Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mountain Chalet.1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN LODGE APPLICATIONS Ordinance 48 allows for approval of 36 lodging units under the Growth Management Plan, 18 units for both 1977 and 1978. The ordinance per- mits approval of 6tadditional units from succeeding years if desired. Employee units proposed under density bonus guidelines of the Zoning Code can be exempted; however these units must be deducted from the quota for lodging units for the following year. There are two applications for lodging allotments. 1. Ralph Melville has applied for 8 lodge units and 8 employee units, or a total of 16 units; 8 to be constructed in 1978 and 8 to be constructed in 1979 (phased mis not explained). This • is an expansion of the Mountain Chalet on a separate site. 2. Hans Cantrup has applied for 36 lodge units, 24 employee units, for a total of 60 units, with additional support facilities as outlined. Mr. Cantrup seeks approval for all of the lodge allocation; for 1977 and 1978 and for the bonus employee units to be deducted from the 1979 and 1980 lodge allocations. He proposes tb build 23 lodge units and 16 employee units in - 1978 and 13 lodge units and 8 employee units in 1979. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1 FOR THE MOUNTAIN CHALET EXPANSION Ordinance 48 states that any applications inconsistant with City Zoning shall be rejected from consideration by the Planning Office. The Mountain Chalet submission is inconsistent with zoning to the follow- ing extent: 1., The rear setback shown is 5 feet, 10 feet being required. 2. The open space requirements are not met because the code does not allow areas over 4 feet above grade to be included in the calculation. 3. The allowable floor area ratio is exceeded in the following manner: Lot size: 9500 sq. ft. (not verified) - Allowable FAR: 9500 sq. ft. As proposed: Lower level not exempted 1082 sq. ft. First level 4821 sq. ft. Second level 4821 sq. ft. Total floor area 10,724 sq. ft. 4. There appears to be a conflict in regard to the north property • line, which appears to overlap with the south property line shown in Mr. Cantrup's application for development of the site to the north. Neither development has submitted an engineering survey to verify the proper location; however in checking the records in the assessors office it appears Mr. Melville has been paying taxes on the basis of 7300 sq. ft. Even though the Ordinance is clear as to what the procedure is in cases where zoning is not met, I. have scored the Mountain Chalet application, and these scores are attached. • A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - 9. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service • 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: WF�i�l.�i�l(.�,t, e 1AU c Date: a) WATER Rating 25 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating 25 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Comment: 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating 4 (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given it within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: -3- j l�� b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating 1 (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating 1 (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating Z (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: - 4 - ( c) ENERGY Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating ( - 5 - ■ • c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating 1 f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating _ 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating 3 - 6 - 1. ) b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating (� (max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 43 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating ScLu (., iAA Date: - 7 - CD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: ///1. 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - 9. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies -z, Project Name: ,; `"f':.,.:. 'p s a c, ,z i Date: : // i‘,• a) WATER Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: - 2 - ( '\ d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating `� (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Comment: 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating 4 (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking_ distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: -3- 1 1 • b) POL CE" "PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: • 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating Z (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESICN Rating r .. (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: -4- c) ENERGY - Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES - Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating -5- ! \ 1 c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating ' e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating I f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating I 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3_points 1O - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating 4 3 -6- i b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating 6 (max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating 1 (max. 3,ptts. ) 14. Net Point Rating 4`f 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. rh� Bonus Points 2. \k 16. Total Points /� Net rating 14 Bonus Points 2 TOTAL Points - Name of Person submitting the above rating C. « T, c L L ¢ nl <d Date: 3l1 -7- GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: 4i : , - , / 2. Location: • 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - 9. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: :: ( Date: 7/W t/ a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Comment: 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating I/ (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four k4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: -3- b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating f (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: -4- c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating nd 9 . (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating / b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating / -5- • c) Accessory recreational facilities. Continent: Rating / d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating / e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating - 6 - b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating (.max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recomended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points • 16. Total Points Net rating o-/ Bonus Points 1 TOTAL Points 2? • Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: 7224 t, /61 /7 yd 1 -7- GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: p') C(i/?` 6 t. b )C� 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off- street parking spaces to be supplied, 1oca‘ion of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - 9. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: Date: a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Comment: 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: -3- b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating J (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating f (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under- grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: - 4 - c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating e) (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating f b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating U -5- • c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating V d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating / f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating 3 -6- J • b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating Cr (max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating C:) (max. 3i-its.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating �- I/J4 Date: ) 4 /4 7M -7- / GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION ;j1' LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: r 04- ��••< r is /F r 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. , ( f. -Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - , 9. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: o u .. i7 , .., ( La 4 Date: X11/1 4 A / 4 -/ / 2 .P a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating f (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating -- - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- (\ d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Comment: 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: -3- b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating / (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating � (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw • 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating e2__ (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating v2_ (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: -4- c) ENERGY Rating �--- (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy' and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating .— (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) —a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating -5 c) Accessory recreational facilities. - Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating / e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating / f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: • Rating _ 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating 3 -6- i 1 ' b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: • Rating (max. of — flits) pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating / (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 43 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points 4 1 - 5 Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: [ / n - 7 - \4, a �1b / / � GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVE PMENT q 1. Project Name: / (Ay/et '57704/..“:9/4 ,/ ,f4t'h Ale/Vide/ 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: • 4. Current Zoning: - Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: .het a /ie • • View planes:. Stream Margin Review: /' • Special Review: • • Historic District Review: , Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto • disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. L'i'st of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: 1 0 BiI, .UWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and ( - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. /O 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services /5 st 1 - Indicates'a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 7 /� 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies . gi • Project Na p p4 lC /u //i Maine: leae7 Uh a� � �rfiati Date: ' a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. . • Comment: 42 7 Pep/. k / fTr1P tar ` l( � gU/vC�o?!! /- . f i WnMet4 Jtsc leakyt6/!P/atth/ / CF n /1zkff ea r4 /Ef�J d07 ! l adid f TL4/ j4 . aeilifcee �a°'esv. b) SEWER Rating . (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. /0 / / Comment: J& r /;%d .014 j L 3 1 J y77 gods;ice ! impact zec-�s& is po u f . G°� -ef>d &tr ove/14 vi/ � 0' / £eYY do 151�f . JI / / c) STORM DRAINAGE ' Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed • by the developer. / ,- 1 / Comment: SG[q //iePy j Wark4 J2 7 2 P //�+j / illepet S / lti ee /t tt b /arcs /a Ai 17 Cr gel P01 ern S'it dry b f. - 2- • d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: yft2/ nidAtdd/ 5 , f 2r no / P 2 44/ , • • c) ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. • • Comment: 4iq/h e2r&cvzq g4-1€.1 -. & 7:we /5 /M06.) / J r �r� �reu i T29 Oa, 4 shy • Li /ef4 U2t a.ha ' SA Go / /ee/Zio , . 0 P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 6 bfr "taw 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense ' l a /' O&M/sea 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the /40/ area 02/e 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area ( a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall • be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski .lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: /0/tu fez; zZ-' Gto a{4Lr /xrev 4t L 1. 10 hircAnat - 3- • b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating 4- I (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: -74 /f OSS yld /ect ea4 26i/0/led 6ai, /� 7 f ��/� Y �?�Ni /CPi flo�lCv i 1 c) PROXIMITY T.0 COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating r (maximum 2 points) Comment: AyeCti �� 4 � 2 ac1 /ec> ail eVjk,f %_IJe 07 j • (9 P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following • formula: rem 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design /5 f /49tve 1 - Indicates a major design flaw ¢7/ - Indicates an accept (but standard) design 0 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating .1 (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: /2Wh haled r z. C1 S ' e I k ay) ar eda it a , • sol f(6-v, �, fre, te{ 7o at fi e 4 it' A4 ,LiuJ -efin fibiu • b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: . -4- c) ENERGY Rating N (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: • d) AMENITIES Rating 0 (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. / /� - Comment: d/ Gt96a t�l� 4 /�otb 4 a c34acizeeI 4- • e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating ti (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: • 12.) P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) ¢( j n a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and 7 / conference areas. ali 9 Comment: 67?oo Rating r b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: 'fir 0 ° l 'si Rating _/-- -5- c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: t 1 W g'/ S' / fr DL/ Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. l Com 'JVYId J d O%, 9 =UIJ f e-'a /&Q alai Rating Z e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts . on a walking basis. Comment: Rating f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: arre c pr o Pr iron° /0G/iv,..- 74.9v AU /'Yialinab ki some' ear Rating /2 63 P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: 9 s 9 � V , a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal / " u F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points � 10% - 2 points 7U - 05% - 1 point Comment: SSUI�n's y 95fc0 q sr � l no' i en of ,4�7occd42 i d si, g9-/-Z f �haree ,nst 4a 5200 Rating ,3 - 6 - b) Bonus employee housing - the Conim ssion shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees'housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site. - 2 points Comment: /im6e a emp /o fi Gwt doev114€44 ! ley QM !P 4x e :Won& will /woe, 9D % Rating (D (max. o6pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on . theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: / tdv 'i e ilO /� � -i / MR-eare- i nw 'le- i m ServLai tarifaa. I Rating a (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 56Pols.6 (5 ava)lm6Ce, — 62 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. • Bonus Points c- 16. Total Points Net rating ,36 Bonus Points 0 �TOT Points . Name of Person submitting the above rating jr5tf'n jY �'�!� Date: =/ ��Jjllo�sli/ Z %/70 -7- ------ i i .. .. .... • RiT• ittild.. • 1 0 : lic pea C i . ty fp oi beer Itiiii; As pen/Pltiti r VI a ii rei ion 0 ',Tr i to . RE: finolysie of Lqxdst cn ..., firnrHyy, Parkinotiotina, and Piotat . DET: February 5, 1978 .._ .... The fic yeii/Pi tiein HI act iinq Cirri cc 11 ruaii (*Jinn :7t dii.e.fel opaent prn.eat al EiH'.. 1 l'ILIJ■ 1 re'' ini d'i'D L'r:}1S C't to Vil'OR.):“E:1 I S ii::i*H7t. bri the ca pas i t cc', storm (keit !Tao el ityat L.iintii n is ; a re.] i iatc.ls iite cob., i dei 1 his tine c a ; Jac. i T of the drelhac facilities to ,Fid dispose of th;..: so runoff; cox:" i :ter i Hi thci des i retie; 11 ty eh lino des iqr Of (ties iiircet, pa in iei ine erc es ; and cons i eitteinc the ca pac i ty of major street 1 i nityie. Thc: a ttsicirsi eppl i cut i on fore; i d on 1: ii bi :as the location, size anti typo (Jt drive eie iii t . Pl ease rev 1 ew the aprdi i c a aoi on and i rid I cat? •the caiteyreii;) • Projsct: __AINntain_Chakt_ftubmitted_bs__Ralatlielyill2) _ _ Referral Submission into: February_14, .1978 The prctosed project Wilt rave: the 'Foil 1 eve; rig 'typo uf •in en i h2 cap; ci ty of : STORM ni1Alit1litG it r ' - Nec 1 i ei t i e iiiat - subs ta n 'LT e l (.7:);C:e5: capaci ty es: i sts fd C 1 i ti &S to adisiquiit0ii.2 di spec e of the s urt c cc rut ter R of the prciposed devil! clement without sys time extecs ii ehs licyciiid those normally 1 ins te 11 sici by the deviinloper. /1/ - Moderate - boon int - onl y iseiterinte ca Hi ei ty croi s Ss for drai iiai ta a iii 11 it i es to rd eioye sir cl y Ci•ii•ipe F. 0 o r the ' surface. runsiff of tho proposed sievcil opmert wi tiiont systein extent :ions licyood those: nomea 1 t:/ ins tall ecii Iv the drivel fiver - Splas tan iii atteimpoct - thi s dev el opment iii.i i 11 over burden the coaci ty of the drini nage foci 1 i ties to adequately di i H)ose of Vie! surface runoff of the proposed devoleriment without system extensions beyond those normal Ty i us Lill 1 ed by the (level oper a . Cowmen t •1—. .._ ... - 1 • . ,., „.. Pt.P.r.irJr; PHILH X..., - t;( hii lun hou i - .,H,r. i:m. c,;:cncs npi:c i L,' ex i4,L. , _ - kw t.fic cc-1 (if t)i -' '.‘ , , (.1 li. Lir eii4: u WI rum. to vi Hc., 1 L.)ti. ei: an:, (-•;; praraf .,urfrice , convcni cif. and safcti exits. /11 - Moderei e iiinot .. • only :,,:ids:rark capdoity ex icy, for - the dcuitt o 14r H H: pi Hi drcas v! i ; h rf24.21n:q:t Lo vLE 4F h:!;“ -- . it 1 !dill (ice , coll•iiin li:"-f? and sal el./ ccits. /I/ - Substani i :al ihinnot - this defr.1 eieicent wi 11 ovor- Loudon tri: ceps( i Li/ ii; UtC (fl 2[i of of t-s ;Teel: perk Hu: rrcas vith I cispis i. to v i snel impact, a:sount of paved sin l 6 CC 5 COTP[!1 i once :id saf ety ex i Ls Co:A:en: . : l../rti-t.4-c --y- 0 • t l J . _ i10,- • -s-Lat0--i A.......-a , cen, tethg± ROAD, /7 - ileol ic IHe impact - substantial excess caper: i l oxLs • to provide 1 or til neeels ol the pcor:osed deve inpment without su'ei tanti a 1 'iy altering existing traffic patterns or overload :oil the exis il rig street sv or the ncumity cif [fl Qv nu thi Leased r ',yid rri 1 fieiie and/or mei rriener,f e, k - Mod2ratc inoi:ct - moderato capec i ty exists for the needs o Lifi nropo::.1 Llevel c without sidestonti al ly al tering existi nu tra ??ic po ttorne or oveH cad i Ng i he exisl inc sty e..2t syei cin or th, necesci 4' , c 1' prOV i di hy i n c reOSE6 I"Ltd nil 1 e,9 i : E:dr' w nThipitm!ZJICE. /7 - StihStallti a 1 - HIDEiCt - this devel opment wi II ovor- burdon tho cepa° i ty of tho cx i si i lig traffic patterns • or the o•ieeloed i ng of the E C street system, or the neeessi ty of providing i not cesed road ni 1 Gage and/or ma i ntenence. Comments : „ SEA .._., 64---0.