HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.AspenGroveBldg.1977
,
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (JS)
RE: Planning Office Review of the Aspen Grove Building and the
Pitkin County Bank Building
DATE: December 19, 1977
Complete applications for two commercial projects will be reviewed by
the P&Z at a special meeting on January 10 at 5:00 p.m. The P&Z will
review both proposals which will include a presentation by the applicants
and comments from the Planning Office. Following the presentations,
the P&Z will rate each of the projects as specified in the Growth Manage-
ment Ordinance. We have included the forms along with the applications
for the two projects.
Planning Office comments and evaluation of each project.is presented
below:
Aspen Grove Building
1. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points)
(a) Architectural Design Rating - 2.5 (maximum 3 points)
The projects represents a relatively sensitive architectural
design solution given the fact that the project is an expansion
of an existing building that represents several design and struc-
tural givens. The design includes remodeling of the existing
exterior facades to present a cohesive visual appearance.
Factors that affected a reduction from the three point maximum
are massing, architectural detailing and overall architecture.
These points are discussed in the enclosed Planning Office memo
written shortly after HPC's review. (Our 2.5 recommended
rating equals in ratio with the 12.5 total points out of a
15 maximum points under the HPC review).
(b) Site Design - 3.0 (maximum of 3 pOints)
The proposal retains the garden area almost as it exists now;
lighting of the walkway and trees will be added. The application
and drawings do not address any improvements to the pedestrian
walkway along the east property line. However, points should
not be deducted since: (a) the applicants agreed to leave the
space open for potential future development of a cross block
pedestrian system, and (b) the City has never adopted a plan or
policy to require developments to provide this public amenity.
(c) Energy - Rating 2.0 (maximum of 3 points)
..
The project does not incorporate any sophisticated energy-
saving technology but has adequate insulation and some passive
solar gain through the use of skylights.
,
Aspen Planninq and Zoninq
Paqe Two
December 19, 1977
(d) Amenities - Rating 2.8 (maximum of 3 points)
Preservation of the garden area is a valuable visual element to
the streetscape and provides a space that can be enjoyed by
the public.
(e) Visual Impact - Rating 2.5 (maximum of 3 points)
The project does not visually overpower the prominence of the
historic structures that border the site onthe east and west,
and the existing character of this block which is characterized
by large historic structures on the corners separated by the
central lower building complex and open space has been retained.
Also, the project preserves the view of Aspen Mountain according
to the view plane section of the zoning code.
2. Community Uses - (maximum of 6 points)
(a) Employee Housing - Rating 0 (maximum of 3 points)
No housingis included in the proposal.
(b) Medical and Service Needs - Rating (maximum of 3 points)
This location has traditionally had an emphasis on tourist
oriented uses due to its close proximity to lodging, the ski
hill and Rubey Park transportation services. The Wienerstube
restaurant is one exception in that it is a traditional
meeting place for local businessmen, ski instructurs and other
citizens. It is anticipated that the new development will
have a primary marketing approach to incorporate uses that would
appeal to tourists.
3. Net Poi nts
Planning Office recommended Average
Planning Office recommended Average
(HPC criteria rating) = 12.5
(P&Z criteria rating) = 13.0
25.5
4. Bonus Points - (maximum of 20% of the combined averages
above) - rating 4.6 (18% x 25.5 = 4.6)
Our recommended bonus points are based on an increase of 18%.
The deduction of 2% is based on minor considerations: the
minor infringement of the addition into the view plane, the lack
of the two stairways providing direct visual access to the second
floor deck and minimal space for trash storage and pickup in
the all ey .
5. Total Point Calculation
Net Rating = 25.5 ..
Bonus Rating = 4.6
~ = Planning Office recommended total rating
"'""",,
'"'
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Page Three
December 19, 1977
\
Pitkin Center
1. Quality of Design (maximum of 15 pOints)
(a)" Architectural Design Rating - 2.'7 (maximum 3 points)
The design of this project is compatible with the City's policy
of not duplicatinq historic architectural styles. and it
presents a contemporary architectural solution that is harmonious
with the character of the commercial core historic district.
We have not given a maximum rating based on minor factors
of design detail, namely lack of a clearer definition in the
brick facades of the rear and central building masses and
detailing of the east and west windows that almost appear
Victorian in character.
(b) Site Design Rating - 2.3 (maximum 3 points)
The drive-up window along the alley presents potential problems
that are discussed in a memo from the Engineering Departemnt
(attached)
(c) Energy Rating - 2.8 (maximum of 3 points)
The project appears to be designed to take advantage of solar
heat gain through the use of the large qreenhouse on the south
facade.
(d) Amenities Rating - 2.9 (maximum of 3 points)
The project incorporates open space in a way that benefits the
project and the total streetscape by concentratinq it at the
corner and alonq the east subqrade access. The applicant has
stated that future development of the remaininq three lots to
the west will incorporate a cross block pedestrian walkway.
(e) Visual Impact Ratinq - 2.9 (maximum of 3 points)
The project's scale and massinq does not infrinqe on any public
vistas and visibility from vehicles on the streets is improved
by the building setback,
2. Community Commercial Uses (maximum of 6 points)
(a) Employee Housing Rating - 0 (maximum of 3 points)
The proposal does not include any housing.
(b) Medical and Other Service Needs Rating - 2-0 (maximum of
3 points)
The banking facility will be relied on by both tourists and local
resident population.
..
3. Net Points
Planning Office recommended Average (HPC criteria rating) = 13.8
Planning Office recommended Average (P&Z criteria rating) = 15.6
Net Rating 29.4
'",
,
~
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Page Four
December 19, 1977
4. Bonus Rating - 5.6
The bonus rating is based on a 19% increase (maximum of 20% is
permitted. )
5. Total Points
Net rati ng
Bonus rating =
= 29.4
5.6
35.0
Planning Office summary of Planning Office recommended points
Aspen Grove Building
Pitkin Center
30.1 points
35.0 points
..
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (JS)
RE: HPC's Review of the Aspen Grove Building and the Point Allocation
as Per the G.M.P.
DATE: November 23, 1977
Attached is a compilation of HPC's point allocation for the Aspen Grove
Building. Out of a maximum allocation of 15 points, the scores for this
project averaged 14.4 points. Points deducted from the design consider-
ations were related to architecture (use of contemporary design as
opposed to imitation of historic architectural features) and architectural
detail (the overall visual impression given by fenestrations and the use
of building details near windows, doors, corners, roof lines and at
floor 1 evel s).
It was the consensus of the HPC that given the floor area permitted by
the code, P&Z's viewplane review and the fact that the proposal is an
expansion of an existing building (a given factor) that major concerns
of massing, building materials, color and the overall visual impact of
the building along the street were compatible and consistent with the
HPC guidelines.
The Planning Office recommended point allocation was 12.5. Our more
conservative scoring is based on the following:
Massing - Encloser of the Wienerstube outdoor terrace constitutes
a reduction in the appearance of the garden area.
Architectural detail - A compromise solution to avoid the 2nd
floor east garden facade from being located directly above the
ground floor entrance to Davian's was accomplished by a 45
degree angle of the 2nd floor corner above the Davian entrance.
Also, separation between the west front brick facade and the
wood and glass facade of Pinnochio's Restaurant would make a
clearer architectural statement.
Architecture - The two stairways giving access to the second
floor do not give the impression of direct access to the second
fl oor deck.
These concerns are relatively minor and the Planning Office recommended
approval of the project for HPC's review.
lmk
enc.
.
,
MEMO
TO:
JOHN STANFORD
PLANNING
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS
ENGINEERING~~
DATE:
December 13, 1977
RE: Aspen Grove Project - Traffic Impacts
Based upon the applicant's description of the project the
engineering department does not foresee any appreciable
traffic impacts in terms of volume. All new facilities
should be designed to provide delivery access from the
alley because of existing heavy traffic flows and the
possibilities for a future mall.
j k
.
GRl'm'TH rWlAGH1EllT PLAN EVALUATIOiJ f{'t"f'Oi(T
CQt'1!iERC JAL SECTIOil
1. Proj ect Name:
ASPEN GROVE PROJECT
2. Location: LOTS C, D, E, F & G BLOCK 96, CITY OF ASPEN
3. Parcel Size: 13,810 SQUARE FEET (l00 X 138.1)
4. Current Zoning: CmlMERCIAL CORE 1. 5: 1
Zoning under which app.lication is filed: CC 1.5: 1
Maximum buildout under cu rrent zoning: 2:1 27,620 Square Feet
Proposed zoning: CC
5. Total buildout proposed:
18,610 Square Feet
6. Special procedures required:
Vie\./ planes: VIEW PLANE VARIANCE APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING 9/13/77
Stre~m Margin Review: NONE
Special Review: NONE
Historic District Revie\1: APPROVAL OBTAINED November 22, 1977
Subdivision (condominiumization): NONE
PUD: NONE
7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed
project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application)
a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the
nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building.
b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line
and estimated sewer demand of the building.
c. Type and design of surface drainage.
d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage
and open space.
e. Estimated daily number of vehicles'generated by the development
and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets"
number of on-street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied,
location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto
disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development,
and hours of principle daily usage of the development.
f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses
(by general category of use) without substantial building changes.
g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity.
