HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.general 1983 Residential GMP.1983 MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: City Residential GMP Applications - Appeal and Allo•,tion //
DATE: February 28, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2' / 6
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold, including the following issues:
1. Forwarding of P &Z's recommended scores for the 1983 residential GMP
competition;
2. Analysis of the thresholds and eligibility requirements for receipt
of an allocation;
3. Review of an appeal of the scoring of one of the applications; and
4. Determination as to whether or not to carry over the quota still
remaining following this year's allocation.
Applicants' Requests
At the January 18, 1983 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion, three projects were evaluated in the 1983 Residential Growth Management
competition. Each project was presented and discussed, public comment was heard,
and scoring was done individually by each Commission member. The three projects
can be summarized as follows:
1. Whale of a Wash - 1 free market unit (and 1 Silverking unit converted
by deed restriction).
2. 111 W. Hyman - 1 free market and 1 employee unit.
3. Snowridge - 5 free market and 5 employee units.
The total number of units requested in the competition is 7 free market units
and 6 employee units.
Quota Available
The tabulation of residential quota available this year (based on construction
of units and expiration of projects as of January 1, 1983) is as follows.
1. 39 units which are unallocated from previous years are available
for allocation this year.
2. The annual residential quota in Aspen is 39 units.
3. The Swiss Chalet /Third and Main project has expired, returning
36 units to the quota, while the expiration of the 700 S. Galena/
925 Durant project added 16 units back to the quota.
4. During 1982 there were 10 new units constructed in Aspen which were
exempt from the competition but are to be deducted from the quota.
5. The summation of the quota calculations for this year's competition is:
Annual quota: 39 units
Unallocated from previous years: 39 units
Expired as of 1/1/83: 52 units
Construction during 1982: (10 units)
Quota Available as of 1/1/83: 120 units
Memo: City Residential GMP
Page Two
February 28, 1983
Thresholds and Eligibility
To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum
of 60 percent of the total points available under Categories 1 (Public Facilities
and Services), 2 (Quality of Design), 3 (Proximity to Support Services) and
4 (Employee Housing). A minimum score of 30 percent of the points available
in each category, 1, 2, 3 and 4, is also required for a project to meet the
basic competitive requirements. Two additional categories are scored, these
being Category 5 (Provision for Unique Financing) and Category 6 (Bonus Points).
Neither of these categories (5 and 6) can be used to bring an application over
the minimum thresholds, but can affect the final ranking of the applications
for the purposes of awarding allotments.
The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows:
Whale of a Wash Average
1. Public Facilities and Services: 8
2. Quality of Design: 11.1
3. Proximity to Support Services: 6
4. Employee Housing: 20
Subtotal: 45.1
5. Provision for Unique Financing: -0-
6. Bonus Points: 1.3
TOTAL: 46.3
111 W. Hyman Average
1. Public Facilities and Services: 6.9
2. Quality of Design: 9.9
3. Proximity to Support Services: 5.7
4. Employee Housing: 20
Subtotal: 42.5
5. Provision for Unique Financing: -0-
6. Bonus Points 0.1
TOTAL: 42.6
Snow Ridge Average
1. Public Facilities and Services: 7.1
2. Quality of Design: 10.3
3. Proximity to Support Services: 4.3
4. Employee Housing: 16
Subtotal: 37.7
5. Provision tor Unique Financing: -0-
6. Bonus Points 1.6
TOTAL. 39.3
Since the Code requires that the applicant score 60 percent of the available
points, or 43.8 points prior to bonus, the only project which is eligible for
an allocation is the Whale of a Wash.
Memo: City Residential (IMP
Page Three
February 28, 1983
Planning Office Review
The Snow Ridge application fell well below the necessary point total and the
applicant has accepted that the development of the parcel will be pursued at a
later date.
The scoring of the 111 W. Hyman project has been appealed by Stan Mathis,
representative for the applicant, Ed Baker. The Planning Office referred the
appeal (a copy of which is attached) to the City Attorney's office and was
advised to forward the appeal to the City Council for a determination.
Section 24- 11.4(f) governs challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commission's
scoring by applicants. This section reads as follows:
"Having received the Commission's report, the City Council shall consider
any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the City
Council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial
of due process or abuse of discretion by the Commission in its scoring.
Any challenge must be filed with the Planning Office within fourteen (14)
days of the date of the public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion."
The appeal submitted by the applicant does not suggest that any denial of due
process occurred, however, the arguments presented seem to focus on an abuse
of discretion by the Commission in its scoring. In essence, the appellant has
argued that the Commission members were "incorrect" in their scoring of four
criteria - -storm drainage, parking design, quality of design and energy.
However, a close examination of the scores awarded by the Commission as a
whole would tend to result in a conclusion that no member was "arbitrary or
capricious" in his or her scoring - only that they awarded points based on
their reading of the facts presented by staff and the applicant.
As an example, the appellant argues that the score of "zero" awarded by four
members of the Commission in the area of storm drainage is incorrect because
of his interpretation of this category. However, the "zero" score is consistent
with that recommended by the Planning Office and Engineering Department, since
the applicant's plans show drainage being handled off -site, a design flaw.
The fact that a majority of the Commission members agreed with this analysis
would seem to support its credibility.
In your consideration of this appeal, we caution you to look closely at the
consistency of the scores awarded to this project by the seven P &Z members.
Typically, you would find that abuse of discretion has occurred if the scores
of one Commission member are at odds with those of the other members. No such
aberration is present here - the scores of the members are remarkably similar,
documenting that a fair hearing was conducted with adequate information presented
for decision - making.
Please also consider that appeals before Council are not truly designed for
you to rehear the technical arguments as to whether an applicant deserved a
"1" or a "2" for a particular item. This function has been delegated to P &Z
and we believe it should remain there. Instead, your review power should be
broad, considering whether the hearing was conducted unfairly or if a member
of the Commission acted arbitrarily. We find no action which took place
during the January 18, 1983 public hearing to fall into either of these cate-
gories.,' However, should you choose to review each of the other arguments
presented within the appeal, we are capable of providing you with detailed
responses to the challenges to the parking, energy and site design scores, as
we have done for storm drainage above.
While we recognize that losing a Growth Management competition for a single
free market unit by less than 2 points is difficult, we feel that we must
stand up tor a process which is working properly. The competition is designed
to grant allocations to those projects which are not costly for the community
to serve, which are compatible with their neighborhood and which meet community
housing and social policy goals. While this project has substantial merit,
enough to gather almost 43 points, it did not address all significant policy
areas and it therefore fell short. We recommend that you view this appeal in
the objective light in which we have placed it, and reject the request for
rescoring the 111 W. Hyman project, thereby effecting its denial
Memo: City Residential GMP
Page Four
February 28, 1983
Remaining Quota
Section 24- 11.4(g) of the Code states that "Unallocated allotments may be
carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a
later) time." This year, we will face the unique situation of whether or not
to carry over either 118 or 119 units for later distribution, depending on
your decision on the appeal. We have only had a carry -over during two prior
occasions in the residential competition, these being the 18 units carried
over from 1980 and this year's carry -over of 39 units from 1982.
The Planning Office believes that there are arguments both for and against
carrying over this quota. The arguments against the carry -over are as follows:
1. The only reason we actually have available quota is that until this
year we did not deduct employee units from the available quota.
Since we have actually built about 50 units per year since 1977, and
not the 39 suggested by the quota, simply by using the new calculation
method we would have no excess quota available. Therefore, to
believe that we can afford to award an additional 120 units and
still meet our growth goals is simply not true.
2. Pitkin County is currently considering a 267 unit employee housing
project known as Silverking Phase IV. If this project is built, as
planned, during 1983 and 1984, it will substantially exceed the
quota for both the City and County during these years. We find no
method to totally offset the impact of these units upon the available
quotas without turning the GMP regulations into a "bookkeeping
system ". We have, however, committed ourselves to exploring all
available alternatives for reducing the impact of these units upon
our growth rate since this project has been documented to have major
cost impacts on our road, water and sewer facilities. Our approach
to impact mitigation will certainly be to offset the maximum number
of units available (25) of the County's metro quota for several
years. A second approach, which we hope you will consider, would be
for you to decide not to carry over all or a portion of the City's
quota which remain unallocated. We would only recommend implemen-
tation of this approach if a building permit is granted to the Phase
IV project.
3. A last argument in favor of not carrying over the unallocated units
is that your action would have no direct effect on the ability of
the community to obtain additional employee units, since these do
not have to compete under the GMP nor request quota; they only get
deducted when they are built. Your action would only affect our
ability to produce new free market units in new subdivisions. We
believe that it is appropriate to limit the construction of such
units for the next few years in recognition of the fact that 267 new
employee units are about to be created due to the conversion of a
major source of our affordable housing to free market status.
The major argument in favor of carrying over the unallocated quota stems from
a point we raised during the GMP revisions of 1982. We asked you to include
employee housing within the quota and as one of many rationales, suggested
that the large number of unallocated units would ensure the availability of
plenty of units for the competition. We feel that we would be remiss if we
did not remind you of this argument. However, we also feel it important to
note that in the last two years our competitions have involved three and seven
free market units. You should also remember that you placed in the Code a
provision ensuring that a minimum of 30 percent of the 39 units quota, or 12
free market units will be available for competition each year, regardless of
buildout.
Memo: City Residential (MP
Page Five
February 28, 1983
Taking all these factors into account, we recommend that you not carry over
a portion or all of the unallocated quota. We would certainly hope that you
not carry over at least 50 percent of the units which remain (i.e., 59 units)
and would prefer that you eliminate 75 percent or 100 percent of the total.
However, recognizing the arguments we made last year before the public, we
could support any decision you make to retain a portion of the quota for
subsequent competitions.
Planning Office Recommendation
The Planning Office recommends that you take the following actions:
1. "Move to accept the scores awarded by P &Z and effectively deny the
appeal by the representative of the 111W. Hyman project."
2. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution awarding
a one unit allocation to the Whale of a Wash project."
3. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution which
carries over a portion of the 118 unit quota to the 1984 competition,
not to exceed 50 percent of the total."
t
STAN MATHIS
architecture and planning
p.o. box 1984 ;,
aspen, colorado 81612
t j _
'C 4�n�i 1 „•, ,
4& nonoinb e Zcti(r , tierk
n oda rzloruati 2, I°i&S
re: 4.iri.i? A 'Iiarhor Pay tsnare t, J�tex , 111 W. Hyman,
eire:
We rrf atn orrorivnty 4' ea rod! -the
' .oring of cur a iaifion Giiy
Gaunal �- -the ear ie4 po ible dam
"(�1e zirpesl ie baeed on the, lz.l ieF - fat
our eve*luaftoh wise not ored Frofzrli
A otji of Flonnirls t w :
Comrrile&lon 0 point' at1Iocr2'ion follows b
I. rublio ?aot H,ee i 'zrvices
we con{'e .c of 4w, area ; eirrrn
drainay and parking, design. We feel The
the Zero oinfe that were ecnned -{'r e+orrn
Arain1164 ky -fir members m in corre t. One
- point can be nwardeal atuec - f Iia rot*
m {� handled the exisfing level
�
eier ce the are and aloe role r vitro
to
'}he ovleion of hew V.rvicet - t ea ed
•
� I
pu bli o e tpen "C'hi k -fho cooz - ! ha afe
vr
We. feel ft - projeo+ mould reeeivc
1h6 may irnum of -two ants -for parkins
di5. In - the words o-P The 'Manning
Office �� , `Three parking, epece' art pro .
CM Fier unrl IG ekemp+-ed -From
- ze reqrn
uireen+ ,'!hie would exceed -1 required
hum fir. In ao+ , -pow o • of vee- parking
'dew -are provided .) not- flirted vie was
meorrco +l t Indica -kJ 4he lino!
I-ming Cornmis'►on ai va +iorn. +- -rn re
his rnajor' c -Ih .ter
. � Iz�hnin andL
Commi ion ro "B
� +hai - •11 �z� prod In and
improvee o� - elf -Ike civallHy of prk.zn
I - the mrca. We -fe4 the maxtmum nurn
f'oirfre ehou1o! iz zwgrclecl in -fh'ts ca
Y
2. ClvaaI al' of 1 i t
The Finfe 2twztrded - kerfh nciej-)borhaxl
com a+ibt 1 i-f- and env delisn arse inccxreo}-
And were oub j � +i,reiY awarded .
r ltlk art tmpoeeible• -}o ecore. objectively.
1 a fro'ec} fulfills - fhe •praa OP The
alien+ an aocs adver nOI- � aged. -file
chtiraa -r of- +ho ei+& or The neiAlborheard,
ihtti zilc of c*e e '' and
i ora� � li+ l an
nt ' bh co mpzt+i A have keen achieved.
•
Y
lilt msegure of We rro�eofs eife deei� and
comprf-i bi l i-1- it in o o f the hchol ,r ; not-
The Planning teptr E or -Hit Flonnire, And
Zonis Commies! on
Th& + io of energ was in Tenn
reviewed . Te contraal- Y curnenh Mr* %eere
fart- of - Ihk appliaifion 2tddreervecl mark
01 Harnetive, ener •f :21L.4-ion. The Planning
Gf'ce el *f eicl haf --11-t olu(-ione were;
2tddreeed onl in -II-16 daurnerrl -s Cdrawinge)3
no{- in -the 1-e5cle. If i e -Ihe re<.•eibiiily
4 191 tinning., e{- to review -all
material 'wbmi zte r }- of -the liczdion,
whw�r - hio or ' wrifi
We f f e 41J* 'fir ie o + , it roviewe-c4
And tored properly aif 4 cj firm of eulo -
mieeion , would have. reoived the -hrehold
number of p'h- i- aka -a reei derrl aI
414.r r arrJioa-lion .
i . `tilt►,
q.
e-Fzrn kl is
h
i
t
x
N 1-� V
7
(0 d. n 0 Oi .O `h m C. n 0 N C N m
at 'S '$ n J to J :D - 0 J fn (n E P C —I 0
CD N N e* -I. et 0 N 0 Z c (1 • 0
c n m (c t < 0. m 0 m m
N . < 0 0' 0 N = -0 d t0
VI N 0 -A (0 '1 0 In N n
CU �. = ' 0 c Z N M J. 3
0 0 ID N w. < < - a
n (
CD 7 o tn VI n j
0. c 0 0 0 ro
C0 tO C = = 0 ID N t9 to CD (
0
0 0.
cr
!n 0. y
C Cr C 0
co -. W -s
...4. .. 0
--I r+ 0 0
O .
r < I- 0
0
N
lo
-a — N — C
o s
Co CO
70
MI
N
r.
CI
_O m
N N NN E.- N — o h- ___ I—
CD N
CD Z
2* I—
CI
N 70
O
I p1/4 D O — I
r .. x
\ N N N N _. N w N a
11 = a a
m r C]
m r m
--I O 3
m
a z
v --I i
co N NNN (I —o a
N O V
O B A z r
Z
to
C
W
3
e-.
N
F N
o NN NNN ts . — N — o —
N N NN = NNE NN 7 �
NN N0 , _N—
CO
C I ...-_,.....
av 00
_ a (fl
a
CD
a
OA 4t.,e4
.0
• \
Qt CA a
• w 77 -1
flo C l0
CO z . . a s o • i C4.1 m v
w
= o
O u a i < -1 3 x r - 0 v X C • -1 -1 m
0 J.
a v _. a n m £ m 2 - - a
r o o r — T 0 c rr = v rrl
= N N = = a
c c 10 z
0 =
O K 0 O .r CD e c '< 0 3 >
a to 0 z T O a, Z T Z 0 = 0 - y Q a
O
-4 ..
C (D O 10 N 0 = (..) = N.
0 V vi C L N
T .'O
o 13 r --I > C O 0 T O N O
T `+ T
v G0 0 n r c+ r
O O O � •
T o
a —1 0. N N r O 0 Z 1 = P1 9
— r m = m m --i- a = J C
N N =
N N p 0
1 1+ -1 -1 -.. ro 1. tn I
r -1
-+
C.
CD >
N a
r
r
N
r
m
m
rn
N N T
T 'O
< a
to
as
,ten N
A ` {� / .r (. _ r
ro
llvvl ,v^'1 V W W m N
c4 w
Ca
LA) Cu
PN -- 1\3 1 4-1 In
a
_
rD
Vv 15N CP N N
co
T
O
*.... '-
V
i
n
km
N UI 11 1
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: 1983 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: January 18, 1983
Introduction
Attached for your review are project profiles for three residential GMP appli-
cations submitted on December 1st of last year and the Planning Office's
recommended points allocation for each application. The three applications
under consideration are as follows:
1. 111 W. Hyman - Snare /Baker Duplex
2. Snow Ridge - Riverside Addition
3. Whale of a Wash - 415 E. Main Street
A copy of each application was provided in your mail slots in City Hall on
Friday, January 7, 1983.
Quota Available
The tabulation of residential quota available for allocation this year (based
on construction of units and expiration of projects as of January 1, 1983) is
as follows:
1. 39 units which are unallocated from previous years are available
for allocation this year.
2. The annual residential quota in Aspen is 39 units.
3. The Swiss Chalet /Third and Main project has expired, returning
36 units to the quota.
4. During 1982 there were 10 new units constructed in Aspen which were
exempt from the competition but are to be deducted from the quota.
5. The summation of the quota calculation for this year's competition
is:
Annual Quota 39 units
Unallocated from previous 39 units
years
Expired as of 1/1/83 36 units
Constructed during 1982 (10) units
Quota Available as of 1/1/83:104 units + i f , ,, _
The total quota request for this year is as follows:
1. 111 W. Hyman - 1 free market unit, 1 employee
2. Snow Ridge - 5 free market units, 5 employees
3. Whale of a Wash - 1 free market unit, 0 employee
7 free market units, 6 employees
Process
The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on January 18 to
explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of
points to each application. Next, each of the applicants should be given 15
minutes to present their proposal to you. It is important during the applicant's
presentations that you limit their remarks only to description of the project
as it has been submitted to the Planning Office, along with any technical clari-
fications which you or the staff may request.
Memo: 1983 Residential GMP Applications
January 18, 1983
Page Two
A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At
the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the
applicants' proposals.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of
members voting will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A
project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under
categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 43.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent
of the points available in each category 1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic
competitive requirements. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 3.6 points
Category 2 = 4.5 points
Category 3 = 1.8 points
Category 4 = 12 points
Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for
a development allotment and the application will be considered denied Bonus
points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold, but
can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding
the allotments.
All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will require
additional review procedures. Specifically, the additional reviews required for
each project are as follows:
111 W. Hyman: Subdivision Exception
Parking Exemption
GMP Exemption for Employee Unit
Rezoning to RBO
Snow Ridge: GMP Exemption for Employee Unit
Full PUD
Whale of a Wash: Special Review for FAR bonus
HPC Approval
Subdivision Exception
Deed Restrict Employee Units
All of these procedures will be accomplished subsequent to an applicant's receipt
of a development allotment.
Planning Office Ratings
The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications as a
recommendation for you to consider. The majority of the staff assessed the
ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored each proposal. The
following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis and ratings of the
three projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each
criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the
ratings.
Application Public Facilities Quality Proximity to Employee Provisions Bonus Total
and Services. of Design Support Housing for Unique Pts. Points
Services Financing
111 W. Hyman 5 10 6 20 - - 41
Snow Ridge 4 6 3 16 - - 29
Whale of a Wash 8 11 6 20 - - 45
r
Memo: 1983 Residential GMP Applications
January 18, 1983
Page Three
All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within categories 1, 2, 3 and
4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each category. Only one
of the projects, however, meets the requirement of 60 percent of the total
points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is 43.8 points.
That project is the Whale of a Wash with 45 points.
Planning Office Recommendation
Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the Planning
Office has the following recommendations:
Whale of a Wash: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments
and approve the project, recommending to Council that an allocation be
awarded for the one unit.
111 W. Hyman: If you concur with the points recommended by the Planning
Office, the project falls short of the 60 percent threshold required and
must be denied. If your scoring realizes a higher number of points and
the project does meet the threshold, your recommendation to Council would
be allocation for the one unit.
Snow Ridge: In the scoring recommended by the Planning Office, it should
be recognized that the project submission lacked detail for thorough
evaluation. Several areas will likely be technically clarified in the
applicant's presentation to you on January 18. If the clarified proposal
warrants the assignment of enough points to get the project over the
minimum thresholds, your recommendation to Council would be an allocation
for the five units requested. If the total remains beneath the required
threshold, the project is denied.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: GM P Files
FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Quota for December, 1982 . Residential. Competition
DATE: .January 5, 1983
•
Pol.lowing is an analysis of_the residential quota which is
available for allocation this year_, based on the con
of units and expiration of projects which has taken place as
of January 1, 1983.
1. There are 39 units which are unallocated' from previous
years which are available for allocation this year.
2. The annual residential quota in Aspen is 39 units.
3. The Swiss Chalet /Third and Main project has expired, re-
turning 36 units to the quota. The Ute City Pia.'
project has submitted plans to the Building Dcpa:'
in an effort to ]seep the project alive, although is
no plan to build these units at this time.
4. During 1982 there were 10 new units constructed in Aspen
which were exempt from the competition but are to be
deducted from the quota.
5. The quota calculation for this year's competition is as
follows:
Annual quota 39 units
Unallocated from previous years 39 units
Expired as of 1/1/83 36 units
Constructed during 1982 -10 units
Quota available as of 1/1/83 104 units
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: December 20, 1982
RE: 1983 Residential GMP Applications
Having reviewed the three applications submitted for 1983
residential GMP allotment, and having made site inspections,
I have attached copies of review sheets indicating suggested
scoring for each project. These review sheets are excerpted
from an Engineering Department checklist of engineering related
concerns for various types of GMP requests. I would be willing
to discuss these suggested scores with you and /or participate
in any Planning office scoring procedure. In addition, I would
offer the following brief comments specific to each proposal:
1. 111 West Hyman Avenue - While it may be difficult to grasp
how conversion of the last vacant lot in the 100 block of West
Hyman into a structure results in a "benefit to the neighbors
and, in fact, to anyone going down Hyman Street" we will attempt
to limit our comments to engineering concerns.
Apparently the request was amended from a 3 bedroom freemarket
unit to a 2 bedroom. If this is the case, parking shown on the
site plan could be reduced to remain at one space per bedroom.
This would serve to increase useable open space on the parcel.
The only flaw remaining in the application is in the area of
storm drainage. Any storm flow from roof drains or paved areas
should be directed to on -site detention structures to maintain
historic drainage for the site.
2. Snowridge - The only area that is not fully clear in the
Snowridge application is that of water service. The application
locates the existing main in Riverside Drive but makes no mention
of how water will be brought on -site. In view of the distance
from the main to the furthest structures it will probably be
necessary to extend the main onto the parcel. This may provide
the opportunity for looping in the area.
3. 415 East Main Street - There appeared to be no engineering
related problems with this application. The proposal to retain
on -site parking is advantageous in that it would provide off -
street parking for the residential units not otherwise required
in the CC zone.
JWH /co
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney Buildig•Department:"
City Engineer City Witer'
Housing Director Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Fire Marshall City of Aspen Electric /Holy Cross
PLANNER: Alice Davis
RE: City Residential GMP Applications
DATE: December 7, 1982
Attached are three applications submitted to the Planning Office competing in
the city residential GMP.
The first project, 111 West Hyman Street, seeks to duplex an existing house
located at 113 West Hyman. In addition, the applicants propose rezoning of
the parcel to Employee Housing Bonus Overlay to complete 1 controlled one
bedroom employee unit in the garden level of the new unit.
The second project, Snowridge, seeks a growth management allotment for 5
free market units and 5 deed - restricted employee units on the subject property.
The final project submitted, 415 East Main Street (existing Whale of a Wash), •
seeks expansion to the already approved commercial space located at the same
address. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 2,700 square foot expansion
to be used as a residential unit accessory to the 900 square foot professional
office space.
Please review this material and return your comments to the Planning Office
by December 20, as these items are scheduled to go before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on January 4.
Thank you.
/7
{ ( ��z {; C` (; i (I (24- / , ^ca ,
/ C -
i ./ �
f / / _ rA
9; ( � -//�, / � i < < � /irC( / a>:. .!_L , /'.
r *--z c • te, e p '-r. 7 ---- - 3 rtie744,--/ l ' i-
ii (ice 4, '/' . —( f, —' ( -
. "c am
y y _
7'— /�� Ili!) ({,/"Eli ( c 2 / )
{ l — - 1, , ,,- /
A .. ' i(� i
✓�
/ �i l /
%( (,7 4
r /,' ..- (,� .
/ (
. /(,•/.(''..• 7 t --<-ji i
6 H
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980 I/ •
Project Name ((t rAvP
Address
Owner. «t)Y(hri ,,„i _ D � 4 ho
Attorney =a Representative F4 ? L p�
Address fp O S _' .._ _ .�. *_ 3. 00.7
Reviewed by Date 17 - 7() —R
I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4)
A. Public Facilities & Services
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard) •
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
•
*Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense.
atau e�Lto
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity wi out system upgrade.
... Akty
•
I Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
be. re.41 --ned. Oi S4. `, wta. ;k
Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and cony nience.
i/�,'. , rseJ da'7 r auk" mar-. L07 r oC +1
Z Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance.
•
_ Page 2
Growth Management IL Lew Checklist
• B. Social'Facilities and Services
O - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
2 Rublic Transportation (2 pts.)
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
•
Bike P tts Linked to Trail System (2 pts.)
() Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.)
i�f�O i:al - - C . . - ' , _ _ _ • • ica ion sec to 4 6 . 5 )
A. Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw
2 - Acceptable
•
3 - Excellent
Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of . .escaping, extend of under -
grounding of utilities, = • efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation.
Amenities (3 p•
Usable open . 10, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash a •d tility access areas (3 'Lots.)
•
III.Lodge 3-•elopment Application (section 24 -10.6)
A. '*.lic Facilities and Services (same as residential)
•
•
.i
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980 •
Project Name .S,,,,,,)4 42 .
Address �Fr�;(
Owner T-
Attorney /Agent /Representative
Address
Reviewed by ', 1 " Date /7 -70 5K Z
I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4)
A. Public Facilities & Services
0 - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
( *Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
u rade at public expense.
6co.00+t A.04 -4 am a_eQ twit �y cuQc��a e KieA-•� yLo cc ra t A
_sok. reg,c rd c� , u f
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacitywi_hout system upgrade.
Z Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
Z Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, / visual, paving, safety, and convenience.
ZS cf04-C�� / ' / /Mrn1
7, Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance.
02A>
/L
i . ..Page 2
Growth Management Rt.iew Checklist
• B. Social Facilities and Services
0 - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
Public Transportation (2 pts.)
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
On \- c/ $Z
Bike Paths Link d to Trail System (2 pts.)
II //
Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.)
•
ercia an. • ice 'eve op - ication (section
A. Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw •
2 - Acceptable •
3 - Excellent
Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of - ndscaping, extend of under -
grounding of utilities, -nd efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation.
Amenities (3 p s.)
Usable open •ace, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash - d utility access areas (3 pts.)
III.Lodge .evelopment Application (section 24 -10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
•
4
. Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name ' -- (%taF _ (.1. • to n 0 . 4 •
Address 'ii 1t'O -y r
Owner L{IS ' ✓ in t k 'tn.e f l+�C�„ J IF )
Attorney /Agent /Representative t , any L 2 .n
Address 20OS WtoiA
Reviewed by Date I1 -'
I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4)
A. Public Facilities & Services.
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - Np forseeable deficiencies
*Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense.
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity, ithout system upgrade.
G., Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate dis of surface runoff.
- ThluDat( C't C a.(
3 Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street p(rking, visual, paving, safe y, and convenience.
� ise h ,
Z Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns sir overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance.
Page 2
Growth Management Rc- iew Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
• o - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
7 Rublic Transportation (2 pts.)
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
•
Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts.)
Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.)
II. , - - • - Development Applicati.. --- 's> -5)
A. Quality of Design
0 Totally deficient
1 - Acceptable
able /
2 - Acceptable
• 3 - Excellent •
Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of - ndscaping, extend of under -
grounding of utilities -- d efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation.
Amenities (3 Pj.)
Usable open ssace, pedestrian and bicycle ways..
Trash.- d utility access areas (3 pts.)
III.Lodg- Development Application (section 24 -10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney Building Department `
City Engineer City Wtter
Housing Director Aspen Metro Sanitation District
1/Fire Marshall City of Aspen Electric /Holy Cross
PLANNER: Alice Davis
RE: City Residential GMP Applications
DATE: December 7, 1982
Attached are three applications submitted to the Planning Office competing in
the city residential GMP.
The first project, 111 West Hyman Street, seeks to duplex an existing house
located at 113 West Hyman. In addition, the applicants propose rezoning of
the parcel to Employee Housing Bonus Overlay to complete 1 controlled one
bedroom employee unit in the garden level of the new unit.
The second project, Snowridge, seeks a growth management allotment for 5
free market units and 5 deed - restricted employee units on the subject property.
The final project submitted, 415 East Main Street (existing Whale of a Wash),
seeks expansion to the already approved commercial space located at the same
address. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 2,700 square foot expansion
to be used as a residential unit accessory to the 900 square foot professional
office space.
Please review this material and return your comments to the Planning Office
by December 20, as these items are scheduled to go before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on January 4.
Thank you.
� / � .. / ��oT ^.�� �'� / // L 1��1 ! , 7' = i ( �
,s G
fir- (�
f �� 1
/
/
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney Building Department
City Engineer City Water
Housing Director /City Metro Sanitation District
Fire Marshall City of Aspen Electric /Holy Cross
PLANNER: Alice Davis
RE: City Residential GMP Applications
DATE: December 7, 1982
Attached are three applications submitted to the Planning Office competing in
the city residential GMP.
The first project, 111 West Hyman Street, seeks to duplex an existing house
located at 113 West Hyman. In addition, the applicants propose rezoning of
the parcel to Employee Housing Bonus Overlay to complete 1 controlled one
bedroom employee unit in the garden level of the new unit.
The second project, Snowridge, seeks a growth management allotment for 5
free market units and 5 deed - restricted employee units on the subject property.
The final project submitted, 415 East Main Street (existing Whale of a Wash),
seeks expansion to the already approved commercial space located at the same
address. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 2,700 square foot expansion
to be used as a residential unit accessory to the 900 square foot professional
office space.
Please review this material and return your comments to the Planning Office
by December 20, as these items are scheduled to go before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on January 4.
Thank you.
/v 0 1 -7 it on, g_rh /f- /9.e •TAT/ o.. S es- .c= T G 7M IS
Jye 7etT
�✓/YA�C of 4 t.ASH
,10 Pm.04LeH /^. ea-0-00 /-C SAS- ,tnt,o.. S Ab. /cis TO r/d/s mean.
11/4.0 p o go cs•] /... PRoi.j n... sA. I rmt /o..— See-,..cr r• TNI focolec,•
/yA ^A....? — A Ste J rwr
/),J 7^/cY3
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM I. /7
1 J
AP - ,, J
ASP- 198
TO: ALICE DAVIS, PLANNER �, .
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS "
RE: CITY RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATIONS G OFt
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1982
1) 111 West Hyman
As stated in 3 -A, a 6" cast iron main is located in Hyman Street and
based upon the proposed development the impact on the water system
would be minimal and water would be available upon application for a
tap permit.
2) 415 E. Main
As stated in paragraph 3 -A, Water System, the existing building is
served by a 3" line, connected to an existing 6" water main located
in Main Street. The proposed expansion of existing facilities will
be minimal and can be handled by the existing 6" main.
3) Snowridge
In regards to Snowridge, the conceptual site plan does not clearly
show the proposed utilities to be placed in the development. It
would appear at this time that the developer would need to submit a
utilities plan showing a main extension from the 6" ductile iron pipe
located in the cul de sac in Riverside Subdivision. It appears that
we will require the main extension to be interconnected to the 6" main
now terminated at the end of Fred Lane. Until a utilities plan is
submitted we are unable to make any further comment. Until receipt of
the packet, we have not been contacted about this project. The appli-
cant states that the Water Department had no information on the water
pressure available. Water pressure in this area will be 45 - 55 p.s.i.,
depending upon the season. For GMP purposes, there is an adaquate
water supply in the area for the proposed five units and said proposed
development would have minimal impact on Aspen's water supply.
JM:1f
cc: Engineering Department
Stan Mathis, Architect