Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.0027.2015.ASLUScck��r�� C q 4� THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0027. 2015.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECT ADDRESS 130 S GALENA PLANNER HILLARY SEMINICK CASED ESCRIPTION PUBLIC PROJECTS REPRESENTATIVE CITY HALL DATE OF FINAL ACTION 04/13/2015 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12/12/2015 E u -)n2_? • 261 S• kS L-4 Permits „� ♦` • !, s File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help J �X ----L J l - —--- J Jump 1 I p Main Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summary Actions Routing History Permit type asF] Ascen Len' Use Permft 4i02? 201a ASLU Address 130 S G4EIIA Apt/Suite CITY HALL I. City ASPEII State CO Zip 31611 Permit Information Master permit Routing queue Applied 03'26 201T Project I Status 1pending Approved Description OFEIIEC CASE FOR JUSTIN BARKER FOR "PUBLIC PROJECTS" Issued L No dosed/Final Submitted JUST81 BARKER Clock Running Days Expires U3'20'2016 Submitted via Owner Last name ICITY HALL First name 801 CASTLE CRK ASPEN CO 81611 Phone i 1 Address Applicant R Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? Last name CITY HALL First name 801 CASTLE CRK ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (j Cust # 112727 Address Email Lender AspenGold5 {server. angelas -1 of 1 s nC7 hs ORDINANCE No. 11 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.500 — DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF "THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 — Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2015, continued to May 4, 2015, City Council approved Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015, by a four to zero (4 — 0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 1 of 8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute fegarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Section 2: Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26,500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including but not limited to, -C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, -the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 2 of 8 reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: 1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi - municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency. 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible ibr review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: 1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, Genera! Review Standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, Ordinance No. 11, Series of2015 Code Amendment - Public Projects Page 3 of 8 • 0 during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, Genera/ Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2: Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26,500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, Genera! Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. l . Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 1 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of' Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public -Projects Page 4 of 8 LI • Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500,070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304,035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development, project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. " I . Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. Ordinance No. I I, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 5 of 8 26.500. 050 Advisory Group For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of, the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements. . The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing Requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. City projects and private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General Review Standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 6 of 8 • • 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26,470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26,480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26,304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209. Section 3: The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to correct any incorrect references within the Land Use Code related to this Ordinance. Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4• Effect Upon Existing LitilZation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a courtof competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Ilome Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 7 of 8 0 Section 7• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27`h day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13`h day of April, 2015. A st: ,inda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadroh, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this A day of , 2015. A est: 1V Linda Manning, City lerk Approved as to form: James R True, City Attorney Steve a r n Mayor Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 8 of 8 Ad Name: 10955776A Customer: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Your account number: 1013028 PROOF OF PUBLICATION TS: Airls TIM:: STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF PITKIN 1, Samantha Johnston, do solemnly swear that I am General Managerof theASPEN TIMES WEEKLY, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin for a period -of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement. The Aspen Times is an accepted legal advertising medium, only, for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/19/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/19/2015. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this 02/24/2015. It Samantha Jo nston, General Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 02/24/2015. �pftY Ave f PAMEtAJ. SCHULTZ = ......... Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public �C Yy n F�irare1 11A1yy 15 Commission expires: November 1, 2015 Catlttlasb1b1 L� PUBLIC NOTICE RE:AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, March 9, 2015. at a meet- ing to begin at 6:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Gale- na St., Aspen, to determine if an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code should be pursued. The potential amendment would modlfy the review pro - Cass of public agency projects. For further infor- mation, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Ga- lena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.bark- er@cityotaspon.com sJ von Skadron Mayo r 4An City Council Published in the Aspen Times on February 19, 2015(10955776) Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015 Councilwoman Mullins asked if this can be reversed in the future. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins said her biggest concern is it relaxes some of the building code rules. She would rather see the building proposal at the same time. Mayor Skadron said there is no enhancement of development rights and it makes the review easier. He said he is not interested in that but what is delivered to the community. He wants to know how much build out is allowed there including mass and scale and character. He said he wants to have a clear picture of what might or might not end up here. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.19 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CRYSTAL PALACE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 AND 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K AND L, AND LOT M OF BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 — Public Projects Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development, stated this is a continued public hearing from April 27 for a Staff initiated code amendment to comply with State statutes. At the last public hearing there was concern that the City would be able to take advantage of the automatic approval provision within 60 days. There was an option suggested to mitigate the concern and the language was amended in the ordinance prohibiting the City from using the 60 day provision. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. Marcia Goshorn said section 26.5.030 still puts the City within the same 60 days. She said the City should be going through he full process. Mr. True said 26.500.060 said City projects shall not require the decision in the 60 days and it takes it out of the deemed approved State statute for our own projects. Ms. Goshorn said she is also concerned with taking a private project and putting it within the 60 days if the Staff decided it is a public benefit. You need to have public buy in before you take that step. Mr. True said a private project with an essential public benefit can go pursuant to this statue. They cannot take advantage of the deemed approved after 60 days if the City does not take any action. Amos Underwood said he is concerned with the removal from the purpose statement the allowance of the greater public participation in the review process. It is important when it comes to City development to have public participation. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015 Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 2015; second by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 — HPC Work session Code Amendment Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this ordinance is for two amendments. The first is to remove the work sessions from the process and the second is to remove a reference to a specific building code. Work sessions have been part of the process for around three decades for informal input. They are required for floor area bonus asks. Staff would like to remove work sessions partly because they have changed over the years. There is no staff memo at the work session. Staff is not sure there is a way to provide an informal review without a proper public hearing. Councilman Frisch asked how P&Z operated compared to HPC. Mr. Bendon replied P&Z does not have work sessions. He said the work sessions do not include everyone and do not provide the same level of information. Councilman Romero said it is appropriate and broadens public participation and awareness. We are not getting rid of work sessions but improving the technique of how HPC conducts its meetings. He fully supports it. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports the building code change but can't support getting rid of the work sessions. Because it is not binding has its own downside but the applicant is aware of that and it is an opportunity for the applicant, HPC and staff to have a much more free flowing discussion. It can result in a better project. If the work sessions are public noticed it gives the public one more opportunity to see what is going on. The public can come to the work session or send a letter or email. It should be treated differently than P&Z. Mr. Bendon said now we have a system where the neighbors are not notified and it might work 99 times out of 100. The only difference now is the first meeting called a work session or meeting number one. We have an obligation to make sure everyone is fully informed. Mayor Skadron asked Councilwoman Mullins if see foresees a problem calling the work session meeting one. She replied there is a real distinction between the first public meeting and a work session. The work session is non -binding and the public meeting is. At the public meeting HPC is obligated to comment on the project through the guidelines. Mr. True said a lot of this discussion came from the City attorney's office. They were concerned with some of the informal aspects associated with work sessions, particularly the public notice aspects. He said the notice requirements need to be formalized. He suggested a motion to continue. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said what she found good about the work session in the past is when HPC reads something they have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify it before they get in to the official meeting. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Public Projects Code Amendment Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, Public llearing, continued from 4/27/15 MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing a code amendment to bring the City's Land Use Code into alignment with State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called "public entities"), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. The proposed ordinance establishes a review process for projects submitted by public entities that complies with State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority Cor all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments CHANGES FROM SECOND READING ON 4/27/15: At the public hearing on April 27, 2015, there was concern expressed over enabling the City to take advantage of the state's provision for automatic approval. At the public hearing, an option was suggested that projects submitted by the City are still eligible for Public Projects review, but do not require a decision within sixty days. This eliminates the possibility of "fast -tracking" Page 1 of 3 development projects for the City with an automatic approval after sixty days. The language in the proposed ordinance has been amended in Section 2 under 26.500.060, Timing Requirements to prohibit the City from using this sixty day approval provision. THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE 4/27/15 SECOND READING PACKET: DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed code amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities (and certain private development projects), in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the proposed code amendment. Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is a similar existing review process. The proposed code amendment includes restructuring the existing review process, and creating two new levels of review in this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects: Administrative, Minor, and Major. Administrative review is for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. Minor review includes most remodels, minor expansions, and some new construction. Major review would replace the existing COWOP process as the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from more extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Administrative reviews would be completed by the Community Development Department and mostly include minor or no visual change to a property. This review type would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. Minor review is a one-step review at City Council, with optional input from other City boards. Major review is a two-step process, with reviews before either HPC or P&Z, as applicable, and City Council. An optional advisory group may be used for additional input. The advisory group would consist of members of other City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group is to review the application, provide feedback to the applicant, and create a recommendation to the review boards. A private development project under this review would be required to use the advisory group. Review process: All reviews must be completed within sixty (60) days. This should be reasonable, as the most extensive review only requires two public hearings. On some projects, the applicant may decide a longer timeline may be acceptable. This would be negotiated with the City. Any private development project that is reviewed under this process would not be required to be reviewed within sixty (60) days. Applicability & Exemptions: A private development project has the opportunity to use this review process if certain criteria are met. This would either be authorized by the Community Development Director or City Council, depending on the scope. Page 2 of 3 Certain projects are not required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades within the right-of-way are exempt. Additionally, a public entity has the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review only serves as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. Those public entities providing comment were generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. A work session was also held with City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to comply with State Statute regarding review of public projects. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "1 move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use Code upon Second Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Proposed Code Amendment Language Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE No. 11 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.500 — DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 — Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 1 of 8 • Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: 1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi - municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 2 of 8 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: 1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, tire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 3 of 8 0 • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 - Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One - Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 - Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two - Public Hearing before City Council. I . Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. 2. Process:- The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment - Public Projects Page 4 of 8 0 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. 'The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 Advisory Group For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 5 of 8 agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing Requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. City projects and private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General Review Standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwisc compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 6 of 8 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209. Section 3• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 7: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27'h day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13`h day of April, 2015. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 7 of 8 • • Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of' Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R True, City Attorney , 2015. Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 8 of 8 • 11 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.050. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review — Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this "Title. Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: Staff finds that it is necessary to update the Land Use Code to include a process that complies with State Statute requirements. Stafffrnds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides a venue for public review of certain projects that might not otherwise be accomplished under the current Land Use Code, while still meeting State requirements. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Public Projects Code Amendment Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 • • Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals EXHIBIT B 26.500.010 Pu rpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.500.030 Applicability Fhis Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: 1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 1 • 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 2 • • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. I'urpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 3 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 Advisory Group City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 4 0 • For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing Requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. City projects and private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General Review Standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 5 • • 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209. (Ord. No. 1 1-2015, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 6 Reiular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 Mayor Skadron said he is concerned over the severing of three TDRs as it impacts the entire TDR program: Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2015 — 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiations for Voluntary Landmark Designation. Ms. Simon said this is an AspenModern discussion and protection of the Berko studio. Council did a site visit a week ago. It is a 6000 sq ft lot that was created as a lot split. The proposal is to recognize the studio as an individually historically significant structure. The Berko family would like to identify the structure as important to AspenModern, move the studio to the front of the lot, keep it as a residential structure and add on to it. HPC has done a design review for the proposal. The applicant is asking for dimensional variances, financial benefits in reductions and fee waivers, and appeal of a tree removal permit. HPC finds this is a very valuable example of the AspenModern program. Councilwoman Mullins asked for more history of when and why the trees were planted. She also asked for the reason for the set backs. Councilman Frisch would like to hear more about the need for the one tree. Mayor Skadron said there are some compelling parts to the application and some aggressive parts. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #14, Series of 2015; Seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #14 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 E HALLAM, LOT 1, 233 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015— Public Projects Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development told the Council the State requires decision within 60 days for public projects. This establishes a concrete process to send projects through to comply. Staff recommends approval. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said there is a state statute because other entites do not have to come to the City. The City does not have to come to the City but can fast track themselves through the process. Mr. True said this is designed to address all public projects and provide a clear path. Mr. Bendon said public projects can go through what is now called a co-op process. The City has gone out of its way to go through a public process. Councilman Frisch said currently, if the City was coming through with a project we could skip some steps a private developer couldn't. 2. Amos Underwood asked why was the advisory group changed from the original one. The applicant gets to decide if they want one. Mr. Barker said that was discussed. It is not feasible in the 60 day timeframe. • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 Councilman Frisch asked if this needs passed tonight or should we digest it more. Mr. Bendon said it should happen soon. He suggested the City should have this process available to itself. It is useful in creating a good community dialog. Councilman Frisch asked if the option is the regular process or this. I think we are trying to get rid of the 60 day time limit. Mr. Bendon said maybe we should not avail ourselves of the 60 day timeframe. Mr. True suggested amending 26.500.060 timing requirement last sentence to say private development and City projects pursuant to 040 shall not require a decision within 60 days. 3. Peter Fornell asked if this includes the building permitting process. We don't want to see all of the City projects at the top of the pile. Mr. Bendon replied it is just the land use review. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Mayor Skadron stated he is not a fan of the co-op process and would remove it entirely. Mr. Bendon said this replaces it. There are good examples of the advisory group. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to May 4, 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2015 — Supplemental Budget Appropriations Pete Strecker, finance, said the total request is 24 million dollars. Roughly half is related to funding capital projects. 5.7 million was previously approved. 1.2 million is for new requests and the remainder is for bringing forward savings. Councilwoman Mullins asked about central savings. Mr. Strecker said at the end of the year a portion of the savings goes back to the fund balance and 10 percent goes to central savings. 40 percent goes to the departments. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Steve Barwick, city manager, said there are some emergency repairs that need to be made at the ARC. A large pool filter around 50,000 dollars and a waste line needs replaced with the cost unknown at this time. These costs will be included in the fall supplemental. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #43, SERIES OF 2015 — Policy Direction — Residential Development Mitigation Requirements Chris Bendon, community development, said the affordable housing program is aimed to sustain a viable community. The growth management program tried to provide for affordable housing. We have been more successful than other resorts but have lost some ground. We have a dedicated real estate transfer tax. This proposal is a type of impact mitigation assessed upon expansion. This requirement goes back to 1990. It is 1 FTE for every 2000 sq ft of residential construction. The standard was lowered to 1 employee for every 3000 sq ft in 1990. Impact studies should be updated every five to ten years. We updated the residential study in March 2015. It suggested a house of 3000 sq ft generates .445 FTE. Less than half of the current requirement. Staff would like Council to adopt the new lower rate. The purpose of policy resolution does not change the land use code but provides clear direction to staff to draft the ordinance There has been some commentary from a few folks now who are in the situation of pay more now or wait for the ordinance and pay less. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Public Projects Code Amendment Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, Second Reading MEETING 1)ATE: April 27, 2015 SUMMARY: Staff is proposing a code amendment to bring the City's Land Use Code into alignment with State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called "public entities"), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. The proposed ordinance establishes a review process for projects submitted by public entities that complies with State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on Second Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 2" reading of a proposed code amendment to the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed code amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities (and certain private development projects), in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the proposed code amendment. Page 1 of 3 Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is a similar existing review process. The proposed code amendment includes restructuring the existing review process, and creating two new levels of review in this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects: Administrative, Minor, and Major. Administrative review is for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. Minor review includes most remodels, minor expansions, and some new construction. Major review would replace the existing COWOP process as the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from more extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Administrative reviews would be completed by the Community Development Department and mostly include minor or no visual change to a property. This review type would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. Minor review is a one-step review at City Council, with optional input from other City boards. Major review is a two-step process, with reviews before either HPC or P&Z, as applicable, and City Council. An optional advisory group may be used for additional input. The advisory group would consist of members of other City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group is to review the application, provide feedback to the applicant, and create a recommendation to the review boards. A private development project under this review would be required to use the advisory group. Review process: All reviews must be completed within sixty (60) days. This should be reasonable, as the most extensive review only requires two public hearings. On some projects, the applicant may decide a longer timeline may be acceptable. This would be negotiated with the City. Any private development project that is reviewed under this process would not be required to be reviewed within sixty (60) days. Applicability & Exemptions: A private development project has the opportunity to use this review process if certain criteria are met. This would either be authorized by the Community Development Director or City Council, depending on the scope. Certain projects are not required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades within the right-of-way are exempt. Additionally, a public entity has the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review only serves as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. Those public entities providing comment were generally Page 2 of 3 i in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. A work session was also held with City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to comply with State Statute regarding review of public projects. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use Code upon Second Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Proposed Code Amendment Language Page 3 of 3 • 0 ORDINANCE No. 11 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.500 — DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 — Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 1 of 8 Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi - municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 2 of 8 0 0 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: 1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 3 of 8 0 • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards' of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 4 of 8 0 1 • 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 .Advisory Group For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 5 of 8 • 0 agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing Requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General Review Standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment - Public Projects Page 6 of 8 0 0 The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209. Section 3• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4: Effect Upon Existinu Litization. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter. this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 7• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27`" day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13`h day of April, 2015. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 7 of 8 0 0 Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor day of _ , 2015. Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 8 of 8 • EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.050. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review — Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: Staff finds that it is necessary to update the Land Use Code to include a process that complies with State Statute requirements. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides a venue for public review of certain projects that might not otherwise be accomplished under the current Land Use Code, while still meeting State requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Public Projects Code Amendment Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 • EXHIBIT B Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: 1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi -municipal organization, or a public agency. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 1 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 2 0 . 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. 12. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine it' the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 3 0 • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 'Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 Advisory Group City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 4 • 0 For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&7_, or HPC, and City Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing Requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General Review Standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: I. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 5 0 ! 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209. (Ord. No. 1 1-2015, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 6 • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF PROPERTY: A-da1�i ��►[�—2 LAt\)D u4R , Aspen, CO L M A-- '. LOIN PLl W t rA !�>t�Tr-: of TW"A1_ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: L 2n l S , 20_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, T��W-l[��F�,Q-� yyO k (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements -of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ✓ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared.no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) • 0 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The naives and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of naives and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning snap shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ZA�4�41Z- Si atur The f re oing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac owledged before in this 10 day of IL , 201�, by , -auyk) PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ra:AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE L� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a 15. at hmeet- My commission expires: will be held on Monday April 27, 2015. eta meet- ing to bepm at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 Gale- t na St., Aspen, to consider an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with Stale Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Notary Public For further information, contact Justin Barker at Me City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S. Galena L, Aspen, CO. (970) 429-2797, justin.barkerOcitycfaspsn-Com s`prncnYkc°odilM°"°` NICOLE ELIIABETH HENNING Publish in the Aspen Times on April 9, 2015 NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO (1109Q) CHMENTS AS APPLICABLE' Notary Identification #20154012950 • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION My Commission Expires 111112019 • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Regular MeetinLx Aspen City Council April 13, 201.5 Ordinance #11, Series of 2015 -Public Projects Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this code amendment is needed to comply with state statutes. Currently the state requires a municipality provide a decision on a project submitted by a public entity within a 60 day timeframe. This cannot be achieved sometimes with our current land use code. This proposed code amendment creates a streamlined review process that could be achieved within a 60 day timeframe. Staff is recommending approval on first reading and a public hearing for April 27, 2015. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO 11 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.500 — DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #12, Series of 2015 — Supplemental Budget Pete Strecker, finance, said the total budget request is 24 million dollars. The new requests total 1.2 million. There are three general fund department request including community development requesting 14,000 for code books. The recreation department is requesting 73,000 for wage increases and asset management is requesting 58,000 to handle operational costs at the old mountain rescue building and old power house. There are three requests from parks and open space for Cory Point including 226,000 for capital and operational expenses, 380,000 for barn restoration where 200,000 will be offset by a historic grant. The housing development fund is requesting 150,000 to redevelop a single family lot. The water department is requesting 90,000 to purchase three stand by generators with 66,000 offset by a grant. In addition to the new requests, there are also carry forward requests totaling 12.5 million dollars. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the 226,000 for Cozy Point was unanticipated. Tom Rubel said half of it is for the manager and we should get all of it back from the operations of the stables and hay sales. We pay half of the utilities. Jeff woods said this is the first time in 18 years the barns have ever been full. Councilman Romero asked what our financial obligations were before Monroe passed. Mr. Woods said we were deferring maintenance. It was purely a landlord tenant relationship. Partly because we did not know about some of the problems. Councilman Romero said he was advocating for a good many capital improvements. He asked that we do a really good job communicating to the public that it is an important public asset and we are extending a legacy. Mr. Woods said they have met with a wide variety of people. It is much larger than an equestrian center. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the 1,000 dollars for the code books. Stephen Kanipe, building department, said it represents a complete set of I codes, commercial, residential, plumbing code books for the building code board of appeals. E 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Public Projects Code Amendment Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, First Reading MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015 (Public Hearing scheduled April 27, 2015) SUMMARY: Staff is proposing a code amendment to bring the City's Land Use Code into alignment with State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called "public entities"), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. The proposed ordinance establishes a review process for projects submitted by public entities that complies with State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 1st reading of a proposed code amendment to the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed code amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities (and certain private development projects), in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. "Phis memo outlines the proposed code amendment. Page 1 of 3 C Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is a similar existing review process. The proposed code amendment includes restructuring the existing review process, and creating two new levels of review in this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects: Administrative, Minor, and Major. Administrative review is for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. Minor review includes most remodels, minor expansions, and some new construction. Major review would replace the existing COWOP process as the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from more extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Administrative reviews would be completed by the Community Development Department and mostly include minor or no visual change to a property. This review type would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. Minor review is a one-step review at City Council, with optional input from other City boards. Major review is a two-step process, with reviews before either HPC or P&Z, as applicable, and City Council. An optional advisory group may be used for additional input. The advisory group would consist of members of other City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group is to review the application, provide feedback to the applicant, and create a recommendation to the review boards. A private development project under this review would be required to use the advisory group. Review process: All reviews must be completed within sixty (60) days. This should be reasonable, as the most extensive review only requires two public hearings. On some projects, the applicant may decide a longer timeline may be acceptable. This would be negotiated with the City. Any private development project that is reviewed under this process would not be required to be reviewed within sixty (60) days. Applicability & Exemptions: A private development project has the opportunity to use this review process if certain criteria are met. This would either be authorized by the Community Development Director or City Council, depending on the scope. Certain projects are not required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades within the right-of-way are exempt. Additionally, a public entity has the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review only serves as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. Those public entities providing comment were generally Page 2 of 3 • • in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. A work session was also held with City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to comply with State Statute regarding review of public projects. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use Code upon first reading. Second Reading is scheduled for April 27, 2015." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Proposed Code Amendment Language Page 3 of 3 9 11 ORDINANCE No. 11 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.500 — DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 — Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 1 of 8 • 11 Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including, but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Cob. 1984); City of Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980). 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within City limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: Affordable housing projects developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 2 of 8 • 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency. 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project, The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below: A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: 1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, tire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or 3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 3 of 8 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 - Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows: Step One - Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.1;.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 -Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two - Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment - Public Projects Page 4 of 8 • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects, and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 Advisory group Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 5 of 8 For Major Public Projects Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General review standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 6 of 8 E • 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals If City Council denies an application for Minor or Major Public Projects Review, or approves it with conditions the Applicant is not willing to accept, the Applicant may seek administrative remedy as provided in C.R.S. §31-23-209, which may allow the City Council decision to be overruled. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Section 3• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: Effective Date. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 7 of 8 • 0 In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 7• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27`h day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13`h day of April, 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R 'I'rue, City Attorney , 2015. Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 Code Amendment — Public Projects Page 8 of 8 • • Chapter 26.500 PUBLIC PROJECTS Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose 26.500.020 Authority 26.500.030 Applicability 26.500.040 Procedures for review 26.500.050 Advisory group 26.500.060 Timing requirements 26.500.070 General review standards 26.500.080 Application 26.500.090 Appeals F.X1111311' B 26.500.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections, except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so. 26.500.020 Authority Public Project review of certain public and quasi -public projects is mandated by State law, including, but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Cob. 1984); City of Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980). 26.500.030 Applicability This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within City limits if the Applicant for development is a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency providing essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not limitation, Public Project development shall include: 1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi -municipal organization, or public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer. 2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi - municipal organization, or public agency. City ol' Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 3. Park and recreational facilities development. 4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code. 26.500.040 Procedures for review The Community Development Director shall mal application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or for each type of review are outlined below: e a determination that the proposed development Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director: 1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing property or building; or 2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an existing property or building; or 3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify for Administrative Public Project Review shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 2 C� 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be appropriate. C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review. 2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable. Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 3 0 • 2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of Section 26.500.075. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach as applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects, and meets the criteria found in Section 26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before City Council. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review. 2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards: a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed. c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan. 4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution. 5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council. 6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C), Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section 26.500.050, Advisory Group. 26.500. 050 Advisory group City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 4 For Major Public Projects Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing requirements. The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section 26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards shall be used as a guide. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the recommendations of the advisory group. The Community Development Director's report shall include: 1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed development. 2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group. 3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development. 26.500.060 Timing requirements Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director's acceptance of a complete land use application. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days. 26.500.070 General review standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 5 E U 1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. 2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public. 3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed. 4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan. 26.500.080 Application An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 26.500.090 Appeals If City Council denies an application for Minor or Major Public Projects Review, or approves it with conditions the Applicant is not willing to accept, the Applicant may seek administrative remedy as provided in C.R.S. §31-23-209, which may allow the City Council decision to be overruled. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. (Ord. No. 11-2015, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 6 • RESOLUTION NO.31, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to amend the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code to create a review process for public entities; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020.(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to known public entities and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 31, Series of 2015, by a five - zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution. does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 : Code Amendment Obiective and Direction The objective of the proposed Land Use Code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Section 2: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as. herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such -prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court. of competent jurisdiction, such portion Resolution No. 31, Series 2015. Page I of 2 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted this 16"' day of March, 2015. Steven Skadr'on, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Linda Manning, City Cle . ames R True, City Attorney Resolution No. 31, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 0 • _Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015 • Resolution #35, Series of 2015 — Mill Street Complete Street Phase II construction contract • Resolution #34, Series of 2015 — Development Review and Model Civil submittal — Contract for professional services • Board Appointments -god alternate for HPC and P&Z • Minutes — March 9, 2015 • Resolution #36, Series of 2015 — Concrete replacement and pedestrian improvement project • Cozy Point Ranch Historic Red Barn — History Colorado State Historic Fund award acceptance Resolution #31, Series of 2015 — Public Projects Code Amendment, Policy Resolution Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this proposed policy resolution to amend the land use code to align with state statures. The amendment will establish a review process for public entities that will be completed within the 60 day max as required by the state. Staff conducted an open house for potentially effected entities, met with P&Z and a work session with Council. If Council adopts the policy resolution, Staff will bring back the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman Mullins asked if we can actually turn around in 60 days. Mr. Barker said they can at lease render a decision. Councilwoman Mullins said the jurisdiction can overturn our decision and this is more as in good faith. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said this does need to be passed but if a district decides to build something they don't need to ask. They do it to be nice. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #31; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #9, Series of 2015 — Limitations of Variances Code Amendment Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this is a code amendment that amends the code in four ways. It provides limitations on height and floor area, provides limitations for reductions on affordable housing, establishes the P&Z as BOA, and updates grammar and cleans up the code. It will limit variance requests and create clarity in the code for Council and community members. Council has reviewed this twice and has expressed some desire to have some flexibility but send the message that zoning is zoning and extra needs to be proved. Section one relates to housing mitigation and prohibits reductions in mitigation. There are two exceptions for essential public facilities and Aspen Modern designations. Section two is related to heights and floor area. An applicant can only request two feet in additional height and five percent additional floor area. This puts a cap or limit on the request. Currently there is no max on height or floor area. Staff has removed the public vote provision. Section three is new review criteria. In addition to placing a cap on what can be requested through planned development Staff added two criteria the applicant needs to meet. The first is the proposed increase is necessary related to unique site condition. The second would allow Council to approve the increases if it furthers a stated community goal like affordable housing. Section four and five designate Planning and Zoning as BOA. Staff thinks the ordinance is ready and there is not much more to do without further direction. 8 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Police Resolution: Public Projects Code Amendment Resolution 31, Series of 2015 DATE: March 16, 2015 SUMMARY: The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the City's Land Use Code regarding Public Projects. State Statute requires a decision within 60 days for projects submitted by public entities. The amendment establishes a review process in the Land Use Code that satisfies this requirement. Staff held an open house for public entities that may be affected, and requested comments on the proposed code amendment direction. A work session with City Council was also held. If the Policy Resolution is approved, Staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends the Land Use Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Resolution. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This meeting is to review potential changes to the City's Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the second step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. REFERRALS: A meeting was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain feedback on the proposed code amendment. Generally there was support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution. Public Projects Policy Direction Page 1 of 2 0 • RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 31, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding Public Projects." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Public Projects Policy Direction Page 2 of 2 0 • RESOLUTION NO. 31, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to amend the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code to create a review process for public entities; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to known public entities and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 31, Series of 2015, by a five - zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction The objective of the proposed Land Use Code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities. Section 2• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Resolution No. 31, Series 2015 Page 1 of 2 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted this 16t' day of March, 2015. Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R True, City Attorney Resolution No. 31, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 • 0 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review — Initiation In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment. Staff Findinzs: There is a community interest in updating the code in order to comply with State Statute. The proposed update creates a review process that satisfies the State Statute requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment creates a streamlined review process that is clear and allows for public review. This is in line with the goals and objectives of the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findinzs: The objective of the proposed amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State Statute. The proposed amendment provides a venue for public review that might not otherwise be accomplished under the current Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Public Projects Policy Direction Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 C�1 C� ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES MEETING DATE: March 2, 2015 AGENDA TOPIC: Public Projects Code Amendment PRESENTED BY: Justin Barker, Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Dwayne Romero, Ann Mullins SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff provided City Council with an overview of a proposed code amendment to bring the City's Land Use Code into compliance with Colorado State Statutes regarding projects submitted by public entities. Council asked for examples of what project types might be subject to the code amendment and if there are projects expected in the near future. Council also questioned how or if this might apply to federal organizations, and if this would fast track projects and impede the public's review. City Attorney Jim True clarified the legal basis and necessity of the proposed code amendment is dictated by the Supreme Court. City Council expressed an understanding of the requirement and indicated support for the proposed code amendment as presented by staff. Staff will return to City Council at a regular meeting within the next few weeks with an Ordinance to adopt the proposed code amendment. • E MEM0RANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: March 2, 2015 RE: Public Projects Code Amendment SUMMARY: Staff is seeking direction to proceed with a code amendment to bring the City's Land Use Code into alignment with State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called "public entities"), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed Code Amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities, in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the process that staff has developed to this point. Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is an existing alternative review process. Staff suggestion is to include two new levels of review to this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects. The first tier of review would be for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. The second tier of review would include most remodels, expansions, and some new construction. The existing COWOP process would be the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Staff recommends that the first tier of reviews be reviewed administratively. They would often include minor or no visual change to a property and would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. The second tier of review would include an advisory group and final decision at City Council. The advisory group would consist of members of City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as Page 1 of 2 applicable. The purpose of the advisory group would be to quickly review the application and provide feedback to the applicant and a recommendation to City Council. The current COWOP process would remain the same. Review process: The first two tiers of review would need to be completed within 60 days, unless the applicant agrees to a longer timeframe. This should be reasonable, as the first tier would be strictly administrative, and the second tier only requires final decision by City Council. On larger projects, the review may not be able to be completed within 60 days and would need to be negotiated with the applicant. Exemptions: Certain projects should not be required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades to the right-of-way should be exempt. Additionally, staff suggests that an entity should have the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review should only serve as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. FEEDBACK: Staff has requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. In general, those public entities providing comment were generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. Staff is seeking Council support to proceed with a code amendment pertaining to Public Projects. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 of 2 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 3, 2015 RE: Public Projects Code Amendment BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by the City, a governmental entity, quasi -municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called "public entities"), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. This meeting is a check -in with P&Z to share progress made by staff and solicit further input from the Commission. Staff has been collaborating with the public entities that this code amendment may affect. CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS: All code amendments require a three -step process. This meeting represents a portion of Step One — gather feedback from key stakeholders. Because P&Z members may be involved in the process, staff wants to make sure the Commission has an opportunity to weigh in early on the potential code amendments. The second step is City Council passing a Policy Resolution, which provides official direction to staff to craft a code amendment. The Third and final step are public hearings with City Council to adopt the code amendment. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed Code Amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities, in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the process that staff has developed to this point. P&Z's feedback will be used to provide further focus for the potential code amendments, and will be presented to City Council as part of their review. Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is an existing alternative review process. Staff suggestion is to include two new levels of review to this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects. The first tier of review would be for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. The Page 1 of 2 • 0 second tier of review would include most remodels, expansions, and some new construction. The existing COWOP process would be the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Staff recommends that the first tier of reviews be reviewed administratively. They would often include minor or no visual change to a property and would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. The second tier of review would include an advisory group and final decision at City Council. The advisory group would consist of members of City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group would be to quickly review the application and provide feedback to the applicant and a recommendation to City Council. The current COWOP process would remain the same. Review process: The first two tiers of review would need to be completed within 60 days, unless the applicant agrees to a longer timeframe. This should be reasonable, as the first tier would be strictly administrative, and the second tier only requires final decision by City Council. On larger projects, the review may not be able to be completed within 60 days and would need to be negotiated with the applicant. Exemptions: Certain projects should not be required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades to the right-of-way should be exempt. Additionally, staff suggests that an entity should have the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review should only serve as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. Questions for P&Z: 1. Does P&Z support the general direction of the proposed amendment? 2. Is P&Z concerned with any area of the amendment that Staff should focus on more? Page 2 of 2