Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Shapery Aspen Downtown Storage Amended.1983 PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION • 1. Applicant: Sandor W. Shapery/Shapery Enterprises 2. Project Name: Aspen Downtown Storage 3. Location: Lot 3 Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center 4. Parcel Size: 1 .147 acres or 49,963 square feet 5. Current Zoning: S/C/I with an SPA overlay 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: External FAR in the S/C/I zone is 1 :1 , so the maximum buildout is 49,963 square feet. 7. Existing Structures: None. 8. Development Program: The proposal is for two separate 2-level storage facility buildings. An office for the manager and a living unit will be housed in the histori- cal Koch Lumber Co. building, which will be reconstructed at the entrance to the project. The ,proposal includes dedication of 120 feet of the back section of the parcel for public open space. 9. Additional Review Requirements: SPA plan amendment Employee housing exemption ) t 10. Miscellaneous: Quota being requested is as follows: 56 storage units of 144 sq.ft.. each = 8,064 square feet 56 storage units of 160 sq.ft. each = 8,960 square feet TOTAL GROSS STORAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE = 17,024 square feet Circulation area (included in. FAR) = 4,032 square feet TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE = 21 ,056 square feet MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment DATE: January 24, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: G! Background The Aspen Downtown Storage Commercial Growth Management Project was initially submitted to the Planning Office on September 1 , 1982, and scored at the Planning and Zoning Commission' s regular meeting on October 5, 1982. At their regular meeting on October 19, 1982, the P&Z passed Resolution No. 82-12 which outlined several concerns they had about the project which they felt were not adequately conveyed by the scoring. The accompanying recommendation for allotment was for 8,250 square feet, representing one year's quota in the NC/SCI zone category plus enough bonus to complete one of the original three buildings proposed. The applicant requested that the item be tabled from the November 8 City Council agenda, so that revisions could be made in the plan. On November 22, 1982, the applicant presented the amended plans to the City Council and asked that you extend the time period for awarding an allotment until the amendment could be reviewed and rescored by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a request to which you agreed. The rescoring was completed by P&Z at their regular meeting of January 4, 1983. The minimum points required to meet thresholds were as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points Category 2 = 3 points Category 3 = 3 points 60 % of Categories 1 , 2 and 3 = 22.8 points The scores the original submission was given were: 1 . Quality of Design 8.5 2. Availability of Public 5.6 Facilities/Services 3. Employee Housing Need 10.0 Subtotal : 24.1 4. Employee Housing Incen- 8.2 tive 5. Applicant's Previous n/a Performance 6. Bonus Points 0.2 TOTAL: 32.5 The scores the amended submission was given were: 1 . Quality of Design 11 .325 2. Availability of Public 5.75 Facilities/Services 3. Employee Housing Need 10.0 Subtotal : 27.075 4. Employee Housing Incen- 0 tive 5. Applicant' s Previous n/a Performance 6. Bonus Points .5 TOTAL: 27.575 Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 24, 1983 Page Two The project met all required scoring thresholds and a recommendation was forwarded for a quota allotment of 21 ,056 square feet, whcih is the entire square footage requested. P&Z also decided to resubmit Resolution No. 82-12 because open space is still their first choice for the property. Quota Available The quota established by Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, for commercial development in the NC/SCI zone is 7,000 square feet. Section 24-11 .3(b) allows City Council to grant a development allotment for an entire project which requires several years of quota by reducing the quota available in subsequent years by an amount equal to the permitted construction. Subsequent Approvals The SCI zoning on this parcel has an SPA overlay, since the lot is part of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center Specially Planned Area. Therefore, the application must be processed as an amendment to the SPA Plan. The employee housing unit must be exempted from GMP competition. The project will no longer require stream margin review as the revised proposal avoids the sensitive floodplain fringe. Referral Comments City Attorney "It should be remembered that the City Council took no position regarding the proposed amendment. The statement in the application that the City Council 'agreed that the revised plans were an improvement over and offered more benefits to the public than the original submission' and probably would satisfy all of P&Z' s concerns is erroneous. P&Z should make its own independent judgment on this matter. " City Engineering "Having reviewed the above amended GMP application, the Engineering Department offers the following comments: 1 . The amended site plan does not significantly alter our stand regarding those concerns pertinent to the GMP review process. 2. There remain concerns relative to maintaining easements, utility relocations, and obtaining property necessary to relocate the trail . These concerns, however, are generally not appropriate to the GMP level of review. 3. The new plan does much to mitigate floodplain concerns in the old plan. 4. It may be inappropriate to view relocation of the trail as an "amenity" to the plan when the applicant cannot ensure availability of easements from adjacent owners." Planning Office Review The original submission was a request for 24,750 square feet of commercial space in the form of three two-level storage facility buildings. An office for the manager and a living unit was proposed to be located in the historic Koch Lumber Company building. Two 700 square foot employee housing units were proposed near the river. The amended application is for 21 ,056 square feet of commercial space in the form of two 2-level storage facility buildings. The manager' s office and living unit are still proposed in the Koch Lumber Company building and the two additional employee units have been eliminated. A 12,000 square foot area at the rear of the property (nearest the river) is being offered as public open space. The Rio Grande Trail will remain on the north side of the property in the alignment originally proposed or be moved to the south side of the property if land can be acquired to complete it. Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 24, 1983 Page Three The amendment represents a reduction in commercial square footage requested of 3,694 square feet. The employee housing being supplied is reduced by the elimination of the two 700 square foot one bedroom units. The elimination of the two housing units and elimination of a third building in exchange for two larger storage buildings moves the project out of the area within 100 feet of the river and removes the stream margin review requirement. If realignment of the trail on the south side of the project could be accomplished, it would be a much more desirable location, however, the property which is necessary to complete the trail to Puppy Smith Street is private and there are no assurances that this alignment can be acquired. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the amendment addressed some of the concerns in their Resolution 82-12, namely that the project has been backed away from the critical river area of the wildlife sanctuary and the open space area proposed will make access to and use of Jenny Adair Park much more inviting than the original plan. Other concerns in the resolution are not changed, in that the development of the parcel will preclude the possibility of the return of rail to that section of the Rio Grande right-of-way and the trail may still be juxtaposed between the storage ware house buildings and the sanitation facility. Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office feels there are two perspectives from which to evaluate a recommendation for quota. If enough quota is allicpated to complete construction of both buildings, three year' s quota in the NC/SCI category would be necessary in addition to a 56 square foot bonus. Unless you view the project as a very favorable addition to that zone, awarding that amount of quota in one year' s competition may be excessive. Some practical considerations may affect your views concerning a recommendation for a smaller amount of quota and the necessity of the developer building the project in phases. Therefore, you must balance the practical difficulties of requiring this project to phase its construction with the broader community goal of maintaining our adopted growth rate. Some of the practical difficulties of phasing this project over several years include the following; 1. The phased construction will likely be more disruptive to the trail , the wildlife habitat and Puppy Smith Street. 2. There will be considerable removal of fill and work on the grade for the first level of the structure(s). 3. The site design does not lend itself easily to phasing, since the circulation system will have to be revamped to function with only one building and then revised if a second building is added. However, there are equally strong reasons, from a growth management standpoint, not to award 3 year's of quota to this applicant. As you know, we have just recently amended the commercial growth management system to include all zones within the competition as a result of the excessive buildout which had taken place outside of the CC and C-1 zones. Without our historical -growth rate of 45,000 square feet per year in the last 5 years, we find it difficult to recommend the approval of a 20,000+ square foot building at this time, despite its being a low impact" type of use. A second important point is that if you award 3 year's of the NC/SCI quota to this project, you will be precluding other competitors from developing their property in these zones during the coming years. A recent Planning Office analysis indicates that in addition to this project, the likely buildout potential under existing zoning is 75,000 square feet in the SCI zone and 65,000 square feet in the NC zone. While it is difficult to predict whether anyone will want to develop in these zones, we do not feel that it is fair to preclude the next two years of competition during the first year that the quota system has been imposed on the NC and SCI zones. Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 24, 1983 Page Four On balance, the Planning Office feels that it is appropriate to take a con- servative approach to the award of quota at this time. Recognizing that it is impractical to build any less than one of the two buildings, we recommend the award of ; of the total square footage requested or 10,528 square feet, approxi- mately 11 years of quota. This allows the applicant to initiate construction in 1983 if he so desires or to wait until 1984 by competing successfully on August 1 , 1983 and presumably being awarded the other z of the project. Such an award would only require borrowing quota one year into the future and is therefore more consistent with our goal for phased construction under our growth management system. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered these perspectives and recommended that the quota of 21 ,056 square feet be allocated for the completion of the project with Resolution 82-12 accompanying that recommendation since they still believe the parcel should be open space. Council Action If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution to allocate 21 ,056 square feet of commercial space which represents 3 years of quota in the NC/SCI zone and 56 square feet of bonus for the full buildout of the Aspen Downtown Storage project as presented, with the understanding that the plan must successfully complete subsequent required reviews. " If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Office, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution to allocate 10,528 square feet of commercial space which represents 11/2 years of quota in the NC/SCI zone and will allow for the completion of one storage facility building if subsequent reviews are successfully completed. " • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONSIDERATION BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL OF THE PURCHASE OF LOT 3, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER AS AN OPEN SPACE PARCEL Resolution No. 82 - WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed Commercial Growth Management proposals at a public hearing held on October 5, 1982, and WHEREAS, a project proposed to be built on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center met the threshold of 60 percent of available points in the first three scoring categories of the Growth Management Competition Scoring System, and WHEREAS, the awarding of points and a subsequent recommendation for a square footage allotment does not convey some of the concerns expressed in the discussion of the project, and WHEREAS, the wildlife habitat of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies sanctuary could be affected by a large buildout or the ongoing construction of a phased project, and WHEREAS, the access to and use of Jenny Adair Park may be significantly altered by the proposed development, and WHEREAS, the development of this parcel would preclude the possibility of the return of rail transit along the Rio Grande right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the appeal of the Rio Grande Trail system would be reduced by its being juxtaposed between the proposed storage warehouse buildings and the existing Sanitation facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that a recommendation is hereby made to the City Council of Aspen, Colorado to consider the purchase of Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center with open space funds for use as open space. Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on October 19, 1982. ASPEN PLANNING Awl ZONING COMMISSION By: • Lel i, iee, Acting Chairman • ATTEST: C19/:" lr't-- Jiede-- Virginia Beall , Deputy City Clerk r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment DATE: January 4. 1983 Background The Aspen Downtown Storage Commercial Growth Management Project was initially submitted to the Planning Office on September 1 , 1982, and scored at your regular meeting on October 5, 1982. At your regular meeting on October 19, 1982, you passed Resolution No. 82-12 which outlined several concerns the Commission had about the project which you felt were not adequately conveyed by your scoring and recommendation for square footage allotment. The accom- panying recommendation for allotment was for 8,250 square feet, which represents one year' s quota in the NC/SCI zone category plus enough bonus to complete one of the original three buildings proposed. Subsequent to your action, the applicant requested that the item be tabled from the November 8 City Council agenda, so that revisions could be made in the plan. On November 22, 1982, the applicant presented the amended plans to the City Council and asked that Council extend the time period for awarding an allotment until the amendment could he reviewed and rescored by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since this amendment represents an altered site plan, a revision to the employee housing proposal and a change in the number of structures and the square footages of each, rescoring is required. Section 24-11 .7 requires that the determination be made that the application still meets all minimum thresholds and that the applicant' s position relative to other applicants would not have changed. Since there were no other applicants in the NC/SCI category, there is no problem with the application' s relative position, necessitating only your determination that the applicant would still meet the minimum thresholds. The original submission was a request for 24,750 square feet of commercial space in the form of three two-level storage facility buildings. An office for the manager and a living unit was proposed to be located in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building. Two 700 square foot employee housing units were proposed near the river. The amended application is for 21 ,056 square feet of commercial space in the form of two two-level storage facility buildings. The manager' s office and living unit are proposed in the Koch Lumber Co. building and the two additional employee units have been eliminated. A 12,000 square foot area at the rear of the property (nearest the river) is being offered as public open space. The Rio Grande Trail will remain on the north side of the property in the alignment originally proposed or be moved to the south side of the property if land can be acquired to complete it. Quota Available The quota established by Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, for commercial development in the NC/SCI zone is 7,000 square feet. Section 24-11 .3(b) allows City Council to grant a development allotment for an entire project which requires several year' s of quota by reducing the quota available in subsequent years by an amount equal to the permitted construction. Thresholds and Eligibility To be eligible for an allocation, the project is required to score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under Categories 1 (Quality of Design) , 2 (Availability of Public Facilities/Services, and 3 (Employee Housing Need) , Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 4, 1983 Page Two amounting to 22.8 points. A minimum score of 30 percent of the points available in each category (1 , 2 and 3) is also required for the project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The original application met all required thresholds. The amended application represents changes substantial enough to require rescoring. Subsequent Approvals The SCI zoning on this parcel has an SPA overlay, since the lot is part of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center Specially Planned Area. Therefore, the application must be processed as an amendment to the SPA Plan. The employee housing unit must be exempted from GMP competition. The project will no longer require stream margin review as the revised proposal avoids the sensitive floodplain fringe. Referral Comments City Attorney "It should be remembered that the City Council took no position regarding the proposed amendment. The statement in the application that the City Council "agreed that the revised plans were an improvement over and offered more benefits to the public than the original submission" and probably would satisfy all of P&Z' s concerns is erroneous. P&Z should make its own independent judgment on this matter. " City Engineering "Having reviewed the above amended GMP application, the Engineering Department offers the following comments: 1 . The amended site plan does not significantly alter our stand regarding those concerns pertinent to the GMP review process. 2. There remain concerns relative to maintaining easements, utility relocations, and obtaining property necessary to relocate the trail . These concerns, however, are generally not appropriate to the GMP level of review. 3. The new plan does much to mitigate floodplain concerns in the old plan. 4. It may be inappropriate to view relocation of the trail as an "amenity" to the plan when the applicant cannot ensure availability of easements from adjacent owners. " Planning Office Review The amendment represents a reduction in commercial square footage requested of 3,694 square feet. The employee housing being supplied is reduced by the elimination of the two 700 square foot one-bedroom units. The elimination of the two housing units and elimination of a third building in exchange for two larger storage buildings, moves the project out of the area within 100 feet of the river and removes the stream margin review requirement. The Planning Office feels that the revisions in the application address some of the concerns identified in your Resolution No. 82-12, namely that the project has been backed away from the critical river area of the wildlife sanctuary and the open space area proposed will make access to and use of Jenny Adair Park much more inviting than the original plan. The development does not answer other problems outlined in the Resolution. Development of the parcel will preclude the possibility of the return of rail to that section of the Rio Grande right-of-way and the trail will be juxtaposed between the storage ware- house buildings and the sanitation facility. If the realignment of the trail Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 4, 1983 Page Three on the south side of the project could be accomplished, it would be a much more desirable location, however, the property which is necessary to complete the trail to Puppy Smith Street is private and there are no assurances that this alignment can be acquired. Finally, it is important that you recognize that this project will require amendment of the Trueman SPA and the details of the development will be reviewed by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in that process. The Planning Office has rescored the amended application and the score sheets are attached. The application consists of the original application and the letter from Gideon Kaufman dated December 2, 1982, which is also attached. (If you do not have your copy of the original application, you can stop by the Planning Office to review it. ) According to our recommended scoring, the project does meet all minimum required thresholds and you will be rescoring the amended application at this meeting. Planning Office Recommendation Assuming that you concur with our recommended scoring and the project meets all required scoring thresholds, there are two perspectives from which to evaluate a recommendation for quota. If enough quota is allocated to complete construction of both buildings, three year' s quota in to NC/SCI category would be necessary in addition to a 56 square foot bonus. Unless you view the project as a very favorable addition to that zone, awarding that amount of quota in one year' s competition may be excessive. Some practical considerations may affect your views concerning a recommendation for a smaller amount of quota and the necessity of the developer building the project in phases. Therefore, you must balance the practical difficulties of requiring this project to phase its construction with the broader community goal of maintaining our adopted growth rate. Some of the practical difficulties of phasing this project over several years include the following: 1 . The phased construction will likely be more disruptive to the trail , the wildlife habitat and Puppy Smith Street. 2. There will be considerable removal of fill and work on the grade for the first level of the structure(s). 3. The site design does not lend itself easily to phasing, since the circulation system will have to be revamped to function with only one building and then revised if a second building is added. However, there are equally strong reasons, from a growth management standpoint, not to award 3 year's of quota to this applicant. As you know, we have just recently amended the commercial growth management system to include all zones within the competition as a result of the excessive buildout which had taken place outside of the CC and C-1 zones. Without our historical growth rate of 45,000 square feet per year in the last 5 years, we find it difficult to recommend the approval of a 20,000+ square foot building at this time, despite its being a low impact" type of use. A second important point is that if you award 3 year' s of the NC/SCI quota to this project, you will be precluding other competitors from developing their property in these zones during the coming years. A recent Planning Office analysis indicates that in addition to this project, the likely buildout potential under existing zoning is 75,000 square feet in the SCI zone and 65,000 square feet in the NC zone. While it is difficult to predict whether anyone will want to develop in these zones, we do not feel that it is fair to preclude the next two years of competition during the first year that the quota system has been imposed on the NC and SCI zones. Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage - GMP Amendment January 4, 1983 Page Four On balance, the Planning Office feels that it is appropriate to take a con- servative approach to the award of quota at this time. Recognizing that it is impractical to build any less than one of the two buildings, we recommend the award of 2 of the total square footage requested or 10,528 square feet, approxi- mately 1' years of quota. This allows the applicant to initiate construction in 1983 if he so desires or to wait until 1984 by competing successfully on August 1 , 1983 and presumably being awarded the other z of the project. Such an award would only require borrowing quota one year into the future and is therefore more consistent with our goal for phased construction under our growth management system. , oc 2 1 ypF PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Amendment to Aspen Downtown Storage GMP Application NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 4, 1983 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall , 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider an amendment to the Aspen Downtown Storage Growth Management Plan application. The amendment seeks to change the site plan originally submitted, and the employee housing dedication. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 30, 1982. City of Aspen account. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: December 14 , 1982 RE: Amendment to the Aspen Downtown Storage GMP Application Having reviewed the above amended GMP application, the Engineering Department offers the following comments : 1. The amended site plan does not significantly alter our stand regarding those concerns pertinent to the GMP review process. 2. There remain concerns relative to maintaining easements, utility relocations, and obtaining property necessary to relocate the trail. These concerns, however, are generally not appropriate to the GMP level of review. 3. The new plan does much to mitigate floodplain concerns in the old plan. 4. It may be inappropriate to view relocation of the trail as an "amenity" to the plan when the applicant cannot ensure availability of easements from adjacent owners. JH/co MEMORANDUM TO: ,41fy Attorney ,.C'ity Engineering Building Department PLANNER: Colette Penne RE: Amendment to Aspen Downtown Storage GMP Application • DATE: December 6, 1982 Attached is an amendment to the Aspen Downtown Storage GMP application submitted earlier during the commercial GMP competition. Please review the material and submit your contents back to the Planning Office no later than December 13. Thank you. • • • � �. 'p,, .. PEN CITY ; f, _ 130 �N' • 44 1 ..,T reet asp .`` tI: 04( ...A...„, . 1611 MEMORANDUM r r` ' > 1982 11 13 �;,1'::ta ! r;IF$NCO. DATE: December 8 , 1982 PLANNINGOHICE TO: Colette Penne FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Amendment to Aspen Downtown Storage GMP Application It should be remembered that the City Council took no position regarding the proposed amendment . The statement in the applica- tion that the City Council "agreed that the revised plans were an improvement over and offered more benefits to the public than the original submission" and probably would satisfy all of P&Z 's con- cerns is erroneous . P&Z should make its own independent judgment on this matter. PJT/mc LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 611 WEST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN 9 25-816 6 December 2 , 1982 Colette Penne Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Amendments to Shapery GMP Application Dear Colette, Pursuant to our telephone conversations and meetings, this letter shall constitute, on behalf of Mr. Sandor W. Shapery - Shapery Enterprises, an amendment to the Shapery SCI GMP submission of 1982 . As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission scored the Shapery GMP application on October 5 , 1982 . The project score exceeded the minimum threshold and a recommendation for an allotment for one building of 8 ,250 square feet was forwarded to the City Council. On November 22 , 1982 , the applicant presented proposed revisions to his Growth Management Plan application to the Planning Office and City Council. Both the Planning Office and City Council agreed that the revised plan were an improvement over and offered more benefits to the public than the original submission and probably would satisfy most all of the concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the members of the public. At this November 22 , 1982 , meeting, the City Council extended the period of time in which a development allotment could be granted for the Growth Management Commercial competition in the SCI zone. We now request a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of reviewing our amended application and rescoring the application as amended to establish that the minimum threshold requirements have again been met. I am enclosing the new architectural drawings of the Shapery mini-storehouses for your and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review. The following is a summary of the changes made to Mr. Shapery' s application for a Growth Management Plan allotment. Colette Penne December 2 , 1982 Page Two 1 . The number and total square footage of the self-storage units has been changed. Under the original application, there were 66 storage units of 144 square feet each and 66 storage units of 160 square feet each for a total gross square footage of 19 ,998 feet. The new plan has 56 units of 144 square feet and 56 units of 160 square feet for a total gross square footage of 17 ,024 feet. 2 . The drive through corridors on the second floor have been reduced from 4 ,752 square feet to 4 ,032 square feet. The gross square footage for the self-storage facility now totals 21 ,056 square feet. The drive through corridors only count in the FARs because they are covered. Therefore, 4 ,000 of the 21 ,000 square feet of the project or 20% of the total project is added for aesthetics, without bulk impact. 3 . We retained the 400 square feet of office space and the 400 square feet for the studio apartment for the on-site manager to be contained in the old Koch Lumber Building. We have eliminated the two one-bedroom units of employee housing which contained 1 ,400 square feet. Thus the overall square footage for the project is now 21 ,856 . The applicant' s original submission proposed construction of three buildings of warehouse storage , two one-bedroom employee units on the river and the renovation of the old Koch Lumber Building for office space and the manager' s apartment. Due to concerns raised by the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and ACES and after numerous consulations with ACES and other concerned persons in the community, the applicant has revised his plans for the project in order to address these concerns. The mass of the project has been decreased by reducing the number of warehouse storage buildings from three to two and by eliminating the employee units at the rear of the lot next to the river, there has been created a 12 ,000 square foot open space park next to the river adjacent to the Jenny Adair park. The buildings in the new plan have been moved almost 200 feet from the river. Colette Penne December 2 , 1982 Page Three I think it is important to note that the applicant, Mr. Shapery, has done as much as possible without destroying the economic viability of his project. He is donating nearly 25% of his land to the community. In addition, we are realigning the trail from the north to the south side of the property. Mr. Shapery will do extensive landscaping as indicated on the new plans. The building will be hidden from the trail by barnwood fences and expensive landscaping. This creates a very aesthetically pleasing entrance to the trail and screens the unsightly view of the sewer plant. As amended, Mr. Shapery' s new project represents a significant boon to the community and tremendous contribution on Mr. Shapery' s part to the upgrading of the trail entrance. Mr. Shapery has further reduced the FAR of the project from 55% to 44% . In other words , he is reducing the allowable density for his project by 56% . In addition, there has been a dramatic increase in open space from 25% to 45% . These two factors alone show the sensitivity and first-class approach of this particular project. The employee housing that has been eliminated was bonus employee housing that was not necessary to get points but was extra housing to help the community shortfall. However, because Mr. Shapery is sensitive to the concerns raised about the closeness of these employee buildings to the river, Mr. Shapery decided to eliminate these buildings. The visual impact, the architectural design and the site design are great enhancements to the revised project. The new scoring should be higher than the initial application and I feel that the application, as revised, not only meets the minimum threshold requirements but is now a project that even more people in the community will support. This project supplies much needed storage space while at the same time preserves and improves the entrance and contributes open space along the river. The Planning Office' s original recommendation for a quota allotment sufficient for two buildings should be followed. By approving both buildings , we will not disturb the area twice and will , at the same time , speed up the creation of a scenic entrance to the Rio Grande Trail. Colette Penne December 2 , 1982 Page Four I look forward to discussing this matter with the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 4 , 1983 . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By r Gideon . man GK kw cc: Sandor W. Shapery Tom Wells Welton Anderson • CI CO a -O z Qo 0 Ca gi (71 A CO N --' 10 )0 01 (.Tl a CO N A NJ m 0 • 0. cu N 'C —1 r 0 .. O V CO 'V N N '--' —1 .0 m CO a J tT (< sDicta (D sL CD O) Z 3 . Z (+ J• (D Z o o- °c CF -s 0- N N (D CD tT n t< 3 n (D F N CD c J N C 3 - N S CO N -1 J. a J. t0 -1 J S Dr J. t0 J. 0 3 0 2 3 n to 0 � (< Oct 1 0 •-1 0 t0 ° CO (D c-F N (D CD CD 3 a C -s -I ° C co (< 3 H (D to 0 ° r to a -s -o 0. 3 to J a+ CD ° J. (D to '0 0 -0 to C J CD 0 -0 0 3 3 '0 -I. C W 3 Z -S o , t0 co to o t< j n (sl co to = H (0 '0 to \ V c+ -a 3 t'+ Z z CD 0 I0 -m C 0 -I co T .... J. 0 J. 0 N 0. N CD 'C N = n J (n —1 0 -5 -1 n 3 a m = O sY n o GI r+ n co s o = co to 0 S 0 0 -4 Cl) CD ...1 a h N CO m 0 --+ CO CO co co a -I 3 to --1 r to 0 O co• a a O r r z n .. .. .. :. . to o _ _ a ('' v CO 10 01 I CO N w+ N CO N N CCDD - O 3 cn cn a o m a 70 D t 0 sac r cam. fD N s7 n '--1 v A a+ a DD o J r o J o 01 CD N O N O r ,.,, -I N 0 CD C. -< Z 2 (.J (J -a N Z N 3 CO CO 3 C 2 n °' m a `< -I r C) a 0 3 ,. m <°N O I V IN IN) r I r r r N _ I H • -I 1 Ci C11 I IN) N Z CO Z r CJ r a Z CO • C CO 3• H CO -• -' N -, O 101 N a 1-+ <r N 'N N W 3 N II Z • 1 H • N 0 to I a O V G) t0 V 01 N (TI (I1 -n m v c v -+ 12c 0 03 cr CO O- O v 9 N n n C O -1 3 r . n n c< m 0 O = m D n z `� x a n N H v c 3 3 r Cl -5'17 .v) 0"m o 7 D m Y f o m _ I C3 .-t a x H co m v o z N co cn D -s c., o to a m co D DD. m r' r w n 1 O H m m o " 6 M d I N = LD 3 N w O \ O rP . a d N rD d Z O C.. co n rF a . a N 17 SL t0 CO O O la J CO Cu d 7 CO _1 \ O N A, D II . 1 IV 1 I 0 `= . In I 1 Ul • V CT • . I . , , 1' CO . v o go ca m Ol U1 A CO N • C N IT7 9 N A W N J N A . C f") < y C --1 -. 0.w J 0 J J• y a. J. O 'a N 0 N a N J --1 3 j N 4 e} ti CD N 0 C N W N Co 's h c O ,' CD -s O v v m C -. c = CD et m 3 10 a. -6. CO Z 0- 10 -.1. p r1. O-h 3 0 = 7 n N n Cf 1D D co O 0 3 C -s -1 a C N � a. 6- N '. n+ 0 Q r „ a. d N -0 0 v to o C in z J -h C w N co 0▪ 7 h f> W O N 1n 0 -C J, rF ✓-� 111 O-13 N \ -1 S-� Z Z O O Co O' -6. C N O. P1 CD �• 'C to >0 C: P1 3 0 y 0 co P1 A N �. N .. 0 O 0 - N S1 J. H Q. c- N m N N 0 C I CO N 007 = CD CI- 'a C-I 0 CO A r — A r.. ,. J CO n - _ _ II� , IIwIvINI 4 MI GO MI ICI k� i �- i l f • -p H A go r N A to hLEFH � I N r = a C m I D m I 4NFFF li\i, 10.1- II �N1� _f z n V. N C co O r o ftHH+ h ii\lk u �lwl�l r z Cli � IHIttH IkI I V„ tIII1 HIHHILt ri i Ai V. v -n m a v v -. 20 o w o CO C. w A w v C -'1 3 r v n 'C -- m J. v v W CD 3 73 O o o to ( n 2 3 r- 2 3 D o co NIfl H C r In o- -1, O o S N v 0 i c 1O N -I m c� o .+ t o N 0 • VI co h n Y J. G] D o CD I % m z -n a -4 .. o 0 n r r N S . m m -I v w . M Z m m O O N 11 w F- - l° l ID c? 7 ler. 7 o 1 i 1 T3 I D U • �r1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: Aspen Downtown Storage DATE: January 4, 1983 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 assign- ing 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: The buildings will alter the openness of the site and the visual experience of entering town via the trail . The "barn" appearance is intended to make them more compatible With unit doors to the exterior. there will he a visual impact of users filling or emptying units. The use of the historic building is a plus. 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: All utilities are presently underground and the 2-level design makes the circulation efficient. The proposal to dedicate the open space area is a good feature. particularly due to the wildlife sanctuary. If the trail ran be completed on the south side of the property, it would improve on the trail loca- tion between the sewer plant and this project, but there is no assurance it can be completed on the south side. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. 2 Rating: COMMENT: The design makes it possible to use only natural lighting in daytime hours. The employee unit will have a woodburning stove. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The open space area may make the park and end of the trail more popular. The trail will either be realigned on the north side or moved to the south side if the property is acquired or easements obtained. -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: 1 COMMENT: Because of the grade change these buildings are being built on, the view of the mountains from the trail will be reduced. From some vantage points, the view of the sewer plant will be enhanced. The tranquil view of Hallam lake from the trail entrance will be impacted. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 2 COMMENT: Needs of the project are not excessive and are adequately provided for. • Subtotal : 11 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire • protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. ° Rating: 1 COMMENT: The existence of the 8" main in Puppy Smith Street and a fire hydrant on one corner of the property indicate that the needs of the project can be served. No other improvements are proposed. 4 bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: 1 COMMENT: An 8" line runs through the property and can adequately service the project. No other upgrading is proposed. cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: 1 COMMENT: Mill Street and Puppy Smith Street have been improved in the recent past. The Silverking bus route is on Mill Street and may be used by the employees. It is unlikely that customers will access the facility without a vehicle. however, but visits may be infrequent. dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: 2 COMMENT: On-site drywells are proposed to handle all on-site runoff. The open ditch which handles runoff from adjacent properties will be upgraded to an, underground culvert, thus improving the existing situation. ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The parking needs of this project are met by the proposal of 1 space at each unit and 5 spaces for employees and customers at the office. Through the SPA review, this requirement can be reviewed. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . I Rating. 10 COMMENT; Considering that one full-time and one part-time employee should meet the personnel needs of the project, 50 percent (for maximum 10 points) of the employees are being housed with the one unit ornpnspd I 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating; 0 COMMENT: No additional housing is being provided. • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: n/a COMMENT: Not applicable. 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1), (2) , and (3)). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 11 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 6 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 27 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 0 4, 5 and 6: , TOTAL POINTS: 27 1 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office • • _ . PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION „„,_ r,.... , ±-7, 1. Applicant: ' --14\1 11,,,T)h \ , ',. .fti I—L. ' d I- ic- i / V ( i 1 ) .._ 1 2. Project Name: yel1/4:....,t 'Ci '1 ; ,), ,,ti CL Slot-IN'GE 7 t A 1 3. Location: ,0 - -%) 1f' I COlAt .) Afrilci-t4://),,Ni0G1... t'fi It 'ii- (iiiie,o1 ,.... I 4. Parcel Size: tii - ,)c, .-,-. -L.. 0 r 1 ' I--- 1 5. Current Zoning: bo; i \ c--1 .V\ ,JA :Ho / c) ' 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: -Ex ; ) ,, , ), k R-14 K i n f ti..„9____ ..,_ / 1 , , , 0 _ ii, nct--) lit_,4 , icy-L„ ,„. , ,, ii , ,4y , f 14:1 1 -, 171 . 1. 7. Existing Structures: - r\ 8. Development Program: -rk.fi--,-- e, Ds .C.,___,..%...di I Z.) \ r) r I .._0`).3 P- I 1, t) k \ 1 ck, li (--,,4 kJ - ) i Li) I t itC I : I 1 1,7-' i v-L__) R j -- 40 tv-i-710,_ , i(') ' 1 1 I lc , ,:„., ki a) 1Q,A, lot '; ,, 1 , (..,.. 41 , , 1 , ,,, t-int , A, -w_LL_,___L,..._i_j________j_cc•Sio..4----- ,A112_41,1_Q„ ir-ek c , , / proik ' 1. rto Cr 4:-..4 ,__ k i 1 Ind uLli2 1--, 4_,,i, A ct_D-4. i 0 5.71 , _ /.2O41 7 I , , ,k,,,L.t.... „.....Q e i'l .,"";-' 1 Of 14 f. - - , ' , f, Vti c,.- iii=9, i .; 1 L oAc a ty 9. Additional Review Reguiremebts: (I -SPA ID lc_*-, - t tn, 4 , Lk 1\N -: • 4-- i---A.,,, • I ' 10. Miscellaneous; Q ,ACi _ ri \, , , a 1, ilit, t.tj , 00,- Hs o -- I 41 c-c r‘t . c .r. , _ , , i. 1 5 , LA vit Is ( 1400 -_,q. c:1 . -c_J, it\ - 8 I 0 `-_,I, \ •t , c\ I- \ 1011AL G ' S 1--' 1)P-t-tr;C: aiSPI Foe tic. ;:, 111024 . . 1/4, 41, r44,, L1H., ," - At 'et_ (lAcia 1,z. ii 1 Rit 1.) -• ( - I OTT-ii---- 1-4).-0 V: Q k s.Q Liii =,.. Ea ) 1 4 (.73- e =I • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS A s PROJECT: Et) _.r J`• 'j rJSC,t�3ad ■.'�,( GKt�� DATE: �, 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 po nts). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing 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: flu jk, �<� ,. . , . , 1 t r ii lka }t VISAi � t �;6Ctts ` \ d '-et}�� , f . .i trcL( , ' �Y�' � � ■ 1Ak U.iL it (Anor t. � 'r / , ,''..17 lr t k , Wf 1 (L A NA: ..1. IYr•\(FYI _ f t! lk5.¢k-" b. SITE DESIGN C'dnstderin 1the quality and ?character of Kyro , l_ .€""" Qv,('.{.a1 , rl ItYV , <7,. f1 1k9 'J, r. -> *+v�, ,- ? ci x ':A 13 O id'_ - g q y f the propose 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-- s � i COMMENT:Ai u.k\1414 _- ;x..- -Q."..• a tick"-raj 1( /kJ L./ J r ^ _t_t".CI .rr';a� 'il: • . 1 � " - � 7' -3/4!JOG- (���� L"�5�s� �� G��al. :ru -, ' kr .-�,� H>a� . lzr � �� f f' „ . . 1 u� {u La), . tat , 5 s,_,IA 3A-1 • -I, _ ` to Cs4- nt,�nn f�1 c r e�_i/ , i t ' C1A iv F-trfble..{" t.{ rl '.° u.2F`j�\ ' '/ Oat t"a1 _<.—A' - 1i lcr 1/ >, t LQ1 O4Q t�! c '". I • - c. ENERGY - Considering the use of &insulation, passive solar orientation, i , -I solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling .I, . . ; devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy , , .„ sources. .. Rating: 2._. COMMENT f I 1 d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: ii_ .•• •, a �,,,k `' cc, r It � dui Ma 1 LI 1, '% ' k. i — .1-'2 .01, t . -I 07 'LCD_ ���Jr.. t,'. r- / : i / Q.. 1 , 1 6 t C1. `.-te . . i . I / vi 1 • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. I - Rating: • COMMENT: �Lt'/Yk � Vf— k � _S._ eh: d. _ _ It L " - "'az a Q a 5,Jc.,,„ x 1Dfv...Y• W II Lz.1Z ci( -y Tiv.--, , -o - +, 4'. Qt �- fir(r'U,,1 i /C r. -I - ., 1 e.(iyzi cL.�y TRASH AND UTILI -Y ACCESS AREAS - Consider`i`ng the quality and effi- trio i.);I} {aA_. �rvi.,;; ea, ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. J // Rating: COMMENT: SR sc , 1 :. jilt 2 �,.), .,,.t... ,,:-f--. stt--E trio i,.. ('X CR.:;' ,J c: and ;�.�-e__ a1 L ,�.;_ -,';lid c z t c r . I- 1 5 Subtotal : II 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities am services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) _a_a.__ WATER SUPPLY/FIPE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: 1 COMMENT: �t _ { 11 .- ;,.� N 'N 0 .• !1 I ` V`.. V \ ���Y l i� L re �^?A 1. tt 4 7 ;i :.`:',r pro ¢� t• Sa_ JQ 't >v f.v-.-.o..,tg C4-44—Q-- 1.34, C,Pv..v; .1 b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Conside g the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. —. -- -- ---- Rating: I COMMENT: I.`1 .... 111,0 t'\ I1 vim__ Y-l.��''l c- '41,J -2Y< 1%"1 - 1 •+,_u._._.. 1 , kit , '_ t ;':0-47-1 aS L� q z:? -t 1 i ti_y'af le-sc t'_ _ {..j itv. -. 0 k. . _.e& �t za.01 t V' i a p i " , :).::e.°\ , cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORYATION/ROA Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns r, -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: I ati n : I COMMENT: ,_ t-4-,,, 1 LA.1, ! ' ', _ m4vri Q i i VI II k t c_ . rat q[ �T ,: ELI `-4, U{ �— 0,0,,-/-,z I��= t C.t)1 /, ti i' w < �i3/(4 ,.}�.i f � ' t , tc,/:%'!'_cc/ U v€i:_77 L' IL..\. ) ! Y, v.., I r dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering fe capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: 1 COMMENT: On _. rf . ); •, rc. .J I A E:: _ id Oz9Q=-Qt- /D 4t, U;:f;a� _7 — 1 b \ t \ n,,#A J- e.m4,-..n n -r `i _ LJ, i I h L to a's o IQ el 10 c1 4,1 u tnt/2ra 4 2!4'„U_.v01 < ee. KING. Con s ConSidering�the provision of�p rk ng spaces i?o meet the � ee. commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. _, Rating: i COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). //�� Rating. I Q ea' 0 � . COMMENT v':: .3,v �. t . k' , . A._. i it _ c>_ _ ^.. . �,t ir, .:_ M1 { 7 j 'F .fit\3.� , v — �itI t I,1,1,,;wt 9-.a 1 Lk I, ...0 r . .id , se 4.. t '4 ! C �i ,..I.._ 504a 1 0 Y4 ),Ax'r:_aY' ,1 7: , 1)CA 1-St..., ''IVj -4 Q47 ...