The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.111 W Hyman Ave.1983-1 MEMORANDUM A L.!\'-.J ) ~Tl 1~~IUc 0't7\r -(1"\ l '- 01'":; ,0[1-0 " N<?....L o( I'Jv Y ~c--- ,lA/\ ) d01L- 10,t::~ fJ>wJ;\?i)SJ (-0 ?hY:.: TO: Paul Taddune 0, \- II (0lJV1>::i L- F~ l (<;, ~ ~~ ('fr..\ZOvt 1o'A;10 cf rJ/tc' GHP Scoring A~Y\ \.~ FROM: Alan Richman RE: Appeal of 1983 Residential DATE: February 3, 1983 This year we received in the City of Aspen. follows: 3 applications for residential G~1P allocations The 3 applications can be summarized as Whale of a Wash 1 free market unit 1. 2. 3. III 1-1 . Hyman Snowridge 1 free market and 1 employee unit 5 free market and 5 employee units The total of 7 free market units is ~~ell below the available quota of 120 units. P&Z scored the 3 applications on January 18, 1983, with the follow- ing resultRnt scores, prior to bonus: 1. 2 . 3. \,hale of a Wash III W. Hyr.lan 45. 1 112.5 Snowridge 37.7 Since the Code requires that the applicant score 60% of the 3vailable points or 43.8 points, prior to bonus, the only project Wllich is eligible for an allocation is the Whale of a Wash. Stan Mathis, representing Ed Baker's III W. Hyman project h3S submitted an appeal of the scoring, based on the fact that the project was only 1.3 points away from the threshold. I attach a copy of the appeal for your review. As you know, Section 24-11.4(f) governs challenges to P&Z's scoring by applicants. This section reads as follows: "(f) HavinG received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, th.:1t the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there 1;-Tas a denial of due process or abuse of dlscretion by the commission in its scoring. Any ch"llen~e must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the public hearing by the planning and zonin~ commission." While the applicant met the 14 day submission requirement, we do not feel that the criteria for revrLPw - npni,ql of due process or abuse of discretion - have been met) He would like an oplnlon frOM ~ ~sto whether this appeal should be rejected at staff level or~; ) sent ~n.__~.9. .City Council with a ne ative recommendation from sta~/ ur concern, of course, is that each time an app L.. un- successfully tile whole process is stlbject to an appeal, whether justified or not. Please be aware that according to Ordinance 54, Series of 1982, Council must allocate units to s'+cees....-FlIl residential. comp.e...ti__~52_!':.E-__. ,-Y_fi.2J:-t.o.-----tLtLCll l::Jt gf' ~a..ch ye~ Therefore, we must cOTllpre-Ee" the ) allocations at the February 23, 1983 regular meeting of C(tx_ Council. To insure that we meet our own lnes, I would suggest tl1~~ you meet with members of the Planning Office during the week of rcbruary 7-11 to reach a staff consensus on this matter. Since I will be out of town until February 14, 1983, I "auld recommend that you neet with Sunny and Colette who are most familiar with this ~atter. Your prompt attention to this issue would be greatly appreciated. "......... ... STAN MATHIS architecture and planning p,o, box 1984 aspen, colorado 81612 ~i~ 4:\)rt6il c;~ M~'~ it Za1'~ !eF. ?HJ d2 ~ ~n) u,!a'~ twru~t'( '2J ""h~ Y'e: q.V1. f? AffIiarHal ~ ~L; t::1JpIt;x, III W. H-y1n.,) A~,~~ -, . , , " I' ;' .,' 6ir~: 'tie (~t t*11 ~f?~~nlty -b z,tp~I -th~ ~rlnp, OF 6ur z.ttfli~tAfion ~ Ctfy ~nc.iT .ttt -the etJ....li~ p~ibre; ~~. -rn~ ~rp~2f1 i~ ~~ on t~ ~I iet ih~t ~r evt:1lt1tftt~11 W~e> not ~r~ ft:~rly. ~ A ~i~tJ~ta1 d- rr~nlr~ t? ~nrn8 ~nil%lor1l e; ~nt ~lIxzrlia1 tollow~ b~kM': I. Public. Fz:f6ilm~ ~ ~\'Yice~ We. cont~+ ~ ~l~ o~ -two 1Ar~1,t~ j ~ drtfin~y ~rttA ptfr~int? deMt:f1. We ~I 1h~ -th~ -uro ~oint~ itltit were ~a::ted -tor -6form dr~in-atf ~ ~r l11~f11bert7 ~~ Incorre.vt. C11e; F;tnt ~tfn ~ ~~raed ~'$f~ fh~ pr~j~f- trl~ ~ h:eandted by ~ ~xi.e,+it1t? I€V~I or ~ia. in ihe. tfre-tt ~na al~ not ~'rr~ .Jht; prl?v'i~ian d- heW ~i~ ~ inc.r~~ po l:?Ii c, ~ren~. ihi~ i~ ~ ~ ~t -ftl6 ~I+e rr~f~' w~ f~ fh'ttt ~ pr-ojec.+ d10uld r~h(~ -the. m1h<:irnum of -two p;rnt~ fa pt'r-~In~ ~it)1. In -the word~ of fu~ PItll1I1Jn~ 19fpia) II-rnra pttr~i~ ~f?tt~ tUZ t'tv~. I~ ~ aTlplor,ee: urirt i~ e~~ from ~ re'Pire,mem't J 1hi~ would ~ ihe. ~ireJ 111.101 lzr. In t Z'tC-T > fba- ofP.. ~y~ r~~in5 ~r-t1~ -ar~ rrovic:;f~ ) not thra. ~~ W1%-S ti1~rt;oH'( lh~i~~ l::y -fhe. fl-ztnn,np, 1tnd ~in~ wmmi~l~t-e ~:a:1hJa+i.~n. I.f- ~r~ 1h1t 'lt16 tnt.tJortly ~ -the Pltff\O\n& ~l1d td11'b ~mi~ion . ~~ 1httt tir~ pr;~ In ~~ or it~If Imft"ov~ 1hG :l!-'~I~ ~ petrk.lrl9, In the ~r~'tt. w~ ~l iti mtA)(imum nL1tn~ ~ roint-..s. ~IJ ~ ~w~rd ed In -fhi~ ~~-r 2. ~V(jl",< of ~i~ . 1'he, .r:jnt~ tfw'tJrded fzx- ~ ~~borhd ~rn~ibtIit'1 ~nd ~~ de~"e:r ~rL- incaT~v~ ~nd w~r~ -:,ubJ~t.j~II 'ZfW'~rde.d. ~. ~fnt? tCr~ lt11p~rble.- to ~c.ore. ol:1~ohve;ly. If ~ rr(!>~ FuJfilI~ ~ rr~~m & th6 vIi~I1T -ztni dOG~ not- '1:1dv<<~I'( ",ffd ~ ~h't\r~ok.r of- tht:> ~i+e. or ~ l16i~~~) ~t1 1h6 Bf'~I-e> ~ ~ 0ite Je~iEJ1"4!1no1 r16'eJ1borho@ ~pat{bitity n1tVe: ~n lkili:.\I~. J) . -" ".", ,,"""" l11e, ~~rL, &- "!hi~ r-~~$ ~ite a~i~ tlnd c.c9tlftttibihtr i? Jt1 ~'(6 ~ the ~hol~: ; not- -fhe n~t1r1inE:, Oe~rhrla1t- or -th€- 'P1~nnl~ 'dtnd Zonin8 Comtni~i~n. Thb +opjc, of ~y'l?'f. WtJ.~ lt1<?LlfP,e"Hy revl~~. The. ~M aoc,Lltnenfs ihtrt v.k~ ~rt oF -Ihu 1.tfflic.dtion t{ddr~ mtftl'(. ;t.\1+at11'tt\i~ ~tle....~"( ~tuti~~. the. Pltrnnznb ~a ~t)\+e.d -lhitt ~~ "!X:?1u+ton~ W~r6 ~dre.~ only In -the.. ~me,nt7 (dr~i'Be.7)) no{- in -I-hb +~xt. 1-1- io? ~ r~4bil?t1Hy oP ;tu:, Ple1nn.If;~S _ ~t-tFf2 to revi~ ~II ma+eri~1 ~bmiFFea ?,t4? ftrl oF- -f~ ~liG~) wh~-lha a~fhic. ~r ft!JI. wrHten. . 'We ~1 -ftm 1hi~ ~~jec+") I~ rbVie:w~ ~nd ~r~ ~r~ly Zl+ 1fiG time. ~ ~ub- rni~i~ > would h-zwe.. re<<.-iv~ -the -fht'".e"J&hold nurnb4t.r & POI"';-$ f,r "z:t re.~id~ ~I q.M. ~ ~Wfc.-zrlion . Th~ IaJ) ~-an tv1~ie . ?; . ...'--... -- STAN MATHIS architecture and planning p,o, box 1984 aspen, colorado 81612 February I, 1983 City Council c/o Planning and Zoning Department City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: G.M.P. Application Snare Duplex 113 West Hyman Sirs: We request an opportunity to appeal the scoring for the above mentioned project before the City Council at the earliest possible date. It is our belief that this project should have received at least the threshold number of points in the scoring system. Thank you. &;;;71t~ Stan Mathis for William Snare SM:cck '"',..- pitkin cDunty 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 TO: Alice Davis ~~' Jim Hamil~ December 22, 1982 FROM: DATE: RE: Snare G.M.P. - III West Hyman I have reviewed the Snare G.M.P. application for III West Hyman and have found the following: I) The applicant has proposed to develop a one bedroom unit of 800 Sq.Ft. in order to fulfill the employee housing requirement. This appears to be allowed as it is at the maximum size permitted 23-11.4(b)(4)(cc). However, in order to conform with the intent of the employee housing program, which is to provide affordable housing, the low income designation dictates that only 600 Sq.Ft. be amortized through rent payments. ASPEN.PITKIN J4EGIONAL BUILDII\..Q DEPARTMENT ," .' ::> "'_".., MEMORANDUM , i . (,8bl () '.1 If, (, hJ( ~~ , .. ~~" '. ,.;1 "~)'~~~J TO: Alice Davis FROM: Patsy Newbury "1 It DATE: December 15, 1982 V . RE: 111 West Hyman --- 1. What is the Zoning? P A1 P ~ If they are Building 2 additional units it no longer qualifies as a Duplex under Building Code requirements but must meet requirements for multifamily dwelling. What about Parking Requirement Per Bedroom (not apply to existing?) offices: 110 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -"", ,,-"'\ - . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project:-.1lJ tf1;, k1j~ Date: '!19jg3 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: ' o -- 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). Comment: b. Sewer Servi ce (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 'L- . Comment: c~ Stonn 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: . .....- 'Ill !~( "-"", l' " ".lter;:.i0f: !'t'I,") ".; I." ;1 ri',' 'j' "'( rr- -'; I, '- i d Cd;; tl -j \.. !}~'fab',i~,!'\c' res IO';.~P. !ll ne,J\~:s{ty of P",'! (',1)'1 i~;hi r;: ".1 .~,c . 'I 'I S' ':!: :i1t: ; >" ,', '; he JY" , Ii' " <",..t. ' ^ ~< ;.' ,$ ,c:.':'c.:: 'L _ . :J" ;;, " 110' I i.: t I, , I ....;i,;( ,1~C neE" ex i .~t ~ v.~} .-, t fl"" \,,, . ~ r ;.1 '\ tH ,,~i~'O p;~' -j 1.C "f r .. , , "6\S~d of pr" l'(/'.~' (, 'f;';" i c.: -"I ~ies'i(m U!i~i_\:; 'd; "l ;'~f v, ".': :li.;.," ~1' {;:~s if!; d ,~" I ,', : ,.~ r. ~. 1. d " <- ."Iinl 1'100:.1 r;orH},(: ie t i " ~- " j".\ ~', ,-. , t, ',', -.., ~ ~, ! -~ ........' , -1;\1< ( ~ 1;. "tyf ;\ ~ to th~ o'th'JI t the' ) .l'il,io, "',' . '!_,4, "" ,_J ," 1;1 'illL,; Pl. f tl'" o~. -,f:~ c. . ~: - ',', " 1, 11""'" ""1 "'1' , r._~, .:;.'" ',- . ' '.- ,I' _ :'",;;,'\ 'ut ", jJ:~ '.tll; C'i c . ! :' ctlft e'(.';s.1 \_9 z-trc" ,d ',',,',-'n.'.... ;11'0'/.--" ',i,', :<"':.~::;l; c.. \.: e~ " ttfing z ".,1'.4 -<' \. ,JI l., ","', t 1) ,( " \'-. , ()o ~'1r :,,, ld ill'; I;., " :-:"Q. ( ,",' Rei i.i" r:; tt 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 an~ privacy. Rating 1--' COIIII1ent: 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. Rati ng /); 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 1- 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 It Comment: Subtota 1 J 0 , 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 '7 ~''''. "".....", 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. I, 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 tJ; Subtotal ~ 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating W Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). . Rating Comment: Subtotal U!) 