HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Staff Comments Residential GMP.1981 MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: 1981 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: February 17, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:
Applicants' Five applications were submitted this year for consideration
Proposals: for a development allotment under the 1981 residential GMP
quota competition. The applicants include:
1. Sunny Park, a proposal for seven free market studios
and seven low income employee studios;
2. Snare/Baker Duplex, a proposal for a single three
bedroom free market unit and a one bedroom moderate
income employee unit;
3. Ute City Place, a proposal for eight free market units,
twelve low income employee units and two moderate
income employee units;
4. 1015 East Hyman Avenue, a proposal for a single free
market unit and two low income employee units; and
5. Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main, a two-site
proposal for 36 free market units and 36 low income
employee units.
The locations of these projects are shown on the map attached
for your review.
Quota The available quota for this year is based on a formula
Available: provided in Section 24-11.2 of the Code, as interpreted in
a memorandum from Ron Stock, former City Attorney, dated
September 18, 1979. The resulting calcualtions show that
this year's quota is limited to 21 units. However, as
indicated in Section 24-11 .4(f) of the Code, allotments not
awarded during the previous year shall be carried over to
the following year for possible distribution at that (or a
later) time by City Council. No allotments were awarded
during 1980, and calculations of the final quota available
from last year indicate that a quota of 18 residential units
remains. In addition, Council may approve allotments in
excess of the available quota; however, this bonus may not
exceed 20 percent of the maximum permissable yearly allotment
of 39 dwelling units. Eight additional free market units
are therefore available for allocation subject to Council
approval.
The maximum total number of units available for award to
the 1981 applicants is summarized below:
Quota remaining from 1980 - 18 units
Quota available for 1981 - 21 units
Maximum 20 percent bonus - 8 units
Total available for 1981 - 47 units
P & Z Action: At its regular meeting of February 3, 1981 , the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to
consider this year's residential GMP applications. At the
close of the hearing, the P & Z members scored each applica-
tion in terms of criteria and a points schedule arranged
into five categories : (A) public facilities and services,
(B) social facilities and services, (C) employee housing,
(D) unique financing, and (E) bonus provisions. According
Memo: 1981 Residential GMP Applications
February 17, 1981
Page Two
to the Code, any project not receiving a minimum of 45 points
in categories A-C will be considered denied and ineligible
for a development allotment. The results of the P & Z
scoring of the five applications in categories A, B and C
is as follows:
1. Sunny Park: 43.4
2. Snare/Baker Duplex: 32.0
3. Ute City Place: 44.3
4. 1015 East Hyman Avenue: 47.4
5. Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main: 46.4
Based on the above scoring, P & Z recommended that Council
carry over the 1980 quota of 18 units in addition to the
1981 quota of 21 units for a total quota of 39 units. P & Z
then recommended that development allotments of one unit
to 1015 East Hyman Avenue and 36 units to Gilbert and
S. Aspen/Third and Main be awarded, since these were the
only two proposals receiving the necessary minimum of 45
points in categories A-C.
Basis for The Code requires that City Council consider any challenges
Appeals: by applicants to the Commission' s scoring, provided, however,
that "no challenges shall be heard by the Council on grounds
other than matters which have not previously been considered
by the Commission". As a result of these challenges, the
Council may change the number of points awarded to a protest-
ing applicant. In the past, this clause has been interpreted
to mean that applicants may not appeal the scores given by
P & Z for individual criteria, such as the request that a
"1 " be changed to a "2" or a "2" to a "3" and so on.
Instead, appeals may be made if P & Z has been arbitrary
in. its scoring of an entire application or if
due process has been denied to an applicant.
Following the meeting of February 3, 1981 , it became clear
that the applicants whose requests were denied might have
a basis for appeal of the scoring. Conversations with all
members of P & Z disclosed that three of the seven voting
members were unclear at the time of their scoring that bonus
points cannot be used to bring a project over the 45 point
minimum threshold which must be achieved for a project to
receive a development allotment. This being the case, the
Acting City Attorney believes that the applicants may have
been denied their due process right to a hearing before a
properly informed Commission.
In an effort to provide equal and fair treatment to each
applicant, the Planning Office recommends that Council con-
sider an adjustment to the scoring procedure for this year's
applications. The Planning Office recommends that the City
Council count the bonus points awarded to the Sunny Park,
Snare/Baker Duplex and Ute City Place projects by the three
P & Z members who voted with the intention that these points
be considered toward the 45 point minimum threshold. In
addition, as required by the Code, the revised scoring
should include the bonus points awarded by all P & Z
members to the 1015 East Hyman Avenue and Gilbert and
S. Aspen/Third and Main projects, since both did meet the
45 point minimum and are eligible to receive these points.
Based on these recommendations, the revised scores would
be as follows:
1 . Sunny Park: 43.7
2. Snare/Baker Duplex: 33.6
Memo: 1981 Residential GMP Application
February 17, 1981
Page Three
3. Ute City Place: 46.1
4. 1015 East Hyman Avenue: 50.9
5. Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main: 52.4
On this revised basis, Ute City Place would be eligible to
receive a development allotment. To provide sufficient
quota to meet the allocation request of all three projects
receiving 45 points under the revised scoring system, a
bonus of six additional units also must be provided. The
Planning Office recommends that Council approve a 1981
residential GMP quota of 45 units, to consist of 18 units
carried over from 1980, 21 units available from 1981 and a
bonus of 6 units for 1981. The rationale behind this recom-
mendation is that the three applications which would thereby
receive allotments meet the intent and purpose of the GMP
by providing 52 employee units in return for approval of
45 free market units in locations which can be readily
serviced by the City of Aspen.
Council Action: Should Council agree with the recommendations of P & Z and
the Planning Office, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve a 1981 residential GMP quota of 45 units,
to consist of 18 units carried over from 1980, 21 units
available from 1981 and a bonus of 6 units for 1981. The
45 units are to be allocated as GMP development allotments
to the following projects:
Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main - 36 units;
1015 East Hyman Avenue - 1 unit; and
Ute City Place - 8 units. '."
1 ,
1 ,i
> L ET.,IN l 9V„SO SNOWBUNNY
me s r a OS
`p i
wn ti Ico Wu- 00 �. '91 l Od Y3/3°°Z o o m vm n; O n a L T 0R,
} .
npnnenT $H3m� oo oF,_ —p1;3 �, OW IN ;m n
a R m it R1 yo° TT Da _ pd a i
I ; g 2_ 3_ ° 20 -. 01 .. `, SNEAKY LANE 8 n !'
(t ill ; v o °Z m - '�1 O
- n ° 8 ' 1I Ir 1
ei
no 's _ ° $ °$ LLJ _L ado:Sl'I 3 dad /
EIGHTH STREET_rl
3 Y ' u n'
-' of 3 B ca �— J f h
D r ° eiT SEVEN1H STREET c tar*
„,,, N 13.1 J_ CL _f:t:t
-- P
CA
2 Ask-
Z O�. ‘r3 SIXTH STREET _—i c ›L,,,
/
n- _ - �; m i
m^ 3 0 V C..LJ JIJ LJJ�L_J _J� OD`� O inFOURTH STREET a'r' FJ�� �J —SIRE — — ` O 90 lid r
3 3R O 7 /
SECOND m i>_STREET —v :ell
0 /
D
_L !Ln_L 5 r
FIRST r STREET x dp '"xi?)
i R IL_ __ i L I R / r
,% t.
GARMISCH STREET „0”' w' ,se
as „Tsai / r�, _ o Fir. _ o / ' i keLi
m �
—fn ' __— ii2 ASPEN STREET .Illy i
-- -- —r —11- 7 I - zc II <
—a —D — -- _1 _JL J_ � ',,
MONARCH STREET ,� -/ % �OW C3tl
m m c C o — — I- __' ca �� ObOtl NVtl 1N
WAGNER
JS ~ j N_z PARK �� _ n I '
1 __$ — t L1LL-� _ STREET ?d. q'..
3'
\ — —r GALENA SIRE T T �'r. \\ li v _ C96F,
y f
LITTLE NEL! — —t� ^'
? p
z�I�NTER 8T -\ 0/ r v o >m `..
r
V —._. i..^'_— _._ 133H1S m z'I °9m` ..
SPRING THEET - S p NJ mf, . _
LrJI O RAp_—'
/pT' L. i-NO STREE iq z N// //'//////////�/JJc 5308 S ` = >
01,j c2„'?' ” I iii I JJ m
/g iC'
/!/Y m n CLEVELAND STREET ti ��I 71
co 4 z pl ac a +J r JO
3 m xa n , !�
1 a
c
/t m IIr/��,'?' �� ARk \
/ O ,(/!1 1t31NIA fl CI ISM ill „N �)
/ =i ° N1 n311t NIA INiInW OIL' �f yA, -NUF
A ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: 1981 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: January 27, 1981
Introduction
Attached for your review are project profiles for each of this year's
residential GMP submissions, a map indicating the locations of the proposed
projects, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for each sub-
mission and scoring sheets for your completion upon conclusion of the appli-
cants ' presentations. A copy of each application has also been provided to
your for review purposes.
