HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.700 E Hyman Ave.50A-86'00 E. llyma,2 ;2737-/3a-//-OOL
lfesiden f.a-/
3
3
S �+
��+ a v
y I a
IIJ
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63721
- 47331
- 52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
- 63722
- 47332
- 52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
- 63723
- 47333
- 52100
GMP/FINAL
- 63724
- 47341
- 52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
- 63725
- 47342
- 52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
- 63726
- 47343
- 52100
SUB/FINAL
- 63727
- 47350
- 52100
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63728
- 47360
- 52100
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 - 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 - 63730
- 47380
- 52100
HOUSING
00115 - 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113 - 63711
- 47331
- 52200
GMP/GENERAL
- 63712
- 47332
- 52200
GMP/DETAILED
- 63713
- 47333
- 52200
GMP/FINAL
- 63714
- 47341
- 52200
SUB/GENERAL
- 63715
- 47342
- 52200
SUB/DETAILED
- 63716
- 47343
- 52200
SUB/FINAL
- 63717
- 47350
- 52200
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63718
- 47360
- 52200
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 - 63730
- 47380
- 52200
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 - 63730
- 47380
- 52200
HOUSING
00113 - 63731
- 09000
- 52200
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113 - 63732
- 09000
- 52200
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113 - 63061
- 09000
- 52200
COUNTY CODE
- 63063
- 09000
- 52200
ALMANAC
- 63062
- 09000
- 00000
COMP. PLAN
- 63066
- 09000
- 00000
COPY FEES
- 63069
- 09000
-
OTHER
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL
Name:
Phone:
Address:
Project:
Check #
Date:
Additional Billing:
# of Hours:
I;,Iof;,[Q;i:1zioil) V,
TO: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 700 E. Hyman GMP Amendment: Landscape Improvements
DATE: May 9, 1988
Based on a site visit today, the developer has installed the
landscape improvements represented in the approved amendment to
the 700 E. Hyman GMP plan, substituting additional landscaping
for street furniture. Therefore, the $1,100 financial guarantee
for this work may be released.
... - �.
�r _ �. as �� �1. tr�
700 EAST HYMAN
CON EOM 1 N 1 UMS
F2ESIE�EN-IF IAL GMP
APPL 1 CAT 1 ON
E)ECEMBER l , 1986
1
I
I
1
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December 1, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lucas Property Residential Growth Management
Application
Dear Steve:
Attached for the Planning Office's review are twenty-one (21)
copies of the referenced application and a check in the amount of
$3,105.00 for payment of the application fee. Please note that
in addition to the GMP/conceptual submission fee, the check
provides for the application's anticipated referral costs.
Should additional referrals be required, please advise and we
will gladly provide the appropriate fee.
Should you have any questions regarding our application, or if we
can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact myself or the Applicant's representative, Mr. Peter
Rosell. On behalf of Vann Associates and the project team, thank
you for your assistance in the preparation of our application.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES
SunrA Vann, AICP
ttachmef�t
SV:sIV✓
P.O Box 8485 • Aspen. Colorado 61612 • 303 925-6958
A RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
FOR THE
1 LUCAS PROPERTY
I
Prepared for
THE HODGE COMPANIES, INC.
' Real Estate Development and Management
1505 Bridgeway Blvd., Suite 129
Sausalito, California 94965
(415) 331-1505
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
210 South Galena St., Suite 24
Aspen, Colordo 81611
(303) 925-6958
and
HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD
210 South Galena, St., Suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2867
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3
A. Water System
3
B. Sewage System
4
C. Drainage System
4
D. Fire Protection
5
E. Development Data
5
F. Traffic and Parking
7
G. Location
8
H. Impact on Adjacent Uses
8
I. Construction Schedule
9
J. Employee Housing Proposal
9
III.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
11
A. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
12
1. Water Supply
12
2. Sewage Disposal
12
3. Storm Drainage
12
4. Fire Protection
13
5. Parking
13
6. Roads
14
i
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
IV.
B. Quality of Design
1. Neighborhood Compatibility
2. Site Design
3. Energy Conservation
4. Trails
5. Green Space
C. Proximity to Support Services
1. Public Transportation
2. Community Commercial Facilities
D. Provision of Employee Housing
E. Bonus Points
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Property Survey
Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy
B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Jim Markalunas,
Director, Aspen Water Department
Exhibit 2, Letter from Heiko Kuhn,
Manager, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District
Exhibit 3, Letter from Peter Wirth,
Fire Chief, --Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department
Exhibit 4, Letter from Clark Smyth,
Park Place Condominiums
14
14
24
27
29
30
30
31
31
31
32
Kea
34
II. INTRODUCTION
The following application, submitted pursuant to Section 24-11.4
of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a growth management allocation
for the development of four (4) residential units on a vacant 12,000
square foot parcel of land hereinafter referred to as the Lucas
property (see Appendix A, Exhibit 1). As shown on Figure 1, page 2,
Ithe
property is located at the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman
Avenue and is zoned 0-Office. More specifically, the property
Colorado. The
consists of Lots K,L,M and N, Block 104, City of Aspen,
owner of the property and Applicant is the Hodge Capital Company of
Sausalito, California (see Appendix A, Exhibit 2). The Applicant's
representative is Peter C. Rosell, Vice President of The Hodge
Companies, Inc.
To facilitate the review of the Applicant's request, the
application has been divided into three areas. The first area, or
Section II of the application, provides a brief description of the
proposed development while Section III addresses in detail the Code's
growth management review criteria. The third area, or Section IV,
discusses the subdivision exception approval which is also being
requested in order to subdivide the parcel into two (2) 6,000 square
foot lots. For the reviewer's further convenience, all pertinent
supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., property survey,
title insurance policy, utility commitments, etc.) are provided in the
various appendices to this application.
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
L LYLB oovdolOM 'NadeM ~
0
wo ■mno oo Vtloloo
VNMIVO '• ON& I t
c a
wiNv.LnnuNO3 ONINNWId emic-nno NWVVAN '3 OOL
SM.LVIOOSSV NNVA
°
e
a
N
_ A �
°v
O
« O
0 :m
'a8 IeUlBl�O _ Q
✓i - 1f \ 0 ❑
-JI LL
O ❑
M
J
-as Bu jidS
====FAT===
- ;as je°unH_ --
C
0p0 0 ❑ Qrfff❑❑❑:❑❑❑❑ O❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ Q 000❑❑00 ----- U 0
C i L � ; � -- — — --
o : C
CL G 0J
❑
'_- V ❑� U
-as aupIafl
.i IV
�
a, 3: ❑ —U N
i
1 C Y ; ❑
❑❑❑ ❑b❑❑❑❑ W❑❑❑f_❑CI❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑:,
` F
Ueda 1 0
❑ -�
❑--------��
• ❑ I -U-
��
❑
2
While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Municipal Code, and to provide sufficient
information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application,
questions may arise which result in the staff's request for further
information and/or clarification. To the extent required, the
Applicant would be most happy to provide additional information in the
course of the application's review.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the Lucas property and to
construct two (2) duplexes totaling approximately 9,000 square feet.
The project, to be known as the 700 East Hyman Condominiums, will
contain four (4) luxury townhouses which will be condominiumized and
offered for sale as free market residential units. The project's
employee housing requirement wjJJ_ be met off -site via the conversion
of existing non -restricted units to deed restricted status. A sepa-
rate application for condominiumization will be submitted in the event
the project receives a development allocation. A more detailed des-
cription of the proposed development is provided below.
A.
Water System
Water service
to the project will be provided via new
service
lines connecting
to the existing eight (8) inch water main
located
in Spring Street and/or
to the twelve (12) inch main in Hyman
Avenue.
A decision as
to which line to tap will be reached in
tcooperation
with the Aspen
Water Department prior to the issuance of a
I
building permit. The preliminary fixture count for the project is
eight (8) toilets, ten (10) lavatories, eight (8) bath tubs/showers,
two (2) sinks, two (2) dishwashers, and approximately four (4) hose
bibs per duplex. The Water Department has indicated that connections
to either existing main are acceptable and that the impact of the
project on existing facilities will be minimal (see Appendix B,
Exhibit 1).
B. Sewage System
ro'ect will be served by the existing eight (8) inch
project
The J
sanitary sewer located in the alley to the rear of the property.
According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated
flows can be accommodated with no improvements to existing lines or
the treatment plant (see Appendix B, Exhibit 2).
C. Drainage System
One hundred (100) percent of the stormwater runoff attribut-
able to the Applicant's property will be retained on -site. Roof
runoff from the new buildings, and surface runoff from the project's
drywells.
impervious parking areas, will be retained on -site utilizing
Surface runoff from the proposed sidewalks to be constructed in. the
public right-of-way will drain to Spring Street and Hyman Avenue.
This runoff, however, will be intercepted to a substantial degree by
the landscaped planting areas which will parallel the project's street
frontages. Existing catch basins in the immediate site area are
believed to be adequate; however, an additional basin will be provided
in an appropriate location should one be requested by the City
4
I
Engineer. The project's detailed drainage plan will be reviewed with
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
D. Fire Protection
Fire protection will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department. The project site is located approximately four (4) blocks
from the fire station, resulting in a response time of approximately
three (3) to five (5) minutes (see Appendix B, Exhibit 3). To enhance
fire protection, a new hydrant will be installed by the Applicant at
the southwest corner. The construction of the 700 East
property's
Hyman Condominiums will conform to all applicable fire protection
regulations of the Uniform Building Code.
E. Development Data
The 700 East Hyman project consists of four (4) townhouse
units contained in two (2) duplex structures. Each three (3) level
unit will contain three (3) bedrooms and three and one-half (3 112)
baths. Two (2) covered parking spaces will be provided per dwelling
unit, with two (2) additional outdoor spaces to be provided on each
unit's paved driveway apron. The individual townhouse units are
essentially identical in size and layout, and contain approximately
2,250 square feet of floor area. The sales prices of the units will
be dictated by market conditions, but are expected to range from
$500,000 to $750,000. The following table summarizes site and devel-
opment data for the Lucas property and the proposed 700 East Hyman
Icondominium project.
11
Table I
DEVELOPMENT DATA
'
1. Total Site Area
12,000 sq.
ft.
Lot 1
6,000 sq.
ft.
Lot 2
6,000 sq.
ft.
2. Building Footprint
4,370 sq.
ft.
East Duplex
2,185 sq.
ft.
West Duplex
2,185 sq.
ft.
3. Landscaping/Open Space
4,880 sq.
ft.
Lot 1
2,340 sq.
ft.
Lot 2
2,540 sq.
ft.
4. External Floor Area
East Duplex
9,000 sq.
4,500 sq.
ft.
ft.
West Duplex
4,500 sq.
ft.
5. External Floor Area Ratio
0.75:1
East Duplex
0.75:1
West Duplex
0.75:1
1. Excludes each unit s subgrade outdoor
terrace and parking apron.
While this application requests
a GMP allocation of four
(4)
residential units, it should be noted
that the Applicant has also
applied for a building permit for the
east duplex. Pursuant
to
Section 24-11.2(c) of the Municipal Code,
the construction of one
(1)
duplex structure on a townsite lot is exempt
from the allotment proce-
dures of the City's growth management
regulations. The Planning
Office, however, has taken the position
that, in order to obtain
credit for the exempt duplex, a building
permit must be issued prior
to the receipt of a GMP allocation. In the
event a permit is received
before the City Council allocates the 1986
residential quota,
the
Applicant will technically clarify his
GMP application to reflect
a
request for only two (2) units.
I
1
F. Traffic and Parking
No significant impact is anticipated upon the existing
street system, as the City Engineering Department has indicated that
both Spring Street and Hyman Avenue are currently functioning below
allowable capacity levels in the immediate site area. Inasmuch as the
units are to be marketed primarily as second homes to seasonal resi-
dents, and given the proximity of the project to the commercial core,
Aspen Mountain and the City's public transportation routes, traffic
increases on area streets should be inconsequential. As shown on
Figure 2, page 8, all municipal bus routes currently utilize Spring
Street with the exception of the Hunter Creek Route. The Rubey Park
Transit Center is located approximately four (4) blocks southwest of
the property.
With respect to parking, the applicable Code requirement
for
the 0-Office zone district is one (1) space per bedroom. Four
(4)
parking spaces, two (2) of which are covered, will be provided
for
each three (3) bedroom unit. The total amount of on -site parking
for
the project will be sixteen (16) spaces, or four (4) spaces more
than
the minimum Code requirement. Given the second home character of
the
700 East Hyman Condominiums, the proposed parking should be more
than
adequate for a project o-f this scope. All parking spaces will
be
directly accessed via the alley, thereby eliminating the need
for
curb -cuts on Spring Street and Hyman Avenue. As a result, traffic
circulation in the immediate site area should not be adversely
affected.
L LBLa OOVtlOIOO 'Naasv
ea Milne Oavtloloo 'NaeYv
VNalvo .Y OaL i
C O
""LinYNoo ONINNwla ONIO7lnB N\YWAH '3 OOL / C
891tr1"JOSSV NNVA o a * a
Z F
a �
O
0Ir
Ir
C Q
it
-: ✓ a r 41 iii 0 00
o
0
0 d
Y
du �d
o s s000000000000000000 0i00
go c
!
i l C
10
' [lp
10i O
j. Zt u da assunr7w
N
1 yj a E a \
�O*Its
s ULM10 o
A !
I; _ 8 �'. •o � it--`�"
,'I LI
oA o0 o �� - _ :_•b
I
1 \I W G 1
IL
a.
1 )-
4 I,
o a-aa0o;o a� o
mv�_Niw 0
1
m,090 _ o o 0 ov6a tr75�o ; ..., .
-
I
0 0-
0 8
IG. Location
The Lucas property is centrally located in the heart of
downtown Aspen on the fringe of the City's commercial core. The Hyman
Avenue mall is located within two (2) blocks walking distance west of
the property while Rubey Park, the hub of the City's mass transporta-
is located four blocks to the
tion system, approximately (4)
southwest. Similarly, City Market is conveniently located one block
south of the property, and the Aspen Mountain Ski Area an additional
block further. Main Street, which is located less than two (2) blocks
to the north, provides convenient access to Aspen Valley Hospital and
the Pitkin County Airport State Highway 82. As discussed
via under
the preceding heading, all but one of the City's bus routes utilize
Spring Street, thereby passing directly in front of the property.
Summarizing, the Lucas property enjoys an excellent location relative
to the City's various public facilities and commercial areas. Given
the size of the proposed project, and its second home, seasonal
character, no significant impact upon these facilities is
anticipated.
H. Impact on Adjacent Uses
IThe Lucas property is zoned 0-Office as are the adjacent
areas to the north, south and east.
The area
west of the property is
zoned C-1, Commercial. Existing land
uses in
the immediate site area
include a single-family residence and
a multi -family
structure located
across the alley to the rear of the
property;
the Patio commercial
building, the Weinerstube restaurant
and the
Hannah Dustin office
9
building located at the northwest, southwest and southeast corners,
respectively,
of the Spring Street and Hyman Avenue intersection;
and
the so-called
Grainery building located between the property and
the
Aspen Athletic
Club to the east. Both the Grainery building and
the
single-family
residence located across the alley, however,
are
currently listed for sale. Given the condition of the structures,
and
the value of
the property which they occupy, it is reasonable
to
assume that it
is only a matter of time until these two properties
are
redeveloped pursuant to the provisions of the 0-Office zone district.
Based on the above, the proposed residential use of the
property is consistent with the provisions of the 0-Office zone
district and compatible with surrounding land uses. As a result, the
functional character of this transitional area of the City will be
unaffected by the Applicant's proposal.
II. Construction Schedule
The target date for commencement of construction is the
Spring of 1987, with completion of the project anticipated prior to
1 the end of 1987. Phased construction of the project is not
anticipated at this time.
1
J. Employee and Housing Proposal
The Applicant proposes to satisfythe employee housing
9
requirements of Section 24-11.4(c) via the conversion of existing non-
restricted units to deed restricted status pursuant to the provisions
of Section 24-11.10(i)(2) of the Municipal Code. More specifically,
10
�
' the Applicant proposes to house 9.75 employees, or forty-five (45)
percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the project as
a whole, in three (3) two bedroom units and one (1) three bedroom unit
to be purchased at the Airport Business Center (see Appendix B,
Exhibit 4). These formerly free market, rental units have recently
been renovated, condominiumized and offered for sale as the Park Place
Condominiums.
The units in question comply with all applicable employee
Yee
housing standards and will be deed restricted to employee occupancy
and price guidelines in accordance with the Housing Authority's recom-
to issuance
mendations prior the of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new building. The units will be restricted to the Authority's low
income rental and sales price guidelines.
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
i
The following section addresses the various review criteria
against which the proposed project will be evaluated. The information
contained herein represents the Applicant's best effort at compliance
with both the letter and intent of the criteria. We believe that in
every category the proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum
applicable standard. Based on our understanding of the various
criteria and the project's compliance therewith, we have taken the
liberty of requesting what we believe to be an appropriate score in
each review category. Please reference as necessary the appropriate
headings in Section II of this application for detailed information in
support of the Applicant's representations and commitments.
11
1
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
The proposed project's impact upon public facilities
and
services is described below.
1. Water Supply. The project may be handled b
p J Y Y
the
existing level of service in the area. The Water Department
has
indicated that the existing water mains in the area are adequate
to
the that be
supply project and system upgrades will not required.
In
order to minimize consumption, water -saving fixtures will be specified
throughout the project.
Requested Score: 1 point
2. Sewage
Disposal.
The project may be
handled by the
existing level of
service
in
the area. The Aspen
Consolidated
Sanitation District
has
indicated
that the existing
eight (8) inch
line located in the
alley
to the
rear of the property
is adequate to
serve the project and
that
system
upgrades will not be
required.
IRequested Score: 1 point
3. Storm Drainage. The project in and of itself improves
the quality of service in the immediate site area. No expansion of
the existing storm drainage system will be required, as one hundred
(100) percent of the runoff generated on the property will be retained
on -site via the installation of drywells. As a result, historic
runoff levels will decrease, thereby reducing the impact of stormwater
runoff on the municipal collection system. Existing catch basins in
,_ the area are believed to be adequate; however, the Applicant will
12
install an additional basin in an appropriate location should one be
requested by the City Engineer.
Requested Score: 2 points
4. Fire Protection. The project in and of itself improves
the quality of service in the immediate site area. The site is
located approximately four (4) blocks from the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department, resulting in a response time of approximately three (3) to
five (5) minutes. Although an existing fire hydrant is located at the
northwest corner of Original Street and Hyman Avenue, an additional
hydrant will nonetheless be provided by the Applicant at the southwest
corner of the property. The provision of an additional fire hydrant
will significantly improve fire protection in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Requested Score: 2 points
5. Parking. As discussed in Section II, the Applicant
proposes to provide a total of
sixteen (16) parking spaces, eight
(8)
of which will be enclosed.
The parking to be provided exceeds
the
minimum Code standard by four
(4) spaces and, therefore, should
be
more than adequate given the
second home, seasonal nature of
the
project.
The project's individual parking spaces
comply with all
applicable
design standards and are conveniently
accessed via the
alley, thereby
minimizing traffic congestion and
safety hazards on
adjacent
streets. The parking areas will be paved, drained and
shielded
from both Spring Street and Hyman Avenue
by the project's
13
'
extensive landscaping. SnowmeIt will be provided to ensure safe
ingress and egress.
