The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.601 S Aspen St.40A-84161q., ey m Cantrup, Hans 1984 Lodae CompetOition//Defeated ;ELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen V PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: TYPE OF APPLICF I. IN II. CASE NO. STAFF: Phone: jod l t f T'C, i �d 0'7 §Phone: -PI N: (FEE) GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. -*Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) i 1. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use 4. Other: ($2,730.00) ($1,640.00) ($ 820.00) i($1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) ($1,490.00) ($ 680.00) P&Z MEETING DATE: 15P,^--a MEETING DATE: I DATE REFERRED: 6 REFERRALS: City Attorney Aspen Consol. S.D. �City Engineer Mountain Bell T Housing Director Parks Dept. Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric City Electric Fire'Marshall Environmental Hlth. Y Fire Chief FINAL ROUTING: City Attorney City Engineer Other: Other: A A, 1 L% FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: School District Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) , State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn) Building Dept. Other: DATE ROUTED Building Dept. i / DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: I!�' • CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: • w Ordinance No. Ordinance No. Ordinance No. CITY OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION PROJECT:----_ �j Q-5------------------------------------ TALLEY SHEET ----------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -- B P&Z Voting Members Perry__ _!fury__ __Pat__ Jasmine _Roger_ Yelton_ Ramona- David AVERAGE 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service b. Sewer Service ----- ---1--- ------ ---1--- ------- ---1--- ---- — ---�--- ------- ---�--- ------------- ---�--- ------- --J --- c. Storm Drainage d. Fire Protection-- e. Parking Design f. Roads ---� --- ---1--- -- - -- �--- -- Z-- ------ - ---- -- Z-- ---- -- -- -1- --� -------- — SUBTOTAL -- p -- -- - --- - ----- -- - — ------ --- -,Z q 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood Compatibility Z_ l.S 2- b. Site Design _-2 _ ----- _2 _�_ -- = c. Energy - -- d. Trails __ --/--- --1 -- Z e. Green Space --— --1--- �_-- -JLL --//�---- --= - -- ---- ---j—------- ---� --1 SUBTOTAL �[ 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public Transportation _ 3 _ 3 _ 3 b. Community Commercial Facilities SUBTOTAL --s- ---- -- --- -- S- ------ — --- 4. Employee Housing a. Low Income ,� -- --- Z ------ Z ------- Z ------- Z ------- ---4 --------- Z ------- b. Moderate Income ------- c. Middle Income ------ ------- ------- ----- ------ ------ ------- SUBTOTAL ---�_- -- -- --2— Z — -- Z= 40 ------- -- Z - /I 2 -- `T 3 5. Conversion of Existing Units to Employee Housing a. Low Income b. Moderate Income�_--- c. Middle Income ------- ------- ------ SUBTOTAL -- -- -- - --- — O— --- - --�-- ------ --Q - 0, 4 1 SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 - 5O:Db S. Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS CATEGORIES 1 - 6 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department #AspenA�'Consolidated* Sani'tation District Fire Chief Building Dept. FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: 1984 Residential GMP Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GMP Conceptual Submission and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission DATE: December 6, 1985 We are forwarding to you with this memo, all documentation and plats with respect to the captioned 1984 Residential GMP submissions received by this office. Included is the following: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicants are requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 12 residential units within the Aspen Mountain PUD. The applicants encountered a great deal of opposition to their original 700 South Galena 12 unit residential proj ect and, therefore, propose to relinquish the prior allocation granted for 12 units at the 700 South Galena site upon the City approval of a new allocation and subsequent review procedures. The new proposal is a request to build 12 units which would consist of two duplexes (4 units) to be constructed at the 700 South Galena site, and 8 units to be relocated from the 700 South Galena site to the west wing of the Lodge. Gordon/Callahan Residential GMP Conceptual Submission This application is also a revision to a GMP application originally submitted last year. The applicant is requesting• a growth management allocation of 3 units, for, the purpose of constructing two 3-bedroom free market units and one 4-bedroom unit. It is the applicant's intent to combine Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision with the land area and development rights of the previously subdivided Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision into a common development. This would consist of a total develop- ment of 9 free market units, six 1-bedroom low income, deed restricted employee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to the Aspen Club. 601 Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 41 free market units. The project is proposed to consist of 40 free market one -bedroom units and one free market studio unit. The proposed development is to be located at Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition in Aspen and consists of 51,150 square feet. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 4, 1984, in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for the presentation and scoring of these submissions at a public hearing before the Aspen Planning and zoning Commission on January 22, 1984. If you have any questions regarding these applications, or any problems meeting our deadline, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you. �w S_4AL-Or'--fk _ fit 04t-ce, 1.