HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.East Hopkins Professional Townhome.1984 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
•
Project: e . T t opiehu5 ej f li ("011 17 J 414"- o r9
¢
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
•The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
•
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 1
Comment:
•
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
• Rating I —
Comment: -
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
disclose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
• Rating 2
Comment:
•
Page Two
Residential GMI' Sconlig •
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating 1
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating 1
Comment: .
• Subtotal
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 1
Comment:
r
Page Three .�
Residential GMP Scoring
•
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating 7
Comment:
•
d. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating 2
Comment:
•
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density Of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal 1-
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
- 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be considered a three- quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
Comment:
1
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment: -
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal /IA)
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
•
•
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
/� Rating
Comment: E../�'ett1Ar i4 q e �
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6 1
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member: j/tt/ /'
•
•
•
t
•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATIOI4
A i iii iNTIAL PROPOSALS •
Project: i.:. y,1„ !._ /4 Wi o, Date: /
di
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by' existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
•
Rating 1 _
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating 2
Comment:
•
Page Two
Residential GMP Sco'Thy
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according\ to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
•
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating
•
Comment:
•
Subtotal o
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
•
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating ( --;2_.
- Comment:
' ' Page three •-
Residential GMP Scoring
•
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). •
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
•
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating _
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). •
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
• The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be considered a three - quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Ratingcr
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
-
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtota
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
f
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
�s z
Points in Categories 5 and 6 - J
1
TOTAL POINTS
S. U
Name of P & Z Membe
•
•
Y
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENT L PROPOSALS
Project: n4 /0 4 Date: A . 9 +►
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled byTexisting level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating l'
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating 1
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating 'l/
Comment:
•
Page Two
Residential GMP Scoffing
d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
• fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating. J
•
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. II
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
•
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating 1
Comment:
Subtotal
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
•
Page lln•ee
Residential GMP Scoring
•
•
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
•
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating )
Comment:
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
Comment:
•
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density Of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal i1
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation .(maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating j
. N
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating :m
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be a three- quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating 17
Comment:
b.' Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
1
w.+
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
t11/
•
v
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Tw0140-111-
Project: S. t ? SSlal. (___ CD1,1PLb( Date: ( [ 17
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 1
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
' developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating 1
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating 2 -
Comment:
Page Two
•
Residential GMP Scoi~Ing
d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
• established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating /
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating /
Comment:
Subtotal 7
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 1
Comment: I / udd n y i5 /loSl *o/) �jC�
Page Three 0
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating 2-
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating 3
Comment:
•
d. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating Z
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating 2
Comment:
Subtotal /0
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
•
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
• - 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
•
Rating 3
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating L
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be a three - quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating 20
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
•
t f
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS 43
Name of P & Z Member: /L(7�
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS / ,� y S Project: L j' JU 40A 7 --1 i'JvFesS%CDr// - a pate: I /T
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). •
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:,
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
' developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
• Rating
Comment.
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
distiose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
/� Rating 2
Comment: a/'s, /AjeiGS qlc'&
•
Page Two
Residential GMI' Scuttny •
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
' fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
///
Rating
Comment: W5l1 2 13(-001S
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
/ t"
Comment: ON 6 11- --- Vic1/4 taywv,64G/-L t & /
Posing6 -- / CT/ J tin/ /7 / s wint /(E5/ A6oLitrL - -
7-!f ems w poor 5
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating _ t
Comment:
Subtotal
•
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating v
- Comment: ceti-C) nVe 6iC Ul�� j f A-7 lc ZL�
Page lhree
Residential GMP Scoring
•
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). •
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating �/�
C ent: t4I 1d MIxa w,SC ?R 4 01
I ape
•
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
641(171 r
•
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
' U 2i
Comment: l — KM
DelAMIAC_ 4-
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
•
Rating
Comment !'` . e ' d//14S " .9 1/C- /6
ZS D
cn
Subtotal / ' o
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
' The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
• 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a neap depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
•
Subtotal I(
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). )'76 Z
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be considered a three - quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for ach 5 percent).
Rating 20
Comment: 4
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment: _,
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Z /4
Rating
Comment: _ L t /y GCIJ' /� e ite /�t/ ,7- S
O 2 %/ tv ana 4Y d cc� / � '6 /6 771-- i / Ii
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 A-54
Points in Categories 5 and 6 1
,��
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member: — Thetfro (
•
•
•
•
•
.
�..* -
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: /c17 bil/1/' r //f Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating (
Comment:
•
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating 2_
Comment:
Page Two
Residential GMP ;coring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
• Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating. (.
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
Rating �
Comment:
Subtotal 7
2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project 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
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 02 S
Comment:
•
Page puree �..�
Residential GMP Scoring
•
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating 2
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
d. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating 2
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating Z
Comment:
Subtotal /
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation . (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating 3
N. s �.
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal G
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be a three - quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating 2
Comment:
b.' Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal '
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
•
•
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating 3
�nn - d .
Comment: ! /'�X� use /7 ✓�� / is i / Art?) - uc�.r i vY�ir�` - P
C�wse /w eAtefr e e / ov " / v` Act) aric Are (cite / 9,724,-A ( —
K a1/
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS F
/
Name of P & Z Member:
•
6
7
,r Z
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET // C
City of Aspen Q 6�C o
CASE NO. n C��`��'1
T� [' STAFF: "\C\n ARct
PROJECT NAME: C p'Yt nuOr�“NS <TO h�O .e , - bSbM�twna,.J) S-Aonk ,,J l e6 —e a to 1/4.
((��
APPLICANT: \) . \\ \" o SS Phone : 5 "el S S
REPRESENTATIVE: 5 K N"C— Phone:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (FEE)
I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00)
3. Final Plat ($ 820.00)
II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00)
-- 3. Final Plat ($ 820.00)
V/ III. EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00)
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. Other: /
P &Z MEETING DATE: "t a� CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED: -34 l
REFERRALS:
v ity Attorney Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
�/ / //p City Engineer Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
V Housing Director Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
Aspen Water Dept. _Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
_City Electric Fire Marshall Building Dept.
Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: .7 n�g�
�/
)(City Attorney /(City Engineer /� Building Dept.
_Other: Other:
.1.
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
„ma—
DISPOSITION: / `
CITY P &Z REVIEW: E/ .2 X LL ((��((�� 1
66677Y"T77T "' t may/ '��'���"' 111 s re
/YTA'Iz n
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
I
-' ! .■ I. 1 .s! % An ... r
Ordinance No.
CITY P &Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
L
t .:'
Ordinance No.
:--�
Page 3
• housing.
PLANNING OFFICE AND PLANNING AND ZONITTG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
• The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
• that Council approve the proposals. Should Council agree with the
recommendation, the appropriate motion would be as follows:
"Move to approve the GNP exemption for employee units, subdivision
exception for condominiumization, and special review for exemption
from the employee parking requirements subject to the following
conditions:
•
1. The three (3) two - bedroom employee units shall be deed -
restricted to the 1984 price and income guidelines for
the low- income category.
2. The studios shall be deed- restricted to the 1984 price
and income guidelines for the middle-income category and
the proposed 450 s.f. units shall be increased to a minimum
of no less than 500 s.f. (the applicant will provide an
additional 50 s.f. of storage space per unit subgrade).
3. The standard 50 year deed - restriction shall be placed on
the employee units, and documentation of the applicants'
agreement to the housing restrictions shall be signed with
the Housing Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
•
4. In the event of conclominiumization, the employee units
will be sold within the price and income guidelines that
apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy
and that a resale agreement shall be drawn up by the applicant
and submitted to the Housing Authority for its approval.
5. There shall be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement
that if any of the employee units are sold to an employee
employeed on -site and that employee's employment should
terminate, the unit shall remain restricted to the respective
low- or middle - income guidelines for rental and the employer
shall have the first option to buy back the unit.
6. The applicants shall prepare a plat meeting the final condo-
minium plat requirements of Section 20 -15 to be approved
by the City Engineer prior to recording.
7. The applicants shall prepare a "Statement of Subdivision
Exception" to be approved by the City Attorney prior to
recording, including a limitation that all residential
units shall be restricted to six (G) month minimum leases,
with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
8. The applicants shall agree to join any improvement districts
which may be formed in the area in the future."
=RANDOM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex - GMP Exemption,
Parking Reduction, Special Review for FAR Bonus and Subdivision
Exception
DATE: May 29, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Land use approvals requested by this application include:
1. GMP Exemption for employee units;
2. Special Review for FAR Bonus;
3. Subdivision Exception for condominiumization; and
4. Special Review for an Exemption from the employee housing
parking requirement.
The 9,000 s.f. site is located directly east of 601 E. Hopkins (Lots
C, D and E, Block 99) and is zoned C -1. The site is currently vacant.
GMP Exemption for Employee Units
A GMP Exemption for six (6) employee housing units is appropriate
since each of the six (6) units will be deed - restricted to the either
low- or middle- income guidelines. The three (3) studio units (450
s.f. each) will be restricted to middle- income and the three (3)
2- bedroom units (850 s.f. each) will be restricted to the low- income
guidelines, as represented in the original GMP applications.
The Housing Authority recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
"1. That the three (3) 2- bedroom employee units be deed - restricted
to the 1984 price and income guidelines for the low- income
category.
2. That the studios be deed - restricted to middle- income guidelines
and the proposed 450 s.f. be increased to a minimum of
no less than 500 s.f. (the applicant has agreed to add
50 s.f. of storage space per studio unit subgrade where
it does not count against FAR).
3. That the standard 50 year deed- restriction be placed on
the employee units and that this agreement be signed with
Housing Authority and filed with the City of Aspen prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That if the condominiumization is approved, the employee
units will be sold within the price and income guidelines
that apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of
occupancy and that a resale agreement be drawn by the applicant
and submitted to the Housing Authority for approval.
5. That there be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement
that if the units are sold to an employee of the project
and the employee terminates, that the unit revert hack
to the middle- income guidelines for rental and that the
employer buy back the unit."
V• n !w[
Page 2
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR BONUS (The FAR bonus was granted by P &Z at
their meeting on May 22, 1984. The following information regarding
FAR bonus is provided for your information only.)
The C -1 zone district permits up to a 1:1 FAR of commercial space
or, in this case, 9,000 s.f. An additional .5:1 FAR may be permitted
by Special Review with .2:1 additional commercial if at least .3:1
deed- restricted employee housing space is provided. The following
table describes the project floor areas, internal floor areas, and
demonstrates that the FAR bonus request is appropriate and consistent
with the Code requirement:
AREA INTERNAL FAR
Professional Office /Townhome 9,600 1.07
Employee Units __1,900 �d
TOTAL 13,500 1.50
In the GPM review process(es) which preceeded this review, it was
demonstrated that the necessary public and private facilities, including
utilities, were available to serve the development. The proposal
is consistent with the Area and Bulk Requirements of the C -1 zone
district.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION
The project is proposed to be condominiumized into nine (9) separate
units:
3 professional office /accessory residential units @ 3,200 s.f. each
3 two- bedroom low- income restricted units @ 850 s.f. each
3 studio middle- income restricted units @ 450 s.f. each (each
unit will also have 50 s.f. of subgrade storage)
Since this is currently vacant, the only condition from Section 20-
23 of the Code which must apply to this request is the six month
minimum lease restriction.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING PARKING REDUCTION
According to Section 24- 4.1(c), the parking requirements for employee
restricted units are to be established by special review of City
Council with recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Off- street parking is not required for uses other than restricted
units in the C -1 zone.
The standard parking requirement for restricted residential units
in the C -1 zone is one (1) space per bedroom (Sections 24 -4.5 and
24 5.1[a]). Counting the three (3) studios as one - bedroom each,
the parking standard for this project is nine (9) spaces.
