HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.East Hopkins Professional Office.1983 . (Residential)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1983
Project Name 1C,,, w,• , a .. `c ..t.: a _,.. :.t. (7)
•t�
Address SO L_ t-k I ,,,o
Owner •, n Q _ ? 2;1( �� a
Agent /Repr sentative ` .
Address ( cdz0 e ____ ___ Phone C— kin_
Reviewed By Date (z - Zg - s
(1) Public Facilities and Services
0 - Project requires provision of new services at
public expense.
1 - Project handled by existing level of service or
improvement by applicant benefits project only.
2 - Project improves quality of service in a given
area.
(aa) f Water (2 pts.)
Capacity of system to service proposed development
without system extension, treatment plant or other
facility upgrade at public expense..
BEd 'tots ots 40 ilik ,. 4,t- (i sw
(bb) ( Sewage Disposal (2 pts.)
Capacity of sewer system to handle proposed
development wit h out system upgrade.
erw ca. 40 0J 7
(cc) Storm Drainage (2 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
ern , ,`c ary eel(
2-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential
(ee) 1 Parking (2 pts.)
O4V- Sha,eh po.kkteq s lccre.,..1 -4o wad- 4-1-Lt needs
of the project.I Visual impact, amount of paving,
convenience", b
aed safety
e0. 1 1
� f� r/ �€ III t Ali I egIAQA&I i Ot 'ian
(ff) / Roads (2 pts.)
Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased
traffic LJitl\outt O444entwq $rafC;c. k -ho rer.r -n..y
mint. s+r i*.} sc t4 2 I en vukcCi .ta . 0 I
Zit C �� , QQ mk , ; , .S4, uL cb,.k.
� L A&
(2) Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient design.
1 - Major design flaw.
2 - Acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Excellent design.
(bb) 3 Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of landscaping and open
space, extent of utility undergrounding,
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, increased safety and privacy.
�vsi- od.i- � uo.�e_ 0-pe.w `
vita/ uxSsife ro,,,ktk
(dd) Z Trails (3 pts.)
Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways, and
links to exi ti parks and trail systems.
-3-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential
(3) Proximity to Support Services
(aa) Public Transportation (3 pts.)
1 - Project more than 6 blocksfrom an existing City
or County bus route.
2 - Within 6 blocks of a City or County bus route.
3 - Within 2 blocks of a City or County bus route.
S r r.. 1
(bb) 5 Community Commercial Facilities
1 - Project more than 6 blocks from the commercial
facilities in town.
2 - Within 6 blocks of commercial facilities.
3 - Within 2 blocks of commercial facilities.
A-0 Cot,
MEMORANDUM
F
0
TO: City Attorney aeC8
City Engineer 1.983
City Water Department u CITY
Aspen Metro Sanitation District Lb ihs4f0(
Housing Office \\,
COLdRPj"
Building Department
Parks Department
Fire Chief
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project - 1984 Residential
GMP Submission
DATE: December 8, 1983
Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by Jayne and Bill
Poss for a 1984 Residential GMP allocation. The application pertains
to the proposed development of a professional office and townhome
complex. The applicant has already obtained an allotment of 4,500
sq. ft. of commercial space in the 1983 GMP competition. The pro-
posal consists of three individual professional office and townhome
units. Each unit is constructed on a 3,000 square foot lot and
consists of a 3,200 square foot professional office with an accessory
residence. This application is for 3 accessory residences for a total
of 5,100 square feet of residential allotment. The project location
is on the 600 block of East Hopkins, between Hunter and Spring Streets.
The 1984 Residential GMP submissions are scheduled to go before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1983. In order
for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its pre-
sentation, we would appreciate having your comments back no later
than December 30, 1983.
Thank you.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
No. 4/
Staff: &air x0/71,11 R i
PROJECT NAME: (.'. < r 9 .i- Imo.., ( , ia/ /d/ m
+,t -
APPLICANT: /J ��� Y� / (( t /�L�1�- Phone: Y2,1-5,-;57-
REPRESENTATIVE: jf -1 /IJ. i X7/ PA2,/— Phone: 925
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Fee)
V I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step)
j/ 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,840)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,120)
3. Final Plat ($ 560)
II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($1,290)
2. Preliminary Plat ($ 830)
3. Final Plat ($ 560)
III .EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,010)
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 465)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
REFERRALS: Date Referred:
Attorney Sanitation District School District
Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat.Ga
/ Housing Parks State Hgwy. Dept.
V Water Holy Cross Electric j/ Fire Chief
City Electric U Fire Marshall /Building Dept. )/Other
f
FINAL ROUTING: Date Routed:
Attorney -'''Engineering
Building f Other -7:
DISPOSITION:
CITY P &Z REVIEW: 1/ , / / /)J ,ti..'.. { \
� \ i r ' F
r { / i_ ' \.
\,
n ;, 1 I
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: /c/ / p
, ` _ t. , , f , ?
/ _ L
` ip ,
1
1 e .
J
J �l. i �
(/ �
1
@r-di' nenee No. 3
CITY P &Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
r
Ordinance No.
L
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: 1984 Commercial GMP Application
DATE: October 24, 1983
At the September 20, 1983 and October 4, 1983, meetings of the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission, one project was evaluated in the 1984 Commercial Growth
Management competition. The project was presented, discussed, public comment
was heard, and scoring was done individually by each Commission member. The
project and the zone in which it competed was as follows:
C -1 Zone
East Hopkins Professional Office 4,500 sq. ft.
(Lots C, D and E, Block 99)
Adjacent to 601 E. Hopkins
Quota Available and Requested
City Council Resolution 58, Series of 1981 eliminated excess allocations remaining
from previous years. In the CC /C -1 zones in 1982, 1,027 sq. ft. of space was the
result of exemptions and 8,510 sq. ft. was allocated leaving 465 sq. ft. of quota.
City Council Resolution 32, Series of 1982, carried this quota over to 1983. From
August of 1982 through July of 1983, commercial development activity exempt from
competition occurred with the construction of the Thrift Shop (1,440 sq. ft.).
Quota for this competition is therefore:
Carry Over Quota Exemption Remaining
463 10,000 -1,440 9,023
Also, on October 1, 1983, the allocation for the earlier project proposed for
the same site as this application, "A Garden Office Building - 9,656 sq. ft."
expired.
The total request of this project is 4,500 sq. ft. consisting of 3 offices of
1,500 sq. ft. each.
Thresholds and Eligibility
To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of
60 percent of the total points available under categories 1 (Quality of Design),
2 (Availability of Public Facilities /Services), and 3 (Employee Housing Need),
amounting to 22.8 points. A minimum score of 30 percent of the points available
in each category, 1, 2 and 3, is also required for a project to meet the basic
competitive requirements. The minimum points were as follows:
Category 1 = 5.4 points
Category 2 = 3 points
Category 3 = 3 points
Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over the minimum thresholds,
but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding
allotment.
The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows:
MEMO: 1983 Commercial GMP Application
October 24, 1983
Page Two
East Hopkins Professional Office
1. Quality of Design 13
2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 6.25
3. Employee Housing Need 4
4. Employee Housing Incentive 0
5. Bonus Points 0.33
TOTAL 23.58 , i
The project met the required threshold and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the project.
Subsequent Approvals
The project will require additional review procedures. In order to be built
as presented it must successfully compete in the Residential GMP Competition
and receive an allocation through that process. Other reviews that will be
required are:
1. GMP Exemption for employee units;
2. Exemption from parking requirements for employee units;
3. Special Review for FAR Bonus; and
4. Condominiumization (to assure accessory status of the residential
space).
Council Action
Since the project met the required scoring thresholds, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission thereby recommends approval, the Planning Office asks Council
to direct us to draft a Resolution to allocate 4,500 sq. ft. of commercial square
footage to the East Hopkins Professional Office project.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
RESOLUTION NO. 3:7
(Series of 1983)
WHEREAS, in .accordance with Section 24- 11.5(a) of the Code,
August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of
applications for commercial and office development allotments within
the CC /C -1, NC /SCI, Office, CL and other zone districts in the City
of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, one project is competing for a commercial square
footage allotment in the C -1 zone for a total of 4,500 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, the quota available in the CC /C -1 zones for this com-
petition is 9,023 square feet; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on September
20, 1983, and continued to October 4, 1983, by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission to consider the Commercial Growth Management appli-
cation and evaluate and score them in conformance with criteria
established in Ordinance 49 (Series of 1981) which amended Section
24 -11.5 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the project met the required thresholds in the Planning
and Zoning Commission scoring; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to
Council that the project be awarded a development allotment for the
requested square footage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado:
Section 1
A commercial development allotment is hereby awarded to the East
Hopkins Professional Office for 4,500 square feet.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Section 2
The allocation of 4,500 square feet of commercial space to the
East Hopkins Professional Office shall be subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
The project must successfully compete in the Residential
Growth Management Competition and receive an allocation to
be built as presented and scored in this competition. A
GMP exemption must be obtained for the employee units as
well as an exemption from parking requirements for the
employee units. Special Review approval for an FAR bonus
must be granted. The units must be condominiumized to
assure the accessory status of the residential space.
The free - market residential space in this project is con-
sidered to be accessory to the commercial space (as well as
the employee residential units).
Each lot has approximately 38% open space, and each unit
will have an active solar collecting system for domestic
hot water. The courtyards, sidewalks, and rear entry
drives will be heated by a radiant system. Double pane
insulated glazing is proposed, as well as heat - mirror
insulation and insulating curtains. R- factors will be
exceeded in the exterior wall insulation and roofs. The
building will be no higher than 37 feet at the highest
point.
Dated: , 1983
Bill Stirling
Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the
day of , 1983.
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
R4f: j.1FiG...
AFFIDAVIT OF LYNNE UNGER
State of Colorado )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
Lynne Unger, being first duly sworn, deposes and
says as follows:
1. I am a paralegal employed in the office of
Austin, McGrath and Jordan.
