Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Whale of A Wash 415 E Main Completion.1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Whale of a Wash GMP File FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Approval Process Completion DATE: July 1, 1983 The Whale of a Wash successfully competed in both the Commercial Growth Manage- ment Competition of 1983 and the Residential Growth Management Competition of 1983. The square footage allotment for commercial space was 2,700 square feet . One residential unit of 1,800 square feet was awarded in the residential alloca- tion. In the event that a combination of commercial and residential space is built, there will be 900 square feet of commercial space and 1 ,800 square feet of residential space. Two two-bedroom Hunter Creek units are being deed-restricted to meet the employee housing requirements of the project. If all commercial space is built, both units will be deed-restricted in the moderate income category of the employee housing guidelines , and if a combination of residential and commercial space is built, one unit will remain in the moderate income category and the second unit will be restricted to the low income category. An FAR bonus has been obtained from the P & Z on June 7, 1983, which allows for the buildout as outlined above. Total FAR on the 3,000 square foot lot allowed is 1.7:1 or 5,100 square feet. With an allocation for 2,700 square feet and the 2,400 existing, the total will be 5 ,100 square feet if the total project is built. Final HPC approval was obtained on May 17, 1983, with the HPC giving very favorable comments . The committee felt that the addition would complete the streetscape on this block of Main Street in a very desireable way. Approval of condominiumization (subdivision exception) was given by the City Council at their regular meeting of June 27, 1983. Unit #1 will be the existing first level and Unit #2 will be the addition . If the residential unit is built, the Code requires that it be accessory to the commercial space, and there- fore occupied and sold as such . No further reviews are required, unless changes in the plans are made. The next step, from the City' s point of view, is submission of plans to the Building Department for their review and processing. cc: George Parry • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: 1983 Commercial Growth Management Projects DATE: November 8, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /[/ t GL ° �-t`u' At the October 5, 1982 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Z nd i 9 g Commis on, three projects were evaluated in the 1983 Commercial Growth Managem t compe • ion. Each project was presented, discussed, public comment heard, and scoring was done individually by each Commission member. The three projects and the zones in which they competed were as follows: CC Zone 1 . Whale of a Wash (415 E. Main Street) 2. Rubey Park Visitor' s Center (Durant Avenue between Mill and Galena) S/C/I Zone 3. Aspen Downtown Storage (Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Center, Puppy Smith Street) Quota Available and Requested By Resolution 58, Series of 1981 , City Council eliminated the quota for commercial development from previous years which was unallocated. By Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, City Council established the following new quotas for commercial development: CC/C-1 10,000 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 square feet Office 4,000 square feet CL and other 3,000 square feet During the past 12 months, there have been two commercial projects built which were exempted from competition under Section 24-11 .2(1 ) of the Code. These projects include a 165 square foot addition by the First National Bank (CC zone) and a 433 square foot addition by the Aspen Ski Company (L-1 zone). Two historic buildings converted space from residential to commercial use during this time, as permitted by Section 24-11 .2(b) of the Code. These conversions included the Sport Stalker (2,732 square feet) and Epicure (2,943 square feet) both in the CC zone. Finally, the Pitkin Center demolished an existing use and delayed its reconstruction (4,813 square feet) in the CC zone. Commercial Core Quota: (CC/C-1 ) 10,000 square feet - New Quota -2,732 square feet - Sport Stalker -2,943 square feet - Epicure - 165 square feet - First National Bank +4,813 square feet - Pitkin Center 8,973 square feet - Quota Available NC/SCI - 7,000 square feet Office - 4,000 square feet CL and - (3,000 square feet - 41'3 square feet Aspen Ski Co. ) = 2,567 square feet Other The quota requested in this competition in the CC zone is as follows : 1 . Whale of a Wash - 2,700 square feet 2. Rubey Park Visi- - 5,810 square feet tors Center 8,510 square feet Memo: 1983 Commercial GMP Projects November 8, 1982 Page Two S/C/I Zone The Aspen Downtown Storage project originally requested 24,750 square feet, representing approximately 3 years of quota and bonuses. Subsequent to the scoring of the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission (which totalled 32.5 points) , the Commission recommended that the project receive one year' s allocation (7,000 square feet) and enough bonus square feet to allow construc- tion of one of the three proposed structures. The applicant has requested that the matter be tabled, pending a possible amendment of the project in terms of building design and site utilization. The allocation issue for the SCI zone will be addressed at your meeting on November 22. Thresholds and Eligibility To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1 (Quality of Design) , 2 (Availability of Public Facilities/Services) , and 3 (Employee Housing Need) , amounting to 22.8 points. A minimum score of 30 percent of the points available in each category, 1 , 2 and 3, is also required for a project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum points were as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points Category 2 = 3 points Category 3 = 3 points Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over the minimum thresholds, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding allotments. The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows : Whale of a Wash Average 1. Quality of Design 11 .9 2. Availability of Public Facilities 5.9 and Services 3. Employee Housing Need 10.0 4. Employee Housing Incentive 0 5. Applicant' s Previous Performance Not Applicable 6. Bonus Points 2.0 TOTAL: 29.7 (Note: The individual components may not add up to the total due to rounding. ) Rubey Park Visitor' s Center Average 1 . Quality of Design 13.8 2. Availability of Public Facilities 4.4 and Services 3. Employee Housing Need 7.7 4. Employee Housing Incentive 0 5. Applicant' s Previous Performance -0.1 6. Bonus Points 1 .4 TOTAL: 27.2 Both projects met all required thresholds and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the requested square footages of 2,700 square feet for the Whale of a Wash aid 5,810 square feet for the Rubey Park Visitor' s Center be allotted out of this year' s available quota. Memo: 1983 Commercial GMP Projects November 8, 1982 Page Three Quota Available = 8,973 square feet Quota Allotted = 8,510 square feet Quota Remaining = 463 square feet The Planning Office recommends that the quota which remains in the CC/C-1 zone, as well as that in the Office and CL zones be carried over to next year by City Council . Subsequent Approvals The projects will require additional review procedures. Employee housing units constructed as part of a Commercial GMP project are subject to the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as are employee parking requirements. It should be understood that many signi- ficant issues will be addressed in later reviews for each project. Specifically, the additional reviews required for each project are as follows: Whale of a Wash: 1 . Special Review for FAR Bonus 2. HPC Approval Rubey Park Visitor' s Center: 1 . Rezoning (to SPA with certain allowed Public and Commercial uses) 2. Adoption of an SPA Plan 3. HPC Approval 4. Exemption of Employee Housing Council Action The Planning Office has drafted a resolution for your consideration based on the recommended scores by P & Z. Please note that the resolution includes four distinct sections, including the CC/C-1 allocation, the carryover of unallocated quota and the setting of conditions for each applicant, based on the represen- tations made in the application and at the public hearing. If Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the appropriate motion is as follows: " I move to approve Resolution No. 31 , Series of 1982. " PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION • I. 1. Applicant: George Parry (owner) and Bill Poss 2. Project Name: Whale of a Wash • 3. Location: 415 East Main Street 3,000 square feet 4: Parcel Size: 5. Current Zoning: CC 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 5,100 square feet; 4,500 square feet allowed with an additional 600 square feet of commercial space allowed by Special Review. . 7. Existing Structures: The existing 1-story laundry building consists of 2,400 square feet of commercial space. 8. Development Program: The proposed expansion is to be located on top of the existing Whale of a Wash Laundry between the Epicure Plaza Building and the Oasis Service Station. The ground floor is existing commercial space of 2,400 square feet, the 2nd floor is 1 ,800 square feet of proposed office space and the 3rd floor is 900 square feet of proposed office space. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Special Review for F.A.R. bonus, HPC Approval . • • 10. Miscellaneous: Two 2-bedroom employee housing units are included in this sub- . mission and are located off-site in the Hunter Creek Properties project. The total square footage of the housing units is 1 ,680 square feet, and they are deed restricted to middle income guidelines. The inclusion of these units in the proposal will allow the !� applicant to apply for the Special Review for an FAR bonus of .2:1 additional commercial space under Section 24-3.4. • • • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: 1983 Commercial GMP Applications DATE: October 1 , 1982 Introduction Attached for your review are project profiles for three commercial GMP applications submitted on September 1 of this year and the Planning Office' s recommended points allocation for each application. The three applications under consideration are as follows: CC Zone 1 . Whale of a Wash (415 E. Main Street); 2. Rubey Park Visitor' s Center (Durant Avenue between Mill and Galena) . S/C/I Zone 3. Aspen Downtown Storage (Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Center, Puppy Smith Street). A copy of each application was provided to you at the September 28 meeting for your review. Quota Available By Resolution 58, Series of 1981 , City Council eliminated the quota for commercial development from previous years which was unallocated. By Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, City Council established the following new quotas for commercial development: CC/C-1 10,000 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 square feet Office 4,000 square feet CL and Other 3,000 square feet During the past 12 months, there have been two commercial projects built which were exempted from competition under Section 24-11 .2(1) of the Code. These projects include a 165 square foot addition by the First National Bank (CC zone) and a 433 square foot addition by the Aspen Ski Company (L-1 zone) . Two historic buildings converted space from residential to commercial use during this time, as permitted by Section 24-11 . 2(b) of the Code. These conversions included the Sport Stalker (2,732 square feet) and Epicure (2,943 square feet) both in the CC zone. Finally, the Pitkin Center demolished an existing use and delayed its reconstruction (4,813 square feet) in the CC zone. Commercial Core Quota: (CC/C-1 ) 10,000 square feet - New Quota -2,732 square feet - Sport Stalker -2,943 square feet - Epicure - 165 square feet - First National Bank +4,813 square feet - Pitkin Center 8,973 square feet - Quota Available NC/SCI - 7,000 square feet Office - 4,000 square feet CL and -(3,000 square feet - 433 square feet Aspen Ski Co. ) = 2,567 square feet Other Memo: 1983 Commercial GMP Applications Page Two October 1 , 1982 The total quota request for this year is as follows: CC Zone 1 . Whale of a Wash - 2,700 square feet 2. Rubey Park Visitor's - 5,810 square feet Center TOTAL: 8,510 square feet SCI Zone 3. Aspen Downtown Storage- 24,750 square feet Process The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on October 5 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the applicants should be given 15 minutes to present their proposal to you. 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 applicants' proposals. To ensure a reasonable comparison of the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office suggests that all applications be scored at once on a category-by-category basis. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. Please note that a project must score a minimum of 60% of the total points available under categories 1 , 2 and 3, amounting to 22.8 points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1 , 2 and 3 to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category 2 = 3 points; and Category 3 = 3 points. Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum thresh- hold, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding the allotments. All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will require addi- tional review procedures. Employee housing units constructed as part of a Commercial GMP project are subject to the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as are employee parking requirements. It should be understood that many significant issues will be addressed in later reviews for each project. Specifically, the additional reviews required for each project are as follows: Whale of a Wash: Special Review for F.A,R., bonus; HPC Approval Rubey Park Visitors Center: Rezoning (to SPA with certain allowed Public and Commercial uses); Adoption of an OA Plan; HPC Approval ; Exemption of Employee Housing Aspen Downtown Storage: SPA Plan Amendment; Stream Margin Review; Employee Housing Exemption All of these procedures will be accomplished subsequent to an applicant's receipt of a development allotment. Planning Office Ratings The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications as a recommendation for you to consider. The entire staff, with the participation of a member of the Engineering Department, assessed the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored each proposal . The following table is a summary of the Planning Office Memo: 1983 Commercial GMP Applications Page Three October 1 , 1982 analysis and ratings of the three projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Availability Employee Employee Applicant's BonusTota Quality of of Public Housing Housing Previous Pts. Pts Applications Design Facilities/Services Need IncentivePerformance 1 . Whale of a 13 6 10 0 - - 29 Wash 2. Rubey Park 16 5 8 0 - - 29 Visitor' s Center 3. Aspen Down- 10 6 10 10 - - 36 town Storage All three projects exceed all minimum thresholds required. The two applications in the CC zone are requesting a total of 8,510 square feet of commercial space. Available quota in the CC zone totals 8,973 square feet. The application in the SCI zone is requesting a total of 24,750 square feet of commercial space. Quota available this year in the SCI zone is 7,000 square feet. Planning Office Recommendation Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur with our recommended point assignments and effectively approve all three projects. Each project in the CC zone would receive their requested square footage allotment (2,700 square feet for the Whale of a Wash and 5,810 square feet for the Rubey Park Visitor' s Center). Since the request for the Aspen Downtown Storage project exceeds the quota available this year, the Planning Office recommends the allocation of two years quota (14,000 square feet) and further recommend that you recommend a two year bonus (20% of each year's allotment) for an additional 2,800 square feet. The allotment would then total 16,800 square feet for the storage spaces and drive-through areas. The office space of 400 square feet located in the Koch Lumber Company building can be exempted from competition because of its designation as an individual historic structure.. The reasons the Planning Office supports this recommendation are that the project is relatively low impact, provides substantial employee housing, and the space for a project of this nature is not available elsewhere in proximity to the downtown area. Less quota would likely mean the project would not be economically feasible. This amount will allow two of the three buildings to be built and 3,168 square feet of this amount is. devoted to circulation only. The rationale for limiting the quota allotment (which will mean another competition for the third storage building) is that since we have recently adopted more stringent commercial quotas, it would be inconsistent to award 24,750 square feet to one project, thus using over 3 years of allotment., This would disenfranchise other NC/SCI projects for that period of time and we view that as an unfair solution. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 1 , 1982 PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry) APPLICANT: 415 East Main Partnership George Parry (Owner) Bill Poss ARCHITECT: William John Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Tel . 925-4755 PROJECT INTRODUCTION PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry) LOCATION: Main Street Between Mill and Galena LOT SIZE: 3000 Square Feet ZONING: Commercial Core District PROJECT SIZE: 2700 S .F. of Expansion Space PROJECT USE: Professional office • INDEX PAGE NO . PROJECT DESCRIPTION (aa) WATER SYSTEM 1 (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM 1 (cc) STORM DRAINAGE 2 (dd) DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (ee) AUTOMOBILE/TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN 2 (ff ) PROPOSED USES 2 (gg) ADJACENT USES 3 (hh) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 3 QUALITY OF DESIGN (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 3 (bb) SITE DESIGN 4 (cc) ENERGY 4 INSULATION GLASS PASSIVE SOLAR ACTIVE SOLAR (dd) AMENITIES 5 (ee) VISUAL IMPACT 5 (ff ) TRASH UTILITY 5 DRAWING SCHEDULE PROJECT LOCATION W/ADJACENT ZONING 6 BUS 'ROUTES/PARI{ING LOTS/PEDESTRIAN MALLS 7 SITE PLAN WITH UTILITIES 8 GROUND LEVEL PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 10 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 11 BUILDING SECTION 12 ELEVATION STUDY 13 ELEVATION STUDY 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed expansion of 415 East Main Street is submitted under section 24-11 . 