HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.601 Aspen St. Appeal
-I
IIBK>RANOOM
TO:
Aspen City Council
If? , ?----
Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager II~
NZ.
THl1lJ:
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning and Developnent Director
nATE:
601 Aspen Appeal
July 28, 1986
RE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: "'he Planning Office recommends that the "ity Council
alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street
project by the Planning Commission by the addition of 5.78 mints
in the Employee Housinq Category. This action would rai se the
average score for the project to 30.67 points. still below the
threshold of 31.8 points. The Planning Office therefore further
recommends that the Council finds the 601 Aspen Street project to
be ineligible for an allotment, due to not having met the compe-
titive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL AerION: There have been no prior Council
actions on this application.
BACKGROUND: On June 17.1986, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission scored the 601 Aspen Street Growth Management Plan
application. As is summarized on the attached tally sheet, the
six members present at the meeting awarded the project a score of
29.7 Doints, which is below the 11 8 mint minimum competitive
threshold. According to Section 24-l1.4(f) of the Code, appeals
of the scoring must be submitted within 14 days of the date of
P&Z'S hearing. The attached letter pre pared by Doug All en on
behalf of the appl icant was submitted in accordance with this
provision.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Code provides that City Council shall
consider challenges to P&Z'S scoring, "limited to determining
whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion
by the Commission in its scoring". The Code further states that
following its hearing of the challenge Council has the authority
to change the number of points awarded by the Commission to the
applicant.
The applicant's letter asks you to rescore seven of the 14
criteria upon which this project was scored. The applicant bases
his arguments on the contention that the planning Commission had
a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the proiect or its proponent,
Hans Cantrup. Were this true, it would be logical to conclude
that the commission did, in fact, abuse its discretion. However,
69 $�j ` �j� 0� 601 Aspen appeal file 3
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THF?U: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager ;� r
FROM: Alan Richman, planning and Development Director
RE: 601 Aspen Appeal
nATE : July 28, 1986
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the "ity Council
alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street
project by the Planning Commission by the addition of 5.78 points
in the Employee Housinq Category. This action would raise the
average score for the project to 30.67 points. still below the
threshold of 31.8 points. The Planning Office therefore further
recommends that the Council finds the 601 Aspen Street project to
be ineligible for an allotment, due to not having met the compe-
titive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There have been no prior Council
actions on this application.
BACKGROUND: On June 17 - 1986, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission scored the 601 Aspen Street Growth Management Plan
application. As is summarized on the attached tally sheet, the
six members present at the meeting awarded the project a score of
29.7 points, which is below the 11 8 point minimum competitive
threshold. According to Section 24-11.4(f) of the Code, appeals
of the scoring must be submitted within 14 days of the date of
P&Z's hearing. The attached letter prepared by Doug Allen on
behalf of the applicant was submitted in accordance with this
provision.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Code provides that City Council shall
consider challenges to P&Z's scoring, "limited to determining
whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion
by the Commission in its scoring". The Code further states that
following its hearing of the challenge Council has the authority
to change the number of points awarded by the Commission to the
a ppl i ca nt .
The applicant's letter asks you to rescore seven of the 14
criteria upon which this project was scored. The applicant bases
his arguments on the contention that the Planning Commission had
a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the project or its proponent,
Hans Cantrup. Were this true, it would be logical to conclude
that the Commission did, in fact, abuse its discretion. However,
C,
•
in reviewing
the scores
awarded
by the Commission, and the
testimony from
the public
hearing,
staff does not believe that
the applicant's
contention
has been
proven.
In considering whether the Commission abused its discretion (we
can ignore the question of violation of due process since the
applicant makes no claims in this regard) we need to first define
what constitutes the discretion granted to P&Z by the Council
through the zoning regulations. By the clear language of the
Code and by precedent of nearly a decade of GMP reviews, the
Council has delegated to the P&Z responsibility for scoring GMP
applications. It is the P&Z which reviews the applicant's
oriqinal submission in its entirety. conducts site visits when
necessary, holds lengthy public hearings and considers all pertinent
facts and representations. Unlike conceptual subdivision and
PUD, where Council repeats the in-depth investigations of P&Z,
in GMP Council does no more than qrant allotments and hear
challenges- and never gets involved in point -by -point scoring
review.
The heart of the applicant's case is a point -by -point evaluation
of the scoring done by the Commission. The applicant contends
that the Planning Commission abused its discretion by awarding
the "wrong" scores to the project. As should be obvious to
anyone who participates in land use reviews, rarely is there such
a thing as a "right" or "wrong" score. If scores were based on
mathematical calculations. we could simply feed the data into a
computer and emerge with the correct answer. However, you have
specif ically granted to P&Z the authority to consider the facts
presented to it by the applicant, staff, and the public and to
make decisions as to the most reasonable score. We believe that
there is no question that the P&Z did exactly this, and that
their scoring is therefore beyond reproach.
An example of how P&Z might abuse its discretion is easy to
imacine. Looking at the tally sheets, if 5 of r, p&Z members had
scored the protect similarly, but one member's scores exhibited
significant aberration below the norm, causing a low average
snore, then it might be said that the individual had abused his
or her discretion. However, in the case at hand, all of the
scores which the applicant questions show mutual support among
the members' scores. Tf five members of the Commission feel that
the project rates a "0" in terms of neighborhood compatibility
and the applicant disagrees, is one side right and one side
wrong, or do we merely have a reasonable difference of opinion
based on the facts at hand? Can the Commission possibly have
abused its discretion through prejudice when for so many criteria
(water, sewer, drainage, housing, transportation and proximity to
commercial facilities) all, or virtually all members gave the
project exactly the score the applicant requests and staff
recommended, while also for energy and trails the staff and
Commission were in agreement?
2
For us to accept a challenge based on the premise of the applicant
being "right" and the Commission "wrong" would thoroughly destroy
the integrity of the entire GMP process. It would mean that P&Z
has no discretion to listen to the advice of staff and the input
of the public, but merely should hear about the issue from the
applicant and score the project accordingly. This is obviously
not the intent of having the Planning Commission sit as a public
body to hear land use applications. Further, if Council sets the
precedent of reviewing each score given by each Commission
member, you will be placed in the position of re-scorinq every
application about which there is controversy, which is counter to
the idea of delegation of scorinq to P&Z.
In only one appeal issue can we support the contentions of the
applicant. The GMP regulations provide an unambiguous formula on
which employee housing is to be scored. The Planninq Commission
has no discretion in this area, and yet one member developed his
own interpretation of this provision and scored the project
accordingly. For the integrity of the process we recommend that
Council increase this one score from 7.22 points to 13 points -
although this sinqle action has no effect on the overall project
out com e .
ALTERNATIVES:
There are a variety of alternatives available to Council including
the f oll owing :
1. Certify the P&Z scorinq as it has been forwarded to you.
2. Alter the P&Z scoring in the area of employee housing.
3. Alter the P&Z scoring in some or all of the other
categories in which the applicant has requested relief
(this will require a new hearing so staff can present
you with its recommended scores).
4. Remand the project to P&Z for rescorinq.
The planning Office's recommendation is to follow alternative 2.
As we have discussed above, while the applicant certainly has the
riqht to request relief in the other scorinq areas. we do not
believe it is appropriate for Council to re -hear the detailed
scoring issues. If Council feels, however, that is should
reconsider each of the P&Z's scores, it should schedule a hearing
at which time both staff and the applicant can present the
project to Council, and the public can be heard, or it should
simply send the project back to P&Z f or a second hearing of the
scoring issues.
3
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"Move to alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen
Street project in the employee housing category by the
addition of 5.78 points to the score of 7.22 points-"
"Move to find the 601 Aspen Street project to be ineligible
for an allotment, due to not having met the competitive
threshold, and consider it to be finally denied."
AR. 711
4
C.
0
July 1, 1986
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 601 Aspen
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Scoring
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 24-
11 .4 ( f ) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Notice is hereby given that the
scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission is challenged by the
Applicant because of abuse of discretion by the Commission in its
scoring. When the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in its scoring
capacity as it did in this case, scoring pursuant to the Zoning Code,
it is performing a quasi-judicial function. In so performing this
function it must make its decision based upon a rational and fair
review of the facts and data presented to it, not on a preconceived or
prejudiced idea of the project or of the proponent for the project,
Hans B. Cantrup.
The facts in this case clearly support a score far in excess of that
given the Applicant by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
professional staff of the Planning Office scored the project 35
points. The Applicant's summation of the scoring at the public
hearing yields a total of 42 points. The Planning and Zoning
Commission scored the project with 29.7 points. The minimum
threshold is 31.8 points.
Enclosed as Exhibit "A" to this communication is a chart showing the
respective scoring of the Applicant, the Planning Office, the
Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the individual
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. You will note from a
careful review of Exhibit "A" the wide disparity in scoring, even in
the objective areas as well as the subjective areas of scoring.
Six members of the Commission scored the project. The cumulative
total of points from all scorers to meet the threshold needs to be
190.8 (6 x 31.8). The total Commission scores were 178.22 or 11.58
points short of meeting the threshold. The discussion below will
detail point by point the abuse of discretion in the scoring which
resulted in failure to meet the threshold and clearly show the correct
scoring absent abuse of discretion.
I will deal with the scoring in reverse order from that set forth in the
Code as it more clearly points out the abuse of discretion by the
Commission.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING is strictly a mathematical calculation based upon
the number of GMP units for which the Applicant has applied (92)
multiplied by the Employee Housing commitment to construct or convert
housing or to provide cash in lieu in accordance with the City Code.
For reasons unknown to the Applicant, one Commissioner was extremely
prejudiced in this area as well as others and chose to score the
project as having "270+" units when the application is clearly for 92
GMP studio units plus reconstruction of 20 existing units. This is
the most blatant example of prejudice in the scoring but other
prejudice will also be discussed below. Thus there must be a
cumulative total increase in employee housing of 5.78 points.
Quality of Design. While quality of design is more subjective, the
required considerations in the Code, the scoring criteria and the
facts of the situation absolutely preclude scores given by some
Commission members from being anything but abuse of discretion. The
site is largely zoned L-2 at the present time with the permitted and
expected uses in such zone to be those compatible with the lodge zone
and as permitted by the lodge zone. I quote from the stated intention
of the L-2 Zone:
"To encourage construction and renovation of
lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain
and to allow construction of tourist oriented
single-family, duplex and multi -family units."
In this zone permitted uses are "lodge units; boardinghouses; hotel;
dining room, laundry and recreation facilities for guests only;
multi -family residences; single-family and duplex residences".
Clearly the intention of the Code is to encourage and promote
development such as this on this type of site and on this particular
site.
The proposed project in terms of size, height and location is actually
a less intensive use than the South Point, Lift One, and Timberidge,
and similar to that of the Skier's Chalet and Holland House which are
to the south and east of the project. Also on the east is the site for
the proposed Ski Museum and Aspen Ski Club building. The property to
the south is already multi -family development including the Mine Dump
Apartments and Shadow Mountain which are proposed to be reconstructed
and moved down the hill in the 601 Aspen project. The land adjacent on
the west side of the project is presently developed with a single-
family house owned by Mary Barbee, although with its present zoning
( and in accordance with her letter to the Planning Office) represents
development potential of approximately 20 single-family homes. Mrs.
Barbee' s stated intention is to market the land for such development
or more intense development if the land is rezoned to L-2.
Taking the scoring criteria into account the conclusion is
inescapable that those Commission members who scored the project zero
in this category abused their discretion. The proposal is clearly an
excellent design as to neighborhood compatibility but at the very
least is an acceptable but standard design taking into account the
zone for which it is proposed, the existing surrounding development
and the proposed development for adjacent areas. The Applicant does
not concede a major design flaw, but even if we did and thus scored the
-2-
project one in the neighborhood compatibility category there would be
a cumulative total increase of five points.
Site Design. The Planning Office scored the project one in this area
criticizing the placement of buildings adjacent to Garmisch Street
which "will denegrate the rustic single-family and open space quality
of the Shadow Mountain hillside area". As we have seen above, the
adjacent Shadow Mountain hillside area is also eligible for
development even conceding no rezoning for this area. Thus this area
will not forever remain "open space". 601 Aspen is proposed for a
platted area of town which has been zoned to allow such development
thus meeting the considerations of quality and character of the
landscaping and open space area in conformity to that which might be
expected with such permitted development. All utilities are
underground. Either a cursory or intensive review of the arrangement
of the improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy can only lead to the conclusion that this project
meets such criteria. Thus the project does conform to the Code
criteria for site design and should be scored at least two. Again,
conceding that this is a subjective area, perhaps the project could be
scored one as the Planning Office scoring suggests. Scoring this
project one in the Site Design category yields a total cumulative
increase of 3.5 points.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES in the scoring system is almost as
objective as Proximity and Employee Housing. Specific criteria
which are easily verified are set out for the scoring in this category.
Water service and sewer service were correctly scored.
Storm Drainage. The criteria in this category are the 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. These
criteria were met 100% by the Applicant proposing to install drywells
and retention to retain site runoff plus curb and gutter along
portions of the property which would tie into an existing catch basin.
These additional improvements in and of themselves improve the
quality of service in the area. This was also further confirmed by
the Engineering Department letter verifying these facts. Thus there
is no choice but to award this area two points. As two members gave
the project a score of one in this category the cumulative total score
should be increased by two points.
Fire Protection. The criteria here when properly applied lead to the
inescapable conclusion that the project must be awarded two points.
The DePagter family, owners of the Holland House, were opposed to this
project and their son-in-law, John Simmons, appeared, giving the
impression he was speaking for the Fire Department and raised some
fire protection concerns. It was later discovered that not only did
Mr. Simmons not have authority to speak for the Fire Department, but
that his statements did not correctly state the position of the Fire
Department or the facts of the case. You now have the letter of June
24, 1986 from the Fire Chief correcting and clarifying this mis-
statement(copy attached as Exhibit "B")and setting forth the ability
-3-
of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the district without the necessity
of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment
to the existing station. This coupled with the commitment for new
fire hydrants leads to the inescapable fact that the quality of
service is improved in the area. Thus, applying the Code criteria the
project must be scored two points. This increases the cumulative total
scores by nine points.
Parking Design. The criteria in this catergory relate to (1)
adequacy of numbers and, (2) design of the spaces with respect to
visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. The
Planning Office' s only criticisms were as to the 30 spaces required in
connection with the Ski Company agreement and the amount of paving.
That being the case, this is truly a Catch-22 situation. To provide
surface parking would have required more paved area visible to the
public than is required by underground parking or to leave the area
unpaved with difficult access in the winter and dust in the summer.
This would truly be a poor plan. The Applicant chose to improve on
this with an underground garage. The Planning policy of the City of
Aspen has long been to eliminate the visual effects of parking as much
as possible by providing underground parking. This has not been
implemented to any great extent due to the high cost involved. The
Applicant in this case has not only improved the situation by
providing an excess number of parking spaces but provided virtually
all of them in an underground parking facility thus not only
minimizing the visual impact but increasing convenience and safety by
providing a warm, dry and protected area for winter parking. It is a
fact of life in Aspen that 30 marked -off parking spaces on the surface
during the winter with snow accumulation taken into consideration
does not allow for the convenient parking of 30 cars while a garage
facility does so as well as allowing a safe and convenient place for
skiers to remove and replace ski equipment before and after skiing.
The underground skier parking would be signed to easily direct the
skier to the facility.
Relative to the question of paved area, the new proposed Dean Street
is, of course not only paved, and snowmelt, but paved in a first class
manner. In addition, the entrance to the garage is similarly paved
not only providing a snowmelt access to the garage but also providing
area which could be utilized for transit purposes should the new Dean
Street access donated by the developer be incorporated into such a
transit system. Again using the required criteria, the service
improvement by the Applicant benefits more than the project only and
does benefit the area in general. If it only benefited the project
and not the area in general it would be entitled to one point but the
project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area by vastly improving the ski company parking and thus must receive
two points. Correcting this score results in a cumulative total gain
of 6.5 points.
Roads. All of the facts presented lead to the inescapable
conclusion, even if the Engineering Department's estimate of trips is
accepted rather than that of the Applicant that the project may be
-4-
handled by existing level of service in the area. Not only that but
the project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the
area by recreating Dean Street where none has existed for many years
(see Exhibit "C" attached). This creates an east -west connector with
the existing Dean Street to the east and also creates a very logical
loop at a low enough level to be suitable for either bus or trolley
connections should they ever be utilized for mass transit in the area.
The Engineering Department's comment on this is, "However, in this
case the applicant is creating a new street that could be used more
appropriately as the connection between Garmisch and Aspen Streets."
This, with the upgrade of Garmisch Street can only improve the quality
of service in the area mandating a score of two in accordance with Code
requirements. Thus the cumulative total score in the roads category
should be increased by 10 points.
In summation, the project, absence abuse of discretion, is clearly
entitled to an overall increase of 41.78 points which would result in a
new score of 36.66 points, well exceeding the threshold required for
GMP approval. The Applicant fully realizes the necessity for the
many hurdles to be cleared after an appropriate scoring of the project
is achieved. There has been considerable controversy in the past
relative to this Applicant. All of these have been reviewed in great
detail by the Applicant, the engineering and design team and legal
counsel. We can unequivocally state that the problems that have been
experienced in the past will not be problems in the future. We all
realize that the problems of the past undoubtedly prejudiced the
scoring system and only ask that this application be scored fairly and
be given an opportunity to contribute to the betterment of the lodging
community.
Also appended to this application are the P & Z scoring results for
Aspen Mountain Lodge, Lyle Reeder's Lodge at Aspen, Little Nell Base
Area Redevelopment, and Sunny Park. All of these were scored as
lodges except Sunny Park, but with similar scoring criteria to multi-
family. A careful review of these scorings coupled with the facts
shown above must clearly lead to the conclusion that this Applicant
was the subject of abuse of discretion in the scoring process on June
17, 1986.
-5-
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTI#
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
SOISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY
SHEET
Project: 601 Aspen
Residential
GMP Project
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS
Planning
P&Z
Applicant
Office
Mary Jasmine
Roger
Welton
Al
David
Avg.
1. Public Facilities
and Services
a. Water Service
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
c. Storm Drainage
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
d. Fire Protection
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
e. Parking Design
2
1
1
0
1
.5
2
0
f. Roads
2
1
0
0
.5
0
1
.5
Subtotal
12
9
8
7
7.5
5.5
10
5.5
7.25
2. Quality of Design
a. Neighborhood
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Compatibility
b. Site Design
2
1
1
0
0
.5
1
0
c. Energy
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
d. Trails
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
e. Green Space
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
1
Subtotal
12
8
5
5
5
4.5
8
5
5.42
3. Proximity to Support
Services
a. Public
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Transportation
b. Community Comml
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Facilities
Subtotal
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4. Employee Housing
a. Low Income
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
7.22
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
Subtotal
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
7.22
12.04
5. Bonus Points
0
0
TOTAL POINTS
42
35
31
30
30.5
28
36
22.72
29.7
EXHIBIT "A"
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-5532
L5�15a W LS
D
June 24, 1986 JUN 2 5 1986 �
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning & Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Office
130 South Galena Street
Re: P&Z meeting on 601 South Aspen.
Dear Alan:
This letter is to serve as a correction to a statement made
by one of my firefighters at the June 17th. P&Z meeting re-
garding the 601 South Aspen Project. Jack Simmons the fire-
man who spoke against the project was not authorized or
qualified to speak on behalf of the fire department. Jack
Simmons was representing the Holland House Lodge not the fire
department. The fire department voiced its opinion on the
project in a letter to Mark Danielson of Danielson Develop-
ment Group on March 28, 1986. The fire department did not,
nor do we anticipate any access or fire flow problems to
the 601 South Aspen Project. I apologize for any problems
that my fireman may have caused by voicing his personal
feelings and not the opinion of the fire department.
Tr yours
eter Wirth
Chief AVFD
cc: Doug Allen
Exhibit "B"
GORDONMiKC0;NS;U;LT;1ZNG
1( GF6D AVENUE, SUITE 212
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
(303) 945-1004
ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS
June 17, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein, City Planning
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 601 Aspen Project
Dear Steve:
f�C�L�UML�
On behalf of the City of Aspen, we were asked to offer comments for the
Aspen Lodge Area Special Improvement District regarding the 601 Aspen
Project. The following items are of interest to the district:
A - We support the vacation of Juan Street.
B - We support the upgrade of Garmisch Street with cul-de-sac to the
Barbee House. The Applicant needs to consider some parking as
shown in the district plan.
C - The Applicant needs to ensure improvements on the right-of-way of
Aspen Street follow district plans. This is particularly import-
ant with regards to parking.
D - There is a need for a public pedestrian right-of-way on Dean
Street between Aspen and Garmisch. The right-of-way should be a
minimum of 20 feet. The design the Applicant has submitted is
generally what the district desires. We want to ensure concur-
rance of the Applicants plans with Lift One and Timber Ridge
Condominiums. Final plans should be integrated into district
design concepts.
E - The district requires a drainage easement a minimum of 20 feet
through the property for a + 72" pipe for storm waters from Aspen
Mountain. The easement could follow the Nordic Trail easement,
if that easement is also secured by the Applicant through the
Barbee property. Our need is to get from Aspen Street to
Garmisch Street.
Sincerely,
SCMJESER CORDON MEYER, INC.
Q'R,Dnlh
`�' _
Project Manager
RT:lc/5726
xc: Mr. Jay Hatmrond, City Engineer t
>
"
H-Idl
I
+Hdd
NI
3I
N
ri
.-� N
•-i
1�
C'1
•O t'1
�D O
40
Lo
h
N
I-H+l
�I
-1-H-I
d
al
"
InHddco
n
ld
al
1
NI
d "
14H
-I
441
NI
N
V
n
O
H
O
v1
�p
-H
-1
-1
I I
I
ZI
In
dil
-I
-i
d
N
I
I
ZI
I
^ I
O
I I
I
Z)
b
i
n
-
1
O
I
- I
Z
Ill
NIA
I
°
151
I
�
I I
10 I
I I
I
I
C4
^
ZI
\ G 1
az v�
'O H
U
co Z ,
m
H
P.
d
Z
O
U
y
H
E
O
H
En
0 rfi
_
z
Im
ya
Ena
o�
•.I o
a
O In•�
��aEr
L�
z
c
O
S ro N
O w
•.I ro
a
N O
G) 01
F
O
a
$4 U
.� LI U
F
O
F
l ,I F
)n
w
u 41
U U ro a)
c u
=)
o
w
a
ro W U
u
u a lnro ro
D
U) w
m o
0 -4
ro .•+ .-I
v w
>+
H
u r:
•�
�a
E.
.4
a
4) ro u
yruu0
w y o s,
a
o
u •ul01 e
uQ)U H
w rn
>
O
a
a w ro o
•.+w•1
rn +1 u
W
H
a
1
a� Q, C .-I
a
c •.� ro
4
GI N C) Tf
O
A d X 7
N
L .14 •.GI $4
w
w
a+3owro
I
uaJmru�
w
wucu
7E
z
0
a
ro 4) 4J •.� o
3v�cnwa
F
., ro •.i
aw ;a>
H
F
z
G) ro ••4 O)
:C
H
1n
a
�
P ul
,EO>
roa uRi ai
a
roA uv ai
m A u
h
O
N
a
b
a
a
.-i
O
a)
U
v
U
�
N
GO
tN
IU1
F
a
Z
a
b
o
N
cH
t),ro�
F
a
a
•.Icct
5
;oo
Ow
0 ro c
w
F
°
Yl
U
Ot X
F
z
I w
Ao
H
0,
o
w
aro
m
z
°
z
V
O
roA
W
`*
n
•
U)
E.
z
H
O
a
a
F
F
•
•
•
i
��
O N
O 111 coo
N
—4 v1 .O
In
H N
H r•i
.s N .t
N
V n N,,
I I I
I I I
I
I
IN
`� `�
��
MI
HI
N
NI
•"�
c
I
I
I
ZI
{y
h
O
N
. 1
o
IIII
I
li
H I
n I
O I
n
yo
w
III
�
H F
lz
"
o
v
•C
in
N
voi
aN
H
h
I
o
v
�.yINI
^)
nInINInI�I
�I
��I
~I
z
.
Zz
O
aI
ICI
�
I
I
H
IC
I
h
V1
zg
H H N
n
h
n
v1
n M I
W I
'
z(
O
S
W
N
I
I
�
uE
H
xz
lzZ
N
IIp
�I �I I
I�Ia
I
\I
~I
I
o
n
H.�N NH
I I I I I
I
o •III+
��I
�I
n
In
In
NI
N N
aI
ac
au
z
z
c
cooCh
yy
.4 It
41
(zj
N
2
w
En
uj�
W
0
W
IA
U
N
N
F
0
H
WaFH
N .14
Z
Za�Oa�E.11
m
—4
W�aWMFa
Z.
W
0�
�
AE
C1
(A
a
�i/1
]
o
g'u
w
m
�a
NoF
>.,IE
. Vwa
yoo
4) b1•.
m
N
s
O
to
7
A4)
ro +
O
uOWto
HroN
0 4J b1
NIn
.
A/
W
o CU
S
> j.50
O1
11 -4
go
O to E
Wro0
0
0.11
i1H
�au•
°iWG�
o
wuwuu
airn
H7
rn
uW wC
if5
�a
Eaaro
,row¢
y
�d
tn
4Jw
2
°�
w
a,3oNro
9 4)
uW1+
w
H
uo
Wua
W ro a
wo
°
'
u
W N -A
to
co
n Wa>
y
H
z
H
.4
(Q
u o
a
roa 6C1 W
a
roA u o W
ro A ti
w >
O N
a a
.1
11
0
M
Ow
- I � �'l � � � �'H'l
v
U
z
�
~
v
N
w
M
V
V
V D
OC
N N
N
o
D
Ui +
N
e
•� .-1
C�
A •,I
A
CL
a'Ai a
x
La"
H
>
a
W���
x�
N
N
cnv°ioEl
a
xi
ncgb�
N
ci
y 6 N
O
L
J
N 4 Y 7
N
.0 -H
N W 1O •.1 O
3NN�.a
�1
4 •1.1 C (0 •••1
N
N R3 M W
{% C'�
z z
a
�
aNwa�
�
EwQx
�icg
M
oa
N
�i
D
a
roaooa
a
roacioa¢
iio
8 ��
co
w
0
CITY OF ASPEN
RES IDEW IAL G ROWPH MANAG EMENr PLAN SUBKISS ION
POINTS ALLOCff ION — TALLY SHEET
Project:_Sunriv, Park 1985 Residatial PrQject (3/l8/86)
P&z VCrIP2 !!FMERS Al HdU JJ1q_ JMMine 82ge btltw Emm old BYeLa
1. Public Facilities
and Services
a.
Water Service
b.
Sewer Service
c.
Storm Drainage
2— 2
d.
Fire Protection
2 1
e.
Parking Design
2_ �l _
f .
Roads
2 2
2. Quality of Design
a. Neighborhood _3 _2
Compatibility
b. Site Design —3 3
cz,►8�erejy%g 3 2
wrap a 3 3
e. Green Space 3 _22
3. Proximity to Support
Services
_I —I 1— 1
_2 �_ 1_ __ 1
2 2— 2_ — —
9 - 9 -$_ 8 -
2_ 3 2.5 —3 _
2—
7.5
3 3 3 3 —3
_2 _ 2_ 2- -2- 2
2_2
3 3 2_ — 2.5
lam_ 14- 1 _ 14- _ 12. 5
a. Public 3 3 3 3 _ _ 3
T rans portat i on
b. Community Commml 22_ 2_ 2_ 2_ 2—
Facilities
S JBrMAL 5 5_ 55_ 5_ 5
4. Ehmployee Housing
a. Low Income
ILO
_ ) — 10
b. Moderate Income
_.
c. Middle Income
SURWAL
1_ 19--
14.— 10 10 10
SLWMAL 1-4
39 34—
N- 3_ -5— 37
5. Bonus Points
-5 0
0 0 2_ 0
T@AL POINTS
44 34—
M_ 3_ 37 37
2-
1_ --I-Q---
0 1 - _
3_ --3Z.l_
•
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
SUBJ: 601 ASPEN APPEAL
DATE: JULY 28, 1986
SUMMARY: The Applicant concurs with the Planning Office that City
council alter the number of points in connection with the Employee
Housing category by the addition of 5.78 points as the scoring of P & Z
Member David White was clearly a denial of due process and abuse of
discretion on his part. The Applicant further recommends that in
addition to this the scoring be amended to that of the experts in the
Planning Office who scored the project a total of 35 points, as 35
points comfortably exceeds the threshold of 31.8 points, although the
Applicant feels the project is entitled to a scoring of 42 points.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Applicant agrees with ,the Planning
Director.
BACKGROUND: Applicant agrees with the background as stated by the
Planning Director.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In this case, only by changing the number of
points awarded to the Applicant's project can relief be granted by
City Council of the totally inappropriate scoring of the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
Although discretion is delegated to P & Z by the Council through the
Zoning Regulations to score GMP Applications, contrary to the
Planning Director's statement, City Council does get involved in
point -by -point scoring review when appropriate as such is
specifically provided for in Section 24-11.4(g) of the City Code.
We agree with the Planning Director that there is not necessarily
always a "right" or "wrong" score, but in this case there was
concerning Employee Housing scoring as set forth above. While
Planning Commission Member White's scoring in the area of Employee
Housing was clearly a lack of due process and abuse of discretion, his
scoring in other areas as well as that of some of the other Commission
Members was more subtle as applied to this Applicant but clearly fell
into the category of a "wrong" score. The Applicant submits that
there is a range within which scores can fall in certain categories and
not be subject to attack, but that several in this case are beyond that
range.
When that permissible range is exceeded the scoring is not beyond
reproach. We take issue with the Planning Director's conclusion that
the Commission could not possibly have abused its discretion through
prejudice when they each give the same score in specific categories.
An appeal in a case such as this reaches exactly the opposite result of
10
• n�, 1
•
that suggested by the Planning Director. An appeal such as this does
not "thoroughly destroy the integrity of the entire GMP process" but
to the contrary, the integrity of the process would be destroyed if
review was not allowed in cases of lack of due process and abuse of
discretion. I do not know of any other way to clearly show this
failure on the part of P & Z in the instant application other than to go
through certain items of scoring in detail to show that no reasonable
person could reach the conclusion reached by the majority of the
Commission Members.
ALTERNATIVES: The Applicant feels that the only acceptable
alternative in fairness to this Applicant is alternate 3. and to alter
the P & Z scoring in at least some of the categories in which the
Applicant has requested relief. The staff has presented P & Z with
its recommended scores and a copy of that recommended scoring is
attached to this Memorandum. This is a copy of the scoring which was
previously furnished to the Applicant.
Any concept of fairness to this Applicant must lead to the
increase in total points to at least the threshold of 31.8 and
realistically to the range of 35 points.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to alter the number of points awarded to
the 601 Aspen Street Project by the addition of 2. 1 points to the score
of 29.7 points to a total of 31.8 points."
"Move to find the 601 Aspen Street Project to be eligible for an
allotment, having met the competitive threshold."
) -Wl- SL�� - V A�- 4 0 /
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
;;M7
MP COMPETITION
Project • 6,0/ Date:
Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing. level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two (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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 471
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of , the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: Z'
•
•
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [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:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [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.
RAT I NG :
COMMENTS: �j%L= 14- 2 -/ I'- -
O&V
— 2 —
e.
Parking Design (maximum two (21 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:
JV—
COMMENTS•
f.
Roads (maximum two [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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
'J�
RATING. •
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) .
.-s
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:
- 3 -
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
/ �- /� RAT I2JG
: a —
COMMENTS. . /(//f� /S q-z'�
7X�j 6r /wire- %�GS ✓ LE' -� ����'?J
b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING
COMMENTS: t/S� / l� r- /1l�cGS kv//7 �S
C. Energy (maximum three [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:
- 4 -
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [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:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three (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:
COMMENTS:
72)
�" �/� ✓mac �-C7�1 �71� /�-C'�S`i , �/ �� (/Cl %�
SUBTOTAL: t
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:
— 5 —
•
•
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 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:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 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 commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
SUBTOTAL: 6"
•
•
C
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1 ) point f or each ten (10 ) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income
housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons
to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing
using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the
restricted and non -restricted
units:
G
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: .1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00
residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents
per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One
[1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RAT I Tic :
COMMENTS: dIVI Ale 7?,11TVZ-1112A ��✓✓ �-�
/-Iel
- 7 -
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20) percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING:
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: L%�i • v
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember : IVIV7Vr_—
rs /Vo� 92�
=:w
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL G MP COMPETITION '
Project • I GG O
Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [21 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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RAT I NC;
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: _
0 • •
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [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-----
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [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.
COMMENTS:
— 2 —
RATING:
•
•
e. Parking Design (maximum two [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: ✓�
COMMENTS:
f. Roads (maximum two (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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING
COMMENTS:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [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:
- 3 -
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3) points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Site Design (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: j
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three [31 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:
=-t
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three (31 points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [31 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:
COMMENTS•
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 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:
— 5 —
r • •
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [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:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [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.
COMMENTS:
RATING: -2-"
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:
— 5 —
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 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:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three (31 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 commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project- is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One ( 1 ) point f or each ten (10 ) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom:, 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
ti
RATING:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten
[101 percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each
twenty [201 percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points) .
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
PGT RY—b :
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember:
►3
36
— 8 —
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Proj ect - _ 4101 A544o�' Date
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: �v
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [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:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [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 ail existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
— 2 —
0
e. Parking Design (maximum two [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.
RAT I IJG :
COMMENTS:
f. Roads (maximum two (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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [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:
- 3 -
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neiahborinq developments.
RATING: a
•
3
b. Site Design (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: —L1L_ - -
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three [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: Z1_
- 4 -
•
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [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. /
DRMTMr! .
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 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:
— 5 —
or
1
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [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
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [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 commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project- is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
SUBTOTAL: =
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom, -or -larger: 3.00
Dormitory: 1.00 residents
space.
residents;
per 150 square feet of unit
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS•
- 7 -
r_�
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) .
RAT ING3 :
SUBTOTAL:
RATING: I
,�.� S
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1,, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: _ S
INTS
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Comm issionmember:
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: _ 60 r �ti`� -� Date -J -
)u
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
s
COMMENTS:
C. storm Drainage (maximum two [21 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:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two 121 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
COMMENTS: / . T% �r�i��i�-1�,�r '� f�� e,c� Vl ey v "2r o�
-V L Qcs `�,ahG �t%� f L V'A �`�� i'�5f�-i�`� %'.1�d3 t C
— 2 —
• •
r
e. Parking Design (maximum two (21 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:
COMMENTS: Fe%`/�%�r'C�•V,F�4f��Gt}17�.(J/<�`T
f. Roads (maximum two [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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [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:
- 3 -
r
0 . •
L
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: Q
COMMENTS: 10��� (� i�(Jj c A
7-iU
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: C)
COMMENTS: G 0
I
c. Energy (maximum three [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.
- 4 -
Z-
RATING:
5
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration
ways and the
of the provision of
provisions of links
pedestrian and bicycle
systems, whenever
to
feasible.
existing parks
and trail
RATING
Q
COMMENTS I �< �
�
: �
�-) Lam} � �
Nfl a�v�
e. Green Space (maximum three [31 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.
COMMENTS:
RAT I NG :
1-11
SUBTOTAL: Is
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 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:
— 5 —
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 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:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 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 commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
•
•
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of ,the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00
Dormitory: 1.00 residents
space.
residents;
per 150 square feet of unit
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five (51
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:_
- 7 -
b.
Moderate Income Housing
1101 percent housed).
Provided (One [11 point for each ten
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C.
Middle Income Housing Provided (One
twenty [20] percent housed).
[11 point for each
RAT INu
COMMENTS:
2�
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus
Points (maximum seven
[7) points) .
RATING:
POINTS IN
CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and
4:
POINTS IN
CATEGORY 5:_
POINTS IN
CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember: dvAJ
r--
,
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL G MP COMPETITION
Proj ect :��N Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 09''
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: Z
•
•
COMMENTS•
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [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:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 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: I
COMMENTS:
— 2 —
E
•
2.
e. Parking Design (maximum two [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.
/� '3o
COMMENTS:' \ C'
Is
RATING: 0
HWHA-0 AMMEMNEXA11,14 . . . . .
1 .
f. Roads (maximum two [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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS: -1m.
0
RATING: 0
SUBTOTAL:
Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [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:
- 3 -
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
t
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
COMMENTS:_SrLl
RATING:
�„ ...` L n
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
C. Energy (maximum three [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: 17/
- 4 -
s
{
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [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/--
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [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.
COMMENTS:
RAT INS
t_ 0 n —
SUBTOTAL: 15
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 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:
— 5 —
•
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [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:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [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 -commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Proj ect 'is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
SUBTOTAL: 5
•
•
1 � '
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; .
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25
One -bedroom:.
Two -bedroom:
Three -bedroom
Dormitory:
space.
residents
1.75 residents
2-.25 residents
or larger: 3.00
1.00 residents
residents;
per 150 square feet of unit
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five [51
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:. 2TA,, 1 I� OA X( e2/y j liiO
- 7 -
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS•
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RAT I NG : o
COMMENTS:_
SUBTOTAL: 13
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points) . RATING:
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, :2, 3, and 4: 36
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember:
Cam✓
I.
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project • Date: "(14
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [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 develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading. nn
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
•
•
I
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [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--
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [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.
COMMENTS:
— 2 —
RATING:
0
•
e. Parking Design (maximum two [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:
COMMENTS:
f. Roads (maximum two [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 over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:— HC CSC ('V'` 1`` (o
\C0_ CI C
RATING:
a `n�l P Y � '� P P � F'�P �h•`,o C,S) � c� rc(' �� CA.f� c:�� � f c CS, � L �. ���1
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [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:
- 3 -
•
0
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS: j-\ C C..Y�-4»�
lL %� Cruel
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: _ I
COMMENTS : _ 1)( )1�=1 c F' �h4� ` It �e Y�� 'Zi 0e, VN -5"'XrO , --
1
Cr L''ri-���
c. Energy (maximum three [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: I
- 4 -
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [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:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [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:
COMMENTS: �(
cJ fre A(fin
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:
— 5 —
•
9
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (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:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [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 commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS:
— 6 —
RATING: 2
SUBTOTAL
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: ;2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00
Dormitory: 1.00 residents
space.
residents;
per 150 square feet of unit
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five (5]
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
0
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income housing Provided (One [1) point for each
twenty (201 percent housed).
RAT I NG
COMMENTS•
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING:
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1,: 2, 3, and 4: I (y
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember : _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 601 Aspen Project General Submission/Scoring - Public
Hearing
DATE: June 13, 1986
ZONING: L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L)
LOCATION: Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition (Barbee
Tract) , Lots 3 through 12, Block 11 (Parking Lot) , Lots 13
through 20, Block 11, Eames Addition, and tract of land adjacent
to Block 11, Eames Addition (Mine Dumps) . Proposed development
is between South Aspen and South Garmisch Streets and south of
Juan Street. The unplattesi are"etwee.n_p-ar_ ina 1 of and Mine
Dumps tracts -is� included_ in the project area but not own-eiW_
apg1ican
t�-not used in calcuhation�-- -J—
LAND AREA: 113,545 square feet
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Hans B. Cantrup,
requests GMP allocation of 92 free market residential units so to
construct a 112 unit short-term residential/hotel project. The
project would include fully hotel services, health facilities,
tennis courts, an entrance reception/lobby area, a 152 space
underground parking structure and 20 surface parking spaces.
BACKGROUND TO THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING: Two applications
were submitted for the l�S__9r•1P competition: Sunny Park and 601
Aspen. G11P scoring of the Sunny_`PaPk-and-"60-17 Aspen projects were
originally scheduled for January 28, 1986. At the request of the
Sunny Park applicant, Sunny Park was scored by P&Z March 18,
1986 after the outcome of the proposed Ordinance No. 2 (1986) ,
employee housing Code amendments. Ordinance No. 2 reduces the
total points available for employee housing and repeals the
conversion of existing units category in the residential GMP
scoring procedure. The ordinance also allows for a cash -in -lieu
payment to meet employee housing obligations. Council adopted
Ordinance No. 2 on February 10, 1986. On March 10, 1986, Council
unanimously passed a motion to allow the 1985 Residential G14P
competitors to choose whether they be scored under the old or new
scoring system.
The 601 Aspen Residential GMP application was rejected by the
Planning Director on February 18, 1986, for reasons of zoning
code violations. On May 17, 1986, following the adoption of
Ordinance No. 2 (1986) , the Planning Office reconsidered the
decision to reject the 601 Aspen application, provided that the
applicant, Hans Cantrup, would submit a clarification of his
application by April 1, 1986 which would adhere to all repre-
sentations made in the December 1, 1985 submittal. Clarification
of site design, architecture, service commitments and the
elimination of on -site housing and replacement with a cash -in -
lieu commitment was allowed in the new submittal.
During the time of uncertainty over the status of the 601 Aspen
application, tor. Cantrup agreed not to oppose the scoring of the
Sunnv Park Project and the award of units to it before the 601
Aspen Project. On June 9, 1986, Council allocated four (4)
residential units to Sunny Park.
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review is the Planning Office's
recommended points allocation for the 601 Aspen application
resubmitted on April 1, 1986 for the Residential GMP competition.
This application is for an allotment of ninety-two (92) free-
market residential units.
Requested reviews associated with this project will be dealt with
at a later meeting subsequent to the Planning Commission'
scoring, provided that the project meets the threshold of points
in the Residential GMP competition before you. These reviews
include: (1) requested future year allocation from the residen-
tial GMP quota; (2) rezoning the parking lot parcel from R-
15 (PUD) (L) to L-2; (3) vacation of Juan Street; (4) conceptual
subdivision for construction of a multi -family building; (5) GMP
exemption for employee housing using cash -in -lieu; and (6) 8040
greenline review.
QUOTA AVAILABLE:
follows:
Carry -Over
Annual
Quota
Quota for this competition is calculated as
1985 Sunny Park Total
Expirations Construction Allocation Available
0 39 units 13 units 12 units 4 units 36 units
The attached memo from Alan Richman provides additional detail on
these calculations.
PROCESS: The Planning Office will initiate the meeting by
summarizing the project and providing a suggested number of
points for the scoring of the application. At this time, we will
also review any procedural issues which may arise from questions
by Commission members, the applicant or members of the public.
The applicant will next give a brief presentation of the proposal
including any technical clarifications, and rebuttal of Planning
0�1
Office recommendations. 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 applicant's
proposal.
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. A minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each
Category 1, 2 and 3, and a minimum of 35 percent of the points
available in Category 4 must also be achieved. Under the new
scoring system the minimum points are as follows: Category 1 =
3.6 points, Category 2 = 4.5 points, Category 3 = 1.8 points, and
Category 4 = 7 points. The minimum threshold number of total
points, not including bonus points, is 31.8 points. Should the
application :score below these thresholds, it will no longer be
considered for a development allotment and will be considered
denied. Bonus points cannot be used to get a project over the
minimum threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning,Office has assigned points
under the revised scoring system to the application as a recom-
mendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively score the
proposal. The following is a summary of the ratings. 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 and Services 9 pts.
Quality of Design 8 pts. / a -
Proximity to Support Services 5 pts.
Employee Housing 13 Pts,
TOTAL 35 pts. 42
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: According to the Planning Office's rec -
mended scoring, the 601 Aspen application meets the threshold
number of points in each category and reaches the threshold for
total points. Please note that the Planning Office has not yet
made recommendations on the future year allocation and other
reviews that would be conducted at subsequent meetings if the
Planning Commission scores the project above the thresholds.
In our review of the project, we have identified some commitments
that would be outstanding including: improvements to water and
sewer service, energy conservation and employee housing. Trails
and green space elements of the proposal are also positive
aspects of the design that merit recognition.
There are a number of problems with the proposal which effect
scoring areas. The parking design appears to be flawed as it
pertains to fulfilling the ASC commitments for 30 spaces and a
C3)
potential mass transit facility in the Aspen Mountain Master Plan
and the large brick paved entry court. P1eighborhood compat-
ibility is not adequate regarding transition from urban uses to
adjacent Shadow Mountain open space. This site design is not
acceptable in our view as it pertains to usable on -site open
space and the urban character that would be created in the
presently rustic edge of the community.
Other concerns effecting the ability to evaluate this project
should be noted. Some of the maps included in the April 1
submittal show a vegetation scheme and possibly a bicycle trail
adjacent to the proposed new Dean Street that are on portions of
Lift 1 Condominiums and Timberidge properties. The applicant and
his representatives state that the entire development would be
located on the applicant's property and there may be minor
problems in reading the maps. nonetheless, if all the buffer
egetation is on the applicant's property, then the whole scheme
may need to shift south by several feet. In addition, the
development proposal shows vegetation and building on the
unplatted area north of the Mine Dumps not in ownership by the
applicant. This area has not been used for purposes of calculat-
ing land area, open space, or FAR. However, it is inappropriate
to indicate any project -related improvements off -site, such'as in
rights -of -way, public lands, or private property, without
indicating the arrangements for accomplishing such improvements.
Some of the representations, including open space, landscaping
and energy conservation aspects, have been difficult for the
Planning Office and referral agencies to evaluate because of the
level of generality. We appreciate that representations in some
areas of a GMP application may be quite preliminary in nature,
however, we caution the applicant that these representations in
the application must be honored, and can only be changed through
the GMP amendment process as defined in Section 24-11.7(b) of the
Municipal Code.
As mentioned above, the Aspen Skiing Company agreed through the
Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on May 6, 1986:
" . . . to maintain the existing parking lot (of at least 30
automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street within
the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit related
uses. The Agreement shall be in the form of a recorded
covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin County and
the City of Aspen."
The Aspen Skiing Company should not have sold the parking lot on
Aspen Street without deed restrictions compeling future owners to
maintain the lot for parking or transit related purposes.
Technically, the Aspen Skiing Company violated the County
approval of the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area Master Plan. Accord-
ing to the advise which we have received from the City Attorney,
the appl icath is not bound by the strict conditions of the Aspen
Mountain Skiing Area Master Plan pertaining to the parcel in
J
question. Nevertheless, the applicant volunteers within the GM.P
application to meet the spirit of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area
Faster Plan approval which encumbered the "parking lot". In our
opinion the 30 spaces within the underground parking structure to
be reserve.4 for Aspen Mountain Skiing Area parking presents a
problem. A plan must be developed and reviewed regarding the
management of the 30 spaces for skiing purposes. In any case,
the transit option will be lost.
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Planning Commission concur
with our point assignment, resulting in a score awarded to the
601 Aspen application that exceeds the required threshold.
•
•
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
PROJECT: 601 ASPEN Date: 6/11/R6
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve 1121 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its
impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each
development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in _the. area,
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2) points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the reeds 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 treatnent plant or other facility upgrad-
ing.
RATING: 2
1- * • •- •-R • • ! • !• 1 1'
1' I!� • 1- • •1 • ! 'll -•
11• • 11 -1 � 11��'
b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2) points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose
of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage
disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to
service the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2 1
0
t• • •
1 I *J A1111 SM W9162" • I e I • I W 63 1 M i R F W4•. !
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two (2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer.
RATING: 2 Ok
COMMENTS: The Apr) l icant is committing to ir.st-al l d ywel 1 s and reten-
tion on the site to retain site runo f >eb and gutter along
portions of the property will also be installed tying into existing
rr a t r- h k n c i n TF, n V ., ., ;--
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2) points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department or the
,appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection
according to the established response standards of the appropri-
ate district without the necessity of establishing a new station
yor requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 1 a_
COMMENTS: Proximity to the fire station, provision of two new fir -
hydrants and upgrading of two existing hydrants will provide for
adequate fire protection Fire hydrant locations must be changed to
give effective service The new Dean Street is proposed to serve as a
fire access; however, the Fire Marshall stated twenty-five (25) feet
is not adequate on this private, multi -purpose road and forty (40)
width would be more appropriate The proposed Garmisch Street cul-de-
sac must be 50 feet in radius to meet turn radi us requirements for
fire e n gi ne_s .
e. Parking Design (maximum two (2) points) .
L_�,� 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
WPrespect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience
and safety. - --- ------—
RATING: 1
!. orxw asLor-asizas• #mow 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 ! •
0/
(total..ces)
, 11 2 spaces
mu.9t be -provided
for the residential
parking
requirpments
and 30 spaces
are reQuired
as part of the ASC
Agreement,
The
Aspen Skiing Company
spaces
do not appear to fulfill
• - 1
Mountain
Ski AreA Haster
Plan
• 11 n N • •
e),isting
parking
lot that would be
eliminated.
The design and spaces
should
1tly accommodate
proiect
e
needs, " - • thlarge
•t-
• I!
flaracte,
visualIl!e
of
•- r. 1• Ie •--n -. -. v.
�••- I
-
1 - • . •. -• •I111
- IMON
•- • I •
Roads {maximum two [21 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
COMMENTS:The 1• • . Deipartment estimated the project would
genparate less than 600 •ne-way trips, amounting t• a maximum 1
Streets-
Engireering believes the strpets are adequateto handle the1
The project wi 11 impact Aspen Street in particular, which is busy with
winter bus and auto traffic: however, RFTA stated that there would be
1 • resultant service innacts.: ! • /t's estimate of • / • n
trips in winter and 108 one way trips in summer seems1
Closipa Juan street as Droposed will inconvQniencee. drivers and
residents, although the new Dean Street will allow for new access if
it is not exclusively restricted, to project use. :,Dean Street at
twenty-five•• narrow • accommodate all • its uses,
and should • - forty (40)in width according to the Engineerin'Department, The status of the propQsed Dean Strpet- as a private road
ineeds to be clarified,
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of •- • ••
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the
site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each develop-
ment by assigning points according to the following formula:
cl&�
fyl
),ej
/t A--
Y11, . Z_�_
(9
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in
terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring
developments.
RATING:
� • 1 - 11 • H 11 : i • 1 1 '
• I • Y• • 1 •1 •11 !.• •' 1 • 111• • •
• 1 I -• 1 •1. • ! 1 • • 1 ! 1 - •• •ll !.• •I • I
Ie •• •il 1 - • 1 : �- I ' • 11• • •
b. Site Design (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:I Z I calls forI 1 I II .- • I i
along 1 Street and in bufferbetween De1 Street and the
Lift 1 and Timberidge project,9. (some on Lift 1 proL�erty it appears),
Open has been - • be 1 percent of 1total
Much of I - space is used for plantings t• buffer thedeveloment.
(maximum three (3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orienta-
tion, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and
cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of
7
solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENTS: Roaring Fork Eneray
Center noted that the clener, a I L-
conservation techniques are very strong commitments to MaXIM17,e
conservaticn of energy. However in most areas, more detail is
necessary before an evaluation can be made Gas fireplaces should b
-incapable of burning wood. as Environmental Health stated. It aipj2pars
�bti 3that an excellent 6ommitment is made, Any char!�e to representations
made must be considered through the GMP amendment process,
d. Trails (maximum three [3) points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and
the provisions of links to existing parks and trail syst
whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The Nordic Council stated the proposed nordi c ski
traversing the upper part of the site fits well with the trail
\\ corridor along the base of Aspen Mountain Walkways would be provided
along Aspen Street for pedestrian convenience The applicant has
committed to only provide the easements for trails and not for trail
construction.
e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points).
Consideration of the provision
project site itself which is
roject and offers relief from
�k4-1' surrounding developments.
r
of vegetated, open space on
usable by the residents of
the density of the building
RATING: 2
the
the
and
al'
COMMENT • J2JD--1_i c- aJ3J---r4U-Mid, iS1Q�9 1s�r�Q s2►� pa �rf�,a-�� q
•1 1
. 1 111
• • . .
- 1 • • •n -
�1 1 • �
�- •
1- •1
11 / •• 11. •
111REVOW-1 rime
1 • 1 •
� 11• •
1 !.
i ll•1► • 1 1•
SUBTOTAL: 8
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:
/0
O
•
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (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 sip: 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 /
COMMENTS: Buses run along Durant Street within two blocks of th
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum, three-01 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
commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the
commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to
two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The • - blocks frcm—commer-
cial
SUB TOTAL : 5
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty (20) points) .
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to
provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with
the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of
Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development
that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development
that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and
moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total develop-
ment that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and
middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine
what
percent of the total development is
restricted to
low, moderate
and
middle income housing, the commission
shall compare
the number of
persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the
number of persons
to be provided with low, moderate and
middle income
housing using
the
following criteria which shall be applied to both
the restricted
and
non -restricted units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space.
a. Low Income-. (One (1) point for each five (5)
percent housed)
RATING: 13 uA
COMMENTS: The applicant proLzoses to provide the Housing Authority S4.3
million as cash -in -lieu for the r�quivalent of 65 L&rcent Qf the number
provid-
inn all low income studios forthe cmplovee housing oblication.
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven (7) points) .
TOTAL POINTS
RATING: 0
O ttl
POINTS IN CATEGORY 1:
9 (Min.
of
3.6 pts required)
POINTS IN CATEGORY 2:
_8 (Min.
of
4.5 pts. required)
POINTS IN CATEGORY 3:
5 (Min.
of
1.8 pts. required)
5
POINTS IN CATEGORY 4:
13 (Min.
of
7 pts. required)
/
SUBTOTAL POINTS:
39 (Min.
of
31.8 pt s . required) ---1112
BONUS POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS: 35
Name of P&Z Commissionmember: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
SB .14