2. On October 4, 1983 I listened to the tape
recording of the entire Poss matter from the tapes
of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
held on September 20, 1983.
3. Towards the conclusion of the tape, and
towards the conclusion of the discussion on the
Poss matter, Planning and Zoning Commission member
Pat Fallin moved as follows:
"I would move to table this to the next
regular meeting and ask that it be placed at
the first of the agenda."
4. After some discussion the motion, having been
seconded, appears to have been passed although
since I was not present I can not say whether a
quorum existed. There was no other discussion and
thus the wording of the motion appears to have
continued the entire Poss matter to the next
regular P &Z meeting.
Dated: /0 X3 C��� bIG
Lyn e Unger
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of
October, 1983, by LYNNE UNGER.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
My Common expos February 19, 1985
Li N0 A ;;;;F•
NotaryfPublic
so PS
SUM
ASPEN, MON A 111111
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Commercial GMP - East Hopkins Professional Office
DATE: October 4, 1983
Final action on this application was not taken following GMP
scoring at your September 20, 1983 meeting. The total points
awarded the project in Categories A, B and C were 22.58 points,
and the required minimum threshold is 22.8 points. A memo is
attached from the City Attorney's Office outlining some areas that
require consideration on your part. If any of the possible mistakes
he outlined apply to your scoring, they need to be identified. If
the final outcome of this exercise alters the score so it meets or
exceeds the threshold, you should direct the Planning Office to
draft a Resolution recommending approval of the project to Council.
If the scoring remains unchanged, the direction to the Planning
Office should be for a Resolution to be drafted recommending to
Council denial of the project.
c.,
•
n
W
H til
b w ry 1.-, a
1-'
0 p, 0 N a w N H
, C F , • ti
z 0 ru it co rf tr G E Co a a
N n tr H
y 0 H• 11 H N o � H• K H > rt 0
cn la n H. b y b c ti k H H A H O
G1 H W b b H, a H H rt •
b = � m b
O
w y o LC b H rt N fD PI H 2 0 o N ., tr' rt rt H y / p.
1- i-+ ti
> cn rt n rr o
Q H. ,C 0
to 0 hi W Oy 0 n C 0 H . LA
H ',17 0 H • y 0
n r o 0 o m
R, rt rt y m =
w o' P. t+
Ul
H,
I ± .. n iv
o
I I I - -_ frit::::,11-0 iN _ I I r1
pv
__, 0
N (11,1 O b Fi,_\iptih ( N kr s
„ `hI IV
D N I _ N .:
I IL ` z co 5
� I y
C l\-) 1" - i ilj ,
I C I I y 1 1 1 1
1 1 N , ‘
N
ok z
tv r n
J I h � �
It FJ/ i / :.�N H
4H . + to
. Wl W
u, , I co
N � I� (� W ig �I I I z
P
1------ tS-1-. 1 i
I I I H
L 7 c
tv
Vi W C 1
L ( � L �7
Ni
W 0 1
an LCI D Ortt' o 0
m C a
N tri 1. 4 N
£ ycnroO
°.• m°
N G 0 rt. N O (D
rt u rt , n
ro ro m w r.
� w • Z i x a r r
r
OD N N N 0 H
0 P. N fr E
H W O 01
p
DC 0 a
p
Pi 0 w
In rt
. r• 0
0
0
0
I 0
rt
ro
r
Pi
N
N
G
rr
3
N
co
H
fC r•
O
0
'\) 1 th
tri
1 I-3
N
l 4
N . cn
H
Z
VI
z
v 0
v 70
'\i 0
r
(1 O
z
0
I
tt
C
VI
0 F
CI
•
ro ro
to
n a• O
• 4
ni ti
H M vi a w IV 7 C . in a w • • M C H
Pa
H N
ti 0 N F•' y G' >4 M V1 > rt 1 Lh
it cn ro cn E m w 11 H• 7 H• n P w
O M n O 0 C M 03 rrt < N G ID n r 0 O Z
H x W 0 i- W H 0 H. N 7 w r• LQ r• M (D
y 0 a ° m Nk w H w K ID N 0 0' ft En
n a a H P0 HI p E N G H m —P-
W w w a Q
y
VI w w to ° m c rr 0
m 0 w P t •-• r ft H _
co rt N r; I•' w H r '
H a rr 1 1 H. k N i'i
M w m 0 H.
co cn N ro ro C 0 �.)
0 0 0 W 0
7
U1 O 0
H M H 0 N iC
F• r3
H 0 rrr rr
O r m O �• .. -- - to
p N m
a
0
o
zi
I I __III I I L I t 1 I I —I H
ro
• t4 M
It Z
I I 1 z
E.
kH*H ft-)- I— V IN lb) I I 1y = r tri
H H H
H
4O L ti
- „,4 ,,H __ ,,_ ;
. , H
m
Z
• , H
cn
M cn
O H
HHH—L
- Itci z
Z
M
k L 1 k N �NNN o
d
\\) - 4■1_: --- \ ) W 1--
M •
•
ti .''' t
V L }J M
r }
N
N
VI
1
_ a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
•
•
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: Fast Hnpkina C'nmplax
DATE: q /90 /83
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior
nan a and shall
rate each development by assigning p
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: The design is sensitive to its neighbors in that entry
courtyards are used to soften the mass at street level, clapboard •
siding and small window systems are used to relate to the Victorians
to the east and the larger mass is in the center of the site. The
factor that somewhat offsets these is its overall size.
b. SITE DESIGN — Considering the quality and character of •
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
• RATING: 2
COMMENT: Utilities are currently underground, each lot has
about 38% open space. The problem is the amount of activity
(congestion that will result from so many living units on- site).
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
• COMMENT: R- factors •' !'• •• • -
sulation „the roof and each unit will have an active S olar rnl
lecting system for domestic hot water as w- .• • •-• • g of
the courtyard, sidewalk and rear entry drive. Heat- mirror insulation
will be incorporated in the north and east sides and insulating cur-
,
tains used on the south and west sides in additior: to double
pane insulated glazing.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: 2
•
COMMENT: Bike racks will be provided and entry courtyards are
provided (615 sq. ft. for each unit). The rear yards are very
limited at 130 sq. ft.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: This building will be 37 ft. high at the highest
point. It will have some impact on views, however, it is not
impacted by an established view plane and is less than the 40
ft. height limit of the C -1 zone.
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: Zr
COMMENT: The Engineering Department identified a deficiency
due to 3 separate trash areas and recommended the allotment of
1 point. They have requested further information /clarification
from the applicant. '
SUBTOTAL: Jr ( j
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
•
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development . without system extensions and with-
- out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
. available facilities.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The En•ineerin• De artment found thi • .- -• -•le
because of a 6" main in Hoskins and th- . - 5 - . - •uests
a common service line which the applicant agrees to. A fire
sprinkler system is incorporated which upgrades fire protection
capability.
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop -
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
•
COMMENT: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitafinn ni car
serve the project and any new service line installation by the
applicant will be to service the project.
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: Present roads are adequate and no upgrading is required.
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: All site drainage will be retained in a drywell on -site
which results in an area improvement.
•
- 3 - •
•
•
•
J.
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 1 •
•
COMMENT: The C -1 zone requires no parking for the comme
use. A parking requirement of 1 space/hear exigta fnr the
resident'. . - •. . .•. .. • - - .. .'..
exemption for the employee units.
SUBTOTAL: 6
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
•
RATING: 4
COMMENT: On a unit basis, 1 /500 sq. ft. would generate 4 RR
(5) employees. A studio unit will house one person or 20% of
the employees generated. 20% - 5% = 4 points..
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant propose to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10 %) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50 %) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150 %) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: 0
COMMENT:
•
4 -
.. 1
•
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8.points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
•
•
6. TOTAL POINTS •
Points in Category 1: 13 (minimum of 5.4 points
needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 6 (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
•
Points in Category 3: 4 (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in -
Categories
1, 2 and 3: 23 (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in •
Categories
4 and .5 :
•
TOTAL POINTS: 23
•
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
•
•
•
•
- 5 -
(9(wh4q6) hi/ ;
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS / ,
PROJECT: WPCS DATE: i L� ci3
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments. /
�/ y /� RATING:
Cm NT: .�/C�I(i/ZL c-iZ/ J/u!J /'l.� /N%3
6( aa,) - flfs rq Porn H i r ' irx� �`—�, ►�cti�
UPS f P) _ )6-4 S-t)tJ D C4 & (4' M IXES (
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING: 2,®
COMMENT: 0 44 Sfid M v614006
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: � I14 ( ) 6 � \
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: r I SCE (? t4CK / e��L / y/kd' S S M! 1l- y /J S S.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
/ RATING: • ' - t * O
COMMENT: 10,0 010--
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areeas.
RATING: + ✓
COMMENT: 41 I I M (fib t/
ice \��
1
SUBTOTAL: t✓
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT: s _wL _ laworanneaq!_ —
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENT:
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.;
/ TING:
COMMENT: � OSC TC V� S PG` }� ' N 17 6n ( F0
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
L ( / lam RATING:
COMMENT: d l I (. I,JIZ )N/4 l�
- 3 -
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENT: 0A311( Yet 142t 1t PM( j 'V
SUBTOTAL: 42r_6
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creat'on
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING:
C0.' 1ENT rfrbvO(,' 1-
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposed to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project. �)
RATING: d/
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS: G/
C MMENT: _I.... r (Alit -"
` ' t "`- v& i I f �
L
` Ante &Iiii. AY
i iihnoc Fibs ipicc,ceci Is Wog * U(--
6 o Tom' 126 n/t- 777 Jv'
6. TOTAL POINTS 1b‘<
Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points
I,, needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: e � (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3:
41k to
of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in �\ °
Categories
1, 2 and 3: (minimum of 22. points
needed to be e igible)
Points in
Categories �, i
4 and 5 �� '
TOTAL POINTS: xiT
. 6
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: , 0! A
I r
1
If
- 5 -
■
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: !Le r V 1 a k' ` I'v ' --T DATE: Ze) / :
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING: Z
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING: /
COMMENT: TX7< » (&J c XY» Trier '(fi Uc K2
/Oft , r i d i t eC s milk) • .,-c TO vvmuc
121naro isFF RctL- y).
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 7.../
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality 4
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
X:
r
RATING: 7 / / COMMENT : 6 #/i ( (-�-3' > �c ec rX.3 -17 Z )
- 17--47 1- 1 l 774 -c ee Witt_ 6c-sr LI o 64-c_ e , c
It 4U4.) 1 i y A-ND MAT h(. °Pea tot (c £ Fry
A to -/ ,e_ /I O,Ce:r" (F /lac= C-c C .A `1
SUBTOTAL: 1(5
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes Of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
1
RATING:
COMMENT:
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT:
- 3 -
'l
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: (7
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5 %) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING:
COMMENT:
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10 %) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50 %) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150 %) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: CJ
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: f '° (minimum of 5.4 points
I needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: LC (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories
1, 2 and 3: 2_1(5 (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
- 5 -
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: if ht% DATE: 9 /WM
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING: 4
•
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT:
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
Pi
r
a„+
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: 2,
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT: 1 /� /
SUBTOTAL:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 1
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT:
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING: l
COMMENT:
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:
- 3 -
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENT :
SUBTOTAL:
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING:
COMMENT:
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: 0
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points
needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: AG (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories
1, 2 and 3: {i (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: (71/6/-.
v "
- 5 -
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 �C APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: �� FAPPVA J 61-iI R p 5( DATE: 6( 19- 0 053
1. QUALITYY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
�}� RATING: i
COMMENT: N lt� G u�1 (cu At 2_ �l LYY� S
*tiQ h1(AbS 4-k'_- art rs`CUInS "� &
.bn vac 3 -\-L rc (it\ i he 7 l lu ,
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT: V. I 1 • 'it. • b M LkX)J 1/2_
Cv " cif+ . 6rap�,'�r.+� • i CAP._ E )roe
ObPi v uicS2 .�t ',5`61" ('3 - 5S0
((s bA
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: I
COMMENT: Mak ('3k +-u " c7pQ m `:�r( .`' i 4o be. 'I
kUi2 f m cF (,py t r_vrks - u,, Kt t L C (D vS )tX Nye---
' k_ .,• �. C I b + ,OCi
V r (AA,
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: tO
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro -
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 9 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENT:
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING:
•
COMMENT: y H.
UrPA b (\InG imc G -t
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING: y'
COMMENT:
- 3 -
t
•
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: 7
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING: 4
COMMENT:
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant propose to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: n
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: IK_J (minimum of 5.4 points
needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 7 (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: � (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories
1, 2 and 3: L � (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories O
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS: 2�
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: \4 TL t_
- 5 -
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP
4 ?L(&&SJ PROJECT: F. J9/ ( DATE: Q 75d
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING: / .
COMMENT: CCA/WrCJPIS GQS Stria- 1 thee' c- L2-eA'
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING: Z
COMMENT:
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heati9g and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
I �
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: 2 COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2 3
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
�' RATING: 1. .
COMMENT: 5:1..0 alp/c226 CG(, //v e, = you./ !o%
SUBTOTAL: /:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
®� RATING:
COMMENT: / C/ 5�✓i ����1k ov t4 0
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING: I
COMMENT: 111
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING: Z
COMMENT:
- 3 -
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
( // RATING: (.d
�//
COMMENT: �r 1 e- cyez2% CA'f r / /w 1 DLe c-)
, 4erc(.A'.G- llCLG ,ALcA-c-
SUBTOTAL: _
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING: 1
COMMENT:
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposed to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: 0
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS: U
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: '1 (minimum of 5.4 points
/j needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: ( (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories ete
1, 2 and 3: / (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories O
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS: n.aikr
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
- 5 -
,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: _ r — I OA m, IS DATE :Q 2 (9 -8,5
1
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING:
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT:
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: Cr
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
✓ RATING: 2,
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
s
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
//
RATING:-- -
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: /2
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
,/ RATING: I
COMMENT:
•
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing. City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
I RATING:
COMMENT:
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension .
RATING:
COMMENT:
- 3 -
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
I RATING: 0
COMMENT:
.-
SUBTOTAL: -_
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
( nit to deed restricted status).
RATING:
COMMENT:
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposed to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: C1
COMMENT:
9
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: / 0 2_7 (minimum of 5.4 points
needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: `_5- (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories
1, 2 and 3: C____ (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: \ J
— s —
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE 1984 Commercial GMP Application •
DATE: September 20, 1983
Introduction •
Attached for your review is the project profile and the Planning
Office's recommended points allocation for the one application
submitted on August 1 for the commercial GMP competition. The
application is for 4,500 sq. ft. of office space for the East
Hopkins Professional Office and Townhouse .Complex to the east of
601 E. Hopkins.
A copy of the application was supplied to you at your September 6
meeting for review. The reason for the discrepancy in the amount
of square footage requested (9,600 sq. ft.) in the.)pplicatt nhand
the amount you are reviewing tonight (4,500 sq.
applicant included the free market residential space, which will
not be a part of this commercial allocation.
Quota Available
City Council Resolution 58, Series of 1981 eliminated excess
allocations remaining from previous years. In the CC /C -1 zones in
1982, 1,027 sq. ft. of space was the result of exemptions and
8,510 sq. ft. was allocated leaving 465 sq. ft. of quota. City
Council Resolution 32, Series of 1982, carried this quota over to
1983. From August of 1982 through July of 1983, commercial develop-
ment activity exempt from competition occurred with the construction
of the Thrift Shop (1,440 sq. ft.). Quota for this competition is
therefore:
•
Carry Over Quota Exemption Remaining
463 10,000• -1,440 9,023
Also, on October 1, 1983, the allocation for the earlier project
proposed for the same site as this application "A Garden Office
Building - 9,656 sq. ft." will expire.
The total request of this project is 4,500 sq. ft. consisting of 3
offices of 1,500 sq. ft. each.
Process
The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of
September 20, 1983, will review procedures with you and provide a
suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application.
The applicant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A
public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to com-
ment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be
asked to score the applicant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded
to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the
total points available under categories 1, 2 and 3, amounting to
22.8 points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each
•
•
•
'MEMO: 1984 Commercial GMP Application
September 20, 1983
Page Two
category 1, 2 and 3 to meet the basic competitive requirements.
The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category
2 = 3 points; and Category 3 = 3 points. Should the application
score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a
development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points
cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum thres-
hold.
This project, should it receive a development allotment, will
require additional review procedures. In fact, in order to be
built as presented it must successfully compete in the Residential
GMP Competition and receive an allocation through that process.
Other reviews that will be required are:
1. GMP Exemption for employee units;
•
2. Exemption from parking requirements for employee units;
3. Special Review for FAR Bonus; and
•
4. Condominiumization (to assure accessory status of the
residential space).
All of these procedures will be accomplished subsequent to the
applicant's,receipt of a development allotment.
Planning Office Ratings
The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a
recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the pro-
posal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more com-
plete explanaion of the points assignment for each criterion is
shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the
ratings.
Quality Availability of Employee Employee
of Public Facilities/ Housing Housing Bonus Total
Design Services Need Incentive Points Points
13 6 4 0 -- 23
The project exceeds all minimum thresholds required. Quota available
in the CC /C -1 category is 9,023 sq. ft. Quota being requested is
4,500 sq. ft.
Planning Office Recommendation
A fundamental finding must be made in order to approve this project
based on the analysis and recommended scoring. The free - market
residential space which will compete for an allocation in this
December's Residential GMP Competition must be found to be accessory
to the commercial space. If this finding cannot be made, the two
uses cannot both be placed on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel. The C -1
zone requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 sq. ft. for a commercial
use and 6,000 sq. ft. for a residential use.
Essentially, because of the employee housing requirements of the
competition and the fact that the applicant is proposing to
•
•
°MEMO:.1984 Commercial GMP Application
September 20, 1983
Page Three
provide the units on -site there will be 4 uses per 3,000 sq. ft.
lot or 12 uses on the entire parcel. This is very intense use of
the property and far exceeds the minimum lot area per dwelling •
unit requirements of the C -1 zone. In fact, those requirements
would set a minimum lot size of 24,000 sq. ft. to accommodate this
project if it were to be considered as a multi familytproject.
Each 2- bedroom unit would require 2,000 sq. ft. f
studio requires 1,000 sq. ft. and the commercial use requires
3,000 sq. ft., for a total of an 8,000 sq. ft. lot requirement per
office /townhbme complex. These lot requirements are "exclusive
of accessory dwelling units."
Our interpretation throughout the development of this application
has been that the free - market residential unit can be considered
accessory to the commercial space and the employee units are also
accessory to the project. The result, however, is a density on
these lots that is substantial. The design is commendable, in
that all these uses were incorporated on -site within area and bulk
and open space requirements. We do not encourage this solution on
such a small parcel (despite our feeling it fits the definition of
"accessory dwelling units "). We would ask that you either concur
with or reverse our interpretation during your .. deliberations on
this project.
We would recommend that you find the residential units to be
accessory to the commercial space and that you concur with our
point assignments to approve the project and recommend to Council
the allocation of 4,500 sq. ft. of commercial space for the construction
of 3 offices.
•
•
•
•
CITY, ► � PEN
130 1 ,, i ,, reet
asp ' .1611
• - - 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne
Jay Hammond
FROM: Gary Esary
RE: 1983 Commercial GMP Competition /E. Hopkins Complex
DATE: September 29, 1983
In meetings between the applicant's attorneys, the City Attorney's
Office and the Planning Office, the applicant has identified three
errors in the September 20 scoring that might have given rise to
mistakes in the Commission's scoring.
