HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin Center.1977m- Ern- oa
Pitkin Center, 1977 GMP
w
T�.
a
Qz� c�3/ice
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
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:
Aspen Grove Building
1. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points)
(a) Architectural Design Rating - 2.5 (maximum 3 points) ,
The projects represents a relatively sensitive architectural
design solution given the fact that the project is an expansion
of an existing building that represents several design and struc-
tural givens. The design includes remodeling of the existing
exterior facades to present a cohesive visual appearance.
Factors that affected a reduction from the three point maximum
are massing, architectural detailing and overall architecture.
These points are discussed in the enclosed Planning Office memo
written shortly after HPC's review. (Our 2.5 recommended
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
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.
(c) Energy - Rating 2.0 (maximum of 3 points) ,`
C� The project does not incorporate any sophisticated energy -
saving technology but has adequate insulation and some passive
solar gain through the use of skylights.
A014 0 6
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 pub.l ic.
(e) Visual Impact - Rating 2.5 (maximum of 3 points)
The Project does not visually overpower the prominence of the
historic structures that border the site on the east and 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 has 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 Office 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
above) - rating 4.6 (18% x 25.5 = 4.6)
Our recommended 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
;floor deck and minimal space for trash storage and pickup in
the alley.
5. Total Point Calculation
Net Rating = 25.5 �►
Bonus Rating = 4.6
30.E = Planning Office recommended total'xating
0 •
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 duplicatinq 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 alonq the east subqrade 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
•
i
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 ratina = 5.6
35.0
Planning Office summary of Planning Office recommended points
Aspen Grove Building 30.1 points
Pitkin Center 35.0 points
M E M O R A N D U M
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 code
requirements) following the public hearing. The Planning Office rated
the building with 13.4 points.
lmk
enc.
1,
2,
4.
6.
7.
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: ' Jreiyy / D.
P&Z REVIEW
�o
tic.)�A-; z
V qW qW �•� �F~ ,JQv" Vti
now
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
3�• �
10.
P&Z Growth Management QualitX of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
wit in 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 a.
Comment: Alt
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 a, o
Comment: �S s. <✓� /d_q r Cl/
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rat ng
Comment:
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Comment:
Rating a.
- 4 -
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating -2, S-
Comment : ✓ F 7 C cl�-
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 O
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.
Rati ngS'/
Comment: �q 4� (' �i9 �r � o % ti �i�f�4d.
SUM
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT �' �a '. n
K. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING ?.; z —
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS -7 /. D
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
G
DATE o / q
0 0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
CJ
�o
w
�~ ��J
P&Z
MEMBER
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
w�
q �
4 �C�
' ll
Project Name: bJ ��7t{',I� 151�, •
Date:
Design Element RATING
MASSING
Comment: DaG-s�' 4'fnfi�StL ; - 13� U S
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL d
Comment: '� C;G�i'Y'► ��'
4-A,
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Comment:
COLOR
EW
'tip
�u
q 9
Comment: �. { �til 07
`` Wilk �tE17J7 had-4
1417
G't���Gv✓— L�k LS Ct
ARCHITECTURE
Comment: �LIC�'l��i �7�!' C'�r'✓���LU��L✓
TOTAL Idst
ID 9
Name of person submitting the above rating tk
Project Name:
Date:
Design Element
MASS I NG
Comment: 3
6 �wu
- CAA-- - *J 4 CLI
CQ-
RATING
EXTERIOR BUILDING
MATERIAL
3
Comment:
f J
-frnS6 L—Q _
--�--
('�,-.� PJ1,��1c� 1,.►�n
%
/�, CY
�'P�,�
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL_
Comment: L&X�p�
COLOR ?j
ARCHITECTURE 13
Comment:
TOTAL
Name of perekri subnitriog the above ratino
X--
y
Project Name:"? %'•(rC.�r�1Nti.
