HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.63-83CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
CASE NO. {f 3 ' �3
STAFF:
PROJECT NAME : , �10 rGC �j R,y
7
APPLICANT: &mny Cri'i"7"1
Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Phone:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
(FEE)
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
Y 1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
($1,640.00)
3. Final Plat
($ 820.00)
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission
($1,900.00)
2. Preliminary Plat
($1,220.00)
3. Final Plat
($ 820.00)
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
($1,490.00)
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
($ 680.00)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. Other:
•
P&Z MEETING DATE:—)- CC MEETING DATE:
DATE REFERRED: I Q $ 3
i
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Aspen Consol. S.D.
School District
k' City Engineer Mountain Bell
Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
�% Housing Director _Parks Dept.
State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric
State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
City Electric Fire Marshall
Building Dept.
Environmental Hlth. jam( Chief
Other:
_Fire
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
City Attorney City Engineer-
Building Dept.
Other: Other:
'
FILE STATUS AND LOCATII
DISPOSITION:
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
•
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: City Residential GMP Applications - Appeal and Allocation
DATE: February 27, 1984
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold, including the following
issues:
1. Forwarding of P&Z's recommended scores for the 1983 residential
GMP competition;
2. Analysis of thresholds and eligibility requirements for receipt
of an allocation;
3. Review of an appeal of the scoring of one of the applications;
and
4. Consideration of excess allotments.
APPLICANT'S REQUESTS
At the January 17, 1984 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, three projects were evaluated in the 1984 Residential Growth
Management competition. Each project was presented and discussed, public
comment was heard, and scoring was accomplished individually by each
commission member. The three projects are summarized as follows:
1. E. Hopkins Professional
Townhome Complex
2. Gordon Property PUD
3. 700 S. Galena
3 free market units, 3 employee units
3 free market units, 3 employee units
12 free market units, 9 employee units
18 free market units, 15 employee units
QUOTA AVAILABLE
The tabluation of residential quota available for allocation this year
(based on construction of units'as of January 1, 1984) is as follows:
1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution No. 8,
Series of 1983. This Resolution had the affect of not carrying over
the 119 residential development allotments which remained as until -
located from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its
standard quota of 39 units being available.
2. During 1983,.building permits were issued for 29 new residential
units. Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at
Smuggler Run, l at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units.
Therefore, 10 units remain available for allocation under the cur-
rent competition.
Since applicants only compete for free market units, the request before
you is for 18 units to be allocated (although the 15 employee units would
be deducted from the quota at the time a permit is received for their
construction).
THRESHOLDS AND ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a
minimum of 43.8 points -- 60 percent of the total points available under
Categories 1 (Public Facilities and Services), 2 (Quality of Design), 3
MEMO: City Residential GMP Applications
Appeal and Al cation
February 27, 1984
Pa e Tw
g o
(Proximity to Support Services) and 4 (Employee Housing). A minimum of
30 percent of the points available in each of the above four categories
is also required for a project to meet the basic competitive requirements.
Two additional categories are scored, these being Category 5 (Provision
for Unique Financing) and Category 6 (Bonus Points). Neither of these
categories may be used to bring an application over the minimum thres-
holds, 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:
East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex Average
1. Public Facilities and Services 7.17
2.. Quality of Design 11.58
3. Proximity to Support Services 6.0
4. Employee Housing 20.0
Subtotal 44.75
5. Provision for Unique Financing -0-
6. Bonus Points 1.78
TOTAL
Gordon Property PUD
1. Public Facilities and Services
2. Quality of Design
3. Proximity to Support Services
4. Employee Housing
Subtotal
5. Provision for Unique Financing
6. Bonus Points
TOTAL
100 S. Galena
1. Public Facilities and Services
2 Quality of Design
3. Proximity to Support Services
4. Employee Housing
Subtotal
46.53
10.08
13.83
3.0
20.0
46.91
-0-
0 5
47.41
10.83
12.83
6.0
15.67'
45.33
5. Provision for Unique Financing -0- .
6. Bonus -Points 1.17
TOTAL 46.50
Since all three projects were awarded points in Categories 1 - 4 in
excess of 43.8, all three projects have met the eligibility requirements
for allocations.
APPEAL
The scoring of the 700 S. Galena project has been appealed by Art Daily,
Attorney for the Aspen Mountain Lodge ("Applicant"). The appeal is filed
under Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code which provides for appeals
based upon either "denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the
commission in its scoring. This appeal alleges abuse of discretion by
two individual commission members, David White,and Roger Hunt.
David White awarded 14 points for the Applicants' employee housing pro-
posal when the criteria established by Section 24-11.6(e) called for the
MEMO: City Residen,l GMP Applications
Appeal and A-L-ocation
February 27, 1984
Page Three
award of 16 points. When contacted for explanation of his rationale,
David. explained that he was dissatisfied with what he perceived as an
unfair advantage which the applicant had over the other projects since
the employee housing portion of the project was located off -site.
Since the applicable criteria do not distinguish between on -site and and
off -site housing, the Planning Office agrees that the award of only 14
points was an abuse of discretion. We recommend that the Council adjust
the point scores accordingly.
Both David White and Roger Hunt awarded 1.5 points to the applicant in
the subcategories of sewer service and storm drainage.. The criteria
established in Section 24-11.4(b)(1) for these subcategories reads as
follows:
"l Point Project may be handled by existing level of service
in the area, or any service improvements by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area
in general.
112 Points Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area."
The City Engineering Department reviewed the application and testified
that in their opinion improvements to sewer services and storm drainage
facilities proposed by the Aspen Mountain PUD would improve the quality
of service in the area beyond that level required to serve the develop-
ment.
The Applicants' 700 S. Galena project is an inseparable part of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. This point was clarified in writing by the Applicants
prior to the P&Z's scoring of the application.
When contacted for explanation of rationale of these two scores, David
indicated that the scores related to his dissatisfaction with the off -
site location of the employee housing. He wanted to reduce the score in
some way to reflect this dissatisfaction and he chose sewer service and
storm drainage.
Roger Hunt explained that he considered the Applicants' argument that 700
S. Galena was a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD and the neighborhood
improvements were attributable to both parts of the project to be parti
ally invalid and he decided that he bought that argument only halfway and
therefore awarded only half of the point.
The Planning Office has considered these arguments and concluded that the
arguments.are broader than permissible under the established criteria
.resulting in an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we recommend that the
Council adjust the scores accordingly.
The following is the adjusted score which we recommend for the 700 S.
Galena project:
700 S Galena Average
1.
Public Facilities and Services
11.17
2.
Quality of Design
12.83
3.
Proximity to Support Services
6.0
4.
Employee Housing
_ 16.0
Subtotal
46.0
5.
Provision for Unique Financing
-0-
6.
Bonus Points
1.17
TOTAL
47.17
If the Council accepts either of the Applicants' appeal issues, a) em-
ployee housing, or b) sewer service/storm drainage, the "adjusted" rank-
ing of -the three projects will be re-established as follows:
MEMO: City Residential GMP Applications
Appeal and "'Location
February 27, 1984
Page Four
Points
1. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units 47.41
2. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units 47.17
3. E. Hopkins Professional
Townhome Complex 3 free market units 46.53
At this point the Council has two choices under the provisions of the.
City Code:
A. Award the 10 units of quota available to the applicants in the
order of ranking. This would mean Gordon Property PUD receives
an allotment for three (3) units, and 700 S. Galena, seven (7)
units; or
B. Section 24-11.3(a) permits the Council to award development
allotments in any given year in excess of the quota established
by as much as 20%, eight (8) additional units may be awarded.
Such excess would subsequently be off -set by a reduction in the
quota available in successive years.
Therefore, if Council so chooses it may approve all three
projects since it happens that the total number of free market
units requested is eighteen (18).
EXCESS ALLOTMENT ISSUE
We have only received a formal request for excess allotment from both the
700 S. Galena and the East Hopkins Professional Townhome projects.
Since the Code provides a vehicle to permit Council to approve all three
projects, we would like to make the following points:
1. There is limited quota available this year (10) relative to the
quota established (39).`
2. Actual growth over the last two years has only totalled 39
units, including the 17 units in Smuggler Run Mobile Home Park.
3. We do not consider the 119 unit total which was not carried
forward from 5 previous years to be a significant factor since
that total resulted from the fact that previously employee
housing was not deducted from the quota. Therefore, had cur-
rent policy been in effect during the prior years, no excess
units would have been available for carry over.
4. Consideration should be given to the merits of the two in-
dividual projects.
a. Approval of full quota for 700 S. Galena project would
facilitate the ultimate development of the Aspen Mountain
PUD which has its own growth consequences.
b. Approval of full quota for the East Hopkins Professional
Townhome Project would finally accommodate the unique
professional office/residential use which Bill Poss has
been working toward in three previous GMP competitions.
In each competition, the threshold point score was reached.
Currently, the quota for the three free market units in-
volved in this competition is the final allocation neces-
sary for the project.
5. This year's competition was exceptionally close. If you accept
the Planning Office's "adjusted" ranking, there is only 0.88
points difference between the three projects.
6. If the lodge is approved, it will take several year's of future
quota thereby reducing that available for small projects such
as the East Hopkins Professional Townhome project.
7.' The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their regular meeting on
February 21, 1984, considered and agreed with the above six
MI -MO: City RcsidepAial GMP Applications
Appeal and LocaL-ion
February 27, 1984
Page Five
points. They felt that all three projects were quality projects.
They recommended eight (8) units of quota be subtracted from the
coming year's allotment and awarded as needed to 700 S. Galena and
the East Hopkins project. They further recommended that such excess
allotment be contingent upon complete submittal for Building Permit:
no later than August 1, 1985 by these two projects (i.e., four
months short of the Code provision of 2 years to obtain a permit).
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION- -
The Planning Office recommends that you take the following action:
1. "Move to approve the -appeal of scores awarded by the P&Z in the
Categories of Employee Housing, Storm Drainage and Sewer
Service for the 700 S. Galena Project."
2. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution
awarding three units to the Gordon Property PUD and seven units -
to 700 S. Galena."
3. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution
awarding eight units of excess allotment from next year's quota
as follows:
a. 5 units to 700 S. Galena; and
b. 3 units to East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project.
Such excess allotment shall be contingent upon complete sub-
mittal for Building Permits no later than August 1, 1985, and
reduction of the 1984 quota to 31 units."
F
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: .1984 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: January 17, 1984
Introduction
Attached for your review are project profiles for three residential
GMP applications submitted on December lst of last year and the
Planning Office's recommended points for each application. The three
applications under consideration are as follows:
1. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex
2. Gordon Property PUD
3. 700 S. Galena
Quota Available
The tabulation of residential quota available for allocation this
year (based on construction of units and expiration of projects as of
January 1, 1984) is as follows:
1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted. Resolu
tion No. 8, Series of 1983. This Resolution had the effect
of not carrying over the 119 residential development allot-
ments which remained as unallocated from prior years.
Therefore, the City began 1983 with its standard quota of
39 units being available.
2. During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new resi-
dential units. Included within this total were 18 new
employee units (17 at Smuggler Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve)
and 11 new free market units. Therefore, 10 units remain
available for allocation under the current competition.
3. During 1983, the 8 free market units awarded to the Ute
City Plact project expired. These 8 units should also be
available for allocation this year, making a total of 18
units available. However, the applicant is currently
disputing the expiration, asking Council to extend the time
deadline for the project. Until such time as this matter
has been resolved, the status of these units for allocation
purposes will be clouded.
4. The summation of the quota calculation for this year's
competition is:
Annual Quota 39 units
Construction During 1983 (29) units
Expired as of 1/1/84 (8) ?