They are:
1. The Planning Office scoring sheet and recommendation were
in conflict. The Planning Office numerical values apparently
totalled 22, below the threshold, despite the fact that
it recommended approval. It is possible that a Commission
member, intending to score an approval and following the
Planning Office numerical scores, might have intended one
score and produced another.
2. The Planning Office score on trash removal was apparently
based on an original Engineering Department recommendation,
after which the applicant apparently complied with some,
if not all, of the Engineering suggestions but failed to
bring a new Engineering recommendation to the scoring.
This failure may have been based on the applicant's
reasonable interpretation of the Code.
3. The scoring took place at the end of a rather long meeting --
one member was absent from the scoring and one or more
members expressed a desire to expedite the scoring.
While the scoring part of the meeting did not have the
customary decorum of P &Z meetings, it is my opinion that
the conduct of the meeting was not a denial of due process.
However, the hurried and informal nature of the scoring
that night, coupled with the above -cited circumstances,
might have led to a mistake in scoring.
Colette Penne
Jay Hammone
September 29, 1983
Page Two
Generally, at law, a mistake may invalidate a contract or, as here,
invalidate an action taken by a governmental commission. If it has
made a mistake, the commission may, on its own motion, correct the
mistake.
The applicant will be at the next meeting and will make a presentation.
If, after considering this memo, the commission's individual scoring
and the applicant's presentation, any of the commission members be-
lieve that they made a mistake in scoring any section of the competition,
the commission may declare the mistake and rescore that section, up
or down, and have the change recalculated.
If the commission does not believe that the items listed above (or
others presented by the applicant) resulted in a mistake in the
scoring, then the scoring stands and the applicant is left to an
appeal to the City Council and /or a challenge in the courts.
I will, of course, be present to answer questions that may arise at
the meeting.
GSE /jlw
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering-*
DATE: September 29, 1983
RE: GMP Scoring of the East Hopkins Office/
Townhouse Project
It has come to our attention that there may have been
some confusion in the recent City P & Z scoring of the
East Hopkins Commercial GMP application with respect
to the trash and utility areas.
At the time of the initial GMP referral, I spoke with
Bill Poss, architect for the project, regarding his
proposal's handling of trash and utility access. Section
24- 3.7(h)(4) of the Municipal Code would require a single
area open to the alley. This requirement can be varied by
special review of the P & Z, however, and in view of the
vagueness of the initial application, we recommended only
one point pending further discussion with Poss. It was
our feeling that the nature of the project (residential/
office versus commercial), and the desire of the applicant
to present a high quality southern elevation might warrant
exploration of alternatives for trash and utility access.
Subsequently, through further meetings with Poss, and his
solicitation of comments from the trash service and
electric department, we have enough information to
recommend the P & Z grant a variance from 24- 3.7(h)(4)
as permitted under 24- 3.5(b). Documentation is now
available from the applicant to support the variance under
the criteria of 24- 3.5(b).
JH /co
LAW OFFICES
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 205
RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. AREA CODE 303
WILLIAM R. JORDAN SE TELEPHONE 925 -2600
GRAY A. YOUNG
FREDERICK F. PEIRCE
September 28, 1983
Ms. Colette Penne
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Poss GMP Application
Dear Colette:
This letter is to request either pursuant to the
continuation of the Poss application for the East Hopkins
Professional Office, or as a matter of reconsideration, the
Planning and Zoning Commission to recheck and recalculate
(and hence partially to rescore) the project. As you know,
the Poss application for 4500 square feet of 10,000 square
feet available was not in competition with anyone, his being
the sole application. Therefore, many of the concerns in
terms of any action that would affect a competitor in the
process are not present here. Since the Poss application was
the only one in its category, there was perhaps a general
feeling at the meeting that the P &Z need not spend as much
time on it as it would clearly have done otherwise. A few of
the members had other pressing matters, which we fully
understand. However, had enough time been taken so that it
would have been apparent that the average score was 12.33
rather than 12.55 as is necessary or desirable, we think
there might have been opportunity to convince a P &Z member or
two that their score merited some other consideration.
For example, four of the six members scored the
project at less than the 2 points available for trash and
utility access under perhaps a misapprehension. The original
report on the GMP application indicated that the engineering
department had felt there was a deficiency as to the three
separate trash areas and recommended the allotment of one
point. In fact, that matter had been further considered by
the engineering department who felt that the design of the
particular project for trash and utility access met all of
their standards especially since the engineering department
had indicated that the existing electrical transformers could
be used, thus requiring less space. We would be happy to
provide further evidence as to that point (see, e.g.,
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
Colette Penne
September 28, 1983
Page 2
attached letter) and hopefully one or two members might
reconsider their scoring on that variable in light of the
information that the applicant perhaps failed to make clear
because of the lack of time.
We very much appreciate your assistance.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By lit4hae0 the i
Nicholas McGrath, J
JNMjr:jc
Encl.
cc: Members of Planning and Zoning Committee
Mr. Paul Taddune
Mr. Gary Essary
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: 1984 Commercial GMP Application
DATE: September 20, 1983
Introduction
Attached for your review is the project profile and the Planning
Office's recommended points allocation for the one application
submitted on August 1 for the commercial GMP competition. The
application is for 4,500 sq. ft. of office space for the East
Hopkins Professional Office and Townhouse Complex to the east of
601 E. Hopkins.
A copy of the application was supplied to you at your September 6
meeting for review. The reason for the discrepancy in the amount
of square footage requested (9,600 sq. ft.) in the application and
the amount you are reviewing tonight (4,500 sq. ft.) is that the
applicant included the free market residential space, which will
not be a part of this commercial allocation.
Quota Available
City Council Resolution 58, Series of 1981 eliminated excess
allocations remaining from previous years. In the CC /C -1 zones in
1982, 1,027 sq. ft. of space was the result of exemptions and
8,510 sq. ft. was allocated leaving 465 sq. ft. of quota. City
Council Resolution 32, Series of 1982, carried this quota over to
1983. From August of 1982 through July of 1983, commercial develop-
ment activity exempt from competition occurred with the construction
of the Thrift Shop (1,440 sq. ft.). Quota for this competition is
therefore:
Carry Over Quota Exemption Remaining
463 10,000 -1,440 9,023
Also, on October 1, 1983, the allocation for the earlier project
proposed for the same site as this application, "A Garden Office
Building - 9,656 sq. ft." will expire.
The total request of this project is 4,500 sq. ft. consisting of 3
offices of 1,500 sq. ft. each.
Process
The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of
September 20, 1983, will review procedures with you and provide a
suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application.
The applicant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A
public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to com-
ment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be
asked to score the applicant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded
to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the
total points available under categories 1, 2 and 3, amounting to
22.8 points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each
MEMO: 1984 Commercial GMP Application
September 20, 1983
Page Two
category 1, 2 and 3 to meet the basic competitive requirements.
The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category
2 = 3 points; and Category 3 = 3 points. Should the,application
score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a
development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points
cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum thres-
hold.
This project, should it receive a development allotment, will
require additional review procedures. In fact, in order to be
built as presented it must successfully compete in the Residential
GMP Competition and receive an allocation through that process.
Other reviews that will be required are:
1. GMP Exemption for employee units;
2. Exemption from parking requirements for employee units;
3. Special Review for FAR Bonus; and
4. Condominiumization (to assure accessory status of the
residential space).
All of these procedures will be accomplished subsequent to the
applicant's receipt of a development allotment.
Planning Office Ratings
The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a
recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the pro-
posal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more com-
plete explanaion of the points assignment for each criterion is
shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the
ratings.
Quality Availability of Employee Employee
of Public Facilities/ Housing Housing Bonus Total
Design Services Need Incentive Points Points
13 6 4 0 -- 23
The project exceeds all minimum thresholds required. Quota available
in the CC /C -1 category is 9,023 sq. ft. Quota being requested is
4,500 sq. ft.
Planning Office Recommendation
A fundamental finding must be made in order to approve this project
based on the analysis and recommended scoring. The free - market
residential space which will compete for an allocation in this
December's Residential GMP Competition must be found to be accessory
to the commercial space. If this finding cannot be made, the two
uses cannot both be placed on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel. The C -1
zone requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 sq. ft. for a commercial
use and 6,000 sq. ft. for a residential use.
Essentially, because of the employee housing requirements of the
competition and the fact that the applicant is proposing to
MEMO: 1984 Commercial GMP Application
September 20, 1983
Page Three
provide the units on -site there will be 4 uses per 3,000 sq. ft.
lot or 12 uses on the entire parcel. This is very intense use of
the property and far exceeds the minimum lot area per dwelling
unit requirements of the C -1 zone. In fact, those requirements
would set a minimum lot size of 24,000 sq. ft. to accommodate this
project if it were to be considered as a multi - family project.
Each 2- bedroom unit would require 2,000 sq. ft. of lot size, a
studio requires 1,000 sq. ft. and the commercial use requires
3,000 sq. ft., for a total of an 8,000 sq. ft. lot requirement per
office /townhome complex. These lot requirements are "exclusive
of accessory dwelling units."
Our interpretation throughout the development of this application
has been that the free - market residential unit can be considered
accessory to the commercial space and the employee units are also
accessory to the project. The result, however, is a density on
these lots that is substantial. The design is commendable, in
that all these uses were incorporated on -site within area and bulk
and open space requirements. We do not encourage this solution on
such a small parcel (despite our feeling it fits the definition of
"accessory dwelling units "). We would ask that you either concur
with or reverse our interpretation during your deliberations on
this project.
We would recommend that you find the residential units to be
accessory to the commercial space and that you concur with our
point assignments to approve the project and recommend to Council
the allocation of 4,500 sq. ft. of commercial space for the construction
of 3 offices.
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Jayne and Bill Pnss
2. Project Name: East Hopkins Professional office and Tnwnhomec
3. Location: Lots C, D and E, Block 99
(Adjacent to 601 E. Hopkins)
4. Parcel Size: 9000 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: C -1
6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 13,500 1.1 FAR with a .5;1
bonus by special review
7. Existing Structures: The lots are vacant.
8. Development Program: The complex as proposed will consist —
of 4,500 sq. ft. of office space. 5,100 crj ft of free market
residential space and 3,750 sq. ft. of deed restricted employee__
housing, a total build out of 13 350 sa. ft.
9. Additional Review Requirements: - - -
Residential GMP competition
Condominiumization (to assure access•
space)
GMP Exemption for Employee units
Exemption from Parking Requirements
Special Review for FAR bonus
30. Miscellaneous: The complex will be three separate units, consisting
of a 1,500 sq. ft. office, a 1,700 sq. ft. accessory residence. a
400 sq. ft. employee studio and an 850 sq. ft. two- bedroom employee
unit. Each unit will also have a garage.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: Fast Hopkins complex DATE: 9/20f83
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of
the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: The design is sensitive to its neighbors in that entry
courtyards are used to soften the mass at street level, clapboard
siding and small window systems are used to relate to the Victorians
to the east and the larger mass is in the center of the site. The
factor that somewhat offsets these is its overall size.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of
the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent
of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including
access for service vehicles) and increased safety and
privacy.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: Utilities are currently underground, each lot has
about 38% open space. The problem is the amount of activity
(congestion that will result from so many living units on- site).
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation
of energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: R- factors will be exceeded in the exterior wall in-
sulation,the roof and each unit will have an active solar col-
lecting system for domestic hot water as well as radiant heating of
the courtyard, sidewalk and rear entry drive. Heat - mirror insulation
will be incorporated in the north and east sides and insulating cur-
tains used on the south and west sides in addition: to double
pane insulated glazing.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: Bike racks will be provided and entry courtyards are
provided (615 sq. ft. for each unit). The rear yards are very
limited at 130 sq. ft.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: This building will be 37 ft. high at the highest
point. It will have some impact on views, however, it is not
impacted by an established view plane and is less than the 40
ft. height limit of the C -1 zone.
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality
and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Engineering Department identified a deficiency
due to 3 separate trash areas and recommended the allotment of
1 point. They have requested further information /clarification
from the applicant. '
SUBTOTAL: 12
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing
level of service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e., water supply and fire pro-
tection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.)
- 2 -
P
F.
aa. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also
considering the ability of the appropriate fire pro-
tection district to provide service according to estab-
lished response times without the necessity of upgrading
available facilities.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Engineering Department found this to be acceptable
because of a 6" main in Hopkins and the Water Department requests
a common service line which the applicant agrees to. A fire
sprinkler system is incorporated which upgrades fire protection
capability.
bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitatinn nictrirt can
serve the project and any new service line installation by the
applicant will be to service the project.
cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS. Considering the ability of
the project to be served by existing. City or County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic patterns
or overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: Present roads are adequate and no upgrading is required.
dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of
the proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: All site drainage will be retained in a drvwell on -site
which results in an area improvement.
- 3 -
1
ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the
proposed development which are required by Section
24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The C -1 zone requires no parking for the commercial
use. A parking requirement of 1 sparse /hedrnnm exists for the
residential use. but the applicant will request a parking
exemption for the employee units.
SUBTOTAL: 6
3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall
assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed
restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years
to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines
established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines
established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either on -or
off -site, either within or outside of the City, through a net
addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation
of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market
unit to deed restricted status).
RATING: 4
COMMENT: On a unit basis, 1/500 sq. ft. would generate 4 RR
(5) employees. A studio unit will house one person or 20% of
the employees generated. 20% - 5% = 4 points..
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases
where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than
50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission
shall assign additional points based on the following formula:
1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the
project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided
with deed restricted employee housing either on- of off -site,
to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees
generated by the project.
RATING: 0
COMMENT:
- 4 -
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the
points awarded in Sections (1), (2) and (3)). Commission
members may, when any one determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those
sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus
points shall provide a written justification of that award for
the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: )8 (minimum of 5.4 points
needed to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 6 (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: 4 (minimum of 3 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in
Categories 2.
1, 2 and 3: 2‘ (minimum of 22.8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in
Categories
4 and 5
TOTAL POINTS: z
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
- 5 -
•
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
•
1. Applicant: Ja ne and c' - •
2. Project Name: East Hoskins Professio .
3. Location: Lots C, D and E Block 99
(Ad'acent to 601 E. Hoskins
4. Parcel Size: 9000 S•uare Feet
5. Current Zoning: C -1
. 5'• 1
6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 13 500 lcl
bonus b s•ecial review
7. Existing Structures:
The lots are vacant.
8. Development Program: The com•lex as •ro•osed will c•• . '
of 4 500 s•. ft. of office sac-
residentia s ace and 3 75 sg ft.
• •. - -• - - • -11 aye
housin•, a total build out of 13 3 * •
•
•
9. Additional Review Requirements: .
Resi_ dential GMP .u. '••
•ndominiumization to assure acc-s •.
•- dam
s ace
GMP Exemption for EmPl —aYee units
Exemption from Parking Re uirements
S•ecial Review •r s •••
• .� ting
10. Miscellaneous: Th pex will be three l se•ara e u • ,•,
of a 1 500 s•. ft. office a 1 700 s•. ft. accessor r
400 sq ft. em loge aio and an 850 s. bedroom employee
unit. Each unit will also have a •ara•e:-
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
City Water
\/Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Aspen Fire District
Housing Office
Building Department
PLANNER: Colette Penne
RE: City Commercial GMP: East Hopkins Professional Office
DATE: August 5, 1983
Attached is the only City Commercial GMP application submitted this
year - the East Hopkins Professional Office and Townhome Complex.
The proposal is to develop a professional office and townhome
complex to be located on three lots containing 9,000 square feet
in the C -1 zone. The proposed commercial development consists
of three individual professional office and townhome units.
Two deed restricted employee units are also proposed to be constructed
on each of the three lots.
Please review the materials and return your comments to the Planning
Office by September 1 so that we may prepare for its presentation
at P &Z.
Thank you.
rms. fot Oeost: /'ic.irci Chti- JL SL - r> /3 y THE
A s ec__ Co a_ T. G.. D hV Cl> .J A A. I A n o.- n/ 1 7 tie r
ASVe.— S9'- hisr.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: /City Attorney
City Engineer
City Water
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Aspen Fire District
Housing Office
Building Department
PLANNER: Colette Penne
RE: City Commercial GMP: East Hopkins Professional Office
DATE: August 5, 1983
Attached is the only City Commercial GMP application submitted this
year - the East Hopkins Professional Office and Townhome Complex.
The proposal is to develop a professional office and townhome
complex to be located on three lots containing 9,000 square feet
in the C -1 zone. The proposed commercial development consists
of three individual professional office and townhome units.
Two deed restricted employee units are also proposed to be constructed
on each of the three lots.
Please review the materials and return your comments to the Planning
Office by September 1 so that we may prepare for its presentation
at P &Z.
Thank you. As' •
..„,
J (4,0 1
A .,,,c) .
er''
Y
' I
i@
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, Colorado 81611
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
FROM: Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority
(Karen Smith, Housing Authority Consultant)
DATE: August 31, 1983
This memorandum provides the Planning Office with the Housing
Authority's recommendation for the award of points for employee
housing provisions in this year's City and County commerical GMP
review. Recommendations were made at the Housing Authority's
August 29th meeting at which it considered the analysis and recom-
mendation of its staff (see memorandum to Housing Authority from
Karen Smith, dated August 24, 1983) and comments made by applicants
for the three County applications.
Issues of Interpretation
Several issues were discussed by the Authority which affected the
manner in which it scored the County applications. These included:
1. That Section 5 -510.6 of the Land Use Code directs the
Housing Authority to score applications on the basis of
commercial employee generation standards derived from
"a report documenting the number of employees generated
per square foot of commercial space for each type of space,
by category, which currently exists in the community ". The
report used by the Housing Authority is its Demand Analysis,
Table 2, July, 1983.
2. The award of "additional points" was based, according to
the stated intent of the regulation, on calculating the
percent of employees proposed to be housed which are to be
accommodated by the applicant in fully constructed dwelling
units. In other words, the formula for "additional points"
' Planning Office
August 31, 1983
Page Two
has nothing to do with total employees generated but
rather is calculated as follows:
number of employees housed in fully
constructed, deed restricted units
number of employees housed by applicant
3. According to BOCC Resolution 83 -53 , the minimum square
footage requirement "may be waived with the approval of
the Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority . . . upon demonstration
by a Lodge or Commercial applicant that he can and will
provide employee housing to the extent to which the demand
for low and moderately priced housing would be increased
by the proposed development." This resolution was adopted
subsequent to and therefore supercedes the commercial GMP
regulation which has contradictory language.
4. That the intent of the "additional points" section would be
met by an applicant who satisfactorily deed restricted a
rental unit despite code language referring to "the purchase
and subsequent deed restriction of a fully constructed unit."
A satisfactory deed restriction would not only restrict the
rental unit to Housing Authority rental guidelines for the
duration of its status as part of a rental project, but
would also extend to cover any future condominiumization
and subsequent sale of the unit.
COUNTY COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
1. AABC /Phoenix Ski
The Housing Authority recommends the award of 13 points for employee
housing in the AABC /Phoenix Ski application as calculated by the
Housing Office, contingent on a satisfactory deed restriction of a
fully constructed rental unit.
The Housing Office's calculation was made as follows:
Proposal Employee Generation
10,800 s.f.
6,400 s.f. manufacturing x .6/1000 = 3.8
3,000 s.f. warehouse x ,6/1000 = 1.8
1,400 s.f. office x 5/1000 = 7.0
12.6
' Planning Office
August 31, 1983
Page Three
Employee Housing Points
a. One 3 bedroom unit housing 4
employees 4/12.6 = 31.7% = 3 pts.
b. Additional points for deed restricting
fully constructed dwelling units, 100%
of the employees housed are housed in
such units = 10 pts.