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: ;,~---, . t' Page Five ...., Residential GMP Scoring ..,...,,", ..",.I . 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating Conment: Points in Categories 1. 2. 3 and 4 -41- Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: (j/J1r ~ , "-" ,or PLANNING Arm ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 'I! I u) (I ilY)C-v-l Date: 111,?/8,3 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximu~ of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to i.ts impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: . o -- 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 I 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 servi ce the deve 1 op- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating I . . 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 0 Comment: . Page Two Residential GMP Scori~' '''''' , '.."...# d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire deparunent 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 / Corrment: . 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 I 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 / Corrment: '- Subtota 1 5 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: o -- 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 Compati bi 1 ity (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rati ng J.- Comment: Page Three (C, Residential GMP scor~ ......, ...." 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 pri vacy. Rating A CO/IJIlen t : -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. Rati ng 'Z.. Comment: ci. 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 2. 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 2. Comment: Subtota 1 ID 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 /"" 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 '2 Subtotal 4- 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating c20 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 Conrnent: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 351 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS o Name of P & Z Member: " ~ < ;" .~ jI"', , '-' Project: I ( ( PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS ~ Iv{ fJ1c) 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: o -- Project requir~s 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 extensi ons 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. f 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 b Comment: Page Two r' Residential GMP Scori~ ...... - 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 L COlllllent: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the reqlJirements 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 L Comment: Subtota 1 ro 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: o -- 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 Compati bil ity (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: ~c, ,~ ~.~ 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 o 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 anp bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating 1/ 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 (7 Comment: ~b~~l (0 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 ? ""- '-" " '" Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilitie? 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 (;-; 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating z.o o 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 L{"Z- Points in Categories 5 and 6 J-(~ TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: ~J7 ,- 0" ;,.., ........., ......." PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: )/1 tv !4~ Date: I /r VI<r3 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: o -- 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 (,maximum2 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 0 Comment: Page Two Residential GMP Scori~ - "- ..", 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 estab1ishing,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 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 system or the necessity of providi ng increased road mi.leage and/or ma i ntenance. Rating COIIIDent: '- 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: o -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indi ca tes 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. ( ~- Comment: p,,,~~ ,-I ~ r{~ Rating f" 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 '2. COll1llent: 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. '2 Rating Comment: 0. 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 t?. 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 "2- COll1llent: Subtota 1 <=}, ,.-- 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 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 J (' , , 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. I, 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 :5 ~ Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating ~0 Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). . Rating Comment: " Subtotal '/CJ 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: . r" Page Five ',-~ Residential GMP Scoring , / 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). COIII11ent: Rating 4~~eJ ;>>t-:J ~ ~ I Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: .. , ,. 1,,, ,,'-, '_.# PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: II ( W IIr~^-- 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: o 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 wHhout system extensi ons beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1_ 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 capacHy 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 I 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 I Comment: Page Two " Residential GMP Scoring~ "'., "',..,r 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 -L 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 I COllDDent: 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 sha1) rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- 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 pri vacy. 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 '7- 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 ..z.- 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 ~ - ,'-, "-' ""."-''' ~ 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 distarrce 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). a. low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating V{) Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtota 1 -v; 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: . r' ~ Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). 'd Comment: ..... -"~ Rating o Points in Categories 1. 2. 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: ~x:- 3-0 S"1- t- r.... - /'", ....., PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 1/ it! !~)/'rYlJ.) . Date: / ~~ -H J- 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: ' o -- 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 wHhout 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 Scorin~, v ......., - d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire departmcnt of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the estab1ishcd 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 ,.';J ./ CO/lIIlent: . 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 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 system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. / Rating COI1IlIent: ... Subtota 1 -~_J 2. Quality of Design (maximwn 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: o -- 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 ,., CO/lIIlent: Page Three /"'" Residential GMP Scor~ "".... ..., b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Cons,ideration 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 V ./ Comment: 0. 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 ~ ;' (, .:. .- ~ 1/ 3. Proximity to Support Servi ces (maximum 6 poi nts). :5 ') 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 .;y 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. I, 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 J!J SUbtota1~ 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating ,;2.(/ 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 - - Scod ng ........ - 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating COII1IIent: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 A, Points in Categories 5 and 6 Name of P & Z Member: TOTAL POINTS " , , <".,-' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: / / / /h/ //c/ /??:2 r-> / Date: /- /g~ 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: o -- 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 G 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 :! Conrnent: 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 <"J '~ Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street 1 inkages to provide for the needs of the proposed deve 1 opment without substantia 11y a Heri ng existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating / Cormnent: " Subtota 1 6 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: o -- 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: 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 !) Convnent: 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. Rati ng '2 Convnent: 0. 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 6) Convnent: 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 9 Convnent: Subtota 1 / C1 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Convnission 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 :5 ,"'. ...." -- 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 distarrce 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 ~ 6' Subtotal 4.' Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 20 Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtota 1 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: . ""''', Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Comment: Rating ~oints in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: 'P 42 (]' 2/2 //tZLu7 I -.. "(. - ", .... ~.. ..... OW\i-\\edJ\rc" J.hv 1 f ~:t &~ fUr ~ , Co-~VlCJ' ()= d, s: LZ~ '0-0' ~lcn0b I l( - C' , ,SOY'" f' .... ' t-'2.Js' ~2:1 6 d I cJ ~ I to DYI-~; ~-,,--€-'/-eA--f7&t'\ ~~d-\"l.-H(..;;. -to ~ "'-~ V\ krs tD~c.. ctr.:ll. -\0 v-,-\-k 0. ~i ~." fio .s..u-~ D--v\ - $ /.~ C ~~ ClrL P YOsJLc{ Its: pO-;f ~ .1<< 0-?P!1~6--0-../~ '~~ P\GV\V\\~, ~<'Jl., ,~~~ ~ SC,-a'0- .H~n. ~;. '.:.: k:D-.~\ ~(\.. -t ~ 1.}--4,~ y Q ~, ~ ~~J. -I' f nr ~, L {I-It 1':' I. I ~ ~~ ~ ~r K) 1/,1;+ .bf 0... f^1v...D e,xt.W'p--r1 .J ~ ~~ ~ e,;-' ~ Ci ~H VU>~I.1t- $.(- rJ <"'_ d~$, no-r er'~r -IvUL Q%u..;).J'~1, ,,,> \ ~u...vvJ;>* Ob'Q...C)l\)l I~ ~ -?) ~\~J -- ~ Q':. ~ Irs()./-+.~- ()~u 0... \ ->"D~d' o..cco~-t , .~ ~;rd ~VV\ph-~'V\i J IA~Ue.vU;(l',\ ~ +l\.L ~-' f Q, I l' IS 'VL;)t I)~t ... -I', -~f:rI!CUla.l ,I'v\ I ;~t:J -+-i~\ )dtJ:ti~~- ~J?- V":: Q)h#l7ff-J !~-\;-o...1"\. (),.l' '.0 t' (I e..r ~ (lJ Ile,\ 0 vvi do ,w+ ~ VI:' 'fo CM-r r-f b' ( '~1' [I I-fs'fy h-fit tf:- or It''' \ ~~~~ 1- il\.o_ ~t-n), J,.. ~ ~lJ ~ ....J.) 1 ,~ .pICkY' "'1. , /'J' ;, fc.....~ '1y\JL ' 't~'~ \1 - I_n I^ u I I\,_ ~l .--I · J / ~~,- ~~P}J,~ ck;V' ~~;~'*\ ~ l-r \ 0.( - '~<L t ' 2\o..v-'t.. ~~ 0- 2.. ~ fkv:}f ( I . - , :) PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: 2. Project Name: 3. Location: Ed Baker, Agent for William D. Snare 111 W. Hyman 111 W. Hyman 4. Parcel Size: 7,500 square feet 5. Current Zoning: R-MF 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 1:1 for a multi-family structure, increasable to 1.25:1 by approval of the RBO rezoning request. 7. Existing Structures: Half duplex of 2,491 square feet which consists of a free market unit and an employee unit. 8. Development Program: The applicant is proposing the second half of this duplex structure. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay will be required in order to conform to the underlying area and bulk requirements. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Subdivision Exception Parking Exemption GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) 10. Miscellaneous: This proposal will require rezoning to RBO in order to meet area and bulk requirements. If the project is successful in meeting the scoring thresholds and receives a development allotment, the rezoning must occur for it to be built. The building must conform to the 25 foot height limit. . ......-,"" STAN MATHIS architecture and planning p,o, box 1984 aspen, colorado 81612 ~~Vl J 1-=3 ,14e,3 f'6"Yl&4. ~ CO~ ~. c:., ~~n , eo(o e>tG. fI f'e: II~ We.;{. li~~lA - The StKi~ Dof'Ia' Oeav Go(et~e '; I ~. Drri~ to ~bVia tk en1p10jee- ~DU511 't"eJ'OI1 .j.-"'v- the ~jet.} akt,ole " we will f'r~ulde, bt1e '2 beJu.a!'rvt low iV1~on1e b' <-' rl\t ltQt1k ~ -, :) - .. ~. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: 111 W. Hyman Date: January 18, 1983 1. Public Facilities and Services (ma')imum 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: o -- Project requi res the provi s i on .of new servi ces at increased pub 1 i c 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: A 6" water main is located in the street directly in front of the proposed duplex. ' 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. Rati ng 1 Comment: A sanitary sewer main is located in the alley behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed unit. 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. Rati ng Comment: The applicant proposes that surface water will be drained to the street. The Engineering Department views this as a flaw and says that storm flow should be directed to on-site detention structures to maintain historic o drainage for the site. -. ...... Page Two ~P~sidential GMP Scoring "'" -.....I 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 1 Comment: Response time is verv qood. due to a 6 blo~k oroximit.y to thp fire station. A hydrant exists within 100 feet from the unit. 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, convenieoce and safety. , -'-J;' I \' .1:\ Rating 1 ,,~, \.../ Comment: Three parking spaces are proposed. If the employee unit is exempted from the requirement, this would exceed the required number. 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 existing road system should not be impacted by the proposed development. Subtota 1 5 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: On 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 Compati bi 1 i ty (maximum 3 points), Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring dev~lopments. Rating 2 Comment: This is the second half of a duplex structure which is of an acceptable design. -" Page Three . Residential GMP Scoring :) I I I "'--, 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. Rati ng 2 Comment: The landscaping and open space are not excessive but are acceptable. Parking and access are not a problem. 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: Not addressed in text, only on drawinas. Appli,,"nt ~hnlllrl rnrnmit to at least the representation of the drawinqs. 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: The parcel is within two blocks of Wagner and Paepcke Parks. 2 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 2 Comment: Open space is not abundant, however some green areas exist and the deck will be a useab1e access to the outside. Subtota 1 10 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 , '0",,' , . 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 '< Subtota 1 6 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). .. Rating 20 Conunent: Th""" """ two hpnroom<; of pmplQYPp housing and two bedrooms of frpp markf>t housino. or 50% of the proiect bedroom mix is employee. Thi <; i <; 1 n i nrrpmpnt<; of ~~L for poi nts equa'l to 20. b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtota 1 20 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rati ng Comment: , I :1 'I d ;.,., "''', - . Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating Comment: , Points in Categories 1. 2. 3 and 4 41 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS 41 ,Name of P & Z Member: Planning Office " ~ .. III WEST HYMAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR 1983 CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BY: EDWIN W. BAKER, JR. 650 South Cherry Street - Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 320-0600 (Agent for William D. Snare) ","",":,,, .., "., . /I , .. ~ - ~- - ~ .,.~ "'... , - 1 - November 5, 1982 . . TO: Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION I. Location: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61 City of Aspen; Also to be III West Hyman Street II. Fropo sal: This proposal i~ being submitted on behalf of William D. Snare, who completed and sold a single family house with approval under a subdivision exemption at 113 West Hyman. We are proposing to duplex that house by adding an iden- tical unit to the east side of the house. This application was submitted in 1981 but had to be rejected because the em- ployee unit was not 50% of the total floor area. Since that time, the FAR for the employee portion has been reduced. If approval is obtained, we would also ask for Employee Housing Bonus Overlay Re-zoning to complete one controlled one bed- room employee unit in the garden level of the new unit. Approval was obtained for re-zoning of 113 West Hyman for construction of a similar employee unit. III. Description of Development: A. A 6" cast iron Aspen City water main is located in the street, directly in front of the proposed duplex with sufficient capacity to serve all of the proposed develop- ment, including the employee units if approved. The estimated daily demand for the one-half duplex and employee unit would be 180 gallons. B. A City of Aspen sanitary sewer main is located in the alley directly behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed unit. The estimated sewer demand for the one-half duplex and potential em- ployee unit would be approximately 180 gallons per day C. Surface water will be drained to the street where suffi- cient storm drainage exists to accommodate such run-off. D. City fire protection exists at the site with the nearest fire hydrant approximately 100 feet from the unit. The Aspen fire station is approximately six blocks from the si te. e. The total development area is 3,750 square feet (one-half of the existing house site of 7,500 square feet.) The one half duplex would be two stories with garden level basement, consisting of approximately 1800 square feet of living space on the upper two floors, including three bedrooms, three full baths, living room, dining room, kitchen, wet bar and utility room. There will be an ",'. _..=.~. .....~.-.-.....,"--" ....; ~ ._~_.--.- _._..-~.~'"- - .- --~--:';';::-~',:;.::~=:::-:;:::;;, -'.:':~- ~.. -2- . . Cont'd. E. attached, enclosed, one car garage. The garden level basement will include approximately 900 square feet of living space with one bedroom, bath, kitchen, living room/dining room and storage space. An owners lock storage closet is also located in the basement. The upper unit would be free market and the lower unit controlled employee housing for one or two persons. The sale or rental would be at or below the permitted level under the City of Aspen low rent guidelines. The nearest elementary school is approximately three blocks, while the middle school and high school,are approximately three miles west. School buses run on Main Street, two blocks north. , F. It is estimated that no more than two cars will be per- mitted in conjunction with the one-half duplex and one car for the employee unit, resulting in no more than three cars of additional traffic somewhat regularly. Casual traffic of two to three cars caused by guest visits will also result. Hyman Street and all inter- secting streets are paved and include curbs and gutters. All are in excellent condition, having been recently seal coated. On-site parking for at least four cars will be provided for the two units (one per bedroom.) Off-site parking is on adjacent streets. Buses pass in front of the property with stops on each corner. Additional routes are on Main Street two blocks north. Proximity to town (3 blocks), availability of buses and good roads for bicycles provide an excellent disincentive to automobile use. As mentioned, autos on premises will be restricted by lease provision to the number of spaces required by ordinance. G. Parks are located one block away at Main and Garmisch (Paepke) with Wagner Park only two blocks east. The hospital is three miles west, while the airport is five miles west. We do not foresee a significant impact on public transportation caused by this develop- ment. H. The police department is located six blocks east, with the response time less than five minutes. The proposed development should not require any additional police department personnel. I. Retail and commercial activities In the central business district are three blocks east. The development impact would assist, but not significantly burden, existing establishments. It is anticipated that no more than six to eight persons would occupy both units at any time (one to two in the employee unit, four to six in the one-half duplex.) ~ .~- .a;....., -3- J. There would be little impact on adjacent properties. Where one house and one employee unit existed, one additional free market unit and one additional employee units would be built with off street parking provided in compliance wi~h City Ordinances. 'There is a duplex recently completed at 117-119 West Hyman, adjacent to this proposed duplex, which represented Phase I of this project. This proposal would be the final phase of the development which would be comprised of four free market units in the two duplexes plus four controlled one- bedroom employee units. On the west end of the ,block is a new duplex across from the Cottonwoods condominiums. On the ~ast end of the block adjacent to the proposed unit a new duplex recently completed on two lots. Across the alley is a lodge (The Fireside Lodge) and another condominium/office combination. K. If approved, construction would commence by June 1, with completion anticipated by November 1, 1983. There would be no phasing as this would represent the final phase of the development. As stated above, these units would compleee development of the site. It will also assist in solving Aspen's critical housing shortage for employees by developing one housing unit for each free market unit. In order to provide the rent/sale restricted employee unit in the lower level, approval should be granted subject to re- zoning the property to employee housing bonus overlay which will be diligently pursued. IV. Comparison of Development Proposal Against Growth Management Plan Scoring System. A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services: 1) The project of itself does not necessarily improve the quality of service in a given area but it does, in fact, improve the appearance of the entire area. Completing the duplex started in 1981, totally completes the develop- ment in the 100 block of West Hyman. It removes a large blank wall which is meant to be the de- mising wall of the duplex but is currently the outside wall of 113 West Hyman and converts the last vacant lot in the block into a completed project which should be of benefit to the neigh- bors and, in fact, to anyone going down Hyman Street. 2) Two points should be awarded with respect to water since the development will require no new lines or increase of water treatment plant or other facility upgrading. 3) Two points should be available for sewer for the same reason mentioned regarding water. ."". .- ,.<. -=':":"'."-'. ..- '-'~'---"-- -- -- ..- - ~_.~~. - _.- - -4- 4) Storm drainage again two points should be available since the development will re- require no upgrading or increase in storm drainage capacity. 5) Two points :should be available for fire protection for the same reason. 6) Two points should be available for parking design in that the parking which adequately serves the development is accessible off the alley and does not impact the view from the street or street scape of the development. . 7) Two points should be available for roads in view of the fact that the proposed develop- ment has little or no impact on traffic in the neighborhood B. Quality of Design: 1) It would be hoped that three points could be awarded for the design of this half duplex in that it is completely compatible with the half duplex already existing and certainly com- patible with the half duplex already existing and certainly compatible with everything else on that half block in the neighborhood. 2) On the ~750 square feet of the balance of the site remaining, the footprint of the building will take less than 50%'of the land area providing adequate area for both lawn and other landscaping as has been done with the balance of the development. Hopefully three points could be awarded for this aspect. 3) The applicant is unaware of how points would be awarded with respect to trails since this development will provide a sidewalk in front of the house but no other trails. Hopefully, since it doesn't impact in either way, the maximum number of points could be awarded. 4) Hopefully, again, three points can be awarded here in that the project does provide ample open space for the residents of the units both the free market and employee units to relax in their own yard without necessarily having to impact parks. C. Proximity to Support Services. 1) Three points should be available with respect to public transportation since the project is located within two blocks walking distance of existing city or county bus routes. 2) At least two and perhaps three points should be available for the proximity to the commercial facilities in town as it is no more than two blocks to the first commercial building and four blocks to the main commercial mall. - -5- - . D. Provision for Low Income Housing: 1) The project will provide one unit of employee housing against one unit of free market housing. If the project does not have to be scaled down in size, the ratio of square footage will be approximately 800 square feet for the employee unit against 2,000 square feet for the free market unit. There will be one bedroom~Jovided for employee use against ~~edrooms provided for free market use. It would be low income employee housing and will be deed re- stricted for a period of 50 years to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines and to occupancy limitations within the housing income eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Restated, the project will have 50% employee housing against 50% free market unit. It is not contemplated that the unit will be sold, so there would be no unique financing terms available; however the applicants record in the past has shown that from a rental stand- point he has always rented his units at somewhere between 85% and 90% of the allowable rent under the low housing guidelines. E. Bonus Points: 1) In view of the earlier hardships created by the prior Growth Management Plan point allocation and the fact that it has been changed to permit small projects like this to compete, the applicant would hope that the Commission would look favorably upon awarding bonus points to permit this de- velopment to finally take place and complete the development of the 100 block on West Hyman. R::P'C':Ul:;:~b~~' ~~aker~~ Agent for William D. S \ L