HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.GMQS Eliminating Jjoint City Ccunty Growth.0028-04
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
CASE NUMBER 0028.2004.ASL U
PARCEL ID#
CASE NAME GMQS AMEDNMENT
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER CHRIS BENDON
CASE DESCRIPTION GMQS AMEDNMENT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 04/12/04
CITY COUNCIL ACTION APPROVED
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED 4/30/04
BY D DRISCOLL
JZII: 0 .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
RE:
John Worcester, City Attorney 1
,~
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner~1tf)
Eliminating Joint City/County Growth Management Commission and
Reassigning their authorities to the City Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Second Reading of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2004
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
April 12, 2004
~ t;{)
SUMMARY:
The proposed Ordinance removes the joint City of Aspen/Pitkin County Growth
Management Commission and assigns their review authorities to the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposed ordinance does not change growth
rates, review criteria, public hearing procedures, etc. only the County P&Z
involvement in the process.
Both City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions and the two staffs have
discussed removing this joint review board from the Growth Management Quota
System. All agree that the joint board and joint review process for City applications
should be eliminated. There remains substantial benefit in joint growth policies for
development within the Urban Growth Boundary.
A formal recommendation by the City Planning and Zoning Commission was made as
part of the rnfill Amendments. Several subsequent requests have been made by the
City P&Z and the joint Growth Management Commission to implement this change.
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2004.
ELEMENTS OF AMENDMENT:
The Ordinance removes the Growth Management Commission as a recognized board
from the City's Land Use Code - Section Two of the Ordinance. The proposed
Ordinance also redefines the Growth Management Commission as the City Planning
and Zoning Commission (Section One). This will address any lingering references in
the Municipal Code.
I
........
'... ..
Section Three through Eleven reassigns all ofthe Growth Management Commission's
tasks to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. No changes to the criteria,
number of public hearings, etc., are proposed by this Ordinance. Acceptance of the
scoring has been changed to require only City Council acceptance where it previously
required both City Council and the Pitkin County BOCC accept the scores. Also, a
joint appeal process requiring a City CouncillBOCC review has been changed to rest
with only the City Council.
Section Twelve addresses current applications. The Chart House application was the
only application currently being reviewed by the GMC at the time of first reading.
The project has been scored and the applicant is seeking an appeal within the process
and standards of the land use code effective at the time of their original submission.
The proposed Ordinance will apply to subsequent applications and will not apply to
the Chart House GMQS application, which is still in process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.7, Series of2004.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No.7, Series of2004."
CITYMANAGER'SCOMM~~ ~
A TT ACHMENTS:
A - Staff Comments
2
.<..........
""n....
,...;,/
'""-~
Exhibit A
Elimination of GMC
STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment
Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code TextAmendment
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 amends the review process for growth management
applications - eliminating the joint City/County Growth Management Commission and
reassigning their tasks to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. This action has
been discussed, with significant support, by the City P&Z, County P&Z, Pitkin County
BOCC, and staff of the City and County Planning Departments. This action is not in
conflict with other portions of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes these changes to the land use code are supported by the AACP. The benefit
of a multi-jurisdictional approach to managing growth is in the development of land use
policies. In this respect, the City and County have a great history and current relationship,
as reflected in the AACP. Review of each case, however, is best done by the jurisdiction
in which the project is proposed to insure the appropriate land use issues can be
addressed. Staff believes this approach is the best way to implement to AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
This amendment affects all properties in town and is not specific to a certain property.
Staff believes this criterion is met.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments does not affect traffic patterns or road safety. Staff believes
this criterion is met.
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,
staff comments - GMC Elimination. page I
.-..
. /
,"",,'
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendments does not affect infrastructure capabilities. Staff believes this
criterion is met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The policies affecting the manner in which development activity affect natural resources
are not being changed and continue to be part of the review criteria of growth
management applications.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
Each case will continue to be reviewed against criteria including community character
issues. Maintaining review within the jurisdiction in which it most-directly affects may
ensure this criteria is achieved. Staff believes this criterion is met. .
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the
proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendment is not specific to one parcel.
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 public interest. The
AACP reflects a community desire for an integrated growth management policy. That
has been accomplished and is not affected by a review that focuses on one jurisdiction.
Maintaining City-only review of projects proposed within the City may in-fact ensure the
public interest can be best served. Staff believes this criterion is met.
staff comments - GMC Elimination.
page 2
..--'"
...-,
,-,
VI'b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU:
John Worcester, City Attorney (J1~
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director /_
Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner ~
Eliminating Joint City/County Growth Management Commission and
Reassigning their authorities to the City Planning and Zoning
Commission.
