HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.The Hutch.316 E Hopkins.1978 movI. /0 1E F-IU1G-1
PROGRAM NARRATIVE FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
EVALUATION REPORT
7, a, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL WATER FACILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT CAN ADEQUATELY
BE HANDLED BY THE WATER SUPPLY TO THE'EXISTING BUILDING. THE SOURCES OF
ADDITIONAL USE WOULD BE ONE TOILET, ONE SMALL LAVATORY AND ONE SINK FOR CRAFT
RELATED ACTIVITIES. ALSO DURING CONSTRUCTION AN EXISTING BATH TUB WOULD BE
REMOVED. THESE FACILITIES BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE
ADDITION, THAT BEING, CRAFT STUDIO USED DURING BUSINESS HOURS WOULD NOT
PLACE A SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL IMPACT ON TH MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM.
b. THE FACILITIES FOR THIS ADDITION ARE SMALL IN SCOPE, THOUGH ADEQUATE, CAN
BE ADEQUATELY HANDLED BY PLUMBING AND SEWAGE SYSTEM OF THE EXISTING STRUC—
TURE. THE ADDITIONAL PLUMBING WILL SHARE EXISTING PLUMBING WALLS. AS STAT—
BD IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM THE FACILTLES FOR THIS PROJECT POSE NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY SEWAGE SYSTEM.
c. THE ROOF, 350 SQUARE FEET, WILL CONSTITUTE THE ONLY SURFACE DRAINAGE. CON—
STRUCTION OF A PARAPET WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOF WILL DIRECT DRAINAGE
TO THE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING TO CREATE WATER SUPPLY FOR GREEN AREA( APPLE
TREES, RUSSIAN OLIVE TREE, LAI1J AND NUMEROUS FLOWER BEDS).
d. LOT SIZE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE IS 30.16* X 100.00 *. THE ADDITIONAL
INTERNAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT WILL BE 540 SQUARE FEET. THE NEW
STRUCTURE WILL USE UP APPROXIMATELY 150 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE.
TAKING INTO CONCIDERATION THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THE LOTS REMAINING OPEN
SPACE WILL STILL BE A VERY REFRESHING 40% _ 45% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA.
i✓ V
e. SINCE THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE CRAFT STUDIO IS ADJACENT TO THE EX-
ISTING RETAIL SHOP I CAN NOT FORESEE ANY INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLUME OR NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, I ESTIMATE THE PRINCIPLE DAILY USEAGE OF THE
STRUCTURE WOULD CORRESPOND TO THE HOURS OF THE RETAIL STORE WHICH ARE
10 :00 A.M. - 5:30 P.M.
f. THE INTENDED USE OF BUILDING IS TO SERVE SOULY *a THE INDIVIDUAL CRAFT
STUDIOS FOR DUANE AND MARGARET JOHNSON. DUANE'S STAINNED GLASS STUDIO
WOULD BE ON THE LOWER FLOOR AND MARGARET'S ENAMALING STUDIO WOULD BE ON
THE SECOND LEVEL. THERE ARE NO INTENED PROVISIONS IN THIS APPLICATION
THAT THIS 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 SURROHNDED BY HEAVY COMMERCIAL 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 THE BANK OF
ASPEN AND LA COCINO RESTURANT TO THE WEST. THE MINER'S BUILDING IS ACROSS
ALLEY TO THE NORTH AND THE MILL STREET STATION COMPLEX TO THE SOUTH ACROSS
HOPKINS AVENUE.
h. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDUIE WILL BEGIN WITH ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND
SUBSEQUENT ARRIVAL OF FAVORABLE SPRING WEATHER WITH COMPIETECN DATE OF
JUNE 1; 1976.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION REPORT
COMMERCIAL SECTION
1. Project Name: 1 C CqZrtcT CTDp '�
,,br� 7g Cl .
2. Location: S)i.5 D2Ki.S:S 110 c. b b 31 ccic mod)
3. Parcel Size: 30-1(o' X i c )&. 6c)'
4. Current Zoning: (_C--
Zoning under which application is filed: CC
Maximum buildout under current zoning: 6006 0
Proposed zoning: CC.
5. Total buildout proposed: t} j(0Aert.. x'76 4..4,
6. Special procedures required:
View planes:
Stream Margin Review:
Special Review:
Historic District Review: e '- *
Subdivision (condominiumization):
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.
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 principle daily usage of the development.
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.
h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if
applicable.
8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review:
?)1 - Cu m cr-cb S;f2Jc loo,..) bbcJrvte , a .
Submittal Date: 1SPtrUf{ . FRB
- 1 -
•
9. HPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of projects within the
commercial one zoning districts shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major
conflict with historic structures in the historic
district or with the urban environment in the other
areas outside the historic district
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable deign
The following design elements shall be 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 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.
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.
Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility 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 above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the
strong and /or weak factors affecting each of your ratings. 'l
Project Name: �Ott,6otte - o CR &rI Si »1 %t F ;h'M� Obra 1 `CD k.
Date:
Design Element:
a) MASSING Rating
•
Comment:
b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating
Comment:
-2-
c) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL Rating
Comment:
d) COLOR Rating
Comment:
e) ARCHITECTURE Rating
Comment:
TOTAL Rating
Name of person submitting the above rating _
•
-3-
' s b
10. P &Z Growth Management Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
within the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial One (C-1) zoning
districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Coment:
b) Site design - considering 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 (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating
Comment:
-4-
•
f
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
Comment:
11. P &Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project 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 tourist housing
being anticipated
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating
Comment:
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
Rating
Comment:
-5-
t
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the.project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
•
BONUS POINT
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE
•
•
•
-6-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY HPC
The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
HPC REVIEW ti Q�
St-
\ • Oc � o\Q� V�� ��tiP�ti
0 c P� ti
HPC.
MEMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING'
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES
•
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P &Z
The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordihance.
PROJECT:
•
REVIEW DATE:
•
•
P &Z REVIEW o ti�44
0
o VZ 5 45 S
~ q � q � ~ ' y am' v 4 ��'�
47417 �� �~ 0 O
P &Z �q
MEMBER
1.
2.
3. •
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROUP RATING 1 1 1
PLANNING OFFICE RATING I '
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES
• y
9. HPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of projects within the
commercial one zoning districts shall be assigned points according .to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major
conflict with historic structures in the historic
district or with the urban environment in the other
areas outside the historic district
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
The following design elements shall be 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 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.
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.
Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility 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 above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the
strong and /or weak / factors affecting each of your ratings.
cv r1
Project Name: ,tLL A /c
Date: / 4 // K.
Design Element:
a) MASSING Rating /.
Comment: ., �..c1 - • r '' . "te 5" . e . ; • crif r' e
L
ad
(1,,/ : pit' e. c,<;.r f .' -} PG'C K. z4
J
b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATE'IAL Rating u✓- a
Comment. /f nt - —Ail. ..:
�. f
-2-
c) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL / Rating (��
Comment: 4 ,., %f Z, � 4 f' i Se/4 : r
G i��:t22� ra
l/
d) COLOR Rating, 6
Comment: arti4(
, z i t : 4 4 4 •
e) ARCHITECTURE
Comment: Rating .
4,1 � �`� `''���� {{ ,, �y J j - !/ G� °u L �;��L - GYe
1i LGO.7�d`.C/.'. / %-et- /A
,Gw Cf2e D .c^ ki .
TOTAL Rating �J
Name of person submitting the above rating a� , j ,
/
- 3 -
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY HPC
The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and rated each of the
• design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
/ if/ C - ^L
REVIEW DATE:
HPC REVIEW 1Q
$ •
a te Q�� 5"/
``J O JP
h\ J~ . �� % ti �C^
tr P � J.'/ O O.O CZ' # Ps
HPC .
MEMBER
, eIe,, 1. rr 0 /0 0 /0 /- 6 °f%
2.1 4 - ■ (I '' 2.6 lib ztt /5 6
3- •...,._ D 20 /. 6 c2. O 10 17
M 1.3 . . /6 0.6 /0 ge
7. 1
GROUP RATING ,/ -7 . L 7, J 6 . // 5 33.
� 3
PLANNING OFFICE RATING /C I oR I ,C I .9 i — II ?(
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES 6. G
4
10. P &Z Growth Management Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
within the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial One (C -1) zoning
districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an acceptable design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater-
ials) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating / 7
Comment: �C `c i2r/&tt�cv 6j D t-L
•
b) Site design - considering 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 (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Ratingc2n
.
•
Comment: !! , / : - - -s / L 40e.
'_
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
RatingC=
Comment: 2 427, �i 4 � 12i �,G�L- � . /� t-�"
.01 art<
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating. ()
Comment: J'v` t LE.� r� ` "
•
- 4-
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating cke
Comment: ,o
11. P &Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 - Indicates a project 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 tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating
Comment: . //r
b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which
the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional
office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair,
grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed
and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the
community.
Rating ,�_O
r .
Comment: ;4, ie- 'v4.-✓
A e-
-5-
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING %.
•
INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING /
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING LILO
TOTAL POINTS
MARE O PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING.
c ps ? ? 5 DATE
-6-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
RATINGS BY P &Z
The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the
design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth
Management Ordinance.
PROJECT:
REVIEW DATE:
P &Z REVIEW � /
/ 49 ,v A, 69 \-.574~ P &Z
MEMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. + I
6.
7.
GROUP RATING C
PLANNING OFFICE RATING 11/,17 a 1£ I 01 II clnl
itty ✓FF/c 1 CECO•ME"NDt.D TEAT/NC0 204
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Stanford, Planning Office
RE: The Growth Management Review of the Hutch Addition
DATE: April 12, 1978
The proposal to expand the Hutch entered the growth management and historic
preservaton review procedures at the last minute and did not have the benefit
of staff consultation for interpretation of the GMP ordinance or design review
guidelines. The HPC could not give their design approval to the enitial pro-
posal, however, it was required to have GMP assigned points along with the
other two commercial proposals. Therefore, the HPC assigned points for the
enitial proposal and tabled action on their design review until the applicant
could make alterations in the physical appearance of the addition (namely roof
shape, linkage to the existing building and building materials). On April 11,
the applicant submitted his revised drawings to the HPC review and recieved
approval contingent on submitting color samples for HPC review.
This procedure is unusual and cumbersome. The project normally would not
have been forwarded to P & Z since the first proposal would have been denied
at the HPC design review stage. However, the applicant submitted his drawings
to the Building Department last fall and was not advised of the GMP or HPC
procedures at that time. Therefore, we felt that this approach was a reason-
able and equitable procedural policy for the applicant and the other GMP appli-
cants. P & Z must decide whether to consider the first or the approved proposal
for the Hutch addition. In the interest of being fair with the other applicants
we recommend that you allocate points to the first proposal and forward your
scores to Council with the new drawings and this explanation of the complex cir-
cumstance.
sr