Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Gordon Residential.Lot 3 Gordon calahan sub. 1984--Gordon Property 1984 Residentiai GMP Submissior Pleas El and Post-It"routing request pad 7064 ROUTING — REQUEST READ HANDLE APPROVE FORWARD RETURN KEEP OR DISCARD REVIEW WITH ME To ►esf. j�lue Prl1111 wbi,I in f� _ bDY�DB S CON�{�1�(� S�bNl�y�oh Rcv�ct, 6tioy+ Cttr Couh'd , rev;w2j Tulyjdg?s / Date From 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: Gordon Property - 1984 Residential GMP Submission DATE: December 8, 1983 We are submitting herewith an application submitted by Sheldon Gordon in regard to the 1984 Residential GMP. Mr. Sheldon is seeking an allotment of three 3-bedroom free market units that include three 1-bedroom low income deed -restricted employee housing units on the subject property and three 2-bedroom low in- come deed restricted employee housing units off -site at Hunter Creek Condominiums. The result being three duplex units on property located off Crystal Lake Road and north and west of the Aspen Club. The 1984 Residential GMP submissions are scheduled before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 198Y. In order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983. Thank you. T-llS o toJ'E.-% _ 44.— SFa'." /3y A Lor..-SUL-0P2 , S� n tv-4rt- - n / ST&1 c-J__. IV el- b E0. T> '.0 "(2/A�4. rMP_ Sir-HRF_ r' 7, a 1NF r From; STAN MATHIS architecture and planning p.o. box 1984 aspen, Colorado 81612 MESSAGE To:'� 00 ZoYlivlr I vae A44 1Zre�iaa Jari lP, kiwi Ye: vO(vq1.e6r 1::Iv2 V4?pir4v✓ie�4 HewativjAvm A.V.FV. Me►norandum e, Jew� �ee4I tnj �em ��ra►�Adw�0eh���4-ire e►q,���1 Can 11,410CIC -Po �f%� v ir�n1-�s o� a►�er'Gia�e ke, As prjoy fo {fie i�i�� o� � !nq REPLY • 0 pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado E31611 TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: James L. Adamski, Housing Direct RE: Gordon Property - 1984 Residentia GMP Submission DATE: December 30, 1983 Applicant: The Gordon Property Lot 3, Gordon Subdivision Aspen, Colorado Nature of the Project: The proposed project is comprised of three duplex units, each having one, three bedroom free market unit and one, one bedroom low-income housing unit. In order for the developer to meet the code re- quirements they will provide off site low income employee housing by purchasing 900 S.F. two bed- room free market units at Hunter Creek Properties and deed restricting these units according to low income guidelines. Housina Office Recommendation: The applicant has been reviewed subject to the following code requirements (Sec. 24-11.4) 1) Employee Units - low income deed restricted 2) Displacement - none 3) 50% S.F. ratio - 9000 S.F. free market 4500 S.F. low income emp. units. 4) Number of bedrms -9 free market, 9 low income emp. units 5) Square footage of Emp. Units - 600 S.F. per one bedroom unit. - 300 S.F. per two bedroom unit. 6) Comparable quality - yes 7) Availability of Financing - Applicant does not state if the units will be rental or sale units. 8) Standard 50 year Deed Restriction - not stated in the application. • Page 2 0 It is the recommendation of the Housing Office based on the information provided that the Gordon Property, Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision 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 sales properties. 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 sale units be developed. • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 1984 TO: Richard Grice FROM: Gary Esary RE: Gordon 1984 Residential GMP Submission No substantive comments on this at this time. Procedurally, it appears that there will be a great number of legal documents in this development (employee -housing deed restrictions, open space deed restriction (p. 2), trail easement (with bridge), water main extension agreement, water rights deed and leaseback. Obviously, the earlier we see drafts of these documents, the better. We also should determine whether park dedication fee should be paid at the time of subdivision action (20-18) or at the time of building permit (7-143). As an aside, Mr. Gordon still owes a park dedication fee on Lot 1 of approximately $17,000.00. It would be nice to get this amount paid. GSE/mc 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office FROM: AVFD Plans -checking Committee R E : ( dew DATE: a,/ r,Z�/ 5� Herewith find our review of the named application before your office. Thank you. AVFD Plans checklist 1283 Cover R • • 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 r (NOT 0K) toZI sk sa.C-w:4r O-IA& MDAJJ / � `tEC-ciEW-5 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. t(ID) he 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. - (NOT OK) ,An 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. ( _ (ID) Curb 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. Pr(NOT OK) _>* �' /mw•s 1> --1-'�y,E AI-GG-5> c�. ivate circulation drives shall bA 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) V A The 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) j�i4 Radius at 90 degree turns shall be a minimum of 25 feet at the inside curb and 50 feet at the ourside curb. (0K) K CA,-wA )&o ok-. Dead enexceed 150 fe�t 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. (OK) (NOT OK) ( ID) �t,/,4 Fire access roadways ma/ft 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) (NOT OK) (ID) &l ,, Buildings 3 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. AVFD Plans checklist Page 2 HYDRANTS AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (NOT 0K) ts< s`iFw va s k dm4z�' 11 premises where buildings or poryions 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. (OK) From c osest 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. Pllft�y`d(Trant�sshall (ID) be located at least 50 feet from all structures in the vicinity whenever possible. `tW�J_ (ID) All hydrants 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. -- (ID) iF're hydrants located within parking lots must be accessible without obstruction but protected. This protection will be no closer than 5 feet fro„1 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. (NOT OK) (`,1?4� 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) (ID) iUf�} The Builder or developerA is required to check the Uniform Building and Fire Codes for requirements of automatic sprinkler system and audio/visual alarm systems. (OK) (NOT OK) (ID) tiA In buildings to be prov ded 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. (OK) (NOT OK) (ID) In a standpipe install ion, 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) (ID) A, -A 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.) (ID) 'Posted -street addresses shall be visible from the nearest access roadway and/or at the driveway curb cut of buildings set back out of sight. (OK) (NOT OK) (ID) �/ 4 Bridges shall conform t all the same criteria as access roadways. (ID) Electrical cut-offs shall be reasonably accessible, subject to approval of the Fire Chief. (OK) -' Unusual vegetation conditions may exist in rural cases. ;Limitations may be imposed for wildfire control. AVFD Plans checklist Page 4 • 151FJ� 01 20 � I 29 Dec., 1983 Mr. Richard Grice, 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Reqardinq the application and review for the Gordon Property, a word of additional comment concerning the Fire Department's impressions. Visualize a pumper truck connected to a hydrant. The amounts and sizes of hose carried on the truck limit our effective reach from that truck to the fire scene. Any time we're required to reach beyond 150 feet it will require a considerable increase in the time required to first deliver water on the fire. The access notes as marked in our review indicate a potentially constricted site., especially if the shrinkage in road and drive widths as seen in the winter is overlaid on an already tight site. Note that the Zoning, Transportation and Trails plansheet shows a connecting roadway to Riverside Ave., while the Site and Landscaping plansheet does not. Thank you, Darryl r b AVFD plans chec inq committee ASPEN*PITKIN OEGIONAL BUILT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning `.;AA0 DATE: December 28, 1983 RE: Gordon Property 1984 Residential GMP Submission 1) Applicant indicates access to the site from the Aspen Club parking lot: a) We will need a recorded easement through the property south of the site. b) If the access is from the Aspen Club parking lot, the Building Department would consider this the "frontyard". Therefore, the applicant's indications of setbacks would need revision or variances set by P&Z for the P.U.D. 2) Section 24-6.3 indicates that a Stream Margin Review will be required prior to any construction. 3) We should check the status of the original Gordon Subdivision for any restrictions or conditions. cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning BD/ar offices: 110 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 JAN ri f KiN CO. PLANKING OFFICE mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 1 • 40f CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE, Planning Office FROM: JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks DATE: December 16, 1983 RE: GORDON PROPERTY - 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION Acceptability of design and construction of the trails bridge over the Roaring Fork River will be of concern to both the City and the County. The County maintains all trails system assets as per our joint maintenance agreement. Any considerations made involving trail extension proposals and/or improvements which would become part of our existing trails system should include them. � 'Q- i 1933 PPi i A"O• NLANNING OFFICE • 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 ti KIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE r � � Residential • GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1983 Project Name Lpl Address Owner Anent/Representative y .� Address Phone 4 -c Revieti-.ed By � Date (1) Public Facilities and Services 0 - Project requires pro,,•ision 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) Water (2 pts.) Capacity of system to service proposed development without system extension, treatment plant or other facility upgrade at public expense (dc4;( 1t./'� r (bb) Sewage Disposal (2 pts.) Capacity of sewer system to handle proposed development without system upgrade. (cc) _, Storm Drainage (2 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (ee) Parking (2 pts.) O, •!r :• .�_,..1::.. C(;,���� -(c. i,.cc:l A-I'c.. needs of the project. Visual impact, amount of paving, convenience, and safety. Ao-,Q -+l vcdc— (ff) I Roads (2 pts.) Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased traffic .Jjil,out (2) Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient design. 1 - Major design 2 - Acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Excellent design. (hb) Site Design (3 pts.) nuality and character of landscaping and on_en space, extent of utility undergrounding, arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, increased safety and privacy. (dd) _ Trails (3 pts.) Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways, and links to existing parks and trail systems. TI ' f GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (3) Proximity to Support Services (aa) Public Transportation (3 pts.) 1 - Project more than 6 blocks from 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 orr/County bus route. /ZCC 1 C E (bb) _� 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 OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983 RE: GORDON PROPERTY We have reviewed the application known as the Gordon Property and concur with the statement that the looping of the water main from the end of Riverside Drive to the Aspen Club interconnect will improve reliability of service and upgrade the existing neighborhood distribution system by providing for an alternate routing of water in the event of a main fail- ure. However, it should be noted that availability of water to the site would require a main extension but the looping does create an improvement to the water system. Assuming that the applicant will install the looped main extension, water would be available in sufficient quantities to the subdivision. JM:lf O C ' _ 7 DEC 14 1983 - ASPEN / Pff KffCU. PUNNING OfFU • 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Holy Cross Electric 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: Gordon Property - 1984 Residential GMP Submission DATE: December 8, 1983 We are submitting herewith an application submitted by Sheldon Gordon in regard to the 1984 Residential GMP. Mr. Sheldon is seeking an allotment of three 3-bedroom free market units that include three 1-bedroom low income deed -restricted employee housing units on the subject property and three 2-bedroom low in- come deed restricted employee housing units off -site at Hunter Creek Condominiums. The result being three duplex units on property located off Crystal Lake Road and north and west of the Aspen Club. The 1984 Residential GMP submissions are scheduled 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 presentation, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983. Thank you. I. Location: Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, and Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, Callahan Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. II. Proposal: A. This proposal is submitted on behalf of Sheldon Gordon. We request approval to modify the (previously approved) Aspen Club P.U.D. and combine it with the ( previously approved) Gordon Property Growth Management Allotment. Result: This will result in a cluster of 4 free-market duplexes (8 three -bedroom units) with 8 one -bedroom employee housing units on the property, and one free-market detached single family three -bedroom unit with a one -bedroom employee housing unit on the property. This result is in place of the pre- viously approved conditions. Previously Approved: The previously approved conditions allowed on the Gordon property, a cluster of 3 three -bedroom free-market units with 3 one -bedroom employee housing units attached, and 3 two - bedroom employee housing units off -site at the Hunter Creek Condominium Project. Allowed on the neighboring Callahan property: 6 free-market single family detached units. Each unit allowed 4,500 + sq.ft. and up to 5 bedrooms, with no employee units required. Description of this modified proposal is furthered by the enclosed maps, documents, and the following discussion. B. We request approval to modify the building height limit on Aspen Club Lot 10. We would raise the restriction from 25' to 34'. Thirty-four feet to the top of the roof construction will allow the height of a residence on Lot 10 to allign with that of adjacent residences. C. We request approval to modify the building height limit of the proposed duplexes from 25' to 34'. The height increase will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood as the proposed siting of the duplexes is lower than the view plane of the neighboring houses. C� C III. Comparison Modified Request Approved Conditions Combined Properties: Gordon Property: *Clustered Residential *8 3-bedroom free-market units @ 3,200 sq.ft. attached, to create 4 complexes, with *8 1-bedroom employee units @ 700 sq.ft. attached to free- market units to comprise fourpl exes . *1 5-bedroom free-market detached unit @ 4,500 sq.ft. *36 parking spaces. *2 parcels common green space, restricted from further development. *passive solar heating and active solar domestic hot water devices. *provide a loop water system. *Transfer share of Riverside Ditch to City of Aspen, with reservation of right to alter the course of the ditch and form ponds. *Provide a new fire hydraynt. *Dedicate a public trail easement. *Landscape around paving. *Additional parking for the Aspen Club. *Modify the building height limit as defined by the City of Aspen Zoning Code from 25' to 34' *Clustered Residential *3 3-bedroom free-market detached units @ 3,000 sq . ft . with *3 1-bedroom employee units @ 700 sq.ft. attached to free- market units to comprise duplexes. And *3 2-bedroom employee units off - site @ Hunter Creek Condo- minium Project. *12 parking spaces. *1 parcel common green space, restricted from further dev elogn ent . *passive solar heating and active solar domestic hot devices. *Provide a loop water system. *Transfer share of Riverside Ditch to City of Aspen, with reservation of right to alter the course of the ditch and form ponds. *Provide a new fire hydrant. *Dedicate a public trail easement. *Landscape around paving. Callahan Property: *Subdivided Residential. *6 5-bedroom free-market de- tached units @ 4,500 sq.ft. plus 6 sq.ft. for each 100 sq. ft. of lot over 15,000. *30 parking spaces. IV. Conclusion: In every way this proposal is to have the same, or better, level of quality and commitment as the Gordon Growth Manage- ment Plan. To this effect, the proposed number of 9 units is less density than the 11 units allowed by the P.U.D. The percentage of the space that is open green space has increased from the previously approved plans. All upgrading of utilities and surrounds, and the minimization of develop- ment impact is to follow the intent of the Gordon GMP. If effected, this proposal will carry over all of the good design conditions, and advantanges to the City, of the Gordon Growth Management Plan to the Callahan Subdivison. 3 322 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 8,y4�q CONCEPTUAL PUD - Gordon Steve Burstein, planning office, told Council this is an application for three units on a 2 acre parcel located near the Aspen Club. The access to the proper the road going into the Aspen Club, through an easement over the Callahan prope Each duplex consists of a free market 3 bedroom unit and a deed restricted one unit. There will be a trail going across the land and a bridge to the Ute Chil park. Burstein said there are 12 conditions attached to the recommendation, tr identify the most important areas to be addressed at preliminary and final plat One is the applicant show there is adequate access to the land from the parking the number of cars that will use it. Burstein told Council there is a water li proposed that is a good aspect of the project, and it is important that the wat lines and fire hydrant be specifically located. The road widths have been a cc the fire department, and this should addressed at preliminary plat stage. BurE stream margin review will be required. Burstein said three additional employeE be located off -site as well as the three on site. Deed restrictions will be sL the time of preliminary plat. Stan Mathis, representing the application, said they have a problem with conve; water rights to the city in the riverside irrigation ditch in an amount correst the additional use of the proposed 3 duplexes. Mathis said the applicant only proportional share of the cfs that runs through the ditch. Mathis said the apl only give the city what they have, and they are willing to give what they have said there are 8 owners of the shares of the ditch. Mayor Stirling suggested condition to have the city attorney work with the applicant to define what wat( are available. Mathis said the applicant does not want to go ahead and buy thi housing until they are ready to build the duplexes. One condition does not al. certificate of occupancy until they provide the deed restriction. Mathis said one unit will be built, and the applicant should not have to buy 3 off -site un. said this is a reasonable request. Mayor Stirling agreed it is fair to amend as each duplex is complete, the owner makes the commitment for an off -site uni Councilman Isaac moved to approve the Gordon conceptual PUD with the 12 condit planning office memorandum noting the changes on the water rights and the off - employee housing; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, with the exceptio Councilmembers Walls and Fallin. Motion carried. CREATING ZONE CODE REVIEW/SIMPLIFICATION TASK FORCE Mayor Stirling said he feels the task force is a good idea, and anyone who has experience and not a major project in front of the city should be asked to be force. Mayor Stirling said it is critical the task force know in advance the the Council would like them to go. Alan Richman, planning director, said the should not be developing zoning policies but should work with given products. said there is a lot of clarification needed in the Code. Richman said this sh phased approach. Mayor Stirling moved to direct the city manager with the planning director to as soon as possible a resolution articulating the charge of the task force; SE rn,,,,r-;lman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. INTERNATIONAL RESORT PARTNERSHIP Mayor Stirling presented an editorial strongly supporting this concept and hat move ahead with the idea. Mayor Stirling told Council a local citizen to the report to Washington D.C. and made some excellent contacts. The ARA feels t E { annthPY ti weeks to get the support of the community. Mayor Stirling said he i I _,- A -A .-hnrrnr 1"] Q„,, �,o,�L q G.w. t 3 � 7 0•.�,00.r. S r.tt- r....9- -As slq— - M\,iIFErI O �� \. S s L44, $ S w• ..,, s J, " —, i ^—*kc 61,.1 �ok 60— Pvo PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS ' Project: LD% 2 Date: /Z/2ZL4- 1 Ti 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 follow,ng formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project maybe 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 Comment: Page Iwo • Res i den L i a 1 GMP Sco lily 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 2 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. R a t i n g I___ Comment: Subtotal / Q 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: Ildge 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 1-3 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: 6. 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 13 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 2d Comment: i 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 Comment: s a Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: Z7� G '1 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 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 f 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 ;cori"Tfcj 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. I Rating 'Z 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 7' 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: 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: c;. 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 Spare (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. Comment' Rating 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 _ 21_ 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: i 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). Comment: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: LN Rating Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS .t Project: �,��G/�`f /�/ VISA Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maxin,t;m of 12 points). -The Commission shall consider each appricaL ni; 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 extensicns 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: / /I 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. •.11.Rating Z' Comment:_flUL— Page Two Residential GMP Scor , ig • 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: � r t Pl�i��l� I?0rf-" �S. 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. i 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 mai tenance. (�.i Rating Comment: W/b 1 o'z (11r" Aeuz- . Subtota] _L)T 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 L Comment: 11,19c l hree • • 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 66'6 'UNB W 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: C g h7 00 1! ��Oqmn) 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). 0 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 conurer- 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 be7considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating e- Comment:'vw'�' 1 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: I Page Five Residential GMP Scoring t 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: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 1Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). Date:: )�- 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 Comment: Page Iwo Residential GMP Scor ig 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 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: 1IC-19v 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: 6. 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 IZI-- 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 1!2 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 Z Comment: i 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 D Comment: ` 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: I Aj 12-/1 /" H PLA14N I NG AND Z014 114G COMMISSION EVALUATION ENTIAL PROPOSALS Proje 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). Date:7 (�34 -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 -,ervices at increased public expense. 