HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Hunter Plaza.51A-87 i( ?/).
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE COMPLE - 5 p 7 ,213:1- AAR / nq- F . NO
DATE COMPLETE: /1( i -
STAFF MEMBER: {A-Q„, e_
PROJECT NAME L , I4 ' A Gkd Atli to 11114 d _ 11 if
Project Address:
APPLICANT: . /' 1 • .4 .! SAWS _
Applicant Address: Sintr1IA kWATR '
REPRESENTATIVE: a /
Representative Addre -s /Phone:
•
5 ^O
PAID: ES NO AMOUNT: � Z ocr
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: /
1 STEP: 2 STEP: V
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
P &Z CC
3) PUBLIC REARING IS BEFORE:
vnR.oSrq
w) 7 P &Z CC N/A
DATE REFERRED: 7) G- INITIALS:
REFERRALS: 'NANO
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon /Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other �n
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: our INITIAL:/'
// City Atty City Engineer i/ Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: !, VGA/
CASE DISPOSITION
HUNTER PLAZA GMP AMENDMENT
On January 5, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Commission rescored
the Hunter Plaza GMP application, reducing the scores in site
design by .4 points (resulting in 2 points) and amenities by .3
points (resulting in 2 points) and confirming the appropriateness
of the proposed modifications subject to the condition that:
- two bicycle racks shall be installed near the intersection
of Hunter and Cooper in the public right of way to the
satisfaction of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission
regarding type and specific location.
The modifications approved are: replacement of brushed concrete
for aggregate concrete; reduction in bands of brick pavers;
reduction in the number of benches in the plaza from 8 benches to
4 benches; and deletion of terrace -level landscaping. The
applicant also stated at the P &Z meeting that they will install
in the Spring: the courtyard water fountain, the two bicycle
racks and a total of three benches in the public r.o.w.
sb.hunter.case
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Hunter Plaza GMP Amendment
DATE: January 5, 1988
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cooper Avenue and Hunter Street,
southerly portion of lots K and L and all of lots M,N, and 0,
Block 100, City of Aspen.
PRIOR P &Z AND COUNCIL ACTIONS: The Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP
application was one of three projects approved in the 1986 CC /C -1
commercial GMP competition. P &Z scored the application on
September 30, 1986. Council allocated the requested 7,260 square
feet to the project through adoption of Resolution 37 (Series of
1986) on October 27, 1986.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests an amendment to his
GMP application to modify several site design representations.
Brushed concrete would substitute for the paving surface treat-
ment of aggregate concrete; bands of brick pavers would be
reduced; and the number of benches in the plaza would be reduced.
The applicant argues that these modifications are consistent with
the application's representations and higher in quality than that
originally presented.
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AMENDMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT: The sidewalks
and plaza have already been constructed according to the design
for which the applicant is requesting approval. The applicant was
notified of the deviation from the GMP application in a letter to
Larry Yaw dated November 2, 1987. The approach we suggested was
to consider providing some other site amenities compensating for
the loss of the surface treatment or some similar approach which
could satisfy the representations made.
A memorandum from Alan Richman dated November 27, 1987 (attached)
was sent to local architects, planners and attorneys regarding
the problem of enforcing development approvals. We recognize that
an increased effort to obtain better compliance with representa-
tions and commitments in approved applications has taken some
developers by surprise and caused unnecessary confrontations. We
want the development community to know that we will be checking
for compliance in greater detail. Also suggested are approaches
to (1) contact the project planner before submitting building
plans and (2) keep the level of detail in GMQS applications down
1
to that required through the process so that specific represent-
ations will not become a complication in understanding the level
of quality to which the applicant is committing.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24- 11.7(b) of the
Municipal Code requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP
proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed
or rescinded. If the scoring remains above the minimum threshold
and the applicant's position relative to others in the competi-
tion does not change, the Planning and Zoning Commission "shall
make a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the
changes and any further conditions of approval."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Hunter Plaza received from the Planning and
Zoning Commission an average of 2.4 points in site design and 2.3
points in amenities. Emphasized in the application were extensive
street -level landscaping, the attractive configuration of
benches, ornamental fountain, street furniture, tree grates and
bicycle racks, and second floor terrace landscaping. The concept
stated in the application is "the pedestrian courtyard is
envisioned as a garden -like extension of the streetfront sidewalk
area." The September 30, 1986 minutes show that the applicant
gave particular attention to the landscaping, benches, water
feature, snowmelt and paving surface treatment.
