Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mill Street Station.1980 C7 2 rn (V n �r . _ N o Bro Kw, cn o N r< > rn co GD o - o o DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDTTIOt 2 _ FOR THE MILL STREET PLAZA BUILDING Ef; MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter "Covenantor "), for itself and its heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, in consideration for the granting of an exemption from the Growth Management Plan of three units of employee housing, and a waiver, after special review, of any requirements for parking for said employee housing, all with respect to the following described property, hereby covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, to restrict said pro- perty, and hereby does restrict said property as follows: 1. Covenantor represents that it is the record title owner of the following described property, together with the improve- ments (including a commercial structure commonly known as the Mill Street Plaza Building) located thereon: Lots D through I, Block 81 City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado also known as 205 Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 2. The three (3) dwelling units located on the above - described property and described as Apartment Units 1, 2 and 3, Mill Street Plaza Building (being three studio apartments of approximately 550 square feet each, located on the top level of the building on the alley side) shall and hereby are restricted solely to use as "employee housing" as now described in Section 24 -11.4 (b)(4) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, or as it may be amended, and to rental and sale terms and prices, quali- fications guidelines, and to occupancy limitations within "low income" employee housing eligibility guidelines now established by the City Council of the City of Aspen, or as such guidelines may from time -to -time be amended by the City Council. 3. The sale of any of the dwelling units located on the above - described property shall be in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 20- 22(a), Aspen Municipal Code, as amended. BOOK 457 P;4GE w� 4. The rental of any of the dwelling units located on the above - described property shall and hereby is restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per calendar year, as described in Section 20- 22(b), Aspen Muni- cipal Code, as amended. 5. In the event that any municipal improvement or improve- ments of a kind contemplated in Section 20 -16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, become, in the sole judg- ment or discretion of the City Council of the City of Aspen, necessary or desirable to the area of the above - descaribed units, Covenantor will make no objection to any special assessment or special tax or proceeding therefor on the basis that the premises will not be served or benefitted by the improvement or improve- ments proposed. Covenantor further agrees to join, upon demand therefor by the City, any improvement district formed for con- struction of such improvements (including, without limitation, drainage, underground utilities, paving, planting, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, etc.) in the area of the above - described units or to reimburse the City of Aspen directly upon demand therefor if the City should choose to construct these improvements without the formation of such a district. 6. The covenants contained herein shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties having any rights, title or interest in the above - described property and Mill Street Plaza Building, or any part thereof, and their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, for the period of life of the longest - lived member of the presently- constituted Aspen City Council plus twenty -one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years, which- ever period is less, from the date these covenants are recorded. The City acknowledges that at the time of a subsequent application for condominiumization of the property, the Covenantor may request that these restrictions be amended to burden only the condominiumized employee- housing units themselves. 2 BOON 457 P46E731 7. None of the covenants contained herein shall be released, modified or waived in any respect during the period they are binding without the prior consent of the City of Aspen reflected by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen. IN WITNESS WHEREO this declaration has been duly executed this . _a day of _, 1983. MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES A Colorado General Partnership BY T. Al /N►la /snthon J. M: .`.en-ral Partner STATE OF COLORADO ) . ss. County of Pitkin The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d(W day of te , 1983, by Anthony J. Mazza, General Partner of Mill Street Plaza Associates. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: 7 7 - 4 - 7 1 f , 7954/ otary AddrOs 3 SLEMON, MAZZA $c LASALLE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 434 EAST COOPER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mr. Sunny Vann S P --+".- i S"a o = FM N ,� —.—,. _.'_•. Lil .�.�.....,...,. ���..... ctf le — 1. • • Po Box 2736 Aspen Colorado 81611 Mr, Sunny Vann Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 I MILL STREET SHOPPING PLAZA 434 East Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 7, 1980 Historical Preservation HAND DELIVERED Committee Re: Preliminary Approval At Conceptual Stage For Buildings Located On Lots D, E, F, G, H and I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen Gentlemen: Applicant is hereby applying to the Historical Preservation Committee for preliminary approval on a con- ceptual level for a new commercial structure to be located on Lots F, G, H and I. Said structure shall be maximally 2 -1/2 stories above grade and shall be integrated to and connected with the existing Mill Street Station building. The Mill Street Station shall be upgraded. The applicant desires to create a shopping mall area in the Aspen core which shall attract increased business to the downtown area and which shall enhance the Aspen core commercial area. MILL STREET SHOPPING PLAZA jSr y'- Copland Hagman ° Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Color081611 303 925 2867 sk 18 March 1981 J g E MAR 20i 4 ` Mr. Sunny Vann L3- Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sunny: Thank you for calling me last Friday and relating to me the results of your recent review of the Mill Street Station Mall project. To recap, my understanding was that you have concluded that the recent revisions, as approved by the HPC in our most recent presentation to that body, were basically consistent with the design awarded GMP approval. Therefore, no further review by the P & Z and City Council of the revisions will be necessary. As you know, this will allow us to complete the contract documents, at which time we will be subject to further review to insure compliance. Please contact me should my understanding of our status be contrary to our conversation. Sincerely, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd regittan Tim Hagman Principal TH :Im cc: Tony Mazza Copland Hagman Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colorz / 1611 303 925 2867 2 September 1980 Mr. Sunny Vann Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Growth Management Submission Mill Street Station Shopping Plaza Dear Mr. Vann: Enclosed please find twelve (12) copies of the Mill Street Station Mall (Shopping Plaza) Growth Management Plan Submission. Additional copies may be obtained by contacting our office. Very truly yours, Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd Jerry G. tobgood Architect JGH :Im Aspen /Pick• • '.