��r1l 'rm ASe/` co,-so-,4rFty.r> f 4ti4r',Nrio (�[S��I/cT /�- ll�e lLrLac,,1-r/u— a� 7-He �•^-�iS 6ZuAI> CA&-Aps� Tj'lI S /'RuJEc C/1�- T3C sc~��'rS (3y' j'h4E' SA' -'I rn,T/a— 6,L ��Snr T��ts /'ic�1��.r-��r� /3Y Yrlc SAS �rnz�o_ I��j.�,w PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1984 Residential GrIP Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GMP Conceptual Submission and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on January 22, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GMP Conceptual Submission and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission, at which time the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will consider each application and score the applications based on the criteria established the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Following is a short explanation of what each applicant is requesting in their 1984 Residential GMP Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicants are requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 12 residential units within the Aspen Mountain PUD. The applicants encountered a great deal of opposition to their original 700 South Galena 12 unit residential proj ect and, therefore, propose to relinquish the prior allocation granted for 12 units at the 700 South Galena site upon the City approval of a new allocation and subsequent review procedures. The new proposal is a request to build 12 units which would consist of two duplexes (4 units) to be constructed at the 700 South Galena site, and 8 units to be relocated from the 700 South Galena site to the west wing of the Lodge. Gordon/Callahan Residential GMP Conceptual Submission This application is also a revision to a GMP application originally submitted last year. The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation of 3 units, for the purpose of constructing two 3-bedroom free market units and one 4-bedroom unit. It is the applicant's intent to combine Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision with the land area and development rights of the previously subdivided Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision into a common development. This would consist of a total develop- ment of 9 free market units, six 1-bedroom low income, deed restricted Employee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to the Aspen Club. 601 Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 41 free market units. The project is proposed to consist of 40 free market one -bedroom units and one free market studio unit. The proposed development is to be located at Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition in Aspen and consists of 51,150 square feet. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Aspen Times on December 13, 1984. City of Aspen Account. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AI4D Z ON ING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project _ 601 Aspen Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [121 Points) . The Commission shall consider each apraication with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. I -later Service (maximur, two [21 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 normall_- installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING : 1 COMMENTS:. 6" rains in Garmisch, Juan anyi S. Aspen Streets will be utilized, No systsrl upgrading is proposed b. Sewer Service (maximum two [21 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal systcn is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING : I — COMMENTS: The existing 8" sewer lines in Garmisch- Juan and Dean Streets will be utilized. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Distri: indicates that adeQuate capacity �:.:ists to serve the 1)rojact Io s_ysteM uL?grading is proposed, C. Storm Drainage (maximum, two [21 Points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately di spose of th e surf ace runoff of th e proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RAT ING : 1 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to retain site runoff on site rzliroucl i the use of a system or drywel is and retention areas Conpl ete retention will not upgrade service capacity in the area actorC.ing to the Engineering Department and handles the project Q. Fire Protection (maximum two [2.1 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 2. appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: _ 0 1 • / W- 1 1 ! 1 1 .1 • -. 1 • 1 •-- 1 :.1 • 11 1 / I I• •III[ - • • e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of saic spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paver - surface, convenience and safety. RAT ING : 1 f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: _ 2 /. •}-}-• . II. 1. • . . �. -. } - 1• 1- - 1•-•• II -I - 1 SUBTOTAL: 6 Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. — 2 — RATING: 2 ! / 1 • - • • 1 1 • 1 � 1 ! 11 s 1 b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of under groundi ng of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: I • p. •- WIV4111 _1 1 •�- • 1! ! 1 / / • . Ill / I • .1 • 1 • C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 1 d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trai_' systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 1 1 1 1 - 1 • 11 11 11 - 1 1 ! ' . e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: 1 SUBTOTAL: 6 — 3 — 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 3 • :� I • • • 1 1 I , • • • LOWWWWO15. If all • • 1LOW-91, 9 W.-Fe 1 ' 1 b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: 2 COMMENTS:The r)roiect location is within three blocks of I 1' Commercial • SUBTOTAL: 5 4. Ffiployee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. - 4 - To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed) . RATING: 2 �• Us 1.10:11111150u - .• n . • o . ... -. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [ 10 ] percent housed) . RATING: COM14ENTS : C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 2 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon then in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted - 5 - RATING: 0 wl14 _� • .- •_u- •� 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . RATING: NZA POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: 1— POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: 0— POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: N/A TOTAL POINTS: 19 Name of P&Z Commissionmember: Planning Office — 6 — CASE NO. • g V -MCA ECRL IS T CASE NAME: 60/ 1A` G / R 1. RECEIPT PREPARED 2. CASE ASS IG I,I E D NU I IB ER 3. NUMBER LOGGED IN ACCOUNTING BOOKS 4. I•IUMBER LOGGED Oft BULLETIN BOARD LIST 5. CASELOAD SUI 11AR i' SHEET PREPARED 6. CASE ASSIGNED DATE FOR FIRST/ONLY REVIEW 7. CASE LOGGED III BLACI: BOOK 8. CASE LOGGED O11 ADJACENT PROPERTY Cl,•II ERS NOTIFICATION 9. REFERRAL IIEI10 PREPARED AND SENT OUT 10. PUBLIC 1IOTICE PREPARED 11. DATE BY WH ICI; BUST BE PUBLISHED: /Z- -28 4 12. DATE BY WHICH IiUST E MAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: I-S' i 13 . PUBLIC NOTICE TAKEN TO ASPEN TIMES ( Date Published: � ISM ) 14. DATE PUBLISHED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY 91NERS NOTIFICATI0I1 LIST 15. PUBLIC NOTICE faAILED TO AMACE14T PROPERTY O-714ERS ( Date flailed: ) 16. DATE HAILED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY (XINERS NOTIFICATION L IS T 17. PUBLIC NOTICE I.9AILED TO APPLICANT(S) (Date flailed: AFTER FIRST REVIEW. IF APPLICABLE 18. CASE ASS IGIIED DATE FOR SECOND REVIEW 19. CASE RE -LOGGED III BL•AC : BOOK 20. CASE LOGGED OIJ ADJACENT PROPERTY Ot•INERS NOTIFICATION Case No. - Checklist Page 2 21. PUBLIC NOTICE PREPARED 22. DATE BY WHICI MUST BE PUBLISHED: 23. DATE BY WHICH MUST BE MAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OW N ERS 24. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKEN TO AS PEN TIIIES (Date Published: _ ) 25. DATE PUBLISHED LOGGED 01-1 ADJACEN•?T PROPERTY OWNERS NIOTIFICATION LIST 26. PUBLIC NOTICE HAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY CWHERS (Date 11ail ed: ) 27. DATE BAILED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPE- TY 9-711ERS NOTIFICATION) LIST 28. PUBLIC NOTICE FAILED TO APPLICANT(S) ( Date mail ed : ) AFTER REVIEW COMPLETED 29. COPY OF RESOLUTION/ORDINANICE OBTAINIED AND IN FILE 30. CASELOAD SUIMARY SHEET ROUTED W/FILE (if applicable) *NA = Not Applicable CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GNP COMPETITION Project : e7 ` �1 Date:-'7-ZJ-e 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points),0 The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMITS: : b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2] points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS • c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system eytensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: IR _emu. �r d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: L% COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: _A dU i7C`Mi?fit 4r-�4 I/l':55l f0� e"�-//tY" 1A4(ra- ' i f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: J - 2 - COMMENTS: f l / - s c : eLML ) L 'rJ> 2.(/ (A C— SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS- b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RAVING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three (3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS • %mil C= A�� sn•,=7� sd r yL zJA L SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. ' Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located f urther than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: i SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: — 5 — Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five (5] percent housed) . RATING COMMENTS: '' ' I b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted RATING: COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points) . COMMENTS: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Comm issionmem ber - 7 - i RATING: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 9 R IDENTI L GMP COMPETITION Pro ' ect• 2� cg � Date • J � 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. f RATING: COMMENTS : b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2] points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING COMtIENTS - C�:P� C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: _15 COMMENTS: UO lM"G� d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING COMMENTS: Lf�kl� o��- tivi (''��E�IA't,(.�l S1 r�G V� MAJOo 1T-/ D� AMP /EELS 0#— 51 f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: - 2 - COMMENTS: 11 Il�(,�� I�iiS &TI- 4T- -S fwacc" PIi0'o'W'- teLkt r,F— SUBTOTAL:y 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: • :4ATM ,9 b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS:, 16 Is Nam! S c l f' 1 C-, r CAWS V0 MIW4 tnJ c�J L'up IN( 7 N C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 0 — 3 — 3. COMMENTS: 62J AyI f /< -- i�i9zG'�`1 JAI -'IVVer L D i-7�i.�l�T— �� L%�'sr / A�7�+Ct'�-' /t/�l�i� I i,-e d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. r-- RATING: COMMENTS:/�OVCc— �/�dylSlohlS iz) �rt s/7�CL-- e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RAT ING COMMENTS: S77t SUBTOTAL: �t Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. ' Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three (3] points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each f ive (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: - 5 - Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five (5] percent housed) . 3E� C �' .- U- 1'lC 7 E�- hJ' ii(L RATING: 1�, l S 7C 1GC� -- COMMENTS: ��7T Wo ► l S Z 1�� s (t4 i tl Q(J , b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS- c. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five (5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - 6. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted RATING tie Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points) . COMMENTS: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmenber : mt RATING: C CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION / 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Proj ect : {� Dl ^A Date • 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: �_ COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: — 2 — COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: E 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen (15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 21 COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three (3] points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three (3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: � = C�i7 Azi+r.`� SUBTOTAL: 0 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a.' Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: b. Community. Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: _17 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: — 5 — Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed) . RATING: D COMMENTS: %./f./,. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two (2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS- c. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted RATING: COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . COMMENTS RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:� POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmenber : — 7 — CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ION EVALUATION / 19844 RESSIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION �> Project C� _� /—� ' A' Date• / :;"� �S 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS• b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2) points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS- C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. / RATING: COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: " — 2 — COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen (151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS• C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a.' Public Transportation (maximum three [31 points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: -- 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two ( 2) points f or each f ive (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: - 5 - Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two (2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 6. ' POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle i 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted i 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted . 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted E RATING: COMMENTS: Bonus Points {maximum seven (71 points) . COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5 : POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: i Name of P&Z Commissionmenber : - 7 - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING cori MISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GRIP COMPETITION Project �n r ry Date • 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those nd mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENTS- C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. i RATING: — 2 — COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: ' COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. a RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6) points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. ' Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [31 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [401 points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points f or each f ive (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: — 5 — Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two (2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Mm Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted RATING: COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING: COMMENTS: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Comm issionmem ber : - 7 - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION IL984 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Proj ect S ` - Date• 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only anal not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COM TENTS • b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal systEn is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: _ COMMENTS: C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately di spose of th e surf ace runoff of th e proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: : e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: - 2 - COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: COMMENTS e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: , 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. * Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located f urther than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS : b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three (31 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [401 points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: - 5 - Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2) points for each five (5) percent housed) . RATING: - -- COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS• SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon there in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted - RAT ING : COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING: _ COMMENTS: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: _ 7 POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember : POINTS 1 3 5 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GRIP COMPETITION Project-1 t Q �� Date • 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COM IEt1TS : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) . • Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING : _L- COMMENTS C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of -the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING:_ COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: e. - Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS: iic� c�-"-�t� C.Q. S�, �—vc��' U✓� � S CUr ��U � % � k � � h �-Q �-y� . f. Roads (maximum two (2] points) . Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: f - 2 - COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: t ll- 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen (151 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: . COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed • landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: COMMENTS• c. Energy (maximum three [31 points) . Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: — 3 — COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [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: J COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three (3] points) . Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL:_ 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6] points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. ' Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) . 1 -- Project is located f urther than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: — 4 — COMMENTS : b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATING: 1" COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL:_ 4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Two (2) points f or each f ive ( 5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted units: - 5 - Studio: 1.25 residents One -bedroom: 1.75 residents Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five (5] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS• C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two (2] points for each fifteen (15] percent housed) . RATING: COMMENTS• SUBTOTAL: 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. - 6 - Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted ,,ll RATING: V COMMENTS: 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [71 points) . COMMENTS: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Comm issionmem ber : - 7 - RATING: 3 December 12, 1984 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: 601 Aspen GMP Submission Dear Alan: In response to your letter of Dec. 6, whic to an address other than that of the applicant, resulting in delayed receipt on Dec. 11, I have reviewed my application as well as the relevant portions of the Code and must respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding employee housing. Nowhere in the Growth Management section 6f the Code do I find anything to indicate that an applicant must actually obtain or own employee housing before submitting his application or before points can be awarded with respect to employee housing criteria. On the contrary, throughout Section 24-11.4 the only requirements are that an applicant agree to provide or uarantee to provide... by purchasing employee housing. Section 24-11.4 (4 (a) provides in part that: "The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing..." Section^24-11.4 (5) (aa) provides in part that: "The commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units..." Indeed, it seems obvious to me that if an applicant states its agreement or guarantee to provide that housing the commission must award the applicant points according to the cited language. It+would seem just as obvious that the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy would be conditioned upon performance of all other GMP conditions. December 12, 1984 Page 2 To require an applicant to actually purchase and deed restrict employee housing units prior to the submission of its application or the competition would be absurd and would be a prohibitively expensive, and perhaps unconstitutional, precondition to eligibility to compete. With respect to the other portion of your letter regarding sufficiency of drawings, I am submitting additional information as requested - pertaining to height of the building: I would, however, refer you to that portion of the application called "Quality of Design" (2) (aa) in which I state: "The building element to the east side of the site is three levels high with the parking level located 100% below finish grade and the 3rd level not esceeding the twenty-eight foot height limitations above existing grade." Since Final Working drawing prior to issuance of a Building Permit can establish specific compliance with the allowable height on any particular portion of the Site and we are dealing here with a purely conceptual plan, it should be sufficient for the Planning Office to note that a 3 story (above grade) building would typically be several feet below the height limitation add therefore can be reasonably expected to conform to the height requirements of the subject zone. Even though the drawings in the Application indicate only three floors above grade (except stairs, elevator towers & chimneys), the statement contained in the application that 28 feet will not be exceeded should meet the requirements of the GMP Submission. I trust the enclosed drawings and worksheets further clarify any questions in regards to Height, Renderings, and Site Plans. The QUal-ity of Desi n Section is clearly addressed in my submission. It involves item as Neighborhood Compatibility: Neighborhood Compatibility is clearly demonstrated in the drawings and can be judged by size, height and location of the proposed building. Item (bb) Site Design deals with proposed landscaping, open space, undergrounding of utilities, circulation, safety and privacy and can clearly be judged by the information submitted as well as items (cc) storm drainage and (ee) parking design. December 12, 1984 Page 3 I have also reviewed several previous GMP Applications that were accepted and won subsequent allocations, submitted by myself and other competing projects and find the level of information to be of the same conceptual tape as presented in this 601 Aspen Submittal. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I can proceed appropriately. Very truly yours, Iq"61 1 ' Hans B. Cantrup HBC:mvb Hans B. Cantrup BOXY spen, Co. 81612 Aspen/Pitkin::Planning Office 130-s6 h` g F narstreet aspencol.orado81611 December 6, 1984 Hans and June Cantrup P. O. Box 7955 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Hans and June: We are in receipt of your 1984 residential growth management application for 601 Aspen. Following my preliminary review of the application for completeness, I have made the following findings: 1. We cannot accept your commitment to house your employees in 35 dorm units, the location and quality of which have not been specified. We have discussed this matter internally within the Planning Office and do not recall ever allowing any applicant to compete on this basis. This is not a matter which you can simply clarify through later submissions. ,This application will, therefore, be unable to meet the minimum scoring threshold in the area of employee housing (35%) and we expect that it will be denied. 2. The architectural renderings and site plan drawings are so sketchy as to make it impossible to judge the quality of the design. Furthermore, you have not provided us with sufficient information to evaluate the height of the building to insure that the building complies with the 28 foot limit in the zone. This height information must be provided immediately to this office as it is a requirement of the growth management process that the applicant demonstrate compliance with our zoning regulations. The shortcomings in this application make it quite likely that it will be finally denied by the City Council. We ask you to seriously evaluate these comments and inform us no later than December 14 if you wish to pull the application. Should you do so by that date, we will provide you a full refund of your $2,730, as no significant Planning Office time will have been spent by that date. Sincerely, Alan Richman Acting Director AR/nec - rdA i Wi Vu UJ l IC - MUM = WA M W m m Ld IN Mal I m r"n min, Gall A N Mt oil& - 19'W OtM WNW4, loom MISS �`�4 - - - - - 1ST � _ _ _ _ � fil�' � � � �'1��T' � • � � �$ �IIAnEll � Ali ail�ilfii#I= � ampM, 9111 On vim i ��i■ �liiii� �� niii i%i�n'.i 1, AMEN Sam Ly • MllTa'Ay�� i, J� �..Jt �, ;:•ark; -��rr 1,�.�.,! w e • � ea w mmm�ii A SAME i mil MWI M, wivwiivmmwl tfqwm ARM MEN �M mvHvjrx=w=r; sac ar �� a �_1�`• a. R� • �a a nA �r� • 'I. 1• ld�4 MEN • 4 [ 1.711, 11111 MINVEti ME= ai: pl-i �4-1 Ok I "Im Mall &7 4 WARNER* 11 Aki SEW NEMESES OW. 3 �k zi WE 5T- EL-ATi �.,1y _1 � � � w r �1 �7 ' � `1 � � � f- . � �J N_� N I-) v� 0 Nofz:l N t0 VV��1 1—hGl.'/`3_� I F.'ly 1 J� ��y -�� -1 '—o Y1 � � 1 Ll�y�_ �—yIV 1✓yr—' ��ATION S NOP►+ J��O \Al��t E-tavATioN 5 3 E.LF- V T ! 0 N 5 2 tom++ � ST �.� ��_�Ti �-,N _ \�� ' Fes_ S-r', � � c12-�3 _ � ► FT � N.�. _ �-o�L1�� Nop H I`i`t0 VA) rz:>I 1- E-LEVION 5 ow,vqvmwv-ww & -wmrqvmmmw� -m%vAplw. -mw - www, IIVMM Wi AA WE AMC 1104W _7A MUM jo ec&c ad- -) 9 2 S m � ZZ M., I C3 R O 1�1 tear a� 1931 8 i a • k ga,c,�� M..,,r- cz 35-6 '7 3 601 ASPEN 28 the quality of road service in the area, including the Barbee residence and Timber Ridge Condominiums. These improvements will provide for the needs of this develop- ment and area without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased maintenance. Examination of the traffic impact of this development is primarily based on work generated by the UMTA transportation study by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. traffic consultant for the UMTA study. The table below presents the trip type and trip frequencies per day per unit for a project unit as estimated by the Voorhees studies. The 6.5 trips per unit is less than the 10.0 trips per unit for a typical residential unit because the development consists of one -bedroom units generating less people than larger apartment or condo- minium units. Total trips are estimated between automobile and non -automobile trips. Trip Type Skiing/Recreation* Work Shopping and Entertainment Personal Business Other TOTAL Estimated One -Way Trips .75 2.00 1.25 1.00 1.50 6.50 Estimated Non -Automobile Trip Percentage 60% 75% 75% 50% 25% 60% (Average) Estimated Non -Automobile Trips .5 1.5 .9 .5 .4 M11 *The 60% non -automobile average for recreation trips assumes approximately 75-80% of ski trips are non -automobile but only 50-55 of summer recreation trips are non -automobile. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES NOF-I 0 TQ kAj I �ht�,'!