Applicants' Requests
As the attached material indicates, there are five applications eligible
this year for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A total
of 53 free market units and 60 employee units are proposed.
All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will
require additional review procedures. Employee housing units constructed as
part of a residential GMP project are subject to the special approval of the
City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
as are employee parking requirements. Also, in some cases, Residential
Bonus Overlay rezoning, Historic Preservation, subdivision and condominiumi-
zation review and approval are required. All of these procedures must be
accomplished subsequent to an applicant's receipt of a development allotment,
and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Quota Available
The available quota for this year is based on a formula provided in
Section 24-11.2 of the Code, as interpreted in a memorandum from Ron Stock,
former City Attorney, dated September 18, 1979. The resulting calculations
show that this year's quota is limited to 21 units. However, as indicated in
Section 24-11.4(f) of the Code, allotments not awarded during the previous
year shall be carried over to the following year for possible distribution
at that (or a later) time by City Council . No allotments were awarded
during 1980, and calculations of the final quota available from last year
indicate that a quota of 18 residential units remains. In addition,
the Commission, at its discretion, may recommend to Council allotments in
excess of the available quota; however, such recommendation may not exceed
20 percent of the maximum permissable yearly allotment of 39 dwelling units.
Eight additional free market units are therefore available for allocation
subject to Council approval .
The maximum total number of units available for award to the 1981 applicants
is summarized below:
Quota remaining from 1980 - 18 units
Quota available for 1981 - 21 units
Maximum 20 percent bonus - 8 units
Total available for 1981 - 47 units
Process
Each of the applicants will make a brief (limited to 15 minutes) presentation
before the Commission on Tuesday, February 3rd. A public hearing will be
held to allow interested citizens to comment at the close of which each
Commission member will score the applicants. To ensure a reasonable com-
parison of the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office sug-
gests that all applications be scored at once on a category-by-category basis.
Memo: 1981 Residen 1 GMP
January 27, 1981
Page Two
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of
members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project.
Any project not receiving a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in
Categories A, B and C, amounting to 45 points, will no longer be considered
for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied.
Planning Office Ratings
The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications as a
recommendation for your review. The following table summarizes} the results
of the Planning Office analysis, shown in more detail in the attached score
sheets:
A B C D/E
Public Fac. Social Fac. Employee
Applications & Services & Services Housing Other Total
1. Sunny Park 15 7 18 0 40
2. Snare/Baker Duplex 16 9 5 0 30
3. Ute City Place 18 8 19 0 45
4. 1015 East Hyman 16 9 22 0 47
5. Gilbert & S. Aspen/
Third and Main 18 12 20 10 60
In reviewing the Planning Office's recommended point allocations, please
note that the points awarded under Section C, Employee Housing, were computed
utilizing a formula specified in the Municipal Code and are therefore not
subject to change. Points awarded under Section A and B, however, are sub-
ject, to a certain degree, to individual interpretations of project merit as
are the points awarded under Section D, Unique Financing, and Section E,
Bonus Provisions, grouped in the above table as "Other". The only project
for which any of these latter points are recommended is the Gilbert and
South Aspen/Third and Main project, which proposes 100% applicant financing
of five of the units. Following are the rationales for the awarding of
points by the Planning Office under Section A and B.
Rationales
A. Public Facilities and Services
1) Water Service - All five applications were viewed as having adequate ser-
vices available and received at least a "2" . Those projects that required
additional expenditures by the developer which resulted in improved
service to the area were rated as "3" since all agreed to work with the
City to provide the necessary improvements.
2) Sewer Service - Aspen Metro Sanitation District commented that all pro-
posals could be served and did not request any improvements from any
of the projects. As a result, each proposal was rated as "3" .
3) Storm Drainage - If a project provided for retention of storm drainage
on-site and absorption to groundwater, it was rated as "3" . Projects
which diverted the runoff to the street where adequate facilities were
available were rated as "2" . If drainage facilities were judged to be
inadequate to handle increased runoff from impervious surfaces to be
constructed, the project was rated as "1" .
