HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.joint.20090804AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, August 4, 2009
4:00 p.m. -Joint meeting with City Council -Council Chambers
5:00 p.m. - P&Z and HPC -Sister Cities Room
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Wheeler Opera House
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 12
P1
Agenda for Wheeler Expansion Public Hearin¢ on August 4, 2009
I. Call Joint HPC and PZ Meeting to Order (LJ Erspamer)
II. Call P&Z to Order (Stan Gibbs)
III. Call HPC to Order (Mike Hoffman)
IV. Jim True to give summary of process
V. Staff presentation of changes
VI. Applicant comments about changes
VII. Boazd questions and clazifications (LJErspamer)
VIII. Public comments (open and close public comment portion of meeting) (LJ Erspamer)
IX. Discuss each topic as outlined in the staff memo as a group (LJ Erspamer)
X. Motions:
a. PUD Conceptual Plan to establish- dimensional requirements for height and
FAR, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. The review of a PUD is a four
step review process. Step one is conceptual review before the Planning and
Zoning Commission (this public heazing), step two is conceptual review before
City Council, step three is final review before P&Z, step four is final review
before Councit.
i. HPC referral to P & Z. (Mike Hoffman)
ii. P&Z recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review
authori after considering a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. (Stan Gibbs)
b. Special Review for Parking to establish pazking requirement for an Essential
Public Facility.
i. P & Z referral to HPC. (Stan Gibbs)
ii. HPC may approve, approve with conditions, disapprove or continue to a
date certain the application. HPC is the final review authority. (Mike
Hoffman)
c. HPC Maior Development Conceptual Review: HPC has purview over the
mass, scale, context, site and location of the proposed addition as it relates to the
historic Wheeler and the Historic District through Major Development
Conceptual Design Review.
i. P & Z recommendation to HPC. (Stan Gibbs)
ii. HPC may approve, approve with conditions, disapprove or continue to a
date certain the application. HPC is the final review authority, though City
Council may call-up HPC's decision. (Mike Hoffman)
Page 1 of 2
P2
d. Commercial Design Standard Conceptual Review. Pursuant to Section
26.412.030 of the Land Use Code, "when a proposed development ... has
potential for significant community interest due to its location, magnitude or
complexity..." the P&Z and the HPC aze required to fiznction as one joint review
board for the Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual Review. The joint boazd
has purview over pedestrian amenity, height, mass, scale, location and setting in
order to preserve and to foster proper commercial district scale and chazacter and
to ensure that Aspen's commercial azeas and streetscape are public places
conducive to walking and dwelling.
i. P & Z and HPC operate as one joint review boazd. (Mike Hoffman)
ii. Consolidated boazd may approve, approve with conditions, disapprove or
continue to a date certain the application. The Consolidated Boazd is the
final review authority, though City Council may call up the Consolidated
Boazd's decision. (Mike Hoffman)
Page 2 of 2
P3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 320 East Hyman Avenue, The Wheeler Opera House -Commercial Design
Standards Review (Conceptual) joint review by HPC and P&Z; Conceptual PUD
Review by P & Z; and Major Historic Development (Conceptual), Special Review
for Parking review by HPC
DATE: August 4, 2009 (continued from June 24, 2009 and July 8, 2009)
APPLICANT /OWNER:
City of Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Wheeler Opera
House, 320 East Hyman Avenue,
Aspen, CO represented by Gram
Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler
Opera House; Fazewell Mills Gatsch
Architects, LLC; and Rowland +
Broughton Architecture and Urban
Design.
LOCATION:
Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81 City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly
known as Wheeler Opera House.
CURRENT ZONING BC USE
Located in the Commercial Core (CC)
Historic District, a National Register
Historic and local landmazk containing
a four story arts and cultural facility
with commercial spaces on the ground
floor.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The applicant requests approval to construct an addition
to the western side of the Wheeler Opera House to
expand the existing arts and cultural facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) approve the Conceptual plan with
conditions.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the following reviews:
. Conceptual PUD Review (P & Z only);
• Special Review for Pazking to establish a zero (0)
pazking requirement onsite (HPC review only);
• Conceptual Major Development for a Designated
Landmazk in the Commercial Core Historic
District (HPC review only);
• Conceptual Commercial Design Standazd Review,
(joint review by HPC and P&Z).
August 4, 2009
Page 1 of 8
P4
PROCESS: Staff prepazed an outline with the chair of the HPC and the chair and vice chair of the
P & Z (found at the beginning of your packet) to organize the discussion. The different
Conceptual reviews for this project overlap, so Staff has organized the following memo by
providing a synopsis of each major topic. The specific review criteria are individually addressed
in the attached Exhibits. Please refer to the outline for the suggested sequence of the public
heazing.
PROJECT SUMMARY: After the JUIy 8, 2009 public hearing, the applicant restudied different
options for the 4`h floor. In addition to the previous submittal, four iterations for the 4`h floor are
proposed:
1. No 4`h floor unit. Rooftop access from the new addition.
a. Same as #1 but the circulation corridor is setback 5' from the rear property line.
2. Artist apartment/reception unit is replaced with a dedicated public room. Rooftop access
from new addition and Wheeler balcony.
3. No 4`h floor unit. Rooftop access from the new addition and the Wheeler balcony is
proposed.
4. No 4`h floor and no rooftop access. Only a greenroof is proposed.
Alternate. Alternate Alternate Alternate
July 8, 2009 1 2 3 4
Artist/ Circulation Dedicated Circulation N/A
4th floor unit Reception only and Public Room only and
Restrooms Restrooms
Roofto access 378 s . ft. 1,950 s . ft. 780 s . ft. 2,100 s . ft. N/A
Green roof Partial Partial Partial Partial Entire
Proposed Height 51'2" 51' 2" 51' 2" 51' 2" 42' and
(measured to top 51'2" to top
of roof/pazapet) of roof of
stairway that
accesses the
green roof
42' maximum hei ht limit in Com mercial Core
2.87:1 or 2.73:1 or 2.82: 1 or 2.73: 1 or 2.67: 1 or
Proposed FAR 34,469 s . ft. 32,712 s . ft. 33,817 s . ft. 32,712 s . ft. 32,094 s . ft.
2.75: 1 maximum FAR or Arts, Cultural, Civic Uses in Commercial Core
The applicant's preferred option is the July 8, 2009 submittal with the 4a' floor as an artist
unit/reception area with roof top access for patrons.
STAFF COMMENTS
Setback: The proposed 4 foot setback of the addition from the property line remains unchanged
and is present in al] of the proposed iterations. As stated on July 8, 2009, Staff is in favor of the
front yard setback of the addition because it exposes the comer of the historic Wheeler and as
such contributes to its prominence. The size and shape of the space does not support a public
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 8
P5
gathering azea with benches; however, it will increase the size and efficiency of the interior lobby
space (which is accessible to the public.) Staff recommends that the applicant continue to
develop the treatment of the front yazd setback for discussion during Commercial Design
Standard Final review.
Roofto The addition is required to mitigate for Public Amenity Space as part of the
Commercial Design Standard review. The proposed rooftop space does not meet the Public
Amenity criteria listed in Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.F.5 (i.e. amenity space may not be
mote than 4' above grade); however Section 26.575.030.0.4 permits the following:
"The Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.412 -Commercial Design Review- may accept
any method of providing Public Amenity not otherwise described herein if the
Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be non-
monetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment."
The joint Commission also has the authority to waive the Public Amenity requirement in its
entirety.
The applicant restudied the roof and proposes four new iterations, outlined in the chart on the
previous page. Staff maintains that public access on the rooftop is an essential component of this
project for many reasons. A Finding in the Civic Master Plan states "the view from the Wheeler
Opera House towards Wagner Pazk and Aspen Mountain is a valuable resource..." There aze
very few, if any, rooftop spaces downtown that aze accessible to the public and provide an
unobstructed view of the environment that the viewplane regulations protect. In a way rooftop
access for the public mimics the existing undeveloped azea adjacent to the Wheeler that the
public currently experiences. The Civic Master Plan "supports concepts for maintaining and/or
enhancing the Wheeler Opera House building, adjacent commercial uses and the public spaces
surrounding the Wheeler in order to contribute to the vitality of the azea." Rooftop access
contributes a new public space and a unique experience for the entire community. Furthermore,
the Design Quality goals of the AACP are to "make every public project a model of good
development, on all leve]s, from quality design to positive contributions to the community
fabric," and. to "take advantage of Aspen's assets..." Capitalizing on the rooftop space
contributes and enhances the downtown experience and meets both the Civic Master Plan and the
AACP.
Staff finds that the intent of the Public Amenity space and its value aze met through the proposed
rooftop access and recommends that the Boazds accept the rooftop deck as the method of
providing Public Amenity onsite rather than waive the requirement entirely (Commercial Design
Standazd Review criteria, Exhibit E.)
4a' floor/ Heisht: The historic Wheeler is 55' 7" tall to the cornice and about 71' to its highest
point. The adjacent Motherlode measures 40' 11" high to the top of the third floor at the reaz.
The Commercial Core Zone District mandates a maximum height of 38 feet for three story
elements of a building, which may be increased to 42' through Commercial Design Review.
August 4, 2009
Page 3 of 8
P6
The applicant provided studies that illustrate the elimination of the 4`" floor artisUreception unit
both with rooftop access and without rooftop access. All of the iterations have rooftop access
(Alternate #4 does not incorporate a public deck, just a green deck with access) and require a
height variance from the maximum 42' height limit in the Commercial Core. As stated
previously, Staff finds that public access to the roof is a unique opportunity for the community
that should not be missed. Alternative #1 and #3 on page 2 propose the removal of the
artist/reception unit and only propose circulation and bathroom massing on the 4a' floor. Staff
finds that this relegates the usability of the space to summer months only. Based on past
experiences with rooftop decks, a temporary tent may be erected in the summer which would
probably not be high quality design and will be distracting.
Staff finds that the proposal presented on July 8`" and Alternative #2 proposed tonight aze the
most appropriate options for the 4`s floor (both options provide a 4`h floor unit.) The Commercial
Design Standards emphasize that the most important aspect to a successful addition to a
landmark is that the design is sensitive and respectful to the surrounding historic context (Exhibit
E.) A well designed usable yeaz round space supports the core principles listed in the Civic
Master Plan that "mixed use buildings and mixed use areas create memorable places" and
"creating great `people places' will build vitality." The arts and cultural role that the Wheeler
currently plays is critical to the Aspen Idea of mind, body and spirit. The expansion of the
existing facility and the ability to capitalize on raze opportunities, such as a community room on
the fourth floor, is extremely important.
Staff finds that the proposed height of 51' 2" to the top of the 4`h floor is appropriate for the site
and historic context. The height of the addition is lower than the historic Wheeler (55' 7") and
the fourth floor is significantly set back from the front facade, which causes it to recess into the
background as evidenced by the Sketch Up views from different points downtown attached as
Exhibit B.
Setting the fourth floor back successfully maintains the prominence and visibility of the historic
Wheeler from the street. The front facade height is well below that of the historic Wheeler and
creates a step between the Motherlode and the Wheeler. Staff finds that the addition successfully
introduces height variations to the site. In Staffs opinion, additional modulations, vertical or
horizontal, would distract from the iconic architecture of the Wheeler. Staff finds that the
following Commercial Design Guidelines aze met:
August 4, 2009
Page 4 of 8
P7
6.27 Anew building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the
Commercial Core.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the
subject property.
• A minimum of 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and
highter.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
flowing reasons:
o The primary function of the building is civic (i.e. the building is a museum, civic
building, performance hall, fire station, etc.)
6.28 Height vaziations should be achieved using one or more of the following:
• Vary the- building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot
width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across
the width and the depth of the building.
• Vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front.
• Step down the reaz of the building towazds the alley, in conjunction with other design
standards and guidelines.
6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible.
• On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent
lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the front facade.
• Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structwe.
• Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure.
Staff finds that both options with the enclosed 4`~ floor space (the July 8`" proposal and Alternate
#2) are appropriate and meet the intent of the Civic Master Plan and the AACP. Regazding the
artisUreception azea proposed in the July 8, 2009 iteration, Staff recommends that the applicant
propose an anticipated schedule of use for the 4`~ floor that provides a general overview of when
artists would typically use the unit to cleazly indicate the availability of the space to non-profits
and public groups for rental. The Civic Master Plan recommends that the Wheeler and the
proposed addition contribute to the vitality of the azea both during -the day and at night; a
schedule of projected occupancy/vacancy for the 4~' floor unit will help support this concept.
Mass/Scale/ FAR: As mentioned in previous Staff memos, at a Conceptual level Staff finds that
the proposed massing and scale aze appropriate adjacent to the Wheeler and meet guideline 6.22
below:
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
• Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
• The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements an
projecting or setback" articulations" appeazing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
August 4, 2009
Page 5 of 8
P8
The project requires a slight vaziation from the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for an Arts,
Cultural and Civic use in the Commercial Core from 2:75 to at the most 2.87:1 (July 8`s
iteration.)
CC Existing July 8, Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate
Maximum Wheeler 2009 #1 #2 #3 #4
Arts,
Cultural
2 75:1 1.72:1 2.87:1 2.73:1 2.82:1 2.73:1 2
67:1
and Civic .
Use
Lot Size 33, 000 20,655 34,469 32,712 33,817 sq. 32,712 sq. 32,094 sq.
12,000
ft sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. ft. ft. ft.
s .
.
Difference
in floor
area
between -12,345 +1,496 -288 +817 -288 -906
allowable
and
ro osed
As mentioned in previous meetings, there is a lot of program proposed for the expansion. The
Civic Master Plan recommends that "Future uses at the Wheeler Parcel should:
• Accommodate as many additional needs of the local arts community as possible
• Improve the operational function of the Wheeler Opera House
• Contribute to improvements in the daytime administrative office and box office
• Contribute to the Wheeler's ability to present more live performances and to
improvements in production capabilities."
Staff finds that the CMP is lazgely met with the proposed program, and in turn finds that the
slight increase in proposed floor azea is appropriate for the site. The AACP states that the "city
of Aspen will continue to be an innovative leader in arts, culture, and education" and will "make
educational, cultural, and artistic experiences more accessible for all valley residents."
Developing an Arts, Cultural and Civic building in downtown Aspen is integral to this mission
statement. The Wheeler expansion and proposed versatile interior spaces will foster a diversified
arts and cultural experience in the downtown core. Staff finds that proposed floor azea variation
for both the July 8, 2009 option and Altemate #2 aze appropriate (Exhibit A addresses PUD
review criteria.)
Pazkin~: The applicant requests that HPC establish a zero pazking requirement for the proposed
addition to the Wheeler. Overall, Staff finds that onsite pazking is inappropriate for the site. A
loading dock is required at the rear of the parcel to facilitate drop-offs from travelling shows,
which eliminates the potential for pazking spaces accessed off the alley. The new proposed
venue is subgrade, which eliminates the potential for a below grade pazking garage.
August 4, 2009
Page6of8
P9
Transportation: The applicant suggests a list of steps to mitigate for the projected impact of the
new venue including: staggered start times when two events aze planned, advertising pazking and
alternate transportation options, discount pazking vouchers for the Rio Grande pazking gazage,
etc. Staff finds that the criteria for'Special Review for Pazking (Exhibit C) aze met with the
condition that the applicant incorporates a bike rack into the plan. A detailed Transportation Plan
is required to be submitted with the Final PUD application that studies pedestrian and traffic
circulation.