First Reading of Ordinance N o. ~, Series of 2004
(Second Reading Scheduled for April 12, 2004)
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
March 8, 2004
SUMMARY:
The proposed Ordinance removes the joint City of Aspen/Pitkin County Growth
management Commission and assigns their review authorities to the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Removing this joint review board from the Growth Management Quota System has
been discussed at length by the City P&Z, the County P&Z, the Pitkin County BOCC,
City Planning staff, and County Planning staff. All agree that the joint board and joint
review process for City applications should be eliminated. Pitkin County removed the
City from their review processes a few years ago.
A formal recommendation by the City Planning and Zoning Commission was made as
part of the rnfill Amendments. Several subsequent requests have been made by the
City P&Z and the joint Growth Management Commission to implement this change.
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.!t:, Series of 2004, upon first reading.
Elements of Amendment.
The Ordinance removes the Growth Management Commission as a recognized board
from the City's Land Use Code - Section two of the Ordinance. The proposed
Ordinance also redefines the Growth Management Commission as the City Planning
and Zoning Commission (Section one). This will address any lingering references in
the Municipal Code.
Section three through eleven reassigns all of the Growth Management Commission's
tasks to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. No changes to the criteria,
number of public hearings, etc. are proposed by this Ordinance. Acceptance of the
I
~.,<...
~.- ,~
" ~
scoring has been changed to require only City Council acceptance where it previously
required both City Council and the Pitkin County BOCC accept the scores. Also, a
joint appeal process requiring a City CouncillBOCC review has been changed to rest
with only the City Council.
Section twelve addresses current applications. The Chart House application is the
only application currently being reviewed by the GMC. The process has been
initiated with the joint board (public hearing opened and testimony taken) but not
completed. The City Attorney recommends this Ordinance apply to applications
submitted after the effective date and does not recommend changing the review board
of an application under review.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.'}:, Series of 2004, upon first reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"r move to approve Ordinance No. '1=-, Series of2004, upon first reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS~:
__ . I
..J- a...7r<!. e... &.ov I '-r
~. 5"f..4C ru....."'~..-.....
A TT ACHMENTS:
A - Staff Comments
2
ORDINANCE NO. 7
(SERIES OF 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.470 - THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM; CHAPTER 26.226 - GROWTH
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION; AND SECTION 26.104.100 - DEFINITIONS
TO ELIMINATE THE JOINT CITY/COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION AND REASSIGN ASSOCIATED REVIEW AUTHORITIES TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Community Development Director to propose amendments to
the Land Use Code related to the rnfill Report, a report developed by a city-
commissioned advisory group, the rnfill Advisory Group, pursuant to Sections 26.208
and 26.212; and,
WHEREAS, a recommended amendment was to eliminate the joint City and
County Growth Management Commission in favor of City-only administration of the
Growth Management Quota System; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.104.100, Definitions,
Chapter 26.226, Growth Management Commission, and Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System, as more fully described herein; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of
the proposed amendments, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to
consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapters and Sections on
September 3, 2002, continued to September 17, 2002, continued to September 24, 2002,
continued to October I, 2002, continued to October 8, 2002, continued to October 15,
2002, continued to October 22, 2002, continued to October 29, 2002, continued to
November 5, 2002, continued to November 12,2002, continued to November 19,2002,
continued to November 26, 2002, continued to December 10, 2002, and continued to
December 17, 2002, took and considered public testimony at each of the aforementioned
hearing dates and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and
recommended, by a five to one (5-1) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments
to the land use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the
Land Use Code, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the
recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page I
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of
the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has'
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City COlillcil finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land
Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1:
Section 26.100.104, Definitions, which section defines terms used in the City of
Aspen Land Use Code shall be amended by inclusion of the following definition:
Growth Management Commission. Same as the Planning and Zoning
Commission. See Section 26.212 - Planning and Zoning Commission.
Section 2:
Chapter 26.226, Growth Management Commission, which Chapter enables a joint
City of Aspen and Pitkin County land use decision making body, shall be stricken
in its entirety.
Section 3:
Section 26.470.070(D)(3)(b), rncrease in FAR and net leasable square footage,
which section describes the process and requirements for expansion of a Historic
Landmark in commercial use, shall be amended to read as follows:
b. rncrease in FAR and net leasable square footage. The increase in FAR and net
leasable square footage for a property listed on the Aspen rnventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures to be used as a commercial, office, or
mixed use development including a residential component shall be reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission for an exemption. The applicant
shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the
project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at
subsection 5, below. Upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Council may waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing
mitigation as required, pursuant to subsection 5(a) below, when it finds that no
employees will be generated.
Section 4:
Section 26.470.080(B)(3)(b), Growth Management Commission Review, which
section describes the process required for a Growth Management Commission
Review, shall be eliminated. The subsequent sub-sections (c) and (d) shall be
renumbered as (b) and (c), respectively.
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 2
Section 5:
Section 26.470.080(C), Allocation procedures for non-exempt development,
which section defines the process for reviewing requests for development
allocations, shall be amended as follows:
C. Allocation procedures for non-exempt llevelopment.
1. Avvlication deadline. [no changes to this section]
2. Avvlication contents. [no changes to this section]
3. Procedures for review. An application for non-exempt development requires a two
step process: Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and final review by
the City Council.
(I) Step One - A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. After
the Community Development Director has determined that the application is
complete, the application shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for review and scoring at a public hearing.
(a) Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing
(See Section 26.304.060(E)).
(b) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall proceed as set forth at
sub-Section 4, below (Ranking procedures and standards) and by
resolution recommend to the City Council the award of development
allotments in accordance with said ranking procedures and standards.
(2) Step two - A public hearing before City Council. Notice of the hearing shall be by
publication, posting and mailing. (See Section 26.304.060(E)). The City Council,
following a public hearing, shall by ordinance allocate GMQS allotments among
eligible applicants.
4. Rankin!!: vrocedures and standards. The following procedures for scoflng
applications shall be followed by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
a. The Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission may establish time
limits for each part of the meeting prior to the beginning of the discussion. rf oral
presentations are limited due to time constraints, anyone may submit written
testimony to the official record of the proceedings.
b. The Community Development Director shall present a summary ofhislher review
of the application(s) based upon the scoring criteria.
c. The applicant or applicant's representative may present comments regarding the
application's consistency with the scoring criteria.
Ordinance No.7.
Series of2004. Page 3
d. Citizens in attendance at the public hearing, including other applicants competing
for an allotment, shall be provided the opportunity to comment.
e. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission may ask questions of the
Community Development Director, applicant(s) or citizens, and make comments
regarding the application(s).
f. The chairperson shall close the public hearing.
g. rnitial Scoring: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall score the
application(s) on score sheets provided for this purpose and submit their
individual scores to the Community Development Director for calculation of the
overall score for the application(s).
(I) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and score each
application based on the scoring criteria in Section 26.470.090. The following
scoring procedures shall be adhered to:
1. Each Plmming and Zoning Commission member shall assIgn a whole
number score (not a fractional number) to the project.
n. Following the initial scoring, commission members shall be free to discuss
individual scores and to offer justification for such scores.
h. Final Scoring: Following the close of Planning and Zoning Commission
discussions regarding initial scoring, a final scoring round will be held privately
(without discussion), during which each Planning and Zoning Commission
member shall again identify the number of points, expressed as whole numbers,
assigned to the project. Planning and Zoning Commission members shall be free
to revise the number of points awarded to a project between the preliminary and
final scoring rounds.
(I) After the close of the final scoring round, a project's final average score shall
be calculated by (I) totaling the commissioners' individual scores and (2)
dividing that total by a nwnber equal to the number of commissioners who
participated in the final scoring round. Final average project scores shall be
calculated for each of the four growth management scoring criteria of Sections
26.470.080(C)(I), 26.470.080(C)(2), 26.470.080(C)(3) and 26.470.080(C)(4),
mld a cumulative score shall be calculated for the criteria as a whole. The final
average cumulative score calculated pursuant to this provision shall constitute
the project's final score.
(2) Projects shall be ranked in order of their final average scores.
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 4
,
(3) The project rankings and any recommendations for the award of optional
maximum allotments shall be forwarded to the City Council and Board of
County Commissioners.
5. Actions required for avvroval of allotments. Since the Growth Management Quota
System applies throughout the City of Aspen, no growth management allocation shall
be awarded unless the City Council accepts the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The procedures governing challenges and appeals are set out in
sections 26.470.070(D) and (E).
6. Minimum scorinf! thresholds required for allocation. No growth management
allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at
least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of sections
26.470.080(C)(l), 26.470.080 (C)(2), 26.470.080(C)(3) and 26.470.080(C)(4).
