Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Growth Managemnet.1982MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates DATE: November 8, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM ~~''G~C,F U, Introduction During the past 12 months we have adopted substantial revisions to the resi- dential, commercial and lodge development quota systems. At the time of these various legislative initiatives, we chose not to address the question of the annual dates for submission of GMP applications. Now that we have dealt with the substantive issues associated with each of the scoring systems, we feel it is appropriate to come back and look at how well the different submission dates are functioning. Existing Submission Deadlines Following is a description of the annual dates for submission of applications as they presently exist in the Code. Commercial - September 1 Lodge - September 1 Residential - January 1 Rezoning - February 15 and August 15 The Planning Office has evaluated the functioning of these dates and finds them to be inappropriate in the following ways: 1. The simultaneous submission of commercial and lodge GMP applications on September 1 creates difficulties for applicants who are trying to meet deadlines associated with several projects. This difficulty is then transferred to the Planning Office which must allocate substantial staff resources to process the applications. Finally, P & Z agendas in October are crowded due to the GMP and rezoning submission dates such that other applicants are precluded from being placed on agendas in a timely fashion. 2. The Planning Office has received numerous complaints concerning the January 1 residential GMP submission date. Since the Planning Office is always closed on New Year's Day, the effective submission date has been interpreted to be December 31st. This deadline forces applicants to put together their final submissions during Christmas week and to complete them on New Year's Eve which is at least a minor inconvenience. More importantly, the January 1 date makes it difficult for any project to receive final approval in time for the upcoming building season since it only allows about six months for the completion of the review process. Proposed Submission Dates In response to the problems identified above, the Planning Office proposes the following as the new GMP submission dates, to be effective with the upcoming residential development applications: Commercial - August 1 Lodge - October 1 Residential - December 1 While we only propose to move the annual submission dates by one month each, we believe that this change will respond to the problems identified previously. First of all, we have separated the commercial and lodge application deadlines and thereby eliminated the scheduling problems of the simultaneous dates of submission. Second, we have moved the residential application deadline off the January 1 date which is so disliked by all applicants. Finally, as docu- mented by the attached flow chart, by moving the residential development appli- Memo: GMP Submission Dates November 8, 1982 Page Two cation deadline forward by one month we have provided sufficient time for the processing of most residential subdivisions in time for the subsequent building season. Since lodge and commercial developments are not defined as subdivisions, we also feel that sufficient time is available for successful competitions for those allocations to build during the next season, if they so choose. This conclusion is supported by several conversations that we have had with indivi- duals who typically apply for GMP allocations who have voiced their approval of the proposed change in GMP submission dates. Planning Office/Plannin and Zonin Commission Recommendations The Planning Office presented our recommended changes to the GMP submission dates to P & Z on September 28, at which time they concurred with the proposed revision. On October 12 you unanimously approved this Ordinance on first reading. The appropriate motion on second reading is as follows: "Move to adopt on second reading Ordinance 54, Series of 1982." N V r ~ C 2 ~ ~ c ro .~ o •~ r- c..fWa I e N •r ~ i +~ W N ~6 r6 ~ i ~ r ~ d d d 1 Nr I rtf N V .~ C •~ C L V O > > 'p •r N O ' Q Yd U 1 N N 1 ~ N L C •r v b I o > e2f v •.- °' ~ Q Yd'n. I N r 1 3• m 1 f0 N U U U .- C •.- C G O C ~ "O O > > > r- O I O r- •~ W Q +~ d' U U Q +~ 1 N Ol _ N 1 tp N N >_ .~ C 'D O > e2f elf O I U 7 Q +~ d' d C N r _ ~ IC i-1 U V U • ~ • C O C ~ G U ~ O .O Q O O I O V Q i-1 N Q d-1 0) C N •~- L > eb O O I Z a y W ~ J r ! b +~ U Q V U ~ f- C O C ~ a w +> > o ao ~ I _ O U Q i-1 fn Q +> f- Z O~ O t= '-+ f- N •~ L U ~ °~ O N ~"~ (n d N J d 1 d b Q +.1 V . a E ~--~ c ~ ~ a c 7 0 ~ Q N Q i~ } F~-- i--i U '"J N C '"~ L ro ~ .. N J LL J Q Q ,-r ~ U d' W W W p ~ C7 ~-r t6l O O W 7 U J ~ MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates DATE: October 4, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: l[i ~l-l .~%/ ~ Introduction During the past 12 months we have adopted substantial revisions to the~esidential, commercial and lodge development quota systems. At the time of these various legislative initiatives, we chose not to address the question of the annual dates for submission of GMP applications. Now that we have dealt with the substantive issues associated with each of the scoring systems, we feel it is appropriate to come back and look at how well the different submission dates are functioning. Existing Submission Deadlines Following is a description of the annual dates for submission of applications as they presently exist in the Code. Commercial - September 1 Lodge - September 1 Residential - January 1 Rezoning - February 15 and August 15 The Planning Office has evaluated the functioning of these dates and finds them to be inappropriate in the following ways: 1. The simultaneous submission of commercial and lodge GMP applications on September 1 creates difficulties for applicants who are trying to meet deadlines associated with several projects. This difficulty is then transferred to the Planning Office which must allocate substantial staff resources to process the applications. Finally, P & Z agendas in October are crowded due to the GP1P and rezoning submission dates such that other applicants are precluded from being placed on agendas in a timely fashion. 2. The Planning Office has received numerous complaints concerning the January 1 residential GMP submission date. Since the Planning Office is always closed on New Year's Day, the effective submission date has been interpreted to be December 31st. This deadline forces applicants to put together their final submissions during Christmas week and to complete them on New Year's Eve which is at least a minor inconvenience. More importantly, the January 1 date makes it difficult for any project to receive final approval in time for the upcoming building season since it only allows about six months for the completion of the review process. Proposed Submission Dates In response to the problems identified above, the Planning Office proposes the following as the new GMP submission dates, to be effective with the upcoming residential development applications: Commercial - August 1 Lodge - October 1 Residential - December 1 While we only propose to move the annual submission dates by one month each, we believe that this change will respond to the problems identified previously. First of all, we have separated the commercial and lodge application deadlines and thereby eliminated the scheduling problems of the simultaneous dates of submission. Second, we have moved the residential application deadline off the January 1 date which is so disliked by all applicants. Finally, as documented by the attached flow chart, by moving the residential development application Memo: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates Page Two October 4, 1982 deadline forward by one month we have provided sufficient time for the processing of most residential subdivisions in time for the subsequent building season. Since lodge and commercial developments are not defined as subdivisions, we also feel that sufficient time is available for successful competitions for those allocations to build during the next season, if they so choose. This conclusion is supported by several conversations that we have had with individuals who typically apply for GMP allocations who have voiced their approval of the proposed change in GMP submission dates. Planning Office/Planning and Zonin Commission Recommendations The Planning Office presented our recommended changes to the GMP submission dates to P & Z on September 28, at which time they concurred with the proposed revision. Should you concur with our recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to read Ordinance 57', Series of 1982." "Move to approve on first reading Ordinance $~, Series of 1982." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Ordinance 66 - 2nd Reading - Residential GMP - 1 / DATE: October 19, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: lL-"/-~< G l- w~E/~~<< <- T Background: As you recall, we held a study session!wi h you on Oc/~ober 14 to hear your concerns with the proposed anges to a Residen- tial GMP scoring system, Your comments hat day indicated that the following were areas which needed further investigation: 1. The minimum size requirement for dwelling units in the code may be excessive and thereby force developers into providing units which are larger (and correspondingly more expensive) than are necessary for employees. 