Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Sunny Park 170 Park Ave.47A-85Si4N,fy PHak 0744 Lc5� k R�S�d�NT k� GRIP/coH�EPryAL _ _ ,j�px�ka 4I�z— 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 SUNNY PARK ' APPLICATION FOR GMP RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT t QECEMBER 1, '1985 1 APPLICATION FOR GMP RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT December 1, 1985 tSubmitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' 925-2020 Applicant: Sunshine Partners c/o Michael Conviser P.O. Box 3104 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Attorneys: David G. Eisenstein Gideon Kaufman Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 Architect: Gibson Reno Architects 418 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-5968 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BASIC INFOM4ATION Page 1. Project Information. 1 aa. hater System 2 bb. Sewage 2 CC. Drainage 2 dd. Fire Protection 2 ee. Total Development Area - Type of Units - Proximitv to Schools 3 ff. Traffic Increase 3 gg. Location 4 hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets 4 ii. Adjacent Uses 4 jj. Construction Schedule 5 2. Site Utilization Maps 5 B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 6 aa. Water 6 bb. Sewer 6 CC. Storm Drainage 6 dd. Fire Protection 7 ee. Parking Design 7 ff. Roads 7 2. Quality of Design 8 aa. Neighborhood Compatability 8 bb. Site Design 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page # Cc. Energy 9 dd. Trails 9 ee. Open Space 9 3. Prcximity to Support Services 10 aa. Public Transportation 10 bb. Ccmmunity Commercial Facilities 10 4. Provisions for Employee Housing 10 5. Bonus Points 10 MAPS AND DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Drawing #1 Zoning Map Drawing #2 Traffic Map/Bus Route Drawing #3 Utilities Map Drawing #4 Site Survey/Existing Conditions Drawing #5 Site Plan Drawing #6 1st Floor Plan Drawing #7 2nd Floor Plan Drawing #8 3rd Floor Plan Drawing #9 Exterior Elevations (S & E) Drawing #10 Exterior Elevations (N & W) Drawing #11 Site Section Drawing #12 Perspective Drawing #13 A 1 1 A 1 f t 1 VIEWS OF SURROUNDING AREA Site - (Lot 4, Sunny Park) Lot 1 Sunny Park Lot 3, Sunny Park Lot 6, Sunny Park Adjacent Watercourse sunnpark titlepage/GMP View #I View #II View #III View #IV View #V BASIC INFORMATION A. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Proiect Information. This application for GMP allotment under § 24-11.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "the Code") seeks an allotment for four (4) free market 1 residential units to be built in conjunction with four (4) low income restricted employee units on Lot 4, SUNNYPARK SUBDIVISION situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen, Colorado. This project is located within the RMF zone on a 13,393 scmare foot lot_. Three units presently exist on the lot which will be reconstructed pursuant to applicant's plan for improving the property. As per the provisions of the City Code, § 24-11.2(a) and as confirmed with the Planning Office, the reconstruction of these three (3) units is exempt from the GMP and not a part of this application. The development proposed by this application consists of four (4) free market studio units and four (4) low income restricted studio units. Because the four (4) low income units may be exempted from the GASP pursuant to § 24-11.2(h) of the Code by Special Review, the applicant seeks an allotment for four (4) units. Pursuant to S 24-10.5(g)(1) of the Code which specifies an external floor area ratio of 1:1 for the RMF zone, the applicant, under this GMP application, could build an additional 11,471 square feet on the property. However, this application calls for the construction of an._add itional. 6_653�cxuare feet, only 58% of available density. -This project meets the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements as well as the other area and bulk requirements set forth in § 24-3.4 of the Code. The applicant, sensitive to impact on the neighborhood, is not applying for bonus density; instead the development proposed is 42% less than what may be permitted by applicable 1 zoning. This is a residential project in a residential neighborhood which will have sip_ (6) mo th rental restrictions and fit in perfectly wit the intent and nature of the RMF zone and the surrounding neighborhood. Once a GMP allotment is secured, applicant will concurrently apply for (1) special review for exemption for the low income restricted units -Erom GMP, (2) an exemption from subdivisicr. for the construction of a roulti family- dwelli.rg, and (3) a subdivision exception for condominium approval, at which time applicant will deed restrict the low income units to the City Housing Authority guidelines for low income housing for sale and rental. aa. Water System. As per discussions with Jim Markalunas of the City of Aspen Water Department, the proposed development can be supplied by the existing facilities. A 6" service line exists in Park Circle Drive, and an 8" service line exists in ' Park Avenue; these lines are looped so continuous pressure can be provided. Water pressure in these lines is approximately=75 psi. Anticipated water demand is expected to fall within the normal standards of approximately 75 gallons per person per day. There is sufficent excess capacity available from the City water supply to supply the proposed development. Applicant anticipates connecting to the looped system by a 2" connection line. bb. Sewage. The project will be served by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District which has sufficient excess capacity available to serve the proposed development. An 8" trunk lire exists in Park Circle directly adjoining the property. Estimated system usage will be approximately 60 gallons per day per person. The existing treatment plan can accomodate the anticipated flow according to the Aspen Sanitation District manager. Applicant anticipates connecting to the trunk line with a 4" connection line. CC. Drainage. Historic site drainage from the site will be improved. Roof drainage will be fed to a dry well (5 cubic yards). Parking drainage also will be fed to a dry well (10 cubic yards). The historic "sheet drainage" across the site will be interrupted and channelled to these dry wells, thus improving on site drainage. A 10" corrugated pipe culvert will be placed at the driveway to channel existing adjacent Park Circle drainage past the driveway. A swale will be created by the applicant adjacent to the roadway on the east and south sides of the site, terminating in a retention area 1 at the southwest corner of the site for storm runoff. This will improve the drainage for the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the site, as was discussed with Jay Hammond, City Engineer. dd. Fire Protection_. The proposed development will rely on the fire protection system of the City of Aspen. The current location of the fire station is eight (8) blocks away. The average response time is under four (4) minutes. The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department identifies response time and hi,drant locations tc be excellent for the site. There are presently hydrants located within. fifty (50) feet of the property. Hydrant Ac. 691 is located rear the southwest corner of the si'._e, fifty feet away. Hydrant No. 694, at the intersection of Neal and Gibson Streets is one block away. ee. Total Development Area - Type of Units - Proximity to Schools. Total development area requested equals 6,653 square feet. Employee Housing Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price Four (4) studio units 448 sq. ft. $ 67.00 per ft. $ .60 per ft. Each employee studio unit will have sixty (60) to seventy (70) square feet of storage area. There will he three (3) parking spaces provided on site to serve these employee units. Free Market Housing Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price Four (4) Studios 588 sq. ft. market market Each free market studio unit will have sixty (60) to seventy (70) square feet of storage area plus a parking space. Distance to upper and lower elementary schools equals thirteen (13) blocks. Distance to middle and high school equals 2.8 miles. The nearest school bus pick-up point is located right on the corner of the property at Park and Park Circle. ff. Traffic Increase. The added number of vehicles anticipated from this pro;ect is approximately six/ 6 . The property is serviced by both Park Avenue and Park Circle. In this location, these street right-of-ways are approximately 60 f_eet in width and the paved servi'de varies from 45feet to 46-fee-t. Park Avenue functions as a majo-r-street for the East end of Aspen and i_s also the route for the school district bus and the Silverkina/Aspen free shuttle public transportation, system. Park Circle has recently undergone significant Improvements in conjunction with the Centennial project. It is expected that ten (10) motor vehicles will use or be stationed in the proposed development. The hours of principal daily usage of adjacent roads cannct really be accurately determined, but it is expected the project will be populated by the broad spectrum of Aspen life which does not have any regular hours. There will be ten (10) or, site parking spaces supplied, five (5) of these being covered parking. Existing bicycle routes and paths are very close to the project and applicant is 3 - planning a pede.striarIJbicyc4e--path. which will connect this property and the property to the north with existing pedestrian/bicycle routes. Bicycle rackka-will be provided on the property. This proposed development discourages automobiles in various ways. All units on the project will be studio units, will _ have__._lower_ Q-cclipa___nci-es than, in all probabi ity, one or less vehicle per unit. The site is within easy walking or bicycling distance of all essential neighborhood,: commercial and retail services and is equidistant from City Market and Clark's Market. The bike racks on the property -will further encourage and make more convenient the use of bicycles. Finally, as was indicated above, the property is located right at an existing bus stop. The bus shelter to be placed on the property for the convenience of neighborhood residents will encourage use of the bus. Service for these routes operates on a twenty (20) minute cycle and stops at the corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. See attached map of transit routes. gg. Location. The site is two (2) miles from the Aspen Valley Hospital 1 and five (5) miles from Sardy Field, the airport. Garrish Park, a City owned park is located directly across the street from the property. Garrish Park is an under-utilized park and this project will encourage the use of this very proximate and under-utilized facility. Herron Park is approximately two (2) blocks from the subject property. The site is very close to the recreational trails extending from Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west and the Route E2 trail to the east of the site which extends out beyond the North Star Ranch. As has already been indicated above, the property is located at an existing bus stop. The estimated increase on these facilities is minimal and the capacity of these facilities is more than sufficient 1 to absorb this minimal increase. hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets. The proposed development is within easy walking, distance to the downtown core and the bulk of all retail outlets including City Market and Clark's Market. Fxi.sting commercial facilities are less than four (4) blocks away. Because public transportation, is so accessible to this project, it is highly probable that automobile use for retail trips will be less frequent than it would be for other areas. The proposed development will cause little impact and will not increase the demands on the existing retail and service outlets. ii. Adjacent Uses. The proposed development is fully compatible with the surrounding residential, predominantly multifamily uses in the neighborhood, and will complement the local character of the neighborhood. jj. Construction Schedule. No phased construction is planned and actual construction is expected to be completed within eight (8) months of commencement. Construction is anticipated to begin in the Spring of 1966 and be completed by the end of 1986. 2. Site Utilization Maps. ' The information contained in this section supplements the maps and plans submitted with this application.. _ aa. The ins'ulation characteristics of the project meet or exceed the requirements of Aspen's stringent energy conservation and thermal insulation code. Attention has been 1 paid to all facets of architectural design and construction detail to create an energy efficient, aesthetically pleasing project. Walls will have R-20 insulation; roofs will have R-25 insulation. Both active and passive solar gain aspects of the project have been explored and incorporated into the design theme. Significant attention has been paid to window location and the glazing of these window openings. All units orient within 15' of due south; most will have patio doors opening to south facing decks. Fifty percent (50%) of all glazing orients south for passive solar gain. The water for the jacuzzi tub will be heated by three active solar rooftof collectors. Because 50% of the perimeter of the buildings at the bottom level are recessed and earth sheltered by two to three feet, energy will be conserved. bb. The project has been designed to preserve and enhance the natural terrain and open space. The site will be abundantly landscaped to screen the property and beautify the large amount of open space planned for the project. The project exceeds open space requirements under the Code. All utilities will be placed underground. Forty two percent (42%) of the site will be landscaped open: space, open to the two public streets. A semi -private "_courtYa.r_ space between the twc buildings, sheltered from public view and weather, has been designed .as an important amenity for the residents and includes a jacuzzi het pool, barbecue and seating area. The six foot fence along Park Circle provides privacy for lower level units and patios from the street. The six fcot fence along the north property line screens uncovered mina rcm adjacent neighbors' view. The re scened trash_area containing a dumpster will beautify the 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 neighborhood as there are no other screened trash areas in evidence in this neighborhood. Abundant of deciduous and evergreen trees, including 35 (211" minimum caliper) aspen trees, and 12 spruces (in nimum 8' tall) will be installed on the property. The Smuggler nine water course flows along the west edge of the property giving the property concentration of adjacent open space and a significant visual amenity. In this area, there is sprxe for recreational activities such as horseshoes or volleyball. CC. Vehicular access to the site will be from Park Circle by a twelve (12) foot curb cut with all required parking on site. This curb cut has been located far away from the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle for safer access. The parking will be covered, hidden and private. A bus shelter will be located on the southeast corner of the property. dd. Streets, nearby paths and footpaths are indicated on maps. ee. The zoning district is identified on the zoning map. Surrounding uses are residential multifamily, duple; and other typical RMF uses. - 5a - 1 r REVIEW CRITERIA B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. aa. Water. The existing water system of the City of Aspen has sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of the proposed development and will be able to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plan or other facility upgrading. bb. Sewer. The site is served by and already connected to the 8" trunk: line existing in Park Circle directly adjoining the property. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fewer system has sufficient capacity to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and will be able -to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. No treatment plant or other facility upgrading will be made necessary by this development. CC. Storm Drainage. Historic site drainage from the property will be ' improved. Roof drainage and parking drainage will be fed into two separate dry wells located on the property. The historic "sheet drainage" from the site will also be channelled into these dry wells. The 10" corrugated pipe culvert to be placed at the driveway, along with the swal.e to be created adjacent to the roadway on the east and south sides of the site, will improve the drainage for the neighhorhood immediately adjacent to the site, as discussed with the Engineering Department dd. Fire Protection. The units will be constructed with fire protection that meets or exceeds Building Code requirements. In conformance with the Code, smoke detectors will be furnished throughout for added protection. In addition, all kitchens will be ' supplied with fire extinguishers. There will be no need to install a new fire station or add equipment to the existing station. The project is very close to the existing station and the response time will be under four (4) minutes, an exceptional response time for a small mountain community. Two hydrants, No. 691, within fifty feet from the property, and No. 694, one block away, are available to serve the property. ee. Parking Design. The applicant is providing ten (10) off-street on site parking spaces, five covered and five uncovered, which will meet the requirements of the proposed development. These spaces have been designed to absolutely minimize visual' impact and use the least amount of paved su"rf-ace-""possible. Five of the parking spaces are covered, being located ulyd"erneath the units, and are hidden and screened from public view: The -cover ea parking increases the safety and convenience of the project by protecting residents' vehicles ' and }seeping them free of snow and other elements. The uncovered �ar�___ - ase� are screene_ d__hy _a _six foot fence along the_north property line whic:i shields -the uncovered parking from the adjacent neighbors' view. In conjunction with this application, applicant will apply for a parking exception of one space for one of the employee units; and, if not granter, will supply this space where the parking island is nci., shown. ff. Roads. According tc the Smuggler Area Master Plan, the major street linkages in the area, Park Avenue and Park Circle, are especially well suited to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system. Both Park Avenuc and Park Circle are 60 foot right-of-ways in this area, and the paved surfaces vary from 45 feet to 48 feet in width. Park Circle has recently undergone major improvements because of the Centennial project. The proposed development will not necessitate any increased road mileage or maintem ance. Because this is a small, low density development, there will be little or no increase in traffic or. adjacent streets. The property's proximity to the City's commercial and retail facilities and the bus line that stops right at the property discourages automobile use, and bicycling, walking or the use of public transportation will be encouraged. Applicant will provide concrete curb, gutter, and a five foot wide sidewalk on the two street frontages of the property (approximately 250 lineal feet) at such time as the City of Aspen, through its Engineering Department, sets the locations for these and commences adjacent curbs. This will improve the neighborhood road situation. 