Requested Score:
2 points
6. Roads. The project may be handled by the
existing
level of service in the area. The Engineering Department
has
'
have impacts
upon the
indicated that the project will no negative
existing street system as Spring Street and Hyman Avenue are
currently
functioning below allowable capacity levels in the vicinity
of the
property. Although vehicle ingress and egress to the property
will
obviously increase as a result of development, potential circulation
conflicts will be. minimized as a result of the provision
of alley
access to the project's on -site parking areas. No curb cuts
on Spring
Street or Hyman Avenue will be required or provided,
thereby
'
eliminating a potential hazard to both pedestrians and
through
traffic.
Requested Score:
1 point
IB. Quality of Design
The quality of the 700 East Hyman Condominium's design is
discussed below. Please note that the project site is located oustide
of the City's commercial core historic overlay district and, there-
fore, Historic Preservation Commission review and approval of the
project's architecture is not required.
1 1. Neighborhood Compatibility. The development concept
has been directed to create four (4) luxury townhouse units, in duplex
configuration. The project architecture has been designed with
14
' particular emphasis on visual compatibility with the site location as
a "transition" zone between adjacent downtown areas and nearby resi-
dential areas to the east.
The articulation of building surfaces in brick and
' sandstone is designed to relate to the sense of permanence, materials,
and period forms that characterize Aspen's central core area, while
ithe individualized unit scale, roof forms and residential detailing of
exterior building elements create a scale and visual relationship to
the residential character of nearby neighborhoods.
In addition to a site plan configuration which archi-
1
I
hi
tecturally delineates each unit in order to reduce visual scale, the
building massing is further scaled down to neighborhood fit through
provision of the following: Contrasting flat and sloped roof forms
which provide visual interest; placing the building footprints sig-
nificantly back from the north, south and east setback lines and
maintaining 24 feet of landscaped area adjacent to Spring Street;
reducing vertical building surfaces to an elevation approximately 2
feet below allowable height; offsetting vertical surfaces with
recessed planes; using partially subgrade lower levels; and
articulating window, balcony and exterior design elements.
The potentially long building facades which face toward
downtown on Spring Street and east toward the Aspen Athletic Club have
been architecturally divided to appear as two building elements, each
with a "unit scale" similar in size to the individual unit facades
that comprise the Hyman Avenue and alley building elevations.
15
The site plan has been configured to create significant
landscaped interior open space between buildings so that each unit has
' a spacious individual entry located at a mid -level to facilitate
stairway access to all interior living spaces. Each unit will have
generous living amenities including views of Aspen Mountain or
' Smuggler and Red Mountain from all interior spaces. Mid -roof skylights
are provided to permit natural light to two levels of the interior,
and large protected balconies have been included for outdoor living at
the upper level family spaces. In addition to visual interest and
' scale reduction, the combined flat and sloped roofs are designed to
prevent snow slides onto the useable open space adjacent to units.
Native Colorado sandstone will be used around entry
areas. Brick sidewalks will extend into the entry space of each
' unit. The exterior brick surfaces will employ a horizontal "banding"
technique translated from period Victorian buildings to increase
' visual interest horizontally and to reduce apparent scale. Window
treatment will be true divided paned glass to further scale down
building appearance. Sloped roof surfaces will be standing seam metal
' roofs colored with a permanent non -glare surface.
' The "townhouse" approach utilized for this project is
unique to Aspen, providing a convenient option for pedestrian
oriented, close -in living, while appropriate in appearance and scale
to both its built surrounds and predictable future development. The
project not only provides a compatible prototype, but greatly improves
upon an important Aspen location.
Requested Score: 3 points
16
el
2
Q
J
IL
W
H
N
g
luul• ONIYY• 0 .
n
17
P
t
O
•
� a
a
E
•
9
W
H
i■■Yi■ ONIYr■
18
Z
Q
J
IL
J
W
i
W
J
Q
W
3
0
J
Lo
19
F�
n
n
1 20
700 EAST HYMAN CONDOMINIUMS MAGMAN YAW ARCMI-
A.,— Colored- A.,— C-lor®tl
' 2. Site Design. The basic design concept for the project
site has been dictated by the limitations which are inherent to the
development of the City's original townsite lots. The area and bulk
requirements of the 0-Office zone district, in conjunction with the
need to maximize useable open space, results in a building envelope
which provides little flexibility for innovative site design. The
problem is further exacerbated by the need to achieve as close to the
allowable floor area ratio as possible in order to offset land and
tdevelopment costs. These limitations notwithstanding, we believe that
the 700 East Hyman Condominium project meets and exceeds the criteria
of this scoring category.
As Figure 3, page 17
illustrates,
the two duplexes have
been given
a north/south orientation
to maximize
solar potential, and
have been
setback from Hyman Avenue
to increase
vehicular sight lines.
Pedestrian
access to three (3) of
the project's
four (4) units is
'
provided
from Hyman Avenue, the
quieter and
less traveled of the
' site's two adjacent streets, while the remaining unit is accessed
directly from Spring Street. In order to enhance vehicular circula-
tion in the immediate site area, access to the project's parking areas
is provided via the alley, thus eliminating the need for curb cuts in
either Spring Street or Hyman Avenue. Similarly, the Applicant pro-
poses to install sidewalks along both street frontages to improve
pedestrian circulation and enhance public safety. Service vehicle
access is provided via the alley and paved parking aprons which di-
rectly abut the enclosed garage and mechanical area located at the
rear of each unit's ground floor.
24
'
Although no trash
area is required in the 0-Office zone
district, the Applicant proposes
to provide an approximately seven
(7)
foot by eleven (11) foot enclosed trash area adjacent to the alley
at
the rear of the property. This
area can be conveniently accessed
by
collection vehicles and has been
sized to accommodate a single two
(2)
cubic yard dumpster, the largest dumpster that can be reasonably
handled during the winter months. Given the second home, seasonal
Inature
of the project, the provision of a single dumpster as proposed
'
should be more than adequate to handle anticipated trash generation.
As Figure 4, page 18 illustrates, the site has been
both the
designed to maximize the quality and quantity of project's
landscaping and open space areas. Although no open space is required
within the 0-Office zone district, a total of 4,880 square feet, or
Lapproximately
forty (40) percent of the project site, has been pro-
vided. Although technically not counted for purposes of open space
calculations, each unit's subgrade terrace, and the approximately
3,560 square feet of landscaped sidewalk area located within the
public right-of-way significantly contribute to the quality and
' character of the project's site design.
tThe project's open space, parking areas, and the Spring ora,Spa�t
Street and Hyman Avenue right-of-ways will be extensively landscaped
' with specimen size deciduous trees, shrubbery and seasonal flowering
plants. Actual specimens will be selected depending upon
availability; however, all street trees will be a minimum three (3)
1 inch caliper and will be chosen from such species as Cleveland Maple,
Marshall Seedless Ash, or equivalent species acceptable to the City
25
Parks Department. Aspen trees will also be used extensively
throughout the project and will be a minimum two (2) inch caliper.
I Low growing shrubs and ground cover such as rock
cotoneaster, horizontal juniper, Virginia creeper, etc. will be used
to soften the buildings' facades, screen the parking aprons and trash
area, and to further enhance the appearance of the project. The
'
project's lawn area and the area located between the proposed side-
walks and the streets will be sodded with Kentucky bluegrass. The
project's extensive landscaping will further help to minimize the
buildings' perceived bulk, provide shade during the summer months, and
constitute a significant amenity for both residents and pedestrians
alike. To enhance the perception of privacy, and to separate the
sidewalk areas from the project's internal open space, a low wall,
'
potentially capped by a wrought iron fence, will parallel the Spring
Street and Hyman Avenue frontages. Similarly, an approximately six
pr�ro�� 41
(6) foot brick and wood wall will parallel the project's eastern
iproperty
line to provide increased privacy and to partially shield the
Mr,,h44
easternmost unit's entrance and parking apron from adjacent
development.
The proposed sidewalks, and each unit's entry walk will
'
be surfaced with exposed aggregate and/or brick pavers. All entry
areas will be attractively lighted and all utilities will be placed
underground. Benches will be provided in the entry areas, while
street furniture, tree grates with cages, and bicycle racks will be
provided along the Spring Street and Hyman Avenue sidewalks. Curb and
1
26
gutter will be replaced where required and a handicap ramp provided at
the Spring Street and Hyman Avenue intersection.
Requested Score: 3 points
3. Energy Conservation. The 700 East Hyman Condominiums
have been designed to maximize the effective expenditure of monies for
energy conservation purposes. Costs versus benefits have been care-
fully evaluated to ensure that energy related expenditures do not
' outweigh the benefits to be gained. The following specific features
will be incorporated in the project.
Solar Utilization. As
a) Building Orientation and
'
the architectural floor plans illustrate, each unit has been given a
southern orientation with glazed areas and internal storage mass sized
'
to provide a comfortable amount of passive solar gain for each
enclosed space.
b) Glazing. Appropriately, each different window
orientation will be double glazed to compensate for the interior
space's solar gain, or lack thereof, and to control heat loss. All
'
glazing will be heat mirror, or other equivalent product. South and
east glazing will allow external solar shortwave radiation to enter
the buildings while helping to prevent internal longwave radiation
from escaping. A west facing glazing will be specified which will
minimize solar gain to prevent inefficient overheating and to control
internal heat loss. The project's north facing glazing has been
designed to further reduce heat loss from the building's interior
spaces.
'
27
c) Insulation. Insulation specifications will exceed
minimum
standards. The majority of the project's exterior walls will
jbe
masonry,
with rigid insulation in excess of local requirements.
Construction
details will eliminate possible thermal bridging between
interior
and exterior wall mass. To the extent feasible, wall mass
will be
concentrated to the interior of the wall section to increase
internal
thermal storage. Rigid insulation will also be used to
(
insulate
the perimeter of floor slabs and foundations. All roofs will
have an
insulation value of R-38 or better, and all exterior doors
will be
insulated to further enhance energy conservation.
Id) Mechanical Systems. Each unit will employ a
state-of-the-art, high efficiency
gas boiler
(96 percent efficient)
heat system. Hot water heat will be delivered
to each space via
baseboard panels located at the
perimeter
walls of the units.
Although this system will result
in a higher
initial cost to the
Applicant, it is
in better heating than
more efficient and
will result
a conventional forced -air system.
The units have been designed to require minimum
mechanical cooling. In order to further reduce energy consumption,
' operable windows will be provided at the perimeter of the units and at
skylight section and gabled roof ends, thereby enhancing cross -
ventilation and natural cooling.
I
Low consumption plumbing fixtures will be specified
throughout the project. Domestic hot water requirements will be met
28
via high efficiency, heavily insulated hot water heaters located in
each unit.
e) Lighting. Natural daylighting techniques will be
used for interior lighting where possible, including exterior wall
glazing as previously described. Energy conserving, high R-value sky-
lights will be installed at internal upper level spaces and stairwells
open to floors below allowing the advantages of roof lighting while
avoiding the disadvantages of excessive heat loss.
f) Infiltration. All doors and windows will be
weatherstripped to appropriate levels to prevent excessive heat loss,
and to preclude the build-up of indoor air pollution. Vapor barriers
will be provided at all exterior walls and ceiling roof assemblies,
and will be properly sealed to help prevent air infiltration. Elec-
trical outlets and penetrations at barriers will be sealed and
insulated.
Requested Score: 3 points
4. Trails. Given the size and location of the Lucas
'
property, the provision of pedestrian and bicycle trails is
infeasible. The Applicant, however, will install landscaped sidewalks
along both Spring Street and Hyman Avenue in conjunction with the
development of the project. The installation of landscaped sidewalks
within the public right-of-way will significantly improve pedestrian
circulation and safety, as well as greatly enhance the visual
character of the immediate site area. Inasmuch as the Municipal Code
would appear to require only that the Applicant commit to join a
29
I
sidewalk improvement district in the event one is formed, the instal-
lation of sidewalks, bike racks and street furniture at this time
represents a substantial benefit to the City. In view of this
benefit, and the quality of the Applicant's proposed design, the
project should be awarded the maximum score available in this
category.
Requested Score: 3 points
5. Green Space. As discussed
under subsection
III.B.2.,
4,880 square feet, or approximately forty
(40) percent of the
project,
will be devoted to landscaped open space.
Given the urban
character
of the site, and its inherent development
limitations, the
preserva-
tion of such a substantial amount of
useable open space
is a
noteworthy accomplishment. While the project's extensive landscaping
is provided primarily for the benefit of the buildings' residents, it
will also help to reduce the public's perception of the project's bulk
as well as offer considerable relief from the visual impact of
surrounding development. This perception of open space will be
further enhanced as a result of the project's substantial setback from
Hyman Avenue.
IRequested Score: 3 points
C. Proximity to Support Services
The project's proximity to public transportation and
community commercial facilities is discussed below.
�30
I
1. Public Transportation. As Figure 2, page 8 illus-
trates, the Mountain Valley, Snowbunny, and Highlands bus routes pass
directly in front of the property on Spring Street. The Hunter Creek
route passes a block to the south of the property on Cooper Avenue.
The project, therefore, is located within two (2) blocks of all muni-
cipal bus routes, and is entitled to the maximum number of points
available in this scoring category.
Requested Score: 3 points
2. Community Commercial Facilities. As Figure 1, page 2
illustrates, the proposed project is located within two (2) blocks
walking distance of the City's commercial core. The project, there-
fore, is entitled to the maximum number of points available in this
scoring category.
Requested Score: 3 points
D. Provision of Employee Housing
The Applicant proposes to house off -site 9.75 full-time
equivalent employees, or forty-five (45) percent of the total number
of persons to be housed by the project as a whole (see Section II for
a detailed discussion of the project's employee generation and housing
proposal). Based on the Applicant's proposal, and the provisions of
Section 24-11.4(b)(4) of the Municipal Code, the project is entitled
to nine (9) points, calculated as follows:
45 percent low income housed x 1 point = 9 points
5 percent housing factor
Requested Score: 9 points
31
I
E. Bonus Points
The Applicant believes that this project has exceeded the
minimum review criteria of the City's Residential growth management
regulations in numerous categories and, as a result, has achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting the award of additional bonus
points. Specific areas in which we believe the project excels include
building and site design, energy conservation, fire protection, storm
drainage, and parking. Detailed discussions of the project's merits
in each of these areas are provided under the appropriate headings in
Section III of this application.
IV. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
In addition to a residential growth management allocation, the
proposed project will require subdivision approval in order to divide
the property into two (2) separate duplex lots. Inasmuch as only two
(2) lots will be created, and the subdivision will occur along a
'
previously described lot line, no significant benefit would appear to
be derived by either the Applicant or the City from full subdivision
'
review. Ample opportunity will be available for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to consider the proposed
subdivision request concurrent with their review of the Applicant's
'
GMP submission. As a result, the Applicant respectfully requests that
the 700 East Hyman Condominium project be excepted, pursuant to
'
Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code, from the strict application of
the City's subdivision procedures. Exception from full subdivision
32
review is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
right, and the granting of an exception would not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the immediate
Isite area.
L'
I
fl
H
33
L
Fl
fl
P
APPENDIX A
EXHIBIT 1
b O
0
J
J
i
71
1
0
J
0:
a1
� I
a
s � c
s ,
0000l �J _bM.aS .tip
l
r � /i s
D
Arne -can Land Title Association Commitment - Modified 10.'73
EXHIBIT 2
1
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
STEVVART TITEE
GUARANTY COMPANY
MAY 0 3 1985
THE HODGE CO.
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas ration, herein called the Company, for
valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or po Jes of title insurance, as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, s owner or mortgagee ofthe estate
or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the
premiums and charges therefor; all subject tot provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions
and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when th identity of the proposed Insured and the amount
of the policy or policies committed for have been i erted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,
either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to he issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all
liability and obligations hereunder al ease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof
or when the policy or policies com to or shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the
failure to issue such policy or policies is t e fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be
valid or binding until countersigned by an aut orized officer or agent.
12 T 'I' I1'
IN WITNESS WHERE; the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to
become valid when corsigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance
with its By- Laws. This Com ' me is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
i' E ��'
A
165 21-10 2 Sa
Serial No. C-1601- 37490
RW/kk
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 13103 Commitment Number:
1 Effective date. April 22, 1985 At 8: 0 0 A. M.
p Policy or Policies to be issued, Amount of Insurance Prem i ur
A ALTA Owners Policy 5
Proposed Insured
Tax. Cert. S 5.00
B ALTA Loan Policy 5 200,000.00 $ 31 8. 5 0
Proposed Insured.
First National Bank in Aspen
C and/or P_ss ians
3 The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof
vesteC in:
Hodge Capital Company
4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as fo:lows:
Lots K, L, M, and
Block 104
CITY AND ToWr;SITE O -PqPFV
County 01
Pitkin, Sta of Colorado
4 , , - -, g w ;
Aj-Wnznd CounlersionaIxe
1652 (20M 9 84)
Page 2 S '1' E. IV A 11 T T I T L Ia
l: 1'A 14 .\NT 1' <V 1\t 1'AVN'
Order Number: 1 3 1 0 3
SCHEDULE B - Section 1
Requirements
Commitment Number:
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest
to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,
to wit:
1. Deed of Trust from the Borrower to the Public Trustee for the
use of the proposed lender to secure the loan..
NOTE: Trede Name Affidavit recorder, March 2F, 19R5 in Book 4133
at Page 461 names Thomas H. Wilson as the sole representative of.
Hodge Capital Company.
1653 (25M 6 841 Page 3
11,NVAI2'I' TITLE,
GUARANTY COMPANY
SCHEDULE B — Section 2
' Exceptions
Order Number: 13103 Commitment Number:
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in ' possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
r,. Any ane all Impaid taxes an^I acressm�r.t.s and rr.y unre�ePr�c?
tax Sales.
7. The effect of inclusions in any gr-ncral or specific water
' conservancy, fire Protection, soil conservation or other
e?istrict or inclusion in any water service or str c
improv-prent area.
' P. Fxceltions and Mineral Reservations as ntained in _ tent to
Aspen Townsite recordF--d March 1, 1R�7 I , ook 139 at ge 216
as ueception No. 60156.
9. EaseirrPnt for electrical and c mmunication :tility zppurtenancPs
on, 11fi0n, ox•er, unds,r, and r r ss the Nort erly 5.5 f.F-Ft of. the
Fasterl.y 8.0 feet of U. A:, 6 k 104 as taken by the City Of
Aspen, Co. and t Mountain S t telephone and Telegraph
Cort}�any pursuantc T�Fcrec in ' i1 Action No. 6019, District
Court, Pi.tkin Coun y, Colorado rf,corccnr Januipry 26, 1977 in
Rook 323 at Paoe 8_ aG Reception No. 191532.
I
Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted
Page STEVVART TIZ'I..E
1654 (251V 3-831 GUARANTY COMPANY
1
1
APPENDIX B
EXHIBIT 1
1 CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
July 21, 1986
' Vann Associates
Sunny Vann, AICP
P.O. Box 8485
' Aspen, Co 81612
Re: Lucas Property
In regards to your inquiry concerning the Lucas property, per our
discussion of July 21, 1986, water would be available to the
property from either the 12" main in Hyman or the 8" main in
Spring Street, upon application for the necessary permits.
Should your client elect to install a fire line to service the
proposed three story building, it is our recommendation that a
fire hydrant be installed on the southwest corner of the block.
This would improve fire protection for the neighborhood, as there
is not a fire hydrant located at this intersection.
We cannot comment as to the actual line size needed for the
domestic service without detailed plans, but water is available
in sufficient quantity to service the property.
Sincerely,
Jim Markalunas, Director
Aspen Water Department
cc: Planning Department
1
1
EXHIBIT 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.{-aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P. 0. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Tele. (303) 925-2537
July 22, 1986
RE: Lucas Property
Dear Mr. Vann:
This letter is to indicate that upon preliminary examination the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District can service a proposed commercial building
on the Lucas property next to the Health Food Grainery.
