HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Growth Managemnet.1982R
Growth 'Management -Co&1 Ame d -
UA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates
DATE: November 8, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
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/Planning and Zoning 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."
LL1
J
m
Q
W
I—
Z
O
H
r-
Q
U
J
d
d.
Q
F--1
U
N
C
7
rCi
O
LL.
C
rC3
'7
>
O
Z
..CO
O
LL.
C
7
U
C
O •r r
U LL. d
E
N
r- L •h)
023 Iv (10 Rf
S- C r
Cl-d •r p_
I
r 3 •r
f0
I rt3 N U
U U
•r C •r C
C O C
O >
=3 r O
0 r- O O
C) r •r
1
to
�
r 3
C
I its a) 1,4
IV •r
•r C •r
S-
•O O > 06
06 O
a-- N
U
Q +-> Of IZ
d (N
r I
!O
•r f0
� U
U U
•r •r
O O C
r C
�r O
-0 IZ O
O r •r
� Q•r
U Q +•)
U) Q +•)
C
N •r
S-
oz5 O
U
d N
r I
I
f0
U
U U
C O C
r C
:3 r- O
Q O
Or•r
p•r
U Q 4-)
V) Q -I••)
C
N •r
d5 O
U
d N
10
-P U
•r
•
� r C
Q O
:3 Q•r
(n¢+-,
J
J
Q
Q
F-
U
Z
tY
L LI
W
LLI
cm
E
CD
~
g
Ia
(N
O
O
W
U
J
IY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Code Amendment Concerning GMP Submission Dates
DATE October 4, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction
A6
During the past 12 months we have adopted substantial revisi'6ns 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.
Existin4 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 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 Zoning 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."
0
•
TO:
FROM
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ordinance 66 - 2nd Reading - Residential GMP J
DATE: October 19, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: t-L(
Background: As you recall, we held a study session wi h you on 0 ober 14
to hear your concerns with the proposed anges to the 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 regulations.
Unit type
Studio
One -bedroom
Two -bedroom
Three -bedroom
City Minimum
Square Footaqe
400
600
750
950
County Minimum
Square Footage
400
500
700
1000
As you can see, contrary to what had been previously thought,
the recently enacted County Housing Guidelines (Resolution
81-44) are less than, and not equal to those in the City,
except for studios, where the size is equal, and three
bedroom units, where the County requires a slightly larger
size unit. We recommend that a single, consistent approach
to this issue would be to adopt the same guidelines as
used in the County. This approach seems particularly
desirable in light of the current proposals to merge the
City and County Housing Offices and eventually, 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. The Uniform Building Code states that the minimum size
0
•
Memo: Ordinance 66 - 2nd Reading - Residential GMP
Page Two
October 19, 1981
for a living area in an efficiency is 220 square feet. This
does not include the space necessary for a 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 be getting, and not on their size. It is not to our
advantage to require that excessively large employee units
be 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 minimum sized employee units.
Therefore, we suggest that employee units be some minimum
percentage of the size of free market units, with the
minimum size of the units being protected by our size
guidelines.
The Planning Office has investigated three possible size
ratios 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 unit basis, in that it forces a
developer into a possibly unreali'st is development program
(i,e., if you want to build a two bedroom free market unit,
then you must build a two bedroom employee unit of a specific
size, whether or not this meets a community need at this
time). We think we would be 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
works. We think that developers should be required to have
employee floor area equal no less than 50 percent of free
market floor area (.that is, at least 1/3 of the development
as employee space). This approach should provide enough
flexibility and incentive to make the Robin Hood concept
work better and yet protect us sufficiently in terms of the
type and affordability of units we get, We hope, eventually,
to move to a scoring system whereby points are only awarded
when a developer provides employee units of the size and
price range in which our survey shows we are deficient.
However, until that time we believe that the system we pro-
pose will be an improvement over the current procedures.
3. Previous Performance
The approach toward an applicant's previous performance which
was taken in the commercial GMP, that is, a penalty of up to
minus five points, will not work in the residential GMP 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 a new 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 by 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 have been made to further
reduce the discretion available in 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 be 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 be awarded and
unanimity required before points can be awarded.
The Planning Office feels that thi's latter approach has
proven to work well previously in the County and should
also do so in the City. 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 defer any action to
further modify the Residential GMP scoring system beyond
the changes already in the proposed ordinance.