This application requests an exemption from the parking requirements
for the employee units. Instead, six (6) spaces are provided on-
site which will be designated for use by the three (3) professional /town-
home units. The applicant argues that the unique concept of the
project, i.e., living and working in the same place, is in itself
an auto disincentive. He also noted the proximity of the project
to the downtown core and mass transit.
The City Engineering Department commented that the parking reduction
would certainly impact on- street parking.
The incremental impact which this project will have on on- street
parking is probably tolerable given the auto disincentive which is
inherent in living close to employment and services. We view the
impact on parking as the trade -off necessary to obtain the employee
r >
Page 3
housing.
PLANNING OFFICE AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
that Council approve the proposals. Should Council agree with the
recommendation, the appropriate motion would be as follows:
"Move to approve the CEP exemption for employee units, subdivision
exception for condominiumization, and special review for exemption
from the employee parking requirements subject to the following
conditions:
1. The three (3) two- bedroom employee units shall be deed -
restricted to the 1984 price and income guidelines for
the low- income category.
2. The studios shall be deed- restricted to the 1984 price
and income guidelines for the middle- income category and
the proposed 450 s.f. units shall be increased to a minimum
of no less than 500 s.f. (the applicant will provide an
additional 50 s.f. of storage space per unit subgrade).
3. The standard 50 year deed- restriction shall be placed on
the employee units, and documentation of the applicants'
agreement to the housing restrictions shall be signed with
the Housing Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. In the event of condominiumization, the employee units
will be sold within the price and income guidelines that
apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy
and that a resale agreement shall be drawn up by the applicant
and submitted to the Housing Authority for its approval.
5. There shall be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement
that if any of the employee units are sold to an employee
employeed on -site and that employee's employment should
terminate, the unit shall remain restricted to the respective
low- or middle- income guidelines for rental and the employer
shall have the first option to buy back the unit.
6. The applicants shall prepare a plat meeting the final condo-
minium plat requirements of Section 20 -15 to be approved
by the City Engineer prior to recording.
7. The applicants shall prepare a "Statement of Subdivision
Exception" to be approved by the City Attorney prior to
recording, including a limitation that all residential
units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases,
with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
8. The applicants shall agree to join any improvement districts
which may be formed in the area in the future."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROII: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex - GMP Exemption,
Parking Reduction, Special Review for FAR Bonus and Subdivision
Exception
DATE: May 22, 1984
Land use approvals requested by this application include:
1. GMP Exemption for employee units;
* -e- 2. Special Review for FAR Bonus;
3. Subdivision Exception for condominiumization; and
4. Special Review for an Exemption from the employee housing
parking requirement.
The 9,000 s.f. site is located directly east of 601 E. Hopkins (Lots
C, D and E, Block 99) and is zoned C -1. The site is currently vacant.
GMP Exemption for Employee Units
A GMP Exemption for six (6) employee housing units is appropriate
since each of the six (6) units will be deed- restricted to the either
low- or middle- income guidelines. The three (3) studio units (450
s.f. each) will be restricted to middle - income and the three (3)
2- bedroom units (850 s.f. each) will be restricted to the low- income
guidelines, as represented in the original GNP applications.
The Housing Authority recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
"1. That the three (3) 2- bedroom employee units be deed - restricted
to the 1984 price and income guidelines for the low- income
category.
2. That the studios be deed - restricted to middle- income guidelines
and the proposed 450 s.f. be increased to a minimum of
no less than 500 s.f. (the applicant has agreed to add
50 s.f. of storage space per studio unit subgrade where
it does not count against FAR).
3. That the standard 50 year deed- restriction be placed on
the employee units and that this agreement be signed with
Housing Authority and filed with the City of Aspen prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That if the condominiumization is approved, the employee
units will be sold within the price and income guidelines
that apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of
occupancy and that a resale agreement be drawn by the applicant
and submitted to the Housing Authority for approval.
5. That there be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement
that if the units are sold to an employee of the project
and the employee terminates, that the unit revert back
to the middle- income guidelines for rental and that the
employer buy back the unit."
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR BONUS
The C -1 zone district permits up to a 1:1 FAR of commercial space
Page 2
or, in this case, 9,000 s.f. An additional .5:1 FAR may be permitted
by Special Review with .2:1 additional commercial if at least .3:1
deed - restricted employee housing space is provided. The following
table describes the project floor areas, internal floor areas, and
demonstrates that the FAR bonus request is appropriate and consistent
with the Code requirement:
AREA INTERNAL FAR
Professional Office /Townhome 9,600 1.07
Employee Units 3.9Q9 .43
TOTAL 13,500 1.50
In the GMP review process(es) which preceeded this review, it was
demonstrated that the necessary public and private facilities, including
utilities, were available to serve the development. The proposal
is consistent with the Area and Bulk Requirements of the C -1 zone
district.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION
The project is proposed to be condominiumized into nine (9) separate
units:
3 professional office /accessory residential units @ 3,200 s.f. each
3 two - bedroom low- income restricted units @ 850 s.f. each
3 studio middle- income restricted units @ 450 s.f. each (each
unit will also have 50 s.f. of subgrade storage)
Since this is currently vacant, the only condition from Section 20-
23 of the Code which must apply to this request is the six month
minimum lease restriction.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING PARKING REDUCTION
According to Section 24- 4.1(c), the parking requirements for employee
restricted units are to be established by special review of City
Council with recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Off- street parking is not required for uses other than restricted
units in the C -1 zone.
The standard parking requirement for restricted residential units
in the C -1 zone is one (1) space per bedroom (Sections 24 -4.5 and
24- 5.1[a]). Counting the three (3) studios as one - bedroom each,
the parking standard for this project is nine (9) spaces.
This application requests an exemption from the parking requirements
for the employee units. Instead, six (6) spaces are provided on-
site which will be designated for use by the three (3) professional /town-
home units. The applicant argues that the unique concept of the
project, i.e., living and working in the same place, is in itself
an auto disincentive. He also noted the proximity of the project
to the downtown core and mass transit.
The City Engineering Department commented that the parking reduction
would certainly impact on- street parking.
The incremental impact which this project will have on on- street
parking is probably tolerable given the auto disincentive which is
inherent in living close to employment and services. [•le view the
impact on parking as the trade -off necessary to obtain the employee
housing.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission approve
e •
Page 3
the proposals with the following motion:
"Move to recommend approval of the GMP exemption for employee
units, subdivision exception for condominiumization, and special
review for exemption from the employee parking requirements
and move to grant special review approval for the FAR bonus
to an FAR of 1.5 :1, subject to the following conditions:
1. The three (3) two- bedroom employee units shall be deed -
restricted to the 1984 price and income guidelines for
the low- income category.
2. The studios shall be deed - restricted to the 1984 price
and income guidelines for the middle- income category and
the proposed 450 s.f. units shall be increased to a minimum
of no less than 500 s.f. (the applicant will provide an
additional 50 s.f. of storage space per unit subgrade).
3. The standard 50 year deed- restriction shall be placed on
the employee units, and documentation of the applicants'
agreement to the housing restrictions shall be signed with
the Housing Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. In the event of condominiumization, the employee units
will be sold within the price and income guidelines that
apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy
and that a resale agreement shall be drawn up by the applicant
and submitted to the Housing Authority for its approval.
5. There shall be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement
that if any of the employee units are sold to an employee
employeed on -site and that employee's employment should
terminate, the unit shall remain restricted to the respective
low- or middle- income guidelines for rental and the employer
shall have the first option to buy back the unit.
6. The applicants shall prepare a plat meeting the final condo-
/ minium plat requirements of Section 20 -15 to be approved
by the City Engineer prior to recording.
7. The applicants shall prepare a "Statement of Subdivision
�,�Q Exception" to be approved by the City Attorney prior to
• recording, including a limitation that all residential
units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases,
with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
8. The applicants shall agree to join any improvement districts
which may be formed in the area in the future.
.4
Rox �r
• •
and associates
605 EAST MAIN STREET / ASPEN, CO. 81611 / 303.925 -4755
April 16, 1984
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Subsequent Reviews /East Hopkins Townhomes.
Dear Richard,
This letter is a request to begin the process of subsequent reviews re-
quired to secure my residential and commercial GMP allotment.
The required reviews are as follows:
1. Exemption from GMP allotment for the employee units.
2. F.A.R. bonus for employee units.
3. Exemption for required off street parking requirements for employee
units.
4. Condominiumization of project.
The following is a brief analysis of each review:
1. Exemption from GMP allotment for employee units.
Section 24 -11.2 (F) provides for exemption of deed restricted em-
ployee units from GMP allotment procedures. To comply with this
section a summary is provided which outlines these units.
3 - Studio Apts. - 450 S.F. each
Deed restricted for sale and /or rental, under City of Aspen
middle income eligibility guidelines.
3 - 2 Bedroom Apts. - 850 S.F. each
Deed restricted for sale and /or rental, under City of Aspen
low income eligibility guidelines.
architecture and planning
41ZO
, 2. Approval of F.A.R. bonus for employeeu ts.
Section 24 -3.4 (11) internal floor area ratio, under area and bulk
requirements allows for an F.A.R. bonus of.5:1 by special review.
The following table outlines the project floor areas and internal
floor area ratios.
Area Internal F.A.R.
Professional Office Townhome 9600 1.07
Employee Units 3900 .43
Total 13,500 1.50
3. Exemption of required off street parking for employee units
The unique concept of this project, allows the professional to com-
bine housing himself, family and employees within the complex they
work. The concept in itself is an auto disincentive with regards
to design, location to downtown core and access to city and county
bus systems. The Aspen code does not require off street parking in
the C -1 zone. [sec. 24 -4.1 (A)] Two off street parking spaces are
provided for the accessory residental units.
4. Condominiumization
The project will be condominiumized into individual units as fol-
lows:
3 Professional Office /Accessory Residential Units
3 Two Bedroom Deed Restricted Employee Units
3 Studio Deed Restricted Employee Units
Condominium legal documents and plats will be submitted for filing
to the city upon completion of construction and final condo surveys.
I would appreciate your review of this request, with regards to P & Z and
council agendas. We are anticipating a June 1st construction start.
Regards,
xc. Austin, McGrath & Gordan
—
. .
1TKI§
1\r
iti
TO Alan Richman, Plannine Office 10
\ I NAY 7 l 4 I H j
FROPH .,, Adamski, Housiny Director Ak
1 4404r(
ASPEN / PITKIN CO.
‘t PLANNING OFFICE
fh:iii:
.
RE: Easi HoPkina ToiJnhomea - Review Sublaeauni io CNF'
f14oca4:ioh
lateelicani:
lane & Bill Foss
daiure_di_Efoleci
The proiPdi is compriaed of s profeaaioni office, uhich
dnnajaka of ihree individual profesaioral ofilceP enn iounhnme
? :ri 1 4c7, Tuo deed rea-iridied employPe umi.is are io be con
cio-ndfed on eqc.13 n1 ihe ihree lois. Theae deed resfricied
nniia ueuld he coffirriseri df three 2 hedroom employee ur ic
of 850 aa.if. reafricien io lou income and ihrPe a+ndio
emPlovee unlis of 45 P reairicied to middle income.
Subsesuemi_kei:iew_Eesuesis;
Fxempiion from GNF ailoimeni for he employee uniia
F 4 R bonus for emp709ee unifs
3. Fxempiion for rPauired off street parkin a reauiremenis
for employee unfls
. Crinclominiumiza+ion of project
The folinuinv is a hriei snalvais of each revieu:
1. Eiremeiloo_irdm_CLE_alloimeni_ior_exelo
Seciion 24-11.2 (1 provides for exPmpiion of deed
reairicied employee li from CMP alinimeni procedurea.
To cdmply .'1 -h this deciion a aummary is Provided
uhich nutlines +ne-se units.
3 - =',iudid....114eis_ - 450 c.e.H. each
.
Deed resiricied for sale and/or renial, under
he Ciiv of Aspen middle income elleibiliiy Puide
lineP.
___. --......... _. ---
•- '0
- 2_Sedroom_gels_ - E;50 5.4.fi. each
Deed restricted for sale and/or rental, under
ihP City di AcPen lou income eligibility lines
: gEE.EGVal_01_E_I,LE—balOVE-i
Cerilon 24-7.4 c:11) internal floor area ratio, under
area and bulk reguirements •lloys or an F.A.R. bonus
ni .5:1 by special rPviPu. ThP idllouing fable outlines
he Projec+ floor areas and internal floor area rakios.
grea Ipieroal_E_e_E...
Professional Office Tounhdmie ;60R 1.07
EmPloyee Units 390A .43
total 1A,500 1.50
7. Exemslioc_ci_resuired_oli_sireeilearkios_for_emslo
units
The uni9uP concePi or his prnjeri, allows the professional
to combine houcina himself: family and emPlovees within
the complex they work. The concePi in ikself is an
auk° disincentive with rPeards ti' desian, location
to doun4oun core and access io city and cdunta bus
systems. The Aspen code does not re,uire off street
parkine in the '7-1 zone. isPc. 24-4.1 (if07 Jw... Ott
sir Pei parkina spacPs are Provided for thP accessory
residential units.
4. Coodomidiumizalido
The Projer+ (Jill be condominiumized 1 n43 individual
units as follows
3 Professional offirP/arcPssory residential units
3 Two bedroom deed restricted employee uniks
3 Studio deed restricted 'amp/oft:Pe units
Condominium legal documents and PidiS will be sutmitted
for Mina io the City UPflfl completion of conslrucfl
and final condo surveys.
Bousios_iliiice_Recommeodaildhi
The Hdusine OfficP aPproves this revieu ui.th the follouina
cdndifidns
1. That +he ihree 2 bedroom employee uniks be deed
restricted to the 1934 Price and i,icome amidPlines
for the lou income cataadry.
. •- ft
Thai the Piu2 ioe... be deed resiricied io middle
income and +he preposed 450 ce.ii. he increased
ip a minimum bi no less ihan 50 59.H. 001 VA-OH SOS10
6Y sA 1 -4 4 s pact, put- i..0-3;+ s Rio 'Ira& )
3. Thai ihe ciandard 51 98-Br deed resiriciinn he
Flared on t- employee unifP, and it,, reemeni
be Pi9ned wiih he Houcine Authority and filed
with ihe rify of @Pen Prior fo iscuance oi a
huilding PPrMii.
4. Thai if ihe condominiumizaiion is aperoved, ihe
employee uniis will be sold uiihin ihe price
and
acme euidelines ihai 8PPI's 8i the iihe
Lit i-Pgunce -t ihe Ceriificaie ni °cc:Hearn and
ihaf a resale a.;reemenf be drawn by the apPilcAnk
And s in ihe Hou.fina Ahihorily for efpproval.
u. Thaf ihere be 8 contractual agreement in ihe
Reciale Aereemeni #hei if ihe unii.P are quid io
an employee of ihe Projeci And should ihe employee
ferminaie, iha i ihe Ifni+ rever 4 hack fr, the middle
income euidelineP for rental and Thai ihe emPloyer
buY bck Hie onii.
LAW OFFICES
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 205
RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR.
303
WILLIAM R. JORDAN III AREA CODE
TELEPHONE 925 -2-2
600
GRAY A. YOUNG
FREDERICK F. PEIRCE ++440
February 23, 1984'
r ,
City Council _
City of Aspen I; ; r; .F4( J.
530 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Poss GMP /Ute City Place Extefsiori /Lodge GMP
Appeal
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent Bill and Jayne Poss, who have finished
second in the growth management allocation scoring for
residential proposals for the current year. Because of an
appeal by 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge) the Posses are
in danger of being moved from second in scoring to third, and
with the twelve units sought by 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt.
Lodge), the Posses would be in danger of not getting their
allocation of three units, which would scuttle their whole
project, which previously received a commercial allocation.
Our purpose in writing is to suggest several
approaches that would result in the Posses obtaining the
allocations that they otherwise appear to have obtained, so
that they may proceed with their relatively small project.
Part of this is to request that City Council
formally consider, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(a), allocating
eight units from future years' allocations to this year so
that the Posses may be able to complete their project.
The Posses' project involves three offices, three
free market residential units, and six employee units on
three vacant lots in the C -1 zone on East Hopkins across from
my office building. The Posses intend to reside in one unit
and have their office in a commercial unit, and to have the
other two free market units similarly serve local residents
who would reside in a residential unit, and have an office in
the corresponding commercial unit. Six employees will also
be housed on site - -so there is a 2 -1, employee -to -free
market, housing ratio.
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1984
Page 2
The Posses have had several applications, all of
which so far have been approved. Their application was the
first mixed -use application under the GMP, which under the
present code required that they compete at different times
for commercial and residential allocations. They have
received all necessary approvals and allocations to date and
the sole remaining item is the allocation for the three free
market residential units in the current competition. Absent
an allocation granted to another in 1981 (arguably expired) this year's competition there are only 10 rather than the
normal 39 units available.
The competition was close this year between the
Poss project (East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex) for
three units, the Gordon property for three free market units
and 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge) for twelve free market
units. Gordon finished first in the competition and thus
would receive its allocation of three free market units. If
700 South Galena's appeal is allowed, and we believe that
will be discussed at your meeting of February 27, it would
then finish in second by about .5 of a point, and would
thereafter presumably have to seek your discretionary
exercise of future allocations, since there would not be
available an allocation from this year sufficient for its
twelve units.
If the Posses finish number two and the appeal is
disallowed, there is sufficient allocation for their three
units. But, assuming that the 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt.
Lodge) appeal is allowed and they finish second in the
scoring, the Posses formally request that you grant an
additional eight units, which is within your discretion and
within the percentage allowed under Section 24 -11.3a of the
Code, so that each of the three projects can be completed.
While we are arguing really only for Bill and Jayne Poss,
presumably Aspen Mt. Lodge has to seek similar relief. The
competition this year for the residential spaces was
particularly close and all three of the projects clearly met
the threshold. Current scoring is Gordon, 47.4; Poss (East
Hopkins Professional Townhome Project), 46.8; and 700 South
Galena, 46.5. Even if 700 South Galena's appeal is allowed,
the projects will be very close -- within .8 of a point.