4) Fire Protection - If the response time in the area has been shown to be
good and a fire hydrant is nearby, the project was rated as "2" . If the
applicant has agreed to provide improvements such as a fire hydrant or
sprinkler system, which would result in an overall improved level of
service, then the project was rated as "3".
5) Parking Design - No proposal was judged to have provided an exceptional
parking design. Those proposals which provided an adequate number of
parking spaces according to the Code and met other Code specifications,
Memo: 1981 Residential GMP
January 27, 1981
Page Three
such as curb cut width, were rated as "2". If the curb cuts were of
excessive width and inconsistent with the Code, then the project was
rated "1".
6) Roads - Those proposals which would have a minimal impact on roads and
whose nearby roads are well maintained were rated as "3". If the roads
in the area of the project are adequate in size and maintenance, but the
project would have a significant impact on the traffic patterns, it was
rated as "2" . If the roads in the area of the project are poorly main-
tained or prone to congestion, the project was rated as "1".
7) Energy - All proposals paid some attention to energy conservation measures
and all had the appropriate utilities available to them and were thus
rated at least as "2". Those projects which paid particular attention
to solar adaptations and which exceeded Code provisions for insulation
and similar energy-conserving features were rated as "3" .
B. Social Facilities and Services
1) Public Transportation - All the proposals were either on a bus route
or directly proximate to one and received a "2" with the exception of
the Gilbert and South Aspen site which was close enough to allowa "1.5"
rating for that overall project.
2) Police Protection - All proposals could be easily served by existing
police personnel and were thus rated as "1". One proposal indicated
that private security patrols would also be provided and was rated as
"2" .
3) Bicycle Paths - All proposals are located relatively close to an existing
bicycle path. No proposal would disrupt an existing path or provide a
new one. All proposals were rated as "1".
4) Childcare Facilities - Most of the proposals did not address this cri-
terion, but would not substantially alter the ability of existing facili-
ties to serve childcare needs. Each of these proposals was rated "1" .
One project did offer to provide a childcare facility and was rated as
11211
5) Recycling Facilities - Similar to criterion 4 above, this service was
not addressed by most of the applicants, but the proposals would have
little impact on available facilities and so were rated as "1". One
project did offer to provide a recycling facility and was rated as "2" .
6) Handicapped Design Features -Title 5, Article 9 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes contains the following schedule for developments to follow
regarding handicapped access to units:
0 - 7 units - no requirements
8 - 14 units - one unit must be accessible
15 - 21 units - two units must be accessible, and so on,with one
accessible unit required for each additional seven
units requested
Based on these requirements the proposals were rated as "2" if they met
the requirement by providing one or more accessible units, "1" if they did
not have to provide any accessible units and "0" if they were required to
provide accessible units but failed to do so.
7) Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities - Most of the projects are within
a very short walk of the downtown retail area and were rated as "2" . If
the project was far enough from commercial services that the use of a car
or bus would be considered, then it was rated as "1".
Planning Office Recommendation
Based on the analysis provided in this memorandum and the attached score
sheets, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
Memo: 1981 Residen. 1 GMP
January 27, 1981
Page Four
concur in their scoring with our recommended point allocations and
effectively deny the Sunny Park and Snare/Baker Duplex project requests
for development allotments since neither application received the minimum of
45 points in categories A, B and C. The Planning Office further recommends
that P & Z recommend to City Council that last year's quota of 18 units
plus a bonus of 8 units in 1981 be added to the available quota for 1981
of 21 unitsresulting in a total quota of 47 units being available to this year's
applicants. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur in
their scoring with our recommended point allocations by recommending to
City Council that development allotments be awarded to the Ute City Place,
1015 East Hyman Avenue and Gilbert and South Aspen/Third and Main projects.
Planning Office Concerns
The Municipal Code provides little latitude to the reviewer in the allocation
of points to projects. However, while reviewing the applications submitted
this year, the Planning Office became concerned that points could be more
accurately awarded to projects if several additional issues were also con-
sidered. Specifically, the Planning Office felt that applicants' ability to
receive subsequent development approvals prior to issuance of a building
permit, as well as the previous performance of the applicant, might add con-
siderable insight to the ultimate viability of the project. The Planning
Office would like to bring these issues to your attention since we are cur-
rently considering proposing various amendments to the GMP process, some
of which may reflect these concerns.
