Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Sunny Park Lot 4 501 Park Cir.1-82 ti 1 + ✓ -J No. ) - Z CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1 . DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: - STAFF: ACkc -- OAt 2. APPLICANT: _ 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 4. PROJECT NAME: CAN K 5. LOCATION: l „-•\ CL'"; i 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 4 Step: ✓ GMP ( ) PUD ( ) Subdivision 2 Step: Subdivision Exception ( ✓ GMP Exception (_ Rezoning ( ) SPA 1 Step: Use Determination Conditional Use Special Review ( ) HPC No. of Steps: Other: 7. CONCEPTUAL REFERRALS: Attorney `off Sanitation District School District f Engineering Dept. V Mountain Bell ✓Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas _Housing /Parks _State Highway Dept. Water ✓Holy Cross Electric ✓Other "' City Electric v/T File Marshal/Building Dept. 8. DISPOSITION - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: P & Z J Approved l/ Denied_ Date 2--/-.7) �7 eper-ronvrdf` of() LN, l coy err( (Ago rctE%on r )(x/7tvy Park fo r 3 -{rec rno r f J- urri - (341_70 p ed pi z_ siorio9 Wee5 tiq. c( {,.r f& -fir; < n f 5 rur qeA .r (-ra0e2C_ 7 ( /co,7,2 -from • Council Approved Denied Date 171.•. ^1 fi {, tee - march Cr, lei P- 9. PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRALS: _Attorney _Sanitation District _School District • _Engineering Dept. _Mountain Bell _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks _State Highway Dept. _Water _Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Fire Marshal/Building Dept. 10. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING P & Z Approved Denied Date • 11 . FINAL PLAT Council Approved Denied Date • • 12. ROUTING: Attorney Building ._ Engineering Other 5- MEMORANDUM - ci" LH. it , 7 TO: City Council o ' 1� FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Sunny Park - Conceptual GMP Review/Extension of GMP Allocation DATE: November 14 , 1983 LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue Lot 4 , Sunny Park Subdivision ZONING: R-MF PUD LOT SIZE: 13 , 704 sq. ft. APPLICANT' S REQUEST The applicant, Jeff Costley, received a GMP allocation for his Sunny Park project in the 1982 residential competition. Through the GMP review, the applicant obtained conceptual approval from the P&Z on February 2 , 1983 and is now requesting conceptual approval from Council. According to the applicant, the economic recession pre- vented him from immediately moving forward with the remaining neces- sary approvals which include full subdivision/PUD approval (minus conceptual review before P&Z) , condominiumization and GMP exemption review for the employee units . Due to the lapse in time, the appli- cant is now also requesting a one time six month extension of the Sunny Park GMP allocation so that these necessary approvals can be obtained prior to the expiration of the GMP allocation. The requested extension will move the allocation expiration date from January 1, 1984 to July 1, 1984 . PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant obtained a 1982 GMP allocation for three free market 3 units -- a one bedroom and two studios . Approval was also given at Lterrpt that time for four employee studios and the reconstruction of three 3 reaeint existing free market units -- a studio, a one bedroom and a two gyp ) bedroom unit. Therefore, the total project includes six free market units and four employee units. A previous GMP application in 1981 for seven free market units and seven employee units was denied. The site design for Sunny Park was determined by P&Z and the Planning Office to be excellent -- all utilities are located underground; 60% open space is provided with abundant landscaping and private interior garden areas; walkways, bikeways and a sheltered bus stop add to the efficiency of circulation within the project; and a 50% reduction in the allowed density is incorporated in the proposal. The demolition and reconstruction of the three existing units should also improve conditions on the site . Thirteen covered, off-street, on-site parking spaces will provide ample parking for all units. The applicant has also agreed to provide 100% financing for the four employee units. Attached for your information and review is the project ' s site plan, elevation drawings and the 1982 GMP scoring evaluation for Sunny Park. MEMO: Sunny Park November 14 , 1983 Page Two PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW The Planning Office has reevaluated the conceptual review of the Sunny Park project and continues to recommend conceptual approval of the project as proposed. In reviewing the extension of the GMP allocation expiration, Section 24-11. 7 of the Code states that the failure of an applicant to obtain a building permit for the employee unit portion of a mixed free market/employee, residential GMP project within a two year time period from when the GMP allocation was granted will cause the residential GMP project allocation to automatically expire. The City Council may, however, grant an extension to this expiration date on a showing of good cause by the applicant. The applicant is requesting that Council grant this extension due to the difficulties the applicant has experienced as a result of the economic conditions over the past two years. He is now willing to proceed with the necessary approvals and obtain a building permit within the requested six month extension period. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends that Council grant conceptual approval to the Sunny Park GMP project as well as approving a one time six month extension to the expiration of the Sunny Park 1982 residential GMP allocation from January 1, 1984 to July 1, 1984 . Such approvals are subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant must obtain approvals to the remaining necessary__ reviews (subdivision, PUD, condominiumization and GMP exemption for employee units) as well as obtaining a buildi permit prior to July 1, 1984 . 2 . The applicant must meet all of the obligations committed to in the Sunny Park application including, but not limited to the following: a. 13 covered, off-street parking spaces; b. a new water line interconnect on King Street; c. the provision of the proposed bus waiting area; d. the landscaping as proposed on the Sunny Park site plan; and e. four employee studios deed restricted to the low income housing price guidelines. 3. Applicant must arrange with Holy Cross for the installa- tion of underground power lines to serve the project and also arrange for the revamping of existing overhead and underground service to the Marthinson-Nostdahl apart- ment building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: Sunny Park Date: 1/27/82 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2 Comment: Water system in the area will be updated by the applicant extending the 6" water line in King Street to interconnect the 6" water line in Neale Street. b. Sewer Service Cmaximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1 Comment: The existing trunk line in Park Circle can handle the increased load of this project. The Aspen Metro Sanitation Plant also has the capacity to handle the project. c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 1 Comment: On-site alluvial sumps will maintain historic site drainage from the property but will not improve the area' s site drainage. • • • Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 1 I Comment: Project does not necessitate or propose any new facilities as a fire hydrant is 50 yards from the property and response time from the existing fire station is under 4 minutes. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2 Comment: Excellent proposal for 13 covered, off-street, on-site parking spaces. The parking has very low visual impact with a minimal amount of paved surface. This proposal provides the 4 employee studios with parking spaces, therefore an exemption from the parking f. Roads (maximum 2 points) . requirements for the employee units will not be requested. Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating 1 Comment: Existing roads are in poor condition and nearby Gibson Avenue is presently at capacity. The project by itself will not substantially impact the existing facilities. Subtotal 8 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design ' a. Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 3 Comment: The project fits in with the surrounding area and improves the overall quality of the neighborhood. Three deteriorating units are being removed and reconstructed as part of the project. Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment: All utilities are located underground. The project has approximately 60% open space with abundant landscaping and private garden areas in the interior of the property. The walkways, bikeways and sheltered bus stop add to the efficiency of circulation within the project. c. - Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating 2 Comment: Pedestrian and bicycle pathways provide a link between the adjacent property to the north and Garrish Park and Herron Park to the south and west. d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 Comment: Project includes such features as insulation exceeding standards, energy conserving glass areas, insulated curtains or blinds, excellent solar access, active solar collectors to accommodate domestic hot water heating, special ducting for distribution of solar heated air and e. Green Space (maximum 3 points) . thermal mass for storage of excess solar energy. Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 3 Comment: Approximately 60% open space will be provided and will be • vegetated by berminq and plantings. Interior garden areas provide a courtyard style use of the interior space. Subtotal 14 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). • 1 -- Project is located further than six' blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks Walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an • existing city or county bus route. Rating 3 Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). { The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 2 Subtotal 5 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 22 Comment: There are 4 employee studios at . 75 units per studio equaling 3 units of employee housing. With 2 free market studios (1 .5 units) and 1 free market 1 bedroom unit, there are a total of 2.5 free market units. Therefore, the employee units comprise 55% of the project which is b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . to be restricted to low income housing, entitling the applicant Rating --- to 22 points. Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating --- Comment: Subtotal 22 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating 4 Comment: The applicant is willing to provide 100% financing for the 4 employee studios to persons qualified under the City' s income eligibility guidelines. The mortgage offered will be for a 30 year term at an interest rate of 12% or the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, whichever is less on the date of determination. The rate will be determined on the date of preliminary plat submission. Ordinance 66, series of 1981., provides for 1 point for each studio with 100% applicant financing. (j Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating 0 Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 49 Points in Categories 5 and 6 4 TOTAL POINTS 53 Name: PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 Residential GMP - Sunny Park DATE: Feburary 10, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' Introduction / Attached for your review is the Planning and Zoning Commi • on' s recommended points allocation for Sunny Park, the only 1982 residentia GMP submission. As set forth in Section 24-11 .4(f) of the Code, the Council should consider any challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring which are made by the applicant and then determine whether the scoring should or should not be revised. There have been no appeals submitted this year concerning the residential GMP scoring by P & Z. Applicant' s Request The applicant is requesting a development allocation for three free market units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also proposing four employee studio units and the reconstruction of three existing units -- a studio, a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for seven employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied last year by P & Z. Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review proce- dures will still be required. Full subdivision procedures, mandatory PUD review, subdivision exception for condominiumization and special approval for exempting the employee units and the reconstruction of the existing units from the GMP quota will be the required approvals. Quota Available Section 24-11 .1 (a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition, 17 free market units were con- structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11 .2(c) and (d), which must also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11 .3(a) provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are available at the discretion of Council . In summary, the following is an evalua- tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition: Units provided for GMP in the Code: 39 Units Deduction to offset 1981 bonus: -6 Units Deduction for units built in 1981 : -17 Units Total Quota: 16 Units Potential 1982 bonus: 8 Units Maximum available units in 1982: 24 Units P & Z Action At a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 a public hearing was held on this year' s residential GMP application. At the close of the hearing, the P & Z members scored the application on the basis of established criteria, the results of which are shown below. The scores recommended to P & Z by the Planning Office are also given for information purposes. Memo: 1982 Residential GMP - Sunny Park Page Two February 10, 1982 Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Office Sunny Park Scores Scores 1 . Public Facilities and Services 8.3 8.0 2. Quality and Design 14. 1 14.0 3. Proximity to Support Services 5.0 5.0 4. Employee Housing 22.0 22.0 5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4.0 4.0 6. Bonus Points 2.2 0.0 TOTAL POINTS 55.6 53.0 According to the City Code, a project must receive a minimum of 43.8 points in categories 1 through 4 or the project is ineligible for a development alloca- tion and is considered denied. The Sunny Park project received 49.4 points in categories 1 through 4 and therefore meets this threshold and is eligible for an allocation. Based on the above scoring, P & Z recommended that Council award a development allocation for three free market units to the Sunny Park project. Council Action The Code requires that City Council consider any challenges by applicants to the Commission's scoring, provided, however, that "no challenges shall be heard by the Council on grounds other than matters which have not previously been considered by the Commission". As a result of these challenges the Council may change the number of points awarded to a protesting applicant. The appli- cant for Sunny Park has informed the Planning Office that no challenge will be made on P & Z' s scoring. Should Council agree with the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to direct the Planning Office to draw up a resolution awarding a 1982 development allocation for 3 units to the Sunny Park project. " N F-' v V A 4•0 O it n. n o- a .o -n m 0- 0 v a v c. C C N m Cu V O (:1 -I m (n A V 'T1 V N _ C -I 'T 'S O m 0 a a m N O rD a ID rr -C a -s CD o f n `_.r m 9 m co I< .n J . m 9 CD m . O l0 :7' VI a "S -s -n O H kc a Q o v v Di In m 0 0. 4n Z C) (n (n 0 VI. Z 0 -s m m 3 a s o o a -s m . n 0 m co CD m 3 0 v. - (n n 3 !• r d a n - CD - . (0 CO -4. CD m rn . = n O m in in o = a • co VS "CS 7 C a n r C H C CO Cr C CD < CO CO v a 0 o 0 J z a 'C a m 'c r r N • v CD A Co N Co W CO CO F4 N 5-• -. N N 'S --' .� 'I CO W N X) M N . a a m r z ID N H . CD v a r cit. G7 O --I v H • > o -4 O r H 2 J -< N a A W N CO W CO CO h-. N I-' F' a CO ~ (n z . 2 C) I-11 r r G7 m r m --I 0 a o m a a a 0--I . (n 0 v Cr W W CO CO W O I-• N N f• N N - A 2 p O Z m In C CO 3 -I . N 70 N i--■ 0 ('^ Ca Co N N CO W V O N) ka -4-5 N (0 In 0 m 2 I A W N I CO W CO CO 1--' H F' F-• N 0 m •. O O • A W N W CO CO CO H N N) H - V -, V • _ < A CO a m C-5 CO m f r 1 . CT CP ? W V to iCO -0 C) CT CL m � o 0) 0 -I 8 Cr P Cu N "� NJ f N 0 -o _ 0 ( ) A -I c > r C"1 X C --1 m o to 0 -4- O o 0 o C o H ■ —I v . ' v 0 D Z (P 2 jr o o• r -1 ... CD ,..' =' 0 rn 3 CD N o � 0 cc l0 N i v v ,-+ n t �o N 0 rD o o c+ -I rr 3 " Z 'Y Z C n r+ fD 'S 0 L CD 3 = D -i (n C CA 3 0 S 0 Vi C CD -a G) I O j . CD 0 CO 'O t 1 D D .n D C) N O vii• S 0 I- -I C _ -� '1 rI- -1 F -I R A GCJ � Z r O O T 0 co y A cm N O co C O c c = -s Z R N N Cm„ W co T J D LO • �, v, o 0 o 0 CD m Cr Cr t• I r r N m r z I --I 1 CD 4 -I n D I- f- -< 1 VI R C71 I v m I (n a P) NJ CD R 01 CT N a t.J N1 N) 01 N CO " d 1 CO CD i I N 1 1 r (D N . - CD i 1 01 H O ND• LO O O) a CO N N 01 N W CO CO -M1 • Ca fL 01 CT a O a N) N N 01 N Cr.) B a CD U A N a O a V N N Vl N W O 01 N Ul a ND ND -.• CO a O a CO N N CJl N 'CO CF 01 O . 0 tT Ul I N N J LO 1-0 01 a 0 N N 01 N) CO V r Ol (D 01 .N.. a tO N (Tl I CT N a m • October 24, 1983 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Per our meeting on Wednesday October 19, 1983, I am requesting that the Planning Office move forward with the SunnyPark GMP conceptual approval process . Due to the short time frame remaining for the GMP allotment expiration I am also asking the City Council be presented with a request for an extension of the SunnyPark GMP allotment per section 24.11.7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. I have been involved with the City Planning Department on the SunnyPark project for over three years. In 1980 the project failed to receive a GMP allotment. A new application was submitted in 1981 and SunnyPark was awarded an allocation. Subsequently an international recession and outrageous interest rates have prevented me from moving forward to completion on the project. I an now prepared to go forward with the balance of the approval process but the time remaining to complete this process, within the allowable time frame, seems impossibly short. Therefore I am requesting from the City Council a one time 6 month extension of the SunnyPark GMP allocation so that the approval process may be completed and valuable employee housing added to the city's inventory. %incerely, r.. James J. Costley, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , colorado , 81611 May 16, 1983 • Mr. Jeff Costley Archdeacon Ltd. Box 884 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Jeff, This is to advise you that your 1982 Growth Management allocation for three free market and four employee units for the Sunny Park Subdivision is due to expire on January 1, 1984. As per Section 24-11 .7 (a) of the Code, you have two years from the date of submission of your application to file plans with the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit or your allocation will expire. For you to be eligible to submit said plans, you must first com- plete full PUD and subdivision review, exemption of the employee units from GMP allocation procedures and condominiumization. Since full subdivision and PUD review are both lengthy procedures , I would strongly recommend that you meet with myself or Alice Davis as soon as possible to identify your submission requirements and possible agenda dates . Please let me know how I may be of assistance in helping you to complete these steps of the process so that your allocation need not expire. Sincerely, 4 Alan Richman Assistant Director cc: Gideon Kaufman Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , colorado . 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell • Holy Cross Electric Building Department Aspen School District City Parks Department Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park DATE: January 6, 1982 i Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park. The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with 1114 respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227. Thank you for your assistance. • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: City 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 2, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers , City Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider applications for Growth Management Quota allotments for 1982. There is only one application in the competition. • Sunny Park; Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, submitted by Jeff Costley Further information may be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 227. s/ Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 14, 1982 City of Aspen Account • • MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: January 21 , 1982 RE: 1980 Residential GMP, Lot 4 , Sunny Park Having reviewed the above application for 1982 residential GMP allocation, and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments : I have attached a copy of our GMP checklist and would offer the following: 1 . Water: There is some confusion between the application '1, and the letter from Jim Markalunas regarding the proposed water line interconnect on King Street. The applicant states that the project will provide the line, Jim states that the City will build the line. The 3 point score assumes the applicant will provide the line. 2 . Parking: The parking design represents the most significant improvement in the current application. The new design incorporates low visual impact, excellent convenience, and provides space for the employee units for which exemptions are frequently permitted. 3 . Roads: Existing roads in the area remain in poor condition and the additional impact of some 42 vehicle trips per day will result in further deterioration until upgrading can occur. 4 . Public Transporation: The design incorporates a bus waiting area that will serve as a neighborhood amenity. JH/co Enclosure Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department ' Revised January 31, 1980 . f Project Name Wit,-,A,, t? {, Address �,©-6 of 4->, -,1J 1 •,.v1 Owner -., I f _ Attorney/Agent/Repres ntative CY;CL!cv,„ ;-ct„r.-,,,a,N Address (9I( l.) tlA,;N Reviewed by \-c-k Date / -10 - Z_. • CI. Residential Application (section 24-10 . 4) ) A. Public Facilities & Services O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) ' 3 - No forseeable deficiencies 3 * Water ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. o{(� 7 II 1,,, f GJOR Ily v,,c` �f/24�t,k_ &vim ry,i-eA.e� 1c_e_: . �� 40 ,w.oc 0.I l 7 e * Sewer (3 pts. ) Capacity wit/}`out system upgrade. Vk r T"I�'.;R1g 7, Storm Drainage (3 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff . / /" c./4y e, c0/4/„et( so.-„ s , � / }6 .C- ; Ai dc- f,tiod'u 1/.,//, •c• /ct 3 Parking Design (3 pts. ) c Off street parking, visual, paving, safety,, and convenience. nwE,k. t4rEa, ems. t Q/( -„i',kf- I. �eiCQ_ t1)1 / Roads (3 pts. ) • Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering ' traffic patterns or overloading• streets or requiring more maintenance. // /;/, xt; rn ftaclA wl r"t co tlA, �e t . 1-, k (0 "tay 0..tn_svA t 1 / Q, ,s+n i Hrty-yy1 01 e. .. vC/ c(Q. Jrfc/cL t , . rage. 4 . Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service a 1- Public Transportation (2 pts. ) "--- -_,..`0-/A- 61 k 2 - On existing rout-e. - Wit—BM-520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. / Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts. ) Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts. ) — — — -- __ II. Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24-10 . 5) A. Quality of Design ' 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flaw 2 - Acceptable 3 - Excellent Site Design (3 pts. ) Quality and character 9 -' landscaping , extend of under- grounding of utilitie?, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. Amenities (3 pts. ) Usable open pace, pedestrian and bicycle ways. • Trash - d utility access areas (3 pts. ) III.Lodge •evelopment Application (section 24-10 . 6) f A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) • Page 3 Growth Management Re\ :w Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at publi b expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. i 2 - Project improves quality of/ service . Public Transportation (6 pts. ) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of ) us route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of/bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design/ Site Design (3 /pts. ) i Amenities (3 pts. ) Visual Impact (3 pts. ) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas . Conformance to Policy Duals (3 pts. ) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service Al pt. ) . " Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt. ) . Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt. ) . • IV.. Zoning (All applications) Zone P(1; Fr • NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement • - - P..,-:qu rr•d Actual Lot Area/Unit Front Setback .,,Fk„cks • Rear setback Page 4 browth Management Re""iew Checklist Required Actual Maximum Height Building Dist. Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption Exception CG,AP1,4 Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise r_ cre .ment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen , Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 11, 1982 TO: Alice Davis FROM: Paul Taddune RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application - Sunny Park Tne applicant appears to nave complied with the procedural requirements of Section 24-11. 4 with respect to the applicant' s proposal to tear down and construct the three existing units . I note tnat Section 24-11. 2 does not exempt reconstruction which would create additional dwelling units . I assume that applicant's proposal for reconstruction, which is outside of this application, would not create additional dwelling units . PJT:mc `"'"ASPEN*PITKIN °' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ti MEMORANDUM " � I' JAN 19, 1987 '''U. L. v °E\ / PrIKFN CO, TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office rOA��ipINGOEHC£ FROM: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Officer AIL DATE: January 13, 1982 RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application - Sunny Park This office has reviewed the 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park. We have the following comments: Water and Sewer This project will be served by the City water system and the Aspen Metro Sanitation system, both of which have the capacity to handle this project. Air Pollution Due to its small size and location on existing bus routes, air pollution impacts of this project will be minimized. We would urge that fireplaces or stoves be built in compliance with the County Fireplace Ordinance including design standards. If you would like additional information please feel free to call this office. LC/co 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81811 303/925-2020 �II . ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT 9 MEMORANDUM TO: ALICE DAVIS-PLANNING w FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: 1982 CITY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGMENT APPLICATION--SUNNY PARK DATE: JANUARY 19, 1982 As stated in Paragraph 1-AA: Water, the applicant intends to update the water system in this area by extending the 6" water line in King Street to interconnect the 6" water line in Neale Street. Based upon the applicant's commitment to extend this line, we recommend that the applicant be given credit and the Water Department hereby commits to availability of service. Also see our attached letters of December 12th and 28th, 1981. enc. 2 • _., , .1. • : .� _. . e . t9 r �u • Cli TT FA - LAN 130 soul ; galena street aspen, colorado 81611 December 12, 1980 Mr. Jeff Costley Archdeacon Ltd Box 884 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park Dear Jeff: As per our discussion on 12-12-80, it i- my understanding that you wish to construct a 14-unit project consisting of 7 PMH and 7 free-market units and that said project will be located adjacent to an 8" maim in Gibson Avenue or a 6" main in Park Circle. Therefore, water would be available from either of the aforementioned lines. However, since this project is located very near a marginal service area, and since the project will, no doubt, have an adverse effect on the existing facilities, it is my recommendation that the Planning Office encourage you, as a condition of approval, to connect the 6" line on King Street to the 6" line on Neal Street. This is a rather short section of line and would increase the reliability of service to the project, .as well as increase flows during peak periods of consumption. If the proposed interconnect is made, I see no problems for the Water Department regarding this project and would certainly recommend its approval. ncerely, I ry • -- J1im Markalunas Director Aspen Water Department cc: Planning Office HOLY CROSS ThECTRIC ASSC NATION, INC. AREA CODE 303 1301 GRAND AVENUE 945-5491 i P.O. DRAWER 250 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 945-6056 > ,.-fir . >�',4l1 '•9 Irr .. ....r r � i January 22 , 1982 JAN n , ,cad r� JA Aspentn Planning Office ASPEN i eiTKIN CO. 130 South h G Galena Street RANNoNGC0144 Aspen, Colorado 81611 REF: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application - Sunny Park Gentlemen: In response to the application submitted to your Planning Com- mission for the above mentioned project, Holy Cross Electric has existing overhead and underground power lines not shown on the plat. The approximate location Holy these Electric is lines is shown not on the attached map. At this time, sure if the underground d power line we have shown on the enclosed map is accurate. arrange for contact Holy Cross Electric to arrange the er ohoofd underground power line to overhead The developer the existing development installation of the e for revamping apartment and service viceng and underground service to the Marthinsson-Nostdah ap INI building• or relocation of existing tariffs, rules and facilities,power line d,extensions,subject to the Inc.fs rud are regulations of required, rrands and Holy Cross Electric Assoc Yactual arrangements dependent on the completion of dependent uP easements. please contact me. If you desire any further information, P is INC. ,c SincerR0Y; ELE R ' SSOCIATION , a 0 // / Al of 7-y A. Franke, Staking Engineer JAF: lsz 59 Enclosure park:90- cc:File:Sunny Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell Holy Cross Electric Building Department Aspen School District City Parks Department Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park DATE: January 6, 1982 Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny "Park. The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227. Thank you for your assistance. a 77_P^.4 K w �� n � Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , Colorado , 81611 MEMORANDUM p \ j TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney \ / City Engineering Department \ City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell Holy Cross Electric Building Department Aspen School District City Parks Department Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application-- Sunny Park DATE: January 6, 1982 Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park. The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227. Thank you for your assistance. • ASPEN*PITKIN MEGIONAL BUILD106 DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Herb Paddock, Chief Building Official DATE: January 28, 1982 ;92, RE: Sunny Park 1982 GPM Application y� Preliminary review of the afore mentioned project shows compliance with current City of Aspen Planning and Zoning regulations. Consultation with Mr. James Cook, the project architect , reveals that building code compliance is of no problem in any regard. 508 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen , colorado . 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell Holy Cross Electric Building Department Aspen School District City Parks Department Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park DATE: January 6, 1982 Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park. The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227. Thank you for your assistance. IiL, a -• 8A/ o se o .r c. of._ IJB ,S.F2•—• cri> Ij I 7Hr fjdPE .--- 1 Fr4u?oc,rns.• a +t_ r^,r/o+- I,: stt cr THE rrh' —it ,c./ •.t /� THr.ce / ._. ,o A.tt.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1982 Residential GMP Applications DATE: January 27, 1982 Introduction Attached for your review is the project profile for Sunny Park, the only 1982 residential GMP submission, the Planning Office' s recommended points allocation for this submission and scoring sheets for your completion after the applicant's presentation. A copy of the application has also been provided for your review. Applicant' s Request The applicant is requesting a residential development allocation for three free market units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also pro- posing four employee units and the reconstruction of three existing units -- a studio, one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for seven employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied by P & Z last year. Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review procedures will still be required. The four employee housing units constructed as part of this application are subject to special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, full subdivision procedures, mandatory PUD review and subdivision exception for condominiumization are required. All of these reviews must be accomplished subsequent to a receipt of a development allotment and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Quota Available Section 24-11 . 1 (a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition, 17 free market units were con- structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11 .2(c) and (d) , which must also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11 . 3(a) provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are available at the discretion of Council . In summary, the following is an evalua- tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition: Units provided for GMP in the Code -- 39 Units Deduction to offset 1981 bonus -- -6 Units Deduction for units built in 1981 -- -17 Units Total Quota 16 Units Potential 1982 bonus 8 Units Maximum available units in 1982 24 Units Process The applicant will make a brief presentation (limited to 15 minutes) before the Commission on Tuesday, Febuary 2. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. Each Commission member will then score the ap- plication. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. The project being scored must receive a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in categories 1 through 4, amounting to 43. 8 points , or it will not be eligible for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Memo: 1982 Residential GMP Applications Page Two January 27, 1982 Planning Office Analysis The Planning Office has assigned points to the Sunny Park application as a recommendation for your review. The following table summarizes the results of the Planning Office analysis shown in more detail in the attached score sheets. Sunny Park Score 1 . Public Facilities and Services 8 2. Quality and Design 14 3. Proximity to Support Services 5 4. Employee Housing 22 5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4 6. Bonus Points 0 Total Points 53 The points awarded under Section 4, Employee Housing and Section 5, Provisions for Unique Financing, were computed utilizing a formula specified in the code and are therefore not subject to change. Sections 1 , 2, 3 and 6 are subject, to a certain degree, to individual interpretations on the project' s merit. The Planning Office awarded this proposal 49 points in categories 1 through 4 and should you concur with our scoring, the project would exceed the minimum requirement for 43.8 points. The proposed project calls for the removal and reconstruction of three existing units. When condominiumization for these units occurs, the applicant will have to comply with Section 20-22 of the code regarding rental history and tenant displacement. The applicant has already stated that the rental rates for the three units do not fall within the employee housing criteria of Section 20-22(c) . Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission concur with our recommended point allocations and recommend to City Council that a development allotment for three units be awarded to the Sunny Park project. Memo: 1982 Residential GMP Applications Page Two January 27, 1982 Planning Office Analysis The Planning Office has assigned points to the Sunny Park application as a recommendation for your review. The following table summarizes the results of the Planning Office analysis shown in more detail in the attached score sheets. Sunny Park Score 1 . Public Facilities and Services 8 2. Quality and Design 14 3. Proximity to Support Services 5 4. Employee Housing 22 5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4 6. Bonus Points 0 Total Points 53 Ij The points awarded unde r Section 4, Employee Housing and Section 5, Provisions for Unique Financing, were computed utilizing a formula specified in the code and are therefore not subject to change. Sections 1 , 2, 3 and 6 are subject, to a certain degree, to individual interpretations on the project' s merit. The Planning Office awarded this proposal 49 points in categories 1 through 4 and should you concur with our scoring, the project would exceed the minimum requirement for 43.8 points. The proposed project calls for the removal and reconstruction of three existing units. When condominiumization for these units occurs, the applicant will have to comply with Section 20-22 of the code regarding rental history and tenant displacement. The applicant has already stated that the rental rates for the three units do not fall within the employee housing criteria of Section 20-22(c) . Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission concur with our recommended point allocations and recommend to City Council that a development allotment for three units be awarded to the Sunny Park project. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis , Planning Office RE: 1982 Residential GMP Applications DATE: January 27, 1982 Introduction Attached for your review is the project profile for Sunny Park, the only 1982 residential GMP submission, the Planning Office' s recommended points allocation for this submission and scoring sheets for your completion after the applicant' s presentation. A copy of the application has also been provided for your review. Applicant' s Request The applicant is requesting a residential development allocation for three free market units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also pro- posing four employee units and the reconstruction of three existing units -- a studio, one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for seven employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied by P & Z last year. Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review procedures will still be required. The four employee housing units constructed as part of this application are subject to special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, full subdivision procedures, mandatory PUD review and subdivision exception for condominiumization are required. All of these reviews must be accomplished subsequent to a receipt of a development allotment and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Quota Available Section 24-11 . 1 (a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition , 17 free market units were con- structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11 .2(c) and (d) , which must also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11 .3(a) provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are available at the discretion of Council . In summary, the following is an evalua- tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition: Units provided for GMP in the Code -- 39 Units Deduction to offset 1981 bonus -- -6 Units Deduction for units built in 1981 -- -17 Units Total Quota 16 Units Potential 1982 bonus 8 Units Maximum available units in 1982 24 Units Process The applicant will make a brief presentation (limited to 15 minutes) before the Commission on Tuesday, Febuary 2. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. Each Commission member will then score the ap- plication. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. The project being scored must receive a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in categories 1 through 4, amounting to 43.8 points, or it will not be eligible for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Aspen / itkin' plunning Office 130 south': gafie-nas tree t aspenV 'c,b10`fa 'o c $ 161 1 , March 23, 1981 ftiriri, - .: Martin H. Kahn 415 East Hyman, Room 301 ' """ ✓r ec . l Aspen, Colorado 81611 y s Dear Mr, Kahn, The Planning Office and the City Attorney have researched the Aspen City Code to determine an answer to your question regarding demolition and reconstruction of units. The response we are providing you with should be viewed as staff-level advisory comments which can only be confirmed on a more definitive basis by submitting your development proposal to P & Z and/or City Council for approval . Our conclusion is that based on Section 24-11 .2(a) of the Code, your three units (one two-bedroom, one one-bedroom and one studio) may only be rebuilt as three new units, not as five studios, However, the only limita- tions on the number of bedrooms each unit and the site as a whole may contain are the underlying area and bulk requirements of the underlying R-MF/PUD zone district, For example, these provisions indicate that 3,630 square feet are needed for a three-bedroom unit and that the floor area ratio in the zone is 1 : 1 . Therefore, you could build three three-bedroom residences on that 13,700 square foot site to replace the existing units , as long as these are built in a multi-family and not a single family configuration, You would also be required to submit plans appropriate fore PUD application, unless you are able to convince P & Z to exempt you from this procedure, Should you have any further questions in this regard , please feel free to contact me or Paul Taddune. If you should want to bring this concept before P & Z prior to committing yourself to detailed building plans , I 'm sure we can set up a time for you to meet with them. Sincerely, Alan Richman Assistant Planner AR/ans cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO. 5 (Series of 1981 ) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .4(a) of the Code, January 1st of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for residential development allotments within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one residential project was submitted for evaluation involving a total of three free market units, 1 four employee units and three units that are to be reconstructed, the 1 employee units and the units to be reconstructed being exempt from the available quota; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on February 2, 1982, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Growth Management application and evaluate and score this application in conformance with criteria established in Section 24-11 .4(b) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did evaluate and score the project submitted, Sunny Park, with 55.6 points; and WHEREAS, no appeals were made to the Aspen City Council at their meeting on February 22 , 1982, as is provided in Section 24-11 .4(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did review the points awarded to the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that a residential development allocation for three free market units is hereby awarded to the Sunny Park project. This project is authorized to proceed further with additional approvals required by the City before a building permit is secured. Dated: • • Li Herman Ede] ---------- ---- r1 yor 1982 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE 1. Applicant: James J. Costley 2. Project Name: Sunny Park 3. Location: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue and Park Circle - NW) 4. Parcel Size: 13,704 Square Feet 5. Current Zoning: R-MF PUD 6. Existing Structures: One story building to be removed which contains three units -- a studio, one bedroom and two bedroom unit 7. Development Program: Three free market units including a one bedroom unit and two studios and four employee studios 8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for the exemption of the employee units from GMP, full subdivision review for the construction of a multi-family dwelling, subdivision exception for condominiumization,_ mandatory PUD review. 9. Miscellaneous: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: )(,Yk &L' ` ( ( ✓ !,c((' Date: 6 { (_✓� 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 4_ Comment: b. Sewer Service (.maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgyading. Rating Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: • Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages 'to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating C Comment: Subtotal • 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating J Comment: 1 - Page Three 1 Residential GMP Scoring - b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. —L Rating Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Z /) Comment: _xi- f —7Z' L; Atc L. ( (`-f ( ( c)) LIUc,'iU(26 i<' L l v'/C.' jT c • e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 7 Comment: Subtotal r5( 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). I -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 --Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. �1 F Rating 2 Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. • 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating (- Subtotal c� 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating C. Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). j Rating `- . Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating L_/ Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 _ Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS � i Name of P & Z Member: L' /Li j PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS /// • Project: ~�.`, , :; y► f r Date: w2/02/4.2._�'.Z 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1_..- Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: • c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating / Comment: • Subtotal C. 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design • •a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of • size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating .3 Comment: Page Three Residential GMP Scoring - b. Site Design (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating • ? Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating .2 Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 ft Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating w3 �( Comment: Subtotal /1,1 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). • 1 -- Project is located further than six.blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating `3 • • { Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating Subtotal 3-- 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) . Rating 1 Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 211--- 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: • Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating 4 f, Comment: r�.e .% ‘.C`' ,r„. 40_. • i ,4,001,4 ,�",ri*c.4.e�uey f 4,/ / f fit,. r 71,44...ece , Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 999 Points in Categories 5 and 6 / 0 TOTAL POINTS .9 7 Name of P & Z Member: �' • CeVe ri .,f , - ■ I I 6 t ' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS /f 1-----)A" F2 Project: J /✓L b1 F/!,/ /- Date: —' 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating -4_ Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: . c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: Page Two 1Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates. a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of th'e proposed building (in terms of size,. height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: Page Three Residential GMP Scoring - b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: • c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. G Rating Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 3 Comment: Subtotal /f 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. /� Rating (i Subtotal ✓` 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 2 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating H Comment: • Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating 'T Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 —! Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS �2 Name of P & Z Member: • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: Cam (/( ILIL �/ A 2 K Date: 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2i Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating / Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating ( Comment: • Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: Al _ , - (L)U:&i i7 /.02/2. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating I Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating • Comment: Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating 2 Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: • e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 5 Comment: Subtotal �If 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 --Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating Page Four Residential GMP Scoring 1 b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating °2 Subtotal 5 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 722-- Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: III Subtotal 22— 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) . Rating lI . Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). ff Rating 5- Comment: ( X (o-w 1r 1 O� )tcccT ?w l[ — ?v sm ��c• X 2 (� S *-0c4— — 724,7:-‘,1 iwt c ram — i)..90L r ,:td-c .627 k ryzi Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 —61 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS / 1 p Name Of P & Z Member: I `=\ f - i • • • . � t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: H ( 2 77 / �G ) ,0-c Date: 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according • to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating ? Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 0 Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating ,� Comment: • Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. • Rating .2 Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal / O 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates. a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size: height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 37 Comment: E Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating ' Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. • Rating 2 Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating .' Comment: Subtotal /fj 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating f • Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 2) .2 Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent) . Rating Comment: • c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 2 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating G/' Comment: • • • Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating J Comment: • Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 /� TOTAL POINTS • Name of P & Z Member: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: Date: 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating • Comment: . Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points) . Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site ' design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: • • - •Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating Comment: Subtotal • 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating • Page Four • Residential GMP Scoring . b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section; one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating Subtotal 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating Comment: • • Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rating Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: `D(2 J k3' ( P(42A', Date: 74021P)2 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2.. Comment: b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating / Comment: c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating / Comment: • • Page Two Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: i. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2. Comment: f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating Comment: Subtotal 2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating a Comment: • — Page Three • Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating V� i Comment: c. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating Z. Comment: d. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 ' Comment: f�f e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 3 Comment: Subtotal /4- 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 --. Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 --Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating L Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. • Rating Zi Subtotal 5 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points) . a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 22, Comment: b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent) . Rating Comment: Subtotal 2.21 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) . Rating .4. • . Comment: Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating 2 Comment: Tie cliffigylf.AC hvS S111:10 /S & # "G(./ r cL6EIrLC�l e G�Lliy»Piro�— —/Y> UGQL a-,&( loin '-1 fjUS V5 cuAlorinQ/ft tC USG' Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 4/9 Points in Categories 5 and 6 b TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: 0,4NERS}11P REPORT According to the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, the following described real property is vested in the name of: JAMES J. COSTLEY Real Property Description: Lot 4, SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, EXCEPTING THEREFROM, that portion des- cribed in Deed recorded in Book 246 at Page 879 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. No liability is assumed by the canpany for the information contained in this report and it is not to be construed as a policy of title insurance. Liens, encumbrances and other matters of record are not reflected by this report. If a policy of title insurance is what yai desire, than please make application for same with this canpany. Dated: December 31, 1981 TRACY TITLE, LTD. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORDINANCE NO. (.042 ( Series of lYSi) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-11 . 4 AND 24-11 . 3( e ) OF THE MUNI- CIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY THE REVISION OF THE SCORING CATEGORIES AND POINTS FORMULAS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION PROCESS AND BY THE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL BASIS FOR THE PLAN- NING OFFICE REJECTION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT WHEREAS , by Resolution No. 81-10 , the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the zoning regulations be amended so as to modify the scoring system for the residential GMP competition process to more accurately reflect current policies of the City of Aspen ; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 81-10, the Planning and Zoning Commission has also recommended to the City Council that the zon- ing regulations be amended so as to correct certain administrative problems which have developed since the implementation of the Growth Management Quota System; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to accept the recommenda- tions of the Planning and Zoning Cotmmission as set forth in Reso- lution No. 81-10 , and amend Sections 24-11. 4 and 24-11 . 3 (c ) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen by the revision of the scoring categories and points formulas for the residential GMP competition and by the creation of an additional basis for the Planning Office rejection of any application for development allotment . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN , COLORADO. Section 1 That Section 24-11. 4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen entitled "Residential Development Application Procedure" , be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows : No residential development shall' occur within the city , except residential development exempted pursuant to Section 24-11. 2, until the proposed development shall have received a development allotment pursuant to the following procedures : r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (a) All applicants for residential development allotments shall use with the city planning office on or before January lst oL each year a completed application , which shall be submitted with the following maps , documents and information . ( 1) A written description of the proposed development including cotuuents as to: (aa) Type of water system to be used , including information on main size and pressure and, if public , the excess capacity available from such public system; the location of the near- est main ; the estimated water demand of the development or building . ( bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, if public , the excess capacity available from such public system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line ; the expected demand of the devel- opment or building. • ( cc ) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters . ( dd) Type of fire protection systems to be used , (such as hydrants , wet standpipes , etc. ) ; dis- tance to the nearest fire station and its average response time. ( ee) Total development area; type of housing or development proposed ; number of units , includ- ing employee housing ; and their expected price range of sale or rental ; the distance from the proposed development to the nearest elemen- tary , middle and high school ; the distance to existing school bus routes . (ff ) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed develop- ment ; description of type and condition of roads to serve such development ; total number of motor vehicles expected to use or be sta- tioned in such development ; hours of principal ' daily usage of adjacent roads ; on and off-site parking to be supplied ; location of alternate transit means (bus route , bike paths , etc. ) ; any auto disincentive techniques incorporated in such proposed development. • (yg ) .Location relative to proposed or existing parks , playgrounds , hospitals , airports , mass • transit systems and estimated increased usage • of such facilities by reason of the proposed • development . (hh) Location relative to proposed development of r retail and service outlets and estimated in- crease demands on such outlets by reason of the proposed development. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ( ii ) Effects of the proposed 'development on adja- cent uses and land uses in the vicinity of the project. ( jj ) The proposed construction schedule including , if applicable , a schedule tor phasing con- struction. ( 2) A site utilization map including : (aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi- cient detail to show building size , height , materials , insulation , fireplaces , solar devices ( demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features ) , type of units , and location of all buildings ( existing and proposed ) on the development site . (bb) Proposed landscaping , screening , attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space , and undergroundiny of utilities . ( cc ) Motor vehicle circulation , parking , bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to insure privacy from such areas . (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites , pathways , foot , bicycle or equestrian trails , greenbelts . (ee) General description and location of surround- ing existing land uses and identification of zoning district boundary lines , it any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotments applications during the early weeks of Janu- ary, reject those that are ineligible under Section 24 • 11 . 3 (c ) , and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission no later than February 1st of each year or at the commission ' s first regular meeting subse- quent to that date. The planning and zoning commission shall review all applications , taking into consideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to eacn of the following areas of concern : (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 12 points ) . The commission shall cons ider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area , or any service improve- ment by the applicant benefits the project • only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. 3 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves • --- The following services shall be rated accordingly : (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the capa- city of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, it a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the devel- oper, and without treatment plant or other facility upyrading . (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points ) considering the capa- city of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and , if a public sewage disposal system is to be used , the capacity of the system to serve the devel- opment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer , and with- out treatment plant or other facility upgrad- ing . (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points ) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system exten- sions beyond those normally installed by the developer. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points ) considering the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to pro- vide fire protection according to the estab- lished response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or tequiriny addition of major equipment to an existing station. ( ee) Parking design (maximum 2 points ) considering 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, con- venience and safety. (ff ) Roads (maximum 2 points ) considering the capa- city of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic pat- terns or overloading the existing street sys- tem or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or. maintenance . ( 2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points ) . The commis- sion shall consider each application with respect to the site desiyn and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points • according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design 4 • • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves I -- Indicates a mayor design flaw 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design (aa) Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points ) considering the compatibility of the proposed building ( in terms of size, height and loca- tion) with existing neighboring developments . (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the • quality and character of the proposed land- scaping and open space areas , the extent of underyrounding of utilities , and the arrange- ment of improvements for efficiency of circu- lation and increased safety and privacy. • (cc) Energy (maximum 3 points ) considering the use • of insulation , passive solar orientation , solar energy devices , efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize con- servation of energy and use of solar energy sources . (dd) Trails (maximum 3 points ) considering the pro- vision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks -and trail systems , whenever feasible . (ee ) Green space (maximum 3 points ) considering the provision of vegetated, open space on the pro- ject site itself which is usable by the resi- dents of the . project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments . ( 3 ) Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points ) . The counission 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 : (aa) Public transportation (maximum 3 points ) 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route . 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. • • ( bb) Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points ) . The planning office shall make available a map depicting the commercial 5 • • • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Lacil ities in town to permit the evaivat_ion UL the distance of the project from tuuse areas . 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commer- cial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facil- ities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facil- ities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty ( 250 ) feet in linear. distance . (4) Provision for low, moderate and middle income hous- ing (maximum 40 points ) . (aa) The cotiuuission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to deed restrict all or a portion of his development for a period of fifty ( 5U ) years to rental and sale price terms within housing price guidelines estab- lished by the city councii and to occupancy limitations within housing income-eligibility guidelines established uy the city council . (bu) Points shall be assigned according to the fol- lowing schedule . Two ( 2) points for each rive ( 5-0) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations , Two ( 2) points for eacn 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 . For purposes of this section , one ( 1% ) percent of the total development shall ue based solely on the ratio of deed restricted bedrooms to non-deed restricted bedrooms , provided , however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal. at least fifty ( 50% ) percent of the floor area of the non-deed restricted por- tion of the project. For the purposes of this sec- tion, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter. (3/4) bedroom. ( cc ) To be eligible for points within the provi- sions of this section, the low, moderate and U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves miduie income dousing units must comply with the Lollowiny size limitations or be restricted to 1.-entai and sole price terms no greater than that aliowabie had the housing units complied with the coilowing size limita- tions ; Minimum Maximum Unit Square Footage Square Footage Studio 400 600 One-bedroom 500 800 Two-bedroom 700 1 ,i00 Three-bedroom 1 , 000 1 , 300 (dd) Witch an applicant agrees to restrict only a portion of his development to low, moderate and middle income nousmy and the portion restricted is located adjacent to an unre- stricted portion , to be eligible tor points within the provisions of this section the adjacent portions of the development shall be constructed of the same exterior building materials with a compatiuie exterior arcni- tectural style. ( ee) Tne deed restrictions created auove may be removed or amended by agreement between the property owner(s ) and the city council upon the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission. ( ff ) Should a proposed residential development cause the displacement of existing employee housiny , actinea as units wnich tor the pre- vious eighteen ( 18 ) months have rented or have been sold at rates which fail within the adop- ted housing price guidelines of the City of Aspen , then the points assigned in section (bb) above shall be based on the net addition of employee bedrooms to the hous ing pool and not simply on the gross number of units to be constructed. A net addition of employee hous- ing to the pool is defined as the conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status or the construction of a new deed restricted unit. ( 5) Provision for unique financing (maximum 10 points ) • (aa) The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to sell, under a unique financing program all or a portion of his development to qualified individuals as estab- lished by the city council within housing income-eligibility guidelines . (bb) Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule . 0 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 95 percent applicant r. rnancing Unit Point(s ) Studio 1/2 One-bedroom l Two-bedroom or. larger 1 i/2 100 percent applicant financing Unit Point(s ) • Studio 1 One-bedroom 2 Two-bedroom or. larger. 3 (cc) To be eligible for points within the provi- sions of this section, the mortgage offered by the applicant must be freely assumable ior. a term of thirty ( 30 ) years or more , at an interest rate of 12% or an interest rate equal to the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation , as determined on the date of preliminary plat submission. The lesser of the above interest rates snail be that offered by the applicant and there shall be no closing points and no prepayment pen- alty. The monthly amortization tor the mort- gage must fall within the employee housing price guideline which has been designated for the unit. (6) Bonus Points (maximum 7 points ) (aa) The commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incor.- por.ated and met the substantive criteria of sections 24-11 . 4( b) ( 1) , ( 2) and ( 3 ) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition , award additional bonus points not exceeding twenty percent ( 20%) of the total points awarded under. sections 24- ll. 4(b) ( 1) , ( 2) and ( 3 ) . Any commission mem- ber awarding bonus points snail provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record . (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in sections 24-11 . 4( b) ( 1) , ( 2) , ( 3) , ( 4) , ( 5) and ( 6 ) , and the total number of points awardea by all members , divided by the number of members voting, shall consti- tute the total points awarded to the project. For pro- jects involving two or more sites , the points awarded to each site shall be weighted as to the number of units to `` be constructed on each site and a weighted value calcu- lated for the points in each category. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty ( 60 ) percent of the total 8 • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves points available under. sLctLon 24-li . 4 ( u) ( 1 ) , ( 2) , ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) , or a minimum of thirty ( 30;; ) percent of the points avuslaUle uAiULr each oC .3ecLionS 24-11 . 4 (0) ( 1 ) , ( 2) , ( 3 ) and ( 4) , shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shaii be con- sidered denied. ( d) All projects snail be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest) and the ranking taus establisned by tyre commission shaii be forwarded to the city council on or. before March 1st of each year. (e) In the event that any applicant is awarded points for middle , moderate and low income housing , the coImaisson may impose , as a condition for receiving points under. section 24-11. 4 ( b) ( 4 ) , limitations on rental or sale or impose such other terms or conditions reasonably . related to achieving the purposes of section 24-11 . 4 (b) ( 4 ) ; and racy, in establishing such terms anu condi- tions , seek the advice of the local housing authority. ( f ) Having received the commission ' s report , the city coun- cil shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants ; provided , however , that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring . Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within iour.teen ( 14 ) days of the date of tire pub- lic hearing by the planning and zoning cormui_ssion. (y) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section , during which the city council may cnange tyre number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall , by resolu- tion and prior. to April ist of each year , allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning , building or other regulations of the city . Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the fol- lowing year for possible distribution at that ( or a later) time. (h) No applicant shall , after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11 . 4 ( a) , amend , modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24-11 . 7 ( b ) shaii determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial . Section 2 That Section 24-11 . 3(c ) of the Municipal Code of the City or Aspen entitled "General Provisions" be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows : • ( c) The Planning Office shall reject any application for development allotment which fails to. ( 1) Satisfy minimum utility or access requirements ; 9 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ( 2 ) Comply with any approved ,caster p an tor the devei- opaent area; ( 3 ) Comply with the requirements or Chapter. 24 , Zoning , of the Code , or any other applicable land use or building regulation or the City of Aspen ; or ( 4) Satisfy the requirement that an applicant who holds a previous aliotaent within the same development area ( i .e . , residential , office/commercial , or lodge) must submit building plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a build- ing permit within two years of the ueadline tor the submission of the original application to the Plan- ning Office for that G[4P allotment . Satisfaction of this requirement shall be based upon the Plan- ning Office receipt of a written notification from the Building Department that the applicant has sub- mitted completed plans for the entire previous allotment prior to the date of submission of the current application. Failure by an applicant to submit such complete plans shall result in a one- time only rejection of an application and snail not restrict the applicant from submitting an applica- tion during the subsequent year . Section 3 If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid , such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of the ordinance which can be given effect without the -invalid provision or appli- cation, and to this ena the provisions of tnis ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 4 That a public hearing be held on this ordinance on the _ day of , 1981, at 5 : 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Bali , Aspen , Colorado , fifteen (i5) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once within a newspaper of general circulation within • the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on 1981. 10 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Susan E. Michael Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk • FINALLI adopted, passed and approved on the day of I 1981. Susan E. Michael Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: I{ • Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk f 11 S SUNNY PARK 1982 .37 GMP SUBMITTAL w w - ASPEN , COLORADO APPLICATION FOR GMP RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT December 31, 1981 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2020 Applicant: James J. Costley 165 Park Circle Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-4605 Attorneys: Gideon Kaufman David G. Eisenstein Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 611 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 Architect: James M. Cook and Associates 601 East Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BASIC INFORMATION Page 11 1. Project Information 1 aa. Water System 2 bb. Sewage 2 cc. Drainage 3 dd. Fire Protection 3 ee. Total Development Area-Type of Units- 3 Proximity to Schools ff. Traffic Increase 4 gg. Location 5 hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets 5 ii. Adjacent Uses 6 jj . Construction Schedule 6 2. Site Utilization Maps 6 B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 7 aa. Water 7 bb. Sewer 8 cc. Storm Drainage 8 dd. Fire Protection 8 ee. Parking Design 9 ff. Roads 9 2. Quality of Design 10 aa. Neighborhood Compatability 10 bb. Site Design 10 cc. Energy 11 dd. Trails 13 cc. Green Space 13 Page 11 3. Proximity to Support Services 14 aa. Public Transportation 14 bb. Community Commercial Facilities 14 4. Provisions for Employee Housing 14 5. Provision for Unique Financing 15 6. Bonus Points 15 ATTACHMENTS Markalunas letter Kuhn letter Clapper letter MAPS AND DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Zoning Map Traffic Map Site Plan A-1 1st Floor Plan A-2 2nd Floor Plan A-3 3rd Floor Plan A-4 Exterior Elevation A-5 Exterior Elevation A-6 Exterior Elevation A-7 Artist's Concept A. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Project Information. This application for GMP allotment under § 24-11.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "City Code") seeks an allotment for three (3) free market residential units to be built in conjunction with four (4) low income restricted employee units on Lot 4, SUNNYPARK SUBDIVISION situate at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen, Colorado. This project is located within the RMF zone on a 13,704 square foot lot. There presently exists on the lot three (3) units which the applicant will be tearing down and reconstructing pursuant to his plan for improving the property. As per the provisions of the City Code, § 24-11.2(a) , this tearing down and reconstruction of the three (3) units is exempt from the GMP and has been addressed by the Planning Office, and therefore is not a part of this application. The proposed development under this application consists of one (1) free market one-bedroom unit, two (2) free market studio units and four (4) low income restricted studio units. Because the four (4) low income units may be exempted from the GMP pursuant to § 24-11.2(h) of the City Code by Special Review, the applicant seeks an allotment for three (3) units. Pursuant to § 24-10.5(g) (1) of the City Code which adopted an external floor area ratio of 1 : 1 in the RMF zone, the applicant, under this GMP application, has the right to build an additional 9,300 square feet on the property. However, this application calls for the construction of only an additional 4,931 square feet which means the applicant is reducing permitted density by nearly 50%. This project meets the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements as well as the other area and bulk requirements set forth in § 24-3.4 of the City Code. The applicant, sensitive to impact on the neighborhood, is not applying for bonus density, and is even building nearly 50% less than what would be permitted by applicable zoning. This is a residential project in a residential neighborhood which will have six (6) month rental restrictions and fit in perfectly with the intent and nature of the RMF zone and the surrounding neighborhood. Once a GMP allotment is secured, applicant will concurrently apply for (1) special review for exemption for the low income restricted units from GMP, (2) an exemption from subdivision for the construction of a multifamily dwelling, and (3) a subdivision exception for condominium approval, at which time applicant will deed restrict the low income units to the City Housing Authority guidelines for low income housing for sale and rental. aa. Water System. As is indicated in the attached letters from Jim Markalunas, the proposed development can be supplied by the existing facilities. In conjunction with the development, applicant will extend the 6" water line on King Street to interconnect the 6" water line on Neale Street. This will improve adjoining neighborhood service, increase the reliability to the project as well as increase flows during peak periods of consumption. Water main size is 6" in Park Circle and 8" in Gibson Avenue and these currently serve the existing units on the subject property. Water pressure in these lines is approximately 75 psi. Anticipated water demand is expected to fall well within the normal standards of approximately 75 gallons per person per day. There is sufficient excess capacity available from the City water supply to supply the proposed development. bb. Sewage. The project will be served by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District which has sufficient excess capacity available to serve the proposed development. An 8" trunk line exists in Park Circle directly - 2 - adjoining the property which is already connected to the property. Estimated system usage will be approximately 60 gallons per day per person. The existing treatment plant can accomodate the anticipated flow according to the Aspen Sanitation District manager. Please see attached letter from Heiko Kuhn. cc. Drainage. Historic site drainage from the site will be improved. Roof drainage will feed directly to gravel sumps in the alluvial subsoil, thereby feeding the aquifer and requiring no additional system construction. This system will improve the drainage for the neighborhood. dd. Fire Protection. The proposed development will rely on the fire protection system of the City of Aspen. The current location of the fire station is eight (8) blocks away. The average response time is under four (4) minutes. The enclosed letter from Fire Chief Willard Clapper identifies response time and hydrant locations to be excellent for the site. There are presently hydrants located within fifty feet of the property. Applicant additionally is willing to provide a new hydrant on the site, which will improve fire protection for the neighborhood. ee. Total Development Area-Type of Units-Proximity to Schools. Total development area equals 4,931 square feet. Employee Housing Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price Four (4) studio units 471 sq. ft. $ 54.00 per ft. $ .47 per ft. Free Market Housing Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price Two (2) studios 941 sq. ft. market market One (1) one-bedroom 1 , 165 sq. ft. market market - 3 - Distance to upper and lower elementary schools equals thirteen (13) blocks. Distance to middle and high school equals 2.8 miles. The nearest school bus pick-up point is located right on the corner of the property at Park and Park Circle. ff. Traffic Increase. Based on the City of Aspen's calculation values of vehicles per bedroom, the added number of vehicles anticipated from this project is 5.5. The property is serviced by both Park Avenue and Park Circle. In this location, these street right-of-ways are approximately 60' in width and the paved service varies from 45' to 48' . Park Avenue functions as a major street for the east end of Aspen and is also the route for the school district bus and the Silverking/Aspen free shuttle public transportation system. It is expected that 5.5 motor vehicles will use or be stationed in the proposed development. The hours of principal daily usage of adjacent roads cannot really be accurately determined but it is expected the project will be populated by the broad spectrum of Aspen life which does not have any regular hours. There will be thirteen (13) o site Nigger parking places supplied,1111111INNirstfiese being coverkis _. Existing bicycle routes and paths are very close to the project and applicant is planning a pedestrian/bicycle path which will connect this property and the property to the north with existing pedestrian/bicycle routes. Bicycle racks will be provided on the property. This proposed development discourages automobiles in various ways. Six (6) out of the seven (7) proposed units will be studio units, will have lower occupancies and in all probability one (1) or less vehicle per unit. The site is within easy walking or bicycling distance of all essential neighborhood, commercial and retail services and is equidistant from City Market and Clark's Market. The bike racks on the property will further encourage and make more convenient the use of bicycles. Finally, as was indicated above, the property is located right at an existing bus stop. The bus - 4 - shelter to be placed on the property for the convenience of neighborhood residents will encourage use of the bus. Service for these routes operates on a twenty (20) minute cycle and stops at the corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. See attached map of transit routes. gg. Location. The site is two (2) miles from the Aspen Valley Hospital and five (5) miles from Sardy Field, the airport. Garrish Park, a City owned park is located directly across the street from the property. Garrish Park is an under-utilized park and this project will encourage the use of this very proximate and under-utilized facility. Herron Park is approximately two (2) blocks from the subject property. The site is very close to the recreational trails extending from Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west and the Route 82 trail to the east of the site which extends out beyond the North Star Ranch. As has already been indicated above, the property is located at an existing bus stop. The estimated increase on these facilities is minimal and the capacity of these facilities is more than sufficient to absorb this minimal increase. hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets. The proposed development is within easy walking distance to the downtown core and the bulk of all retail outlets including City Market and Clark's Market. Existing commercial facilities are less than four (4) blocks away. Because public transportation is so accessible to this project, it is highly probable that automobile use for retail trips will be less frequent than it would be for other areas. The proposed development will cause little impact and will not increase the demands on the existing retail and service outlets. - 5 - ii. Adjacent Uses. The proposed development is fully compatible with the surrounding residential, predominantly multifamily uses in the neighborhood, and will complement the local character of the neighborhood. jj . Construction Schedule. No phased construction is planned and actual construction is expected to be completed within eight (8) months of commencement. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 1982 with completion by the end of 1982. 2. Site Utilization Maps The information contained in this section supplements the maps and plans submitted with this application. aa. The insulation characteristics of the project exceed the requirements of Aspen's stringent energy conservation and thermal insulation code. Strict attention has been paid to all facets of architectural design and construction detail to create an energy efficient, aesthetically pleasing project. Insulation R-values have been exceeded for wall, floor and roof sections. Energy efficient heat generating fireplaces have been incorporated into the construction. Both active and passive solar gain aspects of the project have been explored and accomodated into the design theme in an aesthetically pleasing and energy producing manner. Significant attention has been paid to window location and the glazing of these window openings. Insulating curtains will be provided. The south facing windows and clearstories will provide good passive solar gain with heat attenuating hard surface flooring materials. Active solar collectors have been fitted to supplement the domestic hot water supply. Burning of the - G - lower building section will provide additional insulation; and, wind breaks will be provided both by existing and proposed landscaping. bb. The project has been designed to preserve and enhance the natural terrain and open space. The site will be abundantly landscaped to screen the property and beautify the large amount of open space planned for the project. The project exceeds open space requirements under the present code and exceeds the proposed amendments to the open space requirements for the RMF zone, which requirements for open space are much larger than for any other zone district. All utilities will be placed underground. cc. Vehicular access to the site will be from Park Avenue by a twelve (12) foot curb cut with all required parking on site. The parking will be covered, hidden and private, being located under the units. A bus shelter will be located on the southeast corner of the property. dd. Streets, nearby paths and footpaths are indicated on maps. ee. The zoning district is identified on the zoning map. Surrounding uses are residential multifamily, duplex and other typical RMF uses. B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. aa. Water. The existing water system of the City of Aspen has sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of the proposed development and will be able to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. In addition, applicant will be upgrading the City water system by extending the 6" water line in King - 7 - Street to interconnect the 6" water line in Neale Street. Thus, the project in and of itself will improve the quality and reliability of water service in the neighborhood. bb. Sewer. The site is served by and already connected to the 8" trunk line existing in Park Circle directly adjoining the property. The Metropolitan Sanitation District sewer system has sufficient capacity to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and will be able to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. No treatment plant or other facility upgrading will be made necessary by this development. cc. Storm Drainage. Historic site drainage from the property will be improved. The City currently has no storm drainage system in the area, subsequently no existing way to handle historic runoff. The project proposes that all roof and paved area runoff will feed directly to onsite sumps in the alluvial subsoil thereby feeding the existing aquifer and requiring no additional or future system construction. Additionally, storm drainage from the property immediately to the north currently without storm drainage facilities will be accomodated within the proposed system; thus, this project will improve the drainage system for the neighborhood. dd. Fire Protection. The units will be constructed with fire protection in excess of the Building Code requirements. In conformance with the Code, smoke detectors will be furnished throughout for added protection. In addition, all kitchens will be supplied with fire extinguishers. There will be no need to install a new fire station or add equipment to the existing station. The project is very close to the existing station and the response time will be under four (4) minutes, an exceptional response - 8 - time for a small mountain community. In addition, applicant will be providing a hydrant directly on the property which will improve the quality of service in the neighborhood. ee. Parking Design. The applicant is providing thirteen (13) off-street onsite parking spaces which will meet the requirements of the proposed development. These spaces have been designed to absolutely minimize visual impact and use the least amount of paved surface possible. The parking spaces are covered, being located underneath the units, and are hidden and screened from public view. The covered parking increases the safety and convenience of the project by protecting residents' vehicles and keeping them free of snow and other elements. It should be noted here that even though applicant is providing four (4) employee units in the project, he is not requesting any reduction in the parking requirements for providing such units. In this project there will be plenty of parking for all the residents and the employees will not be discriminated against. ff. Roads. According to the Smuggler Area Master Plan, the major street linkages in the area, Park Avenue and Park Circle, are especially well suited to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system. Both Park Avenue and Park Circle are 60 foot right-of-ways in this area and the paved surfaces varies from 45 feet to 48 feet in width. The proposed development will not necessitate any increased road mileage or maintenance. Because the project is a low density project, there will be little or no increase in traffic on adjacent streets. Because the project is close to the City's commercial and retail facilities and a bus line stops right at the project, automobile use from the project will be minimal and bicycling, walking or the use of public transportation will be maximized. - 9 - Applicant will put in curbs and gutters when the vicinity roads are upgraded. The Smuggler Area Master Plan calls for upgrading Park Circle; applicant's project enhances this plan by preventing any future ingress and egress from the site to Park Circle, all ingress and egress being limited to the curbcut on Park Avenue. 2. Quality of Design. aa. Neighborhood Compatability. The project has been carefully designed to fit in (in terms of size, height and location) with the existing neighboring developments and yet, at the same time, improve the overall quality of the neighborhood. roject anticipates the lowered height limitations for the RMF zone contained in the proposed amendments to the area and bulk requirements and thus will meet these lower height limitations. In conjunction with the project, the applicant will be tearing down the obsolete three (3) units and will be replacing them with new improved, more compatible units which will blend in perfectly with the seven (7) units applicant is proposing to construct pursuant to the GMP application. The six (6) month rental restrictions to be placed on the property will conform with and further encourage the residential character and the zoning intent for the neighborhood. bb. Site Design. The site has been designed to emphasize the quality and quantity of proposed landscaping and open space areas. The perimeter of the property will be landscaped, planted with trees and bermed to screen and soften the exterior outlines of the buildings. The interior of the property will serve as open space garden areas, giving an interior courtyard effect, a desirable amenity, to the residents of the project. All utilities will be undergrounded to enhance visual impact and all improvements arranged for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. The onsite parking will be hidden from the public view and walkways and - 10 - bikeways through the property are provided for the ience of the neighborhood. There is an abundant amount of penyce i)n the site design as the building footprint only takes up(38.5% odf the lot area. An additional amenity for the neighborhood will be the placement of a shelter on the southeast corner of the property for persons waiting for the bus. cc. Energy. (1) Exterior Wall Construction. An overall R-28 exterior-wall insulation value will be achieved as follows: R-Value Air Film Coefficient (Exterior; still air) 0.2 Wood (6" wood frame walls) 8.0 Batt Insulation 19.0 Sheet Rock and Interior Finishing 0.5 Air Film Coefficient (Inner Surface; still air) 0.7 TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL SECTION R-VALUE 28.4 The Code value of R-25 is therefore conservatively exceeded. (2) Floor. The R-12.5 Code requirement will be surpassed with a floor construction between the unheated parking facility and first floor as detailed below: R-VALUE Air Film Coefficient (Parking Facility; still air) 0.7 Concrete Slab (6") 0.6 Batt Insulation 19.0 Air Film Coefficient (Interior; still air) 0.7 TOTAL FLOOR-SECTION R-VALUE 21 .0 - 11 - (3) Roof Construction. All roof sections will include insulation to raise the overall R-value to or above R-28, exceeding the Code value of R-25. Wherever the standard roof section is penetrated to provide glazing, insulated curtain assemblies are specified to protect against nighttime heat losses. (4) Glass. Energy conserving and solar gain principles have been applied to all glass areas. Windows on the north sides of the buildings have been virtually eliminated. Glass on the south side of the building will be single pane, low-iron units with solar transmission of approximately ninety percent (90%) ; insulated curtains will be fitted to each opening to bring the overall nighttime R-value to eleven (11) . East facing glazing will be standard double panes fitted with nighttime insulation. West facing glass will be double pane, with sun control blinds providing approximately an additional R-2 nighttime insulation value. (5) Other Solar and Energy Considerations. As an aid to summer cooling and winter heating, windows will be provided with insulating curtains or blinds. Energy planning for the building extends beyond consideration of "shell" heat losses, which on the average account for less than ten percent (10%) of commercial energy consumption. Solar access to the building is ideal, virtually unobstructed. There are no structures to the immediate south of the building to cast shadows of solar heating significance throughout the year. Therefore, active solar collectors have been incorporated into the project to accomodate domestic hot water heating. Every attempt will be made in the design of mechanical systems to minimize the building's demands for auxiliary heat. Control systems will balance zones within the building before calling on heating systems to condition a given space. Special ducting will accelerate the distribution of solar heated air in southern spaces to colder northern spaces. - 12 - To minimize interior temperature swings and store "excess" solar energy, thermal mass will be provided as determined by computer simulation of each "direct gain" solar space. This thermal mass will most likely be incorporated in wall and floor surfaces. Berming of the lower building section will provide additional insulation and wind breaks will be created by both the existing and proposed landscaping. dd. Trails. Applicant will be providing pedestrian and bicycle ways linked with the adjacent property to the north designed to link pedestrians and bicyclists to Garrish Park and Herron Park and the trail systems extending from Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west and the Route 82 trail to the east of the site which extends out beyond the North Star Ranch. ee. Green Space. The project has been designed to maximize open space which will be abundantly vegetated by berming and plantings. The interior courtyard open space will have a garden area available for the residents and benches provide a delightful amenity for the residents of the project. The landscaping around the exterior of the building offers relief from the massing of the building and surrounding developments. The berming and planting serve to soften the outlines of the building and the project in general. All of the open space on the project will be vegetated and will be usable by the residents of the project. The open space provided by this project exceeds all existing open space requirements and will exceed the proposed amendments to the open space requirements in the RMF zone. - 13 - 3. Proximity to Support Services. aa. Public Transportation. The project is located less than sixty (60) feet from an existing City bus route, well within the two (2) block requirement, entitling the applicant to the maximum points under this section. Applicant will be providing a bus shelter on the southeast corner of the property to shelter persons waiting at this bus stop. bb. Community Commercial Facilities. The project is located less than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in the City of Aspen which therefore entitles applicant to two (2) points under this section. 4. Provisions for Employee Housing. Four (4) studio units have been set aside for low income housing. Four (4) studios at .75 bedrooms per studio equals a total of three (3) bedrooms of employee housing restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations. There are two (2) free market studios and one (1) free market one-bedroom unit in the project giving a total of 2.5 free market units. Thus, 55% of the project is restricted to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations, entitling the applicant to 22 points. The applicant agrees to deed restrict the four (4) studio units for a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines established by City Council and to occupancy limitations within housing income- eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. The floor area of the deed restricted space in the development is more than 50% of the floor area of the non-deed restricted portion of the project. The studio units comply with the size limitations as set forth in the Code. The four (4) employee studio units are integrated within the same - 14 - building housing the two (2) free market studio units and thus will be constructed of the same exterior building materials with a compatible exterior architectural style. Applicant's proposed residential development does not cause a displacement of any existing employee housing. The employee units designed for this project are roomy studio units that will be provided with onsite parking and covered storage areas in the same building as the other free market units at no extra charge or rental and thereby offering amenities and conveniences like those available to the free market units on the site. 5. Provision for Unique Financing. When the employee units are sold, applicant agrees to sell under a unique financing program the four (4) low income restricted studio units to qualified individuals as established by the City Council within housing income-eligibility guidelines. Applicant will offer 100% applicant financing for these units. The mortgage offered by the applicant will have a term of thirty (30) years and an interest rate at the lesser of 12% or the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as determined on the date of preliminary plat submission. There shall be no closing points and no prepayment penalty. The mortgages shall be freely assumable by qualified individuals as established by the City Council within housing income-eligibility guidelines. 6. Bonus Points. Applicant should be granted maximum bonus points for outstanding overall design meriting recognition. The project has incorporated the criteria of § 24-11.4(b) (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) and (5) . The project is tastefully designed to blend in with and enhance the character of the neighborhood and incorporates the best facets and technology of passive solar-energy design. There will be no negative impacts on traffic, roads, public safety, fire protection, police protection, drainage, water or sewer service. Applicant will be making improvements which will enhance - 15 - the fire protection, drainage and water service in the neighborhood. The public transportation service in the neighborhood will be enhanced by the bus shelter to be placed on the property. Applicant has taken into account the Smuggler Area Master Plan considerations for Park Avenue and Park Circle by agreeing to provide curbs and sidewalks and locating a small twelve (12) foot curb cut only on Park Avenue and preventing access from the project onto Park Circle. The existing services and facilities are adequately situated and set up to serve efficiently the project at no public fiscal increase. Great care has been taken in the design of the project to conserve energy and utilize solar energy as much as possible, and the project's energy efficiency rating significantly exceeds all applicable City requirements. The project is very tastefully designed from an architectural perspective and offers an interior courtyard open space garden amenity for its residents and landscaping and berming, greatly enhancing the visual qualities of the project for the neighborhood. Open space requirements for the area have been significantly exceeded. Additional paved services have been kept to a minimum. The project will be supplying thirteen (13) off-street onsite parking spaces, twelve (12) of which will be covered, hidden from view offering great safety and convenience to the residents. In addition, all utilities have been undergrounded and covered trash is conveniently located on the site for the advantage of the residents. The site for this proposed development is particularly suited to this kind of development and will blend in exceptionally well with the neighborhood and improve the quality of development in the neighborhood. Applicant is dedicating 55% of the project to low income housing which represents a substantial contribution by applicant to the welfare of the community. These employee units are incorporated within the free market aspects of the project and will offer the employees the same amenities such as onsite covered parking and storage for which the employees will not have to pay any additional rental. These employee units are nice size studios designed as such by the applicant not to maximize square footage in the project but because he feels that the roominess of these units make them a much more liveable and comfortable - 16 - space for the employee. Furthermore, to allow for qualified persons to acquire these units, applicant is willing to provide 100% financing for four (4) of the low income restricted units. This project meets the intent of the residential GMP, the RMF zone and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. In sum, this project has been very carefully thought out to balance the needs of the developer to create a viable project with the policies expressed by the City of Aspen and the community in general. We feel this project achieves this balance and is the kind of project that should be encouraged by the City. - 17 - • ‘,a CITY SI Fe) SPEN 130 stiali 71, treet aspe 16'" 81611 } iA+ 1 December 28, 1981 Mr. Jeff Costley Archdeacon Ltd Box 884 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park; Letter of 12-12-80 Dear Jeff: As per our discussion today and contingent on the city's ability to obtain funds from the sale of bonds authorized in May of 1980, the city could participate or construct the aforementioned interconnect in 1982 or 1983. However, unless this event occurs prior to your project construction, we recommend that the developer provide for this interconnect, with some form of reimbursement by the city, in the event that the city obtains funds to have the said line interconnected. Sf.ncerely, &m Markalunas Director Aspen Water Department cc: Planning Office • C'/1P/l . III'/n1t(J/I/!//( VI)///Ile/4P/! JIdfY/fl 565 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE y 92 .2337 December 28, 1981 To Whom it may concern: The Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District has examined the proposed location of six (6) studio units, 1-1 bedroom and three 2 bedroom units by Jeff Costley in the Sunny Park Area and hyraulically our trunk line in Park Circle can handle the increased load of this proposed subdivision. Also, at this time we have the plant capacity at the Aspen Metro Sanitation plant to handle this subdivision. Sincerely j,1< II L n Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District • yalitii‘■6 -Dff0"7/ W' " P-l‘atz& ea? / ..• 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ii/(1 1/ �2 (///(it / / :..%-t(�-iilsYL j. LI,(- 3 L l 1 . it -- -cr.--; L.-,1, ∎---r j _,L-/ "L. 'L,Y J / A / O.i Lc,V. yti. /—1) (...) c, 4/ (,:c. -- ' 7.11/11 --21-y - / ,f 7 / fy l �._,. /lC i KCB G) r _ c- r . cr ( C 27 1 J / J/ ,- � / / („ca 7 , l i / z L ;.i ( ) — 'C J . — / � � � � i, i / ; ) /, f.�c./ " 11 - / C ) / ._ ;. G l% .J 7. e c J . - _ , c) 7A/.., t, /( l - / I_ C. -7 / / 1 / ( l / , \ f•N et .. s,, S h** . (7r� ir gee\el ..y \ ,98 @�il,,@ei\ •'ohm•'••@^..4 / PROJECT et1/4. . •_. t p / ,, LOCATION ' 4•t. •••,**♦ 0 I / J C 7 4 .r v i 1.... •••... / L Z J/ 0 • a Y a EXISTING O 4 UTILITIES , �__7 R - MF / / _ / / / 7 ,,,_..,,,,, --.....,....) * . \ \ R - MF ` PROJECT \ / LOCATION -il \ R \--3 -MF I I / J L ■ L / c Z J/ or W Q Y a 0 AJACENT a ZONING R 6 /T ,, / /41 / / ,. (NNy, , .----..,..., *) .• `% PROJECT •.••• \----:\ / LOCATION \ .•• • • 1 • • • • * • • ti • ■ / \ --- J --.- ` • L , • . �'� 7 ! I • • • C • Z -4 / ■ • • • • . 0 • • • • • :w • I > . Q. • '• Y .0 a 00 •.° • . 0 a BUS ROUTE .•• Re�aso� C . --_.. siWar � N3d8tl �r SyJ311H7 d1 y'3rptld V L N °tla°,°° n►1�Ir1 :� roe 9 8ti NNd St/ ° �,ed 0 iil L.,_____,..11 ) n°r°°v S31.d1705 � f� 1V31 NpO © Ill Z 3"17tl10 ll tidd 10 s In 0 INIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIUNIPINIIIIIINNIIHIINI11111NNNHIII� < Ø? 45_ jN,aInIIIIINNUVNUIUUVI11UN11' I.. aismass @gNRINNIIINIINV11111NIIIIIIN ,,,,Ci INNNIINIIII\ IVNIINNNINIIHI k\INIWNHIINI• llh�ufNINP�HPdNNNINUInu �@fuNINIIPI INNIN INIOUNINIUNNNNIINUInIHININNImNNNY�NNNfI III INIIIIIININIIININIIII��IInINl1111 ININ �NINN�llllii �' • INfIIIIINaNiIIINNiNNIIVIIININIIININNIINIIN �NN""% �, N NIN a I� InUI 111111) IIIIINIHUNIINIIIVIIIIINIIIINNINIIIINNIIIIINIIVNIINIUIIII N mnN1 , IIII NNIINIIIIINIIINIUIIVIINI III�VVIII�IUIIIIIIIUHNY�I! . . . :, j- HIINI VIIIIIHdNI'�IIIVIINHIIINIINVIIIIIIIINNUNIINNNINNI NNJI ,NNIIIIIINIINgIIININIIIIIIIIMIIIINIIIINIIINIIIIIIIINIII II ,;;,INII INV +I I iltstais IIIIINININNIIIIIMIIIUIN IINHIIIIN? :4134::.... m NUI IIIIIIIVNIIINIINIIHIVIN RVINNWIIIIINNNNIIIIVIINI NN IHIIIINIIIIINVININIIIININIINIIINIIIIIINIIIIIININIIIII{{�CINNIII��,NIII IININI �,IpNINIINIIIWIINN \,I'NIIHIIINIIIIIHPJIINIINIVIIIVN �,I NIIIIIIIIH gINIIIIN IIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIININIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIINI NNN�NIIIIICN NNN INNI IVI HINI, IIHIU�IIIhNINIINNIIINII�J' \ I WIIIIVIINNIIIIIIINI'IINIIIIIIIIIII IIINIIILNINNV VIIIIIIIINIIINIINIIVN g 0„. ....... �NJNIVNNIIIIIHI IIIINIIIIIIIIgVIINNIINIIIN4IN UIIIIIIIINIIIIININIINIINIIIIIIII @ �IflINIIN�Blllillmllll 11111411HNIIIIINIIVIIIIIIItlIIIIIVINIIInIIflVIUIIHINNII❑ ��_: I. gIIIIIIIIIIII�InNI�NN11 III NNIN�Iq � NNIIINIINNHINNIIINNIHIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIII NIINIMN19 �� INIINVIINHINNIINNNIINNIIIVIIVINIIIHIIHIIIINIHINIIIMI YIdNIIIIIPdIIIIIIIHIYJNIIIIINIIIINmNINNIINNNIIIII @IIIIINI �i-A IUININIINNIIININIIdNNHINHIIINNIINIIINIRIIIINININNIII , �r Wss — all w 3 w Q tri o w O w QW ow . a LL F N a QW > Q 2 U U 2�ma aQF- i" a NF 2 a J OQF 0 0 Q ..1 -I I NU w 2 N �F : ^v: .,,, rids 0 -\ W a INININ'11111111II,VIIIIII1nIINNINNII \ ININNNI'NNdIPdNIIINVNI @IIIIIIII ���i � IfdNIIUIINNV I S 111111 NINNIINNUIVIIIN1111UIIUIN1611II IINIHINYHNIIIINIII�IIYdIIINII NIIIVIIIIIVIIV'IgRIN�I�N1�tlNhIINIIIIinIN @IIIIq NIIINI!NIIVINNIINNNIgNWfVNNI IINIIIIHNIIINIWIIINN INININ NIIHNIIIIIIIIIIINIINIIIgINIIUIIIIIIIIIII @HVIIIINIIIININ I VIII @NNIIIN111111NNNIININ 1k!�/ r'I IINIIIIIIIIIIVIINIIIIINIIIIININflIIIIINIIIIINIININII N — ! =I , IVININNIHI @IIIINININIIII NVIq'�p . . . •. �� ►'� �IImWiNII�IRIPNIBIIIINNIINiIIIIN ���� IVIININIgIIIIIHIIHIINNIINNIIINIIIIIIVIINIVIMIINHINI -- — � -- HIIIIIIWINIIINIINNIINI 1111NINIIIII111NIIIIIIINHIII _ _ :'•I� j IHNIIIIIIVdNIIIIIIVIIIIINNIINHINIIII ���� . IIUIINUHIVINNUIIIMIIINVIIIIIIINNIVNINNIIIIIINIINII �e�W'°" : �� NgNNNINIIIIIIIHIIHNIIIIIIINIIINIIIIIIVIIiNIIIIIRINIINI = sr 1 ` o ��� t INNU IININININVIINNNNgIV 11WIVIIININIIUIMNIIpINI I 4��D7 ��: ���� 411/111 NNNNINtNIII11111NI1NNNIINHNIIHN11111IH�INIIINIIV a ' ',�gNIIIINIIIIIVIlU1NN 1111IIIIIIIINININIII IINIVINIIIIHII�INN `a � � w INIVIIININRIINNNIINIIINIIIIINNIININIIRdIIIINIHINIVNINIIIIIIIN IIIINUIIINIIIINIIININIIVNIIgIHIIHIIHNIIINIINIIVIIIHIIIIIININNII I IIII I ' . « f NIINHIINIIIIIIIIIINIIIINNHNIININIHHINHINIIINIIIMIIINIIIIN N y HIflI�III�NNUIIIIIUNIIII�I�IIHIIIIIIIhNHIII�NI �, b:Z,� 11, ' 1 Iii .'�� n•w • IIIIgINI1111111\11I111NIIIIHNIINIIIINNIgHIIHIIII111Nl��l _ _ i+ <HIIHINNNIIIIIIIIIIIVNINNIIHIHIHIHNNNININIIHIVINIVVIIIIIIN1Ni �� �` t��` ' ' / _c. g�$`.` ,; i F IVINI NIINIIIIIINN�INII�INNNNIIINIVIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIHIIN4N ���f � � �" tz F �IVIINIHIINIIIIIIVNIIVNINNIIIIHIIIINNIINV�HINNINaNIIIRINI :•.. .tee/�. . � � IIINIIHIVIIIVININNIIRNINIIIIINIIIIINIINNINIgIIgqHIVIINN �� ..—...0411::.. NIIIVIgIINHIIVIIgNMIfINHNININNIIIIHNNUINIHINIINI ��'+�Q g •&° 11111111111111101101111111111111 I I I� NIINIINNINNINfNIIIINNINIIIIIINIINIHIIIININIIHIIHINIIININ @IN � .:' �" � '°q°off:peo IINIIIIN 11 HHNNINRI10111211INNNHNIINN11 � � °°°°• ° .•. IIIIIVIIY�III�IBIIVNINNNIIIVVIINIIIIVNIIINNIIgIIIIIIIIIIIINI ,:A1' IIINNNINIINIHINNINIVVIIINIIHIIIIIIVIVINIINVNNIIVIIVNIVIIIII � `.,► °•'°°° J -�Z� sI .... , egese� S. I IVIINVIIVNNNIVIINIIIINIINNINHIINIIIIVNINIYNNIVVINIIVICN w —<:..,. ••r °°�*o•° . IaNNUnui�limNi�IxNNgiulm�lulNlNummuuNmNU�NI� + Q PI S. ta-, .:,:- : f:' ' ..._.:;,..... ' ' ' • ' _ _ w W_U N�w waG W2a y 4 •■ p y m N°dgd da otid 9 ` 1.00r Cd pod ���syO 144,,s d 0 9 8 ZN ° S'd b S Syd�� L 0 Pie Ned' i p /U p ts. a -0-4-i , , O // 00 o , \ \ Ts \ 2 t ,Pit ti u , c a =�� m \ 6 m I� / Z C N \ 4 % �N i U 6 N 00,- c d Q d v N It ` O N r , t Vt oq a a ; ``N , 2 °,e\\\(a m: O \ :I�i gv g" b 1°,an rap 0 °, a 2 W , ` rift /: 2 N lie -01\d \N, II -al \ ilPP\ i t __, a a\ \ % ti -rc.; a e ea% o • Al ., , i c-,)P\ sfr c '•:: a L. \`11a1a p N m m ��� 2' to _ � . N f N `� `0 , 6 89 Z A.19.00 ye L_________\ N3dSV q 8173 gONV'l 00,49110-100 tl3NM0 0 •> low•... NV"1d ANNn iJ3f`Otld y0 0 ev.,v ,3 roe 9d5tl N dle� 9 tliJ13310 SneflOOSS'd / _TIT n'�tf31 NO❑ L• 0 © N 310tl17 NtlVd 0//�, N W a N CI_ zz 0-..'a p-,az I _�- p ,zz 1 \ --._ Glir \\--7\ln O N C MAIII �•�- 0 Y 0 II ii I 0 0 . �,. 0 c U•I . 0 7 F m Y I PI 1 m Y NS lela I I _ Y..1- p..0 L. � I en I I I ml W I a W N II _ !11111; to .nnn� II Q r 1'111 „ ,1111'111 €1 N /�uI „ III_ uiiu!� � _ , ---- Y I 2 2 = II �•}, 2 W = O DI w l m z OI u 1 4 "m! 1 .i 2 1 U h II 1 Q I. U I: Z 1 J 'i' J Y I; F 0 I �,I m II I L___-1 Lei IIIII', 1.1 J m m l 0, I . m Z I 0 h L. 34 1 � WW ¢ 0 z m a m . m • W ' 1 2 a F ,I z uI1 - C Lu z 1 J IIN i,': • J 1 7 Y 1 1 i' G a J U „O -,BE -- -- e4 .;”.1,1. -- -- -- Asir: tll NI •1. eawar U G N3d8V 517311H0aV a3NM0 •� ONtl, 00 ,07 ��� •> ep13311 'u'3 L09 g S>:13NNV,d tla0 �� 1O3road L tl3 N3310 .3 CJ31d17 Ossv ���d IIIT i 0 „wai NOO L (42;1 O G 3,0x17 >1aVd s t o 43 Z 8-ca :_,H"v Ott - II ,,____ _ID), i . [11 m/ I Y_-II I I 0 \ ii 2 1____ Z it 11 II 11111 J 1 L_______T bammiwtrej______j 5 2 I IIIIIU 4 1___ 1 N Z i p U = I I. 0 _ = 1 J = 0 U = I 2. 1 �- 111111111 lia v I I I I 1 1 W 1 2 1 33 - EIE W 1 Im nl: c cu\ N �m 0 2 . 4 m N m 0. Q 6 0 El m 0 no u I I I 1 1 1 iiiiiiiiiii 1 i 1 • 1 ■ A.13.0O a li/ N3d8r 8109 lIH7tld ;fl3va l �NnIS 9 t. Illllf`_' "t/31 NOD CO:1) /41,--- ..... 1 el __ _ ___ ___ _ 3� (11 - - '''.VVIZ,•:■:."'1 ICIIIII NT— la II\N 0 '.0' '.°s Strarj,.....••■•...1 mo _ b .w a......_ l-a I1__ _ ________________ _ ______ __ _ _ a. ---r----c-_ "."0 i 1 _ ver at t\otkpkilt.4;61 Is L• r r S . '".1 PO 1`14 m 1‘t• ' y u -----• IA ' II C _ r . 4 "1.1=111.1 Wilai Sal 1,,E01 i . .. m Q UN13ea•u•dso EdVDSO VV Aeu so0 na H��1e •a roe 3dV0SONV1 q U:I4 I 9 Sa3NNV 7d OOVFJ0700 N3dSV 'r sowor WT S31 d170SSV V a3NM0 0 9 /7�dd JAN NI'1S t J3road y j 1 d31 NOO 9 L \....-d AN i 1 1/41 e ,, ,„ /4,,,,,,y,//,,,,/ 1 ,,, ,, ,,,, ,,,H 1 © //1 �% L i IIS!I §7/!7/ i///7/ � - to /0/4iiIfiI�IA.., I Avg! 1 / r 1 4 1 , , A ' 1 Iii _ 1 III �� I�IIIIiI um ew / ii,./// i A 1 - a; i A Ays I�� \ 111 H . : , Is 14 N, ' .APL•`', it • ar- ell All I __I_ _IF. ___11 al -WI"Mil 111. O I=�� m =UI �IL C ICI in 0 �i=�� ni MI5 �� in 0 SI'° 0 o I A.1a000 810311H7tlV opeJeloo'u. • N3d8\I r .0 .r "„"••,• B 8tl3NNV,d OOO O to � m WI ' g31y1909sv ,WT -110,3.1. NO0 yieldcl ANNnS tl3NM0 1.03 rows 5' LE 8 I} • L___1 -: • .. .3 , • L:i, _ . _ i __:, ® seas... al as NIIIIIr :77_41 IIIIIIIk- -m 0 . arr ,,,,, i , .,....„,„ , ..... _____ , „, „..,1 , son-----a.” I sal I�a _____- ,3 4 =� — it ii Ns �• ri_ __.„ \ r�ai J. , ,.„„ , 1 pF '�• I ME."Nrrlirr-rdt4 I I_. YiM VI1LI _ � 1 ..,k _ __ -- , Willi ."--lir 1 011111.0.1Sal -- 1 -�s Mt• iSIMIOMMMInme lit a a in C m Q c 73 illit Na o a A \ \i,1 MB as Se r• 11141S. ,11 ' 1 III N. \1 \ \ 1 \ iii itl t•n �n-'- �r \\ i\t\ 1\1 I. 1 i \ \ k \ \h, i IMO IT IA k ( i -.. Ili 1 if •• is, _v y LI t iii I NS 1 jl�. 71 I;i;i R . , I; . � '1 I . ,�. I�a'1 � ill .� �.� 4 ,1 �\S ‘i� ¶I1i�1� �i llr� Ic f,� 1. .._. �' _ � �.� \\\ � � 1,ik----.—._:_,—,it II 1 ‘ % = ' �I� I 1 `\ i�, it tilt 5 � % - r„,/- / �� '�I V ` c'��1111�11 ]111111. _ i c. �_. 1111 - F.l �`"� . ��� •`�-� ��'�'!= • ! ��� ' 1 �4 12,r 1 ,� �Clw- �� -1� �\ it iit kSt\ l/Ar I JA-'1,1 r /14 \ Pecr----a-- -- '''',,--- \ \ 3/4114."- 4 1/4 te W allirt--naj 14 \ Alr ----- 1 -a-. # '‘, 1 Ckt �� f ' ����.W 1 .c t,,l ii mot.fr---- fr-is-ti —'1". ' rs; -;:i. "-ii--1 4.- -----vni E , \\) ! 4- . Ls • St r \r , ,. 4 -.i i "- _ -� =. b: 1 / s `I �'.L1 C .,•n . _G i� sir y.rufrir____ • c • .r ,�+ rr. at eta. = °�" !ea , �� Gam_-_ •rr• }}�� ? �� .�. ` fps �) �3 1 1111111 ir e ra us L _ , ` _ e 4 ` 01 bAll II ism' VS a Cgs Vii- - _ .— ': 1-_ r 1 Ira_ _ ter •'