`�_] 1VIN _�' I 1-1'-C� �1 f_'.I lj1\4P- \--yINI.IVr--_ EL -a ATI0N 5 G� hiiuiiii®�G'ii3friii��i-Gcaii-iw�� i"i�a■i u!►•� - ` �'��=��Y� � 5�� ..�ri�;�i'�/��M "!emu ��i%��3V � �!� � .i PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1984 Residential Gr1P Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge GHP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GMP Conceptual Submission and Gordon,/Callahan Conceptual Submission NOTICE IS AERF1,3Y GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on January 22, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before tho Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen G11P Conceptual Submission and Gordan/Callahan Conceptual Submission, at which time the Aspen Planning and ZOning Commission will consider each application and score the applications based on the criteria established the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Following is a short explanation of what each applicant is requesting in their 1984 Residential Gr-1P Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicants are requesting a growth management allocation for the construction. of 3.2 residential units within the Aspen Mountain PUD. The applicants encountered a great deal of opposition to their original 700 South Galena 12 unit residential project and, therefore, propose to relinquish the prior allocation granted for 12 units at she 700 South Galena site upon the. City approval of: a new allocation and subsequent review procedures. The new proposal is a request to build 12 units which would consist of two duplexes (4 units) to be constructed at the 700 South Galena site, and 8 units to be relocated from the 700 South Galena site to the west wing of the Lodge. Gordon/Callahan Residential GMP Conceptual Submission This application is also a revision to a GMP application originally submitted las` year. The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation of 3 units, for the purpose of constructing two 3-bedroom free market units and one 4-bedroom, unit. I•-� is the applicant's intent to combine Lot 2 of the Gordon S•.1bdivision with the land area and development rights of the previously subdivided Lots 4, , 6, 7, 8 and 9 of' the Callahan Sjbdivision into a common development. This would consip st of a total develo- ment of: 9 free market units, six 1-bedroom low income, deed restricted Employee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to the Aspen _Club. �601 Aspen esidential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 41 free market units. The project is proposed to consist: of 40 free market one -bedroom units and one free market studio unit. The proposed development is to be located at Lots 1 through 22, Mock J, Eames Addition in Aspen and consists of 51,150 square feet. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. Chairman, Aspen Planning pnd Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on rccember 13, 1984. City of Aspen Account. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Chief Building Dept. FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: 1984 Residential GMP Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GMP Conceptual Submission and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission DATE: December 6, 1985 We are forwarding to you with this memo, all documentation and plats with respect to the captioned 1984 Residential G11P submissions received by this office. Included is the following: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicants are requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 12 residential units within the Aspen Mountain PUD. The applicants encountered a great deal of opposition to their original 700 South Galena 12 unit residential proj ect and, therefore, propose to relinquish the prior allocation granted for 12 units at the 700 South Galena site upon the City approval of a new allocation and subsequent review procedures. The new proposal is a request to build 12 units which would consist of two duplexes (4 units) to be Constructed at the 700 South Galena site, and 8 units to be relocated from the 700 South Galena site to the west wing of the Lodge. Gordon/Callahan Residential GMP Conceptual Submission This application is also a revision to a GMP application originally submitted last year. The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation of 3 units, for• the purpose of constructing two 3-bedroom free market units and one 4-bedroom unit. It is the applicant's intent to combine Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision with the land area and development rights of the previously subdivided Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision into a common development. This would consist of a total develop- ment of 9 free market units, six 1-bedroom low income, deed restricted employee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to the Aspen Club. 601 Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Submission The applicant is requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 41 free market units. The project is proposed to consist of 40 free market one -bedroom units and one free market studio unit. The proposed development is to be located at Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition in Aspen and consists of 51,150 square feet. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 4, 1984, in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for the presentation and scoring of these submissions at a public hearing before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 22, 1984. If you have any questions regarding these applications, or any problems meeting our deadline, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you.