The argument in favor of granting the units from
future years is, of course, addressed to your discretion.
Bill and Jayne have been working on this small project that
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1984
Page 3
would assist them to carry on Bill's architectural practice
in Aspen and to reside and remain in Aspen for some time.
They have a great deal of costs and fees involved in the
project. They believe it is a desirable project from the
City's standpoint as well as their own. It involves a unique
combination of residential and office use, combined in the
C -1 district, not only to provide some employee housing, but
to provide their own residence as well. Since the project
has received City approvals before, those approvals and the
ongoing nature of the project have necessitated additional
expenditures. To lose the project by losing an allocation at
this late point in time when they otherwise clearly meet the
threshold would be extremely unfortunate for them.
It is important to note, from the standpoint of
your discretion, that this year's allocation is small - -only
10 units instead of the normal 39 because of other deductions
from the quota.
It is also our position that there are eight
additional units available for your discretionary awarding
pursuant to Section 24 -11.7 of the Code. Ute City Place,
which received an allocation of eight residential units in
1981, failed to obtain a building permit within the two year
period required by that section. Recently Ute City Place
tabled their extension application under that section before
City Council and sought an extension of their building permit
from the Board of Appeals, which was granted. In our view,
however, only City Council may grant a GMP extension.
Section 24 -11.7 specifically states that "the failure to
obtain a building permit within a two year time period on the
deed restricted portion of the project will cause all of the
allotments, both the deed restricted and non -deed restricted,
to automatically expire" (emphasis added). There is some
indication that administratively the planning office and
building department reads a failure to obtain a building
permit as not encompassing a situation where an applicant,
has filed appropriate papers for a building permit but a
permit was not issued within the applicable time. Whether
that is the situation or not with regard to Ute City Place is
in some dispute. In any event, it appears to us that under
your code the allocations for those eight units has expired
and therefore, rather than granting units from the future,
you could discretionarily rule that there are eighteen units
available this year since Ute City Place's allocation has
expired.
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1984
Page 4
It is somewhat hard to make an argument based upon
opposing someone else's allocation, such as is the case with
regard to Ute City Place. We would rather not see, all
things being equal, them lose their allocation if indeed they
have proceeded apace. On the other hand, we would also like
to see all three of the applicants who finish above the
threshold within tenths of points of each other get their
allocations. We hope you appreciate that the detailed and
overlapping nature of the various City requirements means
sometimes that taking food out of one mouth enables another
to live. But of course, we'd rather that there be enough
food for all.
In any event, our specific request is that if the
Aspen Lodge appeal is allowed and the Posses are changed from
second position to third position, that the City allocate,
pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(a), eight additional units from
the future use quota to be offset within the next five years
as provided in the Code, so that the Posses may complete
their project.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
COPY li J. NICHOLAS MC GRATH, JR.
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr:lns
cc: Arthur C. Daily, Esq. and Mr. Joe Wells
(700 South Galena, Aspen Mt. Lodge)
John D. LaSalle, Esq.
(Attorney for Ute City Place)
)Ir. Alan Richman
./Mr. Richard Grice
P.S.: On February 2.1, P &Z recommended the allocation of
eight units from next year to this year.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Housing Office
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.
T /i / ego POjpn ( Gt4- '�F_ Sca�tc?n /3v tHE
A PE— C o .— SoCIeArr. -, SA.- 17 -Ate3 - f) / Sl,e tc
Sh tit' c-
Ski
/0. 4.
aseym w „ „ thee, 2 ,„ aZ.-stbui
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Office
FROM: AVFD Plans- checking Committee
RE:
DATE: / -13 -53
Herewith find our review of the named application before your office.
Thank you.
AVFD Plans checklist 1283 Cover
` ll ib
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department welcomes the opportunity to participate within
the framework that is determining the future configuration of our town. Insofar
as our concern is the protection of life and property, we have prepared the following
guidelines to establish a sense of balance between our capabilities as a department
and the locations we might be called upon to defend.
To insure fairness and equality of application, the most recent edition of the
Uniform Fire Code will serve as final authority in our evaluations.
This review of plans is intended to impact final approval of a given project. There-
fore we see most plans in a "conceptual" form. In many cases specific items of inter-
est are simply not available for review as they don't exist in hardcopy.
It is recommended that this checklist be reviewed at some subsequent time to
insure that these items of concern have been addressed. We at the department
will gladly perform this check at the direction of the Planning Office or in
cooperation with the Building Department.
Each item of the checklist is preceeded by three possible indicators: (OK),• (ID),
which stands for Insufficient Data; and (NOT OK). General comments and clarifications
will appear at the end of the prepared list.
•
AVFD Plans checklist 1283 Page 1
ROADWAYS
(OK) (NOT OK) D
Any roadway to be considered as access for fire apparatus shall be an all weather
driving surface of not less than 24 feet of unobstructed width capable of supporting
the imposed loads of the apparatus. All turning radius shall be adequate and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches shall be maintained.
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
e required width of access shall not be obstructed in any manner, including
parking of vehicles. Legal signs and /or other appropriate notice prohibiting
obstruction shall be required and maintained.
,-WOK (NOT OK) (ID)
n access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the
exterior wall of the first story of any building. Where this access cannot be
reasonably provided, approved fire protection and suppression systems may be
substituted, subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief.
0 NOT OK) (ID)
urb cuts shall be a minimum of thirty feet for commercial or multi - family
driveways. Curb cuts for public roadways shall be determined by the Town
Engineer.
(OK NOT OK) (ID)
' rvate circulation drives shall be a minimum of 22 feet wide excluding parking,
except where water mains are laid when they shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide
excluding parking.
(OK) (NOT OK) (ID)
driveway in a parking lot shall be a minimum of 22 feet wide excluding parking,
except where water mains are laid when they shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide
excluding parking.
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
Radius at 90 degree turns shall be a minimum of 25 feet at the inside curb and
50 feet at the ourside curb.