5 , of The Aspen Zoning Code for commercial and office development . The proposed expansion is to be loca- ted on top of the existing Whale of a Wash Laundry between the Epicure Plaza Building and The Oasis Service Station. The existing building sits on one lot of 3000 square feet within the commercial core district . The existing zoning permits 4500 S .F. of development with an additional 600 S .F. of additional com- mercial space allowed under F.A.R. Bonus by special review. Two , 2 bedroom Employee Housing units are included in this sub- mission and are located off site in the Hunter Creek Properties Project . The following is a summary of the proposed uses and areas. Ground Floor • Commercial (Existing) 2400 S .F. Second Floor Office Space (Proposed) 1800 S .F. Third Floor Office Space (Proposed) 900 S .F . TOTAL 5100 S .F. Following is a more detailed description which parallels the outline of the Aspen Zoning Code Section 24-11 .5 , commercial and office development application procedures . Numbers refer to specific sections of that code . (aa) WATER SYSTEM The existing building is served by a 3" line connected to the existing 6" water main located under Main Street . There is one restroom in the existing laundry with 2 fix- tures and 3 proposed toilets with 2 fixtures each for a total of 6 new fixtures . The city water department has indicated that the impact of the proposed expansion on existing facilities will be minimal and the supply can be handled by the existing 6" main . REFERENCE: SITE PLAN (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM The proposed expansion will be served by an 8" sanitary sewer in the alley . The impact of the expansion is minimal on the capacity of the treatment plant and it has been in- dicated by the Aspen Sanitation District , both the line and the treatment plant can accommodate the anticipated flow. REFERENCE: SITE PLAN Page 1 (cc) STORM DRAINAGE The city Engineering Department has recommended on site retention of run off water. This water will be retained in a new drywell to be located under the parking area at the rear of the project . The total roof area will remain the same , and this solution will upgrade the present system which now drains into the sanitary sewer. (dd) DEVELOPMENT AREA Lot Size 3000 S .F. Existing Building 2400 S .F. Proposed Expansion 2700 S .F. TOTAL 5100 S .F. (F.A.R. 1 .7) Existing Employee Housing (Off Site) 1680 S .F. Parking 600 S .F. Lot Coverage 2400 S .F. REFERENCE : SITE PLAN (ee) TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN The current Aspen Code does not require off-street park- ing in the commercial core . The project has an excel- lent location with regard to the Rio Grande free parking lot , which is a half block away . There are currently three off street parking spaces with access from the alley . These 3 spaces will remain . City and county buses serve this location well from bus stops located on the corners of Mill and Main Streets . The project' s location within the commercial core pro- vides auto disincentive with regard to office support function and inter-action . It is within a half block walk to the courthouse and the city hall , and two blocks off the the mall and three of the cities banking insti- tutions. REFERENCE: BUS ROUTES (ff ) PROPOSED USES The intended use is for the architectural offices of William John Poss and Associates , which are presently located in the Hunter Square Building at 605 East Main Street . The space can also be used by retail establish- ments without substantial building changes . Page 2 (gg) ADJACENT USES The vicinity of the project is all zoned CC and is fully developed. The proposed initial use is compa- tible with existing zoning and adjacent uses , and will be supportive of professional services and interaction with the adjacent banking, city and counties office complexes . (hh) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring of 1983 and will take approximately 4-6 months . This expansion is relatively small (2700 S .F . ) and construction can be oriented towards the alley with very limited access from Main St . It is also antici- pated that the existing laundry use will continue with hopefully minor interuptions in service. (ii) EMPLOYEE HOUSING It is intended that the proposed office expansion will be used by an existing Aspen architectural office . Present employees have housing arrangements or own housing in the area. Two 2 bedroom units or 1680 S .F. are included in this submission . These units are loca- ted at the Hunter Creek Properties project and are deed restricted under middle income guidelines . These units are included to offset any new employees which the in- tended user might generate and allow for .2 : 1 F.A.R. Bonus under section 24-3 .4 (area and bulk requirements) . QUALITY OF DESIGN (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The basic intention of the architectural design of this expansion is to relate to the adjacent buildings in this particular portion of Main Street . Without imitating historic features or going to the op- posite extreme of modern interpretation , the project attempts to relate to the Epicure Building and Epicure Plaza through height and massing. While the Epicure Plaza Building is set back as to not compete with the Epicure Building , the proposed expansion is taken to the existing building lines . This is intended to define the architectural boundary along this portion of Main Street . The third floor is restricted to the rear of the of the lot to keep in line with the Epicure Plaza 's third floor and allow the two story line to continue from Epi- cure building to Epicure Plaza and include this project . Page 3 An open air court is designed into the center of the project to eliminate long interior spaces and offer the office spaces in the rear an alternative to the alley exposure . Brick has also been used to relate this building to adjacent buildings and not introduce a new material which might compete with the warm colors and brick used almost exclusively in this portion of Main Street . REFERENCE: BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY (bb) SITE DESIGN The site design of this expansion is limited to up- grading the side walk and curb space along Main Street . It is limited because of the existing building' s loca- tion on the lot . Paving patterns along the curb and the additional trees will help to improve the existing building' s appearance and enhance the adjacent open space within the Epicure Plaza' s courtyard. (cc) ENERGY As in most buildings these days , energy conservation is a primary consideration in building design . Requirements of state and local energy conservation codes will be met . Since this building is located in the middle of the block and has a building built up against it total- ly on one side and half its height on the other , most energy is lost through its south and north walls . Southern exposures will be glazed to take advantage of passive solar gains and all glazing will be fitted with either an insulating curtain or insulated shutters . All windows and doors will have wood frames to reduce temperature transfer. All glazing will be double glazed as per code . An active solar collecting system is under study . This system will supply several heat transfer storage tanks to feed the domestic hot water requirements and radiant heating of the courtyard and sidewalks for snow melting. Excess amounts of heat will then be used to supply some- of the requirements needed by the laundry equipment . Of course , all these measures would be subject to eco- nomic considerations of budgets and cost effective studies . Page 4 (dd) AMENITIES Because of the lot size and the existing structure no new open space or pedestrian areas are created for use by the general public . Balconies and courtyards are used by its occupants and visitors which contribute to a pleasant experience. As previously outlined under SITE DESIGN , the sidewalk and curb space will be upgraded to compliment the ad- jacent development and enhance the main street corridor . (ee) VISUAL IMPACT The principle point with regards to the visual impact of this project , is its complimentary massing , height , and use of materials to the adjacent buildings. This proposed expansion upgrades the existing building and completes development in this block between Mill and Galena Streets. (ff) TRASH AND UTILITY AREA A trash and utility area has been provided as outlined in the code with access to the alley . Page 5 \ I\\ HALLAM RIO GRANDE PARKING \ a V II Il f ROARING � .= I I I I FORK RIVER SLEEKER a F= HISTORIC DISTRICT (C.4 MAIN 1ST.FISTORIC D1T. I " I I I (. I H I 411 MAIN LOCT F—_ 1_ I H 1 I I I H 1a , R IrI C . ;—E-73 HYMAN .ec. e C � --- u� a I I ( I I I C COOPER - L2 — y 4 -.. '. : _= I CL I NCI C -C L (31 1I III II lC CURANT - ib I II• II " I I IC ‘: . , H C I r- rtz f I I DJ f-c „oN4 b POST OFFICE I f I L I i� - -------------------------------------�wATE -- -1r I r , eft Th i ! r %-1 1. . ,... sq - .,,, i . , ,, 1 ! „ , dA 6- I .. . ,__ , . it m , : .., , , , , P L'°`�', ice_ IGu. E � � . k Ms ) 0 . .NMI 040••N••••N••••N•N••N•N••N•H••N N•.•1111nmssn A-LE" '�K�E-1E SlTV'ELFG IG . 41■11. ) I I ■ 4)11 L.- rtAIN1 Thug M911N\ -1-(7451"5"1" ar-rWC. 'prca.... f' '1 r rte: a< -E v . _ i. Th I J , I ,i11.7-Ni GfiJRT - 3 i I. . uP 1111!1 € 3 F mom Eli Nr 3 1 NY i w 9 onrp Vs\15 _ rAte IC I Iu ! qH, 1 rk V 1 ty, A NJ .. , I i�_. ;. 7 H d rr Ii 11 6 , ' - :I II - ._ .... , w..+-. -.u.. .. I il' f 'I I II I I,!Il1 G_ I II i7 i; i 4. .I 1 I . o I f LII — I.. 'I JT -1 1 i 1 I � II it 7 . 