Date: NA A
Design Element RATING
r
MASSING ZL S
Comment: ��- wrs � �e� IQ o s cWao0(1,,A L&
J Tel 1 N T a�F �� �7c�L Air L%
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Comment:
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL_ -
Comment: c�L� T��� i�nouN� uV.i-%rvw - -
'+ J �.Q '�. .�.1'f ��o i ►l !. Mod1.R., l,o,J Tt'iw� CabfbArw. Y�N►ivrlcen:
COLOR
Comment:
ARCHITECTURE
Comment:
TOTAL
Name of person submitting the above ritna
Project
Name:
�► n 1 ►e r�
I -f V-
V1
U ►
�J I
v>
Date:
Design Element
RATING
MASSING
Comment:
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Comment:',
E4 V, -e
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
COLOR
,� . 1-4
Comment: n� H e G �� ss _
Comment:
ARCHITECTURE
Comment:
Name of person submitting the above ratinq
TOTAL
1
Project Name:1�,��
v
Date: ag -"7-7
Design Element RATING
MASSING
Comment:
y
i
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
Comment
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL_
Comment:
COLOR,
Comment:• •,2a , �21� L �t_--�r��,—_
ARCHITECTURE
Comment:
-`-TOTAL
Name of person submitting the above rating Cv,_
0 -0
Project Name:
Date: t-'�[
Design Element
MASSING
Comment:
RATING
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL ;5
Comment: L CK
E %�4— /S C
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL,��
Comment: oyoo rr-o �' }T- (� `{fir✓
GUNS
COLOR
Comment: F' ;�F -4+,F \-t�L3-12E-
r
ARCHITECTURE
10
��
Comment: 4 { f> Uirt f-/ `wE
op dLE e=L2L %i i AWOW S I
/�Ma4 U Kfi
TOTAL —6-16
Name of person submitting the above rating /�) 12D ��1�
Project Name: IZ6�w,
Date:
r
Design Element RATING
MADID IV
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
Comment:
COLOR
Comment:
ARCHITECTURE
Comment: �%%C�7 _�11 ?44 Lo
TOTAL
Name of person submitting the above ratinn
i
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GROVTH '1ANAGEMENT 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 _
REVIEW DATE
y
HPC
ME14BER
I
45. v
A '
112,5
A
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGI �' �!, �', ' �� I.�' p�. II�`�• �"
THE COMBINED RATING OF THE HPC AVERAGES
10. P&Z Growth Management Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
wifFin 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
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 2,
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rat inq -2�,15—
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating Z
- 4 -
e)
Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating 3�
Comment:
11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-1 shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a project totally lacking'in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 -'Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on -site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating 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 :25,0
Comment:
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING 13�
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20'/", of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT -00
K. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
2
DATE 111017,7
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
Aq'
Ae
A
r ac.
MEMBER
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
J �.
10. P&Z Growth Management Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects
within the Commercial Core CC and Commercial One C71) 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:
b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rat ng42;
Comment:
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Comment:
Rating
MIM
• •
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
Comment:
11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form
Projects within the CC and C-1 shall be assigned points according to
the following formula:
0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any
housing or uses directed to supplying needs
of local residents
1 -"Indicates a project with its main emphasis
on supplying tourist services with little or
no on -site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses
that will be relied on by both the tourist
and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost
exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com-
munity's residential population with only
incidental tourist use and no tourist housing
being anticipated.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project
supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial
uses.
Rating O
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 andserviceneeds of the
community.
Rating
Comment:
5&'0
12. NET POINTS �/
HPC AVERAGE RATING 13
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING /
NET RATING
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20" of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT_
14. TOTAL POINTS
NAME
NET RATING
BONUS RATING
TOTAL POINTS
RSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE
IN-1Z
1]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
N
V 4� 4� 4�vCi
�Mlm
I
IMMMMMIMM
,
MW
imm
M-M
IMMIMM!
I
MMMMIMMImm-
��Em
MMIMMIM
lm
MM;IMMIMM
IMMMMMIMMIMM
IMMMMMIMMIMM
GROUP RATING —L�
Mimnl=
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES `�
v
4�
10. P&Z Growth Management Qualityof Des n 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.
Rati ng
Comment: �' ��l�l t'�f 't /��-� %"�,�� Y�`",�; i�i� ��✓
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:: A
c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices
and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and
use of solar energy sources.
Rat i ng,;�
Comment: !-� t t /� 1�r L T- N -af r
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating 7�1.
Comment: Q T l- E /2 E ,z¢-�
-4-
• �•
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating ,�2, 6
Comment: -4� ,L1. F_ A i "" y141 .1
r
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 oroject 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.
Comment:
Rating
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING
NET RATING '7
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 200' 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
1.
z.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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: 2/4fa/ c4zl 'F�2
REVIEW DATE:
P&Z REVIEW
P&Z
MEMBER
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
w4
II - I , J // I �, I ), � // I ) ,S 11 , 1 I19-tz
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
����� L�
f )
10. P&Z Growth Management QualitX of Desi n Evaluation Form - Projects
wit in the Commercial Core C 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. 7.Li
Rating_4#w�
Comment: u�, : f'e, fn
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 2=�J
Comment: lbo �� 4_„V t I,
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 '-Z. C.
Comment: G✓00,4 12'9-i; S! ,-L ", -.,.(-c _� i�j ,J
d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Rating
Comment: AJO
- 4 -
e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings
to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating
Comment:
--7
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:
O - 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. O ,
Rating 4
Comment: (_C
.�tr ✓`��,�}�C
- 5 -
12. NET POINTS
i�
HPC AVERAGE RATING
INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING j`�•�
NET RATING Gee-7. 1
13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided
the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality.
BONUS POINT
K. TOTAL POINTS
NET RATING
BONUS RATING Z
TOTAL POINTSj 2 (•
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING:
DATE
- 6 -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
a
P&Z
MEMBER
GROUP RATING
PLANNING OFFICE RATING
THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE P&Z AVERAGES
w4
.c� v
v Q"
0 0
MEMO
TO: JOHN STANFORD
PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: DAVE ELLIS /
ENGINEERING OFFICE v
DATE: November 8, 1977
RE: HPC Review of the Pitkin Center Project
The engineering department has reviewed the proposed
canopy along Hyman and Hunter Streets and feels that con- �tL?,TCK)
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-
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 i
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.
112
0
.
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
Project:
Referral
the proposed project will have the tollowing type of impact on the
capacity of t,eatment 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.
Comments:
Signatu
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.
'LY,Z
61 leto • i � � io"
I
�i
-� -- ��. Irt i� gal I�I II .���fili�+► �ibAm
� r r i r r i r r r r r r� r■
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,
illiam G. Clark
i�, • .11 � • it it
Nit
■ i i i i WE ON i WE WE MGM WE i i ■
•
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT
For the Proposed
PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY BUILDING
Aspen, Colorado
a
d ! = M = M = = M M % = = i = ■
GROWTN'F1ANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION REPORT
COMMERCIAL SECTION
Project Name: Proposed Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company Building
2. Location: Lots R & S, Block 94, Aspen Townsite, NW corner Hyman Ave.
and Hunter ree .
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.
Suhmi(A.al Data: December 15, 1977
i
■ MEN WE ON M OR ON O ON Nam M M ME
•
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-l" (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
M
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.
■ i■ i i i i i i i� i i i i■
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.
Owl
VA 141
■ M M M M 11W M M M NbM M M M■
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.
J
.�L
■ M = = M 11M = = m ob= = = M ■
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.
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
r
THE JEROME
HOTEL
ASPEN
_ ; � � .r _.- L; I � I� Ill — - - •— - _—'_
r
fl•ow••�••a•o••■•i • ' - _ CITY HALL � •• - -- J --�
PROPOSEDFWIEE
27RA tHR NK PITKIN COUNTY BA & TRUST CO
OPERA OUSE _ I rj � 1 -
_ -" BUILDING
_ •�✓ U _ E _ ��� •
e THE
ASPEN MALL
WAGNE1 — I —_
BR
R gSTR BOUNDARY
ON x
PARK I) I _�:� — r I` `�
— i
n.
'• �� _ , - ram• - - /- r r I� � l� � � -,� �- -�� � �� � 7�r
_7
u
_.
LITTLE NELL _ d
Nc: ]— --r � SKI SLOPE _ _ , •
' z
i N > FL
VICINITY MAP o, sheets
ialaN■■■NONNro�NN■■■N■■■■ No■■■■■■■lM■■■/�iw- __.' LPU i - - ■■■■■■� ; -_ /; L/ ,P..
memo Now
pow millms""wous • --may ... _ �.....�
1 �-
■
■
4
■.
■saw M■■■■■■■ ... -
Isommummons"
■
ME a
s.....�;
------------
: ; ; 1 ■ ; ■
m moos
• ■ ■ ■ ■ __ a
■ ■ ■ ■ ■._
: ■ a ■ ■
�NUN■NNan In, P ... is■a■■■■wuN■Wr■� _ •
_ i ■
• _ � i irN■■■■o■.■■awsr■orww■.■■NN■NN� NYW:o■rur■u■N■ .. i N■i ■ ----,
■Alt■llW■W■L■a/NIWWWWW■■ ... - ■
l■ l■ali■ _- —_
■■..N■.a•� C LNOW r SPA
■.■W■NNw ■■■N■■■■YNN■■NY� -
:_. y: �■ _
�2 a mime:
.■Na>r � -� - -, r■■■,fir
J_:
FL 27
�s�'
ZONING MAP
5
s
a
W
c.i
g�
i
u
Y
a=
of sheets
RIO GRANDE a i
HUNTER CREEK — RIG GRANDE ;
TRAILS-__ PARKING LOT I
a,
••«.wJ. .............., -. .
..««f1!•L •• fy"Olk ... lt. •...••.L -•w •• •�••••t_�..........s•_ w•yN vw«www ww•w«•_� •w w«wwww•www
••..•...• ..............t...• ....w«.............. «••••••N�YY«.�.( • rc..r «NNN•N•`«NN.n..M«.
If
.i...............................».«...«+..........:.........N.».........� • r-- �— —
_
PEDESTRIAN MALL ?-
FUBEV PARK Q
L TRANSIT TERMINAL I '.- _ - '•1}' SI
•�...............................•««N�...•Y•.. ......... _«N .••••NN•w.•.N«N«.NNw•N.«..« ••••.Nfi.«• «.•i..... .•��••« iN«
LIFT 4 ASPEN FREE TRANSIT
i
- i `•I BUS LINES .............. r 8 r
w
-
7
A- ..
LIFT to
TRANSPORTATION & TRAILS MAP o, sheet,
HoPKINS sT
1
1
1
1
1
1
W
Z9
T 1 T T
55 6A D — G 55 G � 4 55 N
E E E E E
$p
l
gN qY F
12
HYMAN 'SIT.
-
Q 9�9�
1-4-rE �oTa d d
.J/G•.4-
FL+-�.c n«e. rVTo DS3o• i°wv'ti..�.+rne..s�
L
of slwb
i
i^
I I i
�y
Et
MAIM L�v�� I.AN 3•�� l�We� l.evEl. Pi -AN .��d
0 5 l0 20 , 4' ��
ZY
s
f
RGt�F PLAN M �ZZANINE PLAN _ ,
. r.. yr . r+
0 5 i0 20 of L4- afMrts
I
nn
w �s-t El.�va� otil
1p
1
1
1
1
r-A6T L�,GVA-j10N
0 5 �o zD
■ ON OR ON M% M r OR = 7= = NO i■
APPENDIX
if
Aspen/Pi1
130 s
aspen
.ng Of f ice
:reet
1611
December 12, 1977
Mr. .4illiam 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) to be added to the
points allocated by that board. P&Z's point allocation will then
be forwarded to the City Council for their decision on r,:.lding
permit allotments for this year, 1977.
Sincerely,
JPS:mc John P. Stanfofd
Assistant Planner
N = = M = I%= M = = me= = = = 0
REFERRAL
TO: Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
FROM: Aspen/Pi.tkin Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Impact on Sewage Treatment Capacity
DATE:
1'3Ec 13 I177
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: !' ITILI -*✓ C, NT, e-,
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 Date l 3 Oi ? 7
JFM 26-m- M M M A
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.
Comments:
Signatu
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.
)ate /Z /