Applicant's Previous Performance - During the time that the Planning
Office was developing the quota for 1981 and years past, it came to our
attention that of the 65 units allocated from the inception of the GMP
in 1977 through 1980, only ten units had actually been built. The other
55 units are held by two projects - Top of Mill , containing 26 units, and
500 S. Galena/925 Durant, containing 29 units. Both projects have extended
their deadlines for obtaining building permits but neither is currently
on line for obtaining final approval of the project as a result of
several changes from the original proposals which have been requested
since the allotments were awarded. The applicant for these projects,
Hans Cantrup, is also the applicant for the Gilbert and South Aspen/
Third and Main project. It is the recommendation of the Planning Office
that P & Z review the current proposal with the closest possible scru-
tiny, since it is apparent that the applicant is currently making a very
ambitious proposal regarding public and social facilities and services
to be provided, as well as the unique financing mechanism proposed. Should
the applicant receive a development allotment this year from Council ,
the Planning Office intends to monitor the progress of this project very
closely to insure that the proposed services and facilities are implemented
as shown.
Displacement - A second issue that surfaced during the Planning Office's
review of the proposals was that three of the projects -- Sunny Park,
Ute City Place and Gilbert and South Aspen/Third and Main -- involve dis-
placement of existing residents. While the Code does not prevent the
award of allotments to projects involving residential displacement, you
should be aware of some of the problems which may arise down the line as
the approved projects apply under the other reviews required prior to con-
struction. Specifically, in cases involving condominiumization, the appli-
cants will have to comply with the provisions of Section 20-22 of the
Code regarding rental history of employee units and tenant displacement.
If any of the current units proposed for removal fall within current price
guidelines for low, moderate or middle income housing, then the units con-
structed to replace the existing units will have to be deed restricted to
the identical category for a minimum of five years. The Commission may
wish to consider the net effect of projects which propose removing employee
units while constructing new units, rather than solely considering the
impact that the proposed units alone will have. The Commission should also
note that requests for Residential Bonus Overlay, Historic Preservation
approval and Mandatory PUD may involve obstacles to final project approval ,
which the applicants will have to overcome.
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: James J. Costley
2. Project Name: Sunny Park
3. Location: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue and Park Circle)
4. Parcel Size: 13,704 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF PUD
6. Existing Structures: One story building to be removed contains 3 units -
a studio , one bedroom and two bedroom unit.
7. Development Program: 7 free market studios and 7 employee studios,
employee units to be restricted to low income guidelines.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for employee units and
employee parking, full subdivision review, rezoning for residential
bonus overlay, mandatory PUD.
9. Miscellaneous: While 50% of the bedrooms will be restricted as low income
employee housing, only 45% of the requested total floor area of the project
will be devoted to the employee units.
I
RECOMMENDED POINT ALLOCATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project Sunny Park Date 1/27/81
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points)
0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services
1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level
3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies
1. Water Service 3
Provided that developer connects King Street and Neal Street lines,
service reliability and peak flows would be adequate and improved
for overall area.
2. Sewer Service 3
Existing capacity is available without any system upgrade.
3. Storm Drainage 3
Adequate on-site gravel sumps - no extensions necessary.
4. Fire Protection 2
Current response time is good - under four minutes. Nearest hydrant
is less than 50 feet away.
5. Parking Design 1
Proposal involves curb cuts of excessive width - See Section 19-101
of Code. Off-street parking does indicate availability of fourteen
spaces.
6. Roads 1
Roads in poor condition and in need of maintenance. Smuggler Mountain
Plan indicates potential for overloading of linkages and nodes in
this area.
7. Energy 2
Insulation, double window glazing, insulating drapes, small windows
in employee units, free market units to have heat generating outside
air fireplaces, passive solar. Utilities are available.
• Subtotal 15
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
0 - Project requires the provisions of new servide at increased public
expense
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area
1. Public Transportation 2
On Silverkinq Bus route - stops at the corner of Park Circle and
Park Avenue.
2. Police Protection 1
Police patrols already service this area - no additional service
required.
3. Bicycle Paths 1
Property is relatively close to trails from Heron Park to the
Rio Grande Property as well as trails heading easterly on Highway 82.
Proposed trail looping Sunny Park and Trailer Court also near.
4. Childcare Facilities
Not addressed by applicant - additional services not required.
5. Recycling Facilities 1
Not addressed by applicant - additional services not required.
6. Handicapped Design Features 0
Not addressed by applicant - Colorado revised statutes Title 9
Article 5 requires that if 14 units are to be built, one must
include handicapped design features.
7. Commercial Support Proximity 1
In relative close proximity to both Downtown and North Mill
Station commercial areas.
