Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.601 S Aspen St.40A-84 /" "-'", 3ELOAD SUMMARY SHEET ""'"' Ci ty of Aspen ~ TYPE OF Phone: i:t.\.S ')&0) IPhone : ,'~~ PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: J (FEE) I. GMP/SUBDIrISION/PUD (4 step) J- l. 2. 3. Conceptual Submission preliminary Plat Final Plat ($2,730.00) ($1,640.00) , ($ 820.00) II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) , 1. "conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat ~$1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) I 1. special Review 2. Use qetermination 3. Conditional Use ($ 680.00) 4. Other: I '" Q \\ P&Z MEETING DATE: ;J ",~""d-'). ~ CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED: REFERRALS: ~City Attorney ~Aspen Consolo S.D. city Engineer ~ountain Bell ~ Housing Director _____Parks Dept. ~spen Water Dept. _____Holy Cross Electric ____City Electric Fire 'Marshall Environmental Hlth. ./ Fire Chief ____School District ~cky Mtn. Natural Gas State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) State Hwy / Building Other: Dept. (Grd. Jctn) Dept. ____City Attorney ____city Engineer D~TE ROUTED: ry,~/R:'" ~ ~uilding Dept. FINAL ROUTING: ____Other: 0ther: I FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: (I).oSleP J;lL.o. ~.. ._~~-_. :"j // . . . ~ -~ DISPOSITION: J) \) 0-., '\ / CITY P&Z REVIEW: I i~ ! /' ./.....- ( , i >- ~_Qf(1 e ~, .. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: " , ','., , CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. . CITY OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAl GROWTH MANGEHENT PlAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLEY SHEET PROJECT:______~_':l~-~~J_~t~________________________________________________________________ 1234 S 6 78 P~Z Voting Melbers E~rrY__ __ftGJLY__ __E9~__ ~!iog _Bgg~r_ ~~!!9~_ B~9_ _~~~_ ~~~~~ 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service b. Sewer Service c. Stor. Drainage d. Fire Protection e. Parking Design f. Road, SUBTOTAL 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood COlpatibility b. Site Design c. Energy d. Trails e. Green Space SUBTOTAL __J___ I I I ___L_ I ___L_ ==T== ==T== ==J=== __L_ ==1:== _k__ __J___ ___L_ ___L__ ___L_ __L__ ___L___ __JC2__ __1)___ ___Cl____ --J:lc:-- __~___ ___t___ __J___ ___L___ ___J____ __~~ __~__ __~__ __~__ __~__ __~__ _J_~_ __~__ ___K__ __1>__ ___~__ ___f.2__ ___~ __3=_ ---;-- --~- ___L_ ---f--- _L;;' --~-- _______ __.Jl__ __.~_ ________ ___l___ __~[__ ___;?-__ __-1___ ___L_ ___L__ _J"-.s.:. _____ ---~-- __-1___ --~~ ___J____ ---'---- ---4f-- ___l::__ __1___ _______ ---4---- __~;;L _______ __L:L __~__ __::l______~__ _~'-s _--R.__ 3. Proxility to Support Services a. Public Transportation __~__ b. COllunity COI.ercial Facilities __~___ SUBTOTAL 4. Eaployee Housing a. Low Incole b. Moderate Incole c. Middle locole SUBTOTAL S. Conversion of Existing Units to Elployee HOiJsing a. Low Income b. Moderate Incole c. Middle lncole SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 - S 6. Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS CATEGORIES 1 - 6 __;2__ __2.__ 5" - ------- --~-- ---~-- 7. -...)--- . -~--- --- --_'?-_- ===?=== --~--- --;?--- --- 5 --~ __s.=_ --~-- ------ --~-- 2 __Z_ Z- 2- 40 ------- ------- ------- ___b_ Z- 2- 2- z. _'l:.L ------ o o o __1L ___0.-__ __5_ o 0 0 0 Q - ------- --_____ ________ ___ __ __.:s__ 2_?_ _1L _LL __XL Ii. '::, . _ &'5: _____ _.?~_ _t1- ~.. ___Ll_ n;- 125.._ I =J=== __1.5:" -_.0_-- ==t~ ___~__ __~,2 '} I. s-- ==1=== __".:L I ---~ __lc'::J_ - / Li~ _~~~ _!.e~~'5 ':) __::d__ ---;;;-- ---- ___s::-_ ___c~_ --_?:._- ___6._ __dd 3 o _.0___ _l3.,5:. _01-21 J5.:~ l: . , ~ .., ~ 'g(c. 1'l5 _k_'2_' Jff''''.... ".... MEMORANDUM TO: Ci ty Attor ney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen l'1a.t. e. r.. ..D...e.. p.a.r.. .tm..e..nt.. .........~..'.u.. d"''''.'"'''''''''''.'"'".'.' ~~~)~~Cl.tli~SiJJ.lJin~i5:toniiDj;~tei:<ft'" Building Dept. FROH: Colette penne, Planning Office RE: , 1984 Residential GIlP Subnissions: Aspen Mountain LodgeGIlP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GriP Conceptual Submission and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission December (i, 1985 DATE: ====================================================================== We are forwarding to you with this memo, all documentation and plats with respect to the captioned 1984 Residential GIlP subnissions 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 project and, theref ore, propose to reli nqui sh the pri or 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 ~Iould 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 Subnission 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 I-bedroom low income, deed restricted employee housing units, on ~ .572 acres adj acent 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. "7 If'} 5. 1:21\ L..._", ~ P '''....'c.r 1'- ,rie 6=0,.1>0-' CA<'-"i'~- ,...0 f(to~,-~,... 1-11"1'+ 't/H: A5"~'" cO;-'.~,,,n-TPI> /l..r:!t.llG~T,,,.... 6~ ,/'lese c.,.."'-"'7"~ . /17/ J 1',e~U<,4 c,.,-- roe .Ie,.~"", r;y THe S4""-fl"'''a1'/Q- (Pol A "'~~ -- Tift> 1'1<"'1"''- C::;A-~ I~i' ,/;,c.~"':> r.>t 'tf/e- S~;-VM'rI~- SA....' .,.11,..,,,,_ t,)/~t""'~'- t:>/S'rIC.II:...I- - - 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 G~IP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GHP 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 project 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 I-bedroom low income, deed restricted enployee housing units, on 4.572 acres adj acent 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. --_...~.,._----- -.'''.. ". w/ CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E.VALUATION 1984 RES IDENTIAL GMP COMPE'l'I'l'ION project:_ 601 Aspen Date: 01/22/85 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of t\~elve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- proj ect req ui r es th e prov i si on of new se rv ices at i ncr eased publi c 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. Hater Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply SystCLl to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and wi thout treatment plant or oth er facility upgrading. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: Exi sti n9 6 " Streets will be utilized. mains in Garmisch, Juan and S. No system upgradin9 is proposed. Aspen b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The existin9 8" sewer lines in Garmisch. Juan and Dean Streets will be utilized. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District indi cates th at adequate capaci ty exi sts to serve th e proj ecL No system Lll?9radin9 is proposed. c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to retain site runoff on site through the use of a system of drywells and retention areas. Complete retention will not L1pgrade service capacity in the area, according to the Engineerina Department and handl es the proj ect onlY. 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 equipnent to an existing station. RATING: 0 COKKIR!s: The project is seven blocks from the main fire station and the existin<;1 three hydrants in the area will be utilized. Willard Clapper's letter indicates the need for an additional hydrant at Dean and Garmisch Streets which is not committed to. The under<;1round parkin<;1 area will have a aprinkler system and units will have smoke detectors. 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. r . , RAT ING : 1 ~ COlUlBR'IS: Underground parkin<;1 for 40 cars is proposed and on- <;1rade parkin<;1 for four cars. No parkin9 is mentioned for BDployee use and cannot be evaluated due to the lack of information on location. f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed developnent without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RlaING: 2 COIIIIBR!S: An adequate aystem of streets exists to Rervice the Droject. If Dean Street is improved and opened. it will primarily serve this project as an access to the <;1ara<;1e. Since new curbs and qutters are proposed. the Engineering Department feels that upgrading of the area is a result. SOB'l'O'rAL: 6 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 developnent by assigning points according to the following fonnula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indi cates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Nei ghborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of siz e, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RA'l'ING: 2 - 2 - '~. COIUIIlI1'rS: Very sketchy renderings are provided with the applica- tion. However. al thougb th e proposal does not appear to be of a particularly innovative design. its height and mass are in keeping with those of neigbborin9 properties and we recommend a standard score. 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. RM'JRG: 1 OORRlR'rS: Again. the site plan is difficult to evaluate. but the placement of parking and utilities underground are positive aspects. If Dean Street is reactivated. circulation to the project may be adequate. but the site plan ap.pears to indicate significant encroachments into the rigbt-of-way. 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. RM'JRG: 1 OOIlllIll1'rS: The number of fireplaces appears to be one per unit. which greatly exceeds current regulations which would allow one fireplace per building. No commitments are made. except for upgraded R-values in insulative components. 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 systens, whenever feasible. RM'JRG: 1 COIIIIBR'rS: The ap.plicant proposes a perpetual rigbt-of-way for the provision of the Dean Street Trail Pedestrian/Bicycle Link. It is uncI ear whether the commitment includes actual trail improvE!llents. but instead appears to utilize the road right-of- way. which presents pedestrian/auto conflicts. 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. RM'IRG: 1 COIlllIll1'rS: The text and site plan are not consistent in numbers of surface parking spaces. The landscaping is around the periphery of the site or maskin'J parking areas. Some amenity areas exist for residents. but littl e relief is presented from the building density for surrounding developments. SOBTO!'AL: 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 devel oprn ent by assi gni ng poi nts according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an exi sting ci ty or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RA~l'lRG : 3 COIIIIBRTS: The project location iF! within two blocks of the City/County bus routes along Durant Avenue. b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- proj ect 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. RAi'JRG: 2 COIIIIBR'fS: The proj ect location is within three blocks of the Commercial Core area. SUBTOTAL: 5 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 wi th the housing siz e, 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 developnent that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total developnent 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 proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middl e 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 residents7 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) . RA'1'IRG: 2 COJUlIlR'l'S: 35 low-income dormitory units are proposed. three of which will be located on-site. No specific indication is made of location or ability to provide the units. Contracts. options or other forms of commitment must be provided to receive points. six emplqyees housed represents 8.5% or 2 points. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed). RM.'IRG: COIIIIIlR'l'S : c. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed). RM'IRG: COJUlIlR'l'S : SOBTO'l'AL: 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 them in compliance with Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: pO IR'l'S 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 - ,... , RA'l'IRG: 0 COIUII!ll'1'S: Again. the Planning Office feels that no "guarantee" is provided that units are available or will be purchased and converted. The imp] ications of those locations cannot be evaluated either without specific information. 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RA'l'IRG: RIA POIB'l'S IR CA'l'BGORIIIB 1, 2, 3, and 4: POIN'1'S IR CA'l'BGORY 5: POIN'l'S IR CA'l'BGORY 6: 'l"OTAL POIN'l'S: 19 o RIA 19 Name of P&Z Commissionmember: P1annin9 Office - 6 - "_"",_,'_H___~""_"'_'___'_""__'_ ~- ",."...~_.-~-~~... ,.,..." "".......... CASE NO. ~ - OlECKLIST CAS E NAME: (,,01 ~ J A\- 0!t1 P 1. RECE IPT PREPARED 2. CASE ASS IGIJED NUIlBER 3. NU1lBE,,'l. LCI3GED III ACCOUNTING BOOKS 4. NU!!BER LCI3GED on BULLETIN BOARD LIST 5. CASELOI,D SUIlHi\RY SHEET PREPARED 6. aSE ASSIGlmD DATE FOR FIRST/ONLY RE\lIEH 7. CAS E LCI3G ED III BLACK BOOK 8. CASE LCI3GED on ADJACENT PROPERTY CNNERS NOTIFICATION 9. REFERRAL llEHO PREPARED AND SENT OUT 10. PUBLIC !lOTICE PREPARED 11. DATE BY lIH ICH llUST BE PUBLISHED: /Z.7.o.i'l 12. DATE BY 1m 101 I1US'!I.J3E llAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OIJNERS: 1-8'-~g 13. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKEN TO ASPEN TIllES (Date Published: ~'7~ ) 14. DATE PUBLISHED LCI3GED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OI'lNERS NOTIFICATION LIST 15. PUBT.IC NOTICE IlAILED TO ADJl'.CEIlT PROPERTY a-mERS (Date nail Ed: ) 16. DATE NAILED LCI3G ED ON ADJ ACENT PROPERTY o;'i1~ERS NOTIFICATION LIST 17. PUBLIC NOTICE HAILED TO APPLICANT(S) (Date Hailed: 1'2.1'11"'1 ) AFTER FIRST RElTIEW. IF APPLICABLE 18. CASE ASSIGNED DATE FOR SECOND RE\lIE\'I 19. CASE RE-LCI3GED IN BLACK BOOK 20. CASE LCI3GED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY CNNERS NOTIFICATION rnrrIAL/Nl\* ~ ~ N/ft ~ , Case No. Page 2 - Checklist 21. PUBLIC NOTICE PREPARED 22. DATE BY l'iHICl IIUST BE PUBLISHED: 23. DATE BY l'ffiICH l'lUST BE ~lAILED TO ADJACENT PROPER'l'Y O~7NERS : 24. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKEN TO AS PEN TIllES (Date Published: ) 25. DATE PUBLISH ED LOGG ED ON ADJ ACENT PROPERTY Ol'lllERS NOTIFICATION LIST 26. PUBLIC NOTICE flAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OdNERS (Date nailed: ) 27. DATE f1AILED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPE;TY a'1NERS NOTIFICATIOIl LIST 28. PUBLIC NOTICE HAILED TO APPLlCANT(S) (Date !Iail ed: ) # AFTER REVIEW COMPLETED 29. COPY OF RFSOLUTION/ORDINANCE OBTAHlED AND IN ~'ILE 30. CASELOAD SUllHARY SHEET ROUTED \"I/FILE (if applicable) *NA = Not Applicable "'._~"..'M__'^_."."_'..~_ /'''' . - / .", ,-,,' proj ect :. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CONHISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GNP COHPETITION LdO ( ~fflf ZIU Date: -rzclf~ 1. Public Facilities and S'ervices (maximum of twelve [12] points)" The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each develoJ;l11ent according to the follo\~ing formula: o Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. . 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the proj ect 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 develoJ;l11ent without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility c..-/' upgrading. / RATING: comlENTS : 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 se\~age disposal syst,an is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development \'lithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facil ity 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 \~ i thout system e>:tensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: L 1''', 'j COMMENTS: '7MLf k? Ahz:T7/c A Vi'. ((/t~o-;?v?AY. '" ...../ j)~ I €) ~~lf- , d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ablli ty 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 equipnent 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. , (~A' RATING: d/;- vt{I/~/ COMMENTS:~IU .c;;Y?c:c:T.1.P- ~ e-<=--s A-lfc:..A,L S (AI!u)<:::lQU./II[ U~~ 1/1"711 of'. fu<:: /!\X( (rtJVUA-itDC<)) f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihtS). 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 - .. ~--'...- ..~~....---.- .-~-- .-.--..--- _.__._--.,r~ - .- --. - COMMENTS :_11." LL ~&vsc.. e;cfJM.F TD ~JiJJ57AJJT(1t C- -ItlA7~f))J /I)F tMr/~ ~[) 707)1/( lA/Tc,t',(/>.oAJ A-~fYbl() ~7 SUBTOTAL : ~ 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indi cates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Com pa ti bi! ity (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: r 1/7 , 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: I COMMENTS : c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Cons.ideration 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: --- I ('J - 3 - -'-~"-'. ~....-..._~-.... r \,...- - - COMMENTS : d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provi si on of ways and the provisions of links to systems, whenever feasible. pedestrian and bicicle existing parks and trail RATING: I COMMENTS : e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usabl e by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. i-"5 COMMENTS: :;&It1E A-1";7A~~-,u7 ~k-C::7V<7/'A(" t5JJ j] Ll~U C;, Uf{(/CZ,JAl-1, I G ~t{JA) (JI/,:::L ?'~' IVA{J"'JItY. RATING: . SOB'l'O'rAL: 5:/ .~ I _ 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). I proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 2 ~ .. - 1"'''- "....... ,..,I '........" COMMENTS : b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 - Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. 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: '!'wo (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitationsl Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitationsl '!'wo (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 proj ect 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 - f"" ~, .........., ",,J Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 Dormitory: 1.00 residents per residents 1 150 square feet of unit space. A. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed). RATING: -Z COIUlENTS: . VI JT it tflk9 L<-1---IJVfrfx?Q() 6T~ ( ,r..J~ -e; l lie;..) Diu' qlTcE,. J-v'ZJ /lCttZo~~ M E7UT <:::) -L c5d/A~ ~ fdtJlus Afl}L( t) j:j:' '!?f1F , b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each ten [10] percent housed). ..0..--- RATING: COMMENTS : c. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each fifteen [15] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS : . SUBTOTAL : eG..-- 5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximlIDl 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 uni ts proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed-restricted RATING: V COMMENTS : 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: COMMENTS : Name of P&Z Commissionmernber: ;bAJI (7-) o 0/ (7._cJ POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: PoINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: - 7 , , Project: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CorUlISSION !'.VALUATION ~~l9~~L GMP COMPETITION (:Af/.L Jo, . Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. . 1 __ Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the proj ect 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 r.lally installed by the developer. and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. ~~ RATING: t comiENTS : 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 syst6" 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 Upgradi~ No uP~~ RATING: COm-IENTS : 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 : N . hiA- -- . mE 'TO 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 equipnent to an existing station. CO~NTS:~/N(~ S{S.TbVlI~ lJtl(,t~ . RATING: () -sJrVts Cfh(S ~ 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. ~ 1f ~ RATING: ~ ~: ~' Ltk/( ~ tMM{tt-; @:;J-f'J& VI" -- mw"'1(- 7 ~Cl ~ Ul6 vff>l MkJo(Urf or tM tis off s,~ I H.-L- f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihtS). 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: 15 - 2 - ... .~-~,--. .:.......-_.---._-_.~~. _.~---~-------.., , ,"", J ~ "'"-.'/ COMENTS: 1M PtemhtJrR'oftVS' &rr ~v s~f1fc,C- Pf1-(AU^cr ~ ~p~t: ~ :;. 6t-tsS/:- ;::;ov:;; .:;:'::~ ~ 1V1/ti:t:Jr- C/JAAMIrMh--t'Y;- SUBTOTAL : 6 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excell ent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibil i ty (maxim um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibili ty of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. COMMENTS: ~ 1>t:N5e-- RATING: ~6 b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quali ty 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. C __ "-.. I f lU}TING: I COMMENTS:~~IG~ Is.. /JDT SPtGf1,0 b\!ov~ ~ Ir u.1W€s /00 MMY cpJ~6\\1\ uA' IN TIff- th.<... c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Cons.ideration 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: .5 - 3 - -_...--~._~-"'" ,...... ........ -"'"'. " COMMENTS: 4.v ~;/,k &~N ~ezJ w//f K- Y,4wc:'1 IN ,IAl5U'~V6- ~AJr?EN1S, M7Jh~~ d1JU~ /<<1f7)~ WRl7(/~~€tZ r;L.- ~~. 'C#t/SF- ff #0 h'(c~, I j(/IU <';/<<- r ~ / . d, Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. 1 COMKEN'l'S: '7;tf/L-/J Nlte. ~ J;T:r~ M~/ P((NIS/~S ~ LltV,<;4y€ TO E-k/Jilt<<j- 7J(#1Cf",. J11-,u(5 6L-,. , 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: /,5 COMMEN'l'S: dTT(' Ptd 15 !liD, St'fuhc ~iI- "/l) Cj/r/c- !lUKe:--, . SUBTOTAL: 5,~ 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 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 2 3 Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: .3 "7" 4 - ""' ,,;' ,,'" "- ,,JI COMENTS : 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 proj ect 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. 2- RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 6' 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 proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria whi~ shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: - 5 - 1"'" ,"".-' ....,,- - Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 Dormitory: 1.00 residents per residents: 150 square feet of uni t space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed). r-:-- .I RATING: r:1 2- COMMENTS: J- Do r&i ftfl.- /lfA1 Mr, J%D / So TO C/I ~ q>OII\i~ TD ltt1aC6Mh(1l Mi4-t1 f- tF1 TlhS' fI.Lff1, Nf( J- M J ~f~(v {b tvltLuMr f MoJf-c-i ~ ds Wfl'tL... PU~trJ.Tfm . 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 : itlFZ 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 - , ,...... - ,,-, '"Ai' Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POIN'l'S 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: 0 COMMEH'l'S : 6. Bonus points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: COMMEH'l'S : Name of P&Z Commissionmember: 18,S o .~ T8S 1,3 (! kkc ~~ j.O ~ j8..{ POIN'l'S IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POIN'l'S IN CATEGORY 5: PoIN'l'S IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POIN'l'S: - 7 ,..... ".,~" , proj ect :. 601 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CorUlISSION ElTALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GHP COfolPETITION As/GAt Date: //tv/~~ ! ( (12] points). 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each developnent according to the folloHing formula: o __ proj ect 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 improvanent 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 systan to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the developnent without system extensions beyond those no r.lally ,installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING : I COMf.1ENTS : 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 se\qage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development \'Iithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facil ity upgrading. I RATING: COID1ENTS : 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 wi thout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RAT ING : ----!-- "'...., ..-, ........ ....,..". COMMENTS : d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire deparbnent 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 equipnent 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: 1- COMMENTS : f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihtS). 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: v - 2 - ~ .--,.---_.,.... _.~~- ._.~_..-~- .._----~ r-. v ~" ,",.,' COKMENTS : 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 developnent by assigning points according to the following fomula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Com pa ti bi! ity (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: /(.. COMMENTS : b. site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the qual! ty 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: --I- - 3 - - '..-. _....~..._~'.... r'" ",/ - > COMMEN'l'S : d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of ways and the provisions of links to systems, whenever feasible. pedestrian and bicycle existing parks and trail RATING: tJ-, COMMEN'1'S : 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---- COMMEN'l'S : SUBTOTAL: 9 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fOllowing formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). I -- proj ect 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: '5 ~ .. - - """ ""' ""J COIU!EN~ : 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 proj ect 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. il RATING: COMMEN~ : SUBTOTAL: ::,.c;: 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 proj ect 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 7 . 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: 4-f2- COMMENTS: ~~ {)Y-- /5y,-eJ ~~ ~ '-~~ _/~~/1/"-~ ;r ,~'d- y~ 1 ~ 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 uni ts 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: 5"" COMMENTS : 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: ~8 COMMENTS : POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: PoINTS IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POINTS: ~o ~~ ~Z/ bS Name of P&Z Commissionrnernber: - 7 ""","-- -"......... ...."....- proj ect: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING comUSSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION 6'0/:;: HJeE/V Date: / ;J;9.f?.f- 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the follo\~ing formula: o Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 __ Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the proj ect 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 r.lally installed by the developer. and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RAT ING : I COilllENTS : 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 syst~ is to be used. the capacity of the system to service the development \'Iithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. and without treatment plant or other facil ity upgrading. / RATING: COilllENTS : 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 wi thout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: ;2 r v - '" ,) COMMENTS : d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipnent 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: / COMMENTS : f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihts). Consideration of the capacity of maj or 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: 9 - 2 - ~ ----- ";.....--.----.--.-- _.----~-_.---~ ~........ ".- '-" COMMENTS : SUBTOTAL : ? 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Com pati bil i ty (maxim um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: :1 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. .2 RATING: COMMENTS : c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and COOling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: :J - 3 - _ ... -....--..----..-r ., COMMENTS : d. Trails (maximlUll three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systE!llS, whenever feasible. RATING: ::2 COIlMEln'S : e. Green Space (maximlUll three [3] points). Consideration of the provisiort of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATING: :2 COMMENTS : SUBTOTAL: I CJ 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximlUll [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 (maximlUll three [3] points). 1 proj ect 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 of an existing city within two blocks walking or county bus route. di stance RATING: :2 ":" " - ....... r"",. ....../ 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: :J COMMENTS : SUB'1'O'1'AL: ~- 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 limitations1 Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations1 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 l~w, 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: :2 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 [15J 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 uni ts 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: 0 COMMENTS : 6. Bonus points (maximlml seven [7] points). COMMENTS : RATING: POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: PoINTS IN CATEGORY 6: :;).5- D Name of P&Z Commissionmember: !) :JS:- 1? /---IP;2U(/ TOTAL POINTS: - 7 ~- proj ect :" CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING cor-mISSION EVALUATION 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION (()() ( f\ <::: 'DQ ~ J ~, ... Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). Date: '/J) J<6.~ , 1. The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each developnent according to the folloldng formula: o -- project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. . 1 __ Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 __ 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 developnent without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMl-IENTS : 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 syst8" is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development l'lithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facil ity 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 wi thout system extensions beyond tho se 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 equipnent to an existing station. RATING: 0 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENTS : f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihtS). 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 I , I I 1 \ RATING: ?- - 2 - ~ ---'.... ...~-_...----.-.....- ._---~~_.._-_....-... ~" " - .JI ',J COMMENTS : SUBTOTAL : 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or desi gn fl aw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maxim um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and ldcation) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: ').. COMMENTS : b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the qual! ty 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: J COMMENTS : c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Cons.ideration 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: I - 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 COMMEN'l'S : 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: COMMEN'l'S : SOBTOTAL: 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 proj ect 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 ~ 4 - ,. " .'" - , ,~ COMMENTS : b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximlml 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: Q COMMENTS : SUBTOTAL: 4. Employee Housing (maximlml 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 nlmlber of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the nlmlber 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 - '^. .-.., "..I ,",.,..... 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: 1-. 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: POIN'l'S 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 1 1\ - 33\ 3 67\ - 100\ of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed-restricted RATING: a COKMER'l'S : 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: COKMER'l'S : POIN'l'S IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POIN'l'S IN CATEGORY 5: PoIN'l'S IN CATEGORY 6: TOTAL POIN'l'S: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: \{\ . \.....;:;; , ~ \ ,.~,\-,,--- . - 7 - """ ,"""'" " .,I CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING C01-1HISSION E'lTALU1\TION 1 }f84 RESIDENTIAL GHP COI-tPETITION proj ect: r:;, () / S '~/:J eN . Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve / - 2 2 -&5- [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each developnent according to the follO\~ing formula: o proj ect 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 improvanent 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 systan to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the developnent without system extensions beyond those no mally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: I C0M11ENTS : 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 s~~age disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development \'lithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without tr eatment pI ant or oth er facil ity upgradi ng. / . 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 \~i thout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: I ....... COMMENTS : d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response sta'ndards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipnent 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: / COMMENTS : f. Roads (maximum two [2] .poihts). 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: ;6 2 - ,\ ... .--..... .,;-,.'.--'-'..P- _.~_~-_.---_...,. - ........ f"'.- - COMEN'l'S : SUBTOTAL: + 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [IS] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. 4. Neighborhood Com pa ti bi! i ty '( maxim um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibili ty of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: / COMMEN'l'S : b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quali ty 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: A ')- COMMEN'l'S : c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Cons.ideration 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 - .. _. .._.__.._.... _<._.. _.._... _..~_._-.I"l' ,-~- " #, ......,# - COMMENTS : d. Trans (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provi si on of ways and the provisions of links to systems, whenever feasible. pedestrian and bic~cle existing parks and trail 1 RATING: c ,---- ,'6 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: 1- 3. Proximity to SuppQrt 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). I proj ect 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: J ~ 4 - I, )' / \, 'J " , / - COIlKENTS : 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 - proj ect 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 -- proj ect 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 -l COMMENTS : SUBTOTAL: \5 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 Dormitory: 1.00 residents per residents: 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five [5] percent housed). RATING: 2- 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 - ,......., ,/ 1""" 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 pur'chased 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 : RATING: u POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: PoINTS IN CATEGORY 6: /7 \ Name of P&Z Commissi onm em bel' : ) ;A-- // 0 . L:? /01((/2- ,,/"./:d'c/ /lrdZc:~-' J z.; ~_A:.p-c'L~~~ ~ ~-Wjtf:du{at(b - /'7 TOTAL POINTS: ~ 4 S 1/ - 7 - - CITY OF NiPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CorUIISSION EVALUATION 1984 RES IDENTIAL GHP COIotPETITION proj ect : ~)\ i-\s\? ~ \ Date: ~ !~bj PYS 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. . 1 __ Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvanent by the applicant benefits the proj ect 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 capaci ty of the water supply systan 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 raally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: I COID1ENTS : 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 I'lithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without tr eatment pI ant or oth er facil i ty upgradi ng. RATING: I COIDIENTS : 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 wi thout system extensions beyond tho se 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 equipnent to an existing station. RATING: o 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 wi th respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. ? :35 ~-t tu ~(,p/OLj!-e- 5' RATING: / UU;;fc)r- -t IO"'h/nU~ COMMENTS : ~ r:xw--nu..;.-.-f-1.! ry.:e-M"" I 1 I P()Yk-c:o~? Mn r L.ouJ)f- ~ 'PM-e/) VnlkYY-O.-e. pl/YJe-C<}/'h#A I. . /Lu.. lJ,.~fL '7n'WtUl'QYl ; s ton{u[,)nf ~ ir)lJd.etucUl-e..... f. Roads (maximum two [2] poihts). 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 - ~ .--'- .-_...----~ --..- _.~-~-- .----....---...., "'" '-' - " " COMENTS : SUBTOTAL : Co 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each developnent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Com pa ti bil i ty (maxim um three [3J points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developnents. RATING: ?- COMMENTS : b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the qual! ty and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrahgement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: I . 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: 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 proj ect 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 "7' 4 - - '-' r,. ,,,,,tti COIlMEN'l'S : 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 proj ect 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- COMMEN'l'S : SUBTOTAL: S, 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 proj ect 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 Dormitory: 1.00 residents per residents 7 150 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 - ,..... ....... .", .J Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POIN'l'S 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: 0 COMMENTS : 6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: 4- COMMENTS : POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: PoINTS IN CATEGORY 6: 'l'O'l'AL PO INTS : /1 o ~/~ 19 Name of P&Z Commissionmanber: J,~~ ~LI V~ - 7 "C,,< .........,;., ~ , December 12, 1984 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: 601 Aspen GMP Submission Dear Alan: DEe I.. 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 ruarantee 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 quarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income housing units by purchasing fully constructed uni ts..." 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. I"'" ....... ~, , 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 com~etition would be absurd and would be a prohibitively expensive, and perhap3 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 three levels below finish twenty-eight element to the east side of the site is high with the parking level located 100% grade and the 3rd level not esceeding the 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 hei ght 1 imi tation arid 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 QUa}ity of Design Section is clearly addressed in my submission. It involves item (aa) 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 type 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, H~"~ @J--i HBC:mvb Hans B. Cantrup <:lox 31)0...... spen, Co. 81612 . '~ \.. Asp en/Pi tk i,~~I1 ning Office 130 .so:.t~~~rtDstreet aspen~~j'81611 '" 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, ~."\ ~ .. r. ~ Alan Richman Acting Director AR/nec . ~i 1/, /1 I 2 o i ~ ''''' ~! 51 I.U :c; I"'" /cIi ('0\ ~ \ I\.~' oJ_ ul i.fI c Ill; I:;" -< ".';' ':.." . ti I I r ~ ,""'\'~'{..,''s' ~ ~ ~~<~:~! 'Yo . I\~i l\~ /P--=Zl \ l f : ! c.l: It <:.J 'z '> ;: S ~\ ~r ::_ 1 u,;/:' ~ &f1 ' ~Ail>-<\ Ilf",.,...,Q , . ~, \\T'~f~1,J "'~;~ j ~,." ~. -"'~" """" ~~@J~w ~(Q)~] \ -TS-::i=\~CW9 . '.""',"',1, ' , . _ 'V. ~\ - :ia"'i':::.;;::.v:::11 'I ',' ~. "'. ~\.. ,)~" .0 '<', 'JI (\<:\3'3 ~l< I::. .1'-\,..' 1"'>.';';:;:.:' \,;j~:.1~~.~{1M [ .... n~l _"~'~;}":'(:;)..,~),;,,,~ , . fr'i~ 1'1 O'.z;,"." ":;0' "M')"~'\'i~~.""" '~!t"\ '. < '. :,Ii .. ".1.'....." 1,~r'''\1 '-" .' A~;~:"i -,~ . -.., ~, '-' \l~:~: ,'.:: ! ~\ ~ r : .t:.~ ''If:! ~ ~ ';:!I \11' '-.1 ~~ ,d ~ ~~! i\\// ~ :-~~( ',\ ~ ~ ~l~~. ~.. ~"1I1 l~MJl' ' ~ !1l1 t~~~..~,~Sr::.Jj..~.~' ., r.70~' "j.~'. ;1~"": , I~ ~ ';<;'. j . r: . .p "'J ;,: :'M~;I ',p .' , . . ri-J >< --.1 i r I ,'8j:~~1.,;I~' ; } ) - \';";:', -<:. -::} " 1:_ " .... .... .Ii , ---":c_ \. , -< '0,. \' ~.~ <: == \ I r(J < l. 1-<:. ____ \ \I ~.'=_ j kfll_ r- , ..4t,~~ .~; ~r;;'~'} . ?~,;' .\ I: N'.~ if"i':.,'>,;. 1- ':2 '. I "~:, .'" :'~I , ~' fii~. .' ..II...~~: ' .. 1 N: ~/.n- 'I..! - v- '~ '~= . ,.~ :.- , , \.. 'I'; .J <2" '!;! " r';.:! , ; .~ ~ (!;It- e -1. . ,,- ; I ..) , ""),Cj ;""00 I "r" J,.'--. V I :1 I \\ i I J':I: _'lr 1..11 :}\I' i1l : ;. ~';,:!\ f lfrD 1 , . ---- : /" I ".' ~ L1:' '" ' 1\ 11,\ /:~ /".=-~-' '\', "'I/I( - ,. III >Y I \A-;/, , '., . . ' t !jIll' '~. , I, , , f'V'I: i .t\i, :'~ " " .. --;'\l~ ::1 i' .' " i) ,;;-~;'; _ , .of, ~ \ I \ ~ L "i\ I', .,_ \ r,. I . "'i::~;! \ I { r K ~ 1 i " i I~ I .~~ - 'co-lilj, .: 1\. - - " . '''~c..:~~h "1\ vI...... II '!~, ;1\ '1 if, 1~ "';, ;3\1;, [ ;I ~ ~ ,:.~~. \1 . ,. ~- ~~~ I, e:; '(" ~:;:'o\'",,~''''' . '{;;'. "~' ~'. / ',\. ',.., - '. ""'\Ii" ,. ~,.".'.' If" , ! 2.5' ,\ ' " "',. ,~:: ''\0.:,-;: f>.' I I . "-t:-L.'-;'~ '" J ; I, "'-. \ : ~ . .~~ 11 .<i~ .,;; ,. <> e<\ ~\ J.;:) N;JclS-Y <--;-s;Sj'>- ci ,-, 'F\ r :z,S . 10' T. ~~~S, r- ~,::~"t:j~ '~y '~' ~'.IV-_. . 3 :.....,.""/ ~i J1~(! ., . ;..~ .J '. . ~ - cJ1 i'\. ~' (~,~ p 'v l ,.. (1)\ c-!\ 'PI, \ ,'" -- I ~ d- ~I ~ 91 ~I -1 -< ill ~ , , ,.- n I. ._.. _..............._,,,:.:.,' ~i ~ , " '.I' '/ /: ,:i, 0 I ~I) ~, ,~I 11 c11- '(:.,J 51 "'\ /c/i ~, '---'- ~! !<l J '" f;- de) 'rJ. 1 I p: ;:if~~~~" d'. ~'~'S"}'~'iv~' ~ /8/'" y c ')3 \~i ~j ~'" , \ ~ \ <.J 'z . V) ~ z' --.. fui,; i' " &~' "{>f}' ~ ), t;)t;) '~>-j:1'"' "_I. ~ i1\'Y/)"" ',~ ", 1lJ! J ,,"-',," ....., ~~@~w ~@r~ \ -:.IS H-::J51 WCiY7l -=:r _ ~..... ~ <<), ;,~,:",';t:~'''llil' ~\ ' .. ~&:~1.){; ~~J' (\*:; I. ,~~ ~ ){1 .A:." l"t,~ "..^:'4;~~i.!ll;~ I;" f ',' {!w~;~'::I\::1:S~:~,,~t'('~~"~1 , ~i~ \" ~';iv.t',y.:'~~' V'7 ".' ~ m ... ~ . 1 r \1~ "k\; ...1 ~, I~::". 1 j:::::.:::J ~ i ~ ~(JJ: 'jr, '~ ~ . i' ~.':~,,',". " i ,;::j _! l:---- ..~ ,\'0 ~ ~I'~~. ;, ~'~ ~~., L. . - .' ~,t ~ !/-' ti1i;:I i~:'f,"'~;fi~" ,VI'~" (L '( ~,;,~ ," "~ ~~o~ \. Iii "- k~~~: ,~, , , ~ : ~\~i'l, I ~ ~I < ;;:trr.'''~ .\~ ',~ fi( . ~' I I~ ./;~~~ " ::.- ~ "~ ~ (!;l,t- ..s ' ~" " '" ' -, ',f 25' '/ ' ~. I . ',! ',\ '1"!1 i\ , ' 0' 0- r- , " I '\~, "'- 11----;::;' , rq: J' ' ~-IJ-- ,/'" ,~1l ,,'~~ ie ~~= ~ If 1& j, If I'~'" ~". r --"", ,", . .;~<'; '.tr' '" 0.0 () ", .\,. !V r i, , ' , '- ft 1'~.' - $;~", ' ",'e'f~ " .~~}...;,.~>.:.! , , I r 1'_ I' / I , , -<r--J' I 1J-- , - '-'" ' " "". " ~~~,\---!I < :]\\ . :...J ! I ::....j ::::. .. II, , I, ~ ! '" ' . r- :/1'\ I II 1 . 1['11 j:' '1 ,I, c'1 . .1: /' '.' , <T' ' 'I" I \ '_;:/--c-\' " I'll yh /~c-, ~~1U_:'1 \\~. ':,iIJ/,i 1 - ';1" i~ . I' ,- ,:."- Hi\i//':' h -1;,il,LJ " .. _,i,I",;. ,I " 'i\l! I" \,1 II I \, ;Vl!, ,cc (\11 ., ~I"'~tl . '\ ". ~J'~~-~-I'~ H~ - -' '" )-j:'i II '--:....... II "" ','2, I,' .. ~ \T '~ \' i~i.1 : , ! ! , I 20.' ~ I, '- - I. o " c(\ i r() < '1 \ ' I . ) . . . , , . " /I- F " , I I, I I i .. ~ !~.~' i""'li:', !" !~':" 10,; ,::,,:i, f_~~ .}: . f~ '-, , ",~ I, ' ~ , .~ S! a.!"' !o :..ct: , I I \ II. \ \ \ ~~~ I '! j; ,.' ,( 1<:1--. I I" , -< I ~ , ~ LL;:;: 17"'" <~ ~~~:~~~..~ ' , ~ . ',so -- '--V'< ~'T ' . . "'~t:~1'- -'lXt.:<;:r;,:-;: 'J'~~~ ''-" ' ~-.::.:--. "-- 0\ 0< '" <l' ,\ D--N~ds-r <---;--~':sr--'> '" N a- , r .\ 10; , , ~~t!~ r ~:","\.", '--;r~/'" '] QI ,..;(~":. " ttl :'<', '~"\' " . /0,' ~ '. ',,"'" ... ~., .. U1 ~I'\. ~~ ~,,~~ ~\ ,~ l " .,~ ~Qr.; ; " \ I. <AI t'l\ 'f:\ \ .,~' <t c1- wi ~ 9/ ~I -1 F ~_.--~...,_.. ei ; , -f 1 ~V"<~ .....J ......".., ........, [r!J~@j~~w ~@~ , '::t's H-::lSmCW9 . : , ~ ':T., ..~;-l:~ ":~;~I' 0<), _ ",,':";. 5,.~i 1 I " ,~\ :tl~~'\'; ~ "'JI (\cl3s .I. M' h.~ ..,,:':l'~lt;; _,I- ~+1. L.. ~,l!' &"~. 'I ~'::!":"~4'~ ;::.:J ~,~t ,. -lift/ ~ 'Jtbj; . ' "7 ;'~~(.~J-' ~ .'~,..:;(i.,i',~,'..5."'" 1.~' (':.'1 ~,"'. If?;",'. .iUrA! ~ \~!;~ I.: i, \11 \\ ~ ~~;' ';\'~i .~ ~ "~!. '~" .,J )" . .. I ,,' .\\J/ ~ i'~~. ~,.,"~- ... I" \~:r-! . . \. ~. i '., ~ .-' \ ,~' .( II .~:: . '~~?' . ;'"' o! , '.~ (.....,. i;.~;'.f..,;r,'. , ['-i:',, '. ~;;;~ ~',"" ^'. " :. ~.\. '~'3"Z;X.'::.'~ ',"../ '.' , , "'" .. -1..,-. ,-'::~ f'to<. "~ '~..)~: ',; I..IC, I . . . ~~ < ,I, ';:~"" \.))4: . "'/J h':, 1-::::1 iiI\!! ,'1,- .q;,.. , ;?\,~":"! ". '~$ . , :.'..... "." "', I-<:: r---:! i r 1\ _ i i I , J- ,}-- , , , .' -=: --:;;J ~," \ I! _ t -< -l \\ ~ '~I-J \ I [f) L I \ '1< r----< -.....:. ,s.!1_ ,.\ ;( ~~~,; -~~.'" , "~q:~' " i::J.:,~l i' \c.;; <l!::? II A<t 0'" ! '-'-~ :0 i~ :'4' I \ \' c: ""'c, .~ '..... ,', 1<.....1 ,'- 1-< I \ . ~ ""':7:\:-,;~"J.' ~ '''''"-'" "'"V"" '. . " , ,," '. "- \ , \ .. 0' ~\ <J" ,\ ,tf\- i': "C \.",-) .,J, I :'~': ",1 l r.i- " ~ er- r "~~~ ~I ~~ " ,. aM l' .J ~ '!;1 r.1 I J;:I , ~ I~ i: (!).... o -I' 25" \ ") 0.00 I, 'I; \ I (l );0. "-.. :c, I ? : .'\ ; \~ l": . ~ "~"_' ", re;- ...,/.'~;;I'-. .~~.. D N2cJ S-y <~'~~> ri ,,' 'F T~ . 10' .r JEttJ-~;', T~icP",j, 1--';'di'(J ? .....;--/ ~i It:~, , 'I' ~.l&I" ~.- . 'J " ell ,~, i~ ~,.".. ~" ~ t~':1 ~, ~ ";U.. '.'c, l I :zi <t d- ull ~ -<t c.J ~ 91 ~I -1 . <fJ\ <-l\ 'P\ \ -< ul ~ l ~ ;' '" (. " .-"...-~.",-" 0' """''"-. '" J .- '~'" ''''"''''' ~~@]~w ~@w 'l S H':)5 I W CiY~ ' ~, .,~~.:-\~.,,~ ' ~\ , -- ~~~~'t~r I ,r\ ", ,.i~~::il,} /. h:.Ar,>,~' ""r:'?,,;J;.~\~ ..; / "J~~; "':," ~ ",:.1":.";},1&~0' ',A,~ i" ~ 7.7"~'~:;O' ,; <~'\ .' ~' "'" ~(+'\ , ,~! . '~,.Y .... i!' r ."-\, t,/.. . "l{-.. ,I t;,:;;!. '1 ," '( <~~'J.; Ii" '~ '-'" ,.,1 "~,' '~'~{.~',~,' '" : ~ . ',;:0 _ ~ ~~:" i.'~ ~ ,~\! ';~ ~ ,,~~""~~I '~'.c'.(~,t! ~~ 't,;~>G~, ,Iill " ~"-- ~,' R.J I 0~J I f..::c , -- ,~i: (!II'" " ; -I' )1 (\c ~S A, ~1-\ 1~: " , ' T~ t:~)~;, '""'0 ' '. ~J:;;>/ '3 ~i~.~ ~~. ~'1 J __ ttf,'~' , l '/j~ l\Jr) '!',! ~,I 21/ o ~; ~I/ c1~ ' 51\1~ ( ~, --'- ~! ~ ~ " ,,~, t ~ ~ 'c ;::f\~~:, ~ t~ :~:,?1~j~\c; ,Jo \~i '~~ ,if; ,,," '" t:; Do 2.5"' , , I ,,[ . .~,} ..~ p !J' 0- r- \ *~ ~ .: ....,.~ ('<~'~~', ";" . ['0' '~~" . ".';OCOA . <'~'~I<V'j,;,>,\,:; . C' :t:;' .~ '... . ':O*';~ ", . ,.-., .~~ < '~.'~~" "'~'. 1><1:::1 If ;'1\ - =i'" ;i~''t\-; , , \,,;,'>'. " r--.:! " Ii): r OO:;:;;N_ \ I; _ I 'l l..c -.-.1\\ 9. '1(' ---J \ I rfl I \( < -----< ,,;;,"~;', ------ ~ """x,;',:W,!-- ,o;:'!:'P III 'hiC,\,,<;" ",' NIL ,~~ <if 1- I f.'c.1. , 0 . ""':l : """ i I; f.':,,':-:. "c. I . --- (I \ It '. , , : l~ : ,) ,~ \ ... """'"', '-." I ' ~. , I """ '---- ~.~ I. 1=1-.1 1-< I ! P- I( t ,'1 "l.i'~'\..7\. ~ " .,... ~' "~"'''''', ""}" ,. , '''7 ;~"(" :,,',,, ,_'~" '~I>- ~;" ~ " -q;U,"/, ;i:-~ <?( : , 0'. -'<' ~ "''\ , D N;JdS'Y <--;- S;.s I > '. II " r' , 'JV ~" '\ r,;-. J COO ,lr'lr\ 1= 1\1 I'''. IV , 1 'II II , \ \ " . i I ! ; , r,\ I i. I ~IU .!J....t I' i./ . . :[.1 r-- ,..' :'\ IcJf:n I" (i) :.1:), ,'~- '", ' Il.i::~"'-, 11.\1' /'- ,\\1../11" - L~': \~\ :l{! ':A.,/! .' (" "''1'1'' /. r~lh!i Ii: , ,dV":" . "' ;:;\:1";') .~' , ~\;,.'\'\.(..il " 'I ,k i k, ~:~- iJ I \'~,I " ";\ - ,CCc ;"~\l' ,'..'~c...~I.> i~\ !<t, I' '" ,--, \ii, " .:> \'1 !!!; \' !~! !(--=/,! t ,,~, LaJ . , " lIo, ci N 'F 7 " 10' ill .' ) : ~ ~ cJ --z \.J) l' S utI ~ ,'i', ~I.: ' ~ '" 'f.}' 4ft',' :;) 1-:t''1;..... :;>,\T;:r,'!' l~ .J I 2.S' ,..-, ,,) , \ i i , , \ , r{:J\ ~\ (l", ~\ I ~ <t c: ~ 91 ~I ..J 0( ~ ~ ".' _..u._".,_:. ~i ,.'''''-. ,",/ """ -- ~~c~~w ~@~ \ -:IS ::j:. - <'"l\ 0'\ .1\ ci C, 0- , " 25" ~ \, , , \ , \ ~~ ~\ '..L:) -W;;/d S-y <--;-S;Si>- 10' ". " TJ~~ e~f:t,:~.\. :'."~ .':1'<:" ? '" 01 ,."", air I I 21 <t <i w ~ -<t cJ 91 ~I -1 -< ill ~ ,;:,-': ) ~ ell: <J V; S m~ir\, c!J ~ ..,.^ ~ ,0t ,) ,~~;:S \-..-:~,y., } tn'h", J ,,, ~ : ":.\:', .. ,...-"..-...............''':"',' <fJ\ <-1\ 'M ~i ~ . . I /i '1'1 ~ 1 2 r 'I:Q ~: ~ 51\~ 51 LA f--' = ,;/" .;j ~ \ I ii ~ "~~{'J~:-}~;~l i r ~,~~~~~i" I\~i \~ /P.JI l ~ Ji"'" ,...... -",,,/ '- ~~@]~w ~@@ " '~s H-:::>S mcw~ >tt' "" ",", ,"..."..""~ rr. ",' <"l\ 'of"""'i',Ni" I " .";\ .."", :f~; ~ ~JI (\cl3'3 .~ I. ~h ~..,,~ \".':);',,;~~(l'i:t)'" " ~ 1-\ 1M " f ',' ?~;,':~I';''''::1..",\:,:;.~.~ ' "".. \'{ <Jf:P.J;"'" , . ~~ ,.. \"".,." .\ ".;t?l'IL I: ' ~ '1"'-); I., ,::-.;:] . ."."1- I~\' i . ~ '1-~ " :~, ~ j., ,,\'0/ ~ ~ '~~'I! I ~\ " , ! t,'\. r-. ~ """':.'~/"~ I -91 . ',', ~I I ,~~ ',- -~ ) ;~; ,::r... ~'1.." , ' ,~",~ -rn~\,~" l rV ~:~~I ' · '"' ~"- .11 s'"' '. . , ':~~ II' , '" I 0 ~ . <'. .t~~~~,,' , . ~ ~~~'~ ;', I 12 . !!"(J1\~'., ,. ___ 0"- ":;.;:: . . "~ ~ "', ' . &1"'" ~ J "!';;- .' :, :-F .,.', I~:::::j ci ,., er , r' , 2.5"' I'll . . I .',,1, ,.1 , I .~ , ': }~ .. .', '-, T ~f~\.' ~".../;;>/ '3 ~':Q pa,.i'\.': ~~,.. iii t tf; ~ ' ~','..,\, ~ f;'. I,. " l~ (I> '" r- , %; !' ff- 00= -r , ",.( , ~ ~ f . IF '" " , " f~:,!;>,,' I r I I ;! I I I ) , ,i I .1-: . '000 T' iI' ~, .oJ TI/, ,,:. k ! I _, :1 ) ,,;'oi' ':,i\:' Ur<ll '" ' \ ii\ t,"<~",-~!l 1\ \. /, / .. <II " \.:\,; ;'1 /" _ __~" I",:'q! ,iA:I, .' - "'lJ",lIl"li';" , I" I [:,111)\:' , .,./I.",! " , ",'" , " " ,,:;il\:~l,l.. ,'" ~~ ) I ".,. ~; :~ '(" '~i, >' I '.t;' '\ -=_"l!i\' ''-''.."" - ,<' I>J' ": ':.i<i :1,\ "" t:, II '" " ,~ \, ,~, .1,. i ! I i , /', I [ 7:S' ~ ,I '- , , 10 ... -<~ _ l 0':, ('Iii rn 'I < ,c ""\.,.11 1< l~;" \: --- \, I -- \ : ' J, .. t . . , ; -- --- --.:. ~ &1Iu- o i~ , \ . (I \ ~,'" I., ) , " u ~ 'z V) 1 S ~;;, " ~f( . ~/:';~ Itf~T{'~' " -.J ~i<~ '~~~C,S , ';~<'1,' ""~I; <- "Ii~,t; , , 0'1/ ," , .e- I' ,,' _'~ ,I' . I: iT ~" ~, ":. . 'I", " ; "(. , )1 I : l~ij" ~ I..;; I ~t:1r ,.., '1< r- I , ,I '-< I \ '-, ... II ! l? j:,~ J rl . . ... llo, ~ ~ ~ ' ~ <~ ....;.".._"~.....", {"Y' , '.. ~;, ':""V'C. "" ,'", ~,:\'/: "'.'. '!i;i./,.;~ \ """",~ 'S:Jr- \ ,_._~~~ __~,J \ . f:fJ\ .. o!\ 'PI, \, O' .;:\ ~\ ". ~ ct ~I ~ 91 ~I -.J .( ul, ~ ",.: . ".r:-. ,,: >--".-.~-...........'~,;.." " ~ m IV' ,; 1-1 1f11 !, irn " ,-- .J> --j --,. .. - V 7- V' ~ .~ --!--' jV1 IJ:g ~ i~ "-' '-.L,./ -1 -Co ..4:> o ..J ..<;;, ~ rj) ~ b Iz rr-n 10 i; ~ : :V I ~ I ,..... '- - - ,~ ~~ '< ~ \1'_ ,! r::' / r~l~ I' , ~~"!. :Ji ,. :-~: f1' I : I ----' IV 0:> , I ! @(Q)~&~[P)~[M ~~ m ~ ~ 1-1 ,m II 1[11 It: >- .:l ;,. .. V I 2 ' I V' ;----, i I '~ -J--' !10 11:g I;::, r- Iv: !::..j I I " i ~ I , , , --l 4j J:> Q ..J ,S;; t> rji I'" '-' "'" '-' , " ~I" \ ~V'_ i , /' r~ '" ,,' ~p"'!. , p:" [ ,J1 , ,-I I b I Iz: irTJ I -4 ~ I' '. I I IV , I V GO I - ~ f I ! , I @(Q)lJ~~~~[M ~~ ...J ..;:, -'" Q - ......... r '~ t-~~_ \j ,; ,~~ m f r; I~ Ii pl I" ;)> ;:=1 (") Z ! I \P /--- "~ -V IV'> 1- Irn I;::>, r- I if.' 1::1 II '-!----' r III ~ ~ ~ I' " I I IV V 00 ~ - I """ - I I , I @@lJ ~~[p)~~ ~~ m ,; V' -l --e, J> o m If' -j (11 II ,m r- ,)> .:J v 2. r--- ~ -l--' IV' iJ~ F i.n I~ " ~ ..J s I" ('j) ~ b ~ I I I""'- -- ....... """ ! ~~ .~ ~ "'- d 0 ;1 \ , ~. / r~I" '.. Co.. "? :: p:,,- I I I I I I 1--: '.ll 1 ' ! '; I I - IV CO ./ I , @(Q)~ ~~~~~ l~ " ""'"' -- '- r ~r-; I ':1 ;~ ~ \f_ ,! i r~ I~ ,.' ~."?, , .:<- I I -1 I -Co -'" Q , ~ I rn ,; I~ I' ,111 r: >- :::l -.,' " (5 I 2- ! I V' ~ "~ ...!--' !~ II:;:) F Iv: I~ "-' '~ ..J .,I:, r-' rj) --j ',' '11 I , , -" , , ' I ~, &: fTTl I ~ !: IV, ~l I I ~ IV CO @(Q)~~@[pJ~[M ~~ rn f ~ I~ I~ ~c :)> =1 0 I 7- ! I V' ~ "~ -!/ 'V> 'v 1m ~ Iv: :.j , ~ --1 -c ..J::> Q ...J ..1:, t-> ('j) """' v t '? i; ~f'l l ~ \1'_ 'I (<0 ;( \ , , ,/ 1''''1'' ..' ~p"'? ; p~ ~ & i ~ ~ r I' i j' , I I IV I iV co I - ~ / I I I @(Q)~ ~~[p)~~ l~ /....~ , ~i r"~] ~j "',-f, (~\,-j7 IJ \ t:: ~ (,s=~_ \~ \ /"_....J ~(Q)~ ,,'--...~~ ,> /:~';. , \. t ~J , ~- -I' '>S) \~ '_-_'~"-"-"'''''-_. _n' _ + e . ;'~.... (0 ...." -+-+- -4 ~ . ~ I' ,",J RJ~ . f ~ { ~~ ~ it> R1 r ~ ~~ ~ 1'= ~ Co ~ ~ -1:::- ~~ \fl~- vJ V1 Ul 0_ ~~ P 6"' I 1- ~ ~:; 9 ()'\(j' 1":- ~ ~ J1 . .::l ~ ~ ~ ~ -.J ~ -J .-J ......j --1 ~ ~ --.S> ~ -S> -...D VJ ~\'-'> VJ - 1'-' ~ r~ l>J ~-9 V U) uJ ---S> r:x::r-- -J J -t> -D UV /0 -. VI , '----"" rn ~ ,-1 r; I ifTT T b '" ,)> :J v 2 V' ~ .:v :'J~ IV liTl ~ i i~ i I , ,~ , i --l -l;o ~ o .J ..s;-, r-> rJi [ ~ M Ie I f :' ,v I ~ , , ....." :) ~ . r >- h., ~ V'_ ~ " r~ I~ I ,,~p"'! 'I . F~ "'" '''b ~ '" (' ~ " '--- :-4' DU" I , , , I ' - ('> f"'- - (' , P \" -4 l' " I\ ~ IV 00 , , I I , I I , ~@~ &~[P)~[M ~~ \ '--\ \.,ll \'1'=1 '--. \r:fJ ,.,~~,...............-~-",--.", .- ~ . .)-.' ~ , ' ,r " - ~ """1 ~ 03 '~":~'~;~i r~))Y ([J , 1'9 1m '.) .;.Tll '., ?- ,I. (f; z.. r> ~ ~ .,. ",01 , 1 .--.".. ,,"-- :Ittl' : ~Il," l:- I it: >- :v~ UJ : 'I " I r-- "~ V' I \ b:1I1, " ~ \\ It [:::>- It :i" ,~, """' '\ ~>-~, ,~' I,;~ ~-~~Xk~ I! )~~'if' j; l'::::r- ,"I ' (~," ~ ':, . 'b ~~ ~, ~g; pl,,'A ::c.:.:: C , I; ~ ' '}:(,\t', : T"'", ~ ,~i:'t:;~~ --' c/,;' ~tr::;~~lr? ~ ~ !l.,- .1~~~' Ii .,"~:i (F~J .~ ~.~.'." ',' ~!1{~.. '-J ~ \ i~~~ ~ B;I {~, ~ ,:3' f\' , if,: ~ ~I, ;"',~, ~ ( ,1 (\-:....... , ~ f:!!j\' ' ' I" :'"~J -'~ \ ~~ ~ !,- 'J', '{"'~?', . ~ rbl .... W " ( f~" I.'cl",r . ..::.. .....~,-::t.I1~i - ,:'~e' ;,'" ~,,:, r.:':"",...~i' I 1rJ('. ~~vo.;;r\"\- ::1 '~;'/h t, ,), . ._~ft~ t- sFrMti~:T' ~:~.J q ~ </" St::{v IC: 1"11 'A~~~~' . \j, ~ I' \Ilh~~;~i.'~{~~ ~ \(y ...... ......) ~ '. ..(:. bAR-MISCH 'ST.. , @@lJ ~~~~~J \ ,'. \ '.' ' \ , ! : ,4 , ~. \ ..1" { , ' " '. r I . :~ . ,5<: ...l ..0 0" I-' <. 155 I > .....' A-~e.cN_<:;:T \-" -n \JC 'p , r:==- l':!:'- e .it9 !} ~;t, ~, b. .' , I,~ ~',I/ ;':;'1>, > ,,:Z.)j<;', '<..'.-:;~ :~ :~,t}~~i , , I \ j ~_-t. ,~~" '/' --Jl-;~----~. '. -J ..0 ..a :11 10, ,')\I.'J7' , , t I ~ L~ ... """, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1984 Residential GrIP Submissions: Aspen nountain Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GI1P Conceptual Submi ssion and Gordon/Callaman 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 Ilountain Lodge GrIP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen GHP 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 crit.eria established the Municipal Code of the City of Asp~'n. Following is a short explanation of what each applicant is requesting in their 1984 Residential GMP Submissions: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP Con~eptual Submission , The applicants are requesting a growth management allocation for the construction of 12 residential units within the Aspen Nountain PUD. The applicants encountered a great d~al of opposition to their original 700 South Galena 12 unit rEisidential project and, therefore, propose to relinquish the prior allocation granted for 12 un its at th e 700 South Gal ena si te upon th e City approval of a new allocation and subsequent review procedures. Tl1e new proposal is a request to build 12 units wl1ich would consist of two duplexes (4 unitsl to be constructed at the 700 ~outh 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 conceptu.l Submisslon This application is also a revision to a GMP application originally submitted last year. The applicant :is reques,ting a growtll management allocation of 3 units, for th. purpose (If constructing tw 0 3 -bedroom free mar ket units and ont 4 -bedroom uni t. It is the applicant's intent to combine Lot 2 9f the Gordon Subdivision Hith the land area and development rights of the previously subdivided Lots 4, :,6,7,8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision into a common development. This would cansi,st of a total develop'" ment of 9 free market units, six l-bEidroom low income, ,deed restricted anployee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to tl1e Aspen Club. ,., _ _ J' _, I _. '1- , ~;;;~~ ~~r~. , ~,eSidential GMP Conceptual Su~ission 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-bedxloom u1n1ts and one "fare. market studio unit. The proposed development s to be locate at Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Additlon 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. IlLPerry H8fyey ~hairman,Aspen Planning ~nd Zoning Commission =========~~~:====~~=~c==========~======c====~===~==========a=====E=====aa Published in the Aspen Times on December 13, 1984. City of Aspen Account. ~ol .J-oJ~ )() % ~ ~~ i r~~ ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Ci ty Attor ney city Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Chief Buil di ng Dept. FROB: Colette Penne, Planning Office DATE: 1984 Residential GI1P Submissions: Aspen Hountain Lodge GHP Conceptual Submission, 601 Aspen Gr1P Conceptual Submi ssion and Gordon/Callahan Conceptual Submission December 6, 1985 RE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We are forwarding to you wi th this memo, all documentation and plats with respect to the captioned 1984 Residential Gr1P sutmissions 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 110untain 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 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 ~lould 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 I-bedroom 10\~ income, deed restricted €!T\ployee housing units, on 4.572 acres adjacent to the Aspen Cl ub. 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 probl€!T\s meeting our deadline, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you.