1 Project maybe 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. R a t 1 ng 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. Comment: Rating �- Page Two 1 • Res i den t i a l GMI' Scur' ig 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 c 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 1111-ve • • 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 conm►unity 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 LJ 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. l 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). Rating1_—'�D 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 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating t Comment: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Memh PLANNING AND "ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). Date: 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 deveiop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, a►►d 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 Iwo • ResidenLi,il GMP ;corloi 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 _2 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. i Rating 2 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 _ / b 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 l hrce 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 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: �. 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 3 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 3 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 _ Z- • Page Four Residential GMP Scoring 0 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 3 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 2 c,-, Comment: i b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal ? 0 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: 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: ST.4N MATHIS ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING I AMR, m STAN MATHIS ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING �fA ZONING TRANSPORTATION and TRAILS SEWER \\\\\\\\ WATER • o • • • • • 1 PROPOSED WAT.F 1" _ too'-OKTN o' So' too, Zoo' Sao -- --- - 000 FT. WATER and SEWER 0 0 8DI / \ 1 / 77 *7 l 122?2�j 30-40 47&I .:::.:... .. I 7 7 7 tb L-4 2:�LE L.©-r P., GA L.G Ll-14.7- 1© N 61 ol'E 4-Q, PT. % ALLOW6P 64Q, Pr. ALLOWSO % SLot'E 6Q. FT. % ALWWED 5m.r-r ALI.ow w-3 O-Zo 22,4341 i �0 2Z,43� 0 20 39395 oc� 3�3pi S zo-3o q, 122 75 3,0�12 20-3o SiSi 75 36�a 3-4-9 Z, -91 40 di 94- 1 5o Y. 38 1 4a * Ile t c 5 ox \ IN, 74 7Z \ \ \ 74 PARCEL 1 74 j N • "\ 710 Imo_ = Y z 82 "PY?IGO.L- IZAV I I - DRIvEWAYs 9Uo h \ � 15 REi al N i i \ PARCEL 2 � /� �� i RETE�ITIorJ m Fl! N o N THE GORDON PROPERTY '�y.J �FRGI�PMEI.IT 28, Na �� 7{PIC.d L ptC hl l �v 9 1 v E W Ayz) LOT 2, GORDON SUBDIVISION ASPEN COLORADO ROADS. GRADING, AND DRAINAGE' 1 " : 30' NORTH a 5 1 d Sb F 6 .,x� �1 �•� �`.�; � ��� ' -�� / �\ t� oT>✓' TN Ira A R Ro � I � b I GAT ES \ I712A.1 I.la.GrE✓ ot-1 Ti+E P Kor' r--r2.'rY M �i�aI1M-Ac�E� ---� l; e_ /'DC C L/Tfi'NT GEPDS/T/GN @ S >,Zwx B/iff 2 E h/i?C L RI�Erz�loE A�/E•_ 8"f'YC "cavr�dl�o' �dTGET t. -y. A v PRINT RECORD REVISIONS � J�o5� 86558 ,�..; -';F. .y, '.a.'`:. Y. x h,".,' �� �if2 6 r.3•hYa''G['� .�.: .::4+' .. - .. d ... ,... g*. -;:w >s5.,�vy °.'I'::s aM`�'a'>f'f4,'�Srir84�2tn ,%'+.°.1'�.ise°C „J:'�,,e«•: t - '; Wl TMIIAI Y.. EXt,�'T I 6r- .ASP r-,Q s G12'jTo1.1 17 15 x 15T I FJ Cc AMENSiko EX I/�>TI SIG, Tlze,I L -_ ----- _ �-� _ — — — _ .- �i •_ 1 �� , _ - �9fs®: ' - �— EA�EM ENT 7,170 NO - �` --- - PAR � .CEL 1 THE GORDON PROPERTY LOT 2, GORDON SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 " i :30' .vr.- NO RM LANDSCAPING LEGEND aT`( lvYM►3cC-,L- p TII.Gr A?ulzIY`f Co G/ L-I FIE, t2- 10 @'I Go �I I F FZ F3LU E 61� F�I.I EiIFi 2" - 3" FR 3d' t :.AGO?G H F� 1 �.! �► 30 ' -r II LhRGrE I�EGI��-I4©==v� ly�d N IJ I? - ZO11� 5f7 II Co IO' Ru�IAN F L-a bJ ERI NIG 17EGI p U ©US %I• KLd.W t121 IJG-ca49L..its� 561Zv ILA!$ EI11-RY fir- (o' 3'-(Q` dlrl N f-td,i. b. rfAl"l-E eS- i'" (-'- to' �y-0 1 -_— - - ! noW _. --- I I r-4 I-T PARCEL 2 4-n.4rZN ;ridr-'- - � Fczu�rl�Wr: :: `i e mrp PLANTING DETAILS sA 0 %14 Q GOjT�IJ WLO�II�6 x'x2�xb` _Mt►�. w000 SrNc-E, M�IG� 1 A6 $I°EG I Ft ED - 2" CEP'r H r12EF+'REO T0P'5011. (A9 Sf EGIF(F,0) MOL D V NtOH To FORM vJnTERIQ� EXISTII.1Gr ArsI�E1.l L PRINT RECORD 1 REVISIONS • RNFAME\,I 1 \I/i IA% TREE -STAKING SHRUB PLANTING \ /.�il►�\III, \ \INIM%I►MI/MI►. 86558 SIZE (INCHES )I ELBOWS TEES 8 DN�O GATE VALVES ftZ) (ttz) zz 2 2(ft )� 4 II(t12)0 4 1,8 1.0 0.5 0 1.3 1 0.5 6 4.0 2.2 I. 1 0 2.8 0 7 8 7.1 3.8 2.0 1.0 5.0 2.4 10 11.1 &0 3.0 1.5 7.8 4.5 12 1 160 B. 44 2.2 11.3 7,3 14 1 21.7 1 IL 6.0 3.0 15.4 110 CFI`!;S'i _GRADE =' FLE` AI ION II/2" TELESCOr'!, CURE) BOX. ti -_-CURB STOP 6 wj- COUPLING 5;C v�l wIF w _TIE EXISTING SEQVIC`. o c PROPOSED CUB-`_' S .. U -- Q TABLE OF BEARING AREAS IN SQ. FT. �' SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 10' 2 SQUARE NUT ON 2" FORCE MAIN cnl ON EACH SIDE OF WATER LINE - - =:} W WATER CROSSING SEWER DETAIL --CONCRETE BLOCK ORPpU "' STOP `' COUPLING TYPE "K" COPPER _SERVICE SADDLE SERVICE LINE -- 7 _ I `I /--BRICK (TYPI W/MINIMUM OF (CONTINUOUS) 2 STRAPS • h •,- �\\\� j I ` ! WATER MAIN, NOTE: USE N(). 14 TRACER WIRE FOR ALL WAFER MAINS •`` � d` 900, 45°, 221/20 or I11/40 -WAT ER N".AIN TEE ELBOW, HORIZONTAL or ------------ I i I - BOTTOM OF VERTICAL J TYPICAL WATER SERVICE DETAIL ` TRENCH WIDTH I SEE TABLE FOR AS SPECIFIED AREA OF CO vC fO - s I BEARQN UNDISTUR9t0 0 EARTHH /--•SEE CONCRETE ' REACTION BLOCK DETAIL. :r mil GATE VALVE I fit• cr, C3 aa� C EbuATHIT N�IPE aD DETAIL FOR MAIN LINE_.. o i - WYE -/ J 1 SECTION GATE VALVES_ OP'Ft�N/yam �� �\ (TYPICAL) - - - �/ OlFi.I'°QD - ovER FACE° _ 8 5 6 - - Ew � t SEE a- FaO BEEA'&!0 :,. ... ' - _ - - _ Et_Ev 7�17 t T - D END GATE VALVE _,9�0 PARCEL 1 UTILITIES LEGEND -,quo •�_ _ r�ls'rR113LIiIp1.1 E.LEL.,r7Hc)t lE I nv, c�^sL-E. ��s�MeI.IT Tr/, Ge rbL_E - --- Ex ITT I NG SA ITa.RY SE.J E.Z 5 �* SEIJEIg. �J `�� Ex16iINc� MANHoL_� _ , • New Ml,e�i.IBoL� 8's�wer� 1 \ � \ � - � � \ \ • r�Ew HYI712DMATIG Su�M�5113L,E 2E4.Ia,ctE GRIN��.� � I'UMI'. � •� � � _ � � � � � �\ ►� 1��w L.14TEI� vc,ly� PARCEL 2 I w Ll - © NEW FI RE rtY5)12aNT 1 JOT ES% 1 t oU? 7�173,cl C INv. I�! 7975,v THE GORDON PROPERTY • E►-�� 1�1 �.L , f t-K�1�I E G.t� 3LrE �/ / ZI ,N�/, c�L•IT 7G7+.�I Tay GA.S L.I N Efj SHAL.rL 3E LCxe .7 _17 ItJ SC.I`1� T2ENU-i r ED COf.•'. LOT 2 GORDON SUBDIVISION I R �yl ______ TQ T- W I TH S�iJE2. , Wa.'r>✓ 12 LI NI E � � j-� '" TC, T -rQac •, EE HcalLl Z•C��-ITAS•.L.- 5E1''�.IZ�.TIoN - ��„� PUMPER NOZZLE DEPTH OF BURY ASPEN, COLORADO FR WM 5E �6Iz �'�� % , SHALL PER DRAWINGS • SHAr��D a I�F_A5 I N I C� T �INbA1�1�5 �F AGLr��� i FACE ACCESS _y V UTILITY EAS�M E-1.1T5. � �I�E HYr�I2Ati11" :-o�oTlol.l � _ ; TRAFFIC FLANGE k'.,-.-. ADJUSTABLE PROPOSED UTILITIES 1 : 30 IIIV. IN 7`17�.0 % FIN GRADE T SCREW TYPE II�IV, vL.1T 7"'175`� 3d ELEV• Y VALVE BOX A _ C.l RING a COVER NORTH _ ----- / EXTENSION(S) \ r� _ _- __� / ; AS NECESSA I0,1W I e 0,GAT7" (TYPICAL) : ` GROUT IN FIELD _ �� NON -RISING STEM = E VALVE a I �' _ 1 REINFORCED CONCRETE I - _ w N GRADE RINGS FOR FINE _ BRICKS o v 24' GALL AS REQtl • - - CONCRETE REACTION II \ LUFdINUM OR -PRECAST ECCENTRIC a� `; aLTEt'LI�Q.TE �12L CONCRETE • " A -BLOCK TEE C.,S i' CONE-SHIGH } ri71ZAN'r Loc.o.Tl�-�J REACTION T IRt'F -? i- 3': PS AT 15 C.0 ' �, 1 ©LOCK I �:. -KJ x FL TEE NYI�1Za.N i z 44 COtJ�. BLOCK- 1-�'" ° a •. �. D REX7101: `BLOCKKDD DETAIL - F/! I. PRECAST RINGS OR METAL RISER RING COURSE S BE -L I/2 CU. YD. of 1/2' , y UTILIZED WHERE REQUIRED WITH 2 COURSES OF 1 CpURSE GRAVEL PROVIDE TWO 3/4" GALV. TIE RODS t PRECAST MANHOLE © MINIMUM AND S COURSES MAXIMUM. DRAIN MATERIAL +•W/EYE BOLTS. TIE RODS B EYE E DIA1:t�ER 24' M BOLTS SHALL BE COATED W/ r, r J BARREL PIPE - 5' WALL SLOPE TUMASTIC COATINCx ROD`' SHILL MiN 4 -0 (TYP) �'• 2- WHERE AVAILABLE FROM PIPE MANUFACTURER USE g� (TYP) LENGTH AS REQUIRED �' 'I%a EXTEND FROM VALVE TO HYDP.,aNT -_-- MANUFACTURERS ABLE WATER STOP OR SPECIAL SLEEVE' AS PER (TYPi MIN. MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATION. FERr,CO 5• ` ' V L ALL JOINTS FROM MAW TO HYDRANT SHALL BE COUPIJNG 3. ALL BASES SHALL BE CAST 'IN PLACE. HARNESSED MECHANICAL JOINTS OR FLANGED JOINTS. 1 ..;,.�,.., SLriPE Ir_3r _ 4 SET EACH RING IN A FULL BED OF MORTAR AND GROUT ?-HYDRANT, VALVE, Q F"WiS TO BE 250 P.S.I. RATED. , 12 PIPE 01A c • ,, .. , {',. f '� ALL INSIDE JOINTS WITH PREFORMED GASKET MATERIAL. 1 !;•; ;., Jib.;•.,. a POLYETHYEN'E WRAP SHALL COVER DI.P ASSEMBLY FROM 6. SEAL OUTSIDE WITH MORTAR JOINT HYDRANT BASE TO GATE VALVE, FROM GATE VALVE 1 '%+ •Fa :i, Y'•'r' 4 6. JOINT TO BE LOCATED ON EACH SIDE OF ALL MANHOLE$; TO THE WATER MAIN. ..�.. .t. '.F.+., y :•s• t, •+ • y +'.'r f +�i' : MAXIMUM OF 24 FROM INSIDE FACE 4- ALL HYDRANT LEAD PIPING TO BE DIP ' " ` - CONCRETE ' RUBBER 0-RING OR ETE BASE � •�'''�`• - . GROUT SEAL NOTTLALLOWED. CAST IN PLACE VERTICAL SIDE SECTION R - B FLEXIBLE FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY Alm INSTALLATION DETAIL - .�SINoAll_z s c PRINT RECORD I REVISIONS r i J i� J IL \��'� ��,Jlj J,'��.,