HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo.Land Use Code Re-Codification.1999/%/i A &ZV&
04pv
A r. A kA Pldl 4
*40.
27.4d:1.
6�
Memorandum
f4 s-�O.4
CityaA
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor, and Members of Council
FROM: City Manager
City Attorney's Office r
Community Development Office
DATE: March 1,1999
RE: Re -codification of the Land Use Code
Please find enclosed a draft copy of the Aspen Land Use Code which h4.s been re -codified in' -.,an-, --
effort to simplify it and make it more "user-friendly." Staff is schedu'led_to meet in a joint session:
with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission ;gn March 1, 1999 to review, the.
proposed changes to the Land Use Code. This memo is inteiided to give you a background, reasons
for suggesting a re -codification of the Land Use Code, and to explain the proposed changes;that are,.
reflected in the draft document.
Background: We have all heard the complaints from citizens' that the Aspen Land Use Code is
too complicated, hard to read, cumbersome to use', unintelligible, contradictory, and too long. We-
have also heard that the procedures and processes set forth in the Land Use ..Code to obtain
development approvals are too cumbersome, contradictory and tinclear, expensive to follow,
counterproductive, and simply take too long to complete.
City Council has, for a number of years, asked staff to simplify the code.. This goal has been,:
identified as a high priority for Council since 1995 when it budgeted $10,000.00 for the 1996-fiscal
year to hire an outside consultant to help work on the project. For a variety of reasons, not, the least
of which was the big task involved in re -codification, it"has taken staff over .two years to get tp this
point.
Jed Caswall, the former Aspen City Attorney, was retained to review the entire Land T,,Jse Code, 'F
prioritize areas that needed to be changed, survey current users of the Code;to identify reasonsIKI E
the current dissatisfaction with the Code, and to suggest ways: to simplify -the Code. In March, 1996, ,,,,�
a public meeting was held with a number of land use planners, architects, and other users. of.the .
Code to elicit comments on ways to improve the Code. At that meeting a number of conclusions
were reached which helped guide the work of re -codification. The most important points (not in any
order of importance) were as follows:
* The Code is complicated for two basic reasons: (a) it is extremely difficult to read;
and (b) the procedures required for development approval are too complex and cumbersome. The
solution to the first problem is simply to reformat the Code, combine sections, re -write confusing or
conflicting sections, re -organize the chapters and sections, add a good index, and generally make it
more understandable. The solution to the second problem is to make substantive changes to the
Code to simplify the process and procedures required of applicants.
* The Code should continue to be written with professionals in mind. The Code can
be written so that it can be understood, but must function as a "land use code" which necessarily
introduces jargon and legal concepts, procedures, and regulations that are not part of the average
citizens' daily life. If a document nee be written so the avers a citizen can understand the
process, it should be a separate document written specificall„ywith that audience in mind. R %A,
* The reason the Code is so complicated with respect to process and procedures is
that Aspen, unlike most municipalities its size, has decided to regulate a significant number of
issues. Few communities the size of Aspen have regulations for historic preservation, growth
management, environmentally sensitive areas (8040 green line, stream margin, etc.), or the number
of regulations relating to development mitigation (affordable housing, parks, school districts), and
design review. Few, if any, communities the size of Aspen have the number of zone districts that
are defined in the Land Use Code. (There are twenty-eight zone or overlay districts in Aspen, not
counting SPA's, PUD's, and historical overlay districts.! Ten for residential development alone.)
* The initial focus of any attempt to simplify the Code should try to avoid making
substantive changes. Combining proposed changes that merely make the Code user-friendly with
proposed substantive changes will hold up the effort while all the stakeholders in Aspen debate the
merits of the substantive changes. Identify substantive changes that would make the Code simpler,
but start with as many non -controversial changes as possible. Once the Code is easier to read and
understand, then a commitment to make important substantive changes, one at a time, is necessary.
A wholesale effort to substantively change the Code will cause interest groups to oppose various
changes, or the final product will be more complicated than the existing Code. Most people simply
do not understand the Code today because it cannot be comprehensively read in its present form.
* All land use codes need to be re -codified (and re -written) periodically. Any set of
laws or a code that is constantly updated, amended, and revised needs to be reviewed in its entirety
periodically. As amendments are proposed and adopted, few of them get properly integrated into
the existing code. This leads to confusing and conflicting regulations and procedures, duplicative
language and sections, a lack of proper cross referencing, and a worthless index. Anyone who tried
to read the state's uniform election code before its recent re -codification will understand the
problem.
Changes to the format of the Code: The first reaction that everyone who opens the proposed re -
codified Code should have is that it looks different. It has the appearance of being organized in
some logical fashion and individual sections and paragraphs can be easily read. You will note that
the re -codified Code uses bold, underlined, and italic letters. Paragraphs, sections, and subsections
are indented in outline form. Each page contains not only a page number, but a reference to the
2
Code section printed on the page, and the date the page was revised (to help keep the Code book
current). Whole paragraphs of incomprehensible verbiage were reduced to simple mathematical
equations or drawings. These were simple, albeit tedious, changes which make finding and reading
the appropriate regulations immeasurably easier than our current Code. These changes alone should
go a long way to address the complaints about our current Code being too difficult to read and
understand.
The next major formatting change was the re -organization of the Code. You will note that the Code
has been separated into seven "Parts." Each Part of the Code attempts to gather different chapters
and sections of the Code into logical groupings. Not a very innovative concept, but one that is
nonetheless lacking iri our current Code. (The Housing Replacement ordinance, for instance, is not
even in the Land Use Code. It was codified in a totally separate Chapter of the Municipal Code.) As
important as an index is, a new user of the Land Use Code should be able to find what they are
looking for by reading through the Table of Contents. Chapters within each Part have been
organized similarly. Thus, for example, Part 300 which sets forth various chapters on General
Procedures and Regulations, starts with regulations of general applicability, followed by regulations
that may affect all development applications, and then those regulations of general applicability, but
of specific interest. Much of the time involved in producing this draft of the re -codified Code was
spent reorganizing paragraphs, sections, and chapters by moving them around to more logical Parts
and Chapters of the Code.
Highlight of proposed changes to the Code. This section of the memo attempts to point out the
major changes made to the language of the Code. Pointing out all the changes would be next to
impossible without writing a treatise as long as the Code itself. Each chapter of our existing Code
has been saved showing the changes made to them with highlighted text or str4letheagb-Characters.
These chapters are available upon request to anyone that is interested in seeing the actual changes.
Most of the proposed changes to the Code are not substantive. Those that are substantive are
pointed out below. Substantive changes that staff has identified as advisable, but which are not
included in this current draft are discussed at the end of this memo. The substantive changes that
are in the current draft are being proposed either because they could not be avoided, or are not
considered controversial. Those that could not be avoided are generally those that were needed to
implement past Code interpretations of the Community Development Department Director in
accordance with his/her responsibilities to do so under the Code, those that were needed to correct
conflicting language in the Code, those that implement the clear intent of the existing Code, or
changes to process and procedures which improve and simplify the process. Again, this memo
attempts to highlight these changes below.
Part 100 — General Provisions:
This part of the Code has been almost entirely re -written, particularly the definitions contained in
Section 26.104.100. Most of the existing terms were re -written in their entirety, new terms were
added, and others were deleted (there are a number of terms defined in the existing Code which do
not appear anywhere else in the Code). A good deal of time and attention was given to this section
in the re -codification since this section of the current Code is the source of much of the confusion in
trying to understand the Code. Many of the existing definitions contain substantive regulatory
provisions which do not belong in a definitions section. That is, users of a code do not normally
turn to a definitions section to find regulatory language. Only those readers that know regulatory
3
language can be found in the definitions section are likely to turn to that section. In essence, the
definitions section was used in the past as a "dumping ground" for substantive regulatory language
that didn't seem to fit elsewhere in the Code.
In the draft re -codification, all regulatory language was removed from the definitions section and
replaced in the appropriate section within the Code that deals with the subject matter or in the
"Supplementary Regulations" section (Part 500).
The following definitions were added to the Code: Affordable housing guidelines; artists studio;
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); Aspen metropolitan (metro) area; category housing; child
care center; eave point; essential public facility; farmers market; flood hazard area; flooding; HPC;
historic significance; non -conforming lot or parcel; plat; principal building; reconstruction;
recreational vehicle; rehabilitation; relocation; renovation; residential multi -family housing;
specially planned area (SPA); scale; street, private; street, public; street, unopened; tattoo parlor;
wireless telecommunications (TCC).
The following definitions were deleted from the Code: base flood; character; bath facilities; BOA;
compatible; final plat; grade, finished; housing replacement program; parcel of land; shop craft
industry; special flood hazard area; vet clinic.
Other changes relating to definitions result from the attempt throughout the new Code to make
reference to the Affordable Housing Guidelines instead of either restating a regulation in the Land
Use Code or defining terms and methods of calculations that should more properly be included in
the AH Guidelines, as amended from time to time. For example, the definition of a "working
resident" has been taken out of the Code and the reader is referred to the AH Guidelines. The added
advantage of this effort is that the City Council and the BOCC will have an opportunity to review
these definitions, methods, and regulations as part of their annual review of the AH Guidelines and
to ensure that the City and County regulations for affordable housing are consistent in the
metropolitan area without having to continuously and simultaneously amend all relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
The following definitions were changed in a substantive manner:
Demolition
Current = Demolition means to tear down completely, to do away with or to raze. For the purposes
of this definition a building shall be deemed to be demolished if less than fifty (50) percent of the
existing primarily residential structure remains in place. Renovation shall not be considered
demolition. The removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family structure shall be considered
demolition.
Proposed = To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy fifty percent (50%) or more of an existing
structure as measured by exterior surface wall area, also the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi-
family building or its conversion to non-residential use.
Lodge
4
Current = Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms
for the purpose of providing lodging facilities on a short or long-term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services and
on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
Proposed = Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in certain zone
districts and may be rented on a long term basis.
Remodel
Current = Remodeling means any act which changes one or more of the exterior architectural
features of a structure designated as a H, Historic Overlay District.
Proposed = A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing
structure, as distinct from additions to an existing structure.
Top of slope
Current = Top of slope means a point or a line connecting at least three (3) points determined by
the point of intersection of two fifty foot lines, one line being the level of the existing grade above
the slope and the other line being the angle of the existing slope, both lines measured on a site
section drawing.
Proposed = A line generally running somewhat parallel to a stream or river from which
development must be setback and which delineates the bank of the river or stream or other riparian
area as determined by the City Engineer.
Anyone attempting to compare the existing Code definitions with the proposed definitions should
read the new definitions together with Chapter 26.575, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations"
in order to fully understand the changes being proposed.
Part 200 — Administration — Decision Making Bodies
Not too many changes were made to the chapters of this part. Some of the duties of the decision -
making bodies were amended to reflect changes made over the years in the Code, but never
codified in this part.
Part 300 — General Procedures and Regulations.
This section of the proposed Code received significant attention and time. The attempt in
recodifying this Part was to make uniform the general procedures that apply to all development
applications, to simplify and clarify the language used to describe the general procedures, and to re-
write the Part in a more logical sequence. It is this Part in the existing Code which has caused the
most confusion and complaints about conflicting requirements, onerous and redundant procedural
requirements, and lack of clarity.
5
Chapter 26.304 has been almost entirely re -written. Duties of the Community Development
Department, the applicant, and decision -making bodies are spelled out much more clearly. Included
in this chapter is a description of the usual steps required of all applicants from the time they file an
application to the time they receive a development order (and are eligible to apply for a building
permit).
Section 26.304.060(B)(1) was added to grant the Community Development Director authority to
alter the usual review procedures when appropriate. The operative language is that the Director may
modify the procedures for reviewing development plans and applications to combine or modify
such procedures where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously and
such "modification or combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of
time, expense and clarity." All public noticing requirements for combined or modified procedures
would still be required as if a full review procedure was being followed.
Section 26.304.060(B)(2) was also added provide greater flexibility in the approval process. This
section authorizes the Community Development Director to schedule a "sketch plan review" with
any combination of boards and the City Council either before or after an application for land use
approval is submitted. The idea here is to allow various boards and commissions and the City
Council to schedule a new type of meeting with the applicant and interested members of the public
to review an application before it gets too far into our normal development review process. This
new meeting may be very useful in reviewing complex or potentially controversial projects, or
projects which one can anticipate will generate a lot of community interest. The sketch plan review,
if it is suggested by the Community Development Director, would have to take place before any
other formal review steps are taken on the application, would require full public notice, and the
record of the proceedings would become part of the formal record of the application review process.
At the conclusion of a sketch plan review, everyone in attendance would be given an opportunity to
discuss the proposed project application with the applicant, but no formal decisions by any decision
makers would be allowed.
Chapter 26.308 and other portions of the Code relating to "vested rights" has been rewritten for
enhanced clarity. A major substantive change is the fact that the proposed Code would enable
practically all development approvals to automatically receive a vested right. No longer will an
applicant be required to apply for vested rights and thereafter proceed under a different set of
procedures to formalize the vested rights. The trade-off for this automatic receipt of vested rights is
that all applications for development that are entitled to vested rights would be required to follow
certain procedural steps to perfect the vested rights. (All resolutions and ordinances would be
required to contain the "magic words" that create vested rights, all resolutions and ordinances
would need to be published by the City Clerk in accordance with the state statute relating to vested
rights, and applicants would receive a formal "development order" spelling out their rights.) None
of these additional steps or requirements should be significantly noticeable to applicants. In
addition, this Chapter sets forth regulations and standards for extension and exemptions from the
expiration of development orders.
Chapter 26.310 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map has been
simplified and the procedures clarified. The main substantive change to this Chapter is the addition
of Section 26.310.020(C) which authorizes the City Council to adopt amendments to the Code by
emergency ordinance when it is deemed appropriate. The existing Code ignores this basic City
Council power set forth in the City Charter. By adding this section, the Code makes clear that the
6
City Council may adopt emergency ordinances, even when they amend the Land Use Code.
Another major change is Section 26.310.05 which spells out in greater detail the "pending
ordinance doctrine" which has been the source of some confusion in the past.
Chapter 26.314 — "Variances," was amended to allow the HPC or the P&Z to grant variances, but
only when the Community Development Director authorizes such action because an application
will be reviewed by one of those bodies as part of a consolidated application process. Thus, for
example, if an application is to be reviewed by the P&Z for a stream margin review the Community
Development Director may authorize the P&Z to review a variance request at the same time and
avoid having the application reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. In that the BoA may have
particular expertise in these matters, applicants may appeal an adverse variance decision by the
P&Z to the BoA.
Chapter 26.316 — "Appeals," was re -written to clarify and make uniform all the various appeal
provisions of the existing Code. In this fashion, any person desiring to appeal an administrative
decision can quickly refer to a single section of the Code for the proper procedure. The procedures
for differing appeals was also made uniform.
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures. This section of the re -codified
Code contains all the procedures and standards of review specific to particular applications for
development. Each Chapter has been re -written to eliminate conflicting language, to clarify the
requisite procedures, and whenever possible, to make uniform the procedures required.
Chapter 26.410 — "Residential Design Standards" has not been significantly changed as that chapter
is currently under review by staff and the P&Z for amendments.
Chapters 26.415 and 420 — "Historic Preservation," were completely rewritten to clarify and
simplify the procedures and language. The final hearing before the HPC for any significant
development, including demolition or partial demolition, will require notice by publication, posting
and mailing to neighbors. In addition, new language was added to ensure City Council is notified of
HPC actions prior to the expiration of the appeal period.
Chapter 26.435 — "Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas" was re -written to clarify the
procedures, and to include the substantive review standards for each type of development within
this Chapter (mountain plane views, Hallam Lake, stream margin, and 8040). The current
requirement that property owners dedicate a trail easement to the City as a condition of approval for
a stream margin review has been deleted as it is legally indefensible in most cases.
Chapter 26.470 — "GMQS'.' has been completely re -written, but no major substantive changes have
been made. This chapter is a consolidated version of two separate chapters in our current Code:
residential GMQS and Commercial GMQS. There really is no reason to have these separated. It
merely adds redundant language to the Code, and leads to confusion as to the different requirements
of the chapters according to whether the development is residential or commercial.
Chapter 26.480 — "Subdivisions" was re -written and major sections relating to Engineering
standards were eliminated. The Engineering standards, which have little relevance to most
development applications in the City, have been moved to a separate Chapter devoted entirely to
these Engineering Department standards and procedures. (See Chapter 26.580 — Supplementary
7
Regulations — Engineering Department.) Section 26.480.090 was revised significantly to make the
Code conform to the state's condominiumization statutes.
Part 500 — Supplementary Regulations. This part of the proposed Code includes a consolidation
of existing supplementary regulations, regulatory language deleted from many of the definitions in
the existing Code, regulatory language deleted from the zoning districts, and miscellaneous
regulations found throughout the existing Code. By combining and consolidating much of the
regulatory language now found throughout various sections and chapters in our existing Code, it
will be possible to do "one stop shopping" for answers. For example, a reader of our current Code
must read multiple sections of the existing Code (if s/he can find them) to get answers relating to
accessory dwelling units, parking requirements, and affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Hopefully, the proposed Code will eliminate this problem by consolidating all of these subjects
under proper chapters and sections.
Please note that "Off-street parking requirements," "affordable housing," "accessory dwelling
units," and the "resident multi -family replacement program," can now be found in their own
chapters or sections of the Code.
Chapter 26.575 — "Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations" contain a number of new sections.
These sections were created primarily to combine regulatory language found throughout our
existing Code and to locate them in one simple -to -find chapter.
Part 600 — Impact Fees and Dedications. The Park and School Lands dedication sections were
consolidated into this separate part for ease of use. The affordable housing impact fee section found
in the existing Code has been deleted. The fee structure and methodology for calculating the
affordable housing impact fee will be inserted in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. It was felt by
staff that this makes sense as so many other substantive provisions are now being proposed to be
located in the AH Guidelines. The added advantage beside a "one stop" place to find All
regulations is that this will provide the City Council and the BOCC an opportunity to review these
regulations on an annual basis as part of the annual review of the AH Guidelines.
The Park Development impact fee was amended to include the potential for affordable
housing and historic landmarked properties to be exempt from the fees. The current code allows the
City Council to waive the fees if it wishes to help subsidize an AH project or to provide an
additional incentive for historic landmarking.
Part 700 — Zone Districts. Although staff was tempted to make many changes to this part of the
Code, no major substantive changes are proposed at this time. Most of the changes proposed are
attempts to make this part of the code easier to read. As mentioned above, regulatory language
found in the existing zone district chapters were moved and consolidated in the "Supplementary
Regulations" Chapter of the Code. Many of the dimensional requirement charts contained in the
existing Code are duplicative of other charts found in prior sections of the Code. Whenever
possible, these charts were deleted and cross referenced to identical charts found earlier in the Code.
This eliminates many pages and helps to clarify the Code requirements.
The requirements for the AH/PUD zone district were greatly simplified. The 70% affordable
housing requirement was clarified by specifically stating that the 70% figure refers to the project's
8
total bedrooms as opposed to units. The category mix that is required will be set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Additional Substantive Changes sunested for future action.
There are a number of substantive changes to the Code which staff, P&Z, and the City Council have
discussed in recent months. Some of these amendments should provide additional opportunities for
simplifying the Code. In addition, as staff and the public work with a re -codified version of the
Code, other changes which are identified that would simplify either regulatory language or
procedures, will be brought to Council for consideration. Such presumably minor changes to the
Code will be much easier to propose as it will be much easier for staff to review and analyze all
such proposals. Part of the problem in the recent past has been a reluctance by anyone to change the
existing Code for fear that a small change in one part of the Code would have unforeseen
consequences to other sections. There has also been the feeling that since the Code has been
scheduled for a major re -codification, minor changes could wait.
