Loading...
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, 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 Commi ssion 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 throuqh the zoning regulations. By the cl ear 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 POD, where Council repeats the in-depth investigations of P&Z, in GMP Council does no more than grant 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 scorinq 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 specifically qranted 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 imagine. Looking at the tally sheets, if 5 of Ii P&Z members had scored the proiect similarly, but one member's scores exhibited signif icant aberration below the norm, causing a low average s~ore, 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. If five members of the Commission feel that the proiect 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 fact s 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 deleqation 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 planning 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 nrocess we recommend that Council increase this one score from 7.22 points to 13 pOints- althouqh this sinqle action has no effect on the overall project out come. ALTERRAT IVES: There are a variety of alternatives available to Council including the f 011 owing: 1. Certify the P&Z scoring 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 cateqories in which the applicant has requestpd relief (this will require a new hearing so staff can present you with its recommended scores). 4. Remand the proj ect to P&Z for rescor ing. 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 schedul e a hearing at which time both staff and the applicant can present the proj ect to Council, and the public can be heard, or it should simply send the project back to P&Z for a second hearing of the scoring issues. 3 RECOMIIBRDED K>TION: "Move to alter the number of point s 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 f or an allotment. due to not hav ing met the competitive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied." AR . 711 4 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 capaci ty 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 resul ted 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) - ............ mul tiplied 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 si te 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 permi tted 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. II In this zone permitted uses are "10dge 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 mul ti-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 adj acent areas. The Applicant does not concede a major design flaw, but even if we did and thus scored the -2- "........... proj ect 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 obj ective 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 cri teria 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 maj or 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 cri ticisms 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 snowmel t, but paved in a first class manner. In addition, the entrance to the garage is similarly paved not only providing a snowmel t 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 transi t system. Again using the required criteria, the service improvement by the Applicant benefits more than the proj ect 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 wi th 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. II 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 enti tied to an overall increase of 41.78 points which would resul t 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 opportuni ty 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 mul ti- family. A careful review of these scorings coupled with the facts shown above must clearly lead to the conclusion that this Applicant was the subj ect of abuse of discretion in the scoring process on June 17, 1986. -5- """'. CITY OF ASPEN !""",''- RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SL .iISSION 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 3 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" , , -, ( ( ~~~~~tw{W~ Hr. Alan Richman Planning & Development Aspen/Pitkin Office 130 South Galena Street 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 13031 925-5532 o rn~~~~::rn;;~ ... June 24. 1986 Director 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 Hark 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. cflJr yours ~U~ eter Wirth ~ Chief AVFD cc: Doug Allen El{hibi t liB" ,.- GOROON MEVER ....., 1( Gn..4D AVENUE, SUITE 212 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSUL nNG ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS June 17, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein, City Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 D~~::m~ RE: 601 Aspen Project Dear Steve: On behalf of the City of Aspen, we were asked to offer ex>nrnents for the Aspen IDdge Area Special lIlprovement District regarding the 601 Aspen Project. ihe 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 Ibuse. ihe Applicant needs to consider some parking as shown in the district plan. C - ihe Applicant needs to ensure illprovements on the right-of-way of Aspen Street follow district plans. ihis is particularly i.np>rt- ant with regards to parking. D - ihere is a need for a wblic pedestrian right-of-way on Dean Street between Aspen and Garmisch. 'llle right-of-way should be a mininun of 20 feet. ihe design the Applicant has sutmitted is generally what the district desires. We want to ensure concur- ranee of the Applicants plans with Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums. Final plans should be integrated into district design ex>ncepts. E - The district requires a drainage easement a mininum of 20 feet through the property for a + 72" pipe for storm waters from Aspen M:>untain. ihe easement ex>uId follow the Nordic Trail easement, if that easement is also secured by the Applicant through the Barbee property. OJr need is to get from Aspen Street to Garmisch Street. Sincerely, Q'=W~ It>n Project Manager Rl':lc/5726xc: Mr. Jay HanIIl:lnd~ City &'lgit'leer -=?.s, :i: U,.,den:>v"'J. INC. :P d. "l:. +u~ <l. 60 l doU)~ I . W t>J .... 0,:, oa . . . . .. " . ~ 0 . ~ < .. tII i C'lII n 00' III ~ ~c.nO'l\I 0 ~O:ntTlll "0 0 !] ~ ; o~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~.;' ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ HI ~oO ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~.~:::;. ri III ~.:; ~ ~ .., ~ S ~ t'~:; (') ~~.~~. en ~~~,(D~ ~ g.(D;~~ f; ~ ti "", ....'< M I>> \Q ....::s "d I-'::S '< 0 rt 'tI H to! (C en , ~t:::g 0 ~"1p".\Q ~ H.a.rS:~ ~ a~lClC ~ ~ ~ ~.t:= ~ g~:i';;:; ~ggJi'S" I-l :r~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-: ~ 1Qp-.g :! rn ~:: re ~ ~ ~o.:::s~ ~:g ~&~.~. ~ 3 ~ ~ tII c:: 0 tft l:U Iii ~ III 0 tll ("l' (') 11 I-' ~ tll ....10 II (I .~ t'I t'I ~ ~.:S!; E:: ~ ~t!... ...,:j ~.= 0 ~ gfD ~ ';0 'tI '0 ~ .::~IQ n ~ :;.: S' ~ l-i g t! ~ Pi ~ 0 c; o 0 'I:'" Po "0 ~.... 0' ~ ....0 fo'. ~ t" . en r ~ ~ .. "g..~. g: @.. ~;I -g ~ ,. ~ z..,. ~ I'i. lD.... .... CD to! ,... tn <":1'"" en g Q : ~ ~ g. ti :i p- 7 'i'::S tn 0 tol_, UI .. ~ ~ g tl tn l".. .. ... 11 l:l t'il C "' '" ~ ~ ~ r-'d~.... .... tD 2.: 0 ID g R co (II ~~... c:::.e. ,ltj' (U i::~ 'H' I ~N o ...." "',. ti~~ 5h In...... aei !it! " .. 0" ~E In ~~ ..'" ".... ....0 oz z ~ ' ,....- . - . . . ~ I: Iwl~ I~I~I~ I~I~I~I~ 1~111l+ I~HlllN Ii I ~ I ~ I ~ . I ~ I~ I ~ j~ H+ I~ H111~ I~ I+Hcl N IE I ~ 10 I ~ ; I ~ f I ~ II~ I+I~ I~ H~1+ I~ 1+1+1 N I~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ o+~w ~ ~N_"".N I I ~ 10 I ~ I ~ I~ I ~ I~ rH~ I~ I+H+ I~ H+H N II IE IN IE I~ P I~ ir rrl~ IE I~I~H+ I~ H~I~H N I~ I c I 0 I ~ I ~ I~ I ~ Ir ~ H~ IE I+H~lw I~ H+H N . I~ g ~~ ~ r ~. .~:.,,, "'~.. :., ~ ~ ::. .... >0 ... WOO I-' '\. . ". ;J , !'"' . ~ ~ ;g " , .. e <: '" lJl O'SlIQ' ~~~ie: !'~~~!l'-g CDc..ntrSll"Ct~n ~ ..~ ~ ~ .....~~:;'( ~ ~ 1-1 1-1 H Cl ~WW ~ ~a:i ~ ~:~~~ ~ ~~~W~ n 3: .~ tr~ ~ n~OCD ~ m~CD~n SlI~O~& ~ ~ 1-1 . ~I~~' ~~=~ ~ ~~~CD~ ~ ~CD;"~ ~ i "'",z . jJo~lo( tIJ :=...a:;:,g;3 ""',E'< liS' 0 ~ men t: to! (tl _,,",CD ~~jJo 0 1-1 n.o ~ O~CDCD 1-1 ~ ~~1I ~ g~:~ is .9~g~'g 1-1 :;e.~:!::! :s III \:11 . rn QI'" CD 10 cn (II ~ In :s 11 3: r.n n -::J ........ tol ~~ ~ ~ rg ,-0 rt 0 ~ C .... .... III tol c:: n CD SlI "Ct C tt III n n tn ....v: ~ ~ to tiC E' tEl .... UI 10 tJ:I rtnt1 .... ~ tII ....IQ CD lD ,. ,. ~ ~:s :t..... ~ ~ t!... "' ~ ~. ~ 0 ~ g CD ~ t'" tot .... :I.:", ".;::f n CD tot o:i n tt Ii' E :j . " >' .. ['" n, .. e, ~ 0 ",,, e.. ~ .. "I:J 0Cl :Ii _II .,_./ - t"I.... tr t'" ....0.... t'" ", VI o 0 t'" ".'ii.,}'I'.-'-Id.. -.... tl" C"I'" 1lI::l \Q z: .. tol V\ 1-1 1-1 ..~>"O rt .... C rt::S loi ::a Z z: "h"..,:.t"I.... II tIJ .... en. < ~ Io! Ii lD _.;(~_'H III III tn 0 1-1 cn (IJ . n <~__, Q' IA .. Ii ::l Ioi n .... .... g ~:''''''' n en . 0 ~ tP I I III t'./,~. . 0 C "" ... tt' ~":[". ..'::S tIJ 7. . .. .. a"",." '" v- n r;:"~ . ,CD ~ ~f"!,' ~" ~E :s h!:~~"" CD 1-1... ~\"r::: ~ t'" ~... ~~ "... . I I ~ 1 ol~' I~ P ~ ., I~ 111~ ,IE H11~~ I~ l+H+ I~ ...11 Eh "'....,. ="'" e~E g~ .. 0" ~~ '" .. U ....... ....g g r" . - -~- .' .- '" f' - . . ~ IE Ill+lc I~ I~~H+ .16 I~ H11+ ~ I+I+~ I~ ~ ~www~ ~ +r~~ I I~ I+H+ ~.~rr~~ II I~ Itl~rr r ~fr~f I~. ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~r~~ ' ~ :;; NW~ ~N ~N~. r f.... r"" ~ . . . CJIl"!ooI . N' fq ~. i~~ ~~ 8: S ~ '" I ~ 101 ~ I~ P r: ,1m lilw I ~ I 0 I ~ I~ I~ I~ I~ H+ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1+ 1 ~ I 01 ~ I~ ~ I~ I~ 1"'1+ . I ~ 1 01 ~'~ IE p IE IE Itlc I ~ I NI t,~ I~ pl~IE I~I~I~ .j;. ..".... ~ ~.... . o. . '" '" ~ . ~ r-.... . ., '" ~ '" N ~ ~.. 5~ F r F F r~ F rr r ~ fftrr r f}+~~ ~.. i~ ..~'i' E r. ~ F r~ r rr r E r~rrr - r ~r~rr ~N Ell . .__H r r r rcft F rr-r - ~ ~r r rrrrr i'" I!: Iii!! F r F F rr F rr r F rkrrt r rrrrr S. . il F r F F r~ r rr r e rrrr~ e rr~rr .1'" ~ F r r F rr 'F ~~.~ F ~~~~~ r r~~~~ I~ F ~ F F ~~ F ~~ ~" F ~~~~~ F ~~~~~ r ~ ~r~~ ~ F ~ :":.t ;s M 8 i ~~ 8 oa ~ ~ .~n~~ 0 ~~naD i ~ ~ g a'" ~ ..... ~ ..... ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ <~~~,. ~ ~~~~. n ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~;~. ~ :c,..~~~.; <0 ~~g~~ 3 I . H ~~~. :ZrJ ~~::::r!.tn D~e:~ i'lt;~~nl i= tf.I i= tf.I:lD 21 ~lQ:;.g ;s Cf.l ....~ li'~ 0 Cf.l ~t1tnrn ~ W i ~It ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ; ~.g~~ ~ i ~~lt~ ~ ; a a ~ c= ~ iO." ~ ~ iCc~c ~ ~ .~~~ ~ . = ~ ~ og a ~ ....~ : ~ ~ ~~ ~ ! ~ ~i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. = ~ ~. ~ ~ ~n~ .. ~ ~ ~gg fI) tf.I.. t':l~ ~ H s:::: .. ~.. ::;-. '=' ~.. g !!; "" "lQ 0 nit... 0 n C'1' . tIJ Cl . ~ ~. 0 ~ C~. ~ , fit. a ::: g: Q ~g ..a z en . ~ t1 rt' ~ C rt' ,.'- =' Ii I " ::I Iool .... It 52 ~ en < lQ Q It . ~ 0 Iool C ."tI) =' ~ Q ~ 3 9 0 tn ,:; ~ il. ~ rn ~ ~ . . C g ,. < ~ ~ . ", ~~ c:rrY CF ASPBN Rl'SIDBNl'1lIL GlOil'II JWW;EMERr H.AR smMISSIOO POINl'S AU.OClIrIOO - TN.LY S8EBr Project: "Slmnv Park 1985 ResicBll:ial Proiect (3118186) 1>&1 VOI'IlC _RA!': AL- ~ .um... JlUnf~ &lger Welton --.... DiIrl.d lWerage l. Public Facilities and Services a. W'iter Serv ice J_ -1- -1- -1..._ 1 1 --..l.- b. Sewer Service -1- -1- -1- 1 1 1 -1- c. . st:orm Drainage -L. ...2- ...2- 2 2 2 -L. d. Fire protectioo -L. -1- .-1- _L- 1 1 --..l.- e. Parking Design -1- -1- ...A- I 1 1 -1..5 f. Roads -L. ...2- ....L. 2 2 2 --..l.- l:iUISlUlIL -L -'L. .JL.. ---'- 8 -L_ -- -1...5 8.2 2. Quality of DeSign a. Neighborhood -L ....L. ....L. 3 2.5 -L_ -L Canpotibility b. site Design -L ..L- ..L- 3 3 3 -L - -...-......- . ~-L ...2- ....L. 2 2 2 ----Z- ... - -- ',- -L ..L- ....L. 3 2.5 .3 ----Z- e. Green Space -L ....L. ..1- 3 2 3 -1...5 ;:;um"Ol-lIL ...lL lL. U- 14 ...u _ 14 -- ~ 12.7 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public -L ..L- ..1- 3 3 3 -L Transportation b. Camlunity c;amu -L. ...2- ....L. 2 2 ~- -L Facilities SUBOOrllL -L ~ ~ 5 5 5 -L 5 4. Elnployee Housing a. Lo.I InCQ1le ...llL 1lL 1lL 10 10 10 ...lL. b. Moderate Incane -- c. Middle Income ~.U1:OtllL ...llL 1lL 1lL 10 10 10 ...llL 10 swrarllL 1-4 JL 34- 3i.- 37 ~- 37 ...2L ~- 5. Bonus Points -L .JL.. .JL.. 0 2 0 -L -L._ TOl'lIL POINrS --H- 3L 3i.- 37 37 37 ...2L 37.1 ,.;";' -.. " MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 601 ASPEN APPEAL 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 addi tion 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: Director. Applicant agrees with .,the " , Planning 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. Al though 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 II right " or "wrong II 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 resul t of ,. l', . -". . 