Total 13 pts.
2. AABC /Car Wash
The Housing Authority recommends the award of 13 points for employee
housing in the AABC /Car Wash application as calculated by the Housing
Office contingent on a satisfactory deed restriction of a fully con-
structed rental unit.
The Housing Office's calculation was made as follows:
Proposal Employee Generation
5,012 s.f.
4,032 s.f. service /commercial/
warehouse x .6/1000 = 2.42
980 s.f. office x 5 /1000 = 4.9
7.32
Employee Housing Points
a. One 2 bedroom unit housing 2.7 employees
2.7/7.32 = 37% = 3 pts.
b. Additional points for deed restricting
fully constructed units, 100% of the
employees housed are housed in such
units = 10 pts.
Total 13 pts.
3. Sundeck Restaurant
The Housing Authority recommends the award of 13 points for employee
housing in the Sundeck Restaurant application as calculated by the
Housing Office, based on the special restaurant standard (recognizing
1
Based on 1 pt. for each 10% of employees generated which are housed.
Planning Office
August 31, 1983
Page Four
the seasonal nature) of 13 employees generated per 1,000 s.f. and
waiving the minimum square footage requirement based on the
uniqueness of the dorm units.
In considering the waiver of minimum square footage, the Housing
Authority took into account the fact that the units are for seasonal
employees, they actually house more employees than the standard
implies, they are provided rent free, and they can take advantage
of a considerable amount of common area.
The Housing Office's calculation was made as follows:
Proposal Employee Generation
2,080 s.f.
860 s.f. kitchen x 13/1000 = 11.18
640 s.f. storage x .6/1000 = .384
580 s.f. stairwell, hall, locker x .6/1000 = .348
11.912
Employee Housing Points
a. For the purposes of calculating employees housed, the three
units are equated to the nearest type of unit, or
one studio = 1 employee housed
one studio = 1 employee housed
one 2 bedroom = 2.7 employees housed
4.7/11.9 = 39.5% = 3 pts.
b. Additional points for deed restricting a
2 bedroom and a studio fully constructed
unit
3.7 employees in fully constructed units
4.7 employees = 78.7% = 10 pts.
Total 13 pts.
CITY COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION
The City Commercial GMP applications are scored on a different
basis than those in the County. The pertinent regulatory language
is as follows:
"Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule:
1 point for each five (5) per cent of the employees of the
project who are provided with employee housing either within
or outside of the city, through a net addition to the employee
housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted
unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted
status)."
Planning Office
August 31, 1983
Page Five
Generation of employees is calculated using a Planning Office
standard of 3.25/1000 square feet of commercial space. Additional
incentive points may be awarded where applicants provide housing
for more than 50% of the employees generated.
There is only one application, an office /townhouse complex, under
the City Commercial GMP. It is a two phased application with only
the commercial portion applied for now. The residential portion
will come in later this year.
The commercial portion is as follows:
Proposal Employee Generation'
4,500 s.f. (3 offices @ 1,500
s.f.) x 3.25/1000 = 14.625
Employee Housing Points
3 studios @ 400 s.f. housing 3 employees
3/14.625 = 20.5% = 4 points
(1 pt. for each 5% housed)
The application is not eligible for incentive points.
The Housing Authority recommends 4 points for employee housing
in the East Hopkins application.
cc: Gail Schwartz
GMP Applicants
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department j
DATE: August 31, 1983
RE: 1984 Commercial GMP
Having reviewed the single 1984 City of Aspen Commercial GMP
application for the East Hopkins Professional Office and
Townhome Complex we would offer the attached suggested
scoring in areas of concern to the City Engineering Department.
The project is located in a developed area of the Cl zone. It
is well serviced by all utilities and all lines are currently
underground. The only flaw evident in the current design
involves adequate provision of trash and utility areas adjacent
to the alley. I have already spoken with Bill Poss on this
matter and anticipate an updated design prior to scoring by
the P & Z.
JH /co
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name Tf 1 %.,n - ( C // 2X
Address L-06 ciP i `k qs
Owner \
Attorney/ gent /Representative ;(
Address (cam F ,y(
Reviewed by j Date f., - :n -frt,
I /' ^omits "n J : / _ I lb-
A. Public Facilities & Services
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
Z. *Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at publi expense.
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity without system upgrade.
3' Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff
ltit
,�SCry� 1py CcJ�'-N
Q , Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience.
0(H yerret
7, ; Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance.
Page 2
Growth Management .eview Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
O - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
/ Public Transportation (2 pts.)
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts.)
Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.)
Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24 -10.5)
A. Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw
2 - Acceptable
3 - Excellent
Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of landscaping, extend of under -
grounding of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation. 4
/j�� s _ /
Vp 1 *4: - �= � :.- = • Of-7 4A C ��/ u NG�Qti9/th rC
3 Amenities (3 pts.)
Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
-rid utility access areas _ ( r , 3 o pts.) ,(
r
III.Lodge Development Application (section 24 -10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
.� - .
i J
? 9 12,93 `
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ✓COLETTE PENNE- PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: EAST HOPKINS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE GMT APPLICATION
DATE: AUGUST 18, 1983
I have no problem with this application. Water is available from the 6" main
in Hopkins Street. However, we prefer not to have three 1" lines. We would
prefer that a fire /sprinkler system line be run into the building,or in lieu
of a fire /sprinkler system line a common service line,be run from the main
into the building and at the point of entry be branched into services for
the individual occupants with individual meters and shut -offs.
It is the policy of the Water Department to minimize the number of service
line connections to the main. It is for this reason that we would insist
upon a common supply line. If the applicant will agree to this condition,
we will provide service to the facility upon payment of the required tap
fees.
espectfully,
im Markalunas
irector
spen Water Department
cc: William John Poss and Associates
JM:lm
IS Iji
1 \1; �s AUG 19 1023 `
ASPEN •FrKIN CC'
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: East Hopkins Professional Office and Townhome Complex -
1983 City Commercial GMP
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be
held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday,
September 20, 1983 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
to consider this year's only application for a 1983 City Commercial
GMP allotment - the East Hopkins Professional Office and Townhome
Complex. The proposal is to develop a professional office and
townhome complex to be located on three lots containing 9,000
square feet (Lots C, D and E, Block 99 - south side of East Hopkins)
in the C -1 zone. For further information, contact the Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, 925 -2020, ext. 223.
Perry Harvey, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 18, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
Aug. 8, 1983
To Whom it May Concern;
As owners of lots C,D, and E, of Block 99 in Aspen, we intend to enter
into an agreement with William Poss for his purchase of these lots.
Until this purchase agreement is complete, !Y. Poss is working with
our full permission on plans for a commercial- residential development for
these lots.
Date 11,/ r'
G. y G. Trove
/ /
,( ., / Date 0 •
Leslie'. Troyer
t POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY _'
'.4..j.- ft,
STEWART TITLE tt
. +; GUARANTY COMPANY
• rN.
• , t: SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHED B AND
•`� THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY • :
'.1.14
:N.
COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called th Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in t
`" r S chedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs. attorneys' '
- fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by ; - r
• •
reason of:
. 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; tt-
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; or
•: .IS 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. 4 -
2:4,45' . 4. Unmarketability of such title
= . F... IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its ¢1-
> duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. y.}'
, r...
STEWVART TITLE
x
. Uq
GUARANTY Costewsr *,
y .01 lE C
° Countersigned: e ?+ • +- q
avpF }} 4
• r K It 19os .c
• n C riT
r ' . _ :, .�v!�✓ ,.. -: > - . ' r fxaS //7a . aiL" PTT
1{LV ;
' Authorized Countersignature President '`K`
r ; a
IF
Ips. 4
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
w;
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy: 4.
• ^ 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or 1s ,
prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character. dimensions or location of any improvement now or 4
Z • . hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect r p �
rep o f any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation. .
•r• ; lation. 4+P_
: �
•_ _},_ 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public rt.
"."+", records of Date of Policy. 3. .,
P: 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse claims. or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. lb) not 4
: known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date t. .
such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company l •
• e . prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) tip'
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or le) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured
claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. f4 `
_ Pagt p, 1. 65790 w'
„:• „ -. -.-r -' ,„.. tr. „ „. er, r-:= Po Serial No. O �� M M i t� M .+'a�[�'.':..
1
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS which might cause loss or damage for which the Company
•
The following terms when used in this policy mean: may be liable by virtue of this policy. If such prompt notice
• shall not be given to the Company, then as to such insured
(a) "insured ": the insured named in Schedule A, and, all liability of the Company shall .cease and terminate in
subject to any rights of defenses the Company may have regard to the matter or matters for which such prompt
had against the named insured, those who succeed to the notice is required; provided. however, that failure to notify
interest of such insured by operation of law as distinguished shall in no case prejudice the rights of any such insured
from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, dis- under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced
tributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next by such failure and then only to the extent of such
of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. prejudice.
(b) "insured claimant ": an insured claiming loss or (c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to
• damage hereunder. institute and without undue delay prosecute any action or
• (c) "knowledge ": actual knowledge, not constructive proceeding or do any other act which in its opinion may be
knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or
by reason of any public records. interest as insured. and the Company may take any
appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether
(d) "land": the land described, specifically or by or not it shall be liable thereunder, and shall not thereby
reference in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto concede liability or waive any provision of this policy.
which by law constitute real property; provided, however,
the term "land" does not include any property beyond the (d) Whenever the Company shall have brought any
lines of the area specifically described or referred to in action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by
Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any
in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or such litigation to final determination by a court of
waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in
extent to which a right of access to and from the land is its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or
insured by this policy. order.