Following is a list of amendments to Code provisions that are currently under active consideration
or which staff would like to propose in the near future:
*Accessory Dwelling Units (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting
scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC --1st quarter)
*Growth Management Quota System (3rd and 4th quarter)
*Historic Preservation Program (includes Inventory and Guidelines: 1st through
4th quarters)
*Design Review Standards aka Ord. 30 (1st quarter)
*Takings determination standards and procedures (city attorneylEs work program)
*Consolidate SPA and PUD chapters of the code (general LUC revisions --1st
through 4th quarters)
*Lodge preservation Amendments (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting
scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC --1st and 2nd quarters)
*Outdoor Lighting Regulations (1st quarter)
*FAR, Height, and dimensional requirements regulations (3rd and 4th quarters)
AACP Follow-up regulation amendments (1 st through 4th quarters as well as
2000 work program)
Conclusion. The re -codification of the Code that is being proposed should go a long way to
satisfy critics of our current Code. The formatting changes alone should make the Code easier to
use and read. The many re -writes that occurred to whole chapters of the Code should help make the
Code easier to understand and implement in a consistent and fair fashion. The proposed changes to
review procedures should help streamline application reviews by staff and decision -making bodies
and eliminate due process errors. There is a continuing commitment by staff to continue finding
ways to simplify the Code whenever possible. By adopting the proposed re -codified Code, future
amendments to simplify the Code will be easier to identify and recommend to Council.
Accordingly, this effort should be viewed as a necessary first step. The City's land use code will
never be "simple," but it should not be needlessly cumbersome, confusing, and conflicting.
9
In its continuing effort to make the Code user friendly to non-professionals that occasionally delve
into land use planning issues, the Community Development Department will undertake to write and
make available educational brochures that explain the more complicated areas of our land use code.
If anyone has a question regarding the proposed re -codification of the Code before, during, or after
any meeting scheduled to discuss the proposed amendments, please do not hesitate to contact
anyone in the Community Development Department or the City Attorney's Office.
JPW-02/26/99-M:\city\cityatty\land-use\final\memo.doc
10
4�4)ree&uy etOP45�
26.100.050
(d) paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee.
d. All development not classified as "tourist accommodations," "residential" or "commercial and office"
development. All development not limited by the provision of Section 26.100.040 shall be exempt from the
growth management competition and scoring procedures.
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created
through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5).
3. Community Development Director exemptions that are deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments and from the metro area development ceilings. The enlargement of an historic landmark that develops,
on a maximum cumulative basis, not more than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast,
boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Although exempt from competition, units exempted by the
Community Development Director pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the respective annual
development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 and from the metro area development ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
B. Exemption by Growth Management Commission.
1. General.
a. Application for exemption. No development shall be considered for an exemption by the Growth
Management Commission until a completed application for exemption has been submitted to the Community
Development Director.
b. Procedure. After the Community Development Director has determined that the application for exemption
is complete, pursuant to Section 26.52.050, the application shall be forwarded to the Growth Management
commission for review and consideration at a hearing, for which notice has been given pursuant to Section
26.52.060(E)(3)(a). After considering the request, the Growth Management Commission shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the application for exemption, based on the application's compliance with all applicable
standards. In the event that there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt
development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of Section 26.100.060(B).
2. Growth Management Commission exemptions that are not deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions shall not be deducted from
the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 or from the metro
area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
a. Historic landmarks.
(1) Exempt development.
(a) Enlargements for additional dwelling and tourist accommodations units. The enlargement of an
historic landmark that develops more than one residential dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge,
bed and bmaUast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units shall be exempted from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards of Section
26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(b) Enlargements for mixed -use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use
as a commercial, office or lodge development and that adds a residential dwelling unit, that increases the building's
or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage shall be exempted from the growth
management competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards
of Section 26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(2) Standards for historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions
of this section, the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's
community impacts will be addressed as follows:
(Aspen 5196) 670