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 al ternative 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 proj ect by the addition of 2.1 points to the score of 29.7 points to a total of 31.8 points. II "Move to find the 601 Aspen Street Project to be eligible for an allotment, having met the competitive threshold. II . '1,.1.... ,!!,~ ~ tk. ~,D, 0....1 l~O.~ ~ '* 1',+,2- . J ~ '.. ~ ~~. ~ y)-2~g -j , ~ Q\f 2.. ~e ' -. (gO) ~' f d:h Tv Z ~) Iii " " \@r.o, "l~ , , \ ~~WJ, ~ ~~~loO 1 ;>-~~ r~-'tb ~ h wi ~o~~R JY\lJ~,_t ~d. ,7 ~ /". "" / ( ( proj ect : CITY OF ASPEN PLANNIID AND ZONIID COMMISSION 'fN ALUATION RESIDENrIAL IMP COMPETITION 60 / ;!sflG\j 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: o Proj ect requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing. level of servic~ 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. RAT 1m : 2- COMMENr S : . " , b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of , the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the propos,ed 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. Z-- RAT lID : ,- '(\'" \ ( ( COMMENrS: , 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. RATIID : -L COMMENrS: 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 maj or equipment to an existing station. rJ>t- A- 2 or; : '&:rfJu?- /hWl /4f- ~~ () . - 2 - \ 'I, 'i'~ ""!i" -- " ~ ( ( e. Parking Design (maximum two [2J 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. /! RATINJ: f!J COMMENrS: ff 2# -I- ?IN/V ~ ,M6C-v MtOI- ~ (JIMIOtttt:l. i. f. Roads (maximum two [2J points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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. RATINJ : .5 COMMENTS: SUBTorAL : ~ S__-S 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15J 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 - ....- ......." ( ( o Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. .a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. ~ ,L RAT 100 . Il,;7J COMIIENlS, ff 710 r ~ ~~ /j <7"~, 7XMJ 6- fCdy(. nHJ S/7?] -- ~ / S- LIl/. . cJ\! {)7LLk:- SI lJ6-:" 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. A '~ RATItG: "11',"-, COMMENrS: ;;i3- -!;wSIY IS $ 7/MC:S W~ IS ~_ / /k.-nJ~</ /'lt6-S"f7111&J d-CJ 17M? nI&-- 5-1ff- (/~"Y I~ ~<f IKIlUWr 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 mpximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATIOO : -z - .& - / -. ....,.." , '-1,1\ ( COMMENrS: 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. RATIN> : z COMMENrS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATIN>: ~ I COMMENrS: '-/;/6- (/MW sfJne6- /174-- 7716/0 P&;i;y !N#lJt{J I/rhaf-- tTD 1f6-1)~n~e~ft) TZJ tj/~ f1 ~- fJ~ 7ld2f'V' t1-C.us-S. . III - t/ ;t6:JC/U4f-76- /hIMtI,w- cf)L- ~W M/hS u=- t{fe6v' .9~ SUBTorAL: Dfte 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each appl,ication with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by ass~gning points according to the following formula:, 1,li\ - 5 - ,.- ,...-r', ( ( a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 Project is located of an existing city 3 -- proj ect is located of an existing city within six blocks walking or county bus rout e. " " within two blocks walki'ng or county bus route. distance distance RATIID : 3 COMMENl'S: 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 proj ect 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. RATIID : 2- COMMENl'S: SUBTOT AL : .5 - 6 - r. /', ( ( 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 th~ proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided ,with low, moderate and middle income housing using the followin~ criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restrirt:ed units: ~_ . Studio: 1..25 residents Z. ~) -jfone-bedroom: ~.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. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [(tj5 percent housed). ~ ~. rLv_ ~ RATIR;: ~z, ~ COMI<FmS'.M ~nJ4wL~ GIerI- (/,Wr /S If- V 2- M>,fdd1V) ~/?'d Slfryt.-tJ J-t0UJJ ~/A/. I @ ~t</r ~ I.U-:-7.Z> ""WS-S X /3 ""1-2-20, a. - 7 - 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] If.~~. ri:" POINTS IN ~EGORIES 1, ~2, 3, and 4: " /"'""\ , " 1,\,\\ ( ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RAT UG : COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATIN:; : COMMENTS: SUBTar AL : points) . RAT IN:; : ~ S:S- s;ro $0 f~22- ~2- 1'2-- 22-.7:2- / ~ 7C,,, 12- 7>>vIO (J "~ r-;;;;; P~J[ec-I/ J~",21b +- , L.6/JA'r- /JA/lrs NtJT 92 ;;.viJ 7 ,~ ,~/h7/"D 1f6- ~,.;:,~ ~~,- ev/lt:t(/~r,r L4J If{ s-u f5~ POINTS IN ~EGORY 5: POINTS IN ~EGORY 6: TarAL POINTS: Name' of P&Z Commissionmember: . J-. JI /1/ 1t - 8 - -.... S~~<r"* 3 Go - ~._._-- .--, -,-,~-~,,,~~,,--,"-"'-~'''~''..^- ,r...... ./"'" ( ( CITY OF ASPEN . . PLANNIm AND ZONIm COMMISSION WALUATION RESIDENUAL GMP COMPETITION p,oject, bO[ ~'A -G..-bUY - Date, ~ 1. Public Facilities and Services (maxi~um of twelve [12] /7 'l'b , , points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o Proj ect requires the provision of new serv ices at increased public expense. 1 -- proj ect 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. RATlm :',\ , ~ , 2-- COMMENr S : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity o~ 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 inst.alled by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIm: 1" ,"'". /<"...... '. ',1 . .r.. ( ( COMMENr S : , 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. RAT UJ3 : ..z.-- COMMENrS: 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 maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIm: -I-- COMMENrS: I " "I,'i'.. - 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. RATIID :. -z..--- COMMENrS: " "\,"1" f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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. RAT lID : + COKKENrS: SUBTClrAL: -to- 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. RATIHl : / I 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 impro\r~ments for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIHl: I 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 ~aximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATIHl : 7/" - 4 - r' """,",,,- I ~ \ '" . \ ( 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. RAT 1m : z.---- COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three (3) points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATIlC : 2-- COMMENTS: SOBTDrAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6) points). The Commission shall consider each aPP'lication with respect to its proximity to public transportation and communit,y commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigri'ing points according to the fOllowing formula: - 5 - ,-- , ( ( COMMERrS: . , "..1' 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. RATIm: z..---- COMMERrS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATIm: '2-- " COMMERrS: SOBTC7.rAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each aPI!1ication 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 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATlro: ~ COMMENTS: b. Community Gommercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the e~aluation of the distance of the project from these areas. '1,,\ 1 Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 proj ect 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. Z- RATlro : COMMENTS: SOBTGr AL : , - 6 - ... - ._.-.~.~~ -- . ~._.-.. - , 'I., \\ ( ( 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 (I) 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 proj ect 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: , '1.25 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] peJ;cent housed). RATIm: ~ COMMENr S : , 'I, '1\ , - 7 - . -- -- ( ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RAT IN::; : :,,,.,, , , COMMENrS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RAT IN::; : COMMENr S : .. SUBTDrAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RAT IN::; : POINrS IN ~EGORIESl, 2) 3, and 4: ;:;10 . POINrS IN CATEGORY 5: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: '1>o1m~ IN Cln'm'OR : TDrAL POINrS: l{) R r ,~ - 3" I - 8 - r f\N ~Jt~ ,q /,"", ,'I. ,I, ~ ( CITY OF ASPEN PLANNIm AND ZONIm COMMISSION F.VALUATION RESIDENrIAL GMP COMPETITION proj ect : 6/)/ A5/~ Date: f; //? jgr; ( / of twelve [12] points). - 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the fOllowing formula: o proj ect requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- proj ect may be handled by existing level of service in toe 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. " RAT Im : 7__ COMMENl'S: "'\1' 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. ~ RAT 1m : ,-. /.,...... ( ( '. "!,'1\ COMMENr S : ^ 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, RAT 1m : -L COMMENrS: 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 maj or equipment to art existing station. . RAT 1m : -6- COMMENr S : - 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. RATIN3: ~16 /~~d k ~/C;. ~. V (0. COKMENl'S: /)~AJ...S4rv /t{. ~~ . ", f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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. : COMMENl'S: RATIN3 : () ~ SUBTDrAL : ..5) 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. RATlm: (!) COMKENrS: Cfi7~.~ ~ ~ --;W/- ~~ ~ ~3> ~ ~. b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed iandscaping 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. RATI~: 0,5_ COMMENrS: 'j)t/,l~~~ /Jdf~ . ~?1A4J/lA~~ ~. 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 soarces. RATIN3 : ~ - 4 - - """'" '. "\'1\ ( COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of ways and the provisions of links to systems, whenever feasible. pedestrian and bicycle existing parks and trail COMMENTS: ~ r~ RAT lID : L e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. ,.. RATIID : I SUBTarAL: 4.) 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each appVcation 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: . "\,1\ - 5 - - -- ( a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect 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. RATlm:,., .f; .1.. 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. ~ RATlro : COMMENTS: '. SUBTarAL : ~ - 6 - . - .-... ( 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) p~rcent 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 proj ect 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 resident s ~ Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square space. '. .'\ I feet of unit a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RATIlG : /3 COMMENr S : . - 7 - . - r' '. "\." .1\ ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RAT Ill; : COMMENrS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RAT IN:; : COMMENrS: SUBTarAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RAT IN:; : I ~-;- 4)')- IS l~ ~ ryfl.o POINrS IN ~EGORIES 1,: 2, 3, and 4: POINrS IN ~EGORY 5: 'Vb -0- POINrS IN NTiXH)RY 6. ~' TarAL POINrS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: '2.93 , '1,'1,\ - 8 - Gt~!\ {~;:t 30,5 /"" ( ( proj ect : CITY OF ASPEN PLANNIN; AND ZONIN; COMMISSION WALUATtON RESIDENUAL GMP COMPETITION ?/D( SW~::::jJ Date:JiJ()~ 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: o proj ect requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. . 1 -- Proj.ect 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. ., "\,"1.\, " RAT IN; : 7_ COMMENrS: 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. RATIN3 : 'j .- ,1""".... '"' . '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. RATIm: Z. 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 ~ new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to.an ,existing station. RATIm: COMMENtS: f, I). ~;W1ajTw& h vL:"i:) ~ cgMP$ ,. V I/l Cuut'iZt t;),C WL- O~~C hJCt-l-OL ~A~dnA-j"2;$I'~lC'-:;;ltf'? r'/~;ct> ~ t ../1)'!G(A)q J-,.A-IV e:r- " 'E> \, \\ - 2 - ".-"- /"" '0,... .... ( ( e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATIm: I If // COMMENl'S: !UL77-/-i9!? 5'7..,1#1"0 ~,vFt'C;.u~??C:J,.U &v/??-I jb<h(6u~; ~~ c.;N/r;:- A//c:7W-S m /-1A-..ccf ~~ /2.A- A..J 'ilYR'rz. c.-',I NAiJci:CVlI~ , ~ ' ,I, \\ . , f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. .--- RAT 1m : (!).. ~ COMMENl'S: f,V,..(bfLIM&Jrs .w/' M(./"5/ ~/M1~~ 7J!-Ar I f {.fY;l/tJ~ f) ~JUAdJ e;;-: {,JILL II./ep,o v.3XJ~C>>C-C::... Hoo~ Mr/c-~ S .A-tu() &~j)t:)C)"T~ .1'Aiti?U/cA-~,-y })cJ,b,uz; k7h< ~~~.()(I'h#~(c'1 tv ( J..I1'e{L SOBTorAL: t,-{" 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development' by assigning points according to the following formula: I - 3 - .n '. 'j", ..__._,.~,os:""~ ,~._--- ,.-.._" " ( < o Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed bUilding (in terms of size, height and location) with eXisting neighboring developments. RATIOO: D CflM."",.. f. D. I'e'lH.-..,"" 1'<0 ~,..o- ,.u7.Zo:s,o..a A~ /U() /bfi::"a? r-~$/77l)A.J ,16t'-C::;l\ A ~ 1,,;c:.""V;:;:?) ~;:;'''7U?"" A-C~T (&;I!-Nq,!Au -A-k-?") A ~c!> N?J-r ~~D--P }la ~kMc:JUr k SPLAte. -4e~~s It ~L- "UJ~ VtUiJ~ ~.) /iTA) b. Site Design (maximum three [3] pOints). a. 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. RATIOO : CO...",..!.O. e.,~S I'us mM"'~ :.:: r~~2~:.LUS -50.7!u6 Ae=,.-<;; - "m ~. 11? Au ""AD '~ u#,; 2>&w ~ ~ :!:4';)~Me70ec,., ~I 1J?A-u f~ ~...~ D 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. z-- RATIOO: - 4 - ~_"''''''__~_c..''__ '~';~~~~_ ,.. '. ( 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. RAT IN> : _I .00",,,,,,,,,,(,0, E',,,,,,<Je>ur,,, P;:s ~~=p 0.0 :1 Ae;.pc"--PIJ <'51 I ~ 11J1rlk:f):J'7?'-f ~-..'!VC IJ 2.... / r !U_IUO wE> PAle:. J {hI""': h'iA.lJ ~ 'i)/-ArJ t..OJJ/_~ ~-C:;(Vc.^J"/'S' . e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENT S : RATIN>: ? " , ,1,\ SOBTorAL : < 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation ~nd community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - ( . ~\ 'I' . , ( a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). I Proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATIW: :5 COMMENl'S: 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 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 Proj ect 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. RATIW: 7- COMMENl'S: SUBTGrAL: ~ - 6 - . ',I,'i'.,. -=-._,~ - ( ( 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 limitations1 One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of!l~he total development that is restricted to moderate income price gUidelines and moderate income OCcupancy limitations1 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 proj ect 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 residents1 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). RATIro : - 1 - - t"" ..,~" ( ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). COMMENTS: RATIlG: ~ c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One twenty [20] percent housed). [1] point for each RATIlG: ~ COMMENTS: SOBTorAL : I'? (;) 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RAT IlG : r "". r POINTS IN CATmORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: 1,7~'7 f") t-n:. POINTS IN CATmORY 5: POINTS IN CATmORY 6: TorAL POINTS: 1/ Name of P&Z Commissionmember: VI) NT " "30. -S- " 1\', ~ ,I, 00 ,5' , - 8 - --------.-- --.------------ --- " ,..." / ( ( CITY OF ASPEN . PLANNIm AND ZONlm COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENrIAL GMP COMPETITION proj ect : la9 \ ff;~ Date:~<i?'- "'.1,\ of twelve [12] points). 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o proj ect requires the prov ision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- proj ect 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. RAT 1m : ~ COMMENrS: 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. RATIm: ?--- ~ ..."..... ( ( COMMENJ$ : 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. RATIOO : ~ COMMENrS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). <' ~\ r.. 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 maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIOO : I COMMENrS: . - 2 - . -,=--~ .._- r'-, ,!~\\\ ( ( 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. o , COKMENr S : ) a, \)ct6.\\.eJ. f\~\ b1M~. Of\ \R~ ~r\c. QI:)t\~ o.f Occ.u~~ ~ i'\U2- Se- II <;~ D !?>) \12- ~ l' 1 ~ Wf)\ )\1'1 'ru., \~)oJK., . . f. Roads (maximum two. [2) poi nts) . -M"?o RATIlC : ~ Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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. RATIlC: 0 COKMENrS: -rmf{\ c., fI('l ttc::1'V'l ~ "rl ~ ax-e.o-- lAnlt. ~ ~)~'/ja~: ~~ )IJ.N\R.. VY)L~r+w-~. SOMar AL : ..., 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15) points). The Commission shall consider each application with ,respect to the site design and amenities of each proj ect and shall ''orate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: . . - 3 - r '- - ( ( 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 a major design flaw. -, Indicates <'.1," , \\ 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. RATIro : 0 COKMENTS:~)C\ I:ox--\\'Le.. ~()GruvU. ().;rl.... l~ lA.Jf M ~ Cl:mY"r\I"'\ht-~NJ2.. ~~~ J.Jt)iJ). . 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. RATIro : n ~. ~'~~;~9) S2Jt07A'>>6 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 soutces. RATIro : ')/' - 4 - ,'", <... ( COMMENrS: . 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. RAT 1m : '2,.... COMMENrS: (II' 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. RAT 1m : ..J COMMENrS: ~<'oL)t~ ~ m4'luL 'otJi\~q'5 ~l)\t.tf. 0. ~ renff- ~-1tU~ ~_ SUBTorAL : 5 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 - - ,.,.,"".~, ,"'.., , '\','1' ( ( a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect 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. RATIm: .a 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 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 proj ect 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. RATIO:; : !,~ COMMENtS: , SUBTarAL: ..5 - 6 - .;.<....... , ( : ~ .. '\,1\ 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 proj ect 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). RATIm: \~ COMMENrS: -h\bw)()~ \ 'rfl..v.e.. ~ oprvn~ J 10 ~,.. 'In.. \" w} ~ ~ fa 1),. t- \ ~ QN\*i.ttt~ ..fO t:t,( 1 ~ ~()(\. " - 1 - . ',I,i'.. ;""- ( ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten (10) percent housed). RATIN:; : COMMENr S : c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each twenty (20) percent housed). RAT IN:; : " ~ \1\ COMMENrS: SOBTarAL: 13 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATIN:; : POINrS IN CATEGORIES 1, :2, 3, and 4: '36 - POINrS IN CATEGORY 5: - POINrS IN CATEGORY 6: TarAL POINrS: Name of P&Z commissionmember:~~Y>1.4~~ 3D 71~- . - 8 - , ~) !?~rM\ 31 c......... c, "\',"\'.. / ( ( CITY OF ASPEN PLANNINJ AND ZONINJ COMMISSION F.VALUATION RESIDENrIAL GHP COHPRrITION Proj ect : (cDl \.\ 5?O'- Date: ....\u..\\9 \-;r- I 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: o Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- proj ect 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. RATINJ: Q- COMMENrS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposetl 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 }]eveloper, and without treatment plant or other facility upgra~ing. RATINJ : ') -""'.... ".."''"'- , ( ( COMMENrS: 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. , ~,I' . \\ RATIFG : 2- COMMENr S : d. Fir~ 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 maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIFG: I COMMENrS: , - 2 - r-" ,....'---- ( 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. RATIID: --L- , COMMENl'S: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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. RATIID: ~IO COMMENl'S :_~C r'C"'\'r- "" \,,'),L,.\~(.,- ~ c.?=, d rt...... ~t ~ \::x?~ .) . ll'i\dR1' H'f\PS.{'t--\.,c5 - l'~ Li'(\W~J ~(Cl-~S.\C- ~l~\.\ 'o1...'(A~" E?X\.S"l-l\--( ~...\-He\S - ?,,-' wld~" -0'\ \~~V ,. ALoe...... <;\;\.0:,-\ Sl...\<>-\C."JcrJ ,,,V- ~r ~\~t\ 0\ ~~~ Slb- SOBTar AL: ~ 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 - - /"-, ~ . ,I, \\ ( ( 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 Compatibil ity (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. COMMEInS: \j 0'\ c ( ~{""\ ' \:-.~ C-.-....~~ r__ ,1 C\. " --2t-tlP - ~ . oS l~ ('U' S~ RATIro: . -D t-fll..)'\OI::>I~'" \ 7. \ S 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. COKMENrS: Vc) --.:....\' c;.p(' C'(\..'-'I ),\\'I')"""'~\ 6' \JLjl~''''\~~ '>, \ ~y.,.. ~ ~I;)L..,.""" ~ \ '.r\ <3tr'S" ).e", '^' \ tv' f\ "5 ~ 0 .. ~ r ~ --C>~}' Energy (maximum three [3] points). IILlS~b""l. ~ \ f c:\C''S ~l,..I 'r-- - ,~.~~ '" J. \f \ P,,^ \ C!c~ -L- ~~(). ~ CO ( ft>"" .\ .:>' , . r.--\ CH'C\'\..l(\ RATIro : c. Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient f~replaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conS'ervation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATIro : 2 - 4 - .- ( COMMENrS: " ,1,,\ 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. RATItG: ?- COMMENrS: 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. COMMENrS: ~.(-" RATItG : 0 orb L ,. t, ~L ~, ~ ""I~"" .. C- ('i'-("y--. 'f-Nl I..;:Y Jy.... SOBT<7rAL : to 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each appl:ication 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 - ftJ - , " { ( a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect 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. RATlm: '3 COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map de~i~ting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of th~ distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the com~ercial 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. RAT 1m : "2.- COMMENTS: , SOBTarAL : ~ - 6 - -- '.'--, ~ \ 'I' ( 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 proj ect 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). RATlro : -'3 COMMENl$ : (\'. I - 7 - .-... .-. ,.-. r", ""..... ( ( b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point~fbr each ten [10] percent housed). RAT lID : COMMENl$ : c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATIID : COMMENrS: SUBTDrAL : 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RAT lID : POINrS IN CATmORY 5: POINrS IN CATmORY 6: TarAL POINrS: \t(} .J~ POINrS IN CATmORIES 1,:2, 3, and 4: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: '31 ~ ?"'~ , - 8 - ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FRO~I: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 601 Aspen Project General Submission/Scoring - Public Hearing RE: DATE: June 13, 1986. ===============================================~=========c=c==a== ZONING: L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) LOCATION: Lot!> 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition (Barbee Tract), Lots 3 through 12, Block 11 (Parking Lot), Lots 13 through 20, IHock 11, Eames Addition, and tract of land adjacent to Block 11, Eames Addition (tUne Dumps). Proposed ,development is between South Aspen and South Garrnisch Streets and. south of Juan Street. '. The unplatted are<l between parking lot and ~1ine Dumps tr act s -i s incl uded in the proj ect area but not Qlned tii -apP~lcant~-nor usea in calculatlonS. - , , 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 constr uct a 112 uni t short-term residential/hotel proj ect. 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 GNP SCORING: '1'\.,0 appl ications were submitted for the 1985 Gl-IP competition: Sunny Park and 601 Aspen. GHP scoring of the Sunny park anctli'01" Aspen projects were originally scheduled for January 28, 1986. At the request of the Sunny Par k appl icant, Sunny Par k was scored by P&Z fo'.arch 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 G['\P 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 allQl the 1985 Residential Gl1P 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 . I-lay 17, 1986, following the adoption of (j) ,..., ".,'\ Ordi nance No. 2 (1986), the PI anni ng Off ice reconsidered the decision to reject the 601 Aspen application, provided that the appl icant, 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 all~led in the new submittal. During the time of uncertainty over the status of the 601 Aspen application, 14r. Cantrup agreed not to oppose the scoring of the Sunny 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 revi~1 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-blo (92) free- market residential units. Requested rev.iE!l~s associated with this project will be dealt with at a later meeting subsequent to the Planning Commission's scoring, provided that the project meets the threshold of points in the Residential GI4P conpetition 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) GNP exemption for employee housing using cash-in-lieu; and (6) 8040 greenline review. QUOTA AVAILABLE: follows: Quota for this competition is calculated as Annual Quota 1985 Construction Sunny Park Allocation , ~ \;. Total Available Carry-OVer Expirations \ o 39 units 13 uni ts 12 units 4 uni ts 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 (]) ~., . '\.i\ Office recommendations. A public hearing will be held to allOw interested ci tizens to comment. At the close of the hea ring, each commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded ~ all members, divided ~ 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 foll<Ms: Category I " 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 .bel<M 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 minir.lum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The planning. Office has assigned points under the revised scoring system to the application as a recoia- r.lendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and Objectively score the proposal. The fOll<Ming is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shCMn on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Public Facilities and Services 9 pts. ;9- Quality of Design 8 pts. It!... Proximity to Support Services 5 pts. Ii Employee Housing 13 pts. TOTAL 35 pts. 4-:2.. 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 commitr.lents that would be outstanding including: improvements to water and sel~er service, energy conservation and emplO':{ee 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 ~ " ,\ I' (j) ,.... ~..,o,. " potential mass transit facility in the Aspen' ~Iountain 1,Iaster Plim and the large brick paved entry court. Neighborhood compat- ibility is not adequate regarding transition from urban uses to adjacent Shadow 110untain open space. This site design is not acceptabl e 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 shOl~ a vegetation scheme and possibly a bicycle trail adj acent 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 ~lould 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 wh6le 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 IHne Dumps not in ownership by the applicant. This area has not been used for purposes of calculat- ng 1 and area, open space, or FAR. How ever, it is inappropr iate 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 improver.lents. 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 area s of a GNP appl ication may be quite prel imina ry in nature, however, we caution the applicant that these representations in the application must be honored, and can only be changed through the GNP amendment process as defined in Section 24-ll.7(b) of the .Municipal Code. As mentioned above, the Aspen Skiing Company agreed through the Aspen 110untain 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 automobil e 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 applicat!h is not bound by the strict conditions of the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area MlIster Plan pertaining to the parcel in 6) , 'I"., "'"'" question. Nevertheless, the applicant volunteers within the G~P application to meet the spirit of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Haster Plan approval \-,hich encumbered the "parking lot". In our -'\, opinion the 30 spaces within the underground parking structure to be reserve~ for Aspen ~Iountain Skiing Area parking presents a problem. A plan must be developed and revie\~ed regarding the management of the 30 spaces for skiing purposes. In any case. the transit option \dll be lost. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Planning Commission concur with our point assigment, resulting in a score awarded to the 601 Aspen appl ication that exceeds the required threshold. SB.6 ~ \' ,\:.. @ .0-.' CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION PRro Ecr : 601 1.5 PEN Date: 6/11/R6 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12J 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 follOldng formula: o proj ect 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 ar~a. a. \~ater Service (maximwn 0.10 !2J points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development ~lithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the 1 ~eveloper, and without treatment plant or other facility uP9rad~ lng. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Appl icant proposes to 01 ace a new \4aterl ine in the new Ilean Street from Garmisch to Aspen Str",et on-si te and from lUl);len to Monarch Streets along Dean Street off-site. Two new fir", hydrants and hlo uDgraden fire hydrants are b",ing proposed, as well as i!'olation ~~lve~ ~t each end of Juan Str",et. Th", Water Denartment stated that th",re ap"ears to he adequate water to serve this project and the ne\4 lines will improve the carryin9 caoacity of the system if stated improvements ar", made. b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2J points). Consideration of the capaci ty 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 serv ice the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facil ity upgrading. RATING : , ~ \ 2 J( @ .""-....." c" ~. COMMENTS: The appl icant proposes to el iniinate sewer lines in Deftn Street and old .Tuan Street. install an picht 1m inch sewer line in the proposed new Dean Street al il;mment and repl ace the ",1 ay sewer 1 ine in the alley of Block 61. The Sanitation Di"tri",t ManaQer stated these irnprovements would improve thp quality of sprv!ce in thp area and that there is adequate treatment capabil it;y. c. Storm Drainage (maximum bwo [2J points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of th'e proposed develop- ment wi thout system extensions beyond those normai,l,y lnstalled by th. .ov"',,"" RATING. " , ok. COMMENTS: The Apol icant is commi tting to install dryw ell sand ret en- tion on the site to retain site runoff. Cllrb and 911tter along p'ortions of the prol)ert" ~lill a150 be installed t;yin9 into existing catch basi n. The Engineering Department stated that thpse measllrps woul d hel p the drainage of the neighborhood. d. Fire Protection (maximum 0.10 [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 or requiring addition of major eqUipmenta::I:::eXisti:9 stati~ CO~tMENTS: Proximity to the fire station. provision of hoo npw firp .hydrants and unc;lradin9 of two existin9 hydrants \d11 provide for adequate fire 9rotection. Fire hydrant locations mllst be chanced to give pffective service. The new Dean Street is proltosed to 5erve as a fire access: hc.wever. the Fi re ~tarshall stated twenty-five 1251 feet is not aripquate on this private. mUlti-purDase road and forty 1401 width ~lould bp more anpropriate. The proposed Garmisch Street cul-de- s~c mus~ be 50 feet in rad! liS to meet turn [adi us requirpments for fire engines. e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). C. - .d,n consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- ~J.i' 'JJI"" street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed r development and considering the design of said spaces with f.-.1 respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience J>V'I and safety. ..----- - RATING: 1 :;z, COMMENTS: 152 narkin'} spaces will be provided underground and 20 spaces will be located. on the surface near the entry to the project , ~\, r" (i) " {total 172 spacesl. 112 spaces must he provided for the residential parki ng requi rements and 30 spaces are required as part of the ASC Agreement. The Aspen Ski i n9 Company spaces do not appear to ful fill Asnen Mountain Ski I\rea Haster Plan commitments as \~el1 as the ey.i~tina parking lot that would be eliminated. The design and spaces should sufficientlv accommodate project needs. Given the large unnerc;!round garage. visual impacts of parki ng have been reduced. Nonetheless, the brick paved entry court constitutes a large continu- ous area near the Lift I Condominiums and along Aspen Street. ~ Roads (maximum two [2J points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide f or 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 mil eage and/or mai ntenance. -' RATING: 1 o;L COMMENTS: ~:e Enaineerina Denartment estimated the 9roject would generate l__s than 600 one-\~ay trips. amountin9 to a maximum 10 p~~~~nt increase in traffic on 1\spen. Garmisch and Durant Streets. ~~~i ~~~j~~~ hri ie,;,es the street!! are .adequa~e to handl, e t~e increa~e. _ _ ___ _ w 1 Impact Aspen Street In particular, which IS busy With ~i~t:~; ~: ~~d :~;o. tr2~fic: ho,lever, !!-FT1\ stated ,that then- would be su _a S___lce lI>1pacts. Anpllcant's estimate of 60 one-wilY j..:;ip; i~ ;;'i~ter and 108 one wilY trips in summer seems unrealistic. ci:~s~r.g Ju~~ s.t;ee.t as proposed will inconvenience a few drivers and residents. a1thOY9h the ~e~i Dean Street will allow for new access if it i; ;;-~t ;-;'~i~]sive1V restricted to project use.:, Dean Strpet at ;:~pn~-fivp {251 feet is too narrOlJ to accommodatp all" to its usps. ~~d ~ho~ld bp fort;y (401 feet in width accordina to the Enaint~erina ~2. A 'Q!1.j;2i!rt!!,elJt. Th;' status of the proposed Dean Strpet as a private road ~~;1',~eeds to be clarified. ~cnPjJl SUBTOTAL: 9 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15J points). 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: p~ffi '7Jr;t.~ '\ ~ ;tI1J a/)t . jWV<N~J;iki;t ~ . @ I o Indicates a totally deficient design. I Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (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. 0 RATING: 1 .3 COMMENTS-: 112.000 So f. of countabl e f1 oor ar~a is 1j)ropos..d 0 i ;~~~5~~ t<i. f~ ~it~. ~ery c10se to th.. maximum FAR of 1: 1 in the r,-2 ____ _':'s_rict. _~st of the eight IIlI component bu;1din9s anpear to L~,t.1-: ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~e~ty-~iOh~ .128.1 foot he; a~t ,1 imit. The projec~ has h..en ~ p " n.j. ~ n 0 .,.nncl ~1e rOl~S Within the bottom portion of the 7f~~~i;~'f~:.:~~t~~~.~~ :i~s:l: idfi~c~~~~~r:~fl:;~: ~~~~~ ~y~::~~I;~:~~;~~~: JJv.~ 6~~f~~ t;;~~i.ti~~ ~;ea, from the mul ti-fa~ilr/lodge .d;str;<;t to the NO illl%i~~~l'~~~~~:~,~~ "~~r:" ~"~.~.~~~.~:':~" ,.rl~ i 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: will deni9rate the the Shadow I.tount;}; n c. Energy (maximum three (3) points). , "\'.."" Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orienta- tion, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and COOling devices t~ maximize conservation of energy and use of )~ 1Ztf;..l'O r , -ffi ~ ~.~ /' 1/ . 7 """" ,fl"'""-, RATING: solar energy sources. RATING: 2 \~ ~ cmIMENTS: traversin9 the Ilpper part of the site fits ~lel1 with the trail corridor along the base of Aspen Hountain. Nall:\H1Ys would be 91:0vided along A<<pen street for pedestrian con'lenience. The an1}l icant has cor.\I!li tted to only provide the easements for trai I s and not for trail construction. e. Green Space (maximum three (3) points). Consideration of the provision project site itself which is .. 1~.rOject and offers relief from ~~~ surrounding developments. ~ . <>tG~~ '~ \ I CO~IMENTS: The annl icant commits to provide a large amount of areen space on the site. 60.000 s.f. or 46.6 percent of total site. some which ~Iollld bp Ilseable. The area on Garmisch Street is too small to 'Jive the adiacent residence milch relief. The entrance plaza design should incorporate more 9reen space. As mal1Y of the existing trees and shrllbs on the site as possible l"hollld be retained. of vegetnted, open space on usable by the residents of the density of the building the the and RATING: 2 * SUBTOTAL: 8 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). ~ The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: ,. '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 sil: 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 9~ COMMENTS: Buses run a10n9 Durant Strf>et within two blocks of the project. b. Community Comr.lercial Facilities (maximUlll thr.ee._l.3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facil ities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 pro.ject 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 hlo 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 j( COMMENTS: The r;:rojf>ct is i'lnproximately three 131 blocks frNII commer- cial facil ities. SUBTOTAL: 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 Hunicipal 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 limitatipnsi II /' ., 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 developnent 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 proviaed with low, moderate and middle income housing using the folla.1ing 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. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five percent housed). RATING: 13 [5] Jz a. co~mENTS: The an~l icant pro~oses to 9rovide the Housin9 Authority S4.3 mill ion as cash-in-1ieu for the equivalent of 65 nercent of the number of persons housed in the oroject. The calcul ation is based on provirl- in\,l all 1nw income studios for the em91~ee housin9 oblication. 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: o TOTAL POINTS o WL v-e~ 9 (Hin. of 3.6 pt s req uired) )2 8 (~lin. of 4.5 pts. required) )2 5 Hlin. of 1.8 pts. ,l,"equired) 5 " /3 13 Utin. of 7 pts. req ui r,ep) 42 - 10; (lUn. of 31.8 pts. required) POINTS IN CATEGORY 1: POINTS IN CATEGORY 2: POINTS IN CATEGORY 3: POINTS IN CATEGORY ..: SUBTOTAL POINTS: BONOS POINTS: TOTAL POINTS: o 15 ' Name of P&Z Commissionmember: SB.14 Aspen/Pitkin Plannin9 Office )~