2. Quality of Design. aa. Neighborhood Compatability. MThe project has been carefully designed to fit in (in terms of size, height and location) with the existing neighborhood developments, and yet, at the same time, improve the overall quality of the neighborhood. In conjunction with its plan for devlopment, the applicant will be tearing down the obsolete three (3) substandard units, and replace them with new, improved, more compatible units which will blend in perfectly with the eight (8) units to be constructed pursuant to the GMP allotment requested. In size, height and ' location, these units are compatible with the neighborhood. The Site Section (see Drawing #12) and Views of the Surrounding Area demonstrate that the height and mass of the new structure are compatible with adjacent buildings immediately to the north and to the south. None of the surrounding buildings provide screened trash area, and only one provides any screened or covered parking. Thus, applicant's plan for development will significantly improve the overall quality of the ne"ighborhood. Because the lower level units and parking are partially excavated below ' existing grade in this project, the building appears to be two and two-thirds stories. The building design is in two pieces to reduce scale. In addition, there are small-scale ' roof forms, dining bays, balconies and ground level arcades which all give the development a residential scale. Solar panels are unobtrusive and out of view. The building will be finished with pleasant looking wood siding and shingle roofs. bb. Site Design. The site has been designed to emphasize the quality and quantity of proposed landscaping and open space areas. Forty - 8 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 two percent (42%) of the site is landscaped open space, open to the public streets. A six foot fence along Park Circle provides privacy for lower level units and patios from the street. A six foot fence along the north property line screens uncovered parking from adjacent neighbors' view. There is a screened trash area for the dumpster. Abundant plantings will be installed of deciduous and evergreen trees, including 35 (22" minimum caliper) aspent trees and 12 spruces (minimum 8' tall) in the semi -private courtyard space between the two buildings, sheltered from view and weather, will provide a valuable user amenity area, and will include a Jacuzzi hot pool, barbecue and seating area. Utility service to the building will be undergrounded to enhance visual impact, and all improvements have been arranged for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. The on site parking is hidden from public view as it is either covered or effectively screened. The plantings will serve to screen and soften the exterior outlines of the buildings. The concentration of open space adjacent to the Smuggler Mine water course which flows along the west edge of the property serves as a visual amenity for the property, as well as a space for activities such as horseshoes or volleyball. An additional amenity for the site and for the neighborhood will be the placement of a bus stop shelter on the southeast corner of the property. CC. Energy. All R-values specified by Code will be met or exceeded in this project. Walls will have R-20 insulation, and the roof will have R.-25 insulation. All units orient within 151 of due south, and most have patio doors opening to south facing decks. Fifty percent (50%) of all glazing orients south for passive solar gain. Hot water for the jacuzzi will be heated by three rooftop solar collectors. dd. Trails. 6►+ Landscaped areas and paths on the property will feed � into those of Garrish Park south across the street and Herrcn 4 AO Park nearb-, This will provide pedestrian and bicycle links with the trail systems extending from Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west, and the Route 82 trail to the 1_4*; east of the site which extends up beyond the North Star U ����/ Ranch. Applicant's commitment to install sidewalks at the time adjacent neighborhood improvements are commenced will provide links to these trail systems. ee. Open Space. The project has been designed to maximize open space v hich will be abundantly vegetated by plantings. The semi -private courtyard space between the two buildings containing plantings, a jacuzzi, barbecue and seating areas, - 9 - will provide a delightful amenity for the residents of the project. Landscaping throughout the property offers relief ' from the massing of the building and surrounding development. All open space will be vegetated and useable by the residents of the project. To emphasize the open space aspects of the project, the building will be located sixty (60) feet away from the edge of Park Avenue. The open space provided exceeds all existing open space requirement in the RMF zone. 3. Proximity to Support Services. aa. Public Transportation. The project is located less than sixty (60) feet from an existing City bus route, well within the two (2) block requirements, entitling the applicant to the maximum points c►MM'�"'`+` ' under this section. Applicant will be providing a bus Prw��1 bws4,� shelter on the southeast corner of the property to shelter ' persons waiting at this bus stop. bb. Community Commercial Facilities. The project is located less than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in the City of Aspen. ' 4. Provisions for Employee Housing. Four (4) studio units are designated as low income housing. Applicant is requesting an allocation for four (4) free market studio units. Therefore, fifty percent (50%) of the development for which an allocation is requested is restricted to low income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen, and with the provisions of § 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Because fifty percent (50%) of the project is restricted to low income price ' guidelines and low income occupancy limitations, the applicant is entitled to twenty (20) points. The applicant will deed restrict these four (4) low income studio units in accordance with the requirements of the Code. The studio units comply with size limitations of the Code, and are integrated into the buildings of the project. ' Applicant requests the ability to make a cash -in -lieu of payment to fulfill its employee housing commitment should a ' cash -in -lieu procedure be adopted by the City of Aspen. 5. Bonus Points. Applicant should be granted maximum bonus points for outstanding overall design meriting recognition. The project has incorporated the criteria of 6 24-11.4 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4). The project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. There will be no negative impacts on traffic, I - 10 - I� roads, public safety, fire protection, police protection, drainage, water or sewer service. Applicant will be making improvements which will enhance the drainage and roads in the neighborhood. The public transportation service in the neighborhood is upgraded by the bus shelter to be placed on the property. Applicant will be providing curbs and sidewalks, and locating only one small twelve foot curb cut on Park Circle. The existing services and facilities are adequately situated and set up to efficiently serve the project at no public fiscal increase. Great care has been taken in the design of the project to conserve energy and utilize solar energy as much as possible. The project is well designed from an architectural perspective and offers an interior courtyard open space garden amenity with jacuzzi hot pool and barbecue for its ' residents. The landscaping, screening and the overall site design provide positive visual qualities for the neighborhood, and open space requirements for the area have been significantly exceeded. Additional paved surfaces have been kept to a minimum, and yet the project will be supplying ten (10) off-street on site parking spaces, five (5) of which will be covered and the other five (5) screened from view, ' offering great safety and convenience to residents. In addition, all utilities have been undergrounded and screened trash is conveniently located on the site for the advantage ' of the residents. Applicant is dedicating 50% of the project to low income housing which represents a substantial contribution by ' applicant to the welfare of the community. In sum, this project has been very carefully thought out to balance the needs of the developer to create a viable project with the policies expressed by the City of Aspen and the community in general. We feel this project achieves this balance, and is the kind of project that should be encouraged by the City. 1 1 sur.i1yl ��ri: g*rp/G2iF MAPS &. DRAWINGS 1 11 .794s.5 l trj .79547 7.6 .7949.3 —� ICAvq 1 ' J_ r .7947,5 t 79483 , \ � 7969.3.to - _ r 7937.4. �•` I I L .r STREET 43 79137.3 7939.3. p •, /- .7936 N T ., .-moo c 4 794 1 VICINITY MAP R -MF LOT '1 i \ \mac IA - M F - LOT a. ; PROJEC LOC�ATION L T 6 R-AAF� 1 LOT 4 � I L 1 R -tVI t� 0 1 R-E 1 2 n ZONING 1 u 1 fl \ I \ BUS ROUTE PROJECT t4l�-W BUS LOCATION `.SH -LTER V, \ \ • o • b b o N � u 1 u m � a L ri L•' n ti o v 0 v il w c w b b7 r! 4i °O �4c ►L �� I 3 TRAFFIC/BUS UTILITIES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 o >iavd G: i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 11 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 r W Q w 1 t 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >iatrd ANmmns yQ4■ LL 'I Z r_j VIEWS OF AREA 11 le , IJul9 w 1 VIA w- i7m� aa�' ==1• ppl, LOT 'I LOT 'I / GARRISCH PARK II. LOT 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � f C LOT I I ( LOT 5 ) Lot 3 Ill. LOT 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IV. LOT 6 r' y 1,:.'M 1fr h a ' PSa • k d REVV. AOJACENT WAT E RWAY 5 i CASELOAD SUMPARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED• t�,I 115 DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:_ F• • • II.IJM MA K 91 APPLICANT: Appl i cant Address/Phone: REPRES EN TAT IV E: Representative Ty� of Application: d< FOK CASE NO. 7 STAFF: S M4F 0 ! t2r-1 I. GMP/ISUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) J Conceptual Submission $2 730.00 Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00) Final Plat ($- 820.00) II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00) Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00) Final Plat ($ 820.00) 1. III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) IV . SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00) Special Review Use Determination Conditional Use Other F&� CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: IN IT IALS : REFS RALS: ------ --- ------------------- z Ci ty Atty ✓Aspen _ Co nsol . S.D. �./_ School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric _,StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall ��// Bldg: Z� ng/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 'INAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: - INITIAL City Atty City Engineer ✓ Building Dept. Other: Other FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:_ t,j A VL a; R'2v1e\\1ecd by: rr � �r p&Z � _City Couf- �, Lf{ ;JVl1C �� I��F �`!Yy L' ,,'L J (NZ�L eL�hi" rn --� Cep^�, , �c�•,�v:.t� ��r. r �.� {,i; � f�•a (', ��'►' c�1r.�r�,-, L^ �,�„ � c�z :�f: art" ��,,. ,,: t; :�,�s C4'V l�'TIl fl. fr��� r / il•t ;�;'t�i� j` �„_ Ni}.�„..� • 'till, EA T 4r/X.1.f,� ✓ l'LN I, J 1✓';?% 1•.t�J7 ) 41 f?'! f • -1 IU a �" LLi ) 'lN N ���� � G- _r_�'- 4 . 141 /1d /1'"/Y'l'r�•".f, ,.i MgtN/' (/p.,,. j'Im / {{ ��/Ali— Li 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack — location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and City Attorney for (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon as the best placement can be deter- mined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right-of-way as shown _ on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. �� LYvy�.a.�J ����� � � f,�,?�r;-�� �, �V FI,�MJ� � D�l^,• z ���fi C ��� fi� 4. A soils sample analysis shall 'e submi£ted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. P1fd111%„i^ e et, Zcrr.,! a i4,1,AK' .015P411j J rCgG: L'nd fQfu-1A+[ f a/ (., o PxC-/ PL' NQ)OJ'U6—Y. Tr — - - — ❑ U R T A.M Date _-_ _��� -- Time —- PM WHILE YOU WERE OUT F rom3��>J�: Of Phone Area Code N,rnber Ex! Telephoned Please call Came to see you Wants to see you Returned your call Will call again Message - — h 1h *waif -{ ?C' IS_tff rr 11 — t rt 11) — !c Tbh S,, hPil TD �� e i Ar 11 r j f, iY �- ,9r1.4 Signed — Notes 0/— !,',4//( �r [^ BhepV1'w /ld ay Nan. Pull c✓t N.l[G^--- Quill Corporation • Re -order No 7-92001 • (312) 634-4800 100 S. Schelter Road • P.O. Box 4700 • Lincolnshire, IL 60197 4700 0 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1985 Residential GMP Competition: Sunny Park Project DATE: March 12, 1986 ZONING: R-MF (PUD ) LOT SIZE: 13,393 square feet LOCATION: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, north- west corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. BACKGROUND TO THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING: GMP scoring of the Sunny Park and 601 Aspen projects were originally scheduled for January 28, 1986. At the request of the applicant, Sunny Park was rescheduled for tonight's meeting in order to wait for the outcome of the proposed Ordinance No. 2 (1986) , employee housing Code amendments. Ordinance No. 2 reduces the total points available for employee housing and repeals the conversion of existing units category in the residential GMP scoring procedure. Council adopted Ordinance No. 2 on February 10, 1986. The applicant's representative, Attorney Kaufman, approached Council on March 10, 1986 to request to be scored under the new scoring system that resulted from Ordinance No. 2. Council unanimously passed a motion to allow the 1985 Residential GMP competitors to choose whether they be scored under the old or new scoring system. The 601 Aspen Residential GMP application was rejected by the Planning Director on February 18, 1926, for reasons of zoning code violations. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision to the Board of Appeals on Thursday, March 20, 1986. If this appeal succeeds, the 601 Aspen project will be scored by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a date to be determined. The 601 Aspen applicant would also be given the choice of the old or new scoring system. During the time of uncertainty over the Planning Office's determination of the 601 Aspen application's validity and eligibility for scoring, the 601 Aspen applicant agreed not to oppose the scoring of the Sunny Park project and the award of units to it, should the project meet the minimum thresholds. Therefore, if that project is reviewed by P&Z, it will be considered second in sequence for the available units, if the Sunny Park project meets the competitive threshold tonight. INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review is the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the Sunny Park application submitted on December 1, 1985 for the Residential GMP competi- tion. This application is for an allotment of four (4) free- market residential units in conjunction with four (4) low-income employee units and three (3) reconstructed free market residen- tial units. The employee housing and reconstruction components of the project are both subject to exemption from GMP allotment procedures. Requested special reviews associated with this project will be dealt with subsequent to the Planning Commission's scoring, provided that the project meets the threshold of points in the Residential GMP competition before you. These reviews include the above mentioned GMP exemption for employee housing, subdivi- sion (or subdivision exception) for the construction of a multi- family building, conceptual PUD review (or exemption from mandatory PUD), and special review for reduction in required parking review. Given that the Planning Office recommended scoring is only 0.8 points under the threshold, it appears quite possible that the project will be scored by P&Z above the threshold. In the interest of expediency, we will provide the ancillary reviews for possible P&Z action at tonight's meeting. QUOTA AVAILABLE: Quota for this competition is calculated as follows: 1985 Total Carry -Over Annual Quota Expirations Construction Available 0 39 units 13 units 12 units 40 units The attached memo from Alan Richman provides additional detail on these calculations. PROCESS: The Planning Office will initiate the meeting by summarizing the project and providing a suggested number of points for the scoring of the application. At this time, we will also review any procedural issues which may arise from questions by Commission members, the applicant or members of the public. The applicant will next give a brief presentation of the proposal including any technical clarifications, and rebuttal of Planning Office recommendations. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, each commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the 0 . number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. A minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each Category 1, 2 and 3, and a minimum of 35 percent of the points available in Category 4 must also be achieved. Under the new scoring system the minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3.6 points, Category 2 = 4.5 points, Category 3 = 1.8 points, and Category 4 = 7 points. The minimum threshold number of total points, not including bonus points, is 31.8 points. Should the application score below these thresholds, it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to get a project over the minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points under the revised scoring system to the application as a recom- mendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively score the proposal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Public Facilities and Services 7 pts. Quality of Design 10 pts. Proximity to Support Services 4 pts. Employee Housing 10 Pts. TOTAL 31 pt s . PROBLEM DISCUSSION: According to the Planning Office's recom- mended scoring, the Sunny Park application meets the threshold number of points in each scoring category, but fails to reach the threshold for total points. While in general the project does not pose any major design or service problems, it also does not provide any unusual or exceptional features meriting recognition or superior scores. In our review of the project, we have identified some standard positive features to the proposal, such as the architectural design, the site design, improvements to historic patterns of storm water runoff, and building a bus shelter. However, there are problems in the following areas: placing the water retention area in the Park Avenue right of way when this street may be widened necessitating use of that area, partially blocking the view and solar access of the building north of Sunny Park, and a commitment to build sidewalks that goes no further than the standard agreement to join an improvements district when formed. The quality of design of this project is acceptable, but not excellent, nor exceptional. The only commitments to improve the quality of facilities and services for the area are the building of a bus shelter and a apartments or any other multiple -dwelling units . . . " The Sunny Park Project is by this definition a subdivision; and the applicant requests that it be reviewed as an exception from the strict definition of subdivision. After comparing the Sunny park GMP application to the submittal. requirements for subdivision, the Planning Office agrees with the applicant that the full subdivision proce- dure would be redundant and not serve any community purpose. It appears that the Sunny Park project can " . . . comply with the design standards of (the subdivision) chapter," as required in Section 20-19(c). In this case, subdivision exception can accomplish the same degree of analysis and documentation of commitments as a subdivision through the Subdivision Exception Plat and Statement of Subdivision Exception, while requiring fewer meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Please note that this excep- tion will remove the public hearing requirement of the preliminary stage before P&Z, which is a negative aspect of the expedited review. Problem Discussion The Planning Office has the following comments with regard to the Sunny Park Project's compliance with subdivision regulations: a. Drainage - The drainage plan appears to be able to handle water flow both on -site and north of the property. The right-of-way along Park Avenue is utilized for a swale. The applicant should ascertain that in the event of reducing the swale area due to possible future expansion of Park Avenue, that the swale will still work effectively. b. Contaminated Soils and Vegetation Plan - In a memo dated January 7, 1986, the Environmental Health Department called to question whether the site contains mine waste materials for which mitigation measures will be required. In addition, it is possible that if heavy metals are found on site that the tree and grass planting scheme shown on the site plan cannot be accomplished without special soil treatment. Soils tests should be performed and an appropriate mitigation plan developed. C. Barrier Against the Molly Gibson Discharge Channel - The Environmental Health Department identified the Molly Gibson Mine discharge channel west of the subject property as a potential health hazard especially for children. Tom Dunlop recommends that a barrier be erected or a culvert be installed to discourage public contact with this water. water retention area on adjacent rights -of -way. Other service and facility needs and problems in the neighborhood are not addressed. For example, since the site itself has adequate services, the applicant could have looked to solve off -site issues to score points. In the scoring area of proximity to community commercial facili- ties, points are awarded on the basis of a formula. The project is approximately eight (8) blocks from Original and Hopkins (using the Hopkins Street Bridge which is the shortest walking route) . There appears to be no way that the walking distance between Sunny Park and commercial facilities can be measured at less than six blocks. Sunny Park scores 1 point under this criterion. The provision of employee housing, while appearing to be of good quality for low income residents, is also scored according to formula. 