W
U
Z
Q
O
LL-
LiJ
a
Ln
Z
O
LLI
IY
d
N
f---
Z
Q
U
J
d
d
Q
N
_c
3
'II
Sr
N
U
4
Q)
•r
13
(p
1
N
ice•
IT
1
O
C)
4-)
r
a-•)
S_
41
U
d
41
U
+•t
O
N
N
N
N
5=
•r
r6
'n
N
r6
'n
rp
4-•)
O
+-)
O
U
ro
d
r
U
E
�-
r
O
S-
S-
r
O
4-
O
O
4-
Q
LL
O
N
4-
O
Q
Q
S-
N
�
U
C
Q1
r
r-
Y
r
O
Q
a-•)
IT
a
t
•r
Q
C
i
�
4-)
N
M
+
3
r�
O
N
U
O
O
U
4-)
r
N
O
c
r
r
•r
•r
'�
N
i
fo
r'
r
N
E
r-
O
r•-
r0
tT
O
SZ
ro
-0
•r
J
Q
U
Q
LL
Q
(n
07
i
1
N
QJ
+.)
N
U
CL
r
0O
3
I
I
U
'D
0
O
C:
S✓
+�
O
-�
ro
O
+-)
U
U
r
r6
N
O
r
U
N
n
Cl
O
ra
O
[]_
G
r
t
S-
0-
r
d
Q
Q
N
Q�
Q7
SZ
t
O
1
U
4-
i
o
+)
ul
O
C
i
• r
�-a
4--)
rff
•r
4-)
U
U
3`
rz
aJ
O
r
U
N
n
r
O
«S
O
O_
C
r
s✓
S-
Q
r6
r
d
d
Q
Q
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Residential GMP Code Amendment
DATE: September 22, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Q" (/(, �L� r(/• ,_� �.
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. A new 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 commercial 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 staff will be available at your meeting on Monday to elaborate
further on the proposed changes to the residential GMP competition.
ri
0
1
V)
^
4- CO
•1)
0-
-0
O C
LO a
N
V)
O ^
7
+•) N
C
O
O_v
OD
S
C
•r
S- U
O C
tCS
O
LO • r
a
•r
rn 4-
C
S. •-3
ZD
a) C
_I-_ (10
S-
+-) U
_0
a) r
CY 4-
t r
v
3 O-
C
O C
C (r3
r •r
O
0)
Ln U
o
C
•r C
� O
r
> ro
a) O
S_
O C
In r
O
S- •r
ro
U
IZ LL
co
LO
--
CL
L
O
c�
+)
3
ro rn
O
r-
S- C
r-
rCS
a) •r
o\\�
•r
-0 (n
\ O LC)
+-)
O ::3
LO
C
m:: O
E
aJ
S
C O a)
3 a)
ro rroo c � O
VI
O E
a) () 'r a) U
a)
J O
C
US-
S_ (J i •r
M S.- O
O O +-3 O
O +
4- a) 4- ro 4- aJ
(v
4-
E S r-
r-
V)
O
V) O V) a) In _0
O
C r
+-) U +j _0 4-) -0
a)
O-
0-0
O O C O C--
r
O
.--a
•r •r •r E •r E
S-
V) r
O O O
ro
0-
•r L
O- i1 0-
I—
>
0
0-0
N N N
C
S, C
ro
tl ro
1 I I
C
41
I
�
rn
(n
C V) r
•r
r ()
O O in U
X
ro U
r r O S- S_
LLI
r •r
+-) 4-) •r O a)
U >
co C •r 4-)4-
4-
O S-
4-)0 r- r
O
LN ()
S. •r •r r- (n O
LN
O d--) U r aJ U
C
4-
0- U to (n U S-
O
—0-0
(n a) 4- -= CO O -0 O
V)
N C
C 4-3 4-3 4- 4-3 a) -I-) 0
co
v �)
CO 0 a)
�
i
+
S- S_ IZ 0) a) IZ >-) --
ro
r V)
+•) IZ CO C 4- ro +) +-)
0-
r a)
U O •r U •r --
E
r •r
U aJ r- r- C.- E r-
O
-04-)
r U-0 U U M-0 •r •r
U
RS •r
r •r >-,>)•r C X` U
r �--
�
-0 r- U U 0 ro O CO
r•r
7 OL•r O (1)S- 4-
co U
Q O- U -0 i Z) IZ
> ro
L.L-
1 I I I 1 I
I V)
U a)
•r U
•r
r
>
:3 S.
I?- a)
C
Ln
O C
4-
•r 0)
0-0
+-) •r
C
U rn
Ali
r 4-)
4)"O
•r (n
a) O
r aJ
0) S 0)
•r •r
m O_ C >)
-04)
S- S- C •r (n 0)
ro •r
a) a) •r a) Y -0 S.
r• r•
+1 3 CO S. i_ ro a)
•r •r
ro a) S- •r ro O C
ro U
3 v) -0 4- C:L S- a)
> ro
LL.
I I I I 1 1 I
C
a)
>)
O ro
r
0) S.
r •r
C O
-P S-
r6
•r 0)
ro a)
V) r-
i•� a)
0 +-)
4-) •r
(n +)
r r
C ro
•r ro
ro S•
•r >
X U
> U
O Q
LLJ
LLJ
0-
+-)
>
p
O
D-
a)
r
N
E
X
C
N
O
co
a)
w
O
�
ZD
a)
Q
S
O
O
r•
L.f) 4-
Q
v 5= 0)
to
E
O C
.r..r
no
E
E
X
> Ri
(0
E
O C
N
S- •r
IZ lL
3)
3 �
�
O 0
O
J •r
O
CL
S C
O
O
0-0 •r
4- C N
Q
C O
V)
O
_
ro
E
�.OS
„,- S-
x
EE
> (1) O
(0
0-0 U
V)
S_ O C
a- IH
V) _
a)
U
1
r
ro
r V)
O >
+-)
ro (1)
•1-� S-
S-
>7 •r •r
S- r- E
O
O
U 41
O to O
M +�
U (A
O a) r-
L O •r
��•r +)
r C C
O E •r
U +•) X
rO
O
-0 S- •rp
E O ro
a) t0 E
X 0-
:3 -P 4-)
O U 4-
0 IZ
O-
U
M
S- 0
IZ N
I
I
I
C
V)
� •r
O
0— C a)
t p •r ro
S- ro E
>1
o
O
•
O-) a) Ln
0 E
(0-0 >) (A
+) •r
= 0- Mr C
U X
1
0) E O S- •r aJ
ro LO ro
•r
•r O 4J a) ro O
N r E
r
a) U •r C S- S_
ro
C V) aJ +) 0)
M
0
C
1 I I I I
I
V)
C
Q)
O C
4- •r
•r 0)
O 4•)
+) •r
•r
U V)
- r }) •r Q)
i-) �
S-. ro E
�i•r U U
a) O
O +•) 0
r- ro •r
MS.- 0)
O E
•r LL_ >
ro O- C
•1•-) •r
O S
S. S_ C r V)
U X
to U a)
a) a) •r a) Y -0
ro N ro
r •r V)
4-) 3 ro S- S- ro
(1) r- E
•r r-
ro (1) S- •r ro O
ro Z7
3 V) •0 4- 0- i-
N
> > C
i
Q d ro
1 I 1 1 I I
I
L
O
C
(L)
0)
O ro
r
O
•r •r
�
+•)
4-)
ro
ro aJ
V) r-
U
O i-)
+) • r
r •r
C ro
3
ro S_
•r >
U
2-1LLI
a
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECO."IMCNDING 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 GMP scoring system be accomplished inorder 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
24-11.4 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 1st of each
year a completed application, which shall be submitted with the
following maps, documents and information:
(1) A written description of the proposed development including
comments as to:
(aa) Type of water system to be used including information
on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess
capacity available from such public system; the location
of the nearest main; the estimated water demand of the
development or building.•
(bb) Type of sewage treatment syste;ii to be used and, if public,
the excess 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. buiIding.
*+M
(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; on and off -site parking to be
supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus
route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disincentive tech-
niques incorporated in such proposed development.