�.;; ning Office 130 so ,.t 'ff. _ treet - aspen ; 1611 ._.�,. ,r — MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Reents, Housing Director Jim Markalunas, City Water Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Mountain Bell Fred Crowley, Fire Marshall Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Station Mall - 1980 Growth Management Quota Competition City of Aspen - Commercial Applications DATE: September 5, 1980 The attached application is one of three competing in this year's Growth Management quota competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments con- cerning this proposal no later than September 19, 1980? Please include sufficient information in your comments to address those points relating to your area of expertise that are outlined in the enclosed scoring considerations taken from Article X of the Zoning Regulations in the Municipal Code. Thank you. TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office \', ��" FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director \ \ ���"`\ DATE: September 19, 1980 SUBJECT: 1981 Growth Management Applications Ol�l /10 Mill Street Station The project proposes a mix of community and tourist oriented commercial uses as well as employee housing. Because of the criteria for scoring the employee housing portion, my recommenda- tion would be to award the project a 2.5. This is based on the fact that while the deed restricted employee housing cannot be used to accommodate tourists, there are still tourist oriented uses incorporated into the project. In addition, the employee housing incorporated is less than the need generated by additional commercial development. Park Place Building This project proposes four 1 bedroom units to provide housing for the employees of two existing businesses which plan to occupy the site. My recommendation would be a score of 2.75 based on the amount of housing in comparison with the commercial space and the fact they are developing housing for existing businesses. Ajax Moutain Building Phase II This project in its second phase proposes the inclusion of one 2 bedroom deed restricted employee apartment. Because of the primarily tourist orientation of the project, as well as the adopted evaluation criteria, I recommend a score of 2.3. The reasoning behind this recommendation is the same as on Mill Street Station with the exception that one 2 bedroom unit mitigates less impact of additional commercial space. JR:ds • MEMORANDUM • TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: 1981 Commercial Growth Management Submissions DATE: October 2, 1980 On October 7, 1980, you will be scoring the 1981 Commercial GMP appli- cations. There are three applications: 1) Ajax Mountain Associates, Building #2; 2) Mill Street Station Mall; and 3) Park Place Building. A copy of these applications and the Planning Office's summary project profiles and points evaluations are enclosed for your review. Scoring sheets for your completion upon conclusion of the applicants' presenta- tions will be available at Tuesday's meeting. As the attached material indicates, applications for the 1981 Commercial GMP quota total approximately 40,420 square feet. In addition, the appli- cants are requesting exemption from Growth Management for a total of 5,962 square feet of employee housing. The available annual quota is limited to 24,000 square feet of commercial use, provided,however, that the Commission at its discretion may recommend to Council square footage in excess of the available quota by as much as 25 percent. In addition to the maximum of 6,000 square feet of commercial space available as a bonus, an undetermined amount of commercial square footage is potentially avail- able as the result of unallocated quotas in past years. The status of this unallocated quota will be discussed by the Planning Office at your Tuesday meeting. Each of the applicants will make a brief (limited to 15 minutes) presenta- tion. A public hearing is scheduled to allow interested citizens to comment at the close of which each Commission member will score the applications. To insure a reasonable comparison of the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office would prefer that all applications be scored simulta- neously on a category -by- category basis. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total number of points awarded to each project. Any project not receiving a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under the three major scoring categories, or a minimum of 30 percent of the points available under Categories 1 (Quality of Design) and 2 (Historic Features /HPC) shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. The Commission members may, should they determine that a project has incorporated the criteria in such a manner as to achieve an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points not exceeding 20 percent of the total points awarded under these sections. Bonus points, however, may not be utilized to' attain the minimum points requirements outlined above. All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will require additional review procedures. Employee housing units constructed as part of a Commercial GMP project are subject to the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as are employee parking requirements. Similarly, requests to utilize the FAR bonus available in the Commercial zone district must also be approved • by the Planning and Zoning Commission. At least one of the projects will require P.U.D. review and approval in order to address variances in view plane and open space requirements. All of these procedures will be accom- plished subsequent to an applicant's receipt of a development allotment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me in the Planning Office prior to Tuesday's meeting. ASPEN*PITKIN L EGIONAL BUILDIN. DEPARTMENT T0: Sunny Vann, Planning Office /� FROM: Fred Crowley, Chief Building Official y DATE October 3, 1980 RE: Mill Street Station Mall Ajax Mountain Associates, Building 2 Park Place Building In reference to the proposed expansion of the above reference properties we would forsee no major problems if the following criteria are met: 1. All new building and existing buildings be designed and built to meet the requirements of the Uniform Buildig Code. 2. The access for fire vehicles is adequately provided for, and adequately maintained, i.e. alley ways. The present location of the Fire Station will make response time minimal and the location and availability of water is more than adequate if maintained as is and not decreased in any manner. If you have further questions or I can be of service in any way, please don't hesitate to call. 