50 percent of the new construction in the project is dedicated to low income employee use; therefore, the formula (as revised) dictates that 10 points be awarded in this category. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Planning Commission concur with our point assignment, resulting in denial of the project. Should you award a score above the threshold, following is an analysis of other issues to be considered. ANCILLARY REVIEWS 1. GMP Exemption for Employee Housing The applicant has committed to provide four studio units as low income housing. In a memorandum from the Housing Office dated January 10, 1986, approval is recommended for this application given the appropriate deed -restriction. The employee units appear to meet the criteria for the GMP exemption stated in Section 24-11.2 (f) of the Municipal Code. Convenient location, the studio type of unit, the moderate size of the total project and site amenities make these employee units eligible and desireable. Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends the Planning Commission to recommend Council to approve the requested GMP exemption for four employee studio units subject to submit- tal of a low income deed -restriction on the units meeting the approval of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation of the plat. 2. Multi -Family Building Subdivision Exception The definition of subdivision in Section 20-3(s)(2) includes "a tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, d. Fireplaces - The Environmental Health Department noted that no mention is made of the number of solid fuel burning devices in the project. The project architect stated there would be no fireplaces. e. Plat Requirements - The plat should show the bicycle rack mentioned in the application, ground coverage of the driveway and parking areas and any utility ease- ments on the site or adjacent rights -of -ways. The plat should conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that Council grant the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of constructing a multiple family building, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and City Attorney for (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon as the best placement can be deter- mined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right-of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. 4. The applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit an engineering study of the drainage plan and Park Avenue swale that indicates an alterna- tive plan to contain the drainage water if Park Avenue is widened. The applicant shall commit within the Statement of Subdivision Exception to implement this plan ;f and when Park Avenue is widened to this extent. 5. A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. A protection barrier shall be erected on the western edge of the property to isolate public contact with the Molly Gibson Mine water discharge channel prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. 3. PUD REVIEW Lot 4 of the Sunny Park Subdivision is zoned R-MF with a Planned Unit Development overlay. Section 24-8.13 Mandatory PUD states: "Whenever the zoning district map designates a manda- tory planned unit development by including the letters PUD as a suffix to the classification of any district, all development should proceed according to this Article VIII as a planned unit development unless the planning and zoning commission shall determine that the proposed development meets the objectives of planned unit development and therefore compliance with this article is not necessary." The applicant's attorney argues in his December 23, 1985 letter (attached) that the PUD review criteria do not apply to this site and therefore compliance is not necessary. In our opinion, since the site is flat, not located adjacent to a watercourse, and not particularly visually sensitive, there is good reason to question whether it is properly designated as a PUD, and certainly reason to exempt it from mandatory PUD. The Planning Office believes that the following areas normally contained in a PUD are adequately addressed in the Sunny Park G MP application: clustering of units, provision of open space, accessibility to emergency access, architec- tural design, and landscaping plan. In addition, no variations to the area and bulk requirements of the underly- ing R-MF zone are being proposed, nor is any of the site in excess of 20 percent slope and thereby subject to density reduction calculations. The Planning Office therefore concludes that the Sunny Park Project does appear to meet the objectives of the planned unit development, and should 0 9 receive a PUD exemption. Recommendation The Planning Office recommend determine that the Sunny Park from the requirements of PUD. s that the Planning Commission development proposal is exempt 4. Parking Exemption Special Review Pursuant to Section 24-4.1(c) of the Municipal Code, the off-street parking requirement of one space/bedroom in residential zone districts is subject to special review for employee units. The applicant proposes ten parking spaces for eleven studio units, four of which are to be employee deed -restricted. The Engineering Department stated in a January 13, 1986 memorandum that one less space is acceptable considering the project's close proximity to transportation and town. The Planning Office agrees that it may be likely that not all tenants will have automobiles, however, we note that curbside parking in the Sunny Park neighborhood is presently very minimal. Given the probable increase in traffic due to other high density development in the area, and the bus stop adjacent to the site, curbside parking will likely be even more restricted than at present. Furthermore, if the Sunny Park Project complex consists of long-term residents, then there is a greater parking need for both the residents and their visitors that can only be poorly accommodated on Park Circle or Park Avenue. Recommendation The Planning Office recommends the Planning Commission to deny the request for a reduction in parking spaces, result- ing in eleven on -site parking spaces. SB.61 0 0 ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager � FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ff RE: 1985 Residential GMP Competition: Sunny Park Project DATE: May 6, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant to the Sunny Park Project a residential growth management allocation of four (4) free market units, a GMP exemption for four (4) low income employee units and conceptual approval of Subdivision Exception for construction of a multi- family structure. ZONING: R-MF (PUD) LOT SIZE: 13,393 square feet LOCATION: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, north- west corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. BACKGROUND TO THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING: GMP scoring for this project was accomplished by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1986. At the request of the applicant, Sunny Park was scored according to the employee housing criteria and points as amended by Ordinance No. 2, 1986. Ordinance No. 2 reduces the total points available for employee housing and repeals the conversion of existing units category in the residential GMP scoring procedure. Council adopted Ordinance No. 2 on February 10, 1986. On March 10, 1986, Council unaniirously passed a motion to allow the 1985 Residential GMP competitors to choose whether they be scored under the old or new scoring system. The other competition in the 1985 residential GMP process, the 601 Aspen Residential GMP application, after being rejected by the Planning Director for reasons of zoning code violations, was resubmitted on April 1, 1986. It is scheduled to be scored by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1986. During the time of uncertainty over the status of the 601 Aspen application, the applicant, Mr. Cantrup, agreed not to oppose the scoring of the Sunny Park Project and the award of units to it before the 601 Aspen Project. Therefore, the 601 Aspen project, should it meet the threshold will be eligible for this year's quota (40 units, as shown below) minus the 4 units awarded to Sunny Park. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: At the March 18, 1986 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Sunny Park application was evaluated in the 1985 Residential GMP competition. Each Commission member individually scored the project and an average score was compiled that exceeded the thresholds for eligibility of allocation (see Tally Sheet attached). The Planning Commission also considered and acted on two special reviews: (1) Exemption from Mandatory PUB; and (2) Special Review for reduction in parking. The Commission determined that the Sunny Park proposal is exempt from the Planned Unit Development requirements. The requested reduction in off-street parking was denied. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended to Council approval of the requested Subdivision Exception ( see Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Resolution attached) and recommended approval of the GMP Exemption for employee housing. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: QUOTA AVAILABLE: Quota for this competition is calculated as follows: 1985 Total Carry -Over Annual Quota Expirations Construction Available 0 39 units 13 units 12 units 40 units The attached memo from Alan Richman provides additional detail on these calculations. THRESHOLD AND ELIGIBILITY: In order to meet the basic competi- tive requirements, a project must score a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the GMP competition, amounting to 31.8 points, score a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2 and 3, and score a minimum of 35 percent of the points avail- able in category 4. Under the new scoring system, the minimum points are as follows: Category 1 - 3.6 pt s Category 2 - 4.5 pt s Category 3 - 1.8 pt s Category 4 - 7.0 pt s The scoring by the Planning Commission was as follows: 1. Public Facilities and Services 8.2 pts. E • 2. Quality of Design 3. Proximity to Support Services 4. Employee Housing 5. Bonus Points 12.9 pt s. 5 pt s . 10 pt s . 1 Pt S.- TOTAL 37.1 pt s. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to approve the allotment of four (4) residential units from the 1985 residential quota and to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution formalizing the action: ANCILLARY REVIEWS 1. GMP Exemption for Employee Housing The applicant has committed to provide four studio units as low income housing. In a memorandum from the Housing Office dated January 10, 1986, approval is recommended f or this application given the appropriate deed -restriction. The employee units appear to meet the criteria for the GMP exemption stated in Section 24-11 .2 (f) of the Municipal Code. Convenient location, the studio type of unit, the moderate size of the total project and site amenities make these employee units eligible and desireable. Recommended Motion: The Planning Office and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP exemption for four employee studio units subject to submittal of a low income deed -restriction on the units meeting the approval of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation of the plat." 2. Multi -Family Building/Subdivision Exception The definition of subdivision in Section 20-3 (s) (2) includes "a tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any other multiple -dwelling units " The Sunny Park Project is by this definition a subdivision; and the applicant requests that it be reviewed as an exception from the strict processing requirements of subdivision. After comparing the Sunny park GMP application to the submittal requirements for subdivision, the Planning Office agrees with the applicant that the full subdivision proce- dure would be redundant and not serve any community purpose. It appears that the Sunny Park project can " . comply with the design standards of (the subdivision) chapter," as required in Section 20-19(c) . In this case, subdivision exception can accomplish the same degree of analysis and documentation of commitments as a subdivision through the Subdivision Exception Plat and Statement of Subdivision Exception while requiring fewer meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Please note that this excep- CJ tion will remove the public hearing requirement of the preliminary stage before P&Z, which is a negative aspect of the expedited review. The Subdivision Exception procedure we recommend is to undergo conceptual review with City Council at this time in conjunction with the GMP allocation and then to have the applicant submit materials (plat and Improvements Agreement) and be reviewed again by Council for final approval, skipping the preliminary subdivision review by P&Z . Problem Discussion The Planning Office has the following comments with regard to the Sunny Park Project's compliance with subdivision regulations: a. Contaminated Soils and Vegetation Plan - In a memo dated January 7, 1986, the Environmental Health Department called in to question whether the site contains mine waste materials for which mitigation measures will be required. In addition, it is possible that if heavy metals are found on site, the tree and grass planting scheme shown on the site plan cannot be accomplished without special soil treatment. Soils tests should be performed and an appropriate mitigation plan developed. b. Barrier Against the Molly Gibson Discharge Channel - The Environmental Health Department identified the Molly Gibson Mine discharge channel west of the subject property as a potential health hazard especially for children. Tom Dunlop recommends that a barrier be erected or a culvert be installed to discourage public contact with this water. c. Fireplaces - The Environmental Health Department noted that no mention is made of the number of solid fuel burning devices in the project. The project architect stated there would be no fireplaces. d. Plat Requirements - The plat should show the bicycle rack mentioned in the application, ground coverage of the driveway and parking areas and any utility ease- ments on the site or adjacent rights -of -ways. The plat should conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. Recommended Motion: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "Move to grant conceptual approval of the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of constructing a multiple family building, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and City Attorney for (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon as the best placement can be deter- mined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right-of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. The improvements agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Council's final approval of Subdivision Exception. 4. A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. SB .616 CITY OF ASPEN RF MMIAL GFOWrH MANFGMM PLAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLACAHON - TALLY SHEEP Project: —Smiy Park 1985 Residential Project (3/18/86) _ P&Z V(rim Al_ ft-Ky J-im-_ J BZ= witDavid Averd� 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service b. Sewer Service c. Storm Drainage d. Fire Protection e. Parking Design f . Roads :9)-i0J 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood Compatibility b. Site Design c. Energy d. Trails e. Green Space SUBrOrAL 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public Transportation b. Community Camd Facilities SUBrOrAL 4. Employee Housing a. Low Income b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SUBTOTAL SUBPOTAL 1-4 5. Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS _�- 1 2 1_ 2 _2 _ 2 2 2 1— 1 _1 1 1 1 1 2 _ 1 _1 1 2 2_ _2 2 2 _2 , 3 2 2 3_ 2.5 3_ —2 7.5 8.2 _3 3 3 3 3 2_ 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3- 2 3 _ .5 3_ 2 3 2 3 3 2 _3 2.5 15 11 12 14 _ 12 - _ 14_ - 12, 12-9 3 3 3 _3 `3 3 5_ 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 1_ mil_ 1L_ 10 10 _10 _ 39 3A-- 36 37 35- 37 5 0 0 U 2 0_ 3 2 1_ 1_ 35 36.1 RESOLUT IOE OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND Z ON ING CO MMI SS ION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNC_IT OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO ALLOCATE A 1985 RFSIDEP+TIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT TO THE SUNNY PARK PROJECT; APPROVE A GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING; AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING A MULTI -FAMILY STRUCTURE Resolution No. 86-4 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .4 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as amended, December 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for residential development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, an application was submitted by Sunshine Partners for the Sunny Park Project, consisting of a request for an allotment of four (4) free-market residential units through the Growth Management competition, exemption from Growth Management for four (4) low-income employee units, and reconstruction of three (3) existing free-market units which are also exempt Growth Management procedures; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on March 18, 1986, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the Sunny Park Project, and it successfully met the minimum required threshold of 31.8 points by having received 37.1 points (not including bonus points) ; and WHEREAS, the only other application in the 1985 Residential Growth Management competition, Hans Cantrup, agreed to allow the t,unny Park application to be scored first and, if it meets the .esolution No. 86-4 Page 2 threshold, to receive an allotment ahead of the 601 Aspen application; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the applicant in scoring this project and in conducting ancillary reviews of the project (which consisted of a GMP exemption for Employee Housing; Multi -Family Building Subdivision Exception, Exemption from Mandatory PUD Review and Parking Exemption Special Review), including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Two dry wells will be installed, one on the northwest corner and one in the center of the site. On adjacent public rights -of -way a 10 foot culvert under the driveway and a storm retention area will be construct- ed. Drainage improvements will be constructed as shown on the site plan and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 2. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters will be constructed as soon as the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department. 3. Landscaping improvements including no less than 35 aspens (2-1/2" minimum caliper), 12 spruce trees (no less than 8 feet tall) on the site and adjacent public rights -of -way will be completed by the applicant as represented on the site plan. 4. A bus shelter shall be constructed on the corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue as shown on the site plan. 5. The courtyard will consist of a jacuzzi, barbecue, seating area and bicycle racks. 6. Walls will have R-20 insulation and three rooftop solar collectors will be installed to heat the water for the jacuzzi. 7. Four studio units will be deed -restricted to the low income housing guidelines. 2 Resolution No. 86-4 Page 3 8. Eleven parking spaces will be provided on site, of which five (5) will be covered. 9. A 6 foot fence will be constructed on the north edge of the property, and the trash area on the northeast corner of the property will be screened as shown on the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission also voted on March 18, 1986 to recommend approval of the request for a GMP Exemption for Employee Housing and the requested Subdivision Exception subject to five conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, allocate four (4) residential units from the 1985 Residential Growth Management Plan competition to the Sunny Park Project, approve the request for a GMP Exemption for employee housing and to approve the request for Subdivision Exception to build a multi -family structure subject to the five conditions below: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements for Subdivision Exception in Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be submittal prior to final approval of this project by City Council pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal. Code to the satisfaction of the M Resolution No. 86-4 Page 4 Engineering Department and City Attorney. Included within the agreement shall be guarantees as to (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon a.s the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right- of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code with the understanding that the species of trees shall conform to the plan presented in the Sunny Park GMP applica- tion; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. 4. A. soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction, and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 8, 1986. ATT EST : *01�� Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk SB . 4 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING ODMMISSION By C. Wel on Anderson Chairperson 40 LAW OFFICES GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN December 5, 1985 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Sunnypark Special Review Exemption for Restricted Units from the GMP Dear Alan: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Please consider this letter an application for special approval for exempting the employee housing units in the Sunnypark GMP application. Pursuant to §2411.2(f), all employee housing units deed restricted in accordance with the City -adopted employee housing guidelines constructed pursuant to a residential development allotment can be exempt from the GMP. It is our belief that this employee housing meets a community need, and the housing that they are proposing is in compliance with the adopted housing plan. We are asking that the four studio low-income units be exempt. We feel that ample precedent exists for exempting this type and number of units. We hope that this review procedure can be done concurrent with the GMP review process. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a ProfAssional Corporation Gideofi /Kaufman GK/bw M LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN December 5, 1985 TELEPHONE DAVID G. EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Subdivision Exception for Sunnypark Dear Alan: Please consider this letter an application for exception from the strict application of subdivision. We feel the construction of a multi -family building should be exempt from full subdivision. Without an exception, undue hardship could result to the applicant. This exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, and the granting of this exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. We feel that to require the construction of a small multi -family building to go through the full subdivision procedure would not be in the City's best interest nor would it serve any particular purpose. Since the application is going through the growth management review process, there will be ample opportunity for both the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the City Council, to examine this project. More than one meeting at both the P & Z level and the City Council level would certainly not serve any community purpose. We hope that this subdivision exception could be done concurrently with our Growth Management Plan Application. I believe that all special approval fees for the project have been covered by the GMP fee. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Pro ssional Corporation By Gide Kaufman GK/bw MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council -,/ THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager ; FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1985 Residential GMP Competition: Sunny Park Project DATE: May 19, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant to the Sunny Park Project a residential growth management allocation of four (4) free market units, a GMP exemption for four (4) low income employee units and conceptual approval of Subdivision Exception for construction of a multi- family structure. ZONING: R-MF (PUD) LOT SIZE: 13,393 square feet LOCATION: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, north- west corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. BACKGROUND TO THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING: GMP scoring for this project was accomplished by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1986. At the request of the applicant, Sunny Park was scored according to the employee housing criteria and points as amended by Ordinance No. 2, 1986, adopted by Council on February 10, 1986. Ordinance No. 2 reduces the total points available for employee housing and repeals the conversion of existing units category in the residential GMP scoring procedure. On March 10, 1986, Council unanimously passed a motion to allow the 1985 Residential GMP competitors to choose whether they be scored under the old or new scoring system. The other competition in the 1985 residential GMP process, the 601 Aspen Residential GMP application, after being rejected by the Planning Director for reasons of zoning code violations, was resubmitted on April 1, 1986. It is scheduled to be scored by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1986. During the time of uncertainty over the status of the 601 Aspen application, the applicant, Mr. Cantrup, agreed not to oppose the scoring of the Sunny Park Project and the award of units to it before the 601 Aspen Project. Therefore, the 601 Aspen project, should it meet the threshold will be eligible for this year's quota (40 units, as shown below) minus the 4 units awarded to Sunny Park. r i A public hearing and review by City Council was first scheduled f or May 12, 1986. At the request of the applicant the item was tabled and continued until the June 9, 1986 meeting. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: At the March 18, 1986 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Sunny Park application was evaluated in the 1985 Residential GMP competition. Each Commission member individually scored the project and an average score was compiled that exceeded the thresholds for eligibility of allocation (see Tally Sheet attached). The Planning Commission also considered and acted on two special reviews: ( 1) Exemption from Mandatory PUD; and ( 2) Special Review for reduction in parking. The Commission determined that the Sunny Park proposal is exempt from the Planned Unit Development requirements. The requested reduction in off-street parking was denied. In addition., the Planning Commission recommended to Council approval of the requested Subdivision Exception (see Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Resolution attached) and recommended approval of the GMP Exemption for employee housing. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: QUOTA AVAILABLE: Quota for this competition is calculated as follows: 1985 Total Carry -Over Annual Quota Expirations Construction Available 0 39 units 13 units 12 units 40 units The attached memo from Alan Richman provides additional detail on these calculations. THRESHOLD AND ELIGIBILITY: In order to meet the basic competi- tive requirements, a project must score a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the GMP competition, amounting to 31.8 points, score a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2 and 3, and score a minimum of 35 percent of the points avail- able in category 4. Under the new scoring system, the minimum points are as follows: Category 1 - 3.6 pts Category 2 - 4.5 pts Category 3 - 1.8 pts Category 4 - 7.0 pts • 0 The scoring by the Planning Commission was as follows: 1. Public Facilities and Services 8.2 pts. 2. Quality of Design 12.9 pts. 3. Proximity to Support Services 5 pts. 4. Employee Housing 10 pts. 5. Bonus Points 1 pts. TOTAL 37.1 pts. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to approve the allotment of four (4) residential units from the 1985 residential quota and to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution formalizing the action. ANCILLARY REVIEWS 1. GMP Exemption for Employee Housing The applicant has committed to provide four studio units as low income housing. In a memorandum from the Housing Office dated January 10, 1986, approval is recommended for this application given the appropriate deed -restriction. The employee units appear to meet the criteria for the GMP exemption stated in Section 24-11.2(f) of the Municipal Code. Convenient location, the studio type of unit, the moderate size of the total project and site amenities make these employee units eligible and desireable. Recommended Motion: The Planning Office and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP exemption for four employee studio units subject to submittal of a low income deed -restriction on the units meeting the approval of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation of the plat." 2. Multi -Family Building/Subdivision Exception The definition of subdivision in Section 20-3(s)(2) includes "a tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any other multiple -dwelling units . . . " The Sunny Park Project is by this definition a subdivision; and the applicant requests that it be reviewed as an exception from the strict processing requirements of subdivision. After comparing the Sunny park GMP application to the submittal requirements for subdivision, the Planning Office agrees with the applicant that the full subdivision proce- dure would be redundant and not serve any community purpose. It appears that the Sunny Park project can " . . . comply with the design standards of (the subdivision) chapter," as required in Section 20-19(c) . In this case, subdivision exception can accomplish the same degree of analysis and • 0 documentation of commitments as a subdivision through the Subdivision Exception Plat and Statement of Subdivision Exception while requiring fewer meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Please note that this excep- tion will remove the public hearing requirement of the preliminary stage before P&Z, which is a negative aspect of the expedited review. The Subdivision Exception procedure we recommend is to undergo conceptual review with City Council at this time in conjunction with the GMP allocation and then to have the applicant submit materials (plat and Improvements Agreement) and be reviewed again by Council for final approval, skipping the preliminary subdivision review by P&Z. Problem Discussion The Planning Office has the following comments with regard to the Sunny Park Project's compliance with subdivision regulations: a. Contaminated Soils and Vegetation Plan - In a memo dated January 7, 1986, the Environmental Health Department called in to question whether the site contains mine waste materials for which mitigation measures will be required. In addition, it is possible that if heavy metals are found on site, the tree and grass planting scheme shown on the site plan cannot be accomplished without special soil treatment. Soils tests should be performed and an appropriate mitigation plan developed. b. Barrier Against the Molly Gibson Discharge Channel - The Environmental Health Department identified the Molly Gibson Mine discharge channel west of the subject property as a potential health hazard especially for children. Tom Dunlop recommends that a barrier be erected or a culvert be installed to discourage public contact with this water. C. Fireplaces - The Environmental Health Department noted that no mention is made of the number of solid fuel burning devices in the project. The project architect stated there would be no fireplaces. d. Plat Requirements - The plat should show the bicycle rack mentioned in the application, ground coverage of the driveway and parking areas and any utility ease- ments on the site or adjacent rights -of -ways. The plat should conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. Recommended Motion: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "Move to grant conceptual approval of the requested subdivision exception • 0 for the purpose of constructing a multiple family building, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and City Attorney for (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon as the best placement can be deter- mined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right-of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. The improvements agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Council's final approval of Subdivision Exception. 4. A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. SB.616 Cr • MY •,' • ;r •• 1 I • •a • ti:1�I:1 Project:_Sunny Park 1985 Residential PrQject (3/18/86) P&Z y(rItc Kmm Al N= JiR- Jasmin BQge Eton David Aver 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service _ I_ _I I b. Sewer Service I I 1 1 c. Storm Drainage 2 2_ _2 _2 _ 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 2 _1 _1 e. Parking Design 1 _1 2 f. Roads 2 2 2 2 2 2 SOBTOPAL 9 _8 9 8 8 8_ _ 7.8.2 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood 3 2 2_ 3 2.5 3 _ 3 Compatibility b. Site Design _3 _3 3 3 3 3 3 C. Energy 3 _2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Trails 3 3 �2 _ 3 2.5 3 2 e. Green Space 3 _2 3 3 2 3 2.5 SUBrOPAL 15 11 12— 14 — 12 _ 14 _ 12, 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public 3 3 3�_ —3 3 3 Transportation b. ComBmunity Catuml 2_ 2 -2 2_ 2 2_ 2 Facilities SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5_ 5_ 5_ 4. Employee Housing a. Low Income 10 10_ iQ_ 10 o — 10 10 b. Moderate Income _ c. Middle Income SUHT@AL .0 10 10 10 10 10 10 1— SUETOTAL 1-4 _39 34 36 37 35_ 37 35 36.1 5. Bonus Points 5 0 _0_ 0 2 2_ 0_ 1 TOTAL POINTS 44 34_ 36 37 37 37 35 37.1 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO MMI SS ION ' RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO ALLOCATE A 1985 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT TO THE SUNNY PARR PROJECT; APPROVE A GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING; AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING A MULTI -FAMILY STRUCTURE Resolution No. 86-4 _x ' WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .4 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as amended, December 1 of each year is established as the deadline for =a _ submission of applications for residential development allotments A within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, an application was submitted by Sunshine Partners for the Sunny Park Project, consisting of a request for an allotment of four (4) free-market residential units through the Growth Management competition, exemption from Growth Management for four (4) low-income employee units, and reconstruction of three (3) existing free-market units which are also exempt Growth Management procedures; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on March 18, 1986, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the Sunny Park Project, and it successfully met the minimum required threshold of 31.8 points by having received 37.1 points (not including bonus points); and WHEREAS, the only other application in the 1985 Residential Growth Management competition, Hans Cantrup, agreed to allow the Sunny Park application to be scored first and, if it meets the # =resolution No. 86-4 Page 2 threshold, to receive an allotment ahead of the 601 Aspen application; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the applicant in scoring this project and in conducting ancillary reviews of the project (which consisted of a GMP exemption for Employee Housing; Multi -Family Building Subdivision Exception, Exemption from Mandatory PUD Review and Parking Exemption Special Review) , including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Two dry wells will be installed, one on the northwest corner and one in the center of the site. On adjacent public rights -of -way a 10 foot culvert under the driveway and a storm retention area will be construct- ed. Drainage improvements will be constructed as shown on the site plan and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. _ 2. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters will be constructed as soon as the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department. 3. Landscaping improvements including no less than 35 aspens (2-1/2" minimum caliper) , 12 spruce trees (no less than 8 feet tall) on the site and adjacent public rights -of -way will be completed by the applicant as represented on the site plan. 4. A bus shelter shall be constructed on the corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue as shown on the site plan. 5. The courtyard will consist of a jacuzzi, barbecue, seating area and bicycle racks. 6. Walls will have R-20 insulation and three rooftop solar collectors will be installed to heat the water for the jacuzzi. 7. Four studio units will be deed -restricted to the low income housing guidelines. 2 Resolution No. 86-4 Page 3 8. Eleven parking spaces will be provided on site, of which five (5) will be covered. 9. A 6 foot fence will be constructed on the north edge of the property, and the trash area on the northeast corner of the property will be screened as shown on the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission also voted on March 18, 1986 to recommend approval of the request for a GMP Exemption for Employee Housing and the requested Subdivision Exception subject to five conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, allocate four (4) residential units from the 1985 Residential Growth Management Plan competition to the Sunny Park Project, approve the request for a GMP Exemption for employee housing and to approve the request for Subdivision Exception to build a multi -family structure subject to the five conditions below: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineerina Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements for Subdivision Exception in Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be submittal prior to final approval of this project by City Council pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal. Code to the satisfaction of the 3 t«solution No. 86-4 Page 4 Engineering Department and City Attorney. Included within the agreement shall be guarantees as to (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon a.s the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right- of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code with the understanding that the species of trees shall conform to the plan presented in the Sunny Park GMP applica- tion; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. 