(gg) 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 outlets and estimated increase demands on such
outlets by reason of the proposed development. f
(ii) Effects of the 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 coning district boundary
lines, if any,
(b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotments
applications during the early weeks of January, reject those
that are ineligible under'section 24-11.3(c), and present its
and zoning comni0n no later
ations the planning e co„q,riss� s first
u���If-ebdruary 1st of each year or at th
ttlan subsequent to that date. The planning and
regular meeting applications taking into
commission shall review all
Zoning criteria and point schedule with
consideration the following areas of concern:
respect to each of the following
Availability of public facilities and services ( axim lonl2
(1) Points). The conalrission shall) ccnside facilit1, each ies and services
with hall rateoits impact upon publiceach development according to the following
and shall
formula:
-- Project requires the provision of new services at
�
increased public expense
_- Project may be handled by existing level of service in
1 service improvement by the applicant
the area, or aro project only and not the area in general
benefits the p j
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area
The following services shall be rated accordingly' f the
oints) considering the capacity o
(aa) Water (maximum 2 P provide for the needs of the pro -
water supply system d, P p ublic system, its ability
posed development and, if a ment wthout system exten-
to supply water to the development iby the developer,
sions beyond those normallyinstalled
or other facility upgrading.
and without treatment p
(bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capacity of
the sanitary sewers to dispose Of ublicesewagesof the
disposal
proposed development ancr,if achy of the system to
system is to be used,the cap
serve the development without heYdevjel developer, aondswi without
those normally installed by t riding.
treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
maximum 2 points) considering the dis-
(cc) Storm draofa9he(drainage facilities to adequately ment
capacity proposed develop
pose of the surface runoff of tt�e P P installed
without system extensions beyond those normally
by the developer.
points) considering the
(dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 p ro riate fire
ability of the fire department of them ction according
protection district to provide fire p
to the established response standards °of the
apestabli o-
priate district without theadditiontof r►iajor ec;uipment
a new station or requiring
to an existing station. '
the provi-
(ee) Parking design (maximum 2 points) considering parking spaces
sion of an adequate number of off-street
development
to meet the requirements of the p Prespect
and considering the design of Yidsupacesrfacewith
tnvenience
to visual impact, amount of pa
.and safety.
(ff) Roads (maximum 2 points)
considering the capacity of
�.,� rovid� for the needs of the
major st1cet Ii1`1'29c5 to P altering
proposed development �-lithout overloading the existing
existing traffic pattel,ns or overloading increased
stem or the necessity of providing
street SY-
road mileage and/or maintenance.
points). 15 The commission
(2) Quality of deliea h applilcation with respect to the site
shall consider each application project and shall rate each
design and amenities of each
r
I '
i�
.f
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 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 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 (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of
pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisioi 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 support 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 sha-11 make available a map depicting the
commercial 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 two blocks walling dis-
tancE 0i tl�c c:�,:: crcial facilities in tcnrn.
V
(4) Provision for low, moderate and middle income housing (maxi-
muln 40 points),
(aa)'The conunission 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 terms 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 income 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 considereda 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 allowaule 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
(dd) 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 owner(s) and
the city council.upon the recommendation of the planning
and zoning commission. Plo legal action shall lie to
compel the city council to agree to such removal.
(ff) Should a proposed residential development cause the
displacement of existinrl employee housing, defined as
unite. t-rftich for the prrIviou, 1(, n:oriths have rented or
11�1ve hccn sold at rates which fall .within the adopted
•
•
housing price guidelines of the City of Aspen, then the
points assigned in semployeection bbflooroarea ve hand bedall be rooms to
the net additased on
ion of P ross number of
the housing pool and not simply on the g
• units to be const�icisddefArrednet
asddtt�eteon�ersiemployee
a -
housing to the p°
free market unit Y°deeddeed
restrictedrestricted
unittus or the con-
struction of a ne
5 Provision for unique financing (maximum 10 points)
commission shall assign points to each applicant who
(aa) The c program all or
agrees to sell under a unique finaualified gndividuals
a portion of his development to qualified
as established by the city council within housing income -
eligibility guidelines.
(bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following
schedule:
95 percent applicant financing
Unit Point s
Studio 1/2
1
One -bedroom 1 1/2
Two -bedroom or larger
100 percent applicant financing
Unit Point s
Studio 1
2
One -bedroom 3
Two -bedroom or larger
(cc) To be eligible for points within the aoplicantsmoustthis
section, the mortgage of Y ears or more,
freely assumable for a term of thirty (30) Y
at an interest rate of 12% or nHor�einteLoan Mortgagerest rate �
l
Corpora -
the current rate of the reliminary plat sub-
tion, as determined on the date of p
mission. The lesser of the above
shall brats e no be that offered by the applicantThe monthly
closing points and no prepayment penalty.
amortization for the mortgage must fall within the
employee housing price guideline which has been designated
for the unit.