7. Identical voint totals. In the event that two or more non-exempt development
applications receive identical point totals, and one or more must be approved to the
exclusion of others because insufficient allotments are available, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall reconsider the tying projects and apply the following
criteria, in sequence, until the tie is broken:
a. The project that received the higher point total in the greatest number of scoring
categories shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment.
b. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "revitalizing the
permanent community" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment.
c. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "providing
transportation innovations" shall be considered first in eligibility for an allotment.
d. The project that was awarded the greatest number of points for "promoting
environmentally sustainable development" shall be considered first in eligibility
for an allotment.
Section 6:
Section 26.4 70.080(D), Appeals, which section detines the process for appealing the
scoring assigned to a development application, shall be amended as follows:
D. Appeals.
I. Appeal of adverse determination by Community Development Director. An appeal
from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an
application for exempt development shall be to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The Planning and
Zoning Commission may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination of
the Community Development Director based upon the application submitted to the
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 5
Commlmity Development Director. The decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter.
2. Appeal of adverse decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
a. Appeal to City Council. Upon receipt of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
ranking of development applications, the City Council shall consider any appeals
made by persons aggrieved by the scoring of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply.
b. City Council review of appeal. rn reviewing an appeal, the City Council shall
consider the development applications based on the record established by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. If the City Council affirms the scoring of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, that action shall constitute the final
administrative order on the matter. rf the City Council determines that there was a
denial of due process or abuse of discretion, the City Council shall overturn the
Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring of the application. The City COlmcil
shall take such action as it deems necessary to remedy the Planning and Zoning
Commission's action. Remedies available to City Council shall include, but not
be limited to amending the number of points awarded or remanding the
development application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for re-scoring.
The decision of City Council shall constitute the final administrative order on the
matter.
3. Appeal of City Council Growth Management Decision. An applicant aggrieved by a
decision made by City Council, pursuant to this Chapter may appeal the decision to a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 7:
Section 26.470.090(D), Additional criteria for City Council review of multi-year
development allotment requests, which section describes the process and
requirements for awarding multi-year development allotments, shall be amended
to read as follows:
D. Additional criteria for City Council review of multi-year development
allotment requests. The Plmming and Zoning Commission may recommend
and the City Council may award optional multi-year maximum allotments as
part of its ranking and allocation review conducted pursuant to the procedures
of section 26.480.070(C). rn addition to the criteria of subsection (C), above,
requests for optional multi-year maximum allotments (which are reserved for
exceptional non-exempt projects that exceed the minimum score for an
allotment or for exceptional exempt projects located in the AH/PUD zone
district) shall also be reviewed against the following standards:
1. Community planning criteria. rn order to be eligible for the award of optional
multi-year maximum allotments, projects shall be required to demonstrate to
Ordinance No.7,
Series of 2004. Page 6
the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that
all of the following criteria have been met.
a. The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds that
established in the minimum threshold for the scoring established in section
26.470.080(C)(5);
b. The proposal maximizes affordability, consistent with housing needs
established as priority through the current Affordable Housing Guidelines;
c. The proposal integrates a mixture of economic levels and housing for a
variety of lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families);
d. The proposal minimizes impacts on infrastructure by incorporating
innovative, energy-saving site design, structural design characteristics or
other techniques that minimize the use of water, heating and sewage
disposal;
e. The proposal incorporates or integrates with an existing local based
economy (i.e., sustainable local businesses);
f. The proposal accomplishes a level of design and site plan ingenuity that
advances the community goals expressed in the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and
g. The proposed project represents an exceptional commitment to advancing
the visions, goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Commlmity
Plan, particularly those described in the scoring criteria of this chapter
(sections 26.470.080(C)(l), 26.470.080 (C)(2), 26.470.080(C)(3) and
26.4 70.080(C)( 4 )).
2. Optional multi-year allotments. After consideration of the recommendations
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council may award optional
(multi-year) allotments if a project complies with the Community Planning
Criteria, above, as well as the following standards:
a. The site design of the proposed development makes construction phasing
infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a demonstration that
economies of scale will result from construction occurring at once; the
proposed development is intended as a single building that cannot easily
be constructed or operated in phases; and the public facility investments
for the proposed development, such as roads, water and sewer facilities,
must all be installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing
economically unrealistic;
b. The impacts of construction of the proposed development on the
surrounding neighborhood and the Aspen Metro Area as a whole will be
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 7
reduced by construction at one time rather than phasing it over two (2) or .
more construction periods; and
c. The community is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which
impacts on services and public facilities will be experienced. It shall be
considered sufficient evidence of service and public facility availability if
it can be demonstrated that sufficient capacity is available in the following
public facilities to accommodate the Aspen Metro Area's planned rate of
growth and the accelerated rate due to the proposed development:
Transportation (including airport, roads, transit and parking), utilities
(including water, sewer, electric, gas and drainage), affordable housing,
park and recreation facilities, solid waste facilities, police and fire
protection facilities, hospitals and schools. (Ord. No. 1-2002 S 10 (part),
2002)
Section 8:
Section 26.470.100, Growth Management Scoring Criteria--Commercial and
office development, which section describes the process and requirements for
expansion of a Historic Landmark in commercial use, shall be amended to read as
follows:
26.470.100 Growth Management Scoring Criteria--Commercial and office
development.
