HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.LaTortue.1978 LY\ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION REPORT
COMMERCIAL SECTION •
1. Project Name: Addition to Ta To'rtve
2. Location: Block 96. Lot N & 0
3. Parcel Size: Lot 0
4. Current Zoning: Zone 1
Zoning under which application is filed: C C
Maximum buildout under current zoning:
Proposed zoning:
5. Total buildout proposed:
6. Special procedures required:
View planes:
Stream Margin Review:
Special Review:
Historic District Review: HPC
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 system already installed - -no extra water needed—only floor
b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line space
and estimated sewer demand of the building. No extra demand
c. Type and design of surface drainage. None required.
d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage
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.
8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review:
Survey, site plan, elevations for addition,
building sections and rendering in City files.
Submittal Date: First submitte Marg blg17
Revised plans submitted in August before moratorium
- 1 -
_.• •
. _ t - ,. -.., -
i
•
A LLETY
ot.)ND•
1 F_V■r W , 1 2 , 14 TIC
c_RI ES 1270 / t. F c- 2,4 1
•../\■- !AL 1 '
LIC.,! VI C-01_f__ 1
. .../ • A F<',WI PAD 77 ----
., cm I - 1 V \ I
• •, •<-- METAL .410 2:24,E
1
\ , i
N
\ 1 4 -
•
•
LOIN 1._01 0
____ \ F
, • ',.. >. , t
BLOCK ,
•
,,
• i , f, - CI
, co, RETET.
LOC...tale.) 1 - 1 (lie ONE filo.
, FR.o.to E. I 0C1-.. ,,,,,.,
, , /
fe.,,, ; frosa Avprn poki / / -- _
/// / .. ,
, ,/ ,/ // 2 _ _ ir‘l r
/// //////
\ all
• ' / / , ,
o /,, / , ,/ // y/
0 ; ' ,
/ / '
k— -------------_---N_ El;
1
,/ / 1 : .
1 I 1
, i
—
...r. CNE_RHANG
TONF_ PATICV
/ ,
*4 / ' //
-
/ 1 - C''
-( -..-- z
l• -_,3 1 <
ti 1 I.
-1 .)
/// rn - t - _. • 2
• : / / t)
81
c. .
/ c ci ,[ t • it.,
, tif 1:
_
:,- , , -„,,,,, 1 «
1,
,
/ /7//' - - -- 7
• ' /. / /
E -r; --i( 0
l.)
-50 -, / /
:1 L
- I
(Den ` / " -- - 21
[ C:Nlif, P. h_OCK fly)
1 1 : - C'
-- , 11 —78 --
Oil ?_\ • . . i _ _ _ --
- .
121Y4. . i 2 -- ---:'C. .. --,--
,-- , / ,,./
. ,
4 ,- , i
L :_:. - . - . N __ ",„4 ' ' • , 1 .. ■ A vJAGON - i 0 0
/ /1 1 - ;
-- ., 4 a 1- — ' 1
I i :
1 ! - : • . “. r
...-----. e.-
_ _ _ __ _____
■• AL
FOUND
. .
,
P.C_FAR \i \t,' PL/V-1 . 1
CAP L5. 7018
-
[ ) i 11 .',/\, f \\I I AV El N L ) 1
.. .
9. HPC GROWTH MANAGE:1 t 1NrUAT10i FORM - Ratings of projects within the
commercial one zoning distr`,cfc shall be assigned points according to
• the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally iincompatiiblo assign
1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creatas a :.
conflict with historic structures in the historic
district or with the urban environment in'thc other
areas outside the historic district
2 - Indicates an accept..;ble (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.
%"
Project Name: - Al _
Date:
Design Element:
a) ftASSING -
Comment: / Rating, ,i
(/ /J r
b) EXTERIOR BUILDIIJG MATERIAL Rating c. Q
Comment: ,. I = .
� (_ . ,.� .f / -/, ,
y
c) /\RCHITEC1Urd DR AI L • Rating a0
Comment: ` � _ ' / _�L
- / /AL ! == �- -/ f/ e _
d) COLOR Rati ng p, Q
Comment: A s —
_ 0 / •
' -- —
e) ARCHITECTURE Rating /, () .
Comment: `
11 - 4 -■d t —st- , ft: � G , tit 49 /rte
.ii ce , i__sCa ✓te
42 cadeit
"4-m2
TOTAL Rating 9 �
Name of person submitting the above rating _SsL„yrGN. {
- 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.
_ c
PROJECT: � ZZ- (--e) • _ _
REVIEW DATE:
HPC REVIEW - 1/4/1c,„
'4"S'
P /
HPC
MEMBER
l /, 6 / / / ` p
3. j -✓ �)�,'( �o . : • 2
4.
7.
i
GROUP RATING
4/ ! 1'- / / r �?
PLANNING OFFICE RATING, / �� / I �/
THE COG1BINED RATIP!GS OF THE HPC AVERAGES u� �
10. P&L Growth P1anarlcwent 2na1ity of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
wit - bin the Commercial ror, -CC) aiid Commercial One (C -1) zoning
districts shall be assigned 7cints according to the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally incomir;tle 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 /•V
Comment:
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: '.J %.v // r .i J 4 —et
aim td -%as' -
-__..
/ fL V Sr
'Z�{��� /' � ✓� /�Jl - �.r�2.�� fl
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 _ (�
•
Comme ! % _ / -
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rati nqc. ,�. 0
•
Comment: ' / AL.../ I_..! "td
•
- n ..
e) Visual Impact - consring the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
Comment: 4 �{ � - 4ete
11. P &Z Growth ManAge;,rent 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 _ r
Comment:
5) 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 -
12. NET POINTS
IIPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL. f'::7 MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20X of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
•
BONUS POINT 0
14. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING ,
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS 'f
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
— - - -- DATE
- 6 -
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
• RATINGS BY P &L
•
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
o //t ti
F -� y q
C5 � O V ,, ,5
n G�/v
ti U PS ti aQ O q 5 Q d am �q
MEMBER
1.
2. —.
3.
4.
5.
6. -- — 7. -
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING /.6 /o a J, 5 I 0 & 4. I O
P o ToTaL 124.7- uco ,, � ,
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES
•
•
art C� ti :ASPEN
130 so:!. ::` -3po 'street
aspen, co t ar €F o: 81611
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Planning Office, John Stanford
RE:. . La Tortue
DATE: March 14, 1978
The Planning Office recommends denial of the proposed
expansion to La Tortue. This position contridicts our
former recommended conditional approval and is based
on the following points:
1. The existing structure is part of a complex of
structures that are under one ownership. The proposed
expansion, while visually similar to the existing
building is not compatible with the objectives and
• -- - -- general character of the historic district. The structure
if approved will not further enhance the Victorian
character of the historic district core, nor will the
proposal offer a contemporary architectural addition that
is compatible with and contributes to the visual improvement
of the historic district.
2. The proposal to remove the exterior display of merchandise
as a condition of approval represents an attempt to improve
the general appearance of the site, however a) this con-
. dition is not related to the HPC design guidelines that
bcip establish design compatibility within the historic
cnarnctni, and b) the City is not prepared to enforce a
condition of exterior merchandise display based on the
opinion of the City Attorney and past experience.
The Planning Office recommends that any expansion to this
site should be done in the context of either a master plan
for the entire property or at least that the entire
building and site are renovated to make a compatible and
visually pleasing contribution to the historic district.
•
•
•