2. The proposal by Mark Danielsen to relate the size of employee units to the size of free market units as a ratio should be further reviewed to determine the worst case possibilities of this new scoring methodology. 3, The provision related to an applicant^s previous performance should be clarified to insure that it is a one-time only penalty. 4. An analysis should be made of alternative approaches to reducing the apparent discretion which exists in the scoring system. Proposed Ordinance The Planning Office has researched each of these questions and Changes: is proposing several changes to the Residential GMP Ordinance based on your comments. Each of these issues is discussed below. 1. Minimum Size Requirements The table below lists the minimum size requirements for dwelling units from the City and County regu1ati'ons. Unit type Studio One-bedroom Two-bedroom Three-bedroom City Minimum Square Footaqe 400 600 750 950 County Minimum $qudre Footaqe 400 500 700 1000 As you can see, contrary to what had been previously thought, the recently enacted County Housing Guidelines (Resoluti'on 81-44) are less than, and not equal to those, in the City, except for studios, where the size is equals and three bedroom uni s, wftere the Gounty roeq~i~esa slightly-larger size. unit. 4ie recommend th~rt a single, consi~s.tent dPproach to this issue would 6e to adopt tfie same guidelines as used i;n the County. This approachl seems particularly desi~ratile in light of the carrent proposals tp merge. the City and County Housing Off ices dnd,eyentually, to develop a uniform set of housing guidelines, After talking to the Housing Director and Building Inspector, we would not recommend lowering the. minimum size of a studio unit. Tlie Uniform Building Gode states that the minimum size Memo: Ordinance 66 - 2nd Reading - Residential GMP Page Two October 19, 1981 fora living area in an efficiency is 220 square feet. This does not include the space necessary fora bathroom or a closet (say, another 100 square feet) and depending on the arrangement, might not include a kitchen either (possibly adding the remaining 80 square feet). The Housing Director also noted that with the required minimum amenities of a dwelling unit, an arbitrary reduction of, for example, 50 square feet in living space, would not make much of a difference as regards the cost of producing the unit. 2. FAR/Bedroom Scoring Criteria The criteria for scoring the employee housing proposed of an applicant has always been the determination of the ratio of employee bedrooms to free market bedrooms in the project and employee FAR to free market FAR in the project, with. the lower number of points from either calculation being the determinant of the award of points. This procedure has been brought into question because it forces the developer to provide an equal amount of free market and employee space in the project and makes it impossible to subsidize the cost of the price restricted housing. A proposal has been made to change the evaluation to one which is based simply on the number of bedrooms in the project and not on the FAR relationship, This approach. has the advantage of placing the emphasis on the number of units we will 6e getting, and not on their size. It is not to our advantage to require that excessively large employee units 6e produced, since our guidelines are based on square footage and will result in expensive units. It is also not to our advantage to permit free market units to be built at an unlimited size in return for mi'ni'mum sized employee units. Therefore, we suggest that employee units 6e some minimum percentage pf the size of free market units, with the minimum size of the units being protected 6y our size guidelines. The Planning Office has investigated three possible size ratl`os. between employee and free market units, these being 25 percent, 33 percent and 50 percent.. We find that it is impractical to try to relate the size of employee and free market space on a per umt basis, i'n that it forces a developer into a possibly unreali'sti`c development program (i',e., if you want to bni'ld a two bedroom free market unit, then you must 6vi'ld a two bedroom employee unit of a specific size, whether or not tfii`s meets a community need at this ti.me). 4ie think we would 6e better off looking at the aggregate amount of employee and free market space, allowing the developer the freedom to come up with a program which wprks. We think. that developers should 6e required to Gave employee floor area equal no less than 50 percent of free market floor area (that i's, at least 1/3 of the development as employee space). Thi's approach sfiou1d provide enough flexi'bili'ty and incentive to make the Robin Hood concept work. better and yet protect us snffici'ently in terms of the type and affordability of u m`ts we get, We hope, eventually, to move to a scoring system wftereby points are only awarded when a developer provides employee ani'ts of the. size and price range in which our survey shows we are deficient. Npwever, until that time we believe that the system we pro- pose will be an improvement over the current procedures.. 3, Ppeyious Performance Tkie approach toward an applicant~5 previous performance which was taken in the commercial GN1P, that is, a penalty of up to minus fire points, will not work in the residential G19P where Memo: Ordinance 66 - 2nd Reading - Residential GMP Page Three October 19, 1981 90 points are available in the competition. Instead, the Planning Office proposes a one-year penalty on subsequent applications by a developer, to go into effect on the second anniversary from the original competition. The attached chart explains how this system would work. The revised language in the ordinance now indicates that this penalty on anew application would be a one-time only penalty. 4. Reducing Discretion One of the key concerns of P & Z, City Council and the Planning Office regarding the scoring system has been the degree of discretion present in the points categories and criteria, Of particular concern has been the bonus points section and those criteria which. are subjective rather than objective in nature. We have attempted to limit the discretion available to P & Z members 6y reducing the number of bonus points available from 15 to 7 (.from 15% of the points available to 7.5% of those. available). We have also clarified many of our criteria and made them more easily measurable to reduce the ambiguity in the number of points that should be awarded. Nevertheless, several suggestions Gave been made tv further reduce the discretion available i'n the scoring system. One suggestion is that following the scoring by P & Z, that we eliminate the high. and low score for each applicant and only average the remaining scores. We would not support this proposal since it could lead to a situation where if only four or five P & Z members show up at a meeting, then two or three individuals will 6e responsible for the scoring.. A second proposal emerges from the system employed by the County P & Z in their GMP scoring. They score all the applications individually but require that a consensus be reached as to the use of discretionary points, with all members voting on the number of points to 6e awarded and unanimity required before points can 6e awarded. The Planning Office feels that thi`s~~~tter approach has proven to work well previously i~ the County and should also do so in the Ci y, However, we also recognize that there may be many other alternatives to improving this part of the GMP scoring system.. P & Z, at their most recent meeting, expressed a strong interest in discussing this issue and providing you with alternatives to consider. We would therefore recommend that you defier any action to further modify the Residential GMP scor~~ng system beyond the changes already in the proposed ordinance. . _ ~,. a n v v J sv -o Z S J 3 ~ o v o n: V. VI C1 J• fD (D v ~ n (~ ct r. AI ~} H r ~ 3 O V+ ~' O ~ M ~ 1 O 1 t+ (D N n n v -v 'o z ~ o n ~ o v ~~ ~. N ~ c, . m m v ... ~ (7 rr ~ `~ r-i o ~ ~ v r+ ~ ~ o n. ~ ~ I o ' E ~ ~ m N ~ m N I I W cn D G C S "O n n n r o- v ~o o co v o J ~ N a ~ -~ In o_ J r. O O (D t+ 7 n 3 N £ c'h v ~ (D rF 7 c f+ v n ~* o n ~- v t0 J "O O 91 J 'O 7 1n v .t J N O ~p ~ N v ~"~ S n a O -h Sn O T ~ 'a -ry O C -h O 'O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Z ~ -'• ~ 'O N f1 v v. P+ N . v ~ 7 ry N (p N O c* n tp ~ A (D 7 h-i ~ 1 ~ In I v m = h tD N D: N r v cT 1 O Ol Z 1 m v Z Z fD X 1 (D v z n v r n z v m C O C (n m T O 3 n z (~ m T O f 3 m a MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Residential GMP Code Amendment _ , ~%,..-/ DATE: September 22, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM• ~t~ /( ,-~rl~, .-ti ~- As has been discussed with you at numerous previous meetings, the Planning Office has been taking a careful look at the Growth. Management Quota System in an effort to revise those sections which are out of date. We have already brought before you some major changes for the office and commercial GMP compe- tition and have instituted several significant procedural reforms through Ordinances 48 and 49, Series of 1981. We are now bringing before you certain changes to the residential GMP competition which should address several problems encountered during previous competitions. The intent of this code change is not to propose major policy shifts of the type you dealt with regarding the commercial GMP, but instead to initiate reforms of the existing procedures, which have been found to be somewhat inadequate. The nature of these reforms is as follows: 1. The scoring categories entitled "availability of public facilities and services" and "availability of social facilities and services" have been reorganized. The revised categories have eliminated certain criteria which are no longer appropriate (child care, recycling, handicapped design and police protection) and introduced an increased emphasis on designs which are compatible with the neighborhood, which provide open space relief and which are adjacent to existing services in town. As the attached Figure 1 indicates, these changes are minor in nature and reflect comparable point values for the basic scoring categories both before and after the revisions take effect. 2. The formulas for awarding points have been slightly altered so that they more clearly reflect the concept that development which has a minimal fiscal impact on the community should be encouraged while development which requires costly service extensions should not. 3, The employee housing scoring categories have been modified to clarify existing administrative policies and to take into account projects which displace existing employee units by construction of new GMP units. The actual points available for employee housing developments (40) has not been changed. 4. Anew basis for an application being judged ineligible for review -- an applicant"s previous performance -- has been developed. This procedure replaces the approach taken in the co~nercial GMP, where up to minus five points were awarded to applicants who have not submitted plans to the Building Department for a previous GMP competition within two years of the date of that previous submission. Minus five points in a competition of almost 100 total points would have been an ineffectual method of dealing with this pressing problem which relates to 125 approved residential units which have not been built. Planning Office staffvaill be available at your meeting on Monday to elaborate further on the proposed changes to the residential GMP competition. O1 C i O U N O_ U R Y C Ol 'O N N r N O al n r O ~ i ro O_ F- V C ro m r Y W W O C O r i ro O. E O U N I Y I II O r , '~ . .. I ~ ~ . N I O_ I 1F M N +~ 0.... i Y C ^ O i • e ec -p O O C E ~ ~ ~ In o_ v N ro I 7 N O ^ E M s= o Q `° ° m ~ ~ m rn c i U o ro v o c 7 L0 •r O' 011E C i +~ ~ N C ~ ro i +~ U --~ O N .r v 14-• S '- ~ C 01 O_ o c o ro N U o r C "O O > ro NO O C N r- i •r ro _.,~_~.. m_.. I i N Y O . o ~ ~ O i E 7 E . ~ ro ~ J N I ++ 3 ro O1 i v. o 0 I -~N ~ O ~ 0 7 IA •- d r 1 £ S U U U U E r ~ OE v y v ++ J O 5= O U i i. UJ i •r I v i C O O+~ O O r'I O ~ y"' i 11" ~ O. N - ~ N N O N N N V O C r• +~ U Y V Y'O C' o c c ~ ~ ~ r r E H E •r O O O 7 ~ • ~ g a a n.. 'I E •r O V N N N ~ i C D_ ro 1 1 1 ~ v 7 Q .~ i v~ C O) O G •r •r N U r c >ro O C i •r d 1~ N O d Q N ro v N N 0 Q N ro E ro N N Y C O d 7 E I E X ro N Y G .~ O E 7 E X ro I ~ . ..~. N---.. Y I c I O N ~ ~ i C O O O'O •r ~ V tF C N Q ro 7 cv ~ C O N > O Y 2 e6 E ~ ~ v ~ X i E E ro > dl O ro ~ O 'O U N i O C - ~ r• ro N C N I r UJ l O N N U ~. ro U! N i i '~ •r +~ +~ •r O N r ' N 01 - i •r •r r N O O ' cn ', O +~ U N U • +•1 ~'-~ O~ ~ N N 1F L ro 7 'O O ~ N C N C +1 +~ 4- +~ U1 i- ro~ v T v a i~~ n ~ i + m T i E r N +~ O. ro C 1F ro i•> +1 O 7 r N U N•r U rr E U N '- r C •r E^ L •r m rUVUUrn~• • rob x U U U • r '- ' N ro O ro .O r •r N E •r •r 7 O t •r QJ U/ ~ i 1F ro V '. aO_ U~ i'O d N > ro Q LL I I I l 1 I I I __..___ N U v r V ~ > O_ U1 >_ 1n O C i 1F • rn I Ov Y•r I E O U N 7 ro ~ 0 ~ E r- ~ " 0 i r N N O O X r Q1 O) i 01 ro ro a~ T s E ~~ i i C N O) U ro r • ro i i ro w Y 3 lUN ro N it ro O C ro U 3 N v 1F d i N M > R Q 11 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I U 1 •r ro N ~ ~ y L Z T i r• E N O ~ U+~ Oro 7 ^T(n Q i•r Y E M Y U N C N r t 0 •r v E b Y~ i r R O EE V ' ~ O .n i •r .. E Oro N LO E O O. d U ~ M i 7 O_ N 1 1 __ - ~ _- C O N N ^O N 1F v O Y it 7 ro 1 _ C 'O •r O ~ C N O •r Ol U .c .a •r ro i ro E '. i 'r N O. O +~ 7 ..O ro V >1 N N ~ L +~ ~ I t Q p1r C U X Of E d i •r N N u'f ro '~. o++a~ rov a1~ E ' N U •r C i i C N Ol •1-1 O) M 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N I C N O C 4-•r , pl O ~ Y 'r ~ U N N '. ~ UJ N •- ~ • S 7 U U ro•r N O 01i 0 ~ O +~ O E '' I W ~ ~ Y I ~ i N ~ i i C U X ' roU o iY ro ro ~E N i a ,3ro S. a i • ro N i•r ro O rt5 1] V ; N V 1F d i N > 7 C O- ro 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T i C N C N Or a ~ Oro ~ Oti C O +~ i ro al ~"1 Y i ro 7 Y N ~ 1 • ro U ro v 7 N r •N N ~" r ~ '• C ro Nib ro r•r ro i Cro r ro i O Q X U > U O Q N W U ~ W W ~- Z - RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOtiMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. 81 - WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 48, Series of 1978, creating a Growth Management Quota System controlling residential, commercial and lodge development in the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, although minor changes have been made to the residential GMP scoring procedures in previous years, an overall review of the scoring cate- gories has not previously occurred, and WHEREAS, experience with four previous years of residential competition has indicated that many of the existing scoring criteria and formulas are not relevant or are evaluated by inappropriate measures,- and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does desire that revi- sions to the residential GPiP scoring system be accomplished in order that the basis for awarding ports to residential proposals may be_clarified and so that projects which are consistent with adopted policies can be encouraged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen recommends that City Council repeal and reenact Section 24-71.4 of the Municipal Code as follows: Sec, 24-11.4 Residential development application. No residential development shall occur within the city, except residential development exempted pursuant to section 24-11.2, until the proposed development shall have received a development allotment pur- suant to the following procedures: (a) All applicants for residential development allotments shall file with the city planning office on or before January lst of each year a completed application, which shall be submitted with the following maps, documents and information: (1).A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: jaa) Type of water system to be used including information on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess capacity available from such public system; the location of the nearest main; the estimated water demand of the development or building.• (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, 'if public, the e>:cess capacity available from such public system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; the expected demand of-the development or building. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters. (dd) Type of fire protection systems to be used, (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.); distance to the nearest. fire station and its average response time. (ee) Total development area; type of housing or development proposed; number of units including employee housing expected price range of sale or rental; the distance from the proposed development to the nearest elementary, middle and high school; the distance to existing school bus routes. (ff) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed development; description of type and condition of roads to serve such development; 'total number of motor vehicles expected to use or be stationed in such development hours of principal daily usage of adjacent roads; oa: and off-site parking to be supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any. auto disincentive tech- . piques incorporated in such proposed development. (ggj Location relative to proposed or existing parks, play- grounds, hospitals, airports, mass transit systems and estimated increased usage of such facilities by reason of the proposed development. (hh) Location relative to proposed development of retail and service outle±s and estimated increase demands on such outlets by reason of the proposed development. f~' (ii) Effects of tt:e proposed development. on adjacent uses and land uses in the vicinity of the project. (jj) The proposed construction schedule including, if appli- cable, a schedule for phasing construction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings -in sufficient detail to show building size, height, materials, insulation,. fireplaces, solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of units, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development Site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to insure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, path- . ways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description and location of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning districC boundary lines, if any, (b) The planning officb shall evaluate all development allotment's applications during the early vaeeks of January, reject those that are ineligible under 'section 24-11..3(c), and present its • and zoning comnic m no later r~~onnuendations to the planning tanning and than February lst of each year or at the conunissi~~l~s finto regular meeting subsequent to that date. The p zoning commission shall revic~'teriapand`Poiotsschedule with consideration the following areas of concern: respect to each of the following (1) Availability of public facilities and services (licati~onl2 ; points). The conanission shall coubldic1facilitPes and services,. k with respect to its impact upon p to the following ~, and shall rate each development according - formula: p __ project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense l __ Project may be handled by existing level of seri~~antn ' - the area, or any service improvement by the aPPeneral benefits the project only and not the area in 9 Z se~vice in angiven~areaf improves the quality of The following services shall be ,rated accordingly- (aa) Water (maximus stemntosprovidedfornthehneedsaoftthe proe • water supp Y y posed diveWa~e~ntoathe development without system~exten- to supp Y installed by the developer, lions beyond those normally u rading. and without treatment plant or other facility P9 (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose ublicesewagesdisposal proposed development and, if a p system is to be used,the capacity of-the system to serve the development withou~he developernsandswbthout • those normally installed by u rading. treatment plant or other facility P9 (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the dis- capacity of the drainage facilitiesrooosedgdevelopment . pose of the surface runoff of the p P without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. (dd) Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire Protection according to the established response standards of esta6PPshing priate district without theadditiontof major equipment a new station or requiring to an existing station. ' design (maximum 2 points) considering the provi- aces (ee) Parking lion of an adequate number of offs tosed development to meet the requirements of the p P and considering the design °faveddsuPface,wconvenience to visual impact, amount of p .and safety. • (ff) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major street lir.l:zge5 to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantiall~helexistgng ' existing traffic patterns or oveofl~ro~iding increased street system or the necessity road mileage and/or maintenance.. (2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw 2 -- Indicates. an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design The following features shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of siie, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circu- lation and increased safety and privacy. (cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insula- tion, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and coiling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy .sources, (dd) Trails (maxi.mum 3 points) considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provision of links to existing parks and trail systems, wherever feasible, (ee) Green space (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and sur- rounding developments. (3) Proximity to.suppo.rt services (maximum 6 points). The commis- sion shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: (aa) Public transportation (maximum 3 points) 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route, 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking dis- tance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- project is located within two blocks walking dis- tance of an existing city or county bus route, (bb) Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points). The planning office silo-11 make available a map depicting the comrercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the projectfrom these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking dis- • tance of the commercial facilities in town, 3 -- Project is located within t~•ro blocks vral4:ing dis- tance of the con:~:;~ercial foci"lities in to~srn, ~. ~4) Provi•sion for low, moderate and middle income housing (maxi- mwn 40 points), (aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to deed restrict all or a portion of his develop- ment for a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sale price teens within housing price guidelines estab- lished by the city council and to occupancy limitations within housing income-eligibility guidelines established by the city council. (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; 'Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate irLCOme occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. For the purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall mean one (1) percent of the total floor area and one (1) percent of the total number of bedrooms within the development with the lower total points from either the floor area or number of bedrooms of employee housing deter- mining the points assigned to each project. For the purposes of this section, a studio shall. be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. (cc) To be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the lov+, moderate and middle income housing units must comply with the following size limitations or be restricted to rental and sale price terms no greater than that allowa4~le had the housing units com- plied with the following size limitations: Minimum Maximum Unit Square Footage Square Footage Studio 400 600 One-bedroom 600 800 Two-bedroom 750 1,000 Three-bedroom 950 1,400 or larger . add) When an applicant agrees to restrict only a portion of his development to low, moderate or middle income housing and the portion restricted is located adjacent to an unrestricted portion, to be eligible for points within the provisions of this section the adjacent portions of the development shall be constructed of the same exterior building materials with a compatible exterior architec- tural style. (ee) The deed restrictions created above may be removed or amended by agreement between the property ovmer(s) and the city council ,upon the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission. No legal action sha71 lie to compel the city council to agree to such removal. (ff) Should a proposed residential development cause the dlSplaCClnE'nt of existing employee housing, def fined as units vrhicPi for tiic previous lf, u;or,ths have rented or have hcen sold at rates vrhich fall.vrithn the adopted ,~ d housing price guidelines of the City of Aspen, then the points assigned in section (bb) above shall be based on the net additool andenot simply on theagrossbnumbersof the housing p units to be constructed. A net addition of employee housing to the pool is defined as the conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status or the con- struction of a new deed restricted unit. maximum 10 points) ~5) Provision for unique financing (aa) The cotnnission shall assign points to eac~oaram~alltorho agrees to sell unddevelopment tonqualified 9ndividuals a portion of his income- as established by the city council within housing • eligibility guidelines. (bb) schedulehall be assigned according to the following 95 percent applicant financing Point s Unit Studio 1/2 One-bedroom 1 Two-bedroom or larger 1 1/2 100 percent applicant financing Unit Point s Studio l 2 One-bedroom 3 Two-bedroom or larger (cc) 7o be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the niort9age offered by the ap310ica~carsuor nu~re, freely assumable for a term of thirty ( ) Y at an interest rate of 12°~ or an interest rate equal to the current rate of the federal Home Loan MortgagetCsubora- tion, as determined on the date of preliminary p mission. The lesse~hefapplicant andtthere sha]1 beano be that offered by The monthly closing points and no prepayment penalty. amortization for t~eCeo9U9delineswhichlhastbeentdesignated employee housing p for the unit. (6) Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) (aa) The commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the subs tan-• tive criteria of sections 24-11.4(b}(1), (2) and (3), but has also exceeded the proverallsdesign meritingorecog- and achieved an outstanding nition, award additional bonus points not exceeding twenty percent (20q) of the total points awarded under sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3). Any commission member awarding bonus points shall prubldic hearin9erecord. justification of that award for the p (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public identifyathehnumbereoffpoints assh9nedbby himtunde~~each~of thell criteria outlined in sections 24-11.4(b)(1)> (2)> (3)' (4)' (5) and (6), and the total number of points awar<;ed by all members, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute the total points at'~theepointshawerdedcto eaeh site shallnbe weighted or more sites, as to the numher of units to be constructed on each site an a ,> weighted value calculated for the points l"n each category, AnY project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24-11,4(b)(1), (2), (.3) and (4), shall no longer be considered for a development allotment .and the application shall tie considered denied, (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the conN~is- Sion shall be forwarded to the city council on or before March lst of each year. '(e) In the event thatny applicant is awarded points for middle, moderate and 1o~a income housing, the commission may impose, as a condition for receiving points under section 24-11.4(b)(3), limitations on rental or sale or impose such other terms or _ conditions reasonably related to achieving the purposes of section 24-11.4(b)(3); and may, in establishing such terms and conditions, seek the advice of the local housing authority. (f) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider. any .challenges thereto by applicant's provided, however, that the city council review shall 6e limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of. the public hearing by the. planning and zoning commission: (g) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may change the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall, by resolution and prior. to April 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those appli- cants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the .zoning, building or other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments shall be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (h} No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11.4(a), amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial. part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24-11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen that it recommends that City Council repeal and reenact Section 24-11.3(c) of the Municipal Code as follows: (c) The Planning Office shall reject any application for development allotment which fails to: (1) Satisfy minimum utility or access requirements; (2) Comply with any approved master plan for the development area; (3) Comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulation of the City of Aspen; or (4) Satisfy the requirement that an applicant who holds a previous allocation within ttie same development area (i.e., residential, office/conmiercial, or lodge) must submit building plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within two years of the deadline for ttae submission of the original application to the Planning Office for that Gt4P allocation. i y roved this eighth day of September, 1981 by the Aspen Planning and j ~~ APP .'