Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain 700 S Aspen St.1983-84 PROJECT PROFILE 1983 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBtlISSION American Century Corporation, Community Savings Association, Alan 1 . Applicant: R Novak and Robert Callaway (John Doremus and Joe Wells) 2. Project Name: 700 S Galena/Aspen Mountain PUD 3. Location: 700 S. Galena 4. Parcel Size: 21,600 s.f. 5. Current Zoning: L-2 6. Maximum Allowable Quildout: contingent upon approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD, otherwise, 21,600 sq. ft. At a 1:1 FAR with a total of 2.1 bedrooms. 7. Existing Structures: vacant 8. Development Program: 12 unrestricted units in a 21,073 s.f. multi-family structure with 24 bedrooms. 9 two bedroom low-income restricted housing units are provided off-site. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Conceptual PUD/Subdivision; Exemption from GMP for employee units Condominiumization. 10. Miscellaneous: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 700 S. Galena _ Date: January 17, 1984 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1 Comment: Applicant indicates that if the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not built, the 12" water main and new fire hydrants for Galena Street will not he iriGtailed. _Therefore, this project will not result in improv ments for the Service area. The water system is adequate. b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1 Comment: Applicant indicates that if the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not built, there will be no sewer system improvements. The existing system is adequate to serve this project. c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 1 Comment: Applicant indicates that no additional storm sewers will be in- stalled without the Lodge project. Sewers currently in the area are adequate. I',ige Iwo Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 2 Comment: Applicant indicates improvements to service area which would occur without the Lodge development would be limited to an additional fire hydrant. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2 Comment: 24 spaces (one Per bedroom) are required by the Code. 40 underground spaces will be provided. f. Roads (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating _1 Comment: The road_system_is adequate to handle the additional traffic without al te ring traf ._ tterns• __addi street mi1eag-e_or main -PnanrP. An i nrPC� ,I d par] _lot and__a n m r _curb cuts will b eliminated thereby reducing traffic conflicts. Subtotal 8 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2 Comment: The massing, articulation of units, and materials create a desirable transition between the proposed hotel and high quality residential units to the southeast. The scale is compatible with other units in the area. Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment:. With parking underground, 40% of the site will be extensively landscaped and fenced with wrought-iron and stone creating a high quality image. Also, the applicant has committed to participating in streetscape improvements via the Lodge Improvement District. c. Energy (maximum 3 points ) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces. and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2 Comment: Solar orientation is maximized heating will be assistad h)Z in- sulation exceeding code requirements and state-of-the-art minimum-energy input technology. However, a_lrevious p_ro1gct proposed for this site found there to be insufficient solar gain. u. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems , whenever feasible. Rating 3 Comment: The project will be directly linked to a major pedestrian/hirvcle trail Which circle s__the-_7Q0.Galan _ ? 9ject e. Green Space (maximum 3 points ) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 3 Comment: code requirements for open space are exceeded by 15%. Subtotal 13 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating 3 Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 3 Subtotal 6 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) . Rating 16 Comment: 18 low income bedrooms and 24 non-restricted bedrooms. 18 42 (total) = 0.428. The floor area of the employee units is 10,710 s.f. or 50% of the 21,073 s.f. of the South Galena project. b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 16 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating o Comment: No unique financing was proposed. Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating o Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 43 (The threshold is 43.8 points) Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS 43 Name of P & Z Member: Planning office i Dore us & m Pany 608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 telephone: (303)925-6866 I T January 17, 1984 i Mr. Sunny Vann Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sunny: My letter is to clarify certain aspects of our residential GMP application for the 700 South Galena Proect. As you know. 700 South Galena is part of a larger PUD submittal currently under I review by the City called the Aspen Mountain PUD. As your office has pointed out in its review of 700 South Galena, in order to proceed as presently proposed, the project must continue to be included in the overall PITD. Separating 700 South Galena from the other projects in the PUD would require redesign of the building to bring the project into compliance with the area and bulk requirements of the underlying zone district . Since the project as proposed is therefore linked to the City's review of the overall PUD, we believe that 700 South Galena j should be scored by the P&Z on the basis of the commitments I` contained in our application as written. Specifically, we believe that the commitments to upgrade the water, sewer, and I storm drainage systems in the area as contained in our residential application will improve the quality of service in the area and therefore assure that we receive the maximum score of two points in those categories, rather than one point as recommended in your scoring. Further, we believe our clarification will strengthen our ability to obtain the maximum score as indicated in your recommendation for the categories of fire protection, trails, and open space. Mr. Sunny Vann Page 2 January 17, 1983 In the event we subsequently fail to receive approval for other projects in the PUD, which in turn affects our ability to implement these commitments, we are aware that GMP approval for 700 South Galena may be subject to reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission as provided for in Section 24-1.1.7 of the Zoning Code. If we can offer further clarification on this matter, please call me at your earliest convenience. Sincere , Joseph Wells I' i 12 -// • ,"/ I ,Z, -2v j;7 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: January 3 , 1984 RE: Aspen Mountain Residential GMP ------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to technical clarifications from Joe Wells , I am transmitting the attached recommended scoring for the Aspen Mountain Residential Growth Management submission. Based on Joe ' s comments regarding the status of various infrastructure improvements assuming the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not built, the attached scores reflect the fact that most services will not be improved to the benefit of the neighborhood by the construction of this residential project. The notes on the attached scoresheet should generally explain the rationale of the scores. Let me know if I may provide further elaboration or participate in further scoring sessions. ill/co Enclosure Residential GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1983 Project Name Address Owner Agent/Representative .{ Address c4 G, Phone Reviewed By Date (L -Z -fc3 (1) Public Facilities and Services 0 - Project requires provision of new services at Public expense. 1 - Project handled by existing level of service or improvement by applicant benefits project only . 2 - Project improves quality of service in a given area . (aa) _L— Water ( 2 pts . ) Capacity of system to service proposed development without system extension, treatment plant or other facilit upgrade at public expense. (bb). + Sewage Disposal (2 pts . ) Capacity of sewer system to handle proposed dc ' e.�v te development without s sm upgrade. (cc) �_ Storm Drainage (2 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. eL�1� V1- (f -1:1) -2- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (ee) Z Parking (2 pts. ) �-�`c. needs of the project.I Visual impact, amount of paving, convenience, and safety. Mcx�Ck1J . (ff) ( Roads (2 pts. ) Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased traffic Ji it N ou Y�"'lti.. }'�'�C&;T , ��I�cloL, L`1 1.10.�.�'tt-r-b-•�-C1L. ( 2) Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient design. 1 - Major design flaw. 2 - Acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Excellent design. (bb) _ - Site Design ( 3 pts . ) Quality and character of landscaping and oxen space, extent of utility undergrounding , arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, increased safety and privacy. + i HY.x U p wti Sp ( f 4 i (dd) Trails (3 pts. ) Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways , and links to existing parks and trail systems . -3- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (3) Proximity to Support Services (aa) Public Transportation (3 pts. ) 1 - Project more than 6 blocksfrom an existing City or County bus route. 2 - Within, 6 blocks of a City or County bus route . i 3 - Within 2 blocks of a Cit or County bus route . (bb) Community Commercial Facilities 1 - Project more than 6 blocks from the commercial facilities in town. 2 - Within, 6 blocks of commercial facilities . i 3 - Within 2 blocks of commercial facilities . i i i i i 3 pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Gail Schwartz , Housing Office ilk DEC f; 1983 asi_Jt RE• Aspen Mountain Applications"^_._ DATE: December 30 , 19 83 PLANNWQ{OFFICE �• - -:.c:..;:?",rye Applicant: Aspen Mountain Project 700 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado Nature of the Project : This portion of the Aspen Mountain Hotel pro- posal is for a 12 unit free market complex to be built at 700 S. galena. The complex will contain 24 bedrooms and a total of 21 , 073 S .F. of floor area. To offset this free market production the proposal is to develop 9 low income employee units on the Benedict Parcel. Each will contain 2 bed- rooms for a total of 18 bedrooms and 10 , 710 S .F . A 50 unit development is planned for the Benedict Parcel . 41 of the units will compensate for the lodge employment generation housing 90 employees. The remaining 9 units will contain 18 bedrooms, as required by the Residential G11P . GMP Review Per Sec. 24-11. 4 (b) aa. The deed restrictions to be placed on the develop- ment have been represented to be adequate in accor- dance to the 50 year provision of the City Code. Three elements have been identified by the Developer relative to the restrictions: a. Any of the units not rented or sold to hotel employees may be rented or sold to any low income employees in the community qualifying for the units . Page 2 CONDITION: The Housing Authority recognizes the benefit of these units and their association with the hotel due to both location and the income cata- gory. Therefore, it is recommended that the hotel management rent the units to employees of the com- munity should they not rent the units should be maintained within the hotel inventory. If the units are owned by hotel employees they should be sold back to the hotel and rented until a hotel employee purchases it. b) The guidelines which are in effect at the time of the certificate of occupancy are the guide- lines to be imposed upon the project. (low income) c) The employee units will be developed on a pro rata basis with the free market units at 700 S. Galena Site. bb) The employee portion of the development equals 430 of the bedrooms and exceeds 50o of the S.F. of the free market development. cc) The units proposed are 925 S. F . The two bedroom low income catagory specifies that the units cannot exceed 850 S. F. CONDITION: The Developer must rent the units in accor- dance to the maximum size allowable for this specific income group. Therefore, the 925 S.F . two bedroom units must be rented as if they were 850 S .F. according to the low income cost per S.F . dd) The quality and configuration of the employee project will differ from that of the free market development as it will be located on a separate site. The units should be approved by the Housing Authority relative to their design and configuration. A comparable for quality should also be identified by the developer, to assure the quality of the project. ff) There is no displacement occuring for this development at this time. CONDITION : The financial plan for the project must be developed in accordance with the guidelines and the maximum rates specified therein. Note: This development on the Benedice Site maybe changed to another location due to the need for rezoning from R-15 RBO to R-6 RBO. Should the site not be rezoned under current zoning , 33 units could be developed on the entire parcel; as opposed to 50 units developed on a ortion of of. the parcel under the R-6 RBO zoning. There ore, should the location of all or any portion of the units be changed to an alternate site it should be considered of equal quality and location of the Housing Authority. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department (Jim Wilson) Parks Department Fire Chief FROM: Sunny Vann , Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP Submission Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline and View Plane Review DATE: December 8 , 1983 Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr. Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of two actual cases, 700 S . Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission, and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also requires rezoning, 8040 greenline review and view plane review. The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S. Galena. This is the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission. Also included in this submission is the applicants ' request to reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill. This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040 greenline review, rezoning and view plane review. The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por- tion of this submission has been scheduled before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17 , 1984 . The Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta- tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983. Thank you. CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 303-925-2020 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983 RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD - 700 S. GALENA If the applicant adheres to our recommendations as set forth in our 9/28/83 letter to Doremus & Co. on page 73 of the application, we have no additional comments to make pertinent to this application. JM:lf DEC 141983 k V MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: January 3 , 1984 RE: Aspen Mountain Residential GMP ------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to technical clarifications from Joe Wells, I am transmitting the attached recommended scoring for the Aspen Mountain Residential Growth Management submission. Based on Joe' s comments regarding the status of various infrastructure improvements assuming the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not built, the attached scores reflect the fact that most services will not be improved to the benefit of the neighborhood by the construction of this residential project. The notes on the attached scoresheet should generally explain the rationale of the scores. Let me know if I may provide further elaboration or participate in further scoring sessions. JH/co Enclosure - # 1lr i ! 10,34 j V s PLANNING OFFICE Residential GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1983 Project Name Address / Owner t C F,2 14(c,,, c c 1� Anent/Representative Address Lc, r` �-;.' 1 �., j Phone 5`-(� Reviewed By Date (1 ) Public Facilities and Services 0 - Project requires provision of new services at Public expense. 1 - Project handled by existing level of service or im-)Jovement b , applicant benefits project only . 2 - Project improves quality of service in a given area . (a a. �_ Mater (2 pts . ) Capacity of system to service proposed development without system extension, treatment plant or other facility upgrade at public expense . (bb) f Sewage Disposal (2 pts . ) Canacity of sewer system to handle proposed development without system upgrade. (cc) _ Storm Drainage (2 pts . ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. rte; P -2- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (ee) Z Parking (2 pts. ) 0;=1'- .�� .:..�:: .-(.(,;,. . A- -Jz ,,:ce:1 A-1,-c- needs of the project. Visual impact, amount of paving, convenience, and safety. 1 (ff) ( Roads (2 pts . ) Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased traffic � -i I ' v��'t� ��t"C, + �� E4' L �7 7111- ( 2) Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient design. 1 - 'Major design flats. 2 - Acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Excellent design. (lib) = Site Design ( 3 nts . ) Quality and character of landscaping and open stDace, extent of utility undergrounding , arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, increased safety and privacy. (dd) Trails (3 pts. ) Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways , and links to existing parks and trail systems . -3- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential (3) Proximity to Support Services (aa) 3— Public Transportation (3 pts. ) 1 - Project more than 6 blocksfrom an existing City or County bus route. 2 - Ilithin 6 blocks of a City or County bus route . 3 - [within 2 blocks of a Cit or County bus route . (bb) _ Community Commercial Facilities 1 - Project more than 6 blocks from the commercial facilities in town. 2 - Within 6 blocks of commercial facilities . 3 - Within 2 blocks of commercial facilities . IN ON MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department (Jim Wilson) Parks Department Fire Chief FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP Submission Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline and View Plane Review DATE: December 8 , 1983 Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr. Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of two actual cases, 700 S . Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission, and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also requires rezoning, 8040 greenline review and view plane review. , The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S . Galena. This is the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission. Also included in this submission is the applicants ' request to reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill. This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040 greenline review, rezoning and view plane review. The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por- tion of this submission has been scheduled before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17 , 1984 . The Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta- tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983 . Thank you. 01 f Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: �' � z`T�� Date: 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 Project may be handled by' existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the deveiop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating t ' Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions. beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: Page Two Residential GMP Scoring & Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating �- Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating ,C% Comment - Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating - Comment: . Page l hree Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 2i Comment: c. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: 6. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever . feasible. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating _ Comment: --- ---- _ ---- - - --- Subtotal 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating 1 Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating Z_ Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided , however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion_ of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: A Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 ` 1 Ltd - TOTAL POINTS ------ Name of P & Z Member: �� %` Y v PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). -The Commission shall consider each application with respect 'to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project maybe handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgradj 9- Rating Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without ,system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: t Page Two Residential GM{' Scoring d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. I Rating � Comment. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. i Rating L� Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street syste or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or mairnt Hance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. I -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developm Rating Comment: -'o U! Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and in reased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: ` /S�v'/ J 'v jr�! ^ ✓L �C"%Sf C C /��° c. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sours. Rating �f Comment: u. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever. feasible. —�Rating Comment:nil e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of .the building and surrounding developments. !' Rating Comment: Subtotal 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. ' Rating i Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 3 Subtotal rl 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided , _ however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be-considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 1- Comment � l 4twt,16( 66�&V P1 Q 1 T i Sj - `h, A n t nt s 6 R( e l 1Si r�G.., I sso&- _S 1 T161 t WE- C{I tt� ,, i Q o.1�c:�" pN. Sr n i b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 �. Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS —y Name of P & Z Member: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: UU Date: / •� 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating _ Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: Page Two Residential GMP Scoriny d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate • fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment, to an existing station. Rating. Comment: i � 5 e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. - - - - - - - - - Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating 4-- Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to ,the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. _s 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 4 Comment: S r r Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating _ Comment: C. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: u. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever , feasible. Rating' Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating Comment: Subtotal `J 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation .(maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating 3— i Page four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. ; 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter 3/4 bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating Comment: i b. ' Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) . Rating Comment: { i Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating _ Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: -L PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATIOIV RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: °1G/ Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each 'application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -y Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Z Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 2 Comment: Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate • fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new sLotlon or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating. Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2 Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to 'the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: _ C. Energy (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: — c;. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of .the building and surrounding developments. Rating Comment: Subtotal 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation .(maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating _ t Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the co mmer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 3 Subtotal ? 4 Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall b6_-considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) . Rating Comment: i b. ' Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) . Rating Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS r Name of P & Z Member: PLANNING AND "ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project:- Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). -The Commission shall consider each application with respect 'to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -+ Project maybe handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2- Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Z_ Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: z Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d: Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating _2 Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2 Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating _ Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to 'the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 'Z Comment: 11 lu t l h►•ee Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment: c. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment• d. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of -the building and surrounding developments. Rating Comment: Subtotal 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating i Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The .Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. l -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. 3 Rating Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, _ however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall b&—considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating Comment: i b. Moderate Income (2 points. for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal �G 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: i Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating 2- Comment:—Y".� Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 - TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: /�� /�� -�� Date: 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating � Comment r' r � ZJ � �/ �/ � CitQr �1,' b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. R a t i n Comment: c': c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. - Rating Comment: ( Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Z Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating —� Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating s Comment: Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: c. Energy (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: _ 6. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating Comment: Subtotal 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating i Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating _ Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non-deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be- considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) . Rating Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal _ 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) . Rating Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating Comment: - Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 � Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Mem �-- a