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 -�- Commercial Scoring Present: Welton Anderson, Sunny Vann, Bob Edmundson Welton: After the meeting was over, he approached me to ask me what I thought of the projects. I told him that I liked his... the civic space part of his project best of all, I disliked... hated the long, expansive glass on the top floor and he said well that was to make it look like a roof and to lower the height of it and it was a request of the HPC, and I said, well 1 guess that makes sense... um, then he asked me how I scored and I said I didn't really remember how I scored, but that I remembered that I scored his lower than the other two... um, just because I didn't think that his alone was better than the other two combined. He then said why did you give me a point and a half for employee housing when I had three units and the Ajax (Mountain) Asso- ciates' building only had one unit, and I said I didn't remember that I gave you one and a half points and that you had three units and that I gave them three points and they only had one unit. That's really what it boils down to; there was no mention made by him of how many bedrooms were in the units in the Ajax. It didn't occur to me until I talked to you today that it really did come out to a wash, that a two bedroom unit with a livingroom is the same thing as three studios, basically. The revised memo that I sent to the... that I an going to get to you today states that all the projects that had any employee housing involved I gave three points to, and I was just so sick that evening that I didn't see... grasp the full extent of the employee housing units that he had. Sunny: The discussion you are referring to is the one that took place after the meeting that night, after we scored (the applications) initially? Welton: Yeah. That and I told him at the session last evening when I was over at Ashley Anderson's house. Bob: Last night? The 15th (of October)? Welton: Yes. Sunny: What about the discussion with Frank that you referred to when I talked to you yesterday that took place prior to last night, at which time you came up with the memorandum that we now have in our possession. Welton: Oh, this memorandum here came about as a result of the discussion last night over the telephone with Tony... with Frank. Sunny: I'm a little bit confused; I talked with you about six o'clock, I believe, and you referred to the fact that you'd talked to Tony, I mean to Frank... Welton: I talked to Frank about 5:30. Sunny: That's the results that this memorandum comes from. Welton: Yeah, and this memorandum is not what... I mean I did not write this memorandum. Sunny: O.K. Welton: And in rereading it, it is not the intent of what I wanted to do in the first place. Bob: Who wrote the memorandum? - - Welton: I guess Tony (Mazza) did It judging by the bad grammar. Sunny: O.K. In your discussion... \ Welton: I had no intention of transposing the two, the two point allocations. If anything, the only thing I wanted to do was to give three points to each of the projects that had any employee housing in them; I had no intention at all, and I never mentioned to him any intention of transposing any points. Sunny: O.K. When Frank brought this to me yesterday, he commented that he had contacted you to discuss the potential error in your scores that resulted from misunderstanding on your part as to the historic nature of the structure... Welton: That happened... Sunny: And that this was never his idea and never came up as part of it. Welton: That happened immediately after the meeting. Sunny: In other words, am I correct in saying that you were approached by Frank (Woods) with regard to his employee housing and this memo is the results of that? Welton: In reading this, and realizing what he was trying to accomplish, which was not what I was trying to accomplish, which was to grade everybody based on, you know, what, you know, the points were sup- posed to be. I say: You are in receipt of a memo dated 16 October, ' sorry, it says 15 October, concerning the regrading of the Employee section of the Mill Street Station application. I am now, and was at the time of the grading, seriously ill, and it was an error on my part to grade that portion unequally with the other applications providing employee housing. However, it was probably a greater error to force myself to go to the meeting in the first place, not realizing how ill I was. Knowing this, I would defer to your judg- ment the option of changing that one score, or eliminating my ratings of all of the applications. Thank you for your help. Post Script: It is still my feeling that all three should deserve three points in Section 2A. Bob: Frank Woods said, well right after the meeting in one telephone con- versation? Welton: Right after the meeting, I mentioned something to the effect that I'm on the Board of Trustees of the Historical Society and, you know, were in a real serious, as this man can tell you, in a real serious situation right now with our historic buildings eating the dust, one after another. You know, the demolition of the building on Main Street, and you know, things getting... all things we've all come to know and to feel comfortable with, and getting too glitzed up, too fancied up. I mentioned to him that I didn't like the fact that you're covering yet another building with brick, that I thought the building architecturally could be handled a different way by making that a separate building from another building and just batting back and forth some design ideas, and he told me that the building is not historic, that it was built in the 50's or 60's, and I said I remember when it was used to store lumber, and I had no idea that it was that current a building. Sunny: Can I ask you a question? I'm a little bit confused, Welton. Prior to Frank delivering this first memorandum to me, you were contacted by him with respect to the employee housing score and he subsequently drafted this memorandum, which you signed and he delivered to me. ' Is that correct? Welton: That's the way it happened. That was not the way it was supposed to happen. Uh, I was going to write it out myself, but he was in such a damned hurry that this all of a sudden appeared on my desk this morning and... Welton: Yes, you do, and I glanced over it very briefly, signed it and he came by to pick it up, and I didn't,,, it didn't even dawn on me that what he was talking about was transposing the points from 3 points for the Mill Street Shopping Plaza, transposing the 3 points with the 11 points. I have no problem with making 3 points for the Mill Street Shopping Plaza, because I didn't realize the extent of the employee housing in that project, Sunny: O.K. But the memorandum, the first memorandum, was the results of Frank, or Tony, contacting you with regard to why you scored it as 11/2 on the employee housing, Is that correct? Welton: Yes. It could be construed as an ex parte communication, but I don't think it was an ex parte communication because, uh,,, o �� ` Sunny: Pm not inferring that I was told by Frank that this was not r' G their idea, this was something that you volunteered, and I am e, e b �.,- -4).... simply trying to get it straight, . ei i < fie .. ° j s r°' , oC fo k i)' - a `: h Welton: There were five messages on my answering service for him to call me, o a e titi s y r +.`+ C o `' o C , for me to call him, rather. And I tried calling him on Friday, r 4 5 , ti K5 ,o et' Saturday, Sunday and I finally got hold of him when I was over at o C v-' T a Ashley's house on Monday, ti � m ( C � �r ° a'`� Or tir s °: ° '4R' (a °`• V� Bob: The discussion after the meeting, the GMP meeting,.,, I 6 ms s F '\" .C° 4, # c .5 °a Welton: Was purely historic, it had nothing,,, e 15 ‘ .. '. '� Bob: Was purely historic, it had nothing to do with the employee housing , TC D °� C ° ' a C a a aspect. Then he began contacting you concerning employee housing, �` zr' < e ° e o i D And that this memorandum which we have spoken of before was a result ' ° ¢ ; 5, , 'V --N o 0 of those conversations which. he contacted you? °° c� y ° �o ,C ¢ �.° ° ` w� °Jy Welton: Precisely. e ' ` C a C".' ° 1 '� C� p` re o P • C'l `' ' y o Sunny: Which he drafted, you executed, and upon examining at a later date, °° o° 6 e ' � ° found to be incorrect in terms of what you intended to do, , �o tic � ' Welton: Which is why I redrafted this, For what it's worth on tape, e o'd' ° i' �' Sunny: The only reason is, 1 didn't want to misquote you, v�`' :. ,, Welton: Yeah. Well, I have been noted for some rather juicy quotes during E S °c P & Z meetings, anyway, End of Statement . , o welton anderson & associates architects / planners box 9946 / aspen , colorado 81611 1(303) 925 -4576 Matiglattiq T0= PL.4s/Na1/41 ofi/a l /7y eo0Nat- 1 o Y $ 4hP path 4Lloa rlai / 04 l / 7 oaoea /.9$ Yew are in need" of a /Mow doled /6 Ada Lo vicenYiy 141 n9ra,el, - r of acs Serey« ,e -- of ,ac t'l La sr 574 72i v.4yili f arrr noun, and 10,45 of 4%. dime i j 5er; nn A ill; and ;I was ar error as n. y r - ' __ -E f„ gall ,/ ti-int ..-9$e 44.4.- '1« t � ;It � " airtca -0.4 prow,a ears hSOOY* *}ov✓afer i a ins Probably a fireisilar- error 4v fora ~Snot. rn 54 �,� 40 Jh a o -jet f;r*/ /a, o f% b rw. - P �- � � �we� Knew,fern,ssSI14 4 v aria 6#G' at��iurothe sa'Gj or Qlin'nat my ralm s a f al/ 41.4. •Atea kat S_ - 1 - b2a yafryew- , /1.11 /5 O #A4 Ad sll 3 G�� - :l a welton anderson & associates architects / planners box 9946 / aspen , colorado 81611 /(303) 925-4576 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT The undersigned, as a member of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, makes the following statement with reference to a meeting of the Planning and Zoning held October 7, 1980, in the City of Aspen. My score for the Ajax Mountain Associates Building No. 2 under the Employee Housing category shows 3 points. My score on the Mill Street Shopping Plaza under the Employee Housing category shows 1.5 points. These scores and the comments on my score sheet were inad- vertently transposed. In other words, I meant to. scare. Ajax Mountain Associates Building No. 2 at 1.5 points in the Employee Housing category and I meant to give Mill Street Shopping Plaza 3 points in the Employee Housing category. These changes should be reflected in the scores, as this is what I originally intended. C. Wel Anderson CITY OF ASe'EN MEMO FROM SUNNY VANN y s /fe. // 1/z 75 X79 Building, 1 /2, in the amount of 11,120 square feet, and to Mill Street Station Mall, in the amount of 20,500 square feet, and that these projects are authorized to apply for any further development approvals required by the City of Aspen to secure building permits. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 4,719 square feet of additional commercial construction authorized in accordance with Section 24- 10.3(a), in conjunction with the 1980 allotments, be subtracted from the remaining unallocated quotas of prior years. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on November 10, 1980. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO by -- Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk \ • No. 41 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 9/290 STAFF: SIW U VAnn An 2. APPLICANT: WW1 q 43q 6.(407 1 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Spri.L, 4. PROJECT NAME: M1I1 Sfrcek M4I 5. LOCATION: SW Caner o-( Kilt dra B wve 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption _ View Plane X Growth Management 70:30 _ Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other 19&O (gym A 7. REFERRALS: " /Attorney V Sanitation District _ School District X. Engineering Dept. '7 Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas X. Housing Parks State Highway Dept. X Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric N/ Mountain Bell CPWWW6entod *AKv 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: • 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z Approved Denied Date Council Approved Denied Date 10. ROUTING: Attorney Building Engineering Other • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution No. (Series of 1980) WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September 1, 1980 was established as a deadline for submission of 1981 applicationsfor commercial and office development within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance, three commercial projects, totaling 40,42.0 square feet of commercial and office space, were filed for the 1981 commercial allotment of 24,000 square feet, and WHEREAS, duly - noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on September 23, 1980, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980, to consider the Growth Management applications and evaluate and score these applications in con- formance with criteria established in Ordinance No, 48, Series of 1977, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate, rank and score the projects submitted in the fol- lowing order: P and Z HPC Average Average Total 1.-Park Place Building (8,800 square feet) 18.6 12.6 31.2 2. Ajax Mountain Associates, _Bldg, N2 (11,120 square feet) 19.5 11,5 31.0 3. Mill St. Station Mall (20,500 square feet) 18,7 11,7 30,7 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 10,3(a), the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended, and City Council concurs, that additional commercial square footage in the amount of 6,000 square feet be added to the 1981 comnercial quota, and WHEREAS, City Council also wishes to utilize 10,420 square feet of prior years' unallocated quotas in order to approve all three .projects, NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby allocates commercial development allotments to the Park Place Building in the amount of 8,800 square feet, to Ajax Mountain a , w� 1�� �,�:dAi e /55 C7G 4' it , �'G 4 i. % �s at %id iczy z , A 3 7 zee-1 7 1 / 5 neib ,S4-04 444/A, / , � ��!'f : A ' ,i 4 ,„ /// J L - • ' o 177 r . sic,' /72 /972 �[ G /111(4./ A2 1 p eAhal 4L riew4- coolf n A'1,-;Li fr-A, / ,,,6, ,iAlreAPeAtcJi StA-5 / 1 - /34121J- I ga-7/ ecte /Lc 1 r 7 4/:(yr A brijj to-In , - 9/4(71 teA) al / 2 Li_ z /2. 4) 7/ 7 /7/ „,,UP � r ,v ,� ✓GL/ �� /5, t th 4/9"r7,2_,1 - - t 400 to 1 04 I (Q9: I -yr i a 5 /N�(� ��c' et _ ( \ ., T J : 1 in j 0 //_--/ - - if / / -� / ki t e d frl f `t ? ° �Z GZ GUS /9 - A lly . i , k_ ct iv,‘, c.4",_ ,.,,i 7 v \ - "le) l ,,.. pik L 0 0 i , . , _ , . i .\ r-- • fv ar-)17A •kasidt _cAvvt,x ANT_ "IMCO- C) I 1 f.\ -5 ni .111/ 4- I Ci ' IL \ ern 1, ••• 1 C) -.) , 9 N ) , ....._ . I ,_rte— �. : i�c - , Y _ E lf) ji -- 1 -)(' /:/7 — _t A C ///a 0 f ( /,/ /t ST, L6- z 5z. 6 c i er 7Th J _ r , _ _ _______E,_ r __ _ ., ._ )( (,,, - / ‘7' u °' . ,, \ fr0 iv t t (\ fi A I c c.. ) 0 " : „, \- Ot i - ryes)\ t\t, r \\- 'PP/ ISP ) 1 6 7 11 ALA7 , 1 721 5 7 , ): I , ....L.4_," pit_ c , f - . f ' \'' -V c: 1 d izzo /OIL - t. c Ltir 1 X 1 i (2-1/1 r 1 ` )7 e. J N• 111 tAvio \ N ,), . , N N. R \4\ i '& ° : 1 / ,t,-. i-. iy .: % t vi) kt: -', ` T_ 1 � ' A \..s . k 1 t CI\ % % \) x M NV b \D t \‘ , 1 N . 1 \ 4 Ni t" N 48 .4 \ 4 ; , c4 ., 4- 4 ,\\3 No N i i'i ,\., . m ,k 4 kl ka \ ,n xi, 1 4 \ 1/0 Aspen - Pitkin Planning-Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Herb Paddock, Building Department FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning OfficblJJ RE: Issuance of Permits - 1981 Commercial GMP Allotments DATE: May 14, 1981 No additional permits should be issued on any of the 1981 Commercial GMP allot- ments until such time as the plans submitted to your office for the purpose of securing a permit have been reviewed by the Planning Office for compliance with the approved application and any conditions imposed upon the project by City Council approval. This includes: No C.O. for Ajax Mountain Associates Building No 2 No B.P. for Mill Street Station No B.P. for Park Place Building As you are aware, there are still outstanding Commercial GMP approvals for prior years which have not secured permits from your office. Plans relative to these former GMP approvals should also be referred to this office for compliance checks. Several 1979 Commercial allotments are yet outstanding and will automatically expire on September 1st of this year if valid building plans have not been sub- mitted to your office on or before that date. The Planning Office is anxious to continue in the directions of a cooperative and efficient working relationship with the Building Department has been increasingly evident in the recent past. Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter. • • • Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, . colorado MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney- Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Reents, Housing Director Jim Markalunas, City Water Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Mountain Bell Fred Crowley, Fire Marshall Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Station Mall - 1980 Growth Management Quota Competition City of Aspen - Commercial Applications DATE: September 5, 1980 The attached application is one of three competing in this year's Growth Management quota competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments con- cerning this proposal no later than September 19, 1980? Please include sufficient information in your comments to address those points relating to your area of expertise that are outlined in the enclosed scoring considerations taken from Article X of the Zoning Regulations in the Municipal Code. Thank you. • Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado ~81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Reents, Housing Director Jim Markalunas, City Water Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation ✓ Mountain Bell Fred Crowley, Fire Marshall Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Station Mall - 1980 Growth Management Quota Competition City of Aspen - Commercial Applications DATE: September 5, 1980 The attached application is one of three competing in this year's Growth Management quota competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments con- cerning this proposal no later than September 19, 1980? Please include sufficient information in your comments to address those points relating to your area of expertise that are outlined in the enclosed scoring considerations taken from Article X of the Zoning Regulations in the Municipal Code. Thank you. / (,/c) z „ L � J 94-1 : H / Ui.iv�i• --� J��e rf+re e,_ SE2 .,�t= r0iL 7 /#" f622 cpo5,r, r c-c�M,c — �, 77 A s /l" °e \.✓ MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: September 18, 1980 RE: Mill Street Station Mall Commercial Growth Management Quota Application Having reviewed the above commercial GMP application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Design: The design of the Mill Street Station Mall makes extensive use of garden and pedestrian space. All utilities are undergrounded and the circulation is open and functional. 2. Amenities: The plan shows open space in excess of the 25% required in the zone. In addition, pedestrian use is encouraged and cyclists will be accommodated by on -site racks. 3. Trash and Utility Access: This appears to be the only area in which the application is deficient. Section 24- 3.7(h)(4) would require a trash and utility area 40 feet long by 10 feet deep. The area provided scales at 34 by 10 and is not easily accessible to the restaurant and businesses in the east end of the structure. 4. Area and Bulk: The structure proposed appears to conform to all applicable area and bulk requirements for the CC zone. It should be noted that the westerly employee unit may not meet minimum floor area requirements. It should also be noted that none of the floor plan north arrows are oriented correctly. 5. Further Review: This application would be subject to sub- division exception procedure should the owner wish to create a commercial condominium. • Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31,� 1 Project Name ; // a �� ��� ' 9 1980 n e l ira r1 unt Address Z/f S. (114/ Owner .A„ k,A.,ti \>, �' . V77,6. 47)t( . C t- Attorney /Agent Representative < aM d /� ,, VV..✓ Address 7.0 Reviewed by _ `Sf �- Date 7- /() I. Residen 4•.• 'cation (section 24 -10.4) - A.'- Pu•lic 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. * Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without system upgrade. Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. Parking Design (3 pts.) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. 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 ReLiw Checklist r B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts.) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts.) • • Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.) II. Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24 -10.5) A. Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flaw 2 - Acceptable 3 - Excellent 3 Site Design (3 pts•) Quality and character of landscaping, extend of under - grounding of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. �,�. �e ma hid, uP- o z �ty Lm�l 9��v�. 4 T� / 2 ' oYn'e�,o� 5 � 4/7 0 /7��i'PO et9r�.rchtL • Cr Ci reu j i ors cr t j usP1t,4k 3 Amenities (- 3 - -pts ) - NQ / / i (Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. 1 / /01 Jeaibl e- .eir- c ' - cQ_ 1 . ai 7 _0 �i7 ', p� l / Trash an utility access areas (3 ts.) 1 1 Ofi II 12°1111`941) 70 >00 Ira III.Lodge DeVelop Application (section 24 -10.6) iii. A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) -)/ Page 3 Growth Management Reew 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 (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design - Site Design (3 pts.) Amenities (3 pts.) Visual Impact (3 pts.) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.). IV. Zoning // (All applications) Zone L L' NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual v Lot Area ?� (r,O I ro of) Lot Area /Unit N Lot Width kW, rcf1 4 Front Setback or _ O Side Setbacks 0 ✓ / Rear Setback ��P D 1, 6 /77-cv„` 0-A Qi rF go ,d x Page 4 Growth Management Revlew Checklist Required Actual Maximum Height / 4 7, Building Dist. kW, t1A Bldg..Sq. Footage l(A ` Open Space 304- % (n'y e& e, ) External F.A.R. I,s; I +,5 151 I g O / c l Internal F.A.R. '1`, V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption • Exception %AI Carib Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. ,47A brmr, C OTAAVahej la 1- 3 I 76 6 • • ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: SUNNY VAN - PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: MILL STREET STATION MALL DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1980 As indicated in the plan submission under project narrative -water system, the impact of the proposed project on the existing facilities will be negligible when considered individually. However, as in every project, the cumulative effect will have an impact. However, I see no problem in this project obtaining water service provided the necessary tap and plant plant investment fees are paid. ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director 0 Environmental Health Department DATE: September 26, 1980 RE: Mill Street Station Mall - 1980 GMP Commercial Application This office has reviewed the above referenced project for the following considerations: 1. Sewer - connection to the public waste collection system is in agreement with policies of this department, it is an acceptable design. 2. Water - connection to the City of Aspen distribution system is in agreement with policies of this depart- ment, it is an acceptable design. 3. Storm drainage - onsite use of drywells to receive garden level drainage and internal transmission of roof drainage to the storm sewer will minimize ice build up on public property. This proposal will also aid in elimination of the public safety hazard associated with ice build up in alleys and on sidewalks. 4. Wood burning appliances - the use of fireplaces (if installed) as described would be considered an acceptable design if glass doors were also included in the design. 5. Trash Access and Handling - the location of trash handling facilities appears to be adequate. How- ever, detail showing a box bin and dumpster storage should be required of the applicant to make this an acceptable design. The orientation arrows on four pages of drawings appear to be at least 180 off. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020 PROJECT PROFILE 1981 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PL % 1. Applicant: /- /jf/ _ ' T .. $f> r i'/ - • /4Z4 2. Project Name: /.-/[Z. - //` r-,r/ /,4/ / - 3. Location: \\/. &2 G _ ,(,// L 4(//7A /, 4. Parcel Size: /4 1 r f_cv ) 5. Current Zoning: CG'C.c::)C.�i .,/F�,�G //�L . 42:›TE 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 020 a/ 7 /15,7 -/' ' 4LL0■Ef7 / /a/ 7. Existing Structures: ge-Ce7/ T � f"r/G:X/j °YJ , /Jh/ 8. Development Program: - X5 /Z £t'/77'/4 /t eb . , - ,47 /Tl /.9G CSC -ari4L .94, / �� � c /���.4/A,G • Aiera ; ,It i z t- ∎∎,/ 1 1C-S 725 c-c / •z ,444/44 eea (c.- /, ,r-c,i- n- ,4t /, 4 `\/ /r.- /,9b /Cbr((SS /AS/ .cv&c cx'/ n.Y,<4 9. Additional Review Requirements: �`09G./l/ /e\\/Tt) 0774 Za fiVT /` I Vd /Ve a/ F s , , 'f/Y/ a S. al r 10. Miscellaneous: PROJECT PROFILE 1981 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: fl- . ff //41 1 �i/•`�7� 2. Project Name / /�!' //Y. . �• 3. Location: //V\\V einIV cf2 f2/k , 4-10 ' 4. Parcel Size: /4G2.27312A`T y 7 t c7Z� 5. Current Zoning: c� 4.atrnG- 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 2? d:5 f,-,6," /2j' , /77 - 244/ /4/7/7/72 ,HZ, 9 CCU. , Z7 5 Y,5WsT A c a'7 /3`K• / v/ % 7. Existing Structures: / 71 �C1lLYLx// � X,S.aVfc7cx/ 8. Development Program: /4 /2p ca//„/ O4L, 4<J/7 ; - ,ec) : ter. az/, 4(// A,(07.. /', , - � , • 9. Additional Review Requirements: h / /ff(_-/*5k/a/� \ \41/1/ MiTaAfacnir d///t ak'.fat - / /zoita ,/&.G//'° 10. Miscellaneous: na..- J C /tS7740c/ 4422 77/14/ O1701t7//c/4 aX/& 7/1 off' Z'? .Z? /-1'." i . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY IIPC ,I; • h i i .� • 1 . The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and rated each of the design elements as specified by the Growth • Management Orainance. PROJECT: /'� i /7 4k3 Jy . #Z \ . i��•14 /� t • REVIEW DATE: .�' . _� 4 0.-s -- � ' . 7 HPC REVIEW >,6 0 v Q� HPC MEMBER .. .. • • //7r / 2 IffaMil- 2 5 /2.5 . .. 7 : , 2,2 - z,. - 2 •, :%74 Z /d . • . \\7•,��., • • 2.- /,B 2.e 2 - 2,¢' •//6 . Gice,.%!:3 • 2.6 - 2 2 2 2 /0,6 2,G 2. 2.5 - GROUP RATING . /2 `7 e //8 //75 7/9 • SZ4 .1 • 2 2 PLANNING OFFICE RATING` 2 5 I 2 / I . 1.' I 2 6 II /� I f I • . THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES �/ . 2f . J • . . h . . 1 • a 1 . It . 4 • ' 4 • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ' RATINGS CY P &Z • . , • The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the design and cccmunity commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. . • PROJECT: i .7/1 /fi /, �'�E. / /� � • 2 REVIEW DATE: /O/ c - • • • • • } P &Z REVIEW �� Q u o tti CO • �ki g W co F E W , � '1 , & C 4~ / e <g. 47 � � �~ y C , OJ qty 5y cr J co MEMBER - a • 2 2 ,/ // 3 2. /7�/ I ✓et< ..../ Z ' -7�' " - 2!75 Z26 /6 •2•. 5 -3 3 3 /- a. / - * S77tC/2. 2 2,525 /,s' /,S / • . 2 7 2.75 3 3 Z.75 z.26' /. s' i 2 s. A1// V• 3 3 2. 3 6 Z S 3 2 7. GROUP RATING /72 1/.7 /4.76 6 /6-‘ /7 /0 , 5 - /D 1 )5 131. 1 3 I 2 11 '�1 z PLANNING OFFICE RATING 11 ! 1 1 PLANNING OFFICE TOTAL 20, • • • A TOTAL INDIVIDUAL RATINGS /2 7 Z AVERAT OF ALL P &Z RATINGS /9 5, �D�.�G r 2 'f,yta• ;37.°1 • • t . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION ' 199811 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS 4 PROJECT:, 4647. dri -a.7 . #2 DATE: /�/2/ 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: , a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. y� Rating Comment: —�l777 /c 4. 4. i cc 'gte Wes.. ,r/6. h/Za //�4 6 1 7 - 4 ' v/A 1 zV,r x 77/A ,'c rCoa /Mfl /',tl emu/;. x-i47erV,,,1G5 • AlrlroAC 72 % /14 , 4t-44- 441 —tc� •r°ste.rc 45 ex.ags. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment:arra 1/& 1- 9///244,9 ; 6'Z ,tY4'ersx/7 1 ` 91€,K 29X,D ceeerv//f /4 / G//rez -e- 7Xx/' // /f22=✓6r2de -ns /.3 /4/7Yt /x-n44/T/ ar /z Tb n/fh • \v/ // 7 egreaezani4ccase c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: a MA2 77GX/ i f/f9/i'/ z / a Tr / // arni ✓E -cY.7/C f T \•✓ATF_." a Aianif 4I4,4/77Ne7 vin AUn,U71cfr Tic t A1/436.X htfh Assout % *L. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating V Come nts:,e . , dP// (. 67% GoTc ecil •//,t ,/GY AA - 4/4547 ES: 81/l/sG�/se /Z4z4 P 4'a7 /Act-es/Pas EXTa [sjc//� fni/t5 ..v //ze.A/f� h/ N S e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 2 Comments :,C'i`�X/� , �X/Aw , sc � /,4 F �E ^ /�/��c/GC��"2=3'Y.g1/E '4 "v, Z4.c./& / .'fC7 e . v4 *7b / /// V /a.` To /../T. -,4. , f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating Continents: /'J'Cc - -Y/` / •, ic/Jr'' 4ez-7'" Gcr4-7&O To .f/J /Gy.4catea • AGCA7Y Subtotal /7 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) A I-1114 . Assoc(As No, kz- a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating /5 Comments:nreW Ord - 414M. Fat 4 7257.f6 ,ia -tcr (r /574413. 7' /T /S 0.O& b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating 2 Comments: A , , g7/'7Er /G 71m^ -G /cE E b e r t , - 2 5 ( / l f - 9 G ma F n / / E TG / a, 7 To L nfiX.S / ,, p)41_„/ c4 /- /,7Z /E. h -'e✓edc 2 Subtotal 5 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING /Y rj INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING 70. �J NET POINTS 3Z• O 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS �2 BONUS POINTS • TOTAL POINTS 3Z Name / 1A Cr (3) • i • . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY HPC : • JJ � . . • 1 . A i ;' . • The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and rated each of the design elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. • . r . PROJECT: •REVIEW DATE: /'7 - /i '2 /9�o `. : HPC REVIEW Fes~ `t / • , • . ,.../. e • HPC MEt4BER . • L/r / 6 2 - 2 2.6 ' /2 • . .... . , . 2,6 -2.e .2 . 2. s,• /2 - . ■\ ,-I s/ - L e Ze 2 2,`I 2 - //8 . Gi ,.� 2 2 2. s // 2 2 fi, • CROUP RATING • Me //1 /0,5 /3, /. - //6 'e.2 • • PLANNING OFFICE RATING' 2 I G. 1 2 • 1• '5 I 2 II // I ' I ' THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES // 71 • i . • • ; 2 . . . ! t • y t • . h • • • . • ft i Y I' i w . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS CY P &Z b . The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the • design and.rc: cor. elcments as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. . c • PROJECT: J%Z-t t7 at/ A1967,— . REVIEW DATE: /0/77 - . • • i • • P &Z . REVIEW . 0 -2- ��•-. d o ti i v ti v w a e cw , '� 4 7 4? q ms s„ ti 8 a % v G iy'� ` ,,v 1 c. - P &Z a' * 4:1, 0 o / MEMBER t. AzArt 2 3 3 3 3 7,5 2 2 • 2.. irt/ Y >:‘ 5. :•.3.. Z,5 5 ..5:: Z76 5 i. . s. aizE 2 2 2 2 2,25 s/ 5 2 4. yt99ka//62.52.5 2. 252,s - /6 - 2 - . . 5 - /tx, / 2 225 2.S 26" Zf /5 2 6. 4 /% .OA/ /S 25 2 3 2..5 25 /,S 2 7. 1. GROUP RATING // / /0 //:z6 / _, / /5 ; 2 PLANNING OFFICE RATING 112 I 2 75 26127512-1/6 1 2 I I I PLANNING OFFICE TOTAL /8, 5 s t i • TOTAL INDIVIDUAL RATINGS ��3, 7 AVERAT OF ALL P &Z RATINGS f8, • %oi. � z t </�G . . • i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: , /C�.� �i ' T� /� /— DATE: /9/2�92) 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating O. Comment:a /r�T�' /.GS 2, i44 C ' rt, f l:7 • /.SAS' t/aEr —,oR -4%0'y5mt /°!i G►lE� MIo 9577€ q/ Cc eS ' i/TzxS//7/ va ti1 c ; V r., to .4/05 S F; ,14 45 G ea • herw zcrrf4- ,1 7• b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating % 7� Come nt: T S' YEGr.//�.z�f/' /. y acceh G2 ` Arec t%q - f 77ex/G eretc/ 5rn e rAtgarrr_7 -, e G . ,?r.. - ,' YEe c- -X//7 -S c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Z/5 Comment: , '44/7 /CCA% � •e &kDttW65• . / . / / 5 4 *2 C.' E Pt• /055 / .• e Os e Ua SGYi4 -v caw/mar 1 ,4 V 'v tt &S, • • NU S11Z6 7 57A1noNi HALL- d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating 2 7- Comments: //Mt/ 73% LDTCa/e • crat-/-weaa)GE cexavacr5za /ti•-n/ /f4v,ra'7 z ard- ernex/71Jfa iav/ -r7a a as/v& 2..44// 00/44 // /O&Ge r,e ss ,fc//7 rJrEcT / ceni 7L.YrE e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Z. 5 c ommen ts : ` - c c-- x / //rh-a1dgC - ) X/4 /.Gfl∎. , . T. IL.ttX /.4 /9 x4o ,4t47 f7 Gam/ f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating 7 Comments: / //;. '>'- a'Ze7 ' 4flt Cfc/7 1S/ 7/cf7 7 ' Avenivro.extepr 7b fikraor' inA, /46 c C arA9 ezeav 077.47 tsTBft/ asilca-07Yct/2• Mon ,9LZ Q,9 /G/7y • Subtotal /'5 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3.- Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) MILL- STREET S Ttt 3 MALI, a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating Comments: nro /// 24C / r'4 ; cc' , /s O. ea b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating 2 Comments: /.IXE17/5 /L /f a r Gx/4G.4E.f1✓ /CE • • /tea ,a0 nirzyr.4' z-/ /TL / / L---ev i ' . ar/s i; S5-4,X/S</L/3xfts � /ee-Lil /4/ Subtotal 3 S 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING // 7 INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING 2 ,8, 5 NET POINTS J o. Z 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS 2 BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS 2).0 • Name AZ4/V/tP/4 Gr /Ca (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL L GMMPP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: 7 / ✓� k' - Y Y DATE: 7 rg 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. JO Rating / Z • Comment: - f. - i I / - /2l StaAC J� /072 � _ 0 ' 47,4( b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the qu and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: A / Ll -- rew /i c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating ` Comment: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating Ie //--�� Comments: ' : U!;47 4/2/Y1� ceL /lr� e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating A Come • 0141 vs :1. - ' f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating p . .. , � 'Ay/ l/et.1— 71.(9 yi • i.// ' Subtotal 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) k a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating /72— Comments: LAida AL / jar ' ' A t, 1 d / b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating '2- - Comments: / Subtotal 4 5 %3L 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING liT INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING ' 5 / NET POINTS / 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS • TOTAL POINTS • Name / 1 1• (3) ,11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: 14(CC DATE: 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Z Comment: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 2,75 Comment: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2, 5 Comment: • d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating ? Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Z Comments: - f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating Comments: Subtotal 4.15 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. i Rating /eD Comments: b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating fi Comments: Subtotal '3 c 5 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING NET POINTS 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS • TOTAL POINTS Name (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: /7/L4 57 MILL DATE: /6/ 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating ?/ ' /,C Comment: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 7/2 Comment: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2 /;Z Comment: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating 0 6/7 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating ,2- P_ Comments: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating 4 . Comments: Subtotal l 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating Comments: • b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating ,`1c Comments: Subtotal 4 NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING /7/7-1_, NET POINTS 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS • TOTAL POINTS • Name /, 4S ; 7 st (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: M1LL ST SNOPY7/C/C7' PC/f2 DATE: 0/7 & 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2-- Comment: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 2- Comment: 9Or0 &rf £J)) /l . SfYli/ C2 J/A;d (1-&C6 CC c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating cQ ' 7S Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 2, 5 Comments: • f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating :a— Comments: Subtotal / 3,25 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating /. S Comments: b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating Comments: Subtotal 3,5 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING 2 / 6. - 7 5 NET POINTS 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS � 7S BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS Name Ac6m )f riorkt (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 77 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: /? /// --I / . U �`' M DATE: /Q 7 eO 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. - Rating • Comment: , , ! /c/, ":'/ "0 ) b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating - 3 Comment: 12/71 ll,!t 7( 6 . , f r • f -, c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 7 . -S Comment ).( d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating Comments: Op-r'I^ ; j4c 7 // l/ r/>c^/,(1 ✓') (;) t f 1 e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Comments: 1.f f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating ',.1, 7 / ''f_:C /t� / mac T 1s� 1 Comments: r ! -- O G, C, )172 Subtotal /7r) 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points, according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: (2) a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating 71 Comments: F " , , ° % `. ) /1` (4./ b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating 3 Comments: (2/ r 21(.TJ .. Subtotal 7 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING , L. 7 NET POINTS 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 6/1 ui /r La: ) -e / 41/ (f 11C Vic- % r /, 1 ;� ,,;1 / C'"er ' J- r 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS Name ` � G J (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: / /loll CAW/ DATE: 4(/) 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating .3 Comment: X k b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment: 't Anw i s C�G.�. stcec — • c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. �? /� Rating 3 Comment: iI Erna G� /� 070r � • r rfc d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating 3 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. e Rating e• > Comments: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating Comments: Subtotal ( 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points, according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: • (2) a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating z Comments: irr& ay 4,,"c .% b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating Z Comments: Subtotal "! 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING NET POINTS 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS Name JV�-- (3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1981 COMMERCIAL G APPLICATIONS PROJECT: /ILL Sr j�1 77 4 / /At DATE: 1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)(maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. - Rating - Comment: 4/ Y( 7// (-/ �' <,, �,�i /r/;r /i✓y` • / /tee. ,.) /-1N / 4/4K6 - / 0/2“ , 5 / i--4( . : 1 b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment , /,.< s c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating %• Comment: • i f d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating _ •�� Comments: 'z 7T 1 / iV/ y c f= may. e" � / / (L Jr' „",,V7 , , i Y ' " e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Comments: / Subtotal 2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall con - consider, with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C -1 zone districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the commu- nity as opposed to being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the community's residential population with only inci- dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated Rate the following features accordingly: a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies /-;, housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating i �• Comment: 9 0 2 7 1 . ' (2) b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the project suplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. /iv? Rating 7 2/ Comments: ✓ Subtotal 3. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P & Z MEMBER RATING NET POINTS • 4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINTS Comments: 5. TOTAL POINTS NET POINTS BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS Name • (31 •