HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Riverside Addition.1983
r',
,'.
PROJECT PROFILE
1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Ed Baker
2. Project Name: Snow Ridge
3. Location: Riverside Addition (Between Highway 82 and Riverside Drive,
below the Crestahaus).
2.374 acres
4.
Parcel Size:
5. Current Zoning: R-15 PUD
6. Maximum Allowable Bui1dout: Parcel size is approximately 103,000 square feet.
At 10.000 square feet required as the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. the
10 units proposed are the maximum allowed.
7. Existing Structures: None.
8. Development Program: The proposal is for 5 duplex structures. with one 3-
bedroom free market unit and one 2-bedroom employee unit per duplex. The structures
will be clustered on the site and a 43.000 square foot area will be dedicated for
use as a public park.
9. Additional Review Requirements: Full PUD Procedure
Exemption of Employee Units from GMP
10. Miscellaneous: Some representations were made in the text of this application
which were not fully developed to the point of completeness which could be adequately
scored. The applicant has been notified of the areas which require clarification
and will be prepared to discuss these in his presentation prior to scoring.
r'......
;
"
'..........
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project:
Snow Ri dge
Date: January 18, 1983
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to .the following formula:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 0
Comment: Needs clarification. Engineering points out that a main exists in
Riverside Drive but the application does not mention how water is to be brought
on site. Water Department asks for a utilities plan.
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment: The Sanitation District has indicated no problem in serving the
deve 1 opment.
1
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
/'
Rating
1
Comment: The text of the application refers to on-site retain~'of surface
and run-off water and the provision of.ponds, however, none of this is shown
on the site design.
'. Page Two
Residential GMP Scoring~
/,........
-"
'-'
d. Fire Protection (maximum 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 0
Comment: Not a wide enough road, no turn-around capability for fire equip-
ment, and access via Riverside adds unnecessary distance.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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 1
Comment: 25 parking spaces are referred to but are not drawn on the plat,
and some spaces shown are "stacked" which is unacceptable for multi-family
development.
\ . '-- .
?
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
1
Comment: 10 new units should not be of major impact in the area. Riverside
Drive is somewhat substandard, but of a residential character and not over-
loaded.
Subtota 1 4
2..Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
2
Comment: The clustering of units will be a good alternative for this site.
Schematic drawings make analysis of building size and height difficult, at
best.
Page Three
Residential GMP
r-...
'-'
Scoring
"'"'
--.-
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of 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 and increased
safety and privacy.
Rati ng
1
\ .
Comment: Due to design changes necessary for parking and fire protection and
the sketchy landscape and utility information, this cannot be fully evaluated.
Open space includes a park which is 42 percent of the site.
c. Energy (maximum 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
o
Comment: No information provided.
d. Trails (maximum 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
1
Comment: A trail easement for running and walking along side the 82 right-of-
way would be a big improvement.
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, op2n 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
Comment: Other than the large amount of open space proposed, the information
on landscaping is very sketchy and cannot be adequately evaluated.
2
Subtotal 6
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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 y
.'
,
,
~
~
~
--'
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community COlnmercia1 Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the conrnercia1
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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
1
~
Subtotal
3
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
16
Comment: There are a total of 25 bedrooms proposed, 15
employee. Employee housing represents 40 percent of the
8 increments of 5 percent, for a total of 16 points.
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 'percent).
free market and 10
bedrooms. There are
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
t
c
.""
.....,;
.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
29
Points in Categories ~ and 6
o
TOTAL POINTS
29
Name of P & Z Member:
Planning Office
~
"
," \
!'O
... -0
""
-+, f'D ~ f1 ~ ~ ~ N
0-
::tJ -C ""T1 (.I) (.I) ::E: -' <
o QI.....c-t'f'D QI .....0
PI ""'S .., 0 :e: c-+ n (""t
o.~CD"1f'DI'D .....
VI..... 3"'''' "T1 ::::5
::::5 '"0 OJ to
C,Q ""'S 0 Vl (.I) n
o .., I'D CD ..... ~
OrtCJ..,""'S-'ft)
CDm.....<<......3
(It n ::::5 ...... ..... c-t' c:r
.....c+CJnn.....rt)
(Q.....<.omCDf'D""S
::::50m (ltV'l
::>
V>
c:
to
-l
o
-l
)>
.--
r:>?-~?'~~
'"
C') -t fT1 tn 2 -'
.., -S :::3 ..... m ......
tDOJCDc+.....c+
I'D ..... ""S (D to ~
:3 -' to ::r
VI~CCTO
tn (J) 0 -+J
"C VI . ...,
CJ ..... ::r 0
n to 0 m
m ~ 0 (It
. CL .....
to '.
('") ::>
~
-C
'"
rt
~.
0-
~.
~
~.
~
n
III
V>
'"
::>
Q.
V>
III
...
<
~.
V>
c:
to
-l
o
-l
)>
.--
F tJ~OtJ~ ~ -~r+~~ ~~
~ ~tvo~~ FrN-~-~ ~N
F ~+-~+ ~ r~---o I~w
~ ~V~~~ ~r~o~-o I~
~ tv~+tJ~ f -~-rrr ~~
(;; ,()J IN l'>~ ~ ~ r~ J'll" - - i ~
~ '(p~ ~l(J+ f= ~ \'l N l\l~ N ~ ~
I <::>
'"
,.....,' ...... ./ ~.
/ Q.