4. A. soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent professional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular r,_-eting on April ATTEST: Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk SB.4 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By - C. Wel on Anderson Chairperson 1 L7 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Enr_.ineer IeusinG Director Asp -en Water Dept. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation. District Environmental Health Dept. Fire Chief Aspen School District PE-1 Zoning Enforcement Officer FI?0I1: Steve Burstein, Planninq Office P.E: 1985 City Pesidential Growth management Applications: Sunny Park Residential GMP Conceptual Submission 601 Aspen Residential Gt'P Conceptual Submission DATE: December 23, 1985 Attached for your review are the two 1965 City Residential Growth Management applications received by the Planning Office on December lst. Due to Code requirements, these applications must be set for hearing before the T.spen Planning and Zoning Commission no later than January, 1986. Therefore, the Planning Office has scheduled the public hearing of the scoring session on these two applications for January 28th at a special meeting. In order to have adequate time to prepare for this special meeting, we would appreciate having your corments back no later than January 12, 1986. Following is brief summary of the applications submitted: SUNNY PARR RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunnv Park Subdivision, situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant proposes to build 3 employee studio units on -site. The applicant states that three units already exist on the prcperty, (which have yet to verified), and the applicant is also request- ing GEP Exemption for those units. We would appreciate the Building Department verifyinq those 3 units as soon as possible in order that we may proceed with this application. The appli- cant is also requesting subdivision exception for the construc- tion of a multi -family project, and reduction of the parking requirements for the employee units. -T14F_ 'AS!'rj- GOA-Souft^?Ibe 5+410-17-AT,a— r>116T&lci GTE- I00 AnniTit,�nd- t �J� F,te•-r Trip S - -•-y PA-1 . /�2oJCc1- (�0I �S!'t•^ ��rt /�Ron0%sue PZinC_T A0. SEA.."Lo T(*P �SPp.- CJrt�...�r.�YrRrs SAS--�Ti1-Tea.. Af iT/tt�,', j'Nr-_ hrcT•�•� c .c.ttir ntiC_Lry '�14s TIfP >.iFr'^� era-f T111S i=OSrz 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction. of 92 multi -family free market units of 400 and 800 s.f. each. In addition, the applicant proposes to contruct 18 employee dorm rooms on -site and to convert two other build- ings, off -site, to employee housing. This application is quite complex and confusing and we are including a great deal of correspondence which has been exchanged between the Planninq and Development Director and the applicant's attorney Doug Allen. As the letters indicate, there is still some doubt as to the compl eteneww of the submission. Should you need additional information, or feel you cannot make a determination based on the submittal., please contact our office immediately and we ,.ill try to address the problem with you. Thank you fer your cooperation. Thank vou. 2 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION (Using the revised scoring system resulting from adoption of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1986) PROJECT : SUNNY PARK 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION Date: 3/18/86 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrad- ing. RATING: 1 •--•, a-� -•.- - • n-� b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 1 c. Storm Drainage (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 2 • • - - • 1 • p . WINE • • 1 - . •MINIMUM • 1 I . 1 1 I ! 1 • • 11 I _ • I � • 1 • � • � - • f 1 • 1 � ' 1 _ - • . 1 • ' I • • I - - • • 1 11 • • - • � 1 d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropri- ate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: 1 • I - . • . • - / • I - - • . ... 1 I - ' I • I •• • 11. 1 - •11 1 • •�- 1• _ �• I il- I •- • ' it 1 • •1 1 11"I 1• •-- 1 11 _! _ • 11•- 11• • -p-1 • 1- 1- •I�• I••• e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: NW,I I • 1 - 1 - • - • - • - ! ' I • 1 - • • • 0 • • f . Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: 1 PIP• - 1 - • • • • II • . • • SUBTOTAL: 7_ 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15) points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each develop- ment by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: • 11 a 11 • ! I • . • / I • • / 1 " • ! � ! • • urrounding multi -family • • - • well below • • 0 W6301I1 • • I • • • . • ! • 11 - • • • b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 2 .1• •. - �.-1 .. - -. •I SUM M.- -• • •- • 1 • ! -• •- • • - • I - i •ir. US .1 • • • .- .WIM -. •"Us1 III FUll •• -• 11 ! - - • • 1 - - 1 - • 1 • 11 • • 1 " -1 - 1• �' • . -• • • -1 1- -• M. • NUMMMUNSWO WON •106MOMli •1 C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orienta- tion, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2 d. Trails (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 2 • 1" •• • •11 • •_ �- _ 1• • 1 " • • " • 1 Mons • • • 11 • • 1 • 11 11 - 1 - t 1 - • • - 1 • • - • • -0 M 111.10 - • 1 - III ' I • - . ! 1 - • • 1 • • - • • 1 • 1 • . • t' I 1- • Iu.;M all 11419 IM1 •=411M • 415011144 e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: • • • ' 1 • . • 1 • ' 1 - - • - - • I tI • ! • 1 • . ! • 1 - 1P11! • •I - • ! • • • 1 • . - • 1• - • • - 1 • • SUBTOTAL: 1_ 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 3 • 1- • • • I.1 - •11 .1 1• shelter t�e co-r-ner --of—Rar-k- Avenue and Park Circle, in adlacent b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 00 60 4. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RAT I IG : 1 SUBTOTAL: 4 Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total develop- ment that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: • a Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each five [51 percent housed). POINTS IN CAT BG ORY 1: POINTS IN CATBGORY 2: POINTS IN CATBGORY 3: POINTS IN CATBGORY 4: SUBTOTAL POINTS: BONUS POINTS: TOTAL POINTS: RATING: 10 TOTAL POINTS 7 (Min. of 3.6 pts required) 10 (Min. of 4.5 pts. required) _4_ (Min. of 1.8 pts. required) 10_ (Min. of 7 pts. required) 31 (Min. of 31.8 pts. required) 0 31 Name of P&Z Commissionmember : Asper/Pitkin Planning Office SB.51 M LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN Box 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 December 23 1985 TELEPHONE G IDEON I. KAUFMAN � AREA CODE 303 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN 925-8166 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Sunnypark GMP Dear Alan: I am in receipt of your December 17, 1985 letter, and would offer the following comments. After meeting with Jay Hammond and Kathryn Koch, I have been unable, as yet, to find definitive proof that the P.U.D. designation on this property was in error. Jay agrees that this particular property is inappropriate for a P.U.D. designation. A review of the criteria of Section 24-8.1 (3) Mandatory P.U.D. clearly reflects concerns that are not appropriate to this particular site with its flat topography, availability of water and utilities, good roads, and suitability for development. The site is located in in RMF Zone which already allows clustering and development of multi -family development. The small size of this parcel, half of the 27,000 sq. ft. required for a P.U.D. also shows the inappropriateness for P.U.D. designation on a site this size. I believe that the Planning and Zoning Commission would determine that the proposed development meets the objectives of Planned Unit Development, and therefore compliance with P.U.D. is not necessary. I find it hard to believe the issue of the legality of the three existing units needs to be undertaken at this time. This property has been through two GMP applications - one unsuccessful and one successful. In the Planning Office's own memo dated January 27, 1982, it refers to removal and reconstruction of three existing units, specifically a studio, one bedroom and two bedroom unit. The memo refers to additional reviews that are required, and nowhere does it mention any kind of confirmation of legality of these units. The project that was approved included the rebuilding of these existing units. In your own letter to Jeff Costley dated May 16, 1983, you say that the only aspects left in order to get a building permit are subdivision review, exemption of employee units from GMP and condominiumization. Nowhere is there any question of the legality of these units. To now question the legality of these units, and to further Mr. Alan Richman December 23, 1985 Page 2 place the burden of proving the legality on the applicant is inappropriate. I believe a finding has been made through memos as to the legality of these units. However, I would be willing to have Bill Dreuding inspect the units to verify the present existence of three units. Enclosed is an affidavit from Jeff Costley that when he purchased the units in 1975, three separate units existed. Jeff's purchase of the property in 1975 preceded the Growth Management Plan, and with the RMF zoning on the site there should be no question as to the legality of the units. I must admit I find it hard to understand how the units were acceptable for two GMP applications, but have suddenly become suspect. Vince Higens at Pitkin County Title assures me that he will have a list of all owners within 300 feet of the site, along with envelopes, for you in the very near future. I look forward to discussing any of the matters contained in this letter with you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Profe,pssional Corporation WA Gidebn/Kaufman GK/bw Enclosure cc: Michael Convisor LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN December 5, 1985 TELEPHONE DAVID G. EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925.8166 Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Parking Exemption for the Sunnypark Project Dear Alan: Please consider this letter an application for special review approval for reduction in required parking. Pursuant to §24-4.5, the applicant is hereby requesting the reduction of one required parking place. As is indicated on the site plan, the additional parking place is shown as a landscaped island which will break up the impact of the parking on the project, as well as the neighborhood. We have reviewed this request with Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department who feels that one less parking space is acceptable considering the project's close proximity to transportation and town. The new bus stop being provided by the applicant in their application will encourage people to use mass transit. We feel that ample precedent exists for reducing one employee parking space, and that it is appropriate in this particular project. We would appreciate it if this review could be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commisison at the same time as the GMP hearing. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Prql'�ssional Corporation By GK/bw ideoh/ Kaufman CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: ;�� i �l I f� Date 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. COMMENTS: — 2 — RATING: e. Parking Design (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. I RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two (21 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: (C4 E- r t t t 0, 1 1-t LC '-, RATING: i t SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen (151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: - 4 - COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS• ,L e. Green Space (maximum three [3) points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT I NG COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3) points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: - 6 - RATING: SUBTOTAL: a 11 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [5) percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATIO: E 0 b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RAT I NG COMMENTS: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5 : POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Dame of P&Z Commissionmember: — 8 — RATING: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project - ���� " N� Date: 3 1 v 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: �_ COMMENTS: c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: /z l COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: RAT I NG .. SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following f ormula : - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building ( in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RAT I NG : COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: S COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: - 4 - • • COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING. COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT I IG : _ COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: - 6 - RAT I IG : SUBTOTAL: • 0 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One ( 1 ) point f or each ten (10 ) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [51 percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each ten [101 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING : /k N 1 COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: �O 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: +\ Z,4 L5+ , POINTS IN CATHGORY 5: POINTS IN CATDGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: - 8 - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL G MP COMPETITION Project: SJOV)`J PPA&Y\ Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT I NG : COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: - 2 - • • 2. e. Parking Design (maximum two [21 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [21 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: ( 3 U` S � 1 l/t `-(7 RATING: SUBTOTAL: $_ Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 3 1l , COMMENTS: W� 11 k2. � �+- b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: hCAC) W Eesg C. Energy (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: - 4 - • • COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. C_ L RATING: COMMENTS: (���7�% 1 1 n Y1 D` S 1 Q�I.I�G�X�CS S h ()S e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: 6at—JZ— SUBTOTAL 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: M-' RAT I NG SUBTOTAL: 0 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RAT I IG : COMMENTS: - 7 - b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each ten [101 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each twenty [201 percent housed). COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: 3-7 POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Dame of r&Z C•m i m' ssionmember : — 8 — u E CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION ? % Project •--4g*— J y� Date: > 'Jlb� 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply provide for the needs of the proposed development public system, its ability to supply water to the ment without system extensions beyond those installed by the developer, and without treatment other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) . system to and, if a develop - normally plant or Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: �. COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: Z-- COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING COMMENTS: - 2 - • e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RAT I NG COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. ( ING : 3 1, 1 A COMMENTS: (� b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased afety and privacy. T I NG : AM0. COMMENTS: 04 , " " � S �jQ�. c. Energy (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: Z— . - 4 - COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3) points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING.. -'Z1 COMMENTS: e. Greer. Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING z'/2-- COMMENTS: ��'cc� 61yz' a*'` SOB�QTAL : I Z, / /Z- 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT I NG COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.. RAT I IG : COMMENTS: - 6 - SOBTOT 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 One -bedroom: Two -bedroom: Three -bedroom Dormitory: space. residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents or larger: 3.00 1.00 residents residents; per 150 square feet of unit a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [51 percent housed). RAT I IG : �. COMMENTS: - 7 - CJ b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten [101 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each twenty [201 percent housed). COMMENTS: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points). POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: RATING: SUBTOTAL: l� RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6 : TOTAL POINTS: Dame of P&Z Commissionmember: - 8 - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: <!:�' ) n `�_ �A � Date: ` 0t \ 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT I NG COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: • • COMMENTS: c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: f COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: • C� J e. Parking Design (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 4 — • • COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS• e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENTS: RAT I NG SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RES IJ�ENT IAL G MP COMPETITION � 1 / 1 Project: ��' .�v - Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two 12] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 'Z1 COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f . Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: '> COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: ,L - 4 - • • COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 72� COMMENTS: e. Greer. Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: i 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT I NG : COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3) points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: - 6 - RAT I NG : SUBTOTAL: r • • 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty ( 20 ) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [51 percent housed). RAT I IG : COMMENTS: - 7 - 0 u b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each ten [101 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS• C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each twenty [201 percent housed). RATING: n COMMENTS: SOBT O►r AL : 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: `- POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5 : POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: — 8 — CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL G MP COMPET IT ION PO Project: �/� kit,� Date • 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: - 2 - e. Parking Design (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL : 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Z- RATING - 4 - COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [31 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. � Q RATING COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 --Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT I NG COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RAT I NG :_ COMMENTS: - 6 - SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RAT I IG : b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING COMMENTS• c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). COMMENTS: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven (7] points) . POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Dame of P&Z Commissionmember : - 8 - RATING: SUBTOTAL: RATING: 3;� 1g 4 s /v 37 TRANSMITTAL ` GIBSOO& REND o A ;r'9 77--CTs LETTER 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. :OLORADO 61" AIA DOCUMENT G810 PROJECT: Sunny Park ARCHITECT'S (name, address) Aspen, Colorado PROJECT NO: 8523 DATE: December 9, 1985 r � TO: Planning Department If enclosures are not as noted, please 130 South Galena inform us immediately. Aspen, Colorado 81611 If checked below, please: ATTN: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. L J ( ) Return enclosures to us. WE TRANSMIT: (x) herewith ( ) under separate cover via ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: ( ) approval ( ) distribution to parties (x) information ( ) review & comment ( Y� record ( ) use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: (x) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature ( ) Change Order ( ) COPIES DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE 2 sell 12-9-85 Schematic Design Drawings ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS CODE B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS COPIES TO: (with enclosures) 01 ❑ 01 E` By Chris ;Knight AIA DOCUMENT C810 TRANSMITTAL LETTER APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA® COPYRIGHT © 1970 ONE PAGE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS A%%`NUE, N.W., WANGTON, D.C. 20036 • •ASPEN PITKI • • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director -fi7-.9 Environmental Health Department Date: January 7, 1986 Re: Sunny Park Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The above mentioned submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns: AIR POLLUTION: Construction Air Pollution: Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, the applicant shall certify through a qualified source that there is no asbestos present in those buildings. Inspection, sampling and analysis of any suspected asbestos materials will be required. If asbestos is present in the buildings, the applicant shall retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to remove the material. It shall be handled as a hazardous waste and disposed of in a designates; landfill after the removal plan has been approved by this department and the Colorado Health Depart- ment. Colorado Air Pollution Control Laws, Regulation 8 Section II.3.4 dictates the need for this action. Further, during demolition and construction the applicant will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry -out onto City streets by vehicle traffic from the site. This soil shall be removed by means of a mechanical street sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil contained within the machine shall be re -deposited on the applicant's property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets will be the applicant's responsibility. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81811 303/925-2020 • • • • Page Two Sunny Park Residential GMP Concentual Submission January 7, 1986 SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICES: The application makes no mention of tt:e number of solid fuel burning devices which will be placer.• in the neca dwel- lings. Current City regulations limit the numbers and types of such devices which can be installed in the residences. The applicant shall research applicable ordinances and submit for review this missing element of routine GMP applications. To attempt a maximum score available, it is recommended that "gas log" devices or no woodburning devices be proposed by the developer for this project. DEMOLITION: During actual razinq of buildings, the applicant will be required to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property. This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition site with Seater. Other examples of acceptable control techniques include dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding the work area, etc. Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a fugitive dust control plan is required for both the demolition and construction phase of the F>roject. That determination is relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated (tons per year). Contact Mr. Scott biller, Colorado Health Department, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or phone him at 248-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, Section TII, D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the "Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards", revised March 1983. WATER SUPPLY• Service to this project of domestic water supplied from the City of Aspen water distribution system is in conformance with policies of this office. M-1 00 Page Three Sunny Park Residential G14P Conceptual Submission January 7, 1986 SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District collection system is in conformance with policies of this department. NOISE ABATEMENT: The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled "floise Abatement". All demolition and construction noise related activities shall be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. This project can be expected to generate persistent sound levels that may be annoying to the neighborhood. The applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and approach to minimize generation of complaints to this office. Time of day, duration of specific activities and using the most technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that may be involved. If complaints are received, the referenced ordinance will be the governing document used in enforcement. CONTAMINATED SOILS: It is obvious that this project will lbe located in an area that may contain mine tailings and mine dumps as the result of past uses of the land. During demolition, excavation and construction, if such soil types are discovered the following will apply: All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found in mine dumps or mine tailings. The sample analysis shall be provided to this office from a qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavv metals are identified, mitigating measures will be required. Professionally competent people in the field of geology will be required to develop the mitigation plan. This project is unique in that it is situated within the proposed boundaries of the United States Environmental Protection Agency potential Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site. There has been a great deal of study performed • • • MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department 41 Date: January 13, 1986 Re: Sunny Park Residential CIIP Conceptual Submission The Engineering department has the following comments on the above application: UTILITIES This project can be serviced by a 6" and an 8" water line on Park Circle and Park Avenue respectively, either of which could supply adequate eater needs. The 8" sewer line in Park Avenue will sufficiently accomodate this project. The two on -site dry wells and adjacent swale will improve the historic run: -off for this property and the immeciate neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to underground all utilities on the property. TRASH The screened trash area is an improvement and is of adequate size for this development TRANSPORTATION The placement of a bus shelter on the corner of Park Avenue and Park Circle should be approved and coordinated with RFTA. S IDEW ALK The applicant has agreed to provide curb, qutter and sidewalk when the City commences construction of adjacent curbs. This is tantamount to joining an improvement district, which this department would require. The twelve foot curb cut is acceptable for vehicle access and is located as far from the intersection as possible. PARKING One less parking space is acceptable considering the project's close proximity to transportation and town. • • • • Page Four Sunny Park Resicential GMP Conceptual Submission Jar►ua ry 7, 1986 in this area (approximately 75 acres in size) over the past three years. The results of these studies are available to the applicant through this office. The results are, however, open for discussion and interpretation. The general consensus is that the threat of these heavy metal containing soils is a reality to humans, especially children ages 1-6 years. Another unique situation exists with this property in that the abandoned Molly Gibson Mine water discharge surfaces and travels along the west boundary of the site. Water samples have been taken from this drainage in the past which have not shown the water quality to be cause for excessive alarm. However, a threat to public health may exist if direct exposure to humans increases. This may occur when the proposed dwellings are occupied, especially if children are involved. It is obvious that the stream may be an attractive nuisance which will encourage children to play in and around the water. The source of this water supply is knows: (historically) to originate from the @dolly Gibson Mine. Due, however, to all of the excavation activity which has taken place over the past 18 months around the Sunny Park project site, the integrity of this water discharge source may have been altered. The results to water quality through modification of underground or surface exposures may not be known for many years. Based on the above discussion, including the uncertain future of the Smuggler Mountain Hazardous !,taste Site, this office will recommend the stream not become a project amenity as described in the proposal. In fact, the opposite will be recommended. The stream should be isolated from direct contact with the public. This may take the form of fencing the stream with a protective barrier or installing a culvert to underground the stream from its point of surfacing to where it travels under Gibson Avenue. L� • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: - 6 - RATING: - SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One ( 1 ) point for each ten ( 10 ) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [51 percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each ten [101 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each twenty [201 percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5 : POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: F' MEMORANDUM Ll Date: January 10, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer ,{ SUBJECT: Sunny Park - GMP Residential Allotment On January 7, 1986, I made an inspection of the building as 170 Park Avenue. Unit A contained two bedrooms, kitchen and bath. Unit B contained one bedroom, kitchen and bath. Unit C was a studio with bath and kitchen area. The kitchen did not contain a stove. Gideon Kaufman stated he would produce history of this unit's use. I would consider this site as a corner lot therefore the following applies: Section 24-3.7(f)(3), Aspen Municipal Code, "Corner Lots. On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required front yard setback distance for the district." Section 7-141(g), Aspen Municipal Code, "Chapter 11 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following Section 1107: Section 1107. Fences and Retaining Walls. 1. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner .lots shall any fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the lot corner. Maximum height in R/MF zone is 25 feet. Steve Burstein January 10, 1986 Page 2 A park dedication fee will be required for the free market units. The employee units may be exempt if Council so chooses. Section 7-143(7), Aspen Municipal Code, "Whenever the city council shall have determined that a proposed residential building constitutes a bona fide moderate or low income housing development and wishes to subsidize its construction, the council may exempt the development from the application of this section 7-143 or reduce by any amount the fees imposed hereby. cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official BD/ar MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein ((fi�,n FROM: Alan Richman ��1' RE: Residential Quota for 1985 Competition DATE: January 3, 1986 Based on my research into the Building Department records and my review of prior resolutions of allocation, following is the current status of the residential quota: 1. The annual residential quota in Aspen is 39 units. 2. Resolution #6, Series of 1985 which allocated units to the successful 1984 competitors, did not carry over the excess units which remained. Therefore, these units are no longer available for distribution in this or any other years. 3. During 1985, a one unit allocation to the Whale of a Wash and a twelve unit allocation to 700 S. Galena have expired, and these units must be added to the available quota. 4. During 1985, a total of thirteen new units were constructed and one was removed from the inventory via change in use. Therefore, twelve units must be deducted from the available quota. Summarizing this information, following is the available quota: Annual Quota = 39 units Expirations = + 13 units 1985 Construction = - 12 units Total Available 40 units I A TO: )TEVE BU??STEIN, PLANNING Or-FIC1; P20 1: -JPJE 95011r API, HOIISIIJG Or ^TC?r SU,TIIY PA_Rk RESIDE"_dTIAT, C►'IP COIICE?^IJFj, SU3I3ISSI0:1 TE: JAMARY 10, 1986 -" )U,I'JG O�'_ TCE PECOI;T'.EMDATION: The annlica-It states that tine cur e lrlo��ee units shall each be 443 sr:. it. ;pith acaditional yard and storage. The EnDloyee Guidelines require a studio to be '•00-500 s�;. ft. The applicant :as not incicated shot er the units ;:•ill be sale or rental :gut has stated that if units are to be sold, the sales :rice will not be more than S67.00 Der sa. (per the er..n_lovee guidelines) and is they are rented —ev will be rented at not more than S.060 per sq. ft. (per t:.e Guidelines) The Mousing Authority therefore recommends aanroval of this anolication with the followina deed restriction: The `DDlicants shall covenant wit:: the Cit-.- of Asaen that tj,e employee Zousina units be restricted in terms of use and occu";r,:1cy to the rental and sale guidelines established and indexed by the City Council's designee for low income ennlovee :mousing units at the time or -)rior to issuance of the auilding Permit . Verification of employment and income of those persons living in the lot' income emnlovee units shall be completed and filed with the City council or its designee by the o'liner co;.mencine7 on the date of record- ir,q hereon, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually cherea�ter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be soecifically enforceable by the City or its designee by anv appropriate legal action including injunc- tion, abatement or eviction of noncomnlvinq tenancy during the ;period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existina City Council of t: e City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. The Owner of the unit shall have the right zo lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or emploved in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a cualif i ed emplovee. "Qualified emoloyee" as used 'herein shall mean any person currently residirq in 1 and emnloved in the Citv of Asnen or Pitkin County for a :niniMu:.l average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any tweive- Font period, who shall meet low income and occuoancv eligibili t•- requirements established and then aDnlied by the Houaino uthority with respect to emnlovee housing. 10 laase agreement executed for occupancy or the e-tployee rental unit shall *provide for a rental tern of less than six consecut_ve nonths. ":ze!^ a lease is signed with a tenant, a cony shall be sen-= to :.ae Housing Office so that a current file shall be :-.1aintair.2u on each unit. Dee6 restriction shall be approved and signed by the Ci airman of the Housinq Authority nrior to recordation and a copv of r.e recorded cocu-ient shall be prov iced to the Housing :.uthority Office after recordation. 2 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT D L9(9 19 9 V P � MEMORANDUM DEC 26 TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: SUNNY PARK LOT 4 DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1985 A �WiLW#5- We have reviewed the Sunny Park Lot 4 application pertinent to (4) free market and (3) employee units (residential/multi-family), and foresee no problems with providing service to this proposed development, since the existing water line in Park Circle has been extended (looped) into the Centennial project. The Water Department can supply water to this project upon application and receipt of the necessary permits. JM:ab DI�C�L AMC JAN1S19610 M E M O R A N D U t•I TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANNE BOWMAN, HOUSING OFFICE RE: SUNNY PARk RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION DATE: JANUARY 10, 1986 HOUSING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant states that the four employee units shall each be 448 sq.ft. with additional yard and storage. The Employee Guidelines require a studio to be 400-500 sq. ft. The applicant has not indicated whether the units will be sale or rental but has stated that if the units are to be sold, the sales price will not be more than $67.00 per sq. ft. (per the employee guidelines) and if they are rented they will be rented at not more than $.60 per sq. ft. (per the quidelines) . The Housing Authority therefore recommends approval of this application with the following deed restriction: The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental and sale guidelines established and indexed by the City Council's designee for low income employee housing units at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit . Verification of employment and income of those persons living in the low income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of record- ing hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunc- tion, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in 1 • • and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive months. when a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file shall be maintained on each unit. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. 2 ME MORANDU M TO: Steve Burstein FROM: Alan Richman I`�\ RE: Residential Quota for 1985 Competition DATE: January 3, 1986 Based on my research into the Building Department records and my review of prior resolutions of allocation, following is the current status of the residential quota: 1. The annual residential quota in Aspen is 39 units. 2. Resolution #6, Series of 1985 which allocated units to the successful 1984 competitors, did not carry over the excess units which remained. Therefore, these units are no longer available for distribution in this or any other years. 3. During 1985, a one unit allocation to the Whale of a Wash and a twelve unit allocation to 700 S. Galena have expired, and these units must be added to the available quota. 4. During 1985, a total of thirteen new units were constructed and one was removed from the inventory via change in use. Therefore, twelve units must be deducted from the available quota. Summarizing this information, following is the available quota: Annual Quota = 39 units Expirations = + 13 units 1985 Construction = - 12 units Total Available 40 units LING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY ASPEN, COLORADO MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein. City of Aspen Planning Office FROM: Paul S. Hilts Transportation Mana RE: Sunny Park Residential GMP Conceptual Submission After reviewing the Sunny Park Residential GMP Conceptual Submission it appears to me that there is nothing which would create much of an impact in any way on transportation. It may, in fact, reduce some of the present impact on transit in the area. I am also quite encouraged by the prospect of having a new bus shelter installed in this area. This will not only benefit the residents in this project, but others who live close by. This is a convenient stop for the Hunter Creek bus. I would request that R.F.T.A. be consulted about the proposed shelter before it is put in place. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this submission. pak J gRICT James W. Burks, Superintendent JANUARY 14, 1986 JAN 1 61980 J � MR- STEVE BURNSTEIN PLANNING OFFICE CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 DEAR STEVE, THIS IS TO CONFIRM TODAY'S CONVERSATION REGARDING THE SUNNY PARK AND THE 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - AFTER REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT - WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF SCHOOL -AGE PEDESTRIANS IN AND OUT OF THE AREAS BY REQUIRING APPROPRIATE WALKWAYS- OUR SCHOOL BUSES SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE AREA WITHOUT MODIFICATION TO THE PLANS OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION - THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO REACT TO THIS PROPOSAL - SINCERELY, w .%A ju JAMES W. BURKS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT Post Office Box 300 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303/925-3460 a M MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office , RE: 1985 Residential GMP Competition: Sunny Park Project DATE: May 21, 1986 The applicant has requested that review of this item be tabled until the June 9, 1986 City Council meeting. The Planning Office can accommodate this request. Since today' s meeting is a published public hearing we request that Council table this item to the specific date of June 9, 1986. �7 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SUNNY PARR PROJECT RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing originally scheduled for January 28, 1986, was tabled to and will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted for the 1985 Residential Gr1P Competition for the submission known as Sunny Park Project, requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, situated on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant proposes to build three (3) employee studio units on -site and to reconstruct three (3) units which already exist on the property. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s1CWelton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on 1986. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SUNNY PARR PROJECT RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing originally scheduled for January 28, 1986, was tabled to and will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted for the 1985 Residential GMP Competition for the submission known as Sunny Park Project, requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, situated on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant proposes to build three (3) employee studio units on -site and to reconstruct three (3) units which already exist on the property. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on fibruo_"�---___, 1986. City of Aspen Account. U CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this '7 V day of QPIbJ , 198 6 , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. #Iet Lynn R czak I, • • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., hereby certifies that the following list has been obtained from the most current Tax Roll available and the following are the landowners within three hundred (300) feet of the real property described and set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof: I. Dieter Bibbig P.O. Box 175 Aspen, Co. 81612 2. The City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 3. John Werning and Walter Stenger 905 E. Hopkins Aspen, Co. 81611 4. Alan J. Goldstein 571 Lyell Ave. Rochester, N.Y. 14606 5. William R. Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 6. Robin Ris Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 7. John M. Logsdon and Christina M. Logsdon P.O. Box 5073 Aspen, Co. 81612 8. Patricia Ann Flug P.O. Box 1373 Aspen, Co. 81612 9. Susan R. Cochran, David 0. Barbier and Roberta Fisher P.O. Box 11673 Aspen, Co. 81612 10. David J. B. Singer 1160 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Islands Miami Beach, Florida 33154 11. Randy Bernard 401 W. Parkway High Point, North Carolina 27262 ---- CONTINUED---- 12. Barbara Allen Dunaway and William R. Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 13. Mountain States Communications 310 E. Main ST. Aspen, Co. 81611 14. Robert King Pierce P.O. Box 3118 Aspen, Co. 81612 15. F. Mead Metcalf and Joan L. Metcalf P.O. Box 32 Aspen, Co. 81612 16. Margot Rose Pendleton 180 Park Circle, $TH-3 Aspen, Co. 91811 17. Dana L. Bond and Robert E. Bond 3530 Central Ave. Shady Side, Ohio 43947 18. Jo Ann F. Valley P.O. Box 4806 Aspen, Co. 81612 19. Robert B. Latousek, Trustee 738 Timberline Dr. Glenview, Ill. 60025 20. James R. Thompson and Barbara Seelenfreund 185 Park Circle, #A-1 Aspen, Co. 81611 21. Elsie Morgan Fisher and Thomas Scott Reynolds 185 Park Circle # A-2 Aspen, Co. 81611 22. Patricia Ellis 5025 No. First Ave, #417 Tucson, Arizona 85718 23. Reginald H. Smith, II P.O. Box 4244 Aspen, Co. 81612 24. James H. Mickey, III 185 Park Circle, #B-3 Aspen, Co. 81611 25. George S. Newell, Jr. and Edda I. Hill P.O. Box 9088 Aspen, Co. 81612 ----CONTINUED---- 26. John McCormick P.O. Box 2974 Aspen, Co. 81612 7--XaYY—E- Schrum -and Carl E. Bentley P.O. Box 4812 Aspen, Co. 81612 28. Elaine Scoofakes P.O. Box 9756 Aspen, Co. 81612 29. Kathleen M. Hughes P.O. Box 3930 Aspen, Co. 81612 30. James E. Snelson, Jr. and Nancy H. Snelson 2719 Race St. Fort Worth, Texas 76111 31. Peter Wirth P.O. Box 9525 Aspen, Co. 81612 32. Racquet Club Condominium Joint Venture 720 E. Hyman Aspen, Co. 81611 33. C.L. Astor & Co. 981 King St. Aspen, Co. 81611 34. Peter Heineman P.O. Box 118 Morrison, Co. 80465 35. Riverbank Corporation/Riverbank West Corporation P.O. Box 175 Aspen, Co. 81612 36. Magne Nostdahl and Arne Marthinson 302 So. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 37. Lois Vagneur P.O. Box 164 Woody Creek, Co. 81656 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SUNNY PARR PROJECT RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, March 12, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at the Pitkin County Community Center in Aspen, to consider the conceptual submission in connection with the 1985 Residential GMP competition for the submission known as the Sunny Park Project, requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunny park Subdivision, situated on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant also proposes to build three (3) employee studio units on -site and to reconstruct three (3) units which already exist on the property. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext . 223. /William L. Sti rl ina Mayor, City Council of Aspen, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times on April 24, 1986 City of Aspen Account. I hereby certify that on this`day of , 198 a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. J et Lynn aczak • • CORRECTED PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SUNNY PARK PROJECT RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 12, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at the Pit kin County Community Center in Aspen, to consider the conceptual submission in connection with the 1985 Residential GMP competition for the submission known as the Sunny Park Project, requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunny park Subdivision, situated on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant also proposes to build three (3) employee studio units on -site and to reconstruct three (3) units which already exist on the property. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Wi 1 l ; am L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen, Colorado Dieter Bibbig Box 175 Aspen, CO 81612 The City of Aspen John Werning and Walter Stenger 905 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 Alan J. Goldstein 571 Lyell Avenue Rochester, NY 1 46 06 William R. Dunaway Box E Aspen, CO 81612 Robin Ris Dunawawy Box E Aspen, CO 81612 John M. Logsdon and Christina M. Logsdon Box 5073 Aspen, CO 81612 Patricia Ann Flug Box 1373 Aspen, CO 81612 Susan R. Cochran, David 0. Barbi er & Roberta Fisher Box 11673 Aspen, CO 81612 David J. B. Singer 1160 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Islands Miami Beach, FL 33154 Randy Bernard 401 W. Parkway High Points, North Carolina 27262 Barbara Allen Dunaway & William R. Dunaway • Box E Aspen, CO 81612 Mountain States Communications 310 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Robert King Pierce Box 3118 Aspen, CO 81612 F. Mead Metcalf and Joan L. Metcalf Box 32 Aspen, CO 81612 Margot Rose Pendleton 180 Park Circle, #TH-3 Aspen, CO 81611 Dana L. Bond and Robert E. Bond 3530 Central Avenue Shade Side, OH 43947 Jo Ann F. Valley Box 4806 Aspen, CO 81612 Robert B. Latousek, Trustee 738 Timberline Drive Glenview, ILL 60025 James R. Thompson and Barbara Seelenf reund 185 Park Circle, #A-1 Aspen, CO 81611 Elsie Morgan Fisher and Thomas Scott Reynolds 185 Park Circle, #A-1 Aspen, CO 81611 Patricia Ellis 5025 N. First Avenue, # 417 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Rgi nal d H. Smith, II Box 4244 Aspen, CO 81612 James H. Mickey, III 185 Park Cricle, B-3 Aspen, CO 81611 George S . Newell, Jr. and Edda I. Hill Aspen, CO 81612 John McCormick Box 2974 Aspen, CO 81612 Mary E. Schrum and Carl E. Bentley Box 4812 Aspen, CO 81612 Elaine Scoof a ke s Box 9756 Aspen, CO 81612 Kathleen M. Hughes Box 3930 Aspen, CO 81612 James E. Snelson, Jr. and Nancy H. Snelson 2719 Race Street Fort Worth, TX 76111 Peter Wirth Box 9525 Aspen, CO 81612 Racquet Club Condominium Joint Venture 720 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 C.L. Astor & Co. 981 King Street Aspen, CO 81611 Peter Heineman Box 118 Aspen, CO 81612 Riverbank Corporation/Riverbank West Corporation Box 175 Aspen, CO 81612 Magne Nostdahl and Arne Mathinson 302 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Lois Vagneur Box 164 Woody Creek, CO 81656 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Dept. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health Dept. Fire Chief Aspen School District RE-1 Zoning Enforcement Officer FRDr-1 Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1985 City Residential Growth Vanagement Applications: Sunny Park Residential GM_P Conceptual Submission 601 Aspen Residential GVP Conceptual Submission DATE: December 23, 1985 Attached for your review are the two 1985 City Residential Growth Management applications received by the Planning Office on December lst. Due to Code requirements, these applications must be set for hearing before the r.spen Plannina and Zoning Commission no later than January, 1986. Therefore, the Planning Office has scheduled the public hearing of the scoring session on these two applications for January 28th at a special meeting. In order to have adequate time to r:repare for this special meeting, we would appreciate having your corments back no later than January 12, 1986. Following is brief summary of the applications submitted: SUNNY PARK RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (4) free market residential units on Lot 4, Sunnv Park Subdivision, situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant proposes to build 3 employee studio units on -site. The applicant states that three units already exist on the property, (which have yet to verified) , and the applicant is also request- ing, Gt'P Exemption for those units. We would appreciate the Building Department verifying those 3 units as soon as possible in order that we may proceed with this application. The appli- cant is also requesting subdivision exception for the construc- tion of a multi -family project, and reduction of the parking requirements for the employee units. 0 • 10 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 92 multi -family free market units of 400 and 800 s.f. each. In addition, the applicant proposes to contruct 18 employee dorm rooms on -site and to convert two other build- ings, off -site, to employee housing. This application is quite complex and confusing and we are including a great deal of correspondence which has been exchanged between the Planning and Development Director and the applicant's attorney Doug Allen. As the letters indicate, there is still some doubt as to the completeneww of the submission. Should you need additional information, or feel you cannot make a determination based on the submittal, please contact our office immediately and we will try to address the problem with you. Thank you for your cooperation. Thank you. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., hereby certifies that the following list has been obtained from the most current Tax Roll available and the following are the landowners within three hundred (300) feet of the real property described and set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof: I. Dieter Bibbig P.O. Box 175 Aspen, Co. 81612 2. The City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 3. John Werning and Walter Stenger 905 E. Hopkins Aspen, Co. 81611 4. Alan J. Goldstein 571 Lyell Ave. Rochester, N.Y. 14606 5. William R. Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 6. Robin Ris Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 7. John M. Logsdon and Christina M. Logsdon P.O. Box 5073 Aspen, Co. 81612 8. Patricia Ann Flug P.O. Box 1373 Aspen, Co. 81612 9. Susan R. Cochran, David 0. Barbier and Roberta Fisher P.O. Box 11673 Aspen, Co. 81612 10. David J. B. Singer 1160 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Islands Miami Beach, Florida 33154 11. Randy Bernard 401 W. Parkway High Point, North Carolina 27262 ---- CONTINUED---- 12. Barbara Allen Dunaway and William R. Dunaway P.O. Box E Aspen, Co. 81612 13. Mountain States Communications 310 E. Main ST. Aspen, Co. 81611 14. Robert King Pierce P.O. Box 3118 Aspen, Co. 81612 15. F. Mead Metcalf and Joan L. Metcalf P.O. Box 32 Aspen, Co. 81612 16. Margot Rose Pendleton 180 Park Circle, #TH-3 Aspen, Co. 91811 17. Dana L. Bond and Robert E. Bond 3530 Central Ave. Shady Side, Ohio 43947 18. Jo Ann F. Valley P.O. Box 4806 Aspen, Co. 81612 19. Robert B. Latousek, Trustee 738 Timberline Dr. Glenview, I11. 60025 20. James R. Thompson and Barbara Seelenfreund 185 Park Circle, #A-1 Aspen, Co. 81611 21. Elsie Morgan Fisher and Thomas Scott Reynolds 185 Park Circle #A-2 Aspen, Co. 81611 22. Patricia Ellis 5025 No. First Ave, #417 Tucson, Arizona 85718 23. Reginald H. Smith, II P.O. Box 4244 Aspen, Co. 81612 24. James H. Mickey, III 185 Park Circle, #B-3 Aspen, Co. 81611 25. George S. Newell, Jr. and Edda I. Hill P.O. Box 9088 Aspen, Co. 81612 ----CONTINUED---- 26. John McCormick P.O. Box 2974 Aspen, Co. 81612 27. Mary E. Schrum and Carl E. Bentley P.O. Box 4812 Aspen, Co. 81612 28. Elaine Scoofakes P.O. Box 9756 Aspen, Co. 81612 29. Kathleen M. Hughes P.O. Box 3930 Aspen, Co. 81612 30. James E. Snelson, Jr. and Nancy H. Snelson 2719 Race St. Fort Worth, Texas 76111 31. Peter Wirth P.O. Box 9525 Aspen, Co. 81612 32. Racquet Club Condominium Joint Venture 720 E. Hyman Aspen, Co. 81611 33. C.L. Astor & Co. 981 King St. Aspen, Co. 81611 34. Peter Heineman P.O. Box 118 Morrison, Co. 80465 35. Riverbank Corporation/Riverbank West Corporation P.O. Box 175 Aspen, Co. 81612 36. Magne Nostdahl and Arne Marthinson 302 So. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 37. Lois Vagneur P.O. Box 164 Woody Creek, Co. 81656 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKIN, - STATE OF COLORADO. ME MDRAN DU M TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Janet Raczak, Planning Office RE: Sunny Park Application for GMP Residential Allotment DATE: April 29, 1986 Attached for your consideration is the Sunny Park Application for GMP Residential Allotment. This case will be presented to you at the May 12, 1986 City Council Meeting for allocation and review of general submission. In order to save costs for the applicant, some of these applications have been returned by the Planning Commission members and are being redistributed to you for your use. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO M14I S S ION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO ALLOCATE A 1985 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT TO THE SUNNY PARR PROJECT; APPROVE A GMP EXEMFP ION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING; AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION EXCEFrION FOR BUILDING A MULTI -FAMILY STRUCTURE Resolution No. 86- WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.4(a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as amended, December 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for residential development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, an application was submitted by Sunshine Partners for the Sunny Park Project, consisting of a request for an allotment of four (4) free-market residential units through the Growth Management competition, exemption from Growth Management for four (4) low-income employee units, and reconstruction of three (3) existing free-market units which are also exempt Growth Management procedures; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on March 18, 1986, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the Sunny Park Project, and it successfully met the minimum required threshold of 31.8 points by having received 37.1 points (not including bonus points) ; and WHEREAS, the only other application in the 1985 Residential Growth r4anagement competition, Hans Cantrup, agreed to allow the Sunny Park application to be scored first and, if it meets the • Resolution No. 86- Page 2 threshold, to receive an allotment ahead of the 601 Aspen application; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the applicant in scoring this project and in conducting ancillary reviews of the proj ect (which consisted of a GMP exemption for Employee Housing; Multi -Family Building Subdivision Exception, Exemption from Mandatory PUD Review and Parking Exemption Special Review), including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Two dry wells will bb installed, one on the northwest corner and one in the center of the site. On adjacent public rights -of -way a 10 foot culvert under the driveway and a storm retention area will be construct- ed. Drainage improvements will be constructed as shown on the site plan and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 2. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters will be constructed as soon as the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department. 3. Landscaping improvements including no less than 35 aspens (2-1/2" minimum caliper), 12 spruce trees (no less than 8 feet tall) on the site and adjacent public rights -of -way will be completed by the applicant as represented on the site plan. 4. A bus shelter shall be constructed on the corner of Park Circle and Park .Avenue as shown on the site plan. 5. The courtyard will consist of a jacuzzi, barbecue, seating area and bicycle racks. 6. Walls will have R-20 insulation and three rooftop solar collectors will be installed to heat the water for the jacuzzi. 7. Four studio units will be deed -restricted to the low income housing guidelines. 2 L3 Resolution No. 86- Page 3 8. Eleven parking spaces will be provided on site, of which five (5) will be covered. 9. A 6 foot fence will be constructed on the north edge of the property, and the trash area on the northeast corner of the property will be screened as shown on the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission also voted on March 18, 1986 to recommend approval of the request for a GMP Exemption for Employee Housing and the requested Subdivision Exception subject to five conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, allocate four (4) residential units from the 1985 Residential Growth Management Plan competition to the Sunny Park Project, approve the request for a GMP Exemption for employee housing and to approve the request for Subdivision. Exception to build a multi -family structure subject to the five conditions below: 1. A subdivision exception plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. The plat shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Department including the bicycle rack location, designation and calculation of the ground coverage area of the driveway and parking area and utility easements on the site or adjacent rights -of - way. The plat shall conform to the requirements for Subdivision Exception in Section 20-19 of the municipal Code. 2. A Statement of Subdivision Exception shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be submittal prior to final approval of this project by City Council pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the 3 0 • Resolution No. 86- Pa ge 4 Engineering Department and City Attorney. Included within the agreement shall be guarantees as to (a) the provision of sidewalks as soon as the best placement can be determined by the Engineering Department; (b) landscaping on the site and the adjacent public right- of-way as shown on the site plan and pursuant to Article V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code with the understanding that the species of trees shall conform to the plan presented in the Sunny Park GMP applica- tion; (c) culvert under driveway; and (d) bus shelter. 4. A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. If elevated levels of heavy metal are identified, a mitigation plan regarding health risks and vegetation planting shall be prepared by a competent profespional in the field of geology and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A development schedule including construction and landscape improvements and appropriate financial guarantees shall be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 8, 1986. ATT EST : Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk SB . 4 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By C. Welton Anderson Chairperson Ic « CITY OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLEY SHEET "' i rt., �� `3 I(:�11PRIi: 'ID"(1 1 J-10-UU I - - --------------------------- -- PROJECT:---�-- n � - -------3 - -- --a --- P&Z Voting Members 1----ry Jasmine _Roger_ Ramona Welton_------_ -I�iv_i�!_ AVERAGE :. Public Facilities and Services 1 1 a. Water Service - b. Sewer Service _--� ---- --! --- ---�--- • ---� --- r ------ -- ---------- -- --- L c. Storm Drainage �' - --- --�--- - �'--- -- ---- ------- ------ ------- d. Fire Protection ------- 1 ------- --! --- --i --- ---1--- ---1----- - - - - - - --ai--- e. Parking Design Z. ------- -- ---- ------- f. Roads ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --�- -- 74 --- --- SUBTOTAL ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ------- Z. Quality of Design r. �• j Q. Neighborhood Compatibility __---- L - ` - 5. Site Design - T -- ---- -- - 3 --- --'----- - 3---- --'---- --' ---------- 'L ---'---- C. Energy -- - 2 ------------- ------ d. Trails ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ --�-;-- e. Green Space 3 ------- 2 ------n --�---- - �---- ------- --- -- ------- } - -----` - I 1 i H j i. I `l 1 L 1 I ------- SUBTOTAL------- - -- -- 7. Proximity to Support Services a. Public Transportation S ------- } ------ ------- ------- ------- --- b. Community Commercial Facilities ` -_-�_-- _-`--- -- ---- -- --- ------- ----- SUBTOTAL ------- y ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- -S - ----- ------- 4. Employee Housing /C 14 j 1 r i r a. Low IncomeIj ------- ------- ------- ------- - --- -,- -------------- - ----- b. Moderate Income _ -------------- ------- c. Diddle Income ----- ---- --- ------- -------------- ------- i jp IE i6 �t7 SUBTOTAL - ----- -j✓ - ----- ------- - ------ ------- -------------- ------- ------- �. Conversion of Existing Units to Employee Housing a. Lou Income - -- ---- ---- --- ------- ------ ------- ----. -- b. Moderate income ------- ------- ------- ---- --- ------- -------------- ------- c. Middle Income ------- ------- ------- ---- --- ------- -------------- ------- SUBTOTAL s `; j S 3] 3 3 -- 3 E• f SUBTOTALCATEGORIES 1 - 5 ------- --- --- ------ --- _--- ------- ------- ------ ---- -- ------- Z C /) L. Bonus Points j 3 1 3 ` 3 �J TOTAL POINTS CATEGORIES 1- 6 - ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 RE.� 0� Dear This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your GmP _ application for complete- ness -. We have determined that your application is complete :, 5 .� ; �_<. \ 4z N­z_ is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) . Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. u _ A. Since your appl i at . n i < complete, we have scheduled it for review by the :as��on E . We will be calling you if need any additional i ormation prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please feel free to call-�UrS�!' who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. 14 Sincerely, ASPEIJ/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director AR: jlr • James J. Costley P.O. Box 884 Aspen, Colorado 81612 December 20, 1985 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Sunnypark GMP Dear Alan: I the undersigned, James J. Costley, verify that I purchased Lot 4, Sunnypark Addition, in 1975 from Arthur Hyde. At the time that I purchased this property, there were three independent units existing on the property. Each unit had a kitchen and independent living quarters. During the period of my ownership, 1975 through 1985, the three independent units were maintained as separate living quarters. My ownership of these units, and their existence as three separate units, preceded the adoption of the Growth Management Plan in 1977. STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The fore_going instrument was acknowledged before me this Q3 day of Daz 6,-P 1 , 1985 by James J. Costley. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: -I- Notary Public • December 17, 1985 Mr. Gideon Kaufman 315 E. Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gideon. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a. status report on your Sunny Park Residential GMP application. I have reviewed your original sutmission and the letters of clarification submitted since our original conversation. At this time, there are still two items lacking from you: 1. The names of all owners within 300 feet of the site, on stamped, addressed envelopes, plus a list of all such owners, to be retained in the file. 2. A determination of whether the site is zoned PUD, or if the zoning map is in error in this regard. This analysis should provide conclusive proof to support your claim that the site is not zoned PUD, or full PUD review (or exemption from mandatory PUD) will be required. As to your letter dated December 11, you have still not provided me with proof that three units exist on the site. The letter I wrote to Marty Kahn was an analysis based on an example provided to me;, it did not involve a site check of units, nor a building permit review of the legality of the units. What must be proven is that three units are now located on the site, and that they were originally constructed pursuant to legal building permits, or that no such permits were required at the time. You must work with Bill Drueding to obtain this information as part of the referral Process. As of yet, I have not referred your application. I expect to do so shortly, probably as soon as I have made a determination as to the status of the other competitor, 601 Aspen. Please submit the informa- tion noted above as soor as possible so I can confirm your agenda Gideon Kaufman December 17, 1985 Page Two date, anticipated to be January 28, 1986. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance in processing this submission. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director • / LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN Box 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 G IDEON I. KAUFMAN December 11, 1985 - DAVID G. EISENSTEIN Mr. Alan Ric man, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Coloraau 8 16 11 Re: Sunnyp :rk GMP Dear Alan: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 3 925-816666 i, This letter i.3 intended to address some of the questions that you raised co, {zcerning the Sunnypark Growth Management Plan Application. have enclosed for your review a copy of the letter that yoL wrote to Marty Kahn in March of 1981, which dealt with thel issue of existing units. There was some question about the -:lumber of studios that could replace two and one bedroom units, however it seemed clear that everyone was in agreement thz�t three units existed: a two bedroom, a one bedroom and a studio. Since we are replacing these three units with three ,st-udios, and not trying to increase the number of replaceM0nt units, I believe there are no outstanding question:3 concerning demolition. If you have any additional questions,- please feel free to contact me. I have also revj-ewed Section 24-11.10 Employee Housing, and discussed this section with the Housing Office, as well as members of the Housing Authority. It appears clear to me that Subsection G specifically states that units which are currently deed restricted to employee housing, and are demolished, would count against new employee housing being provided. However, there are no deed restricted units on this site. The langliage is very clear the only applicability of this section is tc- deed restrict employee units, not units that may fall within the employee guidelines. Clearly, there are no deed restricted units in this case, especially with the owner living on site. Therefore, I feel that there is no applicability of this section to our application. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you, if you have any additional questions. I have contacted the title company and ther are in the process of compiling i� list of all property owners within 300 feet, and will be supplying that to you along with stamped and addressed envelopes. I have an appointment with Jay Hammond to work on the PUD question. Dave Gibson's office Mr. Alan Richman December 11, 1985 Page 2 has supplied to you the additional drawings that you requested. I believe that this answers all outstanding questions that you had concerning this application. I look forward to discussing these matters in greater detail with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By 9VPA- Gideo Kaufman GK/bw AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER SUNSHINE PARTNERS, being the Owner of certain real property situate in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and described as Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, having the street address of 170 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, hereby authorizes and approves of the filing of the Sunnypark Application for GMP Residential Allotment dated December 1, 1985, to be submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office on or before December 2, 1985, and which also includes a request for Special Review approval for employee parking, subdivision exemption for construction of a multi -family dwelling, subdivision exception for condominiumization, and Special Review Approval for GMP for employee units. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner by its General Partner, has executed this document this - _ day of December, 1985. SUNSH E PARTNE S By .!Michael Conv STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ser, General Partner Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 1985, by Michael Conviser as General Partner of SUNSHINE PARTNERS. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary P blic auth of owner/GMP t • CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office FROM: Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. RE: Ownership of Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision We have reviewed the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and hereby certify that Sunshine Partners is the Owner of certain real property situate in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision. LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C. n cert of ownership/GMP • 1/ LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN January 10, 1986 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN Mr. William Dreuding Pitkin County Building Department 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Sunny Park GMP Residential Allotment Dear Bill: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925.8166 The studio located on Lot 4, Sunnypark Subdivision situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen has been occupied by the following described tenants for the referenced periods: 1. Laura Lee Cook from Sept. 1984 to Sept. 1985. 2. Ron Tice from Sept. 1983 tb Sept. 1984. 3. Paul Tice from Sept. 1981 to Sept. 1983. One of the above three tenants remains in Aspen, the other two have relocated. Jeff Costley, the former owner of the unit, will complete an affidavit verifying the above described tenancies if you so desire. Please contact me at your convenience regarding this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By _ I C Gi eon aufman GK/bw cc: Michael Conviser PUBLIC NOTICE PE: 1985 City Residential Growth Venagement Applications: Sunny Park Residential GMP Conceptual Submission and 601 Aspen Residential G11P Conceptual Submission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on January 2R: 1986, at a s-oecial iaeeting to begin at 5:00 P.11. before the Aspen Planninc anc Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers- 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider and score the following two 1985 Citv Residential Growth t•Tanagement Arplicatior.s: SUNNY PARR RES IDE14T IAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of four (11) free market residential units on Lct 4, Sun,,, Park Subdivisionr situated at the northwest corner of the i tersecticn of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen. The applicant pro�:oses to build 3 employee studio units on -site and to reconstruct three units which already exist on the property. 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION The applicant is requesting a growth management allocution for the construction of 92 multi -family free market units of 400 and 200 s.f. each. In addition, the applicant proposes to contruct 11 employee corm rooms on -site and to convert two other buildings- off - site, to employee housing. For further information. contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, Eyt . 225. s&. Welton Anderson __--- Chairperson, Asper: Planning_ and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 10, 1985. City of Aspen Account. 24 Aspet1, I-)1 t k i it PIa11I] I I1 130 squtli gale,nat.street ; a s p e n�: c,o 16 `i��a d' '�� o� 8 16 11 March 23, 1981 Martin H. Kahn 415 East Hyman, Room 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr, Kahn, office The Planning Office and the City Attorney have researched the Aspen City Code to determine an answer to your question regarding demolition and reconstruction of units. The response we are providing you with should be viewed as staff -level advisory comments which can only be confirmed on a more definitive basis by submitting your development proposal to P & Z and/or City Council for approval, Our conclusion is that based on Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code, your three units (one two -bedroom, one one -bedroom and one studio) may only be rebuilt as three new units, not as five studios, However, the only limita- tions on the number of bedrooms each unit and the site as a whole may contain are the underlying area and bulk requirements of the .underlying R-MF/PUD zone district. For example, these provisions indicate that 3,630 square feet are needed for a three -bedroom unit and that the floor area ratio in the zone is 1:1. Therefore, you could build three three -bedroom residences on that 13,700 square foot site to replace the existing units, as long as these are built in a multi -family and not a single family configuration, You would also be required to submit plans appropriate for a PULE application, unless you are able to convince P & Z to exempt you from this procedure, Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact me or Paul Taddune, If you should want to bring this concept before P & Z prior to connitting yourself to detailed building plans, I'm sure we can set up a time for you to meet with them. Sincerely, N__11._ Alan Richman Assistant Planner AR/ans cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune q low st-JI'ls — 5 rest a' I.�S P��sons/uNii -- 7 T'rCc m�Cfi, S-t djo - 5 3 feca+s+ry"tej unpfs 5�'14'tit on � ,lie ,f `'fof�l dt�l�Pn+tr��in�. rtcenS�+�cf�Vnt� 5 IDOnrs�ri�t� — ZO �OoPit, 4 tb fo T�7 toP SUhh��Lr��,�SA�cl SUUpe c 2wk4 fp„ r�s -,0qfi �f users S Ubk excY vvn — T n S��dio �ou I nlbn� �Yll�s — Con�c,n'In'I0mjL�1'0n 6- Ipk/•1�1C. 51!') pQ)Ji5 dreg) ill) A10 y t rw co -j", two. 1 � � . 'gyp tit �- �� r K C i �� s �'�' A'1 I�I'/y�/W�•� -_K FTA 4)'il - to A• 4�jvo, c. , bv)14J 1 { 1pilvl �/o [Vvi2 ✓ Jr S� ('fit _ V _ Pl(7 -hik 0 • M can � �k ►os�k�r� 11 ��� . 3,U�bY�lte,c►ytM� 0 n—Stf4ct�,�r�,n� rn �¢.n�0 rf-5)— e�� - r ? �2 curb-cv 746 l Lrsr rv�& : ,13 39 3 14 Fit R r0l.Z,>ls ) ll ��a �� i OVNf./S-t4 , Ion PJ site reo�ew i-5-i�6 q �(lc n� � a . m�N �1 Gn,r�•� �i,�ii ti; ��; �-l�lc �„+ H;-�tirnv� ,� r.b� n t y�Lvl � �ui .�A:^F;� ar�tt� C� rV - t1100) / a,/ 6 0 s °� err tD Ili 'ti'kL ; Vvx.,lo� XAI� k..t'4'4, tk "ti4411)' V 7� `� — �,,, � c � yFs-gcteble o;, mRp , Aa f /e f��Ad _ ti�M n yy cp 44 fahar4 — rT?n�u anr4 f riFs — fCt �.�fovl/V �..Giti f-o #. L Ics'jenfi U A/"� K N�IA.,.O�' .(v] �(!Y /S—M''6 Ci(�fL•'r 4nj T� 6dF are 7�4�✓ 1�O /l t� t/+ty� . by IeMt1�i� TrIOA Jb K lr (�M i ,Mt L)`+ r storm A Jg--,Awko 6�;►ds, r��;.stt�ns bvJ sktltvr wkc6�r� M�,�f�,Kj ��" fb 3�jl�t —to,�p ��7+11H�t?,+r��,�rl�• Q reudi,,, - O ft. f on+ d 6. 6644. A,,,-lrj,ali ��� , 1s fA �;,OL, ♦ ♦ • 0 • Project CITY OF ASPEN .PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION zRESIDENTIAL GRIP COMPETITION i' Date: _ 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2) points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately di spose of th e surf ace runoff of th e proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: COMMENTS: C k a A 111 l * o�n,, ,�, and a &Ulk f /w A *t rt nl �M Are ADM aa« d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: `" r ' � :, J p._ 6h M" � "u►, a'p'wo a�H n* �t �1.U'-� �_`�'C"' °3j{'' s'"?'K'''" y , , f *L: , : -fir .e.•:. { sr„ : ��, , r"14 i. wp4ty. ,r.l _*!-J 4 4.1, l ,,+ 6 ' , f k ,- Wo1) iif ojv"1 -9) f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: — 2 — COMMENTS • �y,,,� hnti be a � � � J�Mrd' :f.e.� e , X !• �. •� � �.ae,C.l Gvl/�' M1,.rt �,,,���,�„ 1�,,, C �2 - SUBTOTAL: a 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: (wQ too cswnr-.ia) b�� s o ` P'AJ 4 f -�i� �rVg1 f�M vttn s � : , `�"" i lv►,�, , � � -1i+.� �un� irn� lnW-J yl�,�,�,�, di,, -o '1 +�. l►4t�i`^'"~ " A hats. fl�.f -. �.1�'n,t,� ° � A, N -tl, i SO P40" wr^u4+c ��:}�,:1 •y� 1 �, r✓t}t �f 11'tr�P� 1GW CYiNn"I' f.4,t tA.. 1 ,LY" VIAJ %, 1 DT b IJVI! 61 P,k I O� b. Site Design (maximum three [3) points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: Uk t -t akd l ke C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . a Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: ram l a,r� L, ,vr� cw � AA9 - ,l•J• 40'�+�'� '�' 'h�1 �.�GNt� .�*�f,+�r �':'� n.r -. ..-it4 J*l�.. d. Trails (maximum three [3) points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS: F v�"�►✓ da• d�',t,, GMk ,/Nf��'`l'�`"�v►�.c✓ta"Gri Ala. �l cICd-ti�h(6ti1 r'" R r,' f tt �w RfT,4 —t1t P ,U 4A" ao awn, t+Gc A ' �, ,.� , G iT :. :,y ) z a � e. Green Space' (maximum three (31 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: jy„ R c ., AAfIM1� L7M RAD�i �'N °G► u,. J� . �. w. �j►,t.i �4! �ac'o MPo - �r SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (61 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum three (31 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: _L - # :,1, ! �, , ,J*11.,ti 0,44 Ift r All c2f, __4L Polk b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points f or each f ive ( 5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: - 5 - Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five (5] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: ' V 4.' Afs b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon then in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - • r • 1 • Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted RATING: COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: COMMENTS: 2 POINTS IN CATEG OR I -ES 1, POINTS IN CATEGORY 3 POINTS IN CATEGORY X: TOTAL-TOINTS-: --. D n l A.f,'�'� � nfis 4' arne of P&Z Commissionmenber : \ �� V� .11