4 . ' 0 I'I I�. I HI 1' f I; i GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL DECEMBER 1 , 1982 PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry ) APPLICANT: 415 East Main Partnership George Parry (Owner) Bill Poss ARCHITECT : William John Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Tel . 925-4755 PROJECT INTRODUCTION PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry) LOCATION: Main Street Between Mill and Galena LOT SIZE: 3000 Square Feet ZONING: Commercial Core District PROJECT SIZE : 2700 S .F . of Expansion Space ( 1800 S .F. Residential , 900 S .F. Professional Office) PROJECT USE : Residential Unit Accessory to Profes- sional Office INDEX PAGE NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (aa) WATER SYSTEM 1 (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM 1 (cc) STORM DRAINAGE 2 (dd) FIRE PROTECTION 2 (ee) DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (ff) TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN 2 (gg) PUBLIC SERVICES 3 (hh) RETAIL AND SERVICE OUTLETS 3 ( ii) ADJACENT USES 3 (jj ) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 3 QUALITY OF DESIGN 3 (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 3 (Neighborhood Compatability) (bb) SITE DESIGN 4 (cc) ENERGY 4 (dd) TRAILS AND ACCESS 4 (ee) GREEN SPACE 5 PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 5 (aa) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 5 (bb) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 5 EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROVISIONS 5 DRAWING SCHEDULE PROJECT LOCATION W/ADJACENT ZONING 6 BUS ROUTES/PARKING LOTS/PEDESTRIAN MALLS 7 SITE PLAN WITH UTILITIES 8 GROUND LEVEL PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 10 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 11 BUILDING SECTION 12 ELEVATION STUDY 13 ELEVATION STUDY 14 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed expansion of 415 East Main Street is submitted under section 24-11 .4 , of The Aspen Zoning Code . The expansion project has been granted approval for 2700 S .F. of commercial space under the 1982 Commercial GMP process . This application is to build 1800 S .F. of the proposed 2700 S .F . expansion project as a resi- dential unit accessory to the remaining 900 S .F. professional office space . This proposed expansion is to be built on Main Street above the existion Whale of a Wash Laundry . The project will be built on one city lot of 3000 S .F. within the commercial core district . Pre;:ent zoning permits 4500 S .F . of development with an additional 600 S .F. bonus by special review with dedicated employee housing. Two, 2 bedroom employee apartments located in The Hunter Creek Properties project are submitted with this project for the 600 S .F. F.A.R. bonus allocated under G.M.P . guidelines . The following is a summary of the projects floor area and its proposed uses . Ground Floor 2400 S .F . Existing Commercial Second Floor 900 S .F. Proposed Professional Office 900 S .F . Proposed Residential Third Floor 900 S .F . Proposed Residential TOTAL 5100 S .F . The following is a more detailed description which parallels the outline of the Aspen Zoning Code section 24-11 .4 for residential GMP allocation . (aa) WATER SYSTEM The existing building is served by a 3" line connected to the existing 6" water main located under Main Street . There is one restroom in the existing laundry with 2 fixtures and 3 proposed toilets with 2 fixtures each for a total of 6 new fixtures . The city water department has indicated that the impact of the proposed expansion on existing facilities will be minimal and the supply can be handled by the existing 6" main . (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM The proposed expansion will be served by an 8" sanitary sewer in the alley . The impact of the expansion is minimal on the capacity of the treatment plant and it has been indicated by the Aspen Sanitation District , both the line and the treat- ment plant can accommodate the anticipated flow. Page 1 Lee) STORM DRAINAGE The city Engineering Department has recommended on site retention of run off water . This water will be retained in a new drywell to be located under the parking area at the rear of the project . The total roof area will remain the same , and this solution will upgrade the present sys- tem which now drains into the sanitary sewer . (dd) FIRE PROTECTION This proposed expansion will rely on the City of Aspen for fire protection . The project is located immediately behind the existing Aspen Fire Department and will have a 3 minute response time . REFERENCE : SITE PLAN (ee) DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 Proposed free market residential unit 1800 S .F . 2 Existing deed restricted employee rental units (1800)3 .F . TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1800 S .F. Both the existing unit and the proposed free market unit are within walking distance to the elementary school (6 to 8 blocks) and have excellent access to the public and school transit systems . REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (ff ) TRAFFIC/PEDESTRIAN/TRANSIT The current Aspen Code does not require off-street parking in the commercial core . The project has an excellent loca- tion with regard to the Rio Grande free parking lot , which is a half block away . There are currently three off street spaces with access from the alley . These 3 spaces will re- main. City and county buses serve this location well from bus stops located on the corners of Mill and Main Streets . The project ' s location within the commercial core provides auto disincentive with regard to office support function and inter-action . It is within a half block walk to the courthouse and the city hall , and two blocks off the mall and three of the cities banking institutions . REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES Page 2 .(gg) PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project will have little impact on existing services , is within easy walking distance of downtown parks , recreation facilities and shops . REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (hh) RETAIL AND SERVICE OUTLETS Please reference paragraphs ( ff ) and (gg) above . REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (ii) ADJACENT USES The vicinity of the project is all zoned CC and is fully developed. The proposed initial use is compatible with existing zoning and adjacent uses , and will be supportive of professional services and interaction with the adjacent banking , city and county ' s office complexes . (jj ) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring of 1983 and will take approximately 4-6 months . This expansion is relatively small ( 2700 S .F . ) and con- struction can be oriented towards the alley with very limited access from Main Street . It is also anticipated that the existing laundry use will continue with hopefully minor interuptions in service . QUALITY OF DESIGN (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (Neighborhood Compatability) The basic intention of the architectural design of this expansion is to relate to the adjacent buildings in this particular portion of Main Street . Without imitating historic features or going to the oppo- site extreme of modern interpretation , the project attempts to relate to the Epicure Building and Epicure Plaza through height and massing. While the Epicure Plaza Building is set back as to not compete with the Epicure Building , the proposed expansion is taken to the existing building lines . This is intended to define the architectural boundary along this portion of Main Street . The third floor is restricted to the rear of the lot to keep in line with the Epicure Plaza' s third floor and allow the two story line to continue from Epicure building to Epicure Plaza and include this project . Page 3 • An open air court is designed into the center of the pro- ject to eliminate long interior spaces and offer the office spaces in the rear an alternative to the alley exposure. Brick has also been used to relate this building to adja- cent buildings and not introduce a new material which might compete with the warm colors and brick used almost exclusively in this portion of Main Street . REFERENCE : BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY (bb) SITE DESIGN The site design of this expansion is limited to upgrading the sidewalk and curb space along Main Street . It is limited because of the existing building ' s location on the lot . Paving patterns along the curb and the additional trees will help to improve the existing building ' s appear- ance and enhance the adjacent open space within the Epicure Plaza ' s courtyard. (cc) ENERGY As in most buildings these days , energy conservation is a primary consideration in building design . Requirements of state and local energy conservation codes will be met . Since this building is located in the middle of the block and has a building built up against it totally on one side and half its height on the other , most energy is lost through its south and north walls . Southern exposures will be glazed to take advantage of passive solar gains and all glazing will be fitted with either an insulating curtain or insulated shutters. All windows and doors will have wood frames to reduce temperature transfer . All glazing will be double glazed as per code . An active solar collecting system is under study . This system will supply several heat transfer storage tanks to feed the domestic hot water requirements and radiant heating