Housing: One single bedroom affordable housing unit is proposed onsite. The applicant is
working with the Housing Department regazding employee generation rates and mitigation.
Employee generation rates for an Essential Public Facility will be established by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and mitigation will be approved by City Council after Conceptual PUD
approval is granted by City Council.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Zoning Officer, Building Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Department, Utilities, Transportation Department, Pazking Department, Environmental Health
Department, Fire Department and the Pazks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate.
The request for a detailed Transportation Plan was voiced by multiple departments, including a
trip generation study, traffic impact study and pedestrian/bike circulation study of the area. The
Applicant will need to address these concerns as part of the Final Application.
As noted in the staff memo, the Housing requirements will be established through a growth
management review at Planning and Zoning Commission and mitigation requirements will be
approved by City Council. The applicant is working with the Housing Department regarding
employee generation and mitigation for an Essential Public Facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
CONCEPTUAL PUD PLAN: Staff finds that the review criteria, the AACP and the CMP aze
met and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Conceptual
PUD approval to vary the height and allowable floor area as presented in either the July 8,
2009 or Alternate #2, with the conditions listed in the draft P&Z Resolution.
SPECIAL REVIEW FoR PARKING: Staff finds that the review criteria aze met and
recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission establish a zero parking requirement
for the subject property, with the conditions listed in the draft HPC Resolution.
HPC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Staff finds that the review criteria
and the applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines aze met and recommends
approval with the conditions listed in the draft HPC Resolution.
August 4, 2009
Page 7 of 8
P10
JOINT COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Staff firidS that the
applicable review criteria met and the Commercial Core Design Guidelines aze met and
recommends approval with the conditions listed in the draft Joint Resolution.
P&Z Resolution # _, Series of 2009.
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2009.
Joint Resolution # ,Series of 2009.
EXHIBITS:
A: Conceptual PUD Review Criteria
B: Sketch Up views from downtown points for each proposed option
C: Special Review for Pazking Criteria.
D: HPC Review for Conceptual.
E: Commercial Design Standazd Review Criteria.
F: DRC Comments
G: Minutes from joint meetings on June 24, 2009, July 8, 2009.
H: Application
August 4, 2009
Page 8 of 8
P11
RESOLUTION N0. _,
(SERIES OF 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE, 320 EAST HYMAN
AVENUE, LOTS P, Q, R, S, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO,
PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-073-38-851.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wheeler Opera House, 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO
represented by Gram Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler Opera House; Fazewell Mills Gatsch
Architects, LLC; and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design has requested
Commercial Design Standard Conceptual Review for the property located at 320 East Hyman
Avenue, Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Depaztment received an application from the
Wheeler Opera House requesting approval of requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
for an addition to the existing building; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, the Wheeler Opera House is a local landmazk located
in the CC, Commercial Core Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Pazks Department, Parking Department ,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department and Transportation
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public heazing after considering
recommendations by the "Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires
a public heazing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director, Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission and comments from the public were heazd; and,
WHEREAS, during a regulaz meeting on August 4, 2009, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City
Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development by a _to L-~ vote, with
the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to
submit a Final PUD application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD
PZ Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 1 of 4
P12
review, GMQS Review, Commercial Design Standazd Final Review, Major Development Final
Review for a Historic Landmazk, and Subdivision approval pursuant to the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted for a four story addition to the existing
Wheeler Opera House proposed to be 51'2" to the top of the fourth floor roof and 54'2" to the
top of the elevator with a proposed floor azea of 34, 469 squaze feet, which includes a subgrade
performance venue, lobby spaces, office spaces, the conversion of existing box office spaces to
commercial, one affordable housing unit with one bedroom, a versatile mixed media room and a
fourth floor artist apartment/ community room with public rooftop access; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standazds for a
Conceptual PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions aze implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development, subject to
the conditions listed in Section 1 below.
Section 1:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the
Commission, as described above.
2. The Final PUD application shall include:
a. An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further
subject to Final PUD review, GMQS Review, Commercial Design Standazd Final
Review, Major Development Final Review for a Historic Landmark, and Subdivision
approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member
of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an
application.
b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD.
c. A proposed subdivision plat and PUD plans
3. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall make the following
revisions to the development proposal as identified by the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
a. A proposed schedule of occupancy for the rooftop unit will be submitted for review
and approval during Commercial Design Standazd Final Review to quantify
accessibility to the public.
b. Historic Preservation. Additional locations for the existing mechanical equipment on
top of the Wheeler Opera House will be submitted as part of the Final PUD
application.
c. Pedestrian/Public Use, Connections/Experience. Include a study of Pedestrian and
Bike circulation and movement in the azea to be provided.
d. Pazking. A trip generation study, traffic impact study of the azea to be provided.
PZ Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 4
P13
Section 2: Building
The final design shall
permit is submitted.
meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
Section 3: Engineering
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standazds published by the Engineering Department.
Detailed plans of drainage and utilities must be submitted as part of the Final PUD application.
Section 4: Housing
The final design shall be compliant with all section of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title
21.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Transaortation
A detailed Transportation Plan shall be submitted as part of the final PUD application. The
operation plan should include the information listed in the Development Review Committee
minutes and comments from July 22, 2009.
Section 7: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standazds. Existing building connections
may need to be abandoned and/or updated to meet current standards.
Section 8• Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Section 9: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regazd to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs. Trip generation rates must be calculated pwsuant to the standazd Institute of
Traffic Engineers Trip Generation rates and submitted as part of the Final PUD application.
Additional detail is provided in the Development Review Committee minutes of July 22, 2009.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pwsuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
PZ Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 3 of 4
P14
Section 11: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay al] impact fees and the school lands dedication, if applicable, assessed at
the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 12: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An
approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes
place. Further review and detail of excavation distances is necessary. All right-of way
improvements shall meet city codes. Final layout of the plantings require Park Department
approval. Additional detailed comments aze included in the Development Review Committee
minutes of July 22, 2009.
Section 13:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 14•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 4, 2009.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
PZ Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 4 of 4
P15
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320
EAST HYMAN AVENUE LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID:2737-073-38-851.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wheeler Opera House, 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO
represented by Gram Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler Opera House; Farewell Mills Gatsch
Architects, LLC; and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design has requested Major
Development (Conceptual) Review and Special Review for Pazking for the property located at
320 East Hyman Avenue, Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;
and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, the Wheeler Opera House, qualifies as an "arts,
cultural, and civic use" pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, the Wheeler Opera House, serves an essential public
purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is
categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC, Commercial Core Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properly is a designated local landmark; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or
structure shall be erected, constructed, snlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved
involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been
submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per
Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections.
The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for the establishment of Pazking Requirements, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per
Section 26.415.040 of the Municipal Code. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or
HPC Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 1 of 3
P16
waiving off-street pazking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied
based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The pazking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project
have been met, taking into account potential uses of the pazcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, any shazed pazking opportunities, expected schedule of pazking
demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street pazking of the neighborhood, the
proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown azea, and any special services, such as
vans, provided for residents, guests and employees.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenazio.
3. Existing or planned on-site of off-site pazking facilities adequately serve the needs of
the development, including the availability of street pazking; and,
WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated August 4, 2009 performed an analysis
of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2009, continued to July 8,
2009, continued to August 4, 2009 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the
application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standazds and "City
of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of
to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual) and Establishes Parking
Requirements for the property located at 320 East Hyman Avenue, Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
Section 1: Maior HPC Conceptual Development
The HPC hereby grants conceptual major development approval for mass, location, height and
scale. The proposed height and floor azea exceeds that which is allowed in the Commercial Core
Zone District and must be varied through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for this
approval to be valid.
Section 2: Parking Requirements
The HPC hereby establishes a zero (0) parking requirement for the Wheeler pazcel. The applicant
is required to add bike storage to the development plan, whether on the property or in the right of
way as permitted by the City Engineering Department. The applicant shall continue to develop a
transportation plan for. approval as part of the Planned Unit Development Final Review process.
HPC Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 3
P17
Section 3: Final Development Plan
A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz
of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application
within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development
Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause
shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan
approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 4th day of August
2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Approved as to Form:
James R. True, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
HPC Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 3 of 3
P18
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND
THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS A
CONSOLIDATED BOARD PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.412.030
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS COMMERICAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW
(CONCEPTUAL) FOR 320 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS P, Q, R, S, BLOCK 81,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-073-38-851.
HPC RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
P & Z RESOLUTION NO. ,SERIES OF 2009
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wheeler Opera House, 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO
represented by Gram Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler Opera House; Fazewell Mills Gatsch
Architects, LLC; and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design has requested
Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual Review for the property located at 320 East Hyman
Avenue, Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Wheeler Opera House requesting approval of Commercial Design Standard Conceptual Review
for an addition to the existing building; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, the Wheeler Opera House is a local landmazk located
in the CC, Commercial Core Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26.412.030, the Community
Development Director determined that the "proposed development ... has potential for
significant community interest due to its location, magnitude or complexity" and required a joint
review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, acting as one boazd, for Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual Review; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the
Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed
land use request; and,
WHEREAS, two worksessions were held with the Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 8, 2009 and May 13,
2009; and
WHEREAS, a site visit attended by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission was conducted on Apri16, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2009, continued to July 8,
2009, continued to August 4, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and
Zoning Commission acting as a consolidated boazd approved Resolutions No._, Series of 2009,
and Resolution No. _, Series of 2009 respectively, by a (_ -~ vote, granting Commercial
Design Standazd Conceptual Review for the property located at 320 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots P, Q,
R, S, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
HPC and PZ Consolidated Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 1 of 3
P19
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission have reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission find that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards
and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, meets the applicable criteria;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION, ACTING AS ONE CONSOLIDATED BOARD, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Public Amenity Space
The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
acting as a consolidated review board, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26.575.030.0.4, finds
that the rooftop deck that is accessible to the public, specifically the patrons of the Wheeler, and
associated unit that is available for non-profit or public rental equals or exceeds the value, which
may be non-monetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment for
public amenity space. A proposed schedule of occupancy for the rooftop unit will be submitted
for review and approval during Commercial Design Standard Final Review to quantify
accessibility to the public.
Section 2: Design Guidelines
Acting as a consolidated review Board, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,' grant Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual
Review and find that the application complies with the applicable within the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guideline and/or the intent of the
Guidelines is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Section 3• Height and Floor Area
Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual Review approves location mass, scale, height and
proportion for an addition to an iconic historic structure, the Wheeler Opera House. The height
and floor azea proposed for the subject pazcel exceed the dimensional requirements of the
Commercial Core Historic Zone District. Commercial Design Standazd Conceptual Review does
not vary height or floor area dimensions. The applicant must submit a Planned Unit
Development application to the Community Development Department for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council to vary dimensional requirements.
Section 4• Commercial Design Standard Final Review Application
A development application for a Final design shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date
of approval of a Conceptual Design. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Community
Development Director may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time
extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Design approval for up to twelve (12) months
provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration date.
HPC and PZ Consolidated Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 3
P20
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONS during a joint meeting on the 4t6 day of August
2009.
Michael Hoffman,
Historic Preservation Commission Chair
LJ Erspamer,
Planning and Zoning Commission Chair
Approved as to Form:
James R. True, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: Elevations of approved Commercial Design Conceptual Plan
HPC and PZ Consolidated Resolution
August 4, 2009
Page 3 of 3
P21
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, anal, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the .development application and its conformity
to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Overall, Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) and the adopted Civic Master Plan (CMP). The CMP works in
tandem with the AACP and specifically functions as a guiding document for the future
use of publicly-owned properties in Aspen. Staff finds that the Applicant does not go faz
enough in meeting some elements of the AACP and some recommendations of the CMP.
At the Conceptual level, the application meets a number of AACP goals related to arts
and culture, historic preservation, open space & environmentreconomic sustainability,
and community chazacter and design. The proposal addresses the majority of the
recommendations and findings adopted in the CMP specifically for this project. Staff
finds that the application does not fully address the Transportation portion of the AACP
and Recommendation #3 of the CMP related to improvements and enhancements to
adjacent public spaces.
The applicant represents that the project is providing adequate housing to mitigate for the
expansion. A one bedroom affordable housing unit is proposed on the third floor for an
onsite employee. Developing affordable housing downtown meets the goals of the
Managing Growth and Housing sections of the AACP which emphasize placing units
within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. The actual number of employees
generated and required mitigation will be reviewed during the growth management
process for an Essential Public Facility after Conceptual PUD is granted. Staff finds that
at a Conceptual level, the Housing and Managing Growth chapters of the AACP are met
and recommends further explanation of generation rates for the Growth Management
reviews.
The proposal to expand the existing Wheeler facility to provide more versatile
performance spaces and, in turn increase arts and cultural programs, fully meets the Arts,
Culture and Education chapter of the AACP and the Findings and Recommendations in
the CMP. The AACP supports the continued "vibrancy of the arts in our community"
and activities and education for youth. The downtown location of the expanded facility
enhances vitality in Aspen's core and is easily accessible to all community members.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 12
P22
ACRA and an information booth aze incorporated in the ground floor program, which
supports the Findings and Recommendations of the CMP and enhances the Wheeler as a
"natural point of orientation for visitors and locals." CMP Recommendation #2 asks that
future uses accommodate as many additional needs of the local arts community as
possible. The application proposes a smaller performance venue, multi-purpose room
and versatile rooftop space for different community arts groups which enhances the mind
aspect of the "Aspen Idea" of "mind body and spirit" by offering different types of
programs to the community. A policy of the Economic Sustainability chapter is to
"ensure government support of a diverse business and nonprofit community." The
conversion of existing space in the Wheeler into commercial space meets CMP
Recommendation #3 that "supports concepts for maintaining and/or enhancing the
Wheeler Opera House building, adjacent commercial uses and the public spaces
surrounding the Wheeler in order to contribute to the vitality of the azea." Staff finds that
these aspects of the AACP and CMP aze met.
The Historic Preservation chapter of the AACP states that "we must continue to build on
what we have by authentically preserving historic structures and creating thoughtful new
buildings that encourage and shape that feeling of historical continuity." The Wheeler
Opera House is a signature historic building that represents Aspen's history. The project
proposes to retain the existing interior stairway and original 19t" century entrance/exit
doors and expand the existing building to the west in an effort to continue to "celebrate
its core identity as a center for arts and culture," as stated in the CMP. The azchitectural
details proposed for the addition need further refinement to be compatible with the
existing Wheeler and downtown Commercial Core Historic District, which. is a
discussion for Final Review. Overall, Staff finds that the massing and scale aze
appropriate adjacent to the Wheeler Opera House.
The Design Quality chapter of the AACP asks development to "retain and encourage an
eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special chazacter of our
community" and states as a goal to "make every public project a model of good
development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the
community fabric." The design intent and proposed program contributes to the
community on many different levels. Staff finds that at Conceptual review both the
Historic Preservation chapter and the Design Quality chapter aze met. As stated in CMP
Finding #1, "as the city's focal point for azts and culture, the Wheeler conveys an equal
sense that the community is alive and evolving, and continues to celebrate its core
identity as a center for arts and culture." The design of the addition has the ability to
inspire the community, enhance the Historic District and further vitalize the western
portion of downtown. Staff encourages the applicant to continue to develop the
architectural details, fenestration and material palette for Final Review.
A community goal for Pazks, Open Space and the Environment is to "protect and enhance
the natural environment." Furthermore, Finding #3 in the CMP states that "the view from
the Wheeler Opera House towazds Wagner Pazk and Aspen Mountain is a valuable
resource and is protected in the City of Aspen Land Use Code." The applicant proposes a
rooftop deck that is accessible to Wheeler patrons which, in Staff's opinion, provides a
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 12
P23
unique oppommity for the public to capitalize on the views that the community strives to
protect. Staff finds that both the CMP and AACP are met with the proposed 4`~ floor
community morn/artist apartment.
Staff finds that the application does not fully address the Transportation portions of the
AACP and Recommendation #3 of the CMP related to improvements and enhancements
to adjacent public spaces. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a detailed
Transportation plan at Final Review that studies pedestrian connections and movements
between the Pedestrian Malls and the Wheeler.
Staff recommends that the applicant continue to engage the public through a vaziety of
media regarding the proposal. CMP Recommendation #1 specifically states that "the
Civic Master Plan Advisory Group supports the ongoing public process regazding the
future use of the Wheeler Parcel." An open house for the public was held at the Wheeler
in April 2009 and an open house is scheduled on July 29, 2009. A public survey is
currently underway regarding the addition, which will be concluded at the end of August.
Staff finds that this Recommendation needs further development throughout the
upcoming reviews to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed Wheeler expansion is located in the Commercial Core, which primarily
supports commercial uses on the ground and second floors with residential uses on the
upper floors. Staff finds that the proposed expansion to the existing arts and cultural
venue, including commercial spaces at grade, ancillary office space, and
lobby/performance spaces on the lower, ground and upper floors with an affordable
housing unit, is consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of
the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Not Applicable. The Applicant will be required to submit a Growth Management
application as part of the Final PUD Application. As an Essential Public Facility, the
Planning and Zoning Commission establishes the employee generation for the project and
City Council determines the appropriate affordable housing mitigation for the project.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 12
P24
B. Establishment ojDimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements jor all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 16.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements (for the July 8`s and Alternates #1, 2 and
3) aze listed below:
CC Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Underlying Zone District
Requirement Requirements of the Dimensional
addition Re uirements
Minimum Lot Size 12,000 No requirement.
Minimum Lot Width 120 x 100 No requirement.
Minimum Front Yard approximately 4' for the
Setback proposed expansion; 0' for No requirement.
the existin Wheeler
Minimum Side Yard Setback 0' No requirement.
Minimum Rear Yazd Setback 0' No requirement.
28' -two story elements of
a building
51' 2" top of roof 38' -three story elements
Maximum Height 54' 2" top of elevator of a building, may be
increased to 42' through
Commercial Design
Review
2.87:1 or Arts, Cultural and Civic
Allowable Floor Area 34,469 squaze feet* Uses - 2.75:1 or 33,000
squaze feet
* the FAK and Floor Area calculation for the July 8"' iteration.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
See discussion from A.1 above
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 12
P25
No known hazazds exist on the lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
The addition is located in the Commercial Core and is compatible with similaz
commerciallmixed use development. Staff recommends that the applicant
continue to study pedestrian circulation and movement and propose a detailed
Transportation Plan for Final Review. Overall, Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
No open space is currently proposed on-site. The Commercial Core Zone District
does not require a specific amount of site coverage, which is consistent with
traditional historic development downtown. A small setback is provided along
Hyman Avenue, a publically accessible rooftop deck is proposed, and the pedestrian
malls are in close proximity to the addition. Staff finds that the proposed Conceptual
Plan is appropriate to the character of the proposed PUD and surrounding context.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
The off-street parking space requirement will be established during the Special
Review process for an Essential Public Facility and is not part of the PUD
application.
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
Not applicable.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
Not applicable.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of ]2
P26
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
Not applicable.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Not applicable.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if.•
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development
Staff finds that there is no need to reduce the maximum allowable density for the
Wheeler expansion. '
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if.•
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability ar the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
At this time, Staff does not find that the criteria above exist for the expansion project and
as such finds that the density does not need to be reduced.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 12
P27
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identifeed
in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated "
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as,
on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions
of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the
maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for al[ lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the ftnal PUD development plans.
While the Applicant proposes establishing the FAR for the project, no increase in the
maximum density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved ar enhanced in an appropriate manner.
See discussion in part A.1 above. In addition to the expansion, the applicant proposes
restoration of deteriorated stone and brickwork on certain azeas of the exterior. Staff
recommends that the applicant relocate the existing rooftop mechanical equipment to
further enhance and preserve the iconic landmazk, to be reviewed during Final Review.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve signiftcant open spaces
and vistas.
The proposed expansion does not interfere with any protected viewplanes. The
accessible rooftop azea enhances significant vistas with public accessibility. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban
or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement
of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page7of12
P28
Staff recommends that the applicant study pedestrian movements and circulation for
discussion during Final Review.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated jor the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
The applicant proposes a green roof to mitigate for some of the storm water drainage and
commits to working with the Engineering Department to meet site drainage requirements.
Staff finds that this criterion is met.
7. For non-residential [and uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff finds that this criterion is met.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility ojthe proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
The Applicant proposed a green roof as part of the original Conceptual application. The
proposed expansion fills most of the lot; however some landscape features may be
incorporated into the front setback of the addition. A detailed landscape plan will be
provided as part of the Final PUD Application.
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety ojornamental plant species suitable jor the Aspen area climate.
Staff recommends that the applicant provide a detailed landscape plan as part of the Final
PUD Application.
2. Signiftcant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 12
P29
The Applicant has stated they will comply with all Park's Department requirements.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure that vegetation proposed for removal is mitigated. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible .with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
At a Conceptual level, Staff finds that the proposed massing, height and scale is
compatible with the Wheeler Opera House, the Commercial Core Historic District and is
indicative of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Use. The height of the addition is lower than
the historic Wheeler and the fourth floor is significantly set back from the front facade.
Staff finds that the addition introduces height variations to the site. Setting the fourth
floor back successfully maintains the prominence and visibility of the historic Wheeler
from the street. The front facade height is well below that of the historic Wheeler and
creates a step between the Motherlode and the Wheeler. Staff recommends that the
applicant restudy the vertical material bands or "bookends" proposed at either end of the
addition, the fenestration and material palette for discussion during Final Review to
enhance the visual chazacter of the Historic District. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
The proposed addition is oriented north-south with the front facade facing southwazd to
maximize solaz gain. High performance insulated glazing is proposed for the south
facade and the applicant is working with the Building Department and the Canary
Initiative to design a sustainable addition through energy use, storm water treatment and
material selection. Staff finds this criterion to be met at the Conceptual level.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
The proposed addition fills most of the lot, so the majority of water collection will occur
on the flat roof. The applicant is working with the Engineering Department to design a
green roof that mitigates stormwater run-off for further review during Final PUD. Staff
finds this criterion to be met at the Conceptual level.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 12
P30
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior ojthe development will be lighted
in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The jollowing standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference
of any kind to adjoining streets or [ands. Lighting of site features, structures,
and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
The Civic Master Plan recommends "the installation of a modest lighting array on the
Wheeler building to call attention to the historic structure at night, and celebrate its iconic
status." The applicant illustrated a preliminary lighting concept that emphasizes the
azchitectural details and stonework on the Wheeler Opera House. Staff finds that lighting
the architectural details of the existing Wheeler enhances and reinforces its prominence
as an iconic building. The proposed addition is primarily glazing along the street facing
facade. The applicant is researching glass that does not negatively transmit light onto the
street to minimize light pollution and adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Staff
recommends that the applicant continue to study the transmittance of lighting from the
addition as part of a detailed plan to be submitted as part of the Final PUD application.
2. A[l exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting
of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed plan will be
provided as part of the Final PUD.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefzt of all development in the proposed PUD, the jollowing criteria
shall be met:
The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various [and uses and property users of the PUD.
Not applicable, the undeveloped parcel is not recognized as a common pazk, open space
or recreation azea.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwefling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 12
P31
Not applicable.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development.
Not applicable.
H. Dti[ities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
The Water and Sanitation Departments reviewed this application and determined there is
adequate service for this development. A few upgrades, abandoning and reconfiguring of
existing lines will need to take place, which will be addressed in greater detail at Final
PUD. The applicant is working closely with the applicable Departments to satisfy
requirements and bring existing conditions into compliance. Staff finds this criterion to
be met at the Conceptual level.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
At this time no adverse impacts aze anticipated. This will be addressed in greater detail at
Final PUD.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and associated
materials are available for City Departments to review.
I. Access and Circulation.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 12
P32
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
The Wheeler pazcel is located at the comer of Hyman and Mill Streets in the
Commercial Core Historic District. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the development.
The CMP recommends "improvements to public spaces azound the Wheeler,
including sidewalks, streets and the pedestrian mall, which enhance the pedestrian
experience." The applicant is collaborating with the Transportation and Engineering
Departments to provide the necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed
development. This criterion will be fully addressed at Final PUD when a finalized
Transportation Plan and associated materials are available for City Departments to
review.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public
trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
Not applicable.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Not applicable.
S. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
Not applicable.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for
lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practicaG
Not applicable.
Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria
Page 12 of 12
I
X33
a
+<<
-- a9
9ra
o °'g
-~
o~~
U
s ~
U~
_G
OU
r~O
G
N
41
O
~ ~
O ~
~ ~
67 O
N
~ ~
H
U
w
O
d
(7
w
~
w w
~
C7
~ ~O
- Q~
J ~' Q
Q
~ ~
~ ~
0
U
Y Q W Z
w
M W
d
~Q
€a~g~r ~.
P34
Alternate #1
~•
~ P35
a
tam
O
__._ ~~~
C ~y
O ~
3oe
°a~
v
sm
,~
ou
C7 `o
SN
C
I.L.
O
d
J
J
W
O
w
w
r
Q O
N
ti ~
H
U
w
O
C~
u_
w
C7
~_
J
W
D
O
W
~O
Qo
W~
O~
~O
Q wU
J Z
W w
M wa
~-/ ~Q
P36
a
+oS
~~La
o °'g
_~
oar
a
`u
sm
u=-
.-c
ou
C~`o
N
a
LL
w
0
O
Y
Q
d
w
z
c~
O
w
{""
Q
N
~ ~
H
U
W
O
n.
C~
w
w
C7
~_
W
O
O
r~
w
J ~O
Qo
O ~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
W a
M ~Q
~'
P37
I I~"
o;
_`~
30@
°da
m
w
J
~_
Y
Q
a
w
z
O
w
W
ri
U
-c N
cl~
~G
QV
~p
N
3
m
o`
rn
o ~
rn
rn o
N
~ ~
U
W
-~
O
(~
w
w
Q
~_
J
W
O
r'
w
J ~O
a^
w~
O ~
~O
Q W U
J Z
W w
W ~
M ~Q
P38
I +~~
I
I~L°
o~
_;
30.
i. ~a
S ~
~~
~'
OU
~O
N
3
w
U
Q
J
Q
J
Q
(!~
~-
U
O
O
w
Q
Q
N
ti ~
I-
U
w
O
a
C7
w
w
Q
~_
J
W
W
OO
J W~
O~
~O
Q wU
J Z
W w
M W ~
~ / ~ Q
i P39
+oS
vL~
c o,~
o~
~~3
~ q~
d
N
U
S
{J~
~L
/~V
V Q
3
`o
w
W
Z_
Q
H
Z
O
w
F-
0
W
~~
00
~rn
rno
N
ti ~
F-
U
W
O
w
w
c~
~_
J
W
W
J =o
~°
Q o°
~~
Q wU
J Z
W w
W Q.
~a
P40
S
+~
I'
o ~~
_,
30~
~~~
L N
'.J"__'
OU
<U'O
N
3
a~
`o
U
J
W
J
LL
_W
rn~
o~
~rn
rno
N
~ ~
U
W
O
w
C7
a
~_
J
W
D
t~
W
J qO
C.C O
O
~ ~
Q W U
J Z
W W
W d
Q
P41
Alternate #la
P42
+o
~ L
O ~~
-~^
302
o~
U
s ~
U
OU
C7 0
N
N
a
u_
O
Q
w
J
J
W
O
w
w
O ~
. ~
~ O
N
ti ~
H
U
w
O
w
w
C7
~_
J
W
D
O
t~
W
J ~O
Q~
a 0
O ~
~U
Q w
J Z
W w
W ~
M ~Q
~'
P43
+~~
~ L
v~
P~
°d{~
S
N
U
L
W=
/^~V
SV
C
3
d
`o
rn~
o~
~rn
rno
N
I~ ~#
H
U
W
O
a
c~
w
.~
~`
,t
~. ~v
~k
~'
,~~ 4
w
'o
vJ
2
r
Y
a
a
w
z
c~
O
w
w
N
J
W
O
Q
J
Q
M
w
CQ
C
w
00
~~
w~
O~
~O
W U
J Z
W W
W ~
2
Q
P44
a
+cS
0
ALB
o °'g
_~
°at
N
`u
sm
ou
C7 `a
a~
3
a~
`o
w
J
D
~_
Y
d
W
Z
(7
O
w
o~
~rn
rn o
N
~ ~#
H
U
W
O
w
a
~_
J
W
r~
W
O
=O
0
w~
O~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
W ~
M ~Q
~~
P45
a
+<<
~r
~°
o,
~~
o~~
N
U
S
U'.
_C
,~ U
V
N
Q)
3
d
`o
W
U
Q
Q
a
J
a
r
U
D
O
w
rn~
o ~
~rn
~ o
N
~ ~
H
U
w
O
d
C7
w
w
~_
J
W
O
r
W
J ~O
Q
O~
~O
Q wU
J Z
W w
MM wa
~ Q
P46
n+o~
I I°"=~
o ~g
_,
30?
~a
U
s ~
U.
OU
~O
N
3
m
`a
u_
W
W
Z_
Q
Z
O
w
O
u_
w
u~
rn~
o ~
~rn
~ o
N
~ ~
I-
U
W
O
C7
w
C7
~_
J
W
0
w
~ O
' ~
w~
O~
~O
Q WU
~ Z
W W
W ~
M ~Q
• P47
+~~
la
o °'g
_~
30~
one
N
V
S ~
~~
C
/Q _V
V
3
a~
a
H
C7
J
W
J
0
w
°' o
o ~
o~ o
N
N ~
U
W
O
C7
w
a
~_
J
W
O
W
J =o
ao
~~
ao
~O
~U
Q W
J Z
W W
M W ~
Q
P48
Alternate #2
• P49
+s~
I~
o~;
30~
~~
°~~
y
N
U
S ~
U^-
L
OU
~p
N
N
6
ti
O
c7
Q
J
J
W
0
W
~ ~
O ~
. ~
~ O
N
ti ~
F-'
U
w
O
d
C7
w
c~
Q
0
O
NW
J =o
~°
C1 a O
~O
~U
Q W
J Z
W W
M W ~
/ ~ Q
P50
~L$
C ~y
I I+ ~a
O
~O~
O ~ m
N
U
L ~
:J-=
1
Ou
C~ o
U1
d
O
LL
w
0
0
Y
Q
w
z
0
w
N
~ ~
O O
~ ~
~ O
N
~ ~#
U
w
O
C7
w
w
C7
Q
~_
J
W
O
N
w
~~
J =o
¢o
o°
~O
Q W U
J z
W W
W ~
M ~Q
~' P51
a
__... +0A
~t~
C ~o
O>A
O
O~~
` 3
y
U
L ~
y=-
~'
OU_
C~ a
N
3
a~
`o
w
0
Y
Q
w
Z
0
W
ri
rn~
o~
~rn
rno
N
H ~
F-
U
W
O
d
w
C7
Q
W
O
N
w
~-
00
0
~ w~
Q o°
~~
Q w U
J Z
W W
M W ~
~ / ~ Q
P52
a
+aS
~Lfl~
c ~'m
-~
~~Y
`e
U
s ~
lY-
~~
~U
C<~ a
C
N
71
O
LL
w
U
Q
J
d
J
Q
H
}
U
O
w
~ ~
O ~
1
N
~ ~
H
U
w
O
C7
w
w
C7
Q
~_
J
W
NW
OO
Q
J ~
a0
O p
~ U
Q W
J Z
W W
W W
M ~Q
~~ P53
+;
~L~
C ~y
0 7
OO~
~~m
N
V
L
~)'_
~C
/D V
V
Q1
7
LL
w
W
_Z
Q
Z
0
W
0
w
Sri
0 O
N
ti ~#
H
U
W
O
a
C9
w
w
~_
J
W
Nw
00
~~
0
-~ w
Q o°
~~
Q wU
J Z
W w
M wa
`' , ~ Q
P54
B
+;$
~L
C ~~
0>a
30~
°ak
a
U
sm
~~
.'_^_c
OU_
C~a
N
O
H
~_
J
W
J
0
w
cD
O ~
. ~
~ O
N
ti ~
H
U
W
--~
O
d
w
C7
~_
J
W
O
N
W
J =o
Q
~°
Q o°
~~
Q WU
J Z
W W
M W ~
~ / ~ Q
P55
Alternate #3
P56
~.
+y
I~L~
o;
3oe
e~m
S ~
:J'~
Ou
C~ o
N
N
O
O
C7
Q
J
J
W
O
w
~ ~
O ~
~ ~
~ O
N
~ ~#
H
U
W
O
C7
w
C7
0
O
M~
\-~
W
~ O
w~
O ~
~O
Q W U
J Z
W LL1
M W ~
I ~ Q
~' P57
+~~
I o
~L'
o °'g
_~
yak
N
U
S
1~~
~L
OV
~O
N
d
a`
u..
w
0
O
Y
Q
a
w
Z
C~
O
w
N
rn
o ~
o~
rno
N
~ ~
U
w
O
d
W
w
c7
Q
~_
J
w
O
M~
~' J
w
=O
~~
a0
O~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
M W ~
` ' ~ Q
P58
+o~
~ L S
C ~_
o ~
30^
o~,
h
U
s~
U~
.L
OU_
C7 0
N
d
`a
LL.
W
J
0
Y
Q
W
Z
0
w
cri
rn~
00
`rn
~ o
N
~ ~
U
W
O
a
w
a
~_
J
W
O
M
W
J~~
~o
O -~
~O
Q W U
J Z
W W
M W ~
/ ~ Q
' P59
---- +a~
o ~~
o~~
N
U
S
tJ'~
~C
'^~V
SV
3
a~
`a
w
U
Q
J
d
Q
U
O
~-
w
v
oa
~rn
rno
N
ti ~
I-
U
W
O
n.
w
w
Q
~_
J
W
O
M
W
~O
Q~
O~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
W W
M ~a
P60
+<<
o~
~L'
O
30°
O~-'~
3
N
V
s N
U-
s
OU_
Ca o
N
O
w
W
Z_
Q
H
Z
0
w
0
w
~i
~ ~
O ~
~ ~
~ O
N
~ ~
H
U
W
O
w
w
C7
~_
J
W
O
M
W
~-
~=o
0
w~
Q o°
~~
Q W U
J Z
W W
W d
~a
P61
~'"
+~~
_ o ~,
_~
°a~
N
U
S ~
{_1
~L
OU
BCD
N
CJ
O
IL
2
W
0
w
~ ~
O ~
. ~
W O
N
ti ~k
H
U
W
O
a
LL
W
(~
Q
~_
J
W
M
W
~-
00
0
J w~
Q o°
~~
Q WU
J Z
W W
W d
~a
P62
Alternate #4
~~ P63
+oy$
___- ICLb
O~
;O@
O~-S,
N
V
S
V~
~C
/^~U
V Q
Q1
LL
O
C7
Q
W
J
J
W
O
w
Q
Q
N
ti ~
F-
U
W
O
w
c7
~_
J
W
O
W
J ~O
~~
O ~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
M W ~
~ / ~ Q
P64
w
0
F-
0
Y
a
w
z
O
w
w
N
+<<
oa
~r~
o,
~~
3 o C,
~ D ~
e
U
s ~
U~
~L
OU_
(~ o
N
3
m
`o
o~
~rn
rn o
N
ti ~
U
W
O
w
w
Q
~_
J
w
O
w
~O
0
w~
~O
o~
~U
Q w
J Z
W w
W d
M ~Q
~• P65
+<<
~ sa
Ct~
O ~~
3pm
~~ a
U
t ~
t}_'
~.L
,a _U
V ~
3
m
a
w
J
~_
Y
Q
W
Z
(7
Q
O
w
M
T
Q
v
Q) Q
N
~ ~
U
w
O
a.
w
w
Q
~_
J
W
O
w
O ~
D
a0
O~
~O
Q WU
J Z
W W
W ~
M ~Q
P66
~,
+Cd
NQ
CO ~a
30,
O~ 5
U
L N
lt=
DU
~O
CN
C
w
U
a
J
Q
J
Q
F-
Cn
}
U
0
w
Q
Q
N
ti ~#
I-
U
w
O
a
w
w
C7
a
~_
J
W
W
=O
J ~~
~ ~o
00
~U
Q w
J Z
W W
W ~
~a
P67
+~
o~
=a
~,~
o,~
3oa
tea:
V
sN
U'.
~c
DU
C7 0
N
N
O
lL
~i
~ ~
O ~
67
~ O
N
ti ~
F-
U
W
O
a
w
w
c~
w ~
W J
Z_ W
~
Q
F. O
Z ~
O
~ w
O
~
J o
¢
~ a0
w ~ ~ p
wU
~ci Q W Z
W
M
' W
a
¢
L
J ~
P68
+o~
~L3
O ~'~
-~
30@
~d~
U
S ~
~C
~U
~O
N
lL
F..
J
W
J
'1
O
Q
N
ti ~
H
U
W
O
a
C7
w
c7
_~
J
W
W
= Q
W ~
O~
~O
Q W U
J Z
W W
M W ~
/ ~ Q
Exhibit C
Special Review for Parking
Special Review for Parlcin¢• 26 515 040 Special Review Standards.
Whenever the off-street pazking requirements of a proposed development aze subject to
Special Review, an application shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with
the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304, and be
evaluated according to the following standazds. Review is by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the
Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application.
A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street pazking
requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on
conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project
have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking
demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the
proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such
as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees.
Staff Response: The applicant requests approval to waive the parking requirement for
the new addition. The proposed addition is projected to generate about 70 new vehicles
(or 1 car for every 4 seats) for asold-out show at the new venue. The applicant proposes
to utilize the Rio Grande pazking gazage or public transportation for employees and both'
day and evening events.
On-street parking of the neighborhood is not projected to be significantly impacted by the
addition based on a compazison with the similaz Belly-Up performance venue that opened
in 2005 and has not significantly impacted parking in the core azea. The applicant
commits to mitigating any unforeseen pazking impacts through incentives and altemative
methods.
Several steps aze proposed to mitigate new pazking demands including: staggering start
times for different events at the Wheeler, including parking and alternative transportation
information in key media, working with local lodges to encourage the use of shuttles and
in-town taxis, possibly issuing discount pazking vouchers for event ticket holders to use
Rio Grande pazking garage, and exploring the idea of extending the hours of the Galena
Street Shuttle to accommodate Wheeler patrons later into the evening. The Wheeler is
located a few blocks from Rubey Pazk, the main hub for RFTA in Aspen.
Staff requests more information about the existing pazking configuration and the impact
of its removal on the neighborhood to be submitted as part of the Final Planned Unit
August 4, 2009
Pa e 1 of 2
P69
P70
Exhibit C
Special Review for Pazking
Development review. Staff also recommends that the applicant incorporate a bike rack
into the plan.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results
in an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Response: Staff finds that an onsite paking solution is undesirable for this
location. Anew theatre is proposed subgrade, which removes any possibility of an
underground paking azea. Furthermore, Staff finds that it is inappropriate to provide
above grade spaces accessed off of the alley due to site and progranunatic constraints for
a performing arts center.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of
the development, including the availability of street parking.
Staff Response: According to the application, the Wheeler already utilizes the Rio
Grande paking garage and public transportation. The existing paking gazage has the
capacity to accommodate sold out performances in both venues according to the
calculations provided by the applicant.
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 2
~i ~- G
Exhibit D P 7 ~
HPC Conceptual Major Development Review
HPC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL): SECTION 26.415.070.D
review by HPC
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
HPC Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal.
Conceptual Review for a historic landmazk within the Commercial Core follow the same Design
Guidelines as the Commercial Design Standard Conceptual review listed in Exhibit A. Staff
finds that the size and shape of the proposed addition is appropriate for the context. The
proposed height is lower than the historic Wheeler and the fourth floor is significantly set back
from the front fagade.
Staff finds that the proposal meets the Design Guidelines for conceptual review. Details and
materials are usually addressed during Final Review; however, Staff finds that the proposed
vertical elements do not successfully create a dialogue between new and old construction. Staff
strongly recommends that the applicant continue to develop the materials, details and
fenestration of the south elevation, specifically the balcony element, solid to void ratios and the
vertical windows, to strengthen the relationship between the two buildings. Relevant Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines for additions aze below:
August 4, 2009
Page11 of 2
~M1,~ V.
P72
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate vaziation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
As exp]ained previously, Staff finds that the entrance in the addition is unavoidable considering
fire egress requirements. The original entrance to the Wheeler is still proposed to be functional,
which is important to the preservation and enhancement of the historic Wheeler Opera House as
stated in Guideline 4.1 below.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
^ Maintain features important to the chazacter of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hazdwaze, detailing,
transoms and flanking sidelights.
^ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so
that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its
historic position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
Exhibit D
HPC Conceptual Major Development Review
Staff finds that this exciting project has the potential to highlight and enhance the Wheeler with
thoughtful and creative public spaces that magnify the importance of the opera house and its
iconic architecture to the history of Aspen.
August 4, 2009
Page 2 of 2
~d+~-bi~ i~•
Exhibit E P 7 3
Commercial Design Standazds
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute
to an attractive, exciting, and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian
shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or
operational improvements to public rights-of--way or private property within commercial
areas.
On pazcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 -Public
Amenity, the following standazds shall apply to the provision of such amenity.
Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Public Amenity
shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic
Preservation Commission as applicable, according to the procedures herein .and
according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow
for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant
and future potential tenants and uses.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes a small 4 feet by 60 feet at grade front yazd
setback in front of the new addition. Staff finds that that the 240 square feet space does
not sufficiently allow for a vaziety of uses to occur and recommends that the P & Z and
HPC consider the publically accessible rooftop azea as an alternative to the required
Public Amenity Space, as permitted by Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.0.4.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish
this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar
active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade
relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged.
Staff Response: Staff recommends more information regazding tables, chairs, etc. for the
rooftop space to make it enjoyable and attractive to the public.
3. The public amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of
adjacent structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting
pedestrian environment.
Staff Response: The proposed addition is proximate to the Pedestrian Malls, Popcorn
Wagon and Wagner Park, which serve the pedestrian environment. The proposed
addition introduces a new layer to the pedestrian experience by permitting rooftop access
for patrons of the Wheeler. Allowing rooftop access exposes the public to unprecedented
views of our town and surrounding environment -views that the City's viewplane
regulations protect for the public.
August 4, 2009
Page 1 ofLL6
~~~~T ~-
P74
Exhibit E
Commercial Design Standazds
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space
created by malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does
not detract from the pedestrian environment.
Staff Response: Rooftop access does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by
the adjacent malls.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Public
Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the public amenity
requirements.
Staff Response: Staff suggests that the P & Z and HPC consider the rooftop as the Public
Amenity space, which meets the standazds mentioned above with the exception that the
space is not located within 4 feet of grade. Staff finds that the intent of this criterion is
met.
B. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision. When the necessary logistical
elements of a commercial building aze well designed, the building can better contribute to
the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the
quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas aze important to the
function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the
alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060
Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according
to said section.
Staff Response: Staff finds that this standard is met.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along
the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments
into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only
be necessary when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate
such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed.
Staff Response: Staff fords that this standazd is met.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck
loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared
facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Response: Staff finds that this standazd is met.
August 4, 2009
t Page 2 of 6
F~ .
Exhibit E P ~ 5
Commercial Design Standards
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented
through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from
the Street as practical.
Staff Response: Staff finds that this standard is met.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated
internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the
extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device
such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of--way at a pedestrian
level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and
ducting. needs.
Staff Response: Staff finds that this standazd is met.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standazds and guidelines
that aze to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine
when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although
these criteria, standards and guidelines aze relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might
be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is
still met, albeit through altemative means.
Staff finds that the following design guidelines are important to highlight;
Public Amenity:
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its
use. These may include one or more of the following:
• Street furniture
Public Art
• HistoricaU interpretive marker.
(The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a
matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the
Conceptual Stage.)
Staff Response: Staff finds that the public access to the roof meets the intent of the
Public Amenity requirement, but recommends further clarification regazding how often
the unit and open rooftop space will be available to non-profits and the public for use.
Building Alignment:
6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
• Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
August 4, 2009
Page 3 of}-6
G-~. '"
P76
Exhibit E
Commercial Design Standazds
• Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is
inappropriate.
• A minimum of 70% of the front fagade shall be at the property line.
Staff Response: The proposed addition meets guideline 6.18 above because the entire
addition, which is setback, only comprises 27% of the entire front faQade of the property. ~
Staff finds that the setback reinforces the importance of the historic Wheeler and
maintains the new addition as subordinate.
Building Form:
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
• Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
• The fagade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative
elements and projecting or setback" articulations" appearing to be
subordinate to the dominant form.
Staff Response: The proposed addition is essentially a rectangular form that fills the
empty section of the Wheeler parcel, which is a building form consistent with historic
commercial patterns.
Building Scale:
6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
• Establish atwo-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal
design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level
are examples.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed building is appropriate as related to its
historic context adjacent to the Wheeler and its use as an arts and cultural facility. The
Wheeler Opera House is one of the tallest downtown buildings in Aspen and, as such it
can support a larger addition.
Staff recommends that applicant restudy the proposed verticality as it is expressed
through the fenestration and materials for discussion at Final Review. Changing the
material pattern and vertical fenestration to better relate to the historic context will help
bring the perceived scale of the building down.
Height:
6.27 Anew building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building
height of the Commercial Core.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit
on the subject property.
~ This calculation is based on the Wheeler parcel as a 12,000 square foot lot. The existing Wheeler has 160
square feet of front facade. 160 + 60 (the frontage of the expansion) = 220. The applicant proposes to set
the addition 4 feet back from the property line which equates to 27% of the entve building frontage.
August 4, 2009
Pa~geL4 ofrr6
I'. F
P77
Exhibit E
Commercial Design Standazds
• A minimum of 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second
stories and highter.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or
more of the flowing reasons:Z
o The primary function of the building is civic (i.e. the building is a
museum, civic building, performance hall, fire station, etc.)
Staff Response: The proposed addition does not meet floor to ceiling height standazds
because the addition needs to align with the existing floors of the historic Wheeler, which
also do not meet this guideline. Staff finds this deviation to be appropriate and in
compliance with the intent of the standazd.
The overall height proposed for the addition is 51' 2" to the top of the fourth floor
apartment, with a total of 54' 2" to the top of the elevator shaft. The historic Wheeler is
55' 7" tall to the cornice and about 7]' to its highest point. The adjacent Motherlode
measures 40' 11" high to the top of the third floor at the rear. The Commercial Core
Zone District mandates a maximum height of 38 feet for three story elements of a
building, which may be increased to 42' through Commercial Design Review. The
project will proceed through the PUD review process to vary the height of this project.
As part of Commercial Design Standard Review, it is within both the HPC and P&Z's
purviews to comment on the height of the building in relationship to the historic context
and neighborhood.
Staff finds that the proposed height is appropriate for the site and historic context, and a
deviation from this guideline is acceptable. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy
the fenestration and materials proposed for the addition to create a successful dialogue
between the addition and historic context for review during Final.
6.25 Height variations should be achieved using one or more of the following:
• Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with
traditional lot width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof
forms across the width and the depth of the building.
Vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with
other design standards and guidelines.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the addition introduces height vaziations to the site. The
fourth floor is setback from the front facade, which successfully maintains the
prominence and visibility of the historic Wheeler from the street. The front facade height.
is well below that of the historic Wheeler and creates a step between the Motherlode and
the Wheeler. Additional modulations, vertical or horizontal, would distract from the
iconic azchitecture of the Wheeler. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the
a The applicant proposes to exceed the height limit in the Commercial Core, which will be reviewed
pursuant to the PUD process. August 4, 2009
Page 5 of 6
~xk. E
P78
Exhibit E
Commercial Design Standazds
vertical material bands or "bookends" proposed at either end of the addition. Staff finds
that a simple fapade that recesses into the background is an appropriate approach for this
project.
6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced
when feasible.
• On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of
the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the front
fagade.
• Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure.
• Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure.
Staff Response: Staff finds that conceptually the mass, scale, height and location of the
addition meet Guideline 6.34. Staffs initial concern regazding the proposed relocation
of the entrance is resolved: International Building Code Section 1019.1.1 mandates an
enclosed fire rated vertical exit stairway, which eliminates any cross-circulation on the
ground level between the historic Wheeler and the new addition. Staff finds that the
entrance in the addition is an appropriate location; however the design and materials of
the entrance need further development for discussion during Final Review.
August 4, 2009
PagLLe 6 of 6
~n
ExhibitF P79
DRC-July 22, 2009
DRC Meetine Minutes for Wheeler Exuansion:
Parkine (Blake Fitch):
Detailed representation of impacts during construction on existing pazking?
What is Wheeler doing to help mitigate already congested area?
Building (Denis Murray):
Here is a list of concerns from the conceptual submission plan review:
• Building type of construction and allowable azea.
• Continuity of exit enclosures and exit paths.
• Interconnection of more than two stories.
• Encroachments into the ROW.
• Accessibility to the seating, bars or counters, and parking.
• Construction management plan for the existing facility to address the exiting, fire and life
safety requirements while the proposed work is under way.
Housing (Cindy Christensen):
• Need detailed numbers for employee generation.
Environmental Health (Lee Cassin) - focusing on air quality:
# of truck trips per day during construction
Use the ITE to determine trip generation rates after the addition is built.
Need a detailed transportation/ air quality plan: specifically, impact on RFTA and how Wheeler is
going to encourage alternative transportation
Stormwater (April Barker):
• Need to treat for the existing Wheeler and the new addition. '
• Option to handle the water quality with a green roof- probably 50% of the roof addition
• Show actual greenroof on conceptual plan
• Need definite plan/confirmation at conceptual review about how Wheeler is mitigating
EnQineerine (Tricia Aragon):
Need full drainage plan at Final Review stage
How is Wheeler handling the Street trees in the ROW? -maintain or replacement? Show how
they will be handled during Final and include in the CMP
Need full transportation plan
o Level and quality of service
DRC Meeting Minutes/Comments
Page 1 of 4
_---
P80
Exhibit F
DRC-July 22, 2009
o What is Wheeler contributing to Hyman/Mill corner and Mill/Main comer to
accommodate bike lanes (mill/main specifically) and all modes of transportation
improvements
• Excavation/Stabilization
o No soil nailing in the alley ROW because of utility corridor
o Hyman side- stabilization in the ROW is ok
o Motherlode side- need permission to underpin on Motherlode property
o How will existing Wheeler be stabilized?
o What is the timing for construction- specifically when will the sidewalk need to be closed
at the corner of Hyman/Mill?
Transportafion (Lunn Rumbaueh and John Krueeer):
• Need detailed transportation plan that includes:
o Trip generation and mode split
• Need Transportation Demand Management Plan that includes:
o Methods of promoting alternative transportation
o Minimizing congestion/transit delays at Mill and Hyman
o Encouraging those who do drive to park at the Rio Grande Parking Plaza.
• How does person get to the Wheeler from their SOV/parking space?
• Need more information on the current location of the Wheeler and available transit opportunities.
• Impact of people parking at Rio Grande Garage walking across the Hyman/Mill corner on RFTA
route, scheduling.
• Trip generation and traffic improvements, impacts of addition/more program on RFTA galena
shuttle schedule.
Fire (Ed Van Walraven and Brian Nichols):
• Does Wheeler want to be open during the project?
• Coordinate the closing of the Wheeler and ensure proper lifesafety issues during project.
• When will the connection occur and will the Wheeler be closed?
• Fire Department submitted direct comments to the applicant.
Sanitation District (Tom Bracewelp:
• Need plan for taps
• Need soil stabilization
• Need mechanical information
• How is the oil/grease interceptor going to be handled? Cannot put it in the ROW.
o Check out the pipe design at the Doerr-Hoiser Building
DRC Meeting Minutes/Comments
Page 2 of 4
P81
Exhibit F
DRC-July 22, 2009
Recommend taking this information to Sanitation to approximate sewer fees asap. The applicant
will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to
building permit.
Soil nails are not allowed in the ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically
below an ACSD main sewer line.
Note: the followin De artments did not attend but submitted comments:
Water (Phil Overevnder):
• The existing 2'/z water tap line will need to be increased to 3."
• Jerry Novotny spoke with Same Irmen in the City and confirmed that the tap fee range for the
expansion will be between $41,000 to $80,000.
• The possible need for a fire pump was brought up by Jerry Novotny.
• How is current building water metered? Are there submeters for Bentley's and rental space.
• Phil Overeynder will review the plumbing schematics with Sam Irmen.
Parks Brian Flynn):
• An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure
work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitieation for removals
will be paid cash in lieu.
• Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW
requirements. The area in front of the proposed expansion is part of the DEPP
improvement plan and all changes or improvements to the ROW should follow these
standards.
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection within
the City Right of Way:
• Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or
his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence.
• No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage
of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on
site.
• There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan.
Utility connections should take place outside of the public right of way whenever possible.
Utility connections through the pedestrian ROW should be designed for minimal impact and
disturbance. Parks strongly recommends all utility connections be accomplished with either
directional boring and or trench boxes.
The Park houses the irrigation control and the backflow preventer of the entire City of Aspen
right of way located along Hyman Ave. and Mill Street. A space for these items will need to be
DRC Meeting Minutes/Comments
Page 3 of 4
l
P82
Exhibit F
DRC- July 22, 2009
planned for in the new structure. Coordination with the Parks irtigation crews on proper
installment.
Overall sentiment is to meet with depts. individually and get a handle on approximate fees for the project.
DRC Meeting Minutes/Comments
Pa~ of 4
P83
Ml~~ RE
Memorandum
Date: June 16, 2009
To: Saza Adams, H.P. Planner
From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department
Re: Wheeler Opera House Expansion, DRC review
1. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access
infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120.
Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu.
2. Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW
requirements. The azea in front of the proposed expansion is part of the DEPP
improvement plan and all changes or improvements to the ROW should follow
these standazds.
3. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection
within the City Right of Way:
• Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or
his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to
commence.
No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and
storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of
any tree on site.
There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan.
4. Utility connections should take place outside of the public right of way whenever
possible. Utility connections through the pedestrian ROW should be designed for
minima] impact and disturbance. Parks strongly recommends al] utility
connections be accomplished with either directional boring and or trench boxes.
5. The Park houses the irrigation control and the backflow preventer of the entire
City of Aspen right of way located along Hyman Ave. and Mill Street. A space
for these items will need to be planned for in the new structure. Coordination
with the Parks irrigation crews on proper installment.
cell f.
P84
Date: July 23, 2009
Project: Wheeler Expansion PUD
Conceptual
City of Aspen
Engineering Department DRC Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Transportation
Traffic - A traffic impact study shall be conducted to determine impacts of new development.
The plan will need to address quality of service in additional to level of service.
Intersections of particular importance include Hyman and Mill, Mill and Main. Of concern
is the pedestrian and bike movements at the Mill and Main intersection and the lack of
public facilities to accommodate bike movements. Another concern is at the Hyman and
Mill intersection and the interaction between pedestrians and traffic. it is anticipated that
the expansion will increase the time delay for busses at this intersection. Attached is a
checklist to be used for the plan.
Drainaee
General -Project packet must include a discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage
patterns, water quality treatment, detention storage and outlet concepts. Stormwater
collection /treatment and drainage facilities need to be presented and how they will be
incorporated into the site plan. This includes the expansion area and the existing Wheeler.
Stormwater Development Fee: A Stormwater System Development Fee of $2.88 per square
foot of impervious area shall be assessed against all properties at the time of development
or redevelopment of the property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious
area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. This will include the
expansion along with the existing Wheeler Building
Construction Management
General - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building
permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that
minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for:
parking, staging/encroachments, truck trafFc, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution.
Miscellaneous
Utilities -All above ground structures shall be located outside the public rights-of--way.
Detailed plans are required prior to Final -This includes drainage and utilities. Please see
engineering department for specific details.
Additional Project Specific Comments
Stabilization Excavation: Plans showing how the site will be stabilized during
excavation including any underpinning of adjacent buildings. Although a detailed
plan is not necessary there are concerns that need to be addressed at this time, for
example, the site will be limited to the methods used on the alley side which may
shift the location of the foundation. Additionally the existing Wheeler building and
possibly the Mother Load building will require underpinning. On the Wheeler side
stabilization of the existing building is of concern and how this will be
accomplished. On the Mothet Load side permission from the property owner is
required.
Grease trap is not permitted in the ROW.
b ~ ~
~
P85
MEMORANDUM
To: Sara Adams, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassias, Environmental Health Department
Date: July 23, 2009
Re: Wheeler Opera House Expansion, 320 E. Hyman, Conceptual PUD
The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following
comments.
Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual PUD shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. To be consistent, the development must not impose an undue burden on the
City's infrastructure capabilities, including mass transit and air quality, and traffic reduction
capabilities. In addition, the public must not incur an unjustified financial burden. PM-10
pollution exists in Aspen at levels shown to cause significant health effects. PM-10 in Aspen is
caused almost exclusively by traffic. Therefore, keeping traffic from growing is required to keep
PM-10 from increasing.
There are elements of this application that at the conceptual stage, have promise for reducing air
quality and traffic impacts. A condition of conceptual approval needs to be submitting a
detailed trip reduction plan with specific measures that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Department that air pollution and trips will be adequately reduced.
Using the standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation rates, there are two ways to
estimate trip generation for this project. If only seats were being added, the trip generation
would be just over 500 trips per day. However, the application includes more than seats,
including multi-purpose rooms, bathrooms, lobby space, ah unit, performance space, etc.
Therefore, using the trip generation rate per 1000 sq. ft. of added space is more justified. That
results in a trip generation rate of 1127 trips/day. The detailed transportation plan needs to
identify how most of these 1127 average daily trips will be moved to mass transit, carpooling,
bicycling, and walking. We would be happy to meet with the applicant to help define and
quantify measures they are considering.
One of the impacts of expansions that add trips is the need to move the trips to mass transit in
order to protect our air quality. This of course requires both RFTA and city transportation to
~I~+ ~
P86
provide service to handle the added trips. Ensuring that the development pays a fair share of
those costs and that the public not incur the entire financial burden, requires the applicant to
pay for a portion of the increased IZFTA and in-town transit service.
Given the present financial condition of both valley and city transportation systems, there is
clearly not adequate public infrastructure to accommodate additional trips.
The code requires that adverse impacts on public infrastructure by a development be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. This would include the need
for in-town and valley transit service to cazry added trips, to prevent air pollution and
congestion impacts.
We expect that the transportation plan will show how the application meets the requirement
that the recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be
implemented in an appropriate manner. This includes how the project will accomplish
encouraging transit, pedestrian and bicycle use and access, reducing single occupant vehicle
use, reducing overall resource use, strategies like parking cash-out, unbundled parking,
bikeway and pedestrian improvements, system to provide use of the parking garage,
investment in new transit services, decreased parking, limiting traffic on Highway 82 to 1993
levels and reducing in-town traffic, and requiring all developments that that generate demand
for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in
proportion to trips generated.
Air Quality/Traffic Minimum Standards
Council has directed staff to make sure that any mitigation measures meet three standards: 1)
they will have to be proven, by peer-reviewed studies, to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Health Department, to achieve a given reduction in trips, 2) they must be measures that cannot
be changed in the future, so must be accomplished prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy
or must be unable to be altered in the future, 3) the measures cannot impose an unrealistic
burden on the city for tracking and ongoing implementation.
For example, reducing available parking has been shown by peer-reviewed studies to reduce
some portion of trips. (The applicant's proposal not to add parking is consistent with this
method.) However, providing bicycles for employees to use may have some impact, but studies
have not quantified what that might be. Such measures should be part of an overall package,
but probably cannot be shown to remove an exact number of trips.
In order to ensure that financial impacts of needed additional transit service are not borne by
the public, the applicant should provide the amount of mass transit service needed to carry 10%
of the equivalent number of trips over a 30-yeaz life of the project. The project will generate both
trips on Highway 82 (employees, deliveries, etc) and trips within town (employees, clients,
deliveries, etc.) Typically, we would recommend these costs be paid up-front, at Council's
~~~i~ ~
P87
direction, to avoid having to continually go to new property owrrers for yearly cost recovery.
However, in this case, since the Wheeler is a public entity, we would recommend that the costs
could be paid each year instead of up-front.
It is important to keep in mind that someone will pay the costs of transit to carry the added trips
and recovering a small portion (10%) keeps the general taxpayers from having to pay these
costs.
The detailed transportation plan needs to demonstrate how the applicant will implement
measures to address some of the remaining 90% of trips, including such measures as
discontinuing free alley parking,limiting pazking, employee bike fleets, electric vehicles/shuttle
vans/carshaze vehicles, ticket discounts for patrons who do not drive, key bicycle infrastructure
areas affected by this project, and/ or similaz measures. Annual reports will document
compliance with measures proposed and allow for substitution of alternatives upon agreement
with Environmental Health and Transportation.
A project would be deemed to have gone beyond the normal standards and be exceptional if it
paid to carry a greater percent of the trips it generates, or imposed stricter measures to reduce
traffic levels. The Environmental Health department will be happy to help the applicant
determine whether some measures would be more effective than others.
Asbestos Prior to any demolition, including removal of drywall carpet tile, etc., the state must
be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection.
If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos
removal contractor must remove it.
Recycl~Area: The applicant should make sure that the~krash storage area has adequate wildlife
protection. Recycling space needs to be provided as well, since haulers are required to include
recycling of cardboard, newspaper, office paper, and co-mingled containers for commercial
buildings.
Special attention needs to be paid to recycling facilities. In many downtown alleys, especially the
Wheeler alley, some businesses have no space for recycling containers and can only recycle if they
can share facilities with neighboring businesses. While this can cause issues for the owner of the
recycling facilities, it is a city goal to increase recycling and help businesses do so. This expansion
could be an opportunity for the Wheeler to provide space for shazed recycling and increase
recycling beyond its own walls.
~~i~~
P88
ACSD Requirements-Wheeler Conceptual PUD 7-22-09
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which
are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
The old service lines (5) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are
attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all restaurants and food processing
establishments.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of demo, excavation and/or infrastructure permits.
Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made
available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will
be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order
to fund the improvements needed.
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts
prior to building permit.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved
containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building
and utility plans are available.
~,~
Exhibit G P89
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Jay
Maytin. Ann Mullins and Nora Berko were excused.
Planning & Zoning Commission: Michael Wampler, LJ Erspamer, Stan
Gibbs, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin and Brian Speck
Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Sarah reused herself because her firm is the local architects on the project.
LJ Erspamer stated that he is an usher for the Wheeler
Michael Hoffman stated that his wife works at the Wheeler about four hours
every other month. Also my son Noah was on the Wheeler board for a
period of time.
Jay said one of his clients is Bentley's at the Wheeler but the expansion has
nothing to do with Bentley's.
320 E. Hyman Ave. Wheeler Opera House - Jt. Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, HPC Major Development Conceptual Review
Michael Schnoering, Michael Farewell
Michael Schnoering said at the last meeting we came away with some
conclusions. The primary conclusion was that this project, the new
construction should be differential and be a subordinate structure and not
upstage the Wheeler. Out of that we came up with six specific issues that
relate to that.
1. Building out to the street line of the building. There was concern
about building out to the fagade line of the Wheeler.
2. The amount of construction on the upper level. There were
apartments and the concern was the bulk and mass of the building.
3. The amount of glazing and light spill issues and the amount of
transparency.
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page l oorf 11
-1
P90
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
4. The historic use of the Wheeler Opera house as the entry to the
theatre. Is there a way to come in through the historic building and
provide all the new amenities that we are providing.
5. The public access to the upper level of the building. Could the public
have access to a roof garden.
6. Infill structure and where would buses park and how is the service
being made to the building and other utilities.
We have revised the submission and have pushed back the fapade about ten
feet. This gives up a broader entry area and sidewalk area in front of the
main entrance of the building. If we set the building back ten feet we need
to make a comer connection on the west corner. There was also a question
of entry and access. Ideally you would want to go in through the historic
fagade but we do not see a way to do that functionally or gracefully.
Originally the fourth floor showed three apartments and we are now
proposing one apartment for the artists. There has also been discussion
about using the space as a public amenity or outdoor court. We can do that
in a limited way. If it was totally public access the stairs would have to be
larger and technically a larger elevator to get everyone up and down. That
would gobble up square footage in a tightly compressed plan. We are not
recommending that the entire roof be given over to public use. We can have
a lower use. The apartment could be used for receptions with its patio. The
issue of transparency on the fapade. We are passionate that this should be a
stone fapade. We have reduced the transparency about 20% and added stone
on the eastern wall and cornice. Slides were presented showing the setbacks
and different historic buildings with additions. The scheme with the setback
works with the Mother Lode and Wheeler. It would become extremely
problematic if we setback were any larger than ten feet.
Proof ofpublication -Exhibit I
Sara said a site visit occurred April 6`" with Planning & Zoning and HPC.
The lot is a 12,000 square foot lot. We are dealing with the joint
commissions commercial design standards. Utility and trash service, public
amenity and projects compliance with the adopted design guidelines which
deals with the design and placement of the addition. We are talking about
the size and shape of the addition and the location on the lot and does it meet
the guidelines. Overall the Community Development dept. feels the project
is moving in a positive direction. In terms of the alignment and location the
building is setback from the property line to provide for public amenity
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 11
P91
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
space. We recommend further design development in order to make this a
more active public gathering space and to meet guideline 6.8. The request
for the reduction of public amenity space is appropriate.
Building form: They are proposing a flat roof which is typical for the style
of development in our downtown. Staff is concerned with the curved
element which is between the new and old construction and we recommend
a restudy. The curved element is somewhat foreign.
Height: Height and scale aze appropriate and meet guideline 6.28. It is
achieved through the setback of the fourth floor and the proposed addition
which is below the height of the historic Wheeler. The Wheeler is one of the
tallest buildings in town and as such it can support a substantial addition.
The finishes can be addressed for final review and we feel the perception of
the mass can be reduced by working with some of the pieces. We also feel
the proposed height softens the transition between the Mother Lode and
Wheeler.
Entrance: Guideline 6.34 recommends that an iconic structure is preserved
and enhanced. We are very concerned about the relocation of the primary
entrance from the historic Wheeler into the addition. We find that the
dramatic entrance proposed detracts from the historic building and
inappropriate for this setting. The primary entrance to the Wheeler should
remain so that the addition remains an ancillary function so we are not
moving all of the function away from the historic Wheeler and the publics'
perception of the historic landmark. We do recommend
restudy of the roof top access in order to enhance guideline 6.34 and the
public's experience with the historic resource.
Sara said the crucial topics that we hope to give feedback to the applicant on
tonight are location, height and scale of the proposed addition and the
relationship to the context of the historic wheeler. Overall we recommend
continuation to July Stn
LJ Erspazner asked about purchasing the unit next door for the artist and
possibly that would be cheaper than building the fourth floor.
Gram Slaton said legally we cannot use that money for any other purchases.
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 3~ofr11
`~1
P92
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
LJ Erspamer talked about modulation. On the Mother Lode side you have a
large wall and is there a way to step the west wall down to be more in
harmony with the building next door,
down without impacting the interior.
wall facing City Hall.
I don't know how you would step it
You also see that on the fire station
Michael Schnoering said the wall is fire rated wall and taking out additional
volume affects the interior program.
LJ Erspamer also stated that the glass is a concern on the front and how it
fits in with the facade and the lights at night. What is the position of the
City on height.
Sara said the height is 54.2 feet to top of the elevator shaft and 51.2 feet to
the top of the fourth floor apartment and the historic Wheeler is 55.7 feet tall
to the cornice and 71 feet tall to the highest point. The adjacent Mother
Lode is 40.1 lto the top of tl}e third floor which is located at the rear.
Cliff Weiss said the west wall that is part firewall with the Mother Lode it is
exposed a great deal. Can there be glass where the wall is exposed.
Sara pointed out that you cannot have openings on a firewall because of the
IBC.
Michael Schnoering explained that shared party walls are part of the historic
pattern of development.
Michael asked the applicant about the curved element between the two
buildings. Michael Schnoering said it is a challenge trying to make the re-
entrance corner. We could refine the profile a little but it needs to be
something softer than square. The curvilinear gave a connection shape back
to the Wheeler but the form is also different. We can restudy that but we
need some kind of volume there.
Jay asked about the roof top as a public amenity. Michael Schnoering said it
is tied into the number of people that would be allowed to go to the roof top.
Three hundred people would require major vertical circulation and we
simply cannot accommodate that in the building. Something less than 100
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
mi ht make use of the apartment as a multi use space. That could be
g
accommodated without major circulation elements. There aze costs involved
having a roof space for people. The aspiration for larger numbers will be
problematic.
Jay asked how feasible the public rooftop access would be without the
apartment?
Michael Schnoering explained that the same issues would come up. We
would have to have two stairs up, two means of egress from that space as
well as an elevator. At that point you are bringing up major structures to
that level.
Michael said he is sympathetic to both sides of the discussion on the
entryway. There are historic structures where additions have been made and
the artifacts become appendages and I have the feeling this might happen
here. How can we avoid creating a dead end in the historic entrance.
Michael Schnoering said the plan is to have the space that is now the lobby
be a tenant space, which will be a commercial use which is a desirable thing
on the street level. The historical entry is the round arched opening to the
monumental stair. It is too tight for an effective entry and that is why we
moved away from it. There is no historical argument for keeping the entry
as is now. The new entry will relate to the character of the existing building
but will give all the amenities such as proper ticket office and circulation.
We weight these things very carefully and this is abetter solution.
Michael Farewell said the historic entry in the future will perform as it is
now. It will be a place where people spill out from the show and you still
have access from the inside.
Brian said everyone floods out of the Wheeler and the idea of recessing the
secondary fagade back kind of gives a gateway, a place where people can
gather and sit.
LJ Erspamer asked if this was a private application what would be the
requirements to have this kind of height.
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
P93
Page 5 of 11
P94
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Sara said they would still need to go through a PUD to vary the height. The
applicant is going through the proper procedure process.
Bert Myrin said the purchase of the Mother Lode was on the 2003 ballot yet
tonight we heard that RETT money can't be used for offsite purchases. Why
was it on the balot.
John Worcester, city attorney said in order to use the RETT money for
anything other than what was in the original ballot it has to go to a vote. It
could go to a vote and you could amend the RETT language. The issue then
becomes whether or not it is a new RETT which is prohibited by Tabor. In
2003 the issue was whether or not the RETT money that was available then
could be used for that purpose, that meaning the purchase of the Mother
Lode. I at that time pined that city council ought to seek approval from the
voters to amend the original RETT and that is why it was put on the ballot.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing.
Bill Wiener, retired architect. 701 Gibson - I only address problems and
bring them up when I now there is a solutions. You have floor to floor,
scissor, two ride, three run stair and move the penetration further back and it
would relate to the lobby. That would get rid of the curve. All of the slides
we saw the new addition was articulated from the hold with a glass spacer.
That is what we need here and get rid of that curve. Possibly an arch in the
front where all the glass is might give a better tie into the community. The
public space is the lobbies. You need to see where you are going and be
pulled there. Using the old stair entry you can't see where you are going.
Harris Hall opens up in the summer and that might be a possibility here and
make the sidewalk come in and make it part of the lobby. The problem is
that you are trying to put too much of a building on too small of a site within
too small of a box. The apartment is a luxury and it would be cheaper to get
a suite in one of the big hotels which has parking, room service and maid
service. It would free up space and make the roof garden more possible.
The first floor is pretty high and possibly the upper floors could project over
the alley. That would give you more volume.
Ruben Hedlin, part time resident of Aspen. I am on the board of landmarks
in Chicago and Roosevelt University. This is a good opportunity to create a
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of i l
P95
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
lobby that is consistent with the function and the historic importance and the
current importance of the, Wheeler Opera House.
Suzanne Foster said the green space where you have pushed back the fagade
doesn't seem, appropriate to have grass. If this were a more paved situation
where you had more benches on the outside you would get less trampling. It
would more of a civic space.
Lisa Markalunas said she has continued concerns over mass and scale. We
all agree that the Wheeler Opera House is one of the most significant
buildings in town and it requires the utmost review process. I am not sure
you intent to address parking but the Wheeler Opera House right now has
significant parking issues and on existing businesses. I agree with staff on
the historic entrance and the curved element and the contemporary nature of
the addition and the glazing. I don't know that the addition has to be
entirely contemporary. I would be interested in the split numbers of lobby
space, office space and housing. For the outdoor lobby space that is a nice
amenity that would give the Wheeler some breathing room and.give you
some public access. I am amazed that the public amenity requirement is
being dropped from 3,000 square feet to 600 square feet. Staff recommends
that it could be a more usable space. On Gram Slaton's memo of March ls`
it mentions that the historic venue will see a significant amount of square
footage open up for rental potential. It is odd that we are talking about such
mass and scale to a building when we might have opportunity to
accommodate some of those uses within the existing building. Perhaps it
might be worth exploring the RETT requirements and uses in another
building and not impact the Wheeler so significantly. With the City sitting
as judge and jury on its own project it is important that the citizens weight in
on what they want to see happen with the Wheeler Opera house.
Junee Kirk said she is concerned about the height and scale of this historic
building. Part of our pattern of development has been to preserve our iconic
buildings and the surrounding space. In all the iconic buildings there is a
certain amount of open space that preserves the integrity of the historic
structure. Using the existing space for offices in the existing Wheeler Opera
house is a good suggestion.
Ed Forein said he is a member of the Aspen Community Theater board. Ed
applauded the architect and the Wheeler board for coming up with a design
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 7~ofT11
~l
P96
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
that appropriate in scale for the neighborhood yet compliments the Wheeler
opera house. As a performer I am grateful that we will have a potential for
performances and rehearsal space in the addition. This is an excellent
amenity to provide performance space for community arts groups. The
common areas and Lobby areas are very important and in some ways the
performances go on in the lobby and the community will use that as a
gathering space. I caution the HPC to not make further constraints in this
building. The original iteration has much more welcoming gathering areas
and the architects have done all they can by setting back the entrance.
Common areas where people gather cannot be confined and that would be a
detriment to the addition and to the Wheeler.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Cliff Weiss pointed out his two concerns # 1 public amenity, #2 mass and
height.
Bert said he feels the entire building is a public amenity and having space
outside seems to be in excess. Bert also said entering from the Wheeler
entrance is preferable.
Brian said he is willing to give on the pubic amenity space. The Wheeler is
a public amenity and creating some space on the street people will use it
more.
Cliff pointed out that the roof should be the public amenity space. He is
opposed to the apartment.
Jay said he sees the reason to have the setback off the street. This building
and the use of the building creates a public amenity. Reducing the public
amenity from 3,000 to 600 hundred feet is OK. It is inappropriate to have
the apartment.
Michael agreed with Jay that the setback is successful and subordinate.
Mass and scale:
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 8 o~fT11
-1
Exhibit G P 9 ~
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Bert said all the buildings in town seem like they are one-story too tall. The
space underneath the existing Wheeler should be considered in the design.
LJ Erspamer supported Bert's comments.
Cliff commented that the fourth floor gives nothing to the community and
would only be used in the summer.
Brian pointed out that downtown is conducive to density. In the elevations
they are stepped back and the addition is submissive to the Wheeler. I am
not offended by the fourth floor as it is set back a good degree that is not
opposing. I am concerned about seeing it from the North and I totally
understand the needs of the program.
Jay said the height of the fourth floor is concerning. It is important to utilize
what you already have. The square feet under the building should be used
for some purpose. If you could use the space under the Wheeler to reduce
the mass it would definitely be appropriate. Utilize what you have already
and then come back with what you "really" need.
Brian said there is concern that the Wheeler has stood alone. The Wheeler
was constructed to have an addition on the side.
Michael said his concern is the blank west wall.
Curvilinear element:
Bert agreed with staff that the curved element is out of character and could
be eliminated by moving the building forward and dropping the height.
Cliff said the curvilinear element is an incongruous element and not
appropriate.
Jay also said the curvilinear wall does not fit with the design.
Brian suggested that the architects look at a different feature for the
curvilinear wall. Ten feet back is fantastic but it looks like that could be
twiddled down to five feet to supply more lobby space.
Entrance:
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 9 0~l
P98
Exhibit G
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Bert agreed with staff that the entrance needs restudied. Possibly move the
connections on the first floor and give more play with the existing building.
Cliff said his priority is the lobby area and it should be used as a welcoming
area.
Jay recommended that the entrance be restudied.
Brian said the entrance accessed from the historic opera house should only
be used in a functional way. If the main entrance has to be off the second
building it has to be a fantastic entrance.
Michael Schnoering said the entry is the core of the project. It needs proper
access and entering from the existing building would destroy the interior
historic components.'
LJ Erspamer recused himself.
MOTION: Jay moved to continue 320 E. Hyman, Wheeler Opera House
addition to July 8`"; second by Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried 8-0.
Roll call: Michael Wampler, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Cliff
Weiss, yes; Brian Speck, yes; Michael Hoffman, yes, Jay Maytin, yes. Brian
McNellis yes.
6:45 Planning & Zoning dismissed.
Conceptual Development review and Special review for parking
Michael said providing parking on-site is inappropriate. We need more
information because we do not know the impacts on the neighborhood for
parking.
MOTION: Brian moved to continue the conceptual review and special
review for parking on 320 E. Hyman until July 8`~; second by Jay. All in
favor, motion carried.
Jay suggested some kind of bicycle storage on-site.
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 10ro~f i l
vl
Exhibit G F 9 9
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Michael Schnoering said the team does not want to destroy the historic
fabric of the Wheeler Opera House. We don't want to make a lobby that
was not originally there.
DRAFT June 24, 2009 Minutes
Page 11 of 11
P100
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Michael Hoffinan opened the Special P&Z and HPC Meeting in the Council
Chambers at 5:20pm. Commissioners Sarah Broughton, Jay Maytin, Ann Mullins,
Michael Hoffinan, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, and LJ
Erspamer were present. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel, Sara
Adams, Amy Guthrie, Jennifer Phelan, Chris Bendon, Community Development;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jim True said that a quorum was needed by both commissions, so Sarah Broughton
was needed for the HPC quorum but could not stay or participate in the meeting.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Jim True sent out an email on an open house on an unrelated project regarding ex-
parte communications and the commissioners should disclose conflicts at the
meeting.
Michael Hoffman stated that he legally represented Kathy Markle on another
matter not pertaining to the Wheeler.
Sarah Broughton was conflicted on the Wheeler Opera House because she was one
of the local architects on the Wheeler project.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
320 E HYMAN -WHEELER OPERA HOUSE -HPC Maior Development
Review and P&Z Special Review for Parkin
Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing on the Wheeler Opera House. Sara
Adams stated this was the public hearing for Conceptual Commercial Design
Standards for the Wheeler as a joint meeting with HPC and P&Z continued from
June 24`x.
Sara Adams said staff recommended Conceptual Commercial Design Standards
approval. Adams said the public amenity was the rooftop access. The architects
have pulled the addition forward 6 feet so there was a 4 foot setback for the
building from the property line for the addition and eliminates the curved element
but still exposes the corner of the historic Wheeler under the staff memo public
amenity and Section 26.757.030.F.5 which states "public amenity space may not
be 4 feet above grade" however Section 26.575.0300.4 -"Commercial Design
Review may accept any method of providing Public Amenity not otherwise
described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the
value, which may be non-monetary value, of otherwise required cash-in-lieu
payment." Adams said this was providing public access to the rooftop with a
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 1 of 13
fr
Exhibit G P ~ ~ ~
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
capacity of about 90 people for patrons of the Wheeler and does meet the intent of
that public amenity space. Adams said that a condition in the Resolution that
during final review the applicant will show an anticipated schedule for the 4a' floor,
they just want have a way to quantify that 4~' floor artist in residence that it will be
available to non-profits and won't be booked to an artist or performer the entire
year, which would not allow the ability for the public to rent that unit.
Michael Hoffman asked what was different about the 4`~ floor. Sara Adams replied
there was a stair enclosure to allow the public egress.
Sara Adams said that there wasn't really much change to the building height, mass
and scale. Staff found the guidelines 6.27 and 6.28 are met with the proposed
mass,. scale and height of the addition. At the last meeting some P&Z members
also brought up some of the uses being brought into the existing Wheeler and into
the addition; the overall mass of the addition has not been changed. Staff
recommended for final review that the applicant study the fenestration. Sara
Adams said the big issue was the entrance with guideline 6.34 for the historic
Wheeler as the focal point of this parcel with an addition of an ancillary use to the
Historic Wheeler.
Sara Adams said the there was the historic grand staircase in the original Wheeler
with the IBC and the new entrance was appropriate. Overall staff finds that the
project meets the applicable review criteria specifically addressed with all of the
exhibits in the packet. Adams noted there was a joint resolution included in the
packet with the condition of approval regarding the public amenity space
requesting the proposed occupancy used for the rooftop unit.
Michael Hoffinan asked how the occupancy would work in real life. Adams
responded that staff wanted to make sure that the unit was made available to non-
profits and the public to rent for a reception or performers with information on how
that would work.
Jay Maytin said there were clear guidelines about the entrance but not the interior;
how did you decide to move the entrance rather than the staircase. Adams replied
that it is a guideline with the philosophy of maintaining a Historic entrance with
the historic staircase. Maytin asked with the removal of the existing elevator will
that be a passage way to the new addition. Adams replied that the opening would
be maintained as a passage way. Gram Slaton stated that the original door was
used by Aspen film.
DRAFT July 8, 2.009 Minutes
Page 2 of 13
P102
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
LJ Erspamer said that all of the egress for the new theatre was on the left side;
should there be an egress on the right side for fire code. Adams replied that the
architects have been meeting with the building department and the fire marshall
and have scheduled a DRC for July 22"d. Erspamer said that pedestrian amenity
has him confused because it says that it has to be on the streetscape but that HPC
and P&Z can decide where it goes. Adams responded that HPC and P&Z could
actually waive the public amenity requirement because it was a development on a
landmark and they were proposed since public amenity was so important that the
rooftop space meets the section of the code the rooftop deck either equals or
exceeds the value, which could be non-monetary value, of the public amenity.
Cliff Weiss asked for the diagram of the rooftop and asked which part was public
access. Michael Farewell stated the cross hatched area was public access. Weiss
asked if the concerns for blank walls were addressed. Adams answered that it
really hasn't changed; the curved piece on the corner was eliminated and moved
the fapade forward so the setback was now 4 feet from the property line.
Ann Mullins asked why the building was moved 6 feet forward. Michael Farewell
responded that there was discussion about the guideline of holding the fagade on
the street or should it be met or whether a setback should be maintained of 10 feet
by 60 feet would be used and the while some setback was called for to free the
corner it would show the way the stone turns into brick and that 10 feet would
impact the interior more than what was needed; so the setback was modest and met
the interior needs.
Stan Gibbs asked the square footage of the roof gardens area. Michael Farewell
replied that it was about 30 by 50; the rooftop space would be larger than the
reception space.
Bert Myrin said that he packet mentions a parking requirement that was
recommended that it be waived and there was no mention in the resolution of
parking. Sara Adams responded that parking was under HPC's purview.
Jay Maytin asked about the cash in lieu being public cash being paid back to the
public.
Michael Mills, partner in charge of preservation, introduced Michael Farewell
partner in design. Michael Mills said that his role was to protect the historic
character of the team though research that they have developed a deep appreciation
for the history and materials of the Wheeler. Mills said the preservation planning
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 13
.Exhibit G P 10 3
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
for the Wheeler based on the Aspen Historic District Guidelines, which are in turn
based upon the Secretary of Interior Standards for the rehabilitation of historic
buildings. Mills said the preservation for the Wheeler were for two levels of
treatment conditioned by the integrity of the historic fabric and these were defined
by the standards as preservation and rehabilitation; restoration and reconstruction
really don't apply to this project. Mills said the preservation area includes the
storefronts, the stone, cornices, the windows, the doors and all of the trim of the
Wheeler. The preservation zones on the interior are the main stairwell and the
auditorium and the other spaces in the building were support and could be
rehabilitated for other spaces while preserving the significant features like the bank
vaults. The interior has some functional areas that need to be addressed including
inadequate lobby space, the ticket area with poor circulation, fire and egress issues
and heating and air conditioning system that needs to be updated to current
environmental standards. This project offers the opportunity to make those needed
improvements. The design goal was not to imitate but create a quietly confident
work of architecture that fills the program and be useful and a source of pride to
the citizens of Aspen. The public reviews have helped refine the project to
conform to the intent and provisions of the ordinances and design standards; they
look forward continuing this project.
Michael Farewell utilized power point to show the mass of the historic building
and the infill adjacent to it. Farewell said the 4 foot setback provides a larger_
queuing space and respectful attitude towards the corner. There were 2 floors
below grade (about 30 feet) and that is taken up by the 235 seat theatre and
balcony and above it with 3 main floors and the apartment with multi-use space on
the top. Farewell said the lower level did not have the 4 foot setback but came out
to the property line. Farewell said the plan shows the current Wheeler offices and
the restaurant has storage down there and the new plan will have storage and new
mechanical space needs with about 1100 square feet left of usable space. Farewell
explained every floor including the employee apartment so there would be an
employee on site. The roof terrace space was reconfigured to be a publically
accessible multi-use space and a 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment with a kitchen and
living room which can be easily setup for receptions. Farewell said there was more
work to be done on the elevations. Farewell said the addition had its own character
and transparency and exhibits the quality and life of the theatre, makes it visible
when you are outside of the building and also opens up to the landscape when you
are inside.
John Rowland said they will be doing another series of open houses and
community outreach to try to address some of the community concerns and make
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 13
/~..~
P104
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
sure that everyone is informed and to have the same information when this goes to
the ballot. Rowland said this was a great opportunity for citizens to co-mingle with
community and some groups that want to use this space.
Anne Mullins asked what the connections between the 3'~ and 4`~' floors with the
Wheeler and the addition. Michael Mills replied the 3`d floor was a lobby space
maintaining the stairwell. Ann Mullins said when you come up the stairs where
can you actually get to on that 3`d level. Michael Mills responded if you bought
your ticket or have your ticket one option is to take the elevators off to the left to
the uppermost level; the second option was to take the staircase and at the current
lobby level ascend up the next set of stairs to the orchestra level or the third option
was to ascend up the historic stairs. Mullins asked what the proposed access to the
upper level was. Mills answered there would be a potential to make the connection
but can't make an interior connection without raising the roof of the building
which wasn't feasible so they were maintaining that relationship.
Bert Myrin said there were concerns about the view from the north and the Hotel
Jerome viewplane. Michael Mills showed pictures taken from the Hotel Jerome
with angles that they were clearly in that zone and the existing Wheeler was above
the defined viewplane by about 10 feet and the new addition is below that
viewplane.
LJ Erspamer asked where the viewplane is at the Hotel Jerome. Sara Adams said
the origination point for the viewplane that we are talking about is in front of the J
Bar with a determination of eyelevel in the land use code from the survey. John
Rowland replied the height was 5 foot 6 inches and basically the width of the Hotel
Jerome.
Bert Myrin asked about the historic view of the Wheeler from Red Mountain.
Michael Mills responded that the Wheeler would still be seen from all sides and
was so distinctive from any point.
Jay Maytin voiced concern with the cross section which shows the balcony
protruding past the fagade of the Wheeler. Sara Adams replied that the balcony
was not dealt with until final but at this time the concerns were volume, mass,
scale, height and proportions during conceptual. Adams said the balcony will be
discussed during final reviews. Maytin asked if granting this conceptual would
grant this drawing. Adams replied it would not grant the details, the materials, and
fenestration but rather what is the size of the box.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 13
fY
Exhibit G P 10 5
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Cliff Weiss asked how important was the tenant revenue of the existing space.
Gram Slaton replied the revenue is going to be key to make this building work and
he is interested in getting a tenant that was a media outlet for the Wheeler in the
subgrade space. Weiss said there was a lot of space dedicated to the entrance .
lobby area. Mills said the current lobby cannot accommodate the occupancy of the
theatre and that was a challenge from a life safety point of view, from an
operational point of view and for patrons that want to socialize at intermissions.
Mills said that the lobby had to be safe and accessible. Mills said the theatres
would have staggering time starts and the new lobby picks up the 3`d floor
intermission patrons.
Jay Maytin asked what 90 people get to use the roof; the Wheeler hold 480 some
people; will it truly be a public accessible place or orchestra seats first and balcony
seats second. Maytin voiced concern for this rooftop becoming a VIP area and that
the public has access to it; will there be a plan for that. Gram Slaton replied that
the cut roof from the balcony was just presented to him about 90 minutes ago.
Maytin said that he was talking about the terrace. Slaton said that they were
looking at this as a room not connected to any particular performance and looking
at this as an amenity to be used for a variety of intended uses.
Ron Erickson, chairman of Wheeler board, stated the board's mission statement
was to promote local non-profit arts groups and the use of the Wheeler. Erickson
said they subsidize performances in the Wheeler for local arts groups and all of the
elements of the building would go as a public amenity. Erickson said their goal
was to make this a transparent process. Erickson said the rental income funds the
non-profit grants in this town.
Kathy Markel, member of the Wheeler board, said that many of the local art
groups have asked her to represent their enthusiasm for the type of space that will
allow a smaller venue to fill up with a flexible venue allowing different types and
styles of performance. Markel said that most of the people that she spoke to would
like every square foot of the property maximized as a public amenity; the building
itself was a public amenity.
Pam Cunningham, board member, stated that there was exceptional leadership in
this process that stems from Gram; he was instrumental in setting up the architects
and processes with the city. Cunningham complemented the azchitects for
listening to the boards.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of 13
P106
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Michael Hoffman read the letter from Lisa Markalunas. Sara Adams included in
the packet the letter from Lisa Markalunas, Bill Wiener, Junee Kirk, Jasmine
Tygre, Susan O'Neal plus 2 more letters from Junee Kirk.
Public Comments:
Lisa Markalunas, public, voiced concerns for parking, the mass and scale of the
building. Markalunas said that the applicant needs to address the parking needs
because of adding more performances and patrons to the Wheeler. Markalunas
was concerned about the glass on the fagade of the new building and the nature of
the building. Markalunas said that the Wheeler was one of Aspen's crown jewels
and if it is destroyed it in the process of trying to make it something that it really
can't be a performing arts center that might be appropriate somewhere else.
Page Price, artistic director of Theatre Aspen, thanked the Wheeler for including
them in discussions and offered support in the direction that they were going.
Junee Kirk, public, wanted to say that looking at the viewplane from the Jerome
there was not much to see but if you look at the poster card that everybody
identifies Aspen with from Mill Street and Main with the historic shape of the
building. Kirk said that they have fought long and hard to protect theses iconic
buildings and open space and that open space was bought to protect the Wheeler.
Kirk said that we need to protect our historic structures and there were other places
around town that could be used for performances.
Jeffrey George, managing director of Theatre Aspen, gave a vote of confidence to
this architectural firm in particular to this historic building.
Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Michael Hoffman asked if the trade of public amenity space from the ground level
to the rooftop space and are the balance of the commercial design standards were
satisfied by the application.
Bert Myrin said that he agreed with the public amenity space being the whole
building and saw no need for public amenity space outside the building. Myrin
suggested shrinking the height of the addition but that was another issue.
Cliff Weiss said he had a problem with the rooftop unit because some artist would
have that rooftop as their own space and it would be closed to the public; he
wanted it as a public amenity space at all times. Weiss said the height was pushed
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 7 of 13
(~.,'
P107
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
up for this fourth story apartment and that was a concern of his. Weiss said he
would like to see the atrium area as a grand lobby but wanted to see this at final.
Hoffinan said that these were concerns for final. Adams said that the request was
for both commissions to be weighing in on the height, mass and scale. Adams said
this was an application against the commercial design standards which a review
similar to HPC conceptual review in looking at mass, scale, proportion, context
and how it relates to the historic district. Adams said that in conceptual the
concern was what is this structure going to look like in Exhibit C.
Jim DeFrancia said that he agreed with the statement that the whole building was
an amenity and would like to see the setback on the addition.
Ann Mullins said the rooftop doesn't meet the intent of public amenity space since
it is only for Wheeler patrons and that would only accommodate 90 people.
Mullins said that she would have retained the 10 foot setback; the 4 foot setback is
creating a non space and you might as well go to the lot line. Mullins said that this
needed open space to the front or side of the building both to reduce the mass and
create a public amenity.
LJ Erspamer asked if a public amenity was supposed to be available to the public
24/7. Hoffinan replied no. DeFrancia said that a public amenity was a space that
was available to the public and inheritably has hours, character of operation and
whether or not it is free. Hoffinan agreed that the whole building was a public
amenity.
Jim True said there was the ability to waive that public amenity or reduce the
amount that is set forth in that section.
Hoffman also agreed with Ann with the spirit of public amenity.
Weiss said that he was hesitant to eliminate the public amenity space requirement.
Maytin said that it was important that the public amenity language remain in the
resolution.
Adams said to summarize the public amenity options could be (1) the ZS%
requirement; (2) a reduction of the requirement; (3) waving the requirement or (4)
the rooftop access is sufficient to meet the public amenity intent.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 8/of 13
`Y
P108
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Stan Gibbs said that he agreed with Bert that the whole building was a public
amenity.
Weiss said that photovoltaic was a problem.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved for the adoption of the language which is
Section 1 public amenity space; seconded by Bert Myrin.
Discussion:
Chris Bendon provided background on the City's approach to this pedestrian
amenity; it was called open space as a way to recognize the importance both open
space with visual access to the mountain and urban elements that make downtown
fun to be in and lots of different ways to express that. Bendon said in the old code
25% of the parcel was the rule and the City found out that some spaces worked
really well like Paradise Bakery and Zele but other places were not good so the
City went away from a quantitative thing. The Cantina outside dining is pedestrian
amenity space that works well, which contributes to the life and vitality of town.
Bendon says the code specifically grants the authority to come up and understand
someone's contribution to the downtown. Bendon said the importance of the
viewplane was from the Wheeler parcel and there maybe a few times a year for
someone to go up to that 4`~ floor deck and enjoy that space and maybe with a
ticket to an event.
Ann Mullins said that it was a great amenity to the project to have a rooftop terrace
but her objection was that it did not add any vitality to the street.
Jay Maytin said that 10 feet was not enough to create vitality but would not support
bringing the new portion to the lot line because the 4 foot setback does create a
distinction to the historic resource.
Jim True said that there needs to be a resolution to approve the resolution then you
could amend the motion.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to amend the motion for approve the P&Z and
HPC Resolution as presented by staff,• Bert Myrin seconded.
Discussion:
LJ Erspamer asked if they were voting as a group. Jim True replied they were
voting as a group and the majority prevails.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 9 of 13
rr
Exhibit G P 10 9
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Michael Hoffman noted that staff directed the commissions to talk about the
height, the relocated uses, the bands on the front fagade and the relocated entrance.
Sara Adams said that the bands on the front fagade were a heads up to the design
team for final review so the bands were off of this discussion. Adams said it would
be appropriate to discuss the basement of the addition and the massing of the
addition how it relates to that size of the building.
Bert Myrin said that Section 2, Design Guidelines, 6.25 mentions perceived scale
of the building and vertical fenestration would bring the building down. Myrin
was not convinced that the top 2 floors could shrink enough for the Wheeler to
stand out.
Jim DeFrancia asked Bert if he thought the addition was too high. Myrin
responded that it doesn't fit into the scale of the area and was too high. Myrin said
that Section 3 was more of a fact and was concerned about the height and the Diva
Apartment may have some opposition in an election.
Ann Mullins said the perception of the mass could be changed dramatically
depending upon the type of fenestration and the detail; the height seems to work
well because it is lower than the Wheeler and does not overpower the Wheeler.
Mullins said there should be a storefront street presence that would also bring in
that entry and was unfortunate that we can't resolve something with that entry
because it becomes a secondary part of the development. Mullins said the addition
becomes too much of a departure from the Wheeler and looks too massive, too
uniform and too bulky and detracts from the original.
LJ Erspamer said that he would like to see more articulation. Erspamer said that
there was a minimum of 2 feet between buildings but what was the maximum and
how do you articulate the modulation between the buildings but yet is there some
way to make it softer and more harmonious with the neighboring buildings.
Erspamer said he was concerned about the 4`h floor.
Jay Maytin agreed with the LJ on the 4`h floor that was already too high. Maytin
said that he can't see how the 4a' floor fits in with the rest of the block with the
Motherlode and Crystal Palace buildings.
Michael Hoffman said he was trying to put the pieces together. Hoffman said the
3`a bullet point was additional height in the zone district may be added for one or
more of the following reasons and one of the reasons was the primary function of
the building was civic.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 10 of 13
P110
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Sara Adams said they were talking about the placement of an addition, the size,
how it fits into the guidelines, how it fits into the historic district, how it
contributes to the urban fabric and then the applicant will go to Planning & Zoning
and Council to determine the specific dimensional requirements for floor area and
also for height.
Michael Hoffman said that he did not have a problem with the Diva Apartment. LJ
Erspamer asked how many square feet was the 4`h floor. Sara Adams said on the
4"' floor the questions were is that mass appropriate and does it fit into the context
adjacent to the Wheeler and sandwiched between the Motherlode and the Wheeler.
Cliff Weiss said they were asking for a height variance and it was a judgment
decision.
Michael Farewell said the roof access will require stairs and a bathroom.
Bert Myrin asked where the solar panels were going. Michael Farewell said that
they were going on the apartment roof. Myrin said that he could support this if the
top 2 floors weren't there as far as mass and scale.
Cliff Weiss asked if they were prepared to have a conceptual vote because a lot of
the details were in a vague description in the resolution and in the PUD would get
to the specifics and they were getting all of the signals. Jim DeFrancia agreed with
Cliff said that the PUD application had to go to P&Z and Council .for the necessary
waivers; he suggested that this review approve the height with a qualification.
Sara Adams said that if you approve the drafted resolution then you would be
approving the placement of the building, the shape of the building, the setback.
Adams said the PUD process would include the height variance and floor area. If
the commissions have not resolved the height and mass issues tonight she
suggested continuing to August 4`h
Amy Guthrie read that the commercial design review shall be binding upon the
commission in regards to the location form of the envelope of the structure
addition including its height, scale, mass and proportions no changes will be made
by the commission unless agreed to by the applicant. Sara Adams said the height
was to be defined in the next step, what the height is through the PUD process.
Jim DeFrancia said that there did not seem to be broad support of the height and
Section 3 should be amended or come back and have a more extensive discussion.
Adams said that if the commissioners say this is too tall and needs to come down.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 11 of 13
~~.-
P111
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Michael Hoffman said that he did not have enough information to make a decision
with this joint commission with some structure to evaluate this application.
Hoffinan said the applicant has supplied information.
Stan Gibbs said if the commissions move the sentence from Section 3 and remove
the word height and simply puts the reference to height and floor area to Section 3.
Gibbs said the qualitative items would be part of the design guidelines section that
could be approved but the actual floor area and height would be deferred to a PUD
process going through P&Z. Jay Maytin said that he felt it was important for HPC
to vote on the height because of the historic resource next door. Michael Hoffman
said that he was not happy with the current process.
Sara Adams said this was the first joint review for commercial conceptual design
review so it was a work in progress. Michael Hoffman asked to reconsider the
code and come back with a process that actually works. Jim True said that they
were in the process with the joint board. Michael Hoffman said that they could
refashion to address the concerns. Jim True said that they might be able to
refashion to give everybody a comfort level for this whole process to proceed.
Jim DeFrancia and Bert Myrin withdrew the first motions.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the Wheeler HPC/P&Z to August 4,
2009 seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor from P&Z and HPC; APPROVED
8-0.
Discussion:
Weiss said it was not P&Z's intention to cut out HPC but there were flaws and he
felt the need to continue. Chris Bendon suggested that the code provides for a
modification of review procedures; what might be all the same issues here of PUD,
Commercial Design or the major conceptual at HPC. Bendon said all was dealing
with the height, mass, setbacks and the form of the structure and three different
actions have to take place and 3 different boards to take actions on. Bendon said
they could consider because the August 4`h meeting could be noticed as this joint
board takes action on the Commercial Design Review and the conceptual PUD to
City Council. Jim DeFrancia said that P&Z would review with HPC as a joint
board. Bendon replied yes. Bendon said that the criteria are observed and the
public is noticed properly. Hoffman asked the P&Z if they were comfortable in the
HPC making the joint decision making. Both commissions agreed to this joint
review.
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 12 of 13
P112
P&Z adjourned at 8:15 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit G
DRAFT-July 08, 2009 Meeting Minutes
DRAFT July 8, 2009 Minutes
Page 13 of 13
r~
s ~ ~
0
.~
_ ~
t'l.1
P~ ~ -~ c~
a~
.~
a~
0
0
.~
~ ~
~0 +~+
~+ V~
~ ~
~ ~
~ -
.-
~ ~ ,o
o t ~
~ ~
o t ,~
~ >,
~ ~
._ >,
a~ -
~ ,~
~ ~
•- ~
~ ~
~ ~n
~ =
~ ~
~ -~
~ ~
~ ~
a ~,
~ a~
a~ ~
~ t ~
~ ~'
~ ~
._
_ •,
~ ~
~ ~
-~
~ ~
~ o
~ ~
~~
^~
._
t
t t/~
t
4~
0
~-%
(~
Q
~--~
.~
O
L
~O
.~
.~
N
a~
I
1
l
i
a~--+
~ ~
U ~
~ ~
O >
Q .U
L L
0
.~
.~
N
a
a~
1
1
.~
_~
(I3
C
.~
L
0
0
z
~~ ~'
0
~~ .~..r
Z~
_~
O
0
s
~ ~
V
^~
0
s
a
s
33
~•
.~
G~ O
.~..r
0
t
L t
L
O L
V ~
~ ~
O i
~ ~
~ ,v
O -
_ ~
O
.~ ^~
~ O
V
.~
~ ~
O ~~
O
t ~ t
~ t O t
t ~ t ~
. V ~ `~"'
v O
~ ,L ~
~ v V
~ ~ to
~ ~ ~
~ .O ~
~ > ~
~ ~ ~
O = ~
V = m
~~
•~
V ~
,~
V
0
0
.~.1
.~
.~
~ L
.~ ~
~ ~
.~.r
~~ ~
s v
a~
~ o0
.~.d
0
.~
~_
~ O
~..r
~ ~
0 ~
_ ~
.~ ~
~ .~
L .~
o ~
~ ~
~--+
~ ~
i ~
~ ~
~ .O
~ ~
~ U
O ~
~ ~
O ~
L
.~
cn N
N ~
-~ • _
N ~
-~ O
~ U
._
U
X
~ ~
=~_+ ~
~ ~
cn • -
~ O
O ~
~ ~{ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~_
t~
0
.~
(~
N }'
~ O
N ~
~ ~
O ~
(~
_~
O
._
U
.~
O
u
.~
O
.~
V
O
i
G0
.~
t~
O
V
O
V
O
.~
L
~.
0
L
Q.
!~
.~
V
O
i
V
O
.~
._
V
._
..
.~
N
.~
O
U
.~-,
D
U
Q
U
Q
U
._
s
H
O
ca
.~
O
i
._
.~
.~
x
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ F- I- I- F-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
~_
O
.~
0
.~
W
'~
V•
O
V
i
.v
L
O
.=
O
N
3
~o
.L
~+
._
Q.
V
.~
O
._
V
~L
V
a•+
.~
O
.;
O
i
O
O ~+
'~ ~
.y o
~-
L _~
~ ~
~ ~
._
~ ~
v •-
~ ~
O G1
L
Q ~
v/
~~
~ .~
O 'i
.~ ~
m V
o "
._ ~
~ ,o
_ f+
~ i
~ ~
~""' O
ca
O
G1 i
~ ~
~ ~
(~ .~..i
~ ~
V
._
~ ~
~ L
~ O
~ _
G1
~ ~
~ p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
~ U ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
^'
tl ~ ~
L i-+
U ~ '~ `'~ U
_ (0 (~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~'
L
.O
.~
O
V
3
i
V
~L
1
~_
.~
0
._
O
Q
V
i
V
O
._
O
.~.+
_~
O
ca
.~
•-
._
U O
._ ._
~ ~
~ ~--+
~ .~
C~ N
~ ~
to U
~ ~
O ~
O ~
c~ ca
~ F-
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ v ~
N
~ D O ~
O ~ ~ ~
s ~ ~~ c~
~ ~ ~ ~
to .~ ' ~ ~
~ ~ 1 ~
~ L t ~ ~
._
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ +~ . N
~ ~ O ~
L ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ :~ o 0
,~ ~ v a~
~ ~
._ >,
}, .~ ~ o
1
1
V
V~
.v
~L
L
O
L
.~
L O
r
~ L
~ 0
~1~+ ~
~ f+
~ ~
~ ~
L
L
~ ~
OC
1
1
~1~+
L
V
J
V
s
~+
V
t
1
L
_ ~~
~
_
.~
Q
V
~
V
L
Q
_ _
~ .~
L
~ V
Q ~
~
s ~
H ~
~ .
~ L
o i m
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~, ~
~
H o
~ s .-
~
~
~~
O
^~
~~
A
Q
d ~
4 -~ l ~
~ ~ (~.