(6) Bonus Points (maximum 7 points)
ines that
The commission members may,
when any one deter_
project has not only incorporated and met the substan-,
a
a project
of sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3),
tiveprovisions of these sections
but has also exceeded the P and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recog-
nition, award additional bonus pointsotaexceeding
twenty percent (20%) of the total pointsAny commission
under
sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3).
member awarding bonus points shall Ppubldic hearinge a record.
justification of that award for the P public
(c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a
he
aring at the close of which each memdl�by himtundeorneachlof the
l
identify the number of points assign Y (5)
criteria outlined in sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3), (4),
and the total number of points awarded by' al 1 me!i!bers ,
and (0)5 shall constitute the
divided by the number of n!en.bers votinFor projects involving two
total points awarded to the project.
or more sites, the points aa:arded to each
c sit each l site and andhraed
as to the number of units to be cons
(aa)
weighted value calculated for the points in 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)9
shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the
f application shall be considered denied.
(d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points received
(highest to lowest) and the ranking thus established by the conunis-
sion shall be forwarded to the city council on or before March lst
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)9
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 be limited to determining
whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion
by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed
with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date
of.the public hearing by the planning and zoning commission:
(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 o.ther 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 the saine development area (i.e., residential,
off ice/conenercial, or locl(e) must submit building plans to the
Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building
permit within two years of the deadline for the submission of
the original application to the Planning Office for that C14P
allocation.
Approved this eighth day of September, 1981 by the Aspen Planning and
,,ling Commission.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COPIMISSION
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
By. Chairman
Olof Hedstrom,
4
0
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: 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.
Existinq 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 GMPsubmission 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
0
•
Memo: GMP Submission Dates - Code Amendment
Page Two
September 20, 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.
Planning 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
MEMORA14DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Nearing
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 GMP
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 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
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 GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing
August 11, 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 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 pointsJ, 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:
�, �.o K. r''1 Ar ft�.r►
g JC pcas�.oN
0 --
Indicates a totally deficient design
QP-e�►�o�►�s
1 --
Indicates a major design flaw
•� S o t- � R\
FA ```����••
2 --
Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
ta�e.�oa,y
oo
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 colling 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-
tation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development
by assigning points according to the following formula:
Ca.�o (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 Public Hearing
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
commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the
commercial facilities I 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 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 (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of thin total develop-
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��►�.c•�A��_.7 total points from either the floor area or number of bedrooms of employee
oIt- housing determining 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
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:
ilini,um Maximum
Unit Square Footage Square Footage
Studio 400 600
One -bedroom 600 300
Two -bedroom 750 1,000
Three -bedroom 950 1,400
or larger
(dd) When 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-
gible 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.
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
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 112
One -bedroom 1
Two -bedroom or larger 1-112
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 hasbeen desig-
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
recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding twenty per-
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 RS 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) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11.4(a)
S A,rr.Q Ag 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.
C. o w•-•cw.wQ
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 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
competition, We strongly recommend that you consider our alternate approach discussed
during the commercial GMP review which would entail a revision to section 24-11.3(c).
This section is proposed to read as follows, with subsection (4) below being the only
new 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 a previous
allocation within the same development area (i.e,, resi.denti.al,office/
commercial, 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 the submission of the original applica-
tion to the Planning Office for that GMP allocation.
It
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnission
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Residential GMP Code Ament Public Hearing
DATE: July 23, 1981
Applications to comp ete for the 1982 City Residential GMP Quota arhedue
esio be submitted
to the Planning Office on January 1, 1982- Past experience with
scoring system indicates that many of the existing criteria are not theecommercialeand
evaluated by inappropriae rovidessa modelnofehowrtonce in approachvthenissues of modifying
office GMP scoring systemp
the scoring system and improving usits stemdforlyourtreview41ashtoethetexistingcopy Of
categories
the existing residential GMP scoringng y
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
longer f public aaresconsidered
ocial lities
and services" to eliminate certain crate
public priorities and to establish new criteria which are pertinent to the
development'of residential areas in Aspen.
ly
eflect the
2. Alter the formulas for awarding pointsottwhich mey �nimizesrtherfiscaI bur -
concept that development should be encouragedects which require costly extensions
den to the community while discouraging pro j
of public services.
3. Some minor modifications need to be mad
include displacement of existing employeetunits ino the pthe ecompetition vofuation to
points
awarded and to clarify the evaluation procedures.
following is the scoring system proposed for the residential
Based on these three points, GMP competition, with notations made identifying those portions which have been revised
or newly created. The com-
(b) 1. Availability of public facilit1e
mission shall consider each application eionwith emp
respect to its�mpact 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
1 -- Project may be handled by existing
cantlevel
benefitsservice
theprojectthe
onlyarea,
and not
any• t%s.•i_.� service improvement by the appl
Foci«.,.,► the area i n general
itself improves the quality of service in a given area
2 Project in and of
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
(aa) Water (maximum 2 points) consideringoh capacitthe proposeddeof the water
supfla
system to provide for the needs 1 water to the development without
public system, its ability to supply
system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and
n
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 USQdothe canac�iyent and if a of tV�e system
sewage disposal system is to be
serve the development %-iithout system
extensions
treatrenibeyond
plantto�sothermfacility
installed by the developer, and without
upgrading.
(cc) Storm drainage (maY'^qum 2 points) considering rsurfacehr��noffcofyof the piroposednage
( faci 1 i ti es to ads , . - 1Y di ext : o
develoE�r.rent without sy�'cm extensions beyond those normally installed
by fire f)!wr.
• •
Memo: Residential DIP 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.
(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 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:
Age e 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design
�^'`•KS 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
'a �Q1•M► 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, loca-
tion and building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
(bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character
of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of 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
consider each application with respect to its proximity to public trans-
portation and community commercial locations and shall rate each devel-
opment by assigning points according to the following formula:
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 0;aximum 4 points)
(Lb) cu:.:,II; .i t.y c, I .J,.11 fok i i hies (maximum 4 points)
Memo: Residential GMF Code Amendment Public Hearing
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 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 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 (2) poi 'nts, for each fifteen (15) percent of the total develop-
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•�A��..� total
points from either the floor area or number of bedrooms of employee
Fax•��•1 housing
determining 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
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:
f1i.nimum Maximum
Unit Square Footage Square Footage
Studio 400 -600
One -bedroom 600 Boo
Two -bedroom 750 1,000
Three -bedroom 950 1,400
or larger ,
(dd)
When 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�-
gible 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. No legal
action shall lie to comp&l 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
hem
at rates which fall within the adopted housing price guidelines of the
A" LA
City of Aspen, then the points assigned in section (bb) above shall
be based on the net additinn of employee units to the housing pool
and not simply 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 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
Uni t
Studio
One -bedroom
Two -bedroom or
larger -
Point(s)
2/2- -
1-1/2
100 percent Applicant Financing
Unit Point(s) .
Studio I
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 !tome Loan Mortgage 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 commission shall identify the num-
ber of points assigned by hin 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
Jsection 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) 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 [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) Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider
any challenges thereto by applicants' provided, however, that the city council
�Aw-e AS 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 protes� hearings provided for in this
section, during which the city council may change the number of points
awarded to any protesting appTicant, 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- developrent approvals required by the zoning, building or other
regulations of ;.fie city. Unallocated allot„r2nts cfhall be carried over to
the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time.
Memo: Residential GMP Code Amendment Public Hearing
July 29, 1981
Page Five
(h) No applicant shall, after submission of his xcept incation insubstantialtpartsandlon for2purl'4(a)
amend, modify or change his application ectio
A5 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,..iwb`w�
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 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
competition. We strongly recommend that you consider our alternate approach discussed
during the commercial GMP review which would entail a revision to section 24-11.3(c).
This section is proposed to read as follows, with subsecti.oh (4) below beinoAhe only
new 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 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.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: GMP Code Amendment Proposed by Mark 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 Management 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 the 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, eoual 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 GMP 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. ',.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 Main 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.
6,
U \ :` l
(o• 1/N},i yr (� �' j��2 c.. < ; Ai
1 (
Memo: GMP Code Amendment Proposed by Mark Danielsen
May 12, 1981
Page Two
�) 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. lie urge you not to adopt this piecemeal approach
to GMP reform. We prefer, instead,"yo,await 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 GMP scoring system.
dL-,- {
0I-\'Ml�—
j��
�(C-,�
S "
•
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1981j
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 -
4r
L_J
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. Koch
City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
1981.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
Herman Edel
Mayor
- 2 -