Subtotal 7
C. Employee Housing (maximum of 40 points)
1. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) 18
Project provides 50% of total bedrooms but only 45% of total floor
area as low income employee housing.
2. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent)
3. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent)
•
Subtotal 18
D. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum of 10 points) 0
E. Bonus Points 0
TOTAL 40
Name Planning Office
NOTE: Does not meet minimum code requirement of 60% of points available in
categories A, B and C.
•
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: Edwin W. Baker
2. Project Name: Snare/Baker Duplex
3. Location: 111 West Hyman (Between First and Garmisch Streets)
4. Parcel Size: 3,750 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF
6. Existing Structures: Vacant lot; adjacent building at 113 West Hyman
will be the other z of the Duplex.
7. Development Program: A single family house has been built at 113 West
Hyman and an employee unit has been approved there as well . Applicant
proposes building a second free market unit and employee unit at 111 West
Hyman to match the adjacent development.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special Review for employee unit and
employee parking, subdivision exception, rezoning for residential
bonus overlay.
9. Miscellaneous: While 50% of the units will be restricted as moderate
income employee housing, only 28.5% of the requested total floor area
of the project will be devoted to the employee unit, and only 25% of the
proposed bedrooms will be devoted to employee use.
•
RECOMMENDED POINT ALLOCATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project Snare/Baker Duplex Date 1/27/81
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points)
0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services
1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level
3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies
1. Water Service 2
Capacity of existing 6" water main to serve project is adequate
for proposed development.
2. Sewer Service 3
Can be adequately served with existing trunk line and with sufficient
plant capacity.
3. Storm Drainage 2
Surface water to be drained to street where existing capacity is
available.
4. Fire Protection 2
Adequate fire protection exists with a fire hydrant located
within 100 feet of the property and the City fire station within
6 blocks of the site.
5. Parking Design 2
Four parking spaces indicated - 1 per bedroom. Sidewalk will also
be provided.
6. Roads 3
Roads in area are adequate in service quality to accommodate
new development.
7. Energy
2
Energy conservation measures addressed peripherally in building
plans. Utilities available.
Subtotal 16
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
0 - Project requires the provisions of new service at increased public
expense
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area
1. Public Transportation 2
Several routes - Highlands, Silverking and Snowbunny run along
or nearby to Hyman Street.
2. Police Protection 1
Police patrols already service this area - no additional service
required.
3. Bicycle Paths 1
Nearest available trails include the Airport Business Center Trail
and Rio Grande Trail.
4. Childcare Facilities
Not addressed by applicant - no additional facilities necessary.
5. Recycling Facilities 1
Not addressed by applicant - no additional facilities necessary.
6. Handicapped Design Features 1
Not addressed by applicant and not required by statute.
7. Commercial Support Proximity 2
The Downtown commercial area is three blocks to the east of the
project.
Subtotal 9
C. Employee Housing (maximum of 40 points)
1. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent)
2. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) 5
Proiect provides 25% of total bedrooms and approximately 29%
of total floor area as moderate income employee housing _
3. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent)
Subtotal
D. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum of 10 points) 0
E. Bonus Points 0
TOTAL 30
Name Planning Office
Note: Does not meet minimum code requirement of 60% of points available in
categories, A, B, and C. Even if project were to score maximum points under
A and B (35 points) the low score for employee housing precludes the
acceptability of this application.
•
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: C.M. Clark/Alexander Kaspar
2. Project Name: Ute City Place
3. Location: Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of Aspen (Cooper Avenue
between West End and Cleveland)
4. Parcel Size: 15,000 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF
6. Existing Structures: Two single family units to be . removed_923 East
Cooper has been identified in the Aspen Historic Iriv.ntory as a "notable"
structure.
7. Development Program: Twenty-two units are proposed, eight of which
would be free market units, and fourteen of which would be low or
moderate income units.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for employee units and
employee parking, full subdivision review, rezoning for residential
bonus overlay.
9. Miscellaneous: Based on twelve of the employee units being restricted
to low income guidelines and two of the units being restricted to
moderate income guidelines , 59% of the bedrooms and 53% of the floor area
of the project will be devoted to employee units.
1
RECOMMENDED POINT ALLOCATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project Ute City Place Date 1/27/81
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points)
0, - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services
1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level
3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies
1. Water Service 3
Proposed interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper
will upgrade and improve the City water system.
2. Sewer Service 3
Project can be adequately served by existing trunk line and with
sufficient plant capacity.
3. Storm Drainage 3
Adequate from on-site gravel sumps = no extensions necessary.
4. Fire Protection 3
By improving water service through interconnect noted above, fire
protection to area will also be improved. Building will have sprinkler
system as well .
5. Parking Design 2
Adequate off-street parking - 26 spaces (1 per bedroom) will
be provided as will a sidewalk.
6. Roads 2
Road capacity is adequate. City Engineer approves curb cuts on
Highway 82 with certain conditions.
7. Energy
2
Wall and ceiling insulation, insulating drapes, smaller windows,
fireplaces on free market units, utilities are available.
Subtotal 18
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
0 - Project requires the provisions of new service at increased public
expense
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area
1. Public Transportation 2
Cooper Street is along both the Mountain Valley and Silverkinq Bus
routes.
2. Police Protection 1
Police Service is currently available in the area and should be
adequate for the new development.
3. Bicycle Paths • 1
Trails in the viciinity of the site include that along Route 82
toward the east, the Ute Bike Trail and the trail from Herron Park
to the Rio Grande Property.
4. Childcare Facilities 1
Not addressed by applicant - additional facilities not required.
5. Recycling Facilities 1
Not addressed by applicant - additional facilities not required.
6. Handicapped Design Features 0
Not addressed by applicant - Colorado revised statutes Title 9
Article 5 requires that if 22 units are to be built, 3 must include
handicapped design features.
7. Commercial Support Proximity 2
Project is within less than two blocks of City Market and the
Durant Mall and is in proximity to the Downtown retail area.
Subtotal 8
C. Employee Housing (maximum of 40 points)
1. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) 16.4
Project provides 43 percent of total bedrooms and 41 percent of
total floor area as low income employee housing.
2. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) 2.4
Project provides 16 percent of total bedrooms and 12 percent
of total floor areas as moderate income employee housing.
3. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent)
Subtotal 18.8 or 19
D. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum of 10 points) 0
E. Bonus Points 0
TOTAL 45
Name Planning Office
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: John Vincenti
2. Project Name: 1015 East Hyman Avenue
3. Location: Hyman Avenue between Cleveland and the Roaring Fork River
4. Parcel Size: 9,000 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF
6. Existing Structures: There are presently two - 2 bedroom units adjacent
to the vacant lot which is the subject property.
7. Development Program: The applicant proposes to add three units to the
site - two additional 2 bedroom units and one studio while also retaining
the existing units. One 2 bedroom unit is proposed as a free market
unit, while the other 2 bedroom unit and the studio are to be restricted
to low income guidelines.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for employee units and
employee parking, subdivision exception, condominiumization.
9. Miscellaneous: While 2 of the 3 units will be employee housing
units , only 55% of the total floor area and 58% of the total bedrooms
will be so restricted.
RECOMMENDED POINT ALLOCATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project 1015 East Hyman Avenue Date 1/27/81
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points)
0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services
1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level
3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies
1. Water Service 2
An existing 12" water main on Hyman Street could adequately
serve the project.
2. Sewer Service 3
An existing 6" sewer line which connects to an 8" line in the
alley can properly serve the development.
3. Storm Drainage 2
Surface absorption of runoff, as proposed, will not be adequate to
handle drainage from increased impervious surface. Should put
in dry well as suggested.
4. Fire Protection 2
Current response time is good - four minutes, as fire station is
within 6-7 blocks. No information provided on distance to nearest
fire hydrant.
5. Parking Design 2
5 parking spaces are indicated, providing 1 per bedroom. No
sidewalk is shown on Hyman Avenue. Curb cut on Hyman Avenue may
be excessive in width.
6. Roads 2
Roads in area are adequate in size and well maintained to handle
traffic. Note that Hyman Avenue is a dead end at the Roaring
Fork River at end of block.
7. Energy
3
Insulated walls, foundation and roof insulation, insulating
glass mostly solar oriented, curtains, fireplace and solar water
heater in free market unit, possibly, also in employee units.
Subtotal 16
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
0 - Project requires the provisions of new service at increased public
expense
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area
1. Public Transportation 2
Bus stops for the Mountain Valley and Silverkinq Routes are within
175' (one block) from the site.
2. Police Protection 1
Police service is currently available in the area and should be
adequate for the new development.
3. Bicycle Paths 1
Trails in the vicinity of the site include that along Route 82
to the east, the Ute Bike Trail and the trail from Heron Park to the
Rio Grande property.
4. Childcare Facilities 1
While a backyard play area is indicated on the site, no unusual
— attention to childcare has been provided.
5. Recycling Facilities 1
Not provided by applicant.
6. Handicapped Design Features 1
Applicant indicates that the lower floor of the free market unit
could be available for the handicapped and that bathtubs for use
by the handicapped will be installed.
7. Commercial Support Proximity 2
The site is within three blocks of City Market and the Durant Mall
and is in close proximity to Downtown.
Subtotal 9
C. Employee Housing (maximum of 40 points)
1. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) 22
Project provides 58 percent of total bedrooms and 55 percent of total
floor area as moderate income employee housing.
2. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent)
3. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent)
Subtotal 22
D. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum of 10 points) 0
E. Bonus Points
TOTAL 47
Name Planning Office
}
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: HBC Development
2. Project Name: Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main
3. Location: 700 S. Aspen/Lots C. D. E. F. G. H and I, Blnrk 119_,
City of Aspen
4. Parcel Size: 45,000 square feet/21 ,000 square feet
5. Current Zoning: L-2 / 0 - multifamily residenrac permitted
6. Existing Structures: Mine Dumps Apartments, Swiss Chalets, both to
be removed. Swiss Chalets are in Main Street Historic District Overlay.
7. Development Program: 36 one bedroom free market units and 12 one bedroom
low income employee units on the former site; 24 one bedroom low income
employee units on the latter site.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for employee unjtc and
employee parking, full subdivision review, rezoning for residential
bonus overlay, condominiumization, historic preservation commission
approval. _
9. Miscellaneous: Not only are 50% of the units proposed for deed
restriction as low income employee units, but also 50% of the total
bedrooms and 50% of the total floor area is proposed for employee
housing.
1
RECOMMENDED POINT ALLOCATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main Date 1/27/81
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points)
0,- Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services
1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level
3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies
1. Water Service 3
Developer will provide interconnect between Monarch and S. Aspen
Streets to upgrade entire area. Service at other site is adequate
in quality for proposed project.
2. Sewer Service 3
Existing lines serve both sites. Adequate capacity available at
treatment plant.
3. Storm Drainage 2
On-site dry wells and retention facilities. with overflow outlets
to street - adequate at both sites.
4. Fire Protection 3
Response time at both sites approximately 41/2 min. Developer proposes
to provide a new fire hydrant at each site and a sprinkler system.
5. Parking Design 2
72 parking spaces are provided at 1 per bedroom. Verbal indication
of sidewalk provision. Screening and minimization of impervious
surface proposed.
6. Roads 2
Roads in vicinity of Gilbert and S. Aspen site in need of maintenance
and include several dead ends. Main Street adequate to service
project.
7. Energy 3
Insulation, common walls, solar collectors for hot water heating,
wood burning stoves, solar orientation.
Subtotal 18
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
0 - Project requires the provisions of new service at increased public
expense
1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area
2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area
1. Public Transportation 1 .5
Gilbert and S. Aspen project is barely within 520 feet of route. Third
and Main project is on Bus route.
2. Police Protection 2
Police Service is currently available and should be adequate in
vicinity of both sites. Private security patrol services are to
be retained at both sites.
3. Bicycle Paths
Both sites are within general vicinity of bicycle trails including
Ute Avenue Trail , Airport Business Center Trail and Iselin Park
Trail to High School.
4. Childcare Facilities 2
Developer proposes child care facilities at both sites to handle
services for both projects and surrounding area.
5. Recycling Facilities 2
Containers for the separation of glass, tin, aluminum and newspapers
will be available at both sites and will be accessible for pick up.
6. Handicapped Design Features 2
Elevator proposed at Gilbert and S. Aspen site. Path slope to meet
U.B.C. requirements allowing unobstructed movement to ground floor
units from parking spaces at both sites.
7. Commercial Support Proximity 1.5
Both sites are less than 6 blocks from the Downtown retail area, but
neither is immediately adjacent to commercial services.
Subtotal 12
C. Employee Housing (maximum of 40 points)
1. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) 20
Project provides 50 percent of total bedrooms and 50 percent of
total floor area as low income employee housing.
•
2. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent)
3. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent)
•
Subtotal 20
D. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum of 10 points) 10
Applicant proposes 100% financing of 5 units by the developer,
each 1 bedroom unit qualifying for two additional points to a
maximum of ten points.
E. Bonus Points
TOTAL 60
Name Planning Office