(e) "mortgage ": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or (e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires
other security instrument. the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of
(f) "public records ": those records which by law any action or proceeding, the insured hereunder shall secure
impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land. to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide
defense in such action or proceeding, and all appeals
therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CON name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever recuested
VEYANCE OF TITLE by the Company, such insured shall give the Company all
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of reasonable aid in any such action or proceeding, in effecting
Date of Policy in favor of an insured so long as such insured settlement, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, or pros -
retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an ecuting or defending such action or proceeding, and the
indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given Company shall reimburse such insured for any expense so
by a purchaser from such insured, or so long as such insured incurred.
shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made
4. NOTICE OF LOSS — LIMITATION OF ACTION
by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such
estate or interest; provided, however, this policy shall not In addition to the notices required under paragraph
continue in force in favor of any purchaser from such 3(b) of these Conditions and Stipulations, a statement in
insured of either said estate or interest or the indebtedness writing of any joss or damage for which it is claimed the
secured by a purchase money mortgage given to such Company is liable under this policy shall be furnished to
insured, the Company within 90 days after such loss or damage shall
have been determined and no right of action shall accrue to
3. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS — an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall
NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY AN INSURED have been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of
CLAIMANT loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the Company
(a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue
under this policy as to such loss or damage.
delay, shall provide for the defense of an insured in all 5. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE
litigation consisting of actions or proceedings commenced CLAIMS
against such insured to the extent that such litigation is The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise
founded upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or settle for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim
other matter insured against by this policy. insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations
(b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in of the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment
writing li) in case any action or proceeding is begun as set of the amount of insurance under this policy together with
forth in (a) above, (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the
insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is time of such payment or tender of payment, by the insured
adverse to the title to the estate or interest as insured, and claimant and authorized by the Company.
(continued and concluded on last page of this policy)
4
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — AmenOec 10/17!7C
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 4495 Policy No.: 0 165790
Date of Policy: June 23, 1972 at 8:00 A.M. Amount of Insurance: $52,000.00
1. Name of Insured: LESLIE JEAN SMITH
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
in fee simple.
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
LESLIE JEAN SMITH
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
•Lots D and E, Block 99,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Authorized Countersignature
Paget STE' VART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SCHEDULE B
Policy No.: 0 165790
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an
accurate survey or inspection of the premises.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Community property, dower, curtesy, survivorship, or homestead rights, if any, of any spouse of
the insured.
6. Any titles or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations,
governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable
rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or gulf, or lands beyond the line of the harbor or bulkhead lines as
established or changed by the United States Govem.ment or water rights, if any.
7. Reservations contained in Patent from the United States of America or State where the land
described in Schedule A is located.
8. Restrictive Covenants affecting the property described in Schedule A.
9. Taxes for the year 19 72 and thereafter.
10. Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject
property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen
Street Improvement District and The City of Aspen.
11. Notwithstanding six months have not elapsed from the date of quiet title
decree of record, this policy guarantees fee ownership and possession in
accordance with its provisions, but does not guarantee marketability.
Marketability will be guaranteed beginning November 24, 1972, provided that
no steps have at that time been initiated to set aside or to otherwise impair
the effect or validity of the Decree recorded in Book 263 at page 869.
12. Deed of Trust from Leslie Jean Smith to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
for the use of First National Bank in Aspen to secure $38,000.00 dated
June 12, 1972 and recorded June 13, 1972 in Book 264 at page 406.
13. Deed of Trust from Leslie Jean Smith to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
for the use of Jean Vick Trousdale to secure $15,000.00 dated June 13,
1972 and recorded June 13, 1972 in Book 264 at page 409.
Authorized Countersignature STE \1'A R'F TITLE
Page3 GUARANTY COMPANY
•
• ^ONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Continued
(cot ,ed and concluded from reverse side of Polict el
6. DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF LOSS if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate
shall in no case exceed the least of: parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made
subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has
(i) the actual loss of the insured claimant; or otherwise been agreed upon as to each such parcel by the
(ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this
(b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss policy and shown by an express statement herein or by an
insured against by this policy, all costs imposed upon an endorsement attached hereto.
insured in litigation carried on by the Company for such 11. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLE -
insured, and all costs, attorneys' fees and expenses in MENT
litigation carried on by such insured with the written Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under
authorization of the Company. this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the
Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant
7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all
No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this rights and remedies which such insured claimant would
policy (a) if the Company, after having received notice of have had against any person or property in respect to such
an alleged defect, lien or encumbrance insured against claim had this policy not been issued, and if requested by
hereunder, by litigation or otherwise, removes such defect, the Company, such insured claimant shall transfer to the
lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as insured, Company all rights and remedies against any person or
within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice; (b) in
property necessary in order to perfect such right of
the event of litigation until there has been a final subrogation and shall permit the Company to use the name
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and of such insured claimant in any transaction or litigation
disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as involving such rights or remedies. If the payment does not
insured, as provided in paragraph 3 hereof; or (c) for cover the loss of such insured claimant, the Company shall
liability voluntarily assumed by an insured in settling any be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion
claim or suit without prior written consent of the Corn- which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss
should result from any act of such insured claimant, such
pang.'. act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that
8. REDUCTION OF LIABILITY event, shall be required to pay only that part of any losses
insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount, if
All payments under this policy, except payments made any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment of
for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the the right of subrogation
amount of the insurance pro tanto. No payment shall be 12. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY
made without producing this policy for endorsement of
such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in This instrument together with all endorsements and
which case proof of such loss or destruction shall be other instruments, if any, attached hereto by the Company
furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. is the entire policy and contract between the insured and
the Company.
9. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to
under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the the estate or interest covered hereby or any action asserting
Company may pay under any policy insuring either (a) a such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and
mortgage shown or referred to in Schedule B hereof which conditions and stipulations of this policy.
is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, or No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be
(b) a mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which is a made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto
charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred signed by either the President, a Vice President, the
to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or
payment under this policy. The Company shall have the authorized signatory of the Company.
option to apply to the payment of any such mortgages any
amount that otherwise would be payable hereunder to the 13. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
insured owner of the estate or interest covered by this All notices required to be given the Company and any
policy and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
under this policy to said insured owner. shall be addressed to it at its main office, P. 0. Box 2029,
Houston, Texas 77001.
10. APPORTIONMENT 14. The premium specified in Schedule A is the entire
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or charge for acceptance of risk. It includes charges for
more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is title search and examination if same is customary or
established affecting one or more of said parcels but not all, required to be shown in the state in which the policy is
the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as issued.
Valid Only If Schedules A and B are Attached. S '1' E R '1' T
GUARANTY COMPANY
y
f �> {A 4 4latee, n I!D t044rt4 44 4' 4 4 � . .. 4 i.
rr POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
• : -
STENVART TITLE
GUARA COMPANY
{ 9
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
� • ' Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs attorneys'
fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by
reason of: ;.'.
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
S
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; or c;
1:. 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. '+�
:g- 4. Unmarketability of such title st.. -:
nts - - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its ry -&
a duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
•
t, rry
•
STEWART TITLE Y '
GUARANTY COMPANY - .,
Countersigned: �` • ••• : •'
L`v t ° c O OkPOR 4t cA', l''. :
' 'V' 1 ?o $
Chairman
_ % /.l Li • I II...... .
• Authorized Countersig Pure / _ President
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVE - r:
_ The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy: it'
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or i
�' prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or I'. '
hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect tg
1 of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation. �F
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public �• `� •
records of Date of Policy. i f
<, t" 3. Defects. liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other natters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not
known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date �,
.' such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company M
.' prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no Toss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) • r
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured (t ,• '*
f :' claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. c
4 nit • 111 . �� � ���.� Pale l Se 0 217 0 9 8 -a °° '�' "1IT JI
_. • _ _ Policy Serial NO.
_ R: errs tea • _ e'.:� iz'x C+ _ 441 eV: :h M Cvi ti' " +T.
001 b 1
•
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS which might cause loss or damage for which the Company
The following terms when used in this policy mean: may be liable by virtue of this policy. If such prompt notice
shall not be given to the Company, then as to such insured
(a) "insured ": the insured named in Schedule A, and, all liability of the Company shall cease and terminate in
subject to any rights of defenses the Company may have -
regard to the matter or matters for which such prompt
had against the named insured, those who succeed to the notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify
interest of such insured by operation of law as distinguished shall in no case prejudice the rights of any such insured
from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, dis- under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced
tributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next by such failure and then only to the extent of such
of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. prejudice.
(b) "insured claimant ": an insured claiming loss or ( The Company shall have the right at its own cost to
damage hereunder. institute and without undue delay prosecute any action or
(c) "knowledge ": actual knowledge, not constructive proceeding or do any other act which in its opinion may be
knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or
by reason of any public records. interest as insured, and the Company may take any
appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether
(d) "land": the land described, specifically by or not it shall be liable thereunder, and shall not thereby
reference in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto
which by law constitute real property: provided, however, concede liability or waive any provision of this policy.
the term "land" does not include any property beyond the (d) Whenever the Company shall have brought any
lines of the area specifically described or referred to in action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by
Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any
in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or such litigation to final determination by a court of
waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in
extent to which a right of access to and from the and is its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or
insured by this policy. order.
(e) "mortgage ": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or (e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires
other security instrument. the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of
(f) "public records' those records which by law any action or proceeding, the insured hereunder shall secure
impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land. to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide
defense in such action or proceeding, and all appeals
therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CON- name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever requested
VEYANCE OF TITLE by the Company, such insured shall give the Company all
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of reasonable aid in any such action or proceeding, in effecting
Date of Poiicy in favor of an insured so long as such insured settlement, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, or pros -
retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an ecuting or defending such action or proceeding, and the
indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given Company shall reimburse such insured for any expense so
by a purchaser from such insured, or so long as such insured incurred.
shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made 4. NOTICE OF LOSS — LIMITATION OF ACTION
by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such
estate or interest; provided, however, this policy shall not In addition to the notices required under paragraph
continue in force in favor of any purchaser from such 3(b) of these Conditions and Stipulations, a statement in
insured of either said estate or interest or the indebtedness writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the
secured by a purchase money mortgage given to such Company is liable under this policy shall be furnished to
insured. the Company within 90 days after such loss or damage shall
have been determined and no right of action shall accrue to
3. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS — an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall
NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY AN INSURED have been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of
CLAIMANT loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the Company
(a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue under this policy as to such loss or damage.
delay, shall provide for the defense of an insured in all 5. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE
litigation consisting of actions or proceedings commenced CLAIMS
against such insured to the extent that such litigation is The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise
founded upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or settle for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim
other matter insured against by this policy. insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations
(b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in of the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment
writing (1) in case any action or proceeding is begun as set of the amount of insurance under this policy together with
forth in (al above, (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the
insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is time of such payment or tender of payment, by the insured
adverse to the title to the estate or interest as insured, and claimant and authorized by the Company.
(continued and concluded on last page of this policy)
»LTA OWNER'S POLICY — Amenaea 10'17,70
SCHEDULE A
4
Order No.: 5490 Policy No.: 0 217098
Date of Policy: July 1, 1974 @ 8:00 a.m. Amount of Insurance: $ 60,000.00
1. Name of Insured: Gerald G. Troyer
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
in fee simple.
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
Gerald G. Troyer •
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
Lot C, Block 99,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF Aspen.
S ✓nnm 0 (. ;rut,
Page2 STENVART TITLE
0012 GUARANTY COMPANY
SCHEDULE B
Policy No.: 0 217098
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an
accurate survey or inspection of the premises.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records. .
5. Community property, dower, curtesy, survivorship, or homestead rights, if any, of any spouse of
the insured.
6. Any titles or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations,
governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable
rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or gulf, or lands beyond the line of the harbor or bulkhead lines as
established or changed by the United States Government or water rights, if any.
7. Reservations contained in Patent from the United States of America or Stale where the land
described in Schedule A is located. •
8. Restrictive Covenants affecting the property described in Schedule A.
9. Taxes for the year 19 74 and thereafter. and any special assessments or charges not
yet certified to the office of the County Treasurer.
10. "The full, free and perpetual right to dig, work, search for, mine and remove
all ores and mineral bearing rock and earth underneath" subject property. "
and the party of the Second part for himself, his heirs and assigns hereby covenants
and agrees to work, mine and remove said ores, metals and mineral— bearing earth
and rock so as to protect the surface of said lots and premises and any and all
improvements thereon from any and all damage or injury on account thereof ", as
set forth in Mining Deed from John R. Williams and E. A. Herrick to James D.
Hooper recorded June 10th, 1891 in Book 98 at page 497.
(The company hereby insures the insured against any and all loss or damage to
the improvements resulting from the use or exercise of the right, if any, to
enter upon the surface as reserved therein.)
11. A tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject
property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen
Street Improvement District and the City of Aspen.
12. Deed of Trust from Gerald G. Troyer to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
for the use of Elbert C. Tacker and Emma Lou Tacker to secure $42,600.00
dated June 15, 1974 and recorded June 26, 1974 in Book 288 at page 714.
• STEW1'A1tT TITLE
0013 Page3 GUARANTY COMPANY'
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Continued 1
Icon d and concluded from reverse side of Policy 1
i
6. DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF LOSS if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy Of each separate
shall in no case exceed the least of: parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made
subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has
(i) the actual loss of the insured claimant; or otherwise been agreed upon as to each such parcel by the
(ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this _
(b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss policy and shown by an express statement herein or by an
insured against by this policy, all costs imposed upon an endorsement attached hereto.
insured in litigation carried on by the Company for such 11. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLE -
insured, and all costs, attorneys' fees and expenses in MENT
litigation carried on by such insured with the written Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under
authorization of the Company. this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the
(c) When liability has been definitely fixed in accord- Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant.
ante with the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all
shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. rights and remedies which such insured claimant would
7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY have had against any person or property in respect to such
No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this claim had this policy not been issued, and if requested by
policy (a) if the Company, after having received notice of the Company. such insured claimant shall transfer to the
an alleoed defect, lien or encumbrance insured against Company al: rights and remedies against any person or
hereunder, by litigation or otherwise, removes such defect, property necessary in order to perfect such right of
lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as insured, subrogation and shall permit the Company to use the name
within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice; (b) in of such insured claimant in any transaction or litigation
the event of litigation until there has been a final involving such rights or remedies. If the payment does not
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and cover the loss of such insured claimant, the Company shall
disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion
insured, as provided in paragraph 3 hereof; or (c) for which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss
liability voluntarily assumed by an insured in settling any should result from any act of such insured claimant, such
claim or suit without prior written consent of the Com- act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that
event, shall be required to pay only that part of any losses
pang. insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount, if
S. REDUCTION OF LIABILITY any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment of
All payments under this policy, except payments made the right of subrogation.
for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the 12. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY
amount of the insurance pro tanto. No payment shall be
made without producing this policy for endorsement of This instrument together with all endorsements and .
such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in other instruments, if any, attached hereto by the Company
which case proof of such loss or destruction shall be is the entire policy and contract between the insured and
furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. the Company.
9. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on
negligence. and which arises out of the status of the title to
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance the estate or interest covered hereby or any action asserting
under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and
Company may pay under any policy insuring either (al a conditions and stipulations of this policy.
mortgage shown or referred to in Schedule B hereof which
is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, or No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be
(b) a mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which is a made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto
charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred signed by either the President, a Vice President, the
to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or
•
payment under this policy. The Company shall have the authorized signatory of the Company.
option to apply to the payment of any such mortgages any 13. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
amount that otherwise would be payable hereunder to the All notices required to be given the Company and any
insured owner of the estate or interest covered by this statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
policy and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment shall be addressed to it at its main office, P. O. Box 2029,
under this policy to said insured owner. Houston, Texas 77001.
10. APPORTIONMENT 14. The premium specified in Schedule A is the entire
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or charge for acceptance of risk. It includes charges for
more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is title search and examination if same is customary or
established affecting one or more of said parcels but not all, required to be shown in the state in which the policy is
the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as issued. ,
• Valid Only If Schedules A and B are Attached. S rl' EM'A I2 'I' 'I'I rI' L E .
GUARANTY COMPANY
, i L\(:
c.A. aV.
MEMORANDUM
TO: GMP Files
FROM: Alan Richman 4
c ko c P
RE: Commercial and Lodge Quotas for 1983 FAe S
DATE: August 9, 1983
Following is an analysis of the quotas available in Aspen for commercial and
lodge allocations in 1983.
COMMERCIAL
City Council Resolution 58, series of 1981 eliminated any excess allocations
remaining from previous years. The following table traces the actions concern-
ing the commercial quotas in 1982.
Zone Quota Exemptions Allocations Remaining
CC /C -1 10,000 - 1027 - 8510 463
NC /SCI 7,000 0 - 7000 0
Office 4,000 0 0 4,000
CL and Other 3,000 - 433 0 2,567
City Council Resolution 32, series of 1982 carried over the remaining quotas for
allocation in 1983.
During the period 8/1/82 to 7/31/83, the following commercial activities were
undertaken which are to be deducted from the quotas.
1. Aspen Club, 205 square foot addition, CL and other zone.
2. Thrift Shop, 1,440 square foot building, CC /C -1 zone.
3. Pro Shop, 2,428 square foot building, CL and other zone.
4. Poppies Restaurant, 608 square foot addition, CL and other zone.
Based on these activities, following are the quotas available for commercial
allocation in 1983.
Zone Carry Over Quota Exemptions Remaining
CC /C -1 463 10,000 - 1,440 9,023
NC /SCI 0 7,000 0 7,000
Office 4,000 4,000 0 8,000
CL and Other 2,567 3,000 - 3,241 2,326
It is also important to note that on October 1, 1983 the following project
allocation in the CC /C -1 zone will expire:
A Garden Office Building - 9,656 square feet
This allocation should be accounted for in any Council resolution carrying
forward or eliminating quotas from previous years.
MEMO: Commercial and Lodge Quotas for 1983
Page Two
August 9, 1983
LODGE
As of the 1982 Lodge competition in the City of Aspen, I had identified an
available quota of 76 units. Last year a 26 unit allocation was awarded to
the Carriage House. A 1983 31 unit allocation to the Lodge at Aspen remains
tied up due to a lawsuit concerning the Aspen Inn. No other allocations have
been given out without construction having been started and the allocation
having previously expired.
The 1983 Lodge quota has been established as 35 units in the L -1, L -2, CC and
CL zone and 10 units in the L -3 zone. Therefore, including the carryover from
prior years, the quota available for allocation in 1983 is 85 units in the L -1,
L -2, CC and CL zone and 10 units in the L -3 zone.
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
TO o ,' KYCI-HVIND DATE f u lha I 19
PROJECT =il U 118.4iS _.- U JOB Nom
t 1.
..M.1 _-. t c:v
SUBJECT
COPIES DESCRIPTION DATE
31-17 4 : w' pi7 a
' Mt (50(MAKTreL-
Uri G pa. 11x91 ► , 7t
xis - dUl - 0 3 1 197Z-
BVINL, CC
william john poss • architecture • aspen, colorado • telephone (303) 925 -4755
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
TO i 0 0 DATE -6
. ' 4 MV elf DIP 1:
PROJECT 0 . .. . l �1�./ci U- 1. JOB NO em
- COVIVVI DESCRIPTION DATE
....._.- _.- .._. -.....
4 ,:t',\
�f ..
S 'af`i p
f � >
1 ,'
f X 1 4. n
s
�
BY ccrt, t pc k s--- c c
william john poss • architecture • aspen, colorado • telephone (303) 925 -4755