of the courtyard and sidewalks for snow melting. (dd) TRAILS AND ACCESS Because of its location in the downtown core on Main Street , the project has excellent access to the Rio Grande Property and Trail , excellent access to the city bus system which connects with recreational facilities outside the city, and is within walking distance of the downtown parks and recre- ational facilities . Page 4 (ee) GREEN SPACE Because of this project ' s location within the downtown core and zoning code requirements and allowance , green space has not been allocated to screen the project from its neighbors . A interior courtyard is designed into the project for enjoy- ment and use by its occupants . The curb space along Main Street will be landscaped and improved for compatibility with its neighbors . PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES (aa) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION REFERENCE: BUS ROUTES (bb) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING Two-2 bedroom units located in the Hunter Creek Properties pro- ject are offered within this application for GMP allocation . These units are deed restricted to moderate income guidelines . Each unit has an area of 900 S . F . Three bedrooms of the em- ployee housing units are to be allocated towards the residential application leaving one bedroom for the commercial application . A summary of housing units for the residential allocation are as follows : 1 - Free Market Unit 2 bedrooms - 40% of Total 2 - Employee Housing Units 3 bedrooms - 60% of Total Page 5 • . . ....., \ im • _ � �-i___HALLAM I RIO GRANDE PARKING aD FORK FOARING I = I I =I RIVER 46 eLEE 'eR HISTORIC DISTRICT / MAN ST.tISTORIC 1:47 li I l ;147— -n H I MAIN 0 PROJE LOCATIOCT N p fr -� weti • €� I I I I C p. f, I 1 . H © 1 Iii2 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ HYMAN T F+ ` - I I I I 1 71 I N R; COOPER L! J, �l 1 I I I CGO�'ER L?_ > n -t -. - ( (' CL I , 1 NC IdL—I C al I . 1:. 1� 1—► 1 II ICI 1 C ...CJWitina LE I ( I I1 it 1I LJ) I C I ( plI 1 . 4 • . . . , rrrairci-- LizATI D74 POST OFFICE 1 r� - J , I1Pf£A ELEMENTARY ���j�j \ M HALLL.M I %RIO GRANDE PARKING HALL M Q 1 . 1, {>7ARING I II / i��%�J! A FORK I I I l RIVER , • 0). OLEE'.ER /I - I E--- - 1 I I I 1 11 I SILVEFMING I COURT HOUSE • ,�5�� .. . fMli( 1 • II I I MTN.VALLEY I aIaN CAIN SKYM EIMNY ff-. ..-�+-....... .�n.r�S�.nS'cT+s. .rF_.r_...._.._..•• I S l.� HOPKINS RIGS PARK I FIRE I IATIWI� I I CRY HALL/PO C I I I : i VIII I I LZ UI II I I I I It I _� , 1 1 t L� I 1 I HYbIAN E _ _ PEAKING LOTS I I I It l'� MALL j >;:1 ..,/,� I l'I 1 d l I 1 ET 1 COOFIP t ViAGNEI` _ 1� 1 ,�� PARKw. wl „ ZO C �tn.:o.00..t.c ....... Of .,.... I I 1 I I I ( I t 1 ( ( ._9U3 STOP 1 ,-- ASPEN MOUNTAIN o • • ~2 • I_.- I robe. 7 I \ 1 � Ail - -- , e c1a.CnCry ?t ir- nu,: i,hrocrrl*rte-._,. -Th 0 I; i r . , ...„„ . ,c. : . •e1 , ) 1 �, 1 .• • 14,„ , .\\ „, .., , -, , „---. , ,-• i: ,,_. , ,, ,,,, _, ,,.,. . , . .,,, = kt_ _ . „ , ,,, i, \\ .0: ,. ,I .Oeoee000 ! 0000000 0000000 96o0oeoen1.0o 00000o0ee00o000006e0,Se0ee66e411 . Fllti I li 1 ti /, i6 i, /1 1I t7' Af U - 1 I `� «-ail i ° MA c"--/---41 a 7--, hl::14 'illTiti. ( n 4 I 11 1 \ r if .; 5 n i =a- f T L Ith511 fm6;i\--n--- 1.:rw-t-tli 4 I:I--t. 7![i .. r t 1 V It r` i 1 i'[ c ik I) k? EA ty' ! % ; i- 1 V:! ti.--; i ! v t f;: 1 5.-)<4c.----Th&r, L-A ONC4,---Y j LT 4,-- 1 1 : -4 : ; rt I ii i I 111 f , ....- % 1 Tt , ; P 47,4 4 i. . 71 N/L, 1.1 4____ tipri CITAI F2-- If ki-rxternt4c77 ,-1-name-r- I 1 _ ! 0---- .-Tv-41-:41- - i ! Th. _ re"cr:NN 401::— . il- fft,(-7:--rt) •T:F.it;Istfi__ c?,,..-_,TT--,,74. uLiu-Ft,--- ..._ I 6 At-t-tti e - 6(nrOKID 1-F-A-tr..!___ MA11J 4r77ir,r-11- J j 10 i t 1Il _t,l 1 r. rr •I- ,r r {L.=-- i ti V t - ` _ , sj { I I sj - r G '`1 GG'J(2--?7 cm r • T_s . l 4 4-.....a.. /_...�.. 7Y t h ; 'Iri 'Fun'. _�= ? I ii- =r —t _:7 gg ' L ill i li'1 N0 ti%t1 i L_ PhL- I D Mi\it- 6rc1“47--c`A -- �•r.' • . is L . •%i' 1'I i • 1 • • . I (--` I w % �_� �- k< ' ) , -f yr r r �.= .a--- • 71� '., t"I .. i ;y' ! 1 1 '1 {99{ 7i i I .I-.. [ 'T- .a PI Cz ""T i \, (..."-) !. 4H I ' 741 KQ L i-UfiL Fit: _.11_ _ 4 7 - _o I i s q a rg a a V 2 D o d -4 t E f, iirt. 7 4 ) la _ --.u:.. -_ - . 0 t . .. L 1 J VI 7.—r ?ill _ � 2 I i 1 O & � C1 ,.. i ®- l 1 a 9 2. ,{ 1 i f a ,..1 o L {t C_— T l r 5 4 ,i ,dis I. L - 1 } I a1 1 Ni f 1 ' ,; I 1 - 4I- 111 ,:mil II �il .I.' i'., i_ 11 ' '_,Lii III, 2r 1 ! a -_ 3 1 I _L j I" - - k`� Aiir a 3 awn%NM 1 'I ��; d ilI�IIi l I � 2 ILI ta 0 .1 ill „,,_ ,3_. ---- a , ... q d__ ,‘_-_, 1 p 1._ „., z ” ,,,.., j ., CI w- � fl 7 ,.)... 1 $ er• _ _ H i 11 • r7- 1. ,T I�' 1 1I 11 I II 1 .- I nV� l 11 i 1 1 1 !- - I I ti , 1 ri IN 11 v_ 11 . . • PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: George Parry (owner) and Bill Poss 2. Project Name: Whale of a Wash 3. Location: 415 East Main Street 3,000 square feet 4: Parcel Size: 5. Current Zoning: CC 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 5,100 square feet; 4,500 square feet allowed with an additional 600 square feet of commercial space allowed by Special Review. 7. Existing Structures: The existing 1-story laundry building consists of 2,400 square feet of commercial space. 8. Development Program: The proposed expansion is to be located on top of the existing Whale of a Wash Laundry between the Epicure Plaza Building and the Oasis Service Station. The ground floor is existing commercial space of 2,400 square feet, the 2nd floor is 1 ,800 square feet of proposed office space and the 3rd floor is 900 square feet of proposed office space. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Special Review for F.A.R. bonus, HPC Approval . Two 2-bedroom employee housing units are included in this sub- 10. Miscellaneous mission and are located off-site in the Hunter Creek Properties project. The total square footage of the housing units is 1 ,680 square feet, and they are deed restricted to middle income guidelines. The inclusion of these units in the proposal will allow the applicant to apply for the Special Review for an FAR bonus of .2:1 additional commercial space under Section 24-3.4. • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: Whale of a Wash DATE; October 1 , 1982 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . e The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 3 COMMENT: This infill building will enhance this section of the Main Street streetscape. The recent expansion of the Epicure will be met in height and massing on the front and alley facades, and brick will be used to relate to its neighbors. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The constraints of the lot are being answered by the design of a courtyard at the second story level and upgrading the sidewalk on Main Street with a paving pattern at the curb and planting of additional trees. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: No commitments beyond standard code requirements are made. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. 2 Rating: COMMENT: Again, the constraints of the lot limit the ability to provide these amenities. The courtyard can not reasonably be considered as "usable open space." -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 2 Rating: COMMENT: The scale and location of the building will be a complimentary addition to the block, however there is no possibility of maximizing views of scenic areas. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The area in back is usable for this function. Subtotal : 13 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: 1 COMMENT; The existing facility is a high-use commercial use and is serviced by a 3" line from Main Street. The expansion is not expected to increase the impact on the water system. Fire protection requires the connection of the domestic line to the fire line. The project could not be much closer to the fire station. bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The Aspen Sanitation District can service the project. cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns • -3_ or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; 1 COMMENT: No changes are proposed or needed. The Mountain Valley bus passes by on Main Street and the Silverking bus crosses at the Main and Mill intersection. dd. STORM capacity of the facilities development to q without system extension. Rating: 2 • COMMENT: The project proposes an on-site drywell under the parking area which will improve the present drainage into the sanitary sewer. ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The project is located approximately one block from the Rio Grande parking lot, and has a limited number (approximately 3) of spaces in the rear. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). 10 Rating. COMMENT: The Planning Office has calculated average employee generation in the CC zone at 3. 5/1000 square feet. This expansion would generate 9.45 employees. The two 2-bedroom apartments could house 5.4, so over 50% are being housed, which allows maximum points to be awarded. 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: 0 COMMENT: There is not another 10% of increment being met by this proposal , therefore no additional points are awarded. • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial ' competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. n/a Rating: COMMENT: n/a 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions •of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 13 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 6 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 29 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories • 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: 29 Planning Office Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • 4 ^ Aspen/Pit 'ri'Planning Office k 130 s o ..kgale`na street aspen , a :to 81611 June 1, 1984 Mr. George Parry Whale of a Wash 415 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear George: This is to advise you that the two year time period within which you must submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a permit for the addition to the Whale of a Wash comes due on September 1, 1984. For you to meet this deadline, you must first complete your additional Planning Office review procedures, identified as follows: 1. Special Review for FAR Bonus; 2. Subdivision exception (condominiumization) ; and 3. HPC Final Approval. Although the deadline for your free market housing units will not come due this year, should you not proceed with the commercial development you would not be able to complete your residential project either since the justification for these units was their accessory status to the commercial space. If you do not intend to proceed with this project, I would appreciate it if you would notify us so that we can make this information known to potential applicants this year. If you do wish to move forward, I suggest that you contact Colette Penne to start your review process as soon as possible. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in this process. Si\\�inNnc'erely, Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR/nec J cc: Colette Penne, Bill Drueding Paul Taddune f C i CO q v 1 (l {2e 0 N A N (T1 O) rr a W c_) g7 au a W N -' _ 'C J C -I 'i C 6 w O J.• r t O v N v n f N -1 --I < y to n J. -3. � n r w c m w tow y N co ro ( I.< 7 CD 0 - m J Q v a s m w s CO N C C 7 n (D 0 (D O C N ' 7 . . (D N O O r in w 9 . V G. a N ■• (+ (D p i R N ... w N v 0 v (0 a J .S ,i v = 7 7 v -n C w 7 's . N CU y o w -i rD Y j -3 h fD 0 N; �' a. w m (c In D a v T (t• C 7 w 0 g GI c n N u DO.-i w N G el/ • N MI C N 7 CD CO til 2. W N il 0 0 w r . 0 Ii J co W to 1 r.) lo Icr) I • -11 -1 HWW N WI ktim a 20 r N 0 -4 I 1-1(...) IN IN IN IN IN W I BCD v O 70 1 IO J IN 1-, I-a N N p -{ r O • O 3 N --' O IN I� H N IN) IND 1 Iv 21 Ill i CD o I� i� INIJI� I -a r D Z N C CO . 3 Cl In I IO IC) IJ IN IJ IJ I J I---j(0 11.3 IN IN) I ND IND N Z CD • • I � IO_ I � 1_, iNDrIJI � 1 (a.) NWWcc NiCD n I1_, I I n 10., IN -., IJI � O NI-. INNINJI 1o. ft N -' . IJ N NINININ IN IV . � N J <� I � . . 1 -n m 0 v J Qa OVD CO C_. w CO > m NJ n - 1 0 -0 a 0 --1 0 D —' I— N a. 0 rf f3r1 v n = n 0 3 co to - .. ° h 3 IX D x U, N �' C ro to v N 0 O N HI O n --4 C tO N al ...-.1 L 0 x C 3 N N o N 73 CD Z rn v 3 D Cl) co - 0 D o 0 m m aI .,i a 3 —1 t7 CD r r cn = m m v 0' CI lt i1 ' k ° 1 ° I° z N I I � I � I ° I° a� 1 k cr) I 0 HO I I ° I° 1° \B. H I° hR I IJ H \c..) 1° \cc; . II I'V h IC) \° • I1V HI>° I° ,,, • • EE, P ..1' ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT ��1f.'�- - - """ ASPEN / PiT; $ GO, PLANNING OH Ji;� MEMORANDUM TO: COLETTE PENNE, PALNNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: GMP APPLICATIONS FOR RUBEY PARK VISITOR'S CENTER, ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE AND WHALE OF A WASH DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1982 RUBEY PARK VISITOR'S CENTER We have reviewed the Rubey Park Visitor's Center application and see no problem with this facility obtaining water service, the impact upon the water system being minimal. Since the present property is now serviced by a 11/2" (or 2") service, there will be no change in demand. However, it must be understood that in the event that the facility is equipped with a fire protection system and/or a new service is installed from the water main, it must be agreed (in accordance with Water Department policy) that existing service lines to the property must be abandoned at the time such new services are installed. ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE We have reviewed the application under the GMP process and can only comment as to existing facilities, i.e. there is an 8" main in Puppy Smith Street which ends at hydrant #670. Since the application contains no specific in- formation as to the size of the domestic service planned for and/or fire protection, if such is needed, we cannot comment as to the water system. We do not necessarily agree with some of the statements made under Section 2. aa. Water Supply/Fire Protection. In accordance with established Water De- partment policy, the applicant (if approved) must file for a tap permit to connect to the main. When specific information is forthcoming, we can then determine what will be required by the applicant to connect. Under no cir- cumstances shall the applicant connect to the existing 11/2" service supplying residential properties in Lakeview Addition. WHALE OF A WASH We have reviewed this application, also known as 415 East Main Street. As stated in the paragraph (aa) Water System on Page 1, the existing facility is now serviced from a 3" line from Main Street. Since the present use is a laundromat (high use-commercial) , renovation and expansion of the facility should not increase the overall impact on the water system, particularly as the existing domestic service is not intended to be enlarged. In the event fire protection is required, the domestic line must be connected to the fire line. JM:lf cc: City Attorney Building Department City Engineering Department Sanitation District City/County Housing Departments Fire Chief City Electric Department t Cpe" ` MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney iCity Electric City Engineering Department Sanitation District City/County Housing Department& Building Department City Water Department Fire Chief FROM: Planning Office RE: GMP Applications DATE: September 2, 1982 Attached please find four (4) applications submitted to the Planning Office: 1 Planner Colette Penne is handling 3 applications--Rubey Park Visitor' s Center, I� and Aspen Downtown Storage, and Whale of a Wash. The first application, Rubey Center,scontainingtsomeecommercial s �s lease space whichl would ahouse trelated nservi s ce . The Aspen gewwareh Storage manager�ssoffice, manager'sdapartmenttand a two employee two employee housing units on Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. The expansion onto (also referred to Street) proposes development. These three applications will be reviewed at the October 5,, 1982 City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so please review the applications and return any comments regarding at eltoptheiPlanning Office, attention Colette Penne, by Monday, Planner Alice Davis is the Lodge 204 E. Durant The rant Ave ueplic hnt seeks approval for a 26 unit andnZoninghCommissiontmeet4ing, be so anysreferralfo comments O � should bebackttoP Planning Alice Davis at the Planning Office by Monday, October 4th. Please remember that the City GMP scoring procedures have been amended during the past year, so your comments should address these new regulations. If you are unfamiliar with the new Ordinance, please contact either Colette Penne or Alice Davis at 925-2020, ext. 223 and ext. 227, respectively. Thank you. , - i':.(G, A5 /'/%s— SA,-,"7/1T /o,— TJ /cr/= /cT ffRS ,F'.? /E .-Fn -2 _ PtI/elc v/ y , YJ g Cr �, b I-,I'IN LF Jr- I---/i 5/' Pf-? UJ l- r E n p i- a-It: L TS j1Sh fi 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING OFFICE FROM: RONALD L. MITCHELL RE: REVIEW OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING • COMPONENT FOR GMP APPLICATONS The following are comments on the employee housing components of the GMP applications: 1. Rubey Park Visitor ' s Center - the unit in the development and the trailer provided for employee housing should be designated low-income housing. The condition designating low income housing should indicate that it is the developers responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental' rates in accordance with the City adopted Employee Housing Guidelines. 2. Aspen Downtown Storage - the studio unit should be designated low-income. The two one bedrooms should be designated as moderate income. The condition designating the low and moderate guidelines should indicate that it is the developers responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental rates in accordance with City Adopted Employee Housing Guidelines. If the units are sold, the developer should call the city to review the qualifying and sale procedures. 3. Whale of A Wash - the two 2 bedroom employee units submitted in this application are existing middle income deed restricted units already in the employee housing pool. 4. Carriage House Lodge - the 5 employee housing units should be designated low income housing. The condition designating the units as low income housing should indicate that it is the owner' s responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental rates in accordance with City adopted Employee Housing Guidelines . art—el-fief • Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 October 20, 1981 George and Terry Parry Box 177 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear George and Terry, This letter is in response to your questions regarding the purchase of a Silverking unit as an employee unit and its eventual use for credit in the commercial GMP to expand the Whale of a Wash Building. I have spoken with Sunny and with the Housing Office to establish a Planning Office policy on this issue. As we understand the circumstances, units will be offerred to - employers only after they have been offerred directly to employees and all have not been purchased by qualified employees. It seems to us that since the employers are being considered as "the last line of defense" of the employee housing market before the units are considered for sale in the free market, we would regard your purchase as quali- fying for a credit toward meeting your employee housing need. I cannot estimate for you at this point in time what factors we will be using for employee housing need, since -I must do a commercial space survey to determine these numbers. Nevertheless, it would appear to us that the purchase of a Silverking unit would provide you a good leg up on meeting your employee housing need. Should you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR:kmb cc: Jim Hamilton Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 September 28, 1982 George Parry The Whale of a Wash 415 E. Main Street _ Aspen, CO 81611 Dear George , This letter is in reponse to your letter dated September 13 , 1982 and the subsequent request by Bill Poss to amend your GMP submission for 415 E. Main Street . My purpose in writing is to clarify certain statements you attribute to me in your letter and to propose a resolution to the problem you have identified . As you recall, Colette Penne , Sunny Vann and I met with you on August 31 prior to the submission of your commercial GMP application. At that time, you suggested that you wished to expand the Whale of a Wash with a 2 floor , 2 ,400 square foot addition. You indicated that a portion of this space would be used for an office for Bill Poss ' architectural firm and the remainder would be a dwelling unit to house Mr. Poss . You proposed that this unit would not be deed restricted as our existing guidelines would preclude it from being occupied by Mr. Poss . In response to your proposal, I stated that it had commonly - been the Planning Office' s interpretation that the only dwelling units which are permitted as accessory to a commercial use are those which are deed restricted to our employee housing guidelines . Since the unit you were proposing might not con- form to the zoning code and could therefore require rejection of your application by the Planning Office under Section 24-11 . 3 (b) (3) of the Municipal Code , I suggested an alternative course of action. I suggested that you submit an application showing the entire expansion as commercial space, recognizing that over the long term Mr . Poss intends to move out of the space and occupy his own home, with the unit reverting to commercial use . I felt that if we determined that a residential unit was allowed in the CC zone then there would be time for you to submit an amendment to your commercial GMP submission and • to compete under the residential GMP for that unit . Finally, you were told that the Planning Office was certainly not the final arbiter in any case of uncertainty concerning a Code interpretation. We suggested that you also talk with the City Attorney and/or the Building Department to obtain other opin- ions about the availability of an individual to occupy a non- deed restricted unit as accessory to a commercial use . As you are well aware , you met with Paul Taddune that same afternoon and I was called into that meeting. At that time, Paul and I were in agreement with you about the logic and benefit of housing an individual in the same building where he or she worked. Paul told you that he felt the Code permitted dwelling units accessory to commercial uses in the CC zone and that your proposal would conform to this provision. I raised the practical difficulty of trying to enforce this provision if we do not obtain a deed restriction. While I recognized that you did not intend to use the unit for short-term rental, I stated that the likelihood of other developers abusing this provision was certainly high . -Since there was a least some reason to question your proposal and to permit it to be discussed at staff level, I asked that you put some ideas on paper so that it could be reviewed . We have completed a Planning Office analysis of the proposal and offer the following solution : 1. We believe that your idea has merit . However, as suggested above , associated with it are some practical diffi- culties (enforcement) which should be addressed by P&Z and City Council . As you and Council previously requested , Alice Davis is currently reviewing the use tables with P&Z and could easily address this issue in a timely fashion. Since the pro- vision concerning dwelling units in the CC zone is included • within the same use tables , this would appear to be the most appropriate method of addressing this issue . Furthermore , since this issue is already before P&Z, it should come before Council in the next 4 to 6 weeks . 2. If P&Z recommends and Council decides that it is allowable to develop a free-market dwelling unit accessory to a commercial use, it will be necessary for you to compete for that unit within the residential GMP on January 1 . The Code does not permit you to simply use the commercial allocation for residen- tial purposes since this would take quota away from others who may wish to compete for the available square footage and since no GMP exemption exists for building a free-market unit accessory to a commercial use . 3. To provide you with maximum flexibility , we reccomend that you continue to compete for 2 ,400 square feet of commercial space at the Whale . This recommendation is based on preliminary analysis indicating that you could score about 5-7 ' points in the area of employee housing if we calculate on the basis of the entire space being used for office purposes . Since this score, in conjunction with the rest of your very fine proposal , will • I I make you eligible for an allocation, we would recommend that you take a conservative approach. If you are successful in obtaining a residential allocation then you will be able to build the dwelling unit and the commercial square footage would revert back to the quota. However , if you were un- successful in the residential competition or if Council de- cides that free-market housing is not allowed accessory to commercial uses downtown, then you would still have the full commercial allocation to enable you to build the expansion you desire for your property. George , I hope these comments are of assistance to you in your plans for the Whale of a Wash building. As always , if you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call on me . Sincerely yours , Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune Alice Davis Colette Penne PAZ 1 • LETTER OF DATE SEPTEMBER 1, 1 TO ASPEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN , COLORADO JOB N° PROJECT 415 East Main St . (Whale of a Wash ) SUBJECT GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION DATE COPIES DESCRIPTION g-1_82 21 SUBMISSION 1 PARRY TITLE INSURANCE POLICY SUBMISSION FILING FEE ($850) aptibiriSor CC GEORGE PARRY BY William john poss • architecture • aspen, colorado • telephone (303) 92 Ryes. \ qty E MAIN SRPD 81611•O � ASPEN' cOLO September 13 , 1982 °n for cation s�bmisWere ad- To All Concerned: Growth Management the Whale of aWash,sd we were units en When commercial 5Pacethe Planning Office that n making additional a' under intentio'� it states: a sed by Alan Richmond Core Are recreation allowed in Commercial t age 1441, uce comment to an al, ce are Code, P enhance to of land or retail service uses, the City and City- According customary tral core accessor status• all the use with this ce to ow purposes in and institutional nstitute n d Service to an s are limited intention the business teal use use . Our in seems and residential an accessory This Accommodations build units t are living units he genera his in doing this his s e are an next to Residential p°ss BY Bill of the code and area. housing e was be the intention w the central core and are providing central r viding tral co employee ting the need office transportation asp omm erc al space within to the o eliminates eliminating This also accessory use at night. lot °f work late ff site housing. which we are all area. to and from Bill Poss does a whi - the need for extra trips restricted employee work either managers °r it owners prov in€ Alan also suher s de es This doer but not for m t Pe ho ti of they e °f, this Y t r tric P sano : dl bec h es rovidinget omeAs we are aed bnthe gityawith the curren of busgnesses• eliminate Paul of businesses.been problem.has virtually about these fitted an d on housing- Paul Taddune as placed length with that housing is permitted at leng states clearly tt 1 talked code sta application wi feels thatu ee submitted this aP lica So lr accessory to Alan' s disagreement, me I don' t e c think tion this to what pr .er. °f infw Due clarification Thitha the apP1 is not including this information. tent of the law t means t e to start nowwhatgtheibg submission cause in transportation i if the law i cl r din a sfori it onal hour g or sho ld bTeatinghereoff ee in he central pore or from his or r yy, mirvrintEvaq cp 415 E. MAIN ST• O 81611• ASPEN. COLORAD page two September 13, 1982 To problems. I think All Concerned: eliminate p , s interpretation laws that should I think that Alan present an We are here making this law, forced us that is the as ncorr °f and misleading and of the law was incorrect facts . application without the true Sincerely, 9 alA G6orge 1rry • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City of Aspen Commercial Growth Management Competition NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before • the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 5, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen to review and score the following 1983 Commercial Growth Management applications: • Whale of a Wash Building • Aspen Downtown Storage Building Rubey Park Visitor' s Center Building For further information contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 16,` 1982 City of Aspen Account. • i I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION n1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS / PROJECT: 60(4 it E C ai � 4d DATE: /i ! ? Z 1 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. ' 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 3 COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating. COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: COMMENT: • d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Z Rating: COMMENT: • • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : 13 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns • • -3_ or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: 2 COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. / 0 COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 1 r I' 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. h� �J � gent's Point COMMENT: �'d marl /Ur G�GG«( /L' 7CLJ r- yki 4,, 7/--- 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : I 3 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: ( G (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories !� cr 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories �� 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: ` GI i Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: uII( Q u/M DATE; Of / 8'L 1 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- $ ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. 1 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 'lam COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating: COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. 1.- Rating: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: Zr COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: t/ COMMENT: Subtotal : I '' 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. le) COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: /U/A COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. 0 Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : f to (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: `,J (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: IC) (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points, tandn3Categories 27 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �'L4`0 41Q iAt • • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION W / '1 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS c PROJECT: -I' DATE: J �er 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the' compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: / COMMENT: jlalla_ -71-1411 J rov FR/area -.-� no /K SMrr cA &�6uL - j ring - /hi,S -on.4brAe b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Ratin g: HH COMMENT: 4ODD rat -Notthr . o ab « c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: COMMENT: • d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating! COMMENT: • • • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to / maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. �Ra�tinyg:�/y COMMENT: 44m �1*� 7flf1-A 4/Ar_iti .Gl7LWje 7 ete - 41- ^JS m-- 4l- 57 5.004444e f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- _ ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 'et' COMMENT: Subtotal : /0 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. i Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns • -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. /0 COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • t -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual �� hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: /Y COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. pi�� / ,, �,� Bonus Points : COMMENT: ��G/tis / '" r A- sill >tx) h r fk) 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 10 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: ( (Minimum of 3 points needed / to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /0 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: C •vV. 6441;6"'"—_' • • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS / J - PROJECT: �7 O 7',,/ DATE: / `' ^ , 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating: COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: � '-i v _ , // "` ✓ d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: • • • • • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: / -� � Subtotal : 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns • -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; COMMENT: • dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: • 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. % J • COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission. shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: J COMMENT: • • -4- 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ), (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. / Bonus Points : / / COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : / (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: c, (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: // /2 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: • TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 7 i • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION �/",, �/✓ // 1983 COMMERCIAL.GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: _1/(//�rQ1r— 464i 4 5h DATE: /22 - 5 - 82 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. • 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with �exiisting neighboring developments. Rating: p%7 COMMENT: !4/'ll e p - ' / Oaf �A4� s 4 a ' S b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating: �- COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to / maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : /6 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: O -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities./ Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed .development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. /3 COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • E -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: Li COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : AD (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: O (Minimum of 3 points needed /0 to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /C� (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: d (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories T1 4, 5 and 6: C�� TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • • • • . . I i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL.GMP APPLICATIONS • adr•PROJECT: (!b(% DATE: / • ff 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 1 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. 1 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating: COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to' maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: �! COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: • ,. -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : f 3 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) • aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. i Rating: I COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. COMMENT; 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating; COMMENT: r . -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ), (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. � Bonus Points: COMMENT: 56 �C c5& P/OfC (2/ � S cYr-/JCp 1U16 Gdot L rd4PGBc'Ez(cvecJ i/+evGff . 45 /(4 4iL:.l//YL 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : � 7 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: ('' (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: ()od (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 7/t (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories L� 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: -57) Name of Planning and Zoning Member: i24) • • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS r PROJECT: ∎10( 0- C D( �JU ) DATE; l D 82, 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. 2 Rating. COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: — COMMENT: • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: � COMMENT: Subtotal : 1 2- 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) • aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: I COMMENT; bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns _3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities 1 to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: — COMMENT: ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. l0 COMMENT; 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating; COMMENT: • • -4- 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points : COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 12 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) • Points in Category 3: /p (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 215 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 3E �yVA ( Y)C • •