Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.LaTortue.1978Commercial La Tortue Ni m..--. -.,� _. •fir . _.. - � ;- ... .�• v..,.,, - '. � - `- '.^ R LR.- 4. ♦ «, , ,. .. .. .:.. k. ..<.,N .., .. ,.. ... '- ri� ,x:. J4 kl W, °� R '7" +P 3. ,� f� d H• � v 1 a1 4 A ` y s. •i r .7• r :t v. u Y Y' r 1 i ti .. r.. z .. t { r � a4bk• �� 4)F. J4rAs. n-c:,.a. >�r, �,,, i ... :.. - •` �. .: -. �� :. '� ' . � .�� _ 1.... _ .. _ Jl AIDE)l-l-TION Tu" A 4gi iN IN �/,04 giill"Vio 0, 7,4 R VAL Aler4l- 0 V.� VV TAJ ogf7- rA,4v.l vevu pox(:" Ise 1SX24 PRINTED ON NO. 1000H CLEARPRINT Lk�-Vouxu p_ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION REPORT COMMERCIAL SECTION 1. Project Name: Addition to La. Tortup 2. Location: Block 96` Lot N & 0 3. Parcel Size: Lot 0 4. Current Zoning: zone 1 Zoning under which application is filed: zaC G 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 (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. Water syatem already installed --no extra water reeeded--only floor b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line space and estimated sewer demand of the building. No extrpt 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 submJ_ttQd MarQb1g 7 Revised plans submitted in August before moratorium - 1 - ALLEY tbUNDt R E eAR W1 Pl. A:7,T I C CAP L-S 1210 v-*O#,)Nc), Rr--P-"Q '",/ RA--rlc CAP L S. 9018 mil -,"ANT I AV E_ Mf TAL LIC-11 I I I'Ll \j 9. HPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of projects within the commercial one zoning district,, shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatiul�design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a m-,ior conflict with historic structures in the historic district or with the urban environment in'tho 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. Projec Date: Design Element: a) t SSIN� b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating (�;L. O c) ARCHITFrTiIPr�i nFTATI d) COLOR e) ARCH?Ti7rTlIPP Rating �, Q Rati ng �, Q Rati na / /J TOTAL Rating Name of person suhmitting the above rating - 3 - 2 3 4 51 C 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAT; 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 PN' HPC MEMBER L FAA =I IdA . •� lot PLANNING OFFICE RATING ZI I� I /11-21-Z__�__—_ THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES .;+ 10. P&Z Growth Management gu ality_ of Design Evaluation Form - Projects �zoning�ntheCoimerc7aCor� CC d Commercial Owifi districts shall be assigned ;�(.ints according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatii,l- 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 /8 b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of ut-ilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service.vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 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 ZC3 Comment: d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: Ratingc�. Q -a- e) Visual Impact - cony :xcring the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of -,urrounding scenic areas. 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 - 5 - 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING 3 'ACT 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 - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A 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 P&Z MEMBER �3 �., s wq w� tiw ti Az) Cj GROUP RATING II I 1 I I II n ► ► PLANNING OFFICE RATING u/,g R, I THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES t 130 gaiena street aspen, cul®rado► - 81611 TO: Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Planning Office, John Stanford RE: La Tortue D.)=: 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 '-,elp establish design compatibility within the historic cnai:actcr, and b) the City is not prepared to enforce a condition cif 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.