Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.63-83 ( e . .;1.! .' 1"'-, CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen PROJECT NAME: j;I(;".~ p~ APPLICANT: ~~~ (W;"t:t(r11 i~ CASE NO. ('03";,3 STAFF: ~----- Q:J Phone: Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: TYPE OF APPLICATION: -X -L I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission 2. 3. Preliminary Plat Final Plat II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) l. 2. 3. Conceptual Submission Preliminary Plat Final Plat III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) 1. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use 4. Other: (FEE) (~,;J8.6l!l) ($1,640.00) ($ 820.00) ($1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) ($1,490.00) ($ 680.00) P&Z MEETING DATE: '-'1-'1./ CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED:~, REFERRALS: ~City Attorney ~City Engineer ~Housing Director ~Aspen Water Dept. _City Electric ~Aspen Consolo S.D. Mountain Bell ~parks Dept,. _HOly Cross Electric Fire Marshall Environmental Hlth. ~Fire Chief _School District _Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) _State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn) ~Building Dept. Other: FINAL ROUTING: ~ _City Attorney _City Engineer. Other: Other: FILE STATUS AND ~~ . ,11 , LOCATI~., ...~ i '.',., ' IJ _ P .. ~t I, {j .~ 1ft. ,.' : , r (.:!.-).d I /(7' - DATE ROUTED: , I /U 1f>:5 _Building Dept. ~ ~ i. (" .11 A. (I;:; 1~ ~.' Ii .. ~,/' ~ ~ DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: . CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: ~ (Lh_u~ atJ/i':;1'~ , Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: . CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: . Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: ~ i . ~' . .t 1 ~, ~'.i Ordinance No. . --" - . - -~ -~ - - - - - - - - -- -- - - ---- ~ - 1""'. ~, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: RE: City Residential GMP Applications - Appeal and Allocation DATE: February 27, 1984 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold, including the following issues: 1. Forwarding of P&Z' s recommended scores for the 1983 residential GMP competition; 2. Analysis of thresholds and eligibility requirements for receipt of an allocation; 3. Review of an appeal of the scoring of one of the applications; and 4. Consideration of excess allotments. APPLICANT'S REQUESTS At the January 17, 1984 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, three projects were evaluated in the 1984 Residential Growth Management competition. Each project was presented and discussed, pUblic comment was heard, and scoring was accomplished individually by each commission member. The three projects are summarized as follows: 1. E. Hopkins Professional 3 free market units, 3 employee units Townhome Complex 2 . Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units, 3 employee units 3. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units, 9 employee units 18 free market units, 15 employee units QUOTA AVAILABLE The tabluation of residential quota available for allocation this year (based on construction of units as of January 1, 1984) is as follows: 1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution No.8, Series of 1983. This Resolution had the affect of not carrying over the 119 residential devel'opment allotments which remained as una1- located from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its standard quota of 39 units being available. 2. During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new residential units. Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at Smuggler Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units. Therefore, 10 units remain available for allocation under the cur- rent competition. Since applicants only compete for free market units, the request before you is for 18 units to be allocated (although the 15 employee units would be deducted from the quota at the time a permit is received for their construction). THRESHOLDS AND ELIGIBILITY To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of 43.8 points -- 60 percent of the total points available under Categories 1 (Public Facilities and Services), 2 (Quality of Design), 3 MEMO: City Resident~l GMP Applications Appeal and Arcation February 27, 1984 Page Two ~ (Proximity to Support Services) and 4 (Employee Housing). A minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each of the above four categories is also required for a project to meet the basic competitive requirements. Two additional categories are scored, these being Category 5 (Provision for Unique Financing) and Category 6 (Bonus Points). Neither of these categories may be used to bring an application over the minimum thres- holds, but can affect the final ranking of ,the applications for the purposes of awarding allotments." The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows: 5 . 6 . East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex Average 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Proximity to Support Services Employee Housing 7.17 11. 58 6.0 20.0 Subtotal 44.75 Provision for Unique Financing Bonus Points -0- 1.78 TOTAL 46.53 Gordon Property PUD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Proximity to Support Services Employee Housing 10.08 13.83 3.0 20.0 Subtotal 46.91 Provision for Unique Financing Bonus Points -0- 0.5 TOTAL 47.41 700 S. Galena 1. Public Facilities and Services 10.83 2. Quality of Design 12.83 3. Proximity to Support Services 6.0 4. Employee Housing 15.67 Subtotal 45.33 5. Provision for Unique Financing -0- 6. Bonus- Points 1.17 TOTAL 46.50 Since all three projects were awarded points in Categories 1 - 4 in excess of 43.8, all three projects have met the eligibility requirements for allocations. APPEAL The scoring of the 700 S. Galena project has been appealed by Art Daily, Attorney for the Aspen Mountain Lodge ("Applicant"). The appeal is filed under Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code which provides for appeals based upon either "denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring." This appeal alleges abuse of discretion by two individual commission members, David White ,and Roger Hunt. David White awarded 14 points for the Applicants' employee housing pro- posal when the criteria established by Section 24-ll.6(e) called for the MEMO: City Residen~l GMP Applications ~\ Appeal and A...._ocation February 27, 1984 Page Three award of 16 points. When contacted for explanation of his rationale, David e~plained that he was dissatisfied with what he perceived as an unfair advantage which the applicant had over the other projects since the employee housing portion of the project was located off-site. Since the applicable criteria do not distinguish between on-site and and off-site housing, the Planning Office agrees that the award of only 14 points was an abuse of discretion. We recommend that the Council adjust the point scores accordingly. Both David White and Roger Hunt awarded 1.5 points to the applicant in the subcategories of sewer service and storm drainage. The criteria established in Section 24-11.4(b) (1) for these subcategories reads as follows: "1 Point Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvements by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general." "2 Points - Project in and of itself improves the quality of se~vice in a given area." The City Engineering Department reviewed the application and testified that in their opinion improvements to sewer services and storm drainage facilities proposed by the Aspen Mountain PUD would improve the quality of service in the area beyond that level required to serve the develop- ment. The Applicants' 700 S. Galena project is an inseparable part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. This point was clarified in writing by the Applicants . prior to the P&Z' s scoring of the app'lication. When contacted for explanation of rationale of these two scores, David indicated that the scores related to his dissatisfaction with the off- site location of the employee housing. He wanted to reduce the score in some way to reflect this dissatisfaction and he chose sewer service and storm drainage. Roger Hunt explained that he considered the Applicants' argument that 700 s. Galena was a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD and the neighborhood improvements were attributable to both parts of the project to be parti- ally invalid and he decided that he bought that argument only halfway and therefore awarded only half of the point. The Planning Office has considered these arguments and concluded that the arguments are broader than permissible under the established criteria resulting in an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we recommend that the Council adjust the scores accordingly. The following is the adjusted score which we recommend for the 700 S. Galena project: 700 S. Galena Average 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Proximity to Support Services Employee Housing Subtotal 11.17 12.83 6.0 16.0 46.0 5. 6. Provision for Unique Financing Bonus Points TOTAL -0- 1.17 47.17 If the Council accepts either of the Applicants' appeal issues, a) em- ployee housing, or b) sewer service/storm drainage, the "adjusted" rank- ing of,the three projects will be re-established as follows: MEMO: City Reside~al GMP Applications ,~ Appeal and r ' location February 27, 1984 Pi1<Jc Pour Points l. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units 47.41 2. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units 47.17 3. E. Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 3 free market units 46.53 At this point the Council has two choices under the provisions of the City Code: A. Award the 10 units of quota avai'lable to the applicants in the order of ranking. This would mean Gordon Property PUD receives an allotment for three (3) units, and 700 S. Galena, seven (7) units; or B. Section 24-11.3(a) permits the Council to award development allotments in any given year in excess of the quota established by as much as 20%, eight (8) additional units may be awarded. Such excess would subsequently be off-set by a reduction in the quota available in successive years. Therefore, if Council so chooses it may approve all three projects since it happens that the total number of free market units requested is eighteen (18). EXCESS ALLOTMENT ISSUE We have only received a formal request for excess allotment from both the 700 S. Galena and the East Hopkins Professional Townhome projects. Since the Code provides a vehicle to permit Council to approve all three projects, we would like to make the following points: 1. There is limited quota available this year (10) relative to the quota established (39). 2. Actual growth over the last two years has only totalled 39 units, including the 17 units in Smuggler Run Mobile Home Park. 3. We do not consider the 119 unit total which was not carried forward from 5 previous years to be a significant factor since that total resulted from the fact that previously employee housing was not deducted from the quota. Therefore, had cur- rent policy been in effect during the prior years, no excess units would have been available for carryover. 4. Consideration should be given to the merits of the two in- dividual projects. a. Approval of full quota for 700 S. Galena project would facilitate the ultimate development of the Aspen Mountain PUD which has its own growth consequences. b. Approval of full quota for the East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project would finally accommodate the unique professional office/residential use which Bill Poss has been working toward in three previous GMP competitions. In each competition, the threshold point score was reached. Currently, the quota for the three free market units in- volved in this competition is the final allocation neces- sary for the project. 5. This year's competition was exceptionally close. If you accept the Planning Office's "adjusted" ranking, there is only 0.88 points difference between the three projects. 6. If the lodge is approved, it will take peveral years of future quota thereby reducing that available for small projects such as the East Hopkins Professional Townhome project. 7.' The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their regular meeting on 21, 1984, considered and agreed with the above six MEMO: Ci ty H.eside~al Gt:1P Applications ~ Appeal and" ..ocatlon February 27, 1984 Page Five points. They felt that all three projects were quality projects. They r~commended eight (8) units of quota be subtracted from the coming year's allotment and awarded as needed to 700 S. Galena and the East Hopkins project. They further recommended that such excess allotment be contingent upon complete submittal for Building Permits no later than August I, 1985 by these two projects (i.e., four months short of the Code provision of 2 years to obtain a permit). PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends that you take the following action: 1. "Move to approve the -appeal of scores awarded by theP&Z in the Categories of Employee Housing, Storm Drainage and Sewer Service for the 700 S. Galena Project." 2. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution awarding three units to the Gordon Property PUD and seven units , to 700 S. Galena." 3. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution awarding eight units of excess allotment from next year's quota as follows: a. 5 units to 700 S. Galena; and b. 3 units to East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project. Such excess allotment shall be contingent upon complete sub- mittal for Building Permits no later than August I, 1985, and reduction of the 1984 quota to 31 units." # "I ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: 1984 Residential GMP Applications DATE: January 17, 1984 Introduction Attached for your review are project profiles for three residential GMP applications submitted on December 1st of last year and the Planning Office's recommended points for each application. The three applications under consideration are as follows: 1. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 2. Gordon Property PUD 3. 700 S. Galena Quota Available The tabulation of residential quota available for allocation this year (based on construction of units and expiration of projects as of January 1, 1984) is as follows: 1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolu- tion No.8, Series of 1983. This Resolution had the effect of not carrying over the 119 residential development allot- ments which remained as unallocated from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its standard quota of 39 units being available. 2. During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new resi~ dential units. Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at Smuggler Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units. Therefore, 10 units remain available for allocation under the current competition. 3. During 1983, the 8 free market units awarded to the Ute City Plact project expired. These 8 units should also be available for allocation this year, making a total of 18 units available. However, the applicant is currently disputing the expiration, asking Council to extend the time deadline for the project. Until such time as this matter has been resolved, the status of these units for allocation purposes will be clouded. 4. The summation of the quota calculation for this year's competition is: Annual Quota Construction During 1983 Expired as of 1/1/84 (8) 39 (29) ? units units Quota available as of 1/1/84 10 or 18 units The total quota request for this year is as follows: l. East Hopkins Professional 3 free market units, 3 employee Townhome Complex 2. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units, 3 employee 3. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units, 9 employee 18 free market units, 15 employee I "" 1984 Residential ~'APPlications January 17, 1984 Page Two ~\ Process The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on January 17 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the appli- cants should be given about IS minutes to present their proposal to you. It is important during the applicant's presentations that you limit their remarks only to description of the project as it has been submitted to the Planning Office, along with any technical- clarifica- tions which you or the staff may request. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicants~ proposals. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting will cons.titute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 43.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic competitive require- ments. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3.6 points Category 2 = 4.5 points Category 3 = 1.8 points Category 4 = 12 points Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an applica- tion over this minimum threshold, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding the allotments. All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will require additional review procedures. Specifically, the addi- tional reviews required for each projec~ are. as follows: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex Subdivision exemption to condominiumize the space and thereby assure the accessory status of the resi- dential space and to allow the construction of multi- family housing GHP exemption for employee units Exemption from parking re- quirements Gordon Property PUD Full PUD/subdivision GMP exemption for employee units 700 S. Galena Condominiumization GMP exemption for employee units Full PUD/subdivision Prior to the issuance of any building permits, each of these procedures must be accomplished by those applicants which receive development allotments as a result of this process. It should be noted that in the case of the 700 S. Galena project, the level of development proposed exceeds the L-2 zoning requirements for the 21,600 s.f. site and may only be permitted as part of the 514,078 .' l< """. 1984 Residential Gi Applications January 17, 1984 Page Three ~. s.f. Aspen Mountain PUD. Twelve (12) units with twenty-four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted floor area of 21,073 s.f. are proposed for this site as a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However, if the multi-family development plans were based solely on the 21,600 s.f. site, Section 24-3.7(k) would permit no more than one bedroom per one thousand square feet (1000 s.f.) of land area, or 21 bedrooms. In the event 700 S. Galena is awarded an allocation and sUbsequently the Aspen Mountain PUD is not approved, the development plan would have to be amended by reducing the number of bedrooms. Such a re- duction cannot be permitted at this point because it is more than just a technical clarification since it would have the effect of raising the project score for 700 S. Galena in this competition. Any reduction in free market bedrooms would increase the percent of the total development devoted to employee housing. Planning Office Ratings The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications as a recommendation for you to consider. The majority of the staff assessed the ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored each proposal. The following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis and ratings of the three projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Application Public Facilities and Services Quali ty of Design Proximity to Support Services Employee Housing Provisions for Unique Financing Bonus Pts. Total Points E. Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 7 11 6 20 44 Gordon Property, P.U.D. 10 14 3 20 47 700 S. Galena 8 1:3 6 16 43 All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each category. The East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex and the Gordon Property PUD also meet the requirement of 60 percent of the total points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is 43.8 points, the planning staff awarded these projects 44 and 47 points, respectively. However, only 43 points were awarded to the 700 S. Galena project. Planning Office Recommendation In recognition of the fact that the quota available is limited and in dispute, the issue will be decided by Council and since Council has reserved the right to allocate quota in any event, we do not recom- mend that you deal with the allocation issue, bonuses or future allocations at thie time. Your recommended scores will speak for themselves. Based on the analysis contained within the attached Score sheets, the Planning Office has the following recommendation: Gordon Property PUD: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments and approve the project. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments and approve the project. 700 S. Galena: If you concur with the points recommended by the Planning Office, the project falls short of the 60 percent threshold required and must be denied. ~ r"""'\ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: ~9,t ? - Gordon Subdivision Date: January 17, 1984 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). The Commission shall consider each- application with respect to its impact upon publ icfaci 1 iti es and servi ces and sha 11 rate each cleve 1 opinent accordi ng to the f,o 11 owing formul.a: . o -- Project requires the provision of new services,at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any servi ce improvement by the appli cant benefi ts the project only and not the a reai n general. 2 -- Project in .and of itself improves the. quality of service in a given area. a. Water Ser.vice (maximum 2 points). Cons;ideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed deve lopment and, if a pub 1 i c system, its abil ity to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facil ity upgrading. Rating 2 Comment: Applicant will loop the water system. improv'inq water service in the area. b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 paints). 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 faci 1 ity upgrading. Rati ng 1 Comment: Project can b~ handled by the existing level of service and improvements will bene~it the applicant only. c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Cons i deration of the capacity of the dra inage faci 1i ti es to ade'quate ly dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 2 , Comment: Proiect, will retain run-off in excess of pre-development rates. Page Two Res i dent; a 1 GMP SCOrl ng ~, 1""""\ ,d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).' Cons i derati on of the abil ity of the ftre 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 anew station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rat i ngl Comment: A new fire hydrant will be added benefiting the area. However, the proposed road widths are not adequate for fire access according to the E'ireChief. 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. I Rating 2 Comment: Parking requirement (one per bedroom) is exceeded by three spaces ~ , f. Roads (maximum 2 pOints). Consideration of the capacity of major street li.nkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffi'c patterns oroverl oadi ng theexi sting street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rati ng 2 Comment: The, project will have negligible impact on the public road syst~m. Subtota 1 10 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application 'with respect to the site ,design and amenities of each project and shall ,rate each development by assigning points according to the followi.ng formula: o Indi cates a tota l1y deficient desi.gn. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibil ity (maximum 3 po;,nts). ' Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighbori.ng developments. Rating 2 Comment: The proposeddensitx is consistent with the density range of surr0undinq developments. The. scale of the development is also com- patible with the neiqhborhood. .""""'- t'""'\ 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 arr,angement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment: The site work proposed which includes extensive landscaping, a pond, and public trail with bridge is a reasonable use of the site and will improve the quality of the neighborhood. c. Energy (ma'ximum 3 points). , Consideration of thai 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: ;,SQla.roAi.-epj~oa..tiQn, soJ,ar 'water~heati.ng-andpa,8.Sig.efeatJu1t'esplq.s 'commitments t'o. ex-tra-~ insulat.ion, result. in conservationc:of: enerqy. tie 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 3 Comment: An additional desirable trail dedication and fishing easement plus the construction by the applicant of a bridge cpnnecting to ute Childrens' Park will result in a substantial amenity for the community. e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on theproject si.te 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: Meadows alo~9the river will become dedicated open space which are highly desirable as. permanent green space. Subtota 1 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 "'--I Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route., Rating 2 ~ t"""\ Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commerci a 1 Facil ities (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 Tacilitiesin town. 2 Project is located within six blocks walking distance, of the commer-. ci a 1 faci 1 i ties in town. 3 ....- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- ci a 1 facil iti es in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 1 Subtotal 3 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points). For purposes of this section, one (l) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provi ded, 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 re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). , Rating 20 g , Comment: 9 low income bedrooms and 9 free mnrker hpnrnnm~ = ~n~ 7hr'\~...7 :'_income housing ."e" , The floor area of the six employeeuni ts totals 4,500 sq. ft. or 50% of the 9,000 sq. ft. of the three free market units. b.Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: I Subtota 1 20 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). ,Rating Q Comment: ~m. ,"'-"" ,I""'. Page Five Residential GMP Scoring' 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Rati ng 0 Comment: PO,lnts in C,a ~egori es 1, 2, 3 and 4 ('threshold: .43.8 poin,ts.,)' 47 Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS 47 Name of P & Z Member: Planning Office .. -~ ^ J ~ . -0 .,... , co > <tl o I \01 ~-~!\jC\f1 f'- :;: I ~ 0 1.0 +-l ....... a; ::s: z ~. 0 L.(") ...... V') V') ..... ::a: CO ::::> V') a; z ~ c::( .,... -l Z oo::j- E C- O t/1 ...... <tl ~ ~ 'J Z c::( l.i.l U ::a: 0 ~ l.i.l -l l.i.l e.!:) .....J l.i.l c::( c::( :c z V') c::( V) +-l ::a: I- >- M <tl Z -l C- :c ...... -l I- 0 c::( ::s: c.. ~ 0 0:: N e.!:) ~ -l c::( C- ...... a; l- N a; Z -l l.i.l 0 ...... V') l.i.l 0:: M CO r.. 0'1 ....... ,.... a; c.. - rtJ l'f) rt] 1 r:::2 t/1 -l .....J a; c::( b ex: u l- I- .,... 0 .,... a > I- ....... I- r.. ,co .,... co a; ::::> ..0 ::::> V') V') .,... V') +-l -0 <tl s::: 0- <tl E s::: 0 t/1 t/1 a; 0 ~ ~ u r.. a; a; a; 0'> .,... 0'> 0) a; .,... u U <tl +-l ..... .,... -0 ..0 +-l .,... ..... ~ U III III 0 c; a; E .,... > > .,... a; a; a; 0 en u a; ....... r.. r.. <tl +-l Cl 0 ..c .,... <tl ::a: .,... a; a; r.. 0 r.. III 0- U V) V') 0 r.. 0'> 4..- 0 a; V') 0'> <tl c.. ~ 0 ..0 0 >> III ~ u- s- r.. E .,... t/1 ..s::: 0'> ....... ~ 'r- a; a; r.. a; ~ -0 >> 0'> a; r.. 'r- a; +-l U +-l 3: 0 r.. r.. <tl +-l .,... +-l a; <tl a; 0 .,... <tl a; +-l ..... <tl 0 .,... a; .,... ~ r.. r.. I- :::- ,..... 3: V) V) u- c.. 0:: ....... Z V) l.i.l l- e.!:) U ..0 <tl l.i.l N ::! . . . ::! . 'J c.. <tl ..0 U -0 \ a; <i- CY <tl ..0 U -0 a; '0 ~ '0:: .C- c.. ~ N 'f N Q) Ol rtl c:i. '" r- UJ UJ Bi -;r-' h >- ...J ...J ex: r- r- z UJ ::E: UJ <.!J ex: z ex: :E: :r: '^'2 ~ 0 ~ 11 <.!J ' j '...J CL ex: 0 ~" ~c.D o ....... (/) UJ 0:: M 00 en ,.... r- u UJ '"'? a 0:: 0... ':~ ~ ~ I C) ~ N ~ VJ .~ '- --t _'i ~ N1 1.~ \1 .~ ~ "0 N-1C'IJ ~ ...... 00 > rtl o I. ex: e o \0 +.) ,.... Q) 3 ..~ ~-Nf ~ ~ ~1~ ~ C) f\\ Q)' e ~-1 ~ ~ ...... o:::t E Vl rtl '"'? ~ M rtl 0... ~lrt) \1j ~ ~ Q) N Q) ...J ~~1 ~ ~ t- ++-+-~ ,.... Q) 0... Vl Q) .,... +.) ...... ...J ...J o:::t Ol \0 \0 Vl ex: ex: t e I I Q) .,... r- r- ...-t L() ...-t U U a a u .,... rtl r- r- (/) e (/) (/) > LL. co co UJ reS UJ r- s.... e :::> :::> ....... e ....... z Q) 0 r- (/) (/) 0:: 0:: ....... (/) .,... rtl a LL. a a +.) .,... <.!J <.!J 0... ~ rtl U UJ Q) UJ s.... +.) s.... r- :J r- ...J 0 s.... <lJ Q) ex: c:r ex: ex: Vl 0. 0 E E u ...... u r- s.... 0. 0. E Ol 0 Q) e a Q) :J Vl 0 e u E (/) :::> (/) r- .Q (/) e u ...... e 0 l- I-- E rtl Vl Q) ....... u z s.... z Q) 0 s.... ~ :J E e ....... 0 Vl ....... :E: ~ I-- 0 0 Q) ....... a 4- +.) a '..... :r: u ~ 0... e 0... Ol ~ U e e rtl Q) e ...... e .,... :J Q) ....... s.... r- ...J 0 0 ...J .,... .,... r- ~ Q) Q) "0 ex: ,r- 0... ex: +.) E .Q ~ 3: "0 "0 r- Vl r- 0 -,..- :J 0 0 0 0 .,... a Vl a :> >< 0.. U r- ...J :E: :E: I-- > ':J r- 0 0. 0 s::: N s.... E . s.... 0 ,0.. rtl .Q UJ rtl .Q U 0.. co o<:S . 0... M o:::t L() '" ,I""'" ~ PROJECT PROFILE 1983 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Appl icant: Shp-1Clon C.,orClon (St-;m Mrlt-ni f';) 2. Project Name: Lbcadon: "1\''' Gordon Property PUD, :.:Lbt2, Gpro9p,$ultdivisioI1 ,(adJacent to Aspen: Club prpperty) 3. 4. Partel Size: 2.187 acres 5. Current Zoning: R-1S 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 6 units 7. Existing Structures: Vacant 8. Development Program: " 3 duplex units (3 free market and 3one.bp-Clroomlow income employee units). ~; 3 add.t tional 2-bedroom condominium' uni ts will' be pu;)Cchased anCl rp-s:tri dpCl t-n low income emploveehousinqguidelines. 9. Additi ona 1 Revi ew Requi rements: Conceptual PUD/S;ubdivision::,F.xem,ption from GMP for employee housing. "'- 10. Miscellaneous: '-'