Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.A095-97.ASLUvita. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectorL FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director RE: GMQS Text Amendments DATE: January 12, 1998 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing several amendments to the GMQS procedures in the County and City Land Use Codes, as requested by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners in response to the Stage 3 appeal. Specifically, staff 'proposes to simplify the appeal procedure and to allow amendments to GMQS applications prior to scoring if there is not competition for the available allotments. Staff also proposes several amendments to the City Code which would allow multi -year allotments for certain exempt projects; these amendments were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, and have already been adopted by the Board. County Planning Staff is concurrently processing an additional amendment to the County Code to establish requirements for public notice for Growth Management Commission hearings, so the City and County requirements will be consistent. One section of the code where the County and City GMQS process will not be consistent is in the Growth Management Commission participation. The City Planning and Zoning Commission did not like the proposed change in how the voting would take place, and staff was directed to investigate the implications of having inconsistent voting and participation requirements between the city and county codes. Staff discussed this with the County Planning Staff and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the City P&Z is under no obligation to adopt the same voting and participation requirements as the County, however, there does need to be consistency in how the voting occurs, particularly if there is a growth management competition for allocations. Since the City P&Z were not comfortable with the voting procedures recommended, staff dropped this amendment from the rest of the proposed amendments. Staff has recommended that a joint worksession be scheduled with the County P&Z to discuss this item and growth management in general. At their meeting on October 7, 1997, the City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed changes to the code, with some minor amendments, which have been included in the attachments. At the City Council's meeting on November 24, 1997, Councilman Vickery expressed concerns about the GMQS process in general and how staff determines if a project is "exceptional". Staff concurs with Councilman Vickery that a review of the GMQS process and program is in order, and hopes to begin this discussion with the joint P&Z's in early February. The Code sections proposed to be amended are attached. Deletions have beznt-riekeP,, and additions are underlined. The amendments will affect the following sections of the Code: • 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments (Exhibit A) • 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures (Exhibit B) • 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment (Exhibit C) STAFF COMMENTS: Appeal Procedure: The current appeal process requires an "aggrieved party" to appeal first to the Board or Council (depending on whether the application is in the County or City) to determine if there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring. If the Board or Council overturns the scoring, the "aggrieved party" may appeal to the joint Board/Council. If the joint Board/Council determines that there was a denial of due processor abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, the joint Board/Council may take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth Management Commission's scoring. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to simplify the procedure by removing the initial determination by the Board or Council, since no remedy is available to the applicant at that time. An appeal directly to the joint Board/Council would still require a determination of a denial of due process or abuse of discretion before the Growth Management Commission's scoring could be overturned and a remedy could be considered. The Code also provided a separate procedure for appeals made by the Board or Council, which allows the Board or Council to file a direct appeal to the joint Board/Council. This procedure is consistent with the "streamlined" appeal discussed above, except that the Board or Council is not required to file an appeal within a specific amount of time. Staff recommends that all appeals should be required to be filed within 14 days of the Growth Management's public hearing, and then the separate appeal procedure for the Council or Board is not necessary. Amendments to Applications: The City Code and the "old" County Code (pre-1994) only allows GMQS competitors to amend an incomplete application to make "technical corrections or clarifications". The "new" County Code allowed GMQS competitors to make substantive changes to (I S applications prior to. scoring, if there was only one competitor. This provision is still applicable in the non -metro area of the County, but was inadvertently omitted from the metro area revisions that were adopted in 1995. In the metro area, an applicant may only amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to process code amendments to allow applicants to make substantive changes to their applications only when there is no competition for available -allotments, in order to present the best possible project to the Growth Management Commission 2 for scoring. Staff determined that "no competition" should not be limited to only one competitor, but should allow all competitors to amend their applications, if there are_ sufficient allotments available to accommodate the -number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Staff has proposed to make this amendment to the metro and non -metro area procedures as well as the commercial and office GMQS procedures to maintain consistency. Multi -year Allotments for Mixed Development: The City and County Codes include provisions for multi -year allotments for 100% affordable housing projects and "non-exempt" projects, but,not for "exempt" mixed free-market/affordable housing projects. The County recently adopted amendments, which were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, to allow mixed free-market/affordable housing projects in the AHO/PUD, AH2/PUD and AH3/PUD zone districts to request multi -year allotments. The Highlands application stated that it was an oversig-Tti on the partoffhe County when the mixed free-market/AH zone districts were adopted that the Code was not amended to allow developments in these zone districts to request multi -year allotments. To be consistent, staff proposes to amend the City Code to allow developments in the AH 1 /PUD zone district to request multi -year allotments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second reading the proposed GMQS code amendments recommended in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, as set forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 437, Series of 1997 on second Reading." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Attachments: Exhibit A 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments Exhibit B 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures Exhibit C 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment Exhibit D Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97- 'Z Exhibit E Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1997 g:\platitiitig\aspeii\cases\text\giiiqscc 3 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.100 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) 26.100.040 Annual development allotments. The residential and tourist accommodations growth management quota system's method of establishing annual development allotments has been designed to be as fair and flexible as possible. It establishes pools of development allotments that are available for use by metro area exempt and non-exempt projects during one-year periods, running from June 1 to May 31. The system allows allotments to be "borrowed" from future years if necessary to accommodate very high -quality projects. The Metro Area development ceilings are based upon a 23 year growth period. Allotments may be borrowed from future growth management years to accommodate exceptional high quality projects The—Gity Gotmeil m a v borrow a > ot4 ents frwxxx +h e beeimiinex of the end of the 23 vear eccrf-her-io to aeeonm negate hiah oiia4ity i3r-oieetS. As a • result of the flexibility that has been built into the allotment system, the number of allotments available during any one year may vary. A. Establishment of allotment pools. 1. Base allotment pool. The base annual allotment pool corresponds to the desired annual growth rate for the metro area. It is established solely for the purposes of measuring changes in actual allotment levels and for calculating the maximum number of allotments available each year, pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(3). The following base annual allotment levels are hereby established for the entire metro area: Development Type Base Allotments Tourist Accommodations 11 units Free Market Residential 4 units Free Market Residential, AH Associated 8 units Resident Occupied 8 units Affordable Housing 43 units 2. Reserve pool. The Aspen Area Community Plan calls for some development allotments to be reserved each year for use by projects that are subject to growth management competition and scoring (non-exempt development). Consequently, until the close of each year's growth management competition and appeals period, the following allotments shall be reserved for use by non-exempt development only: Development Type Reserve Allotments Tourist Accommodations 6 units Free Market Residential 2 units If these reserved units remain unused following the close of the growth management competition and appeals period, any remaining allotments shall be made available for use by exempt development. In the case of remaining, "Free Market Residential Non -Exempt" allotments, such units shall be available for allocation to any form of "Free Market Residential" development. 3. Maximum allotment pool. The maximum number of allotments available within a single year will vary based on at least two factors: (1) the number of allotments granted in previous years and (2) whether the City Council authorizes the use of optional multi -year allotments, pursuant to Section 26.100.040(B). This section establishes the method by which the maximum annual allotment pools for residential and tourist accommodations development shall be calculated. a. Standard maximum allotment pool formula. No later than June 1 of each year, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available during the upcoming year using the following formula: Standard Maximum Allotment Pool = B + A Where: B = base allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) * In no case shall fewer than the reserve allotment pool be available b. Optional (multi -year) maximum allotment pool formula. The following formula shall be used by the Community Development Director to calculate the number of allotments available for "exceptional" projects (See Section 26.100.040(B)) that include free market units. The number of allotments available in the optional (multi -year) pool shall be calculated no later than June 1 of each year. Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotment Pool = (5xB)-(4xR)+A Where: B = base allotment R = reserve allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) C. Optional (multi -year) one hundred (100) percent affordable housing allotment pool formula. The following formula shall be used by the Community Development Director to calculate the number of allotments available for "exceptional" projects (See Section 26.100.040(B)) that are totally comprised (one hundred (100) percent) of affordable housing. This formula shall also be used to determine the number of available Resident Occupied (RO) units without regard to the annual limitations, up to a cumulative ceiling of one hundred (100) RO units. The number of allotments available in the optional (multi -year) one hundred (100) percent affordable housing allotment pool shall be calculated no later than June 1 of each year. 2 Optional (Multi -Year) 100% Affordable Housing Allotment Pool = (IOB)-(9R)+A Where: B = base allotment R = reserve allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) d. Establishment of maximum pool levels. The maximum allotment pool levels calculated pursuant to the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of this section shall constitute the maximum allotment available for the year, unless the City Council approves the use of "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotments" pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.100.040(B). Regardless of the number of allotments yielded by the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula, the reserve pool allotments of Section 26.100.040(A)(2) shall be available each year. e. Use of allotments in maximum allotment pool. Allotments in the maximum allotment pool shall be available for use as follows. (1) Development subject to growth management competition and scoring. Development that is subject to growth management competition and scoring (non-exempt) shall be entitled to use only those allotments in the reserve pool established pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(2). Any reserve pool allotments remaining after the close of the annual growth management competition and appeals period shall be added to the pool of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to competition and scoring (exempt development). (2) Development not subject to growth management competition and scoring. Because some units from the maximum allotment pool must be reserved each year until after growth management competition, the number of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to growth management competition and scoring (exempt development) will likely vary at different times of year. The number of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to competition and scoring shall be calculated as follows: (a) Pre -competition: No later than June 1 of each year, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available for use by exempt development using the following formula: Pre -Competition Exemption Allotment Pool = (M-R) = 2 Where: M = Maximum Allotment Pool R = Reserve Pool (b) Post -competition: No later than one day after the close of the growth management competition and appeals period, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available for use by exempt development using the following formula: Post -Competition Exemption Allotment Pool = (P+R) _ 2 Where: P = Units Remaining from Pre -Competition Exemption R = Units Remaining from Reserve Pool 3 B. Optional multi -year maximum allotments for "exceptional" projects. 1. Award of optional multi -year maximum allotments. When the "Optional (Multi - Year) Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3) yields available allotment pool levels that exceed the allotment pool levels calculated pursuant to the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3), the City Council shall be authorized to make optional multi -year allotments available to "exceptional" non-exempt developments and to "exceptional" exempt developments located in the AHl/PUD zone district A:Ma o.,empt projects "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotments" shall be made available only to specific projects, and in the event that the allotments expire or are otherwise unused after being awarded, they shall not be carried over as surplus allotments or be transferred to other proj ects. 2. Approval criteria. Because the award of optional multi -year maximum allotments may result in fewer allotments being available in subsequent years, the use of optional multi -year maximum allotments shall be reserved for exceptional non-exempt projects that chow pai4 ,.ul sensitivity to the eemm-unity and its needs, as expressed in (1) the Gfewth Management Seoring Gritefia of S io 26.100.080 an (2) in adopted plans and stu exceed the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080 or for "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AH1/PUD zone district that meet the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080. The Growth Management Commission may recommend and the City Council may award optional multi -year maximum allotments as part of its ranking and allocation review conducted pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C). a. Community planning criteria. In order to be eligible for the award of optional multi -year maximum allotments, projects shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission and City Council that all of the following criteria [26.100.040(B)(2)(a)(1) through 26.100.040(B)(2)(a)(7)] have been met. (1) The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds that established in the minimum threshold for the scoring established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5); (2) The proposal maximizes affordability, consistent with housing needs established as priority through the current AH Guidelines; (3) The proposal integrates a mixture of economic levels and housing for a variety of lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families); (4) The proposal minimizes impacts on infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy -saving site design, structural design characteristics or other techniques that minimize the use of water, heating and sewage disposal; (5) The proposal incorporates or integrates with an existing local based economy (i.e., sustainable local businesses); (6) The proposal accomplishes a level of design and site plan ingenuity that advances the community goals expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and (7) The proposed project represents an exceptional commitment to advancing the visions, goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan, particularly those described in the scoring criteria of this chapter (Sections 26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3) and 26.100.080(C)(4)). 11 b. Genefal gf&mh management efitefia. The City Gouneil shall not award optio (multi year-) allotments unless the GfoMh Management Go and City Gouneil make u1111111uL1vL findings finds that the follwA4ngeonditions exist. b. After consideration of the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission. City Council may award optional (multi-�) allotments if a project complies with the following standards:. The Gol�uneill the meommendation of the Gfov.4,h Manaeeffl.ent Commission-. (1) The site design of the proposed development makes construction phasing infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a demonstration that economies of scale will result from construction occurring at once; the proposed development is intended as a single building that cannot easily be constructed or operated in phases; and the public facility investments for the proposed development, such as roads, water and sewer facilities, must all be installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing economically unrealistic; (2) The impacts of construction of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood and the metro area as a whole will be reduced by construction at one time rather than phasing it over two (2) or more construction periods; and (3) The community is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which impacts on services and public facilities will be experienced. It shall be considered sufficient evidence of service and public facility availability if it can be demonstrated that sufficient capacity is available in the following public facilities to accommodate the metro area's planned rate of growth and the accelerated rate due to the proposed development: Transportation (including airport, roads, transit and parking), utilities (including water, sewer, electric, gas and drainage), affordable housing, park and recreation facilities, solid waste facilities, police and fire protection facilities, hospitals and schools. C. Unallocated surplus allotments. If, on May 31, unallocated development allotments remain unused they shall automatically be treated as "surplus" allotments and be added to the pool of allotments available in successive years [see formula, Section 26.100.040(A)(3)]. This automatic carryover provision notwithstanding, the City Council, following a public hearing for which notice has been given pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E)(3)(a), shall be authorized to deny the carryover of allotments and to delete any remaining surplus allotments. In making its decision, the City Council shall consider the following 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 that is granted the unallocated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity and community character; and 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have already obtained allotments or exemptions, but that have not yet been built. (Ord. No. 9-1993, § 2; Ord. No. 54- 1994: Code § 8-104) Chapter 26.100 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) 26.100.060 Development allotment procedures. A. General. -1. Number of development applications. No more than one development application for any parcel shall be considered in one year, unless each development application is submitted for an allotment in a different land-use/development category. 2. Multi -site development applications. For any proposed development that is located on two or more parcels, the points awarded to each shall be weighted by the number of units to be constructed on each parcel and a weighted value calculated for the points in each category. 3. HPC conceptual approval. In the event that historic preservation committee (HPC) approval is needed for any proposed project, the committee's conceptual approval must be secured prior to submitting an application for a development allotment. The applicant shall be required to secure final approval of the project from the committee prior to submission of an application for a building permit. 4. Consolidated applications. Development applications for any development activity that is consolidated with a development application for allotment shall only receive final approval to. the extent to which the project obtains necessary development allotments. B. Allocation procedures for exempt development. 1. Application deadline. Applications are taken and granted allocations on a first - come -first -served basis beginning on June 1 of each year. An application for an exemption or for a development allotment for exempt development may be submitted to the Community Development Director at any time of the year. 2. Application contents. An application for development allotments for exempt development shall be submitted in a form established by the Community Development Director and made available to the public-. 3. Procedure. For exempt development: A development application for a development allotment for exempt development shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and review and approval in accordance with Section 26.100.050, development allotments shall be allocated on a first -come - first -served basis, provided that all applications submitted on the same day shall be construed to have been submitted at the same time. In the event that the number of development applications submitted on the same day exceeds the number of development allotments available, a random drawing shall be held to determine the order in which allocations are granted. Those applications that do not receive a development allotment in the random drawing shall remain valid until the following May 31. In the event that additional allocations become available on or before May 31, development allotments shall be allocated on the basis of the original random drawing. If allotments are available after awarding allotments to those applications included in the random drawing, they shall again be made available to applications on a first -come -first -served basis, based on the date of submittal. If development allotments have not been allocated to an application by May 31, that application shall expire and be ineligible for allocation until a new application is submitted. 4. Pr-oee ufe Ffor "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AH1/PUD zone district. The procedures established in Section 26.100.060(C)(3) shall be followed to evaluate ex�projects seeking optional multi -year maximum allotments An applicant may challenge or appeal scores awarded by the Growth Management Commission by following the procedures in Section 26.100.060(D) C. Allocation procedures for non-exempt development. 1. Application deadline. A development application for a development allotment for non-exempt development shall be submitted to the Community Development Director pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, on or before the following dates: Land Use/Development Type Submission Date Tourist Accommodations August 1 Residential November 1 2. Application contents. An application for'development allotments for non-exempt development shall be submitted in a form established by the Community Development Director and made available to the public. 3. Ranking procedures and standards-. Staff Review. A development application for a development allotment for non-exempt development shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and a recommendation for scoring by the Community Development Director, such applications shall be reviewed and recommended for the award of development allotments in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section. An applicant shall only may amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. An applicant may also may make substantive changes to a complete application prior to scoring if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors Complete may not be amended prior to scoring if there are not sufficient allotments available The appheatio shall be snored by the Gre:M Management I �y�omm�c.n��r. 4. Growth Management Commission meeting procedures The Chairperson of the Growth Management Commission may establish time limits for each part of the meeting prior to the beginning of the discussion. If oral presentations are limited due to time constraints, anemone may submit written testimony to the official record or the proceedings a. Community Development staff shall present a summary of staff s review of the application(s) based upon the scoring criteria. b The applicant or applicant's representative shall present comments regarding the application(s)' consistency with the scoring criteria. C. Citizens in attendance at the public hearing, including other applicants competing for an allotment, shall be provided the opportunity to comment. d. The Growth Management Commission sha4l-may ask questions of staff applicant(s) or citizens and make comments regardingthe he application(s). 9ffiflied to eitizefis and i'S When and n to the exte l fleeess-PIVIZTtlo nc+rnffe fair an 44 di selosure e.f. The Growth Management Commission shall score the application(s) on the score sheets provided by the staff and submit their score sheets for the staff to calculate the overall score for the application(s) pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C)(5). 5. After the public hearing is officially closed, the Growth Management Commission shall consider and score each application based on the scoring criteria in Section 26.400.080. The following scoring procedures shall be adhered to: a. Each Growth Management Commission member shall assign a whole number score (not a fractional number) to the project. b. Following the initial scoring, commission members shall be free to discuss individual scores and to offer justification for such scores. C. Following the close of Growth Management Commission discussions regarding initial scoring, a final scoring round will be held, during which each Growth Management Commission member shall again identify the number of points, expressed as whole numbers, assigned to the project. Growth Management Commission membersshall be free to revise the number of points awarded to a project between the preliminary and final scoring rounds. d. After the close of the final scoring round, a project's final average score shall be calculated by (1) totaling the commissioners' individual scores and (2) dividing that total by a number equal to the number of commissioners who participated in the final scoring round. Final average project scores shall be calculated for each of the four growth management scoring criteria of Sections 26.100.080(C)(1-4), and a cumulative score shall be calculated for the criteria as a whole. The final average cumulative score calculated pursuant to this provision shall constitute the projects final score. e. Projects shall be ranked in order of their final average scores. f. The project rankings and any recommendations for the award of optional maximum allotments shall be forwarded by resolution to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. 64. Actions required for approval of allotments. Since the Growth Management Quota System applies throughout the Aspen Metro area, no growth management allocation shall be awarded unless the City Council and Board of County Commissioners both accept the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission. The procedures governing challenges and appeals are set out in Sections 26.100.060(D) and (E). 7-5. Minimum scoring thresholds required for allocation. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of Sections 26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3) and 26.100.080(C)(4). 86. Identical point totals. In the event that two or more non-exempt development applications receive identical point totals, and one or more must be approved.to the exclusion of others because insufficient allotments are available, the Growth Management Commission shall reconsider the tying projects and apply the following criteria, in sequence, until the tie is broken: a. The project that received the higher point total in the greatest number of scoring categories shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. b. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "revitalizing the permanent community" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. C. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "providing transportation innovations" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. d. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "promoting environmentally sustainable development" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. D. Challenges and appeals ofmade-by aggrieved parties, 6 City Council; or the Board of County Commissioners. 1 keations the City Couneil shall eonsider- any appeals made by pefsons aggrieved by the XX f the G--Fowth Management Commission. The City s ranking of developme s review of an appeal shall, b-e limited to detefmining whether- ther-e was a denial of due pi:oeess or- abuse of diseretion by &owth Management Commission in its seor-ing. Affiy appeals mst be filed within fourteen (14-) days of the Growth Management Commission's publie hearing by filing a notiee of appeal wi the Commnity Development Difeetof-. A A keations based on the Feeoird established by the &ovA Management Go The City 6.1 shall a�ffirm the se-....., of the &owth Management Commission unless it detefmifies that there was a denial of "e pf ees. ,. abuse of diser-etion by the &ewth Managem Management Go Is Commission'sthe &ewth Management Conunission, that aetion shall eonstitute the final administrative orde on the matten if the City Cotmeil oveftums the &ovAh Management Commission'sappella-PA may file an appeal of the Growth Management -31. Upon receipt of the Growth Management Commission's ranking of development applications, the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall consider any appeals made by either the City Council or Board of County Commissioners or by persons aggrieved by the scoring. An appeal to the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the Growth Management Commission's public hearing by fling a notice of appeal with the Community Development Director. An appe-al to the joint GitGouneil-GetmeiWBear-d of GeuiAy Gommissionefs shall be filed within four -teen (14) days of the Qt-y I s deeision on the matter- by filing a notiee of appeal with the Gonmntmit-y Developme Dir-eeten A joint City Council/County Commissioners meeting shall be called within thirty (30) days of the date that the appeal is filed. In reviewing an appeal, the joint, City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall act on the basis of the record established by the Growth Management Commission. The appellant shall have the burden of persuasion in the appeal. 2. The joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall affirm the scoring of the Growth Management Commission unless it determines that there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, in which case the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth Management Commission's action. Remedies available to the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall include, but not be limited to amending the number of points awarded or remanding the development application to the Growth Management Commission for rescoring. 3. A quorum of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be comprised of at least three members of the Aspen City Council and at least three members of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. No meeting of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be called to order without a quorum and no meeting at which less than a quorum is present shall act on an appeal other than to continue it to a. date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority of the members then present and voting. A tie vote by the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be deemed a decision to uphold the Growth Management Commission's scoring. 4. The decision of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall constitute the final administrative order on the matter. E. Challenges andappeals made by City (lei it or Bo -F ofCounty Gem missione f. i . An appeal to the J oint City Couneil/B oar-d of County C=oFmnissioner-s may be filed by either- the City C;euneil or Boafd of Gounty Commissioners at any time by filing a flotiee Of Couneil/Gounty Commissi.oner-s meeting shall be ealled within thifty (30) days of the date the appeal is filed. in r- -,an appea4, the joint City , Commission'sof County Commission. The appellant shall have the bufden of pefsuasion in the appeaL- The joint City Gounei!/Boar-d of County Commissionefs, shall affifm the Sxe0fifig Of the Gfe:,Mh Management Commission unless it detefmines that thefe was a denial of due pFoeess e joi City C;ouneil/Bear-d of County C;emmissioners shaI4 take sueh aetion as it deems neeessar-� 7 to Femedy the Gfowth Management GouneiWBoard of County Commissionefs shall inelude, but not be limited to amending the Commissio for roc.n�rirR of at least three members of the Aspen City Getineil and at least thfee Members of the Pitkin C;ou*ty Boafd of County C No meeting of the joint City C;ouneWB oa:rd of County Cowt-missioneirs shall be ealled to order- without a quorum and no meeting at w-hieh less than I . s present shall aet on an appeal other than to eontinue it to a date e-eftain. All aetie shall requife the e vote of a simple major-4-y of the members then pr-esent and voting. tie vote by the joint City CouneiWBear-d of County Go -ers shall be deemed a deeision to uphold the Greczrf-h Management %~omminc.�vtis seer-ifig The deeision of the joint City Ceuneil/Bear-d of County C;emmissioner-s shall eefistitut-e he final Y,n l n dmirnistFative order- on the matter. FE. Allocation. Following the conclusion of all protest hearings, the City Council shall, by resolution, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who meet the minimum threshold established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5) in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this chapter or any other regulations of the city. Those development applications that have not met the minimum threshold established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5) shall be denied: GF. (Assignability and transferability of allotments. Development allotments shall not be assignable or transferable'independent of the conveyance of the real property on which the development allotment has been approved. (Ord. No. 54-1994: Code § 8-106) EXHIBIT C Chapter 26.102 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)--COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Sections: 26.102.010 Purpose. 26.102.020 Applicability. 26.102.030 Annual development allotment. 26.102.040 Exemptions. 26.102.050 Rules of general applicability. 26.102.060 Procedure and standards for development allotment. 26.102.070 Amendment of development order. 26.102.080 Expiration of development order. 26.102.090 Affordable housing. [NOTE: Because of the length of this chapter, only the applicable subsection is reprinted here with changes as noted.] 26.102.060 Procedure and standards for development allotment. A. Annual submission dates. A development application for a commercial or office development allotment for the following types of development shall be submitted to the Community Development Director pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, on or before September 15. B. Application contents. A development application shall consist of twenty-one (21) copies of the following information: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.52.030. 2. A written description of the proposed development including statements about: a. How the proposed development shall be connected to the public water system, including information on main size and pressure; the excess capacity available in the public water system; the location of the nearest main; and the estimated water demand of the proposed development. b. How the proposed development shall be connected to the public sewage treatment system; the access capacity available in the public sewage treatment system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; and the expected sewage treatment demand of the proposed development. 7 C. The type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters from the proposed development, and the effect of the development on historic drainage patterns. d. The type of fire protection systems to be used, (such as hydrants, sprinklers, wet standpipes, etc.); and the distance to the nearest fire station and its average response time. e. The total development area of the proposed development; the type of housing or development proposed; total number of units and bedrooms, including employee housing; and a tabular analysis outlining the proposed development's compliance with the dimensional and use requirements of this title. f. The estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed development; a description of the type and condition of roads to serve the proposed development; the total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in such development; the hours of principal daily use on adjacent roads; the on- and off -site parking to be supplied to the proposed development; location of alternate transit (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any automobile disincentive techniques incorporated in the proposed development; whether roads or parking areas will be paved; and methods to be used for snow and ice removal on streets and parking lots. g. The method by which affordable housing will be provided, in conformance with the provisions of Section 26.102.090, and a description of the type and amount of such housing to be provided. h. The type of stoves and fireplaces to be installed, including those using wood, coal, gas or other fuels, the number of such stoves and fireplaces, and any emission control devices used on the stoves or fireplaces. .i. The location of the proposed development relative to proposed or existing parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, airports, mass transit systems, and the estimated increased usage of such facilities by the proposed development. j. The location of the proposed development relative to existing and proposed retail and service outlets, and the estimated increased demand on such outlets from the proposed development. This does not apply for a development application for commercial/office development. k. The effect of the proposed development on adjacent land uses. L . The construction schedule for the proposed development, including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing construction. 3. A site utilization map including: a. Preliminary architectural drawings in sufficient detail to show building size, height, materials, insulation, fireplaces, stoves, solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of units, internal configuration of principal, accessory and other spaces, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the site. b. Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, amenities to be provided on -site, and proposed underground utilities. C. Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops, and improvements proposed to insure privacy from such areas. d. Any major street or roads, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, and greenbelts. 8 e. A general description and location of surrounding existing land uses, and an identification of the zone district boundary lines, if applicable. C. RESERVED D. Development review procedure. A development application for a development allotment shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and a recommendation for scoring by the Community Development Director, the application shall be scored by the commission at a public hearing and then the scores shall be forwarded to city council for their allocation of development allotments at a hearing. -A- appheant shall only amend an ineomplete applieation to make teelmieal eorfeeti . An applicant shall only may amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. An applicant may also make substantive changes to a complete application prior to scoring if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Complete applications may not be amended prior to scoring if there are not sufficient allotments available. E. Commercial and office development standards. A development application requesting development allotments for commercial and office development shall be assigned points by the commission pursuant to the following standards and point schedules: 1. Quality of design (maximum eighteen (18) points). Each development application shall be rated based on the quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations: 0--A totally deficient design; 1--A major design flaw; 2--An acceptable (but standard) design; or 3 --An excellent design. The following features shall be rated accordingly: a. Architectural design (maximum three (3) points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. b. Site design (maximum three (3) points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. C. Energy conservation (maximum three (3) points). Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location, relative to whether solar .gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. d. Amenities (maximum three (3) points). Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. I e. Visual impact (maximum three (3) points). Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. f. Trash and utility access areas (maximum three (3) points). Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. 2. Availability of public facilities and services (maximum ten (10) points). Each development application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations: 0--Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense; 1--Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or service improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general; or 2--Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. a. Water supply/fire protection (maximum two (2) points). Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development b. Sanitary sewer (maximum two (2) points). Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. G. Public transportation/roads (maximum two (2) points). Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. d. Storm drainage (maximum two (2) points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, the review shall consider the 10 commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. e. Parking (maximum two (2) points). Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by Chapter 26.28, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. 3. Provision of affordable housing (maximum fifteen (15) points). a. General. Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city, and with the provisions of Section 26.102.090. b. Assignment of points. Points shall be assigned as follows: (1) Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each six (6) percent housed; (2) Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent housed. The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development: Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1): leasable), based Neighborhood Commercial (NC) & Service/Commer/Industrial (S/C/I): Office (0): Commercial Lodge (CL) and other: 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net on review of the city council's housing designee; 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable); 3.00 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable); 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable). If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the commission shall use the following criteria: Studio: 1.25 residents; One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents; Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 resident per one hundred fifty (150) per square feet of unit space. 4. Bonus points (maximum four (4) points). Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Section 26.102.060(E)(1) through 26.102.060(E)(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional 11 bonus points shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 26.102.060(E)(1) through 26.102.060(E)(3). Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. 5. Competitive thresholds. A development application for a commercial or office allotment shall be required to meet all of the following thresholds to be eligible for an allocation: a. The proposed development shall be required to receive a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under Section 26.102.060(E)(1) and 26.102.060(E)(2); and b. The proposed development shall be required to receive a minimum of forty (40) percent of the points available under each of Section 26.102.060(E)(1) and 26.102.060(E)(2); and C. The proposed development shall be required to provide affordable deed restricted housing (according to the standards of Section 26.102.090) for a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the proposed development using the standards of Section 26.102.060(E)(3). F. Ranking formula. Development applications for development allotments shall be recommended for the award of development allotments in accordance with the following ranking formula. l . Each commission member voting on the development application shall identify the number of points assigned to the project. 2. The total number of points awarded to the project, divided by the number of members voting, shall constitute the proj ect's average score. 3. The projects shall be ranked according to the average points each shall have received, highest to lowest. 4. The ranking of the development applications shall then be forwarded to the city council. G. Challenges. l . Upon receipt of the commission's ranking of the development applications, the city council shall consider any challenges by an applicant. The city council review of a challenge shall be limited to determining whether there is a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed by the applicant within fourteen (14) days of the public hearing by the commission scoring and ranking the development application. 2. In reviewing a challenge, the city council shall consider the development applications based on the record established by the commission. The city council shall affirm the scoring of the commission, unless it determines that there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring, in which case the city council shall take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy the commission's action. Remedies available to city council shall include, but not be limited to amending the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant or remanding the development application to the commission for rescoring. H. Allocation. Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings, the city council shall, by resolution, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who shall have met the minimum threshold established in Section 26.102.060(E) in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this chapter or any other regulations of the city. 12 Those development applications which have not met the minimum threshold established in Section 26.102.060(E) shall be considered denied. (Ord. No. 54-1994: Code § 8-206) 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 1997 said Council needs to answer policy questions, such as how much public access would the Council expect from a private purchaser, can free market rates be charged for horses. Ms. Margerum said staff can do the master planning and come back to Council and find out the policy answers on housing, how much housing, where would the housing be located. Councilman Vickery said Council should open the process to anyone who is interested and then council can look at which proposal suit the long term goals of the City. McFlynn said there are a lot of restrictions on this property and anyone interested would have to do a lot of ' research to find all these restrictions. McFlynn said people interested should know Council's minimum matrix of conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Richards agreed there should be a packet of material available that is all the technical information, the restrictions on the land, what is known about operations, maintenance capital and the county process. Ms. Margerum suggested a representative of the county on the task force so that the master plan will fit that of Pitkin County. Kathy Honea, operator, told Council she has worked hard on public access in all equestrian disciplines and making it open for everyone. People who do not board horses there can bring them in for riding. Ms. Margerum suggested staff take this information, brainstorm and come back to Council with a specific process, a one page outline of where the city is going with Cozy Point. Mayor Pro Tem suggested contacting the county to see if they are interested in a master plan process with the city. Councilman Markalunas said the city should not lose sight of the fact that the property was purchase to preserve it from inappropriate development. The city should develop a long range plan for the property. Councilman Markalunas said this property may include a rail envelope. ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1997 - Code Amendment GMQS Julie Ann Woods, community development department, said staff is recommending 3 changes to the growth management section of the code. These are (1) streamline the appeal process; (2) allow for amendment to the application when there is no competition, and (3) allow certain exempt free market and affordable project to get multi -year allotments. Ms. Woods said this will allow for more. consistency with the county code. E Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 1997 Councilman Vickery asked if there is a definition for "exceptional" projects. Ms. Woods said there are standards listed; staff evaluates whether a project get to the scoring process. Councilman Vickery said a minimum standard in each category is established and it seems that an exceptional project could be numerically quantified. John Worcester suggested when the city goes through the AACP review, they may want to discuss quantifying exceptional projects. Worcester said there are standards and criteria the growth management commission uses to decide what an exceptional project is. Council agreed that "exceptional" ought to be defined. Councilman Vickery moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 1997,.on first reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Markalunas, yes; Vickery, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried RESOLUTION #86, 1997 - Independence Pass Plaza Project Councilman Paulson said he has more of a conflict of interest on this project than he did 4 years ago. Councilman Paulson said he is concerned about where the city is headed with this project and if this is the right way for the city to go. Councilman Paulson said he will step aside for this subject. Stan Clauson, community development director, said staff is pursuing the appropriateness of this project as directed by Council. Clauson said over the years, citizens committees .have recommended to the city that this is a project worth considering. Staff is working to form it into a useful project for the community. Clauson reminded Council the city received a scaled down plan in late 1995. A number of meetings on that plan was held during 1996. Staff did two studies with consultants, the economic basis for the project to determine if it is feasible, and an urban design study to look at bulk and massing in the latest version. Clauson said staff is here by present the design charette findings, to request design review committee approval, and to request a small budget for this process. Clauson noted a list of names for potential members to the design review committee is included in Council's packet. 