Sincerely ��Q
N-e— � t . "
Heiko Kuhn, Mananger
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
1
11
I
I
EXHIBIT 3
�PARK P.LA'CE.
. .
November 14, 1986
Peter C Rose]]
The Hodge Companies
1505 Bridgeway Blvd.
Sausalito, CA. 94965
RE: Lucas Property
Dear Peter,
Please be advised that we will reserve three (3), two
bedroom units and one (1) three bedroom units in our Park
Place Condominium project for your purchase. It is our
understanding that you intend to use these units to meet the
employee housing requirement for your 1986 residential
growth management application for the Lucas Property. We
will hold these units for you for a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of this letter, which should allow ample
time to complete our contractual negotiations.
The units we have reserved for you are 417A (726
sq.ft.), 417C (1034 sq.ft.), 417E (795 sq.ft.) and 417G (808
sq.ft.). Should you have any questions, or if we can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Ver tr 1 you s,
I
Clar4kh
413-' Pcbfic Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2450
I EXHIBIT 4
1
' 420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-5532
' July 22, 1986
' Vann Associates
Planning Consultants
Box 8485
' Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: The Lucas Property
' Dear Sunny:
Based on our very brief discussion, the Aspen Volunteer
Fire Department should have no problem in providing fire
protection to the proposed commercial project on the corner
of Hyman & Spring Streets. It is my understanding that you
intend to install a fire hydrant on the south/west corner of
the property. This hydrant would benifit the adjacent build-
ings in the area. The Aspen fire station is located three and
one half (3-1/2) blocks from the proposed project, and our re-
sponse time is three (3) to five (5) minutes regardless of the
time of day. If you have any questions please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely
9�
' Peter Wirth
Fire Chief
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 700 E. Hyman Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision and
GMP Exemption for Employee Housing
DATE: January 20, 1987
LOCATION: 700 E. Hyman, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 104, Aspen
Townsite, City of Aspen.
ZONING: O-Office.
LAND AREA: 12,000 s.f.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hodge Companies Inc. owner of this property,
requests approval for the development of four residential units
in two duplexes. Each duplex lot would contain 6,000 s.f. and
would be divided along the previously described lot line. The
units would be arranged in a townhouse -row and each contain 3
bedrooms. Floor area of the two duplexes would total approxi-
mately 9,000 s.f. (.75:1 FAR). The applicant requests exception
from full subdivision review for the creation of the two lots (p.
32 of GMP application)
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Sections 20-19 (a) and (c) set
forth the provisions of subdivision exception review. In Section
20-19(c) it is stated that "the City Council may grant exception
from the application of the standards and requirements of this
chapter and grant final subdivision approval when the City
Council... deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no
public purpose and... finds that the proposed subdivision will
substantially comply with the design standard of this chapter..."
By reference, Section 20-17 describes subdivision design stand-
ards and Sections 20-15 and 20-16 describe final plat submission
requirements and provisions for improvements and improvements
guarantees.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1) City Engineer: In a January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay
Hammond (attachment A) comments are made regarding
storm drainage and sidewalks. At the present time, the
design standards for storm drainage are to maintain
historic run-off patterns, and not necessarily to
retain all run-off on -site via drywells as proposed by
the applicant. In further discussion with Elyse
Elliott, it was stated that the applicant should
conduct tests to determine the present run-off retain -
age. A system should be designed for the approval of
the Engineering Department to insure that historic run-
off is maintained.
With regard to sidewalk , the City Engineer noted City
Resolution 19, Series of 1975 requires construction of
sidewalks along the street frontage.
2) Water Department: Jim Markalunas' letter of July 21,
1986 (Exhibit 1, GMP application) states water is
available from mains in either Hyman or Spring Streets.
Installation of a fire hydrant on the southwest corner
of the block was recommended.
3) Aspen Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn states in a July
22, 1986 letter (Exhibit 2, GMP application) that the
Sanitation District can service the project, as
reviewed preliminarily.
4) Zoning Official: Bill Drueding stated in a January 14,
1987 memorandum that stairways in setbacks must be less
than 30 inches in height or they become non -conforming.
5) Environmental Health Department: In a December 18, 1986
memo from Tom Dunlop, issues of construction generated
dust, construction noise abatement, solid -fuel burning
devices, and contaminated soils are discussed.
Regarding solid -fuel burning devices, it is noted that
the project will have the maximum allowable number of
clean -burning stoves (4) and dirty fireplaces (4)
Regarding contaminated soils, Dunlop requests that
tests be conducted on excavated materials to determine
the heavy metal content and submit the results to his
office prior to removal from the site.
6) Parks Department: On January 16, 1987 Bill Ness
reviewed the landscape plan and verbally stated that
the Cleveland Maple is an appropriate specy of street
trees; and 3 1/2-4" caliper is an appropriate planting
size.
B. Planning Office Comments: The Planning Office finds that
this subdivision substantially complies with the City's
subdivision regulations. The full subdivision process,
requiring four steps, would appear to be redundant and not
serve any public purpose. Please note that the exception
review process will remove the public hearing requirement of
the preliminary stage before P&Z, which is a negative aspect
2
0
of the expedited review. However, GMP scoring on January
27th is a public hearing (public notification is only in the
Aspen Times, and not to adjacent landowners).
Following are additional comments regarding the project's
compliance with subdivision regulations:
1) Site Improvements: The applicant has shown the
location and type of proposed landscape features,
including Cleveland maple street trees (on R.O.W.)
clusters of aspen, shrubs and bluegrass sod. Other
important improvements to the site and adjacent
R.O.W.'s include: benches, tree grates, bicycle rack, a
fire hydrant on the southwest corner, sidewalks
(surface with exposed aggregate and/or brick pavers)
and a handicap ramp at the intersection. An improve-
ments guarantee should be provided following the
requirements of Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Municipal
Code.
2) A storm drainage study and plan should be completed as
requested by the Engineering Department.
3) A contaminated soils study and disposal plan should be
completed as requested by the Environmental Health
Department.
4) A plat must be submitted according to the standards of
Section 20-15; and a statement of subdivision accept-
able in form to the City Attorney is needed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend
to Council approval of the requested exception from the full
subdivision process for the purpose of creating 2 lots on Block
104, Aspen Townsite, subject to the following conditions:
1) All representations made by the applicant in the 700 E.
Hyman Residential GMP application will be adhered to.
2) The applicant shall conduct tests to determine the
present storm runoff/retainage on the site. A system
shall be designed that meets the approval of the
Sj�rn� I�nd� tesf Engineering Department prior to review of final plat to
insure that historic runoff is maintained. The system
shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
3) Site improvements stated in the 700 East Hyman Residen-
tial GMP application submitted December 1, 19861
including but not limited to: 9 cleveland maples or an
equivalent specy acceptable to the Parks Department
(minimum 3 1/2-4" caliper), 13 clusters of aspen,
3
•
shrubs, bluegrass sod, benches, tree grates, bicycle
rack, fire hydrant, sidewalks (surfaced with exposed
aggregate and/or brick paver) curbs and gutters and a
handicap ramp, shall be completely installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. An improve-
ments agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant
to Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the accept-
ance of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
review of final plat.
4) A subdivision exception plat shall be recorded with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of
any building permits, conforming to Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code and meeting the requirements of the
Engineering Department.
5) A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recorda-
tion of the plat. Included in this statement, shall be
a development schedule including construction and
landscaping improvements and appropriate financial
guarantees.
6) A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
7) Allocation of two units by City Council must be granted
in conjunction with final plat approval.
8) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement
district formed that encompasses this property.
GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING:
The applicant's GMP allocation request has been reduced from 4
units to 2 units. Consequently, the employee housing commitment
has also been reduced from that represented in the GMP submittal.
Sunny Vann's January 5, 1987 letter (attached) explains these
changes resulting from the issuance of a building permit for one
duplex prior to GMP submittal as allowed by right. The Planning
Office acknowledges that issuance of a building permit for a
duplex on the property on December 1, 1986 constitutes a develop-
ment right exempt from GMP competition.
The applicant requests at this time to deed restrict two two -bed
units at Park Place Condominiums and pay cash -in -lieu for
employee housing of approximately $8000 (equivalent to .4
employees)
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Section 24-11.2(f) states the
employee housing GMP exemption provisions.
4
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the original proposal, as stated in Ann
Bowman's December 10, 1986 memorandum (attachment B) Proposed
conditions of approval are state therein. On January 16, 1987,
the Housing Office accepted the amended employee housing program.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends
the Planning Commission to recommend Council approval of (a) the
requested GMP exemption for the deed -restriction of two 2-bedroom
units at Park Place Condominiums to the low income employee
housing guidelines and(b) acceptance of approximately $8,000
cash -in -lieu equivalent to house .4 low income employee, subject
to the following conditions:
1) All deed restriction provisions stated in Ann Bowman's
December 16, 1986 memorandum shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office for these
units prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Deed restrictions shall meet the approval of the City
Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation.
2) The cash -in -lieu payment for the equivalent of .4 low
income employees, as calculated at the time of building
permit application, shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of any building permit.
SB.700
5
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1987)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENTS TO 1010 UTE AVENUE
AND 700 E. HYMAN PROJECTS THROUGH THE 1986 RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.4 (a) of the
Municipal Code as amended, December 1st of each year is estab-
lished as a deadline for submission of applications for residen-
tial development allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, a total of four
applications were submitted for evaluation in the residential
competition, listed as follows:
Project GMP Allocation Requested
1. 1010 Ute Ave. 16 Units
2. 700 E. Hyman 2 Units
3. Mountain View 58 Units
4. 1001
;and
3 Units
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Comission (hereinafter "Commisssion") on
January 27,1987 to consider the residential GMP applications, at
which time the Commission did evaluate and score the projects;
WHEREAS, three of the four projects met the minimum thres-
hold of 31.8 points and one project did not meet the minimum
threshold by scoring as follows:
• 0
Project Total Points Given by P&Z (avg.)*
1. 1010 Ute Ave. 39.7
2. 700 E. Hyman
3. Mountain View 33.83
4. 1001 31.67
* Projects which meet the threshold are able to be ranked with
bonus points included and are shown above in this manner. The
1001 project's score is shown without bonus ponts since this
project is below the threshold.
;and
WHEREAS, the applicants for both Mountain View and 1001 have
agreed in writing to allow the two top scoring projects, 1010 Ute
Avenue and 700 E. Hyman to receive allocations prior to March 1,
1987 as requrired by Code; and
WHEREAS, the quota available in the 1986 Residential GMP
Competition is 22 units, without action being taken with respect
to carrying -over or deleting the unallocated 35 units from the
1985 quota ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made
by the applicants in scoring these projects, and has attached
conditions of approval to the subdivision reviews for 1010 Ute.
Ave. and 700 E. Hyman projects; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the recommended
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for the two top
projects and also the recommendations on subdivision approval on
February 23, 1987; and
i
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council determined that decisions on
the unallocated 1985 residential quota and unused 1986 quota
should not be made until the other required reviews for the 1001
and Mountain View projects have been considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that from the available 22 units of the 1986 Residential
GMP quota 16 units be alloted to 1010 Ute Avenue and 2 units be
alloted to 700 E. Hyman.
BE IT FURTHUR RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that the above allocations shall expire pursuant to
Section 24-11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans,
specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building
RE> !0EkTiAL
permit for the proposed commercial buildings are not submitted on
or before December 1, 1989.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting to be held
on the day of
, 1987.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
14EMORAMDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
Thru: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office N-&
RE: 700 E. Hyman Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision and
GMP Exemption for Employee Housing
DATE: February 19, 1987
LOCATION: 700 E. Hyman, Lots R, L, M, and N, Block 104, Aspen
Townsite, City of Aspen.
ZONING: O-Office.
LAND AREA: 12,000 s.f.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hodge Companies Inc. owner of this proper-
ty, requests approval for the development of four residential
units in two duplexes. Each duplex lot would contain 6,000 s.f.
and would be divided along the previously described lot line.
The units would be arranged in a townhouse -row and each contain 3
bedrooms. Floor area of the two duplexes would total approxi-
mately 9,000 s.f. (.75:1 FAR). The applicant requests exception
from full subdivision review for the creation of the two lots (p.
32 of GMP application).
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Sections 20-19 (a) and (c) set
forth the provisions of subdivision exception review. In Section
20-19(c) it is stated that "the City Council may grant exception
from the application of the standards and requirements of this
chapter and grant final subdivision approval when the City
Council... deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no
public purpose and ... finds that the proposed subdivision will
substantially comply with the design standard of this chapter..."
By reference, Section 20-17 describes subdivision design stand-
ards and Sections 20-15 and 20-16 describe final plat submission
requirements and provisions for improvements and improvements
guarantees.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Conceptual Subdivision:
1. Referral Comments:
a) City Engineer: In a January 5, 1987 memorandum from
Jay Hammond (Attachment A) comments are made regarding
storm drainage and sidewalks. At the present time, the
design standards for storm drainage are to maintain
historic run-off patterns, and not necessarily to
retain all run-off on -site via drywells as proposed by
the applicant. In further discussion with Elyse
Elliott, it was stated that the applicant should
conduct tests to determine the present run-off retain -
age. A system should be designed for the approval of
the Engineering Department to insure that historic run-
off is maintained.
With regard to sidewalk, the City Engineer noted City
Resolution 19, Series of 1975 requires construction of
sidewalks along the street frontage. -
b) Water Department: Jim Markalunas' letter of July 21,
1986 (Exhibit 1, GMP application) states water is
available from mains in either Hyman or Spring Streets.
Installation of a fire hydrant on the southwest corner
of the block was recommended.
c) Aspen Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn states in a July
22, 1986 letter (Exhibit 2, GMP application) that the
Sanitation District can service the project, as
reviewed preliminarily.
d) Zoning Official: Bill Drueding stated in a January 14,
1987 memorandum that stairways in setbacks must be less
than 30 inches in height or they become non -conforming.
e) Environmental Health Department: In a December 18,
1986 memo from Tom Dunlop, issues of construction
generated dust, construction noise abatement, solid -
fuel burning devices, and contaminated soils are
discussed. Regarding solid -fuel burning devices, it is
noted that the project will have the maximum allowable
number of clean -burning stoves (4) and dirty fireplaces
(4). Regarding contaminated soils, Dunlop requests
that tests be conducted on excavated materials to
determine the heavy metal content and submit the
results to his office prior to removal from the site.
f) Parks Department: On January 16, 1987 Bill Ness
reviewed the landscape plan and verbally stated that
the Cleveland Maple is an appropriate specy of street
trees; and 3 1/2-4" caliper is an appropriate planting
size.
2. Planning Office Comments: The Planning Office finds that
this subdivision substantially complies with the City's
subdivision regulations. The full subdivision process,
requiring four steps, would appear to be redundant and not
serve any public purpose.
E
• 0
Following are additional comments regarding the project's
compliance with subdivision regulations:
a) Site Improvements: The applicant has shown the
location and type of proposed landscape features,
including Cleveland Maple street trees (on R.O.W.)
clusters of Aspen, shrubs and bluegrass sod. Other
important improvements to the site and adjacent
R.O.W.'s include: benches, tree grates, bicycle rack,
a fire hydrant on the southwest corner, sidewalks
(surface with exposed aggregate and/or brick pavers)
and a handicap ramp at the intersection. An improve-
ments guarantee should be provided following the
requirements of Section 20-16(c) (1) of the Municipal
Code.
b) A storm drainage study and plan should be completed as
requested by the Engineering Department. In a January
27, 1987 letter, from Dean W. Gordon, P.E. the appli-
cant clarified that the storm drainage facilities will
be designed to maintain historic flow rates with
respect to both surface water flows and ground water
discharge, consistent with the Engineering Department's
standards.
c) A contaminated soils study and disposal plan should be
completed as requested by the Environmental Health
Department.
d) A plat must be submitted according to the standards of
Section 20-15; and a statement of subdivision accept-
able in form to the City Attorney is needed.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously voted on January 20, 1987 to recommend City Council
to approve the requested subdivision exception (deleting the
preliminary plan step) for the purpose of creating two lots for
700 E. Hyman project, subject to the eight conditions listed
below.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to Council to
grant conceptual subdivision approval for the creation of 2 lots
on Block 104, Aspen Townsite for 700 E. Hyman project, subject to
the following conditions:
1) All representations made by the applicant in the 700 E.
Hyman Residential GMP application will be adhered to.
2) The applicant shall conduct tests to determine the
present storm run-off retainage on the site. A system
shall be designed that meets the approval of the
Engineering Department prior to review of final plat to
3
insure that historic run-off is maintained. The system
shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
3) Site improvements stated in the 700 E. Hyman Residen-
tial GMP application submitted December 1, 1986,
including, but not limited to: 9 Cleveland Maples or
an equivalent specy acceptable to the Parks Department
(minimum 3 1/2-4" caliper), 13 clusters of Aspen,
shrubs, bluegrass sod, benches, tree grates, bicycle
rack, fire hydrant, sidewalks (surfaced with exposed
aggregate and/or brick pavers) curbs and gutters and a
handicap ramp, shall be completely installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. An improve-
ments agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant
to Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the accept-
ance of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
review of final plat by City Council.
4) A subdivision exception plat shall be recorded with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of
any building permits, conforming to Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code and meeting the requirements of the
Engineering Department. This plat shall be reviewed by
the Council prior to its granting final approval.
5) A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recorda-
tion of the plat. Included in this statement shall be
a development schedule including construction and land-
scaping improvements and appropriate financial guaran-
tees.
6) A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of
building permit. �..,�a y.��,w.,u vn
7) Allocation of two units by City Council must be granted
in conjunct -ion with- final plat approval.
8) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement
district formed that encompasses this property and
state such agreement in the statement of subdivision
exception.
B. GMP REDUCTION REQUEST: In a February 13, 1987 letter
(attached), Sunny Vann has requested reduction of the residential
GMP allocation required to develop the four unit 700 E. Hyman
project. It is argued in Sunny Vann's letter that it would be
appropriate to apply Section 24-11.2(d), GMP exemption for a lot
split to construct one single family residence, to one half of
the duplex.
4
The Planning Office cannot support this request because the 700
E. Hyman project is speculative new development causing growth
and development impacts that should be subject to GMP. The
primary intention for the GMP exemption for a lot split provi-
sion, as explained in the findings of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of
1986) regarding an amendment to the Section is "to provide a
pressure relief valve from the merger provisions of the zoning
code." It was envisioned that the creation of one new single
family house would have "minimal growth and development impacts"
as a single act by itself.
The 700 E. Hyman project creates two duplexes, one of which (two
dwelling units) has already been exempted from GMP competition
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(c) due to the applicant having
obtained a building permit prior to GMP submittal. To exempt
one additional unit from GMP competition would not meet the
intention of the GMP exemption provision, although it could
technically be done in accordance with Section 24-11.2(d). There
are obviously growth and development impacts associated with the
700 E. Hyman Ave. project corresponding to the total density.
Impact mitigation measures, specifically the employee housing
portion of the project, would be reduced when they should be
provided for this speculative development. We do not support the
applicant's attempt to avoid impact mitigation in this manner.
We also note that the GMP requires the application to be reviewed
as it was submitted, with "technical and insubstantial clarifica-
tion only" allowed. A change in the number of units requested is
not an insubstantial change. If the applicant does wish to
change the GMP application to a one unit request, we suggest that
this application be withdrawn, that a lot split be processed for
the third exempt unit, and a new application be sumitted on
December 1.
C. GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The applicant's GMP
allocation request has been reduced from 4 units to 2 units.
Consequently, the employee housing commitment has also been
reduced from that represented in the GMP submittal. Sunny Vann's
January 5, 1987 letter (attached) explains these changes result-
ing from the issuance of a building permit for one duplex prior
to GMP submittal as allowed by right. The Planning office
acknowledges that issuance of a building permit for a duplex on
the property on December 1, 1986 constitutes a development right
exempt from GMP competition. We also feel that this clarifica-
tion differs from the change discussed in the prior section in
that the applicant submitted for a building permit prior to the
December 1 deadline, but only received the permit after the
submission date. This is distinctly different than asking for a
lot split exemption today, and for a change to the GMP applica-
tion after scoring but prior to allocation.
5
The applicant requests at this time to deed restrict two two -bed
units at Park Place Condominiums and pay cash -in -lieu for
employee housing of approximately $8000 (equivalent to .4
employees) .
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Section 24-11.2(f) states the
employee housing GMP exemption provisions.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the original proposal, as stated in Ann
Bowman's December 10, 1986 memorandum (Attachment B) proposed
conditions of approval are stated therein. On January 16, 1987,
the Housing Office accepted the amended employee housing program.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends
Council to approve (a) the requested GMP exemption for the deed -
restriction of two 2-bedroom units at Park Place Condominiums to
the low income employee housing guidelines and (b) acceptance of
approximately $8,000 cash -in -lieu equivalent to house .4 low
income employee, subject to the following conditions:
1) All deed restriction provisions stated in Ann Bowman's
December 16, 1986 memorandum shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office for these
units prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Deed restrictions shall meet the approval of the City
Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation.
2) The cash -in -lieu payment for the equivalent of .4 low
income employees, as calculated at the time of building
permit application, shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of any building permit.
IV. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
I • �
In addition to a residential growth management allocation, the
proposed project will require subdivision approval in order to divide
the property into two (2) separate duplex lots. Inasmuch as only two
(2) lots will be created, and the subdivision will occur along a
previously described lot line, no significant benefit would appear to
be derived by either the Applicant or the City from full subdivision
review. Ample opportunity will be available for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to consider the proposed
subdivision request concurrent with their review of the Applicant's
GMP submission. As a result, the Applicant respectfully requests that
the 700 East Hyman Condominium project be excepted, pursuant to
Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code, from the strict application of
the City's subdivision procedures. Exception from full subdivision
review is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
' right, and the granting of an exception would not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the immediate
Isite area.
t 61987
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning COnSultfintS
February 13, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lucas Property Residential GMP Application/Quota
Request
Dear Steve:
The purpose of this letter is to request the Planning
office's consideration of a further reduction of the
residential GMP allocation required to develop the four
(4) unit, 700 East Hyman Avenue condominium project.
As you know,
permit on Dec
duplex on Lo
sociates, in
5, 1987, "c
reflect a red
from four (
concurred wit
subsequently
to qualify fo
approval.
Applicant wou
the project b
the Hodge Capital Company ob
ember 1, 1986 for the c
is M and N of the project
a letter to the Planning Off
larified" the Applicant's G
uction in the original a
4) to two (2) units. Th
h the Applicant's clarificat
scored the project suffici
r a GMP allocation and subd
The January letter further
ld seek an additional quota
e eligible for an allocation.
ained a building
onstruction of a
site. Vann As-
ce dated January
MP application to
llocation request
e Planning Office
on, and the P&Z
ntly high enough
vision exception
noted that the
reduction should
t
i
i
e
i
Pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) of the Municipal Code, the
construction of a single-family residence on a lot formed
by a lot split is exempt from compliance with the City's
growth management allocation procedures. For all practi-
cal purposes, the subdivision which has been recommended
for approval in conjunction with the Applicant's GMP
application complies with all applicable provisions of the
lot split exemption regulation. Consequently, the
property would appear to be entitled to a single-family
development right which could be exercised on Lots K and L
P O Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303'925-6958
• 0
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
February 13, 1987
Page 2
of the project site. If this is indeed the case, then a
development allocation for only one (1) dwelling unit
would be required to develop the project.
Alan Richman, however, has indicated that the Applicant
must compete for a two (2) unit GMP allocation if a duplex
is to be constructed on Lots K and L. An examination of
the Code indicates no specific regulatory basis for this
position. Furthermore, there is in fact precedence for
claiming an existing development credit in conjunction
with a GMP application. Specifically, in the recent
approval of Dr. Wesson's request for a commercial alloca-
tion, the applicant was allowed to claim credit for a
single-family residential unit and to compete only for the
commercial portion of the project. The stated rationale
was that Dr. Wesson could legally build a single-family
unit and subsequently compete for a commercial allocation.
This rationale obviously also applies to the case at hand,
in that the Hodge Capital Company could build a single-
family unit upon receipt of a lot split approval and
subsequently duplex the structure by competing for an
additional dwelling unit. The only apparent difference in
the two instances being that Dr. Wesson's project involved
both commercial and residential uses while the Applicant's
project is strictly residential.
We believe that the Planning Office would concur that the
end result of both approaches (i.e., a GMP request for two
(2) units versus a single-family credit and a GMP request
for one (1) unit) is identical. Both approaches result in
the construction of no more than two (2) units. The
Planning Office's interpretation, however, would require
the Applicant to actually construct the first unit, or to
successfully compete for a two (2) unit allocation. If
you recall, a similar issue was raised by Gideon Kaufman
which resulted in an amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1966) to the previous lot split regulations of the Code.
This amendment eliminated the necessity of an existing
dwelling unit as a condition of lot split approval. The
concept inherent in both of these issues is essentially
the same. Why force a property owner to prematurely build
in order to obtain additional development rights?
•
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
February 13, 1987
Page 3
In summary, we believe that sufficient precedence exists
to support the concept of a development credit, that the
end result of both approaches is identical, that forcing
construction in order to circumvent the Planning Office's
interpretation is not in the Community's best interests,
and that this project should be treated no differentl-y
than the previously approved Wesson application. As a
result, we respectfully request that the Planning Office
reconsider its interpretation to the effect that a GMP
allocation for only one (1) unit is required by the 700
East Hyman Avenue condominium project.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. I
appreciate your consideration of this matter and am
available at your convenience should you wish to discuss
it further.
Very truly ,yours ,
ASSOCIATES,'-INC.
unny/y/ann, AICP
cc: Paul Taddune
Peter Rosell
VANN ASSOCIATES
F'Iannrrul Crnrs1rll;111t
January 5, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lucas Property Residential uric
Request
Dear Steve:
Application/Quota
The purpose of this letter is to clarify, pursuant to
Section 24-11.4(h) of the Municipal Code, the Hodge
Capital Company's request for a residential GMP alloca-
tion for the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Project.
As discussed on Page 6 of our GMP application, the
construction of one (1) duplex structure on a townsite
lot is exempt from the allotment procedures of the
City's growth management regulations. Alan, however,
has taken the position that in order to claim credit for
the exempt duplex in conjunction with our GMP applica-
tion, a building permit must be issued for the structure
prior to Council's allocation of the annual residential
quota. A permit, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was issued by the Building Department for the Project's
east duplex on December 1, 1986. As a result, the Hodge
Capital Company hereby clarifies its application to
reflect a request for a two (2) unit GMP allocation as
opposed to the previously requested four (4) unit
allocation.
As discussed on page 10 of the application, the Appli-
cant has proposed to satisfy the employee housing
requirements of the Municipal Code via the conversion of
existing non -restricted units to deed restricted status.
While the Applicant will continue to utilize Park Place
Condominium units to fulfill its employee housing
obligations, the actual number of units required to
house forty-five (45) percent of the total number of
persons generated by the Project has been reduced as a
result of the above quota request clarification.
l' U 130:< 8A85 •Aspen. Colorado 8161,') - 30T925-6358
•
n
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 5, 1987
Page 2
The revised employee housing commitment for the Project
is 4.9 employees. The Applicant proposes to house 4.5
of these employees in two (2) two bedroom units to be
purchased at the Airport Business Center. The Applicant
will pay a dedication fee of approximately $8,000.00
which is the equivalent to housing the remaining 0.4
employee. The exact amount of the dedication fee will
be determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The payment
of the fee will comply with all applicable guidelines.
We would also like to take this opportunity to note that
should the Project be eligible for an allocation, a
further request for quota reduction may be forthcoming.
The Applicant will present its arguments for a further
reduction in the requested quota subsequent to the P&Z's
scoring of the Project, or in the context of a GMP
amendment following the City Council's 1986 allocation.
A decision as to which approach to pursue will be made
by the Applicant following the P&Z's scoring of our
application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
VANYASSOCIATES; -]NC.
unny )rXnn, AICP
Attachment
cc: Peter Rosell
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, City Engineering
January 5, 1987
JAN f !907 ,
RE: 700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
RESIDENTIAL GMP
The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for
those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Most of the
concerns are reasonably self-explanatory, however,
recommendations of note that differ from the scoring requested by
the applicant include:
1. Storm Drainage; Recommended score 1 point.
Storm drainage is a delicate issue wherein the optimum solution
is to maintain historic conditions. That is to say, recharge to
the aquifer is maintained at historic levels as is the flow off -
site. The reason for this is that increasing recharge to the
aquifer, as suggested by the applicant, opens the possibility of
creating groundwater problems for this or adjacent properties.
Undercharging the aquifer can lower groundwater levels affecting
those on wells who are dependent on historic recharge.
In short, the only potential we see for an additional point for a
property such as this, where adjacent right-of-way drainage is
already adequate, would be a storm drainage system that
reintroduces water into the ground at historic rates, while
retaining historic off -site flow for reintroduction to the storm
system on a delayed basis. This would maintain the historic
aquifer while reducing impacts on public facilities.
2. Trails; Recommended score 2 points.
City resolution 19, series of 1975, would require construction of
sidewalk along the street frontages of the project-. We would
review the sidewalk construction as a desirable, but standard,
solution to providing for pedestrian circulation.
3. Bonus points; Recommended score 2 points.
This recommendation is only for bonus points related to
Engineering concerns. This project offers an excellent design in
relation to provision of excess parking as well as retaining all
current on -street parking and creating no new intersection
Page Two
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
January 5, 1986
conflicts. The site plan also offers significant public right-
of-way amenities.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
We have no particular problem with the subdivision exception
request at this time, subject to the submission of appropriate
plat and agreement documents.
JH/co/Hyman
Enclosure
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPAR i%IEN
7 M�'
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning office J f ! C} /gyp..
`C +'
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7-sb
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 18, 1986
Re: 700 East Hyman Residential GMP
This office has reviewed the above -mentioned submittal for -the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto
City streets or State highways. This shall involve daily
monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving
the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal
of mud or dirt will be required with the dirt being deposited
back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall
be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to
minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
Health Department will review the permit application and determ-
ine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined that
a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to the
applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health Department,
Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulation 1
and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: This topic is not specifically
addressed in the submittal, but the typical floor plan indicates
that there will be one fireplace and one woodstove per townhouse
for a total of four fireplaces and four woodstoves in the entire
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
700 East Hyman Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 2
project. It shall be mentioned here that the woodstoves must be
certified clean burning devices. The applicant can obtain a list
of certified stoves from this office.
Using the above numbers of solid fuel burning devices and the
total square feet per townhouse ( approximately 2,250 sq. ft.)
this project will be in compliance with City of Aspen Ordinance
5, series 1986, provided each unit contains greater than 1,000
sq. ft. of finished living area.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct-
ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum
decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heave metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal•
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General•
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
i
DEC 2 2 I9,, v J
ME MORANDU M
TO: GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986
RE: 700 E. HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for employee
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: The following application, submitted pursuant to
Section 24-11.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a growth
management allocation for the development of four (4) residential
units on a vacant 12,000 square foot parcel of land hereinafter
referred to as the Lucas property. The property is located at
the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue and is zoned
O-Office.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the Lucas property and to
construct two (2) duplexes totaling approximately 9,000 square
feet. The project will contain four (4) luxury townhouses which
will be condominiumized and offered for sale as free market
residential units. The project's employee housing requirement
will be met off -site via the conversion of existing non -re-
stricted units to deed restricted status.
The applicant proposes to house 9.75 employees, or forty-five
(45) percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the
project as a whole, in three (3) two bedroom units and one (1)
three bedroom unit to be purchased at the Airport Business
Center, i.e., Park Place Condominiums. The units will comply
with all applicable employee housing standards and will be deed
restricted to employee occupancy and price guidelines in accord-
ance with the Housing Authority's recommendations prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. The
units will be restricted to the Authority's low income rental and
sales price guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The calculations for the employee units
are as follows:
4 units of 3 bedrooms each = 12 persons
55% of 12 = 21.8 total project
21.8 minus 12 = 9.8 employees generated
3
0 (6
Staff approves the application with the condition that an option
contract will be furnished for approval by the Housing Authority
prior to the P&Z meeting on January 5, 1987 and the following
deed restriction shall be placed on the employee units at the
Park Place Condominiums.
1. The Owner of 700 E Hyman covenants with the City of
Aspen that the employee units shall be deed restricted
to sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy
in accordance with guidelines established and indexed
by the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guiclelines may cnaTrge annually on April 1st of
each year and the Owner of 700 E. Hyman may adjust the
rents or sale price accordingly.
2. Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or .rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifi-
cation of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereto f or the benef it of and shall be spec-
ifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any
appropriate legal action including injunction, abate-
ment or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the
period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
3. The Owner of 700 E. Hyman or his manager shall have the
right to lease the employee units to qualified em-
ployees of his own selection. Such employees may be
employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin
County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements
of a qualified employee. "Qualified Employee" as used
herein shall mean any person currently residing in and
4
V (•
employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a
minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out
of any twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
6. The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board of by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
7. If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation
LI
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: GMP Allocations to 1010 Ute Avenue and 700 F. Hyman
Residential Projects
DATE: February 18, 1987
INTRODUCTION: Attached is a resolution granting residential GMP
allotments from the 1986 quota for the 1010 Ute Avenue and 700 E.
Hyman projects. Section 24-11.4(g) of the Municipal Code states
in part that "subsequent to the conclusion of all protest
hearings provided for in this section ... the City Council shall,
by resolution and prior to March 1st of each year, allocate
development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of
priority established by their rank."
BACKGROUND: There were four projects submitted for allocations
in the Residential GMP Competition on December 1, 1986. These
projects and their unit requests and their scores are as follows:
Projects Units Requested Score*
1. 1010 Ute Ave. 16 39.7
2. 700 F. Hyman 2 38.08
3. Mountain View 58 33.83
4. 1001 3 31.67
* Projects which meet the threshold are able to be ranked
with bonus points included and are shown above in this manner.
The 1001 proect score is shown without bonus points since this
project is below the threshold.
According to the Planning Office analysis there are 22 units
available for allocation to successful applicants this year.
There are also 35 units unallocated from the 1985 residential
quota which were neither carried -over or wiped out at the
conclusion of last year's competition.
Both Mountain View and 1001 need additional reviews prior to
being eligible for GMP allocation. In the case of Mountain View,
the P&Z must still review the rezoning, subdivision, and street
vacation elements of the application, scheduled for the March 17,
1987 meeting. Council must also hold a public hearing on the
subdivision and other reviews before Mountain View is eligible
•
for allocation. As regards the 1001 project, an appeal of its
scoring by P&Z is scheduled for review by Council on March 9.
Since there is sufficient quota available for the top two scoring
projects to receive full allocations, there is no reason to delay
your award to these projects until after the additional reviews
have been completed for the remaining competitors. This is
particularly true since both the Mountain View and 1001 represen-
tatives have consented to the awards occuring at this time.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve Resolution No. (Series of
1987) granting residential allotments from the 1986 Residential
GMP quota of 2 units to the 700 F. Hyman project and 16 units to
the 1010 Ute Avenue project."
sb.4
•
0
TO:
Thru:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City
Manager `-
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
700 E. Hyman Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision and
GMP Exemption for Employee Housing
DATE: February 19, 1987
LOCATION: 700 E. Hyman, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 104, Aspen
Townsite, City of Aspen.
ZONING: 0-Office.
LAND AREA: 12,000 s.f.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hodge Companies Inc. owner of this proper-
ty, requests approval for the development of four residential
units in two duplexes. Each duplex lot would contain 6,000 s.f.
and would be divided along the previously described lot line.
The units would be arranged in a townhouse -row and each contain 3
bedrooms. Floor area of the two duplexes would total approxi-
mately 9,000 s.f. (.75:1 FAR). The applicant requests exception
from full subdivision review for the creation of the two lots (p.
32 of GMP application).
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Sections 20-19 (a) and (c) set
forth the provisions of subdivision exception review. In Section
20-19(c) it is stated that "the City Council may grant exception
from the application of the standards and requirements of this
chapter and grant final subdivision approval when the City
Council... deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no
public purpose and ... finds that the proposed subdivision will
substantially comply with the design standard of this chapter..."
By reference, Section 20-17 describes subdivision design stand-
ards and Sections 20-15 and 20-16 describe final plat submission
requirements and provisions for improvements and improvements
guarantees.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Conceptual Subdivision:
1. Referral Comments:
a) City Engineer: In a January 5, 1987 memorandum from
Jay Hammond (Attachment A) comments are made regarding
storm drainage and sidewalks. At the present time, the
design standards for storm drainage are to maintain
historic run-off patterns, and not necessarily to
retain all run-off on -site via drywells as proposed by
the applicant. In further discussion with Elyse
Elliott, it was stated that the applicant should
conduct tests to determine the present run-off retain -
age. A system should be designed for the approval of
the Engineering Department to insure that historic run-
off is maintained.
With regard to sidewalk, the City Engineer noted City
Resolution 19, Series of 1975 requires construction of
sidewalks along the street frontage.
b) Water Department: Jim Markalunas' letter of July 21,
1986 (Exhibit 1, GMP application) states water is
available from mains in either Hyman or Spring Streets.
Installation of a fire hydrant on the southwest corner
of the block was recommended.
c) Aspen Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn states in a July
22, 1986 letter (Exhibit 2, GMP application) that the
Sanitation District can service the project, as
reviewed preliminarily.
d) Zoning Official: Bill Drueding stated in a January 14,
1987 memorandum that stairways in setbacks must be less
than 30 inches in height or they become non -conforming.
e) Environmental Health Department: In a December 18,
1986 memo from Tom Dunlop, issues of construction
generated dust, construction noise abatement, solid -
fuel burning devices, and contaminated soils are
discussed. Regarding solid -fuel burning devices, it is
noted that the project will have the maximum allowable
number of clean -burning stoves (4) and dirty fireplaces
(4). Regarding contaminated soils, Dunlop requests
that tests be conducted on excavated materials to
determine the heavy metal content and submit the
results to his office prior to removal from the site.
f) Parks Department: On January 16, 1987 Bill Ness
reviewed the landscape plan and verbally stated that
the Cleveland Maple is an appropriate specy of street
trees; and 3 1/2-4" caliper is an appropriate planting
size.
2. Planning Office Comments: The Planning Office finds that
this subdivision substantially complies with the City's
subdivision regulations. The full subdivision process,
requiring four steps, would appear to be redundant and not
serve any public purpose.
2
•
Following are additional comments regarding the project's
compliance with subdivision regulations:
a) Site Improvements: The applicant has shown the
location and type of proposed landscape features,
including Cleveland Maple street trees (on R.O.W.)
clusters of Aspen, shrubs and bluegrass sod. Other
important improvements to the site and adjacent
R.O.W.'s include: benches, tree grates, bicycle rack,
a fire hydrant on the southwest corner, sidewalks
(surface with exposed aggregate and/or brick pavers)
and a handicap ramp at the intersection. An improve-
ments guarantee should be provided following the
requirements of Section 20-16(c) (1) of the Municipal
Code.
b) A storm drainage study and plan should be completed as
requested by the Engineering Department. In a January
27, 1987 letter, from Dean W. Gordon, P.E. the appli-
cant clarified that the storm drainage facilities will
be designed to maintain historic flow rates with
respect to both surface water flows and ground water
discharge, consistent with the Engineering Department's
standards.
c) A contaminated soils study and disposal plan should be
completed as requested by the Environmental Health
Department.
d) A plat must be submitted according to the standards of
Section 20-15; and a statement of subdivision accept-
able in form to the City Attorney is needed.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously voted on January 20, 1987 to recommend City Council
to approve the requested subdivision exception (deleting the
preliminary plan step) for the purpose of creating two lots for
700 E. Hyman project, subject to the eight conditions listed
below.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to Council to
grant conceptual subdivision approval for the creation of 2 lots
on Block 104, Aspen Townsite for 700 E. Hyman project, subject to
the following conditions:
1) All representations made by the applicant in the 700 E.
Hyman Residential GMP application will be adhered to.
2) The applicant shall conduct tests to determine the
present storm run-off retainage on the site. A system
shall be designed that meets the approval of the
Engineering Department prior to review of final plat to
�3
insure that historic run-off is maintained. The system
shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
3) Site improvements stated in the 700 E. Hyman Residen-
tial GMP application submitted December 1, 1986,
including, but not limited to: 9 Cleveland Maples or
an equivalent specy acceptable to the Parks Department
(minimum 3 1/2-4" caliper), 13 clusters of Aspen,
shrubs, bluegrass sod, benches, tree grates, bicycle
rack, fire hydrant, sidewalks (surfaced with exposed
aggregate and/or brick pavers) curbs and gutters and a
handicap ramp, shall be completely installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. An improve-
ments agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant
to Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the accept-
ance of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
review of final plat by City Council.
4) A subdivision exception plat shall be recorded with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of
any building permits, conforming to Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code and meeting the requirements of the
Engineering Department. This plat shall be reviewed by
the Council prior to its granting final approval.
5) A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recorda-
tion of the plat. Included in this statement shall be
a development schedule including construction and land-
scaping improvements and appropriate financial guaran-
tees.
6) A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of
building permit.
7) Allocation of two units by City Council must be granted
in conjunction with final plat approval.
8) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement
district formed that encompasses this property and
state such agreement in the statement of subdivision
exception.
B. GMP REDUCTION REQUEST: In a February 13, 1987 letter
(attached), Sunny Vann has requested reduction of the residential
GMP allocation required to develop the four unit 700 E. Hyman
project. It is argued in Sunny Vann's letter that it would be
appropriate to apply Section 24-11.2(d), GMP exemption for a lot
split to construct one single family residence, to one half of
the duplex.
4
0 0
The Planning Office cannot support this request because the 700
E. Hyman project is speculative new development causing growth
and development impacts that should be subject to GMP. The
primary intention for the GMP exemption for a lot split provi-
sion, as explained in the findings of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of
1986) regarding an amendment to the Section is "to provide a
pressure relief valve from the merger provisions of the zoning
code." It was envisioned that the creation of one new single
family house would have "minimal growth and development impacts"
as a single act by itself.
The 700 E. Hyman project creates two duplexes, one of which (two
dwelling units) has already been exempted from GMP competition
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(c) due to the applicant having
obtained a building permit prior to GMP submittal. To exempt
one additional unit from GMP competition would not meet the
intention of the GMP exemption provision, although it could
technically be done in accordance with Section 24-11.2(d). There
are obviously growth and development impacts associated with the
700 E. Hyman Ave. project corresponding to the total density.
Impact mitigation measures, specifically the employee housing
portion of the project, would be reduced when they should be
provided for this speculative development. We do not support the
applicant's attempt to avoid impact mitigation in this manner.
We also note that the GMP requires the application to be reviewed
as it was submitted, with "technical and insubstantial clarifica-
tion only" allowed. A change in the number of units requested is
not an insubstantial change. If the applicant does wish to
change the GMP application to a one unit request, we suggest that
this application be withdrawn, that a lot split be processed for
the third exempt unit, and a new application be sumitted on
December 1.
C. GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The applicant's GMP
allocation request has been reduced from 4 units to 2 units.
Consequently, the employee housing commitment has also been
reduced from that represented in the GMP submittal. Sunny Vann's
January 5, 1987 letter (attached) explains these changes result-
ing from the issuance of a building permit for one duplex prior
to GMP submittal as allowed by right. The Planning office
acknowledges that issuance of a building permit for a duplex on
the property on December 1, 1986 constitutes a development right
exempt from GMP competition. We also feel that this clarifica-
tion differs from the change discussed in the prior section in
that the applicant submitted for a building permit prior to the
December 1 deadline, but only received the permit after the
submission date. This is distinctly different than asking for a
lot split exemption today, and for a change to the GMP applica-
tion after scoring but prior to allocation.
5
0 •
The applicant requests at this time to deed restrict two two -bed
units at Park Place Condominiums and pay cash -in -lieu for
employee housing of approximately $8000 (equivalent to .4
employees) .
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Section 24-11.2(f) states the
employee housing GMP exemption provisions.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the original proposal, as stated in Ann
Bowman's December 10, 1986 memorandum (Attachment B) proposed
conditions of approval are stated therein. On January 16, 1987,
the Housing Office accepted the amended employee housing program.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends
Council to approve (a) the requested GMP exemption for the deed -
restriction of two 2-bedroom units at Park Place Condominiums to
the low income employee housing guidelines and (b) acceptance of
approximately $8,000 cash -in -lieu equivalent to house .4 low
income employee, subject to the following conditions:
1) All deed restriction provisions stated in Ann Bowman's
December 16, 1986 memorandum shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office for these
units prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Deed restrictions shall meet the approval of the City
Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation.
2) The cash -in -lieu payment for the equivalent of .4 low
income employees, as calculated at the time of building
permit application, shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of any building permit.
1.1
IV. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
In addition to a residential growth management allocation, the
proposed project will require subdivision approval in order to divide
the property into two (2) separate duplex lots. Inasmuch as only two
(2) lots will be created, and the subdivision will occur along a
previously described lot line, no significant benefit would appear to
be derived by either the Applicant or the City from full subdivision
review. Ample opportunity will be available for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to consider the proposed
subdivision request concurrent with their review of the Applicant's
GMP submission. As a result, the Applicant respectfully requests that
the 700 East Hyman Condominium project be excepted, pursuant to
Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code, from the strict application of
the City's subdivision procedures. Exception from full subdivision
review is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
' right, and the granting of an exception would not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the immediate
Isite area.
I
0
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
February 13, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lucas Property Residential GMP Application/Quota
Request
Dear Steve:
The purpose of this letter is to request the Planning
Office's consideration of a further reduction of the
residential GMP allocation required to develop the four
(4) unit, 700 East Hyman Avenue condominium project.
As you know, the Hodge Capital Company obtained a building
permit on December 1, 1986 for the construction of a
duplex on Lots M and N of the project site. Vann As-
sociates, in a letter to the Planning Office dated January
5, 1987, "clarified" the Applicant's GMP application to
reflect a reduction in the original allocation request
from four (4) to two (2) units. The Planning Office
concurred with the Applicant's clarification, and the P&Z
subsequently scored the project sufficiently high enough
to qualify for a GMP allocation and subdivision exception
approval. The January letter further noted that the
Applicant would seek an additional quota reduction should
the project be eligible for an allocation.
Pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) of the Municipal Code, the
construction of a single-family residence on a lot formed
by a lot split is exempt from compliance with the City's
growth management allocation procedures. For all practi-
cal purposes, the subdivision which has been recommended
for approval in conjunction with the Applicant's GMP
application complies with all applicable provisions of the
lot split exemption regulation. Consequently, the
property would appear to be entitled to a single-family
development right which could be exercised on Lots K and L
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303/925-6958
0
•
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
February 13, 1987
Page 2
of the project site. If this is indeed the case, then a
development allocation for only one (1) dwelling unit
would be required to develop the project.
Alan Richman, however, has indicated that the Applicant
must compete for a two (2) unit GMP allocation if a duplex
is to be constructed on Lots K and L. An examination of
the Code indicates no specific regulatory basis for this
position. Furthermore, there is in fact precedence for
claiming an existing development credit in conjunction
with a GMP application. Specifically, in the recent
approval of Dr. Wesson's request for a commercial alloca-
tion, the applicant was allowed to claim credit for a
single-family residential unit and to compete only for the
commercial portion of the project. The stated rationale
was that Dr. Wesson could legally build a single-family
unit and subsequently compete for a commercial allocation.
This rationale obviously also applies to the case at hand,
in that the Hodge Capital Company could build a single-
family unit upon receipt of a lot split approval and
subsequently duplex the structure by competing for an
additional dwelling unit. The only apparent difference in
the two instances being that Dr. Wesson's project involved
both commercial and residential uses while the Applicant's
project is strictly residential.
We believe that the Planning Office would concur that the
end result of both approaches (i.e., a GMP request for two
(2) units versus a single-family credit and a GMP request
for one (1) unit) is identical. Both approaches result in
the construction of no more than two (2) units. The
Planning Office's interpretation, however, would require
the Applicant to actually construct the first unit, or to
successfully compete for a two (2) unit allocation. If
you recall, a similar issue was raised by Gideon Kaufman
which resulted in an amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1966) to the previous lot split regulations of the Code.
This amendment eliminated the necessity of an existing
dwelling unit as a condition of lot split approval. The
concept inherent in both of these issues is essentially
the same. Why force a property owner to prematurely build
in order to obtain additional development rights?
•
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
February 13, 1987
Page 3
In summary, we believe that sufficient precedence exists
to support the concept of a development credit, that the
end result of both approaches is identical, that forcing
construction in order to circumvent the Planning Office's
interpretation is not in the Community's best interests,
and that this project should be treated no differently
than the previously approved Wesson application. As a
result, we respectfully request that the Planning Office
reconsider its interpretation to the effect that a GMP
allocation for only one (1) unit is required by the 700
East Hyman Avenue condominium project.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. I
appreciate your consideration of this matter and am
available at your convenience should you wish to discuss
it further.
Very truly yours,
VANY1 ASSOCIATES, ,INC.
l unny nn, AICP
cc: Paul Taddune
Peter Rosell
a
VANN ASSOCIATES
f11<111nuua 0: 11 :,ull,jnL;
January 5, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lucas Property Residential GMP
Request
Dear Steve:
Application/Quota
The purpose of this letter is to clarify, pursuant to
Section 24-11.4(h) of the Municipal Code, the Hodge
Capital Company's request for a residential GMP alloca-
tion for the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Project.
As discussed on Page 6 of our GMP application, the
construction of one (1) duplex structure on a townsite
lot is exempt from the allotment procedures of the
City's growth management regulations. Alan, however,
has taken the position that in order to claim credit for
the exempt duplex in conjunction with our GMP applica-
tion, a building permit must be issued for the structure
prior to Council's allocation of the annual residential
quota. A permit, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was issued by the Building Department for the Project's
east duplex on December 1, 1986. As a result, the Hodge
Capital Company hereby clarifies its application to
reflect a request for a two (2) unit GMP allocation as
opposed to the previously requested four (4) unit
allocation.
As discussed on page 10 of the application, the Appli-
cant has proposed to satisfy the employee housing
requirements of the Municipal Code via the conversion of
existing non -restricted units to deed restricted status.
While the Applicant will continue to utilize Park Place
Condominium units to fulfill its employee housing
obligations, the actual number of units required to
house forty-five (45) percent of the total number of
persons generated by the Project has been reduced as a
result of the above quota request clarification.
P_O Box 8485 • Aspen. Colorado 81612 . 303.'925-69`s
0
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 5, 1987
Page 2
The revised employee housing commitment for the Project
is 4.9 employees. The Applicant proposes to house 4.5
of these employees in two (2) two bedroom units to be
purchased at the Airport Business Center. The Applicant
will pay a dedication fee of approximately $8,000.00
which is the equivalent to housing the remaining 0.4
employee. The exact amount of the dedication fee will
be determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The payment
of the fee will comply with all applicable guidelines.
We would also like to take this opportunity to note that
should the Project be eligible for an allocation, a
further request for quota reduction may be forthcoming.
The Applicant will present its arguments for a further
reduction in the requested quota subsequent to the P&Z's
scoring of the Project, or in the context of a GMP
amendment following the City Council's 1986 allocation.
A decision as to which approach to pursue will be made
by the Applicant following the P&Z's scoring of our
application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
VAN ASSOCIATES; -ANC.
n, AICP
Attachment
cc: Peter Rosell
r �
.J
JAN 71937 ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: January 5, 1987
RE: 700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
RESIDENTIAL GMP
The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for
those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Most of the
concerns are reasonably self-explanatory, however,
recommendations of note that differ from the scoring requested by
the applicant include:
1. Storm Drainage; Recommended score I point.
Storm drainage is a delicate issue wherein the optimum solution
is to maintain historic conditions. That is to say, recharge to
the aquifer is maintained at historic levels as is the flow off -
site. The reason for this is that increasing recharge to the
aquifer, as suggested by the applicant, opens the possibility of
creating groundwater problems for this or adjacent properties.
Undercharging the aquifer can lower groundwater levels affecting
those on wells who are dependent on historic recharge.
In short, the only potential we see for an additional point for a
property such as this, where adjacent right-of-way drainage is
already adequate, would be a storm drainage system that
reintroduces water into the ground at historic rates, while
retaining historic off -site flow for reintroduction to the storm
system on a delayed basis. This would maintain the historic
aquifer while reducing impacts on public facilities.
2. Trails; Recommended score 2 points.
City resolution 19, series of 1975, would require construction of
sidewalk along the street frontages of the project_. We would
review the sidewalk construction as a desirable, but standard,
solution to providing for pedestrian circulation.
3. Bonus points; Recommended score 2 points.
This recommendation is only for bonus points related to
Engineering concerns. This project offers an excellent design in
relation to provision of excess parking as well as retaining all
current on -street parking and creating no new intersection
Page Two
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
January 5, 1986
conflicts. The site plan also offers significant public right-
of-way amenities.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
We have no particular problem with the subdivision exception
request at this time, subject to the submission of appropriate
plat and agreement documents.
JH/co/Hyman
Enclosure
• ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTPIEN
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office ' - Q!9P
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director -r-,.3D
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 18, 1986
Re: 700 East Hyman Residential GMP
This office has reviewed the above -mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto
City streets or State highways. This shall involve daily
monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving
the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal
of mud or dirt will be required with the dirt being deposited
back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall
be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to
minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
Health Department will review the permit application and determ-
ine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined that
a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to the
applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health Department,
Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulation 1
and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: This topic is not specifically
addressed in the submittal, but the typical floor plan indicates
that there will be one fireplace and one woodstove per townhouse
for a total of four fireplaces and four woodstoves in the entire
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
iASPEN*PITKIN (a
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
700 East Hyman Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 2
project. It shall be mentioned here that the woodstoves must be
certified clean burning devices. The applicant can obtain a list
of certified stoves from this office.
Using the above numbers of solid fuel burning devices and the
total square feet per townhouse ( approximately 2,250 sq. ft.)
this project will be in compliance with City of Aspen Ordinance
5, series 1986, provided each unit contains greater than 1,000
sq. ft. of finished living area.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct-
ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum
decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heave metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal•
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General•
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
oil
DEC, 22986
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986
RE: 700 E. HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for employee
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: The following application, submitted pursuant to
Section 24-11.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a growth
management allocation for the development of four (4) residential
units on a vacant 12,000 square foot parcel of land hereinafter
referred to as the Lucas property. The property is located at
the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue and is zoned
O-Office.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the Lucas property and to
construct two (2) duplexes totaling approximately 9,000 square
feet. The project will contain four (4) luxury townhouses which
will be condominiumized and offered for sale as free market
residential units. The project's employee housing requirement
will be met off -site via the conversion of existing non -re-
stricted units to deed restricted status.
The applicant proposes to house 9.75 employees, or forty-five
(45) percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the
project as a whole, in three (3) two bedroom units and one (1)
three bedroom unit to be purchased at the Airport Business
Center, i.e., Park Place Condominiums. The units will comply
with all applicable employee housing standards and will be deed
restricted to employee occupancy and price guidelines in accord-
ance with the Housing Authority's recommendations prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. The
units will be restricted to the Authority's low income rental and
sales price guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The calculations for the employee units
are as follows:
4 units of 3 bedrooms each = 12 persons
55% of 12 = 21.8 total project
21.8 minus 12 = 9.8 employees generated
3
Staff approves the application with the condition that an option
contract will be furnished for approval by the Housing Authority
prior to the P&Z meeting on January 5, 1987 and the following
deed restriction shall be placed on the employee units at the
Park Place Condominiums.
1. The Owner of 700 E Hyman covenants with the City of
Aspen that the employee units shall be deed restricted
to sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy
in accordance with guidelines established and indexed
by the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guidelines may change annually on April lst of
each year and the Owner of 700 E. Hyman may adjust the
rents or sale price accordingly.
2. Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifi-
cation of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be spec-
ifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any
appropriate legal action including injunction, abate-
ment or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the
period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
3. The Owner of 700 E. Hyman or his manager shall have the
right to lease the employee units to qualified em-
ployees of his own selection. Such employees may be
employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin
County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements
of a qualified employee. "Qualified Employee" as used
herein shall mean any person currently residing in and
4
4 (0
employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a
minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out
of any twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
5. when a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
6. The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board of by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
7. If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
Project: 700 E. Hyman
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS
Welton
Jasmine Ro er
Ramona
David
Mari Al Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service
1
1
1
2
1
1
b. Sewer Service
1
1
1
2
2
1
C. Storm Drainage
2
2
2
2
1
1
d. Fire Protection
2
2
2
2
2
2
e. Parking Design
2
2
2
2
2
2
f. Roads
1
1
1
2
1
1
SUBTOTAL
11
9
9
12
9
8 9.66
2. Quality of Design (15
pts)
a. Neighborhood
3
3
2
3
2
2
Compatibility
b. Site Design
3
3
3
3
3
3
C. Energy
2.5
3
2.5
3
2
2
d. Trails
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
e. Green Space
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
SUBTOTAL
13.5
13
11.5
13
11
11 12.17
3.
Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3
3
3
3
3
3
Transportation
b. Community Comml 3
3
3
3
3
3
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4.
Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 9
9
9
9
9
9
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5.
Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1-5 39.5
37
35.5
40
35
34
36.83
6.
Bonus Points (5.3 Pts) 3
3
0
0
1.5
0
1.25
TOTAL POINTS 1-6 42.5
40
35.5
40
36.5
34
38.08
.JSCHMUESER Goh
rt1` t �--"Tjll
.January 27, 1987
151'1 Grand Avenue, Suite 212
G9ood Springs, Colorado 81601
(; ) 45 1004
CONSULTING ENGINEERS t SURVEYORS
Mr» Surly Vann
Vann Associates
p.0. Box 8485
Aspen, 00 81612
1ie: 700 E. Hyman Cordorri.niums
Drainage System Analysis
Dear Sunny:
I've reviewed the January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay Hammond, City
Engineer with respect to drainage design for the above referenced
project; I have also reviewed the site plan with your office. This is
to certify that the stoY.drainage system can and will be designed to
maintain historic flow razes with respect to both surface water flows
and groundwater recharce and as a result all historic rates will be
maintained while reducing the peak impacts on the adjacent public
facilities.
..The site configuration allows for the construction of either dry wells
or other pervious surface retainage facilities so as to provide
artificial recharge of -:e groundwater aquifer to replace that water
which is prevented from entering the groundwater because of the
Proposed construction. ':.`�e site also allows for the construction of
either detention or retention facilities so as to capture the increased
surface water generated and release it at historic flow rates. These
facilities would also function so as to remove the peak loading on
public facilities and t`:erefore would in fact reduce impacts on the
currently in place public drainage facilities.
I trust that this is cc:.sistent with our previous discussions and
addresses the key issues raised by Mr. Hammond. Specific design of
storm drainage facilities will be accomplished at the detailed
-submission phase and will be consistent with the above discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER G0RDC N MEYER, PZC.
.E.
z�.
0
700 F. Hyman Comments
4
Vacant parcel of (and on the N>E> corner of Spring and Hyman and
next to the old house known as the "C,ainery"^
Applicant owns 12,000 s^f^ and would like an exception from the
full subdivision process to create 2 lots of 6,000 s^f^ each -
total dev't: 2 duplexes {4 units total}
^0
Split on pre-existing lot line [between M and L}
Site is flat with little vegetation and in a dever\oped area of
town ^ ".Q'I/A eo mo '
Refera| comients:
Few issues were identified by other reviewing agencies
I. Engineering - drainage- hjistorici runoff
2^ Water and sanitation - no problem
3^ Env't Health - need for a contaminated soils test and also
observed that the applicant is installing 4 clean -burning stoves
and 4 dirty -burning divises
4^ Parks department stated the proposed streetscape plantings are
appropriate.
P>O>-has found no major problem with this subdivision request..
We are recommending approval of this application as an expedited
review, exempting it from the preliminary review before the P&Z,
and subject to the eight conditions \isted^{p 3 and 4}~
The applicant would come back to Council for final plat
approval with an improvements agreement and financial
guarantees and a statement of subdivision covering commit-
ments.
P&Z recommended approval with conditions as stated.
| �
2nd ,matter is a request from the applicant for a reduction in
the CMP request based on a CMP exempt ion.
l^ speculative new dev't that cuases growth and development
impacts and should be subject to CMP
2^ When Council adopted the new lot split provisions allowing a
CMP expempt for a s~f^ house on undeveloped land, it was for the
p[urpose of allowing s^f~ dev't as a pressure [eW\ief value for
deve\opment having minimal impacts. We do not fill this gua|ifi
es.
3^ Do not support the app|icant`s attempt to Set out from under
the empo\oyee housing commitment associated with this propject^
4^ Change in the number of units requested would be more than a
technical clarification of this |ication^ �
L
� �� .^ � ' ����� �—^'f'
^
' VV [ -~~--�� '
x/
CMP exewmpt ion for emp hsg^ . ^
sb^CC700 by ]*� ' � J *� e� �� �n4 -w
^ ^ � " � U '
�� �m°= �Jf -�
�� -- ''" *` �w� ot/
i
��
�
pD f I'f.Jr1 J kv fS .
� �» Prip.�rfiy is t�, li ^ c ��� � aN Uhl ^i, E, �Ot�n ►� �d°Y�n� (i� �"��h+e� p��,t fv hoVu t u,y,lr�
L,
IZ I Opp tnr►1�>(I { ►r c �"ry+, 1 �✓ �1 5���, �► r��� �v
0 Ivt a
ion ��IJe�►N1Jh
WA ifsva, , I-) I" E
��✓'
7 L ►1 ✓ I e J,—m i fA -(n a' e 0 d I f!!� r +i�) will
��brpA l� � ,� �r�✓N� (�j �,�Q Uhl 1 D�fM—b✓vh�nyf ��l�fj
�•V I I*r �r' "" * 5,���Viyir. KID I
1 � t�
rA tM✓r►rkMr"�bMrl.dlrM! �Fr �' LrndtNf,�fir
R 14 �rh frirr► tl a++ lM rp,� f � �b�wa�i 41fl *-4 o eorr,�1,`j.
)A l.Vtr�1�1i ✓u4�
C�
,O � ���th1 �%�� pfi�e7�V6tti•
Ov�
/UZ"r0,� Yf VN s,L,)e J I f! -16I ' oo j1Nyo, 1� stir (lf p. ? & If 4 .
Lw��p, �a►►�ihy i4 strRi �A+ �— 9kcb,4,,, J �AsI( wI�, ",3
lob 0
�.-� ,� - A, hien��� �,, f� Ar��je��vT� �l� p,lN,V.✓� �l..bJVi�/,,,o+�•/l
eqy. 1s7 )r ruuukr'h. V
• 0
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
Project: 700 E. Hyman
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS
Welton
Jasmine Ro er
Ramona
David
Mari Al Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service
1
1 1
2
1
1
b. Sewer Service
1
1 1
2
2
1
c. Storm Drainage
2
2 2
2
1
1
d. Fire Protection
2
2 2
2
2
2
e. Parking Design
2
2 2
2
2
2
f. Roads
1
1 1
2
1
1
SUBTOTAL 11
9
9
12
9
8
9.66
2.
Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood 3
3
2
3
2
2
Compatibility
b. Site Design 3
3
3
3
3
3
c. Energy 2.5
3
2.5
3
2
2
d. Trails 2.5
2
2
2
2
2
e. Green Space 2.5
2
2
2
2
2
SUBTOTAL 13.5
13
11.6
13
11
11
12.17
3.
Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3
3
3
3
3
3
Transportation
b. Community Comml 3
3
3
3
3
3
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4.
Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 9
9
9
9
9
9
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5.
Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1-5
39.5
37
35.5
40
35
34
36.83
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
3
0
0
1.5
0
1.25
TOTAL POINTS 1-6
42.5
40
35.5
40
36.6
34
38.08
0 eodj.)-�
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:_
•
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: v
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2) points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
RATING:_
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: ��
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources. (_
RATING: ' J
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
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. C
RATING:
l�
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2'
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (3) points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
RATING: 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.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL: �o _
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 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).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
PLANNING OFFICE DOES
AWARD BONUS POINTS
31.8 , I
- 8 -
NOT
�4. S
J�-�2_
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project:_700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: �_
* • •
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING:
COMMENTS: "C
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
RATING: Z
f. Roads (maximum two [ 2 ] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
b. Site Design (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: — 13
- 4 -
• 0
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
COMMENTS :
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS :
RATING: 2
SUBTOTAL: -1.3
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
•
RATING: '�
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:_
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
•
i
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed). 9
RATING: /
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
- 7 -
E
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
0
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
POINTS
40
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
31.8
1
- 8 -
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: i
i
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: L--
COMMENTS :
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
RATING: 6
f. Roads (maximum two [2) points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
41MI. \
RATING:
�v
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
RATING:
b. Site Design (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: `�)
C. Energy (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
M 41w Y
- 4 -
0
d. Trails (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: �L
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 'z_
COMMENTS :
SUBTOTAL: l r -�
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
0 0
7
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
0 0
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
0 •
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points). RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS
'.DOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&L Commission Member:
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
POINTS
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
31.8
lk-;kJ e
- 8 -
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GNP COMPETITION
Project:_700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:_
•
9
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
RATING:
0 0
f. Roads (maximum two (2) points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL: L2,-
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:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
RATING: a
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
RATING:_
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.
r�
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3) points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
•
•
COMMENTS:
RATING:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three (3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS:
RATING: __3
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
0 •
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
(10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
RATING:
•
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS
'.DOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
•
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
POINTS
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
V
31.8�
I
ITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING D ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project:_700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgr7-3
ig.
RATING: /
I
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer. I
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: z_
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
0 0
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
0
u
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
C. Energy (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2-1
e. Green Space (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL: d
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
RATING: 5
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: L_;�
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 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).
RATING:
COMMENTS
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
- 7 -
0
•
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member: 1
%1
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
310-S .
- 8 -
POINTS
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 700 E. Hyman Date: January 27, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: �_
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: I_
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
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.
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
RATING:
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS:
RATING: I
SUBTOTAL: X
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:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: ?
COMMENTS:
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
RATING:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL: --
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
•
RATING: i
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
•
•
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 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).
RATING: 9
COMMENTS
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
(10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty (20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
RATING:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points).
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6
40
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
POINTS
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 "
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 Co
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 /
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
2 r
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 -J
Name of P&Z Commission Member:�0��-
- 8 -
0
SCHMUESER GOROW PEA
15 i Grano Avenue, Juitu :1-c
GJWood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004
January 27, 1987
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: 700 E. $yman Condominiums
Drainage System Analysis
Dear Sunny:
I've reviewed the January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay Hammond, City
Engineer with respect to drainage design for the above referenced
project; I have also reviewed the site plan with your office. This is
to certify that the stor^ drainage system can and will be designed to
maintain historic.,flow razes with respect to both surface water flows
and groundwater recharge and as a result all historic rates will be
maintained while reducing the peak impacts on the adjacent public
facilities. ,
_The site configuration allows for the construction of either dry wells
or other pervious surface retainage facilities so as to provide
artificial recharge of the groundwater aquifer to replace that water
which is prevented from entering the groundwater because of the
proposed construction. •i e site also allows for the construction of
either detention or retention facilities so as to capture the increased
surface water generated and release it at historic flow rates. These
facilities would also fi"action so as to remove the peak loading on
public facilities and t7erefore would in fact reduce impacts on the
currently in place public drainage facilities.
I trust that this is consistent with our previous discussions and
addresses the key issues raised by Mr. Hammond. Specific design of
storm drainage facilities will be accomplished at the detailed
submission phase and will be consistent with the above discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDC N MEYER, DZC.
P.E.
1.`, I, 1 rams Avenue, %Julcc C-1c
SCHMUES15R CCR 'MEYER INC. < Clewood Springs, Colorado 81601
045-1004
CONSULTING ENGINEERS d SURVEYORS
J V 15
87
January 27, 1987
' JAN 2 81987
----------------
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: 700 E. Hyman Condominiums
Drainage System Analysis
Dear Sunny:
I've reviewed the January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay Hammond, City
Engineer with respect to drainage design for the above referenced
project; I have also reviewed the site plan with your office. This is
to certify that the storm drainage system can and will be designed to
maintain historic.flow rates with respect to both surface water flows
and groundwater recharge and as a result all historic rates will be
maintained while reducing the peak impacts on the adjacent public
facilities.
The site configuration allows for the construction of either dry wells
or other pervious surface retainage facilities so as to provide
artificial recharge of the groundwater aquifer to replace that water
which is prevented from entering the groundwater because of the
proposed construction. The site also allows for the construction of
either detention or retention facilities so as to capture the increased
surface water generated and release it at historic flow rates. These
facilities would also function so as to remove the peak loading on
public facilities and therefore would in fact reduce impacts on the
currently in place public drainage facilities.
I trust that this is consistent with our previous discussions and
addresses the key issues raised by Mr. Hammond. Specific design of
storm drainage facilities will be accomplished at the detailed
submission phase and will be consistent with the above discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
SCMMSER GORDC N MEYER, INC.
De W. Gordon, P.E.
esid t
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 700 E. Hyman Date: January 14, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:Water can be provided from mains in either Hyman or
Spring Streets, according to Jim Markalunas. No improvements to
the system are proposed.
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:Sewer service can be provided by an existing line in the
alley and adequate treatment plant capacity is available to serve
the project according to Heiko Kuhn. No improvements to the
system are proposed.
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:The applicant proposes to retain 100% of the runoff
generated on the property in on -site drywells. Jay Hammond
stated that increasing recharge to the acquifer may create ground
water problems for this and adjacent properties. The standard
for an area service improvement (for 2 points) would be that a
system that reintroduces storm water on a delayed basis to
maintain historic rates be provided, but the applicant has made
no such proposal.
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:A new fire hydrant would be located at the southwest
corner of the property. The Fire Marshall stated this hydrant
will improve fire protection in the area.
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Sixteen parking spaces, 8 of which will be in garages,
will be provided on -site via the alley. This exceeds the Code
requirement for 12 spaces (1 space/bedroom) and should minimize
the need for on -street parking. Parking areas will be screened
- 2 -
by plantings from Spring Street, paved and have snowmelt (which
is a private, not public benefit) for safe ingress -egress.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS: Access incr the buildings from the allev will minimize
circulation conflicts, and require no new curb cuts. Engineering
stated roads are adequate to handle increased traffic. No
improvements to the existing street system result from this
project.
RATING: 1
SUBTOTAL: 8
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:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The broken -up massing of the individual residential
units echoes to some extent the single-family houses along Hyman
Avenue and elsewhere within the neighborhood. 14' front yard and
a 12' sideyard setback on Spring Street, as well as building 2
- 3 -
feet below the (251) height restriction are compatible residen-
tial design elements in the neighborhood. No special attempt was
made to avoid dwarfing the small single family house west of the
project.
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:40% of the site consists of open space and there is no
open space requirement in the office district. A rather formal
landscape scheme is proposed, consisting of street trees (9
cleveland maple or equivalent species), scattered aspen trees (13
minimum 2" caliper), shrubs and bluegrass sod. An enclosed trash
facility will be located off the alley. Low privacy walls will
parallel Spring and Hyman, and a higher privacy fence will be
placed along the eastern property line. The proposed walks work
efficiently. The main privacy areas are between the two build-
ings and in sunken patios, which are rather limited. The site
design seems to work well and will bring major landscape improve-
ments and a sidewalk to this corner.
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The following operative energy conservation measures
would be provided: heat mirror glass, double glazing, good
southern exposure, R-38 roof insulation, rigid insulation
exceeding code requirements, 96% efficient gas boiler, high R-
valve skylights, extensive weatherstripping and sealed vapor
barriers. The Roaring Fork Energy Center evaluated these
commitments as an excellent strategy, although noted substantial
north facing glass and doors. Snowmelt on the parking apron is a
major energy user and serves no general public purpose. The
Environmental Health Department noted the typical floor plan
shows one fireplace and one woodstove per townhouse. While the
number of solid fuel burning devices is in compliance with
Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, there is no commitment to have fewer
fireplaces/stoves than the maximum allowed, provide only gas or
all clean burning devices. The inefficient fireplaces, use of
snowmelt and north facing glass of the project bring staff's
- 4 -
i 0
evaluation of the energy program down to a standard design.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The commitment to install sidewalks along Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue is a standard requirement of subdivision, as
noted by the City Engineer.
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The applicant states 4,880 sq. ft. (40% of the sitel
will be devoted to landscaped open space. The abundant tree
planting will provide visual relief and shading in the summer.
The amount of usable open space consists mainly of the sunken
patios; clustering of structures to maximize usable space was not
accomplished. We find this aspect of the project is not above
standard.
SUBTOTAL: 11
1. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:Several RFTA bus routes pass in front of the property on
Spring Street.
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:The project is located within 500 feet walking distance
to the commercial core, and less distance to C-1 commercial
facilities.
SUBTOTAL: 6
Y. 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;
0
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 9
COMMENTS:The applicant commits that 45% of the project will be
deed restricted employee housing, consisting of two 2 bedroom
units at Park Place Condominiums and cash -in -lieu for .4 equiva-
lent employee.
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
(One [1] point for each
RATING:
C
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
SCOI2TNG CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5
3. PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 8
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
8
11
6
9
5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 34
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office
cor-M
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, C,.(Y8 23__ !. (303)963-0311
December 22, 1986 DEC 2 3 W
TO: Glenn Horn and Steve Burstein: Planning Office h7�U
FR: Steve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren
RE: GMP Review Comments on 700 E Hyman Residential Submis
Insulation
The specified insulation levels all exceed code and the roof insulation
of R-38 is commendable. Details in the proposal, including using rigid
insulation and trying to avoid thermal bridging, are positive aspects of
this building. The use of extensive weatherstripping, sealed vapor
barriers and attention to electrical outlets indicate a desire to build
a tight energy efficient home. However, they have not specified R values
for any building component other than the roof.
Solar Energy
These units do have good southern exposure which is being utilized.
Garages on the north side are also good planning. However, the entry
level and upper level both have substantial north facing glass and doors
to north side decks. The upper level north side is adjacent to the
kitchen and breakfast nook area. Since this is a high use area, the
north facing door and windows will have some negative aspects.
Mechanical Systems
A 96% efficient gas boiler is specified. This is a very energy
conscious choice.
Water Conservation
Assuming the hot water heaters will also be gas -fired, a high efficiency
model is a good choice. Low consumption fixtures are specified. However,
a more specific rating such as gallons per minute is needed to assess
the water usage.
Lighting
The use of daylighting techniques is encouraged. However, absolutely
no mention of lighting technique is made for night use. An efficient
lighting design can save future energy dollars.
L,
Ll
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
Page 2
700 E Hyman Comments continued
Glazing
Heat mirror glass is specified for all units which is a good choice.
The glazing specifications are intelligently conceived to maximize
the use of solar energy and minimize heat loss and overheating.
Comment
At this stage of the project, the developers have outlined an efficient
energy strategy. The project looks excellent now, but we would require
a lot more detail to make an accurage assessment on the energy -use
characteristics of this project.
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 700 E. Hyman Date: January 14. 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:Water can be provided from mains in either Hyman or
Spring Streets, according to Jim Markalunas. No improvements to
the system are proposed.
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:Sewer service can be provided by an existing line in the
alley and adequate treatment plant capacity is available to serve
the project according to Heiko Kuhn. No improvements to the
system are proposed.
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:The applicant Droposes to retain 100% of the runoff
generated on the property in on -site drywells. Jay Hammond
stated that increasing recharge to the acguifer may create ground
water problems for this and adjacent properties. The standard
for an area service improvement (for 2 points) would be that a
system that reintroduces storm water on a delayed basis to
maintain historic rates be provided, but the applicant has made
no such proposal.
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:A new fire hydrant would be located at the southwest
corner of the property. The Fire Marshall stated this hydrant
will improve fire protection in the area.
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Sixteen parking spaces, 8 of which will be in garages,
will be provided on -site via the alley. This exceeds the Code
requirement for 12 spaces (1 space/bedroom) and should minimize
the need for on -street parking. Parking areas will be screened
- 2 -
bV plantings from Spring Street, paved and have snowmelt (which
is a private, not public benefit) for safe ingress -egress.
f-. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS: Accessing the buildings from the allev will minimize
circulation conflicts, and require no new curb cuts. Engineering
stated roads are adequate to handle increased traffic. No
improvements to the existing street system result from this
project.
RATING: 1
SUBTOTAL: 8
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:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The broken -up massing of the individual residential
units echoes to some extent the single-family houses along Hyman
Avenue and elsewhere within the neighborhood. 14' front yard and
a 12' sideyard setback on Spring Street, as well as building 2
- 3 -
• 0
feet below the (251) height restriction are compatible residen-
tial design elements in the neighborhood. No special attempt was
made to avoid dwarfing the small single family house west of the
b. Site Design (maximum three (3) points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENTS:40% of the site consists of open space and _there _is no
open space requirement in the office district. A rather formal
landscape scheme is proposed, consisting of street trees (9
cleveland maple or equivalent species), scattered aspen trees (13
minimum 2" caliper), shrubs and bluegrass sod. An enclosed trash
facility will be located off the alley. Low privacy walls will
parallel Spring and Hyman, and a higher privacy fence will be
placed along the eastern property line. The proposed walks work
efficiently. The main privacy areas are between the two build-
ings and in sunken patios, which are rather limited. The site
design seems to work well and will bring major landscape improve-
ments and a sidewalk to this corner.
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The following operative energy conservation measures
would be provided: heat mirror glass, double glazing, good
southern exposure R-38 roof insulation, rigid insulation
exceeding code requirements, 96% efficient gas boiler, high R-
valve skylights extensive weatherstripping and sealed vapor
barriers. The Roaring Fork Energy Center evaluated these
commitments as an excellent strategy, although noted substantial
north facing glass and doors. Snowmelt on the parking apron is a
major energy user and serves no general public purpose. The
Environmental Health Department noted the typical floor plan
shows one fireplace and one woodstove per townhouse. While the
number of solid fuel burning devices is in compliance with
Ordinance 5 Series of 1986, there is no commitment to have fewer
fireplaces/stoves than the maximum allowed, provide only gas or
all clean burning devices. The inefficient fireplaces, use of
snowmelt and north facing glass of the project bring staff's
- 4 -
evaluation of the energy program down to a_standard design.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The commitment to install sidewalks along Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue is a standard requirement of subdivision, as
noted by the City Engineer.
e. Green Space (maximum three [3) points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The applicant states 4,880 sq. ft. (40% of the site)
will be devoted to landscaped open space. The abundant tree
planting will provide visual relief and shading in the summer.
The amount of usable open space consists mainly of the sunken
patios; clustering of structures to maximize usable space was not
accomplished. We find this aspect of the project is not above
standard.
SUBTOTAL: 11
Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
- 5 -
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:Several RFTA bus routes pass in front of the property on
Spring Street.
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:The project is located within 500 feet walking distance
to the commercial core and less distance to C-1 commercial
facilities.
SUBTOTAL: 6
y. 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;
0 •
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 9
COMMENTS:The applicant commits that 45% of the project will be
deed restricted employee housing, consisting of two 2 bedroom
units at Park Place Condominiums and cash -in -lieu for .4 equiva-
lent employee.
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS
- 7 -
•
•
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
:,CORTNG CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
SUBTOTAL:
RATING:
POINTS
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
8
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
11
3.
PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES
8
6
4.
PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
9
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 34
i•game of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER 242 MAIN STREET • CARBON DALE,. 0,8a62�____(303)9_63-0311
l�
December 22, 1986 ` t,` DEC 1,986
TO: Glenn Horn and Steve Burstein: Planning Office iL� !��
FR: Steve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren
RE: GMP Review Comments on 700 E Hyman Residential Submis _ 1
Tnsulation
The specified insulation levels all exceed code and the roof insulation
of R-38 is commendable. Details in the proposal, including using rigid
insulation and trying to avoid thermal bridging, are positive aspects of
this building. The use of extensive weatherstripping, sealed vapor
barriers and attention to electrical outlets indicate a desire to build
a tight energy efficient home. However, they have not specified R values
for any building component other than the roof.
Solar Energy
These units do have good southern exposure which is being utilized.
Garages on the north side are also good planning. However, the entry
level and upper level both have substantial north facing glass and doors
to north side decks. The upper level north side is adjacent to the
kitchen and breakfast nook area. Since this is a high use area, the
north facing door and windows will have some negative aspects.
Mechanical Sustems
A 96 o efficient gas boiler is specified. This is a very energy
conscious choice.
Water Conservation
Assuming the hot water heaters will also be gas -fired, a high efficiency
model is a good choice. Low consumption fixtures are specified. However,
a more specific rating such as gallons per minute is needed to assess
the water usage.
Lighting
The use of daylighting techniques is encouraged. However, absolutely
no mention of lighting technique is made for night use. An efficient
lighting design can save future energy dollars.
0
•
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
Page 2
700 E Hyman Comments continued
Glazing
Heat mirror glass is specified for all units which is a good choice.
The glazing specifications are intelligently conceived to maximize
the use of solar energy and minimize heat loss and overheating.
Comment
At this stage of the project, the developers have outlined an efficient
energy strategy. The project looks excellent now, but we would require
a lot more detail to make an accurage assessment on the energy -use
characteristics of this project.
CERTIFICATE OF NAILING
I, hereby certity that on this
day of
�
198 , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
Nancy Caeti
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 700 E. HYMAN CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, February 23, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen City Council, 1st floor City Council Chambers,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by The Hodge Companies, Inc. requesting conceptual
subdivision approval to subdivide the parcel into two (2) 6,000
square foot: lots. The property, also referred to as the Lucas
Property consists of Lots K,L, M and N, Block 104, City of Aspen,
located at the corner of Hyman and Spring Streets.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-21020, ext..
223.
s/William L. Stirling
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA
(Suggested Time Guidelines)
I. COMMENTS (15 minutes)
Commissioners
Planning Office
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS/SCORING SESSION
A. 1010 Ute Avenue (30 minutes)
Staff (5 minutes)
Applicant (15 minutes)
Public Comment/Discussion (5 minutes)
P&Z Scoring (5 minutes)
B. 700 E. Hyman (30 minutes)
Same order as above
C. 1001 (30 minutes)
D. Mountain View (30 minutes)
III. P&Z RECOMMENDATION ON ANNUAL QUOTA
IV. ADJOURN MEETING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 700 E. Hyman Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision and
GMP Exemption for Employee Housing
DATE: January 20, 1987
LOCATION: 700 E. Hyman, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 104, Aspen
Townsite, City of Aspen.
ZONING: O-Office.
LAND AREA: 12,000 s.f.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hodge Companies Inc. owner of this property,
requests approval for the development of four residential units
in two duplexes. Each duplex lot would contain 6,000 s.f. and
would be divided along the previously described lot line. The
units would be arranged in a townhouse -row and each contain 3
bedrooms. Floor area of the two duplexes would total approxi-
mately 9,000 s.f. (.75:1 FAR). The applicant requests exception
from full subdivision review for the creation of the two lots (p.
32 of GMP application)
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Sections 20-19 (a) and (c) set
forth the provisions of subdivision exception review. In Section
20-19(c) it is stated that "the City Council may grant exception
from the application of the standards and requirements of this
chapter and grant final subdivision approval when the City
Council... deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no
public purpose and... finds that the proposed subdivision will
substantially comply with the design standard of this chapter..."
By reference, Section 20-17 describes subdivision design stand-
ards and Sections 20-15 and 20-16 describe final plat submission
requirements and provisions for improvements and improvements
guarantees.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1) City Engineer: In a January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay
Hammond (attachment A) comments are made regarding
storm drainage and sidewalks. At the present time, the
design standards for storm drainage are to maintain
historic run-off patterns, and not necessarily to
0 .
retain all run-off on -site via drywells as proposed by
the applicant. In further discussion with Elyse
Elliott, it was stated that the applicant should
conduct tests to determine the present run-off retain -
age. A system should be designed for the approval of
the Engineering Department to insure that historic run-
off is maintained.
With regard to sidewalk , the City Engineer noted City
Resolution 19, Series of 1975 requires construction of
sidewalks along the street frontage.
2) Water Department: Jim Markalunas' letter of July 21,
1986 (Exhibit 1, GMP application) states water is
available from mains in either Hyman or Spring Streets.
Installation of a fire hydrant on the southwest corner
of the block was recommended.
3) Aspen Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn states in a July
22, 1986 letter (Exhibit 2, GMP application) that the
Sanitation District can service the project, as
reviewed preliminarily.
4) Zoning Official: Bill Drueding stated in a January 14,
1987 memorandum that stairways in setbacks must be less
than 30 inches in height or they become non -conforming.
5) Environmental Health Department: In a December 18, 1986
memo from Tom Dunlop, issues of construction generated
dust, construction noise abatement, solid -fuel burning
devices, and contaminated soils are discussed.
Regarding solid -fuel burning devices, it is noted that
the project will have the maximum allowable number of
clean -burning stoves (4) and dirty fireplaces (4)
Regarding contaminated soils, Dunlop requests that
tests be conducted on excavated materials to determine
the heavy metal content and submit the results to his
office prior to removal from the site.
6) Parks Department: On January 16, 1987 Bill Ness
reviewed the landscape plan and verbally stated that
the Cleveland Maple is an appropriate specy of street
trees; and 3 1/2-4" caliper is an appropriate planting
size.
B. Planning Office Comments: The Planning Office finds that
this subdivision substantially complies with the City's
subdivision regulations. The full subdivision process,
requiring four steps, would appear to be redundant and not
serve any public purpose. Please note that the exception
review process will remove the public hearing requirement of
the preliminary stage before P&Z, which is a negative aspect
2
11
of the expedited review. However, GMP scoring on January
27th is a public hearing (public notification is only in the
Aspen Times, and not to adjacent landowners).
Following are additional comments regarding the project's
compliance with subdivision regulations:
1) Site Improvements: The applicant has shown the
location and type of proposed landscape features,
including Cleveland maple street trees (on R.O.W.)
clusters of aspen, shrubs and bluegrass sod. Other
important improvements to the site and adjacent
R.O.W.'s include: benches, tree grates, bicycle rack, a
fire hydrant on the southwest corner, sidewalks
(surface with exposed aggregate and/or brick pavers)
and a handicap ramp at the intersection. An improve-
ments guarantee should be provided following the
requirements of Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Municipal
Code.
2) A storm drainage study and plan should be completed as
requested by the Engineering Department.
3) A contaminated soils study and disposal plan should be
completed as requested by the Environmental Health
Department.
4) A plat must be submitted according to the standards of
Section 20-15; and a statement of subdivision accept-
able in form to the City Attorney is needed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend
to Council approval of the requested exception from the full
subdivision process for the purpose of creating 2 lots on Block
104, Aspen Townsite, subject to the following conditions:
1) All representations made by the applicant in the 700 E.
Hyman Residential GMP application will be adhered to.
2) The applicant shall conduct tests to determine the
present storm runoff/retainage on the site. A system
shall be designed that meets the approval of the
Engineering Department prior to review of final plat to
insure that historic runoff is maintained. The system
shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
3) Site improvements stated in the 700 East Hyman Residen-
tial GMP application submitted December 1, 1986,
including but not limited to: 9 cleveland maples or an
equivalent specy acceptable to the Parks Department
(minimum 3 1/2-4" caliper), 13 clusters of aspen,
3
shrubs, bluegrass sod, benches, tree grates, bicycle
rack, fire hydrant, sidewalks (surfaced with exposed
aggregate and/or brick paver) curbs and gutters and a
handicap ramp, shall be completely installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. An improve-
ments agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant
to Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the accept-
ance of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
review of final plat.
4) A subdivision exception plat shall be recorded with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of
any building permits, conforming to Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code and meeting the requirements of the
Engineering Department.
5) A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recorda-
tion of the plat. Included in this statement, shall be
a development schedule including construction and
landscaping improvements and appropriate financial
guarantees.
6) A soils sample analysis shall be submitted to the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
7) Allocation of two units by City Council must be granted
in conjunction with final plat approval.
8) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement
district formed that encompasses this property.
GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING:
The applicant's GMP allocation request has been reduced from 4
units to 2 units. Consequently, the employee housing commitment
has also been reduced from that represented in the GMP submittal.
Sunny Vann's January 5, 1987 letter (attached) explains these
changes resulting from the issuance of a building permit for one
duplex prior to GMP submittal as allowed by right. The Planning
Office acknowledges that issuance of a building permit for a
duplex on the property on December 1, 1986 constitutes a develop-
ment right exempt from GMP competition.
The applicant requests at this time to deed restrict two two -bed
units at Park Place Condominiums and pay cash -in -lieu for
employee housing of approximately $8000 (equivalent to .4
employees)
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Section 24-11.2(f) states the
employee housing GMP exemption provisions.
4
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the original proposal, as stated in Ann
Bowman's December 10, 1986 memorandum (attachment B) Proposed
conditions of approval are state therein. On January 16, 1987,
the Housing Office accepted the amended employee housing program.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends
the Planning Commission to recommend Council approval of (a) the
requested GMP exemption for the deed -restriction of two 2-bedroom
units at Park Place Condominiums to the low income employee
housing guidelines and(b) acceptance of approximately $8,000
cash -in -lieu equivalent to house .4 low income employee, subject
to the following conditions:
1) All deed restriction provisions stated in Ann Bowman's
December 16, 1986 memorandum shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office for these
units prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Deed restrictions shall meet the approval of the City
Attorney and Housing Authority prior to recordation.
2) The cash -in -lieu payment for the equivalent of .4 low
income employees, as calculated at the time of building
permit application, shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of any building permit.
SB.700
9
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: January 5, 1987
i
JAN 71987
RE: 700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RESIDENTIAL GMP
The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for
those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Most of the
concerns are reasonably self-explanatory, however,
recommendations of note that differ from the scoring requested by
the applicant include:
1. Storm Drainage; Recommended score 1 point.
Storm drainage is a delicate issue wherein the optimum solution
is to maintain historic conditions. That is to say, recharge to
the aquifer is maintained at historic levels as is the flow off -
site. The reason for this is that increasing recharge to the
aquifer, as suggested by the applicant, opens the possibility of
creating groundwater problems for this or adjacent properties.
Undercharging the aquifer can lower groundwater levels affecting
those on wells who are dependent on historic recharge.
In short, the only potential we see for an additional point for a
property such as this, where adjacent right-of-way drainage is
already adequate, would be a storm drainage system that
reintroduces water into the ground at historic rates, while
retaining historic off -site flow for reintroduction to the storm
system on a delayed basis. This would maintain the historic
aquifer while reducing impacts on public facilities.
2. Trails; Recommended score 2 points.
City resolution 19, series of 1975, would require construction of
sidewalk along the street frontages of the project_. We would
review the sidewalk construction as a desirable, but standard,
solution to providing for pedestrian circulation.
3. Bonus points; Recommended score 2 points.
This recommendation is only for bonus points related to
Engineering concerns. This project offers an excellent design in
relation to provision of excess parking as well as retaining all
current on -street parking and creating no new intersection
0 0
0
Page Two
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP and Subdivision Exception
January 5, 1986
conflicts. The site plan also offers significant public right-
of-way amenities.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
We have no particular problem with the subdivision exception
request at this time, subject to the submission of appropriate
plat and agreement documents.
JH/co/Hyman
Enclosure
ASPEN*PITKIN Ahk
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARE
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director -F�sZ
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 18, 1986
Re: 700 East Hyman Residential GMP
This office has reviewed the above -mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto
City streets or State highways. This shall involve daily
monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving
the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal
of mud or dirt will be required with the dirt being deposited
back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall
be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to
minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
Health Department will review the permit application and determ-
ine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined that
a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to the
applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health Department,
Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulation 1
and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: This topic is not specifically
addressed in the submittal, but the typical floor plan indicates
that there will be one fireplace and one woodstove per townhouse
for a total of four fireplaces and four woodstoves in the entire
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
0 0
• ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
700 East Hyman Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 2
project. It shall be mentioned here that the woodstoves must be
certified clean burning devices. The applicant can obtain a list
of certified stoves from this office.
Using the above numbers of solid fuel burning devices and the
total square feet per townhouse ( approximately 2,250 sq. ft.)
this project will be in compliance with City of Aspen Ordinance
5, series 1986, provided each unit contains greater than 1,000
sq. ft. of finished living area.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct-
ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum
decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heave metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal•
Service to this
Districts public
policies of this
Water Supply:
project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
sewage collection system is in conformance with
office.
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General:
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020
V
DEC 2 21986
ME MORANDU M
TO: GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986
RE: 700 E. HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for employee
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: The following application, submitted pursuant to
Section 24-11.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a growth
management allocation for the development of four (4) residential
units on a vacant 12,000 square foot parcel of land hereinafter
referred to as the Lucas property. The property is located at
the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue and is zoned
0-Office.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the Lucas property and to
construct two (2) duplexes totaling approximately 9,000 square
feet. The project will contain four (4) luxury townhouses which
will be condominiumized and offered for sale as free market
residential units. The project's employee housing requirement
will be met off -site via the conversion of existing non -re-
stricted units to deed restricted status.
The applicant proposes to house 9.75 employees, or forty-five
(45) percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the
project as a whole, in three (3) two bedroom units and one (1)
three bedroom unit to be purchased at the Airport Business
Center, i.e., Park Place Condominiums. The units will comply
with all applicable employee housing standards and will be deed
restricted to employee occupancy and price guidelines in accord-
ance with the Housing Authority's recommendations prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. The
units will be restricted to the Authority's low income rental and
sales price guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The calculations for the employee units
are as follows:
4 units of 3 bedrooms each = 12 persons
55% of 12 = 21.8 total project
21.8 minus 12 = 9.8 employees generated
9
0 0
Staff approves the application with the condition that an option
contract will be furnished for approval by the Housing Authority
prior to the P&Z meeting on January 5, 1987 and the following
deed restriction shall be placed on the employee units at the
Park Place Condominiums.
1. The Owner of 700 E Hyman covenants with the City of
Aspen that the employee units shall be deed restricted
to sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy
in accordance with guidelines established and indexed
by the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guidelines may change annually on April 1st of
each year and the Owner of 700 E. Hyman may adjust the
rents or sale price accordingly.
2. Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifi-
cation of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be spec-
ifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any
appropriate legal action including injunction, abate-
ment or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the
period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
3. The Owner of 700 E. Hyman or his manager shall have the
right to lease the employee units to qualified em-
ployees of his own selection. Such employees may be
employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin
County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements
of a qualified employee. "Qualified Employee" as used
herein shall mean any person currently residing in and
4
employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a
minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out
of any twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
6. The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board of by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
7. If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation
5
•
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
January 5, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lucas Property Residential GMP
Request
Dear Steve:
El 9
JAN 1 21987
Application/Quota
The purpose of this letter is to clarify, pursuant to
Section 24-11.4(h) of the Municipal Code, the Hodge
Capital Company's request for a residential GMP alloca-
tion for the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Project.
As discussed on Page 6 of our GMP application, the
construction of one (1) duplex structure on a townsite
lot is exempt from the allotment procedures of the
City's growth management regulations. Alan, however,
has taken the position that in order to claim credit for
the exempt duplex in conjunction with our GMP applica-
tion, a building permit must be issued for the structure
prior to Council's allocation of the annual residential
quota. A permit, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was issued by the Building Department for the Project's
east duplex on December 1, 1986. As a result, the Hodge
Capital Company hereby clarifies its application to
reflect a request for a two (2) unit GMP allocation as
opposed to the previously requested four (4) unit
allocation.
As discussed on page 10 of the application, the Appli-
cant has proposed to satisfy the employee housing
requirements of the Municipal Code via the conversion of
existing non -restricted units to deed restricted status.
While the Applicant will continue to utilize Park Place
Condominium units to fulfill its employee housing
obligations, the actual number of units required to
house forty-five (45) percent of the total number of
persons generated by the Project has been reduced as a
result of the above quota request clarification.
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303/925-6958
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 5, 1987
Page 2
The revised employee housing commitment for the Project
is 4.9 employees. The Applicant proposes to house 4.5
of these employees in two (2) two bedroom units to be
purchased at the Airport Business Center. The Applicant
will pay a dedication fee of approximately $8,000.00
which is the equivalent to housing the remaining 0.4
employee. The exact amount of the dedication fee will
be determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The payment
of the fee will comply with all applicable guidelines.
We would also like to take this opportunity to note that
should the Project be eligible for an allocation, a
further request for quota reduction may be forthcoming.
The Applicant will present its arguments for a further
reduction in the requested quota subsequent to the P&Z's
scoring of the Project, or in the context of a GMP
amendment following the City Council's 1986 allocation.
A decision as to which approach to pursue will be made
by the Applicant following the P&Z's scoring of our
application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
VAN ASSOCIATES,--I,NC.
, AICP
Attachment
cc: Peter Rosell
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project • Date:-
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum, nf t-WPivP ri,)i ,,,,-4--%
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the development
without system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility
upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS: _ I i Q-- no VIA m �- tAcN IArl „ _ J ., e, -
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.
, r
RATING: I
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two (2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: �_
•
COMMENTS:
r%k" -
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection
according to the established response standards of the
appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an
existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
t)
f. Roads (maximum two [11 points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading
the existing street system or the necessity of providing
increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING:
- 2 -
•
COMMENTS:
C01h C
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 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:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (3) points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Site Design (maximum three [31 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: 3
0
C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
— 3 —
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three (31 points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RAT ING : Z
COMMENTS :
A
e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: r
— 4 —
4.
COMMENTS: _ C1(�;o. eQ.v�'t� `�; p (� F�LJ
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3) points) .
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL:
Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] 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:
Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guidelines
and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate
and middle income housing using the following criteria which
shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units:
- 5 -
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 (Two [2] points for each five
[5] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2) points for each
ten [10] percent housed) .
COMMENTS:
E
RATING:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [21 points for each
fifteen [15) percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) .
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be
assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
1% - 33%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
1
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
34% - 66%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
3
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
67% - 100%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
5
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
RATING:
COMMENTS:
6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING: Z
COMMENTS • {- <
u . M
�V► =ter `i• � -
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember
- 7 -
0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 27, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
allotment for four 1986 Aspen Residential GMP applications.
Consideration of the other reviews associated with these applica-
tions such as conceptual subdivision will occur on January 20.
A brief summary of the applications are as follows:
MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, HBC Investments, is requesting GMP submis-
sion, conceptual subdivision and rezoning approval to
construct 58 multi -family free market units of approximately
1,000 square feet each, designed for short- and/or long-term
rentals. The site consists of 72,545 square feet and is
located at 601 S. Aspen, at the base of Aspen Mountain.
1001 RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, Aspen Development and Construction Company,
is requesting GMP allocation, conceptual PUD and subdivision
approval for a four -lot subdivision on the "1001" mining
claim. The property lies to the south of Ute Avenue, to the
west of the Hoag Subdivision and east of the Aspen Chance
Subdivision. The site is approximately 6.73 acres with the
lower 2.6 acres lying within the City limits.
700 EAST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, The Hodge Companies, Inc. is requesting GMP
allocation and conceptual subdivision approval for the
development of four residential units on a vacant 12,000
square foot parcel of land referred to as the Lucas Property
and consists of Lots K,L,M and N, Block 104, City of Aspen,
located at the corner of Hyman and Spring Street.
1010 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, Lowe Development Corporation, is requesting
GMP allotment and conceptual subdivision approval for
sixteen free-market residential units to be built in
conjunction with one three -bedroom low income restricted
employee units on two adjoining parcels of land separated by
Ute Avenue. The property is bordered by the Gant Condomin-
iums, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetary. and
consists of a total of 332,875 sq. ft. or 7.641 acres.
•
THE CLARK SMYTH CO. --
p r�6�odr�
r�
� jM i n W7
January 12, 1987
Sonny Vann
Vann and Associates
Hand Delivered
Dear Sonny:
Please let this letter serve as an amendment to my previous
letter regarding units to be purchased for the Hodge
Companies GMP application.
Due to the fact that you now only require two units, I will
extend the availabilty to March 31, 1987.
Si"c elyA yours,
C7'ark Smyth
CS:aw
Box 3665 . C( 11 OflADO 81612 . (303) 925-2450
VANN ASSOCIATESO •
Planning Consultants
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612
1306 East Mpin Stet BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/928-6973 ASPEN40PITKIN
REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Jurisdiction of
Applicant to complete numbered sloaces onlv.
General
Construction
Permit
NO.
JOB ADDRESS
LEGAL
LOT NO. / ,.e'-
1 r1-" ��'
BLOCK
TRACT OR SUBDIVISION (L1,+5EE ABTACCHED SHEET)
2. DESCR.
OWNER MAIL ADDRESS / ZIP PHONE
3.
MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
gqCONTRACTOR
ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
5.
ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
g.
USE OF BUILDING
7.
g Class of work: o�NEW ❑ ADOITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK
g• Change of use from
PLAN CHECK FEE
PERMIT FEE
TOTAL FEE
Change of use to
1 p Valuation of work: $
Type of Construction
Occupancy Group
Lot Area
—
11. REMARKS:
Size of Building
(Total Square Ft.)
14 !
No. o/ Stories
11,
Max. Occ. Load
t
i t .• f`I � i �' �.
NO. OF BEDROOMS
EXISTING ADDED
w �
Use Zone
"•`-')
Fire Sprinkles Required
❑ Yes ❑ No
> t' I/`,C..L...# �•, i •�! '/ 1 u•'..•,� ��...
• �V I �" ` ' •��`� �f t
No. of Dwelling Units
•
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES,
Covered
Uncovered
Special Approvals
REQUIRED
AUTHORIZED BY
DATE
ZONING
William
HEALTH DEPT.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED
PLANSCHECKED
APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE
BY
Ely ll's!y�, QICA1,Y
SOIL REPORT
PARK DEDICATION
DATE
DATE' III !•':'
DATE
WATER TAP
J� �• r
NOTICE
ENG. DEPT.
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
OTHER (SPECIFY)
HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC-
TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120
DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION
AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH
WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF
ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION.OR THE PER-
WORK STARTED WITHOUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE
FORMANCE OF CONSTF(UCTION. w / % �,,' •.,
•.
SIGNATUREIlr QJ CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT / (DATE)
I
1 NATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER RUILDER, IDAT I
VALIDATION
PERMIT VALIDATION CK. ❑ M.O. ❑ CASH ❑ PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. ❑� M.O. ❑ CASH ❑
WHITE — INSPECTOR'S COPY YELLOW — ASSESSOR'S COPY PINK —BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE GOLD — CUSTOMER'S COPY
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, .P&AljN1-N6 OFTICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: 700 E. HYMAN AND 001 UTE AVENUE
DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1986
1. 700 E. Hyman - We h reviewed the applicants statements
concerning (a) Water System, page 3, and (d) Fire Protection,
page 5 and as previously stated on July 21st, which in included
in the application, the Water Department can supply water to this
property.
2. 1001 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the applicant's comments
pertinent to the water system, section b, I. (a), page 12. Said
comments indicate the project will be serviced by a 6" C.I.P.
water main to be connected to the City 12" water main in
Ute Avenue and looped back to the Aspen Chance subdivision. The
Water Department believes the proposal to loop is a good one and
would provide additional reliability of service for both the
existing Aspen Chance subdivision and the,proposed 1001 residen-
tial application.
However, it is the recommendation of the Water Department that
the applicant make the following amendments to his water system
plan:
a. Pipe material - cast iron pipe is no longer permitted.
All pipe shall be ductile iron.
b. In order to provide adequate flows to the proposed fire
hydrant, it is the recommendation of the Water Department that
the 6" water line be increased to an 8" from the point of
connection at Ute Avenue to the fire hydrant. The remainder of
the loop may be reduced to 6" from the cul-de-sac to the point of
connection to the existing Aspen Chance 6" main.
C. The fire hydrant should be a mueller 5.5" three nozzle
Centurian or equivalent.
Providing the developer is willing to amend his water plan in
accordance with our recommendations, the Water Department concurs
that "this loop connection will improve the quality of service in
the area" and the Water Department will provide service to the
proposed subdivision.
JM: ab
0
90
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
\ City Engineer
V Housing Director
V Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Agency*
Zoning Official
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Park Department*
District
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Residential GMP Submission*
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP Submission
l0lu Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission*
1001 Residential GMP Submission
DATE: December 8, 1986
Attached for your review and comments are the 1986 City of Aspen
Residential GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A
brief overview of the applications follows:
The requests by the four applicants for allotments are as
follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
1001 = 4 units
for a total of 82 units.
Hearings for these 4 residential GMP applications have been
scheduled on January 20, 1987. At this meeting, only the
Mountain View project will be subject to public hearing due to
its rezoning application. On January 27, P&Z will then score all
four projects at a public hearing.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than January 5, 1987 in order for
this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
on January 20th.
Thank you.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Allen, Representing "Mountain View"
Gideon Kaufman, Representing "1010 Ute Avenue"
Sunny Vann, Representing "700 E. Hyman Condominiums"
Joe Wells, Representing "1001"
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: 1986 Residential GMP Submissions
DATE: December 5, 1986
This is to acknowledge receipt of your residential development
application and to inform you that it has been sent forward into
the agency referral process. Sending the application out for
comments does not necessarily mean that we have all the informa-
tion we may need throughout the process, but simply that we are
initiating review by our referral agencies. As we dig more
deeply into the applications, we will contact you if we need
claritication.
Following is a summary of the review schedule for the projects.
The P&Z will begin its consideration of the applications on
January 20. Based on an agreement reached with P&Z, their review
will begin with the subdivision, zoning and special review issues
and not the GMP scoring. Therefore, on January 20, all four
projects will be considered only for the subdivision, zoning and
special review portions of their application. Please plan on
spending no more than about 45 minutes considering each appli-
cation, including staff presentations, applicant's presentation,
P&Z questions and action. At this meeting, only the Mountain
View project will be subject to public hearing due to its
rezoning application. As soon as possible, we must receive
stamped envelopes made out to all owners within 300 feet of this
site in order that we may properly notice this hearing.
On January 27, P&Z will score all four projects at a public
hearing. It is assumed that due to the thorough review conducted
by P&Z of the subdivision application, the GMP review can proceed
much more smoothly. Therefore, each project should anticipate no
more than 30 minutes for the presentations, questions, and public
comments. At the close of the hearing, the projects will be
scored and a ranking established.
Council's review is expected to occur in February. Public
hearings will be required of each of the projects for conceptual
subdivision review. This will likely take place at Council's
meeting of February 23. Please note that before these hearings
can be set, we must obtain from you stamped envelopes made out to
every property owner adjacent to your development site. Those
projects which receive all necessary conceptual approvals from
Council and have met the applicable thresholds in scoring will be
considered for an allotment. Before the allotments are granted,
appeals, if submitted, will be heard.
I know that each of you is concerned with the number of allot-
ments available this year. As you know, the annual residential
quota is 39 units a year, reduced by any development which has
taken place via exemptions in 1986 and increased by any carryover
of unused quota from prior years, expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions which took place in 1986.
Following is an estimate of the quota which is likely to be
available (final calculations will not be done until January when
the December building report arrives) :
Annual Quota =
Expi rati on (Gor don) _
Additions =
Demolitions -
Approx.
39 units
3 uni is
approximately 25 units
-8 units
25 units
35 units available for carryover (discretionary review by
Council)
Likely potential quota = minimum of 20-25 units
maximum of 55-60 units
The requests by the four applicants are as follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
1001 4 units
Total 82 units
As you can see, it will be a competitive and interesting process!
Incidentally, we will have two planners handling the cases this
year. Glenn Horn will have 1010 Ute Avenue and 1001 assigned to
him; Steve Burstein will have Mountain View and 700 E. Hyman
assigned to him. Please contact them directly if you have any
questions.
cc: Project Files
Paul Taddune
u
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Proj ect • 101 n CA Date : 5 -�
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2) points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the development
without system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer, and without treatment plant or, other facility
upgrading.
RATING: Z
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system extensions
beyond those normally installed by the developer, and
without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: I
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: I
COMMENTS: 0" - S �-P . r� �4y �`� kR ✓� �,� 1 u1®
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection
according to the established response standards of the
appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an
existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [21 points) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: Z�
f. Roads (maximum two (21 points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading
the existing street system or the necessity of providing
increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: Z-
- 2 -
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: 10
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:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Site Design (maximum three (3] points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding
Of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: 1A -A\.Ain Vie Y 1,rn � t n l I n. . I .. _
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
— 3 —
•
COMMENTS:
d. - Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS : 10 A, 1 `t-�'0. i l Z
c
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 sty of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: ?--
4 —
•
•
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) .
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: Z
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum forty (40] 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:
Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guidelines
and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate
and middle income housing using the following criteria which
shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units:
- 5 -
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 (Two [2] points for each five
[5] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2) points for each
ten [10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each
fifteen (15) percent housed) .
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) .
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed -restriction upon these in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
- 6 -
Points shall be
assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
1% - 33%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
1
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
34% - 66%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
3
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
67% - 100%
of all
low, moderate and
middle
5
income
units proposed by
applicant
are to
be purchased and
deed -restricted
RATING:
COMMENTS:
6. Bonus Point�s� �(maximum seven [7) points) . RATING: _
COMMENTS: 0 p Lp_A,nA I - $A, nrYrL.140.,A 4,A _' (,\.. I n.
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5 :
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commissionmember:
- 7 -
•
Ci
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, City Engineering
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering'
DATE: January 5, 1987
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual
Subdivision, Conceptual P. U.D. , Special Review, 8040
Greenline and Stream Margin
RESIDENTIAL GMP
The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for
those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Scores of
particular note include:
1. Water; Recommended score 2 points.
The projects provides for creation of a loop main to the
Calderwood subdivision which is currently served by a dead-end
line. In addition, the project proposes use of raw water from
the Wheeler ditch for irrigation purposes thus reducing demand
for treated water and protecting raw water rights.
2. Storm Drainage; Recommended score 1 point.
Once again, I would stress that the optimum solution for storm
water is the maintenance of historic conditions with regard to
groundwater and off -site flow. Please refer to my concurrent
memo on 700 E. Hyman for further explanation in this regard. In
the instance of 1010 Ute, an additional point might be available
subject to certification by a registered engineer indicating that
additional runoff could be discharged on -site without detrimental
impact to the groundwater on adjacent properties.
3. Fire Protection; No recommended score.
We are not, due to the presence of the new Fire Marshal, Wayne
Vandemark, recommending scores for fire protection. I would note,
however, that the looping of water mains to the Calderwood
increases the reliability and availability of fire flows for both
1010 Ute and the Calderwood neighborhoods.
4. Roads; Recommended score 2 points.
The applicant proposes significant improvements to Ute Avenue,
including additional right-of-way, realignment and significant
landscaping.
Page Two
1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual Subdivision,
Conceptual PUD, Special Review, 8040 Greenline and Stream
Margin
January 5, 1987
5. Bonus Points; Recommended score 3 points.
Once again, we are recommending bonus points related only to
Engineering matters. The 1010 Ute project offers significant
public improvements to the water system, Ute Avenue and public
parking.
CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION
The Engineering Department has no particular concerns relative to
Conceptual P.U.D. and subdivision subject to submission of
appropriate platting and agreement documents.
Issues of concern through the process include:
a. Parceling and easements.
b. Resolution of appropriate drainage.
C. Right-of-way and park dedications.
d. Utility alignments.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
8040 concerns would appear to be minimal although we would be
inclined to review the alignment and grading requirements of the
proposed trail alignment in keeping with 8040 criteria.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
As with 8040, this would not appear to be a major concern subject
to the specific grading and revegetation associated with proposed
trail construction.
JH/co/Ute
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Agency*
Zoning Official
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Park Department*
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Residential GMP Submission*
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP Submission
l0lu Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission*
1001 Residential GMP Submission
DATE: December 8, 1986
Attached for your review and comments are the 1986 City of Aspen
Residential GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A
brief overview of the applications follows:
The requests by the four applicants for allotments are as
f oll ows :
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
1001 = 4 units
for a total of 82 units.
Hearings for these 4 residential GMP applications have been
scheduled on January 20, 1987. At this meeting, only the
Mountain View project will be subject to public hearing due to
its rezoning application. On January 27, P&Z will then score all
four projects at a public hearing.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than January 5, 1987 in order for
this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
on January 20th.
Thank you.
—jHI5 `-)20TGcT N
�� i--r rNT/o..- 1�lS1 k!� i �� FKF 1 S Sv(-`F/cre-•-=i �ltiP_
T N r - /-\ 4- �c y /3 / /� n T7,� / S
CKtP,ACt7,
�' /-1 O Jr c r
Sµti/)A?'Jr
f'y A —A G- c^ �L_
F-1
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
November 14, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
r1
Re: Lucas Property Residential GMP Application
Dear Alan:
p �@ [EodRE
NOV 1 81986 D
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our recent
discussion regarding the development rights attributable
to a parcel of land located at 700 East Hyman Avenue
(i.e., the so-called Lucas property) vis-a-vis the
forthcoming residential GMP competition.
As we discussed, the construction of a single
duplex on the property is exempt from compliance with
the City's growth management regulations pursuant to
Section 24-11.2(c) of the Municipal Code. Inasmuch as
the property totals 12,000 square feet, the Applicant
wishes to create two (2) separated lots via GMP/sub-
division and to construct a second duplex. Your
position I believe, however, is that in order to obtain
credit for the duplex which is exempt from growth
management, a building permit must be issued prior to
the receipt of a GMP allocation for the second duplex.
In the absence of a permit, the owner will be required
to compete under GMP for both duplexes.
Based on your interpretation, it is the Applicant's
intention to immediately submit plans sufficient for the
issuance of a building permit for the duplex exempt from
GMP, and to subsequently compete in the December 1, 1986
residential GMP competition. Given the extremely tight
timeframe, the plans to be submitted are for a pre-
viously approved duplex, the design of which has been
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612.303/925-6958
•
modified to fit the property in question. As we
discussed, however, the Applicant has no intention of
building this structure. The permit will be revised,
pursuant to Section 303-A of the 1979 Uniform Building
Code, to reflect and conform to the schematic design of
the Applicant's GMP application in the event an
allocation is received.
It should be noted that the above approach has been
discussed with the Building Department and that Jim
Wilson has voiced no objections. Similarly, it is my
understanding that you have no objection to this
approach and that the Planning Office will make no
attempt to block the issuance of the permit provided,
however, that all applicable UBC regulations are adhered
to.
Admittedly, this approach is somewhat convoluted.
Nonetheless, the implications of the Planning Office's
code interpretation render the approach necessary. In
the interest of simplifying the entire issue, please be
advised that the Applicant also intends to submit a
separate request for City Council clarification of the
Code's GMP exemption provisions. This request will be
submitted apart from, and subsequent to, his 1986
residential GMP application. Hopefully this issue can
be resolved so as to remove the necessity of such
approaches in the future.
I believe this letter accurately sets forth the
nature and extent of our discussion and understanding.
However, if I have erred in any manner, or if you should
have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a
call. On behalf of myself and the Applicant, thank you
for your assistance in this matter.
y yours,
VAN ASSOCIATE`S,
unny ann, AICP
cc:Peter Rosell
DAVID 1. MYLER
SANDRA M.STULLER
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
November 25, 1986
Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
ATTN: Alan Richman
RE: 700 East Hyman Project
Dear Alan:
100 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202
ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81011
(303) 920-1018
p 1E6[E0d[E
Although we continue to believe that the 700 East Hyman
project is entitled to a GMP score above the threshhold, Hodge
Capital Company hereby withdraws its appeal of the GMP scoring by
the Aspen Planning Commission. We have decided instead to
redesign the project and since the redesign will be extensive, a
successful appeal could well be rendered moot. Accordingly, the
time and expense required to process such an appeal cannot be
justified.
Nevertheless, several of the issues which have surfaced as a
result of our application and which would have been involved in
an appeal, still need to be addressed. We would prefer to expend
our time and energy in pursuit of legislative solutions to those
issues which would be beneficial not to only our new application
but to the land use process in general. Accordingly, we would
appreciate the opportunity to meet with staff as soon as possible
to address the following:
1. Clarification of floor area ratio rules relative to
covered surface parking.
2. Elimination of inconsistencies between minimum lot size
and the maximum quota allowable in the office zone.
3. Articulation of policies and regulations which will
facilitate present awards of future GMP quotas and/or a
carry -forward of prior unused quotas.
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office
November 25, 1986
Page 2
We appreciate the effort of the Planning Office to work with
us in attempting to resolve an unfortunate and complicated set of
circumstances and we look forward to continued cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MYLER, ,SgtLIR & SCHWARTZ
us
David J . MAeX/
Attorney for Iiodge Capital Company
DJM:klm
cc: Hodge Capital Company
Vann Associates