Quota available as of 1/1/84 10 or 18 units
The total quota request for this year is as follows:
1. East Hopkins Professional 3 free market units, 3 employee
Townhome Complex
2. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units, 3 employee
3. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units, 9 employee
18 free market units, 15 employee
'f 1984 Residential 'Applications
January 17, 1984
Page Two
Process
The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on January
17 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested
assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the appli-
cants should be given about 15.minutes to present their proposal to
you. It is important during the applicant's presentations that you
limit their remarks only to description of the project as it has been
submitted to the Planning Office, along with any technical -clarifica-
tions tions which you or the staff may request.
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.
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. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the
total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to
43.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in
each category 1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic competitive require-
ments. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 3.6 points
Category 2 = 4.5 points
Category 3 = 1.8 points
Category 4 = 12 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 applica-
tion over this minimum threshold, 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 additional review procedures. Specifically, the addi-
tional reviews required for each project areas follows:
East. Hopkins Professional - Subdivision exemption to
Townhome Complex condominiumize the space
and thereby assure the
accessory status of the resi-
dential space and to allow
the construction of multi-
family housing
GMP exemption for employee
units
Exemption from parking re-
quirements
Gordon Property PUD - Full PUD/subdivision GMP
exemption for employee units
700 S. Galena - Condominiumization
GMP exemption.for employee
units
Full PUD/subdivision
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, each of these procedures
must be accomplished by those applicants which receive development
allotments as a result of this process.
It should be noted that in the case of the 700 S. Galena project, the
level of development proposed exceeds the L-2 zoning requirements for
the 21,600 s.f. site and may only be permitted as part of the 514,078
1984 Residential G1 Applications
January 17, 1984
Page Three
5W
s.f. Aspen Mountain PUD. Twelve (12) units with twenty-four (24)
bedrooms and a total adjusted floor area of 21,073 s.f. are proposed
for this site as a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However, if the
multi -family development plans were based solely on the 21,600 s.f.
site, Section 24-3.7(k) would permit no more than one bedroom per one
thousand square feet (1000 s.f.) of land area, or 21 bedrooms.
In the event 700 S. Galena is awarded an allocation and subsequently
the Aspen Mountain PUD is not approved, the development plan would
have to be amended by reducing the number of bedrooms. Such a re-
duction cannot be permitted at this point because it is more than
just a technical clarification since it would have the effect of
raising the project score for 700 S. Galena in this competition. Any
reduction in free market bedrooms would increase the percent of the
total development devoted, to employee housing.
Planning Office Ratings
The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications
as a recommendation for you to consider. The majority of the staff
assessed the ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored
each proposal. The following table is a summary of the Planning
Office 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.
Public Facilities
Application and Services
E. Hopkins 7
Professional
Townhome Complex
Gordon Property,
P.U.D.
700 S. Galena
10
N.
Quality
of Design
11
14
i$
Proximity to
Support
Services
0
3
0
Provisions
Employee for Unique Bonus Total
Housing Financing Pts. Points
20 -
20
16 -
All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within categories 1,
2, 3 and 4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each
category. The East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex and the
Gordon Property PUD also meet the requirement of 60 percent of the
total points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which
is 43.8 points, the planning staff awarded these projects 44 and 47
points, respectively. However, only 43 points were awarded to the
700 S. Galena project.
Planning Office Recommendation
In recognition of the fact that the quota available is limited and in
dispute, the issue will be decided by Council and since Council has
reserved the right to allocate quota in any event, we do not recom-
mend that you deal with the allocation issue, bonuses or future
allocations at thie time. Your recommended scores will speak for
themselves.
Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the
Planning Office has the following recommendation:
Gordon Property PUD: We recommend that you concur with our
point assignments and approve the project.
East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex: We recommend that
you concur with our point assignments and approve the project.
700 S. Galena: If you concur with the points recommended by the
Planning Office, the project falls short of the 60 percent
threshold required and must be denied.
44
47
43
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS.
Project: Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision Date January 17, 1984
I. 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.q'uality 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: Applicant will loop the water system.improvna rater service
in the area.
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: Project can be handled by the existing level of service and
improvements will benefit the applicant only.
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: Pr�t.will retain run-off in excess of pre -development rates
Page Two
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 poi.nts).
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 anew station or requiring additi.on of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating 1
Comment: A new fire hydrant will be added benefiting the area However,
the proposed road widths are not adequate for fire access according to
the Eire Chief.
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: Parking requirement (one per bedroom) is exceeded by three -
spaces.
f. Roads (maximum 2 points)
Consideration of the capacity of major street li.nkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existingstreet system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating 2
Comment:. The.project will have negligible impact on the public road
system.
Subtotal to
.2. Quality of Design (.maximum 15 points).
The Commi.ssion 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) Resign
3 - Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility(maximum,3 poi.nts).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment: The proposed density is consistent with the density range of
surrounding developments The scale of the development is also com
patible with the neighborhood.'
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: The site work proposed which includes extensive landscaping, a
pond, and public trail with bridge is a reasonable use of the site and
will improve the quality of the neighborhood.
c. Energy (maximum 3.points).
Consideration of thV use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficientfireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating 3
Comment: Solar oxie ntat pn, solar ;water_heat ng- and pa, a ve; features=.plus
'commitments to extra insulation result in conservation�of'energy.
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: An additional desirable trail dedication and fishing easement
plus the construction by the applicant of a bridge connecting to Ute Childrens'
Park will`result.in a substantial amenity for the community.
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 buildi.ng and surrounding developments
Rating 3
Comment: Meadows along the river will become dedicated open space which
are highly, desirable as -permanent green space.
Subtotal 14
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
exi.'sting city or county bus route..
Rating 2
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-
vial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section., one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating 1
Subtotal 3
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 totalnumber 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).
F Rating 20
c3
Comment: 9 low income bedroom _
.income housing "C" .The floor area of the six employee units totals
4,500 sq. ft. or 50% of the 9,000 sq. ft. of the three free market units.
b. Moderate Income (2,points for, each 10 percent)
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
5. Provisions for unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Comment•
Subtotal 20
Rating o
a�
s.
a�
co
>
U1 '
0
i
z L a�
0 cr
0.
m
O
{n 4J
q
a O Ln
ro
Z a
W CJ
5." o F-
W _J W
U' _J W
F' r M
f^ O �C
3 d F-
O
N
C3
CL
cz
0-4
W
r--r
N
W
M
W
Ql r-
d
r O rCD
S.- m •r p]
N N r to
"C7 _ r6
� Q
C O
V) cn 4J O V
S_ N N N r O)
Q. •W r r O V N O
E r > > r N O N O D7 u
r N N S^ O S V) 0-
u V) V) LM S_ o) 4- O O Ln
al rr3 d O a cm
a l- S.- S_
r N N O Y
4 V i-) 3 O S_ S_ rp 4--) ai ro a)
O r r6' (V -P r rB 0 r N r S. S.
V) V) Li- CL �' r- Z Ln W F - U3
U r6
W N
0 rCf _C; V t N 4- O r6
O dS
PROJECT PROFILE
1983 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Sheldon ,)rrinn (,stan Mathi G�
2. Project Name: Gordon Property PUD
3. LoCdtiOn: "A--" Lot„2, Gordon Subdivision (adjacent to Aspen Club property)
4. Parcel Size: 2.187 acres
5. Current Zoning: x-15
6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 6 units
7. Existing Structures: vacant-
8. Development Program: 3 duplex units (3 free market and 3 one bedroom low
income employee units).
3 additional 2-bedroom condominium units will be purchased and'restrictPd to
low.income employee housincf guidelines.
9. Additional Review Requirements: Conceptual PUT)/sLbdivision�F,xLmpt- on from
GMP for employee housing.
10. Miscellaneous: