HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Commercial Appeals.1978 •
14 E M 0 R A N D U P1
•
•
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM; Planning Office, !'.::'en Smith
RE: GMP Appeals Under the Commercial Allotment
DATE: May 4, 1978
•
On Monday, May 8, during your regular council meeting, we have scheduled a
session to consider appeals under the growth management commercial allocations.
As you will recall Section 24 -10.5 (ed) of Ordinate 4 1977, provides that
Council shall consider any challenges to the recommended point allocation for --
•warded to you in the attached resolution from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
in 1978 there were only three commercial applications totaling" 6639 square feet
or 25% of the annual allotment of 24,000 square feet. Two of the applications,
• both small additions to existing buildings, failed to achieve the required 60%
of total points available or 30% of, points available under each of three scp-
arate categories. It is expected that these applicants will wish to appeal, hot-
.
withstanding the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that
Ordinance #48 be amended to delete the provision which so far precludes these
projects from building. •
Procedurally, we recommend you follow the same rules which governed appeals
at your special April 25th meeting on residential and lodge applications.
That is,
1.. Applicants limited to 10 minutes.of presentation and 10 minutes of
questions and answers at the discretion of Council.
2. It is recommended that Applicants address specific criteria in the
Ordinance and explain why they believe they were scored incorrectly
by P &Z'_
3. At the end of each presentation any councilperson may make a motion
to amend the point total for any application, but again, any motion
should be specific as to what criterion score is actually being changed .
and why.
4. Order of applicants should be The Hutch, then La Tortue (in order of
. scoring). There is no need for Tom Thumb to appeal since less than the
•
allotment has been applied for.
5. Council should then consider a resolution (draft attached) which would
allocate the development allotments among eligible applicants, address
any ineligibility questions, and decide the question of what to do with
unallocated allotments. Please note that the P&Z. resolution recommends
not carrying over any unused alltoments. After re- reading the Ordin-
ance, it appears to be mandatory that Council carry over the allotment.
Since we think this could have a substantial effect if carried over in-
to 1979 only especially coupled with the carry -over from 1977, we are
including in the proposed resolution, a carry -over that is evenly divided
'among the next four years. A copy of a draft resolution its included for
your consideration. Since the deadline i,s May 8, we recommend you make
any revisions by motion and authorize the Mayor to sign.
In order to facilitate Council's review, we are giving you packets which -in-
clude the following information:
. 1. Project Descriptions
2: Planning Office Recommendations
3. P &Z Tally Sheets (Please note that these include the average ratings of
HPC)
4. P &Z Resolution
5. Copy of t'rc relevant sections of Ordinance 1'78.
6. Draft of City-Council Resolution
sr
•
l
b, 111 1. f ;l'(1 Ili i'Ll� � I it l I �'i IL' !!.!! I it ; HT. io li'1 L', 'dl 111 irI t lin i, ,
(Mill! lI_ IJI till" ... !lit! Ji',i li.L :. h:ll l I!;: i�'�'�I'II I�'.. ilrlill L rlt- t.Urd1 IVJ t1)
t,hc iolluwing 101111111(1: ll�l: 11 „t1
U icates a totally incompatible r1r,:;itJn Y �
•
1 - Jndicalos it n:,,ior dvign flaw tlllicll creates it major
conflict with hipLm ,' si.roc:t.ures in l.hn.hitoric
distr'ic't or with the nibah enviror intleothcr
areas outside the Iiistorir: •
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but r,i.;n d;lyd) d sign
3- Indicates an acccirLi:!;lc de',iun
The fo11 oti nu design el eider! i,s siwi 1 be rig Lcd accord i rlgly:
Massing - (maximum 3 points) considorir1(J t1^ Fassltl(I, type of
roof, and overall co',:IpatibiliL.v with tt; historic
scale represented in the v of the p.'oject.
Exterior CUl r'iote'r iols - (!!!;:xinC_!ia 3 points) coll the
appllCal -loll of h1Storic ric:terialP and their
•
use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of
garish, reflective or other disrul;ti':e elalt °ria s.
Architectural Det=ail - (maximum 3 points) connldcr'llin overall •
visual IG^'r(SS1o11 rlJVerl by fcuostr _tio;l and thc use of
building detail l ica” l•ilndois, doors, corners, roof ,
lines aiid at floor level.
•
Color (maximum-11 points) coisideriing the compatibility of colors •
and the variation 111 color teen necestilry to maintain
historic scale:
Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of ccmpati ble
coil tonii)orary dos) cl'1 as opposed to the im to t i on of
• . historic architectural features.
RATI: the above five (5) design elements below. Please corm;ent on the
Strong and /or weal: factors affecting each of your ratings.
Project Name: �?/ rte- / /;.% / . f
Dit,
Design Element:
a) MASSING / A Rath ,
7
(`(llI i'ITI:•:
• � j �' ', / i '1. %� - . /�L , � �. g ,„-c2 y2-2:7-27
h) L \1[_f;iil!2 RUII_hl MAlIGIAI_ R,l tint - ;
•
Co: : - '
/
•
•
•
fi
u) 111 I I 1 1 1 1 1 111•1,1
•
Cowmen L. --/2 '2 • ' " • • " • i• 1 . Y ( 17 • 7 / , V r/ " YL
. ; , 1/ 2 / /''' ,,
ir - _r , 7 ' ///••• -. 4 , , /
. , _ ,,, fr, , /• 4 _,._a_c! ' ..,, ,'„__ .'« • 0 I re . • I !•• r ,,,•" r Li ?ea 'tr.),
. 1 • / / l
• L ' 7 1/ee / ie • • ' e ,
c : • ' ,../ C e" / ,;•:- l.e e ,. ( • ,.<,..? .; 1 r e' F e ' 1 , ....- C.-a
i i / A
/ e • : 11 , / ft ■ . r ( V i i • r ' , d i 11( ' it ,,,/ /7 A f.. ? ^i A /.1. .1 ( • €1 c . I c r - '
- ,
/ " • /
d) COL( . / - • //
' ,
/ ,,' ,
,
Co rip ri t : j / _ „,, ' / 1" • ' 1,
;
4 -i ir / <' ' i • 1 : ) "2/ j 2
,
( 1: : C ( 1 ( 4 C ( ''' y, * _
i
e) ARCH 1 I E el Old_ ' I2a 'r I lin L..,7
/
. /
/5) , / • . /)-.. . „/ '' ' Y'' / ' 7
Cm ent ; iv. ,' / - c , ,.., - "I' •--- /.., ..,• f /, i / , 1 z • ( ,, ,,, • , /
/
,
- / / '
i , ,.., ,/
/," 6, 1 ', • ' ,./2) , ;- c, :Kt-, , , - c ,
TO I AL l',atii,
. . _
14,1,1e of person subliiil hi the above rat ing
Z'
„,, , . „i• c- " '
, ,
/...--,;„,,,,;„•: i ,t ( 1 e zS C e ; C (," 1 _ C. ‘—` C__-/ A f i ) — i 4 :: , (-- C. ,
, •
4 ,-
• •
•
. .
•
•
. .
•
• .
•
. •
. .
•
•
(■, 11/U1,j:on,. `1f1 101111 -
•
1 .111.11111 lir! (,0;!;t:......1,1 (.' , 1:! Cit.) ,ti.1 LYttt ( I 0:t• (I /HI
H '7
dif,fritt!, f„hitil be ar,..,ign rniun, o l t or6 n j [ th f f
0 - .; n 11 1,01 ti ill hill( ;• H ibfi• !HI
1 •
• - 11Id Cr; 1 nutjor cliy;inn
Jndjcnte, in: a cc Latill• :.1„H ,dcf.;
3 -ludici.Jtes an aceptahly design
• Rd.o the follo.iing fcattlre'..
a) Archiftcturhi - con5id.cring !Ay: cipoatiLility :yr the propov.d
building (lo to; o r,nd buil(iinu kote -
lois) uith 6r.velf:pTent%.
Ratingc..7„/
(;One 1.1 / , - z, , _•„/ '
,
z •
/ •
b) Site design - :considering thn cpality and character of the proposH •
lEindscdping il.nd open spoce EPeLS, the exLclil of unc:orgroL:Pding c1
utilities, Hid the arranriement of ivii)rove:A2nts for eflicicncy of
circulation ('including access for service vehicles) a d increi,:;ed
safety and privacy.
• »../
Rating
/ I / 4 (‘
Co e (
wnt : j 7 . ,
•
/i
".
IcC7f ';‘" „ 7/ " 1" ■: -.1 r() • ; 1;2 / ( ;,/ (.}
-L, C , „
— : -c7 / / A
.
c) Energy - con the Use of insulation, so( energy devices
a04 efficient fireplaces to mfiximize conservation of energy and
use of :oar energy sources.
• Rating C .
Coant: / 2 I -
t -
/
(.2 ' •
d) Tknni 1 iys - consiHring the provision usable open spice and
pedosiridn an:I bicycle
• •
• Rating
•
„ •
•
,
.
. • .
. ,
•
0) 1-H .11! 1 1 rip,: T. r 1t Ho o f f
[D 1J;(!
..40e P.)
[
• f
//
//
COUNI 7 (, i(</:
'te ( L I , C
, 71
/ //, '1 '1 t ///" ( ./.? •/- e ,
: • . — . - -
• •
• •
11. P[I Growth Mi1111.'7 11 1:w:11 :1 1;11in r ocul
Projects within the CC z,nd C-1 shill be a1 dccording to
the
0 - 1ndicte project totally inf.:Hug in ally
hou5.in ur direcled to suififf:/ing
o HciJ 1
•
1 - lndicEtes a project with its (
on supplying twirist services 1.th little or
no on -S 1 tc hmIsing
2 -- IndiciAr:s a project with huusinp, and uses
that will Lc relicd on by both the tourist
and rociidcntiE,1 popultions
3 - Indicates a nrojcct which is designed
excluivciy to se.tis•f the nr:.eds of •the cor-i-
.
umnity's residential population with only
incident1 tcurist use and no tourist housing
being antjcipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employ:4e Housinci -- considering the extcnt to which the projcJ
supplies housing for empleyces generated by the proposed cc':
uses.
•. Rating Z. 0
/ / Z . / di •
- 11 2 „S
- ' 7 C—
<.(
L
• A / ' r / , • •
; +
///
( c{
h) Nedical and Oth?r Scrvi6e Nceds - cousidcring the extent to which
the project supplics modical, dental dn.! professioni,1 •
office sp:co; as well as hnking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses dosin,
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
/
Ralinl /,
Conlwont: ,../A J . • 'Sy
•
•
, •
. „
(
_ . _ _ . .......
..... ........ . . . . .
•
•
. 17. III I 1
/ci
nt Avi P./\J
JIMIVINUAI 1;1 I 111E. /
• • R/..1 Mr, 6• ,c,
• 13. HOW; Ii011E1'..; (lir)! to 20 (/. of tlin Huve tint iv!) rinvi
11u i E i t i I (. I 1,11 yl, 1 j I y.
,
'‘. wor> poi
•
14. "I 0111. PCIII; I S •
11111 Mr.;
DOHS 1:',(2,
- 2
TOV.1 P();E:.
NAME OF P[RSO ThL ADOVE
j _71 //j
, // / 7":( — , / ,', / , 1 1 • /, A-
• / _ ,
-(% /
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
L \ / �� - fay r I )::i.',ii MAIL I,. - . 1 I %, ''i! 10.; i'r '11nT / r _...
CI 4:.
1. Project Naine: y T
2. Location: $lap1e 96. Izzt• 0 --
3. Parcel Sizc: Lot 0
4. Current 7oninn; Zone '
Zoning under which app "i'; cat; on is filed; R T3z C, C _
Maximum buildout under current zoning:
•
. Proposed zoning:
5. Total buildout proposed: (01' f..,.• f
6. Special procedures required:
View planes:
Stream Margin Review:
•
Special Review:
Historic District Review: H?C
Subdivision (condorniniumization):
•
PUD:
7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed
project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application)
a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the
nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building.
Water syateni already dy ins tztl de. --no e f "
b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the
and estimated sewer demand of the building. ;.;o extra d .nd
C. Type and design of surface drainage. N'one'required.
• d. Development sun•=nary including lot size, internal square foo=tage
and open space. As designated on plan
e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development
•
and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets,
number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied, .
location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto
• disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development,
and hours of principle daily usage of the development. No increase
•
f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses
(by general category of use) without substantial building changes.
g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. Commercial
• h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if
applicable.
S. List of drawings and maps submitted for review:
•
Survey, site plan, elevations for addition,
building sections and rendering in City files.
Submittal Date: iJrot, nt,1t`ail t <
Lls*vi plrne nubmttted Au Au?nst before moratorium
•
•
J
ALLEY .
•
.
F OUND+
RC P4R W,,'P1 hr-TIC o. � -1
CAP' l_5 I ZYU / to F GAD 24-
._a..,n
_ j �.'✓.-
•
4+✓+ F�9VdrrR PAD _ > LI 11l 1-0 • — I \�
•• L P . I V
/'I OF �'
t,r 1
' L'u_ ^ , ,
•c-MET _ LIGHT .t•_t'_ \ \I
LOT N LOT O
•
BLOCK °_ ' _ d'• €'
5 11
I a _, —
t 1- _ FChGC — •
• / \ III Z2 .
•
/ J / i ` 2�Tr= \ I
TON 6 / ONE STCti-:Y // (. 'O \
FR%\nnr-, But,: / 3? "'n,.:� �.
/ /// 7 ,/:),/ cI
Of
O
Cl/ �, / j J _ / t
lill z / � ,C -_ - I W _J i
V J
h1 r
3
j/ 1
/ /� 8 l, €
0. r — ____ cm
- 0
- // /
5 - ' / r _ _ c:Nrx R L', OCK 5/41-1.0 i
/I ` -
a /; (
— zn
�:r L, II
05 t , ) E l ,= a ,< _ R
''O —_ � '_i- / / 7 14, / 1 r
1 ,
•
_ - rte• .
• try ^
FOUND
Lri -ul ,'
RE nniz w, FAA +cYIC ...___ _
CAP t.5 9013 f
1 ,
•
•
•
DU_)NAN f AV EE NIJ f
A t
MCISOItADUNi
•
•
TO: P &7. and HPC
•
FROM: Planning Office, John Stanford
RE: Growth Management. - 1978 Connercial Projects Review & Point
Allocation
DATE: March 1 1978
•
•
Three commercial projects are proposed for 1978, all of which are additions
to and renovations of existing commercial properties. Together the 1978
projects total 6639 additional square feet to the commercial core - consid-
erably less than the 21,090 square feet permitted by Ordinance 48. The in-
crease its listed by project as follows:
Tom Thumb Building 5455 sq. ft. •
La Tortue 608 sq. ft.
•
The Hutch _ 576 sq. ft.
Total 6639 sq, ft.
The Tom Thumb project is a major renovation of that property. It includes
complete refurbishing of the two buildings that front on the Hyman Street
Mall and demolition of the smaller structures to the rear of the lot to be
replaced by a new commercial structure with housing. The applicant has
. submitted a complete application presented in brochuer form.
The remaining two projects are considerably more modest in scale. The
commercial tenants on the properties are the applicants, and they have de-
veloped their individual proposals without the professional expertise of •
planners, architects or lawyers. Therefore, tHir presentations are con-
siderably less refined and ambitious than that of the Tom Thumb proposal.
(Modest presentations should not he downgraded as long as their applications
are complete.)
The recommended point allocation of the Planning. Office is as follows:
Project HPC P & Z NET BONUS TOTAL
Tarr Thumb 13.6 16.6 30.2 1.5 31.7
La lorcn 9.1 9.3 18.4 0 18.4
The Hutch 8.5 10.9 20.4 0 20.4 . .
The code requires that each project acquire at least 60% of the total avail-
able points. Sixty percent of the available 36 points (exclusive of bonus
points) is 21.6 points. La Tortue and The Hutch do not qualify to be con -
sidered for a 1978 building permit. It is recommended however, that the
scores for all three projects be forwarded to City Council who can choose
to exempt the low scoring project by special ordinance since the total 1978
proposed square footage is only about a quarter of the annual increase per-
mitted by the code.
Due to the small increase in proposed comae rcial square footage the Planning
Office has processed referrals in a less formal and time consuming manner by
• reviewing the projects with each afiectcd agency. Essentially, the increase
of 6639 square feet within the commercial core will not create any signifi-
cant impacts en utilities, streets, traffic and parking, public transporta-
1
tion, drainage or 1anduse.
The Planning Office recommended points aro attached.
•
•
•
T ‘" ifkAitictiu*i'Jt
. f
• 9. (.1 HP:7 in,1 Y. HT, H wi Lin I 1,
\ , ,
i,1 nne, dc,/..ord o
follcnAnij 1 ormohc
0 Ind La I I:, a lot,t11y iI1L'FHriL
1 ler df 1 1;w tqhir.11 f
•
cm') ict ‘ei IrHirn !,1A-H, I he J1 rir
d i CI. or \ii i
Drew., out!,i(!n 1.11( I,
•
2 - oh :r.j"!!)1 !ilf• % C1
•
3 - i...(..c-pttil iteic!n
•
The folluin clew l he ri"±ed e,econdingly:
•
Massinp - (nxh';;.1 3 p(ihtr..,) ljpe of
roof, nnd ovurrll cn i lity wH the hiflteric
scale roprc]sented 1 he viciniiy of the preThrit.
Exterior Duilding fteLiiricls - piiint(J) cer,ir!-:infl the
applicLion of historic, hillidinri iteir
use on iii fcciJtcs of the structure, avoiance
czaish, reflective or other disruntive!
ArchitecturEil nriintel consitThri(iii
visual iimpnc.isHuil ( hy fenestration anEl tte usei of
buildinc dOurs, corners, roof
lines i.nd at flour level.
•
Color - (moxirinm 6 points) considPrir, the cuvbtikillty of colors
and the v6riation in color when necessary to L,iirta!in
historic scale.
Architecture - (maxiLuni 3 points) considering the use of caim
• • contetTorary dosirin S orro,:..cd to the imitation of
historic arehitecturni features.
RATE the above five (5) design cic.i. Plese cur. t on the
s.tronq and/or weak factors affecting each of your ratincis.
() 4://
Project NLmo: K T . --- > \ /22, /
) ;:•-•
Date: ' / •-c-• / / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Design Fleirient:
mssING
-1- A' Rat. i / •
Cor.lon /L- • / •
e , , „ . 7 /
% cf / ///
/;"%/
7
h) rulIDIN6 Rating, '()
•
Comminl: Y
' 7
. ... . . .
•
•
••••••*.
( ) l it ;
•
011 Elf 1 :
4 ,,'
j
' ; /e ' 7 ( . _
. — — —
i`O
d)
/ • /
• ..
COHi Li l; • y •• • •
/1 ,
• (
•
c) 1 It ii ')
,
Con ient : t r
'
, , •
di
CT 'I • /
(
\ /
TOTirt. i ( 2/
J _
•
Name of person subflt.ti Ho the Love rati r ' • t/ ••• ••'(
, •
(/ V
.0 - •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
In (141
„ 1!
11). l':,/ ci41 h r; Li .1 , H, 7
wiHiiri 1 lifi 1 .1,1 (U.) ,:1,01 ri 1 (I:: (t /
( IVI•r 1 "j , "-kW l'(' dinfj 1.0 I hy
0 Judicid i, tot., I I] 11 ,10
- Ind Irl;j01 114!
2 - Ind icut w CCelduble (but r.,Lowit d(.!;1gn
3 - Jndioutcs an
Palm the hflluainci foriturrs o •
a) Arch i toctu. (ton - co:1Y ihri, coopHlity rf LC: prO!)0:
• hiFridin o Hitt, ion i;nd hui i ntj
• f;) V111,11 eXktirili ILHiliL01 dc:VelOpMCNI15.
Ra.tinci
Col.,:uent : • . : :
2Cj /•/ • 71 '
•
•
b 311:52 d ■!■ considLi 1 nri - LH cu.1 It] chal C th(:
landscapinc: .arld OP-fl areds, the exte!it of undi:rnrou..1d1flo ot
uti 1 tics e.rid the E.r00lbic or i;:.provehv.:nts Lo ficicnpy of
circulatiwl eincluding access for s: vchicles) and increased
sa folly and priva,cy.
•
Rat.i ng
A
Corahicnt : , ,77; ; .y- , • K . ;
•
/ e
/ . ,C7 (e.. c
,
/ 7 /
c) LI1Ory,y CtriEiderinc) tho use of insulation, solar enercly devices
and eff icient l'ircHaces to max conservation et energy and
use. of solar energy soi.rces.
•
Am.
Ra i ng Z,
• ,K2;.7=
Co 001 : (24 • (
• •
/ /
57 7 ., ,!/ „
d) Aflonities - 1110 provision of us;hlo oocn sodoe ;Ind
pc,L ian cyc •
RI •
1 1 1 ' , 1/4', •
• /c7 /
Co:Hment :
•
•
. . . .
• . • .. . .
•
•
e) 1 I tut.] he; e" I. - r(111' 11"I'lnil 'l , .1" rlll(I 1 ..1;1!I UI I;1!iidilyl',
0 11
. I11• p °". ' it V 1t'rl', t.( ,or u l loft sum I .. �! - He , .
•
4J
1 I�i1t111r1 / )
I
11. .
(,r J��•:Ilil•' _ ('1,.. �.1'il(rci; i:r 11']nlhim; In, -.'
Projects within ti CC and C -1 shall he i {;ned points accord ing to
the 1011o'l,'inq Formula:
- Indicates : ! project totally laclyi In ally
hou::i;1q or d1YCetP(i to supplying IlcLdS
of oca1 residc His
1 -- Indic6tes a project with its r:ain erehasis
• on sepplylntJ ionl S with little or
• 110 en-site hues i
•
2 c Les a project ■:ith iUUSihg and IiSeS
that 1 17111 Lc! ri.11(1'd on by Loth the - inui 1st
and re-.sidcnt population:
3 - IndicQtcs a nsoject which is designed alrloste
exclusively to satiny the needs of the c:ori-
muniit.y's resiec,ntial popu1e Li on wiit.h only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housi
being arlti cip;:i.cd
Rote the following features accordingly: -
a) [Jlip l ee Il`. JS1 ng - cons ideri ng the extent to which the project
Sul r t cc Ilt . i nc for o: l oyeees generated by the proposed cG sn:ercl al
uses.
• Rating __ -
Comment:
•
b) Medical and Other Service Nceds - considering the extent to l
the project suppl les liledi cal , dental and siin professional •
• 0{f1 space; as lien 1 as banking, appllance supplies aid repair,
grocery, hardw drug store_, laundry, alid siiui lilt uses designed
and intended to serve the routine Trade and scrvicenecds of-the
col',r un l ity.
, .
eosin nt.: r�, _
•
•
•
1;11 PHIP,1
1111: RVI fil l'b111■f;
111111V11. 17 1111 1). 17,111V, •
111.1 1;1■111;?;
13, 1F1,11 1)011 (./(pc(1 20",'• 1h(i Tiv)yr. hr., 1 kin) clud
1.11 t r:( y 1, f•;{ i 1 oui.(.1.orciiivi quo I il.y.
•
14. TOT P011N1;
/„. i /
11111 r .
ports Hf, I r;
//
Tom, POT:ns
1/r\ilE OF ITP,S();; rri,[33'./
liATE
•
•
1 —
6ROW r'111U111GEb1C[lt i'tAANi UAW 11011 RE a!J
-- \ C r} 1
• 1. Project flame" ) xir•d -esA �_.GI (1`e -7 -_pi Tl'b t `I ?)(? 6+� ' 140 .
2. Location: fE l- f t raj)
3. Parcel Size: a 0 , "i
4. Current Zoning: Q
Zoning under which application, is filed : _CC
��_.__,�
•
flaximuin hui1dout under current. zoning: (joCX0
Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: r j -d .nr,,Ft2_ ✓�( : �4 ` ---
6. Special procedures required: •
V cw planes: _.._. _. -_---- __
Stream tiargi r Nevi eve: —_—
Special Review: — -
/,(2 e /�
Historic District Rrviel•:: _ � -' _— f %=;=----'---
Subdivision (condominiumizati on) :
•
PhD:
7_ Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed
• project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application)
a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the
nearest water main and estimated water demand of tho building.
b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line
and estimated sewer demand of the building.
c. Type and design of surface drainage.
d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage
and open space.
e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development
and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets,
number of on- street and off - street parking spaces to be supplied,
location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto
disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development,
and hours of pri nc i pl e daily use /2e of the devel orient.
f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses
(by general category of use) r;i thou t substantial building changes.
g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity.
h. Construction schedule and schedul e for phasing of construction if
• applicable.
S. List of drawings and maps submitted for review
T il4'n, _ • t7TT
r�1t L'C ;tic
Alf 11 C OC_tV `r
r
S
1 �L_� ; Submittal Date: �_.a__C ^. > _r �._ �
•
•
r.� t ,,,
PROGRAM NAI RATIW FOR CRGWH (MANAGEMENT PLAN
EVAIJJ ATION , Hi FORT
7, a, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL WATER FACILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT CAN ADE J ATE:a
BE HANDLED BY THE WATER SiI'PLY TO TIIE•EXISTING HJLLDING. THE SOURCES OF
ADDITIONAL USE'WOULD .BE ONE TWIST, GNIE S::A11 LAVATORY AND ONE SINK FOR CRAFT
9,
RELATED ACTIVITIES. ALSO DUPING CONSTRUCTION AN EZISTING BATH TUB WOULD BE
•
REMOVED. THESE FACILITIES BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE
ADDITION, THAT BEING, CRAFT STUDIO USED DURING EUSINESS HOURS WOULD NOT
PLACE A SIGNIFICANT ADDTTICi4AL LWACT ON TH MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM.
• b. THE FACILITIES FOR THIS ADDITION ARE EMALL IN SCOPE THOUGH ADEQUATE, CAN..
BE ADEQUATELY HANDLED BY PLUMBING AND SEWAGE SYSTEM OF THE EXISTING STRUC—
TURE. THE ADDITIONAL PLUMBING WILL SHARE EXIST]NG PLUMING WALJS, AS STAT—
ED IN TEE PREVIOUS ITEM THE FACILITEES FOR THIS PROJECT POSE NO SIC IFICANT
IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY SEWAG.. SYSTEM,
. co TEE ROOF, 350 SQUARE FEET, WILL CONSTITUTE THE ONLY SURFACE DRAINAGE. CON—
. 4. .
STRUCTION OF A PARAPET WAIL Qt THE i'EST SIDE OF ROOF WILL DIRECT DRAYAGE
TO THE SIDE OF EUILDING TO CREATE WATER SUPPLY FOR GREEN AREA( APPLE
TREES, RUSSIAN OLIVE TREE, LM'W AND NUMEROUS FLOWER BEDS).
d. LOT SIZE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE IS 30.16" 1 100.00. TIE ADDITIONAL
INTERNAL SGJARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT 5v'TTS. LE 5 -'O SQUARE FEET. THE NEW •
• STRUCTURE WILL USE UP APPROXIMATELY 150 squARE FEET Or EXIST= OVEN SPACE.
TAXING INTO CONCIDERATICYI TEEN W CONSTNJCTIGN THE LOTS REMAINING OPEN
SPACE WILL STILL BE A VERY REFRESHING 40% 4 45% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA.
..- ...�.,. .-..,. +wen - ..- -,.... w ; _... -'--.. ^_. .._ _...� .- -_Fr -..... r •, ... .._ }._.�,.,.— .�sxm'q- 'a tj c.. -_ —.__ ..
r
,' • .
• •
s .
1
• c. SINCE THE PROPOSED CO'-!S PUCTI OF THE CRAI'1` sl'UDIO IS ADJACENT TO THE EX-
ISTING RETAIL SHOP I GAS NOT FORESEE ANY INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLUME OR NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. I ESTIMATE THE PRII:CIPLE DAILY UJ AGE OF TIE
STRUCTURE WOULD CORK SFCUD TO THE HOURS OF THE RETAIL STORE WHICH ARE
10 :00 A.M. 5;50 P.M..
Y. THE INTENDED USE OF WILDING IS TO SERVE SOUL' AS, THE INDIVIDUAL CRAFT'
STUDIOS FOR DUANE AND MARGARET JOHNSON. DUANE'S STAIIUNED GLASS STUDIO
,MOULD BE ON THE LOWER FLOOR AND MARGARET'S ENAMALING STUDIO WOULD BE ON
THE SECOND IEVEL. THEITE ARE NO INTENED PROVISIONS IN THIS APPLICATION
THAT BE USED AS OR TO BECOME USED AS A RESIDENTIAL OR RETAIL UNIT.
THOUGH NOT INTENDED BY THESE APPLICANTS, THE POTENTIAL FOR EITHER RES-
IDENTIAL OR RETAIL USE IS CLEARLY POSSIBLE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL BUILDING .
CHANGES.
g. PROPOSED IDDITION IS SURROUNDED BY HEAVY COMKERCIAL AND RETAIL ESTAB-
LISHMENTS. PROPERTY IS MADE UP OF THE HUTCH CLOTHING STORE AND THE WILD-
WEED SHOP RETAIL STORE, THESE ARE BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY TIC BANK OF
ASPEN AND LA COCINO RESTURANT TO THE WEST. THE MINER'S BUILDING IS ACROSS
ALLY TO THE NORTH AND THE EILL STREET STATION COMPLEX TO THE SOUTH ACROSS
- HOPKINS AVENUE.
. h. coNsTRucTial SCHEDULE WILL BEGIN WITH ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND .
-SUBSE!PENT ARRIVAL OF FAVORABLE SPRING WEATHER WITH COMPLETION DATE OF
JUNE 1; 1978.
•
yer. ^..: �r¢ n;: r*'... �.- cT+ R. '�-, -s-. ; -. 'a- :.r�'f° ,y ti.. , - . •
•
• y
•
9, HIT, r',i`!P1111 1 1 '!1! 10H I r!Ity, rtp o ir (1 , trichin 1 111�i
( n; une , distrir:l�, !,h,■I1 be (Het. lei;.: �IC.cordit�g a
the loll eaill° Tot a: kyi11 .
0 Indicates a totaiily incompatible design \) 1
• 1 - Indicates a major des ion flaw which creates a major
conflict With histuris L) in, Lures in the historic
di ,tri ct or w i tll i.he in ban env'i •otmelit in the other
areas outside the historic district •
•
- IIIUICdLcS dll dUCCi)LOUle (buL standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
The following design elements shul1 he rated accordingly:
Massing - (maximum 3 points) considering the massing, type of
roof, and overall compatibility with. the historic
scale represented in the vicinity of the project.
Exterior Dui 131ng Motel s - (maximm 3 points -) considering the
application of historic building materials and thei r
use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of
garish, reflective or other disruptive material s.
•
Architectural Detail - (naxiniGm 3 points) considering overall
visual iirlpression given by fenestration and the use of
building detail near windows, doors, corners, roof
lines and at floor level.
Color = (maximum 3 points) consi dering the cosipatibi1ity of colors
and the 'variation in color when necessary to maintain
historic scale.
Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of compatible
contemporary design as opposed to the imitation of
historic architectural features.
RATE the &.hove five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the
strong and /or weak factors affecting each of your ratings.
(/ ; ^ �r •
Project Name: ,/. (. � i
Date: f •„ "�'`.,.�� — _
Design Element:
a) i I1SSiNG v 1 / • / Rating i •
Comment: ` ••//••''.. -
b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating
•
Common t : •
•
•
( ) AR( Ill 11 J T,l 1)1 1P,
••
7" I i t (
- - -- --------------------------
d) COLOR Rat - ing_i1( )
e) ARCIiITECTURE Rating ( )
/ /' / /
' 7 `/
TOTAL Rating t-,
• Name of person submitting the above rating _ / ' ' `/
•
3 -
,t i �j}'[ QiI it i' r id lli fill 1 v lll;il ii ii rr} it l'i -UI cL ii , - ..�
10. I ��I (,i o.lth I r n-i l ' r �- l o ' (c I) eon in�l
td I tli nl thi Li color c i I Cur ( r ) ant Lor
d ' i . : t . r i c t _ , -,hill he a .igned points auto dinj to the to !lowing formula:
• o -- Indicates a totally incompat.ihle design
.1 - Indicates %i major design flaw
2 -- Indicate an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibi1iity of the proposed
bui1dirig (in terms of size, Ileight, location and building mater-
ials) pith existing neighboring developments.
. Rating 7_r_1
Comment: i , ._- - -1._ - - -.- , ).- - / .
J
! .
r— - -- ! l :- r_ — •
I'
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
uti 1 ities, and' the arrangeu =Tnt. of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy. -
Rating: , ( 1 3
l /,
Com�rent: -
,O �` ! ' , - ✓
.c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy deviices
• and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy
use of solar energy sources.
r . i
(J
Rating _ •
/
-: / / ! / r - --
Co:nnicnt: — — — --
c_L / /
7
`d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
•
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating __-(.._ )
Comment : — —
4 • •
e) V i) lymil r HI!! sr.;110 ;Hui lo._ I ion of buildings
to maximize public vieW:, 01 surrounding scurric areas,.
Rating; ),% )
• Couuu:rit: 'A" f s'
11. PEI Growth Man 'I men Coy unity Commercial Uses [vulva tiori form
Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assi gned points accordi ng to
the following formula:
U - Indi cates a project totally lacking in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
•
of local residents •
1 - Indicates a project frith its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on -site housing -
2 - Indi cates a project r rith housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist:
and residential populati ons
3- . Indicates a project which is desi almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing •
being anticipated.
•
Rate the following features accordingly:
•
a) Employee Housing - consideri ng the extent to t;Ihich the project
supplies housi ng for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating
/ •
Comment: / ' , ,
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to r rhich
the project supplies mall cal , dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appl iance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry , and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine track. and service needs of the
CNttlitilni ty.
Rating
Comment: c. , j
•, i
•
•
c
-- y -
12. NET I'UIIIiS
•
• NPC AVERAGE RATING �/. (.�_
INDIVIDUAL W. MEMBER RATING '1, `
NLT RATING 0, ! i 1-
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed ?Or/ of the , heve net rating) prnv i dpd
the project merits recognition due : to its outstanding quality.
• BONUS POINT (..J
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING (1..‘4 //
BONUS RATING )/
TOTAL POII1TS J .
•
N /-1E OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:\ ;
/ / ' ;_ r • f' (.' ) — DATL %: j �
4. .
•
•
•
•
. ;
r
. ls,...,
. .
• . C.*Wri 1 P. O.1.1'.1‘fin'il l'...1 Iii II: •
kl-,1•1i; hi IT/
. •
•
the P&Z revic,•!ed th( follnwino, project end roted each of the •
dc tin i‘nr1 cc,1••••.1•1i1„y co. ,•.:••rf• ol c 1 c•miC. •. !.•., ;pcc if la: by thr rxhi,;;;Ith
:.ji,;;;..2r;t 0;;•;1 I 1........r..0 . .
,. .
. .
' • •
• .. - - - ........„- . .
- PRW,F.L1: • .: • _ • , .
• .. .
L \ ' - - /
. r '
., • .
, •
/4 A
/
. Xi
4 " A
/
/ / / 4 /2
Pri•7. PEV1,:y: /./..,:, , / ,
/ ,, //
, ,,- „ ,
,
,
/ . /
c„, //:-..:, ,,:i„,
,.., , , c ,` /
i A I: / I I ' / 6 . 2' -:- /2 2 '• ;/ 2Y .1
1
r - 2' -' 1 :.) / i fy .... 1: 2 ;, - , ,-2 A .• , [: ....
F / —
. n - i
c I if I / ' 1
1
i c, / .,....... i ,...,
-( - li
• 1i 1 1 i _ , h ...1 . ,.. I:
---, 4.),,•
.._ . .. .
2. . •
,
v
. .
., • ,
' II - I I • • I I
I; 1
. ._.........._____
■ .,
_ r i _ . ; .----- 1
t ., ,..-,....
1 2 216- I . .
- - - 6 C i l 4 3-2,
) 4;
, ..:
J . , • il - ' i • I'', .: , i 0 I 1,-._- I .--;
„
_ i
Hi )
i 1 1 1 It E,
6. • — I 1
7. • I ( . II I I • 1 ill
_
•
. I I • LI 1 .'z. 61 ;
; . , .(.•;-;',, ,: h,..,) h. r, i. I .
7 11
h
. • 7/2V't '
1 i! 1
' I i , ) II • I' ,7) c
1 OH. ICE HATIWG I Ali; /IF/ III evi Li - .kir 116.4). I /3 ,,,,_
th _1_ _ __II ' I
: •
/Ci -----
• THE CO:INITO RIJINGS OF THE PLJ, AVEY.AOFS / e.• • .2 •./..----
•
\ , ' . •
),,, -,.. .
., . - _ .,, ;:,• . • / ,.... •• • ;' •', ; , •
I
• . .
. •-.,
• i / • . -•', / ,/ 9 .
,.. „ / ...
,
4/, I /
,,. „„ •
. • )
•
•
• - ' - '
---
„oak
• •••• • .
. .
• • ' ( : 1 i 1 i P.; ', r . 1 , , i 'i ' i I ; 1 : 1 ' .
I' i'
•
1■, 1 iir ri 1'; 1 , , ,,r f . ch'I 1 i; ) .i ',/ ' ,:i.I., 0
• ill'S (' '-'! cniv ' J: i i v r(J ' ; iHr I rTh" H; r., f.:. '.,1 1 h.i 1) ; n'i rirr .r i.ii
,. . .
. '
. . ,
. . .
, -
.
„ .
. . :
(
/ 7
. i.
. .
/ / / / / / / / /I
, .
,fi
•
/,'
/ , • / / ,
i
•
. .'
- / -
1 . ' /
I /
. ,,
. ,”
1 } I' 1
■ 1
1' I I ..
, i
' ICI
. '
, . .
/ I. I
• ... - 1. - 1
)
1: 1 ' 1 ' I 1 .
•
r.
11 i I , ' 1 - ' .1
1
< ' -
, . . . . . ,
i --- ,
•
I I' ir
I '
i
I is
I L L ti I
c i s : , : ' ;‘,, 1 L, . t 4' I
.. I,
ti
I - ,
[10,4/
II ,': O I . ' 1, 'IC , i
-, ),0;i 1 .,.---- - - r.71. 1-71- - I P 1 ih22.•,....
. , ._
. •
1H1 1 ..`...;": 1 ,: ',.'Acie
' .
•
Nc' , , .
1 1 i ' ' m
1 .' • 17 2
.
&-e' f '.. 1 1/4- e • • •
„ ,I , , ...... .— ....
. .
• • / - 7 — I
. , . _—......
. -
. '
•
. ....
r
%toe
-
. • ( H; '..': . — 1.c,i !..; '!' i ; I ! ,
'1
. .,
I lif.' 111/ 1 ..., .r' , + H i ir. - Ll'n'en'i .., . .' ' ! , ;:'; I c ). c•c: c '.:11 1.■ !!!':
•l' tHj i it — . :' ' ' ; i He .;
. . -
, .
• ! i:1.).,...';,-1 : .
. ;
/
/ /.
/ if
/ / . . // /
A' /
/ 7
. / / i
/
/ ,/ / / / /
/
;# i ,,
/
/ ,
.. , .
I ( /
!I 1 I I
1
!
. . . - /D
I, .
! ; Li
! ■ - 1 ti
/.. • li . ''. ' . ! , 1 I ; .7) ; -AI
;0
• .
. ..-. , ..
'.--- • ' ... i3 I I r r r
l rr‘ ; I i . ' I - — — t r i 1
< .
1! r . . . ]" , •
, .
• ,
49 f'
. , I , i -$ •, , i 1
,
IL (- I ‘...-.,-.‘ ' ' 1(1 i: ,' ' ,11' I
.., . t ,
1 d
h , •
II ,
IL I
ni i L
L 1 I I
1
I l 1
_ _ ..
C / `,.;
t:4 ) C IZ il l il.:
i 1 . 7 ..;::: I .
, .
•
IIII C, ■ il 1. 1 I,/ G! *IL l'C/ /::',:.; ;; /Z.
. _._ ...
. •
• •
,..., ...._ , , , • .
- ie:.:ii,•11/_. ' •• i i r',/i E:: '• ' • : . .
, /
. I.
. .
• •
• . , ,
. ,
•
N h
R[S0LU11OU OF THE
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGARDING 1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 'ALLOTMENTS
• FOR COMMERCIAL. DEVELOPMENT
•
WHEREAS, in accordance Ordinan 1/48 Series of 1977, February 1,
1978'was established as a• deadline for submission of 1978 applications for
•
residential, lodging, and•commercial development within the City of Aspen,
and
WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance three commercial projects were
•submittcd for a total of 6,639 square feet of commercial space within the
24,000 square feet of commercial space available in 1978, and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted.before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission on March 14, 1978 and before this Commission
on April 18, 1978 to consider the Growth Management applications and oval-
uate and score these applications in conformance with criteria established in
Ordinance /t48, Series of 1977.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission hereby evaluates
ranks and scores the projects submitted in the following order:
Total Total
P &Z Average - HPC Average.' W/0 Bonus - Bonus W/Bonus
- 1. Tom Thumb
Building 18.52 13.4 31.92 4.9 36.82
5455 sq.ft.
•
2. :The Hutch 12.42 6.6 19.02 2.18 21.02 •
•
576 sq.ft.
3. La Tortue 10.62 . 6.7 17.32 .56 17.88
• 608 sq.ft.
•
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. This Commission recommends that all three projects he approved regard-
less of. the fact that two projects, The Butch and La Tortue, did not achieve
a minim of 60% of the available 36 points (21.6) points without bonus or
30% of each category. Both the Hutch and La Tortue failed to recieve 30Y or •
1.8 points in the category of community commercial uses (The Hutch received -
1.52 points and La Tortue received 1..12 points). Because the two projects
were very small additions to existing small buildings, the projects were
unable to provide employee housing or supply professional or 'service oriented
space. The Commission feels that, Ordinance 1118 also had an unfLrir penalizing
•
•
effect on small proje(Cin the area of ariThileclordi ,.!1 site design. The
Cour,ni:; ;ion, therefore, recommends that Council consider a 'special ordinance
that would amend Ordinance 1148 to drop the.requ4 rcment that projects must
receive 30�. of the total points in the category of commnnlity conunorcial ser-
vices, which would have the effect of allowing i.a Tortue and The Hutch to
build this year. This is arpropriate in•1978 also because only 25% of the total ,
available allotment was applied for.
2. That consideration be given to an amendment to Ordinance ,148 which •
would deal with the discriminatory effect which the ordinance appears to
have on small projects. One proposal might he to , exempt small projects
(under 700 square feet) fro:: review under the growth management allotment
•
system, but provide that any such buildout be subtracted fronrth'e following
year's allotment. Another solution might be to change the category of
• "community commercial services" to a bonus point category only and still
require review. •
3. That the unused allotment for 1978 not be carried over to subsequent
years, as it could raise the possiblity of an imbalance in commercial build-
out in the fallowing year or in any of the next four years. Rather, the
Commission recommends that the allotments be reviewed after a five year period:
4. That the,Corn,nission has again recognized certain flaws in the working
of the ordinance and has requested proposed amendments from the Planning
Office to provide more definitive criteria for architectural design, site de-
sign, and amenities, among other matters.
A I z
Dated this gy day of May, 1978.
f r
B (2 d
U
Chic Coilins, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
•
Sheryl S i nrnen
7
•
Deputy City Clerk
•
RECORD OF ('(IOCIT!?!N(aS
100 Leaves
(dd) Any major street or road links and school
sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian
trails, greenbelts.
•
(ee) General -description of surrounding existing
land uses and identification of zoning or
• historic district boundary lines, if any.
(h) The Planning Office shall evaluate all development allot-
ment applications during the early weeks of January, reject
those that are ineligible under Section 24- 10.3(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 subsequent to that date. The Planning
and Zoning Commission shall review all applications taking
into consideration the following criteria and point schedule
with respect to each of the following areas of concern:
•
(1) Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features)
(maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider
each application with respect to the quality of its
exterior and site design 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
ti 3 - Indicates an excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con -
sidering the compatibility of the proposed
• building (in terns of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neigh-
.
boring developments.
(bb). Site design (maximum 3 points) considering
the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent
• of undergroundino of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service
vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
(cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the
use of insulation, solar energy devices and
efficient fireplaces to maximise conservation
• of energy and use of solar energy sources.
(dd) Amenities (maximum 3 points) considering the
provision of usable open space and pedestrian
and bicycle s -!ays. .
(ee) Visual Impact (maximum 3 points) considering
the scale and location of buildings to maxi-
mize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
•
- 11
•
firD31RI) or I'ROCUIDINGS 100 Leaves
•
(2) Historic features (maximum 15 points): The Commission
shall refer applications i„r allotments within the CC
and CI one disi.rics to the historic Preservation Coccliltee
• (HPC) am accept its evaluation with respect to the comnati-
bilit.y of the project with the historic character of the
Aspen Community and the Historic Preservation Committee
(HPC) shall rate each develonnent by assigning points
according to the following torumula: •
0 Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a najor design flaw which creates
a major conflict with historic structures
. in the vicinity
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an excellent design_
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(aa) Massing (maximum 3 points) considering the
massing, type of roof, and overall compatibility
with the historic scale represented in the
• vicinity of the project.
• (bb) Exterior Building materials (maximum 3 points)
considering the application of historic building
materials and their use on all facades of the
structure, avoidance of garish, reflective or
other disruptive materials.
(cc) Architectural. Detail (maximum 3 points)
considering overall visual impression given
by fenestration and the use of building detail
near windows, doors, corners, roof lines and
at floor level.
•
• (dd) Color (maximum 3 points) considering the
compatibility of colors and the variation
in color when necessary to maintain, historic
scale.
(ee) Architecture (maximum 3 points) considering the
use of compatible contemporary design as opposed
to the imitation of historic architectural
features.
(3) Community Commercial Uses (maximum 6 points) The
Comission shall consider, with respect to construction
of corm rcial and office space within the CC and Cl
zone districts, the uses which aro to occupy the develop-
ment awl lA1CIl C. to wh1Ch, till t Ivtlogmelt will house •
its employees on site. The Commission shill evaluate the
probability of its supplying commercial and office uses -
to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community
as opposed to heino designed to accommodate the areas
tourist needs, and.eith respect such uses shall assign
points according to the following formula:
- 12 -
•
•
RECORD OF I'ROCL_LD1NGS 100 Leaves
•
- 0- Indicate- a project totally lacking in any
housinu or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
. 1 - Indicates a pro.ject.with its main emphasis •
on supplying tourist services with little or
• no on site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no.touriist housing
being anticipated' •
The following uses shall be rated accordingly:
•
• (aa) Employee !lousing (maximum 3 points) .
• considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for eMployees venerated by •
the nr000sed commercial uses.
(bb) Medical and Other Service Needs (maximum 3
points) considering the extent to which the
• project supplies medical, dental.and similar •
professional office space; as well as banking,
appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hard -
ware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses
designed and intended to serve the routine
trade and service needs of the community.
(4) The Commission gray, when it shall determine that a
project has incorporated the criteria of Section 2h- 10.5(b)
(1), (2) and (3) and achieved an outstanding overall
design meriting recognition, award additional points not
exceeding 2M of the total points awarded under Sections
24- 10.5(b). (1), (2) and (3)..
•(c) The Commission shall consider all elieibile applications
at a public (rearing 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 10.5(h)
(1), (2), (3) and (1), and the total number of points awarded
by all members, divided by the number of members voting, shall
constitute the total points aw,ardcd to the project. Any pro-
ject not receiving a minimum of •Oc; of the total points
available under Section 24- 10.5(b) (1), (2) and (3), or a
minimum of 301 of the points available under each of Sections •
• 24- 10.5(b) (1), (2) and (3), shall no longer he considered
' for a development allotment and the application shall he .
considered denied.
(d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total
points received (highest to inkiest) and the ranking thus
•
established by the Commission shall be forwarded to the City
Council on or before March 1st of each year.
•