HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Pitkin Co Library.A109-89
/
.......
~'
.',,','j'
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE
DATE
RECEIVED: 11~8/89
COMPLETE: Idj 'f R1
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-073-22 00
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: pitkin County Librarv/Rio Grande SPA Amendment
Project Address: Rio Grande Pronerty. North Mill Street
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Pitkin County Librarv
Applicant Address: 120 East Main Street
REPRESENTATIVE: John Wheeler. Caudill. Gustafson. Ross & Assoc.
Representative Address/Phone: P.O. Box FF
Asnen. CO 81612 5-3383
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
$100 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
1 STEP: 2 STEP:
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
P&Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
~
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
-/
Paid:
Date: F/i0{O
REFERRALS:(/'/~
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED:
/>/-:>7/3"5
INITIALS:
L9f-
FINAL ROUTING:
DA'l'E ROUTED:
1/i1(10
INITIAL:~
Env. Health
~ city Atty City Engineer
___ Housing ~ Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
----------
Pitkin County Library/Rio
Grande SPA Amendment 109A-89
a73-7-073- • J-o o/
JOHN C. WHEELER
0 Archirecc
CAUDILL GUSTAFSON ROSS
& ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.C.
234 EAST HOPKINS P.O. BOX FF
ASPEN, COLORADO B1612 303-925-3383
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
0a
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
Name:
Address:
Check #
Additional billing`
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project:
Date:
# of Hours:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11 28 89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-073-22-001 109
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Pitkin County Library/Rio Grande SPA Amendment
Project Address: Rio Grande Property, North Mill Street
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Pitkin County Library
Applicant Address: 120 East Main Street
REPRESENTATIVE: John Wheeler, Caudill, Gustafson, Ross & Assoc.
Representative Address/Phone: P. O. Box FF
Aspen, CO 81612 5-3383
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $100 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
2 STEP:
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: / Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:y Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School District
City Engineer
Parks Dept.
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: % INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
City Atty City Engineer
Housing other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
U INITIAL:
Zoning Env. Health
John Wheeler
Caudill Gustafson Ross & Associates
P.O. Box FF
Aspen, Co. 81612 Jan. 11, 1990
RE: Pitkin County Library/Rio Grande SPA Amendment
Dear John,
As I mentioned today, Planning Director Amy Margerum has
signed approval for the insubstantial amendment for the Library
Final Development Plan. As per your request, I have enclosed
copies of the documents relating to the approval. Please call me
if you need anything else.
Sincerely,
Kim Johnson
Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
tl!!3
RE: Pitkin County Library/Rio Grande SPA Amendment
DATE: January 9, 1990
SUMMARY: The Pitkin County Library is requesting an
insubstantial amendment to their Final Development Plan so that a
redesigned main entrance may be incorporated into the project.
The new design calls for a 9' increase in height of the entry
including 300 s.f. of additional floor area for meeting space.
BACKGROUND: On February 13, 1989, the Pitkin County Library was
given final SPA approval by Resolution #3. Since then, it was
discussed by the Library Board, the Planning Department, and the
City Council that the proposed entry into the library lacked
focal emphasis. In response to the concerns, Caudill Gustafson
Ross & Associates have redesigned the entrance and are submitting
this proposal. On December 15, 1989 the Public Projects Review
Group studied the revision and were pleased with the design. See
memo from Roxanne Eflin, attachment "A".
FINDINGS: The original design called for a 35'-1" top of parapet
height (from the ground.) The revision adds a clock tower
structure over the entry with an overall height of 44' above
grade. This represents a 9' increase. The clock tower structure
includes 300 s.f. of additional internal floorspace.
The Review Standards for Amendment to Approved SPA Plan (Section
7-804 E.) for this project are addressed as follows:
Paragraph 1:
A: There is no change in the use or character of the
development. The additional square footage will be used
for a reading room or a small meeting room for the Library
Board.
B: The revision does not increase the coverage of structures on
the land.
C: The revision will not increase trip generation rates or
demand for public facilities.
D: Approved open space has not been decreased.
E: Off-street parking and loading space has not been reduced.
• 0
F: Pavement widths or right-of-way for streets and easements
have not been reduced.
G: Floor area has been increased by 300 s.f. or 1% of the 30,000
s.f. approved structure (2% is maximum allowed.)
H: Residential density, not applicable
Paragraph 2:
There have been no other amendments to this SPA.
Paragraph 3:
These proposed modifications are consistent with the approved
Conceptual Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director
approve this insubstantial amendment to the approved Final
Development Plan for the Pitkin County Library/Rio Grande SPA.
I hereby approve the above insubstantial
amendment to an approved Final Development
Plan pursuant to Section. 7-804 E. of the
Aspen Land Use Code.
G�
Amy rgerum, P1 ing Director
Attachments: "A" - Referral from Historic Planner Roxanne Eflin
E
4-MA,^AkA5 ff "A "
I NIDO W, ce) I'M z10)Vl
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Referral Comments: Pitkin County Library SPA
Insubstantial Amendment
Date: January 9, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Per your request, the following information is submitted as a
referral comment to assist in the staff review of the applicant's
request to amend the SPA approval for the proposed Pitkin County
Library:
The newly formed Public Projects Review Group (PPRG) met on
December 15, 1989, to review the proposed changes to the
Library. It should be understood that the PPRG has been
created in response to the public and Council's desire to
have a non -binding architectural peer group informally
review and comment on publicly -funded projects to assist the
Planning Office (and the community) achieve the goal of
better designed projects.
The Planning Office requested the PPRG review the Library,
primarily to determine if the proposed changes (clock tower)
were appropriate. Our concern was that the amendments might
be so significant as to not meet the code criteria of
"insubstantial", therefore requiring an additional review at
P&Z level.
The PPRG voiced their unanimous support for the redesign of
the tower element, and further recommended alterations to
the facade and secondary elevations. The need for a steeper
roof pitch was discussed at length. Also, a restudy of the
fenestration was recommended, to aid the design in appearing
less "Prairie Style" and more compatible to Aspen's
traditional vertical character. All PPRG members agreed
that quality of detail was a critical issue in making this
important public project successful. The project architect
discussed the group's comments favorably with them and
stated he would be taking these suggestions back to the
Library Board for their review. As of this date no
additional changes have been submitted for approval.
memo.kim.library
0
�
-4
Q
W
-
p
o
J
�
-
�
I
J
111
I
Q
I I I I
11�
I
I'
\1
I
w
Caudill Gustafson Ross
z R UO UDVE90 U a9 P.00
P.O. BOX FF 234 E. HDP
ASPEN COLORA00 816'12 303-9215-3383
w
~
N
L
w
-
o
Q
'
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
- .- -- . _ - - - - - I
Caudill Gustafson Ross
220000UX 8 ° o MMFTCO,0709 polo
P.O. BOX FF 234 E. HOP ASPEN, COLORADO B1Bh2 • 303-925-3383
• 9
4h November 21, 1989
Aspen Planning & Zoning
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn.: Amy Margerum
RE: Pitkin County Library/Rio Grande SPA
MS. MARGERUM - On February 13, 1989, the Pitkin County Library was given
final SPA by resolution #3, 1989. During the approval process we were
given input on various items relating to the design of the library. The
final design of the library responds to these inputs as much as possible.
During the review of the design phase, the Pitkin County Library Board
expressed concern that the main entry to the library was understated and
requested the architects to study other design solutions. This concern was
also expressed by the Planning Department and some members of City Council.
The Council meeting notes of October 10, 1988 discuss this same issue.
In response to these concerns and per a discussion with Tom Baker, we have
developed a revised design solution for the main entry and are asking for
the Planning Directors' authorization of the revision. We have received
the Planning Department's guidelines for an insubstantial amendment to an
approved final development plan and feel this revision falls under those
guidelines. We have enclosed drawings indicating the revision.
Referring to the Planning Dept. Attachment 4 Review Standards: Development
Application for Amendment to Approved PUD or SPA Plan. (Copy enclosed).
Under Paragraph 1:
A. There is no change in the use or character of the development. The
additional 300 SF of floor area will be used for a reading room or a
small meeting room for the Library Board.
B. The revision does not increase the coverage of structures on the land.
C. The revision will not increase trip generation rates or demand for
public facilities.
D. Approved open space has not been decreased.
E. Off street parking and loading space has not been reduced.
F. Pavement widths or right of way for street and easements have not been
reduced.
G. Floor area has been increased by 300 SF or 1% of the 30,000 SF
approved.
H. Not applicable.
CAUDILL GUSTAFSON ROSS 6 ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX FF ASPEN, COLORADO B1612 303-925-33e3
•
Aspen Planning & Zoning
Attn.: Amy Margerum
November 21, 1989
Page Two
Under Paragraph 2: There have been no other amendments to this SPA.
Under Paragraph 3: We feel this modification is consistent with the
approved conceptual development plan.
We have a model showing this design revision which clearly depicts the
character of the entry and it is being included for your use. Please do
not hesitate to contact us if ,you have any further questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
CAUD LL TAFSON S & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.C.
,ohn Wheeler
Project Architect
Pi.tkin County Library
/kh:le11-21
CAUDILL GUSTAFSON ROSS 6 ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P. C. P.O. BOX FF ASPEN, COLORADO B 1 61 2 303-925-33B3
ATTACHMENT 4
Review Standards: Development Application for
Amendment to Approved PUD or SPA Plan
1. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Final
Development Plan may be authorized by the Planning
Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be
limited to technical or engineering considerations
first discovered during actual development which
could not reasonably be anticipated during the
approval process. The following shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment:
a. A change in the use or character of the
development.
b. An increase by greater than three (3%)
percent in the overall coverage of structures
on the land.
C. Any amendment that substantially increases
trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public
facilities.
d. A reduction by greater than three (3%)
percent of the approved open space.
e. A reduction by greater than one (1%) percent
of the off-street parking and loading space.
f. A reduction in required pavement widths or
rights -of -way for streets and easements.
g. An increase of greater than two (2%) percent
in the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings.
h. An increase by greater than one (1%) percent
in the approved residential density of the
proposed develompent.
2. The Planning Director's evaluation shall compare
the proposed amendment to the original approval
and if any other amendments have been approved
since the original approval, shall consider the
cumulative impacts of all approvals granted.
3. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant
to the terms and procedures of the Final Develop-
ment Plan, provided that the proposed change is
consistent with the approved Conceptual Develop-
ment Plan.
4. In the absence of an approved Final Development
Plan, an accurate improvements survey of existing
conditions may be substituted to permit evaluation
of whether the proposed activity is an insubstan-
tial or other change to the site.
i
0-
0 t— 6 10 76 �6 60
Of APHIC SCALE
MILL STREET FACADE (Weft Elevation) PAL
I i
0 1 6 t0 15 35 50
aMAi HIC .CAL.
NEWS
�I
[ITf.10. ELl YATIOu"
A .
CENTRAL BANK
IMPROVED ALLEY
P. L.
41-
ENTRY TQ
PARKING
BELOW
CIVIC PLAZA FACADE- (EastElevation)
GOAPHIC SCALE
MILL STREET FACADE (Writ ElovatloJ
-2 'I,' I Lo - eCAL4,14
201%
2r,".
0lTL
Or�
i
�I
lee
cc
i3
I.
is
G Si
ALLEY FACADE (SOUTH ELEVATION) OzEsae2f-0 11-14P-10311)
I *MSCALE WIC , -,l,is as
CIIA
r
Lo ?f,
0
ra
1E2
E9
z
!V'-a
�a
r
CENTRAL BANK BEYOND
o
..........
. . ... .........
JAI- -f-
-E2
iT
CAP'll Fomtamouwm�
TRANSPORTATION CINT911 RIO GRANDE FACADE (WORTH ELEVATION)
KITIRIOR RLIVATIONS'
4�
;41W
�. a a.. --
ALLEY FACADE (SOUTH ELEVATION)
s
.� E —fn is so
d11A114 C SCALE
LM
i
' ►
�I
c
o-
ca
cc
co
CDX
F"
_
IM
: 0
3
IZ
Y
u a
La
EETEAIOA ELEVATION*
or re
K
� *•k': t^+'�!'f r.,?'ay •�y' .ram ';•
d.:._..n_..�_....