Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20140127 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 27, 2014 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #7, 2013 - Municipal Facility Master Plan Project Design Services b) Minutes - January 13, 2014 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #2, 2014 - Code Amendment - Growth Management Competition VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #1, 2014 - Creating the Next Generation Advisory Commission and making initial appointments b) Resolution #9, 2014 - Authorizinig Easement for Pitkin County Library IX. Action Items X. Executive Session - 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 10, 2014 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making • Tone and Tenor Matter • Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P1 VI.a P2 VI.a P3 VI.a P4 VI.a P5 VI.a P6 VI.a P7 VI.a P8 VI.a P9 VI.a P10 VI.a P11 VI.a P12 VI.a P13 VI.a P14 VI.a P15 VI.a P16 VI.a P17 VI.a P18 VI.a P19 VI.a P20 VI.a P21 VI.a Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 1 ANNUAL MEETING – ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES .............................................................. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................................................................................................. 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #99, 2013, Approving an Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Pitkin County regarding the APCHA ..................................................................... 3 Resolution #3, 2014 - Public Posting Notice of Meetings ................................................... 3 Minutes - November 18, December 9, 2013 - January 6, and 7, 2014 ................................ 3 Resolution #1, 2014 - Purchase of Two Replacement Shuttle Vehicles .............................. 3 Resolution #2, 2014 - Purchase of One Replacement Shuttle Vehicle ................................ 3 RESOLUTION #4/ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2014 – Next Generation Advisory Board ..... 4 RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 2014 – 2013 Growth Management Allotment Rollover ............. 4 ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2014 – Creating Transferable Development Rights – 549 Race Alley ................................................................................................................................................ 5 ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen, PUD, Subdivision . 6 P22 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 2 Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins, Daily and Romero present. ANNUAL MEETING – ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES Steve Skadron, president, called the annual meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Mullins, Romero, Frisch, Daily, Koch and Taylor present. Skadron noted the Board needs to nominate a vice president and an assistant secretary. Skadron nominated Frisch as vice president and Daily as assistant secretary; seconded by Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Frisch moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 2013; seconded by Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Taylor, treasurer, told the board that they financed the purchase of the Isis theatre; the rents received from the tenants in the Isis go to the public facilities corporation who pays the debt service. The outstanding debt is $7,405,000; the annual debt service is $594,000. At the end of the financing term, the city will deed out the interest to the existing tenants in the theatre. Romero moved to adjourn at 5:10 p.m.; seconded by Koch. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Peter Fornell told Council his project at 518 Main street will be ready for affordable housing lottery in the next several months. Fornell said he learned some lessons from the first project and his request is an educational program for first time buyers who win the lottery and who need help and support in a common interest community. These projects are a community asset and should be protected. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Romero said Aspen lost a great lady with the death of Linda Keleher. Councilman Romero noted the holidays were great; the economic activity and the lodging occupancy were good and people were having a great time. 2. Councilman Frisch congratulated the renovation team on the Wheeler Opera House; it is a great success visually and financially. Mayor Skadron agreed the Wheeler is vastly improved. P23 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 3 3. Councilman Frisch said Winterskol was a great event. Councilwoman Mullins agreed and thanked everyone who made Winterskol happen. 4. Councilwoman Mullins noted recently the Council had a presentation from the Open Space and Trails board. Councilwoman Mullins said the Open Space board recommends spending city funds and wondered if it would be a good idea to have a Council person on that board. Jim True, city attorney, said the Charter states Council members may not serve on any city boards. 5. Councilman Daily announced the Sister Cities committee meets tomorrow in the Sister Cities room. 6. Mayor Skadron noted the Sunday New York Times listed the 50 cities one has to visit in 2014 and Aspen ranked #29. 6. Councilman Romero said the BRT ridership is greatly increased and RFTA will re- purpose some non-BRT buses with the technology funded from contingency in the grant. RFTA is looking at the parking demand. In Glenwood Springs, the new bridge work is going forward with CDOT and RFTA will get separate engineer reports for the by-pass off Eighth street. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Skadron said he would like Resolution #4 pulled off the consent calendar. Councilman Romero moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Frisch. • Resolution #99, 2013, Approving an Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Pitkin County regarding the APCHA • Resolution #3, 2014 - Public Posting Notice of Meetings • Minutes - November 18, December 9, 2013 - January 6, and 7, 2014 • Resolution #1, 2014 - Purchase of Two Replacement Shuttle Vehicles • Resolution #2, 2014 - Purchase of One Replacement Shuttle Vehicle All in favor, motion carried. P24 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 4 RESOLUTION #4/ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2014 – Next Generation Advisory Board City Attorney Jim True pointed out that boards need to be established by ordinance rather than by resolution and this resolution should be amended into an ordinance. Mayor Skadron said he would prefer this board to mimic other city boards with a maximum of 7 members and 1 alternate and 4 year terms. Council will grandfather the initial appointments over those 8 members. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #1 (Series of 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CREATING “THE NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY COMMISSION” AND MAKING INITIAL APPOINTMENTS Skippy Mesirow, representing the Next Generation, announced a kickoff event tomorrow, January 14 at the Aspen Brew Company. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2014, on first reading deleting term limits; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 2014 – 2013 Growth Management Allotment Rollover Jessica Garrow, community development department, told Council staff reviews annually the previous year’s growth management allotments and determines how many allotments should be rolled over for use in the current year. Growth management limits development to insure stable growth occurs while maintaining community character and adequate facilities. Allotments allow development to take place and there are 18 free market, 33,300 square feet of net leasable and 112 lodge pillows, which represents 1.5 to 2% annual growth rate. Ms. Garrow pointed out in 2013 there was 1 free market resident allotment used, 0 lodge allotment and about 7500 square feet net leasable. Council may roll over 17 free market, 25,000 square feet net leasable and 112 lodge pillow allotments and allow them to be available in 2014. Staff recommends that the 112 lodge allotments be rolled over to make available 224 pillows in P25 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 5 2014 based on the growth rate over the past 5 years and Council’s goal to bolster the lodge industry. Only 210 lodge allotments have been used since 2009. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #5, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2014 – Creating Transferable Development Rights – 549 Race Alley Mayor Skadron recused. Amy Simon, community development department, told Council this is a historic property in the Fox Crossing subdivision with a Victorian miner’s cottage which HPC has granted conceptual approval for rehabilitation and renovation. HPC granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus as an incentive. The applicant requests using that bonus as part of the construction and then leave 750 square feet unused floor area and turn that into 3 transferable development rights. Staff recommends approval of the request; the criteria for creating TDRs asks for confirmation the floor area is available and unused. The owner will file deed restrictions to make it clear the square footage has been severed from the site. Ms. Simon told Council the 500 square foot bonus is being used as part of the redevelopment. The criteria states the bonus cannot be sold. When TDRs were established, staff did not want to eliminate the bonus so the floor area bonus goes to the project being constructed; there will be 750 square feet that will be allowed to be sold from the property. Councilwoman Mullins said it feels like the 500 square foot bonus is being turned into a TDR and that is not the intent of the bonus program. Ms. Simon told Council several times in the past the bonus has been incorporated into a project and then TDRs sold. Selling TDRs still takes square feet away from the property and results in a smaller project. Chris Bendon, community development department, said when the program was established, it was important to staff, HPC and Council that the ability to sever a TDR should not eliminate the ability to achieve an historic preservation bonus. Bendon noted the 500 square foot bonus to be granted by HPC is one of the most important incentives and HPC grants it judiciously and for exceptional projects. HPC has to arrive at a conclusion the applicants are making an exceptional preservation effort. Bendon said not allowing an HPC bonus if someone were planning selling TDRs could be perceived as a penalty and may chill incentives for TDRs. P26 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 6 Councilwoman Mullins said it is diluting the idea of the 500 square foot bonus, which allows additional square feet over the existing FAR on site, and then selling 750 square feet. It seems there was enough FAR on site to build the project. The bonus is being sold as a TDR. Bendon said applicants could achieve the same end sequentially by going through severing and selling TDRs first, then coming through again with a development application meeting the standards of an exceptional project with 500 square feet more than allowed and asking for a HPC bonus. This procedure collapses the two steps into one. Bendon pointed out the risk of going through separate steps results in an applicant who severs the square footage before they know whether they have a bonus. Councilman Daily said he likes encouraging exceptional historic projects. Councilwoman Mullins stated this is not the proper interpretation of the incentive program. Ms. Simon said applicants can ask to use every allowable square foot on their property and then a floor area bonus on top of that. This applicant is taking 750 square feet that could have been part of the project and moving it off site. Mayor Pro Tem Frisch opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Frisch closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #46, Series of 2013, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, no; Mayor Pro Tem Frisch, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen, PUD, Subdivision Councilwoman Mullins recused. Sara Adams, community development department, told Council this proposed project is a redevelopment of Hotel Aspen on property zoned MU (mixed use), R-6 with an LP (lodge preservation) overlay. The proposal is to increase from 45 to 54 lodge units with an average size of 300 square feet. Four free market residential units, two duplexes, are proposed along Bleeker street. There are 3 on site affordable housing units. This is a request for consolidated PUD, subdivision, rezoning and fee waivers. The applicants are requesting to vary the maximum cumulative floor area, the maximum lodge floor area, the maximum free market floor area and the maximum unit size for the free market units. HPC heard conceptual design reviews as half the property is located in the Main street historic district; HPC approved the project. P&Z reviewed this and recommended denial by a 3-1-1 vote. Since first reading, the applicant has reduced the floor area for the free market residential component; the lodge component was slightly increased. The net livable for the free market was reduced 125 square feet/unit. Ms. Adams told Council, staff recommends applicants use round number so when applying for a building permit and actual calculations are done, there is a small buffer of square footage available. The reduction in net livable removed that buffer; the increase P27 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 7 in the lodge square footage is a third floor corridor open to the sky, now covered and counted in FAR. Ms. Adams stated staff supports redevelopment of the lodge. The code incentivizes lodge