In the application before you, the applicant has stated that
technical and aesthetic considerations require the modifications
requested. The brushed concrete is seen to be a more practical
and durable surface than aggregate concrete. Brick pavers
interfered with the snowmelt system layout and were viewed to be
too "busy" given the building design details. A reduction in
bench seating from eight benches to four benches is requested
because of aesthetic considerations of how benches relate to the
varying height of the planters.
Based on the record of the applicant's original representa-
tions of abundant site design features, we think the relatively
high scores awarded Hunter Plaza in site design and amenities
should be decreased by the modifications proposed. Scores for
both site design and amenities should be reduced to 2's, reflec-
ting standard designs. As you may remember, all three applica-
tions in the 1986 commercial competition were aggressively
promoted with special care given to architecture and site
characteristics. However, even a reduction by 0.7 points (from
30.4 to 29.7) would leave the application above the threshold of
25.8 points and eligible for GMP quota allocation. Therefore, the
issue in our opinion is whether the modifications appropriately
retain the overall quality of the project.
Our assessment of the proposed changes are as follows: Substi-
tuting brushed concrete for aggregate concrete is not substan-
tial. Please note that the draft Streetscape Guidelines do not in
2
fact discourage "properly sealed exposed aggregate," as indicated
by the applicant. However, we agree with the applicant that
brushed concrete treatment is appropriate for this sidewalk and
plaza design. The brick banding was, on the other hand, a
prominent design feature. It did much to enhance the pedestrian
character, tying together the structure and streetscape with the
pleasing earthen tones, texture and detail. However, given that
the concrete slab has been poured, we prefer to see other
solutions besides correcting this omission.
With the help of the CCLC Chairperson, Jon Busch, staff has
concluded that one of the problems of the courtyard is the height
of the rear planter. It is so tall to be perceived as a major
structural protrusion in this open space and it blocks the view
of rear storefronts. The original design showed low planter and
fountain rims; and we believe this change should be corrected, to
better serve both as a public amenity and for storefront visibil-
ity.
The eight courtyard benches shown in the original plan should be
retained, in our opinion, because they provide the most appropr-
iate plaza seating and, when attached to the planters, take up
little space. Lowering the rear planter would alleviate the
aesthetic problem of the benches in relation to tall planters.
Glazed tile blocks may indeed be useful for seating for some
people when the weather is good; however, the formal arrangement
of the open space calls for the benches as originally planned, in
our view. In addition, the location along the planters is
superior to lining two benches along the fountain because then
people get sprayed by the water, and the closeness of benches
facing one another is not inviting.
The water fountain is very important to completing the site plan.
It has not yet been installed. At this time, a financial guaran-
tee should be made to ensure installation next Spring. Likewise,
the second floor greenery is important to the project's landscape
character and has not yet been installed. Enhancing terrace
vegetation through running additional planters along the inside
of the parapet is one improvement we suggest to help compensate
for loss of other site design features. Please note that only one
tree has been planted per courtyard planter rather than two as
shown in the application. We believe this is appropriate because
of the limited space even though it is a reduction in project
commitments.
Bike racks were mentioned in the application text but not shown
on the site plan. Given the wide sidewalks on both Hunter and
Cooper, the CCLC chairperson and Planning Office believe it is
appropriate to install two racks near the intersection to the
satisfaction of CCLC regarding type and location.
