2 zone districts. Please note that this analysis does not consider the buildout potential for nonconforming lodges, if and when an action is taken which will permit their expansion. We believe that should you decide to permit the expansion of lodges which are currently nonconforming, that it will be appropriate to develop a separate quota for that category of development so that the small lodge is not forced to compete with the larger facilities in an elaborate procedure. Therefore, we believe that these two issues can be kept separate for the time being as we concentrate on a revised quota for those lodges which currently are able to be expanded. The final reason for reconsidering our quotas is the broad conceptual understanding we have been developing concerning growth management in our community. The ongoing growth management update has helped us to identify certain growth trends which have taken place since the GMP was implemented in 1977. Using these trends, we have slowly been evolving a revised growth management policy recommendation which builds upon the principles of the original GMP but which also reflects what growth control means today to Aspen and Pitkin County. Therefore, before we begin to discuss the actual numbers proposed as the revised quotas, we believe that it is essential that we first consider the concepts which underlie this proposal. The Concept of GMP Quotas Earlier this year the Planning Office presented to you a status report on the _ update of the GMP. This report provided you with historical growth date from 1975 to 1981 and drew certain conclusions from that data. The analysis docu- mented that we have exceeded our planned rates of growth for residential units and commercial square footage despite the fact that many projects approved under the GMP have never been built. We concluded that projects which have been outside of the GMP have had a more profound impact on our growth rate Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Two June 18, 1982 than have the ones which have competed. These projects include those which have been awarded exemptions from the GMP and those which did not have to compete since the commercial GMP was less than comprehensive. The fundamental concept that we recognized from this review was that we have created a dual rate of growth in the community -- one which is regulated by the GMP and reflects our adopted quotas- and a second which is unregulated which impairs our ability to achieve managed growth and a balanced, fiscally sustainable community. Some direct results of this dual growth rate have been our inability to make up an employee housing shortfall which is fueled by expansions of employment opportunities without a corresponding production of price controlled housing, and a more rapid depletion of available limited resources than was originally anticipated, with the most obvious example being the need to expand the sewage treatment plant this year rather than at the end of the decade. Utilizing this fundamental .concept, the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission formulated the following policy recommendation for a revised growth management quota system, consistent with the original GMP and yet which also has the following features: The quotas are based on the ability of the community to sustain growth as a function of our capacity to provide basic services, including water, sewer and transportation needs, and to meet environmental, economic and social quality of life goals. This approach is predicated on the belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community it is desirable to delay those expansions which we are capable of postponing. This approach also reflects a basic community commitment to hold our growth rate below that which might otherwise occur to protect the quality of life to which residents have become accustomed and which maintains the unique character of Aspen as a destination resort. 2. The quotas are short term rates of growth which reflect current priorities for employee housing, quality lodging and several institutional facilities, as well as our legal obligations to provide an opportunity for buildout on previously subdivided lots. Therefore, the impact of the quotas upon our growth rate will have to be carefully monitored and as our community goals and priorities evolve, they will need to be regularly updated as part of a dynamic rather than static GMP. 3. The quotas do not acknowledge the ultimate buildout under existing zoning as a tacit and fixed commitment to the eventual size of our community. Instead, they represent an immediate goal for managed growth, based on historic development trends and perceived growth priorities which must be reviewed in relation to basic community land use planning decisions and service capacity thresholds. 4. The quotas represent a comprehensive approach to growth management, founded on the concept that a fundamental flaw of our approach in the past is that it has resulted in higher than anticipated growth rates, because many types of activities were exempt from the original quotas. The revised approach acknowledges the impact on the community of all types of development and therefore unifies the regulated and unregulated growth rates into a single barometer of the community's development. We believe that to fully comprehend how these concepts work, it is necessary to actually take you through the methodology of developing the quotas themselves. The following three sections identify the proposed residential, commercial and lodge development quotas for your consideration. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Three June 18, 1982 Residential Development Quota Development in the residential sector is comprised of three distinct parts. One component is the previously subdivided lot on which single family and duplex units can be built without competition under the GMP. Research into past trends in this type of development indicates that each of the past several years between 10 and 20 such units have been developed. We believe that this component will continue to account for about 15 units for the next few years, since our analysis shows the existence of substantial residential buildout potential in the City of Aspen (146 duplexes and 289 single family residences on existing vacant lots). The next component of residential growth is employee housing, which currently is not deducted from the quota. Last year there were 26 employee units produced in the City, mostly in various commercial projects, while the year before there were 88 such units produced, including 80 at Castle Ridge. In the future we can expect this rate to continue since we have increased the points available in the commercial competition for employee housing. In fact, to meet the threshold of 50~ of employees housed, as many as 25 to 30 new units may be needed if the entire commercial quota is allocated. However, we believe that with the exception of the very largest projects aimed at eliminating the critical employee housing shortfall (i.e., Castle Ridge, Marolt) the employee housing units can be accommodated within the residential quota. We expect to be coming forward next month with revisions to the GMP exemption procedures such that employee units will be deducted from the residential quota, although they are still outside of the competition process. The last component of the residential sector is the free market units which are available under the competition system following the processing of exemptions during the previous year. These units either meet a portion of the need for tourist accommodations or high quality resident units and typically subsidize employee housing. Therefore, while it is desirable to have a certain number of these units available for competition from year-to-year, it is also to our advantage to limit the number which are available as part of a managed growth policy. In summary, it appears likely for the near future that 10-15 units will be developed annually on previously subdivided lots with about 15-20 employee units being developed in the smaller, dispersed projects. This total of 25 to 35 units built each year is below the 39 unit quota available for each year and would therefore leave units available for competition. Therefore, we recommend that you leave the 39 unit residential quota untouched for the time bein When we come before you to revise the GMP exemption procedures we will provide you with additional data to justify the fact that this total can accommodate the employee housing which will likely be produced in the near future. Commercial Development Quota The rate of commercial growth we can sustain is directly related to the residential development quota, since as we produce additional commercial space applicants will also have to provide employee housing. We believe that due to recent rates of growth in commercial space in Aspen (45,000 square feet per year) and Pitkin County (25,000 square feet per year) this is an appropriate time to curtail the rate of commercial buildout. This need is particularly evident in the CC and C-1 zone districts, where three projects are under construction (Park Place, Epicure Plaza and Mill Street Station) and five others have GMP approvals but have yet to be built; and in the office zone district where two projects are under construction (the Forge Building, Main and Seventh) and two others received building permits just prior to the expansion of the GMP to that zone. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Four June 18, 1982 To develop commercial development quotas for the City of Aspen we have grouped zone districts together, based on their geographical location and extent, their buildout potential and the similarities among their intent and permitted and conditional uses. The groups identified provide for a maximum of four separate competitions, but insure that incompatbile zones (CC and SCI, for example) will not compete directly with each other to the detriment of the less economically demanding zone. The quotas which we recommend be adopted for this vear are as follows: CC and C-1 - 15,000 square feet NC and SCI - 9,000 square feet Office - 6,000 square feet CL and Other - 5,000 square feet This total of 35,000 square feet, while almots 50% greater than the existing quota of 24,000 square feet in the CC and C-1 zones, is 25% below the historical trend we have experienced and which so many have found to be ojectionable. However, to further justify this recommendation, we have placed the quotas to three tests, as follows. The first test involves the amount of employee housing need which the quotas can be expected to generate. The Planning Office has recently completed a survey of employees per 1000 square feet in the City of Aspen. These generation factors are shown below in the computation of overall need. Zone Sq uare Footage Generation Factor Employees Units* CC/C-1 15,000 5.25 79 17.5 NC/SCI 9,000 2.30 21 4.5 Office 6,000 3.00 18 4.0 CL and Other 5,000 3.50 17 4.0 Total 35,000 3.50 135 30.0 *Need for units is calculated on an average of 2.25 persons per dwelling unit (based on Housing Office data) and the applicant meeting 50% of the total employee generation. As can be seen, 30 employee units will need to be produced on an annual basis to meet 50% of the employee housing demand if the full 35,000 square foot quota is allocated in a given year. This computation would tend to indicate that the commercial quotas recommended are as high as the community can possibly sustain, if we are to meet our recommended residential quota. Therefore, if for any reason you feel that any zone has been shortchanged, you should only alter its quota by taking square footage from another zone, not altering the total of 35,000 square feet of commercial development. A second test for these proposed quotas is how well these rates compare with our adopted growth management goal to adhere to a community-wide growth rate of 3.47%. This test utilizes recently obtained data from the tax assessor's office concerning commercial buildout, as documented below: Approximate Existing Growth Zone Commercial Square Footage Rate Total CC/C-1 800,000 3.47% 27,760 NC/SCI 200,000 -- 6,940 Office 150,000 -- 5,205 CL and Other 100,000- -- 3,470 Total 1,250,000 3.47% 43,375 Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Five June 18, 1982 Finally, these quotas can be tested as to the ability of a project to be developed within any zone. It can be seen that these quotas will easily support a single new large project or several smaller projects in any zone group which will afford the community an opportunity to more reasonably accommodate the impacts of this growth than has recently been the case. For example, in the CC zone district the typical three lot site would permit a maximum buildout of 15,300 square feet while in the Office zone a two lot site would permit a maximum buildout of 5,100 square feet. Please note that under existing zoning there is essentially no likely buildout potential in the CL and NC zones, while the SCI zone district is limited by Section 24-3.6 of the Code, "Use Square Footage Limitations". Please also note that as always, you have available to you an annual 20% bonus if a project is too large for the quota and that you can award multiple years of quota for particularly deserving projects. Lodge Development Quota The most important determinant of the need for new lodging in Aspen is the recently produced Draft Short Term Accommodations Report. This Report documents that there is an existing balance between skiing capacity, skiing utilization and the availability of tourist accommodations. The Report recommends a moderate level of growth in short term accommodations which. will keep the level of tourist beds at or below skiing capacity and ensure that the skiing portion of the tourist experience remains a high quality one. To provide for a quality lodging experience the Report makes. the following recommendations: 1. Growth in short term accommodations should be confined to existing locations of these facilities and areas zoned for tourist accommodations which are vacant or not yet fully built out. Examples of such locations where applications are now under review include the Hotel Jerome (40 rehabilitated and 60 new units), The Lodge at Aspen (31 new units) the Aspen Inn (36 new units) and the Highlands Inn (50 rehabilitated and 75 to 130 new units). 2. The existing mix of short-term accommodations should be supported so as to provide a variety of quality, cost and locational opportunities for the visitor. In particular, incentives must be provided to preserve and improve our nonconforming lodges. The Planning Office is currently working with the Planning Commission to develop a proposal to address this issue and would like to meet with you to brief you on the alternatives which we are evaluating. 3. The City lodge quota should be revised to a level which is commensurate with the ability of the private sector to justify incremental expansions of existing lodges and development of entirely new lodges. The quota should not be excessive since we do not have a need for major additions of units at this time. However, if and when we do experience ski capacity increases, there may indeed be justification for some expansion of the lodge inventory. P ion to the P lodge quota be increased trom Iti to 35 units per year. Ihls rate of growth recognizes that we now have under review applications to rehabilitate 90 units and to build about 200 new units and that we have under construction units at the Aspen Inn and 700 South Galena (16 short term residential units). These additions should provide greater competition in the lodging industry which will help to induce better quality and value in our accommodations inventory. The 35 unit quota also tracks well with our adopted growth rate of 3.47%. There are presently 1107 traditional lodge rooms and dorms in the City of Aspen. A simple growth rate of 3.47% in this sector would equate to 38 units per year, or virtually the same number as has been recommended for the new quota. Once again, please remember that your ability to award several year's worth of quota at any one time and to award up to 20% above any year's quota adds substantial flexibility for you to deal with the occasional large project which may come before you. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Six June 18, 1982 Sustainability of the Growth While the Planning Office believes that the previous tests applied to the proposed quotas give valuable insights into their practicality and their consistency with the adopted growth policy, they should be taken one step further to evaluate their fiscal sustainability. As indicated earlier in this memo, the quotas reflect a belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community it is desirable to delay those expansions we are capable of postponing. Obviously, if the community wishes to grow faster than the rates proposed it can do so, although at an immediate cost. The service we have chosen for calculating the sustainability of our growth rate is the one which we consider to be the most operative constraint to growth at the present time -- our sewage treatment capacity. Our research indicates that this service exhibits the most direct relationship between population growth and diminishing capacity. We also find that in comparing our approach to other growth management systems across the county, limitations on development due to service constraints are legally justifiable. Our current sewage treatment capacity is 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The Aspen Metro Sanitation District (AMSD) is planning to expand their facility from 3.0 to 3.2 million gallons per day (MGD) this spring. They would like this expansion to last to mid-decade, at which point the plant would be expanded to 4.0 MGD. Due to the cost of this expansion and the difficult choices we will face beyond that point (re-open the old plant near the Post Office, hopefully without odor problems or build a new, expensive regional plant downvalley with uncertain environmental impacts), we view this constraint as a logical tool with which to formulate our quotas. Therefore, the short term goal for growth in the Metro Area is one which permits us to delay the expansion of the AMSD plant to 1984 or 1985 and which will then accommodate growth through the end of the decade. Of course, it will be necessary to monitor progress toward that goal on a regular basis, certainly more frequently than once in five years. The basis for understanding the wastewater constraint is as follows. Peak usage of wastewater in the Aspen Metro Area occurrred in December 1980 at 2.9 MGD. At that time the peak population was about 20,000 persons, located in approximately 6,250 dwelling units and 1,800,000 square feet of commercial/ institutional space. To convert these totals into wastewater generation, we have used some factors commonly employed by engineers, as modified by the unique socio-economic profile of Aspen. We feel that to be conservative in our facility planning, we should expect that each new dwelling unit generates 435 GPD (gallons per day) and that 5000 square feet of commercial space is equivalent to one dwelling unit and therefore also generates 435 GPD. We have tested the proposed City quotas against the sewage treatment capacity constraint by combining them with the quotas now being evaluated by the County for the Metro Area. These Metro Area totals indicate that due to our legal obligations regarding previously subdivided lots, our commitment to projects approved but not yet constructed (Marolt, Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve) and our institutional priorities (bus maintenance facility, jail, performing arts center) we are predisposed as to the degree to which we can limit growth. Therefore, the historic trend of about 125 to 150 new resident and tourist units per year being built will likely be continued, with a possible mix being 50 to 60 lodge units, 35 to 40 free market units and 40 to 50 employee housing units, across the entire Metro Area. This growth rate is balanced against a total Metro Area growth of 50,000 square feet of commercial space each year which generates service demands directly and also indirectly by fueling our employee housing need. Our analysis indicates that the Metro Area growth rate will utilize 60-65,000 gallons per day of our remaining treatment capacity. This rate does not take into account housing remodels which add bedrooms, hot tubs, jacuzzies, clothes and dish washers and other applicances to existing houses nor does it take into account the construction of the institutional projects identified above. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that the 0.3 MGD in capacity between the 1980 peak usage of 2.9 MGD and the planned expansion in 1982 to 3.2 MGD will clearly be used up by mid-decade by the growth of at least 60,000 gallons per Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Seven June 18, 1982 day on an annual basis. While this will necessitate an expansion of the AMSD plant by mid-decade, it should hopefully provide us 5 to 10 years beyond that date before another expansion is needed. We therefore believe that our proposed quotas meet the test of sustainability in terms of our most pressing service constraint-sewage treatment. fnnclucinn The Planning Office has proposed revised GMP development quotas which have been tested as to their consistency with adopted policy, their practicality in terms of meeting public and private needs and their sustainability regarding service constraints. The Planning Office believes, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred, that these quotas meet these tests and should be adopted as presented. We recommend that when these quotas are presented to you in ordinance form for first reading on June 28 that they be approved. However, as always, we remain open to your suggestions and comments in hopes of improving upon what has clearly been a complex and lengthy planning process. MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Work Session - GMP Exceptions Code Amendment DATE: July 12, 1982 Introduction Over the past twelve months the Planning Office and Planning Commission have initiated revisions to the following portions of the Growth Management Quota System: Section 24-11.1 - Section 24-11.3 - Section 24-11.4 - Section 24-11.5 - Section 24-11.6 - Section 24-11.7 - Section 24-11.10- Quotas General Administrative Provisions Residential Scoring System Commercial Scoring System Lodge Scoring System Rescinded and Expired Permits Employee Housing With these changes in place, the major remaining section of the quota system which must be addressed concerns the GMP Exceptions, Section 24-11.2. This last legislative initiative of the GMP update is, in certain respects, one of the most important of our proposed changes since it reflects directly upon our adopted growth rate. Existing Exemptions At present there are. twelve separate exceptions from the quota system, some of which result in development which i.s exempt from competition but deducted from the quota and some of which are not limited by either the competition or the quota system. These exceptions can be briefly summarized as follows: (a) Remodeling, restoration or reconstruction which adds no commercial square footage or dwelling units; (b) Enlargement or change of use in historic structures; (c) Single family or duplex residences on previously subdivided lots; (d) Single family residence constructed in connection with a lot split; (e) Essential governmental projects other than housing; (f) Construction pursuant to pre-GMP building permits; (g) Employee housing pursuant to density bonus provisions; (h) Employee housing associated with GMP projects; (i) 70:30 employee:free market housing projects; (j) All development not specifically limited by the quotas; (k) 85:15 free market: employee housing projects; (1) Small commercial projects expansion. Of these twelve exceptions, all or part of the development associated with Sections (b), (c), (d ), (i), (k), and (1) is deducted from the appropriate quota. The major types of development which are not deducted from the quota are employee housing and essential governmental projects. Memo: Work Session - GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Two July 12, 1982 Major Issues The Planning Office believes that there are four major issues surrounding our GMP exception procedures. These can be summarized as follows: Are there exceptions which are inappropriate and should be eliminated? Of those exceptions which are appropriate, should their allowed development be deducted from the quotas even though they do not have to compete? Should those exceptions which are appropriate contain a requirement that the impacts of allowed development be mitigated to be eligible for approval? 4. Should there be a uniform review procedure for the consideration of applications for GMP exceptions? In addition to these major issues, there are also some minor definitional and procedural questions that we expect to cover with the Attorney's Office for which we will bring you recommendations at your next meeting. However, the primary purpose of tonight's work session is to discuss the four major issues with you in preparation for the public hearing on this topic, scheduled for August 3. Each issue is considered in detail below. Elimination of Exceptions/Deduction from Quota The primary exceptions which raise concerns regarding the question of compre- hensiveness are those involving employee housing. These exceptions were adopted in response to some very serious community problems identified by the Housing Action Plan, reflecting the desirability of providing affordable housing for employees of the community. The provisions, quite purposely, give employee housing a "preferential treatment" over other types of development by exempting these units from competition under the GMP. However, we also give a further, and possibly unnecessary advantage to these units by not deducting them from the residential quota. Among the four existing employee housing exceptions (suhsections (y ), (h), (i) and (k)) there are two which we would like for you to consider eliminating. The "70:30" and "85:15" exceptions are. mechanisms which give developers incentive to provide employee housing. The former mechanism allows a developer to construct 3 free. market units for every 7 employee units provided, with the free market units being deducted from the quota and not the. employee. units. The latter mechanism allows a developer to construct 1.5 free market units for every 8.5 existing units which are .deed restricted, with. the free market units being deducted from the quota. We have several concerns with these provisions as they currently operate. First, these exceptions chip away at the overall effectiveness of the GMP by permitting growth outside of the residential quota. Second, 6y excepting certain developments from the competition process, they limit the universe of projects which are subject to the competition regulations and thereby lends more of an aura of "unfairness" to those few projects which must compete. Finally, there is the possibility that these provisions can be abused by their specific application. In the case of the 70:30, we have been approached by a developer who wants to take employee units allocated in a GMP competition and use them to create new free market units, effectively providing the community with no real benefit. There is good reason to question whether the above concerns are sufficient to warrant elimination of these provisions. The 70:30 provision has yet to be used successfully, although the Marolt project, if built, would qualify as its first development. The 85:15 provision has succeeded in protecting the Smuggler Mobile Home Park and appears to have extremely limited potential for further application in the community. Therefore, while we can question whether these provisions have met their objectives, it is also doubtfulthat they have been detrimental in any fashion. One concern we do have is that these exceptions generally are applied to large projects whose magnitude will result in our exceeding our planned rate of growth whether or not we deduct these units from the quota. Memo: Work Session - GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Three July 12, 1982 The other two employee housing exceptions apply to units produced within the GMP competitions, although these too are not currently deducted from the quota. We believe that these two exceptions are essentially similar and can be combined into a single employee housing provision which includes specific criteria for evaluating the size, type and similar features of the proposed units. While we see both the pros and cons of retaining the 70:30 and 85:15 provisions, we are quite clear in our belief that all employee units should be deducted from the quota. In our previous discussions of this issue, we have found that two themes keep coming up. We have repeatedly been asked whether our existing residential quota is sufficient to accommodate all types of employee housing and still permit free market development under the competition system. We have also been asked about how we would deal with the infrequent, very large employee housing project (Castle Ridge) which would take up several years of quota. The major concern with bringing employee housing under the quota system is that the units the applicant must provide. to be competitive under the commercial lodge and residential systems may use up the entire residential quota. Since the main concern has been with the. new commercial requirements, we have calculated how these provisions would relate to the available residential quota. We believe that this analysis shows that the units produced in the commercial section under the maximum allocation of square footage. of the new quotas would be well below the 39 unit residential quota. Zone uotas (Square Foot) Generation Factor* Employees Units** CC/C-1 10,000 5.25 53 12 NC/SCI 7,000 2.30 16 4 Office 4,000 3.00 12 3 CL and other 3,000 3.50 10 2 TOTAL: 24,000 3.50 (avg.) 91 21 * Employees per 1,000 square feet based on 1982 Planning Office survey of businesses. ** Need for units is calculated oh an average of 2.25 persons per dwelling unit (based on Housing Office data) and the applicant meeting 50Y of the total employee generation (to achieve maximum GMP points). It is conceivable, however, that with the development of 20 or more employee units from commercial development, plus those from lodge and residential projects, combined with the development of free market units on previously subdivided lots (which have averaged 10-15 units per year in recent years) the 39 unit residential could be depleted without providing any units for competition. For the short run we do not believe this problem will appear. First of all, in the first six months of 1982 we have had only two units started on previously subdivided lots. Secondly, we do not anticipate application this year for any substantial portion of the commercial quotas due to recent buildout among previously approved projects. Thirdly, we have left over from last year's residential competition 13 units plus the 10 free market units from the Top of Mill project, which lost its allocation earlier this year. When these 23 units are considered in relation to the 30 or more units which will likely be left from this year`s quota and the likelihood that one or two other major projects from past years will expire, it is easy to see that we will have adequate quota to accommodate free market and employee unit development for years to come. Memo: Work Session - GMP Exceptions Code Amendment Page Four July 12, 1982 Despite our comfort with this proposal, we suggest that to absolutely guarantee the availability of a quota for free market development and to insure that the GMP is not subject to legal challenge, a provision now in effect in the County be considered. This mechanism provides that if the entire quota is exhaused by development excepted from competition, then 30% of the originally available quota becomes available again. We believe that having 20% of the City quota available on this basis (8 units) will permit free market multi-family residential develop- ment to proceed and protect the integrity of our regulations. Please note that 8 units is not substantially different from the quotas we have had available in previous years. and can be augmented by borrowing from future years' quotas or by the 20% bonus provision in the unlikely event that we must ihvoke the automatic availability provision. The second issue which has been raised as regards deducting employee housing from the quota is that of the very large project which cannot be accommodated by the quota. We addressed this issue in our recent County GMP revisions, at which time the Board of County Commissioners accepted our recommendation by deducting employee units from the quota. We provided a mechanism by which individual PMN and essential governmental projects could be exempted from the quotas by an action which triggers a Planning Office re-evaluation of the quota system and, if necessary, recommendations regarding future quotas. We believe that this approach provides additional accountability for major growth decisions and for judging policy decisions. comparatively. We recommend that such a provision apply in the City for pure employee housing and essential governmental projects only. The last change we recommend in terms o subsection (f) concerning permits issue and should be removed as a housekeeping f eliminating exceptions would be that d prior to November, 1977 is out of date measure. Impact fitigation/Review Procedure In certain cases, the Planning Office believes that it is not enough for an exempt project to simply be deducted from the quota, but also that it mitigate its impacts. The provision where this best applies is historic designation, which has recently been used to convert residences to commercial spaces at the Epicure and Sport Stalker buildings. The impact of this conversion, particularly in terms of employee housing, should be offset in addition to deducting this conversion from the quota. This is the approach which we have applied to the Hotel Jerome expansion. However, without a specific procedure in the Code, it becomes difficult to apply this .approach across the board. While we do believe that it is appropriate to give a hi toric structure preferential treatment as regards the competition system, we do not think this advantage should carry into impact mitigation. We believe that the policy of projects mitigating their impacts should apply to all projects within our community. We believe that several of the exceptions should have a routine review procedure. We believe that the reconstruction of existing buildings should be verified by P & Z and Council (as was done for the Pitkin County Bank demolition last fall), that the enlargement of, or change of use in a historic structure should be decided by P & Z and Council on the basis of impact mitigation, and that the employee housing and small commercial expansion provisions should continue to be reviewed by P & Z, with the appropriate recommendation sent to Council for final action. Conclusion While no formal action is required of you at this time, the Planning Office is looking for direction as to those aspects of Section 24-11.2 on which you wish to recommend that Council take action. We believe that the. recommendations we have made are consistent with our objective of having a comprehensive, legally sustainable and dynamic growth management system. We remain open, however, to your suggestions as to how we might further refine and improve upon this approach. MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman/Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Update of GMP Quotas DATE: June 18, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce you to the principles the Planning Office has been developing which we propose should form the basis of the updated growth management quota system. These principles were accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission when they unanimously adopted the revised quotas at their meeting on June 8, 1982. Your formal consideration of the revised quotas will take place at the first reading of an ordinance at your re{~gular meeting on June 28, 11n~982~~.`(~~+ F•~s ~ 3~ ~~.. •~k of °•^^- ~a-,•s~-L~~ ,<_. , T~ ~~~\ ~ (+ ,~? }r._.A .-Ol YL.Y ~.o ~: t" >" G..,~ a.~~.-~~' $F 'J~.~ lJ ~. ~ ~A.n. Why Revise the Quotas? There are several reasons that we must look at our quota system at this time, all of which have emerged from our ongoing update of the growth management quota system. First, as you recall, last year you adopted Ordinance 49, series of 1981, which expanded the coverage of the commercial GMP from just the CC and C-1 zone districts to all zones in which commercial projects can be built. At that time, we indicated that we would be returning with quotas for these zones at a later date. Since the date for submission of commercial development applications is September 1st, it is mandatory that we adopt the development 4uotas before that time. !~rp~~~~ ~ ~~ ~.op;..y G~,,,F1 ~~~ -~.,, c° _.' q l a ~ \ ~ .^a .R .L A.~~. .n~ ~i \S ~. Za~ ~ ~~., g~-RS ~...~\ A~~...,'~vA~I.:,A ~... -. SL ..,..~~I 'i ~~Y -..V A second reason for re-evaluating our quotas relates to our study of short ~ term accommodations in Aspen and Pitkin County. One recurring theme of our discussions of this issue has been the criticism of the 18 unit lodge quota as being impractical for the phasing of a new lodge, considering today's market conditions. Therefore, we have taken another look at the appropriate growth rate for the L-1 and L-2 zone districts. Please note that this analysis does not consider the buildout potential for nonconforming"lodges, if and when an action is taken which will permit their expansion. We believe that should you decide to permit the expansion of lodges which are currently nonconforming, that it will be appropriate to develop a separate quota for that category of development so that the small lodge is not forced to compete with the larger facilities in an elaborate procedure. Therefore, we believe that these two issues can be kept separate for the time being as we concentrate Qn a revised quota for thgse lodges which currently are able to be expanded. Yr~-~~~ ~-; , ~ • •~ ~~ ~ •- The final reason for reconsidering our quotas is the broad conceptual understanding ~~-~- we have been developing concerning growth management in our community. The `~'~M\ ongoing growth management update has helped us to identify certain growth `-+-~~- trends which have taken place since the GMP was implemented in 1977. Using "`'~'~ these trends, we have slowly been evolving a revised growth management policy `'"" recommendation which builds upon the principles of the original GMP but which alto reflects what growth control means today to Aspen and Pitkin County. Therefore, before we begin to discuss the actual numbers proposed as the revised quotas, we believe that it is es~ntial that we first consider the concepts which underlie this proposal. The Concept of GMP Quotas Earlier this year the" Planning Office presented to you a status report on the update of the GMP. This report provided you with historical growth date from 1975 to 1981 and drew certain conclusions from that data. The analysis docu- mented that we have exceeded our planned rates of growth for residential units and commercial square footage despite the fact that many projects approved under the GMP have never been built. We concluded that projects which have been outside of the GMP have had a more profound impact on our growth rate Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Two June 18, 1982 than have the ones which have competed. These projects include those which have been awarded exemptions from the GMP and those which did not have to compete since the commercial GMP was less than comprehensive. The fundamental concept that we recognized from this review was that we have created a dual rate of growth in the community -- one which is regulated by the GMP and reflects our adopted quotas and a second which is unregulated which impairs our ability to achieve managed growth and a balanced, fiscally sustainable community. Some direct results of this dual growth rate have been our inability to make up an employee housing shortfall which is fueled by expansions of employment opportunities without a corresponding production of price controlled housing, and a more rapid depletion of available limited resources than was originally anticipated, with the most obvious example being the need to expand the sewage treatment plant this year rather than at the end of the decade. Utilizing this fundamental .concept, the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission formulated the following policy recommendation for a revised growth management quota system, consistent with the original GMP and yet which also has the following features: 1. The quotas are based on the ability of the community to sustain growth as a function of our capacity to provide basic services, including water, sewer and transportation needs, and to meet environmental, economic and social quality of life goals. This approach is predicated on the belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community it is desirable to delay those expansions which we are capable of postponing. This approach also reflects a basic community commitment to hold our growth rate below that which might otherwise occur to protect the quality of life to which residents have become. accustomed and which maintains the unique character of Aspen as a destination resort. 440- ~(~ ~,....»_< ~ • »lt ~~ - <^~ ~"'-' F°'~ ~(- ...e vw3l ',-0. .(= wl /~'~2 ... 11;, {-, F°+! ~~e 2.\l f'o~T~ '~-~....~ ~Pa..1.~ic:_ 2. The quotas are short term rates of growth which reflect current priorities for employee housing, quality lodging and several institutional facilities, as well as our legal obligations to provide an opportunity for buildout on previously subdivided lots. Therefore, the impact of the quotas upon our growth rate will have to be carefully monitored and as our community goals and priorities evolve, they will need to be regularly updated as part of a dynamic rather than static GMP. 3. The quotas do not acknowledge the ultimate buildout under existing ~e. r ~ ~;.iQ zoning as a tacit and fixed commitment to the eventual size of our ;,~ ~-,, ; community. Instead, they represent an immediate goal for managed ~: \ a~ growth, based on historic development trends and perceived growth ~~ ,~„ priorities which must be reviewed in relation to basic community land use planning decisions and service capacity thresholds. 4. The quotas represent a comprehensive approach to growth management, founded on the concept that a fundamental flaw of our approach-in the past is that it has resulted in higher than anticipated growth rates, because many types of activities were exempt from the original quotas. The revised approach acknowledges the impact on the community of all types of development and therefore unifies the regulated and unregulated growth rates into a single barometer of the community's development. We believe that to fully comprehend how these concepts work, it is necessary to actually take you through the methodology of developing the quotas themselves. The following three sections identify the proposed residential, commercial and lodge development quotas for your consideration. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Three June 18, 1982 Residential Development Quota Development in the residential sector is comprised of three distinct parts. One component is the previously subdivided lot on which single family and duplex units can be built without competition under the GMP. Research into past trends in this type of development indicates that each of the past several years between 10 and 20 such units have been developed. We believe that this component will continue to account for about 15 units for the next few years, since our analysis shows the existence of substantial residential buildout potential in the City of Aspen (146 duplexes and 289 single family residences on existing vacant lots), ~.-~ til+a ~^-5~^ ~,--mac ^^k` T "`~' FADS The next component of residential growth is employee housing, which currently is not deducted from the quota. Last year there were 26 employee units produced in the City, mostly in various commercial projects, while the year before there were 88 such units produced, including 80 at Castle Ridge. In the future we can expect this rate to continue since we have increased the points available in the commercial competition for employee housing. In fact, to meet the threshold of 50% of employees housed, as many as 25 to 30 new units may be needed if the entire commercial quota is allocated. However, we believe that with the exception of the very largest projects aimed at eliminating the critical employee housing shortfall (i.e., Castle Ridge, Marolt) the employee housing units can be accommodated within the residential quota. We expect to be coming forward next month with revisions to the GMP exemption procedures such that employee units will be deducted from the residential quota, although they are still outside of the competition process. The last component of the residential sector is the free market units which are available under the competition system following the processing of exemptions during the previous year. These units either meet a portion of the need for tourist accommodations or high quality resident units and typically subsidize employee housing. Therefore, while .it is desirable to have a certain number of these units available for competition from year-to-year, it is also to our advantage to limit the number which are available as part of a managed growth policy. In summary, it appears likely for the near future that 10-15 units will be developed annually on previously subdivided lots with about 15-20 employee units being developed in the smaller, dispersed projects. This total of 25 to 35 units built each year is below the 39 unit quota available for each year and would therefore leave units available for competition. Therefore, we recommend that you leave the 39 unit residential quota untouched for the time bein When we come before you to revise the GMP exemption procedures we will provide you with additional data to justify the fact that this total can accommodate the employee housing which will likely be produced in the near future. Commercial Development Quota ~ The rate of commercial growth we can sustain is directly related to the residential development quota, since as we produce additional commercial space applicants will also have to provide employee housing. We believe that due to recent rates of growth in commercial space in Aspen (45,000 square feet per year) and Pitkin County (25,000 square feet per year) this is an appropriate time to curtail the rate of commercial buildout. This need is particularly evident in the CC and C-1 zone districts, where three projects are under construction (Park Place, Epicure Plaza and Mill Street Station) and five others have GMP approvals but have yet to be built; and in the office zone district where two projects are under construction (the Forge Building, Main and Seventh) and two others received building permits just prior to the expansion. of the GMP to that zone. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Four June 18, 1982 To develop commercial development quotas for the City of Aspen we have grouped zone districts together, based on their geographical location and extent, their buildout potential and the similarities among their intent and permitted and conditional uses. The groups identified provide for a maximum of four separate competitions, but insure that incompatbile zones (CC and SCI, for example) will not compete directly with each other to the detriment of the less economically demanding zone. The quotas which we recommend be adopted for this year are as follows: CC and C-1 - 15,000 square feet NC and SCI - 9,000 square feet Office. - 6,000 square feet, CL and Other - 5,000 square feet This total of 35,000 square feet, while almots 50% greater than the existing quota of 24,000 square feet in the CC and C-1 zones, is 25% below the historical trend we have experienced and which so many have found to be ojectionable. However, to further justify this recommendation, we have placed the quotas to three tests, as follows. The first test involves the amount of employee housing need which the quotas can be expected to generate. The Planning Office has recently completed a survey of employees per 1000 square feet in the City of Aspen. These generation factors are shown below in the computation of overall need. Zone Square footage CC/C-1 15,000 NC/SCI 9,000 Office 6,000 CL and Other 5,000 Total 35,000 Generation Factor Employees Units* 5.25 79 17.5 2.30 21 4.5 3.00 18 4.0 3.50 17 4_0 3.50 135 30.0 *Need for units is calculated on an average of 2.25 persons per dwelling unit (based on Housing Office data) and the applicant meeting 50% of the total employee generation. As can be seen, 30 employee units will need to be produced on an annual basis to meet 50% of the employee housing demand if the full 35,000 square foot quota is allocated in a given year. This computation would tend to indicate that the commercial quotas recommended are as high as the community can possibly sustain, if we are to meet our recommended residential quota. Therefore, if for any reason you feel that any zone has been shortchanged, you should only alter its quota by taking square footage from another zone, not altering the total of 35,000 square feet of commercial development. A second test for these proposed quotas is how well these rates compare with our adopted growth management goal to adhere to a community-wide growth rate of 3.47%. This test utilizes recently obtained data from the tax assessor's office concerning commercial buildout, as documented below: . Approximate Existing Growth Zone Commercial Square Footage Rate Total CC/C-1 800,000 3.47% 27,760 NC/SCI 200,000 -- 6,940 Office 150,000 -- 5,205 CL and Other 100,000 -- 3,470 Total 1,250,000 3.47% 43,375 Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Five June 18, 1982 Finally, these quotas can be tested as to the ability of a project to be developed within any zone. It can be .seen that these quotas will easily support a single new large project or several smaller projects in any zone group which will afford the community an opportunity to more reasonably accommodate the impacts of this growth than has recently been the case. For example, in the CC zone district the typical three lot site would permit a maximum buildout of 15,300 square feet while in the Office zone a two lot site would permit a maximum buildout of 5,100 square feet. Please note that under existing zoning there is essentially no likely buildout potential in the CL and NC zones, while the SCI zone district is limited by Section 24-3.6 of the Code, "Use Square Footage Limitations". Please also note that as always, you have available to you an annual 20% bonus if a project is too large for the quota and that you can award multiple years of quota for particularly deserving projects. Lodge Development Quota The most important determinant of the need for new lodging in Aspen is the .recently produced Draft Short Term Accommodations Report. This Report documents that there is an existing balance between skiing capacity, skiing utilization and the availability of tourist accommodations. The Report recommends a moderate level of growth in short term accommodations which. will keep the level of tourist beds at or below skiing capacity and ensure that the skiing portion of the tourist experience remains a high quality one. To provide for a quality lodging experience the Report makes. the foll-owing recommendations: 1. Growth in short term accommodations should be confined to existing locations of these facilities and areas. zoned for tourist accommodations which are vacant or not yet fully built out. Examples of such locations where applications are now under review include the Hotel Jerome (40 rehabilitated and 60 new units), The Lodge at Aspen (31 new units) the Aspen Inn (36 new units) and the Highlands Inn (50 rehabilitated and 75 to 130 new units). coi;a6~-~1s ~-.., -~ qo .,~~.,.~Q 2. The existing mix of short-term accommodations should be supported so as to provide a variety of quality, cost and locational opportunities for the visitor. In particular, incentives must be provided to preserve and improve our nonconforming lodges. The Planning Office is currently working with the Planning Commission to develop a proposal to address this issue and would like to meet with you to brief you on the alternatives which we are evaluating. 3. The City lodge quota should be revised to a level which is commensurate with the ability of the private sector to justify incremental expansions of existing lodges and development of entirely new lodges. The quota should not be excessive since we do not have a need for major additions of units at this time. However, if and when we do experience ski capacity increases, there may indeed be justification for some expansion of the lodge inventory. The Planning Office recommendation to the Plannin Commission was that the lodge quota be increased from 18 to 35 units per year. This rate of growth recognizes that we now have under review applications to rehabilitate 90 units and to build about 200 new units and that we have under construction units at the Aspen Inn and 700 South Galena (16 short term residential units). These additions should provide greater competition in the lodging industry which will help to induce better quality and value in our accommodations inventory. The 35 unit quota also tracks well with our adopted growth rate of 3.47%. There are presently 1107 traditional lodge rooms and dorms in the City of Aspen. A simple growth rate of 3.47% in this sector would equate to 38. units per year, or virtually the same number as has been 'recommended for the new quota. Once again, please remember that your ability to awartl several year's worth of quota at any one time and to award up to 20% above any year's quota adds substantial flexibility for you to deal with the occasional large project which may come before you. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Six June 18, 1982 Sustainability of the Growth Rate While the Planning Office believes that the previous tests applied to the proposed quotas give valuable insights into their practicality and their consistency with the adopted growth policy, they should be taken one step further.to evaluate their fiscal Sustainability. As indicated earlier in this memo, the quotas reflect a belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community it is desirable to delay those expansions we are capable of postponing. Obviously, if the community wishes to grow faster than the rates proposed it can do so, although at an immediate cost. The service we have chosen for calculating the Sustainability of our growth rate is the one which we consider to be the most operative constraint to growth at the present time -- our sewage treatment capacity. Our research indicates that this service exhibits the most direct relationship between population growth and diminishing capacity. We also find that in comparing our approach to other growth management systems across the county, limitations on development due to service constraints are legally justifiable. Our current sewage treatment capacity is 3.0 million gal-tons per day (MGD). The Aspen Metro Sanitation District (AMSD) is planning to expand their facility from 3.0 to 3.2 million gallons per day (MGD) this spring. They would like this expansion to last to mid-decade, at which point the plant would be expanded to 4.0 MGD. Due to the cost of this expansion and the difficult choices we will face beyond that point (re-open the old plant near the Post Office, hopefully without odor problems or build a new, expensive regional plant downvalley with uncertain environmental impacts), we view this constraint as a logical tool with which to formulate our quotas. Therefore, the short term goal for growth in the Metro Area is one which permits us to delay the expansion of the AMSD plant to 1984 or 1985 and which will then accommodate growth through the end of the decade. Of course, it will be necessary to monitor progress toward that goal on a regular basis, certainly more frequently than once in five years. The basis for understanding the wastewater constraint is as follows. Peak usage of wastewater in the Aspen Metro Area occurrred in December 1980 at 2.9 MGD. At that time the peak population was about 20,000 persons, located in approximately 6,250 dwelling units and 1,800,000 square feet of commercial/ institutional space. To convert these totals into wastewater generation, we have used some factors commonly employed by engineers, as modified by the unique socio-economic profile of Aspen. We feel that to be conservative in our facility planning, we should expect that each new dwelling unit generates 435 GPD (gallons per day) and that 5000 square feet of commercial space is equivalent to one dwelling unit and therefore also generates 435 GPD. We have tested the proposed City quotas against the sewage treatment capacity constraint by combining them with the quotas now being evaluated by the County for.the Metro Area. These Metro Area totals indicate that due to our legal obligations regarding previously subdivided lots, our commitment to projects approved but not yet constructed (Marolt, Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve) and our uow.~,i,f~, ~ institutional priorities (bus maintenance facility, jail, performing arts center) we are predisposed as to the degree to which we can limit growth. Therefore, the historic trend of about 125 to 150 new resident and tourist units per year being built will likely be continued, with a possible mix being 50 to 60 lodge units, 35 to 40 free market units and 40 to 50 employee housing units, across the entire Metro Area. This growth rate is balanced against a total Metro Area growth of 50,000 square feet of comunercial space each year which generates service demands directly and also indirectly by fueling our employee housing need. Our analysis indicates that the Metro Area growth rate will utilize 60-65,000 gallons per day of our remaining treatment capacity. This rate does not take into account housing remodels which add bedrooms, hot tubs, jacuzzies, clothes and dish washers and other applicahces to existing houses nor does it take into account the construction of the institutional projects identified above. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that the 0.3 MGD in capacity between the 1980 peak usage of 2.9 MGD and the planned expansion in 1982 to 3.2 MGD will clearly be used up by mid-decade by the growth of at least 60,000 gallons per Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Seven June 18, 1982 day on an annual basis. While this will necessitate an expansion of the AMSD plant by mid-decade, it should hopefully provide us 5 to 10 years beyond that date before another expansion is needed. We therefore believe that our proposed quotas meet the test of sustainability in terms of our most pressing service constraint-1sewnage treatment. s~~« A~--s p 1~ns ,.,,_.,Jt •,, .~-o ~,~,~ ~„ ,;~ (~;_,_ P`^-~'C ~» uM.....t .K ~ HZ'S ~.~>S.4{Q x.(1!1 C ~ I I S 7 M The Planning Office has proposed revised GMP development quotas which have been tested as to their consistency with adopted policy, their practicality in terms of meeting public and private needs and their sustainability regarding service constraints. The Planning Office believes, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred, that these quotas meet these tests and should be adopted as presented. We recommend that when these quotas are presented to you in ordinance form for first reading on June 28 that they be approved. However, as always, we remain open to your suggestions and comments in hopes of improving upon what has clearly been a complex and lengthy planning process. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMtdISSION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF NEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTAS Resolution No. 82 - 6 WHEREAS, the Aspen-Pitkin Growth Management Plan is an adopted policy plan for the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 48, series of 1977, the City Council did adopt a Growth Management Quota System designed to implement the policy plan and to be consistent with the recommendations contained therein, and WHEREAS, the Planning Office is currently reviewing and revising the Growth Management Plan and the regulations which implement the plan, and WHEREAS, during the course of the update the Planning Commission has expressed its concern regarding the impacts that the commercial growth rate has had upon various services in the community in recent years, and WHEREAS, in response to this concern, the Planning Commission did recommend and City Council did adopt amendments to the Growth Management Quota System to extend the coverage of the commercial GMP regulations from the CC and C-1 zone districts to all districts in which commercial uses can be built, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the rate of free market and employee housing growth which has occurred since the adoption of the GMP and its relationship to the adopted residential quota of 39 units per year and does recognize the impact that employee housing has had on the growth rate and the implications of this growth upon services without these units being accounted for under the quota system, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft study produced by the Planning Office entitled "Aspen-Pitkin County Short Term Accommodations Report" and believes that at this time there is a balance between our existing tourist accommodations and ski capacity and that there exists a lodging problem more directly related to questions of quality and value than to the quantity of units available, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does believe that in order to provide for higher quality and better value in our tourist accommodations it is necessary to allow for some expansion of existing lodges and the development of new facilities, which cannot be prpperly phased under the existing lodge quota, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a revised approach to the development of quotas which is consistent with the original policies of the GMP and yet which also has the following features: 1. The quotas are based on the ability of the community to sustain growth as a function of our capacity to provide basic services, including water, sewer and transportation needs, and to meet environ- mental, economic and social quality of life goals. This approach is predicated on the belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the con~nunity it is desirable to delay those expansions which we are capable of postponing. This approach also reflects a basic community commitment to hold our growth rate below that which might otherwise occur to protect the quality of life to which residents have become accustomed and which maintains the unique character of Aspen as a destination resort. 2. The quotas are short term rates of growth which reflect current priorities for employee housing, quality lodging and several institu- tional facilities, as well as our legal obligations to provide an opportunity for buildout on previously subdivided lots. Therefore, the impact of the quotas upon our growth rate will have to be carefully monitored and as our community goals and priorities evolve, they will need to be regularly updated as part of a dynamic rather than static GMP. 3. The quotas do not acknowledge the ultimate buildout under existing zoning as a tacit and fixed commitment to the eventual size of our community. Instead, they represent an immediate goal for managed growth, based on historic development trends and perceived growth priorities which must be reviewed in relation to basic community land use planning decisions and service capacity thresholds. 4. The quotas represent a comprehensive approach to growth management, founded on the concept that a fundamental flaw of our approach in the past is that it has resulted in higher than anticipated growth rates, because many types of activities were exempt from the original quotas. The revised approach acknowledges the impact on the community of all types of development and therefore unifies the regulated and unregulated growth rates into a single barometer of the community's development. and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the concepts which underlie the new approach to quotas-and the specific proposals for new residential, lodge and commercial quotas at a public hearing held during a regularly- scheduled meeting of the Commission on May 18, 1982, and WHEREAS, at the close of *he public hearing the Commission did unanimously concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office concerning the proposed quotas and did direct the Planning Office to prepare this resolution to document the reasoning behind their determinations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby recommend that the City Council repeal and reenact Section 24-1i.1~f Yee Municipal Code for the purpose of adopting the following development quatas,-~o be effective immediately: a) Within all zee°~~ tra.,-thirty-nine (39) residential units; b) Within ali zone `districts, #ria-ty-five (35) lodge units; c) Within the CC and C-1 zone districts, fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of commercial and office space; d) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, nine thousand (9,000) square feet of commercial and office space; e) Within the Ozone district, six thousand (6,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and 2 f) Within the CL and all other zone districts, five thousand (5,000) square feet of commercial and office space. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado at its regular meeting on June 8, 1982. ASPEN PL/A~NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: ~IN We]ton Ander on, Acting C airman ATTEST: ~iP11irvA i%/ ~O/~~ - -- Depu~City Cle k 0 3 MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Update of GMP Quotas DATE: May 12, 1982 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce you to the principles the Planning Office has been developing which we propose should form the basis of the updated growth management quota system. The new quotas will complete the round of revisions begun last year when we changed the commercial, residential and lodge scoring systems and will leave only the GMP exception procedures to be reviewed later this spring. The Concept of GMP Quotas There are several reasons that we must look at our quota system at this time. First, when we expanded the coverage of the commercial GMP to include all zones we did not adopt quotas for the new system. Second, there has been a great deal of criticism of the 18 unit lodge quota as being impractical for the phasing of a new lodge. Finally, as part of the GMP update we have been evolving a revised approach to justifying our quotas which is a principal basis for the recommendations we are making for a comprehensive GMP in both the City and County. This approach takes into account the impacts of all types of growth upon the community and proposes to deduct all development from the available quotas. The proposed approach is in recognition of the fact that since we have adopted the GMP we have had two rates of growth -- one regulated and one not and that this dual growth rate is the primary reason that we have exceeded our quotas in the Metro Area on an annual basis. Each of these considerations helps to explain the rationale for the proposed new quotas. The basic concepts behind the new quotas are as follows: 1. They are based on the ability of the community to sustain growth as a function of our capacity to provide basic services (water, sewer and transportation) and to meet quality of life goals (environmental, economical and social). 2. They are short term rates of growth which reflect current priorities (i.e., employee housing, quality lodging) and legal obligations (i. e., previously subdivided lots) and therefore will need to be updated regularly as part of a "dynamic" rather than static GMP. 3. They ignore City-County boundaries and reflect a Metro Area perspective due to the interrelated nature of the impacts of development in this area on the community. 4. They represent a fundamental departure from the original premise of GMP quotas which looked at the total buildout potential of the residential, commercial and lodging sectors, based on existing zoning, and allocated 80% of that buildout over a 15 year period. The new quotas do not acknowledge the ultimate zoning potential as a tacit commitment to the eventual size of our community. Instead, they represent an immediate goal for managed growth, based on historic development trends and perceived growth priorities which must be reviewed in relation to basic land use and transportation planning decisions for the community. A Method For Quota Calculation The Planning Office has developed a methodology for calculating our growth rate based on what we consider to be the most operative constraint to growth in the Metro Area -- sewer capacity. This approach is predicated on the belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community, Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Two May 12, 1982 it is desirable to delay those expansions which we are capable of postponing. Clearly, if the community wishes to grow at a faster rate, it can do so, although at an immediate cost. This approach is also based on our comparative research into other growth management systems across the country which indicates that growth limitations due to service constraints are legally justifiable. Please recognize that it will be essential to take this analysis forward to a second step which evaluates the impact of growth on other services such as transportation and various capital facilities. However, the approach we are proposing should be adequate for the upcoming round of competitions this September and January. Our current sewage treatment capacity is 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The Aspen Metro Sanitation District (AMSD) is planning to expand their facility from 3.0 to 3.2 millions gallons per day (MGD) this spring. They would like this expansion to last to mid-decade, at which point the plant would be expanded to 4.0 MGD. Due to the cost of this expansion and the difficult choices we will face beyond that point (re-open the old plant near the Post Office, hopefully without odor problems or build a new, expensive regional plat downvalley with uncertain environmental impacts), we view this constraint as a logical tool with which to formulate our quotas. Therefore, the short term goal for growth in the Metro Area is one which permits us to delay the expansion of the AMSD plant to 1984 or 1985 and which will then accommodate growth through the end of the decade. Of course, it will be necessary to monitor progress toward that goal on a regular basis, certainly more frequently than once in five years. The basis for understanding the wastewater constraint is as follows. Peak usage of wastewater in the Aspen Metro Area occurred in December 1980 at 2.9 MGD. At that time the peak population was about 20,000 persons, based on recent census and short term accommodations reports. The wastewater generation per capita is therefore slightly less than 150 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). However, this can be broken down further into its residential and commercial components. As of 1980, there were approximately 6,250 dwelling units in the Metro Area, along with about 1,800,000 square feet of commercial/institutional space. To convert these totals into wastewater generation, engineers commonly use two factors, as follows: 1. An average dwelling unit is comprised of 3.5 persons with each person generating 100-110 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater for domestic purposes. 2. Each 5000 square feet of commercial space is equivalent to one resi- dential dwelling unit in terms of water use (and resulting wastewater generation). (Note: These factors are substantiated by the Aspen-Snowmass 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan and by the Aspen Water Management Plan.) Utilizing these factors, the typical dwelling unit would generate 375 GPD and the entire residential sector would generate about 2.35 MGD. Similarly, the commercial sector would generate about 0.15 MGD, for a total generation of only about 2.5 MGD. The discrepancy between this total and the peak generation of 1980 points out several reasons why we have depleted our sewage treatment capacity more quickly than we anticipated. We believe that the typical dwelling unit in Aspen probably. uses more water than the statistical average fqr the country since this factor usually correlates well to income level. We also believe that this approach ignores an important component of our economy -- day skier visitors and day workers commuting from downvalley. We feel that to be conservative in our facility planning it would therefore be desirable to use 125 GPCD for our generation factor, resulting in a per dwelling unit generation of 435 GPD and an equivalency factor that 5000 square feet of commercial space also generates 435 GPD. We recognize that there are an almost unlimited variety of scenarios available to evaluate how we will use up the additional increments of 0.3 and 0.8 MGD to take us through the decade. We have chosen an alternative based on historical Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Three May 12, 1982 trends, modified slightly by what we consider to the community priorities at his time -- the need for quality lodging, the need to meet our employee housing shortfall and the need for institutional space (bus maintenance, jail, performing arts). While this approach may appear crude to some, we believe that it is a more meaningful indicator of the community's ability to accommodate growth than was the former approach based on 15 year buildout potential. However, we are prepared to present to you data on the residential, commercial and lodge buildout potential in Aspen so that you can judge how we have proceeded toward depleting that potential. To refresh your memory, it is important that we again summarize the historical growth trends in the Metro Area. Growth records compiled since 1975 (when the original GMP data was collected) indicate that we have experienced, on an annual basis, about 125 new residential units (tourist and permanent resident) and about 70,000 square feet of commercial growth in the Metro Area. The preponderance of this growth has been in the City of Aspen proper, which has experienced about 75 new residential units and 45,000 square feet of commercial space annually. Several variables predispose our ability to affect these growth rates. First of all, we are legally obligated to permit development of single family and/or duplex units on previously subdivided lots. During the early years of growth management, these units accounted for a large portion of the quota. In recent years, fewer such units have been developed, owing both to high interest rates and the declining number of quality lots which are available for this purpose. Whereas in 1977 and 1978 in the City of Aspen there were 25 to 30 such units developed annually, by 1980 and 1981 this number had dropped to 15 to 20 units annually. This trend, should it continue, will permit us to meet our employee housing shortfall and to maintain a reasonable availability of units for competition within our existing residential quota. It is conceivable that with the proposed new residential FAR's even fewer such lots will be developed in the future because it will be more economically desirable to develop multi- family projects in the RMF zone than single-family or duplex units. A second commitment of the community is comprised of projects which have been approved but not yet constructed. For example the Marolt Project commits us to 70 new employee units and 30 employee units, while the Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve project commits us to 18 employee units and 19 free market units. Finally, unbuilt projects which have competed under the GMP and are not yet built or expired commit us to 60 free market and 63 employee units as well as about 50,000 square feet of commercial space. We are also still feeling the effects of having the Office, NC and SCI zones outside of the GMP, since several projects were already underway or had received building permit approval simultaneous to our expansion of the comprehensiveness of the GMP. With these several caveats in mind, we believe that it is unrealistic to expect that our residential growth rate will decline substantially in the near future. In fact, if we are to provide incentives to achieve quality lodging for our tourist economy, it is likely that we will have to experience some growth in this sector, which has not occurred to any extent in the recent past. Therefore, it will be necessar to rovide for about 125 to 150 new units per year (resident and tourist with a likely mix being 50 to 60 lodge units, 35 to 40 free market units and 40 to 50 employee housing units, across the entire Metro Area. To accommodate this level of growth within our service constraints, it is also necessary that we limit the rate of commercial growth to about 45-55,000 square feet across the Aspen Metro Area not only because of the direct impact of commercial growth on services, but also because it is a primary generator of employee housing need which will fuel our residential growth rate. Following is an analysis of how this growth rate compares to our sewage treatment capacity constraint: 135 residential units x 435 GPD = 58,725 GPD 50,000 S. F. Commercial x 435/5000 = 4,350 GPD Total = 63,075 GPD Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Four May 12, 1982 This growth rate will deplete the 0.3 MGD of capacity which remains in the AMSD plant in five years (1985), presuming full occupancy of the available units during the peak usage period. However, this rate does not take into account at least two other variables which will also deplete the capacity. First, remodels of existing residences which add bedrooms, hot tubs, jacuzzies, clothes and dish washers and similar features all have an impact upon the sewer plant. Second, we are facing at least three major institutional projects outside of the quota system -- the bus maintenance facility, jail and possibly a performing arts center which will also affect our wastewater generations rates. These two factors may necessitate a sewage treatment plant expansion to 4.0 MGD in 1984 rather than 1985, but should not push the next expansion into this decade, even if we generate 70,000 to 80,000 GPD from our growth, since this would permit the additional 0.8 MGD to last 10 or 11 years. Therefore, this alternative can be considered to accommodate our service growth constraint (for the short term) and may be evaluated by the Planning Commissions, City Council and Board of County Commissioners as to whether it also meets community needs. Following is a detailed analysis of the GMP quotas which emerge from this alternative. Residential GMP Ouota The residential quota is comprised of three distinct parts. One component is the previously subdivided lot on which single-family and duplex units can be built without competition under the GMP. We believe that this component will continue to account for about 15 new units each year. The next component of residential growth is employee housing, which currently is not deducted from the quota. Last year there were 26 employee units produced in the City while the year before there were 88 such units, including 80 at Castle Ridge. It seems clear that with the exception of the very largest projects aimed at eliminating the critical employee housing shortfall (i.e., Castle Ridge, Marolt and Silverking Phase IV) we can accommodate employee housing growth within our quota. The last component of the residential sector is the free market units which are available under the competition system. These units help to meet the need for tourist accommodations and high quality second homes to subsidize employee housing. It is to our advantage to have these units built at a slow pace, commensurate with the number that remains after accounting for the previous two residential growth components. In summary, it appears that we can expect 15-20 units to be developed annually on previously subdivided lots and a similar number of employee units to be built in the smaller, mixed free market/employee housing projects. This should leave a smaller number of units available for competition. Therefore, we recommend that you leave the 39 unit residential quota untouched for the time being. We will be coming forward later this spring with revisions to the GMP exemption procedures such that employee units will be deducted from the residential quota, but with a proviso that these units be exempted from the quota for the infrequent, large project aimed at meeting the employee housing shortfall. However, this provision would also require that if a large project providing a clear community benefit were exempted from the quota, that this section would trigger a complete re-evaluation of our growth rate in recognition of the impact that all development has upon the community. Commercial GMP Quota Based on the recent growth rates of commercial space in Aspen and Pitkin County and because of the competing priorities for growth in the community, the Planning Office believes that this is an appropriate time to curtail the rate of commercial buildout. As we have indicated above, 50,000 square feet of commercial growth is sustainable based on service constraints. However it should be recognized that this level of growth will generate approximately 200 new employees, at a rate of 4 per 1000 square feet, a moderate factor based on Planning and Housing Office studies. Therefore, new commercial growth will easily utilize the employee housing units we build on an annual basis, which will leave us in a shortfall situation without the large employee housing projects. To develop commercial quotas for the City of Aspen, we have grouped zone districts together, based on their geographical location and extent, their buildout potential and the similarities among their permitted and conditional Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Five May 12, 1982 uses. The groups identified provide for a maximum of four separate competitions but insure that incompatible zones (CC and SCI for example) will not compete directly with each other to the detriment of the less economically demanding zone. The quotas we recommend be adopted for this year are as follows: CC and C-1 - 15,000 square feet NC and SCI - 9,000 square feet Office - 6,000 square feet CL and Other - 5,000 square feet This total of 35,000 square feet will leave 15,000 square feet for competition in the County, for a total of 50,000 in the Metro Area, meeting the stated goal. This total therefore meets the first test of being sustainable in terms of the overall growth rate for the community. A second test for these proposed quotas is how well these rates compare with our adopted growth management goal to adhere to a community-wide growth rate of 3.47% (rounded off to .035). This test is based on recent data obtained from the tax assessor's office concerning commercial buildout, as documented below: Approximate Existing .Growth Zone Square Footage Rate Total CC/C-1 800,000 x .035 = 28,000 NC/SCI 200,000 x .035 = 7,000 Office 150,000 x .035 = 5,250 Other 100,000 x .035 = 3,500 1,250,000 x .035 = 43,750 Finally, these quotas can be tested as to the ability of a project to be developed within any zone constraint. It can be seen that these quotas will easily support a single new large project or several smaller projects in any zone group which will afford the community an opportunity to more reasonably accommodate the impacts of this growth than has been occuring recently with the numerous large downtown construction projects we have experienced. For example, in the office zone district the Planning Office is aware of two projects (Main and Seventh, the Forge Building) which are about to be completed and two others which have building permits. Similarly, in the CC and C-1 zone districts, there are now three projects underway (Park Place, Epicure Plaza and Mill Street Station) and five others with GMP approvals that have yet to build. Finally, there is essentially no likely buildout potential in the NC and CL zone districts while in the SCI zone district, any new project is limited by Section 24-3.6 "Use Square footage Limitations" which can be accommodated by the 9,000 square foot annual quota. This limit might require multiple year commitments to a large project which would be permissible under our current regulations. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the above square footages be adopted as the commercial quotas for this year. Lodge GMP Quota The same three tests used to derive the proposed commercial quotas can also be used to derive the proposed lodge quota. Based on the comprehensive, sustainable growth rate for the Metro Area, the target for lodge growth in the community should be no more than 50 to 60 units per year. This rate of expansion of our lodging tracks well with the projections we employed in the development of our short term accommodation report, which indicated the need for only a moderate level of growth in new lodging, phased to coincide with the expansion of ski capacity. This rate also recognizes that the residential sector can also Memo: Update of GMP'Quotas Page Six May 12, 1982 contribute to our short term accommodations inventory (as for example, with the 700 South Galena project you recently approved). Finally, this rate recognizes that two projects (Hotel Jerome, Highlands Inn) have received conceptual approval to rehabilitate a total of about 100 rooms and to add about 150 new rooms to our inventory, which mitigates the need for further growth in new lodging, but which should provide additional competition for the lodging industry to induce better quality and value in our accommodations inventory. This rate of growth also meets the second test, concerning the adopted growth rate of 3.47%. Our recent survey of short term accommodations documents that there are 1,350 traditional lodge rooms and dorm rooms in the Aspen Metro Area, and 3.5% of this total equates to 45 to 50 new rooms. If this total were to be split straight across jurisdictional lines, it would lead to a quota of about 40 units in Aspen and about 5 in Pitkin County, since the vast majority of the existing units are in the City. The split indicated above will not pass the third test, which is the need to reasonably relate the quota to the phasing of new development. The 18 unit quota in the City has been criticized as incompatible with the phasing of quality lodging. Furthermore, in the interest of providing incentives for the demolition and reconstruction of existing units lacking in quality, it may be necessary to permit some expansion of a number of lodges. Therefore, it is recommended that the lodge quota for the City of Aspen be raised to 35 units per year. The quota for the County can therefore be adjusted to 20 units per year and still meet the overall sustainable target rate. These rates will still require that large projects be awarded several years of quota, which, given the current status of the demand for tourist rooms, would appear desirable and in the interests of economic balance in this sector of the community. Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to City Council that the growth management quotas be revised to coincide with the methodology contained within this memorandum. Should you concur with the Planning Office, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to recommend that City Council adopt the following quotas as amendments to Section 24-11.1 of the Municipal Code: a) Within all zone districts, thirty-nine (39) residential units; b) Within all zone districts, thirty-five (35) lodge units; c) Within the CC and C-1 zone districts, fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of commercial and office space; d) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, nine thousand (9,000) square feet of commercial and office space; e) Within the 0 zone district, six thousand (6,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and f) Within the CL and all other zone districts, five thousand (5,000) square feet of commercial and office space." ... , MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Update of GMP Quotas DATE: May 3, 1982 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce you to the principles the Planning Office has been developing which we propose should form the basis of the updated growth management quota system. .The new quotas will complete the round of revisions begun last year when we changed the commercial, residential and lodge scoring systems and will leave only the GMP exception procedures to be reviewed later this spring. Please note that the work session to consider the new quotas on May 11 is only the first of several meetings on this subject, to be highlighted by a public hearing on this topic at your regularly scheduled meeting on May 18. The Concept of GMP Quotas There are several reasons that we must look at our quota system at this time. First, when we expanded the coverage of the commercial GMP to include all zones we did not adopt quotas for the new system. Second, there has been a great deal of criticism of the 18 unit lodge quota as being impractical for the phasing of a new lodge. Finally, as part of the GMP update we have been evolving a revised approach to justifying our quotas which is a principal basis for the recommendations we are making for a comprehensive GMP in both the City and County. This approach takes into account the impacts of all types of growth upon the community and proposes to deduct all development from the available quotas. The proposed approach is in recognition of the fact that since we have adopted the GM11P we have had two rates of growth -- one regulated and one not and that this dual growth rate is the primary reason that we have exceeded our quotas in the Metro Area on an annual basis. Each of these considerations helps to explain the rationale for the proposed new quotas. The basic concepts behind the new quotas are as follows: 1. They are based on the ability of the community to sustain growth as a function of our capacity to provide basic services (water, sewer and transportation) and to meet quality of life goals (environmental, economical and social). 2. Ttrey are short term rates of growth which reflect current priorities (i.e., employee housing, quality lodging) and legal obligations (i.e., previously subdivided lots) and therefore will need to be updated regularly as part of a "dynamic" rather than static GMP. 3. They ignore City-County boundaries and reflect a Metro Area perspective due to the interrelated nature of the impacts of development in this area on the community. 4. They represent a fundamental departure from the original premise of GMP quotas which looked at the total buildout potential of the residential, commercial and lodging sectors, based on existing zoning, and allocated 80% of that buildout over a 15 year period. The new quotas do not acknowledge`the ultimate zoning potential as a tacit commitment to the eventual size of our community. Instead, they represent an immediate goal for managed growth, based on historic development trends and perceived growth priorities which must be reviewed in. relation to basic land use and transportation p tanning decisions for the community. A Method For Quota Calculation The Planning Office has developed a methodology for calculating our growth rate based on what we consider to be the most operative constraint to growth in the Metro Area -- sewer capacity. T#ris approach is predicated on the belief that due to the many capital expenditures already facing the community, Memo: Update of GMP Quotas ~p~Q. ,~ ,,,,, ,~ Maye3Tw1982 v,~ e'er } "Q ~ R`,~. , d it is desirable to delay those expansions which we are capable of postponing. 6\.~~P"°w` Clearly, if the community wishes to grow at a faster rate, it can do so, E~w^ ~"~ although at an immediate cost. This approach is also based on our comparative o~- research into other growth management systems across the country which indicates 6 ~ ~-~ that growth limitations due to service constraints are legally justifiable. a,~o '~ ~ • Ati ~. Our current sewage treatment capacity is 3.O million gallons per day (MGD). ;~ The Aspen Metro Sanitation District (AMSD) is planning to expand their facility ~, from 3.0 to 3.2 millions gallons per day (tdGD) this spring. They would like ~ this expansion to last to mid-decade, at which point the plant would be expanded to.4.0 MGD. Due to the cost of this expansion and the difficult choices we will face beyond that point (re-open the old plant near the Post Office, hopefully without odor problems or build a new, expensive regional plat downvalley with uncertain environmental impacts), we view this constraint as a logical tool with which to formulate our quotas. Therefore, the short term goal for growth in the Metro Area is one which permits us to delay the expansion of the AMSD plat to 1984 or 1985 and which will then accommodate growth through the end of the decade. Of course, it will be necessary to monitor progress toward that goal on a regular basis, certainly more frequently than once in five years. The basis for understanding the wastewater constraint is as follows. Peak usage of wastewater in the Aspen Metro Area occurred in December 1980 at 2.9 MGD. At that time the peak population was about 20,000 persons, based on recent census and short term accommodations reports. The wastewater generation per capita is therefore slightly less than 150 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). However, this can be broken down further into its residential and commercial components. As of 1980, there were approximately 6,250 dwelling units in the Metro Area, along with about 1,800,000 square feet of commercial/institutional space. To convert these totals into wastewater generation, engineers commonly use two factors, as follows: ~ 3~e Gi.,.~ S}.o .. 1. An average dwelling unit is comprised of 3 5 persons with each person generating 100-110 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater for domestic ~~ w i purposes. p (q,,~ ~ U 2. Each 5000 square feet of commercial space is equivalent to one resi- ~n..5 ~ dential dwelling unit in terms of water use (and resulting wastewater ~~~ generation). Utilizing these factors, the typical dwelling unit would generate 375 GPD and the entire residential sector would generate about 2.35 MGD. Similarly, the commercial sector would generate about 0.15 MGD, for a total generation of only about 2.5 MGD. The discrepancy between this total and the peak generation of 1980 points out several reasons why we have depleted our sewage treatment capacity more quickly than we anticipated. We believe that the typical dwelling unit in Aspen probably uses more water than the statistical average for the country since this factor usually correlates well to income level. We also believe that this approach ignores an important component of our economy -- day skier visitors and day workers commuting from downvalley. We feel that to be conservative in our facility planning it would therefore be desirable to use 125 GPCD for our generatign factor, resulting in a per dwelling unit generation of 435 GPD and an equivalency factor that 5000 square feet of commercial space also generates 435 GPD. We recognize that there are an almost unlimited variety of scenarios available to evaluate how we will use up the additional increments of 0.3 and 0.8 MGD to take us through the decade. We have chosen an alternative based on historical trends, modified slightly by what we consider to be the coir~nunity priorities at this time -- the need for quality lodging, the need to meet our employee housing shortfall and the need for institutional space (bus maintenance, jail, performing arts). While this approach may appear crude to some, we believe that it is a more meaningful indicator of the community's ability to accommodate growth than was the former approach based on 15 year buildout potential. However, we are prepared to present to you data on the residential, commercial and lodge buildout potential in Aspen so that you can judge how we have proceeded toward depleting that potential. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Three May 3, 1982 'To refresh your memory, it is important that we again summarize the historical growth trends in the Metro Area. Growth records compiled since 1975 (when the original GMP data was collected) indicate that we have experienced, on an annual basis, about 125 new residential units (tourist and permanent resident) and about 70,000 square feet of commercial growth in the Metro Area. The preponderance of this growth has been in the City of Aspen proper, which has experienced about 75 new residential units and 45,000 square feet of commercial space annually. Several variables predispose our ability to affect these growth rates. First of all, we are legally obligated to permit development of single family and/or duplex-units on previously subdivided lots. During the early years of growth management, these units accounted for a large portion of the quota. In recent years, fewer such units have been developed, owing both to high interest rates and the declining number of quality lots which are available for this purpose. Whereas in 1977 and 1978 in the City of Aspen there were 25 to 30 such units developed annually, by 1980 and 1981 this number had dropped to 15 to 20 units annually. This trend, should it continue, will permit us to meet our employee housing shortfall and to maintain a reasonable availability of units for competition within our existing residential quota. A second commitment of the community is comprised of projects which have been approved but not yet. constructed. For example the Marolt Project commits us to 70 new employee units and 30 employee units, while the Smuggler/Pitkin Reserve project commits us to 18 employee units and 19 free market units. Finally, unbuilt projects which have competed under the GMP and are not yet built or expired commit us to 60 free market and 63 employee units as well as about 50,000 square feet of conunercial space. We are also still feeling the effects of having the Office, NC and SCI zones outside of the GMP, since several projects were already underway or had received building permit approval simultaneous to our expansion of the comprehensiveness of the GMP. With these several caveats in mind, we believe that it is unrealistic to expect that our residential growth rate will decline substantially in the near future. In fact, if we are to provide incentives to achieve quality lodging for our tourist economy, it is likely that we will have to experience some growth in this sector, which has not occurred to any extent in the recent past. Therefore, it will be necessar to rovide for about 125 to 150 new units per year (resident and tourist with a likely mix being 50 to 60 lodge units 35 to 40 free market units and 40 to 50 employee housing units, across the entire Metro Area. To accommodate this level of growth within our service constraints, it is also necessary that we limit the rate of commercial growth to about 45-55 OOO square feet across the Aspen Metro Area not only because of the direct impact of commercial growth on services, but also because it is a primary generator of employee housing need which will fuel our residential growth rate. Following is an analysis of how this growth rate compares to our sewage treatment capacity constraint: 135 residential units x 435 GPD = 58,725 GPD 50,000 S. F. Commercial x 435/5000 = 4,350 GPD Total = 63,075 GPD This growth rate will deplete the 0.3 MGD of capacity which remains in the AMSD plant in five years (1985), presuming full occupancy of the available units during the peak usage period. However, this rate does not take into account at least two other variables which will also deplete the capacity. First, remodels of existing residences which add bedrooms, hot tubs, jacuzzies, clothes and dish washers and similar features all have an impact upon the sewer plant. Second, we are facing at least three major institutional projects outside of the quota system -- the bus maintenance facility, jail and possibly a performing arts center which will also affect our wastewater generations rates. These two factors may necessitate a sewage treatment plant expansion to 4.0 MGD in 1984 rather than 1985, but should not push the next expansion into this decade, even if we generate 70,000 to 80,000 GPD from our growth, since this would permit the additional 0.8 MGD to last 10 or 11 years. Therefore, Memo: Update Page Four May 3, 1982 of GMP Quotas ~~ ~~. ~~ ~~ Gw lA C''~ this alternative can be considered to accommodate our service growth constraint '(for the short term) and may be evaluated by the Planning Commissions, City Council and Board of County Co!nmissioners as to whether it also meets community needs. Following is a detailed analysis of the GMP quotas which emerge from this alternative. Residential GMP Quota The residential quota is comprised of three distinct parts. One component is the previously subdivided lot on which single-fa!nily and duplex units can be built without competition under the GMP. We believe that this component will continue to account for about 15 new units each year. The next component of residential growth is employee housing, which currently is not deducted from the quota. Last year there were 26 employee units produced in the City while the year before there were 88 such units, including 80 at Castle Ridge. It seems clear that with the exception of the very largest projects aimed at eliminating the critical employee housing shortfall (i.e., Castle Ridge, Marolt and Silverking Phase IV) we can accommodate employee housing growth within our quota: The last component of the residential sector is the free market units which are available under the competition system. These units help to meet the need for tourist accommodations and high quality second homes to subsidize employee housing. It is to our advantage to have these units built at a slow pace, commensurate with the nu!nber that remains after accounting for the previous two residential growth components. ~ ~--,~ of ~ ~? s o~ K ~ S - C ..~-5 ~o ~.,~ ~* .-~ ~ f ,. ~.a-..v.e,G-¢- In summary, it appears that we can expect 15-20 units to be developed annually on previously subdivided lots and a similar number of employee units to be built in the smaller, mixed free market/employee housing projects. This should leave a smaller number of units available for competition. Therefore, we recommend that you leave the 39 unit residential quota untouched for the time bein We will be coming forward later this spring with revisions to the GMP exemption procedures such that employee units will be deducted from the residential quota, but with a proviso that these units be exempted from the quota for the infrequent, large project aimed at meeting the employee housing shortfall. However, this provision would also require that if a large project providing a clear community benefit were exempted from the quota, that this section would trigger a complete re-evaluation of our growth rate in recognition of the impact that all development has upon the community. Commercial GMP Quota Based on the recent growth rates of commercial space in Aspen and Pitkin County and because of the competing priorities for growth in the community, the Planning Office believes that this is an appropriate tine to curtail the rate of commercial buildout. As we have indicated above, 50,000 square feet of commercial growth is sustainable based on service constraints. However it should be recognized that this level of growth will generate approximately 200 new employees, at a rate of 4 per 1000 square feet, a moderate factor based on Planning and Housing Office studies. Therefore, new commercial growth will easily utilize the employee housing units we build on ah annual basis, which will leave us in a shortfall situation without the large employee housing projects. To develop commercial quotas for the City of Aspen, we have grouped zone districts together, based on their geographical location and extent, their buildout potential and the similarities among their permitted and conditional uses. The groups identified provide for a maximum of four separate competitions but insure that incompatible zones (CC and SCI for example) will not compete directly with each other to the detriment of the less economically demanding zone. The quotas we recommend be adopted for this year areas follows: ASS o~'" CC and C-1 - 15,000 square feet NC and SCI - 9,000 square feet Office - 6,000 square feet CL and Other - 5,000 square feet Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Five May 3, 1982 This total of 35,000 square feet will leave 15,000 square feet for competition in the County, for a total of 50,000 in the Metro Area, meeting the stated goal. This total therefore meets the first test of being sustainable in terms of the overall growth rate for the community. A second test for these proposed quotas is how well these rates compare with our adopted growth management goal to adhere to a community-wide growth rate of 3.47% (rounded off to .035). This test is based on recent data obtained from the tax assessor's office concerning commercial buildout, as documented below: Approximate Existing Growth Zone Square Footage Rate Total CC/C-1 800,000 x .035 = 28,000 NC/SCI 200,000 x .035 = .7,000 Office 150,000 x .035 = 5,250 Other 100,000 x .035 = 3,500 1,250,000 x .035 = 43,750 Finally, these quotas can be tested as to the ability of a project to be developed within any zone constraint. It can be seen that these quotas will easily support a single new large project or several smaller projects in any zone group which will afford the community an opportunity tb more reasonably accommodate the impacts of this growth than has been occuring recently with the numerous large downtown construction projects tae have experienced. For example, in the office zone district the Planniny Office is aware of two projects (Main and Seventh, the forge Building) which are about to be completed and two others which have building permits. Similarly, in the CC and C-1 zone districts, there are now three projects underway (Park Place, Epicure Plaza and Mill Street Statign) and five others with Gf4P approvals that have yet to build. Finally, there is essentially no likely buildout potential in the NC and CL zone districts while in the SCI zone district, any new project is limited by Section 24-3.6 "Use Square Footage Limitations" which can be accommodated by the 9,000 square foot annual quota. This limit might require multiple year commitments to a large project which would be permissible under our current regulations. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the above square footages be adopted as the commercial quotas for this year. Lodge GMP Quota The same three tests used to derive the proposed commercial quotas can also be used to derive the proposed lodge quota. Based on the comprehensive, sustainable growth rate for the Metro Area, the target for lodge growth in the community should be no more than 50 to 60 units per year. This rate of expansion of our lodging tracks well with the projections we employed in the development of our short term accommodation report, which indicated the need for only a moderate level of growth in new lodging, phased to coincide with the expansion of ski capacity. This rate also recognizes that the residential sector can also contribute to our short term accommodations inventory (as for example, with the 700 South Galena project you recently approved). finally, this rate recognizes that two projects (Hotel Jerome, Highlands Inn) have received conceptual approval to rehabilitate a total of about 100 rooms and to add about 150 new rooms to our inventory, which mitigates the need for further growth in new lodging. This rate of growth also meets the second test, concerning the adopted growth rate of 3.47%. Our recent survey of short term accommodations documents that there are 1,350 traditional lodge rooms and dorm rooms in the Aspen Metro Area, and 3.5% of this total equates to 45 to 50 new rooms. If this total were to be split straight across jurisdictional lines, it would lead to a quota of about 40 units in Aspen and about 5 in Pitkin County, since the vast ~ ,Q majority of the existing units are in the City. ~ i`-~ ,. ~ off' ~~ ~ to (1 n_-.-.ctw. J.r, of c..- ~. ., i .m~. ,~ \ _ , ~.. ti...a~-+-~rvn~-.. Memo: Update of GMP Quotas Page Six May 3, 1982 The split indicated above will not pass the third test, which is the need to reasonably relate the quota to the phasing of new development. The 18 unit quota in the City has been criticized as incompatible with the phasing of quality lodging. Furthermore, in the interest of providing incentives for the demolition and reconstruction of existing units lacking in quality, it may be necessary to permit some expansion of a number of lodges. Therefore, it is recommended that the lodge quota for the City of Aspen be raised to 35 units per year. The quota for the County can therefore be adjusted to 20 units per year and still meet the overall sustainable target rate. These rates will still require that large projects be awarded several years of quota, which, given the current status of the demand for tourist rooms, would appear desirable and in the interests of economic balance in this sector of the community. Summar We realize that this memo presents an overwhelming amount of material for you to digest in a short time period. We will be bringing to your meeting additional material -- both tables and maps to supplement our presentation. Please recognize that this effort represents no more than a first draft for your review and comment as we move toward our upcoming GMP competitions, and in particular, as we prepare for the May 18 public hearing on this topic. W J m Q F- Y F- Z O U Z Y F- f-I d Z W tl M Q N m W O >- !n 2 C7 U Z Q .-~ O K K O a U d N Q F- d p J O ~ S ~ to i--I W Z !Z' t-r 2 f F- U tr Z O F-I O d' W O H U Q N U Z O I-r H J O N W K Z a' O O f- W U U W Z N Q Z W I-+ ~ D O ~ U O J Q Z Z Q Y v ++ o -o In o ~~-•r v ~ lT'O > L I .... v •r 3 C Y Y'O +~ O m of U ~ U U Y C O O O 41 r i Vf i L c 16 i-1 i-~ \ ~ rnN T In c rt) C ~ +> O C 4! O u1 r U •r O N ~ U O r i-1 •r ~ O Y ~ r Or- V r- c •r > In ++ O O d ~ +' Ol +-1 +1 VI E i E o c i 0 0 •r UJ +~ W U 7 a r J= ~ V I 1 1 I 1 N C Ot ^ N rt) In +~ i N N +> N i ~ ~ > O v b U 'O t N 01 O) +~ Y •r vl N C ~ v ^U ~ L d i i-1 O) X U r 4- to N i-) 2 O •r C O W a O I U ~ 1 t6 V1 V r i-1 N 16 O •r UJ T i-1 i i O c O 4- O)•r ~ O N N Y o° Y O rt3 O 10 l0 U M U VI v >1 rn r In ++ v c +~ N r UJ O) •r r V C E T C N U r •r O1•r O •r 7 c N r> •r X ~- VI Q R 7 V S Vl O d 7 •r C C ~ovviEOC•ro W InOd W 2~ WCD r N M d' to l0 v L 1 O r• c Y rC O U •r U O U N L i S- +-1 O) \ VI E N C E c O C V O O •r O V •r +~ •r i to •r i-I O ~- C ~ U a~ r- 10 O 3 to rp d E L E x v++ 2N ND In 1 N O .a R U R N E O N tF . ^ O M I r r M ~ t I i-1 in U r O N 16 y., .r UJ T L i ~ O G O O rn•rrn N N o ° Y o\°O +~ O 16 O b l0 U M V \ UJ N U N N G rlnv v >Inm +~ N O1 rn v ~•r ~ E O •r U T C T C +> O i O)r •r O •r O •r c •r O Vt r> r N r VI N>~ 7 N U i d 7 d O U N L C vrtsdEOEOCido D W NW 2W 2^-+d 2C1] r N M ~' l.[') lp v i I J C i-) O U V ~ N i i i-1 \ N c O C U •r O Y •r i•r +.1 O ~ U YiE i S D IYiI I I V R O In O) i i C d 41 r d•r Y R r- t~ d Y O)•r V1 C +~ N i O V O E ~-+ V \ = In 3 O cF r r Y In O v }I •r i 4- O O O) N o\° +~ O N t0 U N N Y \ r N C v v r In E N Y N Q N ~ rV C Tc r rn +~ o •r In > •r In r In ~ U L VI N d 7 c rt N N~ E 0 0 W N OC7 WSm r- N M V In V ~ ~ r r r-r r-N r OJ r 0~ r 0 I I I I I I ~ t0 d' O) ~ I~ N t 0 N~ N N U"O V "O U~ N i N i N i cn O In O N O W W W W an L N y .. O .. p .. O 41 O +) r OI-+ 0 0) O t 0 c I OUO UOi-1O C 7 U ^N ^ O O \O \I~IF GY\M O) U r U 4- J ~ M U Z O U M V r' i r N i U ~ Y N N ~ J N O O d U 01 ~'-~ a O O U 2 O Q O r6 b U -. U i v p O U J N M Y C O U W J CO Q •- } F- Z O U N Z I- I-+ Z Y W H ~ I-+ O a Z \ W Z ~ W Q d N >- Q K O W Q I J W C.7 Ot W r d' W d O f C7 Y Q E N F- d E W X W x C7 U Z Q I-I O K K O d N Q F- a E E r--I Z H f C7 _Z K O U N Z O rr H U W N W O U J Q Z Z Q _~ o , v - E "O Y O •~ >~ r a 0 0 aT -O O C > C I I I ....r C N r •r C •r J C C C +~ i-~ Q Ip O V O t0 O O N -O N N V E }J •r .n Ol V U U i-~ C +~ C O O L i-~ ~ C N V Q! v t6 •~- ~ i p b N ~ i i i i C C rt5 Yr U r\ v \ \ ~ r ~ Ql N t6 +~ O >~ r >= E N C C rp m c•~ Nrr ++ v O C E c O c O C N •~ O o +~ ~ r N ~ 3 •r O 0 0 •~ O ~ O O N O Yr~ N R•~ N rr U r >_ V r U r E r C •r • y +.> > N - O 3 r rp O O O O a E >Z O +~ N .~- O N +> +~ ~ E i b d E L E i E O E O C N O O i 0 0 "O N +-I E X v +~ Q1 +~ W U• v U 0 i 0 O'd r J Q O N to 4J O N O N 1 1 I I I ~ I I I U W Y O N +~ v L X Q1 i-~ N N ~ 16 •~ •~ C C N Ql i 3 N > > N N O O > N i 1~ N .~ 1] to a~ a~ N ~~ ~o ro i•~ r i-I O r +> N N N V d'O N r0 t0 N N •~ v N L i~ Y L ' N U of N r c m E E a L x E .t cn cn w ~ ~ Oln OM ON r r- r ~ ~ R O N O d O N i i i 4- O W O W O O ~ O O) O O)~ v N N o° i-~ o\° +~ o° J-~ O b O 16 O 10 l0 V l0 U l0 U C \ +~ O \ \ O N C N N >r ~ N N +~ C N ~., N ~ N E v to v o N v E •~ N sv +~ N C U> N O) >>•r 1~ N N m ++ U N C I O r U O i i O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U r i O N •r V O) O) O •~ +~ N ~> •~ O N r N N O r> •~ r N ~> •~ r N C N O ~ N C N E O N v b N v E o b N N E O O t W NW d'U W 2Od' W tn0 W2 W tnOW S 0_Y r N M V Ll7 r N M r N M "D ~In ~a v m N O N V w 1 ~ I ~ 1 Lcl~ W l0 "ON t\ V W • O O O O V C O U C O U C O O O to ++ •~ ~ Y •~ In +-I •r I N L~ I C Y I C Y P T O P T O an T O • +> O i-~ O +~ O U O N V O N V O N N ~ U N ~ R ' d' N ~ C T N N N W +~ r ~--` to N Y • C tp C O O 3> 7 O C i C O O +>M 3 d Ul M O N O O ~ O N N r r- Y N N ~ C Ot i 7 O d •"] Q Q T N ~ Z a--` • O ~ Y I. , O C ~ O N ~•~ U "O w ~ '^ n- Y a' E Y O • U d r V i E E O U N N m 'D O J M