01 r�- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development,,Di FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy RE: GMQS Text Amendments \\ DATE: November 24, 1997 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing several amendments to the GMQS procedures in the County and City Land Use Codes, as requested by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners in response to the Stage 3 appeal. Specifically, staff proposes to simplify the appeal procedure and to allow amendments to GMQS applications prior to scoring if there is not competition for the available allotments. Staff also proposes several amendments to the City Code which would allow multi -year allotments for certain exempt projects; these amendments were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, and have already been adopted by the Board. County Planning Staff is concurrently processing an additional amendment to the County Code to establish requirements for public notice for Growth Management Commission hearings, so the City and County requirements will be consistent. One section of the code where the County and City GMQS process will not be consistent is in the Growth Management Commission participation. The City Planning and Zoning Commission did not like the proposed change in how the voting would take place, and staff was directed to investigate the implications of having inconsistent voting and participation requirements between the city and county codes. Staff discussed this with the County Planning Staff and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the City P&Z is under no obligation to adopt the same voting and participation requirements as the County, however, there does need to be consistency in how the voting occurs, particularly if there is a growth management competition for allocations. Since the City P&Z were not comfortable with the voting procedures recommended, staff dropped this amendment from the rest of the proposed amendments. Staff has recommended that a joint worksession be scheduled with the County P&Z to discuss this item and growth management in general. At their meeting on October 7, 1997, the City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed changes to the code, with some minor amendments, which have been included in the attachments. The Code sections proposed to be amended are attached. Deletions have been-strieken and additions are underlined. The amendments will affect the following sections of the Code: • 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments (Exhibit A) • 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures (Exhibit B) • 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment (Exhibit C) STAFF COMMENTS: F Appeal Procedure: The current appeal process requires an "aggrieved party" to appeal first to the Board or Council (depending on whether the application is in the County or City) to determine if there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring. If the Board or Council overturns the scoring, the "aggrieved party" may appeal to the joint Board/Council. If the joint Board/Council determines that there was a denial of due processor abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, the joint Board/Council may take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth Management Commission's scoring. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to simplify the procedure by removing the initial determination by the Board or Council, since no remedy is available to the applicant at that time. An appeal directly to the joint Board/Council would still require a determination of a denial of due process or abuse of discretion before the Growth Management Commission's scoring could be overturned and a remedy could be considered. The Code also provided a separate procedure for appeals made by the Board or Council, which allows the Board or Council to file a direct appeal to the joint Board/Council. This procedure is consistent with the "streamlined" appeal discussed above, except that the Board or Council is not required to file an appeal within a specific amount of time. Staff recommends that all appeals should be required to be filed within 14 days of the Growth Management's public hearing, and then the separate appeal procedure for the Council or Board is not necessary. Amendments to Applications: The City Code and the "old" County Code (pre-1994) only allows GMQS competitors to amend an incomplete application to make "technical corrections or clarifications". The "new" County Code allowed GMQS competitors to make substantive changes to GMQS applications prior to scoring, if there was only one competitor. This provision is still applicable in the non -metro area of the County, but was inadvertently omitted from the metro area revisions that were adopted in 1995. In the metro area, an applicant may only amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to process code amendments to allow applicants to make substantive changes to their applications only when there is no competition for available allotments, in order to present the best possible project to the Growth Management Commission for scoring. Staff determined that "no competition" should not be limited to only one competitor, but should allow all competitors to amend their applications, if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Staff has proposed to make this amendment to the metro and non -metro area procedures as well as the commercial and office GMQS procedures to maintain consistency. 2 Multi -year Allotments for Mixed Development: The City and County Codes include provisions for multi -year allotments for 100% affordable housing projects and "non-exempt" projects, but not for "exempt" mixed free-market/affordable housing projects. The County recently adopted amendments, which were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, to allow mixed free-market/affordable housing projects in the AHO/PUD, AH2/PUD and AH3/PUD zone districts to request multi -year allotments. The Highlands application stated that it was an oversight on the part of the County when the mixed free-market/AH zone districts were adopted that the Code was not amended to allow developments in these zone districts to request multi -year allotments. To be consistent, staff proposes to amend the City Code to allow developments in the AH 1 /PUD zone district to request multi -year allotments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve on first reading the proposed GMQS code amendments recommended in the staff report dated November 10, 1997, and schedule a public hearing for second reading on December 8, 1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to approve on first reading the proposed GMQS code amendments recommended in the staff report dated November 10, 1997, and propose to schedule a public hearing for second reading at the City Council's regular meeting on December 8, 1997." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Attachments: Exhibit A 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments Exhibit B 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures Exhibit C 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment Exhibit D Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97- g:\p lauiing\aspen\cases\tes8gmgscc RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE- REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.100.040 "ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS"; SECTION 26.100.060 "DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT PROCEDURES"; AND SECTION 26.102.060 "PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT" RELATED TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM. Resolution 97--A-5 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department developed, reviewed and recommended approval of an amendment to the land use regulations, certain text amendments to Chapter 26 relating to Section 26.100.040 "Annual Development Allotments"; Section 26.100.060 "Development Allotment Procedures"; and Section 26.102.060, "Procedure and Standards for Development Allotment" related to the Growth Management Quota System; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code, amendments to Chapter 26 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations," shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at its regular meeting on October 7, 1997, at which the Commission approved by a 7-0 vote the proposed text amendment, with minor changes. y e+ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section One: That Section 26. 100.040 "Annual Development Allotments"; shall be amended to read as follows (with new language underlined): 26.100.040 Annual development allotments. The residential and tourist accommodations growth management quota system's method of establishing annual development allotments has been designed to be as fair and flexible as possible. It establishes pools of development allotments that are available for use by metro area exempt and non-exempt projects during one-year periods, running from June 1 to May 31. The system allows allotments to be "borrowed" from future years if necessary to accommodate very high -quality projects. The Metro Area development ceilings are based upon a 23year growth period. Allotments may be borrowed from future growth management years to accommodate exceptional high duality projects. As a result of the flexibility that has been built into the allotment system, the number of allotments available during any one year may vary. and B.1 and B.2: B. Optional multi -year maximum allotments for "exceptional" projects. 1. Award of optional multi -year maximum allotments. When the "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3) yields available allotment pool levels that exceed the allotment pool levels calculated pursuant to the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3), the City Council shall be -authorized to make optional multi -year allotments available to "exceptional" non-exempt developments and to "exceptional" exempt developments located in the AHl/PUD zone district. "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotments" shall be made available only to specific projects, and in the event that the allotments expire or are otherwise unused after being awarded, they shall not be carried over as surplus allotments or be transferred to other projects. 2. Approval criteria. Because the award of optional multi -year - maximum allotments may result in fewer allotments being available in subsequent years, the use of optional multi -year maximum allotments shall be reserved for exceptional non-exempt projects that exceed the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080 or for "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AH 1 /PUD zone district that meet the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080. The Growth Management Commission may recommend and the City Council may award optional multi -year maximum allotments as part of its ranking and allocation review conducted pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C). i lie and B.2. b: b. After consideration of the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission, City Council may award optional (multi -gear) allotments if a project complies with the following standards: Section Two: That Section 26.100.060 "Development Allotment Procedures" shall be amended to read as follows(with new language underlined): B.3 and B.4.: 3. Procedure. For exempt development: A -development application for a development allotment for exempt development shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and review and approval in accordance with Section 26.100.050, development allotments shall be allocated on a first -come -first -served basis, provided that all applications submitted on the same day shall be construed to have been submitted at the same time. In the event that the number of development applications submitted on the same day exceeds the number of development allotments available, a random drawing shall be held to determine the order in which allocations are granted. Those applications that do not receive a development allotment in the random drawing shall remain valid until the following May 31. In the event that additional allocations become available on or before May 31, development allotments shall be allocated on the basis of the original random. drawing. If allotments are available after awarding allotments to those applications included in the random drawing, they shall again be made available to applications on a first -come -first - served basis, based on the date of submittal. If development allotments have not been allocated to an application by May 31, that application shall expire and be ineligible for allocation until a new application is submitted. 