(NOT OK) (ID)
Uead ends that exceed 150 feet in length shall be provided with turnaround
provision. "K turns" shall be a minimum of 75 feet long and 15 feet wide.
Cul -de -sacs shall provide a radius minimum of 50 feet.
Orr NOT OK) (ID)
Fire access roadways may be used for pedestrian and /or bicycle traffic. Roadways
so used will ensure ease of access to pedestrians by their design. It may be
necessary to eliminate access to such roadways by unauthorized vehicles by
posting of legal signs and /or a design device. In no case may such limiting
design or device prohibit immediate access by emergancy vehicles.
(OK) t LST OK -- ID)
Buildings stories or higher must provide at least 2 clear means of access for
a snorkle apparatus to a site no closer than 5 feet or no farther than 25 feet
from the first floor of the building at the exterior wall.
- Mt 'v-a . 73 0 ;%6L6 'iS AT9°*42-5 'To v.i.o2E `At\r,t •a
z5 cQ-aw Cs._Q -b t t s c &ts p Set. Rie e in i
s - o; t& t+i S
wN\ tk in,et Act.sr-
AVFD Plans checklist Page 2
HYDRANTS AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
'1 premises where buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed.
and are located more than 150 feet from access roadways shall be provided with
an approved fire hydrant or other fire suppression system as reviewed and approved
by the Fire Chief.
,, / 0 (NOT OK) (ID)
— From closest point of roadway access to a given building a maximum distance to
the nearest hydrant shall be established. In residential areas the maximum
shall be 600 feet, in commercial areas 300 feet, in the core area the maximum
shall be 2 city blocks as they exist or are to be built per the proposal being
reviewed.
l (NOT OK) (ID)
K- M1 hydrants shall be located at least 50 feet from all structures in the
vicinity whenever possible.
OK ' (NOT OK) (ID)
l shall be located on the high side of the fire access road. Hydrants
shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the paved surface or "edge" of the access road.
The center of the "steamer" connection shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the
finish surface of the access road and shall be situated so that the "steamer"
connection shall face the road. Clearance shall be maintained around the hydrant
so as to allow the use of all outlets without kinking the hose and to allow the
use of a 24 inch hydrant wrench on the stem nut without having to remove the wrench.
(NOT OK) (ID)
Fire hydrants located within parking lots must be accessible without obstruction
but protected. This protection will be no closer than 5 feet from all sides of
the hydrant and a minimum of 8 inches high. One access area centered on the
"steamer" connection shall be maintained at least 20 feet wide.
(OK) (NOT OK)
The builder or developer is required to demonstrate that the proposed complex or
individual buildings will fall within the storage and distribution water systems
ability to deliver fire flow. Computations required shall be ISO "Procedures
for Needed Fire Flow ", 1980 edition. No combustible construction shall start
at a planned site until such computations demonstrate adequate protection.
(OK) (NOT OK) 4 0 ; 111
The Builder or de e .per is required to check the Uniform Building and Fire
Codes for requirements of automatic sprinkler system and audio /visual alarm
systems.
0 (NOT OK) (ID)
n buildings to be provided with standpipe connections, the proposed locations
of the siames and any associated audio /visual alarms shall be approved by the
Fire Department. Clear access to all connections shall be provided for and
maintained.
0 (NOT OK) (ID)
In a standpipe installation, a charged outlet shall be available to within
150 feet of every dwelling unit in the building.
AVFD Plans checklist Page 3
GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA
(OK) (NOT OK) D
Firefighter access into a building shall be provided for both by design and
special provisions if necessary. (Fire key boxes in security situations for
example.)
(OK) (NOT OK) SRO
Posted street ad:' -sses shall be visible from the nearest access roadway and /or
at the driveway curb cut of buildings set back out of sight.
(NOT OK) (ID)
Bridges shall conform to all the same criteria as access roadways.
(OK) (NOT OK) 4*@
Electrical cut -of s shall be reasonably accessible, subject to approval of the
Fire Chief.
(OK) (NOT OK) ID
Unusual vegetation conditions may exist in rural cases. Limitations may be
imposed for wildfire control.
� tc )SE 2 \asc w \e-g ACC-Ess �b R.e tete-
V1 to \S os) ALLcy ��TW e�N Nc le.U✓s d• WAR,
QFd V1 to - .3 s - p 7 C_Iu
c.p.+C_Q 5 aou\& \, 'SaeS}')a3.151
►..114.04 At, b Kt- c\aMZ . itiLL'¢sj 1 t to s150.)
5\oL,16( be a -1 ea. HSTisJ `mon - *.LLei �C 1 -F at e A ccesl
»$"' _P¢\ ■JGfa `t-t-u a5 kno ST 1 0
•cock cc ma TS 'b `TL,_
7 31
___ A t�Qta5 -cts, ` Site
CLn_JeT 1AQD MA Etsi1
ti 4---c QhtZ Sr e
t_ oi.eQ S 4¢0b3 ht,e Z
v S Eb woo IQ Sc.,Se -sT
i c4�3E .c
%.31:7T QeG 5x C 9 °w,c A...c3TVet_ IA /tab
&e-E. F w , cloSG n hc1 Cc, t L Saab td, 41Is A 51'Wob e_
en. 2Q- 17e u \ c ce_
c 1- rc it -t
_�G OK. ON - Vvee wool L
1/ C.IZ � V SCfU \, t„.. O vsa-- A ATt CsuRcoS7
AVFD Plans checklist Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: GMP Files
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: 1983 Residential Quota
DATE: January 9, 1984
On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution No. 8,
Series of 1983. This Resolution had the effect of not carrying over
the 119 residential development allotments which remained as unallo-
cated from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its stan-
dard quota of 39 units being available.
During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new residential units.
Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at Smuggler
Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units. Therefore,
10 units remain available for allocation under the current competition.
During 1983, the 8 free market units awarded to the Ute City Plact
project expired. These 8 units should also be available for allocation
this year, making a total of 18 units available. However, the appli-
cant is currently disputing the expiration, asking Council to extend
the time deadline for the project. Until such time as this matter has
been resolved, the status of these units for allocation purposes will
be clouded.
ASPEN*PITKIN l iEG10NAL BUILDIh.4 DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning ' f)
DATE: December 30, 1983
RE: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project
1984 Residential GMP Submission
1) On page 2 of the applicant's submission note: lot average
includes 600 square feet exempt from floor area calculations for
off street parking required for residential unit.
Section 24- 3.7(2) The garage would be exempt from F.A.R., but I
don't understand the reference to lot coverage.
2) Section 24 -4.5 required one parking space per bedroom in the
C -1 zone. The applicant is requesting exemption from this code
for the employee units. If we consider the three studio units
as requiring a parking space, the total exemption for parking
would be nine (9) spaces.
BD /ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
pitkin county
east main street
aspen, Colorado 61801
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: James L. Adamski, Housing Direct
RE: 1984 Residential GMP Submission
DATE: December 30, 1983
Applicant: East Hopkins Professional Townhouse Project
Jane & Bill Poss
Nature of the Project: The project is comprised of a Pro-
fessional Office, including two deed restricted
employee housing units. The applicant has pre-
viously been awarded 4,500 S.F. of commercial
allotment in the 1983 GMP competition.
This application is for three accessory resid-
ences totalling 5100 S.F. of residential allot-
ment. Also included is 3750 S.F. of low income
deed restricted employee housing.
Housing Office Recommendation:
The application was reviewed subject to the fol-
lowing as per Sec. 24 -11.4 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
1) Employee Units - low income deed restricted
2) Displacement - none
3) 50% S.F. ratio - 5100 S.F. low income emp. unit
4) Number of bedrms - 6 free market, 6 low income
emp. units.
5) Square footage of Emp. Units - comforms to
Housing Guidelines.
6) Availability of Financing - Applicant does not
state if the low income deed restricted units
are to be rental or sale.
7) Standard 50 yr. Deed Restriction - not stated
in application.
Page 2
It is the recommendation of the Housing Office based on
the information provided that the Poss Application be
approved based on the following conditions:
1) That the standard 50 year Deed Restriction
be placed on the low income units, and that
this agreement be signed with the Housing
Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) That the applicant state whether the low
income Deed Restricted Units are rental or
sale property. In the event that the low
income properties are sales units they must
meet the current Housing Authority Guidelines
and a financial plan for the sales units
should be developed.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: December 28, 1983
RE: City Residential GMP Scoring
Attached are copies of suggested scores for the Gordon and
East Hopkins residential Growth Management applications.
The sheets include recommended scores for various
engineering related GMP criteria as well as notes regarding
the project. The notes are intended to explain the rationale
for the various scores, however if I may elaborate on these
items or participate in further scoring sessions, feel
free to contact me.
JH /co
Enclosures
- 1Residential -
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1983
Project Name
.. ..,.+ . --L.
Address bop E1G.r(c o
Owner �cL`n 4 jJ( r t
Agent /Representative ;(( ,
Address G- e., A (a L_ a, , .,..■_ Phone S— k.(L"?
Reviewed By ..--)+1/4- Date Iz - Zg -
(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) 1 Water (2 pts.)
Capacity of system to service proposed development
without system extension, treatment plant or other
facility upgrade at public expense.
lI /
(bb) ( Sewage Disposal (2 pts.) .
Capacity of sewer system to handle proposed
development wit out system upgrade.
c L(C. 4o C- 7
(cc) . Storm Drainage (2 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
NC (cruet E t., As CLAM. . Slow dW -3
-2-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEN CIIECKLIST - Residential
(ee) 1 Parking (2 pts.)
al 5 c� po-.11:0.01 soCQv. t,.4- 4o mtc{- -1-u_ needs
of the project. Visual impact, amount of paving,
convenience and safety /
&a_ 0 f, r s pert T/cm, r -{r I a&
�( t �y rcea?� o f Ceti 4 l> rmt,,,G i 1 7 o-..4 ,
I I ,C; 4 7 . � "110..a ant - 54- ce{- (:30- ,.6.
(ff) / Roads (2 pts.)
Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased
traffic A..Ji }1Noet of -emr q inCC;c_ f c ret u r. - t,.l
wok�e, s4tct* nt� ect ¢. I o % AM:11 t.nytitlL. (J it \ ; vcka_,rr 4.40 c ; e.
(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.
Ee44, l7 Y d . 1 04 I, i t ,t�,�� �.
(dd) Trails I (3 pts.)
Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways, and
links to exi ting parks and trail systems.
cdnJa� a
c�� (c.
-3- I
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential
(3) Proximity to Support Services
(aa) 3 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.
SY r
(bb) T3 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.
CITY ; � lb, PEN
1308+ , � , reet
asp ,` �� . ..
• ".1611
1-.
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER �, ^
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS ,
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983
RE: EAST HOPKINS PROFESSIONAL TOWNHOME PROJECT
We have reviewed the application for the project to be located on Hopkins
between Hunter and Spring Streets and said project will have only a neg-
ligible impact on the Aspen water system. Water will be available to the
applicant from a 6" main in Hopkins Street upon application and payment
for a water tap permit. The applicant states that there will be three 1"
lines serving the development. We will not allow this. Based on the
stated 10 GPM demand, we will allow one domestic water service up to 11/2
inches. It is the established policy of the Water Department to require
only one service to a development in order to reduce the number of taps in-
to the main and to reduce the likelihood of service lines leaking in the
right -of -way. The applicant may branch off with individual services on
private property.
JM:1f
cc: William John Poss and Associates
DEC 14 1983
ASPEN / PI 7K0.
PLANNING OFFICE
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
TO r DATE U
term CIA . 111
PROJECT a / JOB NQ
TON tJM En. 111Caaar
SUBJECT MZrikS111 S� S /]` `l ifictA tle \I 1l ■ !
COPIES DESCRIPTION DATE _ _ -- -- --
............._. -.
_ _
BY CC
william john poss architecture • aspen, colorado • telephone (303) 925 -4755
MEMORANDUM
TO: Holy Cross Electric (,^ '-k-
/�K
City Attorney
, --City Engineer
,,eity Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
— H6using Office
2llllding 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.