-” oret-,2--f 2n-a..4., t h-r - frie2n^- 7 4 4 t o'Sp re4 Ccesd , C.7 .2ittil. ST ele- 4161 A-e-n-rv-r-- __4.0___ F 7104# e,-f h) 77 4..et..„ /2 4, 1 f .4 cnr.„_,La- ,—. deia o-ti.ciet ac-4.0 • si 2 -,...,_, RH -- 2 - . . - ------ . • • • - , . _____ .. .,,. --. . . . . i LI P.FFEPP[ii. si KJ ' ' 10: Acpeo Fire District FROM: As p/Pit i n Pi Finn i og Olt i oc . FL: Annlysis of hoed on the Aspen Enloe Dopailtment • pi February 5, 1978 The Aspen/Pitkin Planning effica is reviewing a development proposal and rcetrires an nmalysin of the proposal's impact on the cenacity of the t i r e denartrent fnci 1 ity hy ennhi ric i lei the all I I ty of iTe Fi re Department to provide tire nrciirction necerdi oi Lc: the establ i shod rospofse staticlerwin or the appropriate distri et without the noconsi ty of cstaklishin a. nait station or rugoiring addition of Mai Or oquipt to an existing station_ The attacked app! i cati op form identi ri es the 1 ocati on , size and type of devoliepment. Please rev th2 uppl ication and indicate the cetegery • of impact below, Project: Mountain Chalet isubmitted by Ralph Melville) Referral Suhmissien Dote: February 14, 1978 The proposed project if have the folloiving typo cf irioact on the onpocity o the Piro Depzetment. )5( - Neclicjblr impact - substantft,1 excess cape:city exists to provic'e fire pratemtton aceohliH to ths. estakl isned response staiithirds of flo nen di otrict IA thout the necessi ty of on taki 1:h: no e nevi stntion or requiring acider of major (1ginpment (such as hydrunts, wet shnndpipes, etc.) to an existing station. /I/ - Monornte IF t - only MOch.:Tate capncity exists Lc provine fire pi otection according to the ostalliilsici response standards of the appropriate (tntrict without a° noeussity of estanlishiny! a new station or requirine addition of njur equilnoent (such ah hydrants, yet standHnes, Etc.) to an existing station. • // - Substantial irTact - this development will over- burden toe Loci ty of the hire depariAmmt to provide fire protection according to the estnhl i shod respoose stondneds of the appropriate district witheet the necessity of ostaklishirml a nov statlem or reemiring addltioo of wajor egnirtIre• (such as hydrants, 5 Lendpi pes • rte. ) to an exi stl Ilg station . Coments: _ 9 4-12-12_ -- . 1 I S I yiaturo . Dd te C C f .47-te," 144-42-1-4-a-efe I'EI ERR / \L • • A /Pitkin P Orrir;e • RE: Analysis of impact cl Try t-i:_rt Capacity ATE: February 5, 1978 Tho Aspen/Di tkin Planning O fiico Ss revie:ino a develcDment orop s'1, and reO,UlteS dri c ndly>I, Oi the DrOi?GSc.i is impact On the Co ^ac i icy CT the sewage "area t L'r'nt l acuity by cons id`ri ng excess cdpa ci tj or the Sys LC 1 ocati on of the nearest trunk or connect sewer 1 i ne. The attached application form iiclenti - Iles the location, size and ty,n . of developrncnt. Please revi ew the appi irat on and indicate the catearry of impact below. • • Project: Moiatais Chalet bmitted_by Ralph Melville) - Referral Submission Date: _February_14, 197$___ The proposed project tri11 have the foi1owing type of impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment systcm. / Negl ieib !6 ' lead - `uh sandal excess Capacitx oxi,+- . at tilt sewac:c ifeat. a t 1arlt and at the nearest trunk or connect ng ne to :loom: tedate tn devel ooeient - Moderate irpr moderate capaci ty exi sts at c- - onl �� the s, ege trCil Lohont plan or a1oeis the nearest trunk or ConneC'ti59 sewer I 1 ne to aece'it :iotate this develop:ien Subs ton alp - thi s devel ounicnt wi 1 i over- __- burdcit the C r a i i of the sewer tr ca r1eni. mint or the vicar trail:: or conriectin!J serer Iine Comments : �2AvirX �C-L FLS ocJ,/i<te_:. q _. _T_K« _ I ' fi± C T 0 TJ E 1 /1 4 . STL c_z_r - C€? e = -- FYr� T1_- E K 'r_t Trl E EY1ST /✓ � ✓�y S.___O.!�:- ._ -.� LOT _ c= '- 1! J eta_ /HR '-L _ aiti t/ss_ro,, _ � __ T�Ik✓3 7r S e!z3 A%<% -S 7)4tS_: Lt . 7i /7 / • J t - Signatur('. - `^ -__.. 5 - ~ -G �- - -- Dale ft-= .� .._ I � f (9 > P S eEgr 1- wl +eett A (' PEA ie.s *0 (3c HA*, (Hi A_ Q oT-T7-E N. c- rc. F H c /La / T #t SS E .S r N 2 J -: g r / ,_ 7 2 o rsst A— S c/ A s o 5 /c /'S A/ar /2 sr4. TA Cc EA j v THE ( " /STKi 7t / b -' ' E S T/ C _ M I- c / H[ S f e o A t_ G i` A T G J'i i v /' W, r o S S Its e . SoLV 'J »-S. (ALA CAPRC/TY IS s ✓I'i-(G, —T TO: Planning Office FROM: Marky - Water DATE: February 10, 1978 SUBJECT: Ralph Melville Submittal On this submittal - please see attached memo which was written on the Aspen Inn Club Submission. The same rule applies on this submittal. S'ncerely, S 4-ic 1,2 Markalunas JM:jmr GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION FOR THE MOUNTAIN CHALET EXPANSION Ordinance 48 states that any applications inconsistant with City Zoning shall be rejected from consideration by the Planning Office. The Mountain Chalet submission is inconsistent with zoning to the follow- ing extent: 1. The rear setback shown is 5 feet, 10 feet being required. 2. The open space requirements are not met because the code does not allow areas over 4 feet above grade to be included in the calculation. 3. The allowable floor area ratio is exceeded in the following manner: Lot size: 9500 sq. ft. (not verified) Allowable FAR: 9500 sq. ft. As proposed: Lower level not exempted 1082 sq. ft. First level 4821 sq. ft. Second level 4821 sq. ft. Total floor area 10,724 sq. ft. 4. There appears to be a conflict in regard to the north property line, which appears to overlap with the south property line shown in Mr. Cantrup's application for development of the site to the north. Neither development has submitted an engineering survey to verify the proper location; however in checking the records in the assessors office it appears Mr. Melville has been paying taxes on the basis of 7300 sq. ft. Even though the Ordinance is clear as to what the procedure is in cases where zoning is not met, I have scored the Mountain Chalet application, and these scores are attached. l GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MOUNTAIN CHALET ANNEX 7. a, b, c. MLA bu fd.Lng Az on a negulak city lot located on a paved surest with curb and Batten. The wateL and seweA mains cute ,installed in the street and one ob subbLai.ent a.Lze to handle the 16 units and .Pnundny bacititLes to be added on. The present swubace drainage is handled by the guttvA on Md 1. Street. The proposed building wilt have 87% o{ the excess Lain on snow melt wateA handled by a dty welt located under the phopeAty. 7. d,e. The 9500 square boot lot w.itl have a cettak ob 8200 square beet area that contains paklzing bon 16 cars, boner room, shop area bah ma.Lnta manse ob building, guest laund7ay and laundry bon doing lodge linens. At phesent out lodge linens one laundered at our baci,ttty at Snowmass. The location ob the lnundky in this building will save about 96 mites ob dhivfng pen week. The guest laundry will save the guest the inconvenience ob the tmip (usually by car) ob going to the public laundry. It has been our expen.Lence that only about 25% ob our guests anmLve by can and ob those only halt use their can move than once white they airs here. By having the undekgnound pa&faLng both the guest and the employees can put thew car away so that they can bohget about it and walla OA use the public tAanspohtation that Ls so handy. Based on pnev.iows yeahs experience, halt ob our employees and one quainter ob auk guests have cans. This would petm.it 6 guest cans ob own phesent building to be moved obb the stAeets. The inckeaae in tAabb.ic on Mitt Street would be 8 cars in and out on Safiiutday and 2 cans in and out on other days, The .increase on the Dwtant Aspen Street access haute would be 2 an Saturday and 1/2 can other days. This would be obbset by the bast that dome <gb;our cmplayees that phesently lie at Sitvv. King and dmi.ve to wank because the City bases do not nun eculy enough would be obb the Goad. The bust gook wilt. contain 4511 squcute beet made up ob 8 employee unis pits a common living room area. This leaves 4989 square beet 04 52.5% ob the lot bah open space. 3689 square beet ob this Az oveA the undenghound garage, and wilt be .tnndscaped. The second (top) gook wilt contain 4511 square beet, 8 guest Looms with ph.ivate balconies, three stain welts and conk,Ldons. Alt Moons wit_t be heinbohced concrete. Beaming watts and room sepetatLon watts wLtt be he n o.ced concicete on masonry, 7. 4. The phopoaed ass 42 bah 8 wain employee units (16 people) and 8 guest: units, some ob which may be convemted to employee units at our disutetLon. There As no attehnate use pkopoaed, 7. g. The land in uue in the adjacent lots and immediate vAc..LnLty As lodging, con- dominiums, employee housing and other helvted auppont bacil..i,tLes. 7. h. Consthuctton to begin summer ob 1978 and 8 units to be completed bon. the 78 -79 a!u. aeaaon. The hemaln,Lng 8 units to be completed during the spitting and aummeA ob 1979. • • Y • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION • LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Nanie: _ MOUNTAIN CHALET ANNEX - 2. Location: Loth 17 £ 18 DEANS ADDITION SOUTH MILL STREET 3. Parcel Size: 95' FRONT AND BACK 100' SIDE 4. Current Zoning: LODGE 2 Zoning under which application is filed: LODGE 2 Maximum buildout under current zoning: TOTAL 1:1 9500 sq. b.t. TOURIST g EMPLOYEES UNITS 7125 sq. St. Proposed zoning: LODGE 2 5. Total buildout proposed: TOTAL ARFA_9022' - 901 OF AI LOWED - 6. Special procedures required: None • View planes:. Below peedent buildings Stream Margin Review: NOT APPLICABLE Special Review: • Historic District Review: NOT IN DISTRICT Subdivision (condominiumization): NOT APPLICABLE PUD: NOT APPLICABLE _. 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) - a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: i. Sheet #H-1500 topo map ob pcv:,t o4 City o,' Aspen 2 . Pneeim.Lnany dkau1Lnge :ct building pages 3. B&.oehune on Cteavet BnoohJ Boiteh • Submittal-Date: Febnuang 1, 1978 • 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION EORJI - Availability of Public facilities_ and - Projects within the Lodge One (L1) and Lodge Two (L21 shall be assigned points according to the following formula.' 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project flame: MOUNTAIN CHALET ANNEX Date: Febhuaucy 1, 1978 a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment • as r ---- j.:..ze 'c/l la , 44 c PalLiAvfrn • , CJ CSC' UL � , /, ee of aJac e ,3 f //t rcce at-eeset--! b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: z ( Z" c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- 2 d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating /02 (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: Within dvtnict - iiuc�.�h s.(,s iv_c_cansthuczti.an ) ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased • road mileage and /or maintenance. rL Comment: - Explained in 9. d, e - venyLa.t le ,ideas ,S deenease with employee units and eats taken into account , m+ 1 10. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense %2 72— 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ,� R ng ` (maximum 6 Points) - $• (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) d'{ ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if • not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: Location, with he,et.enee to ubtLc maws ontation d.i beet 6tom 7 e 1 cornet 06 the ptopetty to the S(0 coanet of Rubey Park - the teumtnat boa every bus ttavet.ing the city, county. ski cacao and mastic school. touter. The change in elevation is only 25 beet, so not discoutaq.inq, zutn atke weakest 06 6o0t tnavelen.s. Out employees; both aummet and w.intet, have lived at th,ib 'ue sot ec ht years. we have abseh.ved that even the employee who huh a cat, 6tncls tittle use iat .it. The location ..4 so goad that having a veh,iata .ch a burden. They cote u4ua,tly snowed undclt of plowed in &'tom tack 0 i use. This site is 1,050 beet 6nam the Loading platiotm o6 ii6t 04 on Aspen Mountain as welt as 1,290 ieet to the Loading ptat6atm 06 Lit #14 on the same mountain. / - 3 - r r1 t7 • • 1 (1)\ b) POLICE PROTECTION `i" � � /� 11), a" "y ^ (maximum 2 points) - considering" the ability current police security services to provide protection actor ing to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities,': personnel or equipment. Comment: .S,.,.,..._._„- •- . a' S uit " r _ AO. i / , ‘12;/-e)(/ C (k s 1.0(cee2 1 fece CALteace&cf;) • .511C-A-/ c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL PPORT F CILITIES Rating / (maximum 2 points) Comment: Just about eveky- thing is within easy waefii.ng distance on a qutefz bus n,%de away. Thin zite 560' bnom the downtown edee-tkLan mall, about 1800' £nom C%ta Manlzet and the Pob. Ub.ice and, again the 4huttte bus to the new ahopp -ing centeA 4top3 about 460' away at Rubey PaAfz. 11. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: — .. . 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a), ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating ;L (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: The height .is about the same as the existing buitdinga in the ne.%ghbonhaod. The a.ize in nelati.on to the tot leaveb mane area bon Land/soaping. The building is located on the north and east &ides aj The Lot to get max -cmum expasuAe to the sun in the winveA. b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. - Comment: The 1-shaded bu.il. ' , -.s '., s • ., lands area oveA i e u ,enghou • pan g on g .,e access to the sidewalk and at'Leet. All. wti,ttUes £ncfuding elee-t&Laity, .telephone and T.V. watt enter the. - bu,Geo ng undeAgnound.SeAv.i.ee vehicle% wiet have acces6 at the garage level. r eu.za-ut c) ENERGY f / , , t �. � Rating _ 3 (maximum 3 points th4. use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: The conetete_mabonty bu.i�dJ1i l r et xn naAniva = use 06 bolat enehgy. By pnopeh placement 06 - inlu,2atLan, athangement 06 ovethangb and glahb ateah we expect -a have an energy ebb.ie.ient Ewdc ing. F.ucep!aees" will be hea iiaton .type. The heating bol.2ex atffl be a bco$zh -type man,ine boLtet with bonced dtab-t to obtain ovet 80% , ,Q.n ay at .th,ch aTatude. — — - - -- — d) AMENITIES Rating d (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: The Location ob the pnop he .tr_nn. .6 .. ._. Abpen Mountain bummer and winter. Atoo close by ate Wagneh Path, the Lite bicycle .trait, the Rio Grande tt ,and o.thet ahoaA by hut bhnm Path. e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: The bu,itding will be located between the Continental Inn on the east and Aspen Bti:ek on the booth. Both 06 -these ate latget. than out building bo there wife not be a bxai.icant ehange_-in the appearance 06 .t!fe neighborhood. The height will not be above the present building, 12. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: The pnopobed building wilt be an annex to the Mountain Chalet. Only 250 beet bnom one bu.i,tding to the o.thete, the guests mat have uhe 0, alt h- el . '. I 0. . ••u. •i.a! •1141 and large lobby; ass welt as a 24' x 24' lounge with b.uceplace bah each tight toomb in the new annex. Rating b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: AS an annex, theh.e wilt be no dining baaiJJtie-s other than comptimentaty eobbee, pop and .ice. However, the guest's wit2 have butt bamay4t:tyte tneak6aaUU (Lnatuded .i51 na tel) .cn the Mountain Chalet duung haom antthe optcon ob dinner their.e, as welt, Rating c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Again, these lodge units ace an annex okthe Mountain Chalet. The guests thete wLU have complete =use o4 the a1h-eady ex is-ting_ heated aw.innLng ont (90_'__.x__40') , &cuu a,-(umpe ,nfo!, ah&-_ and backgammon in the Lounge. They wUL be a pahut o{ soma.. activitie in the Lounge Lie. ho.t piped w %no jaatrtle6, ski movim and chats ova ho.t chocolate and ho.t spaced eider apes 4f2-L. Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Our existing Lodge has hosted con4enence4 ob Skom 15 to 70 pehsons. We have three separate meeting areas and a dining /Loom which seats 70. The two Lounges in this new annex wilt add mee n /Looms. Some avui gn.oups have eaten.aLt thneem in our dining /Loom each day os a six -day conjeh.ence. _ Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts . on a walking basis. Comment: It is just 2 1/2 to 3 blocks itom.this n�copetty to Little Nett and is an easy wa2fz - ve/cy ttttte up and down. The short pant on Mitt Sth.eet a tittle h%tt but the hest .is an easy, tevei walk. At the end o{{ the day, one can ski. down Aspen Mountain to a point dinectty aeh.oss the street 4/Lom this site. Rating f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: We have about 60% hepeat bus- iness. Cons- ideting the number o$ £oths who don't 4k-L evelcy yeah, that's p /Lefty good tourist appeal. Many customehs comment that the at 1 '.e I, an ,a - ' •es - as wete as the help4u2ness and cohd ia.ti ty o6 the 4ta6i. The annex, which w,it& be an .integhat pant o.{K the °penatLans. should Lunation Just the sane Rating 13. P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is Greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points - 05% - 1 point Comment: The ciiowab.e density based on .75 to 1 allows 18 unite ob which two must be £o/L employees Leaving 16 as the allowed max -imum. We ah.e p/Lopo6.i.ng 8 toun.ist units to be built of a h.educti.on 04 50t, Rating - 6 - b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: • 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Genera -ty, we houwse most o6 owwe employees: It uxu Comment: _ — — -- 100% !cot iummen. Noweven, due to the 6aet that we have one howu e at paeient, and home pekuonalit£eh that conflict, we ace only how sing 70% .this winter, With the new, two- ,to- a- unite employee homing, we wonted andi;n,ipattiuua ng_- ctt -lczt 404 0an employees. — Rating (max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: • IA ' ..• .. ,.• ......',. • - •,. . en, beeawue e the pnox,im.ity o6 our lodge (and the pnopo6ed annex) to downtown nd the tiwano t 6 yitem, the van £6 not in great demand and hah a2way6 been able to accomodate . ,. Ouh gueAt6 when applicable, dn,ive .thei& eatu to the Mountain Chalet and path them bon the weefz. They 6.ind owwh location .too eo ujnt en�-tn need a rah. _Ihene- 4one, we 6eee t he rywopoied panfung garage should be a p&u's. The cat wont not be weed, they wilt not wue i.tAeet panfzing and Rating wilt be out -o6 -.the -way 6on snow hemova2, etc. We (max. 3 pts.) betceve .th.L6 applicable to emptoyeeh pawfzing atoo - that getting the employees ear off the •.twee, should be a plus. 14. Net Point Rating _ 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points 16. Total Points 'Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating - Date: -