A development application requesting development allotments for commercial or
office development shall be assigned points by the Planning and Zoning
Commission pursuant to the following standards and point schedules:
[note to coditier: no changes to subsections A, B, C, and D]
Section 9:
Section 26.470.1 10(A) (I), which section describes the limitations on exceptions
that may be granted for an amendment of a growth management development
order, shall be amended to read as follows:
1. Any change required to be made to a development order to respond to
conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the City Council during the review of other
development applications relevant to the proposed development; and
Section 10:
Section 26.470.ll0(C)(l), which section describes the first step in amending a
growth management development order, shall be amended to read as follows:
I. Step one - A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
After the Community Development Director has determined that the
application is complete, the application shall be forwarded to the Planning and
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 8
Zoning Commission for review and the Commission shall (a) accept the
recommendations of the Community Development Director for re-scoring; (b)
re-score the application itself; (c) consider whether any conditions shall apply,
or if any proposed activities are prohibited; and, (d) forward its
recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall be by
publication, posting and mailing (See section 26.304.060(E)). The Planning
and Zoning Commission shall, by resolution, recommend to the City Council
any amendments to the development allocation.
Section 11:
Section 26.470.11 O(E), Standards, which section describes the standards used to
evaluate a request for amending a growth management development order, shall
be amended to read as follows:
E. Standards. In determining whether or not to grant an amendment, the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council shall compare the scores awarded
by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the original approval and to the
proposed amendment. The development allotment shall be amended if the
City Council determines that the score under each criteria of section
26.470.l00(C) awarded to the amended project is equal to or greater than that
awarded to the originally approved development. (Ord. No. 17-2002 9 3
(part), 2002)
Section 12:
Land use applications for Growth Management Allocation shall continue to be
reviewed according to the standards and procedures of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code in effect at the time of application submission.
Section 13:
This Ordinance shall not effect 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 14:
rf any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or lmconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not
affect tile validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 15:
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 12th day of April, 2004, at 5:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 9
, ~
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of March 2004.
~~
Attest:
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this I~ day of ~ 2004.
Attest:
Approved as to form:
~~/?I!/.d.lA:>-
C:lhomelinfilllGMC _to _ P&Z.doc
Ordinance No.7,
Series of2004. Page 10
_.~
-/
~'~
...
FRl Edt Record Navigate Form' Reports Tab ~
r.::, Permits _ Li'
.IIIIIJ....16l1
Rootinglii""'" I ~-
hlain I Royting Sial'" I AIchlEl'Q
Pe"il T _I"'" ..::JAooen Land Use 2004
K~.~""CUC
I Sub e-;t. I ~oIuoIion
I P"cejo I DAtOOl FjeIdo I FOOl I
Pennit # 100000.2004.ASW
Al>I/S....1
S.... r-:::J
M""",pennitl gj Rooting Queue I"'"
P'ojed SI-I~
De."""", GMQSAMENDMENT EUMINATlNGJOINT OTYICOUNTYGROI>ITH MGMT COMM
D REASSIGNING THEIR AUTHORITIES TO OTY PlANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION
Sulxnitted ICHRIS BEND ON 920,5072
r Vi$ble on the web?
Clock !RIXfling Day< ro
PennitID, ! 30635
0_
L"" Name IOTY OF ASPEN
Phone 1(970192lJ.5000
W OwnerlsApplicant?
iJ First Name
r S GALENAST
PEN CO 81611
L"" Name lory OF ASPEN
Phone I (9701920-5000
gj F,,'Namel
DAt " 125221
r30 S GALENA ST
..;;J SPEN CO 81611
I P\4Iic Comlnenl
FeeSUITlIMIJI lIe-
Zip
Apoied 10412612004 .2l
"waved I .2l
l.-d
FnoI
E"""" 104J21/2005 .2l
I~
'FiOCO<<f 2015
?
@I
A
""
~
181
on
r;w
II
ID
I'
l!l