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
)~