Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Subdivision AHU PUD.A116-01 - f ',1 -" CASE NUMBER PARCEL In # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY (') A116-01 Subdivision Code Amendments- AH-PUD Subdivision w/o Chris Bendon Code Amendment City of Aspen Community Development Department 12/17/01 Ordinance 44-2001 Approved 12/18/01 J. Lindt r-. tl fj n VI" b MEMORANDUM RE: Mayor Klanderud and City Council Jolm Worcester, City Attorney 1/ Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Chris Bendon, Senior PlannerC1JwJ Subdivision Code Amendment - 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 2001 Subdivisioll approval prior to Growth Management approval TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: December 17, 200 I SUMMARY: Currently, the Subdivision regulations require an allotment or exemption from GMQS be acquired orior to. or in coniunction with. the review for Subdivision approval. Subdivision has been the primary trigger for the City's growth management system although other methods have been incorporated into the code since the original adoption . of growth management. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission recently (September 26th) discussed this issue at a joint work session in relation to a request by the Villas of Aspen Condominium Association. The two Boards directed staff to initiate a code amendment to allow for the division of land prior to obtainIng groWth manageriumtappiovals for land zoned for affordable housing. This change will allow larger properties to be subdivided and rezoned to the Affordable Housing - Planned Unit Development Zone District. A new owner of that parcel would be required to proceed through the Planned Unit Development prol~ess and the process of obtaining growth management approvals. Public hearings would be required at both Planning and Zoning Commission and with the City Council. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the direction given during the joint work session. Sufficient public involvement would be maintained through the PUD process. And, any subsequent rezoning action would require approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 6-1 vote. Their Resolution is attached. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2001. MAIN ISSUES: The lack of a development plan may place officials in an awkward role with neighbors who are publicly noticed for a pending land use decision with no actual site specific plan being proposed. This is similar to the majority of subdivision approval processes around the country. Public hearings for conceptual and final PUD Plan approval would be required prior to development and staff believes significant opportunity for neighbor I ,.-.., n involvement is maintained through this process. The issue of an unknown future affordable housing project must be handled during the actual subdivision process and weighed with the benefits of zoning land for affordable housing. The Subdivision approval criteria are sufficient to understand the capabilities of the property and the ability to serve the property with necessary utilities. Having no specific development proposal does not necessarily limit staff's ability to determine if the property can be served, it only limits the analysis to that basic threshold - can it be served. The applicant would be required to demonstrate the capability of serving the parcel but not designing an actual utility plan. More detailed plans are required for PUD approval. Staff does not believe these issues suggest the amendment is flawed. In fact, the amendment may facilitate private sector affordable housing projects - a stated goal ofthe AACP. APPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution 44, Series of2001, recommending approval (6-1) of this amendment in the exact language proposed in the draft Ordinance. This concept was discussed at a joint work session between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 26, 2001. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning and Zoning Resolution shows the proposed changes to the Subdivision section and highlights the amendments as follows: Cross-out text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. The proposed Ordinance shows the language in plain text, the manner in which it is intended to appear in the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2001. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 44, Series of 200 1." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments Planning and Zoning Resolution and Minutes C:\home\Chris\CASESlSub_llo_ GMQS\CC _memo.doc 2 fj n Exhibit A Snbdlivision Amendments STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.312.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to simplifY the subdivision process and allow for vacant parcels zoned affordable housing to be created prior to growtl1 management approval. Significant public input opportunity is maintained with this process and staff does not believe any conflicts are created with adoption of this language. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the Subdivision requirements are supported by the AACP. Private sector development of affordable housing is a stated goal of Ithe community and this process is a way to implement this goal. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatibll:l with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existin!~ land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is not specific to a site and actual development will need to demonstrate adjacent compatibility prior to plan approval in the PUD process. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. staff comments page I ~ n ':..,..., Staff Finding: This amendment is not specific to a site and actual development will need to demonstrate its effects on traffic generation, road safety, infrastructure impacts, aJlld impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Allowing greater opportunity for the private sector to realize public goals is consistent with the community character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This amendment is not specific to a parcel. The proposed amendment is the result of a work session with policy makers in which policy changes specific to this issue were discussed. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the publlic interest. The AACP reflects a community desire for affordable housing opportunities within established neighborhoods. The community has favored private sector solutions as a component of reaching community goals. This amendment achieves this goal. Staff believes this Ordinance will promote the purpose and intent of this Title. This Ordinance promotes the permanent community by emphasizing employee housing opportunities for working residents. C:\home\Chris\CASES\Sub_llo _ GMQS\PZ_ EXj,:.DOC staff comments page 2 I) () ~~\~t- ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6. 2001- PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26~48().StrBDtvIS:tO:N _ WITHOUT GMOS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and David Hoefer stated the notice was received. Chris Bendon explained this code amendment originally came in from the Villas of Aspen, which the process would allow subdivision ofland prior to going through Growth Management. Bendon stated that there were several options from the work session of a range of the process. Typically there would be a subdivision packaged with the rezoning, Growth Management and PUD. There were 3 options. the selected option, which would allow a property zoned AH/PUD to go through a subdivision process prior to any Growth Management Allotments; . would allow a conceptual PUD to go through a subdivision process prior to any Growth Management Allotments . no change the process at all. Bendon stated that there were larger pieces ofland with clear development potential that would have significant value with this code amendment. Bendon said that the changes were actually minimal with sections that described prohibited subdivisions; language was included for exemption. Joyce Ohlson stated that there was more of a distinct line between subdivision and PUD; looking for a more conceptual development at first. Bendon explained that the first conceptual would provide enough information to make a decision. David Hoefer stated that it did not guarantee development rights because there would still have to have an application made to the city. No public comments. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-44 recommending approval of the Subdivision amendments creating a process to subdivide land for affordable housing prior to Growth Management approval. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll Call vote: Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, ]110; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1. Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 r'\ ~ "" ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Jolm Worcester, City Attorney _ ~ Julie Ann Woods, Community Develop'iIf"en1 Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner~Wl Subdivision Code Amendment - 1" Reading of Ordinanc.e NO.~ 2001 Subdivision approval prior to Growth Management ap~~al FROM: RE: DATE: November 26, 2001 SUMMARY: Currently, the Subdivision regulations require an allotment or exemption from GMQS be acquired orior to. or in coniunction with. the review for Subdivision approval. Subdivision has been the primary trigger for the City's growth management system although other methods have been incorporated into the code since the original adoption of growth management. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission recently (September 26th) discussed this issue at a joint work session in relation to a request by the Villas of Aspen Condominium Association. The two Boards directed staff to initiate a code amendment to allow for the division of land prior to obtaining growth management approvals for land zoned for affordable housing. This change will allow larger properties to be subdivided and rezoned to the Affordable Housing - Planned Unit Development Zone District. A new owner of that parcel would be required to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process and the process of obtaining growth management approvals. Public hearings would be required at both Planning and Zoning Commission and with the City Council. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the direction given during the joint work session. Sufficient public involvement would be maintained through the PUD process. And, any subsequent rezoning action would require approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 6-1 vote. Their Resolution is attached. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance NO.~, Series of 2001, upon first reading. MAIN ISSUES: The lack of a development plan may place officials in an awkward role with neighbors who are publicly noticed for a pending land use decision with no actual site specific plan being proposed. This is similar to the majority of subdivision approval processes around the country. Public hearings for conceptual and final PUD Plan approval would be I ~ t1 required prior to development and staff believes significant opportunity for neighbor involvement is maintained through this process. The issue of an unknown future affordable housing project must be handled during the actual subdivision process and weighed with the benefits of zoning land for affordable housing. The Subdivision approval criteria are sufficient to understand the capabilities of the property and the ability to serve the property with necessary utilities. Having no specific development proposal does not necessarily limit staff's ability to determine if the property can be served, it only limits the analysis to that basic threshold - can it be served. The applicant would be required to demonstrate the capability of serving the parcel but not designing an actual utility plan. More detailed plans are required for PUD approval. Staff does not believe these issues suggest the amendment is flawed. In fact, the amendment may facilitate private sector affordable housing projects - a stated goal ofthe AACP. APPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution 44, Series of2001, recommending approval (6-1) of this amendment in the exact language proposed in the draft Ordinance. This concept was discussed at a joint work session between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 26, 2001. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning and Zoning Resolution shows the proposed changes to the Subdivision section and highlights the amendments as follows: Cross-out text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. The proposed Ordinance shows the language in plain text, the manner in which it is intended to appear in the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. -' Series of2001, upon first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. _, Series of2001, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments Planning and Zoning Resolution C:\homeICbrisICASES\Sub _ 110 _ GMQSICC _memo.doc 2 ,~ ,. r,--,,,. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE c. I ~ n r \ r /' IJ/ Code 1+ a ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: c../Z,UCCYI !/tSoVl U)j 0 ~fI{/It:JS, Aspen, CO 1/A.ewJL SCHEDULEDPUBL!CHEARINGDATE: /2 /; ~/ 0 I ,200_ I STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~q 1;\,/\. Y2..S L I '1/\ cj +- (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: X 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, whicl1 was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, aq.d wl1ich was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice, was posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , ,200_, to and including the date and time ofth~ublic hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto'J ~ 1vlqilingof notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community "', lSeyelopment Department, which contains the information described in Section . 26~304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) 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 l1undred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service' district or other governmental or quasi~governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject t~e-" 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. (continued on next page) ~ I \ /---\ Rezoning or text amendment. \Vhenever 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 wl1enever 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 names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. arM~~ot~<J ~ . The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thi~ay of t'JO'-f. ,2001-, by 3'"~<; hl"Y1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL '~"';::;";~15effct~~c~~i;;i,~i: , .-" ,", ,','., ",,'-' EODEAMEND- ;~~~"-'C%~i~t7I~8~'UB~~N"" 'c',"" ."MENTS,,__, ""'REB'V'Gl that a pub lie he,atlng NOTICE IS ~ ',.' ,'-,' \' -' ' 001 t _meetIng ':W1l1beheld-onDecembe',17,~, ,~a. 'c' {j' . .: "";'5'o6'ptyf. bclo 'the ASpen-CIty 0 n- t~ begin at; .~ "Clr;'HaiI130SOuth Gale- "\ Coundl Chambers" l, Y """, ,-" ,"/4' ""'"'iff( Cl, \Aipen to cdnsrd~r~an"\\ppnc.ailonmltY:l.te,,, y na" ' , -","'-""'tlng"approvallorpro- ~~e~t~o~~~;d;;~;Sto.,se~tl,~~.,,2,~:;~,o};,?~~ A TT ACHMENTS: dlvlslon~;<'" Tile ,', prb~osed llillen~me1~d ~~;'e ,- a~:gl~~P~? aA:r::I:ho.~~; ~:oje~'~fh~ 'OPY OF THE PUBLIC' ., T10N ,~u, ,,'~5;""~',,~'r:~'vl~"""~'fi5:-6bhiin a ,Growth lv1~~eIJient /"1. but hrst:~ll.llg ",' ',' Quota"System ESl:emvtion.', ,,,,-,--,- - t ," 'her information conta,ct<'::~~~.,~l)~()9~>"" ;~: ~~'n [Pit".\ri co"ilnu~ltYD.v'IOP~;;'~~~ IPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Parthlen.'1';"'13p, s'!>>~_~:"~~~~~i*~~'~~~~';";6":;,><.F: 92o-~072 , , "", "---"M~' .>.,,:,,;i:<:i"::?r?<-o:"sIHeien Kalin t::i,all~~ex'}.I~_'",~~~ . . .". '. ""p,nCityCoun,n S AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED pU!l\i~~e~~,'~:j.sp~~~i~~'o~,?e:~~,~,~;_~,' BY NIAlL 2001,(81....../ ." My commission expires: /f/.;23/;;;cx:::.3 -5.~~ Notary Public --- ':~{ Y\ '. ",\ ....~~ ': bYo. : <iY ,Q, /0' ~~.~-'~ - 1"'"\ r) .1[.. F. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo~ Chris Bendon, Senior Planner C1AVV] Subdivision Code Amendment ~ Public Hearing Provision for Subdivision approval prior to Growth Management approval for creating affordable housing parcels C::?-- 1 FROM: RE: DATE: November 6,2001 ljfH - j SUMMARY: Currently, the Subdivision regulations require an allotment or exemption from GMQS be acquired orior to. or in coni unction with. the review for Subdivision approval. Subdivision has been the primary trigger for the City's growth management system although other methods have been incorporated into the code since the original adoption of growth management. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission recently (September 26th) discussed this issue at a joint work session in relation to a request by the Villas of Aspen Condominium Association. The two Boards directed staff to initiate a code amendment to allow for the division ofland prior to obtaining growth management approvals for land zoned for affordable housing. This change will allow larger properties to be subdivided and rezoned to the Affordable Housing - Planned Unit Development Zone District. A new owner of that parcel would be required to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process and the process of obtaining growth management approvals. Public hearings would be required at both Planning and Zoning Commission and with the City Council. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the direction given during the joint work session. Sufficient public involvement would be maintained through the PUD process.. And, significant assurance would be provided with the property being zoned afforda,ble housing, as any rezoning action would require approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff recommends the Commission recommend adoption of this. code amendment. MAIN ISSUES: Staff's primary concern with Subdividing and Rezoning land with no specific development proposal has been the ability to serve potential development. With no actual plan, it is very difficult for utility agencies and service providers to estimate their ability to serve and difficult for planning staff to assess potential impacts on the I r"I n community in general. However, the Subdivision approval criteria are sufficient to understand the capabilities of the property and the ability to serv,~ the property. The lack of a development plan may also place officials in an awkward role with neighbors who are publicly noticed for a pending land use decision with no actual site specific plan being proposed. This is similar to the majority of subdivision approval processes around the country. Public hearings for conceptual and final PUD Plan approval would be required prior to development and staff believes significant opportunity for neighbor involvement is maintained through this process. The issue of an unknown future affordable housing project must be handled during the actual subdivision process and weighed with the benefits of zoning land for affordable housing. Staff does not believe these issues suggest the amendment is flawed. In fact, the amendment may facilitate private sector affordable housing projects - a stated goal of the AACP. ApPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission has not previously considered this Resolution. This concept was discussed at a joint work session between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 26, 2001. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution City Council approve, approve with conditions, lOr deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The Resolution shows the proposed changes to the Subdivision section and highlights the amendments as follows: Cress eat text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission ~Ammend approval ofthe Subdivision amendments as described in Resolution Ol--=-rr RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve PZ-Resolution OIM.recommending appmval of the Subdivision amendments creating a process to subd;t;ilie land for affordable~ housing prior to growth management approval." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Proposed Resolution Review Criteria and Staff Comments C:\homeIChrisICASES\Sub_ 110 _ GMQSIPZ _ memo.doc 2 A .... ftrtW-? .-tJ~tM'll. ~ ~ \v.i~~~ codt-W- MEMORANDUM 'V,b\l/f., o~ ~~\v- ~.... TO: Madam Mayor and City Council Planlling and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ Joint Work Session Topic Possible Code Amendment for Subdivision prior to GMQS Allotments FROM: RE: DATE: September 25, 2001 SUMMARY: Presently, the Subdivision regulations require an allotment or l~xemption from GMQS be acquired prior to, or in conjunction with, the review for Subdivision approval. Subdivision has been the primary trigger for the City's growth management system although oilier methods have been incorporated into the code since the original adoption of growth management. Tile Villas of Aspen requested an interpretation of the language in the Subdivision section (the underlined text, above), appealed the interpretation to City Council in 2000. This request was seeking a process for creating parcels with no associated growth management allotments whereby tile newly created parcel would be for affordable housing. The City Council upheld the Director's interpretation and also requested staff further investigate ways to allow the Subdivision of land and rezoning prior to an applicant gaining development rights through the growth management system. Following are some options for the two Boards to consider. It is apparent that tile wishes oftl1is one property owner can be achieved with no changes to the Land Use Code (option #3). Staff is requesting further direction before initiating a code amendment. BACKGROUND: Staffs primary concern witl1 Subdividing and Rezoning land with no specific development proposal is tile ability to serve potential development. With no actual plan, it is very difficult for utility agencies and service providers to estimate their ability to serve and difficult for planning staff to assess potential impacts on the community in general. The lack of a development plan also places officials in an awkward role with neighbors who are publicly noticed for a pending land use decision. Officials would be in a position of approving a Subdivision while explaining to neighbors that the actual development plan is an unknown. Tile obvious desire to define the range of acceptable development then becomes apparent and a new development would be designed in an ad- hoc manner. ' I \ I ! (" -1(~\~ '1~ -~~'1i0\W ~~rk~~~ OPTION #1. Allow for Subdivision without GMQS approval. This would simply allow a property owner to subdivide land with OJ! . M8t1i1: rezoning. The land could then be transferred to a new owner for development purposes. AA .pui'>_ The downside to this option is the lack of information, as described above. Staff can, however, analyze various development scenarios for the purpose of understanding potential impacts adequate for decision makers. Subdivision and rezoning applications do not need to demonstrate actual development plans. // a\JI.lih~d ~\'f~ J;l.~".r: Creating new parcels without any development rights may also lead to legal "takings" challenges, although this could be dealt with in tile subdivision ordinance. ~ , ;?'rpreAi"",,,'IW'l.< <pvi). OPTION #2: ,I Allow Subdivision and rezoning to occur when Conceptual PUD is approvea:--- The submission of a Conceptual PUD Plan would include basic site analysis and allow the City to determine if basic services could be provided to the newly created lot(s). Topics such as access, land use, density, and massing could also be defined in a manner acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. This would also allow neighbors to respond to a proposal rather than a "blank slate." Subdividing and rezoning the land at conceptual would then allow the newly created parcel to be transferred, possibly to a developer who would further the project. Some of the conceptual PUD application requirements might also be lessened to address only basic threshold development issues, such as ability to serve, access, etc. A potential downside to this approach is the possibility of the original applicant and the final applicant having drastically different motivations and/or financial realities. The original applicant may be very wi\1ing, for example, to address a certain community concern while the next owner may not have the same motivation. The PUD designation might mitigate some of these concerns by requiring certain items be included in the final application. OPTION #3. No change. The current process allows a developer to represent a property owner and proceed through the PUD process. At the conclusion of the approvals process, the land transfer is finalized and the developer proceeds with the development. This typically occurs when a property owner wants to convey a portion of their land but does not want to be a developer. The Barbee Family PUD is a recent example of this practice. The family negotiated a purchase option with a development group who then gained entitlements for the property . This option also allows for tile conveyance of condominiumized land in which the developer obtains a fee interest in the development parcel and tl1en proceeds through the review process. 2 I ! \ \ \ I MEMORANDUM r'\ " \V~~ w~~, !N3Wd013f130 AlINnWWOO NI~lld I N3dSlf TO: Chris Bendon, Aspen Senior Planner FROM: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC lOOl V (, d3S a3^13~3~ RE: Possible Code Amendment for Subdivision & Rezoning Prior to GMQS Allotments DATE: September 24, 2001 Here are few thoughts worthy of consideration as to why it would make sense to enable (through Code amendment) a process whereby a property owner could subdivide off a vacant parcel and simultaneously rezone the vacant piece to AH/PUD wilthout first needing to acquire a GMQS exemption or allotment or prepare a development proposal. . The result would involve only the ability to create a vacant lot wilth no inherent development rights and only one possible way of developing it ..-- through Ithe AH/PUD review process. . Many lots exist in Pitkin County with no development rights. Such lots are required to apply for GMQS allotments or exemptions, as applicable, prior to development. This system has worked wilthout problem in Ithe County under ANY zoning, and should be encouraged in Ithe City with affordable housing zoning. . The resulting development of the vacant property would ensure a 70% to 30% ratio of affordable housing bedrooms to free market bedrooms; oltherwise, the property would likely be developed with either single-family residential use (and an ADU or cash-in-lieu) or at a 60%-40% split. . The public, while maybe not getting all answers at the first levd of review (subdivision and rezoning), is afforded a higher level of participation through the need for more public hearings. That is, the typical application includes a public hearing before the P&Z and anolther before City Council (x2 for conceptual and final). The suggested code amendment would result in public hearings before the P&Z and again before Ithe City Council just for the initial subdivision and rezoning request, later followed by public hearings before bolth entities for Ithe PUD review (x2 for conceptual and final). . Not every answer is needed during the rezoning review: the rezoning review can provide a basic analysis of development potential and site suitability; specific parameters and maximums (i.e., density, height, parking, etc.) can be established during Ithis initial rezoning and subdivision review. Furthermore, Ithe rezoning request can easily be denied if the site is thought to be unsuitable for AH?PUD development. Later, a specific project proposal can be denied, pared down, or \ r'\ '-} approved subject to conditions during review of the PUD plan --- PUD reviews are inherently open to negotiation. · The need for GMQS allotments or exemptions is in no way avoided; it is simply deferred to the stage where a specific development proposal is being reviewed. · The Code amendment would make possible the clear and official designation of sites for the future development of affordable housing. This type of designation would not be simply advisory in nature like suggesting sites in a housing plan or comprehensive plan; ralther, the type of affordable housing designation that would be made possible would be official and mandatory. Governments routinely zone sites where Ithey would like to see commercial development accordingly --- so why not do the same for affordable housing? · The review criteria for a rezoning request will ensure consideration as to the appropriateness of AH?PUD zoning for a given location. The foregoing is just a few thoughts on the topic. Please consider these thoughts for either inclusion of this in your memo or forwarding to the participants of Tuesday's work session. Thank you.