4. For "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AHl/PUD zone district. The procedures established in Section 26.100.060(C)(3,) shall be followed to evaluate exempt projects seeking optional multi -year maximum allotments. An applicant may challenge or appeal scores awarded by the Growth Management Commission by following the procedures in Section 26.100 060(D). and C.3 through 8: 3. Staff Review. A development application for a development allotment for non-exempt development shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and a recommendation for scoring by the Community Development Director, such applications shall be reviewed and recommended for the award of development allotments in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section. An applicant may amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. An applicant may also may make substantive changes to a complete application` prior to scoring if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Complete applications may not be amended prior to scoring if there are not sufficient allotments available. 4. Growth Management Commission meeting_ procedures. The Chairperson of the Growth Management Commission may establish time limits for each part of the meeting prior to the beginning of the discussion. If oral presentations are limited due to time constraints, anyone may submit written testimony to the official record or the proceedings. a. Community Development staff shall present a summary of staff s review of the application(s) based upon the scoring criteria. b. The applicant or applicant's representative shall present comments regarding the application(s)' consistency with the scoring criteria. C. Citizens in attendance at the public hearing,, including other applicants competing for an allotment, shall be provided the opportunity to comment. d. The Growth Management Commission may ask of staff, applicant(s) or citizens and make comments regarding_the he application(s). e. The Growth Management Commission shall score the application(s) on the score sheets provided by the staff and submit their score sheets for the staff to calculate the overall score for the application(s) pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C)(5). 5. After the public hearing is officially closed, the Growth Management Commission shall consider and score each application based on the scoring criteria in Section 26.100.080. _The_followinQ scoring procedures shall be adhered to: a. Each Growth Management Commission member shall assign a whole number score (not a fractional number) to the project. b. . Following the initial scoring, commission members shall be free to discuss individual scores and to offer justification for such scores. C. Following the close of Growth Management Commission discussions regarding initial scoring, a final scoring round will be held, during which each Growth Management Commission member shall again identify the number of points, expressed as whole numbers, assigned to the project. Growth Management Commission members shall be free to revise the number of points awarded to a project between the preliminary and final scoring rounds. d. After the close of the final scoring round, a project's final average score shall be calculated by (1) totaling the commissioners' individual scores and (2) dividing that total by a number equal to the number of commissioners who participated in the final scoring round. Final average project scores shall be calculated for each of the four growth management scoring criteria of Sections 26.100.080(C)(1-4), and a cumulative score shall be calculated for the criteria as a whole. The final average cumulative score calculated pursuant to this provision shall constitute the projects final score. e. Projects shall be ranked in order of their final average scores. - ; I ! i pi r f. The project rankings and any recommendations for the award of optional maximum allotments shall be forwarded by resolution to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. 6. Actions required for approval of allotments. Since the Growth Management Quota System applies throughout the Aspen Metro area, no growth management allocation shall be awarded unless the City Council and Board of County Commissioners both accept the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission. The procedures governing challenges and appeals are set out in Sections 26.100.060(D) and (E). . 7. Minimum scoring thresholds required for allocation. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of Sections 26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3) and 26.100.080(C)(4). 8. Identical point totals. In the event that two or more non-exempt development applications receive identical point totals, and one or more must be approved to the exclusion of others because insufficient allotments are available, the Growth Management Commission shall reconsider the tying projects and apply the following criteria, in sequence, until the tie is broken: a. The project that received the higher point total in the greatest number of scoring categories shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. b. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "revitalizing the permanent community" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. c. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "providing transportation innovations" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. d. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "promoting environmentally sustainable development" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment. and D., E. and F.: D. Challenges and appeals of aggrieved parties;, City Council, or the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Upon receipt of the Growth Management Commission's ranking of development applications, the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall consider any appeals made by either the City Council or Board of. County Commissioners or by persons aggrieo ved by the scoring. An appeal to the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the Growth Management Commission's public hearing by filing a notice of appeal with the Community Development Director. A joint City Council/County Commissioners meeting shall be called within thirty (30) days of the date that the appeal is filed. In reviewing an appeal,, the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall act on the basis of the. record established by the Growth Management Commission. The appellant shall have the burden of persuasion in the appeal. 2. The joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall affirm the scoring of the Growth Management Commission unless it determines that there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, in which case the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth' Management Commission's action. Remedies available to the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall include, but not be limited to amending the number of points awarded or remanding the development application to the Growth Management Commission for rescoring. 3. A quorum of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be comprised of at least three members of the Aspen City Council and at least three members of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. No meeting of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be called to order without a quorum and no meeting at which less than a quorum is present shall act on an appeal other than to continue it to a date certain. All, actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority of the members then present and voting. A tie vote by the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall be deemed a decision to uphold the Growth Management Commission's scoring. 4. The decision of the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall constitute the final administrative order on the matter. E. Allocation. Following the conclusion of all protest hearings, the City Council shall, by resolution, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who meet the minimum threshold established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5) in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this chapter or any other regulations of the city. Those development applications that have not met the minimum threshold established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5) shall be denied. F. Assignability and transferability of allotments. Development allotments shall not be assignable or transferable independent of the conveyance of the real property on which the development allotment has been approved. Section Three: That Section 26.102.060 "Procedure and* Standards for Development Allotment"; shall be amended to read as follows(with new language underlined): D. Development review procedure. A development application for a development allotment shall be reviewed pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. After review for completeness and a recommendation for scoring by the Community Development Director, the application shall be scored by the commission at a public hearing and then the scores shall be forwarded to city council for their allocation of development allotments at a hearing. An applicant may amend an incom lti ete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. An applicant may also make substantive changes to a complete application prior to scoring if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors Complete applications may not be amended -rior to scoring if there are not sufficient allotments available. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 7 1997. ' l Ci Attorney Attest: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk g:\planning\aspen\resos.doc\p&zlgtngstex. doe Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chairperson MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Developme,t Directo FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Dir for `�� RE: GMQS Text Amendments DATE: October 7, 1997 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing several amendments to the GMQS procedures in the County and City Land Use Codes, as requested by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners in response to the Stage 3 appeal. Specifically, staff proposes to simplify the appeal procedure and to allow amendments to GMQS applications prior to scoring if there is not competition for the available allotments. Staff also proposes several amendments to the City Code which would allow multi -year allotments for certain exempt projects; these amendments were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, and have already been adopted by the Board. Staff is concurrently processing an additional amendment to the County Code to establish requirements for public notice for Growth Management Commission hearings, so the City and County requirements will be consistent. One section of the code where the County and City GMQS process will not be consistent is in the Growth Management Commission participation. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's last meeting, staff was directed to investigate the implications of having inconsistent voting and participation requirements. Staff discussed this with the County Planning Staff and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the City P&Z is under no obligation to adopt the same voting and participation requirements as the County, however, there does need to be consistency in how the voting occurs, particularly if there is a growth management competition for allocations. Since the City P&Z were not comfortable with the voting procedures recommended, staff has dropped this amendment from the rest of the proposed amendments. Staff recommends that a joint worksession be scheduled with the County P&Z (probably in November, after they complete their Downvalley Plan) to discuss this item and growth management in general. The Code sections proposed to be amended are attached. Deletions hm,e been str-i ke.n, and additions are underlined. The amendments will affect the following sections of the Code: • 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments (Exhibit A) • 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures (Exhibit B) • 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment (Exhibit C) STAFF COMMENTS: Appeal Procedure: The current appeal process requires an "aggrieved parry" to appeal first to the U w�1,"a J Board or Council (depending on whether the application is in the County or City) to determine if l there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in G� its scoring. If the Board or Council overturns the scoring, the "aggrieved party" may appeal to the joint Board/Council. If the joint Board/Council determines that there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, the joint Board/Council may take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth Management Commission's scoring. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to simplify the procedure by removing the initial determination by the Board or Council, since no remedy is available to the applicant at that time. An appeal directly to the joint Board/Council would still require a determination of a denial of due process or abuse of discretion before the Growth Management Commission's scoring could be overturned and a remedy could be considered. The Code also provided a separate procedure for appeals made by the Board or Council, which allows the Board or Council to file a direct appeal to the joint Board/Council. This procedure is consistent with the "streamlined" appeal discussed above, except that the Board or Council is not required to file an appeal within a specific amount of time. Staff recommends that all appeals C,C, should be required to be filed within 14 days of the Growth Management's public hearing, and then the separate appeal procedure for the Council or Board is not necessary. Amendments to Applications: The City Code and the "old" County Code (pre-1994) only allows GMQS competitors to amend an incomplete application to make "technical corrections or clarifications". The "new" County Code allowed GMQS competitors to make substantive changes to GMQS applications prior to scoring, if there was only one competitor. This provision is still applicable in the non -metro area of the County, but was inadvertently omitted from the metro area revisions that were adopted in 1995. In the metro area, an applicant may only amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to process code amendments to allow applicants to make substantive changes to their applications only when there is no competition for available allotments, in order to present the best possible project to the Growth Management Commission for scoring. Staff determined that "no competition" should not be limited to only one competitor, but should allow all competitors to amend their applications, if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Staff has proposed to make this amendment to the metro and non -metro area procedures as well as the commercial and office GMQS procedures to maintain consistency. Multi -year Allotments for Mixed Development: The City and County Codes include provisions for multi -year allotments for 100% affordable housing projects and "non-exempt" projects, but not for "exempt" mixed free-market/affordable housing projects. The County recently adopted amendments, which were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, to allow mixed free-market/affordable housing projects in the AHO/PUD, AH2/PUD and AH3/PUD 2 zone districts to request multi -year allotments. The Highlands application stated that it was an oversight on the part of the County when the mixed free-market/AH zone districts were adopted that the Code was not amended to allow developments in these zone districts to request multi -year allotments. To be consistent, staff proposes to amend the City Code to allow developments in the AH1/PUD zone district to request multi -year allotments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed GMQS code amendments proposed in the staff report dated October 7, 1997, to the City Council. Attachments: Exhibit A 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments Exhibit B 26.100.060: Development Allotment Procedures Exhibit C 26.102.060: Procedure and standards for development allotment g:\planning\asp en\cases\text\gmgs2 3 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.100 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) 26.100.040 Annual development. allotments. The residential and tourist accommodations growth management quota system's method of establishing annual development allotments has been designed to be as fair and flexible as possible. It establishes pools of development allotments that are available for use by metro area exempt and non-exempt projects during one-year periods, running from June 1 to May 31. The system allows allotments to be "borrowed" from future years if necessary to accommodate very high -quality projects. The Metro Area development ceilings are based upon a 23 ,Year growth period Allotments may be borrowed from future growth management years to accommodate exceptional high qualityTjects The Qj� G nei inav befrew allotments ffameI,e��G beeinnine or- the end n of the 23 Tony oqualil3vzAS a result of the flexibility that has been built into the allotment system, the number of allotments available during any one year may vary. A. Establishment of allotment pools. 1. Base allotment pool. The base annual allotment pool corresponds to the desired annual growth rate for the metro area. It is established solely for the purposes of measuring changes in actual allotment levels and for calculating the maximum number of allotments available each year, pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(3). The following base annual allotment levels are hereby established for the entire metro area: Development Type Base Allotments Tourist Accommodations 11 units Free Market Residential 4 units Free Market Residential, AH Associated 8 units Resident Occupied 8 units Affordable Housing 43 units 2. Reserve pool. The Aspen Area Community Plan calls for some development allotments to be reserved each year for use by projects that are subject to growth management competition and scoring (non-exempt development). Consequently, until the close of each year's growth management competition and appeals period, the following allotments shall be reserved for use by non-exempt development only: Development Type Reserve Allotments Tourist Accommodations 6 units Free Market Residential 2 units If these reserved units remain unused following the close of the growth management competition and appeals period, any remaining allotments shall be made available for use by exempt development. In the case of remaining, "Free Market Residential Non -Exempt" allotments, such units shall be available for allocation to any form of "Free Market Residential" development. 3. Maximum allotment pool. The maximum number of allotments available within a single year will vary based on at least two factors: (1) the number of allotments granted in previous years and (2) whether the City Council authorizes the use of optional multi -year allotments, pursuant to Section 26.100.040(B). This section establishes the method by which the maximum annual allotment pools for residential and tourist accommodations development shall be calculated. a. Standard maximum allotment pool formula. No later than June 1 of each year, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available during the upcoming year using the following formula: Standard Maximum Allotment Pool = B + A Where: B = base allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) * In no case shall fewer than the reserve allotment pool be available b. Optional (multi -year) maximum allotment pool formula. The following formula shall be used by the Community Development Director to calculate the number of allotments available for "exceptional" projects (See Section 26.100.040(B)) that include free market units. The number of allotments available in the optional (multi -year) pool shall be calculated no later than June 1 of each year. Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotment Pool = (5xB)-(4xR)+A Where: B = base allotment R = reserve allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) C. Optional (multi -year) one hundred (100) percent affordable housing allotment pool formula. The following formula shall be used by the Community Development Director to calculate the number of allotments available for "exceptional" projects (See Section 26.100.040(B)) that are totally comprised (one hundred (100) percent) of affordable housing. This formula shall also be used to determine the number of available Resident Occupied (RO) units without regard to the annual limitations, up to a cumulative ceiling of one hundred (100) RO units. The number of allotments available in the optional (multi -year) one hundred (100) percent affordable housing allotment pool shall be calculated no later than June 1 of each year. N Optional (Multi -Year) 100% Affordable Housing Allotment Pool = (1 OB)-(9R)+A Where: B = base allotment R = reserve allotment A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as compared to base allotment) d. Establishment of maximum pool levels. The maximum allotment pool levels calculated pursuant to the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of this section shall constitute the maximum allotment available for the year, unless. the City Council approves the use of "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotments" pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.100.040(B). Regardless of the number of allotments yielded by the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula, the reserve pool allotments of Section 26.100.040(A)(2) shall be available each year. e. Use of allotments in maximum allotment pool. Allotments in the maximum allotment pool shall be available for use as follows. (1) Development subject to growth management competition and scoring. Development that is subject to growth management competition and scoring (non-exempt) shall be entitled to use only those allotments in the reserve pool established pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(2). Any reserve pool allotments remaining after the close of the annual growth management competition and appeals period shall be added to the pool of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to competition and, scoring (exempt development). (2) Development not subject to growth management competition and scoring. Because some units from the maximum allotment pool must be reserved each year until after growth management competition, the number of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to growth management competition and scoring (exempt development) will likely vary at different times of year. The number of allotments available for use by development that is not subject to competition and scoring shall be calculated as follows: (a) Pre -competition: No later than June 1 of each year, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available for use by exempt development using the following formula: Pre -Competition Exemption Allotment Pool = (M-R) _ 2 Where: M = Maximum Allotment Pool R = Reserve Pool (b) Post -competition: No later than one day after the close of the growth management competition and appeals period, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available for use by exempt development using the following formula: Post -Competition Exemption Allotment Pool = (P+R) = 2 Where: P = Units Remaining from Pre -Competition Exemption R = Units Remaining from Reserve Pool 3 B. Optional multi -year maximum allotments for "exceptional" projects. 1. Award of optional multi -year maximum allotments. When the "Optional (Multi - Year) Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3) yields available allotment pool levels that exceed the allotment pool levels calculated pursuant to the "Standard Maximum Allotment Pool" formula of Section 26.100.040(A)(3), the City Council shall be authorized to make optional multi -year allotments available to "exceptional" non-exempt projects and to "exceptional` exempt developments located in the AHl/PUD zone district-ana�n-eKenVt prejeets. "Optional (Multi -Year) Maximum Allotments" shall be made available only to specific projects, and in the event that the allotments expire or are otherwise unused after being awarded, they shall not be carried over as surplus allotments or be transferred to other projects. 2. . Approval criteria. Because the award of optional multi -year maximum allotments may result in fewer allotments being available in subsequent years, the use of optional multi -year maximum allotments shall be reserved for exceptional non-exempt projects that show r,aAieul sefisi4ivity to the eewnmuni4y and its needs, as expressed in (1) the Gre:mh Management Seering Criteria of Seetion 26 100.080 and (2) i adopted plan. -and sty exceed the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080 or for "exceptional" exempt.projects located in the AH 1 /PUD zone district that meet the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080. The Growth Management Commission may recommend and the City Council may award optional multi -year maximum allotments as part of its ranking and allocation review conducted pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C). a. Community planning criteria. In order to be eligible for the award of optional multi -year maximum allotments, projects shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission and City Council that all of the following criteria [26.100.040(B)(2)(a)(1) through 26.100.040(B)(2)(a)(7)] have been met. (1) The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds that established in the minimum threshold for the scoring established in Section 26.100.060(C)(5); (2) The proposal maximizes affordability, consistent with housing needs established as priority through the current AH Guidelines; (3) The proposal integrates a mixture of economic levels and housing for a variety of lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families); (4) The proposal minimizes impacts on infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy -saving site design, structural design characteristics or other techniques that minimize the use of water, heating and sewage disposal; (5) The proposal incorporates or integrates with an existing local based economy (i.e., sustainable local businesses); (6) The proposal accomplishes a level of design and site plan ingenuity that advances the community goals expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and (7) The proposed project represents an exceptional commitment to advancing the visions, goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan, particularly those described in the scoring criteria of this chapter (Sections 26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3) and 26.1,00.080(C)(4)). b. general gr-eNN4h managemei# er-iter-ia. The City Couneil shall not award optional affifmative findings finds that the fellowing eenditions exist. El b. After consideration of the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission,T-he City Council may award optional multi -year) allotments if a project complies with the following standards:. (1) The site- design of the proposed development makes construction phasing infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a demonstration that economies of scale will result from construction occurring at. once; the proposed development is intended as a single building that cannot easily be "constructed or operated in phases; and the public facility investments for the proposed development, such as roads, water and sewer facilities, must all be installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing economically unrealistic; (2) The impacts of construction of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood and the metro area as a whole will be reduced by construction at one time rather than phasing it over two (2) or more construction periods; and (3) The community is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which impacts on services and public facilities will be experienced. It shall be considered sufficient evidence of service and public facility availability if it can be demonstrated that sufficient capacity is available in the following public facilities to accommodate the metro area's planned rate of growth and the accelerated rate due to the proposed development: Transportation (including airport, roads, transit and parking), utilities (including water, sewer, electric, gas and drainage), affordable housing, park and recreation facilities, solid waste facilities, police and fire protection facilities, hospitals and schools. C. Unallocated surplus allotments. If, on May 31, unallocated development allotments remain unused they shall automatically be treated as "surplus" allotments and be added to the pool of allotments available in successive years [see formula, Section 26.100.040(A)(3)]. This automatic carryover provision notwithstanding, the City Council, following a public hearing for which notice has been given pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E)(3)(a), shall be authorized to deny the carryover of allotments and to delete any remaining surplus allotments. In making its decision, the City Council shall consider the following 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 that is granted the unallocated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity and community character; and 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have already obtained allotments or exemptions, but that have not yet been built. (Ord. No. 9-1993, § 2; Ord. No. 54- 1994: Code § 8-104) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Proposed new language in Exhibit A, page I. - The Metro Area development ceilings are based upon a 23 year growth period. The City Council may borrow allotments from either the beginning or the end of the 23 year growth period to accommodate high quality projects. Suggestion: Change the language of the previous sentence to read: Allotments may be "borrowed" from future growth management years to accommodate "exceptional" high quality projects. Page 4, paragraphs I and 2: In paragraph 1 "exempt" is listed lst and "non-exempt" 2nd. They are flip-flopped in paragraph 2. To keep them consistent, they should be in the same order. In addition, the adjective "exceptional" should be clearly applied to both. Suggestion: For paragraph l : ... allotments available to "exceptional" non-exempt projects and to "exceptional" exempt developments located in the AH1/PUD zone district. For paragraph 2: ... shall be reserved for "exceptional" non-exempt projects that exceed the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080 or for "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AH 1 /PUD zone district that meet the minimum score for an allotment established in Section 26.100.080. Page 5, paragraph b: Suggestion: Change to read as follows: After consideration of the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission, City Council may award optional multi -year allotments if a project complies with the following standards: EXHIBIT B: Page 2, paragraph 4: Paragraph 3, which precedes paragraph 4, is the procedure for a development allotment for exempt development. The proposed paragraph 4 is the procedure for "exceptional" exempt projects located in the AH 1 /PUD zone district. I would suggest combining the two sections as follows: 3. Procedure: a. For exempt development: A development application for a development allotment for exempt development b. For "exceptional" exempt projects in the AHl/PUD-zone district. The procedures established in Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(a) shall be followed to evaluate exempt projects seeking optional multi -year maximum allotments. An applicant may appeal scores awarded by the Growth Management Commission by following the procedures in Section 26.100.060(D). Paragraph 3, page 2: Delete the comma after the word "clarifications." Paragraph 4, page 2: In paragraph d change "shall" to "may." Delete paragraph "e" in its entirety. Change paragraph "f'to "e." Paragraph D, page 4: Change language to "Challenges and appeals of aggrieved parties, City Council, or the Board of County Commissioners." Suzanne Wolf , gmgs amendment, X-Sender: suzannew@comdev Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:52:19 -0600 To: juliew@co.pitkin.co.us From: Suzanne Wolff <suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: gmgs amendments FYI. I noticed that section 26.102.060(D) should also be amended to reflect new language on amending applications, in order to be consistent. Printed tor Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development D'rec4r Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner.= � RE: GMQS Text Amendments DATE: August 5, 1997 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing several amendments to the GMQS procedures in the County and City Land Use Codes, as requested by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners in response to the Stage 3 appeal. Specifically, staff proposes to simplify the appeal procedure and to allow amendments to GMQS applications prior to scoring if there is not competition for the available allotments. Staff also proposes several amendments to the City Code which would allow multi -year allotments for certain exempt projects; these amendments were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, and have already been adopted by the Board. Staff is concurrently processing an additional amendment to the County Code to establish requirements for public notice for Growth Management Commission hearings, so the City and County requirements will be consistent. The Code sections proposed to be amended are attached. Deletions &ve been str"efl-, and additions are underlined. The amendments will affect the following sections of the Code: • 26.26: Decision Making Administrative Bodies --Growth Management Commission (Exhibit A) • 26.100.040: Annual Development Allotments (Exhibit B) • 26.100.060: Development allotment procedures (Exhibit C) STAFF COMMENTS: Appeal Procedure: The current appeal process requires an "aggrieved party" to appeal first to the Board or Council (depending on whether the application is in the County or City) to determine if there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring. If the Board or Council overturns the scoring, the "aggrieved party" may appeal to the joint Board/Council. If the joint Board/Council determines that there was a denial of due processor abuse of discretion by the Growth Management Commission in its scoring, the joint Board/Council may take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Growth Management Commission's scoring. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to simplify the procedure by removing the initial determination by the Board or Council, since no remedy is available to the applicant at that time. An appeal directly to the joint Board/Council would still require a determination of a denial of due process or abuse of discretion before the Growth Management Commission's scoring could be overturned and a remedy could be considered. The Code also provided a separate procedure for appeals made by the Board or Council, which allows the Board or Council to file a direct appeal to the joint Board/Council. This procedure is consistent with the "streamlined" appeal discussed above, except that the Board or Council is not required to file an appeal within a specific amount of time. Staff recommends that all appeals should be required to be filed within 14 days of the Growth Management's public hearing, and then the separate appeal procedure for the Council or Board is not necessary. Amendments to Applications: The City Code and the "old" County Code (pre-1994) only allows GMQS competitors to amend an incomplete application to make "technical corrections or clarifications". The "new" County Code allowed GMQS competitors to make substantive changes to GMQS applications prior to scoring, if there was only one competitor. This provision is still applicable in the non -metro area of the County, but was inadvertently omitted from the metro area revisions that were adopted in 1995. In the metro area, an applicant may only amend an incomplete application to make technical corrections or clarifications. Following the Stage 3 appeal, the Board and Council directed staff to process code amendments to allow applicants to make substantive changes to their applications only when there is no competition for available allotments, in order to present the best possible project to the Growth Management Commission for scoring. Staff determined that "no competition" should not be limited to only one competitor, but should allow all competitors to amend their applications, if there are sufficient allotments available to accommodate the number of allotments requested by all of the competitors. Staff has proposed to make this amendment to the metro and non -metro area procedures to maintain consistency. Multi -year Allotments for Mixed Development: The City and County Codes include provisions for multi -year allotments for 100% affordable housing projects and "non-exempt" projects, but not for "exempt" mixed free-market/affordable housing projects. The County recently adopted amendments, which were proposed in association with the Highlands Base Village application, to allow mixed free-market/affordable housing projects in the AHO/PUD, AH2/PUD and AH3/PUD zone districts to request multi -year allotments. The Highlands application stated that it was an oversight on the part of the County when the mixed free-market/AH zone districts were adopted that the Code was not amended to allow developments in these zone districts to request multi -year allotments. To be consistent, staff proposes to amend the City Code to allow developments in the AH 1 /PUD zone district to request multi -year allotments. Growth Management Commission Participation: Another amendment that was recently adopted by the County in association with the Highlands application requires that an equal number of City and County Planning Commission members would vote on items before the Growth Management Commission, in order to prevent the potential for inequitable representation on the Commission between City and County participants. Staff proposes to amend the City Code to provide for equal participation from City and County Planning Commission members when voting on items before the Growth Management Commission. The proposed amendment is included in Exhibit A. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed GMQS code amendments to the City Council. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS - GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider amendments to the following sections of the Land Use Code: • 26.26, Growth Management Commission: Limit participation in Growth Management Commission meetings to an equal number of City and County Planning and Zoning Commission members. 0 26.100.040, Annual Development Allotments: Allow the Council to award optional, multi -year allotments to exceptional exempt developments in the AH1/PUD zone district. • 26.100.060, Development Allotment Procedures: Allow substantive changes to GMQS applications prior to scoring; establish procedures for Growth Management Commission meetings; amend the procedure for appeals of the Growth Management Commission's scoring; and establish a procedure for the review of exceptional exempt projects. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)920-5093. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 18, 1997 City of Aspen Account