redevelopment by allowing free market as a percentage of lodge net livable area. Ms. Adams noted staff realizes variances may be needed for a lodge redevelopment; however, in reviewing this, staff determined that review criteria for approval of the PUD are not met; compatibility with the neighborhood for architecture, height, bulk and density. Staff is concerned about the amount of floor area for the overall cumulative maximum and the maximum unit sizes for the free market. The proposed units exceed the 2,000 square foot cap for the mixed use zone by 1,275 and 1,625 square feet. The MU zone does allow landing of a TDR to go to a cap of 2,500 square feet. Other criteria requiring compatibility with adjacent historic landmarks are not met. The applicants are allowed to maintain an existing deficit in parking, which they have done. The applicants propose a sub grade parking garage, which meets their parking requirement for development. P&Z had discussions about the on-street parking configuration; the applicants propose a mix of parallel and head in parking as exists now. The draft ordinance requires the parking be parallel for safety reasons. Ms. Adams told Council staff finds the subdivision review criteria are mostly met except for neighborhood compatibility. Rezoning is required to adopt a PUD and staff finds the criteria for rezoning are met. Staff recommended removing R-6 which does not fit this redevelopment and the LP overlay covers the permitted uses not allowed in R-6, which does not allow a lodge or multi-family residential. The code allows lodge redevelopment project to request an impact fee waiver; the applicants requests a waiver of the parks development fee and the air quality impact fee, which is a Council decision. Staff recommends continuing this to study the overall cumulative floor area and the sizes of the free market units. Councilman Romero asked about the applicant’s justification for requesting larger than allowed free market units. Ms. Adams said Council should have background or context for why larger units are requested and why that is important for approval would be helpful. Ms. Adams noted the land use code suggests for an LP overlay, that a PUD is adopted and a site specific approval which allows variances in some areas and allows Council to figure out the balance for the site, the neighborhood and the community. Ms. Adams said staff is aware variances will be requested. This site has both the historic district on the south and residences on the north. Ms. Adams stated staff does not understand why the particular variances are requested. Ms. Adams stated the maximum floor area proposed by the applicant for this site is too much. The applicants may need some variances but their current request does not meet the review criteria. Councilman Frisch asked the allowable FAR in R-6. Ms. Adams pointed out there are several analysis in the staff memo depending on different zoning. Ms. Adams said R-6 underlying P28 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 8 zoning with an LP overlay, one’s floor area is restricted to single family residential floor area. If there were no LP overlay one is allowed 4000 to 4200 square foot on an R-6 lot of the size of these lots. Councilman Daily noted it appears two free market units are 63% above the allowable net livable and two units are 81% over allowable. Councilman Daily said Council needs to looks at what is appropriate for the neighborhood and look at how big may be appropriate. Ms. Adams noted the land use code has a maximum floor area with the ability to increase that floor area to 1.25:1 through special review. The applicant’s request exceeds that special review request. Mayor Skadron asked what the GMQS deadline played in the applicant’s desire to get to Council. Ms. Adams said the memorandum contains a timeline of how the project moved through the process. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, quoted from the Aspen Area community Plan that Aspen needs to have a large and diverse lodging inventory. This lodge provides a specific type of lodging important for the community and important to preserve. Clauson also brought up a report on development in Aspen, “the unpredictable and political nature of the development process creates additional risk for developers and investors which increases development costs and the feasibility gaps for development”. While conceptual approval is non-binding, projects that have received conceptual approval from HPC have been later denied after considerable time and expense. If the city wishes to maintain or expand the bed base, it will need to identify locations where that is appropriate and support projects proposed in those areas”. Clauson said specific areas for lodge expansion project have been identified as it LP zone. This project takes advantage of the LP zone. Clauson said this is the type of project the Aspen Area Community Plan refers to. HPC gave conceptual approval to the mass, scale, height of the project; reviewed compatibility with the surrounding buildings and found that acceptable. Clauson told Council HPC requested design changes, which were provided. Clauson said the applicant feels a conflict between HPC’s approval for bulk, mass and height and that the numbers underlying mass, height and bulk should not be approved. Clauson said this site is 27,000 zoned R-6 and MU about 50/50 split with an LP overlay over the entire property. The LP overlay determines the permitted uses and maximum floor area for the residential development. Clauson questioned whether this is determined by underlying zoning or the LP overlay. Clauson showed the site location, the zoning on the site. LP overlay protects small existing lodges and permits free market housing to support lodge expansion, and there are specific numbers associated with that. Clauson noted the free market development parameters are based on lodge development density, the number of units proposed and the average size of lodge rooms, which in this case would permit 60% residential development. The overlay allows dimensional requirements to be determined through the PUD process. Clauson reiterated free market multi-family housing makes possible redevelopment of a lodge. P29 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 9 Clauson showed the existing elevation, the rear portion of the structure contains 3 stories. The front portions of the lodge will be reconfigured and expanded in the same footprint. The proposed total floor area is 36,500 square feet and 24,200 square feet is lodging; 10,500 square feet is free market residential and 2,000 square feet of affordable housing. Clauson stated the decrease of 500 square feet brings this in accord with the amount of residential the LP overlay allows. The proposed height of the residential is 32’, which is accordance with the MU zone district; the hotel is proposed at 28’. The reconfigured existing lodge units would be an average size of 292 square feet and an increase in the number of lodge units from 45 to 54. The four townhouses will be in two duplexes. There will be 3 on-site affordable housing units. There will be public amenity spaces. The sidewalks improvements are proposed. Trees along Garmisch will not be removed. Clauson said the applicants proposed to leave the parking exactly as it; it serves a need for the hotel and for the park at the Yellow Brick. Clauson said Council should decide whether this should be turned into parallel parking, which looses about 6 spaces/block. Clauson said they are amenable to whatever parking Council decides. Clauson pointed out a patio area off Main street accessible to the public as part of the open space. Clauson showed pictures of the existing and proposed facades, the proposed hotel buildings and the residential units, the alley off Bleeker street with access to the parking garage, parking along Garmisch using both parallel and angle parking. Clauson reviewed the setbacks from Main street and the hotel at 23’ high in the front and 29.5’ at the highest point of the front and 32’ for the residential units. Clauson showed a layout of the hotel rooms. The 3-story residential is setback from the street and from the front façade and along the alley side. The townhouse units are 23’ and 20’ wide and have a modularity like other townhouse units in the west end. Clauson noted the design guidelines for small lodge character contains parameters for building heights, mass and scale adjacent to residential. The only adjacency in this project is the alley on Bleeker. Clauson presented a chart of the PUD variations being requested; one variation is that of cumulative floor area. The applicants are no longer requesting a variation in maximum floor area for free market; the applicant is at the correct floor area according to the formula. The maximum unit size has been reduced 500 square feet, 125 square feet/unit. The front yard setback variation has been eliminated. There is a side yard setback variation requested. Clauson told Council the general justification for variances is that they allow for a project that will work and to provide an economical lodging alternative. The LP overlay allows incentives and the flexibility of dimensional requirements. Clauson reiterated the variations; overall cumulative floor area 33,750 square feet would be allowed and the applicant proposes 36,500 square feet; this is an 8% increase over the allowable square foot. This would allow unique small lodge amenities to be provided such as a bar and restaurant, and pool. If those amenities were removed, 2,750 square feet would be removed. The applicant feels those amenities are P30 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 10 important to the project. Floor area is based on a density requirement that deals only with the lodging rooms, not amenities, which have value for customers. The free market floor area proposed is 10,500 square feet. There are differences between applicant’s calculations and those of the staff. Clauson stated it is hard to do floor area and net leasable calculations at the conceptual stage. Clauson told Council the applicants will continue to work with staff so that no variances in this area will be needed; they will meet the 10,500 square feet for free market floor area. Clauson noted there are two free market units at 3625 square feet and two units at 3275 square feet. The mixed unit zone has a limitation of 2000 to 2500 square feet. If that limitation were imposed, there could be 5 or 6 multi-family units to total the 10,500 square feet, which is not in character with the west end. Clauson stated the four townhouses provide a better alternative for the neighborhood. The increase of net livable is required to provide units that will meet expectations of potential owners. Clauson said the side yard setback along Garmisch is a 0 lot line setback, recommended by staff to increase the separation between the townhouse structures. HPC agreed this was acceptable. Clauson showed the project including the proposed materials which are appropriate for the neighborhood. P&Z was concerned with the size and configuration of free market development and extending the MU zone towards Bleeker street, about introducing modern architecture into the west end, and about the tenet of free market residences to support the lodge redevelopment. The latter is part of the land use code and incentives for small lodges. Clauson noted staff said a lot split would create two lots of 1/3 and 2/3 of the property, which is not the underlying zoning. The area zoned R-6 is half the total property and R-6 would allow for two single family homes of 3240 square feet of floor area and net livable of 5800 to 6000 square feet per unit. There could be a smaller lodge on the south portion of the property with no increase in the number of lodge rooms. Clauson pointed out this application proposes to add lodge rooms. Clauson said the city’s lodge study indicates the city needs higher quality lodging inventory with better amenities. Clauson said the setback are compatible with the neighborhood on Bleeker street; the height is compatible at 32’ with the surrounding residential area. Clauson pointed out Bleeker street is an eclectic mix, not a totally Victorian neighborhood. Clauson stated the project will refurbish an old building, will increase needed lodge rooms and be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Adams told Council staff has not had concerns about the free market floor area but have had concerns about the unit size. The floor area is now 81 square feet over, which is not that large. Staff’s issues are cumulative floor area, the maximum proposed for the site, and the unit size calculations. The maximum cap of unit size in the MU zone is 2000 to 2500 square feet with a TDR in a mixed use building. The applicant is proposing units of 3625 and 3275 square feet, larger than the cap allowed in MU zone. Clauson said the lodge zone encourages small lodge P31 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 11 development by allowing up to 60% of the lodging net livable as residential floor area and their calculation nets 10,500 square feet units. The applicants chose to configure this into 4 townhouse units to better fit into the residential neighborhood. Chris Bendon, community development department, said the conversation on the free market units is important as well as how the community feels about this incentive and the lodging program and its effect on the neighborhoods. Mayor Skadron noted staff’s objections are based on the unit size calculation and the cumulative floor area. Bendon said in their discussions, Council should start with the allowable floor area, looking at fit, setbacks and then seeing how appropriate special review floor area would be and whether Council would approve the maximum or a number in between. Bendon noted the allowable is 1:1 with 1.25:1 subject to review under certain criteria. Bendon reminded Council a PUD sets dimensional requirements, like heights, setbacks and uses and replaces the special review. Bendon reiterated Council needs to discuss whether this meets community expectations and fits within the neighborhood and sustains the lodge program. Councilman Romero said the size of the land zoned R-6 comes up with different numbers. Ms. Adams said the staff memorandum reviews a traditional residential lot scenario, 12,000 square foot lot, one could do two single family residences with a combined floor area 4260 square feet. Councilman Romero said the application appears to line up with the lodge incentives that the City has been working on. Bendon agreed Council needs to look at this application as well as what are other options for this property. Councilman Romero said using the MU square foot limit for residential side and putting on the R-6 portion of the property seems difficult. Bendon said the applicants have requested mixed use apply to the north side of the property and they are applying the 32’ allowance. Bendon said MU zone has an enhanced allowable height and also the unit size limitation. Council has to look at the end result of what they want for the community, what they are trying to achieve with the lodge preservation program and how it applies to this site. Bendon stated the code has a genesis to it and there were conversations around code amendments and reasons why they were adopted. Councilman Daily said he struggles with how far the city should go toward incentivizing redevelopment and approving free market sizes that are larger than allowed by the code. Councilman Daily said the city’s code suggests small free market units are appropriate for this area. Clauson told Council the deadline for GMQS allotments dictated the necessity to get through P&Z. Clauson said the GMQS deadlines may not be necessary any more. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk urged Council to deny this project and have the applicant start over. This proposal does not preserve the small lodge; it is massive, out of character, it detracts from the neighborhood, is an abuse of the PUD process. Ms. Kirk said this is not compatible and does not enhance the community. P32 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 12 Randy Crawford, adjacent property owner, said the north end of the project is in an area that is a community and they are concerned about the scope and about the precedent set if this were approved. Steve Garcia, Victorians on Bleeker HOA, submitted letters for the record from homeowners opposed to the project. Garcia said the overutilization of the variances and the PUD process to get maximum mass and size only benefits the owner, not the neighborhood or the community. Garcia said they do not feel the architecture fits in with the generally prevalent Victorian architecture. Garcia stated they agree with P&Z’s findings that the sale of free market townhouse to fund a remodel is not a sustainable practice and with the criteria P&Z felt were not met. Garcia told Council there is an 80 year old spruce tree where the townhouses will be built and the proposals contemplates removing the tree. Garcia presented Council minutes from December 12, 2005, where Council supported denial of a tree removal permit for construction. Ms. Adams entered letters into the record from Frederick Henry, Gregory and Anita Pierce Erwin, Carolyn Landis, Brandon Rose, Phyllis Bronson, and Charles Curry, all opposed to the project. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilman Frisch said there is a small town versus lodging inventory struggle in this proposal and he is concerned about both. Councilman Frisch said he has championed lodge incentives and agreed it is important when Council approves and incentivizes small lodges, that the end result is appropriate for the community. Councilman Frisch said it does not behoove the community to lose any more lodging. Councilman Frisch said although people mostly favor maintaining small lodge inventory, when one looks at the numbers and the economics, it might make sense to tear down old lodges and maximize the residential components. Councilman Frisch said the reality is there has to be a residential component. Councilman Frisch noted one element that makes Aspen great is its authentic architecture. Councilman Frisch supports the 10,500 square feet for the residential and that this proposal is roughly what the community will have to buy into for maintaining small lodges. Councilman Daily agreed that is the tension Council is dealing with. Councilman Daily stated he is not convinced the extra size is justified by what is being offered to the community. Councilman Daily said he would like to see the units reduced in size and lowered by a reasonable amount. Councilman Romero referred to a table, “allowable free market residential FAR” from the land use code, which has average net livable area of individual lodge units on the parcel and 300 square feet or less, one gets the free market residential as a percentage of the total lodge unit net livable area at 60% and the percentage decreases as the size of the lodge rooms increase. Councilman Romero noted the community has not yet offered a way to get smaller lodges redeveloped or built. Councilman Romero said he is comfortable with this code provision to P33 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 13, 2014 13 drive small lodge preservation. Councilman Romero said he is also comfortable with the size of the free market residential units. Councilman Romero noted there is no neighborhood support evident for this project. Mayor Skadron said an appropriate balance must be met between incentivizing lodge redevelopment and preserving neighborhood mass and scale. Mayor Skadron stated this current application is sufficiently incompatible with the R-6 neighborhood and fails to meet the PUD review criteria on neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Skadron noted parking, finishes and design are issues for staff and HPC. Mayor Skadron pointed out the project did not garner support from P&Z or from staff and it is a concern that the GMQS deadline forced an expedited P&Z review. Mayor Skadron stated he wants to see the integrity of the lodge incentive program be upheld and that small town character be maintained. Mayor Skadron supports further study of this proposal and questioned whether the GMQS deadline can be waived. Bendon said it cannot be waived; that process was set up for many applications to be scored and forward to compete for allotments. Bendon noted the city has not been in that type of development environment for years and staff finds less value in the GMQS deadline. Bendon suggested directing staff to bring a code amendment to Council. Council agreed on addressing a code amendment. Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, to February 10, 2014, for restudy of the free market residential units and overall cumulative floor area and to better relate to the neighborhood and to have staff return with an ordinance to eliminate the February 15 deadline for GMQS; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to go into executive session at 8:50 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins returned to Chambers. Councilman Romero moved to come out of executive session at 9:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk P34 VI.b 1.27.2014 – First Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Growth Management Submission Deadlines Code Amendment Ordinance 2, Series of 2014, First Reading MEETING DATE: January 27, 2014 (PH 2.10.2014) SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance includes a proposed code amendment to eliminate the twice yearly Growth Management submission deadlines. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to eliminate the February 15th and August 15th submission deadlines for growth management applications, and instead allow rolling submissions all year long. In addition, the code amendment eliminates the competitive scoring system, as it becomes obsolete when the application deadlines are eliminated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 1st reading of proposed code amendments to eliminate the Growth Management application submission deadlines and the competitive scoring system in the Growth Management Chapter of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. Steps 1 and 2 occurred as part of the public hearing on Hotel Aspen on January 13, 2014. At that meeting City Council directed staff to pursue this code amendment. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: Growth Management Deadlines: The Growth Management code is divided into four (4) types of development applications – Administrative Applications, Minor P&Z Applications, Major P&Z Applications, and City Council Applications. Only applications under the Major P&Z category are limited to when they can be submitted. All other applications can be made at any P35 VII.a 1.27.2014 – First Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment Page 2 of 3 time of the year and can request growth management allotments on a first-come, first-served basis. Major P&Z applications can only be submitted on February 15th and August 15th. If the allotments have been used by other projects by these dates, an applicant is forced to wait until the next submission deadline, which could be a year away. Similarly, if a project receives other requisite land use approvals after the deadline, the applicant must wait until the next submission date to receive their allotments. This can create significant time delays for an applicant. The proposed code amendment eliminates the Major P&Z applications, moving those reviews into the Minor P&Z application category and allowing an applicant to apply at any time during the year. Competitive Scoring: Major P&Z projects are required to comply with “Community Objective Scoring” as part of their review. No other projects are subject to this review. The review is done administratively, and scores a project against community goals, including providing more affordable housing than is required by code, achieving LEED Certification, and providing lodge units that average 400 sq ft in size or less. The intent of the system was to “reward” projects that exceed code in these areas by allowing them to be reviewed first, and therefore have “first dibs” on the available allotments. Since the system was adopted in 2006 there have always been more allotments available than requests, so the scoring system has not impacted which projects move forward. In fact, in some years multiple projects have applied that received zero points in the scoring system, so the intent of the system has not matched the reality of what applicants are requesting. Because only Major P&Z applications are required to go through scoring, eliminating this section and allowing all growth management applications to be reviewed on a first-come, first- served basis renders the competition provision of the code obsolete. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance. The changes Council has requested have been on staff’s list of amendments related to the lodging work, and staff had planned to bring these forward in March as part of that work. This Ordinance speeds the implementation of this and eases the burden for existing projects needing 2014 growth management allotments. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2014, approving amendments eliminating the Growth Management application submission deadlines and the competitive scoring system in the Growth Management Chapter of the Land Use Code.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P36 VII.a 1.27.2014 – First Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Language P37 VII.a GMQS competition Code Amendment Ordinance ___, Series 2013 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE No. 2 (Series of 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.470 – GRWOTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to craft a code amendment to eliminate the twice yearly submission deadlines in the Growth Management Code s; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2014, the City Council directed staff to draft a code amendment that would eliminate the twice yearly submission deadlines in the growth management code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed code amendments is to eliminate the February 15th and August 15th submission deadlines for growth management applications, and instead allow rolling submissions all year long. This Code amendment shall apply to all applications made in the 2014 growth management year. P38 VII.a GMQS competition Code Amendment Ordinance ___, Series 2013 Page 2 of 5 Section 2: Section 26.470.030.D, subsection “Annual allotment”, shall be amended as follows: Annual allotment. The annual allotment reflects each year's potential growth within the City, applied to each type of land use. The annual allotment may be reduced if multi-year allotments are granted by the City Council. The following annual allotments are hereby established: Development Type Annual Allotment Residential — Free-Market 18 units Commercial 33,300 net leasable square feet Residential — Affordable Housing No annual limit Lodging 112 pillows Essential public facility No annual limit Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the project and completion of any appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification from the property owner. [All other portions of Section 26.470.030.D remain unchanged] Section 3: Section 26.470.030.E, Available allotment in each of two (2) annual application sessions, shall be deleted. All subsequent sections shall be renumbered as follows: Section F becomes Section E Section 4: Section 26.470.070, Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications, shall be renamed to “Planning and Zoning Commission applications,” and all references to “Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications” are hereby renamed “Planning and Zoning Commission applications.” Section 5: Section 26.470.080, Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications, is deleted and the five subsections are moved to Section 26.470.070, Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Subsections 1-5 that are being moved from 26.470.080 to 26.470.070 shall be renumbered as follows: 6. Expansion or new commercial development. 7. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. 8. Lodge development. 9. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. P39 VII.a GMQS competition Code Amendment Ordinance ___, Series 2013 Page 3 of 5 10. Residential development – seventy percent (70%) affordable. Section 6: Section 26.470.110.B, Growth management review procedures, Application review procedures – administrative review applications, minor P&Z review application and City Council review applications, shall be amended as follows: B. Application review procedures 1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation may be submitted to the Community Development Director on any date of the year. 2. Administrative applications. Growth management applications for Community Development Director review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.060, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 3. Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Growth management applications for Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. 4. City Council applications. Growth management review applications for City Council review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.090, that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, recommend to City Council that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. City Council shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommendation of the Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt an ordinance approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. P40 VII.a GMQS competition Code Amendment Ordinance ___, Series 2013 Page 4 of 5 City Council review applications that require major Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed pursuant to the process outlined in Subsection 26.470.110.C. Section 7: Section 26.470.110.C, Growth management review procedures, Application review procedures – major Planning and Zoning Commission review, shall be deleted. All subsequent sections shall be renumbered as follows: Section D becomes Section C Section E becomes Section D Section F becomes Section E Section 8: Section 26.470.110.F.10 (renumbered to 26.470.110.E.10) shall be deleted. Section 9: Section 26.470.120, Community objective scoring criteria, shall be deleted. Section 10: Section 26.470.150.A Appeals – Appeals of community objective scoring, shall be deleted. All subsequent sections shall be renumbered as follows: Section B becomes Section A Section C becomes Section B Section D becomes Section C Section 11: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 12: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 13: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the ___ day of _______, 2013, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published 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 on the ____ day of ____________, 2013. P41 VII.a GMQS competition Code Amendment Ordinance ___, Series 2013 Page 5 of 5 Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ City Attorney P42 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It updates a code section that is already in place. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: City Council has identified a number of AACP implementation priorities, including streamlining the development process and bolstering the lodging base. This amendment eliminates the twice yearly growth management competition deadlines that are currently in place for certain projects and allows all growth management applications to be made at any time during the year. All applications will continue to be required to meet the applicable review criteria. Staff is recommending the scoring section of the code be eliminated as well, as it becomes obsolete once the competition deadlines are eliminated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P43 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 1 of 19 Chapter 26.470 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) Sections: Sec. 26.470.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.470.020. Applicability. Sec. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments. Sec. 26.470.040. Exempt development. Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. Sec. 26.470.060. Administrative applications. Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Sec. 26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Sec. 26.470.090. City Council applications. Sec. 26.470.100. Calculations. Sec. 26.470.110. Growth management review procedures. Sec. 26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria. Sec. 26.470.130. Reconstruction limitations. Sec. 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order. Sec. 26.470.150. Appeals. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments. D. Annual development allotments. The Growth Management Quota System establishes annual development allotments available for use by projects during each growth management year, January 1 to December 1. The number of development allotments available within a single growth management year varies based on the following factors: 1. The type of land use. 2. The annual allotment available for each land use. 3. The number of allotments granted the previous year and whether or not the City Council permits an accumulation from year to year. 4. The number of multi-year allotments granted by the City Council from future years. 5. The number of allotments already granted in the current growth management year. The Community Development Director shall calculate the development allotments available for each type of land use as follows: Available development allotments = annual allotment + Carry-forward allotment from prior year Where the above terms are defined and established as follows: P44 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 2 of 19 Annual allotment. The annual allotment reflects each year's potential growth within the City, applied to each type of land use. The annual allotment may be reduced if multi-year allotments are granted by the City Council. The following annual allotments are hereby established: Development Type Annual Allotment Residential — Free-Market 18 units Commercial 33,300 net leasable square feet Residential — Affordable Housing No annual limit Lodging 112 pillows Essential public facility No annual limit Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the project and completion of any appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification from the property owner. Carry-forward allotment. At the conclusion of each growth management year, the City Council shall determine the amount of unused and unclaimed allotments, for each type of development, and may assign the unused allotment to become part of the available development allotment for future projects (see accounting procedure). There is no limit, other than that implemented by the City Council, on the amount of potential growth that may be carried forward to the next year. Allotments awarded to a project which does not proceed and which are considered void shall constitute unused allotments and shall be considered for allotment roll-over by the City Council. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification from the property owner or upon expiration of the development right pursuant to Subparagraph 26.470.060.B.4, Expiration of growth management allotments. E. Available allotments in each of two (2) annual application sessions. The Growth Management Quota System permits the submission of growth management allotment applications that require scoring twice per year. (Not all applications require scoring.) The submission deadlines for the two (2) sessions shall be as defined in Section 26.470.110. For the first session of the year, the number of development allotments available shall be the entire annual allotment established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Allotments that are not granted, granted but then vacated or not requested in the first session of the year shall be available in the second session of the year. Any allotments remaining after the second session of the year shall only be available in the future as determined by the City Council (see accounting procedure). Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the P45 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 3 of 19 project and completion of any appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification from the property owner. FE. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing account of available, requested and approved growth management allocations and progress towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the annual development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations. The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. The City Council shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: 1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. 2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. 1. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark building for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: P46 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 4 of 19 a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. For example: A project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a total of 5.4 employees, as follows: First 4 employees = 0 employee mitigation Second 4 employees mitigated at 30% = 1.2 employees Remaining 7 employees mitigated at 60% = 4.2 employees Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4, Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free- market units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. 2. Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. 3. Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The net livable area expansion of existing free-market residential units within a mixed-use project, or the net livable area expansion after demolition of existing free-market residential units within a multi-family project, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. The remodeling or expansion of existing multi-family residential dwellings shall be exempt from growth management as long as no demolition occurs, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.040.3. P47 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 5 of 19 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such P48 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 6 of 19 non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. 5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market- rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi- family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be P49 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 7 of 19 deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free- market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use development. b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of the free-market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. P50 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 8 of 19 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash- in-lieu payment. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free- market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph d, Location requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi- Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet P51 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 9 of 19 current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing Units. f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a structure which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural, safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior dimensions and character of the building. 26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review, above and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth P52 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 10 of 19 management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section26.470.050 above. Except as noted, all Planning and Zoning Commission growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and development ceiling levels. 16. Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. 27. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above. 38. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Average Net Livable Area of Lodge Units Being Added to the Parcel Affordable Housing Net Livable Area Required (Percentage of Free- Market Net Livable Area) Percentage of Employee Generation Requiring the Provision of Mitigation 600 square feet or greater 30% 60% 500 square feet 30% 40% 400 square feet 20% 20% 300 square feet or smaller 10% 10% When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For P53 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 11 of 19 example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees generated. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. If the project contains less than one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 49. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area is affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi-site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 4 rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total floor area and deed-restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify. 510. Residential development – seventy percent (70%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition to an existing residential project, in which seventy percent (70%) of the project's additional units and seventy percent (70%) of the project's additional bedrooms are affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. Seventy percent (70%) of the total additional units and total additional bedrooms shall be affordable housing. At least forty percent (40%) of the units shall average Category 4 P54 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 12 of 19 rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The remaining thirty-percent affordable housing unit requirement may be provided as Resident Occupied (RO) units as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Multi-site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. If the project consists of one (1) free-market residence, then the provision of one (1) RO residence and one (1) category residence shall be considered meeting the seventy-percent unit standard. If the project consists of two (2) free-market residences, then the provision of two (2) RO residences and two (2) category residences shall qualify. 26.470.110. Growth management review procedures. B. Application review procedures – administrative review applications, minor P&Z review applications, and City Council review applications. 1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation that qualifies for administrative review, minor Planning and Zoning Commission review or City Council review may be submitted to the Community Development Director on any date of the year. 2. Administrative applications. Growth management applications for Community Development Director review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.060, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 3. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Growth management applications for minor Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. 4. City Council applications. Growth management review applications for City Council review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.090, that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, recommend to City P55 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 13 of 19 Council that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. City Council shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommendation of the Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt an ordinance approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. City Council review applications that require major Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed pursuant to the process outlined in Subsection 26.470.110.C. C. Application review procedures – major Planning and Zoning Commission review. 1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation that requires major Planning and Zoning Commission review may only be submitted to the Community Development Director on one (1) of the two (2) application submittal dates, February 15 or August 15. When the application submittal date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the next business day shall be the application submittal date. Applications shall only be submitted within the growth management year in which allocations are requested. 2. Community objectives scoring and establishment of the application review order. Applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission growth management review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director on the submittal dates listed above. The Community Development Director shall review the applications for completeness and assign a community objectives score to each application, pursuant to Section 26.470.120, Community objectives scoring criteria. The assigned scores shall be used to establish the review order and sequence to which applications may be granted growth management allocations. Applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission growth management review failing to receive a minimum threshold score in any one (1) of the community objectives scoring classifications, as defined in Section 26.470.120, shall be denied by the Community Development Director. The project with the highest community objectives score shall be reviewed first and shall be the first project eligible for growth management allocations. The second-highest- scoring project shall be reviewed second and shall be the second project eligible for growth management allocations, and so forth. Applications shall maintain this assigned order and allocations shall be granted accordingly. After submission, applications may be modified but only in a manner that does not reduce the project's total community objectives score. If projects obtain identical scores, the project with the highest score for Criterion #1 shall be considered to have the higher score. If projects with identical scores also have P56 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 14 of 19 identical scores for Criterion #1, a random drawing shall be held to determine the order in which the projects shall proceed. 3. Application review. After the community objectives scoring is complete and the review order is established, growth management applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and the recommendation of the Community Development Director during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E. CD. Allocation procedure. Following approval or approval with conditions, pursuant to the above procedures for review, the Community Development Director shall issue a development order pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development orders. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this Title or any other regulations of the City. DE. Expiration of growth management allotments. Growth management allotments granted pursuant to this Chapter shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the development order, pursuant to the terms and limitations of Section 26.304.070. Expired allotments shall not be considered valid, and the applicant shall be required to re-apply for growth management approval. Expired allotments may be added to the next year's available allotments at the discretion of the City Council, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.E. EF. Application contents. Applications for growth management shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Common development review procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A site-improvement survey depicting: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) All legal easements and restrictions. c) All requirements for improvement surveys outlined in the current City Engineering Department regulations. 3. A description of the project and the number and type of the requested growth management allotments. 4. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development, including proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, site drainage and any associated off-site improvements. P57 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 15 of 19 5. A description of the proposed affordable housing and how it provides adequate mitigation for the project and conforms to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. 6. A statement as to how the application should be considered "exceptional" if multi-year allotments are being requested. 7. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, proposed infrastructure improvements and the specific assurances that will be made to ensure that the public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. 8. A written response to each of the review criteria for the particular review requested. 9. Copies of required approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council, as necessary. 10. As applicable, a recommended community objective score according to the scoring criteria applicable to the type of development as outlined in Section 26.470.120 and a brief explanation supporting the recommended score. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1; Ord. No. 36, 2013, §5) 26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria. Growth management allocation applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed in the order of their community objectives score with the highest-scoring project first, the second-highest-scoring project second, and so forth. The following scoring criteria have been established in order to define the City's expectation for new development and to reward projects that achieve identified community goals. Projects failing to receive a minimum threshold score in any one (1) of the scoring classifications, as the term is defined in Section 26.470.120, shall be denied by the Community Development Director. The following point system shall be used to assign a community objectives score to each project. The score shall be a summation of the individual scores from each of the following categories. Scores shall be calculated to the nearest integer. A. Community Objectives Scoring Criterion #1 – Workforce Housing. The community desires a balance between Aspen – the Community and Aspen – the Resort. Both the social fabric of the community and the long-term economic well-being of the resort are reliant on a resource of housing opportunities for local working residents. The Community Development Director shall assign a score to each project for this objective based on the following point schedule: 1. Points for the number of employees housed. One (1) point shall be assigned for each one percent (1%) by which a proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing requirements of this Chapter, as applicable to the particular type of development, with actual housing units on site or off site. Depending upon the type of development, affordable housing requirements are either expressed as a number of units, number of employees to be housed or square footage of housing to be provided, and the score shall be a reflection of the applicable requirement. In circumstances where a project's affordable housing P58 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 16 of 19 requirements are a combination of requirements, the average percent by which a proposal exceeds each requirement shall be used. In no case shall cash-in-lieu be used to obtain points for this criterion. 2. Points for the size of affordable housing units. One (1) point shall be assigned for each one percent (1%) by which proposed affordable housing units exceed the minimum square footage requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In no case shall cash-in-lieu be used to obtain points for this criterion. 3. Minimum threshold requirement. Proposals with less than the minimum required affordable housing requirement, as required pursuant to this Chapter according to the particular type of development, shall receive a failing score for this criterion and shall be denied by the Community Development Director. The minimum requirement may be a combination of on-site units, off-site units or cash in lieu thereof, as such methods are permitted by this Chapter. Table 26.470.1 – Examples for scoring projects on workforce housing criterion: Required number of employees to be housed by development Proposed number of employees to be housed by development with actual units Percentage by which proposed units exceed the minimum size requirements Score for Criterion # 1 Comments Project A 12 15 0 25 This project proposes to house 3 more employees than the 12 required. 3/12 = 25% = a score of 25 Project B 12 12 20 20 This project proposes to house the minimum number of employees, but with units that are 20% larger than required. 20% larger = a score of 20 Project C 8 12 15 65 This project proposes to house 4 more employees than the 8 required. And the units are also 15% larger than required. 4/8 = 50% + 15% = a score of 65 Project D 5 6 30 50 This project proposes to house 1 more employee than the 5 required. And the units are also 30% larger than required. 1/5 = 20% + 30% = a score P59 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 17 of 19 Required number of employees to be housed by development Proposed number of employees to be housed by development with actual units Percentage by which proposed units exceed the minimum size requirements Score for Criterion # 1 Comments of 50 B. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #2 – Energy Conservation. The community desires development that minimizes its impact on the natural environment and to maintain a leadership role in energy conservation and production strategies, efficient building techniques and use of materials. The Community Development Director shall assign a score to each project for this objective based on the following point schedule and the most recent version of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards of the US Green Building Council: Points for LEED Certified Projects LEED Bronze level projects = 10 points LEED Silver level projects = 20 points LEED Gold level projects = 30 points LEED Platinum level projects = 50 points In order for proposals to obtain points for this criterion, an applicant must demonstrate credible progress towards certification as determined sufficient by the Community Development Director. It shall not be considered sufficient to merely state a certification level without evidence supporting progress towards actual certification by the US Green Building Council. In no event shall a project be relieved of the adopted energy efficiency requirements of the City that are applicable to all development projects. C. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #3 – Small Lodges. The City's small lodges provide a lodging experience that is becoming increasingly unique in mountain resorts. Refurbishment, expansion and redevelopment of small lodges and lodges with small units are increasingly challenging. In order to sustain the continued existence of these lodges, the following points are available to projects in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District and projects with lodge units that average four hundred (400) square feet or less. The Community Development Director shall assign a score to each lodging project for this objective based on the following point schedule: P60 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 18 of 19 1. Points for Lodge Preservation Projects. Fifteen (15) points shall be assigned to lodging projects located in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District. For projects in the LP District that do not have a lodging component, no points shall be assigned. 2. Points for Small Lodging Units. Fifteen (15) points shall be assigned for lodging projects with lodge units that average four hundred (400) square feet or less. For lodging projects that provide lodging units averaging greater than four hundred (400) square feet, no points shall be assigned. For projects that qualify for both categories of points (a lodging project in the LP District with lodge units averaging four hundred [400] square feet or less), thirty (30) points shall be assigned. D. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #4 – Community Commercial. This Section is reserved for a future community objective. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) 26.470.150. Appeals. A. Appeals of community objectives scoring. An applicant aggrieved by the community objectives score assigned to its project by the Community Development Director may appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. The Planning and Zoning Commission may uphold the scoring, remand the scoring to the Community Development Director for rescoring with or without direction on particular scores or may choose to rescore the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall be the final administrative action on the matter. Upon appeal of any project's scoring, the Community Development Director shall not process any application for growth management allotment within the same development category until the appeal is concluded and the final review order is established. BA. Appeal of adverse determination by Community Development Director. An appeal made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director on an application for administrative review shall be to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination of the Community Development Director based upon the application submitted to the Community Development Director and the record established by the Director's review. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter. CB. Appeal of adverse determination by Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on an application for Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be to the City Council. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon the application submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the record established by the Commission's review. The decision of the City Council shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter. P61 VII.a 1.27.2014 – 1st Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B Page 19 of 19 DC. Insufficient development allotments. Any property owner within the City who is prevented from developing a property because that year's development allotments have been entirely allocated may appeal to the City Council for development approval. An application requesting allotments must first be denied due to lack of necessary allotments. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The City Council may take any such action determined necessary, including but not limited to making a one-time increase of the annual development allotment sufficient to accommodate the application. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) P62 VII.a Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager Mitzi Rapkin, Community Relations Director DATE: January 22, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 27, 2014 SUBJECT: Formalizing Next Generation Advisory Commission Ordinance 01-2014 __________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: In 2011 City Council identified as one of its top ten goals to “increase the involvement of Aspenites aged 20-40 in the civic process.” Since that goal was set in July 2011, City staff has been working to engage this demographic on ideas and strategies to get members more involved in civic life as well as determine what their interests are. This effort has led to the formation of the Next Generation Advisory Board which now seeks to be formally recognized by the City Council as an Advisory Commission to the Council. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION: City Council and Staff have never specifically targeted an age group to seek their members’ involvement. While the City has regularly engaged citizens based on specific issues, the lack of Aspen’s 18-40 year old population in those discussions as well as in regular meetings and serving on government boards was of enough import to Council at the July 2011 retreat to direct staff to work toward changing this. Since then a group of 18-40 year olds has met to discuss how to create a forum where member of their generation could interact with the City Council in order to advance the policy interests of the 18-40 year old demographic who live or work within the Aspen area. Council met with this group at a worksession on November 4, 2013. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen places a high priority on engaging the public in civic discourse. Public participation is essential in having a thriving political atmosphere. It is clear from City meetings, representation on City boards and commissions and participation in public engagement sessions that the 18-40 year old demographic is underrepresented. As these individuals are the future of Aspen, Council said it was important to engage them in current City issues as well as hear what topics concern them the most. P63 VIII.a Page 2 A team of City staff including: Barry Crook, Kathryn Koch, Alissa Farrell and Mitzi Rapkin worked on this goal. Using a database Mitzi collected of young Aspenites along with a cooperative effort with Aspen Young Professionals Association using its email list, staff reached out to more than 500 people within the 20-40 year-old demographic inviting them to focus groups and soliciting ideas and comments if they couldn’t attend the group meetings. The team also held a special focus group for City employees of that age group. One idea that came out of the task force was to create a government board. City Council supported this idea and a group of 18-40 year olds continued to meet. They formed an advisory board, created a set of by-laws, a strategic plan and met with City Council in a worksession on November 4, 2013. Their guiding philosophy as stated is: “We believe the continued flourishing of Aspen depends on an active and engaged citizenry of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and ages. This diversity has always been the cornerstone of Aspen’s distinctive character and vitality. As a community members, we feel it is our responsibility to give back, bind together, and actively shape Aspen’s future for the benefit of us all. It is in this spirit that NextGen has formed and we look forward to serving our demographic, our community and our City.” This group consists of: Skippy Mesirow Christine Benedetti Jennifer Burnett Kimbo Brown-Schiracco Catherine Lutz Lindsay Palardy Summer Woodson-Berg Jill Teehan Aspen NextGen is a proposed commission of the City of Aspen. NextGen was formed with the mission of better identifying, representing and advancing the civic and community interests of 18-40 year olds who live or work in the Aspen area. They do this by engaging with their demographic and local elected officials to help advise on policy decisions. The methods proposed to accomplish this mission are: serve Aspen with the goal of making it as vibrant and successful a community as it can be respond to inquiries from City Council on how policy decisions will affect the 18-40 year-olds living or working in Aspen utilize surveys, events, and other forms of outreach to understand the concerns and needs of our demographic attempt to engage the 18-40 year-olds by placing them on City boards, involving them in governmental processes and educating them on policy-related issues aim to empower our demographic by concretely showing that our actions can in fact have an impact. P64 VIII.a Page 3 At your November worksession you indicated a desire to formally create this advisory group as a commission to the City Council. Attached is the set of By-Laws agreed to by the founding group. The specifics are: the group will consist of no less than seven (7) and no more than twelve (12). A majority of the Members must be City of Aspen residents. All Members must live or work in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary all efforts will be made to appoint a commission that is representative of the Next Generation demographic – in terms of age ranges, gender, working classification/incomes and interests. Initial terms will be split between 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year terms so as to create staggered terms– those initial appointments would be as follows: Skippy Mesirow - Chair - 4 years Christine Benedetti - Co-Chair - 3 years Jennifer Bennett - Treasurer - 2 years Kimbo Brown-Schirato - 1 year Jill Teehan - 4 years Lindsey Palardy - 3 years Summer Woodson-Berg - 2 years ALT: Catherine Lutz - 1 year RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution 04-2014 and create the Next Generation Advisory Commission 2. Make the appointments as indicated above 3. Recruit for the three open seats ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Proposed By-Laws of the Next Generation Advisory Commission P65 VIII.a ORDINANCE #1 (Series of 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CREATING “THE NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY COMMISSION” AND MAKING INITIAL APPOINTMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Aspen places a high priority on engaging the public in civic discourse. Public participation is essential in having a thriving political atmosphere. WHERAS, it is clear from City meetings, representation on City boards and commissions and participation in public engagement sessions that the 18-40 year old demographic is underrepresented. WHERAS, as these individuals are the future of Aspen, Council said it was important to engage them in current City issues as well as hear what topics concern them the most. WHERAS, for the past two years, one of City Council’s top ten goals has been to encourage and the 18 to 40 year old demographic in civic life, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to create an advisory commission composed of 18 to 40 year olds - “the next generation” to advise City Council on decisions that affect the future and to make policies beneficial to the 18 to 40 year old demographic so they can thrive, life and work here. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the “Next Generation Advisory Commission” is hereby established as follows: A. Qualifications – Seven members and alternates shall be appointed by the City Council to the Board and each appointment must live or work in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. All members shall be within the targeted demographic and if they get too old, they’re out! B. Membership will consist of no less than seven (7) and no more than twelve (12) – inclusive of alternates. A majority of the Members must be City of Aspen residents. All Members must live or work in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. C. Members shall serve four-year terms. D. All efforts will be made to appoint a commission that is representative of the Next Generation demographic – in terms of age ranges, gender, working classification/incomes and interests. P66 VIII.a Section 2 Initial terms will be split between 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year terms so as to create staggered terms– those initial appointments would be as follows: Skippy Mesirow - Chair - 4 years Christine Benedetti - Co-Chair - 3 years Jennifer Bennett - Treasurer - 2 years Kimbo Brown-Schirato - 1 year Jill Teehan - 4 years Lindsey Palardy - 3 years Summer Woodson-Berg - 2 years ALT: Catherine Lutz - 1 year E. Meetings of the Next Gen board be at least four times/year. Meeting dates shall be set and scheduled by the commission and publicly posted. F. The Mission statement of the Next Gen is to advance the policy interests of the 18-40 year old demographic who live or work within the Aspen Area. G. The Next Gen shall endeavor to encourage more citizens within their demographic to partake in civic life and to participate in making Aspen a desirable and attainable place to live for the 18 to 40 year olds. Section 3 If any section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of January 2014, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. P67 VIII.a INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of January 2014. __________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ____ day of __________________. __________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P68 VIII.a Next Generation Advisory Commission (NGAC) The Aspen Area Next Generation Advisory Board, an unincorporated association, agrees to the following By-Laws effective this 10th day of June, 2013. These By-Laws supersede and replace any and all prior By-Laws of the Board. 1. DEFINITIONS: 1.1. Annual Meeting: has the meaning described in Section 4.5. 1.2. Commission: Commission refers to the Aspen Area Next Generation Advisory Commission which shall have an existence as determined by the Aspen City Council. . 1.3. Constituency: all 18-40 year olds who live or work in the Aspen area. 1.4. Executive Committee: has the meaning described in Section 5. 1.5. Goals: Goals are defined in Section 2.2. 1.6. Members: Members are defined in Section 3.1. 2. MISSION AND GOALS: 2.1 Mission: To advance the policy interests of the 18-40 year old demographic who live or work within the Aspen area. 2.2 Goals: The Board shall vote to approve annual Goals that promote the Mission at the Annual Meeting. 3. MEMBERSHIP: 3.1 Members. There shall be one class of Members who will be comprised of individuals between the ages of approximately 18-40 years old who live or work in the Aspen area. 3.2 Expectations of Members. Members are expected, amongst other things, to: (i) attend at least 75% of the Board meetings throughout the year, in person or by phone, (ii) sit on and actively participate in a committee, (iii) attend a majority of committee meetings, in person or by phone, and (iv) be an active and accountable participant in accomplishing the annual Goals. 4. BOARD: 4.1. General Powers. The Board shall have the responsibility, duty and power to address the needs of the Constituency; to identify or propose the creation of policies and programmatic opportunities; to address those needs and to inform the necessary elected and appointed officials of those needs. The Board shall also serve as the meaningful voice to ensure that the Constituency is engaging with the City of Aspen. P69 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 2 of 8 A. 4.2. Number, Tenure and Qualifications. Seven members and alternates shall be appointed by the City Council to the Board and each appointment must live or work in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. All members shall be within the targeted demographic and if they get too old, they’re out! Membership will consist of no less than seven (7) and no more than twelve (12) – inclusive of alternates. A majority of the Members must be City of Aspen residents. All Members must live or work in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. Members shall serve four- year terms. All efforts will be made to appoint a commission that is representative of the Next Generation demographic – in terms of age ranges, gender, working classification/incomes and interests. Initial terms will be split between 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year terms so as to create staggered terms– those initial appointments would be as follows: Skippy Mesirow - Chair - 4 years Christine Benedetti - Co-Chair - 3 years Jennifer Bennett - Treasurer - 2 years Kimbo Brown-Schirato - 1 year Jill Teehan - 4 years Lindsey Palardy - 3 years Summer Woodson-Berg - 2 years ALT: Catherine Lutz - 1 year 4.3. Election of Members; Election of the Executive Committee. All openings on the Commission will be filled by an appointment made by a majority of the Aspen City Council. The NGAB may make recommendations to the City Council for candidates to be interviewed, but an application must be made to the City Council in a manner designated by the City Clerk. At the Annual Meeting, the Commission shall elect Executive Committee members for a one year term as follows: (i) Chair of the Commission, (ii) Vice-Chair of the Commission, (iii) Treasurer and (v) any other officers the Commission determines are necessary.. 4.4. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of Commission shall be held throughout the year as determined by the Members. The Commission will meet at least six times throughout the year. The Chair shall provide the Members with at least 10 days written notice of the location together with the exact date and time of the meeting. Such notice shall be provided to the public by the Aspen City Clerk as required by Colorado statute. An agenda for each meeting will be circulated to the Members electronically by the Chair at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting and posted by the Aspen City Clerk in accordance with Colorado law.. 4.5. Annual Meetings. An Annual Meeting shall be held each year as determined by the Executive Committee. Notice will be provided to the public by the Aspen City Clerk as required by Colorado statute. At each Annual Meeting, the Commission shall elect Executive Committee officers, set annual Goals, and determine the dates and times for Commission meetings in the coming P70 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 3 of 8 year. 4.6. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called at the request of the Chair or a majority of the Commission and will be noticed by the Aspen City Clerk in accordance with Colorado statute. 4.7. Notice of Special Meetings. Notice of any special meeting of the Commission shall be given at least ten (10) days previous thereto by written notice delivered personally or sent by mail, e- mail or facsimile to each Member as shown in the records of the Commission and will be noticed by the Aspen City Clerk in accordance with Colorado statute. Notices to the Commission members by e-mail are expressly authorized and shall be considered to be written notice. 4.8. Telephonic Attendance at Meetings: One or more Members, after reasonable prior arrangements, may participate in any meeting of the Board by means of a conference telephone or similar communication by which all persons participating in the meeting can hear one another simultaneously. Such participation shall constitute presence in person at such meeting. 4.9. Quorum. Five Members, or one-half of the total number of Members plus one, whichever is greater, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board. 4.10. Manner of Acting. The act of a majority of the Members casting votes at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board, unless the act of a greater number is required by law or by these By-Laws. 4.11 Proxies. Once a calendar year, any Member may authorize another Member to act for them by proxy in all matters in which a Member is entitled to participate, whether by waiving notice of any meeting, voting or participating at a meeting or expressing consent or dissent without a meeting. Every proxy must be in writing signed by the Member or sent electronically directly from the Member’s email address of record, and must be received before the start of the meeting to which it applies. A proxy is only valid for the specific meeting provided. Every proxy shall be revocable at the pleasure of the Member executing it. Participation in a meeting by proxy shall not constitute presence in person at such meeting, nor shall it be counted towards quorum. 4.12 Action without a Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board may be taken without a meeting if all Members consent in writing to the adoption of a resolution authorizing the action and the written consent thereto is filed with the Secretary as minutes of the proceedings of the Board. An email from the Member’s email address of record with the Board shall be sufficient written consent for purposes of this section. If, after reasonable efforts to reach a Member, a Member cannot be reached, then the Board may act without that Member’s written consent. P71 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 4 of 8 4.13. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Commission by resignation, removal or otherwise and any vacancies to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of Members will be made by the Aspen City Council. Any Member filling a vacancy shall complete the term of the departing Member whose vacancy is being filled. 4.14. Compensation. Members as such shall not receive any stated salaries or other compensation for their services on the Board. 4.15. Removal. Any elected Member of the Commission may be removed by the affirmative vote of four votes of all City Council Members, whenever in their judgment the best interests of the Commission would be served thereby. 4.16. Resignations. Any Member may resign at any time by delivering or emailing written notice of their resignation to the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. Any such resignation shall be effective at the time specified therein. 5. OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: 5.1 Officers. The officers of the Board shall be a Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer and a Secretary. The Board may elect or appoint such other officers as it shall deem desirable, such officers to have the authority and perform the duties prescribed, from time to time, by the Board. Only one office may be held by the same person at any one time. 5.2. Executive Committee. The Officers shall lead the Board in decision making, set the agenda for meetings, recommend annual Goals, and provide oversight and guidance to committees. 5.3. Election and Term of Office. The officers of the Board shall be elected annually by the Board at the Annual Meeting. If for any reason the election of officers shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as conveniently may be. New offices may be created and filled at any meeting of the Board. Each officer of the Board shall hold office until the next Annual Meeting and until his or her successor has been elected. The Chair may not serve more than two consecutive terms. However, for good cause, as determined by the Board Recruitment Committee and approved by the Board, this term limitation may be waived for a Chair whose contribution or participation will be difficult or impossible to replace. P72 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 5 of 8 5.4. Removal. Any officer elected or appointed by the Board may be removed by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of all Members, whenever in their judgment the best interests of the Board would be served thereby. 5.5 Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or otherwise, may be filled by the existing Board for the unexpired portion of the remaining term. 5.6 Chair. The Chair shall be the principal executive officer of the Board and shall in general supervise all of the business and affairs of the Board. The Chair shall conduct all meetings of the Board and the Executive Committee consistent with Roberts Rules of Order, or another method of facilitating decision making adopted by the Board. In general, the Chair shall perform all duties incidental to the office of Chair and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. The Chair shall serve as the primary liaison between the Members and the City of Aspen. 5.7 Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair shall be the secondary executive officer of the Board and, in the Chair’s absence, shall in general supervise all of the business and affairs of the Board. In general, the Vice-Chair shall perform all duties incidental to the office of Vice-Chair and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Chair or the Board from time to time. 5.8 Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be the chief financial officer of the Board. The Treasurer shall (i) have charge of the funds, receipts and disbursements of the Board (ii) be responsible for deposits in and withdrawals from the depositories of the Board, (iii) shall render an account of the financial condition of the Board and of transactions, and (iv) in general perform all duties incidental to the office of Treasurer and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Chair or the Board from time to time. 5.9 Secretary. The Secretary shall (i) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board; (ii) see that notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these By-Laws; (iii) maintain contact information of each Member, including mailing address and email address, and (iv) in general perform all duties incidental to the office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned by the Chair or by the Board. 6. COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD: 6.1 Committees. The Board, by resolution adopted by a majority of the Members, may designate and appoint one or more acting committees, each of which shall consist of two or more Members, which committees, to the extent provided in the resolution, shall have: the designation thereto of authority of any such committee; provided, however, such delegation shall P73 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 6 of 8 not operate to relieve the Board, or any individual Member of any responsibility imposed by the By-Laws or law. 6.2. Permanent Standing Committees. The Board shall at all times have and maintain the following committees with the following basic responsibilities: 6.2.1 Executive Committee. The Board shall have and maintain an Executive Committee as more particularly described in Section 4.2. 6.2.2 Board Recruitment Committee. The Board Recruitment Committee shall consist of at least two Members appointed by the Board, to identify and recommend potential new Board members. 6.3. Other Committees. Other committees may be appointed in such manner as may be designated by a resolution adopted by a majority of the Board present at a meeting in which a quorum is present. Any Member of a committee may be removed by the Board whenever, in their judgment, the best interests of the Board shall be served by such removal. 6.4: Removal. Any Member of a committee may be removed from a committee by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of all Members, whenever in their judgment the best interests of the Board would be served thereby. 6.5. Term of Office. There are no term limits for committee membership. 6.6. Committee Heads. Each committee shall have a chairperson. 6.7. Vacancies. Vacancies in the membership of any committee may be filled by appointments made in the same manner as provided in the case of the original selections. 7. EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENTS; CHECKS AND ENDORSEMENTS; AND DEPOSITS 7.1. Execution of Instruments. Only the Chair of the Board, or the Vice Chair in the Chair’s absence, has the authority to sign contracts, endorsements or any other documents on behalf of the Board. Only the Chair or the Treasurer may sign checks and deposits on behalf of the Board. 8. BOOKS, RECORDS AND BANK ACCOUNTS: P74 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 7 of 8 8.1 Books and Records. The Board shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall keep minutes of the Board meetings, as well as a record containing the names and contact information of all Members, including mailing addresses and email addresses. 8.2 Bank Accounts. The Board may maintain one or more accounts, including, without limitation, checking, cash management, money market or investment accounts, in such banks or other financial institutions as the Board may select. All amounts deposited by or on behalf of the Board in those accounts shall be and remain the property of the Board. Deposits and withdrawals from such accounts shall be made by the Treasurer or signatories designated by the Board. 9. AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS: 9.1 Amendment. These By-Laws may be altered, amended or repealed and new By- Laws may be adopted by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of all Members, if at least ten days’ written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new By-Laws at a meeting. 10. STATEMENT OF NON-DISCRIMINATION: 10.1 Notwithstanding any provision of these Bylaws, the Board shall not discriminate against any director, officer, employee, applicant, or participant on the basis of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin. THE UNDERSIGNED, being the at least a three-fourths (3/4) majority of the current Members, hereby certify that they have, pursuant to Colorado law and other authority, adopted the foregoing By- Laws as and for the By-Laws of the Board. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature P75 VIII.a BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN AREA NEXT GENERATION ADVISORY BOARD Page 8 of 8 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Print name Member signature P76 VIII.a 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James R. True DATE: January 23, 2014 RE: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Easement Agreement with the County and Library Board regarding Library Expansion. MEETING DATE: January 27, 2014 (to Be Continued to February 10, 2014) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ BACKGROUND: In the late 1980’s the City of Aspen commenced construction of the Rio Grande Parking Garage. It was completed in 1990. At the time the ownership of various parcels of land within the City were confusing at best. For instance, the County owned Wagner Park and parcels adjacent to the library. The City may have had interests in other parcels including, I believe, the one on which the jail sits. In any event, to clean this up some deeds were exchanged, including a quit claim deed to the property on which the garage sits. In this quit claim deed, executed by County Commissioner Michael C. Ireland in 1995, the County conveyed the property to the City but reserved to itself an easement of 44 feet for expansion of the library. The reservation was fairly vague and was apparently added at the last minute. The Library has sought an expansion for some time. A couple of years ago, the Library approached the City to expand beyond the 44 feet over the surface of Galena Plaza. The Library went through a land use process that was conditioned on successfully pursuing funding for the expansion through a citizen election. That election effort failed. DISCUSSION: The Library has scaled back its efforts to expand. The proposed expansion, which was presented to Council in a conceptual format at a recent work session, does not expand the building elements beyond the 44 feet of the original easement reservation. However, to minimize impact to the parking garage, underground supports will be required to extend beyond the 44 feet. Also, the proposed expansion will require use of the 44 feet that will intrude into the garage itself. However, the intrusion will not cause any impact on the garage operations other than during construction. To address the expansion, City, County and Library staff propose the execution of an easement agreement. The easement agreement will address at the outset a number of issues associated P77 VIII.b 2 with the construction and operation of the garage and library as we go forward. Addressing these issues here should lessen any chance of conflict in the future. Although the City Attorney and the County Attorney have been working on the final easement language and are quite close to resolving all issues, there are a few items that are still being discussed. Therefore, staff recommends that this matter be continued until February 10, 2014. Nonetheless, staff believes some discussion may be of merit. Thus, staff members from all three entities will be available to describe the substance of the proposed easement agreement and to answer any questions that might arise. RECOMMENDED ACTION: At this time staff is recommending that Council continue this item until February 10, 2014. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P78 VIII.b RESOLUTION NO. 9 Series of 2014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an Easement Agreement by, between and among the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the County of Pitkin, Colorado, and the Pitkin County Library Board, a copy of which contract are annexed hereto and made a part thereof. (to be attached for final adoption) NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Easement Agreement by, between and among the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the County of Pitkin, Colorado, and the Pitkin County Library Board, a copy of which are annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: _________ , 2014. _____________________________ Steve Skadron, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ________________________, 2014. ______________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P79 VIII.b January 27, 2014 Aspen City Council Re: Mayer Property — Oklahoma Flats On October 8, 2013 we received a letter from Matt Ferguson pertaining to nuisance conditions and violations perceived as problems by Denice Reich. On January 14, 2014 Matt Ferguson did a press release to the local papers in which they maintained that the City Attorney has been ignoring their requests for actions pertaining to the above October letter. This is absolutely untrue. There have been meetings with Paul Taddune and City Attorney Jim True in an attempt to resolve the issues raised by Ms. Reich. Some of the issues have been determined as having no basis, while some do, and are in the process of being resolved. There have been several site visits and things are going in the right direction. Ms. Reich is a highly successful real estate sales woman for ReMax in Denver. She is a wealthy woman who was educated, raised, married a successful doctor, and continues to live in Denver. She has, however, summered here since she was young. She and her family came here for camping and fishing. She has never been anything but a seasonal occupant and owner who built a rental home with guest house in 2002. Out of the 17 homes in this area, only 3 are occupied as primary residences and 2 of them belong to us. With the exceptions of the Moore's and us, Oklahoma Flats is nothing but seasonal residences that are unoccupied most of the time. The property in Oklahoma Flats referred to by Ms. Reich and the subject of her complaints, was only partly purchased from her parents and subsequently built upon in the early 1950's. There is no `revolving door' policy of occupants who are involved in obnoxious or illegal activities. Both dwellings are partially occupied by family members and partially rented to long term tenants all of whom have leases and are either retired, or want to live and work in Aspen. About half of the occupants are employees of the Aspen Ski Company. The cars Reich complains about are all owned, registered, insured and driven accordingly. The illegal drug activity Ms. Reich complains about centers around one of the occupant's ability to consume marijuana for medicinal purposes, which is allowed under Colorado law. One of Ms. Reich's major complaints pertains to a City owned right-of-way and 15' area of the Roaring Fork River which is City owned. She states that the people using this area are transient or homeless, which is mainly incorrect although some of them may be. We do not police anyone's access or right to be there. This area may be used by anyone who wants to use it to rest and relax, read a book or perhaps catch a nap. Children can safely put inner tubes in the water and float down to the offending area while parents have an area to watch and retrieve them. Ms. Reich's complaint is amusing considering all four of her own children used to do the exact same thing. What is more surprising is that while she finds the pondibeach area offending she has in fact extended her own property outwards and in to the river. She has increased the size of her property by illegally backfilling with boulders and dirt in the middle of the night. Although there is a `fisherman's right-of-way' along that particular area, she will deny access and not allow fishermen to use it claiming it is `private property'. The unkempt yard Reich photographed was taken after she trespassed on to the property and during the period almost immediately following the death in July 2013 of my brother. Over fifty years of belongings were being sorted, thrown out, disposed of or donated and due to the scope of belongings, temporarily crept into the right-of-way. Yard sales ensued. This area was subsequently cleaned up (September), although not seeming to be reflected as of the writing of Mr. Ferguson's letter to the paper. At the same time, Ms. Reich has trash all over her own yards with many broken, dented, rusty and outdated items. She places debris in the form of illegally cut down trees, broken furniture, lawn clippings and branches, broken bicycles, and broken statuary within the river right-of-way and along the setback edge of Remo Park so that people won't want to use or enjoy another City owned property. In November my mother received a letter demanding that a portable garage be immediately removed by Thanksgiving. Ms. Reich maintains that the `tent' is within the setback area. While this may, or may not be correct, it is and has been the family's intent to remove the offending item in the spring or summer as weather permits and the ability to dispose of more of my brother's belongings becomes easier (for my mother), and more reasonable to deal with. This has been V conveyed to Ms. Reich via Mr. Fergusson: however, this doesn't seem to be acceptable or fast enough. While Mr. Ferguson states this is not a case of NIMBYism, it most certainly is. We are the true locals. We are old Aspen and believe in the `live and let live' idea that is popularized in Aspen. It's a property where a young couple saved in order to eventually build and established themselves in an old town mining town in the early 1950's. Eventually, they went on to have 5 children with various pets who were all raised and had the opportunity to ride bikes, ski, ride horses, skate, hike, and who all came to love the Colorado lifestyle. Those same children have gone on to work, have babies and raise them here too. The property is not rank as Ms. Reich claims. It's an old property that has been well loved and used, and continues to be today. Eventually the property will be sold and another huge home will be built by yet another secondary homeowner. But until then it is still ours. It will continue to be maintained as necessary and occupied by family members and people who want to live in and enjoy Aspen whether Ms. Reich likes it or not. My mother will turn 85 in June. In 2009 she lost her husband of 60 years, and in 2013 she lost one of her sons. She has had a stroke which affected her hearing and eyesight which prevents her from leaving the house. This is a shameful example by Ms. Reich and Matt Ferguson to bully and intimidate an older person who cannot defend herself. Their aggressive behavior is typical of what the essence of Aspen has become. Nikki Mayer .., 2 Awl ti II i With a combined 50+years of experience,Denice and Stephanie have been helping people buy and sell luxury homes in Denver's Best Neighborhoods. You won't find another real estate team in Denver who knows more about the history,schools,parks,home styles and prices of homes in Belcaro,Bonnie Brae,Cheesman Park,Cherry Creek,Congress Park,Country Club,Crestmoor, Highlands,Hilltop,Lowry,Montclair,Observatory Park,Park Hill,Polo Grounds,Seventh Avenue Historic District and Washington Park. Denice & Stephanie...because experience counts { Denice Reich Among Top 100 Worldwide 201 Follow us on Facebook EXECUTIVE SESSION Date January 27, 2014 Call to order at: I. Cou cilmembers present: Councilmembers not present: [�nn Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins V-..4�teve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron dam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch [Drt Daily ❑ Art Daily wayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero II. Motion to go into executive session by ; seconded by Other persons present: AGAINST: FO n Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins V ve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron am Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch ❑ Art Daily wayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.s. 24-6-402(4) (a)The purchase, acquisition, lease,transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (c)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; (ID Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; (f) (1) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. W. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney,representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client communication: The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the di ussions i this e e e ion were limited to the topic(s)described in Section 111, above. Adjourned at: �• �S