ALTERNATIVES: The Planning and Zoning Commission has several
3
options in dealing with the requested GMP amendment, including:
1. To confirm P &Z's original score to the Hunter Plaza GMP
application, considering the proposed modifications to be
entirely appropriate and essentially equivalent to the quality of
the site design and amenities represented in the original
application.
2. To rescore the application .4 point lower in site design and
.3 point lower in amenities and recommend to City Council to
confirm the GMP allocation for the project subject to conditions
of lowering the rack, installing all benches shown in the
application, enhancing second level terrace landscaping, instal-
ling two bicycle racks, and guaranteeing installation of the
courtyard water fountain and second level terrace landscaping.
3. To rescore the application lower in site design and amenities
and recommend to City Council to not confirm GMP allocation for
the project as modified, because those changes are not appropri-
ate and do not maintain the overall project quality represented
in the GMP application.
4. To table action on the requested amendment until further plans
are presented showing improvements that compensate for site
design features omitted.
In our opinion the modifications are a fairly significant
decrease in site improvement commitments, and therefore, should
not be accepted as equal to the original proposal. It is a
difficult judgment whether the measures in Alternative 2 are
commensurate with the loss of amenities shown in the original
application. The strongest message of dissatisfaction with the
project proceeding contrary to their GMP approval is Alternative
1. We conclude that the changes listed in Alternative 2 do
approach correcting the problem, and suggest that P &Z and the
applicant consider adding to this list.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to the Planning
and Zoning Commission to rescore the application .4 point lower
in site design and .3 point lower in amenities and recommend to
City Council to confirm the GMP allocation for the Hunter Plaza
project as modified with regard to pavement treatment subject to
the following conditions:
Prior to issuance or extension of any Certificate of Occupancy
the following changes shall be made to the project:
. The rear planter shall be lowered to a height not
exceeding the height of the water fountain rim.
\ ,k. Eight benches in the plaza area shall be installed as
shown in the original Hunter Plaza application.
4
c. Two bicycle racks shall be installed near the intersec-
tion of Hunter and Cooper in the public right of way to the
satisfaction of CCLC regarding type and specific location.
—d: A plan showing increased second level terrace landscaping
shall be submitted to the Planning Office.
s The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee to
install the courtyard water fountain and second level
terrace landscaping by no later than June 1, 1988.
sb.hunter.amend
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Architects, Planners and Attorneys
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Enforcement of Development Approvals
DATE: November 27, 1987
SUMMARY: During the past year, the Planning Office has taken on
a new role in enforcement of development approvals. This means
that many of you will need to work more closely with the staff
member assigned to your case, not only during review by the P &Z
and elected officials, but also subsequently when you are seeking
building permits and certificates of occupancy. Failure to do so
may result in unnecessary confrontations between applicants and
staff and may prevent timely completion of your projects.
ISSUE: During 1987, the Managers and elected officials have put
increasing pressure on me, as the agency director for the
Planning, Zoning and Building Departments to obtain better
compliance with representations made by applicants and conditions
set by reviewers. Our response to this mandate has been as
follows:
1. Planners who are assigned to your cases have been
directed to maintain contact with the development right through
to occupancy.
2. When the Building Department receives a permit app-
lication for a project which was reviewed by the Planning
Department, we are required to check the plans to see if they
comply with prior conditions and representations.
3. At the end of this building season, we initiated limited
field checking of projects to see if they were being constructed
as represented. In a few cases, deviations from approvals were
noted, and enforcement actions were undertaken.
Looking back at the way this system worked this year, we believe
that we could have avoided the hardship of having to place some
of you in an enforcement situation. Since the level of our plans
checking and field inspecting is likely to increase next year, we
would like to pose the following approach to assist both you and
us.
APPROACH: From now on, the development community needs to be
aware that we will be checking for compliance in greater detail.
This should mean several things to you as applicants.
1. We know that from the time that you first conceive a
project to the time it is designed and built, many changes take
place. Sometimes, changes occur during the review process and it
is easy to adjust our reviews accordingly. The problem we
experienced this year was that changes were made to projects
during design development. In some cases, these changes were
detailed enough that they were not apparent during the building
plan check, but then were caught prior to occupancy.
These kinds of situations are likely to increase in the future,
given staff and review body concern for detail, unless we arrive
at a solution. I suggest that in the future, you contact the
planner assigned to your case before you submit building plans,
to go over how you have complied with conditions and represent-
ations of the project. At this time, you can identify any
changes made since the project's approval and together you can
develop acceptable alternatives to the initial proposal. I think
you will find us to be much more cooperative when we are con-
tacted ahead of time, than when we have to react to what is
already fully designed or built.
2. A related concern is the level of detail we are seeing
in Growth Management Quota System applications. I know that
given the competitive nature of the process and the kinds of
reviews done by staff, applicants are putting more and more
detailed representations into their proposals. Presently, the
GMP process does not require such detail, but we have all come to
recognize that such promises generally win higher point totals.
While less detailed representations may result in some "standard"
rather than "outstanding" scores, you will still make the
threshold, and may be doing your client a service in the long
run.
Those who continue to make detailed representations need to
understand that they will be held to the level of quality they
represent. We don't expect to see on the ground exactly what is
shown in the original application in every case, but we do expect
to see a commensurate level of quality. The best way to insure
that both of us see design changes as tradeoffs, not excuses, is
to work with us before building plans are completed, as noted
above.
CONCLUSION: The purpose of this memo has been to make you aware
of the new way that staff is working with development projects.
We would like the next building season to be a smoother one than
the very difficult experience of last year. The changes sugg-
ested herein, along with the increased staff level in the
Building Department and the planned relocation of Planning,
Zoning and Building are all intended to accomplish this object-
ive. Your input on additional ways to improve our service are
always welcome.
cc: Planning Office Staff
Bob Anderson, City /County Manager
DEC 31987
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December 4, 1987
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP Amendment
Dear Steve:
Please consider this letter an application to amend the
growth management approval granted to the Hunter Plaza
project a 1986 commercial GMP allocation recipient. The
application is submitted by the building's owners, Hunter
Plaza Associates, pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(b) of the
Municipal Code. The Applicant's representative is Anthony
J. Mazza.
Specifically, the Applicant requests approval for the
following modifications to the project's Site Development
Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
1. Substitute brushed concrete for exposed ag-
gregate as the paving material for the project's sidewalks
and courtyard area.
2. Reduce the extent of brick pavers in the
sidewalks and courtyard area.
3. Reduce the number of benches to be installed in
the courtyard area.
As you know, modifications number 1 and 2 have already
been implemented in conjunction with the construction of
the building. The benches referred to in modification
number 3 have yet to be installed.
P O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303/925 -6958
Mr. Steve Burstein
December 4, 1987
Page 2
In general, it should be noted that the Site Development
Plan contained in the Applicant's GMP application was a
conceptual drawing which was included solely for illustra-
tive purposes. The drawing, in conjunction with the
application text, was intended to give the staff and P &Z
an idea of the quality of the building's site design and
the various site furnishings to be included in the
project. The modifications outlined above were identified
during the design development phase of the project, which
was initiated subsequent to receipt of a GMP allocation.
Both the Applicant and the project architect,however,
believe the changes to be consistent with the spirit of
the application's representations. A detailed description
of the modifications, and the reasoning behind them, is
provided below.
Exposed Aggregate
The project's paving material was changed from exposed
aggregate to brushed concrete primarily for safety
purposes. Although the Applicant has installed an
extensive snowmelt system in the sidewalks and courtyard,
there are some sections which must be shoveled. Exposed
aggregate, unfortunately, cannot be adequately shoveled to
ensure safety, as the surface contains too many crevices
in which snow may remain. As a result, tenants tend to
use salt to deice such areas, which eventually causes the
aggregate to crumble and spall. To avoid this problem,
and to ensure a consistent paving material, brushed
concrete was substituted throughout.
It should also be noted that the Commercial Core and
Lodging Commission has been working on new streetscape
guidelines for the City, and that the guidelines dis-
courage the use of exposed aggregate because of its
tendency to break up over time.
Brick Pavers
The extent of brick paving used in the sidewalks and
courtyard area was reduced for both aesthetic and practi-
cal reasons. With respect to aesthetics, the Applicant
and architect both felt that the brick pattern originally
shown on the Site Development Plan was simply too busy for
the building design, which had become somewhat richer in
detail during design development. From a practical
Mr. Steve Burstein
December 4, 1987
Page 3
perspective, the original brick pattern would have
required that the snowmelt system be installed in multiple
segments, resulting in a lack of continuity and a sig-
nificant reduction in the energy efficiency of the system.
Bench Seating
The Applicant proposes to reduce the number of benches to
be installed in the building's courtyard from eight (8) to
four (4). The three (3) benches located along the
sidewalk are to be installed as originally depicted. The
reason for the proposed reduction lies primarily in the
area of aesthetics. The original Site Development Plan
did not reflect a drop in site elevation which occurs
across the property, a problem which was discovered during
design development. To alleviate the problem, it was
necessary to create a level change in the courtyard which
in turn resulted in height variances around the perimeter
of the planters. Since benches are generally mounted at a
uniform height above the ground, the architects felt that
they would appear discordant and out of place against the
planters if they varied in height with the changing
courtyard levels.
Similarly, the architect felt that the front planter and
fountain would appear too high from the lowered courtyard
as originally designed. Consequently, the decision was
made to vary the height of the planters from the front of
the courtyard to the rear. As a result, the planter walls
themselves are ideally suited for seating purposes. To
further enhance their use for such purposes, the top
masonry course on each planter was changed from brick to
glazed block, a comfortable material to sit on and one
which can be easily kept clean. The four (4) benches
which the Applicant proposes to install will be located
against the rear planter and fountain in the lower level
of the courtyard where planter height is sufficient to
permit an aesthetically pleasing installation.
The resulting courtyard design represents a simple,
natural way in which to provide ample seating oppor-
tunities for the building's users. The Applicant's
primary objective is a quality courtyard experience, both
in terms of seating opportunity and aesthetic appearance.
The Applicant and the architect believe that the revised
courtyard design will provide a quality experience, and
_,_1
Mr. Steve Burstein
December 4, 1987
Page 4
that this experience should be the primary objective as
opposed to simply debating how many benches are to be
installed.
Summary
In summary, the Applicant believes that the modifications
discussed above are consistent with the intent of the
general representations contained in the original GMP
application and, in fact, represent a significant improve-
ment in the quality of the project. The Applicant further
believes that the proposed modifications would not have
adversely affected the project's GMP score had they been
incorporated in the original submission, and that they
reasonably fall within the realm of design refinement
which occurs subsequent to receipt of a GMP allocation.
The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests that the
Planning Office recommend to the P &Z that the modifica-
tions discussed above be approved, and that the current
restrictions imposed on the building's certificate of
occupancy be rescinded.
Should you have any questions, or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for
your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
V w: INC.
fl A
Sunny Va ., AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Anthony Mazza
i
MI frDMt1u,nlcr f1 1431 4'9iYrci4/ CM9 An01114 »'on
r
r1 I cotta tile, round aggregate columns, and vertical window details with
( 1 awnings and kick plates impart visual interest and are reminiscent of
( the Victorian period in which many of Aspen's downtown structures were
(1 built. The extensive use of glass will visually tie the building's
I interiors to the outdoor public spaces and the project's extensive
II landscaping. Particularly noteworthy is the building's integral
t 1 signage system which will eliminate the numerous problems which the
( City has experienced with storefront identification. The principal
it building material will be brick. For a more detailed illustration of
the Hunter Plaza building's architectural design, please refer to
[ Figure 7, page 19 of this application.
I Requested Score: 3 points
I .
2. Site Design. The basic design concept for the project
� I site has been to preserve the downtown area's "streetfront" integrity,
L minimize perceived building bulk, maximize usable open space, and to
1 enhance pedestrian circulation. As shown on Figure 8, page 20, the
( building's footprint essentially parallels Hunter Street and Cooper
r 1 Avenue, thereby maintaining the City's traditional streetfront design.
1 The Cooper Avenue facade, however, has been setback ten (10) feet from
r the property line in order to enhance pedestrian circulation along
1 this heavily traveled route and to meet the City's open space require-
[ ments. This area plus the building's courtyard totals approximately
el 3,200 square feet, or twenty -five (25) percent of the project's site
[ area. Although technically not included in the project's open space
11 calculations, an additional 2,168 square feet of landscaped, outdoor
[ 18
►I
roof terrace will be provided on the building's second floor, the use
of which will be dependent upon actual tenant requirements.
The pedestrian courtyard is envisioned as a garden -like
extension of the streetfront sidewalk area. As Figure 8 illustrates,
the courtyard has been designed to provide convenient access to the
adjacent tenant spaces, the second floor shops, and the public
restrooms located at the rear of the building. The courtyard also
provides direct access to the building's trash and utility area which
abuts the alley, and access to the basement storage and mechanical
area via the enclosed stairway to the second floor.
As the Site Development Plan further illustrates, the Hunter
Street and Cooper Avenue sidewalks, and the pedestrian courtyard, will
be extensively landscaped with specimen size deciduous trees,
•
shrubbery and seasonal flowering plants. Actual specimens will be
selected depending upon availability; however, all trees will be a
minimum three (3) inch caliper and will be chosen from such species as
cleveland maple, marshall seedless ash, etc. The building's roof
terrace landscaping will include low growing shrubs such as
potentilla, horizontal juniper, etc., and specimen size conifers such
as bristlecone pine, which will be used to screen the terrace from the
adjacent ground floor roof area. The project's extensive landscaping
will further help to minimize the building's perceived bulk, provide
shade during the summer months, and constiute a significant amenity
for the pedestrian enjoyment of sidewalk, courtyard and roof terrace
areas. A detailed landscaping plan will be prepared and submitted to
the Planning Office for review prior to issuance of a building permit.
21
The building's open space areas will be surfaced with
exposed aggregate and brick pavers. Snowmelt will be used extensively
to prevent unsightly snow buildup and to increase pedestrian safety.
The courtyard and roof terrace will be attractively lighted and all
- utilities will be placed underground. The Applicant will work with
the City Engineer to coordinate the location and installation of a
sidewalk street light which the City currently plans to erect on the
property. Benches and an ornamental fountain will be provided in the
courtyard area while street furniture, tree grates with cages, and
bicycle racks will be provided along the Hunter Street and Cooper
Avenue sidewalks. Curb and gutter will be replaced where required and
a handicap ramp provided at the Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue
intersection.
Requested Score: 3 points
3. Energy Conservation. The Hunter Plaza building has
been designed to maximize the conservation of energy and the use of
solar energy sources. Specific features to be incorporated in the
building include the following:
a) Building Orientation and Solar Utilization. The
building has been oriented to take full advantage of the property's
solar potential. To provide maximum exposure to the sun, approximate-
ly eighty (80) percent of the building's window glazing has a south,
southwest or west orientation. Awnings will be used, where required,
to prevent excessive heat buildup during the summer months.
b) Insulation. Insulation specifications will exceed
22
.P.J masons meacton .•••• ...a...co ems
a.r.0.1.03.1.11-101:1V NWA NVIAISVH Ili ma Vr Ild 1:13.1.1WIM
CO
•
i-
2
•
1
a
•
a
4
2
ow
.. a
a
3
a
la
4-
. 4
1
24E
. • . 1 1 ‘
a
I I ' 2
•
4
w
. <
, s 1 i
. 7;1 a
• ] 1
2
7
• I I 1 2
\
r. 111
H a
I: N , 4 , .z u
I
. i 0
\ ' / ' \ /' 7- 4 . 1
, II _I
1 fr ' /1 ", 1 1 Ill
[ . \
W
• '", ! , D
1 11 w I p
* A • . l -• I I I
• °
.k.. 1 • —
.. . ..
tr. tmort .... • .1 -e: Ul • i a
•
0
, .■ I
• • .: ill r
7 It
1 - pi
•
¢
•
4-
Z . •
0
I
_ • .. .."
J
J
4
1 1
▪ • .
.
*n .
1 ''
.1,1. • il ...'! ) ,
v )c.t
.
_ ,...s. tiaaNnii
20
-. i
g
ti, s
• 4-;., 2 .,
j/ MF /
I a
TT yy O • 3 /,� o wL ��I�� I I .
• U T IIUM111W' i �: hwmao�ini anemic � t/ 1 T • • 1
K. A ]
H .
A ., .
W 7� N
ak Q o �
O - -®- fi -- —0,,,, 0 o ;S t
-- - -- 4 L
Ul
W
a : I_il
0 .
2 I'
a :�
; .
Fi T '(`--
s
N $ Z� _,...../ '• A
I 1
1 QQ i r , u
a , 0
x ■
4 -
o
► ®_ `� 1' IN 'i, � -
1 _
' o S =i1
F
i g
I
:
y ,
`
s
I/
hi nal Mlle r ' p
P vi,
s
_
I _'. .. 0 k._._.__-' — -
U i� - - - 1 g ;i S ze ''
a o ' 3� S , i ° ,�
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Square and Aspen Chateau buildings. The materials are also
compatible. In site design the project scored 2 points. They
are providing the required 25 percent open space with a courtyard
and with 10 feet setbacks from Cooper avenue. These are usable
spaces and will provide pedestrian movement. Bur:`ein said staff
feels the service area is usable; however, nothing special has
been done to design it to operate more efficiently
In the energy category, the Roaring Fork Energy .:enter reviewed
and gave a fairly high evaluation for insulation, solar energy
and high efficiency gas boiler. Some aspects of energy could not
be could not be evaluated. This scored a 2.5
The amenities are good but standard and staff recommended 2
points for the snowmelt courtyard, benches and bike racks.
Burstein recommended 3 points in the visual impact category as
the building is stepped back from Hunter street and provides a
good view of Aspen mountain. Burstein noted most of the other
areas are standard. The storm drainage category received 1 point
because they are decreasing but not entirely eliminating the
historic water runoff. The parking category also received 1
point. 8 on- street parking spaces will be gained by eliminating
the existing curb cuts. However, this plan does not provide on-
site parking that may be in excess of the demands of this project
and is not improving the service in this area. The employee
housing category is a formula, which works out to 10 points.
Hunt said he feels this building is not adequately designed to
accommodate a restaurant with the service access. Hunt said if a
restaurant comes in for conditional use hearing, he would be
hesitant to approve that type of use.
Larry Yaw, representing the applicant, said they feel they have a
good project and do feel some categories merit upgraded scoring
by the Commission. Yaw told the Commission he feels relative to
the stated criteria in the growth management plan, this project
has exceeded the average in architectural design and requested
the commission score this 3 points. The criteria in this section
is compatibility of the project with the existing neighborhood in
size, height, location of building, and materials. Yaw said the
building has been carefully and specifically designed to maximize
the site. Yaw said the allowable FAR with bonus is 1.5:1. this
building is 1:1 in order to reduce the bulk and mass. Yaw
pointed out the FAR has been distributed so that at all street
perimeters this is a one -story building with the mass
concentrated on the back of the site and a setback 20 feet off
Cooper street. Yaw demonstrated how they designed around Ozzie's
shoes and the potential future development of that site.
Yaw noted the open space has been designed to define the
streetscape and to encourage pedestrian movements. Yaw pointed
2
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30. 1986
out an additional usable, pedestrian open space of 2200 square
feet on the second level. Yaw illustrates on the model what the
design has done to reduce the perceived mass along Cooper street.
The design has used bay windows and columns to break up the
facade. Yaw told the Commission the allowable height level is 40
feet; this building's height is between 17 and 28 Leet high.
Yaw pointed out the service access and how the '`,aterials and
trash will circulate. Yaw told the Commission 80 ercent of the
building is south and southwest facing. Yaw said the roof will
be landscaped, as an amenity to the neighbors. Yaw requested the
Commission consider scoring the architecture design 3 y Vann.
Hunt asked about a restaurant use in this building.
representing the applicant, answered this building is anticipated
for uses permitted in the C -1 zone. Vann said there are no plans
for a restaurant. In the event a restaurant were to go in this
building, a conditional use application would have to be filed
and heard by the P & Z. Hunt said he feels the building is not
designed to have adequate service to a restaurant. Hunt said his
GMP scoring of this project will be as if a restaurant use were
moot. Hunt said if a restaurant does come up for a conditional
use hearing, • he will require the service be upgraded.
Yaw told the Commission in site design, the planning office
scored this a 2.0 and the applicants believe it merits a score of
3.0. Yaw said the criteria of landscape and open space,
undergrounding of utilities and efficiency of circulation and
increase of safety and privacy are reasons for this score. Yaw
said they feel the election to use one story is an important site
design factor, and the second story has been placed to create
usable open space. There will be direct alley access to alley
parts of the building. Yaw pointed out all the ground floor
surfaces are snowmelted, which is an important safety feature and
an above average feature. Yaw said the enriched paving feature
is also above average. The project has a great deal of
landscaping, including benches, a water feature which creates an
acoustic envelope in the courtyard.
Yaw said the energy category was scored 2.5 pointed by the staff
and the applicant feels it merits 3 points. Yaw pointed out the
daylighting feature which is a detail above the bay window to let
in natural light and reduce the need for electric lighting. Yaw
told P & Z they are using a 96 percent efficient boiler. Yaw
noted in amenities category, the staff scored the project 2
points, and the applicant believes the project to be in excess of
an average project. There is an excess of usability and
landscaping, i the water feature, , concePt of the
the decorative hard surfaces, the
7 location of benches and the bike racks.
3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 5, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Hall, 2nd
Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen,
CO, to consider an application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf
of his client, Hunter Plaza Associates, requesting GMP Amendment
approval for modifications to the project's site plan.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
s. C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on Dec. 17, 1987
City of Aspen Account.
0
•
0..m
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925- 2020
Date: r i,�C' • 10119i1
.
' ✓T REV r
a y ■ .
RE A ,nrn ' t` . CMw2 . & rn gill d r1LLbL-
Dear . /..JAJ, s
This is to in /rm you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary re ew of the captioned application_ We have determined
that your application IS NOT complete.
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
. Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica
tio n
Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
0. A check in the amount of $
J A. Yodr application is mpi'ete and we have scheduled it for
review by t h e k-,..,‘,4.4". �� on 'SNP'S _ We will
call you if we need any additional information prior to that
date_ Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for $3.00 fee_
_ B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on the next available agenda_
If you have any questions, please call
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
A ) /nP_ITR'IN PLANNING OFFICE
/ INNW�_
C
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
DATE City of Aspen
P �J py
DATE COMPLETE: I � �� RI a n6b/ /
// __
STAFF MEMBER:
iM4 MEEMBER: < J -
PROJECT NAME: -LJ YC( P410/(7 CVO LE[__ --_
Project Address:
APPLICANT: . A. i .a . 6 .0 nfLS _ •
Applicant Address Iri
. YSnini & �AWJJWI&4t N 1
REPRESENTATIVE: I LJ.a� /aiIVL i 1;1
` ti
Representative Addre -s /Phone: attgG lfli VJ. OIPI
•
_ 5
PAID: ES NO AMOUNT: OA/
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: /
1 STEP: 2 STEP: V
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
P &Z CC
3) PUBLIC AEARING IS BEFORE:
V P &Z CC N/A
DATE REFERRED: vec-. INITIALS:
REFERRALS: 'NANO,
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon /Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: