Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.925 E Durant Ave.49A-87
sa731 lP bl ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE�y 130 South Galena Street Z�JT ���JGYi3 Aspen, Colorado 81611y�_ (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 4A 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 4 - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING ' 61 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING SUB-TOTAL 70-010 County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER Name: Address: Check # �a Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL (o 7 TOTAL7, Date: :� #of Hours- 925 E. OURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION DECEMBE R 1, 19B7 1 925 E. DZUT TOWNHOMES Residential UP Submission Submitted by STP Associates Prepared by GROUNDWORK P.O. Box 3863 Aspen, CO 81612 (303) 920-1202 in association with the architectural firms of GIBSON AND RENO and WILLIAM PAULI December 1, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 A. Water Service 2 B. Sewer Service 2 C. Drainage System 2 D. Fire Protection Services 3 E. Development Synopsis 3 F. Traffic Generation and Parking Data 4 G. Location Relative to Public Facilities 5 H. Location Relative to Retail and 5 Service Facilities I. Effects on Adjacent Uses 5 J. Construction Schedule 7 III. EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL 7 IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH 7 MANAGEMENT SUBMISSIONS A. Availability of Public Facilities 7 and Services 1. Water Supply 7 2. Sewer Capacity 8 3. Storm Drainage 8 4. Fire Protection 8 5. Parking Design 9 6. Impacts on Existing Road Network 10 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page B. Quality of Design 10 1. Neighborhood Compatibility 10 2. Site Design 12 3. Energy Conservation 15 4. Trails 16 5. Green Space 16 C. Proximity to Support Services 17 1. Public Transportation 17 2. Community Commercial Facilities 17 D. Employee Housing Contribution 17 V. BONUS POINTS 18 IV. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 18 APPENDICES 20 i I. INTRODUCTION The 925 E. Durant Townhomes development has been designed outside the traditional boundaries of multi -family construction in order to produce a "free market" product that complements the neighborhood and provides the greatest sense of separate owner- ship for purchasers of the units. All units have separate entries and private garages, natural light and ventilation is available on three sides of every unit, and natural light is available through skylights placed on the roof of each unit. The site has been extensively landscaped with specimen -sized plant material to reflect the mature character of the neighborhood and to assure harmony with adjacent developments. In order to assure ease of reference and review, this submission has been arranged in essentially the same order as the residential development application procedures contained in Section 24-11.4 of Aspen's Municipal Code. All sections of the residential development application have been addressed in this application, however, should the Planning Staff require addition- al technical data or clarification of any information contained in the submission, the Applicant will be happy to respond to the staff's request in order to assure a complete evaluation of the proposed development. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 925 E. Durant Townhomes development will contain four units on Lots F, G, H and I of Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. Given the minor impact of subdivision of four townsite lots, the Applicant has requested a subdivision exception in accordance with Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code. Subsequent to the grant of a development allocation, the Applicant will file a request for condominiumization. 1 Specific details of the project are contain in Sections A ' through J below. A. Water Service The development will be served by the existing six inch ' water main in Durant Street immediately north of the site. Mr. Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Department has indicated that the main has sufficient pressure and capacity to serve the proposed development as described in Section E. Impact on existing water facilities will be minimal and will require no ' system upgrades. ' B. Sewer Service An existing eight inch sewer main in Durant Street ' immediately north of the site will serve the proposed develop- ment. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that the existing main has adequate capacity to handle the outflows anticipated from the development. In fact, a ' four inch service line was extended from the main by the previous owner of the property and will be utilized by the current owners, eliminating the need for sewer line excavation on Durant Street. No upgrades of existing sanitation services will be required as a result of development of the property. C. Drainage System The development will be designed to retain one hundred percent of the historic storm water flows attributable to the ' property. As indicated by the attached Exhibit, the previous owner of the property substantially altered the natural grade of the site. As a result, virtually all water reaching the site ' goes directly into the groundwater table. The Applicant proposes to restore the runoff balance existing on the site prior to the ' alteration of the site's contours. It is expected that the restoration of this balance will have a substantial positive ' impact on adjacent properties during wet years through the control of groundwater recharge. A combination of drywells and ' landscape -filtered retention areas will be utilized to produce full retention of storm water. Exact details of the drainage ' plan will be developed with the City Engineer during subsequent review phases of the application. D. Fire Protection Services The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department and the Fire Marshall will provide fire protection and prevention services. Their comments Will be solicited during the detailed design ' phases of the project to assure inclusion of reasonable fire resistant construction techniques, materials, detection systems ' and compliance with applicable fire protection codes. The site is located eight blocks from the fire station, allowing a ' response time of a maximum of five minutes. The site is located between fire hydrants located at the northwest corner of Durant Avenue and West End Street, and at the east end of Durant Avenue. E. Development Synopsis The 925 E. Durant Townhomes development contain four units, consisting of two 3-bedroom units and two 2-bedroom units. Required parking for each unit will be provided in a private garage. Parking for guests is available in the driveways, and ' equals the required parking for development. Employee housing for the project will be provided through a generous cash -in -lieu payment, as detailed in Section The design of the units and the quality level of the proposed construction places the units in the luxury second home ' market. Market conditions at the time of offering of the units ' will determine the sales price but current estimates are $575,000.00 for the two -bedroom units and approximately ' $725,000.00 for the three -bedroom units. ' The following table provides a summary of the develop- ment parameters: ' 1. Site Area 12,014 sq. ft. 2. Allowable FAR 12,014 sq. ft. 3. FAR Utilized 10,430 sq. ft. (86%) 4. Building Footprint 4,923 sq. ft. (41% of total site) ' 5. Open Space Required 4,205 sq. ft. (35%) 6. Open Space Provided 4,337 sq. ft. (36%) 7 The development will contain a total of ten bedrooms, ten baths and four half -baths. The project is expected to contain six bath tubs/showers, four kitchen sinks, four dish- washers, four Jacuzzis, fourteen toilets, eighteen lavatories, eight hose bibs, four washers, four bar sinks, four showers and four tubs. F. Traffic Generation and Parking Data Durant Avenue and West End Street dead-end in the vicinity of the development and currently operate below their rated capacities. Since the Townhomes are intended as second homes to be occupied seasonally, and given their proximity to skiing, shopping, dining and transportation facilities, impact on the City's street network is expected to be insignificant. During peak occupancy, each unit is expected to generate a maximum of three vehicle trips per unit, for a total of twelve trips per day. The parking requirement in the RMF zone district is one tspace per bedroom. Each unit will contain a private garage on the lower level containing the required spaces for each unit. t 4 ' The driveways will accommodate additional guest parking, although the code does not require separate guest parking areas. IThe alley south of the development will provide the vehicular access to the townhomes, allowing a fully -landscaped ' front yard area, and eliminating potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts on Durant Avenue. G. Location Relative to Public Facilities ' The 925 E. Durant Townhomes are located one and one- half blocks from the RFTA bus routes and four blocks from the Rubey Park Transit Plaza. The Roaring Fork River and its ' recreational opportunities are one block east of the site, while Glory Hole Park and the quasi -public Aspen Mountain Ski Area are ' located within three blocks of the site. The Ute Trail is approximately four blocks from the site. The near -east end ' location of the development provides easy access to government offices, the Pitkin County Airport, and Aspen Valley Hospital. ' H. Location Relative to Retail and Service Facilities ' The development is only one and one-half blocks from City Market and the Durant Mall complex and only five blocks from the Cooper Street Mall. Given the increases in commercial space ' Aspen has experienced during the past few years, it is not anticipated that development of the 925 E. Durant site will place ' measurable demands on existing retail and service outlets. ' I. Effects on Adjacent Uses With the exception of the project site, the adjacent ' neighborhood is fully developed. The project site is currently an unsightly vacant lot with severely altered contours. The zoning of the subject property and of the immediately surrounding neighborhood is RMF. The previous owner of the property removed fill material from the site, which destroyed most of the natural ' vegetation. The hole left by the excavation was subsequently ' 5 partially filled with a variety of fill materials, with no ' particular attention given to uniform placement of the fill material on the site, resulting in a vacant lot with an unkempt appearance. I The architectural styles of adjacent buildings is quite varied, including a 'swiss chalet" (The Alpina Haus and Brass Bed), "mansard modern" (Aspen Silverglo and Chateau Snow), "contemporary" (Landau units) and "new-victorian" (the Old ' Hundred). The Applicant seeks to respond to these surrounding structures in positive ways. A solar orientation like the Landau units is adopted with generous south glazing. Shingle siding ' gives a pleasing texture and echoes the wall material of the Chateau Snow and Old Hundred units. Small scale gable and dormer ' roof forms create a picturesque roof contour against the sky, not unlike the surrounding mountain horizon lines, and create a ' dialogue with the small gables of the Old Hundred and Brass Bed. Finally, generous setbacks are accorded toward adjacent proper- ties, including twenty feet in front, twenty-seven feet in back, and seven feet along the Alpina Haus (east) side lot line. ' Massing of the building is broken down to a smaller scale by the use of step backs, porches, dormers and entrance ' features. Additionally, the building parts at the center to allow the open space to extend to the rear of the site creating ' two separate footprints. ' In summary, the response to adjacent uses and buildings is made compatible through the use of orientation, materials, roof forms, setbacks and massing of the building. ' J. Construction Schedule Construction of the Townhomes is expected to begin in the spring of 1988, with as anticipated occupancy date prior to ' Christmas, 1988. Phasing of project construction is not current- ly planned. Landscaping will depend on weather conditions, but ' will be installed not later than June 1, 1989. ' III. EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL In recognition of the lack of housing opportunities for ' employees and to help assure the creation of new housing stock, the Applicant proposes to provide a cash -in -lieu payment rather than convert existinglunits to deed -restricted employee housing. ' The Applicant proposes to house seventy percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the development, resulting in a ' cash -in -lieu payment of approximately $226,000.00. Further discussion of the employee housing contribution may be found in ' Section IV.D., Employee Housing Contribution. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUBMIS- SIONS ' The review criteria which will govern the evaluation of the 925 E. Durant Townhomes project are addressed in this section. ' In order to facilitate review of the development each of the criteria has been analyzed in relation to the proposed develop- ment, and a scoring request has been incorporated based on the ' Applicant's understanding of the project's degree of compliance with the individual criteria. A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply ' The existing six inch main in Durant Avenue has 7 11 adequate pressure and capacity to serve the proposed development, consequently no system upgrades will be required. The requested score for this category is one point. 2. Sewer Capacity Development of this site has been anticipated, as evidenced by the four inch sewer line stub out on the property border. The existing eight inch sewer line in Durant Avenue has adequate capacity to handle the project's outflows without system upgrades. The requested score for this category is one point. 3. Storm Drainage The current unvegetated state of the site results in rapid recharge of the groundwater table, which can be a concern during wet years. The Applicant believes that the restoration of the pre -excavation balance of storm water runoff and soil infiltration which will result from this development is a benefit which extends beyond the boundaries of the development and as such exceeds the requirements of the Code. Given the off - site benefit of the proposed storm drainage improvements the Applicant requests the maximum score of two points. 4. Fire Protection The existing six inch water main in Durant Street provides adequate fire flows to serve the development. The project site is located at the approximate mid -point of the 8 spacing of fire hydrants located at the east end of Durant Avenue ' and at the northwest corner of the intersection of Durant Avenue and West End Street. The proximity of the site to the fire station, coupled with favorable terrain and the inclusion of ' appropriate fire detection devices will assure a minimum fire risk for the development. A score of one point is requested for ' this category. 1 5. Parking Design As previously discussed, the parking requirement of one space per each bedroom contained in the development will be met through the inclusion of a garage on the lower level of each unit. The three -bedroom units feature a three -car garage, while the two -bedroom units include a two -car garage. Access to the garage and parking areas will be provided from the alley on the south side of the site. The driveways leading to the garage areas will have a concrete surface and will be snowmelted to assure safe ingress and egress. Given the fact that the parking requirements for the development are to be met entirely in enclosed structures, and access is from the alley, assuring a fully -landscaped front yard area, the Applicant feels the design of the parking areas exceeds the standard criteria for reduction of visual impact, provision of paved surfaces, user convenience and public safety and that a maximum score of two points is appropriate for this category. 9 ' 6. Impacts on Existing Road Network Both Durant Avenue, which dead ends east of the ' site at the Chateau Roaring Fork development, and West End Street, which dead ends in the vicinity of The Grant, operate at ' below their rated capacity. The small proportional increase in ' traffic which is anticipated from the project can be easily handled by Aspen's existing road network. The Applicant feels ' the appropriate score for this criteria is one point. ' B. Quality of Design The Applicant feels the architectural team has produced an outstanding design, as evidenced by the plans and elevations ' included in this submission. In addition to the previous discussions regarding the design of the project, the analysis ' provided below of the design criteria applied to this category ' should allow a complete review of the proposal. ' 1. Neighborhood Compatibility The Applicant feels the 925 E. Durant Townhomes ' development has met the challenge provided by the complexity of ' architectural styles found in the neighborhood, which include Swiss Chalet, solar contemporary,„mansard modern, and new- ' victorian" architectural styles (see photos following). It is not the intent of the development to emulate its surroundings, but to produce a design that contains appropriate elements of ' structures found in the neighborhood while creating a well- ' 10 I designed, unique character. Each unit is designed to offer some features which give it unique characteristics. A wide range of construction types and materials can be found in the vicinity of the project site, including shingle, stucco, brick, board and batten and vertical siding. Consequently, a variety of well -blended quality materials has been chosen to assure harmony with adjacent structures. The base on the buildings will feature cut sandstone blocks in irregular rectangular patterns, while the sides of the structures will be covered with wood shingles. Variations in the tone of the stain colors of the wood shingles will help emphasize the articulation of the structures, and will enhance the surface planes of the building which are intended to visually advance, while subduing those areas which physically and visually recede. The gabled roof forms, which will be covered with standing seam metal roofing, are intended to define the individual character of each unit and to provide vertical relief for the facade of each unit. As indicated by the plans and elevations included in this submis- sion, the gabled elements of the units recall but do not imitate Aspen's architectural history, particularly in the use of materials and articulation of roof forms. The center courtyard separation of the building assures that every unit will have natural light and ventilation available on at least three sides, and natural light will be provided to 11 the interior of the units through the roof -mounted skylight system. 1 The provision of garages will eliminate the potential ' visual impact of on -site parking and places no burden on the portion of Durant Avenue in the vicinity of the site. Since the existing road, water and sewer systems will not require upgrades ' as a result of this proposal, off -site neighborhood disruption, if any, will be minimal. ' Given the quality of architectural design evidenced by the enclosed drawings, and the assurance that the project will be harmonious with its surroundings and will minimize construction related impacts on the neighborhood, a maximum score of three points is requested for this category. ' 2. Site Design ' The design team has produced a site design which, in terms of landscape materials and details, exceeds the stan- dards of the neighborhood and of the typical townsite lot ' development. In an attempt to respect the proximity of the Alpina Haus, the side setback on the eastern boundary of the lot ' has been increased to seven feet, assuring the preservation of the large spruce and fir trees on the boundary of the site, and ' increasing the distance between structures. While the Alpina ' Haus is a non -conforming structure in terms of setback, and may 12 1 11 L well be subject to extensive renovation or demolition in the foreseeable future, the Applicant nevertheless has chosen to mitigate the project's impacts on the Alpina Haus at the expense of allowable floor area. In addition, the Applicant has chosen to move the power poles and lines located in the eastern portion of the alley as far east as possible, resulting in lessened visual impact for the surrounding structures and the proposed development. The ten foot separation provided between the three - bedroom units creates opportunities to introduce landscaping in the center of the complex, enhancing the small scale residential character of the townhome development. All driveways and parking areas are serviced from the alley, allowing a fully landscaped and continuous front yard area. The Applicant will extend the five foot sidewalk abutting the site on the west to the eastern boundary of the site, increasing pedestrian safety on Durant Avenue. Service vehicle access will be provided from the alley, and a two cubic foot enclosed dumpster will be provided off the alley as indicated by the site plan. Approximately thirty-six percent of the site has been dedicated to open space, which will be extensively landscap- ed, as indicated by the landscape plan. The site plan preserves the mature lilac located in the northwest corner of the site and the clump cottonwood on the northeast corner of the site. Narrowleaf cottonwoods with a caliper of three and one-half to four inches will be provided as indicated in the public right-of- 13 way adjacent to Durant Avenue. The cottonwoods will balance the mature cottonwood grove located on the north side of Durant ' Avenue and the younger cottonwoods on the Landau property. The trees and shrubs shown on the landscape plan will be specimen ' sized, with a minimum of two to three inch caliper for deciduous trees, eight feet in height for evergreen trees and five gallon 1 container size or larger for all shrubs. The sod will be a ' mixture of bluegrasses to assure maximum disease resistance and cold tolerance. The specimen size of the plant materials and the ' extensive nature of the landscaping will provide the complex with an immediate sense of permanence and will be harmonious with the ' landscape concepts and materials found in the neighborhood. A bicycle rack will be provided on the Durant Avenue pubic right-of-way for use by the neighborhood and residents of the Townhomes. The five foot public sidewalk ' provided by the Applicant will be lighted to help encourage ' public usage. ' The Applicant feels the site design and quality of ' landscaping exceeds the minimum standards of the Code and will provide significant off -site benefits, consequently, the Ap- plicant requests a score of three points for this element of the scoring criteria. 14 3. Energy Conservation ' The 925 E. Durant Townhome development has been ' given a north to south orientation to maximize the potential for passive solar gain. Glazed areas on the southern facades of the ' units will allow comfortable utilization of solar energy. "Heat mirror" glazing or an equivalent product will be utilized in construction to assure maximum thermal efficiency. In addition to the R-19 batt wall insulation, and vapor barrier, an exterior rigid insulation sheathing material with an R value of 3.6 and R-30 ceiling insulation will assure that the structures exceed Code requirements for insulation by a minimum of twenty percent. Gas fired boiler units with an efficiency of ninety-five to ninety-seven percent will be used to provide hot water heating to baseboard panels in each unit. Domestic hot pater consumption will be minimized through the use of flow restriction devices installed on shower heads, lavatories and kitchen sinks. Given the extensive insulation proposed for the structures, the excellent solar orientation of each unit and the use of high efficiency heating systems, the Applicant requests the maximum available score of three points. 15 4. Trails Durant Avenue is currently poorly lit, and since ' no sidewalk exists on the Applicant's side of the street, pedestrians are forced to share the roadway with vehicles, creating a hazardous situation. 11 I 1 The provision of a five foot sidewalk, lighted with low-level docorative fixtures, and separated from Durant Avenue by a landscaped buffer strip which includes a bicycle rack will encourage public use and will result in substantial public safety benefits and justifies the maximum possible score of three points. 5. Green Space As previously indicated, thirty-six percent of the site, or 4,337 square feet will be extensively landscaped. In addition, the Durant Avenue will be fully landscaped and large - caliper street trees will be provided and maintained at the Applicant's expense. The generous front setback, coupled with the fully landscaped right-of-way creates a large, residential - feeling front yard space. The side yard areas have been extended to the alley and large planters have been provided adjacent to the driveways to introduce as much landscaping on the rear of the property as possible. The large caliper trees proposed for the site will blend well with existing landscapes in the neighborhood and will complement the residential scale of the development. 16 11 1 The character of the green space areas reserved on the site is of benefit to the neighborhood providing an off -site benefit which should result in a score of three points for this category. C. Proximity to Support Services 1. Public Transportation Tht site is located one and one-half blocks from the public bus routes on Durant Avenue, Original Street and Cooper Avenue, entitling the development to the maximum available score of three points. 2. Community Commercial Facilities The site is located within two blocks of the commercial facilities and services available in the Durant Mall and at City Market, allowing the project to receive the maximum possible score of three points. D. Employee Housing Contribution As described in Section III, the Applicant proposes to provide housing for seventy percent of the total number of individuals to be houssd by the Townhome development by con- tributing a cash -in -lieu sum of approximately $226,000.00, which is nearly $114,000.00 more than the minimum requirement specified 17 by Section 24-11.4(c). Since each five percent of residents 1 housed by the Applicant entitles the project to one point, ' housing of seventy percent of the residents grants the develop- ment a score of fourteen points. 1 V. BONUS POINTS In recognition of the apparent quality of the architecture, ' site and parking design and off -site public benefits which will occur as a result of the proposed development, in addition to the ' generous cash contribution to the community's employee housing needs, the Applicant feels the development merits the award of ' bonus points. IV. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION ' The redefinition of Lots F, G, H and I of Block 119 will ' require subdivision approval. Given the fact that the project is small and is infill development in a well -established neighbor - Ihood, full subdivision review of the proposed Townhome develop- ment would appear unncessary. ' In addition the scrutiny the project will receive as a result of the Growth Management Plan competition, the Applicant ' will prepare all maps and information necessary to comply with the preliminary plat application contents listed in Section 20- ' 12 of the Municipal Code. As a result of the information ' contained in the GMP submission and preliminary plat documents, 18 the Applicant feels a subdivision exception request may be ' granted under the provisions of Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code, and that no public benefit would be derived by requiring the Applicant to undergo full subdivision review. I 19 APPENDIX APPENDIX TITLE A PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE B PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE C PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE D LOCATION/ZONING MAP E EXISTING GRADE FLAN/EXISTING PROPERTY SURVEY F HISTORIC GRADE PLAN G VICINITY TO COMMERCIAL CORE AND TRANSPORTATION H SITE PLAN I GARDEN LEVEL PLAN J ENTRY LEVEL PLAN E UPPER LEVEL PLAN L NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION H SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION N EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION IN COURTYARD 0 WF,ST EXTERIOR ELEVATION P LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 UTILITY PLAN R TITLE INSURANCE, POLICY 20 COLD HUNDRED) (BRASS BED) VIEW TO NORTH � � F I (ASPEN SILVERGLO) (NORTHSTAR) (SNOW CHATEAU) VIEW TO SOUTH M. r � s �fng v� - * wa _•`,may:. �, � i. > s .�.. -ram, ' "' �,..• "L yam" All IS 41 f ;- CALPINA HAUS) CASPEN SILVERGLO) VIEW TO EAST �3 (OLD HUNDRED) J C —�_ E, DURANT AVE .err... .;�.' � ..a\ � . n• ` < L•.e .•. y \ _ N SCALE LEGEND 9 NOTES \� • -� _ •c0 •n Ric cS�wvrY Ge `woau ie.::..'r i:ii ..a was e_wwT�ou . S/s v v •N oG... , �� .,•.G. Sr_wie ,w,ew Ye ��a.,.,a 1 ^ CERTIFICATION J 3 I ... / I I tv c u[ u»ousK»[o o«s «our cunrr rx•r r»n su•«[. r•[ •iic 0 DV•I«4 rwt <«Oa«0 Or T«t t / L >` r.o•u. c ocsunen x[s[o«, •«o n cw•mr aay[o a rx[ [ s»orx o» 0 / Ly «0 •�SC«[I•«C�[S, CO»ryK rrSM1'Sx0•r•Gti ix ,•O •OuwO•r♦ l`x[ ••[ M I I M xar r..` Gxdo•cx»G .?s. moor., c or '•� G T. K1. u. x •SGa[+rs [. aw - �z, w s. � / .'� s or x•. �« nao f•�ot»u o �I.cnrauto« T u«oa•c•o� n u 1r uce.o fKN•r aaa \ 7 � / / L� �� M• • •• .aVS I M �V M>i DEVELOPMENT' PROPERTY SURVEY ' IU•1 cv ALLEY cao �� / •,--~—'. r LOTS F,G,H 91 BLOCK 119, CITY B —a✓ TOWN$ITE OF A$PE N, PITKIN COUNTY, �• • / ! COLORADO +••a.,,va �•—•—•_o— SEPT. 25, 1987 ROOF 6�Cv �, .'/JLc AOOi LaLV. 'G1fJ a EXISTING GRADE PLAN1,44 _. Ya�EXISTING PROPERTY SURVEY 4- m 925 E. DURANT AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS I 9 a� Y $(t E. DURANT. AVE. Dv > aa•a�wa (Po eon C' •,• I �TmY,. wo / LOT F LOT G LOT H LOT I SCALE a I I D 0 ° LEGEND a NOTES i _w. - P :, •w% •a , a.T.." .wow W 1 IL gun �Kc -n., 16�5'uw„c s`� iwT<0.v_. ] reor wv cowvo„0. ALLLy DLOCK 1(q n.a u SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE CONI Q 1 Y _ _ 11 oa ca ,•,ma • in f , e.w C i��w mutK u , !,Y Y •w,� f5 II Toww.� � oOF +aaw T.Y • L a VICINITY MAP HISTORIC "GRADE PLAN In I LANDAU UNITS I F D'y" OUIRAP" wr a f-- ALPINA HAUB 0 13 71 L 1 0 A DEVELOPMENT AREA, J L— A— 19.0140F Floor A... 10,4308E u L 7. Op'. BP... 36 P—I�g 10 E—I...d SP.... 2 loo. '00' -103* ALLEY ASPEN SILV SITE PLAN CHAT13AUX BNOW GARDEN LEVEL PLAN r I - I ' Opck r. Deck ! _ ENTRY LEVEL PLAN o e 2 L m m m m m m m m m m m m = UPPER LEVEL PLAN 0 5 10 20Yt h1.M.K A 0 ■■ m m ■ ■ ■I ■i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m m ■ ■ m m m �ilxi is r�■■�■■■,' �i■"■■ ■■■■sir,. u��% ° :T�tiivr �'{ . s� ii4rrrut�nr` ■I■■� i' �■if 11111 if� T Alpine Kau* NORTH ELEVATION O d 1P QOh r Landau Unite 917 E. Durant Lan 917 SOUTH ELEVATION "qua O 6 1 Q 2ptt EAST ELEVATION Cin courtyard] (west similar] '- WEST ELEVATION [east similar] IF 817 IL 13URANT LEGEND KEY COMMON NAM! SIZE « corroww000 a.e-�- � O AWN M�1LlCGn� PI�� • M. COL01AO0 !LU! M'R10 10 /t CLlVlLANO Iuowwwr n!a ritt ea CANAOIAN CMOK• CMlI�IIY ?'.iC NAT/V! O11wP R!O Yp1 4r�-eat ronNrl�s a oA� ALLEY- �- - _ - r . • --- - --- - ---� _ LANDS_ CAPE PLAN ASPEN OILVUROLO I o e •a CHATEAUX SNOW crc 817 R. DUFI^Wr EL ED • • ol ......... . ............ in ---- - ------------- ALL.vy lu In cu -----UT-ILITY PLAN (D ASPEN SILVEROLD CHATEAUX ONOW 1 1 il,i ... I, •i I. ♦.Il1.m 1.. .II• I i..l.. .. ....I 1. W Ill `.I.r 1.• I. ,,ilr• 1 I ' . r ,.1 It., ' Unp• in, ,�..,.. Ir,.I„„n•d S lalbibly R Ln,l.,•u.rnI Chel qr I I I:uu.11y fn. p. IA fume .vun 'I....,n.„... CC;M M I T M E N T: ; ! .I,.• Nu ..l•.•, b l'h.vgr 9 1ui.iI1H. v.•nur• 11 ruq.r..V lvh 1 3 4 S 6 1 9 10 12 14 0 —,0,— 0 0 .1 M11 M M Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ' National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A - �. Effective Date : JUNE 25 , 1987 at 8:00 A.M. Case No PCT-446-87 C-2 Policy or policies to be Issued. (a) Amount s 360,000.00 ALTA Owner's Policy —Form 8-1970(Rev. 10-17-70 & Rev. 10-17-84) with a premium of $456.00 ')2 ❑ ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 Proposed insured: RICHARD STANZIONE (b) ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & Rev. 10-17-84) Amount $ Proposed insured: (c) Amount $ Proposed insured: 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land ' described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ' SPENCER SCHIFFER, in trust for the Unsecured Creditors of said Cantrup Estate The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS F, G, H, and I, ' BLOCK 119, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, ' STATE OF COLORADO. Pitkin County Title, Inc, 01 E. Hopkins (303}925-1766 Countersigned at AS en Colorado 81611 Commitment No. BE-225380 Schedule A —Page 1 (, 1 This commitment is invalid unless Authorized fic r o Agent the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Form No. 91.88 1SCH. of ules A and 8 are attached. Q 11 11 Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia SCHEDULE B—Section 1 Requirements 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 from Spencer Schiffer, in t-ust for the Unsecured Creditors of said Cantrup Estate vesting fee simply title in Richard Stanzione. 2. Evidence satisfactory that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. 3. Evidence satisfactory that the Right of First Refusal recorded April 3, 1985 in Book 483 at Page 955 has been complied with. This commitment is invalid unless BE-225380 the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule B-Section 1 -Page 1 -Commitment No. ules A and B are attached. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ' NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ' SCHEDULE B—Section 2 Exceptions ' The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the some 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, im- posed 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. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water of sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of ' Aspen providing as follows: that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining ' claim or possession held under existing laws and subject to all the conditions, limitations and restriction _ontained in Section 2386 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 8. Those matters as disclosed on the Plat of`925 E. Durant, recorded April 16 ,1982 in Plat Book 13 at Page 29. 11 ' Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted. The Owner's Policy to be ;slued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: ' (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B—Section 1, Item (b). (2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. ' (3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—NoBE-225380 Form 91 -88 B2 Rocky Mt. ' LersTite Insurance Corporation ' National Headquarters Richmond. Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable ' consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the 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 to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted 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 the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and ' obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whicheverfirst occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." ' CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in ' Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extentthe Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if ' the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss ' incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)toeliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies ' committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. ' Latuwrs Title jnsu a Cgrfmation ' President Attest: Secretary. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson,Jr.,City Manager FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 925 East Durant - Final Plat DATE: June 27, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office is recommending approval of the Final Plat for 925 East Durant. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTION: The Planning Commission approved the 925 E. Durant Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1) A detailed storm drainage plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) Site/landscape plan showing site improvements described in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP application, including but not limited to vegetation to be planted, irrigation system, pedestrian areas, bike rack, low-level sidewalk lighting, easement for transformer or switchgear on applicant's property, and plans for undergrounding utilities on site and relocating utilities in the alley. 3) A statement of subdivision exception and improvements agreement shall be submitted as part of final plat. Included in this document shall be a development schedule and appropriate financial guarantee for all site improvements and off -site improvements described in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP application including but not limited to sidewalk, landscaping and bicycle rack. Also included shall be agreement to join any future improvement district formed that encompasses this property. Subsequently, on March 14,1988 the City Council allocated four units to this project via Resolution No.8 (series of 1988). PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In a memorandum from the Engineering Department, dated June 19, 1988 Chuck Roth notes the following concerns: 1) We have received a letter from an engineer concerning storm run-off design details. The letter is very brief and does not state that the design conforms with the parameters of the Engineering Department memo of January 14, 1988, item 1, and it does not appear that the design conforms with the requirements. The Engineering Department must have a letter from a registered engineer which states that the historic site run-off will be maintained. 2) The plat does not indicate the date of the survey, which must be within the past twelve months. 3) The surveyor's certificate must state that the survey was performed in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51. 4) The title commitment is now over one year old. An updated commitment must be provided to ensure that no easements or other interests have been conveyed in the interim. The plat must contain a title certificate. 5) The plat must contain a note referring to the previous platting of the property, which is recorded at Book 13, Page 29. Please provide a clearer indication on the first sheet, such as a subtitle in large (half inch or taller) letters which indicates that the drawing shows proposed improvements. 6) This plat is a pre -construction plat. When construction has been completed, an amended plat must be filed which confirms the locations of improvements as constructed. The as -built plat must show utility meter locations. 7) Please note that comment ll.b of our memo of January 7, 1988 is sketchy and that the full requirements for site improvements and bonding are enumerated in Section 20-16(a) through (d). Pending the assessment of the City Attorney, some of this section might need to be incorporated into the subdivision exemption agreement. The subdivision exemption agreement must also include current language concerning improvement districts for construction of improvements in the public right-of-way. This reviewer is still unclear concerning the method for acquisition of any water rights potentially owned by land use applicants. Does this applicant and property have water rights which should be acquired at this time? 8) The zone district must be indicated on the plat. 9) The limits of the GCE's and LCE's are not clear. Also, as indicated on the plat, there are different driveway widths and areas for different units. Is this as intended? 10) If there is no three dimensional subdivision of space occurring, elevations of ceilings and floors are not needed. 2 All elements of the two dimensional subdivision must be dimensioned on the final plat. It appears that there may be some three dimensional subdividing occurring because of the configuration of the decks. 11) The Engineering Department acknowledges the 7' x 7' utility easement at the southeast corner of the parcel and add additionally requests 4' x 4' utility easement at the southwest corner for a utility pedestal for telephone, television or electric use. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office is satisfied that all planning conditions have been adequately addressed for final plat with the exception that the improvements agreement did not commit to joining a future improvement district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Office recommends that the City Council approve the Final Plat for 925 E. Durant with the following motion: "Move to grant final plat approval to 925 E. Durant, subject to the following conditions: 1) The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall include the commitment that the 925 E. Durant project shall join any future improvement district if one is formed for their area. 2) The final Plat shall include the following: a. Indication that the survey was completed within the last twelve months. b. The surveyors certificate shall state that the survey was preformed in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51. C. The plat shall contain a note referring to the previous platting of the property, which is recorded in Book 13, Page 29. The plat shall provide a clear indication on the first sheet, that drawings show proposed improvements. d. The zone district shall be indicated on the plat. e. The GCE and LCE's shall be more clearly defined on the plat. f. A 4' x 41utility easement at the southwest corner of the property shall be provided for a utility pedestal for telephone, television or electric use. g. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Engineering 3 Department from a registered engineer which states that historic site runoff will be maintained. h. An updated title commitment shall be provided to the Engineering Department. i. The plat shall contain a title certificate. j. After construction is completed a plat shall be filed by the applicants which confirms the locations of improvements as constructed. The as -built plat must show utility meter locations. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ,!- /L�1,iu r_✓ t r l CH.925 4 CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN MAY 5 , i98 X �0te to fi1t wtl,,,e L-- 46jvjd "'i �, r ' V -7 „4) 0(04 A + CD z cn 71 1 7 *1 0�1 F7 1 715 104 T20 2i 0 0 f 719 1 711! i cll�i KCIJL 72 I tit �7 30 00 E.- v ro .72 . CHAT Akt- Uum Nis -c t> 7�7 5 ICH EA F t H T- L R 0 E ASPIE I 00E. 4, 731 .9. 71 771 Np z (D 0 FeTi I i ! i i 31 Ni. to 805 E645 915 935 32 i i i ! I (VI FgWo 9- -0- -61 92 AVE. 901 993 i C 0� c 35 918 susF934 Q4 AVE. 925 -[0 5 0 q17 3 935 ROARI G OR 915 L S At, ALtA S. z MOTEL AIP W mmis L—t L W .113 119 > 40 4-111 .o 5�C NORTH W 13: 91qd W � W STAR I jZ F, L- i TOWNHOUSESES §14' 10 0-1 i5 0: 152i 10' IDLAND] 900E. 1000 E. CONDO. WATERS AVE. / 0 601 LUTTLENIELAQ, 1023 C"po. 67 09 911 P, FS c 101 1 41 0 . 9A --c K L 0 D 132 v 11 0 0 B< 801 800 E. CID SaQ -t3 s WE 112; 118 1 OLD 92 to (TT E IYK\ OR W R 5 0 H ND�ED'I : F .101 IS- 2 001 2� I' L I INA - 'I \IA� '01 400 gr 5C!9601 L I j 8 00 E. 900 E. 1060 E. AVE, 500 S. z C'�IIE AIRVAPX E 924 AS � E 41.835 low HOU V� EASIT',-- i ;Es C-i THE GA T CONDO INIUMS H Ll MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes - Subdivision Exception and Acceptance of Cash -in Lieu for Employee Housing DATE: January 19, 1988 LOCATION: Lots F, G, H and I, Block 119, City and Township of Aspen. ZONING: Residential - Multi -Family (R-MF) LOT AREA: 12,014 square feet. APPLICANT: STP Associates. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests subdivision excep- tion for construction of a four unit townhome project on the site and acceptance of a cash contribution for the equivalent of 11.3 low-income employees. BACKGROUND ON SITE: Approval was given in 1978 for a low-income employee project with 12 one -bedroom units (425 sq. ft. each) associated with the 500 S. Galena project. An attempt was also made to utilize the Residential Bonus Overlay to create a 24 unit low income project in 1981. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: The following comments pertin- ent to subdivision review were made by Chuck Roth in his memoranda of January 7 and January 14, 1988: a. After clarification from the applicant of the storm drainage plan, the Engineering Department finds the proposal to be appropriate. b. The parking design is satisfactory. C. The Parks Department should be consulted for approval of any trees planted in the public r.o.w. H d. The applicant should be required to provide bonding for promised improvements that are not installed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. e. The applicant will be required to provide an easement on their property for the transformer or switchgear shown in the application. Utility relocations which are required for the convenience of projects are required to be paid for by the project. f. Bicycle racks must be designed and placed such that their use does not obstruct the required 5' wide sidewalk. g. A final plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. h. The applicant must agree to join future improve- ment districts per language from the City Attor- ney's office. 2. Water Department: Jim Markalunas stated water is avail- able and can be furnished to the site. 3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn stated the proposed project can be served by the Sanitation District by the 8" line in Durant Street. 4. Environmental Health: In Tom Dunlop's December 28, 1987 memorandum he made the following comments: a. A multi -family building is entitled to one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove. b. A fugitive dust control plan will be required. C. The applicant is advised to contact the Environ- mental Health Department if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered during excavation. 5. Housing Authority: The Housing Authority recommends approval of the proposed cash -in -lieu contribution for employee housing. After the applicant made a technical clarification, accepted by the City Attorney in a letter dated January 5, 1988, the Housing Office reported that the Housing Authority recommended approval of the sum of money proposed ($226,000). B. Planning Office Comments: 2 1. Subdivision Exception: The applicant has presented information sufficient for Preliminary Plat review and requested to be excepted from the Conceptual Review stage given the small size of the project. The purpose of subdivision review for multi -family projects is to assure that such projects meet the basic criteria of suitability of the land and the standards for develop- ment contained in the Subdivision Regulations. Our comments in response to the "suitability of land for subdivision" criteria in Section 20-9 are stated below. Criterion a: Whether findings are made that the land is unsuitable for subdivision by reason of flooding, bad drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography or other potential hazards. Response: No natural hazards have been identified that would prevent development of this site. The existing hole was excavated and not natural subsidence. Criterion b: The Planning Commission may deem land premature for subdivision when subdivision approval would create growth patterns of such physical form and size that governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens may result from providing the extension of public services, and planned support facilities cannot be accomplished in a planned, ordered or efficient manner. Response: Development of this property does not appear to create any particular governmental inefficiencies. This site is within an already developed residential neighborhood containing a mix of multi -family, duplex and single family residences. Additional comments regarding the project's compliance with subdivision regulations follow: 1. Project improvements: Improvements proposed by the applicant include landscaping of the site and adjacent right-of-way, sidewalk and internal walkway, sidewalk lighting, bicycle rack, and partial undergrounding and relocation of utilities in the alley. Irrigation has not been addressed, but should be in the final plat submittal. The applicant should also address in the final plat special considerations raised by the Engineering Department about the easement for the transformer off the alley and location of bicycle 3 racks. It is also important that the lighting be specified to ensure that illumination level, glare and locations are appropriate. An improvements agreement and guarantee should be prepared following the require- ments of Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Municipal Code. 2. Plating: A final plat must be submitted according to the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. 3. Evaluating whether there is an adverse effect upon the surrounding area: Section 20-12(1) of the Preliminary Plat -Contents requires submission of "such preliminary information as may be required by the city planning office or other reviewing agency in order to adequately describe proposed utility system, drainage plans, surface improvements, or other construction projects contemplated within the area to be subdivided in order to assure that the subdivision is capable of being constructed without an adverse effect upon the sur- rounding area." The GMP application provides various information on these topics. In staff's opinion, this project has certain design weaknesses such as the moat in the front yard, less usable open space than desired for a multi -family project because of the 12 foot separation between halves, and bulk for four units in a quasi -duplex arrangement that may be excessive for the neighborhood. However, we do not make the finding that the surface treatment of landscaped and paved areas or the proposed build -out will have an unmitigated adverse effect upon the surrounding area. 2. Cash -in -lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant has proposed to contribute $226,000 under the current Housing Authority guidelines to house 11.2 low-income employees. City Council has discretion in accepting cash -in -lieu, or turning down cash in favor of on -site affordable housing or off -site deed restrictions. P&Z discussed this issue on January 12, 1988 as part of the public hearing on revising the zoning code and arrived at general ideas for evaluating alternatives. The Planning Office has the following comments in review of the cash proposal. There are no adopted plans currently in place showing affordable housing planned for the 925 E. Durant Avenue site. We note that the site is well suited for affordable housing with regard to availability of services, proximity to community facilities and lack of environmental constraints. In the past, Hans Cantrup had an approved proposal to locate employee units on the site. In addition, the Alpina House next door has been converted into an employee housing project. Location of employee units within this mixed multi-family/single family/duplex neighborhood 4 6 would be appropriate. Further, the size of the project (approximately 12,000 square feet) would not seem to prohibit the production of one -bedroom employee unit in addition to the four free market units proposed. This would require reducing one free market bedroom from the project so to meet maximum bedrooms per lot area. The project does not appear to require the provision of affordable housing on - site to meets its service needs. In support of the total cash contribution, we note that the rather large contribu- tion for an equivalent of over 50% of the project to provide low-income employee housing should give a needed boost to the Housing Authority's cash fund for production of afford- able housing. After all these considerations, staff suggests that the most appropriate approach would be to provide one on -site employee unit along with a reduced cash contribution to off- set employee housing impacts of the 925 E. Durant project. This approach would reduce the size of the free-market portion of the project by one bedroom, consequently reducing the cash contribution to approximately $174,800. This is $51,200 less than the applicant's proposed contribution. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Preliminary Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval of the requested preliminary subdivision for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes multi -family project subject to the conditions that follow: a. A final plat shall be submitted according to the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code including: 1. A detailed storm drainage plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Site/landscape plan showing site improvements described in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP Application, including but not limited to vegeta- tion to be planted, irrigation system, pedestrian areas, bike rack, low-level sidewalk lighting, easement for transformer or switchgear on appli- cant's property, and plans for undergrounding utilities on site and relocating utilities in the alley. 3. A statement of subdivision exception and improve- ments agreement shall be submitted as part of final plat. Included in this document shall be a development schedule and appropriate financial 9 0 guarantee for all site improvements and off -site improvements described in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP application including by not limited to sidewalk, landscaping and bicycle rack. Also included shall be agreement to join any future improvement district formed that encompasses this property. 4. Allocation of four (4) residential units from the Growth Management Quota must be granted by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. or final plat shall not be approved. 2. Cash -in -lieu for Employee Housing: The Planning Office recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval of an employee housing program consisting of 1 one bedroom room deed restricted low income unit on site and acceptance of the cash -in lieu payment for the equivalent of 8.74 low income employees (equaling 51.835% of the total project), as calculated at the time of building permit application, which shall be paid to the Housing Authority prior to issuance a building permit for the project. 925memo R i • CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: January 19, 1988 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: The development will be served by the existing 6 inch main in Durant Street. Jim Markalunas stated water is available and can be furnished to the site. No improvements to the water 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 0 • COMMENTS: The development will be served by an existing 8 inch sewer main in Durant Street. Heiko Kuhn stated that the project can be adequately served by this sewer line and the ACSD sewage treatment plant. 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: 2 COMMENTS: The development will be designed to retain 1000 of the historic storm water flow attributable to the property. Historic runoff will be released on a delayed basis maintaining historic flow. The Engineering Department considers this an improvement to service in the area. 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: 1 COMMENTS: The site is located between 2 fire hvdrants to the east and west on Durant Street and 8 blocks from the Fire Station. Adequate fire protection service is available to the project, according to the Fire Marshal. No improvements in this area are Drovosed. 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: The 10 space parking requirement will be met through the inclusion of a garage for each unit located off the alley. Driveways will be snowmelt and provide additional stacked parking for guests (10 spaces). This design has minimized visual impact while creating on site more parking spaces than required. - 2 - 2. f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The Enaineerina Department notes that the traffic on Durant Street will not be adversely affected by this new develop- ment because parking is off the alley. There will probably be some curb side parking on Durant related to this project; however, the existing street system can handle this. No improve- ments in roads are proposed. SUBTOTAL: 8 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: 1.5 COMMENTS: The proposed four-plex has an FAR of 0.86:1 (10,430 sq.ft.), height of 28' (to peak of roof) and site coverage of 41% (4,923 sq. ft.). The size and height of the building are similar to its multi -family neighbors and mainly compatible within the vicinity. The hipped roof townhouse modules are each about 24' across and off -set from each other by six feet. This helps break up massing and leaves a front yard 20' to 26' deep. The sub - grade "moat" (a drop of approximately 4' over 7' distance) is a - 3 - design feature not yet common in the area and will add to the sense of bulk as it does for the 700 E. Hyman Townhouses in our opinion. If the property were developed as two duplexes, as the design closely resembles, allowed FAR would be 7,200 sq. ft. or 0.6:1. Additional bulk is allowed and used from the contrived upper level interconnection between the two "duplexes", thereby meeting the definition of an attached multi -family dwelling. The result in design is a structure appearing as a pair of especially large duplexes without the sense of visual relief in setbacks between 2 duplexes. Design flaws in the moat and extra FAR through attached mutli-family decrease staffs evaluation rating of this 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: 2 COMMENTS: Thirtv-six percent (36%) of the site (4,337 sg. ft. consists of open space. The front yard is deeper than sur- rounding properties and, with proposed specimen sized trees and shrub plantings (some 55 plantings shown on site plan) should be an attractive improvement to the block. Sidewalks, street trees and bicycle racks in the right-of-way are also positive site design features. The 7' wide east side yard will help give the existing spruce and fir space to grow. Circulation, enclosed trash dumpster off the alley, and utility undergrounding all seem to work well. The 12' wide separation between halves of the project is too narrow to allow for either useable privacy space or landscaping in the center of the complex. This space could have contributed to larger side yards or front yard to improve the site design. The 10' wide separation between halves of the project appears to be too narrow to allow for either useable privacy space on land- scaping in the center of the complex and could have contribued to larger sideyards. 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 - 4 - • COMMENTS: The applicant proposes enerav conservation measures in- cluding standard level of wall and ceiling insulation, vapor barrier, heat mirror glazing and 95-97% efficient gas boilers. Solar orientation and south -facing windows indicate some passive solar gains for space heating. No mention of thermal mass, solar heat or solar hot water is made. Substantial north -facing glass is included in the design. Snowmelt on the parking apron is an energy user. No commitments have been made for efficient fireplaces beyond code regulations. 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 alone Durant Street is a standard requirement of subdivision. Lighting with low- level decorative fixtures and the bicycle rack appear to be primarily of benefit to the project and not a substantial public benefit. 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 4,337 sq. ft. (36% of site) will be devoted to landscaped open space. This is only slightly more (1% or 132 sq. ft.) than required by Code. In addition, the moat area, sloping down across a portion of the front yard, reduces some of the useable front yard area. Setbacks achieve accept- able relief from the density of surrounding develpoments. SUBTOTAL: 10 Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - 0 • 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: 3 COMMENTS: The project is located less than 2 blocks from public bus routes on Durant Avenue, Original Street and Cooper Avenue. 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: 2 COMMENTS: The property is located 612 feet, over 2 blocks, from the Durant Mall, which is the closest commercial facility. SUBTOTAL: 5 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the 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 • u 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: 10.4 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to provide the cash equivalent for 51.84% of the project in low income employee housing ($226,000 under current Housing Authority guidelines). A technical clarification was made to amend the application's representation of a 70% employee housing component of the project, as accepted by the City (through the City Attorney's Jan. 5, 1988 letter attached). The Housing Authority recommends approval of this contribution. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - 0 0 C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20) percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 8 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 9.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 5 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 10.4 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 32.9 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office r MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer (.` Date: January 14, 1988 Re: Amendment No. 1 to Comments on 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission This is written in response to your request for clarifications of the above referenced comments. 1. The storm drainage portion of the applicant's submission was unclear. We have requested a clarification from the applicant, at the same time clarifying to the applicant the Engineering Department position on storm water issues. By the attached letter, the applicant has stated that the project will provide a storm water retention system which will release historical outflows from the site in quantities as required, but on a timed basis such that the flow is released after the storm has passed instead of permitting the full release during the storm event. This will be a benefit to the City because it will decrease demands on streets, gutters and storm drain systems for handling flows during the storm event by retaining the water for release after the event has occurred. The Engineering Department therefore changes its recommended scoring for Storm Drainage from 1 point to 2 points for an excellent design. Storm Drainage - 2 points. 2. This is to clarify elements of our comments in item 11 (c). The applicant's project site will be provided electric power by the City Electric Department. As a result of the city utility undergrounding project, the primary lines belonging to the City have already been buried. The remaining poles and electric lines belong to Holy Cross. The applicant must consult with Holy Cross on the ability to relocate poles. As a matter of existing code requirements, the applicant is already required to underground all utility connections. 3. It was not our understanding that this application was to be reviewed simultaneously as a subdivision exemption application. The following comments address subdivision exemption issues: a. The City Attorney must be consulted to see if water rights must be acquired. �J b. A final plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. C. The applicant must agree to join future improvement districts per language from the City Attorney's office. cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer CR/cr/memo.88.1 January 13, 1988 Mr. Chuck Roth Assistant City Engineer City of Aspen, Colorado 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP Submission Dear Chuck,. It is my understanding that you require clarification of the storm drainage system proposed for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes develop- ment. The applicants intend to work closely with you to design a storm water management system which will release storm water after the peak of a storm. Based on criteria provided by your office, we will design an on -site basin, Swale, or equivalent device or devices with flow restrictors to assure uniform and gradual release of storm flows to the City's stogy m water management network at a rate below the historic runoff flows from the site. The development of the proposed storm water metering system will result in substantial off -site benefits to the City, consequently we trust that the system will merit the maximum award of two points. Thank you for your comments and for your cooperation. I look forward to working with you in the development of the townhomes project. Sincerely, Wayne/ Ethridge Groundwork xc: Steve Burstein JAN 8 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer e� Date: January 7, 1988 Re: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Water Service - 1 point - Existing water main can supply project. No improvements needed - no improvements offered. It would have been desirable to have seen in the application a letter from the water department concerning the project. 2. Sewer Service - 1 point - Existing sewer lines can accommo- date the project. No improvements needed - none offered. It would have been desirable to have seen in the application a letter from the Sanitation District concerning the project. 3. Storm Drainage - 1 point - The Code requirement is that the applicant maintain the historic site storm water runoff for the 100-year event. An applicant may not permit more storm runoff to leave a site and flow onto public rights -of -way, nor may an applicant retain all storm runoff on a site which might result in over -charging the groundwater aquifer and possibly adversely affect adjacent property owners. The storm drainage features must be designed by a registered engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 4. Parking Design - 2 points - The parking for residences is in enclosed garages. The applicant states that guests may park on heated concrete pads which will reduce the need for parking on the streets. Additionally, the design of the project is such that the allowable curb cut(s) on Durant Street are not utilized which would further reduce parking on that street. 5. Roads - 2 points - By providing access to the project site from the alley, the traffic on the frontage street will not be adversely affected. 6. Site Design - 3 points - Underground utilities are required and cannot be considered as an element of an excellent ite design. "The arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy" appears to indicate an excellent design. 7. Trails - 3 points - By Resolution No. 19 (Series of 1975), the applicant is required to construct a sidewalk when performing new construction. This would also be required by the subdivision exemption process. However the landscaping, lighting and bike rack are improvements which are not required. 8. Proximity to public transportation - 3 points - Project is located less than two (2) blocks walking distance of existing bus route. 9. Proximity to community commercial facilities - 2 points - Project is located 612 feet from commercial core. 10. Bonus points - The project could receive bonus points for its parking conditions. As discussed in item 4 above, not only is parking provided in garages for residents, but parking on heated driveway slabs will be provided for guests, which will reduce pressures for on -street parking. Also, with the alley access, the applicant has not utilized its entitlement of curb cuts and has thereby preserved additional parking spaces which could have been lost on the frontage street. Other projects have received a second point because the parking was buried. It must be pointed out that some projects were "forced" to bury the parking in order to meet height and open space restrictions. The community received no benefit of a "shorter" or less bulky project because of buried parking. This applicant should therefore perhaps receive one bonus point for parking because it provides parking for guests. It appears to be burdensome to award the same number of points in item 9 above as an applicant whose project would be 1,500 feet away from the commercial core. If one assesses the ratios of distances and points, it would be appropriate to award the applicant (1,000 feet less 112 feet divided by 1,000 feet) times one point which is a bonus award of 0.9 points for its proximity to the commercial core. 11. Additional comments - a. This application was not referred to the Parks Department. The Parks Department must be consulted for approval of any trees planted in the public right-of-way. It is this reviewer's understanding that the cottonless variety of cottonwood tree is C preferred if not mandatory. Also, any trees planted in the right-of-way must be pruned up to a height of seven feet above any sidewalk in order for pedestrians to be able to pass under- neath. b. The applicant has stated that the project will be completed and occupied by December of 1988 but that landscaping will not be accomplished until June of 1989. As a condition of approval, prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the buildings, the applicant shall be required to provide bonding to the Engineering Department for improvements promised to be construc- ted in the public right-of-way. This reviewer is concerned about the public losing other benefits from promises made through the GMP process. We have seen other projects which have managed to come to fruition without providing amenities for which scoring was received. Can, or should, the city require bonding for promised improvements which are on private property and which have not been completed at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested? C. As a condition of approval for the subdivision exemption process, the applicant will be required to provide an easement on their property for the transformer or switchgear shown in the application. Utility relocations which are required for the convenience of projects are required to be paid for by the project. d. Please note that bicycle racks must be designed and placed such that their use does not obstruct the required five foot wide sidewalk. cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer CR/cr/caseload.20 ASPEN46PITKIN ENVIRO ENTAL HEALTH DEPA14TMONT MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy Houben, Planning From: Thomas S. Dunlop, 'Director; Environmental .Health Dept. Date: December 28,.1987 Re: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This is in conformance with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual S_ewaae D!s_posal Systems policy section to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers." It will be to the advantage of the applicant to provide an actual letter of commitment from the utility confirming service to the project. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATERNWDS The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This is in conformance with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system." It will be to the advantage of the applicant to provide an actual letter of commitment from the utility confirming service to the project. 0 • 925 E. Durant Twnhms.GMP December 28, 1987 Page 2 The submittal does not address the issue of woodburning devices. It will be the assumption that the project will be constructed with the maximum number of woodburning devices installed. Given that, the applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 86-5 which describes the type and number of woodburning devices that may be installed in new or remodelled buildings. In summary the ordinance allows one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove per building with the exception of a duplex. If each side of the duplex exceeds 1000 square feet then. each side of the duplex may have one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove. Construction: There is no mention in the submittal of a plan to control windblown (fugitive) dust on the project site. It will be the obligation of the applicant to submit such a plan to this office prior to construction. The plan shall include a commit- ment by the applicant to institute methods of dust control such as watering the work area, use of dust suppressants, fencing and other frequently used controls. There shall also be included in the plan a method of mud and dirt carryout removal from City streets. Mechanical sweeping using water to keep the dust down is a recommended method. Prompt revegetation of disturbed soil areas is also a recommended dust control method. Regulation 1 of the Color ado Air Quality _CDntr of Regulations and Ambient Ai r Quality Standards is the document requiring this plan submit- tal. An application for the fugitive dust plan can be picked up from this office. Return it to this office when it is completed. NOISE: This project will be regulated by Chapter 16, Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement. Should complaints be received by this office, investigations will be made using Chapter 16 as the enforcement instrument. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS -.-- Not applicable to this submittal. CONTAMINATED SQJLS; The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment . should mine.waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during 925 E. Durant Twnhms. GMP December 28, 1987 Page 3 the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste in a residential area. ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 January 5, 1988 TO: Steve Burstein; Cindy Houben, Planning Office `AN E FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Review comments on energy related aspects of the 925 E Durant Submission: ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Public Service Company and other utilities recommend specific R values �---� for insulating homes in mountain areas, like Aspen. They indicate that walls should be R13 and ceilings R38. As you can see, the specified 2-101ei�"')S insulation levels for this project are more than what is recommended E►K�y�oJ+R��s:for walls and less for ceilings. R`2DLv,6 The specification of "Heat Mirror" or other energy efficient glazing is R-zoce;hhp smart especially for the north side, which has a lot of windows. SOLAR ENERGY Fortunately, the building is oriented with the capability of using passive solar gains for space heating. There is no mention of thermal mass or how these gains will be stored for use after the sun sets. There was no consideration of an active solar system to heat water. We assume that this was not felt to be cost-effective. WATER CONSERVATION The low -flow fixtures mentioned sound appropriate though a gallons -per - minute specification would be more definitive. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Using gas -fired, energy -efficient boilers with a hydronic baseboard system is commendable. M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING OFFICE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM: ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 4, 1988 RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION PROJECT: The project will contain four units and upon approval will file a request for condominiumization. The four units consist of two 3-bedroom and two 2-bedroom units. The units will sell for approximately $575,000.00 for the two bedroom units and $725,000.00 for the three bedroom units. The development will contain a total of ten bedrooms for free market units or 2 x's 2.25 for the two bedrooms and 2 x's 3 for the three bedroom units or 10.50 free market persons. The applicant proposes to house 70% of the employee generated in a cash -in -lieu payment. The calculation is 10.5=30% of x; x= 10.,5/.3; x=35 The formula tells us that his 10.5 free market residents are 30% of the project, that the total project size is 35 residents, and therefore that there are 24.5 employees to be housed. Multiply- ing this number by the appropriate cash value gives the payment due. 24.5 x's 20,000 = $490,000.00 cash contribution for 70% of the project. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Approve application and cash -in -lieu payment of $490,000.00 due at time of building permit. J0 r 2 Groundwork Box 3863 Aspen, CO 81612 (303) 920-1202 January 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Development Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to provide technical clarification of information provided in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes development submission. Specifically, the applicants wish to respond to Paul Taddune's letter of January 5th, in which he states the city's position regarding clarification of the employee housing contribution incorrectly stated as "70%" in the submission, and to respond to your request for clarification of information supplied for the preliminary subdivision application. The applicant's cash -in -lieu employee housing contribution of $226,00.00 reflects a percentage of housing of 51.835 percent, which is divided as follows: $226,000.00 = $20,000.00 x number of employees housed; number of employees housed = $226,000.00 divided by $20,000.00 = 11.3; 11.3 employees housed + 10.5 "free market residents" = 21.8 persons (total project); 10.5 "free market residents" divided by 21.8 persons = .48165; 1.00- .48165% = 51.835%. If you concur with this calculation, it is my assumption that the project will receive credit for housing 51.835% of the total project., and the GMP scoring will reflect a score of 10.367 points for the employee housing category. In addition, the applicants agree to Paul Taddune's second condition, which requires adjustment to the dollar contribution if the cash -in - lieu contribution escalates prior to payment of the contribution. The information required for the preliminary plot is contained in the submission, but as you know, it is not arranged in the same order as Section 20-12 of Aspen's Municipal Code. In the interest of efficiency, the following list of pages and/or exhibits in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes submission is arranged in the same order as Section 20-12: E 0 Section 20-12 (a) The plat is labeled as Exhibit E; the vicinity map is labeled as Exhibit D. (b) The proposed name of the subdivision is 925 E. Durant Townhomes (Note that a previous plot of 925 E. Durant was vacated in late 1987.) (c) The owner and subdivider of the parcel is STP Associates, 200 Main St., Toms River, NJ 08753. The designer of the subdivision is Groundwork, P.O. Box 3863, Aspen, CO 81612. The surveyor (Exhibit E) is Aspen Survey Engineers, 210 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. (d) Exhibits D and E (e) Exhibit E (f) Exhibit E shows existing contours, Exhibit H indicates proposed contours. (g) Exhibit E (h) Exhibits E and H (i) Exhibits H and P (j) N.A. (k) Soils tests will be conducted prior to any con- struction on the site. The project is expected to generate 12 vehicle trips per day (page 4 of the submission). The project will contain a maximum of one fireplace and one approved wood burning device. (1) As indicated by the text and Exhibit H, the pro- posal will have no adverse effect on the surround- ing area. Excavation has been minimized, no im- provements are required to the water or sewer sys- tems, and in fact, an existing 4" sewer line stub will be utilized for the development. (m) Page 4 of the submission contains the information required by the section. According to the formula contained in Section 20-18(A), the project will generate nine persons. (n) Exhibits H and P (o) N.A. 0 • (p) The names of adjacent property owners were trans- mitted under separate cover. (q) N.A. I hope this information is helpful in your review of our development. On behalf of my clients, I would like to thank you for your cooperation in working through these technical clarifications. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the architectural firm of Gibson and Reno if you have questions regarding this submission. Sincerely Yours, Way Ethridge WE/jak cc: Richard Stanzione Bill Pauli John Tadesco Augie Reno Dave Gibson Rick Knezevich ["I A 13 ltl _jl' January 13, 1988 Mr. Chuck Roth Assistant City Engineer City of Aspen, Colorado 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes GNP Submission Dear Chuck: It is my understanding that you require clarification of the storm drainage system proposed for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes develop- ment. The applicants intend to work closely with you to design a storm water management system which will release storm water after the peak of a storm. Based on criteria provided by your office, we will design an on -site basin, swale, or equivalent device or devices with flow restrictors to assure uniform and gradual release of storm flows to the City's storm water management network at a rate below the historic runoff flows from the site. The development of the proposed storm water metering system will result in substantial off -site benefits to the City, consequently we trust that the system will merit the maximum award of two points. Thank you for your comments and for your cooperation. I look forward to working with you in the development of the townhomes project. Sincerely, Wayne Ethridge Groundwork xc: Steve Burstein 0 • CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Jim Markalunas SUBJECT: 925 Durant Townhomes DATE: December 14, 1987 As stated in the 925 Durant Townho es GMP Application, page two, paragraph A, Water Service, water is available to the site via an existing six inch main located in Durant Street. The Water Department can furnish water to this development upon application and payment of the prescribed tap assessment. We have no further comments to make. MEMORANDUM DEC 2 2 1987 i TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center Parks Department* Roaring Fork Transit Agency* FROM: RE: DATE: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 700 Main Residential GMP Submission* Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-61-003 December 7, 1987 Attached for your review and comments are the 1987 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: 771 Ute Avenue = 8 units 700 Main = 14 units 925 Durant Townhomes = 4 units Hearings for these 3 residential GMP applications have been scheduled on January 19, 1988. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. We also have requested clarification from all three applicants to provide us with additional information that you may find missing from the applications. If you have any comments on this, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you. r pt , z 1't o j0v s r r> P IQ- u 2 e 4_ r' C /1 - 4rS e 5¢ AL F> [Is y rti a 4s /V oL Lon.So�ieAT,e� sA �it�n•.r hisp,c.cr. A— b'' -/ -a Imo. hest.^—r sr l � r4^5 S --PFIctio ►r' r-AP4-LPf 2LO Ar• 11:,,Ii r AW A� &;. .* • 0 TADDUNE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL J. TADDUNE FREDERICK W. GANNETT ERIN F. HAZEN OF COUNSEL January 5, 1988 Richard A. Knezevich, Esq. Oates, Hughes & Knezevich 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 925 East Durant Townhouses: GMP Application Dear Rick: . I / ASPEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OFFICES: 600 EAST HOPKINS P.O. Box 9978 ASPEN. CO 81612 (303) 925-9190 CITY HALL OFFICES: 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN. CO 81611 (303) 925-2020 Based on the December 22, 1987, affidavits of Ann Phillips and Wayne Ethridge submitted by your office, I am herewith advising the Planning Office to permit a technical revision to the Application, conditioned on the following: 1. The percentage of employee housing should be amended downward to reflect the percentage of housing generated by a cash -in -lieu contribution of $226,000.00 in 1987 dollars. 2. If the cash -in -lieu contribution for the promised employee housing escalates, the project owner will be responsible for con- tributing the amount of dollars equal to the percentage of housing represented. 3. The number of points for employee housing to be awarded will be a function of the reduced employee housing percentage, not the 70% originally promised. Please let me know in writing as quickly as possible whether this is an acceptable resolution of the outstanding problems concern- ing this application. Very truly yours, Paul J. Taddune City Attorney PJT/mc cc: Alan Richman Steve Burstein Ann Phillips • 1:1 LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEViCH LEONARD M OATES ROBERT W HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH Paul J. Taddune, Esq. City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Paul: AN 8 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 January 7, 1988 In connection with your letter dated January 5, 1988, in regard to 925 East Durant Townhouses GMP Application, this letter is to confirm that your proposed resolution of the out- standing issues are acceptable to us. We have informed Wayne Ethridge to proceed with the GMP amendment in accordance with the proposals contained in your letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. It was sincerely appreciated. Best regards, OATES S & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By Ric A. Knezevich RAK/caa cc: Alan Richman Steve Burstein-' Richard Stanzione Wayne Ethridge rwh3.09 AFFIDAVIT I, Ann Phillips, state that I recently discussed the computation of a cash payment in lieu of employee housing with Wayne Ethridge of Groundwork, the land planner involved in the Growth Management Plan Application submitted by STP Associates in regard to the 925 East Durant Project. Mr. Ethridge ex- plained to me that there would be 10.5 persons housed by the free market units involved in the project. I explained to Wayne that based on the Housing Authority formula, a payment of $113,000.00 would be required to meet the 35% employee housing threshold. Wayne indicated to me that the applicant, STP Associates, was willing to contribute $226,000.00 as a cash payment in lieu of providing employee housing. Since the $226,000.00 was exactly twice the amount determined by using the 35% figure, I indicated that $226,000.00 would represent an employee housing percentage equal to 70%. Dated: December o2-2, , 1987. �h4'&1z'711 Ann Phillfps, Pr perty Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Subscribed and sworn to before me by Ann Phillips this day of December, 1987. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4— 2,"l - ?,/ Notary Public Address: 6.20 C,o F 6 / L • 1-1 ` SEC 3 0 u�- AFFIDAVIT I, Wayne Ethridge, hereby state as follows: I am the principal in Groundwork, the planning consul- tant that prepared the Residential GMP Application submitted by STP Associates in regard to 925 East Durant Townhomes. During the process of preparing such Residential GMP submission, I had a pre -application conference with Steve Burstein of the Aspen/ Pitkin County Planning Office. When the issue of employee housing calculations arose, Mr. Burstein recommended that I converse with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in order to calculate the employee housing calculations due to the fact that he was not positive as to how the calculation should be made. Subsequent to such pre -application conference and shortly before the actual submission of the application, I again called the Planning Office and spoke with Tom Baker of the Planning Office in regard to the employee housing calculation. Tom Baker also referred me to the Housing Authority staff in order final- ize the a calculation of the employee housing percentage. I then spoke with Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority who referred me to Ann Phillips. I described the project to Ann and indicated to Ann Phillips that there would be 10.5 persons housed in free market units. Ann then computed the contribution for the 35% employee housing requirement. The number that she provided to me was $113,000.00. I then indicated to her that the applicant, STP Associates, had determined that it wished to contribute $226,000.00 as a cash payment in lieu of employee housing. Ann then indicated to me that the applicable percent- age would be 70% (twice the amount of the 35% calculation). I then completed the Residential GMP Application in regard to 925 East Durant Townhomes based upon the representa- tions of the Housing Authority. At the time of submission, I believed that the $226,000.00 payment that STP agreed to make represented a 70% employee housing payment. The 70% figure was included in the Application solely as a result of the informa- tion that was provided to me by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 17 Dated: December , 1987. Wa fie 8thridge (Acknowledgement on following page) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Subscribed and sworn to before me by Wayne Ethridge this day of December, 1987. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Y -2 -7- To/ Notary Public Address: 6.21 fps Gv p'IG /z A 0 0 December 7, 1987 Wayne Ethridge P. O. Box 3863 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Dear Wayne: This letter is in regard to your 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP application. At this time, we have determined that your applica- tion is incomplete, until we receive the following: * Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) * Authorization by owner for representative to submit application (only one copy needed) * Your employee housing calculation is not correct. Because you have submitted no back-up calculation methodology, I cannot tell what is wrong. Based on your having 10.5 free market residents, the correct calculation is as follows: ' 10.5 persons = 30% of x; x = 10.5. x = 35 persons .3 Therefore, 35 - 10.5 = 24.5 employees to be housed, x $20,000 per person = $490,000. Your application states that you will pay $226,000, which will not even meet the employee housing threshold of 35% of employees housed. Since you committed to house 70%, you must commit to pay the $490,000 (submitted 21 copies of letter of clarification) * This application was supposed to be presented at preliminary plat level of detail, but you haven't submitted anything on subdivision. Please address all relevant criteria of Section 20-12 and submit 21 copies of the relevant material. Because this application is part of the GMP competition, it is our intention that it be scheduled on January 19, 1988 before the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, if the material discussed herein is not submitted to this office within ten days it will be impossible for us to complete our review in a timely manner, and your application may be removed from the agenda. 0 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Steve Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office SB:nec MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Phillips, Housing Office FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Cash -In -Lieu Formula DATE: December 22, 1987 This memo is a follow-up to our phone conversation of yesterday. Its purpose is to provide you with a simple formula from which you can calculate the cash -in -lieu payment for residential projects. To understand the formula, we must assume that the applicant knows the number of free market units he or she wishes to build. Using our standard for persons per unit, this can be converted to the common factor, residents. Taking this number as our known factor, this number is equal to some percentage of "x", which is the number of free market plus employees residents to be housed. The formula is as follows: # of free market residents = some percentage of x. Taking the 925 E. Durant project as an example, there were 10.5 free market residents in these four units. The applicant told us he wanted to have 70% of the project be employee housing,(which means that his 10.5 free market residents must equal 30% of the project) so we have to back into the number of people to be housed in the total project to calculate the number of employees for which he is responsible. Using the formula, 10.5 = 30% of x; x= 10.5/0.3; x=35. The formula tells us that his 10.5 free market residents are 30% of the project, that the total project size is 35 residents, and therefore that there are 24.5 employees to be housed. Multiply- ing this number by the appropriate cash value gives the payment due. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Please feel free.to distribute this memo anytime an applicant requests information on cash -in -lieu for a residential project. cc: Planning Office Staff hsnginlieu 11.044 Ioil, a, r,'i• MIA i• eiDI DUN ' '. 1 • �• • • v 1 Project: 925 E. Durant Avenue (Scored 1/26/88 P&Z VOTING NUNBERZS Welton Jasmine Roger Ramona David Mari Jim Average 1. Public Facilities and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 _ b. Sewer Service 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 e. Parking Design 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 f. Road 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.75 1 1.5 SUBIOIAL 8.5 7 8.5 12 8.75 8 8.5 8.75 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 3 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Compatibility b. Site Design 2.5 1 2.5 3 2.5 2 2.25 c. Energy 2.5 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 d. Trails 2.5 3 2 2 2.5 2 2 _ e. Green Space 3 0.5 2 2 2 2.5 2 SUBTOTAL 13.5 6.5 11 12 12.5 11.5 11.25 11.18 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ Transportation b. Community Comml 2.5 2 2.5 3 3 2 3 Facilities SUBICII'AL 5.5 5 5.5 6 6 5 6 5.57 4. Employee Housing (20 pts) a. Low Income 10.4 8.4 10.4 10 10.4 10.4 10.4 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SUBTOTAL 10.4 8.4 10.4 10 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.06 SUBIUTAL CATEGORIES 1-4 37.9 26.9 35.4 40 37.65 34.9 36.15 35.56 5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 4 0 2 0 2 1 1 1.43 OPAL POINT'S 1-5 41.9 26.9 37.4 40 39.65 35.9 37.15 37.0 • • WAlfl CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: Z COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing 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: .L 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: 1(�Z 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: 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: 2- 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: �? r�L - 4 - • 9 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. 1 RATING: Z / COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING. COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: (Z 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. l RATING: 2 �v 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). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATIN . SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 !3•,S 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 Jo- 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 4 C7� R'J MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD QI� BONUS POINTS _ TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: • E 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: RATING: ��. -2-rC�►'Y)������/GC�fS %LP�C,L/L��� r c i D r L3� . - 2 - 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: �c� 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: Wt.-, C. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: - 4 - u COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. (:�n• (,t e RATING: 47 S COMMENTS: J�°�d �rJQ��{S lJ SUBTOTAL: J 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: RATING: 2- SUBTOTAL: S 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: - 6 - 0 • 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: X % ( � tom' l �`— ,L'%'ti ��QC. e-r- U->-) l� b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1) point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 D 4.5 //, �- Jr 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 57 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 8,� MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS / TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member: M:M CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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. 1 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 instal -led 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: ` • 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. y RATING: COMMENTS: �k" 7�%� �r l � S k9 & CCU f/ ec% l .5 , O A,) r, SUBTOTAL: —e 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: t 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: ` - 4 - 0 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: -q • ulu �i►fl .` 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. L-' RATING: 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: - 5 - • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: a COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- 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: L COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: -5,` 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the 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: j�. I COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING: E • C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty (20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: (Dr Q U� j�� �6E C- 6�p /L) I k4 i W)l- 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: Z/ SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 6E`7 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS 31.8 TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commission Member: 9 9�yov` CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 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: 12 RATING: G� 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: G-,?,_5 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: 'DX 5 �s� COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: �— • ulu ORY_ii.� e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENTS: RATING: 1�z— SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: 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: - 6 - 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] percept housed). RATING: COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:/ SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 �✓ 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8, Name of P&Z Commission Member: — 8 — CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 E • 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: 7-,- 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. _I RATING: COMMENTS: NO - 2 - 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: f.YiJ:311[�311ta� � 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: - 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 rivacy. RATING: /o CommE TS: 7C,' 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: Mt - 4 - • 0 COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. � RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • • a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: 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: r� �v COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING: • C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD SUBTOTAL: ex RATING: POINTS 1 Q 4</ 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 r 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 1 T 3. 4. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 1.8 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS TOTAL POINTS: POINTS 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member:I� CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 1 • 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. _ RATING: � COMMENTS: 2 - 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: SUBTOTAL: �� O 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: - 4 - COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. _ RATING: •' COMMENTS: D\t/ SUBTOTAL:_ 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - • 0 a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. COMMENTS: 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: (U, COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - 0 • C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS ` 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 ©, MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING i 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES P NOT AWARD TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commission Member: BONUS POINTS 31.8 �� o �Q� V UkX'C\� CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: l 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: 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. COMMENTS: - 3 - RATING: 2 • • 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: Z 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: 2' - 4 - COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: Z .0 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• 0 SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - a. Public Transportation (maximum three [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. "6' -0 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: 3.0 SUBTOTAL: (0.0 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: CW:= • 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). COMMENTS: - 7 - RATING: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 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 Membe 1DOzoi, qr" 3.6 4.5 1.8 7 POINTS B•5 PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD I• b Mir,) ri-MIk " f 4✓I Ievrtv)rrY1,ftA . q2 T �, 0VY40 s �. �caPvaA� ;. to 6� )a �{ �N,t P,o�ect 4 Ipts ica iL RD0 `I'jl F,�} �a►�r grr.Yu., IpGAto� bctk +% AifIrA NPL5IIl(i( a►,cvl �i0r1Y$AIJfN o)3 k4r�, 6,,. c AJ L., H uJ4. Ilhmv-) IAft L/I G,✓1,T1 C�l+ay� il � /LINT l,'TiM�I l� � d✓���ps SI/1)L! fJrq• TIC Iy )cA)q fkt LAJ t4 T (� j t1 a � — l � Ih" T I II e je,ti5A 4lonj UaS � 1rAn� 1 r Wy Nwh �0r f% h �� {v+rA W trfe4 2144,,E.r►_ —f2 - -� Q" � 2 - 2 W'�W� VA I +f ] A�p�OliclYlt �� lot- ) kb F rj; �r»,r,,,� ,�,an, rr �trre I ,G�r�.�, _ � �,�xt_ % I �,,�,1,(� �.J,� • � f1� �Lti• ! �,�„�/^ S �iNr �hf/v� I J 1 tp �%Q el Vtrtivlc?S 4 R/1K fly =f'' Cf "J✓�j k"Btr ai�JGKR� r.o.W- N�'I S ctr`Y AVrt t~✓AI l i— r)D CI ihrl M, py1(D1-.✓ AS pi'lgi" �VD� S10rlit hof p Alh 4tLF/-*•�p IL/r �l LVJtIJmA -SI/{ /et1k�1j`) l I jj I 1h DA�K,rt� (�5�,�. Itil1Ar� _ ao,�.vti il� Stlb{a ��p/ikr�n}�✓r•�► r J jj 1 / r i, s�t;)fAl�ry S 3� Ifc Ir►�vrc — Incl' n ""Y"/ hcf� Gl ai�. a�`iytNl bw►hlAtf . r�}��lolrb SIB RIbh5 0V)whJ/ s:d"4 II7l1J,A) bl4 ;nit, llh>�,� 6 Ay infopnnl tvti(�Wl.1 Ir/j4e1'dvur� af�f� pllP Prbl/l0'4 4 frl4��Ov 4 e 07 U kre, to rwoj r- P' V" r Ik 4 t� Pl+hnjn �I�Ic4 1'D►'IClt1v1' fk C�Srui�,�1� Y{�le�lcr�ii�l� I4 *JiG ef,(IIW- 411Y)fyJA7. No v911114,�A4J4/GP6Ntpnt� MID04A%'' )$IWrlmirL. W1 alty 1r(/M 6 YVVAI i'� S,I.d Idyl,", 5Vi jet1 fb 7 GbN d I i 1n) �ZS OV14114 ��pr<�►K � rAe ILJ 10 Ih " e, A I - i v -1 i,[ tr , IL a sz-z 6, o of 445ti m qj fo h pox 10 IbW In,vh4 t�Iv , �IDDkt,i t]V �c n►�,J� t�, D�,t , �u�J& fa► c,114 ofr-4; f� Wt A 0-A, I'I�.,Jtiu�r, w _ n� f ��0�►�Qlt �� �► I t� -04 -fly re (," G►'yWk-4,,A 1, 4444 - UV( reIsDnia) 11 fW 1.4 �� ��. S i �Y (�� s �-{�'(c l,�w� r'ry l� i^� (� �1007 s. �) f r tj•� ci�hS�tj► �jt Proeps� by Z,ow 7260 Li e rtmr- ;,iMAW.), If/ �•fj�1 'ttv. 1 �4,9D�i I'eA��6���hvrr.pialG�, bcGall!<<'� ii..►�+���o.+OD,{ �,� IC�� p rDvis�J►1 V Crh r pr�i Jf � riw t�yiKrr i by �u�-,1 _ I, �l ti , f1� s,I► wit d OXON. x to c►j"rAvNA t7 f (i Illill j FYMI k I�� v is c,��c�•, � df � ,1�11 x o% ' c °"�, l^' � �"►"�P�"t"''� � r/ t'r�,,►,114 A M I� �errn,ntwt so rPs; u� n,1t„�eIS� r"mJJ), N in OnIj t�f117�1hy �oJ�p! (,,,4 D11ic{f� . 13� fit ��t►>E O(U;r., seQnq tD aIIIIw ✓ �Jpr /t7�1�;IAI).t, �b 1131'114%, ol I �lu.I✓vn �^w' W_ -�, Vh) � . SQ��rRfr I'ffrA Irf�1Y, t� �Ti�e,t Ctl�h�DS� }1V� We✓u l p car -1a1 s�pet iHri�47M���1, �vlli (� f{�.��y D �+(jlw.( +UXrly ekl i,f Y�ny i�. � �1,�0>, . So (on�;MIHI11,Urh ���p��te3� qM )-j'* li 111NJ i' tkBr�es�l,�b��, kasa ccvf��h �a�.sw���f be1K{, f to �Iic.rN� b� �rxth�yi ��y ,�..1J hot ceMsi I, ffj mw%�ivw lIIY}eVS c 4)),� ��) r'�.�v � �f�rh.�►w1 pVa DS�I• TLV171 b�fAshkJ'f,'�A;,t IN �I����hod Gih f([rlhrti", �W c,oetr,brt;.., W0,61fi'���¢c q �I��jl2tA1,4 sv►►,, • 9�1�r���►"- G ►n P s c o�,:n� - stv.�,�.��h,N �nrlr,n� r'►,00�l romti�n���►l,+i MA3 r vte L M ,1 j-u N o ► hj i nl$.JAI Porfi 4 bv'�, - ��Sl,4jr �r e�PSS C In 16f��r� � h.c iq 6n eM�►DyeY %cus►.� . 0yY4L lbrrod�w f�l s;�e l b� c�vn1 ��) CbYM�ih�f►'ob Akrt (4 I ��;lo���� L r; flty; 4 A n a nrov�l �,rl PDh,q i Lot A.rc. _ I AIIvIVab4 F A - �,QJ� ib FAR Lf,Ii2+4 IID 1 SP4k G ✓1,4- y)2Oj + D�ln Seek fnvlJtl— 9M' '77/ W,( — I I g 2 JUP14-1f) Ch LA 6600 4 - 3,boo*/., lot i Z = 7 ;l ba 1 9 %sn,ellre 444W+I"1p►�poc-✓, -Orygf� FY,,hX Ras, oD L- . Hy ., Willy i ry (. r' F4R) -F- fevA - c.l,l'7Ds, F fr« (I�A��ro�rUS�+q 13 O11'r L,Uv�A►f}' 2o'_Z�, 141 Sid� w�� l- ;h I2TO s -7i e►-f 2 )zy? 9.-7 r Lf I -V 5 .tr, l� ?) - q.7r .fr+e"AICT fes;CItMt/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certity that on this day of 198� , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice o£ Public Hearing was deposited in the United States, mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ars 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: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI- SION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St,. Aspen, CO to consider an application to build a four -unit townhome project on Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This application will be evaluated under the residential growth management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary subdivision criteria. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext. 223. s/C_ Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph. 12.29 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI- SION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St,. Aspen, CO to consider an application to build a four -unit townhome project on Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This application will be evaluated under the residential growth management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary subdivision criteria. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph. 12.29 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GIMP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI- SION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St,. Aspen, CO to consider an application to build a four -unit townhome project on Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This application will be evaluated under the residential growth management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary subdivision criteria. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph. 12.29 1' . � i� a n per,► r"Z�J CC. �S 3 `� - USA - �t �r' e9 �'Q�ie� i988 ••��_ 22 lbv46 Is l � q0 It Lanw Associates 755 West Big Beaver Road Trpy, MI 48084 .F JAN ► l - • Sr��rf�ir�����rs�rt�r�iia�r��r�� ,..- � �48099 S? 12/16 177- a 201 240 494 : 10C TAN"ANE M STANZIONE, STANZIONE, MARTQNE do ROSEN R PAorzw vs, essoaunos Y&tea a is ALruQmw A. f3wmoNz, Jx. RuhwouB aulwiwi $ICBM D. 02sN ORN 200 MAIN STR&BT tso sr =a $up*&" 0DM or TUMS RIVER, NEW fE$$ffix OS7b8 NX�I MMT as A ©TQ.12= A roany bMh=t Na„ D.G a MA. US (201) 240-1284 Jo n F Y.arwx -- N=u. B. Rom FAX: (201) 240.4948 swu7m P. GLUNRt December 16, 1987 Wayne Ethridge c/o Groundwork P.G. Box 3A68 Aspen, Colorado A1612 Dear Mr. Ethridge: Mtwm ABDuum P 0. Box 417 Toms R[vxh, N.J. 06764 This is to conffrm that you are at,thorized to proceas the residential GMP submission for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes Devel apirent or, behalf of 5TP Associates. If you have any quer,-tione concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to (.:0T1tact 1ne. I remain Sin ere1v I R D S : c c d Sanctity of Contract STEWA RT TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-3577 December 4, 1987 Rick Knezevich Oates, Hughes and Knezevich 533 E. Hopkins Av Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Rick, Attached is a list of names and addresses of owners of property adjacent to Lots F, G, H and I, Block 119, Aspen. Although our search was thorough and we believe the statement herein to be true, this is neither a guaranty or opinion of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither assumes nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability on any statement contained herein. Sincerely, Peter P. Delany Title Department block li9 • Lots A-E, The Landow Townhomes • Unit A Nathan Landow 4710 Bethesda Ave. Bethesda, MD 20014 Unit B Landow Associates 755 West Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084 Unit C Unit D Robert T. Morrow Haan Trust 943 Cherokee La. C/O Telic Corporation Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 6100 Executive Blvd. Rockville, MD 20852 Lots M, N and 0 Bertrand J. McDonell, Jr. and Janice A. McDonell C/O Northstar Lodge 914 Waters Ave. Aspen, Co 81611 Lots P and Q, Chateau Snow Condominiums Unit 101 Walter E. Wells 20779 Decatur St. Cassopolis, MI 49031 Unit 201 S & R Realty 3940 Walden Shores Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Unit 203 Leonard & Patricia L. Frankel 11111 Biscayne Blvd, Tower 3 Miami, FL 33181 Unit 102 Nicholas Heineman Cider Mill Rd. Stamford, CT 06903 Unit 202 Meyer's Bakeries, Inc. Box 7498 Little Rock, AR 72217 Units 301 and 302 Hooligan Properties 3250 Stirling Rd., Suite 5 Hollywood, FL 33021 Lots R and S, Block 119, and Lots K and L, Block 40, East Aspen The Silver Glo Condominiums Unit lA Judith R. Bielinski 1529 Basswood Circle Glenview, IL 60025 Unit 1C Robert A. & Melanie C. Dean P.O. Box 80953 San Diego, CA 92138 Unit 1B Bernard Gray 805 Merry Acres Court Winston-Salem, NC 27106 Unit 1D Vaught E. & Rebecca H. Counts 12602 Kimberley Houston, TX 77024 0 • Unit lE Dan T. Ballard 1225 West Main Tupelo, MS 38801 Unit 2B Joel H. Freis 130 E1 Camino Dr. Beverly Hills, CA Unit 2A Jay L. & Margaret Adler 230 Yale Ave. Colorado Springs, Co Unit 2C Craig E. Liebel and #100 Michael E. Warner 1045 Celestial Cincinnati, OH 45202 Unit 2D Brigitta Jacobsen and James Robert Barash 50 West Cheyenne Colorado Springs, CO.80906 Unit 2F William J. Robinson, Trustee 520 Calcard Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Unit 3B James C. & Adriana P. Haidman (No Address Available) Unit 3D KR&T Associates C/O K and J Partnership 6406 Brentfield Dr. Dallas, TX 75248 Unit 3F Robert A. & Melanie C. Dean P.O. Box 80953 San Diego, CA 92138 Unit 3H Richard L. Fried, Jr. and Marsha Fried 1942 Judd Hillside Rd. Honolulu, HA 96822 Block 118, Aspen Lots P, Q, R and S The Brass Bed Associates 926 E. Durant Aspen, Co 81611 Unit 2E Robert W. and Michelle M. Bilstein 5087 Idylwild Tr. Boulder, CO 80301 Unit 3A Doris & Jack O'Neil 416 Kresse Circle Hopkins, MI 55343 Unit 3C Betty James and Louise Gerstley 900 Homestead Rd Jenkinsown, PA 33156 Unit 3E Craig E. Liebel and Michael E. Warner 1045 Celestial Cincinnati, OH 45202 Unit 3G James & Sharon Wehsemer 1045 Celestial Cincinnati, OH 45202 Unit AA3 N.S.N. Associates, Inc. 11051 W. Addison St. Franklin Park, IL 60131 Silver Glo Condominium Assoc P.O. Box 9260 Aspen, CO 81612 i 0 Chateau Snow Condominium Association C/0 Coates, Reid & Waldron 720 E. Hyman Av Aspen, Co 81611 Landow Townhomes Condominium Association (No Address Available) t CC V1 M I T M E N T: I i,"I".. - � il���,. ' �.•... I,.. n,.,• H.........•.1 ! f.. v Neu,..•.•. •1 II .r.�.l t: h.- t ...W S l,:rl.d IY 6 Ch.ugr ; I ... I ... -........... I.i��l.• R l,,.li ....... Ci �r P• 9 lul.tl rN�• I0 `�I..1•• I:�� W C,i n..r hnl.. 17 P.....r.., . 1 ,fur .... 'b un .p ........ 7 7 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 14 0 0 0 8 7-' 2 11 13 %I %I M M Liuyers 7i t le Insurance Corporation ' National Headquarters Richmond. Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A '. Effective Date : JUNE 25, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. Case No PCT-446-87 C-2 _ Policy or policies to be issued: (a) Amount S 360,000.00 '}0 ALTA Owner's Policy —Form B-1970(Rev. 10-17-70& Rev. 10-17-84) ❑ ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 with a premium of $456.00 Proposed insured: RICHARD STANZIONE ' (b) ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & Rev. 10-17-84) Amount S Proposed insured: Amount $ '(c) Proposed insured: 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land ' described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ' SPENCER SCHIFFER, in trust for the Unsecured Creditors of said Cantrup Estate The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS F, G, H, and I, BLOCK 119, ' CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, ' STATE OF COLORADO. Pitkin CountyTitle, Inc, '01 E. Hopkins (303)925-1766 Countersigned all AS en Coloraiio 81611 Commitment No. BE-225380 tjA11 ` Schedule A —Page 1 , , ' This commitment is invalid unless Authorized fic r o Agent the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Form No. 91.88ISCH. A) ules A and 8 are attached. R Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Notional Headquarters ' Richmond, Virginia SCHEDULE B—Section 1 Requirements 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. I. Deed from Spencer Schiffer, in trust for the Unsecured Creditors of said ' Cantrup Estate vesting fee simple title in Richard Stanzione. 2. Evidence satisfactory that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by ' Ordinance No. 20 (series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. 3. Evidence satisfactory that the Right of First Refusal recorded April 3, 1985 in Book 483 at Page 955 has been complied with. 1 1 ' This commitment is invalid unless BE-225380 the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule B-Section 1 -Page 1 -Commitment No. ules A and B are attached. 1•nrm Nn 91-RA IR.11--•-•-••-. - • 1 • 0 lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ' NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ' SCHEDULE B—Section 2 Exceptions ' The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the some 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 t 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, im- posed 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-ecords 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. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien ' imposed for water of sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of ' Aspen providing as follows: that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining ' claim or possession held under existing laws and subject to all the conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in Section 2386 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 8. Those matters as disclosed on the Plat of`925 E. Durant, recorded April 16 ,1982 in Plat Book 13 at Page 29. ' Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted. The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B—Section 1, Item (b). (2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. ' (3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—NoBE-225380 Form 91 88 82 Rocky Mt. Lau),�s Title Insurance Corp9 ation 1 National Headquarters Richmond. Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable ' consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the 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 to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. 1 This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policyor policies committed for have been inserted 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 the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid orbinding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extentthe Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such detect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. Leuryers Title Ins a C9r allon N,h,-tc. 6)� President Attest: Secretary. xc.,trtk.d a, 544 POW Reatrder WARRANTY • \EED zs2a38 THIS DEED, \tad,• tn1, 3/ s'a`" do .,I August 14 87. hnmecn Spencer F. Schiffer, as Trustee for the PITK)M CNNN lug Unsecured iLVIA �0 Unsecured Creditors of Cantrup Bankruptcy Fstate OCR „I the City of Aspen' Count% to Pitkin anti \tat, „t c t- �y M M G,hw",. rants. anti JC! I I � 60 AN 0" g S 'C P Associates, a Nev Jersey ./ o General Partnership, Z r_ z "1i" kgat kldre+•n 200 East Main Street, Tome River, Nev Jersey 08753 � < r8•ei •c 'l alkl ltuc UlL = 'A11WMIFTH. That the gramtr htr anti in c,tn,kk•ratkrl tM the arm,a Ten dollars and other good and Irxa\Illt -' valuable consideration - ___ __________ ___1 _Y the rea'ttpl wwl wins ,crp� ,d "hl.h i. hrn:M w\n, n. IrJ�.J. he. granh•J huEatrr•J %4d JMI.,ro,a�rJ. anti M Ihc,c rwwnt, i wy grant bargain. wit Lj' I-- atnv" and annhrm. umtt I%: grandee, hI, lies, anti a,agn, ltrt�cr. at the real Prtwjwrlt 1,t9cthc, m ith ,mpntaentcnt,. d an%. amak. h Ong ant tt mg m the U>; W O City of Aspen Cut") Pitkin and ifatr -'I( . ,q",&,ar,tmj A,,,,11„" Lots F. G, H, ana I Block 119 City and Townsite of Aspen STATE DOCUMENTARY 36. o� A, krk-n h) .Intt and nu.^I,., a, 925 East Durant Avenue T(X:ETHF.N - .,nd angular IN, hrretluanknl, and APPun•rune, Ihcrc•k, tkkmging tr in antmly apprr nn,ng. AM tha r.•aer.1,M and rcc rmr,m, n'111.Orkl" "ki n•nlalnkr,. I@nt% INWe, anti 1-1111 Ihcnvll, and all th, r%I,,, I,ehl, wic imere,l. a lJ ,, and .knW 1. v M,er It Ittc grant i m lam tr cyuri). „1. in AW lit the IN&" hargatrtc•J premiw,. %rah IN: hcrt•ditank•nI, icW appurknanc, 11 r 11 \t E AND TO WAD the ,ard Mnruw, ahtne hargarnd arW tk-, rdeJ. mitt, Itle appum nan c,. unh- IN' gr.uua•a•hit ftc— and a,,,Vn, hrc%cr And the p"l.r hr hnn,cll, h1, Irin. and pnvtnal n•PrcvM acts•,. J,t, amcnmt, glam harg.un ant icame t,..,nd m rah the granka•. h„ Iw,r, and a„ign,. that N the bmr of ttk• en,eahng anti tk•h,er) u, tttc•,c prey M•. tIr „ mcll ,e,ieJ nl the Premly, alkne ,tm,a�cJ. ha, gtrW. wit , prnect. it—lurc and ,nktcaahk a,larr td mha•ruancc. m lam. w kc,m1Pk• anti ha, g,hW ri;ht. full pt,,,ct anti lamlu, at,tNwjI% 4tgOn1, hat cam. wil and ♦,m\l1 Itk• ,allk in nlanrlrr and krm a, altrcvW, and chat IN, .ank an' free anti tkar Ingo JII I,rn r and ,thef gtaM,. hargmrt,. ,alc, ctk un,hlcow,c•, arW rc,IrkL,rl, ttl mhakra•r kind ,r nature ,,,,et. cc.,•pt genera I taxes and any taxes, spec is I assessments, charges or liens imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district, for the year 1987 and subsequent years; and reser- vations and exceptions as contained in the Deeds from the City of Aspen dated August 28, 1888 and recorded in Book 59 at Page 475, November 2. 1888 (see reverse) TFe granl,r .hall and m III \\',ARRANT AND K)RE\'l-R DIFFI ..%[) the ANN% ttargarnd rwnu,c, in the yu,el and prxrahk [%mw%a,m ,tf the granter. h„heir, and s„Ign,.again. All andewr)perttntrprrv,n,lamfulltalalnnngthe %N)lc ran)�trn •n•ul Thc,mgulunundt•r%hall,nitkklncplmral, the plural the angular. anti the u,r t11 an. grrkkr .hall he apPlk •Mr ht all genJeh IN N I1 \F-M %W-REOF. the granl,tr ha, , mrJ ch., kcd ,m •tk• da,c -I I,r,h _ Sp n F. Sc f er. Trustee or _ the secured C_redi s of the Cantrup Bankruptcy Estate SI\TI 01 (Ylu)RAIX) I ^mint td Pitkin } I he krrgtttng In.trunrn, ma, rt►m� lydgrtl heticrtr Inc In the (•trtaM) tIl Pitkin .Slate of ,.,,r.dt.rn,. 3/ l,a,tl August 1987 h, Spencer F. Schiffer, as Trustee for the Unsecured Creditors of the CantrBankrupty Estate \It „rrtnu„1.m et p:n'• �� t tv ,"Y'/J Nnnc,• m) halkl nhl alit, ial ,avl :O�LL'�raf1 tlil\ �nJ f76 /.2 I a. H C ° c Y O c.i L O C TU Y W m a rb 4< `1unoD UT-411d 30 1aP303al PUB V a1a a43 30 spaouaa a4l 30 91£ OW8d 6S 1009 u1 Pap,03aa Pus 8881 'SZ Aasnuuf '66h aged is 6S X009 UT Pap=0303 pull OLVw M =I I 11 I I I I I >. s I I 1 f u I I I ■ Fm L y C �CC J s S = / ,y� t 2 un F � � MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center Parks Department* Roaring Fork Transit Agency* FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 700 Main Residential GMP Submission* Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-61-003 DATE: December 7, 1987 Attached for your review and comments are the 1987 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: 771 Ute Avenue = 8 units 700 Main = 14 units 925 Durant Townhomes = 4 units Hearings for these 3 residential GMP applications have been scheduled on January 19, 1988. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. We also have requested clarification from all three applicants to provide us with additional information that you may find missing from the applications. If you have any comments on this, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you. 0 0 ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, 00 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: uc'.= Jq 0 Q o Q 1.11, 3SSb 3 RE: qzs Dear w•-yV-'2 This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application KNOT complete. Additio al items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tio n Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ .f.•�1 A odr application} is_comple-t te,and wvray.e scheduled it for review by the �` '^�``� CA .'��s`°^ on T"v`�` _ We will call you if we need any additional information prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B_ Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE � \�OA-a- �`""�\p%kGt \10K4b%`-\ CA\t,%\.'kzo— \S "oT ty V�0 3a�r p ca`c,,`,.�.;._ -��,.9olo5ti, = �.,..,o-� k11 „,i.,.� �s w�o�• � o � 2 �.n„ . • � •. • S � ^-eye. -.+► Mcc,� n�..S ..�.-#+ (`,� ca .,M�.� c a � �.., l+-I�.o � t, i A-S o •'i Ca"->o N s: 3 o P10 Q F X X; t�S n Q--C�ojee5 X �0,00o f+� �.-.�o�- .3 t\150'O0o. Q�� Z� V V�. �.S /�'�1 � \•C,q� „ .lv� S •i Q (Lp S�-O�- � �11 �- .4� �...�. \ n/A� M� � � i v�rt/ \ Q� �T�`Q,�'1� •• `"�1 Vim. l/s V Q,v. � "� S �+� -� ♦ p � iR V\A1 � `-"\ O � i `� 1 + K \ V \ i t:G: 1� 1 w �q ►,. 'C �v-S -'1- `Q-\. c. A "Y'�-O -- �-o .` a �- �.Q�r -"l�.,a ... \ l�4 ��l_ V \-.Q "�L. C.Q. 1 S A ^-� �A `1G1�. � �v�-S PRE —APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECTS 915 L=. Ov 4n+ Sf, %Jf., ,sl (ploJ(- APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: 1 P SUMMARY 1. Type of Application:_ %,.,J.,i,,j G MP 4Na SvbA��,�,c, 64"lit 4'h',��- 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: „�lin�rub'S hcl{" ,u4l 1, �rnR 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Ch, i,."ri,n1 Fort f'AJ 4) — Lcnln� Citic�,,� — 4. Review is: (P&ZIOnly) 5. Public Hearing: Comments Na,;i.tj Of&.( sWI cerWwm tas� in lieu (Jeijoh.h esfi4,,f*I i I � 00 '�vr Ain .'il,res6d,j ;nJ.j jifft,1 eif al„ b0'(►er,S�rQur.(7r� alb rjo{{s,�.�e�fir, bn i,1� 61 b.,if 1.1, R 40 Aco'�t h".041 G_f,(J( 5:�4 i)N) C6pcerq / � seJr�f'��es fire �yjr- I A Aik, f n pr4tohow UZ4P 1 r pC1 ronW�+ dtttrMi.t,'-r 'P'J4 :fJfbo6 rt,L �lrrw�'i�,ir�,,e1nsuen,e ,�( C{Ic,,I,i41Y e OQ/, °,, P. �s (CC/BOCC Only) PEZ then to CC/�OCC) (YES) (NO) 6. Did you t a cant to submit list of ADJACE PROPERTY OWNERS? YES Disclosure of Ownership: YES) :7gD (NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: ��y4� � ��= �h'"D�2f{kyrhIsto 8. Anticipated date of submission: Dece,h6' 1, I4 7 Ilavj,^jl 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: P11"4111A CCn64'hs 1nCl�� I. �a►,t Plh� �C41M'(I - 2 a534s sj04 4U1 6' FAR i <<Ic�l���;rs i-� CDC, l.t,x►, {. Lti's ►.� �n�e -�, c,f,�eF 1rI-I r. W i II Rllo►� F► ti �� aol I F fofjsq di ;r(gae rt ✓e,4"^ (141') f"CAN 0 k f A y aa.rtYi ',t prljr,J. F6Yes, re ,, l�.-" (( -to G 4/ILc�M. UADbS�rb1141. G-e c . re jei_i)n, s tie 164 o d6V?1;1 s bz4#41 Rv,(es jtj pvp,,e$j fafse16j, P-�P,a is Ly rtIie i {r�,� j nc�s�, q� uteri � '{ kM) $ q df 5&�1. rxr-As, 5', tv kW Pr�,,M, �l f, nCO�N►h�k11) G%hAaci� fl#'. ,� r fj h b,c,.� o, colartd f1w�. D{�i�r AraP kl vh�"q cop►P