.L„~ng Conanission. ASPEN PLANNING AWD ZONING COMMISSION 8y' Chairman ~` ~ Olo Hedstrom, ,c ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates DATE: September 20, 1982 Introduction During the past 12 months we have adopted substantial revisions to the residential, commercial and lodge development quota systems. At the time of these various legislative initiatives, we chose not to address the question of the annual dates for submission of GMP applications. Now that we have dealt with the substantive issues associated with each of the scoring systems, we feel it is appropriate to come back and look at how well the different submission dates are functioning. Existing Submission Deadlines Following is a description of the annual dates for submission of applications as they presently exist in the Code. Commercial - September 1 Lodge - September 1 Residential - January 1 Rezoning - February 15 and August 15 The Planning Office has evaluated the functioning of these dates and finds them to be inappropriate in the following ways: 1. The simultaneous submission of commercial and lodge GMP applications on September 1 creates difficulties for applicants who are trying to meet deadlines associated with several projects. This difficulty is then trans- ferred to the Planning Office which must allocate substantial staff resources to process the applications. Finally, P & Z agendas in October are crowded due to the GMP and rezoning submission dates such that other applicants are precluded from being placed on agendas in a timely fashion. 2. The Planning Office has received .numerous complaints concerning the January 1 residential GMP submission date. Since the Planning Office is always closed on New Year's Day, the effective submission date has been interpreted to be December 31st. This deadline forces applicants to put together their final submissions during Christmas week and to complete them on New Year's Eve which is at least a minor inconvenience. More importantly, the January 1 date makes it difficult for any project to receive final approval in time for the upcoming building season since it only allows about six months for the completion of the review process. Proposed Submission Dates In response to the problems identified above, the Planning Office proposes the following as the new GMP submission dates, to be effective with the upcoming residential development applications: Commercial - August 1 Lodge - October 1 Residential - December 1 While we only propose to move the annual submission dates by one month each, we believe that this change will respond to the problems identified previously. First of all, we have separated the commercial and lodge application deadlines and thereby eliminated the scheduling problems of the simultaneous dates of submission. Second, we have moved the residential application deadline off the January 1 date which is so disliked by all applicants. Finally, as documented by the attached flow chart, by moving the residential development application Memo: GMP Submission Page Two September 20, 1982 Dates - Code Amendment deadline forward by one month we have provided sufficient time for the processing of most residential subdivisions in time for the subsequent building season. Since lodge and commercial developments are not defined as subdivisions, we also feel that sufficient time is available for successful competitions for those allocations to build during the next season, if they so choose. Plannino Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to City Council that the following dates be adopted for submission of GMP applications and that the appropriate dates be substituted throughout Sections 24-11.4, 24-11.5 and 24-11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code: Residential - December 1 Commercial - August 1 Lodge - October 1 P•1EMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman RE: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing DATE: August 11, 1981 Applications to compete for the 1982 City Residential GMP Quota are due to be submitted to the Planning Office on January 1, 1982. Past experience with the residential GP1P scoring system indicates that many of the existing criteria are not relevant or are evaluated by inappropriate measures. Recent experience in revising the commercial and office GMP scoring system provides a model of how to approach the issues of modifying the scoring system and improving upon its administration. Vie have attached a copy of the existing residential GMP scoring system for your review as to the existing categories in which an application is evaluated. The Planning Office feels that three basic changes are necessary for the residential scoring system: 1. Reorganize the categories entitled "availability of public and social facilities and services" to eliminate certain criteria which no longer are considered public priorities and to establish new criteria which are pertinent to the development of residential areas in Aspen. 2. Alter the formulas for awarding points so that they more clearly reflect the concept that development should be encouraged which minimizes the fiscal bur- den to the community while discouraging projects which require costly extensions of public services. 3. Some minor modifications need to be made to the employee housing evaluation to include displacement of existing employee units in the competition of points awarded and to clarify the evaluation procedures. Based on these three points, following is the scoring system proposed for the residential GMP competition, with notations made identifying those portions which have been revised or newly created based on your comments at the last meeting. (b) 1. Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 12 points). The com- mission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense n~ 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any ~~~ service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. ,.-. Memo: Residential August 11, 1981 Page Two GP1P Code Amendment Public Hearing (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to pro- vide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. (ee) Parking design (maximum 2 points) considering the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the require- ments of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, con- venience and safety. (ff) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. 2. Quality of design (maximum 15 points, The commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each n ¢.~a ,^-~ project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: S X02..-~ ItR+w g,,,* Psesc~l.oM 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design Q P-u+.o~ 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw +~ Sec~A~ FA "~ ~~~•• 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design Ca~e.~,R.~ 3 -- Indicates an excellent design The following features shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points) considering the com- patibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under- grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for effi- ciency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. (cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and coiling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. (dd) Trails (maximum 3 points). considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways or the provision of links to existing parks and trail systems. (ee) Green space (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of vegetated, usable open space on the project site itself. 3. Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points}. The commission shall consider each application with. respect to its proximity to public transpor- '~~~ 7 tat ion and community commercial locations and shall rate each development ~w Rqa„` ,p by assigning points according to the following formula: C,A~~oa~ (aa) Public transportation (maximum 3 points) 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from a bus stop. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Publ%c Hedri,ng August 11, 1981 Page Three 3-- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bUS route. (bb) Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points) 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commerc%al facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercialfaciliti:es in town. 4. Provision for low, moderate and middle income housing (maximum 40 points). (aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to deed restrict all or a portion of his development for a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sale price terms within housing price guidelines established by the city council and to occupancy limitations within housing income-eligibility guidelines established by the city council. (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total'develop- ment that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total develop- ment that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15'} percent of the total de•/clop- ment that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. For the purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total develop- ment shall mean one (1) percent of the total floor area and one (1) per- cent of the total number of bedrooms within the development with the lower c\n~..c.•«~A» total points from either the floor area or number of bedrooms of employee •F or.a`.; ~ housing determining the points assigned to each project. For the purposes Qo\;~y of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. (cc) To be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the low, moderate and middle ihcome housing units must comply with the following size limitations or be restricted to rental and sale price terms no greater than that allowable had the housing units complied with the following size limitations: 1i.nimum Maximum Unit Square Footage Square Footage Studio 400 600 One-bedroom 600 800 Two-bedroom 750 1,000 Three-bedroom 950 1,400 or larger (dd) IJhen an applicant agrees to restrict only a portion of his develop- ment to low, moderate or middle income housing and the portion re- stricted is located adjacent to an unrestricted portion, to be eli- Bible for points within the provisions of this section .the adjaceht portions of the development shall be constructed of the same ex- terior building materials with a compatible exterior architectural style. Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing August 11, 1981 Page four (ee) The deed restrictions created above may be removed or amended by agreement between the property owner(s) and the city council upon the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission. No legal action shall lie to compel the city council to agree to such removal. (ff) Should a proposed residential development cause the displacement of existing employee housing, defined as units which for the previous 18 months have rented or have been sold at rates which fall within h,.p~,~ _~.~ the adopted housing price guidelines of the City of Aspen, then the points assigned in section (bb) above shall be based on the net addi- ~°~`~ tion of employee floor area and bedrooms to the housing pool and not simply on the gross number of units to be constructed. A net addition of employee housing to the pool is defined as the conversion" of a free market unit to deed restricted status or the construction of a new deed restricted unit. 5. Provision for unique financing (maximum 10 points). (aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to sell under a unique financing program all or a portion of his development to qualified individuals as established by the city council within housing income-eligibility quidelines. (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 95 percent Applicant Financing Unit Point(s) Studio 1/2 One-bedroom 1 Two-bedroom or larger 1-1/2 100 percent Applicant Financing Unit Point(s) Studio 1 One-bedroom 2 Two-bedroom or larger 3 (cc) To be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the mortgage offered by the applicant must be freely assumable for a term of thirty (30) years or more, at an interest rate of 12~ or an interest rate equal to the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as determined on the date of preliminary plat submission. The lesser of the above interest rates shall be that offered by the applicant and there shall be no closing points and no prepayment penalty. The monthly amortization for the mortgage must fall within the employee housing price guideline which has been desg- nated for the unit. 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) (aa) The commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of sec tions 24-11.4(b)(1),(2) and (3), but has also exceeded the provisions ~ of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting v.a,.a~~ recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding twenty per- `~P0.~F„~, cent (20~) of the total points awarded under sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3). Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the num- ber of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), and the total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute the total points awarded to the project. Any project not re- ceiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under section 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing August 11, 1981 Page Five (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be for- warded to the city council on or before March 1st of each year. (e) In the event that any applicant is awarded points for middle, moderate and low income housing, the commission may impose, as a condition for receiving points under section 24-11.4(b)(3), limitations on rental or sale or impose such other terms or conditions reasonably related to achieving the purposes of section 24-11.4(b)(3); and may, in establishing such terms and conditions, seek the advice of the local housing authority. (f) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants' provided, however, that the city council SA""e A~ review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due pro- `~ '•^^~*~ cess or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges "~ must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (g) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may change the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall, by resolution and prior to April 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments shall be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (h) qo applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11.4(a) S Aw.a. AS amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for pur- _~ poses of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section ` ^ 24-11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (. Ow+tw~r,lvy The Planning Office feels that it is very important that one additional change be made to the Growth Management Quota System this year. You may recall that during the review of the commercial scoring system, we created a new scoring category entitled "Applicant's Previous Performance" which would be scored as up to minus five points. The Planning Office did not argue strongly for or against this approach during the commmercial scoring revisions since we recognized that there were no commer- cial projects which would be affected by this change. However, in the residential competition there is no doubt that there are projects for which building plans have not been submitted sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within two years of the original allocation. It is our feeling that a penalty of up to minus five points would be inconsequential when we are looking at up to 96 other points of competitions We strongly recommend that you consider our alternate approach discussed during the commercial GMP review which vaould entail a revision to section 24-11.3(c). This section is proposed to read as follows, with subsectio~i (:4) below bein~nthe only neva language suggested for your consideration: (c) The Planning Office shall reject any application for development allotment which fails to: (1) Satisfy minimum utility or access requirements; (2) Comply with any approved master plan for the development area; (3) Comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulation of the City of Aspen; or (4) Satisfy the requirement that an applicant who holds d p)'evi:ous allocation with%n the same development dt^ed (i,e,, resi.genti,dl,office/ commercial, or lodge) must submit building plans to the 8ui1di;ng Department sufficient for the issuance of a buia ding permit with%n two years of the deadline for the submission of the original applica- tion to the Planning Office for that GMP allocation, MEMORAIJDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman ~?, RE: Residential GMP Code ~ nt Public Hearing x~: DATE: July 23, 1981 Applications to compete for the 1982 City Residential GMP Quota are due to be submitted to the Planning Office on January 1, 1982. Past experience with the residential GP1P scoring system indicates that many of the existing criteria are not relevant or are evaluated by inappropriate measures. Recent experience in revising the commercial and office GMP scoring system provides a model of how to approach the issues of modifying the scoring system and improving upon its administration. We have attached a copy of the existing residential GMP scoring system for your review as to the existing categoriess° in which an application is evaluated. The Planning Office feels that three basic changes are necessary for the residential scoring system:. 1. Reorganize the categories entitled "availability of public and social facilities ~~ and services to elimina~e certain criteria which no longer are considered public priorities and to establish new criteria which are pertinent to the development of residential areas in Aspen. 2. Alter the formulas for awarding points so that they more clearly reflect the concept that development should be encouraged which minimizes the fiscal bur- den to the community while discouraging projects which require costly extensions of public services. 3. Some minor modifications need to be made to the employee housing evaluation to include displacement of existing employee units in the competition of points awarded and to clarify the evaluation procedures. Based on these three points, following is the scoring system proposed for the residential GMP competition, with notations made identifying those portions which have been revised or newly created. (b) 1• mission~.shalloconsbder eacYilapplicataonewitherespectmto itsp~mpact+uponepublic facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense ~~~ -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not rioit.+~.~h the area in general 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) system(toxprovidepfortthecneedseofntheh proposedtdevelopmenttandsuPfla public system, its ability to supply waiver to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering. the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public. sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development ~iithout system extensions beyond .those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. (cc) Storm drainage (mar.imum 2 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to ade,.;:icly dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed developr.~ent witl,o,,+., sy~'em extensions beyond tViose normally installed by this devc'opcr. Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing ' July 29, 1981 Page Two (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to pro- vide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. (ee) Parking design (maximum 2 points) considering the desirability of the design of off-street parking areas with respect to visual impact, • amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. 2. (ff) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Quality of design (maximum 12 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: yaw SteR,:,,~ ,a~ca Q„~ ,ASaO.. o.. '' ~.t.v ....,y So c,~\ r AG.~.~~N ~. :.4~y.µ- (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under- - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for effi- ciency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and in- creased safety and privacy. (cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. • (dd) Amenities (naximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways or the provision .of links to existing parks and trail systems. ---~ 3. Proximity to support services (maximum 8 points). The commission shall t~.n.,,a~.~ consider each application with respect to its proximity £o public trans- R portation and community commercial locations and shall rate each devel- cohA,~ }~ opment by assigning points according to the following formula: c a~~.,b„.l 0 -- Project requires the use of an automobile for daily travel needs for work and shopping 2 -- Project is within reasonable walking distance of a bus route/shopping facilities are within walking distance 4 -- Project is directly on an existing city or county bus route/shopping facilities are directly adjacent to the proposed development. The following featurES shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Public transport.atsr~ (r~~aximum 4 points) 0 -- Indicates a totAlly deficient design 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design The following features shall be rated accordingly: (aa) i~eighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points) considering the com- patibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, loca- tion and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. (bb) Cun:,;,unit~ a, :. ,~cial faii l ities (maximum 4 points) f4emo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Clearing July 29, 1931 Page Three 4. Provision for low, moderate and middle income housing (maximum 40 points). (aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to deed restrict all or a portion of his development far a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sale price terms within housing price guidelines established by the city council and to occupancy limitations within housing income-eligibility guidelines established by the city council. • (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the .total develop- ment that is restricted to low income price quidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total develop- ment that is restricted to moderate income. price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (?} points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total devefiop- ment that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. For the purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total develop- . ment shall mean one (1) percent of the total floor area and one (1) per- cent of the total number of bedrooms within the development with the lower •\n...C.•~w..7 total points from either the floor area or number of bedrooms of employee F a.a~.1 housing determining the points assigned to each project. For the purposes Q,\;~.\ of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. (cc) To be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the ' low, moderate and middle income housing units must comply with the _ following size limitations or be restricted to rental and sale price terms no greater than that allowable-had the housing units complied with the following size limitations: Unit Studio One-bedroom Two-bedroom ,11i.nimum Square Footage Three-bedroom or larger 400 600 750 950 Maximum Square Footage 600 800 1,000 1,400 (dd) 6Jhen an applicant agrees to restrict only a portion of his develop- ment to low, moderate or middle income housing and the portion re- stricted is located adjacent to ari unrestricted portion, to be eli= Bible for points within the provisions of this section the adjacent portions of the development shall be constructed of the same ex- terior building materials with a compatible exterior architectural style. (ee) The deed restrictions created above may be'removed or amended by agreement between the property owner(s) and the city council upon the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission. fJo legal action shall lie to compel the city council to agree to such removal. (ff) Should a proposed residential development cause the displacement of existing employee housing, defined as units which rent or are sold ~ w~ at rates which fall within the adopted housing price guidelines of the ?.\:~y `-""~ City of Aspen, then the points assigned in section (bb) above shall be based on the net addition of employee units to the housing pool and not siriply on the gross number of units to be constructed. .~„^*, Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing July 29, 1981 Page Four 5. Provision for unique financing (maximum 10 points). (aa) The commission shall assign.points to each applicant ~aho agrees to sell under a unique financing program all or a. portion of his development to qualified individuals as established by the city council within housing income-eligibility guidelines. (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 45 percent Applicant Financing - Unit Point(s) Studio _ 1/2- - Orte-bedroom - - _ _ _ .. _ _*- - - -- - - - . Two-bedroom or larger -- 1-1/2 100 percent Applicant Financing Studio 1 One-bedroom _ _ __ 2 _ Two-bedroom or .larger. 3. - _ . _ - _ - (cc) To be eligible for points within the provisions of this section, the mortgage offered by the applicant must be freely assumable, for a term of thirty (30) years or more, at an interest rate equal to the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Portgage Corporation as deter- mined on the date of preliminary plat submission or final plat approval whichever is greater, with no closing points and no prepayment penalty. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the corm*~ission shall identify the num- ber of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6),-and the total"number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute the total points awarded to the project. Any project not re- ceiving a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under j section 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3)-and (4), shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) Ali projects shall be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the commission shall be for- warded to the city_cou_ncil on or before t+larch 1st of each year. (e) In the event that any applicant is awarded points for middle, moderate and low income housing, the commission may impose, as a condition for receiving points under section 24-11.4(b)(3), limitations on rental or sale or impose such other terms or conditions reasonably related to achieving the purposes of section 24-11.4(b)(3); and_may, in .establishing such terms ..and conditions, seek the advice of the local housing authority. (f) (laving received the co~rnission's report, the-city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants' provided, however,-that the city council SAw.¢.g5 review shall be limited to-determining whether there was-a denial of due pro- "`r•^""'^~ cess or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. -Any challenges '7 must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zoning. commission. (g) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may change the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city-council shaTl;'by resolution and prior to April 1st of each year, allocate .development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotar~nts shall be carrir_d over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. 1 Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public flea ring July 29, :981 Page Five (h) t1o applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11.4(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubheastandaPdstofnsectionur- '""^4 AS poses of clarification or technical correction only. +` ~~ 24-11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. o.~,..r.,,.ne _ The Planning Office feels that it is very important that one additional change be .made to the Growth Management Quota System this year. You may recall that during the review of the commercial scoring system, we created a new scoring category entitled "Applicant's Previous Performance" which would be scored as up to minus five points. The Planning Office did not argue strongly for or against this approach during the commercial scoring revisions since we recognized that there were no commer- cial projects which would be affected by this change. However, in the residential competition there is rto doubt that there are projects for which building plans have not been submitted sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within two years . of the original allocation. It is our feeling that a penalty of up to minus five points would be inconsequential when we .are looking at up to 96 other points of competition. 4Je strongly recormend that you consider our alternate approach discussed 'during the commercial GMP review which vrould entail a revision to section 24-11.3(c}. This section is proposed to read as follows, with subsecti.od (4) below bein9:~the only new language suggested far your consideration: (c) The Planning Office shall reject any application for development allotment which fails to: (i) Satisfy minimum utility.or access requirements; (2) Comply with any approved master plan for the development area; (3) Comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or _ any other applicable land use or building regulation of the City of Aspen; or _-- v~(4) Satisfy the requirement that an app}icant who has received a previous allocation within the same development area (i.e., residential, office/ ~~ _ .commercial, or lodge) must submit buildings plans to the Building ~_ 7 Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within ~~~~ two years of the date of the submission of the original application to - - ----the=Planning Office-for that GMP allocation. MEMORAPdDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: G~1P Code Amendment Proposed by Piark Danielsen DATE: May 12, 1981 We have attached for your review a copy of an ordinance proposed by Mark Danielsen which would amend the GMP scoring system. This amendment would remove FAR as a review criteria for evaluating points in the "housing" category, leaving only the number of bedrooms as the comparison between free market and employee units. The Planning Office is currently in the process of initiating its own amendments to the Growth P•lanagement Quota System and does not support the proposal before you at this time. Our objections are as follows: 1) The Planning Office's interpretation of the Employee Housing Review Criteria is precisely opposite than that of the applicant. The intent of this criteria was to insure that an applicant did not use an employee unit of minimum dimensions as a justification for building free market units to the maximum extent allowable in the zone district. This criteria .provides for a balance, not only in tyre number of bedrooms but in the floor area devoted to employee and free market units;as well. 2) The applicant contends that the review criteria in question creates a hardship for the developer by forcing the creation of free market units which are substandard in the competitive market. This claim has no basis in fact whatsoever. The scoring system provides flexibility to the applicant by giving more points to those who restrict their development to low income guidelines and who provide employee and free market units which are proportionately sized in terms of bedrooms and FAR. The developer can choose along a range of housing price guidelines (low, moderate and middle) and unit size (i.e., less than 50% of bedrooms and FAR for employees, equal to 50% for employees, or above 50% for employees) and calculate the precise score achievable through that proposal. If the developer wishes to slant the units toward the free market rather than the employee side of this scale, he can then supplement this relatively low score by providing project amenities such as energy conservation features, trails or a superior overall design to achieve a competitive number of points. 3) The other applicants who received an allocation during the 1981 residential competition have not argued that the FAR review criteria was unduly re- strictive of their economic viability. In fact, the Ute City Place applicant offered 53% of the FAR and 59% of the bedrooms as employee housing while 1015 East Hyman Avenue offered 55% of the FAR and 53% of the bedrooms as employee housing. Mr. Danielsen's project only offered 50% of the FAR and bedrooms as employee housing. Both of the other applicants are proceeding through the review process and neither has questioned the ability to produce the units as originally proposed. In fact, in the entire history of the residential GP1P competition, it has only been the projects of Mr. Cantrup which have argued for concessions following their initial approval and then not followed up on the promises of the original applica- tion. '3)The Planning Office cautions you that if this ordinance is approved, the applicant intends to apply it to the Gilbert and South Aspen/Third and plain project for which he recently received a GMP allocation. The applicant is also requesting designation as a Residential Bonus Overlay for each of these sites. The Planning Office would most likely argue that the increased bulk and density which the applicant would propose for these sites would not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood if the RBO was based on no FAR limitation for the free market units.'~~ a cos, -~_s _ _ ~m ~e..~ _.. <, ,~., ~~ ~ ~ ~ • t - ~_., - ~ 1 ': ... e.... ~ ~ - . .. _. a _ ~..i ...i... n.., C~'r Memo: GMP Code Amendment Proposed by Mark Danielsen May 12, 1981 Page Two s',d) From a purely mechanical standpoint, the Section of the Code which the applicant is questioning is 24-11.4, not 24-10.4 as noted. The Planning Office would remind you that we have initiated a comprehensive review of the GMP and are on the verge of proposing an initial set of .amendments to the scoring system based on the comments you made during the 1981 residential competition. lde ~rget~you not to adopt this .piecemeal approach to GMP reform. We„prefer, instead,~you wait until such time that we can present you with the entire scope of our suggestions. The Planning Office therefore, recommends that you deny the applicant's request to initiate a Code amendment to the GP1P scoring system. ~~ ~'~~ ~ ~ ,~.~ ~~ ~~ ,..,~ c. ~ n ;~ ~ ~ ~,c ~~_.~ v ~ ~.£-., ~~9 ~ ~ 1 a l,-.. n .~ ~ 1- •J`~/~,~-~ ~ z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~+' ~~ ~~~ ~ u ~ ~~P RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1981T AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 24, ARTICLE X OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE GROWTH MANAGMENT QUOTA SYSTEM BY AMENDING SECTION 24-10.4(b)(3)(bb). WHEREAS, the review criteria based upon F.A.R. was never intended to produce free market units equal to the size of employee units, nor to produce employee units equal to the size of free market units, WHEREAS, producing free market units of a size equal only to units that an employee can afford does not promote a first class free market accommodation, WHEREAS, such a requirement creates a severe hardship for the developer so that it eliminates the economic viability of the project and its ability to produce and subsidize the employee units, WHEREAS, upon consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, desires to revise that section of the Municipal Quota System for the benefit of the City of Aspen, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-10.4 (b)(3)(bb) shall be repealed and reenacted to read as follows: (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 2 points for each 5% of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limita- tions; ' 2 points for each 10% of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; 2 points for each 15% of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. For the purposes of this section, 1% of the total development shall mean 1% of the total number of bedrooms within the development. for the purposes of this section, a studio shall be considered a 3/4 bedroom. -1- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Section 2 If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 3 A public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on 1981, at 5:00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on the day of 1981. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koc City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of 1981. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk -2-