Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.425 Rio Grande Place.006.2015.ASLU0006.2015.ASLU 130 S. GALENA ST PC) AMENDMENT GALENA PLAZA 2737 07 306 852 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0006.2015.ASLU 273707306852 130 S GALENA SARA NADOLNY PD AMENDMENT JOHN LAATCH 03/02/2015 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 5/2/15 PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site -specific development plan. and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title ,24, Article 68. Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- ing to the following described property: Parcel ID I #273707306852, legally described as Lot 2 of the Amended Rio Grande SubdHision, City and Town - site of Aspen, Pitldn County, Colorado: commonly known as Galena Plaza at 425 Rio Grande PI. The applicant, City of Aspen. was granted approval for an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Devel- opment Approval to upgrade the plaza area with a new drainage system, electical1lighting a Gsystene al teneced ame concrete paverwalkways With n eaters seating. lawn area with de I sanl- era landscaping and irrigation system, upg Lary and alley andwer 5yst eat ci culation, a Si ll stop, one -way -way y tied structure for the existing garage elevator astairwand plaza evel to the Rio Grande r airand an enhance I tot e e ar plicant will also be performing repairs to the olin ing garage and installing a new tc ed in I e lend membral�ct+taneon filegwith the Crty of Aspen. For use apP tad Sara NadoIny at the CrtY further mfonnation con S of Aspen Community Do a �970) 429-2739 30 ra Galena St.. Aspen, publlished in The Aspen Times on March 5, 2015. (1og969961 16?1� Af 0 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: . Q �t-25. o —1 V Aspen, CO STATE OF COLOR -ADO ) ) ss. CountN, of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V6.Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 5 day of , 201j, by �-C.�, S WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: IN16 I VYoV,�U, LA — I Notary Public KAREN REED PATTERSON NOTARY PUBLIC ATTACHMENTS: STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19964002767 COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Commission ExpirQs February 15, 2016 0 • NOTICE OF APPROVAL For an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Approval at 425 Rio Grande Place, commonly known as Rio Grande Plaza, and legally described as Lot 2 of the Amended Rio Grande Subdivision Parcel ID No.: 273707306852 APPLICANT: City of Aspen John Laatsch, Project Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT & SITE OF AMENDMENT: Galena Plaza 425 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a number of improvements to Galena Plaza which involve the reconstruction of North Galena Street and Library Alley. Proposed improvements include structural repair of the parking garage, improvements to the sanitary and storm sewers, an enhanced green space for public use, updated infrastructure and access plan for automobile circulation in the plaza area, and an enhanced pedestrian environment. BACKGROUND: Galena Plaza is Lot 2 of the Amended Rio Grande Subdivision, and is zoned Public (PUB) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. In 1998 City Council granted approval of a Conceptual SPA Plan for Rio Grande Place via Resolution No. 37. City Council granted Final Spa and GMQS Exemption approval for the Pitkin County Library, parking facility and transportation center at Rio Grande Plaza via Resolution 3, Series of 1989. Planning and Zoning Commission granted Special Review approval and a recommendation for Growth Management approval to City Council via Resolution No. 26, Series of 1993. The approval allowed the reduction of required parking space and open space, and a floor area bonus for the Galena Plaza Building expansion. City Council approved the Growth Management request for Commercial/Office development allotments in the Commercial Core via Resolution No. 85, Series of 1993. City Council also granted a three-year vested rights approval for a site -specific development plan for Galena Plaza via Ordinance No. 64, Series of 1993. The Amended Rio Grande Subdivision and Pitkin County Center Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment Plat was recorded in 2002 at Book 61, Page 19. RECEPTION#: 617738, 03/02/2015 at 03:37:47 PM, 1 OF 5, R $31.00 Doc Code APPROVAL 1 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO • 0 CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a number of enhancements to Rio Grande Plaza that include: - Repair to the garage structural double tee members, as required; - The expansion of the garage roof which will provide additional green space and an overlook area; - Installation of a new waterproofing membrane; - Installation of a new plaza drainage system; - Installation of a new electrical/lighting system; - Concrete paver walkways with snowmelt; - A central lawn area with terraced amphitheater seating; - Landscaping and irrigation system; - Porous paving system; - Upgraded sanitary and storm sewer systems; - A new shuttle bus stop; - One-way alley and street circulation; - A simplified structure for the existing garage elevator; and - An enhanced staircase linking the plaza level to the Rio Grande Park level. REVIEW PROCEDURE: • Insubstantial Amendments (to a Planned Development approval). Galena Plaza is part of the larger Rio Grande Specially Planned Area (SPA), which is now under the Planned Development (PD) of the Land Use Code. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review or an approved Detailed Review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the criteria found in Section 26.445.100 of the Land Use Code, and included as Exhibit B to this memo. STAFF EVALUATION: The criteria for granting an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development is based largely on the scope of proposed changes in relation to the original conditions of approval. The 1988 Conceptual SPA approval for the Rio Grande parking facility's rooftop plaza states: "The roof of the parking facility should be a people place with landscaping and not considered for parking. It is important that this area be designed so that it does not become a dead space." The proposed enhancements to Galena Plaza strive to meet this condition. The Galena Plaza project is focused on improving pedestrian circulation, safety and overall experience at the plaza area. Proposed changes include the creation of snow -melted colored concrete paver walkways to better delineate between the designated pedestrian and vehicular circulation areas. The walkway will wrap around the green space, extending to Mill St. and to the plaza stairway. Programming will include one-way auto traffic around to Library Alley to provide increased safety and predictability for pedestrians, and a bus stop for the Galena Plaza shuttle to provide service to and from the plaza. The proposed central green space will host amphitheater -style terraced seating that faces to the north. This green space will be available for use by the general public, and will be ideal for events as it will accommodate a 40'x 60' tent. An overlook area is being proposed for the 2 • 0 northern edge of the green space providing views to the Rio Grande Park below and Red Mountain to the north. Adjacent to the stairway is an existing gabled structure housing the entrances to the parking garage elevator and interior stairway. This structure is proposed to be simplified with less bulk and a more clearly defined elevator/stairwell entrances. The newly proposed shelter will be angled, and reach approximately 17' 6" at its highest point. Further proposed improvements include an upgraded electrical system with a computer controlled outdoor lighting system. Staff has reviewed the lighting plan and finds the proposed lighting (part of Exhibit C) to be in compliance with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. No additional parking is proposed as part of this application. Staff finds the proposed enhancements to Galena Plaza to meet the criteria for an Insubstantial Amendment. The project provides valuable enhancements to a space that is currently under- utilized, and may aid in creating a more vibrant plaza space. Matters concerning the structural repair of the garage, waterproofing membrane, drainage system, landscaping and irrigation, porous and snow -melted paving systems, and sanitary/storm sewers are beyond the review scope of the City's Planning Department, and the applicant will need to meet the adopted code requirements of Engineering, Sanitation, Electric, Parks, Utility, and all other applicable City departments. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the application for an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development, as noted above, to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit B) and thereby, APPROVES the request. APPROVED BY: Yoe Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A: Site Plan (Recorded) Exhibit B: Review Criteria/Staff Findings (In file) Exhibit C: Application (In file) i � � / `0 �. • . DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308,010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Lot 2 of the Amended Rio Grande Subdivision, PID # 273707306852, commonly described as Rio Grande Plaza, 425 Rio Grande Place, Aspen CO. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant has been approved for an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Approval. The proposal includes plans for structural repair of the parking_garage, improvements to the sanitary and storm sewers at the plaza, enhanced green space for public use, updated walkways around the plaza programming involving auto circulation and a new bus stop, and a new electrical/lightingplan. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Administrative Approval from the Community Development Director received on February 24, 2015 Land Use Approvals) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) March 5.2015 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) March 6, 2018 Expiration Date of Development Order ("The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 24th day of February, 2015, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director z G u Exhibit 13 Review Criteria Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria: 1. The request does not change the use or character of the development. Staff Response: Galena Plaza currently contains circulation elements for both autos and pedestrians, and also a park/open space with benches and an amphitheater. The space also has an awning over the parking pass/elevator and stair area. These elements will be maintained but enhanced with this proposal, with the addition of bike lanes. There are no changes to the use or character proposed to Galena Plaza as a result of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a number of improvements to Galena Plaza, including the reconstruction of North Galena Street and Library Alley. The applicant has proposed plans to enhance the staircase between the plaza and Rio Grande Park level, a garage roof expansion to provide additional open space, an update amphitheater space, and a simplified structure for the existing garage elevator. The 1988 approval for the Rio Grande parking facility's rooftop plaza notes "The roof of the parking facility should be a people place with landscaping and not considered for parking. It is important that this area be designed so that it does not become a dead space. " The enhancements proposed for Galena Plaza will serve pedestrians by improving walkways and creating a more attractive space for users. The amphitheater will serve as a meeting space and a place to host community events. The redesign includes a plan to better define and simply the elevator and stairway area from the plaza down to the park level. All proposed changes are in line with project's original approval, and will not be used for parking. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area. Staff Response: There are no variations from allowed uses nor a request for all increase in the allowed height or floor area associated with this proposed project. Staff' finds this criterion to be met. 4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to dimensional requirements associated with this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending. Staff Response: The applicant has not submitted an application for Detailed Review at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. • • February 20, 2015 Sara M. Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Sara, Z= The renovations at Galena Plaza and the recent changes at Rio Grande Park are creating a significant pedestrian connection between the Downtown Core and riverfront. Galena Plaza will serve as a major point of interest for visitors and residents, and will help update a critical piece of infrastructure in the City. Improving pedestrian connectivity and safety is a common design goal shared by both the Galena Plaza and Rio Grande Park projects. Trail use within Rio Grande Park is consistently high, day and night. Rio Grande Park is being utilized for an ever-increasing number of special events and the John Denver Sanctuary draws high levels of visitation. Theatre Aspen presents evening performances during the summer from mid -June through mid -August, which brings numerous patrons into the park after sunset on a nearly nightly basis. As a result of current general use levels, appropriate pedestrian lighting within the park is necessary for public safety. A similar need for a safe pedestrian night-time pedestrian environment exists at Galena Plaza. A luminaire system consisting of an indirect 53-Watt source and downward reflector, power supply, pole, and wi-fi control has been proposed for use within Galena Plaza and Rio Grande Park. This pedestrian - scaled luminaire system meets the intent of the Aspen dark -sky code text as well as adds significantly to the quality of light in the area surrounding both Galena Plaza and Rio Grande Park. As noted in 26.412.070.C, Aspen emphasizes the quality (not quantity) of light and recognizes that well -lit areas can create pedestrian interest. In addition, use of these luminiares unifies the two parks, creating a consistent design vernacular and emphasizes the pedestrian corridor. The proposed Poulsen Nest luminaires have a BUG rating of Bl-U2-G1, and although they have a small uplight component, it is less than 801m/4%. The maximum candela value of this uplight component is 1.5Cd at 180 degrees. Since measured light on a surface falls off per the square of the distance, the effective range of any visible light on airborne particulate is less than 6 feet above the fixture (at 6' above the fixture if you placed a piece of paper and measured the light on it, you would get about 0.042 footcandles). (0.04167FC=(1.5Cd/62). Two (2) mockups of the luminaire have been installed at Galena Plaza since May 2014, garnering positive public response, and they have also been used successfully in Glenwood Springs (Is' Bank) and Leadville (CMC Campus). The design character of the fixture is both modern and organic, with clean lines and a form that relates to tree canopies within the park. The luminaires create a soft quality of light due to the indirect reflector, and are essentially glare -free. The high color rendition (CRI) of the LED source also improves visual acuity and allows for a comparatively lower light level than typically Alpenglow Lighting Design, Inc. 4341 CR 113, Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)948-2637 Page 1 of 2 used with arc sources. These Poulsen Nest luminaires contrast the shortcomings of the City's historical luminaires, which are accepted as having poor, glary optics and low color rendition. The proposed new fixtures not only match the character of surrounding trees, but also use long -life LED lamps, reduce glare, improve pedestrian's visual acuity with lower overall light levels and improved uniformity, and are cost-effective. At Rio Grande Park, a second pedestrian lighting solution has been proposed to compliment the Poulsen Nest luminaires, which is the integration of LED down light into the masonry columns at each of the major pedestrian bridges within the park. One (1) pedestrian bridge out of five (5) bridges within the park has already been lit in this way with success. Overall, the design team feels that this proposed lighting solution and specific application of the Poulsen Nest luminaire offers a suitable optical train and design style that improves the visitor's experience in two of Aspen's most important park spaces. Attached are the manufacturer's cutsheet (annotated), compliance certificate, photo of the mockup fixture, and photo of the existing bridge columns. Sincerely, Aoo�j ��� Aaron J. Humphrey, LC President Alpenglow Lighting Design, Inc. Alpenglow Lighting Design, Inc. 4341 CR 113, Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)948-2637 Page 2 of 2 a • LP Nest LP NEST -LED Product description LP Nest • PRODUC-I' SPECIFICA'110N ,y S.. Design Bystrup Architects Concept The fixture emits an indlrecl. sort and symmetrical light Reflections in the "lattice" create an attractive play of light within the fixture Finish Natural painted aluminum or graphite grey, powder coated. Material Top shade Spun aluminum. Enclosure: Clear glass. Reflector Anodized aluminum. Framework. Die cast aluminum. Mounting Post top- Mounted on round straight aluminum (RSA) pole Weight Max 10 Its. Label cULus. Wet Location. IBEW Rodun Code Ilxjx sauce Voaage Fresh Elennc shodi protedbri d. Opoora PNEST-P7 G72120.277V GRAPH NOT APPLICABLE DIMMING /70W/CMH/T-6 G72 NAT PAINT ALU SURGE PROTECTOR DYNADIMMER [111"ICMH,1,1 OW LED 1000x US NOT APPLICABLE OW LED 40DOK US Spec, Tic n ti o n rot es a. CMH variants Provided with one 120-277V electron¢ tallest to be mounted m the pole b. LED variants provided with one 120-277V elactlonK driver to be masted in the Pole c All LED wattages era system power. d Dimming oplron rs only available fa 15OW and fa LED variants. e. Dy ad,mma"' aPtton ,s only available for 150W and for LED variants. f Dynadimmer" wovided with dim made ballast (CMH variant) or dimmable driver (LED vanant) Inlonotes I. Fa pole selocim. Toler to Pole page. II. The comparable FU version has the following cossification Ingress Protection Code: IP66. III. LED tedmology, b rapidly changing Specifications are based on present tedxrology. For most up to date 4—hietions see —w li uaPoulsen.mn M. Dynadim i- will be programmed at the factory. Programming information required from the customer is available in the Specification sheets. V Fa wireless control oplon. please consua filmy 1/3 yu Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I it 333311 PH:954-349-2525 I Fax: 954-349-2550 1 louispoulsen.com u U LP Nest LP NEST -LED Material description PRODUCT SPECIFICATION NOTES. LED TECHNOLOGY 15 RAPIDLY CHANGING, LEDS ARE MADE IN LOTB AND SORTED INTO BINS RABE.D ON WAVELENGHT3 RANGSS THAT ACHIEVE COLORS PRODUCTS ORDERED AT DIFFERENT TIMES MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME COLOR APPEREANCE WINDLOADING. EPA = 1.7 Sq. F1 ELECTRICAL P PROVIDED WIT FOR NBTALLI 45' POLES WI1 DIAMETER OF SPUN ALUMINUM TOP SHADE WITH WHITE PANT FINISH CAST ALUMINUM HOUfSNG'WITH POWDER COATED FINISH (NATURAL PAINTED ALUMd1UM OR GRAPHITE GREY I CLEAR GLASS LED ENCLOOURE SSW LED, CCT 4000K OR 3000K !IXW SYSTEM POWER CONSUMPTION) ALUMINUM HEAT 3W CAST ALUMINUM TENON ELECTRONIC DRIVER FOR I2D.2T7V OPERATION SURGE PROTECTOR WITH 10,0000A CURRENT RATING (PROVIDED PER REC XEST) Iw. 2/1 Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I FL 333311 PH:954-349-2525 I Fax: 954-349-2550 1 loulspoulsen.com LP Nest LP NEST -LED PRODUC-F SPFCIFICAI ION Light Measurements PhotameUK Report: tP NFSI'07?Afl) Report t, i ': I?A Poul:m Report Na LP NUI Dow LLD Larm811e: tF l.i.;• Lamp z0v?;,tru, 40WI1 DescrlpW: AM data :hour, if,; pet ?00 lumen;. Thu repal ran the uscd I(A c laila0or on rl vw..om toted helow L:.: -WAY xl,.al lumen Ha10 alab)l.oq O 757 15 7594 25 7323 35 082.7 .5 805 5 487.3 t15 I 351.9 75 ( 197.E 90 23.2 20 ' 3.3 50 10 7 -� 0-20 2049 NA. 1080 0.30 626 72 N.A 23.50 Od0 ID54 16 N A. 3950 0E0 1M5 93 N A. 73. 50 0-80 2512 39 N A. 9440 o-90 25412 W N A 97 DO 10-90 25077 N A 94 20 20-40 76567 NA 2a 00 M50 12319 NA 4630 40.70 1249.21 N A 46. 90 60.80 5E4 96 N A 20 90 7080 2D9. 51 N A. 7.90 6P90 69 11 N A 2.50 90_i to 4744 NA 160 90.120 73 99 NA 2 80 90-130 73.99 NA 2.8C 90-153 78.97 NA 3.00 90-t a0 80 SE NA 3.a0 110-150 32 93 NA 1..0 D-180 2642.36 NA 100.30 WIfliAW CLASSFICATION SYSTEM (LCS) These two small "bumps" are the uplight component. This graph is to scale, indicating 766.6Cd at 0 degrees and 3.3Cd at 120 degrees. The 1.5Cd at 180 degrees is too small to print. Luntims % Lamp % Lunuu re FL - Fran -Low (0-301 3134 N A. tie FM - Front-M uii,n (30-80) t104.a NA 25.0 FH - Front -High le0-80) 278.5 N A. 10.5 FVH - From -Very High (80-90) 346 NA. 1 3 BL- Back -Low (DJ0) 3134 WA it BM - Back -Medium (30-00) 6648 N-A. 25.0 BH - Back -High (00-80) 278.5 N A. 105 BVH - Back -Very Hgh ("0) 34.8 N A 1 3 UL - Uptight -Low (90.1 OD) 30.6 N A- 1.2 UH- Uptight-Htigh (100-180) 40.B N.A. 1.0 Total 26e2.6 N A. 1000 BUG RaLng 131-U2-G1 POUISW Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I FL 33331 1 PH:954-349-2525 1 Fax: 954-349.2550 1 lou¢poulsen.com • • COMcheck Software Version 3.9.4 Exterior Lighting Compliance Certificate 2009 IECC Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title: GALENA PLAZA/RIO GRANDE GARAGE Exterior Lighting Zone: 2 (Neighborhood business tlistrict) Construction Site: Owner/Agent: Designer/Contractor: ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN AARON HUMPHREY ASPEN, CO 81611 4341 CR 113 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 970-948-2637 AARON @ALPENGLOWINC.COM Section 2: Exterior Lighting Area/Surface Power Calculation A B C D E F Exterior Area/Surface Quantity Allowed Tradable Allowed Proposed Watts Wattage Watts Watts / Unit (B x C) Special feature area 61883 112 0.14 Yes 8664 1380 Total Tradable Watts' = 8664 1380 Total Allowed Watts = 8664 Total Allowed Supplemental Watts" - 600 Wattage tradeoffs are only allowed between tradable areas/surfaces. " A supplemental allowance equal to 600 watts may be applied toward compliance of both non -tradable and tradable areas/surfaces. Section 3: Exterior Lighting Fixture Schedule A B C D E Fixture ID : Description / Lamp / Wattage Per Lamp / Ballast Lamps/ N of Fixture (C X D) Fixture Fixtures Watt. Special feature area (61883 fl2): Tradable Wattage LED 1: S1: SITE POLE: LED Roadway -Parking Unit 54W 1 21 60 1260 LED 2: LED Other Fixture Unit 6.5W: 1 12 10 120 Total Tradable Proposed Watts = 1380 Section 4: Requirements Checklist Lighting Wattage: u 1. Within each non -tradable area/surface, total proposed walls must be less than or equal to total allowed watts. Across all tradable areas/surfaces, total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed watts. Compliance: Passes, Controls, Switching, and Wiring: U 2. All exemption claims are associated with fixtures that have a control device independent of the control of the nonexempt lighting. U 3. Lighting not designated for dusk -to -dawn operation is controlled by either a a photosensor (with time switch), or an astronomical time switch. U 4. Lighting designated for dusk -to -dawn operation is controlled by an astronomical time switch or photosensor. o 5. All time switches are capable of retaining programming and the time setting during loss of power for a period of at least 10 hours. Project Title: Report date: Data filename: A:\Alpenglow\Projecls\Active Projects\City of Aspen\Galena Plaza\Design\Caics\GALENA PLAZA.cck Page 1 of 2 Exterior Lighting Efficacy: U 6. All exterior building grounds luminaires that operate at greater than 100W have minimum efficacy of 60 lumen/watt. Exceptions: ❑ Lighting that has been claimed as exempt and is identified as such In Section 3 table above. U Lighting that is specifically designated as required by a health or life salety statue, ordinance, or regulation. 0 Emergency lighting that is automatically off during normal building operation. Lj Lighting that is controlled by motion sensor. Section 5: Compliance Statement Compliance Statement. The proposed exterior lighting design represented In this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed lighting system has been designed to meet the 2009 IECC requirements In COMchockVersion 3.9.4 and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. Aaron J. Humphrey A•"` 10/21/14 Name - Title Signature Date Project Title: `i Report date: Data filename: A:\Aipenglow\Project"ctive Projects\City of Aspen\Galena Plaza\Design\Caics\GALENA PLAZA.cck Page 2 of 2 r .. 1. tat �M J • ti 4 POI ft- u • ":�'�► ... '. .tom` • OF 3 � DOC 767933 B-744 P-629 03/16/94 11:06A PG 1 15.0C? SILVIA DAVIS PITYIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER ORDINANCE NO.64 (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, VESTING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE GALENA PLAZA SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL LOCATED AT 420 E. MAIN STREET (E• HALFTO{OF LOT OF ASPEN). L OF LOTS M-S, BLOCK 86, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Galena Plaza expansion on November 16, 1993, and approved, in conjunction with growth management scoring, special reviews for a reduction of eleven parking spaces, reduction of approximately 500 square feet of open space, and a floor area bonus of approximately 790 square feet; and WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.93-26 documents the growth management scoring and special review approvals; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 1993, the City Council granted approval of Resolution NO.93-85 for a 4,400 square foot commercial/office growth management allocation for an expansion of the Galena Plaza project; and WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was submitted to the Planning office within the growth management application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1 0 • 367933 6-744 P-630 03/16/94 11:O6A PG 2 OF 3 section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Galena Plaza site specific development plan as follows: elopmen 1. The rights granted by the ordinance shall specific remadinv vested d tuntil approved by November 16, 1996. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shll b ewsubject to all rights of referendum and judicial 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances approvals are the Cnot ity provided that such reviews or inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised statutes, pertaining to the following ua described property: N 367933 8-744 P-631 (0/16/94 11:06A PG 3 OF 3 The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 3: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14-1 day of199� at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1993. Joh Bennett, May — Kathryn S ooh, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this / �j% day of -2 199W. John ennett, Mayor AAT T: L./ Kathryn S. ooh C ty Clark 3 Memorandum From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Development Engineer City of Aspen Engineering Department To: Sara Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen Planning Department Date: March 2, 2015 RE: Galena Plaza Engineering Comments Drainage The project coordination has been completed during revisions and updates to the City of Aspen URMP. The drainage report does not reflect the current URMP revisions effective October 2014. This review has been completed based on previous requirements, but it is strongly suggested that revisions be made in accordance with current URMP with regards to detention requirements, and hydrologic modeling. As Galena Plaza is located within the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin it will not be required to provide stormwater detention, but should instead focus on water quality. The following are items to be reviewed/completed with the resubmittal in accordance with the Major Impact Review Checklist. 1. City of Aspen differentiates between Historic and Existing. Per the URMP, detention is designed utilizing "Historic" defined as preconstruction in accordance with section 5.2. Since this property is not required to provide detention a historic analysis will not be required, but this definition should be noted for future projects. 2. Provide calculation summary tables for Water Quality elements. 3. Provide discussion on the Nine Principles and how they are addressed. See section 8.2 of the URMP. 4. Update hydrology and hydraulic calculations to reflect correct soil type and equations. Type B soils are identified in the soils report but the equation for runoff coefficients utilized is for type CD soils. 5. No street inlet design details provided for capture, flowby or sizing. Detail the tributary area, ponding depth, adjacent impacts, etc. 6. In regards to the pervious pavers show the correlation with the manufacturer design capacities and the computed design capacities to verify accuracy. 7. Permeable paver design needs to be translated to construction documents, and vice versa. The CD's utilize a V channel conveyance in the pavers, how is that being accounted, typical paver design utilize sheet flow for spread dispersion. 8. Show sub basins W5a and W5b. According to the report these are the only two basins which drain to the rain gardens. Clearly show the grading of these two sub basins and demonstrate all runoff will enter the rain gardens. It appears the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the east of the rain gardens is the only tributary area to the rain gardens. Show the tributary areas and demonstrate the rain gardens are not oversized. 9. The pervious paver alley, rain gardens, and the associated tributary areas are the only areas that are treated for water quality. This leaves all of basins N and B untreated (about 11,926 sf of imperviousness). Is there a way for this area to be treated for water quality? 10. If detention is to be incorporated into the bioretention areas provide a controlled outlet release and control the outflow rate to the pre-existing (pre any development) condition. If the bioretention basins are to treat solely the WQCV ensure there is sufficient volume below the basin overflow. 11. The proposed invert within the pervious pavers seems counter intuitive to the absorption water quality benefit of the pervious pavers necessary for the project. Provide detail on how this will function correctly or provide concrete conveyance pan. Site Plan 1. Update detail sheets with construction comments per plan set. Include construction level details for individual bioretention pond locations. 2. Update detailed grading with additional spot elevations necessary for construction purposes. Reference sheet comments for multiple location examples. 3. Demolition — Removal of existing stripping shall be completed by grinding. 4. HC parking unloading zone does not appear to meet ADA standards. Provide parking in accordance to ADA standards. i.e. Single stall HC parking requires Van unloading. a. Typically single spot handicap parking space requires I F van width and designation and an 8' access aisle preferably located on the passenger side b. Only enough room for one van handicap parking space 5. Stall adjacent to HC only accommodates 14.9' after wheel stop, which does not meet COA standards. 6. Show sawcut extents for existing asphalt and patching. 7. Verify the emergency drive isle proposed construction material meets the load requirements for emergency vehicles — provide turning movements for the corner with parked cars for emergency vehicles under dry conditions and snow conditions (require 20' fire access width). Review signage plan for redundancy in signs, or placement where they may not be appropriate — one way lane does not require two stop signs 0 n U 9. Why is the replacement loop detection on Galena at Main being proposed as an electrical loop. The loop is under multiple surface types including pervious pavers. Provide insulating detail or review alternate traffic detection, i.e. video camera - that may be more applicable to the situation. 10. Specify striping type and construction specifications. 11. Maintain a minimum 5' wide walkway at the pinch points behind the back -in parking spaces. Place parking wheel stops to maintain the sidewalk width. 12. Provide a detail and demonstrate the wheel stops are structurally secured. Due to the pervious paver subgrade base there is concern for winter maintenance. How are the wheel stops secured to prevent a snow plow from tearing up the wheel stops and surrounding pavers? 13. At the corner of the alley and Galena St differentiate between the drivable area and walkway with a bollard. 14. Demonstrate how the proposed grade will tie in to the existing grade at the concrete pad of the bank drivethrough. Tie in contour lines on the grading sheet and extend the cross section at station 51+57 to show connection to the existing grade. 15. On the roadway cross sections on pages C2.72 through C2.76 call out all sidewalk cross slopes. 16. Include a note which states the information source for existing utility depths. Update the utility cross sections based on information obtained from pot holing. 17. All grates and access lids located within the alley must be bike -friendly. Provide a bike - friendly grate detail. 18. The proposed sidewalk plan shall be altered to meet ADA requirements along the corner of the alley and Mill St. 19. Provide a centerline profile of the sidewalk along the alley. Continue the profile as the sidewalk turns on Mill St. The entire sidewalk needs to meet ADA standards. 20. Include perpendicular cross sections of the sidewalk, alley, and road every 5' as it turns on the corner of the alley and Mill St. Callout road and sidewalk cross slopes. 21. Ensure there is an ADA compliant path to the library entrance from the ramp on the north side of the alley and Mill St intersection. The path may be either on the sidewalk that bears NE directly toward the entrance or travel east along the sidewalk adjacent to the alley and turn along the sidewalk which bears NW to the library entrance. 22. Call out the slopes of the ramps located on the NE and SE corners of the alley and Mill St. intersection. RESOLUTION NO. 37 (Series of 1988) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN FOR THE RIO GRANDE PARCEL WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter "Council") has reviewed the Conceptual SPA Plan for the Rio Grande (hereinafter "Plan") at public hearings held on September 26, October 10 and October 17, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Conceptual SPA Plan for the Rio Grande through its Resolution No. 88-6; and WHEREAS, in September of 1987, the Council endorsed and the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element (hereinafter "Transportation Plan") which identified appropriate concepts for the Rio Grande property; and WHEREAS, in the Spring of 1988, RFTA and the Council retained the services of a consulting team headed by RNL Design of Denver to develop appropriate physical and financial alternatives for a parking facility on the Rio Grande property; and WHEREAS, based on their review of the Conceptual SPA Plan for the Rio Grande property, the Council makes the following findings: Parking - The City Council concurs with P&Z that the parking facility should be hidden from view and allow the potential for other transportation related uses. 0 0 Library/other Public Buildings - The City Council supports the conceptual location of the library. The idea of hiding development or minimizing the visual impact of development may not be an appropriate concept for important public buildings, such as the Library or the Arts buildings. These buildings should be attractive and designed in a manner which indicates the buildings' importance to the community. Additionally, setting back the Library from Mill Street to avoid the "canyon effect" which could occur because of the location and height of the Jerome is an idea which may be overstated. The Council finds that creating activity on the Mill Street streetscape by setting the library close to the sidewalk is important. The Council finds that Galena Street will become an important pedestrian connection between the Rio Grande (Library, Arts, River) and the Mall/downtown area. Therefore, pedestrian access should be improved between the downtown and the river using Galena Street and continuing the pedestrian treatment through the Rio Grande to the river. In order to ensure this pedestrian flow the architectural element on top of the parking facility roof which covers the stairwell and elevator shaft should be located off the Galena Street corridor. 2 • 0 Plaza - The roof of the parking facility should be a people place with landscaping and not considered for parking. It is important that this area be designed so that it does not become a dead space. Teen Center - The City Council finds that the Teen Center is an important community function and directs staff to develop building designs associated with the parking facility plaza. Transit Shuttle - The Council believes that a shuttle corridor which continues north on Galena Street along the east side of the parking facility can avoid some of the traffic congestion associated with Mill Street. Circulation - The Council finds that, if possible, Spring Street should be located to allow for the possibility of a gas station associated with the Cap's property. The location of Spring Street should not negatively effect Cap's business. Snowdump/Snowmelt - The Council finds the land use impact of a snowdump unacceptable and in an effort to reduce that impact will install a snowmelt machine(s) in the northwest embankment of the impound lot area. 3 0 • Impound Lot - The Council finds that the impound lot is an unacceptable use of the Rio Grande property and will relocate it as soon as possible. Revegetation - The snowdump and impound lot areas should be revegetated to enhance the park aspects of the Rio Grande site. This should be done as soon as the snowdump and impound lot uses are eliminated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Council does hereby approve the Conceptual SPA Plan for the Rio Grande with the following conditions: Conditions to be addressed as part of conceptual approval 1. The City and County should agree to amend the 1982 Land Exchange Agreement in order to avoid future confusion regarding uses on the Rio Grande site. If the library is not located on the Oden area of the site, then the Arts group requests that the site be retained for a Performing Arts Center. Conditions to be addressed at precise plan stage 1. The applicant(s) shall submit a site plan, landscaping plan, building design plan and building design techniques which illustrate how the development compliments or enhances the neighborhood. Plans for mitigation of impacts caused by the Spring Street extension on the surrounding neighborhood (ie.,Oklahoma Flats) should also be presented. All plans submitted shall comply with the requirements of Article 7., Division 8, specially Planned Area, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and shall be consistent with the representations of the approved Conceptual Plan. 4 0 • 2. The following environmental studies and mitigation plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department: a. Air pollution resulting from the starting of automobiles in and mechanical ventilation of the parking facility. b. Water pollution hazards as a result of runoff from impervious surfaces and the use of chemical snow melting substances. C. The loss of any storm water detention areas. 3. The City shall maintain the alley for fire protection purposes. 4. The parking structure shall be sprinklered. 5. Any downtown shuttle should service the Rio Grande site, Post Office, pedestrian access points to the parking facility and Rio Grande recreational and cultural areas, as well as important activity centers in the downtown. 6. The applicants shall provide to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the following: a. A drainage plan. b. A full survey with title blocks, a list of easements and encumbrances. C. An overlay of the survey showing utilities (this should be signed by each utility). 7. The applicants shall work with the City and private utilities to develop an acceptable utilities plan. 8. The following actions are encouraged as part of the development of the Rio Grande site: a. Increased enforcement of on -street parking requirements in the downtown. b. Review the existing time zone requirements for parking in the downtown. C. Implement the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan. d. Relocate the snowdump. 5 0 e. Relocate impound lot. 9. The City shall develop a fee structure for the Rio Grande parking facility which is inexpensive for the user and also discourages use of the automobile. 10. The applicants shall indicate how many employees will be generated by the proposal and how employee housing requirements will be addressed. 11. Each applicant shall submit information for the Growth Management Quota Exemption for essential public facilities. 12. The City shall develop plans for improving the pedestrian access between the Mall and the Rio Grande using Galena Street. A Galena Street pedestrian corridor should be compatible with the Mall and compatible with the Rio Grande pedestrian system which extends through the Rio Grande to the river. 13. The Library shall have the ability to expand to the east 44 feet on top of the parking facility, if their program needs in the long-term future justify this expansion. 14. The City and Teen Center group shall work together to develop a Teen Center in conjunction with the parking facility plaza. 15. The architectural element on top of the parking facility roof which covers the stairwell and elevator shaft should be relocated to an area off of the Galena Street access. This will allow for an uninterrupted pedestrian corridor between the downtown and the river. 16. The extension of Spring Street shall be designed so as not to preclude the possibility of a service/gas station in conjunction with Cap's auto. 17. The City and Library should agree on who is responsible for what percent of general site improvements, these include, but are not limited to utility improvements, transportation improvements and landscaping improvements. 18. The City shall experiment with a snowmelt machine as a way of reducing the impact of the snowdump on the property. 19. The City shall reserve the area known as the Snowdump for future Arts Usage; however, if the Library does not use the Oden parcel, then the Arts Groups retain the right to use the Oden site instead of the Snowdump area. 2 9 0 Dated: ge- �� , 1988. William L. Stirling, Ma or I. Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held �'`�-'-P� , 1988. RGRCC h J Kathryn S. Coch, City Clerk E RESOLUTION NO. -� (Series of 1989) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE RIO GRANDE FINAL SPA AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY, PARKING FACILITY AND TRANSPORTATION CENTER WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter "Council") has reviewed the Library and Parking Facility Applications for Final SPA Approval and Growth Management Quota System Exemption (GMQS) at public meetings held on January 18, February 6 and 13, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the applications comply with Conceptual SPA approval; and WHEREAS, based upon their review of these applications the Council agrees with the Planning and Zoning Commission findings. The Commission's findings were as follows: Parking Facility - The Commission finds that the design of the parking facility is appropriate for the site; that the snow shedding problem on the north face of the transportation Center roof, has been resolved; and that the size and location of the elevator building is appropriate. Transportation Center - The Commission finds that the Transportation Center is an essential community facility because it is an asset to the community's transportation system and therefore is exempt from GMQS. Spring Street Extension - The Commission finds that the new location of Spring Street extension works well for the parking facility and the transportation center and does not disturb the playing field; however, the Commission still prefers that the new access road be located to the north and encourages Council to consider this alignment if the budget allows. Further, P&Z requests that Council give the new access road a name other than the Spring Street extension. Cap's - The Commission finds that Stony Davis (Caps) has been extremely cooperative throughout this process and that the City and Caps should begin work to implement the necessary land exchange between the City and Caps which was approved by the voters in August, 1988. Further, the City 1 and Cap's should identify and agree to specific easements for access to Cap's. Library - The Commission finds that the north facade and the northeast corner of the Library structure are too massive and therefore, directs the applicant to address those concerns. The majority of the Commission is, however, generally satisfied with the design and disagrees with staff about the importance of the open space located at the southwest corner of the site, the Commission finds this open space important to Mill Street. The Commission also finds that the Library should not be required to mitigate their parking impact for the following reasons: o Both the library and parking facility are public projects using public funds. o Staff assumes that a library in an urban location such as the Rio Grande will generate a significant amount of walking, transit and multi -destination automobile trips during the work day. During the weekend and especially the evening, the library may generate primarily destination trips, however, the weekends and evenings are off-peak times when the parking facility has excess capacity. o Library (public) funds used for parking may compete directly with funding for other valuable community services offered by the library or may compete directly with desired design changes suggested by the P&Z or Council. o The Transportation Plan found that restricted parking spaces, i.e., "Library Parking Only", reduced the effective utilization rate of that space by 25 percent. A condition of approval would be that the Library Board not request exclusive parking for library patrons in the parking facility. Further, the P&Z finds that if the Library integrates its elevator with the parking facility, then the Library's parking impact will have been mitigated. o The Library Board is required to fully mitigate all other impacts. o The Library Board can offer free bus passes or other incentives to induce employees to walk, bike or ride transit. K • u NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby grant Final SPA approval and Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System to the Library and Parking Facility projects, subject to the following conditions: Conditions for the Library 1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the following (the Engineering Department shall then provide the Planning Office with a memorandum confirming their satisfaction). a. An amended drainage plan with adequate detail to address the concerns of the Sanitation District. b. An SPA plat with property boundaries and signature blocks. C. A separate plat sheet showing all utility locations within the property boundaries and with signature blocks for each utility certifying locations. d. That the trash area will function and be appropriately designed. 2. Any sidewalk or right-of-way improvements must comply with the City's Streetscape Guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall develop a Fugitive Dust Control Program, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Office. 4. The Applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Office in the event that contaminated soils are discovered during excavation and shall meet any requirements imposed by that office. 5. The Applicant shall agree to purchase bus passes for its down valley employees as a method of reducing its parking impact on the new parking facility. 6. The Applicant and the City shall investigate the possibility of providing a snowmelt system for pedestrian areas and the Mill Street parking facility access road. 3 7. The Library will not request or receive approval for parking spaces restricted to Library patrons only. 8. The alley between the Rio Grande site and Main Street shall be resurfaced and improved for pedestrian purposes as the concept plan illustrated. Conditions for the Parking Facility 1. The Employee Generation figure shall be adjusted to reflect an additional .5 FTE for the Parks Department and an additional 6 FTE for the Transportation Center. The Housing Authority shall conduct an employee audit two years after this facility is operating and make any necessary adjustments. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the following (the Engineering Department shall then provide the Planning Office with a memorandum confirming their satisfaction). a. An amended drainage plan with adequate detail to address the concerns of the Sanitation District. b. An SPA plat with property boundaries and signature blocks. C. A separate plat sheet showing all utility locations within the property boundaries and with signature blocks for each utility certifying locations. d. That the trash area will function and be appropriately designed. 3. Any sidewalk or right-of-way improvements must comply with the City's Streetscape Guidelines. 4. The alley between the Rio Grande site and Main Street shall be resurfaced and improved for pedestrian purposes as the concept plan illustrated. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall develop a Fugitive Dust Control Program, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Office. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall apply for an Air Pollution Emissions Notice. 4 • • 7. The Applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Office in the event that contaminated soils are discovered during excavation. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Office that the air quality standards for ticket booth attendants is acceptable. 9. The Applicant and the Library shall work together to provide a snowmelt system for pedestrian thoroughfares and especially stairways which are part of the parking facility. Additionally, the applicant and Library shall work together to provide snowmelting for the Mill Street parking facility access road. 10. The City and Caps shall implement the necessary land exchange, including access easements, with Caps which the voters approved in the Summer of 1988, as part of this review. Dated 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held 1989. Kathryn. . Koch, City Clerk tb rio.final.spa.cc.reso 5 • • i o©OG 2015 - ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: City of Aspen Location: 425 Rio Grande Place, City of Aspen, Aspen Colorado 891611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descri tion where a ro riate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Lot 2 Amendedo Grande Subdivision Reception No. 469504 APPLICANT: Name: City of Aspen Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: 970 920-5582 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: John Laatsch Protect Manager Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: 9870 920-5582 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Special Review ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) ❑ Lot Split ❑ Lot Line Adjustment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) City of Aspen Parking Garage with Pedestrian Plaza on the roof ?ROPOSAu (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) City of Aspen Parking Garage with ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Conceptual SPA E2� Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Other: Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ❑X Pre -Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement EDkResponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form aResponse to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards Ejk3-1) Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre -application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 DATE: 4/8/2015 PROJECT: Galena Plaza, Planned Development (PD) Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: John Laatsch, Asset Management Dept. DESCRIPTION: The Asset Management Dept. is proposing to improve Galena plaza inclusive of the parking garage roof, alley, N. Galena and the plaza's landscape features. The Asset dept. has conducted a number of charettes and work sessions and has finalized a design for the area. As long as the design does not include added parking (other than the parking that exists and may be reconfigured along Galena), the changes may be processed administratively. There are no buildings, net leasable space or residential units involved. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.445.110 A. Insubstantial Amendments (the property was originally approved as an SPA but recent code changes now require review under PD allowances) Review by: - Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - Potential HP administrative or HPC review (see narrative above) -Administrative review for PD Public Hearing: no Total Number of Application Copies: 5 Planning Fees: $1,300 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour). $265 Engineering Fee, per hour Total Deposit: $1,565.00 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Fees agreement and deposit. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Pre -application Conference Summary. 6. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 7. Existing and proposed elevation drawings and site plan that includes landscaping plan. 8. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. [Section 26.440.060(B)l(a-f) 11. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. 12. Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building -related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920- 5090 for additional information. 13. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing (contact GIS Dept.) 14. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as a pdf file or files. 15. HOA Compliance form Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 9 0 ATTACHMENT 3 JAN 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Galena Plaza Applicant: City of Aspen Location: 425 Rio Grande Place Zone District: SPA/PD Lot Size: 41,016 SF, 0.942 AC Lot Area: 41,016 SF, 0.942 AC (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3741 SF Proposed: 3741 SF Existing: NA Proposed: Existing: NA Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: NA Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.• Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required- Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required. Proposed.• Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non -conformities or encroachments: NA Variations requested: NONE ! 0 a Iry w d N N N 0 A 'O L o w- Qr a is •� o 0 ., 0 .r �, c d c ciU Ca L. Nw° E o 0 0 �o "" O d cn O N x Uqq w w u w u U u F U v a U Q - NNNN x a Q a` EQQ EQQ' O O Z U U aF U U p I tnQp- cC aaaaa a� AA 7_ a W aN U � U N� Q a � A� w� a '� v,... � AC •° � N u u d N o d a d a z L 6J V E OG M o 0 Q• M M a> - a M M .. N c a 'w o QG N N y a N N N O a �--i o a O O Vl M o 'Aw ea M V"� .-i en env an d N N N Q� N an d tM E .0 � y i � M� •o L 00 00 N N \C o � N V� 00 GO 00 00 .-� .� O� Q o •r .� N N oo Q 3 z o 3 p w w z N Q z `" z a�3 zo U`� z W Z W Q O A a W O E V ; as z Ew. d a o A p. a4T� U ow. 00 0 s F r A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL REVIEWS FOR REDUCTIONS OF REQUIRED PARKING AND OPEN SPACE, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE GALENA PLAZA BUILDING EXPANSION (A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION) LOCATED AT 420 E. MAIN STREET (GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1 ON THE E. HALF OF LOT L AND ALL OF LOTS M,N,O,P,Q,R,and S, BLOCK 86, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN). Resolution No. 93-26 WHEREAS, Ronald Garfield and Andrew Hecht, represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application for Growth Management allocation including Special Reviews in order to expand the existing structure at 420 E Main Street by 4,400 square feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the CC Commercial Core zone district; and WHEREAS, Section 24-5-209 E.3. of the Aspen Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to grant reduction of required off- street parking in the CC zone with a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000.00 for each space reduced, pursuant to Section 24-7-404 B.; and WHEREAS, Section 24-5-209 D.9. of the Aspen Land Use Code allows the Commission to grant reduction of required open space pursuant to Section 24-7-404 A.3.; and WHEREAS, Section 24-5-209 D.10. establishes a floor area ratio maximum of 1.5:1 which may be increased by the Commission to 2:1 pursuant to Section 24- 7-404 A.1. and 2.; and WHEREAS, the parking reduction requested by the applicant is for 11 spaces (two spaces lost due to conversion of those spaces to a trash storage area and 9 for the new generation of parking at the rate of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet net leasable); and WHEREAS, the applicant requests an open space reduction of approximately 500 square feet and a floor area bonus of approximately 790 square feet (1.6:1 FAR); and WHEREAS, at the time of this condominium application the site exceeded minimum open space requirements but the bulk of the open space on the parcel was non -conforming pursuant to the definition of open space contained in Section 24-301 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, upon review of the referral comments submitted by the Engineering Department, Housing Office, Water Department, Parking and Transportation Director, Historic Preservation Officer, Electric Department, Fire Marshal, and the Sanitation District, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission approval of the 1 Special Reviews with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission heard presentations by the project representative and the Planning staff at a public hearing at their regular meeting on November 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0 the Commission approved with conditions the Special Reviews for reduction of on -site parking spaces, reduction of open space, and a floor area bonus; and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to, and the Commission accepted the Planning Office recommended GMP score of 27.5 points and found that the minimum category thresholds had been met, allowing City Council to allocate the requested 4,400 square feet of net leasable area to the project; and WHEREAS, the Commission also unanimously passed a motion which recommends to City Council that: "the City Council only accept a housing mitigation package which addresses the Housing Office's concerns, specifically that the employee generation of the project be calculated at 4.375 persons per 1,000 s.f. net leasable, and that the deed restricted units meet the Housing Guidelines." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: that it does hereby grant approval for Special Reviews for reduction of eleven (11) on -site parking spaces, approximately 500 square feet of open space, and a floor area bonus of approximately 790 square feet (1.6:1) for the Galena Plaza Building Expansion of 4,440 square feet of net leasable area as represented in the September 15, 1993 GMQS Application with the following conditions: 1) The applicant must immediately relocate the dumpster from the sidewalk east of the apartment building. 2) Sidewalk repairs as required by the City Engineer and handicap access ramps at the two corners of Galena must be installed by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3) Tenants cannot use the Galena Street right-of-way for delivery truck access. Prior to issuance of any building permits: 4) The applicant shall make payment -in -Lieu for 11 parking spaces in the amount provided for in Section 24-7-404 B.1. of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Building Department for transfer to the City Finance Department. 5) The applicant shall pay a cash -in -lieu payment in the amount provided for in Section 24-7-404 A.3. of the Aspen Municipal Code for the reduction of approximately 500 s.f. of �...� 2 open space to the Building Department for transfer to the City Finance Department. 6) A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant must verify drainage of the existing patio and roof drains to the Sanitation District. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 16, 1993. i'll /GcGC.Ci ZL - W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Car ey, Deputy C' Clerk Nft.' 3 • DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees r� Anagreement between the (Ay of Aspen (--city.. ana t, � Property City of Aspen Phone No.: 970 920-5582 Owner ("I"): Email: john.laatsch@cityofaspen.com, Address of 427 Rio Grande Place Billing 130 South Galena Street Property: Aspen, CO 81611 Address: Aspen, CO 81611 (subject of (send bills here) application) understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1 ,300 deposit for 4 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $ 265 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Digitally signed by John Laatsch John Laatsch DN:cn=JohnLaatsch Date: 2014.10.23 12:13:22-06'00' Chris Bendon John C. Laatsch Community Development Director Name: City Use: Title: Project Manager II Fees Due: $1565 Received: $ ETAM FOR PERAi''�.'�l 7 FIL' S Date 4p0G -2-o(5-• rJ3 THE CITY of ASPEN Community Development Department Internal Funds Transfer 10/27/2014 Department: Capital Asset Amount Requested: Account Number: Permit Number: Permit Address: Permit Description: (e L"-,e V -#SA& 3�! � 10 1$1,565.00 71 1451.94.81153.86750 IWOOO&- 201 S- -A5 LM 1427 Rio Grande Place PD Allowances Review Requested By: John Laatsch Received By: W; ETAndI FOR 0 LJ Fee Waiver Request Form T'i IF' G n oF A,�ren City of Aspen (c{4t * 7? 1 O -- — Community Development Department This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a decision has been made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. For what fees are you requesting waiver? BUILDING PLANNING Applicant Name: �� i , (21` A,, ac-,�,j Contact Ph.# L4 b147c"3 Mailing address: r S e S r--r I,",C7\_:3 Gr, ito / f E-mail address: 'A C Project name & address: r7 o r_J Fee Breakdown: ©O co .2 o 15-, A S 1 D q Fee Description Original Fee Requested Amount Waiver Fee Description Original Fee Amount Requested Waiver -------- Energy Code Fee7 ---- REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee ZoningReview Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee 0 Permit Fee HPC Application Fee Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ Reason for Waiver: General Fund Department Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordinance or other decision document) Other —Please explain: Applicant Signature Date For office use only: Type of fees waived: 1 APPROVED DISAPPROVED Community Development Director Total fees waived: $ Date i r CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE WAIVER POLICY PURPOSE Fee waivers to eligible individuals and organizations submitting for building permit or land use application may be considered upon filing a fee waiver request form to the Community Development Department. Approval of fee waiver requests may be made by the Community Development Director, according to the adopted fee policy of the City of Aspen. Costs for all building permit and land use applications, other than those waived by the Community Development Director, shall be paid as specified by the fee policy; prior to the issuance of building permits and at the time of submittal of land use applications. PROCESS Fees administered by the Community Development Department can only be waived by submitting a completed fee waiver form to the Community Development Director. The request shall contain a description of the project along with a statement expressing eligibility for fee waiver. The Community Development Director will review the request and give approval or disapproval in accordance with provisions set forth in this policy. The Community Development Director does not have the ability to waive fees administered by other City Departments or other organizations. All organizations and individuals seeking fee waiver MUST submit their written request to the City of Aspen Community Development Director prior to submitting the building permit or land use application. The approved fee waiver must then be presented at the time the building permit or land use application is submitted to the building or planning departments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA General Fund Departments do not pay fees to the Community Development Department for building permits or planning applications, with the exception of Capital Projects. The fees waived for these projects will be tracked by the Community Development Department (journal entries are therefore unnecessary). In effort to keep paperwork and applications consistent, General Fund Departments shall still be required to submit the approved fee waiver with all applications for building and planning applications. General Fund Departments include: Non -Departmental 001.00 Streets Department 001.41 City Council 001.03 Parks Department 001.55 City Manager 001.05 GIS Department 001.60 Personnel 001.06 IT Department 001.61 City Clerk 001.07 Special Events 001.70 City Attorney 001.09 Recreation Activities 001.71 Risk Management 001.10 Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) 001.72 City Finance Department 001.11 Ice Garden Operations 001.74 Community Development 001.13 Cons. Trust FD/Lottery 001.75 Engineering Department 001.15 *Capital Projects 001.90... Building Department 001.21 Asset Management Plan (AMP) 001.91 Environmental Health 001.25 *Tabor Capital Projects 001.94 Police Department 001.31 Outgoing Transfers 001.95 Records 001.33 Communications 001.39 NOTE* Capital Projects are not exempt from fees AIL 0 CITY OF ASPEN Permit Receipt THE CITY OF ASPEN RECEIPT NUMBER 00037710 Account Number:28789 Date: 1 /12/2015 Applicant: CITY HALL CITY OF ASPEN Type: core # 451.94.81153.86750 Permit Number Fee Description 0006.2015.ASLU Planning Hourly Fees 0006.2015.ASLU Eng Referral Fee Amount 1,300.00 265.00 Total: $1, 565.00 RETAN FOR r �1� � � � • as GALENA PLAZA PARKING GARAGE ROOF RENOVATION AND PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PD REVIEW Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado Prepared by: Capital Asset Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado October 22, 2014 1 I Page • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TABLE OF CONTENTS Fee Agreement and Deposit Authorization Letter from the Applicant and Consent Letter from the City Street Address, Plat and Legal Description Land Use Application Pre -Application Conference Summary Vicinity Map and Parcel Plan Project Plans Site Plan: SITE PLAN Attachment A Landscape Plan: L4.00 L4.01 L4.02 L4.03 Paving Plan: L3.00 L3.01 L3.02 L3.03 L3.04 Grading Plan: C3.01 C3.02 C3.03 C3.04 Stairs Plan: A2.3 A3.2 A4.2 Elevator: Plan Day Night Perspectives ALL A2.4 A3.1 A4.1 2 1 P a g e Lighting Plan: Compliance Certificate E2.01 EL0.1 EL 1.0 ELLI LP Nest -Led 8. Project Description 9. Site Improvement Survey PHOTOS: ATTACHMENT: SITE SURVEY CERTIFICATE WITH WET STAMP 3 1 P a g e I. APPLICATION REQUEST The application requests an amendment to the original SPA, now under PD allowances that modifies the design of the public space following the required repair to the entire garage roof and waterproofing system. The new plaza design includes the reconstruction of North Galena Street and what is referred to as Library Alley. In these two areas the replacement of aged utilities and enhanced storm drainage facilities provide the opportunity to enhance the alley environment and make the two right-of-ways pedestrian and bicycle friendly. The plaza�while redesigned to coordinate with a Library Expansion�will maintain a dominating space for community members to gather, be entertained, and enjoy the great views to Aspen Mountain and to the north Rio Grande Park and the Roaring Fork River. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The design process to determine a replacement public space to Galena Plaza in association with the required parking garage roof repair started in earnest January 2010. At that time, a staff and stakeholder group established Galena Plaza Program Requirements and Galena Plaza Design Objectives which were intended to guide the comprehensive project design effort and test various design proposals. Staff has checked in with Council multiple times over the last four (4) years to review aspects of the garage roof replacement and plaza redevelopment project. Each discussion with Council has generated adjustments to the project design and scope. Staff met with Mayor Steve Skadron and Council Woman Ann Mullins on December 9, 2013 to discuss the specific concerns that were of particular interest to both. Ann led a discussion that covered the following topics: Users, Uses, Role in the Park System and the Role in Cityscape. Discussion occurred with staff on walk alignments and minor site design changes that Ann felt could enhance the design and pedestrian experience of the plaza. 4 1 P a g e On December 191h staff again met with Steve and Ann and presented a refined Galena Plaza Site Plan that integrated the recommendations from the meeting on the 91h and included the latest Library Design Plans. Site design modifications, walk alignments, Library impacts and project materials were discussed. Both Steve and Ann were comfortable with the changes and the attention to their concerns and concluded that the refined Galena Plaza Site Plan that is being coordinated with a renewed Library expansion/remodeling planning effort is ready for greater Council review at the January 71h worksession; that plan was submitted and approved by City Council. • Enhanced Staircase linking plaza level to Rio Grande Park level; • Garage roof expansion that provides additional public Open Space and overlook areas; • Open space appropriate for Special Events, both large and small; • Amphitheatre/performance space with orientation to Red Mountain/Rio Grande Park; • Enhanced but simplified structure for existing garage elevator. The Galena Plaza project focus is on an improved pedestrian experience with concrete paver walkwaysDstreet and alley central lawn area large enough to accommodate a 40x60 entertainment tent9mphitheater with terraced seatin , primary north to south circulation includinipanoverlook area to the north and a nhanced stairway leading to Rio Grande Park. The north south circulation is to enhance the important pedestrian connections to the Aspen Core. Thbpaver system for all the walks and the enhanced stairway to Rio Grande Park will be snow melted. The plaza will include arR n upgraded electrical system to facilitate a variety of community uses entertainment and events. The new system will include a layered site lighting system that will optimize new LED lighting source and computer controlled illumination operations. III. HISTORY OF LAND USE APPROVALS In 1988 the original parking facility development and the roof top Plaza was reviewed as an SPA development and the plans and land use preceded in accordance with the City requirements at that time. The SPA was approved with the passage of Resolution 1988-37. One of the main features of this approval was expressed by the following condition: "Plaza: The roof of the parking facility should be a people place with landscaping and not considered for parking. It is important that this area be designed so that it does not become a dead space." 5 1 P a g e In 2005 an amendment to the original SPA was proposed that would permit parking of police vehicles on the garage roof. This proposal dated May 4, 2005 was not approved. Since 2005 there have been no proposed amendments to the original SPA. This application maintains the intent of the original SPA. 6 1 P a g e 11 0 • 2 • • THE CITY OF ASPEN Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Community Development City of Aspen October 27, 2014 The application for a Planned Development Amendment has been authorized by the City of Aspen. The project to repair the city's parking garage roof and to restore a valuable city public space is a high priority Capital Asset will process all requests that the Community Development has and will share all information necessary for approval of the redesigned public space. Sincerely, ,may John C. Laatseh, Project Manager Capital Asset Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street 970 920-5582 John.laatsch@cityofaspen.com 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5000 • FAx 970.920.5197 www.aspenpitkin.com Printed on Recycled Paper August 14, 2014 THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Chris Bendon, Planning Director Community Development City of Aspen August 18, 2014 Re: Galena Plaza The application for a Planned Development Amendment for Galena Plaza has been authorized by the City of Aspen and the city representative for the project and this submission is John Laatsch, Project Manager, Capital Asset Department City of Aspen. The project to repair the city's parking garage roof and to restore a valuable city public space is a high priority. John will process all requests that Community Development has and will share all information necessary for approval of the redesigned public space. Sincerely, /, Z Steve Barwick, Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street 970 920-5205 steve.barwick a, cityofaspen.com 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5212 - FAx 970.920.5119 Printed on Recycled Paper • .• THE CITY OF ASPEN September 4, 2014 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Jennifer Phelan City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Galena Plaza Dear Ms. Phelan: I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado and presently serve as the City Attorney for the City of Aspen. In this capacity I have examined the ownership of the property over which the Galena Plaza redevelopment is planned. I can hereby confirm that the City of Aspen is the owner of property that is known as The Rio Grande Subdivision Lot 2. The property is not encur ibcred in any manner affecting the use of the property for the construction and maintenance of the redevelopment that is proposed. If you need anything further, please advise. "Thank you. Sincerely, - - _ ____ _ _ James R. T111e City Attorney 130 SOLTH G.AMO SfRI FT • A9'FN, Cotoitmx) 81611-1975 • PIIO\F 970.920303; • E\\970.920.5119 V—t d - R-61 P.,p,, i GALENA PLAZA LOCATION October 27, 2014 Primary Work Area 427 RIO GRANDE PLACE Lot 2 Amended of Rio Grande Subdivision, according to the Rio Grande Subdivision and Pitkin County Center Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded July 5, 2002, in Plat Book 61 page 19 as Reception 469504; Lot size 41016 square feet or 0.942 acres. ALLEY Block 86 NORTH GALENA STREET j j; a a I U) I! tal �C) , 0 oo D z I THE let t ' 1 1 a a I t i i LLJ I ;: W 2 1 LLJ F— Too z D D LLJ u < Ai C) ; i I ' L1! ft — z;ltl 6 1 VIE it i'i z z— I A, I!l-' < = a - a cyo t I ia i -(D Q) '-o zF- 51 aR ...... all 1ill C IJ; ijY ';n. cr V ;Aia 'W" 3" w al 2, CL At zqI aa I l Va. a a i - le 99!i W, iI II Wit W5 1-1. 1201 a th ol 2 po CV a t Wi !2 MT I 66, •a gag Hi !!; 1q, I Is ij iIis! K I I V V0, f AW5 'j!q 1 a 3Milli Igo - it al�raxatfggz f spa Rl 1. 3s.m a i4 ii a- 210e. Gx m giqlp: , g!.!1r I fig 'a z Ho it I ISiii f Ill' v la j;Hj§j.! I'TT .22.1 6 _-Its a. 4; 11v t I tl It'it I W 4 ifilli N gi'i!;�... .1 a ba H all, VW sty HT a ; - i Mi a 1 1 1 I ;a L---J -71 LOT 2 RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION GALENA STREET .- .'..l.:!!n.1,'--- I . - - RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION AND PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT z z 00 0 n LOT 4 R 10 GRAND 7�- $usol V 1 $1 N SU A77", tt, LOT RIO GR IND E $USD I v I s! ON L—L FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER_ SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO MONUMENTLEGEN COIIIROL OETAe. �ii4 ernl.�Rstw•M0�6 M,sx„sf,nleiGWm BN'�Esw90.�E talaembl 8�Bm12 stlY .6ea41 b1.' V,eRrv. fnOIM¢ K[Oo4.0 �FM.11l16s9D®MMrspttmYVM� ;mot i o K.o GRAPHIC SCALE I ..er SHEET 1 OF 2 NOTES, A p.�RmaBMuto uflmiAmWlsaim SMles6l m,�u MAIN STREET SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SURE A3 CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SITE A. CITY ENGINEER APPROVAL out w,srasmv®nM an oroAtn oo *� an oc Naorv. ay an,00.we L o,v MOn,LgYMry cIv'e+ov o='rve Cm'v SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE ni,oeA steioe. wit wo ren GZ�IJ (rD „�e..mw aw....mi. we voencecw erx.' 1.' �aaiwm,..na w�m�4i�a.,.Ske.� .�1L27s7. �� '�:kmo,.nlhMcM_se s uolAAlLNr tFt>E.n cRAPlnc scALe FINAL PLAT OF: FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION �3 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET z OF 2 W-r EIR i low Z�Z s,snlzvw -/r 4� ,........ n, ��� O ii&sv � �� 8 .7 . N�sov,lw Nsrnmw O _ 16z' aee O�Nnc a se s2,ow . sm �catoeo LOT2AMENOED J LOT I. FIRSTAMENDED RIO ORANGE I _ 7 : P"IN COUNTY CENTER SUBOMSON S11.0.V lL ISION1 /1^ i, I eian.o.rt O �. G =ZLU LU LU O \.. CITYOFASPEN 111 .d In = l ;; I— sis•oan•L —mom _ so ro �.. PIPCIN COUNTY EASWG CORP SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CML CONSULTANTS 502 MAW STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE. COLORAOO 81623 (970) 7040311 j•C A-5 � k 0 m LLI "f C) < [I , 1 • 7q, 133a.Ls 7 SPRING ST o C4 00 �<w RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION ,hook 32- %Qye 8 I p�0 .... ,>.,� o xla �• °p CR4 AIDWI 4 ------------- ------ ------- SLEEKER STREET i 28- R I 0 GRANDE S! !!BniV! S!C)N F 9 • al • 0 61 • l�J Malowel _ I NIV1S V HO1VA313 :OW30 4 �W�W Toll 00V2iOlOO'N3dSV �; r 30VUV0 30NVLI0 Olaro2Vld VN31bKJ m81 4a A: ! N3dSV J0 UIO z 0 F J W F h 4 0? N m a �•WW @I 'a i 6 IN' HIV1S B bOlVn313 :SNOIlVA3l3 .m� — OOVaco0I0O'N3dSV t E� - ���� z� 3JVUVJ30NV80ORllHZVIdVN3IV�J 8 N3dSV d0 AliO IN N Om EN In m lP/J J W 4 --- r �E 1 o NIV1S T UO1VA313 :SN3VlVld VOJO100'N3dSs N .�[Calj9 30VdV030NV'dDOW/VZV1dVN? N3dSV d0 A110 I I I I Z I I J I ar, I w 0 Wq I I H L Idook gob, Z • { UIV1S T UO1VA313 :NO11O3S y pg e & o �S99 -'a 1� ; I Pd _. - �,j !C`-_ OOVi10100'N3dSV 30V-dVO30NV80OINIVZVldVN31VJ i c N3dSV d0 A110 e s P � P� - ---- _- _-- --- Fier. _ - ____ __--_ l I 0' ao Y - H? w � g 1; �I I ;, I. J_ Q W C ❑ V d c7 J J ¢ § V F Lco 0 o fmf f t V 1 1 f 1*"f�ft E Y i �`�i9 i i f 1 i ii GWf" t N 6 �T �y n 0 35 70NN �E Feet r This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation I f : of the features depicted and is not a legal ;, representation. The accuracy may change T J mil. 6 _ depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copy401:35 ht MC% GIS4Aspen/PitkinGlS �� _ S' - A3 5/8207/4.01.35 PM C �GISVempWpnl7rWbraryPlazeOrtho.�rd z� Rlp G�NDE p - ;sir 1 rnMaw _M6.. A z - LAB >~ /\ _ iY 1 i kq t � - r _ P { i n.GIS E Site Plan • 0 Q W U Q a' W Q zr' U a O Z tt o �s 7jw N 9 • Landscape Plan -� MATERIAL KEYNOTES cl ��y �� 5'orE6nasrtr ue.re l� I� i SITE PAVING PLAN Oof al MI NARDSCAPE LEGEND O® fvcpS NI[artu �S�aCCwee OI_ pQnnEM wu Cb.G6 I'�~� � Quw T.CmaA— S.A. Mo. INC. D]NSULTING QlCQ1mB mum d�dNSRE ........ .........' DESMAN IIMT . OLT 6 ULLEVIti L3.00 saET xo._ Paving Plan O � 711 _V93or "m is j ®�i��•� •�• , � a Plaza ILA Perspective: Stair Elevator Penthouse iodo Lighting Plan • Specifier B1gJ 9,y Applications VOLUME 2: ISSUE 1 : 2009— International Dark -Sky Association 180° UH 100° 100° 90° UL 900 .. 800 BVH FVH 80° 60° BH FH BM BLrF 60° 30° 0° The BUG SystemA New Way To Control Stray Light from Outdoor Luminaires UG STANDS FOR "Backlight", "Uplight" and "Glare." The acronym describes the types of stray light escaping from an outdoor lighting luminaire. "B" stands for backlight, or the light directed in back of the mounting pole. "U" stands for uplight, or the light directed above the horizontal plane of the luminaire, and "G" stands for glare, or the amount of F` light emitted from the luminaire at angles known to cause glare. ida4 It is expected that BUG values will be published by luminaire manufac- turers so lighting specifiers, designers or purchasers can tell at a glance how well a certain luminaire controls stray light or compares with other luminaires under consideration for an installation. The BUG system was developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) to make comparing and evaluating outdoor luminaires fast, easy and ' more complete than older systems. A D D R O V [ D Work on the BUG system started in 2005 when the IES upgraded the """" roadway shielding classification system. The original system, which included the ratings full cutoff, cutoff, semi -cutoff and non cutoff, had been designed as a rating system solely for street lighting. However, increasing demand for control of glare and light trespass extended these terms to all types of outdoor TY Illuminatin lighting, and the IES realized that a more comprehensive system was needed. ^I n I N E E R I N G sot i ng The Lighting Research Center, acting as an IES contractor, developed a new classification concept that addresses light emitted from the luminaire in all directions, not just up into the sky. This system, released to the public as For more information IES Technical Memorandum TM-15, technically replaced the old system. It please visit the IDA Web approved luminaires divides the sphere around a luminaire into zones assigning values according to ple site vvww.darksky.ory. expected environmental impact. This rating system offers the most complete evaluation of the total light emitted from luminaires to date. A point to �> International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darksky.org 2 / IDA Specifier Bulletin • • remember, however, is that while the values assigned by the new system are good indicators, they may not in all cases directly correlate to light pollution. It still depends upon the site, the application and how the luminaire is installed. A fundamental component of the Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO), currently under public review, divides lighting requirements into lighting zones according to environmental impact. See Appendix A. The joint IDA/IES task force in charge of drafting the MLO reviewed TM-15 and realized that it could be modified to serve as a key measure of all forms of light pollution related to shielding and the direc- tion of light, becoming an important tool to determine which luminaires are appropriate for each zone. Modifications were made, including subdividing the TM-15 uplight zone to better address artificial sky glow, and subdividing the upper downlight zone to better address glare. The IES accepted these adjustments and released TM-15-07 (revised). See Figure 1. 1W uH After reviewing hundreds of candidate luminaires, the MLO task force LA� established the three composite (BUG) ratings based on TM-15-07 (revised): too• 100• 90^ UL 9V Backlight, which creates light trespass onto adjacent sites. The B rating takes into account the amount of ligwht in the BL, BM, BH and BVH zones, so^ BVH FVH which are direction of the luminaire OPPOSITE from the area intended BH 80• to be lighted. 60° Uplight, which causes artificial sky glow. Lower uplight (zone UL) causes the Bn, 60• most sky glow and negatively affects professional and academic astronomy. 30• Upper uplight (UH) is mostly energy waste. The U rating accounts the n• 30• amount of light into the upper hemisphere with greater concern for the lower uplight angles in UL. Figure 1: the revised outdoor luminaire Glare, which can be annoying or visually disabling. The G rating takes into distribution measuring system from account the amount of frontlight in the FH and FVH zones as well as BH TM-15-07 (revised) and BVH zones. Appendix A: Lighting Zone Definitions: The Lighting Zone shall define the limitations for outdoor lighting as specified in this ordinance. The policymaking body is able to designate areas according to the following descriptions, thereby creating a custom lighting plan according to local needs, functions, and geography. LZO: No ambient lighting Areas where the natural envi- ronment will be seriously and adversely affected by light- ing. Impacts include disturbing the biological cycles of flora and fauna and/or detracting from human enjoyment and appreciation of the natural environment. Little or no lighting is expected. When not needed, lighting should be extinguished. LZ1: Low ambient lighting Areas where lighting might adversely affect flora and fauna or disturb the character of the area. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety, security and/or convenience but it is not necessarily uni- form or continuous. After curfew, most lighting should be extinguished or reduced as activity levels decline. LZ2: Moderate ambient lighting Areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to moderate light levels. Lighting may typi- cally be used for safety, security and/or convenience but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. After curfew, lighting may be extinguished or reduced as activity levels decline. LZ3: Moderately high ambient lighting Areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to moderately high light levels. Lighting is generally desired for safety, security and/or convenience and it is often uniform and/or continuous. After curfew, lighting may be extinguished or reduced in most areas as activity levels decline. LZ4: High ambient lighting Areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to high light levels. Lighting is generally considered nec- essary for safety, security and/or convenience and it is mostly uniform and/or continuous. After curfew, lighting may be extinguished or reduced in some areas as activity levels decline. © International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darksky.org 0 • IDA Specifier Bulletin / 3 Figure 1: the revised (or BUG) outdoor luminaire distribution measuring system from TM-15-07 (revised) The resulting rating system, called BUG for obvious reasons, is a comprehensive system that takes into account uplight shielding, glare shielding and backlight shielding as well as limiting lamp lumens to values appropriate for the lighting zone. BUG is a simple system consisting of a a table of consensus acceptable values against which any luminaire having photometric data can be judged. A luminaire's numerical rating is the LOWEST light zone number in which it can be used. BUG will be part of the latest IES outdoor lighting system update. The BUG rating system is a principal component of the Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO). The MLO is also a simple system that considers BUG ratings in the context of total lumens allowed per site. which the total site lumens are restricted. Use of the BUG system as the measuring tool for the MLO creates a straightforward system of controlling light pollution that can be implemented by persons having minimal experience or education in outdoor lighting design. .............................................................................................................................................. BUG FAQs Are BUG luminaire ratings better than using the old full cut off, semi cut off, non cut off, etc. designations for shielding? Yes, because BUG ratings provide backlight and glare information as well as how well the luminaire controls uplight. These additional measurements provide a much more accurate picture of lumen distribution and the overall efficiency of a luminaire. Does BUG allow any uplight? BUG requires downlight only with low glare (better than full cut off in lighting zones 0, 1 and 2, but allows a minor amount of uplight in lighting zones 3 and 4. In lighting zones 3 and 4, the amount of allowed uplight is enough to permit the use of very well shielded luminaires that have a decorative drop lens or chimney so that dark sky friendly lighting can be installed where in places that traditional -appearing fixtures are required. Will all outdoor lighting manufacturers rate their luminaires according to BUG? Not at first. Since BUG is designed to prevent bad lighting practices, a lot of current outdoor products won't pass BUG, so there will be no point in rating them. But it is expected that manufacturers will rate their "good" luminaires and make changes to current products to improve BUG ratings. Will BUG apply to residential lighting? No. BUG can't be used for residential luminaires because they generally are not photometrically tested. The IDA Fixture Seal of Approval Program can be used to rate residential outdoor luminaires. Is BUG as strict as the toughest anti -light pollution ordinances in effect today? BUG, by itself, is a luminaire rating tool. It can easily be applied more stringently by using the zonal factors in response to community choices of lighting zones. While lighting zone determinents are clearly outlined in the MLO, the community decides upon zone placement. If a community adopts the MLO and chooses all lighting zones LZO and LZ1, the MLO with BUG is actually more restrictive than any of the toughest ordinances. However, zone assignment will always remain at the discretion of the community. .............................................................................................................................................. © International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darkskyorg 4 / IDA Specifier Bulletin • 9 Addendum A for IES TM-15-07: Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) Ratings Text, charts, and photograph from IES TM-15-07: hup:11www. iesna. org/PDF/Frralns/TM-15-07BUCRating Addendune. pdf The following Backlight, Uplight, and Glare ratings may be used to evaluate luminairc optical perfor- mance related to light trespass, sky glow, and high angle brightness control. These ratings are based on a zonal lumen calculations for secondary solid angles defined in TM-15-07. The zonal lumen thresholds listed in the following three tables are based on data from photometric testing procedures approved by the Illuminating Engineering Society for outdoor luminaries (LM-31 or LM-35). Notes to Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3: L Any one rating is determined by the maximum rating obtained for that table. For example, if the BH zone is rated B1, the BM zone is rated B2, and the BL zone is rated B1, then the backlight rating for the luminaire is B2. 2. To determine BUG ratings, the photometric test data must include data in the upper hemisphere unless no light is emitted above 90 degrees vertical (for example, if the luminaire has a flat lens and opaque sides), per the IES Testing Procedures Committee recommendations. 3. It is recommended that the photometric test density include values at least every 2.5 degrees vertically. If a photometric test does not include data points every 2.5 degrees vertically, the BUG ratings shall be determined based on appropriate interpolation. 4. A "quadrilateral symmetric" luminaire shall meet one of the following definitions: a. Type V luminaire is one with a distribution that has circular symmetry, defined by the IES as being essentially the same at all lateral angles around the luminaire. b. Type VS luminaire is one where the zonal lumens for each of the eight horizontal octants (0-45, 45-90, 90-135, 135-180, 180-225, 225-270, 270-315, 315-315-360) are within t10 percent of the average zonal lumens of all octants. n International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darksky.org • • IDA Specifier Bulletin / 5 TableA-1: Backlight Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) Backlight Rating Secondary BO B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Solid Angle �• BH 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 BM 220 1000 2500 5000 8500 >8500 BL 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 Changes in red are based on TableA-2: Uplight Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) addendum A for IES TM-15-11. Uplight Rating A copy is attached. Secondary UO U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 Solid Angle _ U H 0 10 50 500 1000 >1000 UL 0 1 10 50 500 1 1000 >1000 ' --150-- -->150 -- - - - - - -50 - Table A-3:Glare Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) Glare Rating for Asvmmetrical LuminaireTvves (Tvpe I,Tvpe II,Tvpe III,Tvpe IV) Secondary Solid Angle GO G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 FVH 10 225 500 750 >750 BVH 10 1n0 225 500 750 >750 FH 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 BH 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 Glare Rating for Quadrilateral Symmetrical Luminaire Types (Type V,Type V Square) Secondary Solid Angle GO G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 FVH 10 100 225 500 750 >750 BVH 10 225 500 750 >750 100 FH B H 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 © International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darksky.org 6 / IDA Specifier Bulletin • • "BUG" RATING EXAMPLE: A 250-watt MH area luminaire, Type IV forward throw optical distribution. Based on the photometric test data, the luminaire has the following zonal lumen distribution: Lumens I % Lamp Lumens Forward Light FL (0-30 degrees) 1618 5.9% FM (30-60 degrees) 6093 22.2% FH (60-80 degrees) 3748 13.6% FVH (80-90 degrees) 27 0.1 % Backlight BL (0-30 degrees) 985 3.6% BM (30-60 degrees) 930 3.4% BH (60-80 degrees) 136 0.5% BVH (80-90 degrees) 16 0.1 % Uplight UL (90-100 degrees) 0 0.0% UH (100-180 degrees) 0 0.0% Backlight Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid angles do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-1. In this example the backlight rating would be B2 based on the BL lumen limit. Uplight Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid an les do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-2. In this example the uplight rating would be UO Pased on the UL and U H lumen limits. Glare Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid angles do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-3 for a Type IV distribution. In this example, the glare rating would be G2 based on the FH lumen limit. Therefore, the BUG rating for this luminaire would be: B2 U1 G2 © International Dark -Sky Association 3225 N. First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA www.darksky.org Addendum A for IES TM-15-11: Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) Ratings This Addendum replaces Addendum A in IESNA TM-15-07. The following Backlight, Uplight, and Glare ratings may be used to evaluate luminaire optical performance related to light trespass, sky glow, and high angle brightness control. These ratings are based on a zonal lumen calculations for secondary solid angles defined in TM-15-11. The zonal lumen thresholds listed in the following three tables are based on data from photometric testing procedures approved by the Illuminating Engineering Society for outdoor luminaries (LM-31 or LM-35). Table A-1: Backlight Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) Backlight Rating Secondary Solid Angle BO 1131 B2 133 B4 B5 BH 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 n a� BM 220 1000 2500 5000 8500 >8500 m 131. 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 Table A-2: Uplight Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) Secondary Solid Anale z UH .1-c �a Cx Z� U) UL Uplight Rating UO U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 0 10 50 500 1000 >1000 0 10 50 500 1000 >1000 • 0 Notes to Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3: (1) Any one rating is determined by the maximum rating obtained for that table. For example, if the BH zone is rated B1, the BM zone is rated B2, and the BL zone is rated B 1, then the backlight rating for the luminaire is 62, (2) To determine BUG ratings, the photometric test data must include data in the upper hemisphere unless no light is emitted above 90 degrees vertical (for example, if the luminaire has a flat lens and opaque sides), per the IES Testing Procedures Committee recommendations. (3) It is recommended that the photometric test density include values at least every 2.5 degrees vertically. If a photometric test does not include data points every 2.5 degrees vertically, the BUG ratings shall be determined based on appropriate interpolation. (4) A "quadrilateral symmetric" luminaire shall meet one of the following definitions: a. A Type V luminaire is one with a distribution that has circular symmetry, defined by the IESNA as being essentially the same at all lateral angles around the luminaire. b. A Type VS luminaire is one where the zonal lumens for each of the eight horizontal octants (0-45, 45-90, 90-135, 135-180, 180-225, 225-270, 270- 315, 315-360) are within ±10 percent of the average zonal lumens of all octants. • Table A-3: Glare Ratings (maximum zonal lumens) Glare Rating for Asymmetrical Luminaire Types (Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV) Secondary Solid Angle GO G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 FVH 10 100 225 500 750 >750 Z J °>' BVH 10 100 225 500 750 >750 N c FH 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 m ca BH 110 500 1000 2500 5000 >5000 Glare Rating for Quadrilateral Symmetrical Luminaire Types (Type V, Type V Square) Secondary Solid Angle GO G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 t FVH I 10 I_ 100 225 500 750 >750 J BVH 10 100 225 500 750 >750 C: C 9 0 FH 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 m S H 660 1800 5000 7500 12000 >12000 • E "BUG" RATING EXAMPLE: A 250-watt MH area luminaire, Type IV forward throw optical distribution. Based on the photometric test data, the luminaire has the following zonal lumen distribution: Forward Li ht Lumens % Lamp Lumens FL 0 - 30 degrees) 1618 5.9% FM 30 - 60 degrees) 6093 22.2% FH 60 — 80 de rees 3748 27 13.6% 0.1 % FVH 80 — 90 degrees) Back Light BL 0 — 30 degrees) 985 3.6% BM 30 — 60 degrees) 930 3.4% BH 60 — 80 degrees) 136 0.5% BVH 80 — 90 degrees) 16 -0.1 -------- --------------------- _ 0.0% U li ht - UL 90 — 100 degrees) 0 UH 100 — 180 degrees) 0 _ 1 0.0% Backlight Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid angles do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-1. In this example the backlight rating would be B2 based on the BL lumen limit. Uplight Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid angles do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-2. In this example the uplight rating would beJJ4-based on the andR11Hlumen limits. UO UL UH Glare Rating: Determine the lowest rating where the lumens for all of the secondary solid angles do not exceed the threshold lumens from Table A-3 for a Type IV distribution- In this example, the glare rating would be G2 based on the FH lumen limit. Therefore, the BUG rating for this luminaire would be: B2 UO G2 • 0 LP Nest LP NEST -LED Material description PRODUCT SPECIFICATION NOTES: LED TECHNOLOGY IS RAPIDLY CHANGING. LEOS ARE MADE N LOTS AND SORTED INTO ENS BASED ON WAVELENGHTS RANGES THAT ACHIEVE COLORS. PRODUCTS ORDERED AT DFFERENT TIM ES MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME COLOR APPEREANCE. WIN DLOADNG: EPA = 1.7 Sq. Ft ELECTRICAL POWER PACK PROVIDED WITH LUMINARE FOR INSTALLATION N T-RSA 4-5` POLES WITH INS!OE DIAMETER OF 4 IA* R_ SPUN ALUMINUM TOP SHADE WITH WHITE PAlYT FINISH CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING WITH POWDER COATED FINISH (NATURAL PAINTEDALUMNUM OR GRAPHITE GREY I CLEAR GLASS LED ENCLOSURE 53W LED, CCT 40ODK OR 3000K 150W SYSTEM POWER CONSUMPTION} ALUMINUM HEAT SINK CAST ALUMINUM TENON ELECTRONIC DRIVER FOR 120.277V OPERATION SURGE PROTECTOR WITH 10,0000A CURRENT RATING (PROVIDED PER REOUEST) 2/3 Raw Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I FL 333311 PH:954-349-2525 I Fax: 954-349-2550 1 louispoulsen.com • 0 LP Nest LP NEST -LED PRODUCT SPECIFICATION Product description LP Nest Design Bystrup Architects Concept The fixture emits an indirect. soft and symmetrical light. Reflections in the "lattice" create an attractive play of light within the fixture. Finish Natural painted aluminum or graphite grey, powder coated. Material Top shade: Spun aluminum. Enclosure: Clear glass. Reflector: Anodized aluminum. Framework: Die cast aluminum. Mounting Post top: Mounted on round straight aluminum (RSA) pole. Weight Max. 18 lbs. Label cULus. Wet Location. MEW Product Code souim voltage Finah El shock potection d. loptlem, PNEST-PT 1/150W/CMH/T-6 G12 120-277V GRAPH NOT APPLICABLE DIMMING 1/70W/CMH/T-6 G12 NAT PAINT ALU SURGE PROTECTOR DVNADIMMER BOW LED 3000K US NOT APPLICABLE W LED 4000K US Specificationmtes a. CMH variants provided with one 120-277V electronic ballast to be mounted in the pole. b. LED variants provided with one 120.277V electronic driver m be mounted in the pole. c. All LED wattages are system power. d. Dimming option is only available fa 150W and for LED variants. e. DynadimmorTM option is only available for 1 SOW and for LED variants f. Dynadimma' provided with dimmable ballast (CMH variant) or dimmable driver (LED vanant) Info notes I. For pole selection, refer to Pole page. II. The comparable EU version has the following classification Ingress Protection Code: FEB. III. LED technology is rapidly charging . Specifications are based on present technology. For most up to data specifications see www.lauispoulsen.com IV. Dynadimmer ' will be programmed at the factory. Programming information required from the customer is available in are specification sheets. V. For wireless control option, please consult factory Lfts am L/3 YD Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I FL 333311 PH:954-349-2525 I Fax: 954-349-2550 1 loulspoulsen.com KEY NOTES' O o i m4'bdor�rw m�a.a.uoa - r S.A. mu INC. NSOL�m �Ye.enMa1= _ r r l I r��`-`„y._ �•7 ;/i\� _, i _'_ ammo. 1 n �------ DESMAN — / "-- ULLEVIuHOL I• I OLT / O Q (J o n /OE9glE0 B+: BEO o.rz: o-ls-I. n ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN -LIGHTING F E2.01 OltSlIV130 ONUHJII I T OOVHO-1OJ •N&sV b j 3rJVHVO 3ONtRlO Olk!/VZVId VN31VD :3nvN N38sv do 1.uo 9 $ 6 3 g w i :3MN LN3�lJ s gg 9 ®,�! y t �. i t � S S AI: t:1R e i I c Hit ! E z+�jl�j , t =;! ! SITE LIGHTING PLAN ,s S.A. MWO, INC. CONOLTING evc� ua xw um saw �sn. Nm � - � s,udiol Z8Z a x LD �a 0 s' i ro.00ws,m�cnw y ocsrrm er:. BI EL1.0 / ' / ' _ ^ - ' -- ' / . ' ' ` . DESMAN Jo LU z CO ISWED -�-tier Z/ . &�.�T�LIGHTING CALCL�AL IINS - - • • LP Nest LP NEST -LED Light Measurements Photometric Repork LP NEST40W-LID RIW No: L7312A Paulsen Repot No: LP NEST-&M-LID Nu hake: LP NEST Lamp, 60WAED, 400DC Desaiption: All data shown me pc12662 lumens. Thr report can be used foi ezlcctabon on a!l velsrolc listed below. Use only actual lumen data calculahng Vedcal Annie candela 0 700.6 707.1 15 759A 25 732.9 35 e82.7 45 805.5 55 487.3 05 351.9 75 1978 60 232 120 3.3 150 1.0 lAp 1.5 0-20 288-49 NA 10-00 D-30 626.72 NA 23.50 0.40 1 054-1 5 NA. 39.60 D-60 195513 NA 73.50 "a 2512.8E NA 94.40 D-90 258200 NA 97.DO 10-90 25M 77 NA 9420 2D-40 765.67 N A 28. a0 2o-50 1231.9 NA. 46.30 40-70 124921 NA 46.90 6o-ao 558.96 NA. 20-90 70-80 209.51 NA 7.90 W90 69.11 NA. 2.50 9o-110 47.44 NA. 1.80 go- 12D 73.99 NA 2.80 90-130 73.99 NA 2.80 9D•150 75.97 NA 3.DD 9o-160 80.38 NA. 3.DO 110-150 32.93 NA. 1.20 0-180 2662.38 NA. 100.00 PRODUCT SPECIFICATION LUMINIAI E CLASSFICATM SYSTEM (LCS) Lumens % Lamp % Lurtitwm FL - Front-Lm (0-30) 313-4 NA 11.8 FM - FrontAledum (30-00) 004-0 NA 25.0 FH - Front -High (60.80) 278.5 NA 10.5 FVH - Fmnt-Very High (BD40) 34.0 NA 1.3 BL-Bm*-L e(0-30) 3134 NA 11-8 BM - Back -Medium (30-00) 1184.6 NA 25.0 SH - Bade -High (0D-80) 278.5 NA 10.5 BVH - Back -Very Kph (BO-90) 34.0 NA 1.3 t1L - Llpigh4lw (90-100) 30-8 NA 12 UH-Uptiphl-KVh(1 OD-180) 40.8 NA 1.9 Total 2062-6 NA 100.0 BUG Rating Bl-U2G1 3/3 Louis Poulsen Lighting 13260 Meridian Parkway I FL 333311 PH,954-349-2525 I Fax: 954-349-2550 1 louispoulsen.com • 0 r(, 2009 I ECC COMcheck Software Version 3.9.4 Exterior Lighting Compliance Certificate Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title: GALENA PLAZA/RIO GRANDE GARAGE Exterior Lighting Zone: 2 (Neighborhood business district) Construction Site: Owner/Agent: Designer/Contractor: ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN AARON HUMPHREY ASPEN, CO 81611 4341 CR 113 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 970-948-2637 AARON @ALPENGLOWINC.COM Section 2: Exterior Lighting Area/Surface Power Calculation A B C D E F Exterior Area/Surface Quantity Allowed Tradable Allowed Proposed Watts Wattage Watts Watts / Unit (B x C) Special feature area 61883 ft2 0.14 Yes 8664 1380 Total Tradable Watts" = 8664 1380 Total Allowed Watts = 8664 Total Allowed Supplemental Watts" = 600 Wattage tradeoffs are only allowed between tradable areas/surfaces. " A supplemental allowance equal to 600 watts may be applied toward compliance of both non -tradable and tradable areas/surfaces. Section 3: Exterior Lighting Fixture Schedule A B C D E Fixture ID : Description / Lamp / Wattage Per Lamp / Ballast Lamps/ # of Fixture (C X D) Fixture Fixtures Watt. Special feature area (61883 ft2): Tradable Wattage LED 1: S1: SITE POLE: LED Roadway -Parking Unit 54W: 1 21 60 1260 LED 2: LED Other Fixture Unit 6.5W: 1 12 10 120 Total Tradable Proposed Watts = 1380 Section 4: Requirements Checklist Lighting Wattage: LJ 1. Within each non -tradable area/surface, total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed watts. Across all tradable areas/surfaces, total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed watts. Compliance: Passes. Controls, Switching, and Wiring: U 2. All exemption claims are associated with fixtures that have a control device independent of the control of the nonexempt lighting. U 3. Lighting not designated for dusk -to -dawn operation is controlled by either a a photosensor (with time switch), or an astronomical time switch. Lj 4. Lighting designated for dusk -to -dawn operation is controlled by an astronomical time switch or photosensor. U 5. All time switches are capable of retaining programming and the time setting during loss of power for a period of at least 10 hours. Project Title: Report date: Data filename: A:\Alpenglow\Projects\Active Projects\City of Aspen\Galena Plaza\Design\Calcs\GALENA PLAZA.cck Page 1 of 2 Exterior Lighting Efficad , ❑ 6. All exterior building grounds luminaires that operate at greater than 100W have minimum efficacy of 60 lumen/watt- Exceptions: Lighting that has been claimed as exempt and is identified as such in Section 3 table above. l] Lighting that is specifically designated as required by a health or life safety statue, ordinance, or regulation. ❑ Emergency lighting that is automatically off during normal building operation. U Lighting that is controlled by motion sensor. Section 5: Compliance Statement Compliance Statement. The proposed exterior lighting design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed lighting system has been designed to meet the 2009 IECC requirements in COMcheck Version 3.9.4 and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. Aaron J. Humphrey Name - Title A 10/21/14 Signature Date Project Title: Report date: Data filename: A:Wlpenglow\Projects\Active Projects\City of Aspen\Galena Plaza\Design\Calcs\GALENA PLAZA.cck Page 2 of 2 0 9 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project will require the complete removal of all site improvements on the top of the Garage; pavers, lawn and soils, shrubs and trees, concrete planter walls, elevator and stair housing and roof, existing stairs, alley and North Galena surfaces including all support utilities like irrigation and site lighting. Improvements will include: • Repair to the garage structural double Tee members as required • New waterproofing membrane • New plaza drainage system • New electrical system • Site Pavers • Site Siting areas • Stair way to Rio Grande Place • Site Lighting • Paver, walk and stair snow melt system • Enhanced elevator, stair and roof • Mechanical room • Electrical room • Shuttle bus stop • Structural soil planting mix • Landscape Trees, Shrubs, Lawn, Perennials • Irrigation system • Water quality facilities • Porous Paving System • Sanitary sewer by the San District • Storm sewer • Oneway alley and street circulation • A pedestrian friendly environment 0 0 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT/TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF: ZG PLAZA AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ' SHEET 1 OF 5 5HEET INDEX II PIIWFIT'IXSCain,IDM1S. rgTE5. t0, BOt,xOauFi, aNp U,sIOFs II CpIIWRi axp MEFS IXtuI 31 CdI3WN6 aero mFFS aI DIt1331Ei aNDLS OE,ul sl U,INPES uaD -L.— DFrul nc m u PRO MD IPTIDN: b[ 1 atM Np GdMe obit' w [M pb Grave Ssbutiv�sbn rerbrOM Odn6er IR, 1993 an Rat ba 33 at pye p3 n 11ecM[bs eEe. Y]199. anedbe.a,Mmermee s„ee,w.or,.,[[warywInesupr xbes 6i P19 rdr,w Rtarn cwnn cwnw SubA.bbn La lire asysmmt pet re[praee wry s, iapi Rn w pooa ye 19 n 9— xo. a69sse Id 3 a tM tMGdMe Subsxbbn, x[waly,e me slo Granse Supush'rsien rt[eraM Ocober 1p, 1993'�n Rat ppa 33 x page p3 x aeagvn xo. M3199 pb 4raNe SrrmxMov, accwsvR w tle eb Grxae Sr<amsbn errs R[ab Cdnryl'emw Su6gWbn Ld Lrb MWvmed W t Rcoges lag s, 9pN n Rat Bess 61 Pye l9 n Re[egbn xo. e69506 n w tinter Subsi.sbn a[cwdy1- torM R,ta Eim ad dL. Pus oe.d Ptah Ca�,y Cenw Su abaw.m re[wsM Aaxcn 16, -D b Rat &+oa 93 n Pye %n ee[eptbn Mo. 56]9O3 lupawn lor. Sb East 6snn Hr6n, aspen Cdw,pp. Gerbrar wxranry Gees •eeprnas October I, 3pp3 n neeeptbn ab..n6w. utpaa,Iaex Edw9awEn s3neaeagxb NDTEs: wRVEYORS CERWR n I xerell' Rau pHl sW 6xprnaenserH Srrws Rat rat prepares b9 Svpx Eyrreeriy, uc ISFI b ory a avEx �2buxtr3mE. ac a M1esrermore eme tNt,M.nwwnrrents "n tM abaw sex,ibes wrcel on txb sate, Ma �, 3p3a ea[eq rnlary 'veh wra6m tM bourWrbsatM aspinry opmwucmexsrotniMueN. xb paa�usm wr•d a�.e�o- etn�i, n eq,erra.�nt oprsw w a.arw.rn wn a aw wr"ea...opt n wtea.l rurpernrpre s,ate,bar me [anro gxnbn rs Breatw lNn I b ]5.R0p arb tNt tW PopeRY n w6e[t w merwlbru, res,nnwns. [werunn ins exemeno of remd w b place. np, mxdL3 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS w",e`,�w„r""a "e'°W r"e �x�:e:.^"'^ e,""rde xr.e,,,,,a,.,.�r.m„rw.,. "'°'e`"• 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ra..�ere,r.rs ra,.es CAREDDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704 -03 11 SOPRI SENG@SOPRISENG. COM P . S' MPROVEM E NT SURVEY PLA7/TOPOGRAPHICAL MAI' M ZG PLAZA AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ,ve°u""r6c III ° \• SHEET OF m� � a •III n�-�'� .earn°"'.. �I l°}Sa"",. •-� S i I - nrn�an»,. \ error u4 �b _ LOT > ° N — "• RIO GRAND% eo °' �' SUBDIVISION F 'Z I 25.756�ff. coµ , 0.591 /' °'�-' CIO • - wa ' `�+'nq • ""r"°r MONUMENT LEGEND , "4j4ja I 8 0 ••• I • "�' riu snee roN°zr rru STMS MN= t B � �• — wr.o .w�. 1 - gl raKm 20 � . - c II 6ecc�d�� assaar xcr v%inisixsiv �.,�„ 2 — or - 1 I f!p 1�- rncaw.`»•`wn ,,....w me=rt J h C y m E�� mcr�axE�.uNwEE m-I' LOT zor /0 d.UENDED RIO CRAND6 CRANDS ' SUBDIVISION r SUBDIVISION RWEPTION No469504 OI6 W.k.0572 --= I. 0.912 tmewGutnE.rN°u.Eintuas*aa E Em.wc sweaaux°ur E GRA RHICSCALE ar. a - n I ms .. C,"En me . ■� —'•o— a�t . -- •I�•t �= � ��-- GENEAALUMIiY NOBS: inxn� s�aaraa+f6fWs-r 4 f Can[ u6�ur ___uI— ° r Mere• m my a1f00.° froi[tFvaif/I rr. lorsti°rn °r wxrg<o,„ra m+a». narc en. obtt•a r R °'� -- —=� _ _� " �` T �j xE�u°.°E easeamory maPs.cwsv�xa,.g. pam,nm.. k _ „_.a wBe-y'�" 4•' ror�t p°.vka fir wury woks ana anwl nee � RS wor ns m wme �nsuncn TIKu mlutas, as sow., mar __ u • � o�orewewm aawl nan co,a�. u» nK �.sPo.nd "^ n. cent act °c tee mnry mmwnKs rw nNa �i W SOPRIS ENGINEERING -LLC b[stron °f ul4°es prl°r roccmHrt.Non. ew ra CMLC NSU1-01 LTANTS `� NA n. n I \ �'• 502 MAIN STREET, SURE A3'� CARBONDALE, COIORADO 81623 -_ I I eel(070J704-031150PRISEN5@SOPRI1ENG.COM IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, IDPOGRAPHICAL MAP CF ZG PLAZA AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 5th P.M. I-c CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ° SHEET S OF S /aY RM F � • a• _V1 �a LOT ! FIRST AVENDED 1 6 P/TA7,V COUNTY CENTER —+„^ SUBD/V1S0N 61,273 - wwcvm f.10] \Lr ra $ e 2UPANCIS m LL 540 EAST MAIN Sr m �� �� •� ��' - «n, � � 78.N5 still � tmnn ssvu wwa[ L I I U.60, xwercµ a MONUMENT LEGEND _ "� 1 �• w e _ O � � f ® ac wiwwvun aox I GRAPHIC SCALE 7.�n„tn,at unWy mapF canANcfM/tlesgn Plans, M6cr inlmmatan pwitle° W I aaq, r.,[v ,� — "nury s�++anus am,uval re lwtbns n so,na Ina,n.aa. mesa "' ri "°�^ •� °^ M� �°�^°^°° "°"K I SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC resp°nsipiry of the <rnlra[tat°mntacf all "r15tY mrrWanies for M1eltl U ° . �'`�,�' i �° �n,n or ul66n Pnorm�nrn,n«,n N ULTANTS 502 MAINAIN STREET, SUITE A3 _ _ _ _ l I _ •ate CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623 '""' —• — I9701704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPR ISE NG.COM _ •L - _ ue.a Q44 S-A .d �� Aliff-41 r