� `tI_a .�(.e � Yct 4. MPLO EE OUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those uses where an N, applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond i the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: XC (tc,Ic1 ;i?lfl , i 1 I' f. .r,,7 . .- , P ` CI pr-r v I .,.i ( ci (, • -4- 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: K f COMMENT: )7/0._, 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: • 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : I � (Minimum of 5.4 points {{ needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 4p (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: I`0 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: it (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: 0 TOTAL POINTS: h Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • F PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: 7/72,s� f):2(6-ri /4 ('.sue STG') DATE: A "<---4 �3 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 assign- ing 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: 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: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices 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: S COMMENT: -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. — Rating: /55 COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : // Z 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. . Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: / COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns fr -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. J Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. / Rating: r • COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. /67 _ COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: 0 COMMENT: -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application., has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: _i5 COMMENT: • 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: • 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : / -S (Minimum of 5.4 points 2 -- needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /0 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories Q- 1 , 2 and 3: U (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories _ 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: / pe... /Cs PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: 1A `/ DATE: eicii0g 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 assign- ing 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. / 7i Rating: ,p COMMENT: lb l� A '��/4 (it�, Cc9177/ Pie j�C>j ! /2 <� P et A %7 ,cic 2v€/ , 774j//0/t) c3 4 j K Po M4.10,2_ Dkyy)��,,1l��FOS b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the pcoposedl �� 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. Ranting. a COMMENT: Mkje,V di 72/& 7 : AIAiz) 'S,"i4 c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices 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: CO) , COMMENT: (%/C) Abt(/e -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. z_ Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : -7 , -5 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: I COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: / COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. /0 COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • -4- 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3)). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. j Bonus Points: ! COMMENT: Milo TZLtS lot FIC C._ Xi es/to-Eck;fici u14 D Cam. �� Lary' hfroAL r MWLW / t 7. TOTAL POINTS �j Points in Category 1 : ` / (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: ` 7 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) / Points in Category 3: 1 0 (Minimum of 3 points needed f� to remain eligible) eZat-Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points • needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: y�f TOTAL POINTS: Z, '7 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: / l PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: / / /3k//?V/2)MV ( DATE: �Y 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 assign- ing 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: 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: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices 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. 2i I) Rating: i COMMENT: &(,Y 111E 1(6 r50) b'UES 17 / 1I- -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to 0 maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. ' "y Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: f COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development ,..) without system extension. Rating: • COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: 4:01: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). ® Rating. COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fife% percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: -4- ' • 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual i A � hardship, such submission has not been possible. ^, Y/I Rating: /u COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 3 points needed IP II! to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 1 °Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) ' Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: _ I /10) 164 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS / 11 A PROJECT: _ /� )1. G AQ DATE: 7 IIIYYY ��. 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maxinfum 1$ points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect too the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing 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: 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: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: _ �f COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: 3 COMMENT: '( — Q11 ` A t'� 7, s {} Q l 5� C La/Ili CL C(&w Me c4_ tylAk.„4 rcyu yuytk._./ -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 7i COMMENT: Subtotal : 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: 1 COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: 1 • COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating: /b . COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: (5 COMMENT: -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) • points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: i', / COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: r lck- � /CUAGI at"( COMMENT: Q,w9a.N t¢'4' s l a"cl414J CeepWiliejt 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: / v (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: LIO (An