h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if
applicable. ~
8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review:
SEE ATTACHED
Submittal Date:
- 1 -
. -,'. ..... ..'-",-,,'
"-'.- ,- ,-_.--,,_.-,
~~~:~~Fitf'~~:!~!"~~ji,~~,~' .:
;1"',",
..".01
8. LIST OF DRAWINGS AND MAPS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW:
1. Lower Floor Plan (1/8" = 1'-0")
Cooper Avenue Elevation (l/8" = 1'-0")
2. Upper Floor Plan ( 1/8" = 1'-0")
3. Partial Upper Floor Plan (1/4" = 1'-0")
Cooper Avenue Elevation (1/4" = 1'-0")
4. Section Looking East (1/4" = 1'-0")
5. Section Looking South (l/4" = l' -0")
6, Section Looking West (1/4" = 1'-0")
7, Property Survey (1" = 10 feet)
r;..",LW<r..J~
y,,,-,,,," \,..,..j.......
MEHO
TO:
JOHN STANFORD
PLANNING
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS ~
ENGINEERING'Y &-
DATE :
December 13, 1977
RE:
Aspen Grove Project - Traffic Impacts
Based upon the applicant's description of the project the
engineering department does not foresee any appreciable
traffic impacts in terms of volume. All new facilities
should be designed to proviue delivery access from the
alley because of existing heavy traffic flows and the
possibilities for a future mall.
jk
...
~
,
"",,d"
REFERRAL .
TO: Aspen 'Metropolitan Sanitation District
FROM: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Impact on Se~lage Treatment Capacity
DATE: \'2-../1/2-/'v7
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal,
and requires an analysis of the proposal 's impact on the capacity of the
sewage treatment facility by considering excess capacity of the system,
location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line.
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type
of development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact be 1 O~I. "
Proj ect:
A ~ '"Ff- t:. K. OVe I' fZ c TF q-
Referral Submission Date: (
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity
of the sewage treatment system.
<<
Negliqible impact - substantial excess capacity exists
at the sewage treatment plant and at the nearest
trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this
development.
r/
Moderate imoact - only moderate capacity exists at
the sewage treatement plant or along the nearest
trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this
development.
/ /
Substantial imoact - this development will over-
burden the capacity of the sewer treatement plant
or the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line.
Comments:
i
Signature ~v ~
It 5:" 1) f1 /VC-IZ .
Date j)..k... /~ /'1 )7
REFERRAL
TO:
City of Aspen Water Deportment
'\\ ,,/\ l,Ap..;?~-:J>..UJ9,)A'?;7
c), I'
mOil: Aspen/Pitkin, Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Impact on the existing \1ater system and capacity
I .
DATE:, \7_/ \ 2- / ---;~7
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal
and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the overall capacity
of available water and impact on water pressure and the nearest water
main or connecting line.
The attached applic~tion form identifies the location, size and type of
development. Please revievl the application and indicate the category
of impact belovl.
Project:
Referral Submission Date:
The proposed project vlill have the follovling type of impact on the
capacity of the sewage treatment system:
f/1
Negliqible impact - substantial excess water c~pacity
exists and \'iill not adversly affect \1ater pl'€ssure
in the vicinity of the nearest water main or connecting
water line.
o
Model'ate imoact - only limited water capacity exists
and water pressure will be affected in the nearest
water main or connecting water line.
/ /
Substantial imDact - this development will overburden
the water treatement plant and seriously reduce the
pressure in the nearest main or connecting water line.
Comments:
Sig"t"" at 1l;dibilu 'c ~, ;fr
IT, . / .
c
;"'>> /> '""7
Date ,.,,( - /d -I
.
...
7. PROGRAM NARRATIVE
R. WATER SYSTEM: Aspen Water Department
Jim Markalunas, Manager
925-2020
Negligible Impact
b. SEWAGE SYSTEM: Aspen Sanitation Department
565 North Mill
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Negligible Impact
c. TYPE AND DESIGN OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
All roof and balcony drainage systems will
be piped from interior roof or balcony drains
to an underground drywel1 located on the
property. The drywell, the interior drainage
system, and all underground piping were
installed in 1976, and designed to
accomodate the second floor addition.
d, DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
Lot Size (100 X 138.1)
Open Space required
13,810 square feet
3,453 square feet
18,610 square feet
3,638 square feet
9,355 square feet
3,923 square feet
9,255 square feet
Proposed Building Area
Proposed Open Space
Existing Building Area
Existing Open Space
Total Building Area
Of New Construction
705 @ Weinerstube
8,550 new second floor
9,255 square feet total
e. TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION:
1. See attached letter from the Engineering Department.
2. See attached for Public Transportation Stops and Routes.
3. There are fifteen (15) on street parking spaces located
on Cooper Street in front of the building. There
will be no additional off street parking provided
by this project.
For automobile disincentive there wil1 be a pedestrian
walk-way to back alley leading to connecting alley
across Galena Street to public parking area.
The hours of principle use wil1 be 10:00am to 6:00pm,
f. PROPOSED USES:
The proposed uses are commercial retail and office such as
kitchen supplies store, optical shop, shoe store,
clothing store, mountaineering shop, plant store, jewelry
store, appliance store, medical offices and other professional
offices. Alternate uses approved commercial and office.
g. LAND USES:
The types of land uses in the adjacent areas are:
ski shops, real estate offices, drug store, restaurants,
leather shops, gift shops, gas stations, condominiums,
apartments, ice cream shop and other retail commercial uses.
h. SCHEDULE:
The construction schedule is with beginning construction
on or about April 15, 1978 and ending around September
1, 1978.
~( W,Ri
~'? m 0
:>,,>"? Z OJ
't-'O ~ ~
J) -<
-< m
o
J)
D~ GJ ~D1DD DO
DO DO B~ DON3DD DO
~DD ~ OD~~O~DD~OD~DD~D\\
~~~ ~O~BD~DO~DD~DD~OG
, D~ BO~Db DO DO DO DD~
~D D~ ~OaDD DO DD DD ~
~ DO Do ~ONODD DO DO r
~O D~ ~~ ~D lDb DO
~ rn~@o~~~~~O 0 ~D'~OD
c;,; I.' LJ B:~.[r~~'pO DO ~U]D
@J @J ~W~G~j~D DD w
L ~ D!IB~'Oo",OD ~D"~...""'ljju~,~" ~
[~j ~ :!D A DB D~ 0 D~ D ~ ~ 6 !
~.~ ~ 0 ~ ~. r--.."\
- J:~ ~ ~ m:... ~~\
0I~1 . ~31NnH l U j. ] O"~\ /-
---~nll-------.~,jl ~ f}r] D@J D~ !: I""'~' w en G:~ ';:~ '"
~ ~ ~~ U tJ ~; J . 5'" ZJ '<Q
~ m .,,,,,,,u,wm"9NltJdS""u,,u,, .,..<"",,"....,,--- . U' ~ ""'"
'",} 0 ~ PO~~B~'OON'90QoDo m-l D ~ I ........'..........~~2J .
/ U~U ~. r .' P\\Qr--
;; ~ "," ~';u""l~DaND:: lSD3M~ ~....., ~ '\~ -fJ/
~ ,,0 ~:. f 0" \ L/'~
--l ~:B <!:! ~. .-
m 9 ....~. C...
JJ'. m...
9::'~ '" :g l~ ON\l13A31::l ~./ ~ ~
h -:>~. .. ~" , _ ~'..
~ t ~ l~ 8 ..... ....". '. ,.\.\' Ii ~ ~,od:" "c;^- y
,.,...,' '.' .. ~'" //'>i ",0
"'l:: :~~\ /\- '/ 0C,^- ';
m-< Z
V : V
; J ____._ _ _
_J
"'"
m",
m "
_m
Z Z
'"
mI
J) -
-<Gl
I
,
"
Z
o
'"
l::
r
m
-"
Z",
"'''
~~ 01 r;b
o~
~
rI
. ""
A'
m'
"
l::
,,0-0
0",\-0
.,.-00'>
-0")1'\-0
03tJ _
<
"
r
r
m
-<
'" ....,
.
~_.,"/
.,
PROGRAM NARRATIVE CONCERNING PLANNING AND ZONING CRITERIA FOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUTION.
(aa)
(bb)
This project is bordered on either side by fine old
Victorian buildings, and possessing a unique central
garden area. A contemporary architectural design
has been used with a sense of proportion derived
from the surrounding buildings which will integrate
this project into the block. With use of compatible
building materials consisting of brick, glass and wood.
The visual impact of the new second floor will give Cooper
Avenue an improved sense of scale, and architecturally
pull the block together to form a complete statement.
Our open space will exceed the required. The landscaping wil1
remain the same, the nicest in downtown Aspen. All
utilities will be underground, the circulation patterns
are quite expansive with second floor walking surface
heated and well lite. There will be a service elevator
off of the back alley to facilitate the deliveries to
second floor. The pedestrian walk-way will serve as
additional access for deliveries from alley for ground
floor tenants. Most of the spaces 'of the building face
on to the garden and not towards other buildings for
privacy. The exterior stairways wil1 be covered and
protected.
(cc) ENERGY:
(dd)
(ee)
The project will be very sensitive to its impact from
an energy point of view, and the fol10wing criteria have
been adopted.
1. Insulation - The entire project will be insulated to
meet or exceed recent code requirements for energy
conservation.
2. Storefront Glazing - The large areas of storefront
facing the garden will be designed in order to keep
infiltration and all heat loss to the minimum possible.
Glazing to be 1" clear insulated, and panels below
glass area to be fully insulated.
3. Skylights - Skylights will be designed and placed on the
roof in order to introduce some passive solar gain into
the spaces.
The building's predominently daytime functions will
benefit from the light and warmth of south facing
(double glazed) skylights. The use of a skylight system
similar to that of the Pitkin County Airport will have
been investigated.
We will be providing a pedestrian throughway along the east
side of the building. All of our open space is either
in the existing garden or in the pedestrian/bicycles
throughway. These uses of open space absolutely maximizes
the benefit to the public of such space.
We have the only pedestrian view plane that exists in
downtown Aspen passing through our project. We have
dealt with it in such a way as to create a complimentary
design and a view corridor for pedestrians unmatched in the
commercial core,
~ '"'i
9. HPC GRO\-ITH r1ANAGEt1ErlT EVALlJATIOfl FORi'1 - Ratings of projects within the
commercial one zoning districts shalf be assigned points according.to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major
conflict with historic structures in the historic
di s tri ct or vii th the urban envi ronment in the other
areas outside the historic district
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
The following design elements shall be rated accordingly:
Massing - (maximum 3 points) considering the massing, type of
roof, and overall compatibility with the historic
scale represented in the vicinity of the project,
Exterior Building Materials - (maximum 3 points) considering the
application of historic building materials and their
use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of
garish, reflective or other disruptive materials.
Architectural Detail - (maximum 3 points) consldering overall
visual impression given by fenestration and the use of
building detail near windows, doors, corners, roof
lines and at floor level.
Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of colors
and the variation in color when necessary to maintain
historic scale.
Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of compatible
contemporary design as opposed to the imitation of
historic architectural features.
RATE the above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the
strong and/or weak factors affecting each of your ratings.
Project Name:
Date:
Design Element:
a) t1ASSING
Comment:
Rating
b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Rating
Commen t :
..
- 2 -
.......
c) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Rating
Comment:
d) COLOR
Rating
Comment:
e) ARCHITECTURE
Rati ng
Comment:
TOTAL Rating
Name of person submitting the above rating
.;;
- 3 -
10. PF.Z Grovlth ~1ana'Jom0.nt Quality of Desi n Evaluation Forn~ - Projects
within tho Commercial Core (CC and Commercial One (C-1) zoning
districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula:
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a). Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ialS) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and.
use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
~
Rating
Comment:
- 4 -
'. .
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
COllmen t :
" 11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking "in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rati ng
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
f\ilting
Comment:
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
N~IE OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE
'"
- 6 -
,I""",",
-.."."
'<..,.#
GROHTH r~ANAGElmlT PLAN
RATINGS BY HPC
The H.P.C, reviewed the following project and rated each of the
des i gn and communi ty commerci ale 1 ements as specifi ed by the Grovlth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEH DATE:
HPC REV I E\1
HPC
MEI~BER
l.
2.
! 3.
4.
5.
6.
7..
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGI
u
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES
.;;
GROVITH t1ANAGEr1ENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
The P&Z reviel'led the follovd ng project und rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Grov/th
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
'Y
;::,""
-$#
~ t;' .
S! -"" ..
/..; .,..
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
..
10.
,
. -'
C-l) zoning
following formula:
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) 'Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comm,ent:
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
d) Amenities - considering the provlslon of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating
Comment:
- 4 -
-'~~
,
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
Comment:
11. P&Z Growth Manaqement Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking 'in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing ,
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
Rating
Comment:
- 5 -
....
,
,
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the. project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE
- 6 -
,"'
-"'~,
'--
'-'"
GROl-!TH ,1ANAGEf1ErH PLAN
RATINGS BY HPC
The H.P.C. reviewed the following Droject and rated each of
the five (5) design elements as specified by the Growth Management
Ordinance.
PROJECT
REVIEW DATE
,
HPC
MEt1BER
1
2. .-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
U~0dv~~d/?
'h:tzr ZZ, /-,'17
,
/5
I~
15
/
-
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I (),.{) I e.() I z.DI a.51 z.oll/2.51
THE COMBINED RATING OF THE HPC AVERAGES
/fl
-;";";:""
tr;
.
/,"',,",
"-'
/ "
,
....'"
Project Name: a1fi/!'-,J Cj!,,1l/'-( ,/
Date: 11/ ;/d-I/'l
.
.
...
Design Element
RATING
MASSIN~omment: Ctlm.fcdi~ (;I)tf{~ ~(al-/vv-J
.3
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL .~
Comment: VbtUI:l...1 iL}t[..~O'--- ~'I,vit h--t.L{
Comment:
~
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
,
v
COLOR
~
Comment: h~r;.
~ &/t.'fatj If,L '-IJ-t~ f tCc.L "--
1 ~::Ut'J\1vYU\i'J a/lt-t--./
(
.5
ARCHITECTURE ~
COll1l1ent: (lfIJlf;;A!~
Name of person 5ubmitting the above rating
TOTAL
~ /., l]
. r-z,.'/(..1 {;.. ir-t\
, -
A
. - .
,-., ,""
Project Name: ~S~M ~~e.- ~ll,..l?~
Date: ~ ~~, \'\"\\
.
.
."
Design Element
RATING
MASSING
Convnent:
~.
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Camnent:
~
~
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Corrment: ~, ,. '-"'U "" ~a lw ,~. ) '1 ~ '0_...
j .
~ -:r.c.. Q.n..'i-""!!', -,~,.... ~. '''' ~r "'"t"'...o ..... '''t''' "'"
~....- oy. -"'Bu 1'-t'7.~
~R 1
Carment:
ARCH nECTU RE
,
Carment:
TOTAL
vL
Name of person submitting the abov~ rating
r<-'"
'-/
"
"
Project Name:
S Pt ^'
7/
C ,2,0 ,y,L f; \ d c
.
...
Date:
Design Element
RATING
MASSING " . . . . 3
Comment: 2prAUL c;.f ~cJc ~ J) bP..u[-<p/\~..J
6f !-~\ ^ S L^_C k ~'- /J. ~ 1(0-1. 7~ ^Z- fd. ~ y-
( <, ./Y\b-t (] AK'''' I~~-+-
I
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
/ t / /~
Comment: Jry Cdi.Q.-,." ('(/.~-(J0Lt.hv"
.r ddcr \
. ~- -........ r "
(/'1""'. f LA.... t...o ,_ S L . _ r; 'J":v L-' (
~~ X~p C~1
3
(JiA~t 0vJ)rC- (7'
/7 .'J czU-Co (-C~
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Comment: G OLJci
')J7~ ~-,J'\
(' L ~cn VV>.
~ ~C f f--c~
Comment:
~,. '../-,r^^ ~ ~
2c....J..i't 0!:::. ~ ~
~
cb'~
3
G~L .
, 1
COLOR
L'''''1
3
! 1 r f- r . ft-i; / I ..r -L
;2j.L~(~ 0.. c (CL~U-.-, /6 /J<.f..e ,
0' I. ",j' t " ,. /
ucQvV 0 I~~'<j , </~'-L _ /&.-.c~';:-----..Q-
r ,.
ARCH ITECTU RE
Comment:
Name of person submitting the above rating
TOTAL
f6 O!/~
IJ-
;7L~ led
'.....
....,.
--
Project Name:
~eJ ?;t2.0../ ~-
No '( 2'2-- 7- :::f.
.
....
Date:
Design Element
RATING
kL. ~ to f--1-r I AI ~ I () [;:
~ P"tHe v feW PLltfJE...J2E& '3
g
\
MASSING
Comment:
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL ~
Comment: ge.lQX:.. DO'0? '-41-'6' ~CJ:::-
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL ~
Conineflt: Mer2../'=? If Lf2..n~-RsL Y
Of2Jf"J\1~-raJ (1) @f.(}()Uj '3
CArz..CH eTJLu.l.&..Oow I S 6t2f51IT )
COLOR ~
Comnent:
ARCHITECTURE
..2
Comnent: S'TA((l,,~ ('fI'JUU) j--I:Mf5
, ~
~ MOrlY; H nf/b{}rNL2} D I1JfiJJt:tED
(MOfL.F !~Tlt.J6,1 D/~I Ff2n.Ij
.Name of person submitting the abov-e rating
",. ""-'J:(JTAL i cj
(;MeD ~;-~
;,of
.".e.,.
..
.....".
,,,....
Project Name: CU~~ C~--G Q j~fLt
Date: \ \~VV' 17 .
.
. 'J
Design Element
RATING
MASSING . ::U ~ --:tL Q~ 3
Convnent: . c S e. ~ ~ . - or-
~ ~ ~:;: 'c~ -\1,,- ~,,,ff-
~,'" ~ ' . :' r .
~ ~ a..- (1A1-<J..A_
_)H~ ~~~-t~,
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Comment: ~tUJ Yv, Atr:/'~A .J,?
,
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Comment: ~ 2. o. ~.J-L ~ <J (0 trY\.. ~ ~ R-
~QA~~1j't \,~~ ,~o~~x--
~'~-P/ \K~LA-1I~~c QJl>> 6-1 IJ--.-.. ~
0A~'
3
~R ~
Convnent: ::10. 0 0 J AA 4--t.; - 7Qe QJ-Ud L<1 Yotih~
1.1.~\ ~ J-:2j~. t-1 ~ P-'AJ 1~ (1 ,
-i~JJ~n 1 '
ARCH ITECTU RE
3
Comment:
(:LA
-
Name of person submitting the above rating
TOTAL
rtfi )-}~ /)
1.$
~il.Ci-r ~J
~,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
\
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
P&Z REVIEW
P&Z
MEMBER
l.
2.
3.
6.
7.
24 - -
4' // ~ '-..'
/ .. _; ./' f.. '.",,' _ ,.' /
~J!l)i;.0. d--c. /'AU, c, .LA'
t . . I
t.1/ i/">j /') .1.:,;,)' v
~"v l ,I,' ~ t
, I
Ii
I
&~
f.,"i
~tI
J#t::I
~
~
/;j
~
~
t;
0<.0 /8 d.t) -.0 0
-) 9 c{J,j 3.0 d. 7 0 3.0
ct.
/.& ;),3 ().b 0 /.t)
--- 30 0
,';/ "::\ 3.(}
.'"
,;).0 .- 0
0;.' 3.CJ
...)
,3 3.I/J ~~
GROUP RATING ,1.(,8 .2.68 J.I" .(P6
PLANNING OFFICE RATING Id,.5 12.0 IcJ.Q c~j,0 ~.b
1
.--
-ir j
~------
J~, ,..; (i'~O-V
/1.//
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
:!Jlt/(P
I..
~3RJ(JE ~ at~/\17
10.
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 3.0
COllll!ent:
c4 j/-si?/J/'f(}/J/Ad l1f1fr_{ M'1o/ 7Y'~~1' Fg/Y'~ }.
~j/'f??Icd ~11Iff'Ji?/ ~/';1<7~//- C;;;;/N rJ~j ~~
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating ?l,O
Comment: II?! r-;;i(hAAft?d-c;P4W/fd}( Olf-P 0'-9
b:~{- U1 Yr1t//1/t ' .
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rating ;!,~
Comment: ~~~4-~~ - <<d ~ ~k.r
~~/,;pd a#~<
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating :5/0
;;;;t=~~~1;~~ -
- 4 -
.~
-~
,
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Conment:
u~rtmt}fl'ys ']7f1~
Rating "'"3.0
~d~~..-.
11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking 'in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing .
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on bY both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
C~nt: ~~~~
Rating ,fji!l C/,O
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routi ne trade and servi ce needs of the
community.
Comnent:
L?-~~ ~~/7 Rating'1-/)
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
, .
/4,4~
/5. L1J
d.r
~.q
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the. project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
. BONUS POINT ,~()% hfrz ~U
~ ~.;?jfi~
-;V,Of :;;J;'~~~'
J?"f!f ~-'7 vt
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BDNUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
~~'
r
"3-
'3
IZ,~
"7
7
CJ
I
-~
16.~
P<J /7
Z6
~7 '5 (J
b'-Z-
2H.Q
-?f1_
r?:r'5{)
- 6 -
DATE lllo 17'
I /
-,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
\
The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
P&Z REVIEW I
~
~~
..."i ~
&& ~
~~ {:;
t;
P&Z
MEMBER
l. -Z.fA ~.ff2 ./'Z ~.9b
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I ~
/.3 3Jb ~.
II
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
C-l) zoni ng
following formula:
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
\
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
n . . Rating 0(.7
~~C;::J~
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating d. 9
Conrnent: ~~ ~, -:r
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rati ng ".;..$'
Comment:
.
PJv
.
d) Amenities - conside 'ng the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Comment:
- 4 -
-
"::'"
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Conment: dJ;iJ.--(
Rating.,,<.7
~~L-a 1?1 -v-u~
" 11. P&Z Growth Manaqement Community Conmercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking "in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on ~y both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating ()
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
commun i ty .
- 5 -
. '..,
-
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
I~.""
/5
~~
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 2Df of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT ~~
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
Jfd
~3
J1l!i3)../
THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE rr. /~/f II
- 6 -
~
0"""
The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the~'
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance. .
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
P&Z REVIEW
P&Z
MEMBER
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I
..
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
I
&~
f,;~
ti/l
J#~
"V
~
tj
#J
t:
t:;
/.! ;'.02..0 uO
1.." 3.0 .1 0
.1 .3 2..~ 0
3.0 3.D t~ 3.0 5.u 0
2-.' ~7 ).0 ;.5 3.0 0
2"'(
S )..'1- 2.~
"''''
II
o
/,3
"
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES 3/. 46
'.'",",
"'"
>
71 :sJ.':t ;{/ (; A 0 () E
10.
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indi cates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
\ 3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
C0111lJent:
Rating ,:2 -.2-
AI;TT/; /L t"-fhfAJ 7{PF(/O/f1F
'P+-f:/f-IJF Cv/itMi/t9-/E
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy. .
Comment:
Ra ti ng ..1 /J
,?, A- /J /1 K,u -< (.J,4c..r-. /1'4/ ,f/f7!f-J/i <E' ..D
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rating /.%
Comment:
VJ::~V IJ'fTkE. (JffvP="
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Comment:
1/J{/fFL)
Rating .-2. (1
A Y '/".J./E ~/i)FA/ ,<'Nz)(fTIlJN
- 4 -
,~
".'.."
:"'1
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating~~d'_
Conment:
,C;,;H- (< r+C(CJA-'(
. 11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking 'in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on ~y both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating 0
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
Comnen t:
Rating I
// Ai CF- /},.,{/tf/ -If--r 1'12 E;..{f;"A/;
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
) If, If
!! ()
J-., r. If
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20~ of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
It) r;
BONUS POINT
,J"j
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
.2 ,t' If
.1.,D
,). '7. 'I
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
qr9'ik4~UJ<~
DATE 1//{)/7?
/ I
- 6 -
,-.,.
.~.~
,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PRDJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
7f..,- jJ ~ A/ r:',A2M/ E
///o/17r
/ ".
P&Z REVIEW
~
tj
~
fj
t;
P&Z
MEMBER
1. !Jff ).. / J- ) ,s-(, is
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I /I ~
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
10.
~'!o._
Form - Projects
C-l) zoni ng
following formula:
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rati ng ;:. ::;-
COl1ll]ent: Afill(r'~ -f- '.or- ~ Q.-v /J f/~'" .?-=
/JL. C4:5 UtJnttruJ;--"""" a.J ~",,~
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
. ~ SIi"'""-
Rating Qf ,'jet' _ 2,~
c)
Comment: &ie-eel AAi2...lI?AU~ i _}/l~ );1___<>_
/ / "
9"~~ c-r[Ps~ "'0 a (/7 .,... ~ .t?~<: po- S.~l;'6. f
ji~" ~ ~-~<></~'" I'+C) .~)
. , Cl,(('. '7b '.-.JT :e\
Energy -considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources. ~/:if
Rating ~
Comment:
/f2
1IVe.t~./:::';f'-" (, I ~ LA^" .z-J€/';r d,'t-rc~ ~ lJN~ck~ '<Wk',,!
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Comment:
No a-&JAfor a.cc..e";>) 6y
Rating ~2.?,
jJ u ?-.L', _
,
- 4 -
'\
,
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Conment:
Rating 'C :6
C10r-f(J ,?if I :-,~ -- );M ",~t-v~
/
,
11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking 'in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing ,
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated,
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
/Ii
Rating V
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
U~
Rating ~ . I. ~
ho ~ {'_~ ~ ~ c,v'-'7
rrl(_</ <;2-.. 7= <J/ {; ~ ~'f.
Conment:
- 5 -
,."
, ,
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
/4.Lf
dtf;ifi I '3.D
2 7.1.f
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the. project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT ..L +
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING ZXL{~
BONUS RATING L
TOTAL POINTS ZKj
NAME~ERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
~ ~~ -~ .
DATE
! j1o!Jr;r
( (
- 6 -
fl5fJ~^'
/"
,l(tJ-' 6
/,f'o;' ("C- 7
10, P&Z Growth Mana ement ua 1 it of Des i gn Eval uati on Form - Proj ects
within the Commercla'l Core CC) and Commercial One (C-l) zoning
districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula:
.
o - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) . Architectural des i gn - cons i deri ng the compa ti bil ity of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rati ng .:7. l?
). ~ '/
Comment:
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating ,,2. 7
1 < 'i
./-,'
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Comment: ~ ~II eI /14" t /; t< r ~I
... ~ ~ ~!~ ,,'I;C! I -I -rf (-
I
""/ !. r dq "7 N d..J.-I c r
S;(~ 1'~J75
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
1 11-
Rating d. 0 ,/-.
b" --if,. I( LJ It ,! ;u .I
0(' <;, 'i /,1. j/,,~/4/ l
S {."" liT d!~1(
'i>
:1. < L
Rati ng .;;;. ..,:;
Comment:
- 4 -
/-''''
e) Visual Imract - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating 3.0
2(, ,
Comnent:
~ ('11r~'7
d"fl 1 ~I
'......
/f r //7 7:" --,
~ <> r4/<f
. 11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-l shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
o - Indicates a project totally lacking ln any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on-site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rati ng 0
o
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and servi ce needs of the
community.
I\ilting ;'0
I, ~
Comment:
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MmllER RATING
/4.Lj
NET RATING
/.4, 0
~'J.J.j
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT /,(~ 3, / S. r ~
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
:lb. q
J. /
3/,5'
-3t ,tj C
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
c9-....J {J If ~
u
DATE L /~, 1'l?J
(J
.<.t
.;2. )
,;l."
,;J. )
J. Co
;. 0
~
'i>
- 6 -
~"
-\.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P&Z
\
The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
P&Z REVIEW
i5 "V
tj ;;,"'l
~ ~#
t/ ~ /:;i'-
~~I
t; '-Y
P&Z
MEMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I ~ II
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES