Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin Center.1977 • TO: Aspen Planning and M ZoninEMg O R Commission ANDUM FROM: Planning Office (JS) . RE: Planning Office Review of the Aspen Grove Building and the Pitkin County Bank Building • DATE: December 19, 1977 Complete applications for two commercial projects will be reviewed by the P &Z at a special meeting on January 10 at 5:00 p.m. The P &Z will review both proposals which will include a presentation by the applicants and comments from the Planning Office. Following the presentations, the P &Z will rate each of the projects as specified in the Growth Manage- . ment Ordinance. We have included the forms along with the applications for the two projects. Planning Office comments and evaluation of each project is presented . below: 7 Aspen Grave Building f 1. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points) /' i (a) Architectural Design Rating - 2.5 (maximum 3 points) 1 The projects represents a relatively sensitive architectural i design solution given the fact that the project is an eficpansion of an existing building that represents several design and struc- i tural givens. The design includes remodeling of the existing I exterior facades to present a cohesive visual appearance. 1 Factors that affected a reduction from the three point maximum i 4 are massing, architectural detailing and overall architecture. 11 These points are discussed in the enclosed Planning Office memo 1 written shortly after HPC's review. (Our 2.5 recommended i • rating equals in ratio with the 12.5 total points out of a 15 maximum points under the HPC review). (b) Site Design - 3.0 (maximum of 3 points) The proposal retains the garden area almost as it exists now; lighting of the walkway and trees will be added. The application and drawings do not address any improvements to the pedestrian walkway along the east property line. However, points should i not be deducted since: (a) the applicants agreed to leave the space open for potential future development of a cross block pedestrian system, and (b) the City has never adopted a plan or policy.to require developments to provide this public amenity. I - (c) Energy - Rating 2.0 (maximum of 3 points) ,` N. I /The project does not incorporate any sophisticated energy- saving technology but has adequate insulation and some passive solar gain through the use of skylights. w • . Aspen Planning and Zoning Page Two December 19, 1977 (d) Amenities - Rating 2.8 (maximum of 3 points) \ • .\ Preservation of the garden area is a valuable visual element the streetscape and provides a space that can be enjoyed by '.the public. _ (e) Visual Impact - Rating 2.5 (maximum of 3 points The project does not visually overpower the prominen } of the historic structures that border the site on the east nd west, and the existing character of this block which is /characterized by large` historic structures on the corners separated by the central lower building complex and open space Mas been retained. Also, the project preserves the view of Aspen Mountain according to the view plane section of the zoning code. 2. Community Uses - (maximum of 6 points) • (a) Employee Housing - Rating 0 (maximum of 3 points) No housingis included in the proposal. (b) Medical and Service Needs - Rating (maximum of 3 points) This location has traditionally had an emphasis on tourist oriented uses due to its close proximity to lodging, the ski hill and Rubey Park transportation services. The Wienerstube restaurant is one exception in that it is a traditional meeting place for local/businessmen, ski instructurs and other citizens. It is anticipated that the new development will have a primary marketing approach to incorporate uses that would appeal to tourists. 3. Net Points Planning 01`fice recommended Average (HPC criteria rating) = 12.5 Planning Office recommended Average (P &Z criteria rating) = 13.0 ; _ 4. Bonus Points - (maximum of 20% of the combined averages ab e) - rating 4.6 (18% x 25.5 = 4.6) Our ecommended bonus points are based on an increase of 18 %. The deduction of 2% is based on minor considerations :. the minor infringement of the addition into the view plane„ the lack of the two stairways providing direct visual access to the second loor deck and minimal space for trash storage and pickup in the alley. / 5. Total Point Calculation (i Net Rating = 25.5 4 Bonus Rating = 4.6 30.1 = Planning Office recommended total ating • Aspen Planning and Zoning Page Three December 19, 1977 Pitkin Center 1. Quality of Design (maximum of 15 points) (a) Architectural Design Rating - 2.7 (maximum 3 points) The design of this project is compatible with the City's policy of not duplicating historic architectural styles, and it presents a contemporary architectural solution that is harmonious with the character of the commercial core historic district. We have not given a maximum rating based on minor factors of design detail, namely lack of a clearer definition in the brick facades of the rear and central building masses and detailing of the east and west windows that almost appear Victorian in character. (b) Site Design Rating - 2.3 (maximum 3 points) The drive -up window along the alley presents potential problems that are discussed in a memo from the Engineering Departemnt (attached) (c) Energy Rating - 2.8 (maximum of 3 points) The project appears to be designed to take advantage of solar heat gain through the use of the large greenhouse on the south facade. (d) Amenities Rating - 2.9 (maximum of 3 points) The project incorporates open space in a way that benefits the project and the total streetscape by concentrating it at the corner and along the east subgrade access. The applicant has stated that future development of the remaining three lots to the west will incorporate a cross block pedestrian walkway. (e) Visual Impact Rating - 2.9 (maximum of 3 points) The project's scale and massing does not infringe on any public vistas and visibility from vehicles on the streets is improved by the building setback, 2. Community Commercial Uses (maximum of 6 points) (a) Employee Housing Rating - 0 (maximum of 3 points) The proposal does not include any housing. (b) Medical and Other Service Needs Rating - 2 -0 (maximum of 3 points) • The banking facility will be relied on by both tourists and local resident population. 3. Net Points Planning Office recommended Average (HPC criteria rating) = 13.8 Planning Office recommended Average (P &Z criteria rating) = 15.6 Net Rating 29.4 e., Aspen Planning and Zoning Page Four December 19, 1977 4. Bonus Rating - 5.6 The bonus rating is based on a 19% increase (maximum of 20% is permitted.) 5. Total Points Net rating = 29.4 Bonus rating = 5.6 35.0 Planning Office summary of Planning Office recommended points Aspen Grove Building 30.1 points Pitkin Center 35.0 points a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, (JS) RE: HPC's Review of the Pitkin Center and the G.M.P. Point Allocation DATE: December 1, 1977 The attached table presents HPC's point allocation for the Pitkin Center Bank proposal. The scoring totals 13.8 points within the maximum of 15 points. Loss of points was attributed to several minor design elements: It was expressed that the contemporary design relied too heavily on details that "leaned toward a Victorian appearance ", and that perhaps more straightforward, contemporary detailing should accompany the contemporary design concept. Other minor factors that affected the scoring were concerns over the large expanse of glass, the lack of a visual break on the east and west brick facades, the minimally functional entrance covering, and other detailed design elements. In general, the HPC agreed that the massing relation- ship to the streetscape was not visually detrimental and that the colors and building materials were visually compatible with the historic district. The project received HPC approval (under the historic district Bode requirements) following the public hearing. The Planning Office rated the building with 13.4 points. lmk enc. • • 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: ei 71 e^ri REVIEW DATE: (), /i'7. P &Z REVIEW ti � 4j4 y r y � � �e �o A i � o ti� �j P8Z MEMBER • l. VQ 4WAitrw L. 0•0 •2 d4 °R.°, 3.9 3/G 2. .o a•7 d•i)" a,7 a13 o a.o 3.0 32.7 0%1 U .o 2- 6 a.8 o s..o £ a9.9 4.� 2.6 .8 .5 42.A 0 a. o 2 Aso 6. 7. GROUP RATING :2.74 .734 visa . at YD 0 /.? 35,2 432.4z PLANNING OFFICE RATING I I 1 THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES 3.2 A v 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 &. 8' comment: j -j r e / /,. „ i C, 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. 'J Rating a, o Comment: ,ys S. fir a A 6 /04 & 0 ✓ / J NR< r . R s r / b T. <d 9 % /S F .4 T o a /f <r •.t ea./ dC4, 6 rr c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Lv Rating o7. c Comment: d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating a..S 7 )-• i Comment: -4- e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating .2,S- � v . Comment: V e y e � p ,+ T, 6 /F , r/ -// n fA 6 rf� F,, O , q 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 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 0 0 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 45' � comment: etei Am re /A$/tt N it/ N - 5 - 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING /J.? INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING / NET RATING 0 2 8 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT / Q X '. 5- 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING 2512-- BONUS RATING a _ r TOTAL POINTS 3 1. D 1 • NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: DATE i e, / f? • S- s • - 6 - • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY P &Z The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. PROJECT: REVIEW DATE: P &Z REVIEW' � b tu /' Y i 7 , 4 4 /4 # " /t ' h P &Z MEMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING G 1 THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES • CBCV Project Name: 7 1'f7 ifd artiu(Sr 151 Date: al 0 U t i Design Element RATING MASSING Comment: ' 1PoG�sY 1[r FN'$ 15/- 5- • EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL a• g Comment: � rill. /la � /v /r26Li(u tfij �J bupd,11 (Lc 01.612 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL a• Comment: 10 .('1i1.V.. 2A'Q WC [6 a - v'T - r/ !rack , !„' &s . q4/4- Ap- \ga COLOR 9 I Comment: , r''D-yi"t IPA J , le 117„ ( P1 ■ , fiu) N ' r Aug(/= J'o'0))/r)tJ — Li& date crom -rvi 6 -eta,_ i' v,_ Li vi• l • ARCHITECTURE Comment: ;7 ..(2 ;41L, p dh`C' "<".tiAx � �. a e r 4-, G � G a� 6v l v° !-4 l �1 Q 7 • TOTAL �1 r Name of person submitting the above rating �� .�. ?PLC . .. " 344T At.k, , Project Name: ? l 1 kii\1 c^( e w Date: / //L 9/7 7 . • Design Element RATING MASSING 3 Comment: 3 Q, Ie j Ja l D c- I 17�,' l � 1_4 L) 6.„ u c lv l c. x /Y � -i 5 /Lc._ i / 0 I ' - €4.k .et. I _ 1 � ... Pc✓) -- - EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL - / 3 Comment: IrA� r• .�J eI�Jr�4�r.o l� CI cti -• _ -_- • ( c A1- e.A _ eat (I r e 1-. 16 - 12 1 - - ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL 3 Comment: oo . - / . I. . • 6- 5rn Q IA _ 7C ac &o-Q. woo - - COLOR 3 - - v 0 6 �—� =- Comment: / • _ . _ / (� (--1_12 ARCHITECTURE 3 Comment: Q cn l TOTAL / S Name of perscn subiittiaa the above rating , GAG ¢! -s. Project Name: ‘-r ,%H kaherttn2. Date: ‘too ' 1 Design Element RATING MASSING Sa .S Comment : � wrsw Qp v 3 _n S pa o .s ranAtt2110 C.. vs era IA -k- rat at EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Comment: • ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL Comment: 40 IrmM tetis - rsi∎ osq A.mou N IA W ,r+ 0.D4 ■.O as. ideas ao 1m. A Mesta (gyp 4 mow. CbA•Aa") flW tJ.1.4L ei rsAf % *HG eb JS,�. Mo — ' WPl%.%- Or tabsi oo 1 p 1 A 4tps T.„airuant 0 151btaNto 6•..c■ Its (1 Lac COLOR Comment: ARCHITECTURE Comment: i,,8 TOTAL Name of person submitting the above rating l2. 1 • Project Name: ��� it I3 A vi S 13 La ) 1 n Date: N e v q, I q 1 ` l - Design Element I RATING MASSING Comment: 2 s <, - / % P 2 ! rl /r' , 7 l pc V re r Y d r S � h • EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL - Comment: _'_i -, €' /' o - 13 r e I c n l / 7 4 f 4 e c,- - /er - 1elry l p re Pt' r'j»!rlf s / 0 of � ,� y ) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL Comment: _ y / 1 mKC/ ?/ C , .I ) , h . of - IL • COLOR 3 Comment: k 3- J r �l _ ARCHITECTURE. Comment: t2, . e I e , v r _ , f c crS- r• c- I i_D IeG r,r, 7 • • TOTAL , - , 1 Name of person submitting the above rating ,)j,- / -s 1 Project Name: „ ��;��, c', 5 dr, Date: H Design Element RATING MASSING Comment: ( ,,X-4,! �- ( ,( (/<- 11 ✓ ,Qc �nll ?7 EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL .� • Carmen ro ;. ;r ii . c f ' d u k e' , i 6 1 h , / �, ,Z -Z ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL _l 5 Conment: 1 r 2.6" JOE GK.47_ryL L Fli 7 �.i 'y rL 11 II COLOR _, Garment: C - 9 , . 1), - ARCHITECTURE G Comment: d4, 1, q,.ta C7-9,--,1 .Q ls-K2-7 w' - � 4-4:‘" -TOTAL 4-4-LC Name of person submitting the above rating (lit C k �� _ Project Name: t -�-- , NV Lc N • M - Date: H.cu "f 7 y • Design Element - RATING MASSING S .Comment: (rC D ;Y-Ni t : -7_j /L,L1a`S lam. i„ : r -�.CJ -N C=7 Crt N. (Lc l EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL WW l^ Comment: ic't L4' lS t 1 gI '±1-1E f'cc4 is - j t-CE wP ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL , Comment: Nur c KNcere" Co r (.)/ - hit -- -ficzA Oil -as( /2 �7,*� (4 -I /1 AI`Qij St- (_ /VUL) 2 u i -lli�Z) / cc i ce° Ahig-A 4 — (-Act(0 (`f'REZ C'u (Z_NICi= /;) & —AiL COLOR / Comment: F 2-" 411F C!Uri,,' `6 ARCHITECTURE 2;i Comment: Cest,P Le try/ 1fi -- EXcel ]ICI cc' Lid-i PL Y vie r or . --i-H r< i-?- ', 6i i / L / %cc, p i =-T 2rd 0 pi 7; rst 47 (rAc-11.4 U e--LO TOTAL i ((���//,, Name of person submitting the above rating /1 /8'5'13 Project Name: , ��,� . C Po L7a2 , Date: Y7A)4A01/272/1 29 /97 • Design Element RATING MASSING 3 Comment: • AM. s it .ia . _• C... ' - _..'� /.! / e EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Comment: si .� 71t � »i /A / :4 . _ ` ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL // 02, S Comment: nit 4c'tt GA/ 1 COLOR 3 Comment: ` lO rlYe c o cth i (' — %y s ARCHITECTURE // Comment: ' nee (�G� (. ,C2 020 - p�f2 t i f 2 (A 71 % - r- C 71 C TOTAL 3 - Name of person submitting the above rating .j/ _ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY HPC The H.P.C. reviewed the following Project and rated each of the five (5) design elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. PROJECT /./ rw "'. , t '�, I e- -'i G� REVIEW DATE `',' X/ � /97 r P�' P�O�ti �Qy + �J �O S A C. O~`,� st ;S�v O cOc s5 . ,s, HPC P I\ 0.P MEMBER I 1l U � /7,/ 2. r , a 3• b'..,v 3,0 3 S. e 6 4. <:. r c'11,41, u %. p : , ; •° / �. 5. - . ? . `. 3, v _ V 6 3 /. L /2.5 yr 7. 3 0 ' 0 3 gi ` , c /4.3 GROUP RATING H. S v , I (8,0 /t7 . Al ?"7.• 1 PLANNING OFFICE RATING' ..-:#/# 2.-' 0 7, 6 0?7,5 J , Cr 75.1 THE COMBINED RATING OF THE HPC AVERAGES — I ` I, • 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 '3, 6 Comment: G /,/./ 4 - S nc — J.t'i.15° tes i hic - Pn-u,� �U n4 �e ' 4y/�be- 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. rr��.�.� Rating 2'3' Comment: , 2 dl'e 4 ���� GZC� 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 2-S Comment: *ICl/' '.i. are ! 2117 c es t.eie an srIbir ter /tin ° PJ/L07/) it dent _viti? d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating Z Z Comment: far /%.L. - met /A '' ea Y e ,r ' do !i .... ;ice a5 < A 7M(Ad" -4- e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 1 Ae;t47 t2e,E; Rating 9,0 Comment: / eCia e cc3 ti — l offer ( W ' �� c05 & /�i)5 -for eL juhn'tht7 - 4,1 . 11. PAZ 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: 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 Z.O Comment: Ore ? F YGri G�l� - 5 - l 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING l3, Ss' oriel:c cep INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING ALL NET RATING Z`T. 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT Q 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING __ __ BONUS RATING 6 TOTAL POINTS 3g g NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: 74( Y'�G2 t�!/l� DATE 0©/! 7 D p - 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 � 4j4 Z q 0 y ti ti� y �0 4 k, co to � h c+ 4j 4Q P &Z MEMBER 1. Z74 7.3q 2 •Z9( ZSO I o pct 5 Z 37.z 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. 7. • GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING q I 1 1 I �I 1 II THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES • 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 ,3, c) �. Comment: / . e� /��� ✓,. � .411 �. /_ %..... _ :. 1LLsl./Ltatet ice t AI ✓J. _ 1 / - 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 4.7 Comment: 2. c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. / Ratinge �7 Comment: �� _ r , / _. = . ', ; dF lPr � /7 i11, ' / &9'l tCo . vU d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rati ng o7., Comment: -4- e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. O Rati ng o1. e Comment: data_ it /V71 tdfl tact 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 0 Comment: • b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professinnal 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 HPC AVERAGE RATING /34 INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING 1S-7 NET RATING 01-2 • 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 2 .3 TOTAL POINTS 303. NAME RSON SUB ' ING THE ABOVE RATING: DATE 44/ 76 - 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 Ordina / ncc . P iro g PROJECT: l� iro ' -)' �" REVIEW DATE: it /Q � ! f91 P &Z REVIEW w ow vZ ct ivy v ti 4 .7c ti y ti c, ego -sr pa' 0� C> r 1;1, ti q 4q A y J� y V � y . �� ti * tiw 0 * , ti l e S ° IC) 45) e �/; P &Z MEMBER 1 , � .‘ t.0 2. - 2.` x.6 0 2.0 !L59 3✓.- 3.0 2.9 01-s e7.7 2.1 . 0 r. 3.6 3a.? 3. G' 7L-- . 2.1 2.0 2.6 2. l Z. ir o f..0 2. X99 4. ,Oa.- 3.0 1.1 /..S 1.8 3m 0 2. .9 3.s.I1 5. Sh. le-- 74 1. 2.8 2.5 a.S ; 0 IC i II 3/0 6. 7. GROUP RATING 4.14 a ?...34 4 a. a.f 10 is 3.5 32.V PLANNING OFFICE RATING G I I I 1 0 1 11 . THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES .5e2 -?"- `"' ,. 14` /i v C c C 10. P &Z Growth Management Quality of esign Evaluation orm - 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 Comment : s nl 1 i�� 't / zZ1 Cam/ ,ar,,r 4-»/ k' f_FFA rives 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 )„ 0 Comment: 'AD E- (, F 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: 94 I - rt - i., E /�na4.T t - Al *OP (( - 4 - c d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating ‘ ,4 Comment: a O /> FFE A /N/ {iP S7),4-cf -h - e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 4%4 Comment: txrtzi F,vr , - (.7i .1 A _ 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 0 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 _p.e Comment: -5- 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING >3.9 INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING 13,9 NET RATING 17,7 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT ej..� ii6 /lHT, PORGv1TRU 1D(K/ &6 IW) 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING 27.7 BONUS RATING a 9 TOTAL POINTS J/, 4 NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: L ' / / DATE /2/%674'7 - 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: R /t lG /.(/ rf rick REVIEW DATE: /1/4i2/7 P &Z REVIEW 4 `54 2 S Og tiW ti co 44 ¢� G s y JQy A. az qw 8 I Jam � ti gl P&Z MEMBER 1. - ,2, °74 A, 3 yt ) 3-.,L 2, Y Z fC b 1 g 2 3 X, z 2. 3. 4. 5. • 6. 7. GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING G 1 1 1 1 II I II THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES 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. y Rating- Comment: / hce_ elest7a) 4-r � . A.r- 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 Z O Comment: No pt4.„v M ti.�o -� 1oc1�s ,,.) f JJV4JT2l Sy. 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 2. 6 • Comment: 00d /; t"-t cpear : S ,a)A. d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating 2 . Comment: i ft10 Preug>c � -4- e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Comment: 94 G0 4, 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. 2-9 Rating (4(4.f- Comment: � - ', 4-- / Y t ot t s I" Z C o i s� etc cJ 9 1 r 7 - 5 - 12. NET POINTS S� � � HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING I NET RATING `L 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT Z 14, TOTAL POINTS NET RATING afi Z 71q BONUS RATING Z TOTAL POINTS 'l ' 4> 'li z?. / NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: 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 gy A) o a 2 c q ty v ti W ti �~ cq � � Z C' ti V q :7 k Wy q w S' ti T v ti 5 c 4 5 J � _ U C ? ti J V , yg ti ti P &Z - MEMBER 1. , 2. , 3. _ , 4. _ 5. 6. 7. - GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING I I 1 1 1 II I II I I THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P &Z AVERAGES MEMO TO: JOHN STANFORD PLANNING OFFICE FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERING OFFICE DATE: November 8, 1977 RE: HPC Review of the Pitkin Center Project � �� (�(' I The engineering department has reviewed the proposed canopy along Hyman and Hunter Streets and feels that con �— ceptually the plan is acceptable; however, the final en- croachment must be granted by the City Council. The final plans should provide for sufficient setback of the struc- v , ture to allow for parked cars, traffic signing, street lights and fire hydrants. Also, required boulevard land- scaping should be replaced by equivalent on -site landsca- ping. We have also looked at the proposed drive -up bank window in the alley. There are several factors of which you should be familiar. First, the alley has been one -way eastbound by convention for some time, and at times has been officially signed for one -way flow. This was done from a concensus of the trucking and service firms which regularly use the alley. Secondly, this alley, like most of the core area alleys, is frequently blocked to through passage. Because of the location of the drive -up window, customers will undoubtedly be tempted to back the normal flow of traffic and find themselves bottlenecked without any exit. Thirdly, trash receptacles in the alley are a severe problem in the winter and the drive - up window appears to eliminate the ten foot setback provided for this purpose. jk REFERRAL TO: City of Aspen Water Department FROM: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on the existing water system and capacity DATE: The Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the overall capacity of available water and impact on water pressure and the nearest water main or connecting line. • . The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact belo Project: 7„0/ • A ..i: a 1' J / __, � _�� Referral Submission Date: f/l�� ' /if The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the treatment system: - Negligible impact - substantial excess water capacity exists and will not adversly affect water pressure in the vicinity of the nearest water main or connecting water line. %_/ - Moderate impact - only limited water capacity exists and water pressure will be affected in the nearest water main or connecting water line. - Substantial impact - this development will overburden the water treatement plant and seriously reduce the pressure in the nearest main or connecting water line. Comments: Si gnatu r'e l f bijA � T (# c ate / //Z / 7 17 1' - - - - - . : '. ; . ) 0 no■••s•■■•••■■■■•••.] //A)/:^_Aimmil, , 4 - ‘ 1 ' \ ' .: "ar w....... 7- IS pyrim cot•Tui ::, \fk- ( „..e.„ _4\ (t /t/ -. -„, r ,---- --- ..* ,,,., \**.-....N ■ ..f.: N,.•.------- ... ..... d,,,.. waulut.—tluer., w , ,p- ' , ' N, .. ....m..„,„ k , 0 , vi 0 ...._ A lmouil. no/1111 - aaa iminuntr ilt , , .. . ,__ „ 0. j t. 4 te.. ............._____ ''' 'Vth ei il ' 4,4 0- 1P4P A-1 0 „ "` - m11.11 . 1 40 1 .7 - 41C11, w ,_ : - lik:,..„' 1' -`,. , • ' 5ilimotirtal vr 111111 1 - 11111Bisim . t , • ' '..1 -. 1% 41 \ I; 11 r i g " 1 \ I—A oftb 11 ii .,. ill 1 ' 1 1 I !: lu ll 1 i l I I! l' 1111 11.11 III 11111 I I I 0 CP. :S. ''' i j 1 ' i4 , • , . k k III - ') 1 1 i iii' ll ili 1111 'III IIIII pl 2 a i Ai; .i& 4•-• - 1 = 11 ,.., ,..,.. .:.,,,, " [Mill III p ----...•.."roY!Pi f i , ../.- ■1111•••.--- -1161111 .....iii jiminmnmmioiopip.- December 15, 1977 Mayor and Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 24 -10.5, Article X, Chapter 24 of the municipal Code of the City of Aspen, I am pleased to submit the following Application for Development Allotment for the construction of a commercial building in the City. The project, designed by Benedict Associates, Architects, for use by the proposed Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company, is to be constructed on an unimproved parcel of ground located at the northwest corner of Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street. It is contemplated that construction will begin as soon as all req- uisite approvals and permits have been obtained with completion and occupancy planned in mid -1979. Being perhaps the first applicant under the newly adopted Growth Management planning process, I have attempted to provide sufficient information for your deliberation and decision. However, should any additional material be desired, please do not hesitate to inquire. R-spectfully submitted, 1 U dlaiLL illiam G. Clark APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT For the Proposed PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY BUILDING Aspen, Colorado GROWTH 1rIANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION REPORT COMMERCIAL SECTION 1. Project Name: Proposed Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company Building 2. Location: Lots R & S, Block 94, Aspen Townsite, NW corner Hyman Ave. and Hunter Street. 3. Parcel Size: 6,000 square feet 4. Current Zoning: "CC" Zoning under which application is filed: "CC" Maximum buildout under current zoning: 9,000 square feet Proposed zoning: N/A 5. Total buildout proposed: 8,530 square feet 6. Special procedures required: N/A View planes: N/A Stream Margin Review: N/A Special Review: N/A Historic District Review: Approved November 29, 1977 Subdivision (condominiumization): N/A PUD: N/A 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: Please refer to Exhibits attached hereto. Submittal Date: December 15, 1977 1 _ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This Application involves the construction of a new commercial building on a parcel of ground located at the north- west corner of Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street in the City of Aspen. The building, containing a gross floor area of 8,530 square feet, has been designed by Benedict Associates, Inc., P. 0. Box 40, Aspen, Colorado, for use by the proposed Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company. The site, comprised of Lots R & S, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, contains 6,000 square feet of ground and is presently improved by a paved parking area. It is bounded by Hyman Avenue to the south, Hunter Street to the east, the public alley along the north and adjoins property on the west owned by the Applicant. The parcel in question is zoned "CC" (Commercial Core) and confronts similarly zoned land to the north, west and south. Property to the east across Hunter Street is zoned "C -1" (Commercial). The proposed building, approved by the Historic Preser- vation Commission of the City of Aspen on November 29, 1977, is substantially reduced in scale from the maximum permitted under the "CC" zoning classification, Its contemporary design was chosen to blend in with the existing character and texture of the downtown commercial core while at the same time providing a distinctive architectural addition to the community. The building incorporates extensive use of brick and glass selected both for the purpose of enhancing its appearance as well as allowing maximum beneficial use of passive solar design. In addition, it has been situated on the property in 10 such a manner as to preserve one of the few remaining large Spruce trees within the downtown commercial area and to take advantage of the views of Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. The building consists of three massing elements which are designed to express the space within - the entrance tower, main banking floor, and mezzanine at the rear. The central design element is the banking floor which has a vaulted ceil- ing approximately 20 feet in height. A portion of the front of the building on Hyman Avenue is a greenhouse which is a continuation of the vaulted roof form. The glass wall and roof enclose an atrium which connects the lower level from the floor to the roof - a height of approxi- mately 30 feet. The atrium contains a diagonal walkway which connects the entrance tower with the main banking floor and is designed as an amenity both for the people within the building as well as passersby. Further, it is expected that the greenhouse, to- gether with the glass in the entrance tower, will provide a significant amount of passive solar heat and humidity to the building during the winter months. In addition to the solar design features, the building has been planned to be as energy- conservative as possible. The entrance tower contains an airlock vestibule that will be almost entirely heated by the sun. The walls will be insulated to approximately R -20 and the roof to approximately R -40. De- stratification will be used to avoid the buildup of heat at the ceiling, and to provide a more uniform temperature throughout. The building will contain a very large thermal mass pro- vided by the brick walls and concrete floors, and supplemented by additional mass as required, in order to store the solar heat gained during the day and to even out the heating demand. These features, together with the solar design and appropri- ate control systems, are expected to reduce the total energy requirements to about one half of that required by a more conventional structure. An age old material - terne metal - has been chosen for the roof both because of its appearance and outstanding dur- ability. The batten - formed panels will be pre- weathered to a soft grey color at the time of installation and will continue to weather with time to a deeper grey patina. Substantial landscaping will be provided within the open spaces and a minimum of exterior lighting will be utilized. Space has been set aside at the rear of the building along the alley for a drive -up banking window. WATER SYSTEM It is the opinion of the architect and developer that an adequate supply of public water is available to serve the project. A report filed by the Aspen Water System confirms that a water main, located within Hyman Avenue adjacent to the front of the building, is of sufficient size and pressure to furnish the quantity of water required and that such quantity is available from the excess capacity of the public water system. G11.11,110ran. ; • SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM It is the opinion of the architect and developer that the proposed project can be adequately served by the public sewer system. A report filed by the Aspen Metropolitan Sewer District confirms that a sewer main, located in the public alley adja- cent to the rear of the building, is of sufficient size and capacity to serve the building and that the estimated sewer demand of the building can be accomodated within the excess capacity of the public sewer system. DRAINAGE SYSTEM Runoff water will be collected by a series of roof and surface drains and transmitted to one or more underground dry wells. Should any unanticipated subterranean water flows be uncovered in the course of excavation, they also will be di- verted to the dry well system. At present, the property is devoted to parking and is completely paved with macadam. Because the site development plan incorporates the use of landscaping around portions of the building, it is expected that the proposed use will generate less water runoff than the current use. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA The subject parcel consists of two lots with a total dimension of 60 x 100 feet. The proposed building coverage is 4,015 square feet leaving 1,985 square feet devoted to open space and landscaping - approximately one -third of the total lot size. PYP1Q101 C>CIItTPB ,: • At a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5:1 in the "CC" zone, the subject parcel could have a building containing 9,000 square feet constructed upon it. The proposed building contains 8,530 square feet or 470 square feet less than the maximum permitted. TRAFFIC The building is located virtually in the center of the commercial business district, not more than a few minutes walk from most employment centers and retail activities and is served by convenient public transportation. The architect and developer contemplate that there will be little, if any, increase in vehicular traffic on the adja- cent streets resulting from the proposed development. No off - street parking will be provided and the tentative hours of operation of the proposed financial institution are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sound banking practices require that drive -up facilities be provided if at all possible. The building design does include a drive -up window at the rear of the building adja- cent to the alley. When such facility is eventually installed it is expected to operate only during the early morning and early evening hours when the main banking floor is not other- wise open. PROPOSED USES While the principal user of the building is expected to be a financial institution, it has been designed to house most commercial uses permitted in the "CC" zone without substantial building changes. alk .. . s; EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY The subject property is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the commercial core area of the City of Aspen. The current zoning classification of the property provides for the most intensive commercial de- velopment permitted by the Ordinance. Therefore, the effects of the proposed development on adjacent uses and land uses in the vicinity of the project has already been anticipated within the existing Master Plan. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The lead time for this project, including all req- uisite governmental approvals and permits, preparation of working drawings, obtaining construction and permanent financing, bidding and purchasing of special materials and equipment, is expected to be approximately 10 months. It is therefore hoped that construction can begin before the end of 1978 with completion and occupancy planned for mid -1979. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL USE The proposed Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company, when approved, will be locally -owned and operated as a full service bank to serve the needs and convenience of the community. Because of the security requirements involved in the operation of a bank, it is not feasible to provide em- ployee housing facilities within the building. N- 2 O CI O O ICN CI C7 O O L°wil O O 0 0 C 0 V Illir i ..7. . __ . _ 4 .- ... ; . - x :;, _ -... _t,„ 4 .t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIk: 4 7 / 1 " . Ca i . .) . WEI •.•1111111 a • I . 1 • . Aire 0 111111113111111111F It l 01. all MI 10 MN Mir liall g:111 I �5 . -, , 1 . , ..._,.. Ire'" ilk , • i 4 ' P 4 i l y I 4 s: . — — )1 f A o Ir mwairabw o mm ob w ..... Ili ' A -. ate. el '\ • it • r 7.. . k. AFL r . • d 4 4 • 1111 C! aI D C7 =11 c i =1 Ca =1 =3 =a c „ 1 0 li tia /// L if ■■■■■ I ! + �. 1 j I jell • 1 ., /�� II$711( i � _ L 1 �1 f ' ; I ! E r �_ r , 4; a � _ C .,( a, l. i� 11 i + + � _� � ° I 1 i . 1 , Aii „, 1 'LI ' '. t, '., _ i _ oo_ �i11IHh »I/I ._ . .,.. A ` 3. 1 I. z + sm -- -- ` 71 i r '•. �1 o al r ,4 1 a 7 .. ,, , ■■■p�� - °ti l u a a ■■ ■ ■ ' ii, �� ' , 4 . d L I 1� i , o #tit r, . r ' J I/E[+!� Qr� - - - I I n , � ' _ _ illlli 0IIIIINIIN � .: . ris I _ I Ie J k I • # i miry-, 1 1�` f�. I #� 4 .. !H ��I ' I i. 4. j 1 C t h 'u—' . 1. .1i; ,' i y \ ,-,,, .. r f i' J 1 _--J I - I L - .0o • -in; /4 4 , , _ III 1 ! ____ i _ cu. 1 Fp \ . if-1 L. 717 :- - --, G., ,'. i . i f. ,,. . I i � Il , ?I tip' _ g -- .. � _ . = Ili 11 I 1 i '� i_ f y 0 � � u J ., i i a-44 ,40 \i/ . - :..1L _ f I. . - , . r / � � ��, \ i i �j ? � .1., • 1D Fa $ \r , - - A O ,, - . I ' \ . .2.Qp /i' m z = i t 2 2 • ' -.."%; / A , CO 1 ■ e , / � { \ J � 20 J - UU . i I l • • / / . W '. '41111L in- ..,---> % t i 1 - . 1 _ L— . --- - ..-r- ' . ' - b 4 4 0 ; 4. ' * ,,, 3 . i , r + , I c --, 1 4 t ,,,, : ,.. \ � r te F \ I # e C tJ i s c \ . I / � i, , t r aI I i ---- ,1: : _ . (j -v • P n I 1 I1- � `'1� I/ ! I I: 1 - --- 1 .1 ; ' --., _ ,I : 1 1 ” l' . 1 1 : • i r/ ; ' ii i ; LO :• t d i [' ' 1 1 ' k , \ -- rtatal- Z E a \/I -INI MAP p.... dm* 'amebas wit I'll-KIN C T benedict associates Inc. --I -- NUN7E+2 4 1-1114 AN 575 IsreN, eaLoJenw AIarcctsOman awn /box 40 aspen caaetlo8111 /3039253481 m, MU • Niu.v+4 ! Q.MK ow, -l[R 11 11 AI PITON Olt l.Jr[t M ek [C M §� :ate`• b < NM 119 0:11 IMP go I= Me IIIIII IMII 7 9 ,r • i 11 ¢q • r�r E 1 Or • yy i. 4 ' '..,.- **..''' . . :. — ... NL:•••-: :::-'-'• -- ' .4... k ••• - ''''it a ". ' 'ON,...' . . £ ..., £, • A ,''' p Om ' # it, • ' 4 . .• °:' • .,... . L'.. oi'"'"' s ,•;,: ".� ' ..F R 1 ` *i( k ■ ID .� . , t i‘' .. 4 , 1 „, :li • 1 '2 '7,- . - ''....*. iii ' te a;^` _ � '`,.a i 4111 • f $ k r f £ £ F op a� „ , • 1 . 4 .> >�..£➢ k, . �� mi l. w 9( x`33 t j ��� 4 � K � _ ` + . ` 'i.1 .� r . . �� x ` a ,, 0 —I 0 y „., benec aois n. ____I --J m ale architects plann encp neers ss bpi 40 c aspe colnr ate 8t61t - 303 9253481 i� i C ' \ VIII 1001 Inn Bill MI ' C' - 73 =I NCO Ira GII =1 =I =1 .7: il t i T •■•, • 1r i.11■..I - N • r 1 ▪ • • d ... ▪ 1 • 15111111=11111•1116111 t I I - .l■■s■ ■5•aa'' u■■N . , „ isuart - ■ .. IT • • . -_ - A' ) g 7 ( , • , • , 10 l r - I ii( r . I . 1. ■ i" • _ I :_ ,.., _ .. "_�' - - in}r■i■n■.n■rr •••• .ri■1u.1(B41•1.1 1111 IMO ■■■.14■.! Ii �� - ; 1- .,,..• i ,.._.• -;- . '' r , IT :. 1 . .-7 , - , 1 I I L - .; 1 " ! aril ' r .i - 1 r L - • - � 1. , :■ ■ i ■ I: (---] ; ' 1 - r__ C .umm3 ' , .. ,, ' N: , `, _ 1 7 ____1 MO . - - oel .rl. ■■■r■.•■ a i1 - . :. / 1 ' .. - . _ .. -.. �. . � i i I' ! I • I ow, / i __ J / �/ % a 1 CI • • . u. i iiiima..fiu. u . ..r,1 .■.■i r ee i ' 1 77 i B _ /7, C.7"'' . 1441.44•11s. w•Inip,i,„j . . . . . _, , „ 1 • • 1 liss -.5 1 l 1 )1 N • O� Z ! i --""" "v a ZONIN `1 / r ,tA W r Pb . E.I. twist.. - MII PiTKIN 6N-11..Z 11ed beict associates Inc. _ - t Asfe4 fP,•oW+P 4 HTM ."0 O .= warchitects-Omer' lyres «si box 40 rpm cdawo816n /3039253/s, — ASHEN ' M MM.UM1 4. CLARK. cwJea 1 IS 1'r - I er ", :. • • i 1 . 4. •••••• • •• • • • ■11111.- • • • I • ! , i , ' .. .1. ..,:' '• • . ' --/ •' I e • • 1 >,?/;/, ' --''-- --N, (' ''!„,. • • • ..• . \ ' ' 1 • • • • . • . . , • ( ) ( ( i . . : \ t . • • .. ' ...O ' . • : . . I • '--;- ! • • III I I • '. - f. L2 ' 'I I- \ . . •-______ -• • -• I 1: Ti " 4••■••■••••" " 1 / • . _. , . .. . - ‘ / Fr I ---/- i • ,---- - • ...4•••••""i 5: ' i ,-- , , . . ; . i , -; • . '', • . . • I . . , 1 , \" ■i ,t_ 'i . ' ,,, . ■ , . • . 1 : . i . _ _ • _ 4 .. „ ...) . : ., . :. . ,... • ,, .- , • _..--- . , • --, i,., / .,..." ,.. ..,...... , . , ,, . - t• • . • __.....,_ -__ i . . ,, i l' y • , , ., . • { 1 ' IL ' • - E ., .. • . ...-,.-.. _ ; , I i • • L- .,,..,. - I -:-.„- .•,-:------' ' - • .- A ? ! i i !_ 1 i \._, ' i ' I, 7 -----.) , , *- - , .._.--, R 4 ---)! ' i .. - i i ') ! • f ...._,,, - - -- '•i 1-___1 , • . . ..,.„ ME= .._ ! .....„..... _ •••••••1••••••••••• 000000 ......r.•••••• • 1k•I •••• . •••••?••••reo • • - !,_- 7 - -,- - 1 7 - Q ' - - Hi -, - 11- i , L-1, -• ___. , _.,, . _ ...., ,-----.,„ ..-- i • -133 • 12 • 1 . . • • 1— ; - 7 ---: / ..._-=, I ? - P,1 ! m , , g ig -• -- - L , P_ A ■ . i---- I, E .< • i . --, '1 • • ) . - • - -1.n - 1 * I • 'I- - ILI ZI 5 ... (.. • 33 t , AD' 33 • Z L 77"" \ . I x - \ ' \ --... iim...... r ' j a -- E • J -I r" -I '' r ---■ . 1 - , ,cm-14-1-1-1.4.11..1■1,1■11“... (-_ • ; % )'•? - -----'1 11 i .' - '• '''' ,\,,,.. 7'-...._,,, . . _ . " - - - •-_- -- -:----'-'------ - \ '.:', - - .- - - - • • "1 r _ _____ • s...,. - • , . . . - r- ■ . ' ---- ---- 7- - - - -- . _ - - - - 1 - - ■ \ - - \ . \ ' . , _ • . 1 I • , 4 -----. I I i f --- --_ — _ ---- -- --- ,--S'N \-...`,. . ' ' \ - \ e - • . . j • . .......:._ . .... 4, - 1 \ • -• ! 1 , ) ) 1 1 f ilIz :_ i ., ..; I 1, . . • : 1 !' ( I ‘‘‘ , • • t ! I ‘.1-1 .. I . -.... --* --., ., \:,‘• .. : _ .. 1 !____ _ --, . U11.11.1 • • , r '• i , .. 1 •,, , , , i I- •., - — --, . . . • ] • I . 7 • , . • . , '1 -, -' ... • J, i • . ,4, ..__ _ ... ; ,---- !... . . eI! i I • .'' I :I i . 1 " I ' . . . ! ,..., . -. . 1 4 e- i. „ • : i . . ! f ' I I ,_ - 1 .----' .„.; • . . _..= 1 • • - I . . . !: 1 1:i • i l' . - -i y. " • 1 . , 14 i____ • 1 , )/// , , ,I - 1 !„,,/- ! ' / CI . to 7 • ,, .... '1".....; **. .*** ...00**** / /,'.' 1 ''(,. ,-/ // r- •.-- - ' '-'' : :. i rs•• 4,4 me•••••1+1••••••• „ eV:: . ... • • : • . . . i , •, - . ••••• 0•44tii• • SOO .--. •,•• • .1 ..,,, 4 , y . S' :' ', N . . , ,i'/ , . . • '., 1 \ r'-: i • I • ...... ' :1 .. 1 .. ,. 1 , 1 1 • 4 . f . • , 1 . - , . . . .„, , . 4 ,•,.: • .!' / / 7 L -- A 4 • 1 I I t - ' f ! ' ‘I: cI I ! ) °•,,,,. II I'''.„ ; ■ . ;--- I I ' . i ' ..----' , _ .. - .... ' . r 12 • I I ' / I ' • ' • },..,.........,.,.., • _ --- . ' I • --- z - " --- ' • - . : • f . . . . , . I . , ,:.-_______ i• f Xi / • '-'. A , . , ' . Af 4P • i , i 1 , ...._ . • • ._ _, .. • . , ,,, r /.. _ . — , . • f • ' ''Y • t ' -,--- ' : i I •-•—=' Ir _., , J ' i ■ ' - 7 ' 7 .(..e1: - ; ''..- n . I 1 , . - Z ' • • • , ' • . - SO 1 1 , t k ‘ It , I —i C CO m > r- Z 2 -n MEI , .............' M 35 cn m 1 10 1 ° .----- 33 C (1) )1) :71 1:1 O pd no cut. ■.10ons N.. ,.. Tar4599RTATiori +-14p 1 zt, — — l'ITK-N 6.1.-1-Tr,z - benedict associates Inc. .__ ....__. I HUN'TeR. It 14)i-tAN srs AspE,-4 coLoRo.v. a m . i ' e I a architects planners engineers / box 40 swoon colonido 818tI /303 925 3481 __ a WILLJA,14 4 ci..•..R4 e,A4eg 1,1 s„' PYFICIA crwrat 4 .> o o 0 0 0 r73 c=I v o v c "II [I . • j i •IcKNS:EA+M4110e"SAf '4 PiJ.MIe :•-irl 'i - .i. 'rr..ii - 4'a ., j/ . GT AIr NA sT �1� \ \ s b ` i s 111 ')' . . 4 m k n _ X N o ' V -1 C ■ i al z • N 1 Igllllllll �-, ' m Z � ii, 5 IIP---.-:----1 5, , • is_.„ ..„,,o, . . _, n1 . - - - -- .c. a _.. .11.. 1 D HUN Fz sT 2. 0 a 0 ,. U 4 ^ 3 .. 4 elargeprr s ✓ 1 . f �AI pl . T b 0.b row Yen. Nt. .. A 1 T I I - �L.. NIA IV I L1� a.... c..� benedict associates inc. I R t NrHP.N sls w .rcHUeavw.+r• «wr+�+ .+o ma«cda.aosieniaoaessa4ai AkPtN , CbLOP...Do 7.1 • NLU)J y. U.rRK ■ o4HCA 14.4 11 III • • • I lb OM O — D CO Q L7 O D C 7 1 - . _t • . q Air I it 1r . P i .. \ AMMO!. OI O +rn __ Al11111111 ,_ 1111 N1 t if - I I: iii . It II r� .sue O , . 0 P- I r . is r 0. • 1 N g 1 '3. 4 1.4.021.0.41:1- 101.44-152 �.P a N. rwlYOl1. W1. ; � , R % benedict associates inc. 1 /d!°CN, Warchitect' *men y engineers/ 6 �O..ncda.do 87611f�0.19243A81 _ — a.+. • 44 J1 4. 0.44 *Z 010 eg i wf T ; G %1. * , ,. rr 6 Ii=3 i © = !'-ii C! O O - v C7 Ci = Cr - 0 l 1 Mil► --I h 1 ■ __ -4, A g I • 7 4. k 1 r u z 17-''' t V > -1■_ 3 ricrtlrulre • Paf 14.04-6 ' ii. LS °"' "x "' ,•mrm .� w ¥' (j, l rI T►ur� 6sH-rE�z "� v " � Benedict associates inc. FIUhfiCR 4 1411-144a 15. W rctincts planows s ion /box 4O moon colorsdo81611 /3 031125 3481 MJFCN, CGI.QW:iro dt• NLWM 4 d*RK cwrieg 1.w. J e , 4 . , ' =I' = I=1 CI =I ID =I = 1=31 C=1 C , 11 I 1:01 i, kw MN 1I 11 1 I V . LL_11 - ;1 1 11 -- • - • • li r 1 l • ,. 1 • ) 1 I ii . • .1 - 1 t --- - . ., ECE - --- --- . _ 1 . 1 I I L 1 . ' 0 _ _ - i •' - --I k 'N\--....,,,, ,i4s .__ _ _ 1 1 ' • ,,,, ' 1 . ,., I ' k • ow i ‘ 1 • ■ ' INN . 1 , ' _ n 1 1 1 1 1 II=1 I I 1 Hu .1,1 P- mm■ li 1 11/ ii■Ni111■1•1 IMIMPi t N1111■• ' MINIM haiaVIO1111 I; 1 AMU • 1111MIN QM:Ali:N.' - . , ..1. Mawr 0 , . - . iii! 7, allrliill P pi*• (4.' ...... , - c . Y mi-Pz E1 a i 11 711 - man =AMIE MINIM MINI — b ! II MN= =Mr , MOM IM'A ,„.., „ , 1■11111 W [T 1 I C i ' 11111■11 IF , .. . ---i. t,.. INIIIIIIIII • _ 4. IrMi01■11 EtevAlict-is -lob m at. K-IC ---- beneciict associates Inc. _ FITN C-H ,.—, blit -I I i-idfcreg 4 1-1"friks t5. ''''''''' AGA°C14 COLORAGe. 7.7,7 1.11U-il k a�' cwriesz 1 kw - aim archllscisphrinerivaginsersibak4Omponcolondollet1/3031125.3481 — ---- t _ ...., %-. At . -: ' s . PITON CENTUR 4, ,) j = 11= Il= I= g=1 C mia s ‘ 1:= I= NM =II CD = =I =I =5 C APPENDIX • IfTk4I a T4'8 1� • t • , _'. - Office • • �� ning P� � , treet a I � ' r. 130 s r�: ° g } aspen -olora+ 81611 December 12, 1977 Mr. T.Tilliam G. Clark 526 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bill: This letter is to formally notify you that you have completed the approval procedures through the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). These procedures include both the HPC design review (pre - application review and final review /public hearing) and the HPC point allocation under the growth management ordinance. The points allocated by the HPC (13.8) will be forwarded to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) o abeoaddednto the points allocated by that board. P &Z's point be forwarded to Counci for their decision on 1- dlding permit allotments o Sincerely,�� ,° /. John P. Stanfo . d JPS:mc Assistant Planner 6 CI 0 0 0 c- © CI A ID o 0 o v c REFERRAL TO: Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District FROM: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on Sewage Treatment Capacity DATE: 77 The Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment facility by considering excess capacity of the system, location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: ! - !�1I. l i G Referral Submission Date: The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment system. - Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists at the sewage treatment plant and at the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this development. %/ - Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists at the sewage treatement plant or along the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this development. - Substantial impact - this development will over- burden the capacity of the sewer treatement plant or the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line. Comments: Signature /41s Date / 3, El' 7 7 / b /*-1 } ca um ca REFERRAL TO: City of Aspen Water Department FROM: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on the existing water system and capacity DATE: December 12, 1977 The Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the overall capacity of available water and impact on water pressure and the nearest water main or connecting line. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: Proposed Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company Building Referral Submission Date: December 15, 1977 The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment system: - Negligible impact - substantial excess water capacity exists and will not adversly affect water pressure in the vicinity of the nearest water main or connecting water line. 4:1 - Moderate impact - only limited water capacity exists and water pressure will be affected in the nearest water main or connecting water line. _ Substantial impact - this development will overburden the water treatement plant and seriously reduce the pressure in the nearest main or connecting water line. 1 Comments: 1 Si g n a t u r r� � f;���,� =u �t u44 yt42/ 7 ( v`.d4p a t e / 77