<5
N
~
~
'"'-
~
-0
""
o
c...
ITI
('")
-l
.
~
\0
. ())
W
""
ITI
V>
....
<::>
ITI
::z
-l
....
-0 )>
.--
""
G>
N ""
o
-l -0 :.:
)> 0 -l
r- t-l ::c
.-- ::z
-< ~ ~
V> ::z
:J: )> )>
ITI .-- G>
ITI .-- ITI
-l 0 :s:
('") JT1
)> ::z
-l -l
....
o -0
::z .--
)>
::z
V>
c:
to
:s:
....
V>
V>
....
o
::z .
-
--
-
())
-
())
().l
.
y,~.... -,
".I
'" U'1 ..,. ~ -0 -0 ~
. "" \0
"" 0 ())
to -0 n 0- '" ITI ?' !" -0 c... W
0 ... . 3 ... N ITI
::> 0 -C 0 ('") ""
-l I:: < ..... 3: 3: .-- ~ ('") -0 >< <: -l ITI
0 V> ~. 0 ~. 0 ~ 0 0 I:: ~. 0 V>
-l II> -l 0. 0. '< ~ 0- 3 rt ....
)> -0 ~. )> 0. III III ~ ~. ~. <::>
.-- 0 0 .'-- ~ ... .... m I:: ~. ~ ::> U\ ITI
~. ::> III '" ::> ::> n IQ ::z
-0 ::> -0 rt n :J: ~. -l
0 rt ... 0 .... III 0 0 Q' -l rt :s: ....
.... V> 0 .... ::> 3 I:: ... 0 III Z- )>
::z ... ::z n .... III II> '" 3 .--
-l -l 0 ::> ~. ('") ::> V> 0- 0
-l V> c: V> 3 n ::> 0 V> I:: III G>
0 ::> III 0 IQ ~ -C -C ... ""
-l ('") ~. ('") 3 0 '" II> 0
)> )> ..0 )> III III ... 0 :.:
.-- -l I:: -l ... rt ... -l
ITI III ITI n '" rt :J:
-0 '" G> ~. rt
0 0 ." 0 '" ~. V> ~
.... "" ~. "" V> V> ~ 0 III
::z ~ ::> .... c: c: ::> ... ::z
-; ITI '" ITI to to ." < )>
V> V> ::> V> -l -l '" ~. G>
n 0 0 n n ITI
.... U'1 ~. I-' -l -l ~. III :s:
I I ::> I )> )> ~ V> JT1
'" '" IQ ..,. .-- .-- ~. ::z
rt -l
~.
III j;!
V>
.--
.--
-<
V>
:J:
ITI
~ f h ~~ ITI
-l
~ .
~ (}I -0
'"
IQ
III
'"
~ UJ ~ ~ N tAl .--
9 III '"
III
(}l ~ F ~~ N ~ w
N
~ ~ r i+~ c...
'"
t'J V>
3 ..,.
~.
::>
III
. ~ r f kf\lW ~
U'1
f r r tNr :.:
m
N ~
rt '"
0
::>
~ ~ ~ r h+ )>
~ ....
~
.. --
~.
0.
I .
, ~
. .:.!)
'(JJ
~
~
-
f ~
~
""';",
>}
::'1;:
~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
.SnO'CJ P!'d7~
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
Project:
Date: // j"o.2
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula: .
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- 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.
.
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
. system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
.
Rating
/
Comment:
.
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating L
Comment:
Pagc Two
Residcntia1 GMP Scorint
-
--
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the abil ity 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 )
Comment:
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating I
COIlIDen t:
'-
Subtota 1 7
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size. height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
::2
Comment:
Page Three /c,
Residential GMP Scori~
-
-
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangcmcnt of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating :;;.
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 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 0
Comment:
0. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links 'to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Comment: ) / //J.d;:?/??.t /1 Z
/
Rating
/:a /;?1~C/rWd
I
;?
e. Green Space (maximum 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 ?
Comment:
Subtota 1
y
3. Proximity to Support Servi ces (maximum 6 poi nts).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and conrnunity commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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
----'-".',-"~-~.-
/
Page Four '
Residential GMP Scoring
>...;;
~
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
I.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating :2
Subtotal ,j-
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rat.ing /r:
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtota 1
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
"c.,
Page Five .......
Residential GMP Scoring
.~"
..-
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
:?6
Points in Categories 5 and 6
o
TOTAL POINTS
Name Of P & Z Member: 7 };/ CZ1.>> c..y
.r......
,.....,
"t, _,'
'0',,#
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: ~(JW etD~ .
Date: /#Jj}A) \63
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treat~ent plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rati ng J
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
.
Rating
I
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
di spose of the surface runoff of the proposed deve 1 opment ~Ii thout sys tern
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating ~
Comment:
.
Page Two
Residential GMP Scorinr-'
--
""
~
d. Fire Protection (maximum 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
'~
.
Comment:
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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
Comment:
?r7lJY
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ~apacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating .!2-.--
Comment:
,
Subtotal ~
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size. height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
;L..
Comment:
Page Three ( .
Residential GMP scori~
"
J
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangcment of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and pri vacy.
Rating ~.
c-'''!!U;d~x '/ft~.
c. Energy (maximum 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 Iz---
Comment:
u. Trails (maximum 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 ~
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 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 ~
Comment:
Subtota 1 /7
.
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Cowfflission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community conrnercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 pOints).
1 -- Project is locatcd 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. r-v
Rating
.
,...,
Page Four '~
Residential GMP Scoring
,
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
, .
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating ~
Subtota 1 4;
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
RaUng .1 it
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
,~' ",
.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
'"
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rati n9
~tJ -
Comment: f?/J1J wtJlL!? 'u!ie IIW~ ofJJE: /,v /~Z rJ:J&;'?'
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
+/
Points in Categories 5 and 6
-o~
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
()N~
." "~
--
--"
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project:
5t-JnV\/ .RLDcr~
Date:
/lt8!e~
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
servi ce improvement by the app 1 i cant benefits the project on ly 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treat~ent plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 0
.
Comment:
b. Sewer Service lmaximum2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
.
Rating
/
Comment:
~ c: Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating I
Comment:
Page Two
Residential GMP scoriC
d. Fire Protection (maximum 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 ()
Comment:
'e.
~
.
Parking Design (maximum 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 /
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating /
Comment:
'-
Subtotal
4
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating Z.
Comment:
Page Three /',
Residential GMP Scori~
"
.......
~ b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of 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 and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating 2-.
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 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-
Comment:
o. Trails (maximum 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 .::s
Comment:
~ e. Green Space (maximum 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 .3
Comment:
Subtota 1 I::z...
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and conrnunity commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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
2-
,1'"'.'....
Page Four '-
Residential GMP Scoring
,
.,
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
I,
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) fee,t in linear distance.
Rating L
Subtota 1 1-
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rat:ing 16
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
tf';',...
".,
~,,,..,
Page Five "
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
3-6
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
J t1/orn; /U2.- I Lf ~
"
......
.~'"
"--'"
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
~
15i~it~
Project:
~
}f1u9iA ~ ,-:::-
Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each dev~lopment according
to the following formula:
o -- 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
n~rma11y installed by the developer, and without treat~ent plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
1
Comment:
b.
Sewer Servi ce (maximum 2 points).
.
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating ~
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
/
I
Comment:
Page Two
Residential GMP Scorin!l""
/' '"
....~,.;'
,~
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the abil ity 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
Comment:
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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 ~
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ~apacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating ~
Comment:
'-
Subtota 1
ro
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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 Compatibil ity (maximum 3 points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
L--
Comment:
Page Three J!'''\
Residential GMP Scori~
,...-",
-
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of 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 and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating Z-
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 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.
Rati n9 I
Comment:
0. Trails (maximum 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...-
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 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.
Ratin9 Z--
Comment:
Subtotal ~
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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 ..L
...
Page Four "'-
Residential GMP Scoring
"
,...;
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
I....
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
7_
;;
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating I G
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtota 1
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
"
.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
f
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
::>0
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
~co
Name of P & Z Member:
tlr )JeJ'1
.1"""'
"
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project:
~~~-<-
Date:
l/ry/'i. 2
"
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treat~ent plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating I
Comment:
b.
Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
.
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
'system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating __~
Comment:
.
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 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
Comment:
Pagc Two
Residcntia1 GMP Scorin'
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
estab1ishcd response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of estab1ishing.a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
.{
Comment:
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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..
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rati ng (
COIIIDent:
'-
5ubtota 1
q
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compati bil ity (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size. height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating ~
Comment:
Ie.vv,Sk ~6- /J1CvU4
t,L4.."./~ tv';"" JCc.,~
~
Jt)(>
"
, '.,
<."
Page Three
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of 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 and increased
safety and privacy.
./'
Rati ng .2. ,
COI1IIIent:
~ ~/lCuz. - ~ k
I /
c. Energy (maximum 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 C/
Comment:
0. Trails (maximum 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
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 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 ;/, 1
Comment:
Subtotal
9
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community conrnercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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
"'
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
I,
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
'~
Subtotal
-r-
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
RaUng
(G,
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
,11"'''">'
..,
,,/
.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment:
!2vl
h-
C"1
~/lIJlv,
Rating ~~
I~ ~{
,
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
\
) .
~
/""...,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project:
~eu.J
2~59-
Date:
I /'1$/1~
I ,
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 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 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading. .
Rating
'2 -
Comment:
b.
Sewer Servi ce (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating -L
.
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 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.
-
Comment:
~
Pagc Two
Residcntial GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 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 ~
Comment:
"
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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
~
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
-z..,..,
COIIlIlIent:
\.
Subtotal ---L-1--
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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:
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compati bil ity (maximum 3 points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating ~
Comment:
/'-'""
Page Three
Residential GMP Scoring
"'"
-..--'
b. Site Design (maximum 3 pOints).
Cons,ideration of the qual ity 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 and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating '3
Comnent:
c. Energy (maximum 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
7--
Comment:
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trait systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating ~
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 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
...~
-
Comment:
Subtotal
If
,
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 pOints).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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 ~
F""-
.. "'~
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
"+<
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
I,
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating ~
Subtotal ~
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Ra Ung --t./.o
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
Rating
Comment:
"
Subtota 1
Ifr;
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
-
/'''"'';
,.,.F
.
.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
Comment:
(maximum 7 points). ~
Rating --0-
~.
. .
6. Bonus Points
Points in Categories 5 and 6
~(
-L
Points in Categories 1, 2. 3 and 4
Name of P & Z Member:
TOTAL POINTS
"
"
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project~ <17////
/1
l!/tJpf? _
Date:
/-h;-8~
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commi ss ion shall cons i der each appl i cati on with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula: '
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- 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 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 deve 1 opment wIthout system extensi ons beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading. .
Rating
ZJ
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
.
Rating
/
,
.
Comment:
c~ Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
extensions beyond those normally installed by
facilities to adequately
development without system
the developer.
Rating /
Comment:
Pagc Two
Residcntial GMP Scorirl""'.
d. Fire Protection (maximum 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 estab1ishing.a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating /
Comment:
.
e. Parking Design (maximum 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 /
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 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 overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
J
.
COIIDlIent:
...
---
Subtota 1 '. ")
2. Quality of Design (maximum 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 Compatibil ity (maximum 3 pOints) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size. height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
-;
-
Comment:
Page Three ~
Residential GMP Scorin~
"
-i
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of 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 and increased
safety and pri vacy.
Rating
~
Comment:
c. Energy (maximum 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 /
Comment:
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating L
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 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 .::{;L
Comment:
Subtotal
e5,
/ (/'
52
3. Proximity to Support Servi ces (maximum 6 poi nts).
':
/.,.{
[...
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 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
'?
!,,'''-
Page Four '~
Residential GMP Scoring
-'"'
"
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 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 commer-
cial facilities in town.
'-
3 __ Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
/
:>
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating ~
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
,r"~
Page Five ,~
Residential GMP Scoring
.."'"
...
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2. 3 and 4
,;; ,J--
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
/
.-
/
\
..
Name of P & Z Mem~
'.......-'-"'-""',- ~ ~,-,_...~".~_..----...----....
~
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
TO:
Alice Davis ;(
Jim Hamiltonm
December ~~8~
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Baker G.M.P. - Riverside
I have reviewed the Baker G.M.P. application for the Riverside Addition and
have found the following:
1) The applicant states in Section III.E.:
"There are a total of ten bedrooms in
the five employee units, to be divided
among them according to recommendations
of the City/County Housing Office. The
units will meet with required standards
and restricted rents for low income
employees" .
Again, like Snare, the applicant may develop employee units at the maximum
size allowed under Section 24-ll.4(6)(4)(cc), but,because of the low income
designation, may only amortize the units under the following parameters:
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
400
600
850
1,100
" "
Square Feet
II 11
" "
2) The unit mix can be determined no later than P&Z
preliminary plat review. Also, I have represented to
the applicant that he need not develop the duplexes on
a strict 2 to 1 (unrestricted to restricted square
foot basis) as long as the project as a whole adheres
to the 2 to 1 criteria.
l"........
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Dept.
FROM: Patsy Newbury, Acting Building Official
DATE: December 22, 1982
RE: Edwin Backer
t""'\
'""'"
Five duplex units. Each unit has five (5) bedrooms. Where do they
come up with 20 persons?
PN/ar
~.
.. _.-'-'''--;...'...,~.::..:, -'
.... '.. . :""""""'-'-'
.::"_d,1.
.........-''''.._\,~~
:-..0:1 ,.,.,,__
-~
.-
MEMORANDUM
:A .:.....__
TO:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
F1 re Marshall
PLANNER: Alice Davis
Building Department
City Water
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
City of Aspen Electric/Holy Cross
RE: City Residential GMP Applications
DATE: December 7, 1982
Attached are three applications submitted to the Planning Office competing in
the city residential GMP.
The first project, III West Hyman Street, seeks to duplex an existing house
located at 113 West Hyman. In addition, the applicants propose rezoning of
the parcel to Employee Housing Bonus Overlay to complete 1 controlled one
bedroom employee' unit in the garden level of the new unit.
The second project, Snowridge, seeks a growth management allotment for 5
free market units and 5 deed-restricted employee units on the subject property.
The final project submitted, 415 East Main Street (existing Whale of a Wash),
seeks expansion to the already approved commercial space located at the same
address. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 2,700 square foot expansion
to be used as a residential unit accessory to the 900 square foot professional
office space.
Please review this material and return your comments to the Planning Office
by December 20, as these items are scheduled to go before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on January 4.
Thank you.
\..J
.
,...
ttecorded .at 111~,
Reception No.
.H.
I S/J~; ..J_}
Di<.:lU J:ln. 2, 1076
Julie f!.:me f Recorder
1/ '.J"""
r"",~ -'1.'/'
rCLY /2.c;/
NOTICE OF CONTRACT RELATING TO SALE OF LAND
Please take notice that there exists a contract with respect to
the aale of certain property described in the attached copy of
said contract by and between GUIDO P. HEYER, as Seller, and DR.
BRUNO BALKE, Al/IlEMARIE BALKE. AND ". J. IlALI\E. Said property
1. popularly known .. the Creatahaus Motel, And i. situated in
the RIVERSIDE ADDITION in the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
COunty, Colorado.
n a n
Attorn~y for Dr. runo Balke
Anneaarie Balke and
H. J. Balke
P. O. Box 3386
Aapen, Colorado 81611
925-1539
I
!
.
!
, . , ~
".....;.4:...:. .~.;-:-.
,..~. , ';'
:~ ,~~~...,;.:;;.,"
.. '-. -.. ;,~
'1
..'
','
, ,', c:
t'
,
"
.; !~. ,I"
'. ~....,I
'",S;:'~: ~.. ~:
.
...
'I . 'J
I ' __ ,-\'. '." I
,',. ~\y
f"'l'-' .
'. /
s ^ L E ^ G R E E HEN T
TH1S ACREJ:;MJ::NT, M.:ldu and cnLcred this
3, .1
day of
January, A. D. 1172, by and o~tween G01DO P. ~y~( of the
County of pitkin end State of Colorado, party of the firet
part, hetei~fter refcHed to ao tb.J Vendor, and j)!l. l\~IJNO
BALKE, Ma:t:Y......U; llALKt:, and ii. J. ;\~LKt: of the Coonty of Dsno
Gud ~tale of Wicconsin, parties of the &~cond part, hereinafcQr
referred to QI tho Vendees, \:rTlIESS,,-'1H:
Tho Vendor he reLy lJ.hro'J8S to Goll and con....ey to tha
Vendee., LInd the Vendees 8Kr~a to purchase! on tha tonus nnd
conditions herein.fter sat forth, the following prorctty oit~te
in the eoet Addition to t~c ~own of Aspen in ritkin Couney,
Colorado:
,
1.2 acres, more (Jr l'':t>G, L\3.i!1& th.~ proport,y upon
",-hich the Crcst:~ilaL.lL :/,t~l LIl\U ou~buiic.:..~-.. b .....r'~
situate, the sa;r.G Ot:1~ olpprox1n:.aL~ly th..)" S.:1::'l-~
prop~rtJ the Vl:\ldor OC-iuirc(; fro::> Ol~'J j~l'd.)x
Hiller by Dedd reeoreed in' :!ook 191 at 1'''1:0 27
of the .l~cor'3 vf Pitkin Couney. ,:'~Ji.t.:... il.JV.'
br.en set to mrk thl.! ~ouncary oJ: ~u1d prelri8'~8 J
"nd said boumh.fY h"lF be(j~' 8/.8::tiIh.'d and '-'t,...: ~..;CJ
to by the perties hereto. Said pl.'op.,rty is to
ba loJrvc)'ed with 'Cot': bOQ.lulu pr01.1~'nUSa ./is tiO.JU
liS weather condition:.! will jJoTmit. em! the
c~scri?tioIl ot l,;h~ ra~l property cuvcreu by Lhis
A8r~eC4nt 1. ro ho conforwod Lo tho dCGcrlption
.ho~ by .uch Durvey.
There 11 aho includ.d in thh Agree_nt tho furnitun"
equip~nt. household goods and utonsile n~w .it~nte in soid
Cre.t~ilsu. Hotel and other buildinss on the above daseribed
tract of property .ubject to Lho toaeLvation of cert.,!" articles,
howevor, nov 1n aai1 buildin6e and e liat of which ~\. buen
.tread U?o:l. An 101vcntOry 01 thu a'Cliclc~. to :)! il.,,;.lllc.!cd in
thi. 8aIr. 1. to be mde. Bl:'.'l'!'ti "'y the pt1!'tic", and tiLlt\chbd
h3reto a. ~hibit ^.
., ,]Ij.' ?~.I
"
.
,
Vendeeo ogr.. to pay for .01d property. real and peroonal.
the au. of Two Hundr.d FortT-Two Thouoend Dollar. (0242.000.00).
re&ardlo.. of 10", de.tructlon or damese to en, of the improve.
mente thereon. plyeble a. follow'l $32.000 On Dr before the
lat da, of February 1972. ud the bala"". of 0210.000 together
with iDter..t on all deferr.d bele"".. et the rete of 7 p.rc.nt
plr eDDUla. payable in ten (10) equal aCDual iuatdl....nte of
$21.000 which i.to include principal and int.roBt. C~ncing
February 1. 1973. and the balance of the purche.e pric. i. to be
....-.....-. .0- _, ._..__
p.id On Dr before Fabruary 1. 1903. with accrued intere.t.
Vend.e. ere to he.. the right to .k. prepa)'lllllnt. em the belance
ot the purcha.e price in amount. of bOt le.. then 05.000 on en,
int.re.t peylng date efter February 1. 1973. but not beforo, Tho
Ow. of $32,000 t~ be paid On Februar, 1. 1972. io to be redUced
b, the amount ot .n, pa,...to on the purche.. price theretofore
.de b, the VeQdee..
Vendor. withiD 60 da,o fl'OlI the date of thh Agre_nr.
agreu to furnhh V.Dd.... for uaa1llaUon. an abornct of dr.ll.
ccrUft.d do_ to February 1. 1972, or a larer clare. end .aid
ab.cract i. Co .hov marketable title to the ebove ~oacribad
"
pred.... .ubJ.ct to al17 re..neUD1U in the Petent. troa rhe
tIn1ted Statu of Aeadca. and .ubJ.ct to rilht..of....' .Dd
...emant. for telepbooa lb.... aa. and .....r 11~.. and other
utll1U.. 0' II dm1Llr nature bOW ilUtaU.d end in ...e. Vendaea
are to ha.e 60 da,. atter rec.ipt of ..id ab.tract in which to
u.a1ne the ea.. If detach in tiU.: are fOuod. V.nd..a ar.
to furnbh Vendor a cop7 of the opio1oa of tholr attorne, poiaUal
our ..1.. det.ct.. end Vendor rill he... a ..e.ooable ti.... DOt
axc.edlag ODO year. la which to correcc ouch doCoct..
-2-
.:~c~::;l.~,~ _~:~ '~. ,_.
','
If nu dcf~ct. nro pointed out as herelnabovo providcd ~ithin
..id pariod of six month., all objections to titlo oh.ll bo
dumed "dved.
Said obstract, after examination by Vondees, i. to bo
returned to and kept by Vendor until tho Warrnnty Deed heroin
mentioned i. delivered to Vendee.; provided the Vendor may, nt
thn timo of convoyence of ssid property to Vendees, furnish 0
title in~urance CO~tment .nd a titlo inouranee policy of a
reputable title insuranco cou:pany in the at:lOunt of $242,000
inst..d of furnisbing said .b.trect.
Vcndoe. oro to be entitlod to posse.sion of .eid property
contcnpornneou. witb the pn,~cnt of $32,000 on February I, 1972,
and nre to be entitled to reLoiu PosSeuion nnd the rent., i..UC8
and proiits from said prOperty durinb the ti~ this AGtec~nt
rcamino in forco.
Vondea. agree to keep the building. and grounds on soid
proYi... in good rapotr during the lifo of this Agr~ement.
Tho Vetldee. .hall DOt ond will Dot .uffer or perm t "y
..chaRic'. lion or other lien to attacb to or bo againat or upon
.
tho property oforalOid tobich shall or ...y be .uperlor to tt."
rl&bto of the VeDdor.
Vendee. -ar.. to carry, at their exp~DGe, fire aad
l1&btRing in.uunco on the bUilding. and lmprov.....Dt. on .dd
property with 10.. payable to VODdor or to tho parti08 horoto
o. Uioir 1"'arut. ..y oppur in a" 1l"~UIIt ot hoot oqual to
tho o.aunt now carried by Veodor on the building. and improv.-ent.
oitgat. On toid property.
Venda.. ore also to poy and corry, at their e~pan..,
.
public liability lnsurance for occi~cnt. or clQi~ ari.iD& out
-3-
I",'r,
"
<"1.1
,,::,J.:\~I ./.~'I!l
..,....._. "II ......,.,,;J
ot the u.. or other activities conducted on said premise. in
tb. .mount. .nd for the contingencies covered by aimi1ar in.ur.nce
110" ..intained by the Vendor.
Fir. inlurante polic!ea now carried by Vendor on said
proaise. are to be assigned to Vendees and to be adjusted aa nf
February I, 1972. Vendees ere to reicbursn and pay Vendor the
amount of unearned premium on the thon outatanding policies.
Taxa. for the year 1972, becoming due in 1973, are to
prorated between the parties hereto, and the Vendor i. to pay
ene-~lfth (1/12) of said taxe., and the balance is to be paid
by Vendees.
The Vendor is to convey .aid real property to Vendees
by Warranty Deed, .ubject only to re.ervations contained in any
Patent. from the United Statos covering .sid land and aubjcct
to ..s~nts, if any, for telephon~ linos, gal 1in.., .owo~
line., and risht.-ot-way at a .imi1ar nature now in existence
3cd LA us. on l4id property, and .c~ject to the zoning ordinancee
of tho City of A.pen.
It is also understood eDd agreed that .ald real property
ia DO" .ubject to a mortgage or tru.t dead at ~85,OOO, .ecuring
pa"....t of a DOte dS-d by the Vandor. The Vendor 11 to pay
and di.charg. l4id not. .nd int.re.t thereon .ccording to it.
tenor, and is to obtain a r.l.... theroat at or b.for. the time
nt C<l"veyaac. at the property her.in ducribod to Vendon.
Tho per~l property i. to be coovey.d by Bill of S.le,
and the Valk.... .tatlen -S01I 11 to be trand.n.d by &ldln-
..nt of tba Cartificate of Title tbor.to, Said Certificatu is
to be a..1sned and daliY8red to Vende.. On February I, 1972.
laid warrsnty Deed aDd Bill at Sal. are to be executed
on or betore April I, 1972, and ere to be pleced in elcrow in
..:..c..,.
...
/' ',>
.
"
Ii
,
I
,
I
the Bank of Aspen, \1ith u copy of t:li:J ^c;r,::cI<lCnt. Bnd with
Supplemental Instructions to deliver said Deed and Bill of
Sale to the Vendee. when the full amount of the purchase
price ha. been paid. The Vendor and Vendees are e~ch to pay
ono-half (1/2) of any escrow charge..
Vendees are to pay alld discharge all chartos for aewcr
and aarbage disposal, water rents, and other utilities during
the tu.o this Agreement is in effect.
This Agreemant may be assigned by Vendee" to a Coloredo
fcI:1ily corporation, orV'nized by Vendees, in which thoy retoin
a controlling intereBt evidenced by ownership of at lea.t 51
perceDt ol .tock in .aid corporation, but such ss.ignmant will
DOt affect aoy obligation of Vendoe. under this Atree~ent.
Otherwise, this Agree~nt i. not to be Eu,jeet to ns.jgn.~nt.
It is lurther umler..ood end agreed that if, for any
reason, the Vcndor i. unable to convey ~rkatable ti-le to tha
abova deseribed property, V.ndees shall ba entitled, at their
elect1on, to terminate this I.l~reelll<lnt and, in that event, wlll
.
be eDtitlod to tbe return of tho initial purchase price mad~ by
tb~~, and all other obligation. of the parties be rounder shall
terminate.
If Vendee. fail to make eny paymont or pa)~nt. a. herein
requirad lor a period of three month. after the '.ace become duo,
Vendor may give the Vendee. or their a.signee notice in writing
by rCfi,.tered _U of .uc:b default and, if all paymenra then due
are not mcle within 30 day. after "uch rq:1Gtercd "otice is
_Ued, edclre....s to tb_ "t the Cre.t"t.aus I.~t.l In A.pen,
Colorado, then Vendor DIIY. et hi. election, ter~lr~tc this
Acreeaeut, or be may iD90ke aOl re~diec et law 0< In equity
-5-
. '
""'\
\
; f'"
.,
ordinarily availabla to enforce thi. Agreement or reeov~
po.....ion of .aid property a. above de.cribed. In the event
the Vendor el.et. to teradnate thi. Agreement on the around.
and in the manner .et forth in this paragraph, t~ shall ba
entitled to retain, o. liquidated damage. and a. rental, all
payment. theretofore mode by Vendee.. Vendor may al.o terminata
this Aareement for failure of the Vendee. to perform any other
provi.ion of this Agreement for three (3) month. after the time
it .hould have baen performed and .ueh default i. DOt cured or
remedied within thirty (30) day. after notiea i. given the
Vondee. or their a..ignee in the manner above provided.
T1as ^GRE~~ shall be binding upon the pertie. hereto,
th.ir reaptletive hairs, exeeutora, administrators, and oulgne.
IN Wll1lKSS WJm~EOF, the perties have hereunto .et
thair hand. the day and 7esr first above written.
Vendor
"
~, ~t.-Q'-.~
(kM UU ~'
Vende..
iWJttt(
~
, '
,..:..1 I
" i'll
'\ ,,,-/ v"'
,.,l......., .
l\:...!. ,I' ...)
.... ..
. i :'j . p ,l... . \l
, ......,'...
, .,
"
, '
-6-
, '
..,1...,;
Exhibi t . A.
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 11202
Commitment Number:
PARCEL A:
A tract of land lying in the Riverside Addition, Aspen, Colorado, being
more fully described as follows:
All of Block 21 lying East of the following described line: Beginning
at a point on the Northwest line of Vick Avenue whence the Easterly
Corner of Lot 8, Block 21, Riverside Addition, bears North 75030' East
235.7 feet; thence North 10009' West 226.81 feet, thence north 37041'
East 120 feet, more or less to the South 'right of way line of Colorado
Highway No. 82, and all streets, alleys, and parkways lying East of said
line and between Colorado Highway No. 82 and Vick Avenue.
PARCEL B:
A tract of land located in the Riverside Addition, including all of
Blocks 21, 22 and 23 including the East half of Park Avenue from Vick
Avenue 325 feet North, and all streets, alleys and parkways lying on a
line North of Vick Avenue between Park Avenue and Colorado Highway No.
82, said Tract being more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Vick Avenue whence Corner No.
5 of the Riverside Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 3905, bears North
50013'17" W. 766.96 feet; thence N. 75030' E. 242.22 feet to the South
right of way line of Colorado Highway No. 82; thence along said South
right of way line N. 24053' W. 16.69 feet; thence N. 06056' W. 48.7
feet; thence starting on a bearing of N. 24053' W. around a curve to the
left whose radius is 357.00 feet a distance of 160.34 feet; thence N.
50037' W. 137.1 feet; thence around a curve to the left whose radius is
1407.5 feet a distance of 225 feet more or less to the intersection with
the East line of the railroad right of way; thence Southwesterly along
the railroad right of way 105 feet more or less to the East line of Park
Avenue; thence S. 00016' E., 70 feet more or less along the East line of
Park Avenue to a point 325.00 feet North of Vick Avenue; thence S.
00016' E. 325.00 feet; thence N. 89044' E. 293.3 feet to the point of
beginning.
SAID PROPERTY IS OTHERWISE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A tract of land being
all of Blocks 21, 22 and 23 of said Riverside Add! tion, bounded on the
West by Park Avenue, bounded on the South by Vick Avenue, bounded on the
North and West by the centerline of the old Rio Grande Railroad right-
of-way and bounded on the East and North by State Highway No. 82.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Railroad right-of-way through said Block 22.
Both parcels being in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Page ~
0055
H'l' E '" A H. 'I' 'l' I 'l' L E
GUARANTY COMPANY
-
---,
-~
ccember 1, 1982
TO:
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 8n611
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
I.
Location:
A portion of the Riverside Addition described as
folloms: see Title Insurance attached
II. Proposal:
The applicant, Edwin Baker, seeks a growth management allotment
of five free market units and five deed-restmicted employee
housing units on the subject property. Each employee unit will
be attached to one free market unit. This will r~sult in five
duplex units on the subject property. The proposed development
is further described by the enclosed maps, documents, and the
following discussion.
III.
Description of Development:
A. The project is served by the City of Aspen Water Department.
There is a new 1&' dia. cast iron pipe located in the
right-of-way of Highway 82 bordering the site. In addition,
there is a new 8" craa. ductile iron pipe located in Park Ave.
bordering the site. The Water and Engineering Department
have no information regarding the pressure available.
The estimated demand is 200 gallons per duplex per day re-
sulting in a total estimated demand of 1000 gallons per day.
B. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
District from a 10" dia. trunk line in Highway 82 bordering
the site.
The estimated total demand is 1000 gallons per day.
C. The project will provide on-site retainage for surface and
run-off water in excess of pre-development rates. All devel-
opment on the site is above the Riverside Irrigation Ditch.
Therefore sunface and' run-off in excess of the pre-development
rate will be ponded and released at the historical rate into
the Riverside Ditch.
At this time there is no evidence of surface water to deal with.
D. There is a new fire hydrant at th~ intersection of the private
drive serving the project and Park Ave. The private road will
be thirty feet wide to accomodate parallel parking on each side
with a 16 foot two-way drive. The greatest distance from the
fire hydrant to a proposed residence is 240 feet. The distance
to the fire station is one-half mile; travel time from the
station to the site is less than five minutes. Since the con-
cept of the site design is clust~ring of the structures and
common ownership of the open space around the structures,
,
-2-
~ ,
mmaster fire protection system with a 24-hour monitoring
company will be provided for all structures for early fire
warning.
E., The total development area is 2.374 acres. The housing
type will be five duplex units, each unit havin~ one three
bedr,oom free market unit and one employee housing unit.
There are a total of ten bedrooms in the five employee units,
to be divided amongst them according to recommendation of
the City/County Housing Office. The units will meet the
required standards and restricted nents for low-income
employees. The sale of a free market unit will include one
employee unit.
The distance to the Lower Elementary School is 3/4 mile;
to the Middle and High Schools, 3 miles. The site is adja-
cent to the school bus stop on Highway 82.
F. Assuming a realistic ratio of 3 c~rs per duplex, a total of
15 cars would be parked permanently on-site. However, in
view of the avaRability of tfue public bus systems (the
Mountain Valley an~Silverking bus stops at the intersection
of Park Ave. and Highw~y 82 are across the street from the
site), we might assume a total of 30 trips per day in addition
to current traffic.
Riverside Drive and Park Ave., by which the site is served,
have been asphalted in the past year. Check with Engineering
for width and strength of asphalt. The hours of average use
would be from 7:30 AM to 6rOO PM Monday through Friday, as
in any residential development.
On-site parking would equal one car per bedroom, providing
ten covered parking spaces and fifteen outside spaces. The
anticipated parking demand of fifteen cars would thus leave
ten parking spaces for visitors, thereby reducing the impact
of off-site parking on adjacent streets.
Because of the proximity to Highway 82 it could be assumed
that residents would walk, use the available bus systems, or
bike to their in-town destinations.
G. The developer will dedicate the land area (43,000 square feet)
below the Riverside Ditch to the City of Aspen for use as a
public park. Further, the developer will provide fill, grading,
and underground sprinkler system for the park area.
The site is within nine blocks of the Little Nell ski lift and
within 3/4 mile of all major city parks and services, including
the Rubey Park Down-valley Bus Terminal.
The Aspen Valley Hospital is approximately three miles a~ay
and within ten minutes driving time of the site.
The Pitkin County Airport is six miles away and within fift~en
minutes driving time.
/",',"
'--'
-3-
'"
,....-
H. The proposedrevelopment is located six and one-half blocks
from the nearest retail and service outlets (which in this
case is the Durant Mall located at the intersection of
Durant Street and Coopen Avenue). No noticeable demand
would be placed upon the retail and service shops.
I. The effects of proposed development on the vicinity would prove
to be beneficial. The land which is dedicated to public park
would be landscaped and provided with an underground sprinkler'
system at the expense of the developer. Now virtually unusable
land would be converted into a park that would be pleasing to
surrounding residents, lodge lSiers, and motorists who cross
town towards Independence Pass. The traffic along Riverside
Drive would increase, but not to a dangerous level. Off-site
parking will be avoided by the provision of an adequate number
of parking spaces within the development site.
J. Construction of the development would commence in the Spring
of 1983 and would be completed within thnee building seasons,
or by the beginning of 1985.
-
i".'J'""<";!t""',-,.""~~..,.:~,,~,,
;;c....:"...:..
r
,l
1 -
: J\
...
"
1
~ V.
<;
Q
'"
c:
'% -l
<:) IJIi ~
1
-4
-:: ""
4)
,
~ '"
6 <
"
"
,
-
i rl
)
r
'l'
ICJ
..
-C)
\
~L'
V)
~
~1'
~.!
:'0
'"
-1
IT'\
V')
ll'\
(")
-l
..
~.
l'"Ili:
..
..a__'J...,~:JJ~
.. " ...-~.., - , .' ,..". "., ~
~-n
I
lj)
>
~
~
<:'
.." V
r LJ'1 ,-
" \--J 0
.., III ,. I
co -
7' l;r IS -l Oi
.. I)
1 ox i
~ 'l' T
r 'I:
"TI n
<. "
....
'Z. I 0
0 2
Q)
0 ~
1 G) hc.T<of'J
a
\j 0
-- ~
1 0 Oil
-...:; -.. 01 tl
1)0 I
'J ~ ..,
..
.. .,
I 1DI~
~ ..
I
- D
. 'l:
0 . "'."."
..
r-
Q
~
~
'11
r
Q
\)
~
i;;"
..
'\
"
~ 2-
o
r....
/
,
"
"
I
~ '
, .
! ~
.,' ..,',
~.... ,-'~i:J.:;j,~~;~,:..~,:
'" .
".:,'
V]
"
~ 1'+,-0
".,
C')
-l
'\l
...
~
\lll
o
?
t
!D
()
'Z
- "Z
()
:
-
,
'"
... .
.
,
'"
~
...
o