HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19951205
DECEMBER 5, 1995, TUESDAY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SITE VISIT
North 40
3:00, meet behind city Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
4:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Isis Theatre GMQS Exemption, Dave Michaelson
III. WORK SESSION
A. Metro Area Growth Management commission
Responsibilities and Review Process, and Discussion
of Transfer of Development Rights, Cindy Houben
(PLEASE BRING YOUR LAND USE CODE FOR REFERENCE)
IV. ADJOURN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
5:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
II . MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation, Amy
Amidon (Table to December 19)
B. Ritz-Carlton Parking Garage Conditional Use Review,
Dave Michaelson
c. Isis Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A.
Isis GMQS Exemption & Special Review,
Michaelson
Dave
B.
Ajax Building Special Review for Outdoor seating,
Dave Michaelson
"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: December 5, 1995
DECEMBER 19 - Regular Meeting
Small Lodge Text Amendments (AA/SC)
610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation (AA)
JANUARY 2 - Regular Meeting
Water Place Conceptual SPA Review (DM)
MARCH 5 - Growth Management Commission
1995 Metro Residential GMQS Scoring
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joint Growth Management Commission
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Direct
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: December 5,1995
RE: Isis Theater - Growth Management Commission Recommendation of
Affordable Housing
SUMMARY: The Isis Theater is currently undergoing a series of approvals to allow for
remodel and expansion of the Isis Theater, the development of two (2) three (3) bedroom
affordable housing units and a free market dwelling unit on a new upper floor to be added to the
building. Section 8-111.J. (Affordable Housing) requires that the Joint Growth Management
Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council approving the method by which the
applicant proposes to provide affordable housing.
APPLICANT: Isis LLC., represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION/ZONING: Lots L, M and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen. The entire
property is zoned CC (Commercial Core). The existing Isis building is located on lots L and M,
and a small attached shed is located on Lot N. The remainder of Lot N is vacant and is used for
storage and parking. The three lots have merged pursuant to Section 7-1004A.5 and are located
within the City's Commercial Core Historic Overlay District.
REQUEST: The applicants intend to provide two (2) three -bedroom affordable units, deed
restricted to Category 2 income and occupancy guidelines. Each unit is approximately 1,060
square feet, and have private entrances and access to a patio. Although Category 3 units are
required, Category 2 units will allow a reduction in mass consistent with HPC recommendations,
and the Housing Office is in support of the Category 2 units. The units are placed on the rooftop
of Isis, adjacent to a single free market unit. The free market unit replaces an existing manager's
quarters, and is not subject to the requirements of GMQS. A site plan and elevations of the
proposed affordable units are attached as Exhibit A.
Referral Comments: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit B.
Housing: The Housing Office has approved the employment assumptions and the deed restricted
Category 2 units.
1
HPC: HPC has reviewed the project five times since July of 1995, and has granted conceptual
approval. Amy Amidon's November 22, 1995 memo is attached, and goes into detail regarding
the visual impacts of the AH units placed on the roof. Based on the November 8, 1995 minutes
attached to Amy's memo, the AH units were seen as problematic, and significant discussion took
place regarding the potential of buying down existing units. This would leave only the free
market unit, which could be pushed completely back from the front facade to lessen the roof top
impact of the current proposal. Staff notes that keeping the units on -site is the only method for
requesting an FAR bonus.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicable review criteria and the proposed developments compliance are summarized as
follows:
a) "Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with
monies from payment of affordable housing dedication fees."
Response: The City has had an affordable housing program in place for some time.
b) "Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being
appropriate for affordable housing."
Response: The City did not precisely identify the Isis as a site for affordable housing, due to the
uncertainty regarding the redevelopment of the Isis. Based on other provisions of the Code, the
expansion of commercial and retail uses are encouraged to integrate employee mitigation on -site.
In addition, the Code allows the expansion of Historic Landmarks beyond the allowed FAR if
60% of the additional square footage is used for affordable housing. Almost 95% of the "bonus"
FAR is associated with these units. Although HPC had significant concerns regarding the
massing on the roof, conceptual approval has been granted (see HPC referral comments).
c) "Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable
housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and transit opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental
constraints to development or historic preservation concerns."
Response: The proposed affordable units are located in the commercial core, in close proximity
to employment and available transit. There are not significant environmental constraints
associated with the project. The project has undergone significant revisions to address visual
impacts, and the project will not encroach into the Main Street Viewplane.
d) "Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced
prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the
community."
Response: The proposed affordable units will be constructed in conjunction with the associated
renovation of the theater.
e) "Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing
on -site to meets its service needs."
2
Response: The applicant fully intends on housing theater employees on -site.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Joint Growth Management Commission
forward a positive recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed affordable units.
Although there are still several design issues remaining with the proposal, the Planning and
Zoning Commission has criteria within their review process to address design issues.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a positive recommendation to City
Council from the Growth Management Commission for the affordable housing units
associated with the proposed renovation of the Isis Theater."
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Site Plan and Elevations for the affordable units
Exhibit B - Referral Comments
3
UQG-iNM:M r OW-ITAKlM UW (W"N.IOC :WIC .'JAY N4V.4M M.
m
I
4C\l
ivuiwans z v d
lie
Exhibit A
� jtyl
LV )DOIG 'N VVIl SIOI
NOI.LVAON-4d ' SISI
517311HD?I d 377INNl7D S3RI b'. 4D
I
NOIIVAON321 SISI
1VILIWOnS Z 12 d
r ,
W
O
'
CD
Ole
Lil
cl
}cr
F—
�'.;' K '� � ,,.�, , f , r� ' `, ,,,`A ����� 4�•if �� W.:�,` ,i :•year',
ht #s.� ,,O 9 y �,� s. _` , , a ➢ F�.. y VG. r� r >r tt.' r 1.> .•�it;'i.+' -.� • ,r i', r.
<ostroucac my . out-outoc qm . tt►u 00 VWTM . m y oornaiw l at C(1VM010:) N34sv'3nN3AV SNDIdO}1 IM 90b
. om9 sutoc aw : occsiutoc .mi . um COMM . lot I" . W raw LM On [8 =14 'N '>? 'W'1 Slot gg _
? - 51D31IHDNd-VJlNNnD S37dVHD NOIIVAON38 SISI Ii
1d111WBnS Z 'S d
r
w
N
�
O
Z
O
I=
Q
w
0
Q
¢
c
.O
U
cupvrrtac�tv�,ersc+u�c3ru.sc+w m�aontg► r oav�nxn3ou . OGVWIM N3,iW 3nN3AV SNDWOH iM 90t
uaFsaiwooa . ocis suca :� . u m taav . wi un .3w two 04 L8 =19 'N VW'l S101
S133LIHD8N 3J3/NNnD S378VHD /VOIlb/10N321 S/Si
id.U. wars Z V d
tt
rr
r
r
r
•
Q
w
W
A
Z
N
�t
i
N
O
LU
N
a
w
z
a
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, City Planner
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: November 22, 1995
RE: Isis Theater
HPC has held five meetings regarding the conceptual development plan for this
project since July 1995. (Conceptual approval with a number of conditions was
awarded on August 23.) The main focus of the review has been on limiting the
demolition of the existing structure- (originally only the front facade was proposed
to be retained), directing the new construction to be compatible with the old
structure, but subtlety different from it, and on decreasing the visibility of the on -
roof construction.
Originally, the applicant proposed four AH units and one free market unit on the
site. The applicant, HPC, and Housing Office worked together to reduce the
units to two, three bedroom units, which the Housing Office has found is
sufficient for the redevelopment. In addition, HPC has worked with the applicant
to lower the height of the units as much as possible. Story poles have been set
up several times.
At this,point, the applicant has addressed all specific HPC conditions of
approval. Final HPC review will continue to focus on refining material selections
for the new construction and overall preservation techniques for the old building.
At HPC's November 8 meeting, the commission agreed that the project is vastly
improved from the original proposal and that, in general, they are comfortable
with the new addition. However, the commission also stated that, after seeing
the rooftop construction through several studies and site visits, it would be there
strong preference that the AH units would not be located on -site (see attached
minutes). Their location at the back of the roof will make them fairly invisible,
however they force the free market unit to be placed at the front of the roof
where it will be visible from the street. HPC feels that in the case of some
historic buildings, the requirement for on -site housing puts an additional burden
on the building which may lead to a less than desirable result. The applicant has
been asked to explore the viability of off -site housing, with the approval of P&Z,
but regardless of the outcome, the Conceptual approval is granted.
HPC has also recommended that P&Z waive the on -site parking requirement.
Given the existing building, no more than three spaces can be accomodated on
the site. HPC also recommends waiver of the required open space. It is HPC's
opinion in general that the open space requirement is not appropriate in a
commercial core area where it is desirable to create a strong "building edge"
along the streetscape. The open space requirement in many cases has created
buildings which are set back from the sidewalk or have sunken courtyards in
front of them, which is not compatible with the traditional commercial
development pattern in Aspen.
i MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson,Planning off ice
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
MTR : November 29, 1995
RE: leis Theatre GMQS Exemption & Special Review
Parcel TO No. 2737-073-30-006
]used on the information provided by the applicant, the calculation
of 11.45 FTE' a i.e accurate. As agreed to by Dave Tolen, the
Housing office will accept the projected number of an additional
five employees, but ask that the Planning Department require an
audit of employees two years from Certificate of Occupancy to
verify the number of emplayties utilized for this operation. This
audit should be done through an independent report supiplied by the
applicant and reviewed by the Housing Office for accuracy. At that
time, if it is found that the applicant has employed more than five
FTE' s, the applicant will be required to mitigate any additional
employees according to the Guidelines as set fowth at that time.
The applicant states that he commits to satisfy the affordable
housing exaction via the deed restriction of two three -bedroom
units to be built on the premises. The Housing Board has
established policies in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding
mitigating affordable housing Impacts. Their preference is as
follows:
1. On -site housing;
2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
The Housing office also appreciated the applicant volunteering to
deed restrict these units to Category 2. The size of the units
will also meet the minimum size requirement for a Category 2 three-
-bedroom unit.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commiss' n
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Direc�
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: December 5,1995
RE: Ritz -Carlton Parking Garage - Conditional Use to allow Commercial Use of
100 parking spaces for public use and Insubstantial Amendment to the
Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 1.
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to allow for 100 spaces to
be used for commercial parking. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Joseph Wells
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 1, Aspen Mountain PUD, located at 315 Dean Street. The
property is zoned L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) with a PUD overlay.
REQUEST: The applicant's propose to utilize 100 existing spaces for commercial public
parking. As required under the PUD approval, the Ritz -Carlton provided a parking garage with
220 parking spaces. Currently, utilization of the parking facility ranges between 25 percent in
the winter, to 50 percent in the summer. The applicants have agreed to charge the public at least
$1.00 per hour, regardless of whether the parking is provided on an hourly or monthly basis. The
application is attached as Exhibit A.
Referral Comments: Referral comments are attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized as
follows:
Environmental Health: The $1.00 per hour charge is consistent with locally established goals
of reducing air pollution, however the monthly charge should be eliminated. A recommended
condition of approval is included in the referral memo and proposed conditions of approval.
Engineering: Engineering requested that a dead tree be removed and the sidewalk widened on
Durant Avenue. In addition, concerns regarding potential traffic impact are discussed. Planning
Staff would suggest that additional available parking may in fact lessen "cruising around" in the
downtown core. In addition, the streetscape along Durant Avenue should be improved to the
extent possible.
Staff Comments
Pursuant to Section 5-214.C. of the Land Use Code, commercial use of excess parking in a lodge
is a conditional use in the L/TR zone district, subject to review and approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The following criteria must be met for approval:
a. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located; and
Action item #2 of the Transportation Action Plan directed the City to "Determine the number of
underutilized private spaces within the commercial core and create a plan for more efficient
utilization of these spaces for public use." Ordinance 7, Series of 1993 amended the code to
establish commercial use of excess parking as a conditional use, includes a finding that the
proposed amendments are consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the
Transportation Action Plan Section of the Community Plan and other provisions of the Land Use
Code.
The provision for the use of private parking for public use is consistent with this provision.
However, Policy #15 directs the City to "reduce the number of on -street parking spaces with the
commercial core by phasing out a portion of the parking spaces in conjunction with parking and
transit alternatives." This would imply that on -street spaces should be eliminated consistent with
the additional spaces in the Ritz. Conversations with Randy Ready from the Transportation
Department have indicated that this policy is no longer favored by the City, and will be
eliminated as a policy directive (a memo from Randy will be available at the meeting).
b. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development; and
The proposed use is consistent with existing land uses in the immediate site area. The area is
predominantly commercial in character, and includes restaurants as well as short-term lodging
and residential uses.
C. The location, size design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and other odor on surrounding
properties; and
The impact of cars cruising town in search of parking is well documented, and additional
underground parking should have incremental improvements in vehicular circulation. The
parking garage is existing, so there are no visual or service impacts on surrounding properties.
The applicant has indicated that no signs are proposed for the facility.
d. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including
but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and
2
The proposed conditional use, will not result in additional adverse impact upon the above public
facilities and services. Existing public facilities and services are adequate to serve the hotel and
parking garage.
e. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
Existing parking on the site will not be expanded beyond existing levels. The applicant has
indicated that the proposed public parking will not require additional employees.
f. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable requirements on this chapter.
The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. No other standards are
applicable to the application.
Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval.based of the conditional use for
commercial parking based on the following conditions:
1. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and
Zoning meeting shall be adhered to during development.
2. That the fee charged for parking in the facility shall be the same as the City's
Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in the future, and that daily
rates be available. No weekly or monthly rate or pass will be permitted.
3. That prior to the implementation of the public parking program, the applicant shall
provide Community Development and Parks Department with confirmation that all prior
commitments for landscaping improvements under the PUD agreement have been
satisfied. If landscaping or street improvements have not been satisfied, a schedule for
compliance shall be established to the satisfaction of the Parks Department prior to
implementation of the parking program.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant conditional use approval and an
Insubstantial PUD Amendment to allow commercial use of 100 parking spaces within the
Ritz -Carlton parking structure with the conditions outlined in the staff memorandum."
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Referrals
3
Exhibit A
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST (Sec. 5-214.c & Art. 7, Div. 3)
Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen, is seeking
conditional use approval to use the excess capacity in the Ritz -Carlton parking
garage for commercial parking under the provisions of Sec. 5-214.c and Art. 7, Div. 3
of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. As required under the prior approvals (as
spelled out in the First Amended & Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement and
subsequent amendments), an underground parking garage with 220 parking spaces
has been provided in the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen. The Ritz -Carlton front desk staff
monitors daily usage of the parking facility by hotel guests and attendees of special
events at the hotel. Just as in a number of other private garages at the base of Aspen
Mountain, there are many vacant parking spaces in the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen parking
facility at most times of the day throughout the year. These are presently
unavailable to residents of the community unless they are attending an event at the
hotel. The Applicants submit that it is appropriate and consistent with current
community policy to first utilize such under-utilized parking to meet current
parking demand in the area of the commercial core.
I. BACKGROUND:
The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen is located at 315 East Dean Street. The legal description is
Lot 1, Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. Existing improvements to the property
include the hotel, restaurant and bar facilities, retail shops, other uses accessory to
the hotel and subgrade parking garage.
Since the implementation of the City of Aspen paid parking program in January of
1995, the City of Aspen parking garage has been utilized near maximum capacity.
Currently, utilization of the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen parking facility ranges between 25
percent during the winter high season and 50 percent during the summer high
season. Many workers in the downtown core still must use an automobile on a
daily basis in association with their jobs and cannot always use mass transit. The
availability of an additional 100 parking spaces for situations such as this will
further reduce the demand for on -street parking in the area.
1
II. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE:
Based on usage by hotel guests, Savanah Limited Partnership proposes to make
available up to 100 parking spaces in the hotel parking garage for use by the public.
The Applicants wish to reserve the right to terminate the conditional use in the
future in the event that the Applicants no longer wish to operate a commercial
parking program at the hotel. In order to address concerns raised by the City of
Aspen Environmental Health Department regarding the underlying assumptions
included under the State Implementation Plan to reduce automobile trips within
the City, the Applicants have agreed that the fee to be charged to the public for use of
the Ritz garage will equal at least $ 1.00 per hour, regardless of whether the parking
is provided on an hourly or monthly basis. If monthly parking is provided, the
monthly fee will be calculated on the basis of 8 hours a day, five days a week. The
number of spaces to be made available will be limited to no more than 100 at any
given time.
Valet parking will continue to be used exclusively for both hotel guests and for off -
site users. The hotel currently employs a staff of three employees on each shift for
parking and adjusts for peak times when necessary to assure proper traffic control.
III. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
Pursuant to Section 5-214.C. of the Land Use Code, commercial use of excess parking
in a lodge is a conditional use in the L/TR zone district, subject to review and
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The specific review criteria for
conditional uses, and the proposal's compliance with those requirements, is
summarized below. Under the provisions of Sec. 7-306, a development application
for conditional use shall include the following:
A. The general application information required under Sec. 6-202, Application
and Fees:
1. Fee.
The Development Application is accompanied by a fee of $1,020.00, as
established by the Planning Office.
PA
2. Application.
The Development Application includes the following information and
materials:
a. The applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained
within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and
telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant is included as Exhibit A.
b. The street address of the parcel on which the development is proposed
to occur is 315 East Dean Street. The legal description of the parcel is Lot 1,
Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision.
c. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is
proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance
company, (or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado), listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments,
liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development
Application is included as Exhibit B.
d. An 8-1 /2"x 11" vicinity map, locating the subject parcel within the City
of Aspen, is included as Exhibit C.
e. A written description of the proposal is included above. In accordance
with Sec. 7-304, the following responses to the standards for conditional
use review are provided:
i. "The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and
with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be
located."
Ordinance 7, Series of 1993 (see Exhibit D), which amended the code to
establish commercial use of excess parking as a conditional use,
includes a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with
the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the Transportation
Action Plan section of the Community Plan and other provisions of
the Land Use Code.
The Transportation Action Plan specifically cites the need to determine
the number of underutilized private parking spaces within the
commercial core and to create a plan for more efficient utilization of
3
these spaces for public use. The availability of additional parking
spaces in this area will reduce vehicular congestion in the commercial
core and improve air quality to some degree by lessening the number
of cars milling about in search of an on -street parking space. It is
entirely consistent with community goals to maximize the use of
available off-street parking in the area at the base of the mountain.
ii. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of
complementary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development."
The proposed use of the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen parking facility for limited
commercial parking is consistent and compatible with existing land
uses in the immediate site area. The area is predominantly commercial
in character, and includes restaurants and a variety of retail
commercial uses as well as short-term lodging and residential. The
proposed parking will complement the existing uses in the area and
will provide an attractive parking alternative for a segment of the local
population.
The property is zoned L/TR-Lodge/Tourist Residential. Surrounding
parcels are also zoned L/TR, with the exception of the Ice Rink parcel,
which is zoned P-Park. There are many lodges and other short-term
accommodations in the immediate area which have limited off-street
parking spaces. This area of town, because of the proximity to the
commercial core and the resulting spill -over of parking demand, is
chronically short of parking.
Recent community planning has emphasized maximizing the use of
available parking. The availability of additional parking in the area
will enhance the existing uses and activities and partially relieve the
current congestion in the commercial core.
iii. "The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual
impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking,
0
trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding
properties."
Currently, there is a great deal of vehicular circulation in this part of
town as people look for an available on -street parking space. The
proposed conditional use may therefore very well have a positive effect
on pedestrian and vehicular circulation overall throughout the
community, since the parking will serve as an alternative to those who
might otherwise be searching elsewhere in town for parking. The
space in question is currently used for parking for guests of the Ritz -
Carlton but is otherwise under-utilized.
Because this is an existing underground parking structure, there will be
no adverse effects due to visual or other impacts on surrounding
properties. Very minimal obnoxious noise, vibration or odor will be
generated to adversely affect surrounding properties. By maximizing
existing off-street parking, the impacts should improve pedestrian
movement and decrease vehicular circulation.
iv. "There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water,
sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools."
The proposed conditional use will not result in additional adverse
impact upon the above public facilities and services. Existing public
facilities and services are adequate to serve the hotel and parking
garage.
V. "The Applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use."
Existing parking on the site is not proposed to be expanded. The
management of the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen believes that the proposed
conditional use will require no additional employees, as the proposed
commercial parking use is expected to even out employee peaking
requirements among the parking staff at times when the staff is
presently under-utilized.
5
vi. "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and
by all other applicable requirements of this chapter."
The proposed conditional use is in compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. No additional
requirements are suggested for such uses by the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
3. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the
lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review
application.
The architectural drawings of the three levels of the parking structure are
included as Exhibit E. Note that these drawings reflect the most recent
parking layout approved by the Planning Office.
4. If the application involves development of a new structure or expansion
or exterior remodeling of an existing structure, proposed elevations of the
structure.
The application does not involve development of a new structure or
expansion or exterior remodeling of an existing structure.
G
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
444 Washington Boulevard
Marina del Rey, California 90292
(310) 821-9899 Phone
(310) 821-7188 Fax
May 15, 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing to you on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of Lot 1,
Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development/Subdivision, site of the Ritz -Carlton Aspen.
Savanah has authorized the preparation by Joseph Wells Land Planning of the attached
conditional use request for commercial use of a portion of the on -site parking previously
approved for this lot.
During the processing of this application, Savanah will be represented by
Ferdinand Belz and Joseph Wells. Please contact Ferd at 925-4272 or Joe at 925-8080
if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely yours,
SAVANAH LEMTED PARTNERSHIP
By Aspen Enterprises International, Inc.
its general partners
ORB: yni
USERS\LEGAL\PAUL\WP\ORB\CLAUSON2.515
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
LEONARD M.OATES AREA CODE 303
ROBERT W, HUGHES TELEPHONE 920-1700
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH October 13, 1995 TELECOPIER 920-1121
TED D GARDENSWARTZ
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
David Michaelson
Aspen Community Development
203 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lot 1, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development
Dear David:
We represent Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of Columbia Limited Partnership,
and in that capacity hereby certify to you that Savanah is the owner in fee simple of the above
referenced real property.
Feel free to call should you have any questions or require anything further of us.
RWH/mlp
Enclosures
cc:
d:\rh\
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and�tL�-
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to ITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT) .
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 68 (Series of 1994) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and
the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or.
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
5 , Therefore, AP g lica ion
to collect full fees prior to a determination of app Vce—ed
n
waiver of its right shall a an initial deposit in the amount of
completeness, APPLICANT pay
in staff time, and if actual recorded costs
which is for � hours of Planning
• • APPLICANT shall a additional monthly billings to CITY to
the initial deposit, APPLICA pay Y of the application
shall be made within 30
lication mentioned above,
reimburse the CITY for the processing
including post approval review. Such periodic payments
that failure to pay such
days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Sta lauson
Community Development Director
N
APPLICANT �►,�,,,,
�y SIP
WIq
Mailing Address:
VA 0Ip'
aM
EXHIBIT D
ORDINANCE 7
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS,
,BY AMENDING SECTION 24-5-214.C. - CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE L/TR
(LODGE / TOURIST RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Savanah
Limited Partnership, and reviewed and recommended for approval,
certain text amendments to Chapter 24; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan Transportation Action
Plan outlines a comprehensive, integrated transportation plan to
reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality and offer
alternatives to the use of private automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and
approved at public hearing on January 5, 1993, those code text
amendments as recommended by the Planning Director pursuant to
procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A) 8 of the Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendments as approved and recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Action Plan, and are
1
not in conflict with other portions of Chapter 24; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendments will allow and promote compatibility of zone districts
and land uses with existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and
the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1:
Section 5-214.C., "Lodge/Tourist Residential - Conditional
Uses" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of new subsection 11511,
which new text shall read as follows:
"5. Commercial parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on
a parcel occupied by a lodge, hotel, or other commercial
operation. A commercial parking operation shall include
traff is management methods to reduce vehicular congestion and
improve air quality in the community.""
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not effect 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 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
F:
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the gam,
day of 1993 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City.
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen -(15 ) days prior to which a hearing
. of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the F T- - day of
1993.
r
A [TO
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
5 < <3
John Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1993.
ATTEST:
Kathryn V Koch, City Clerk
3
John Vennett, Mayor
w
I�
' | . . ■ |�|,| ;
■■�t . . '
. §
k!i Ile
�
■)
IL
�
■
#
gill
6.0
11
ONE
MEN
MEN
Exhi bit B
MEMORANDUM
To:. Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Through:. Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health- Directors C-
Date: November 27,19956
Re: Ritz -Carlton Parking Garage Conditional Use Review
Parcel ID#2737-182-85-001
The. Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health. Department has -reviewed the land . use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the Cie of Aspen, and *. has the
following.comments.
There: are no . concerns,: impacts,' ; or conditions for this application. related .to sewage
disposal, water supply, or water quality impacts.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the
Municipal Code] to achieve -the .maximum practical degree of air purity possible by
requiring the use of all. available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent
and -reduce air pollution throughout the city.:." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met".as well. as to
"provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
This conditional use application is 'significantly improved over the initial application in its
effects on air quality. It is only. by charging $1/hour, or whatever the on -street parking
feeds increased to in the future, that air quality impacts can be minimized in compliance
with the - code. A cheaper parking rate .would encourage .people to drive, and thereby
increase .traffic..We do have a concern about -charging a monthly fee, even though it is at
the same rate as if it were charged at $1%-hour. If someone has paid a monthly fee, they
actually have an incentive to. drive,. since they have already paid for a -full month. -.If .
people pay per hour or per day, they may make a decision not to drive on a given day. A
fee of $8 for an 8-hour day, would -be acceptable, since it would not encourage driving..
This might be acceptable to the operators who may wish to avoid keeping track of hourly
use, A daily fee would be both easier to collect and track, and would not have the adverse
air quality impact of a monthly rate.
1
It is not likely that this project will ,"have a positive effect on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation overall throughout -the community". The advent of paid parking has made it
so that people no longer have to . "cruise. around" . looking for parking; since there are
many available spaces. However; if there is a fee tied to the .city's ,paid parking -rate ($1 in
today.'s. dollars) and no monthly rate;_ for a small number -of spaces, there would not be a
significant air quality impact.
A condition of approval should be that the -price of parking in this facility
be the same as the city's commercial core paid parking fee, as it may be
adjusted in the future,.. and that hourly and daily rates be available, but
i
that no weekly or monthly rate. or pass be permitted.
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 64e
November 27, 1995
.
�y
`'j� -3 a
G t
j
k
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 1 PUD Amendment & Subdivision
(Lot 1, Aspen Mountain Subdivision; Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-001)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Nomenclature - The applicant should provide the information concerning the amendment
number. Is it an amendment to the entire Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and if so what number? Is
it an amendment to approvals for Lot 1 only, and if so what number? The file name should not be
"Ritz Carlton" because it makes approval tracking difficult.
2. Sidewalk & Dead Tree - The PBC (NAC) requested that the dead spruce tree on Durant
Avenue be removed and the sidewalk widened. Engineering and Parks Departments are already
working on this in response to an escrow draw -down request. This should be carried forward as a
condition of any approvals for the current amendment request.
3. Traffic Impacts - The application does not quantify anticipated traffic impacts. There would
probably be somewhat greater traffic impacts from the spaces being used for public use than there
would have been if the spaces had been fully utilized for hotel guest uses. The impacts would not
be sufficient to warrant recommending denial of the application. In the interim since the original
land use approvals, the potential impacts have probably been compensated for 1�y the City
implementation of paid parking.
The application may be correct in stating that approval might lessen traffic circulation in the
commercial core by individuals looking for parking spaces.
4. Referrals - The application should be referred to the Parking and Transportation Office for
comments such as possible effects on the City Parking Plaza operations..
5. Other - Is this an appropriate review to address the appearances of the frontage on Durant
Avenue? The area is quite bleak. The space is in need of improvements such as lights, fixtures,
benches, improved landscaping, decoratives, color, sculpture, fountains, maintenance.
cc: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Ferdinand Belz, Savanah Limited Partnership
Joe Wells, Planning Consultant
M95.202
M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 406 E. Hopkins, Isis Theater- Landmark Designation
DATE: December 5, 1995
SUMMARY: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve historic landmark
designation of 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Isis Theater. The Isis, formally
known as the Webber Block, was built in 1892. It was originally used for
commercial shops until approximately 1920, when it was converted to a theater
by the Women's Civic Improvement League, for silent movies and minstrel
shows. The existing alterations to the front facade are believed to have been
made in the 1960's.
APPLICANT: Isis LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Charles Cunniffee
Architects.
LOCATION: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
PREVIOUS REVIEWS: HPC recommended approval of landmark designation
7-0 on August 9, 1995.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or
more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District,
and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant
structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some
special value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the
State of Colorado, or the United States.
Response: The building was built for Henry Webber, who was elected Mayor of
Aspen in 1888. Other buildings in town are associated with Weber, who also
built the Elks building and Pioneer Park.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural
style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or
site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen.
Response: The building is a traditional Italianate commercial building with a
strong cornice line, brick corbeling, and brick and sandstone construction. Prior
to alterations made in the 1960's, there were storefronts at the first floor level.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: The architect's last name was Quayle, but no other information is
available.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component
of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The surrounding neighborhood is a historic district and contains
many significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks. Two adjacent
buildings, the Collins Block and the Brand Building are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical
or architectural importance.
Response: This building is the last 19th century commercial structure in
downtown Aspen which has not been rehabilitated. Restoration of the original
appearance of the structure would increase its contribution to the character of
the commercial core and its representation of architecture from Aspen's mining
era.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve landmark
designation of 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, finding that standards B, D, and E are
met.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Dir, c
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: December 5,1995
RE: Ajax Building - Special Review for Commercial Use of Open Space in the
CC Zone District
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting special use approval to allow the use of
approximately 250 square feet for outdoor dining in the lower mall of the Ajax Building. Staff is
recommending approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Cafe Ink!, represented by Keith Herbert and Alan Giaquinto.
LOCATION/ZONING: Lots N thru S, Block 96 Lot 1, 520 East Durant. The property is zoned
CC (Commercial Core).
REQUEST: The applicant's are requesting approval to utilize approximately 250 s.f. (12' x 12')
of the lower courtyard of the Ajax Building for outdoor seating in association with Cafe Ink! and
D and E Snowboards. Cafe Ink! is a small specialty coffee shop, which serves non-alcoholic
beverages and a small selection of muffins and bagels. There are no wait staff, and all sales are
over-the-counter. Existing interior seating capacity is approximately 10 patrons. Current
employee levels are two (2) people behind the counter, which would not increase with the
requested outdoor seating.
A photograph depicting area proposed for seating is shown as Attachment A, and a cover letter
from the applicant is attached as Exhibit B. The applicant has obtained written permission from
Steve Marcus, general manager of Ajax Mountain Associates (Exhibit C), and have submitted a
letter of support from adjacent tenants (Exhibit D).
Staff Comments
Pursuant to Section 3-101 - Definition of Open Space, required open space may be used for,
commercial restaurant use if the Commission determines that such use is compatible with or
enhances the purposes of open space requirements and that adequate pedestrian and emergency
vehicle access will be maintained . In addition, additional requirements are imposed in Section
7-404 - Review Standards for Special Review. The requirements of Sections 3-101 and 7-404
are summarized below:
Section 3-101 Pedestrian and Emergency Access
The Ajax Mall lower plaza is accessed by a descending stairway adjacent to the Durant sidewalk,
and is separated approximately 50 feet from the proposed table locations. Therefore, pedestrian
access to other businesses are not affected, and emergency access is essentially unchanged.
Section 7-404 Review Standards for Special Review
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the underlying zone
district.
The lower plaza of the Ajax Building is currently void of any street furniture or landscaping.
The use of a portion of the open space for outdoor seating will improve the functionality of the
plaza, and provide additional outdoor amenities for the entire mall. With the exception of
approximately 5 small profile tables, the configuration and mass of the Ajax Building will
remain unchanged.
Staff contacted adjacent leasees as well as the mall management to discuss the request. In short,
there is no opposition to the proposed outdoor seating, as long as it neither interferes or blocks
entry or window views of adjacent businesses.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a
designated viewplane.
Virtually all of the tenants in the mall have indicated their support for the proposal, based on the
above caveats. No significant impacts are associated with the additional tables, and any increase
in pedestrian traffic would be an asset to other tenants of the Ajax Building.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Special Use , with the
following conditions:
1. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to during development.
2. That the proposed seating will be consistent with the representations of the applicant at
the Planning and Zoning meeting and within the application.
3. The outdoor seating shall not interfere or encroach on adjacent businesses or doorways.
The specific location of tables shall not extend beyond an approximately 12' x 12' area
adjacent to D and E and Cafe Ink! and shall not be placed adjacent to windows of either
"Ross Andrews Jewelry " (Unit 110B) or "Geraniums N Sunshine" (Unit 108). A
maximum of five (5) tables are allowed in the designated area.
4. Any expansion of the seating shall require an application for special review and a
meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve a Special Review for Commercial Use
of Open Space in the CC zone District for Cafe Ink! located at 520 East Durant, with the
conditions contained in the Staff Memorandum."
t;
Attachments:
E
Exhibit A - Photograph depicting location
Exhibit B - Applicant's Cover Letter
Exhibit C - Permission from Property Owner
Exhibit D - Letter of Support from Tenants
3
Exhibit B
THIS APPLICATION SERVES AS A REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
SERVICE AND SEATING IN 3/4 OF THE COURTYARD DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO
CAFE INK!, D+E SNOWBOARD SHOP OF THE AJAX MTN. BUILDING, 520 E.
DU RANT.
THE SITE AS IS PROVIDES MORE THAN THE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
AND THE PROPOSED SEATING WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING
AREA BY THE USE OF ATTRACTIVE TABLES AND UMBRELLAS.
THE PROPOSED SEATING HAS SUPPORT OF AREA TENANTS AS NOTED
BY THE ENCLOSED SIGNATURES.
THE OUTDOOR AREA WILL BE USED FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD
AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL HIRING OF
EMPLOYEES NEEDED. THE OUTDOOR SEATING WILL NOT ENCROACH ON OR
)41NDER ANY ENTRANCE OR EXIT TO ANY PROPERTY OR PROPERTY DOOR.
Exhibit C
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO GIVE MY PERMISSION FOR
CAFE INK! TO SIT 3/4 OF THE OUTSIDE PATIO AREA SUBJECT TO THE
RULES AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. THIS AREA SHALL
NOT INTERFERE WITH EITHER OF THE ADJOINING TENANTS.
I HOLD AS GENERAL PARTNER IN AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES LTD
THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THE ABOVE DECISION.
STEPHEN J. MARCUS
GENERAL PARTNER
AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES
Exhibit D
AS A TENANT OF 520 E. DURANT AJAX MTN. BUILDING, I SUPPORT THE
SEATING iti THE OUTSIDE PATIO AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH OR
BLOCK ANY ENTRANCE TO MY PLACE OF BUSINESS.
�'?Chw''loY �uaivd,
J-4
�(�AtfO (S i` 5400joLl
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY
} SS. POSTING OF A PUB 1 C HEARING
State of Colorado } FOR A.
DEVELOP PERM T
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
being or re -resenting a . Applicant for a Development
Permit, personally certify that the attache photograph fairly and
accurately represents the sign posted as notice of the public
hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that
the sign was posted and visible continuously -from the � day
of 19 ", to the day of '' , 19 0
(Must be posted for at least /6__da4zzbefore the public he ring) .
' D
/ plic is Signature
(Attach photograph here)
Subscribe and s orn to f ore ra
1 Ste`
this ay G� r ♦ k—
by -
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFZICIA�SEAL.
My commis
��
Notary Public s Si u e
Address /��
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for a GMQS exemption for two, on -site affordable
housing units for the Isis Theater was given by 1) posting of
notice containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2.,
which posting occurred on November 24, 1995, in a conspicuous place
on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and
visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said
development application to all property owners within three hundred
(300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on
November 24, 1995.
I
L
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this t"K day of te r, 1995, by Sunny
Vann, on behalf of ISIS, LLC. 0_P'CML1,IeIL
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
o t a ry Public
� see �- .
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ISIS THEATRE GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 5, 1995
at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Isis LLC, requesting approval for a
growth management exemption to enlarge a historic landmark for mixed use development. The Isis
Theatre is located at 408 E. Hopkins Ave.; Lots L, M and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of
Aspen. For further information, contact Dave Michaelson at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5100.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Growth Management Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 18, 1995
City of Aspen Account
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
.cent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis
-_zsident 303-925-1766 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President
300' OWNER'S LIST
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of LOTS L, M AND N, BLOCK
87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, obtained from the most current Pitkin
County Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
316 E. HOPKINS, INC.
2737-073-29-008
715 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
E-.
ALH HOLDING COMPANY
435 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
ASPEN ARCADE, LTD.
Rr
1148 4TH ST.
SANTA MONICA CA
90403
ASPEN ART INVESTMENT, INC.
i
1450 SIERRA VISTA DR. #B
ASPEN CO
81611
BANK OF ASPEN
C/O AUTAX, INC.
P.O. BOX 2798
LITTLETON CO
80161
CARL R. BERGMAN
CATHERINE M. BERGMAN
P.O. BOX 1365
ASPEN . CO
81612
CBI PROPERTIES, INC.
C/O LOWELL MEYER
517 W. NORTH ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
CENTRE OF ASPEN, LLC
ANDREW V. HECHT
601 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN CO
81611
CHITWOOD PLAZA CO.
C/O THE FLEISHER CO.
200 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
DAVID DENSON
KATHLEEN DENSON
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL CO
81657
2737-073-30-005
2737-073-38-008
2737-073-43-009,010
2737-073-29-009
2737-073-29-002,003
2737-073-22-014
2737-073-29-004
2737-073-30-421,702
2737-073-43-011,012
DUVIKE, INC.
2737-073-39-020
THRU 027
P.O. BOX 2238
ASPEN
CO
81612
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS,
INC.
2737-073-43-004
210 SO. MILL ST., STE. 201
ASPEN
CO
81611
G.E. BULLOCK CHILDREN'S TRUST
2737-073-40-701
C/O SUZETTE GOODMAN
7601 SCOTT HAMILTON
DR.
LITTLE ROCK
AR
72209
GALENA PLAZA, LLC
2737-073-22-013
C/O LOWELL MEYER
517 W. NORTH ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
HARLEY A. BALDWIN 11
2737-073-39-001,704
2737-073-46-001 THRU
205 SO. GALENA
009,011,012,014,016
ASPEN
CO
81611
HILLAS OF SNOWMASS,
INC.
2737-073-43-014
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL
co
81657
HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES L.P.
2737-073-21-001
330 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
JEAN PIERRE ODIER
2737-073-46-010
P.O. BOX 88
ASPEN
CO
81612
KANDYCOM, INC.
2737-073-39-002
P.O. BOX 1135
MAMMOTH LAKE
CA
93546
LA COCINA, INC.
2737-073-29-007
P.O. BOX 4010
ASPEN
co
81612
LEWIS I. SCHAINUCK
2737-073-22-004
MICHELLE T. SCHAINUCK
THRU 012
3650 SOUTH STREET STE. 301
LAKEWOOD CA
90712
LINDA H. JEMISON
2737-073-46-013
RICHARD H. JEMISON
1524 CANYON ROAD
SANTA FE NM
87501
LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
2737-073-39-010,011
P.O. BOX 8105
DALLAS TX
75205
M & W ASSOCIATES
2737-073-30-009
G 205 SO. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
3
81611
i
E
MARGARET M. DOLE
2737-073-43-707
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CEDARIDGE
P.O. BOX 8455
ASPEN CO
81612
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES
2737-073-38-704
205 SO. MILL ST. STE. 301A
ASPEN CO
81611
MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES 80B
2737-073-43-706
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS, INC.
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL CO
81657
PETER GOLDSTEIN
2737-073-43-015
ALAN GOLDSTEIN
150 METRO PARK #2
ROCHESTER NY
14623
RANSOM B. WOODS, JR.
2737-073-39-013
JUSTINE F. WOODS
P.O. BOX 12288
ASPEN CO
81612
RYANCO PARTNERS
2737-073-30-007
C/O PAT SMITH
715 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
SABBATININ SPORT, INC.
2737-073-39-014
230 SO. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
WALTER F. HAMPEL, JR.
2737-073-39-008
255 MORTN ST. EXTENSION
MARATHON FL
33050
WENDELIN ASSOCIATES
2737-073-43-001,002,
003,005,013
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER NY
14623
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
2737-073-39-012
217 SO. GALENA
ASPEN CO
81611
WILLIAM W. WHEELER
2737-073-46-015
INGRID J. WHEELER
3241 WEST DRY CREEK RD.
HELDSBURG CA
95448
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for historic designation of the Isis Theater was given
by 1) posting of notice containing the information required in
Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on November 24, 1995, in
a conspicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign
was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing
Notice of said development application to all property owners
within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which
mailing occurred on November 24, 1995.
Applicant:
I
The foregoing Affid�vit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of r, 1995, by Sunny
Vann, on behalf of ISIS, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal).
My commission expires:
/���
. y.
• = tary Public
Dr 00 ,
• ,+illttt��1,`
PUBLIC NOTICE .
RE: ISIS THEATRE LANDMARK DESIGNATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 5, 1995
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Isis LLC, requesting Landmark
Designation. The Isis Theatre is located at 408 E. Hopkins Ave.; Lots L, M and N, Block 87, City
and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5096
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 18, 1995
City of Aspen Account
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
zcent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis
-zesident 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President
300' OWNER'S LIST
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of LOTS L, M AND N, BLOCK
87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, obtained from the most current Pitkin
County Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
316 E. HOPKINS, INC.
715 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
ALH HOLDING COMPANY
F
435 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
ASPEN ARCADE, LTD.
1148 4TH ST.
SANTA MONICA CA
i
90403
ASPEN ART INVESTMENT, INC.
1450 SIERRA VISTA DR. #B
ASPEN CO
81611
BANK OF ASPEN
C/O AUTAX, INC.
P.O. BOX 2798
LITTLETON CO
80161
CARL R. BERGMAN
CATHERINE M. BERGMAN
P.O. BOX 1365
ASPEN CO
81612
CBI PROPERTIES, INC.
C/O LOWELL MEYER
517 W. NORTH ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
CENTRE OF ASPEN, LLC
ANDREW V. HECHT
601 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN CO
81611
CHITWOOD PLAZA CO.
C/O THE FLEISHER CO.
200 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
DAVID DENSON
KATHLEEN DENSON
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL CO
81657
2737-073-29-008
2737-073-30-005
2737-073-38-008
2737-073-43-009,010
2737-073-29-009
2737-073-29-002,003
2737-073-22-014
2737-073-29-004
2737-073-30-421,702
2737-073-43-011,012
DUV I KE , HI INC.
P.O. BOX 2238
ASPEN
CO
81612
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS,
INC.
210 SO. MILL ST., STE. 201
ASPEN
CO
81611
G.E. BULLOCK CHILDREN'S TRUST
C/O SUZETTE GOODMAN
7601 SCOTT HAMILTON
DR.
LITTLE ROCK
AR
72209
GALENA PLAZA, LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER
517 W. NORTH ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
HARLEY A. BALDWIN II
205 SO. GALENA
ASPEN
CO
81611
HILLAS OF SNOWMASS,
INC.
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL
CO
81657
HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES L.P.
330 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
JEAN PIERRE ODIER
P.O. BOX 88
ASPEN
CO
81612
KANDYCOM, INC.
P.O. BOX 1135
MAMMOTH LAKE
CA
93546
LA COCINA, INC.
P.O. BOX 4010
ASPEN
CO
81612
2737-073-39-020
THRU 027
2737-073-43-004
2737-073-40-701
2737-073-22-013
2737-073-39-001,704
2737-073-46-001 THRU
009,011,012,014,016
2737-073-43-014
2737-073-21-001
2737-073-46-010
2737-073-39-002
2737-073-29-007
LEWIS I. SCHAINUCK
2737-073-22-004
MICHELLE T. SCHAINUCK
THRU Olt
3650 SOUTH STREET STE. 301
LAKEWOOD CA
90712
LINDA H. JEMISON
2737-073-46-013
RICHARD H. JEMISON
1524 CANYON ROAD
SANTA FE NM
87501
I
i
F LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
i
2737-073-39-010,011
P.O. BOX 8105
DALLAS TX
75205
M & W ASSOCIATES
2737-073-30-009
205 SO. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
MARGARET M. DOLE
2737-073-43-707
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CEDARIDGE
P.O. BOX 8455
ASPEN CO
81612
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES
2737-073-38-704
205 SO. MILL ST. STE. 301A
ASPEN CO
81611
MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES 80B
2737-073-43-706
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS, INC.
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL CO
81657
PETER GOLDSTEIN
2737-073-43-015
ALAN GOLDSTEIN
150 METRO PARK ## 2
ROCHESTER NY
14623
RANSOM B. WOODS, JR.
2737-073-39-013
JUSTINE F. WOODS
P.O. BOX 12288
ASPEN CO
81612
RYANCO PARTNERS
2737-073-30-007
C/O PAT SMITH
715 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
SABBATININ SPORT, INC. 2737-073-39-014
230 SO. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
WALTER F. HAMPEL, JR.
2737-073-39-008
255 MORTN ST. EXTENSION
MARATHON FL
33050
WENDELIN ASSOCIATES
2737-073-43-001,002,
003,005,013
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER NY
14623
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
2737-073-39-012
217 SO. GALENA
ASPEN CO
81611
WILLIAM W. WHEELER
2737-073-46-015
INGRID J. WHEELER
3241 WEST DRY CREEK RD.
HELDSBURG CA
95448
Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Sy Kelley
Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning and Change of Use Application
Dear Mr. Richman,
Pursuant to the request of Mr. Kelley, the Order to Show
Cause regarding the Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning and Change of
Use Application was continued to February 6, 1996, at
4:30 o'clock p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard) .
Mr. Kelley has the following options:
1. He may voluntarily withdraw the application.
2. He may proceed to hearing on the merits of the application
on the 6th of February. If he is electing this option,
he should immediately notify staff so that an updated
staff report (if needed) may be prepared. In -addition,
he would be required to give all notices which would
have been required were -it the initial call of the public
hearing.
3. He may appear at the public hearing on February 6th and.
request that the matter be continued. However, a
continuance may be granted only at the discretion
of the Planning and Zoning Commission and only.upon
a good cause showing. To the best of my knowledge,
the Planning Staff will not recommend a continuance.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission decided not to
grant the continuance, the Commission would then vote
on the merits of the application. _The Commission could
approve or deny the application.
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 8161.1 • PHONE 303.920.5055 • FAx 303.920.5119
Printed on recycled paper
I
Letter to Alan Richman_
December-7, 1995
Page 2
Please advise David Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director,
as to your client's intentions. Thank you:
Sin ely,
David Hoef er
Assistant City Attorney
CC. Dave Michaelson
City Clerk
Planning and Zoning.Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
RE: Resolution to CDOT Addressing Alternative H
DATE: December 5,1995
Attached for your review is a Resolution directed to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in
support of the inclusion of Alternative H in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). As you
know, Alternative H was developed by the City after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). Representatives from CDOT have indicated that new alternatives can be included in
the FEIS, and the Resolution has the following conclusions:
(1) The "No Build" alternative fails to meet the project need, project intent or project objectives
adopted by the City Council and included in the DEIS.
(2) Alternative H best meets the project objectives.
(3) Alternative H minimizes impacts to publicly owned lands when compared to the other
alternatives.
(4) Alternative H should be evaluated to the fullest extent possible in the Final EIS.
C�
(5) The Planning and Zoning Commission is committed to community -based planning and to assist
CDOT in planning joint uses of public lands to minimize the impact of Alternative H as the
preferred alternative.
Please review the attached draft. Staff would like to adopt a Resolution from the Planning and Zoning
Commission as soon as possible so it can be included with the City comments, which are due by December
18, 1995.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
landmark designation, yet the applicant was going to rescind
landmark designation after getting the benefits. Hunt asked if
that sort of thing happened. Amidon responded that was exactly the
discussion scheduled in two weeks. Amidon stated this had never
happened before.
Buettow asked if the tabling was a request by the applicant.
Amidon responded the request for tabling was by the City.
RITZ-CARLTON PARKING GARAGE
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Garton opened the public hearing and requested Proof of
Notification Affidavit (attached in record).
Michaelson, representing staff, stated the proposal was a
conditional use application to allow commercial use for 100 parking
spaces within the Ritz -Carlton garage and was an insubstantial
amendment to the PUD. Michaelson said as required under the PUD
proposal the Ritz -Carlton must provide a parking garage with 220
parking spaces; currently, utilization of those spaces ranges from
25 to 50 percent. The applicants have not made any agreements in
terms of charge for that parking and there were some conditions of
approval related to that.
Michaelson said there were two referral comments in the packets;
one from the Environmental Health and the other from the
Engineering Department. In terms of compliance with portions of
the code, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan noted there was a
significant number of under-utilized private spaces within the
commercial core; in addition, Ordinance 7, 1993, amended the code
to establish commercial use of excess parking as a conditional use
and that included a finding that was consistent with both the AACP
and the Transportation Action Plan.
Michaelson stated there was a policy he noted regarding reducing
the number of on -street spaces consistent with the commercial
phasing out of those spaces as more private parking came on line.
There was reference to compatibility; staff noted the proposed use
was consistent with the existing uses in the area which are
predominantly commercial and restaurant use and lodging uses on Lot
1. There was also reference to site design and operational
characteristics; staff has noted there are some circulation
problems that come from people driving around trying to find a
place to park and some of the problems will be alleviated.
Michaelson concluded in terms of public services there did not
appear to be any increase in the employee generation.
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
Michaelson went through some of the changes on the conditions of
approval he proposed. First, on Condition 2. it read as follows:
"That the fee charged for parking in the facility shall be no lower
than the City's Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be
adjusted in the future". Michaelson suggested deleting "No weekly
or monthly rate or pass will be permitted".
Michaelson stated Condition 3. would remain the same, but added
three conditions for the record. Condition 4. If the applicant
shall decide to terminate the commercial parking, termination shall
not occur between Thanksgiving -and Easter or between Memorial Day
and Labor Day. Condition 5. Prior to implementation the applicant
shall submit an operation plan to the Department of Transportation
which shall describe the hours of operation, logistics of valley
parking, a traffic plan and marketing plan. Condition 6. The
Planning & Zoning Commission shall review the CUP after one year
of operation and bi-annually thereafter.
Hunt stated the changes to the recommendations did not recommend
the spaces be available on an hourly basis. Hunt said the
Transportation Advisory Committee discussed the parking at length
and one of the major advantages of a facility such as the Ritz -
Carlton is that it would be able to provide for people who need a
lease space. Hunt stated the idea to allow hourly parking just
invited more traffic circulation and the area of the proposal was
not a good area to have major traffic circulation.
Michaelson responded he balanced against how one differentiates
between traffic circling around trying to find parking on -street
versus those vehicles that would be taken off because they would
have an alternative.
Garton clarified Hunt preferred to see no hourly parking, only
leased parking. Hunt stated he had a problem of why wouldn't staff
want someone who was willing to lease a space on a long-term basis
and lease the space less than hourly on -street rate? Michaelson
responded he would have no problem with what Hunt preferred and he
struck the new weekly, monthly rate for the same reason.
Mooney thought it important to find out what the demand was.
Mooney stated the supply was known, and it was approved, but in
order to limit it and say it is not appropriate, even though it is
not known if it is appropriate, to have an hourly, weekly, monthly
or under -the -rate, it was subject to finding out what the demand
really was. Mooney felt tap hourly and monthly parking was
appropriate and would allow a positive traffic pattern, but on the
other hand it would make parking available for people who would
bring their cars to town and leave them sitting all day long and
drive home alone at the end of the day. Mooney did not know if
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
that would be an appropriate situation because the City provided
mass transportation for that reason. Mooney felt to limit the
demand would not allow anyone to find out what the spaces would
really be used for.
Hunt responded did not limiting the demand allow one to find out
what the leasing market would be without having to compete with the
hourly numbers? Mooney stated he thought the Ritz -Carlton would
tell the Commission it had people standing in line for long-term
leases or they were overwhelmed with people wanting to use it on
an in -and -out basis just to shop.
Garton stated Randy Ready, Transportation & Parking Director, had
asked for a review. Hunt stated he would like to work the review
on a control basis. Tygre stated she felt the applicant might want
to have something to say on the issue.
Garton stated the Commission did not have the expertise to make the
decision and that is why there was a transportation authority, with
Randy Ready heading the department, to keep track of the situation.
John Sarpa, representing the applicant, stated it was always
contemplated the Ritz -Carlton spaces would become commercially
available, at least part of them. Sarpa stated at the end of the
whole process, everybody agreed to not have one more set of public
hearings to do the parking. Sarpa said it did not make any sense
to have 220 parking spaces and have them all used by the Ritz -
Carlton, and the Commission could be sure there would definitely
be market room. He said as comfort to Hunt, the Ritz -Carlton felt
there was a high demand for monthly parking; the Little Nell Hotel
had a waiting list for its monthly parking, and Sarpa felt it was
important to have that option; he was glad to hear Michaelson
change the recommendation because one could have monthly parking
at the City facility for $100.00 a month, which is a discount over
the hourly rate. Sarpa stated he would like the distinction made
in the staff recommendation that the rate should be no lower than
the City' s commercial core, and if staff was also trying to say the
Ritz -Carlton should not be competing with the City garage, that was
different from the commercial core rate. Sarpa stated the
applicant would like to work closely with the City and welcomed the
reviews and working with Ready, the Transportation Director, but
would like to be on the same basis as the City Parking Garage.
Garton asked if there were any more conditions, including the three
added, the applicant would like to contest. Joseph Wells, also
representing the applicant, stated Condition 2. was unclear whether
the option was still preserved on a daily rate, and he preferred
to have that option. Wells stated under staff comment C. the
applicant did not know what he was getting into, did not know if
or how the project needed to be marketed, so would like to keep the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
flexibility that if he did signage it would fit into the code.
Michaelson responded if the applicant did put a sign up he would
have to comply with two things: the PUD approval and the sign code.
Michaelson did not think it was necessary to give a condition of
approval to something that would be dealt with in the code. Wells
said he just did not want the subsidy read to imply that the Ritz -
Carlton was not going to do signs.
Garton stated she thought the Transportation Department would have
input on the signage so as to match the rest of the parking
signage. Michaelson stated he thought that was what Ready was
referring to when he requested a marketing plan.
Hunt asked clarification if he understood Sarpa correctly when he
stated he was not so concerned about the hourly parking but would
like day parking. Sarpa responded he did not know yet what the
hourly demand was and asked again from the Commission flexibility
during some period to let him find out what that market would do.
Hunt asked if Sarpa would know in a season what the hourly aspect
would be. Hunt said he was concerned about the hourly rate from
the point of traffic generation, but could tolerate the flexibility
for a season to see what the impacts were. Tygre commented it
would be good to have a winter and summer season because the
useages were very different. Hunt stated he was initially opposed
to hourly parking, but as a test for a year he would go along with
that. Garton commented Ready's recommendation was a review after
the first year and at least bi-annually thereafter.
Chaikovska stated the Commission was just giving the Ritz -Carlton
flexibility to have any one of the options; the Ritz -Carlton may
decide it wants just monthly and may not ever have hourly.
Chaikovska said the Commission was saying for the applicant to
decide what is best, and it sounded like the market in that area
had more demand to recreate daily or monthly than ever before and
asked why they would even want the traffic generation? Chaikovska
stated she did not think the Commission would be losing anything
by giving the applicant all the options and see what Ritz -Carlton
came up with.
Garton stated Ready was concerned about what does up to 100 mean;
how and when will the exact number of available public spaces be
determined? Sarpa responded the purpose was to put a ceiling which
one could not go over, but the number of available public spaces
would vary depending upon the uses of the hotel.
Garton stated one condition staff had included was that the
applicant may not terminate the conditional use during the peak
seasons, and asked if the applicant was agreeable to that
condition. Sarpa responded he had not had the opportunity to check
with the Ritz -Carlton, but felt there would be no problem with the
1.1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
condition. Hunt stated he could see where there could possibly be
a problem if the Ritz had a function that required all the spaces
and yet some spaces were leased out. Sarpa responded he saw where
there was the possibility of getting into a "timing jam", but the
Ritz -Carlton would have to manage effectively and plan accordingly.
Garton asked for public comment. There were no public comments.
Hunt commented should short-term be discussed. Garton stated the
applicant did not have a problem with the hourly rate being any
less than the hourly rate of the City, it was the monthly rate that
was the problem. Sarpa stated Garton was correct; for instance,
if the Ritz gave a monthly parking rate it would not be
competitive. Wells stated he preferred that phrases be added to
the condition, one for hourly and one for monthly. It was
concluded Condition 2 would read: "That the fee charged for
parking in the facility shall be no lower than the City's
Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in the
future, and that daily and monthly rates be available and be
competitive with the City's parking facilities".
Garton closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Tygre moved to recommend approval of the conditional use for
commercial parking for the Ritz -Carlton based on conditions: 1. as
written in the memorandum; 2. as amended to read: That the hourly
fee charged for parking in the facility shall be no lower than the
City's Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in
the future, and that daily and monthly rates be available and can
be competivive with the parking facilities; 3. as written in the
memorandum; 4. If the applicant shall decide to terminate the
commercial parking, termination shall not occur between
Thanksgiving and Easter and between Memorial Day and Labor Day; 5.
Prior to implementation the applicant shall submit an operational
plan to the Department of Transportation and Parking which shall
describe the following: hours of operation, logisitics of valley
parking, traffic plan and a marketing plan; 6. The Planning &
Zoning Commission shall review the CUP after one year of operation
and bi-annually thereafter. Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
ISIS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Garton opened the public hearing and requested the Proof of
Notification Affidavit from Sunny Vann, representing the applicant.
The affidavit is attached in record. Amy Amidon represented the
City in the hearing.
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
Amidon stated staff and HPC recommended P&Z approve landmark
designation of 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Webber Building, finding
that standards B, D and E were met. Standard B. Architectural
Importance, the building is a traditional Italianate commercial
building which exhibits the traditional characteristics of that
style; there were alterations made in the 1960s. Standard D.
Neighborhood Character, the surrounding neighborhood is a
commercial core historic district and there are a number of
historic buildings in that area, including buildings listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and the structure contributes
to the character of the area. Standard E. Community Character, the
building is the last 19th century commercial structure in downtown
Aspen which has not been rehabilitated. Restoration of the
original appearance of the structure will increase its contribution
to the neighborhood.
Garton asked for public comment and there were no public comments.
MOTION
Hunt moved to recommend approval of landmark designation of 406 E.
Hopkins Avenue, the Isis Theatre, Webber Building, finding that
conditions B, D and E had been met; Tygre seconded. Vote was 5 in
favor, 1 opposed (Buettow), motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Buettow stated almost 95 percent of the building would be
demolished and asked if it was a criteria of a historic building
that at least 50 percent of the building would retain its historic
materials and character. Buettow stated he did not feel the
building remained a historic building because of the 95 percent
demolition.
Amidon responded 95 percent was not an accurate demolition
representation. The building is being gutted and that is true of
many historic buildings in Aspen and the exterior walls are
remaining except for the rear wall which does not have much
integrity Amidon said. Amidon stated HPC had a conceptual review
and that review did not have much to do with landmarking and she
felt that the standards had been met.
ISIS GMQS EXEMPTION & SPECIAL REVIEW
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, requested a favor from the
Commission to allow the Linzas, owners of the Isis Theatre, to
speak even though the proceeding was not a public hearing. The
8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
Commission allowed comments from the Linzas.
Dominic Linza stated he and his wife had owned the theatre for 30
years. Dominic stated he would cry when the project began and
loved the theatre, but it had to move forward. Dominic stated the
theatre could no longer operate as a single -screen theatre; the
Playhouse Theatre was a good example of that, the Wheeler Opera
House could operate because it was City financed, and if it was not
for the City he could not survive. Dominic stated the theatre must
be multiplied in order for it to survive. Dominic stated he could
sell the theatre to people who want to make tea shops, galleries,
etc. but he and his wife want it to stay a theatre and requested
the Commission please work with the developers. Dominic said that
was his request and that of the previous owner; his wife had been
ill and he had to consider that also.
Katherine Linza stated the theatre had been the love of their lives
for the last 30 years and the Commission could not imagine how many
people they had turned down who wanted to make the Isis Theatre a
boutique, or tea shop. Katherine said it was the dream of she and
her husband that the theatre remain a theatre and had seen the
architectural model and thought it was beautiful.
Dave Michaelson represented the City and stated the application was
a request for a series of approvals, including a GMQS Exemption,
Special Review to exceed maximum FAR in the CC District, Reduction
of Minimum Open Space and Reduction of Utility Service Area
Requirements. Michaelson said he had included in the Commission's
packets the full design. The applicant proposed to historically
designate the theatre and to expand it to include three additional
theatres; seating would be 800 at buildout. Michaelson included
a table for Commission reference that summarized the existing floor
area, the existing commercial net leasable, height, and allowable
internal FAR. The existing structure would be expanded onto a lot
that is adjacent to the fire station, and would include a new
basement which would be excavated beneath the existing building.
The Hopkin's Street facade and west wall would be preserved in
their entirety. The front facade would be restored to its original
configuration, including removal of the existing siding and the
single roof marquee.
Procedurally, Michaelson stated he tried to summarize the
relationship of the Commission's approvals, what went on in Growth
Management, and what the City Council would decide upon. There
were referral comments from Engineering; there were some concerns
on parking spaces. Michaelson pointed out that the assumption on
11 parking spaces was a geometric calculation and everyone knew
the theatre had not functioned with patron parking for some time.
R1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
Comments from Housing were the same on the memorandum to the Growth
Management Commission.
Michaelson stated he had included Amy Amidon's memorandum regarding
HPC and Amidon was present for questions. Michaelson stated the
application had gone through five reviews with HPC and he had
included in the packets all thQ minutes from those reviews.
In terms of the GMQS Exemption, the code does allow an enlargement
of the maximum floor area, including any bonus by special review,
and the applicant shall provide 100 percent of affordable housing;
in addition, they need to place restrictions on that housing and
designate at Category 3, Michaelson said.
Michaelson stated, in terms of special review, the applicant was
requesting up to 1.8:1 FAR and providing 100 percent of that
affordable housing.
In terms of parking, HPC, in the minutes of August 9, 1995,
recommended a landmark designation and recommended waiving of the
parking standards; staff suggested the theatre had always been
historically accessed by pedestrians and had no problem with the
parking waiver.
Michaelson stated there was a letter from the City Engineer that
indicated there is sufficient water supply, sewage disposal,
drainage control, transportation and other infra -structure issues.
Michaelson noted on the bottom of page 4, Criteria D., the word
design had been left out of the following: "The compatibility of
the project's design with' surrounding projects and it's
appropriateness for the site (design) shall be demonstrated...".
Staff noted there were some things about the project they liked,
including returning the Hopkins facade to its historical
appearance, enclosing a lobby, the service areas were cleaned up
and the proposed courtyard area was an appropriate use of open
space. Staff wanted to note, although HPC had given conceptual
approval, the minutes and Amidon's memorandum pointed out some
visual impacts and some massing issues that staff suggested might
be explored further.
In terms of special review for FAR, the code requires that one can
go up to 2:1 FAR, provided that minimum of 60 percent of the
additional floor area is for affordable housing purposes; almost
95 percent of that additional floor area above 1.5 is in the
affordable units.
Michaelson stated in terms of the trash and utility area, the code
requires 24 feet, the applicant proposed 20 feet by 10 feet, and
staff did not have a real issue with that proposal.
. 10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
The minimum required open space of the code is slightly over 2,000
square feet; the proposed open space is 540 square feet. With the
provision of open space requirements in the central core, staff
suggested the street edge, typically seen in historic districts,
is what was wanted and the applicant indicated he would pay cash -
in -lieu consistent with the code which would be calculated at the
time of the building permit.
Michaelson concluded although HPC had given conceptual approval of
the project, there were some clear representations that other
alternatives would be looked at and staff suggested this meeting
might be the time to explore those alternatives. If the Commission
felt uncomfortable with the project, there were 10 conditions of
approval with one change noted on Condition 3. referencing sidewalk
improvements requested by the Engineering Department. Condition
8. alluded to an audit process for employees and staff had concerns
that those numbers be correct, and if there was any change in use
the applicant would be required to mitigate consistent with the
Housing guidelines.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said he had been asked to
look at the structure sometime before as people had assumed at
sometime the theatre would come onto the market. Vann stated this
was the first applicant he had been involved with that explored the
possibility of retaining the building as a theatre. In order for
the project to work as a theatre it had to go to a multiplex
scenerio and that allowed the applicants to book major releases.
Vann said the development would allow the theatre to continue to
provide facilities for some of the traditional functions that occur
such as the Aspen Ski Club, benefits, and the Film Fest. In order
to get four theatres in the building, two threatres were put on the
main floor, the basement was excavated, and two theatres put below.
While the basement space did not increase the building's FAR, it
did not add any mass to the building, and was still commercial
space that had to be mitigated and drove the affordable housing
mitigation requirements. There was a free market unit on the roof
and the proceeds from the sale of that unit were designed to help
offset the costs of the mitigation and restoration of the
structure. In order to put two theatres in the basement the
basement needed to be excavated and the roof had to be taken off
the building, the floor taken off, and the rear wall taken out.
Vann stated what would be done was retain most of the perimeter and
restore it to its original fabric with the assistance of
photographs.
Vann presented floor plans and the architect was present for
specific questions from the Commission. The existing floor plan
was shown with the two-story building with one large theatre.
There was commercial space adjacent to the theatre on the east side
of the building and the theatre occupied the main portion of the
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
ground floor. On the second floor were the projection rooms,
Linza's office and a small two -bedroom apartment in which the
Linzas live.
Vann stated the requested growth management exemption allowed the
applicant to expand a historic landmark without having to compete
in the annual commercial growth management competition, but it
required the applicant to meet the same mitigation requirements as
if one was going through the competition process. The Planning &
Zoning Commission had the authority to approve an exemption from
growth management for the expansion of a historic landmark subject
to compliance with three or four criteria. Vann stated he was
completely excavating the lower level of the building and putting
in two theatres, with restrooms, and lobby area for circulation.
Vann stated on the main level were the two largest theatres and the
area behind the existing facade would become a lobby. There was
a two-story lobby space which would serve not only the two theatres
on the main level, but also the two theatres below.
In order to preserve the building a temporary solution had been
drafted. Two affordable housing units were put at the rear of the
building on the top f loor and a free market unit which was set back
from the facade. The units on top of the building are not visible
from many places in town and the idea was to put the mass at the
back of the building and situate it in such a way as to reduce its
visual impact.
Vann stated the growth management exemption process the Commission
was being asked to decide required the applicant to mitigate 60
percent of the affordable housing that would be required under
growth management. Instead of using the hypothetical formula of
what a theatre would generate, Vann went out and researched what
actual theatre operations required and came up with a specific
employment requirement for the.Isis Theatre, met with the Housing
Authority and staff who signed off on it, and the applicant is
mitigating 100 percent of that requirement. As a safeguard in
case of misjudgment or if the nature of the operation required more
people, there was an audit built into the process in which the
applicant would come back and provide employment records and if
incorrect, the applicant would be required to provide additional
mitigation. If for some reason the theatre does not work, and
someone buys it and wants to convert it into something else, then
additional employee mitigation would be required based on the
regulations that are in effect at the time of that conveyance.
Vann stated the requirement of mitigation of affordable housing had
been met.
In order to place the affordable housing on -site the applicant was
asking for a small special review approval; subject to approval the
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
applicant is entitled up to 2:1 and was asking to go up to 1.8:1,
and all of that square footage is in the affordable housing units.
Absent the affordable housing units, the project would be about
1.5:1; with the affordable housing it is 1.8:1. Vann stated the
Commission would also be asked•to grant approval for that special
review that allows the applicant to increase the FAR. Vann stated
the primary criteria for the increase in FAR is that 60 percent of
the additional square footage must be used for on -site affordable
housing; the applicant is using 95 percent of that increase and
clearly meets the criteria for an increase in allowable FAR.
Vann stated one of the other issues that required mitigation was
parking, but because the building was a historic landmark, the code
contained an incentive that said the HPC may determine that the
parking is not required and may waive the requirement. HPC did
determine that on -site parking for this proposal was not required
and it has affectively been waived, so Vann stated the P&Z had no
actions to take regarding the parking issue.
Vann stated additional criteria required the applicant to mitigate
utility related issues and the utilities are adequate to serve the
project. Vann stated pedestals would be relocated in the alley,
the dumpster relocated to an enclosed area out of the alley, and
an adequate area to accommodate the utility and trash service
issues would be provided. The code requires a certain size trash
and utility area for a building the size of the Isis Theatre and
provides a mechanism by special review by which the P&Z can reduce
that size. The requirement for the building would be 24 feet long
by 10 feet wide, the applicant proposed 20 feet by 10 feet and Vann
stated he had provided information in the application which
demonstrated that area is more than adequate to accommodate the
various utility requirements of the project, including the
relocation of all the existing utilities behind the building that
are presently in the alley and accommodate two dumpsters if
necessary. The Engineering Department has recommended that a 20
foot by 10 foot trash utility access area is appropriate and Vann
asked the Commission to grant approval for that reduction in length
by 4 feet.
Vann stated one issue that came up and was talked about was the
appropriateness of whether or not the affordable housing should be
provided on -site. Vann said in order to get the FAR bonus the
affordable housing must be provided on -site and the applicant wants
to put it on -site so employees can be housed. Vann stated the
applicant had the ability to provide the housing on -site in such
a manner that it would not adversely affect the building. The
issue came up if the affordable housing was provided off -site then
the free market unit could be moved back and there would be some
qualifiable reduction in visual impacts. The HPC granted
conceptual approval of the project with both the on -site affordable
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
housing and the free market unit, but suggested that if they had
their preference that the affordable housing not be provided on -
site and asked the applicant to explore if there was a way to do
that. The applicant had looked at some alternatives as to whether
or not the housing could be provided in another manner. Vann
stated it was not an issue under the review criteria which the P&Z
was being asked to consider. Item D . on page 4, which is the f inal
review criteria, talks about the compatibility of the project's
site design. Vann stated there is no discussion in the criteria
of architectural compatibility, architectural bulk, architectural
mass, impact on the historic resource, etc. Vann suggested the
reason that is the case is because this specific review applied to
historic landmarks and any modification of a historic landmark was
the sole purview or responsibility of the HPC. Vann stated the
Commission was asked to look at other issues that are not the
prerogative of the HPC which are adequacies of utilities, the site
design, whether there is sufficient open space, and whether or not
the applicant mitigated the affordable housing impact. Vann stated
he did not believe under these criteria that whether or not the
housing should be provided on -site or off -site was a criteria which
would affect the decision on the GMQS exemption. Vann welcomed
comments from the P&Z, but said the ultimate decision would be made
by the City Council.
Vann stated he wanted to talk about why the housing needed to be
on -site and the realities of developing this particular market.
Vann said he understood the economics are not a review criteria but
it was a very real factor in whether or not the project was
feasible. In addition to renovating and restoring the entire
structure the applicant had to develop something that was
economically feasible and would work in the marketplace; a multi-
plexed theatre. The alternatives to providing on -site housing are:
go out and buy some land to build affordable housing, go out and
buy a free market unit and deed restrict it to affordable housing,
or buydown an existing free market unit, and cash -in -lieu. Vann
stated it was the intent to rent the units to the key employees of
the theatre.
Vann stated what the applicant tried to do with the project is
strike a balance between competing objectives; one, to renovate and
keep the theatre as it is, comply with the requirements for growth
management exemption, meet the objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan in terms of actually providing housing to mitigate
the employees, provide the housing on -site as recommended by the
housing office, and also from the HPC perspective, go as far as
possible to give on -site housing and reduce its visual impact.
Hunt asked if there was going to be a stage put in to accommodate
different events at different times of the year. The architect
responded the existing Isis has seats that go right to the screen,
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
the proposed plan would have the seats pulled back 15 feet which
would accommodate a built-in stage. Hunt commented the proposed
plan had done an outstanding job to preserve an essential function
in the community, the Isis Theatre. Theatres by their very nature
consume a tremendous cubit volume to accomplish what is being
proposed. Hunt stated he found what was being done was more than
just acceptable.
Amidon clarified HPC's point of view stating Vann had mentioned the
project has made infinite leaps in quality from HPC's point of
view. When the project was first proposed the only wall that was
being saved was the front wall of the building and there were two
stories of housing on the roof. Amidon stated HPC could not be
happier in how much the applicant had worked with them and after
five meetings HPC has given conceptual approval to the project and
it is very important to HPC that the theatre be maintained. Given
the City's requirements the applicant has done a great job
responding; the City is asking for on -site housing. HPC has a
concern for 25 percent open space in a commercial core area where
one can create a building edge. If that requirement and the cash -
in -lieu issue was not there perhaps the applicant could have filled
in that entire area and the housing could have fit into that space
instead of on the roof. Amidon stated HPC does like the project,
but finds if the free market could be to the back, if there could
be another solution, then HPC would call it a great preservation
project.
Tygre commented as a P&Z member and as a former popcorn lady at the
Playhouse Theatre, she knew that a theatre was a very specialized
use; she agreed it was not only important to preserve the
structure, but preserve the use. It is an important part of the
community and social center, and takes up a lot of room and
everyone has to multi-plex whether one likes it or not Tygre said.
One of the problems with converting to the kind of use that Stage
3 has, if one does not have on -site employees, one has a lot of
problems. Tygre stated she had gone to Stage 3 various times when
the projector broke down, and a light bulb burned out and there was
no one on -site ready to give her her money back. Tygre stated
Dominic and Kitty Linza were there all the time and that was one
of the things that made the Isis Theatre such a wonderful place to
go to, the Linza's were there to take care of things. Tygre said
she felt this was one use where having somebody on -site was really
important for the quality of the operation.
Tygre stated she was willing to go along with the employee
generation figure based on her own experience and was comforted by
the fact that the audit was in place in case the applicant found
they were doing so many special events that they would need more
people. Tygre stated for many years the desirability had been
discussed of living above the store as a part of revitalizing the
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
downtown core area and what she liked about the project is that it
went along with the theatre use. Tygre stated the employee units
were the least visible of the' roof structures because they were
towards the back, but the employee units had windows, light, views,
and the possibility of landscaping, so Tygre stated she felt they
were very desirable employee units.
Tygre said she had the opposite opinion from the HPC and felt it
was desirable from many points of view to have the housing on -site
and a lot of the structure could be resolved through improvements
in design as the applicants had been doing all along. Tygre stated
she would encourage the applicants to continue to seek what other
things they could do to make the units even less obtrusive, even
though they were not that obtrusive to begin with, because she
liked the project and thought it important to preserve it and to
have the kind of theatre use and housing there to make it a project
that would not just turn into another empty building at night.
Garton stated the parking had been waived by HPC, and asked the
only time the Commission could require parking for an ADU was in
a residential area. Michaelson responded that statement was true.
Vann stated it was part of a package for historic incentives; the
City was trying to find a way to provide incentives for
restoration, and there was not a whole lot one could do; affordable
housing could not be waived because it would not be equitable, so
the applicants looked at things they could do and one of the things
was parking. Vann stated the theatre has never functioned as
patron parking and Linza parks his truck next to the Fire
Department in the front, and other than that it has never been a
parking area.
Garton asked how Vann had come up with four theatres instead of
three as good economics. Vann responded there was free space in
the basement and provided the mechanism to provide a variety of
different types of films. Vann introduced Sam Houston who had been
working with a couple of the major film distibution companies and
asked if Houston had some comments.
Houston stated he had lived in Aspen full-time for 11 years and
felt the responsibility to keep the project "right" and wanted to
keep the feeling that it is run in the same way. Houston said the
reason for theatres is when Film Fest comes, for example, such
events would want to make the Isis their home. Four theatres
enables the applicant to move the product throught the theatres,
be able to provide a good variety of choice and have a strong art
film presence; foreign films, and independent productions.
Garton said a suggestion made 'by some was to move the apartments
or free unit and bring them down to a lower level and have 3
theatres. Houston responded the configuration with the 4 theatres
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
worked as far as movie showing but a free market unit on the roof
was very desirable.
Mooney asked if staff knew if the Housing Authority would be using
their lease for the properties or the applicants' lease. Vann
responded it would be the Housing Authority's standard deed
restriction, and would provide for an audit and contain
requirements for the applicants to have additional housing if the
project was converted to another use.
Mooney stated looking at the configuration of the units, it seemed
to him there was one bedroom that had a private bathroom, and two
bedrooms that shared a common area bathroom. Mooney stated if
three individuals lived in the apartment the quality of life would
be enhanced greatly if each person had a private bthroom and had
private and separate living quarters.
Vann responded the situation was difficult but sid he would
explain. According to housing guidelines, for the one -bedroom, one
gets credit for 1.75 employees, one gets 2.25 for a two -bedroom,
3.00 for a 3-bedroom. Vann stated HPC required the project
minimize the bulk and mass on site; in other words, if the units
were put there, how could one put them there in such a way that it
not only met the requirements, but minimized the bulk, so there was
a trade-off. Vann stated the theory is that one of the units may
house a family, the other unit might be a shared roommate
situation.
Mooney stated if there was a family iving in one of the units, one
would be the manager who has a wife and daughter; only one employee
is mitigated and using half of the allowable mitigation for one
person, therefore, below the minimums. Vann responded not in the
way the Housing Authority calculates mitigation. There is an
assumption if one has a 3-bedroom one has credit for 3 employees
and if the tenants are a man, his wife and a child, that is still
3 people under the Housing Authority guidelines; whether the wife
may work at the theatre or not the wife would be considered an
employee of the community. Vann stated if he did not have the HPC-
related consideration the applicants could perhaps provide three
two -bedrooms refigured in 'a different manner, but this
configuration had been approved by the Housing Authority and met
their requirements.
Mooney asked regarding tenant space deeds and if the tenant spaces
were going to be leased by the theatre operator. Vann replied it
had to be by the code and unless it was tenant storage for on -site
tenants it did not have to be mitigated; the applicant could not
go out and lease it to another commercial business across town
because it would then be considered as a commercial enterprise and
the applicants would have to provide additional affordable housing.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
The reason it was there is because it is simplier to excavate the
whole basement than to excavate part of it, it is free space and
Vann felt it could be used in terms of a theatre operation.
Vann stated the conditions as drafted by the Planning Office were
acceptable to the applicants with a clarification on Condition 3.
which mentioned repair work on the curb cutter; and Condition 8.
that requested a resolution from the Planning Office to memoralize
the approval. Vann said in the interim the applicants would work
out with Michaelson and the Housing Authority the clarification of
Condition 8. Vann stated the basic premise was fine on Condition
8., but he wanted it completely clear what additional mitigation
requirements are required in the future.
Garton stated she had no trouble with the reduction in open space.
MOTION
Hunt moved to approve a GMQS Exemption, Special Review to exceed
the allowable FAR in the CC Zone District, a Reduction of the
Minimum Open Space and Utility Service Area Requirements for the
Isis Theatre, with Conditions 1-10 in Planning Office memorandum
dated 5 December, 1995. Condition 3. relates to sidewalk repair,
if necessary. Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Hunt excused himself from the meeting.
AJAX BUILDING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR SEATING
Michaelson stated the applicant was requesting to use 250 square
feet in a portion of the lower mall of the Ajax Building for
commercial use. The original application requested three-quarters
of the mall area, but Michaelson discussed the request and came up
with an agreement with the mall manager, an adjacent mall lessee,
and the applicant for a 12 by 12 foot corner as appropriate.
Michaelson stated staff recommended approval of the application
with four conditions, including one, very specific in terms of
where 5 tables could be, and any expansion of the seating would
require another review.
Garton asked the applicant, represented by Keith Herbert, if there
were any objections to the conditions. Herbert responded there
were no objections.
Michaelson stated there were only two employees, and room enough
for only 10 people, there was no need for waitstaff, it was just
a place to sit for coffee.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995
MOTION
Tygre moved to approve a Special Review for Commercial Use of Open
Space in the CC Zone District for Cafe Ink! located at 520 East
Durant, with the conditions contained in the staff memorandum;
Chaikovska seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Tygre stated there used to be outdoor seating at the location and
there seemed to be no problem.
DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION
Michaelson stated he was not involved with the drafting of the
resolution. Garton asked if there was any objection to signing the
resolution as drafted and there were no objections from the
Commission. Garton signed the draft resolution to CDOT regarding
Alternative H.
BUCKHORN LODGE -ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
It was brought to the attention of the Commission that the Buckhorn
Lodge -Order to Show Cause application was not on the agenda but had
been rescheduled for February 6, 1996. David Hoefer, assistant
city attorney, stated there was no objection with the rescheduling,
but the problem with rescheduling in some cases was people were not
getting what they wanted and tabled their projects indefinitely.
Hoefer stated it was needed to get such cases off the board.
Garton asked why the Buckhorn Lodge -Order to Show Cause had been
rescheduled. Hoefer responded the City was letting the applicant
go to February for the purpose of going forward with the
application.
Garton adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�QA' -t� o
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
19
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commiss' n
J
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Direc
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: December 5,1995
RE: Isis Theater - GMQS Exemption, Special Review to exceed maximum
FAR in the CC District and Reduction of Minimum Open Space and
Utility Service Area Requirements
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting several approvals to allow for remodel and
expansion of the Isis Theater, the development of two (2), three (3) bedroom affordable housing
units and a free market dwelling unit on a new upper floor to be added to the building. Based on
HPC review, the most significant issue remains the massing of the affordable units on the
rooftop. HPC specifically requested that the applicant consider buying down existing off -site
housing, or integrate the affordable units inside the principal structure. If the Commission is
satisfied with the project, staff has also recommended a series of conditions.
APPLICANT: Isis LLC., represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION/ZONING: Lots L, M and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen. The entire
property is zoned CC (Commercial Core). The existing Isis building is located on lots L and M,
and a small attached shed is located on Lot N. The remainder of Lot N is vacant and is used for
storage and parking. The three lots have merged pursuant to Section 7-1004A.5 and are located
within the City's Commercial Core Historic Overlay District.
REQUEST: The applicant's propose to historically designate the Isis Theater property and to
remodel and expand the existing building to include three (3) additional movie theaters. In
addition, the applicant's propose to develop two (2), three (3) bedroom affordable housing units
and a free-market unit on the roof of the existing structure. The affordable housing units are
required to mitigate the project's GMQS impacts while the replacement free market unit is
necessary to offset the cost of the renovation. The application, site plan, and elevations are
attached as Exhibit A.
The following table summarizes the development data for the existing structure and proposed
renovation:
1
Development Standard
Existing
Proposed
Existing Floor Area
8,045 s. f.
16,303 s.f.
Commercial Net Leasable
5,767 s.f.
11,216 s.f.
Height
27.5 ft
35.5 ft
Allowable Internal FAR
1.5:1
1.8:1
As indicated on the attached bluelines, the existing structure would be expanded onto the lot
adjacent to the fire station. The expansion will permit the addition of two (2) theaters, a
concession area and entry lobby on the first floor. Two (2) smaller theaters, public rest rooms
and storage/mechanical are proposed in new basement excavated beneath the existing building.
Total seating would be approximately 880 seats, compared to the existing capacity of
approximately 380 seats with a single theater.
The Hopkin's Street facade and west wall will be preserved in their entirety. The front facade
will be restored to its original configuration, necessitating the removal of the existing wood
siding and shingle roof marquee. The majority of the east wall will be demolished, along with
the alley wall. Existing bricks will be saved and utilized in the restoration of the remainder of
the building.
PROCESS: Procedurally, the applicant's are requesting the following required approvals:
1) Pursuant to Section 8-204 B.c., the Commission may grant a GMQS Exemption for the
enlargement of a historic landmark to be used for commercial and residential purposes which
increases both the building's existing floor area and its net leasable square footage. The
Commission shall make a recommendation regarding historic landmark designation to Council.
2) Pursuant to Section 5-209.1).11, the applicant is requesting special review to exceed the
allowable floor area of 1.5:1 to 1.8:1 in the CC zone district.
3) Pursuant to Section 5-209.D.6., the applicant is requesting special review to reduce the
dimensions of the required trash and utility service area.
4) Pursuant to Section 7-404.A.3., the applicant is requesting special review to reduce the
minimum open space requirement in the CC zone district.
The relationship between specific approval requests and the responsible decision -making body
are summarized below:
Planning and Zoning Approvals
1) GMQS Exemption for Landmark
2) Landmark Recommendation
3) Special Review
- Parking Reduction
- Open Space Reduction
- Bonus FAR
Growth Management Commission
1) Approval of AH Units
Council
1) Historic
Landmark
2) GMQS (AH)
Referral Comments: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit B
En ineerin- : Engineering suggested that the waiving of the cash -in -lieu for parking may not be
applicable because sufficient room exists on -site for 11 parking spaces. This assumption is based
on the available area between the existing building and the fire station, and is not applicable to
the proposed project.. Traffic is likely to increase, and some form of traffic mitigation should be
required. In addition, heated sidewalks should be considered consistent with past policy
discussions for the CC core.
Housing: The Housing Office has approved the employment assumptions and the deed restricted
Category 2 units, and requested a condition of approval requiring an audit of employee levels.
HPC: HPC has reviewed the project five times since July of 1995, and has granted conceptual
approval. Amy Amidon's November 22, 1995 memo is attached, and goes into detail regarding
the visual impacts of the AH units placed on the roof. Based on the November 8, 1995 minutes
attached to Amy's memo, the AH units were seen as problematic, and significant discussion took
place regarding the potential of buying down existing units. This would leave only the free
market unit, which could be pushed completely back from the front facade to lessen the roof top
impact of the current proposal. Staff notes that keeping the units on -site is the only method for
requesting an FAR bonus. A more practical alternative may be to integrate the AH units within
the proposed structure. At the request of a P and Z Commissioner, minutes from all five
meetings before HPC is attached as Exhibit C.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
Each of these approval requests are summarized below for compliance with code requirements.
1. GMQS Exemption For Enlareement of An Historic Landmark
The applicable review criteria and the proposed developments compliance are summarized as
follows:
a) "For enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor
area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by
Special Review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at one hundred (100)
percent of the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-206E.3. for the
applicable use. For each one (1) percent reduction in floor area below the maximum
permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any
bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be
reduced by one (1) percent.
The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the city
attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall
provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards.
Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing
designee's Category 3 price and income guidelines as set forth in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority."
Response: The proposed expansion will exceed the 1.5:1 FAR allowed in the CC district, and
the applicant must provide 100% of the affordable housing pursuant to GMQS regulations.
Based on current regulations, the applicant's would be required to house approximately 11
employees.1
The applicant, based on staffing requirements for the existing Movieland Theater in El Jebel, is
requesting that the requirement be reduced to five (5) employees. This reduction has been
approved by the Housing Office (see housing referral).
The applicants intend to provide two (2) three bedroom affordable units, deed restricted to
Category 2 income and occupancy guidelines. Although Category. 3 units are required, Category
2 units will allow a reduction in mass consistent with HPC recommendations, and the Housing
Office is in support of the Category 2 units.
b) "Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division
2 and Division 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and is
consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. Any parking which cannot be
located on -site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash -in -lieu
shall be waived."
Response: The minutes of the HPC meeting of August 9, 1995 indicate that the motion to
recommend landmark designation included the waiving of parking standards. The property is
located within the central core, and has historically been accessed by pedestrians. HPC approval
included the determination that no parking was required on -site. Therefore, the cash -in -lieu has
been waived. Engineering has concerns regarding the waiver, in light of the elimination of the
existing parking area located between the Fire Station and the Isis. Although sufficient area may
exist for eleven (11) cars, it has not been used for patron parking. In fact, the geometrics of the
site only allow three (3) cars to be parked on -site.
c) "The development's water supply, sewage disposal, drainage control,
transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the
Commission."
Response: Both the project's applicant and the City Engineer have concurred that all necessary
utilities are located on site. A drywell will be located beneath the entry plaza on the southeast
corner of the property.
d) "The compatibility of the projects design with surrounding projects and it
appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to
consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the
amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the
site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area."
Response: There are several design components that are consistent with this portion of the code,
including the following:
1Proposed Net Leasable - Existing Net Leasable = Additional Net Leasable
11, 216 s. f. - 5,767 s. f. = 5,449 s. f. 5,449 s. f./1000 s. f. = 5.45
5.45 x 3.5 Emp/1000 = 19.08 19.08 Emp x 0.60 = 11.45 Employees
4
1. The exterior renovations are clearly compatible with the historic integrity of the site;
2. An enclosed lobby will no longer require pedestrians to have to queue up on the
sidewalk;
3. The proposed trash and utility service area will be covered and located at -grade, and the
existing theater's utility meters and pedestals will be relocated.
4. The proposed courtyard area is an appropriate use of open space and a compliment to the
existing streetscape.
The use of the upper story for employee housing is more problematic. As demonstrated by the
attached HPC comments, the provision of dwelling units on the upper story will have an impact
on adjacent properties, particular from the northwest and northeast corners of Mill
Street/Hopkins Avenue (Eddie Bauer and the Kandycom Building). HPC and Amy Amidon have
both recommended further study regarding the rooftop elements.
2. Special Review for FAR, Trash and Utility Area, and Open Space
a. FAR. The maximum allowable floor area in the CC zone district is 1.5:1, and may be
increased to 2:1 by the Commission, provided that a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the
additional floor area is approved for affordable housing purposes. The proposed FAR is
approximately 1.8:1. The square footage above 1.5:1 is approximately 2,763 s.f. The affordable
units are approximately 2,610 s.f., or 94% of the additional square footage above 1.5:1.
b. Trash and Utility Area. A minimum trash and utility area of twenty (20) feet by
(10) feet is required for up to six thousand (6,000) square feet of net leasable area. An additional
one (1) foot of length is required for each additional 1,200 square feet of net leasable. The
expanded building will contain approximately 11,216 s.f., requiring a utility service area of
approximately 24 feet long. The applicant is proposing a service area of 20 feet by 10 feet, with
a two cubic yard dumpster, covered and enclosed by three sides, with a concrete floor. Based on
the relatively lower trash generation when compared to other commercial uses, staff has no issue
with the requested reduction.
C. Open Space. The Commission may grant a reduction in the required open space in
the CC district if it determines that the provision will be consistent with the character of
surrounding land uses. The minimum required open space is approximately 2,255 s.f. Proposed
open space is approximately 540 s.f.
The majority of all structures in this area of the historic district abut the property line, as is
typical in traditional streetfronts. - Staff concurs with the applicant that the provision of less than
required open space is consistent with the character of surrounding land uses, and with the
desire to create a strong "building edge" along the streetscape. The applicant has agreed to pay
cash -in -lieu as provided for in Section 7-403.A.3. The amount required will be determined and
paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed expansion.
5
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant that the project has merit in the
following aspects:
1. Significant streetscape improvements and renovation are consistent with the long-
term goal of preserving historic structures.
2. The retention of cinema uses in the central core is an amenity to both residents and
visitors in the area.
3. The provision of on -site employee housing is clearly preferred by the Housing Office.
4. The project has improved significantly since it was initially presented to HPC.
HPC and Amy Amidon have both recommended that the applicant study the integration of the
AH units within the structure itself, thereby leaving only the free market unit in the rooftop,
while at the same time granting conceptual approval. The integration of the units would allow a
dramatic reduction in massing, and allow the free market unit to be pushed to the rear of the
building, significantly reducing visual impacts of the proposed project. Consistent with
representations made at the November 8, 1995 HPC meeting, the applicant has indicated that
they "would be happy to explore the employee housing off site and have the free market occupy
that space." It would appear appropriate that the Commission ask the applicant to describe these
efforts prior to any approval.
If the Commission feels comfortable with the project, staff would suggest the following
conditions of approval:
1. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to during development.
2. The final development plans shall include a drainage plan prepared by a registered
engineer that provides for no more than historic flows to leave the site as described in
Section 24-7-1004. C. 4. of the Municipal Code. No drainage shall be allowed to enter
the alley.
3. If repair work is deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, it must be performed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
4. The building permit application shall include a site improvement survey. A note shall be
provided on the survey that "all easements of record as indicated in Title Policy No.( ),
dated ( ), have been shown hereon."
5. Any proposed landscaping shall be shown on the final development plan in the building
permit application. The landscape design shall be approved by the Parks Department
and must meet streetscape guidelines.
6. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement district formed for the purpose of
constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
0
7. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within the public right-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping,
with public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department (920-5130).
The applicant shall be responsible for providing an audit of employees two years after
the issuance of a C.O. verifying the employee assumptions contained in the application.
This audit must be done via an independent report supplied by the applicant and
reviewed by the Housing Office for accuracy. If the audit determines that employment
has exceeded five FTE's, the applicant shall be required to mitigate any additional
employees according to the Guidelines in affect at that time. In addition, the approved
employee calculation of five (5) employees is only applicable to the Isis project, and any
other future uses will require a re-evaluation for mitigation purposes.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the free market and two affordable units,
deed restrictions shall be filed for approval and review by the Housing Office, consistent
with representations within the application.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable cash -in -
lieu for open space, consistent with the requirements of Section 7-403.A.3.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve a GMQS Exemption, Special Review to
exceed the allowable FAR in the CC Zone District, a Reduction of Minimum Open Space
and Utility Service Area Requirements for the Isis Theater, with conditions contained in
the Staff Memorandum."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to table the proposal to allow the applicant to further
explore off -site employee housing or integrate the employee housing within the structure,
reducing the mass and bulk proposed for the roof."
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Application, Site Plan and Elevations
Exhibit B - Referrals
Exhibit C - Minutes from HPC Meetings
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO:
O Dave Michaelson
, City Planner
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: November 22, 1995
RE: Isis Theater
HPC has held five meetings regarding the conceptual development plan for this
project since July 1995. (Conceptual approval with a number of conditions was
awarded on August 23.) The main focus of the review has been on limiting the
demolition of the existing structure (originally only the front facade was proposed
to be retained), directing the new construction to be compatible with the old
structure, but subtlely different from it, and on decreasing the visibility of the on -
roof construction.
Originally, the applicant proposed four AH units and one free market unit on the
site. The applicant, HPC, and Housing Office worked together to reduce the
units to two, three bedroom units, which the Housing Office has found is
sufficient for the redevelopment. In addition, HPC has worked with the applicant
to lower the height of the units as much as possible. Story poles have been set
up several times.
At this point, the applicant has addressed all specific HPC conditions of
approval. Final HPC review will continue to focus on refining material selections
for the new construction and overall preservation techniques for the old building.
At HPC's November 8 meeting, the commission agreed that the project is vastly
improved from the original proposal and that, in general, they are comfortable
with the new addition. However, the commission also stated that, after seeing
the rooftop construction through several studies and site visits, it would be there
strong preference that the AH units would not be located on -site (see attached
minutes). Their location at the back of the roof will make them fairly invisible,
however they force the free market unit to be placed at the front of the roof
where it will be visible from the street. HPC feels that in the case of some
historic buildings, the requirement for on -site housing puts an additional burden
on the building which may lead to a less than desirable result. The applicant has
been asked to explore the viability of off -site housing, with the approval of P&Z,
but regardless of the outcome, the Conceptual approval is granted.
HPC has also recommended that P&Z waive the on -site parking requirement.
Given the existing building, no more than three spaces can be accomodated on
the site. HPC also recommends waiver of the required open space. It is HPC's
opinion in general that the open space requirement is not appropriate in a
commercial core area where it is desirable to create a strong "building edge"
along the streetscape. The open space requirement in many cases has created
buildings which are set back from the sidewalk or have sunken courtyards in
front of them, which is not compatible with the traditional commercial
development pattern in Aspen.
NOV 29 195 12:40PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
W
The applicant states that he commits to satiBfy the affordable
housing exaction via the deed restriction of two three -bedroom
unita to be built on the premises. The Howing Roard has
established policies in the Affordable Housing Widelines regarding
mitigating affordable housing impacts, Their preference is; as
1. On, sit housing;
2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
The Housing office alao app�eciateo the applicant volunteering to
deed restrict these units to Category 2. The size of the units
will aleo meet the minimum size requirement for a Category 2 three -
bedroom unit.
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department ell�-
Date: November 27, 1995
Re: Isis Theater GMQS Exemption & Special Review
(406 East Hopkins Avenue; Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, Original Aspen Townsite; Parcel ID No.
2737-182-85-001)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Parking - It is unclear that the parking cash -in -lieu requirements should be waived. The
application does not include a site improvement survey or an existing conditions map, however
there is currently sufficient space on site for 11 or more parking spaces. The application proposes
development which would remove the existing, usable parking area. Therefore it does not appear
reasonable to waive the cash -in -lie payment for 11 spaces.
2. Traffic - The application does not discuss traffic impacts. Presumably, the new development
will provide for increased business activity and therefore result in increased traffic. Potential traffic
impacts could be considered with the cash -in -lieu for parking. Also, the applicant should be
required to participate in traffic mitigation programs such as valet parking.
3. Drainage - The application makes reference to providing a drywell. It should be a condition of
approval that the building permit application, or the final development plans, include a drainage
plan prepared by a registered engineer that provides for no more than historic flows to leave the site
as described in Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f of the City Code. In particular, no drainage may enter the
alley.
4. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - Due to snow conditions, it was not possible to examine
completely the condition of the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. These appeared to be in
satisfactory condition. It should be a condition of approval that if repair work is needed, it must be
performed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
On previous occasions, staff has discussed the possibility of requiring snow melted
sidewalks for new construction in the commercial core. This condition may be considered by the
reviewing agencies.
1
5. Encroachments - The application did not include a site survey which would have identified any
encroachments into public rights -of -way. If there are encroachments, they should be removed if
feasible or licensed if not feasible.
6. Trash and Utility Service Area - The Engineering Department has no objections to granting a
reduction in the size.
If a new transformer is required, an easement must be provided to the City that meets the
requirements of the City Electric Department.
7. Utilities - It is a standard condition of approval for many developments that any new surface
utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the
applicant and not in the public right-of-way. For some developments, it is required to relocate
existing pedestals that serve the site out of the right-of-way and onto private property.
8. Site Improvement Survey - The building permit application must include a site improvement
survey. A note must be provided on the survey that "all easements of record as indicated on Title
Policy No. , dated , have been shown hereon."
9. Landscaping in Public Right-of-way - The application discusses the proposal of planting street
trees. This should be shown on the final development plan in the building permit application. The
design must be approved by the Parks Department and must meet streetscape guidelines.
10. Improvement Districts - The application does not discuss if the dwelling units are intended for
sale or rental. If condominiumization and subdivision are contemplated for this project, then it is
appropriate to require the applicant to agree to join any improvements districts formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in the adjacent public rights -of -way. Perhaps it is
appropriate that this be a condition of approval whether or not condominiumization is
contemplated.
11. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Bill Earley, Electric Superintendent
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
M95.220
0)
Exhibit C
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12 1995
Roger: Could the house be set back three feet on the front?
Glenn: It is trying to match up with the existing porch on the
side and that would not be possible. r
Don: Is the east end too much of a problem for a condition on the
motion or should we table?
Glenn: I could present some options. We just want something that
will work for everyone and we can do that even with conceptual
approval.
AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to add condition ##7
7. That a restudy of the east end addition occur at a
worksession.
second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion.
406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION
John Wheeler, from Cunniffe & Assoc. presented: We are here to
talk about the H. Weber Building 1892 circa approximately. It has
been a theatre since the 2 0 ' s when sound movies first started. The
intent is to utilize it as a theatre and add more theatres. There
is a vacant lot between the fire station which is intended to be
expanded into the 9,000 sgft. parcel, all three city lots. The
first level will maintain the existing facade and be restored back
to its original condition. We are pulling the facade back and
there was an assayer's office in the vacant lot that is presently
there. Is it more important to have a street facade or an open
space that steps back. Upper level will become two theatres and
the lower level will be excavated with smaller theatres below. The
project buildout will require additional space on top of the
building. The upper levels will consist of employee housing that
is required by the site. The house onsite has been moved as far
back on the building to the alley facade and there is a lower mass
with a open market housing unit and we have pulled that back to
relieve the facade to preserve the integrity of the original
facade. We are in study mode only. Fox photo is to the west.
There is an elevator tower. One free market unit will replace the
existing unit and there are four two bedroom employee units.
Amy: They need to mitigate 60o for employee housing and they are
showing 1000, so they are giving more.
John Wheeler: The application is going to be an exemption from
Growth Management for the expansion of an historic landmark which
is approved by the P&Z. It requires the HPC to recommend and the
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995
City Council to adopt historic landmark designation. It is on the
inventory but not designated. The P&Z approves the exemption for
the expansion. The criteria for the exemption is that the
additional commercial square footage which is the additional i
theaters in this case must have their affordable housing mitigated,.'
The expansion allows you to book first run releases on movies.
They will be able to use a variety of benefits etc. The theatre
can be used for other public events like an auditorium which has
not been used in the past.
Donnelley: Is there an operator yet?
Sonny Van: Not yet.
Donnelley: Then there is no guarantee that this will be used for
community events.
Roger: Is the front facade as close to the original as possible?
John Wheeler: We have one photograph and he building was
originally a wearhouse. In the 1904 map the building was separated
into three partitions and the far east was a plumbing shop and
remains that way today. On the alley it will be a rebuilt masonry
facade.
Roger: Why did you not draw any windows in the upper west
elevation?
John Wheeler: In this zone there is zero lot lines and the next
parcel can build right up. The upper portion of the addition
falls in to the Hotel Jerome view plane. We have to assume that
both sides can be built to 40 feet at some point in the future.
Sven: I am an advocate about things going out to the property
line
John Wheeler: We have to maintain some open space.
Sonny Van: You can waive the open space but we have to cash out.
We thought it important to have the open space to separate the old
building from the new addition.
Sven: We have some problem with brick and the duplication of
historic detailing that is put right up against old masonry.
Jan Darrington, Cunniffe and Assoc.: We will be removing some old
brick and will keep it to repair existing walls etc.
Jake: Is there a basement?
15
a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995
Dan: No, there is not.
MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Sven. All in favor,
motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
space to enter these offices.
Melanie: Why can't you use the staircase at the alley for the
entrance?
Brian: I can but it is an alley entrance.
Donnelley: This is a difficult presentation to understand.
Amy: I feel we should ,do a site visit again before the public
hearing.
Les: When we were working on the project next to this building one
of the conditions of the joining of the two old buildings and
historic designation was that this parcel be left as a park. We
went back through the records and a series of records got lost.
I was assured that one of the conditions of approval was that
nothing should be built on the existing parcel. We couldn't prove
it and it was built. What is happening is that this is getting out
of hand. A metal staircase is not acceptable. The building is too
big and shadows over the historical building.
Dennis Green: It only goes down and has no visual impact.
Sven: If it is only going down and a site visit would do it.
MOTION: Jake moved to table the minor development for 132 W. Main
requiring that the applicant provide a basement floor plan in order
to provide the use of the below grade space and the subsidy of
the variance for the lightwell. I further recommend a site visit
be set up prior to the public hearing. Regarding the stair I
recommend tabling pending a site visit; second by Les. All in
favor, motion carries.
Roger: I see this as messy vitality and I do not have a problem
with it between buildings. I was over there and you are going down
into something.
Amy: The public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13th.
406 E. HOPKINS - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL PH
Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing.
Amy: I am recommending landmark designation finding that standards
A, B, D and E are met. Under conceptual we have looked at this
twice in a worksession. As far as the roof top development I hope
the Board members had a chance to site visit it as the story polls,
are up. There was a request that the units be pulled in as muc42u,
as possible and that the chimney mass be eliminated and that the
��
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
new upper residential units possibly be of a different material.
That there not be outdoor furniture or plantings near the edge of
the roof. The arcade element be eliminated. There were comments
in favor of keeping the metal siding in the alley. The applicant
was to provide more information about the appearance of the facade
and they have found one more photograph. I had brought up about
the alignment of the fenestration between the new and old building
and they have dealt with that. The biggest issue to me was the
extent of demolition. They are proposing to keep the entire west
wall, the front facade and part of the switch back. They will
demolish the back wall which is not masonry anyhow and part of the
east wall where they have expanded the building. They are going
to talk to us about parking waivers. The open space is not our
issue but we will discuss it and make a recommendation to P&Z. I
feel the Isis sign should be retained. We need to be concerned
about the upper floor development and its visibility from up above.
The residential design check list does apply to the project but the
standards are not sensible for this. I feel we should waive them.
John Wheeler, representing the applicant from Charles Cunniffe
Architects: Structurally we are keeping 60 to 70% of the shell.
We found a photograph dated from 1910 which showed the building
before the theatre was there. We are going to pursue restoring the
building back to its original state. We have revised the entry
elevations. The glass facade is in keeping with what we see around
town. The four.brick columns on one side are not symmetrical to
what is happening on the other side. We have gone in and measured
and a few of the bays had not had stone columns. We will recreate
the columns. The roof top addition as we went into the structural
studies we will underpin and the new structure supports the new
wall which is then set in to the inside of the brick.
Jake: What is the upper surface material?
John Wheeler: Stucco but we could talk about different materials.
It is on the property line and needs to be a 2HR rated wall with
stucco on block. We have also introduced some tile elements. We
have eliminated the chimney mass. The intent was to pick a
different colored brick that stands off against the original
facade. This is a similar treatment that you would find on the
elks building. The other portion of this was to look at the window
fenestration and we picked up the kick plates that could be done
in a victorian motif. We have carried the original treatment into
the new addition which may or may not be appropriate. It blends
in with the existing and is a subtle transition. The difference
in the three elevations is very subtle, one study is the entry door
with a single entry and not accentuated. One shows corner
particulations and one shows a double window similar to the ones
that are on the upper level of the Isis.
�1 8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
Jake: What is the addition, stucco?
John Wheeler: The addition is brick and on the upper levels we
have gctne into the stucco. The utilitarian brick is on the side
and.there is face brick on the front. We will bring the building
back as best we can and we will clean the mortar joints. As it
wraps around the building it will give a good delineation With
the colors we are showing sandstone that could be a precast.
John Wheeler: On the front facade of the existing building the two
end windows will be display windows due to an elevator behind them.
There will be two sets of windows open to the lobby.
John Wheeler: The side elevation from the fire station would have
red brick introduced and possibly the the with stucco introduced
to the back. In the back we have metal siding which is a copper
applied shingle.
Melanie: In the plans it indicates a setback for the addition and
what is the amount of footage for that setback?
John Wheeler: I had a short setback but we can do what the Board
wants.
Sven: I would suggest at least two feet.
John Wheeler: I appears that the building was only in its original
condition for a short period of time.
Roger: The new addition seems rather busy and how would you
simplify that?
John Wheeler: I like the double windows because they are in
keeping with what is on the original building and I like the non
accentuated columns. I also feel the complexity is in the material
selection.
Amy: On the alley side of the building I was talking about
retaining the existing metal as a veneer.
Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley: A month ago Sunny introduced the project and a
statement was made that the largest of the four theatres would be
the approximate side of the existing Isis and fulfill some of the
functions that the existing Isis does. The Isis is 380 seats and
this is 250 seats. It would not fulfill that questions. Was the
250 seats arrived at programmatically or was it arrived at because
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
it worked better in the plan?
Sunny Vann: The intent is to keep a large theatre in the Isis that
could provide some of the same functions of the Isis. The screen
in the largest theatre is as large or larger than the screen that
is currently in the Isis. There is a reduction in seats in theatre
A but the intent is to make the theatre available for functions
that have occurred in the past. There are discussions about
filmfests continued use right now and possibly an initial opening
as a benefit for filmfest to help fund them.
Donnelley: 380 seats is not a large capacity and what we have here
is another Stage three situation. The community needs a large
theatre and I was wondering if it is possible to have a larger
theatre.
Sunny Vann: The reality of why it is changed is because of the
movie business today. You cannot take a large theatre and get a
major run picture and keep it open in a community like this. The
theatres have to work in todays theatre market. The ability here
is to draw major first run productions and book them in the main
theatre and as -attendance drops off you will be able to move it
into a smaller theatre. You have to keep the movie for a period
of time. You could also double run the movie. In this particular
configuration you could not have one large theatre. You can still
accommodate the same number of people but not necessarily all
together.
Donnelley: My thought was to up A to 300 and reduce 3 to 160 to
have one large, two midsize and one small.
Sunny Vann: If this goes through individuals will be drawn in who
are involved in the theatre business to fine tune the nature of the
operation.
Roger: I feel the six points have been addressed. On the alley
I would retain the existing metal without cleaning it and would
urge that the electrical heaters and conduit be cleaned up and put
some other place. In regards to the redesign of the front I feel
you are going in the right direction. I would encourage that the
columns should be brought back.
John Wheeler: I feel they are cast iron and fluted.
Roger: With regards to the new structure on the east and south
facing I would encourage that only one material be used. Keep it
contemporary and clean and extremely simple. It should not compete
with the historic resource. I am not sure about the fenestration
on top. In regards to the apartments I would suggest you use
colored stucco and liven it up. I would also approve landmark
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9 1995
designation.
Les: I agree with designation and the front and open space are OK.
We need to write a lettEir on the parking waiver. The metal should
be retained in the alley. You might mention to the new owners that
the physical experience of a large theatre there should not be
underestimated in this community. If there is a chance to add a
few seats and move around a little that is much more important than
the view site.
Linda: The little odd things on the west elevation by Fox photo
does that have to stay on the historical building?
Amy: It is connected to the historical building. I am sure we
cannot force them to take it away.
Linda: I am having trouble with the shedish flat style roof tops.
It looks so boxy and I feel they need to be different but tie into
the historic building. The mass of the flat roofs seems way too
massive. There is so much mass right on top.
Susan: The only thing I would change is the opening in the front
like an arcade. It goes along with the old facade.
Sven: After you changed from post modern to the new photos I much
prefer the new ones. To resolve the corner of the two buildings
you could almost do a whimsical tower to tie into the fire station.
You can see where that could actually be designed that way. I
would like to see more work on the alley stair. My most concern
is the east elevation and the residential roof framing. On the
model it looks ok but on the drawings it looks like an area of
concern to me. As you look through the opening from the pedestrian
level you see a wall and I feel the east elevation need changed.
On the housing level you were showing a painted wood cornice above
brick. I am afraid the quasi historic detail up there will not
look appropriate due to the way the roofs and units are arranged.
I am not sure that we need more complexity on the roof when they
look like apartment flats. Something more contemporary. I am also
not fond of the stucco and would prefer vertical wood siding. The
last issue gets back to Linda's comments and I am wondering if
there is, a way of solving the roof structures to tie them all
together so that you can read the structure and it doesn't look
like you put a roof only where you needed a roof. Right now there
are several things and I would rather see them integrated into one.
Possibly trellis connectors. The comment that I am sharing with
Linda is that I would like to see something that cohesively ties
the roofs together. All this is related to the east elevation.
Donnelley: Or doesn't show roofs at all.
1
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION_ COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
Jake: First of all I have a technical problem with the landmark
and the Lots K, L, and M block 87. On the map where the plumbing
lot was it is called lot N. It is amazing that you can have an
8,000 sqft. FAR and propose 17,900 which is almost 125o more FAR
on this historical building. .'It appears that lot N is not part of
the legal description of the landmark.
Sunny Vann: The application is requesting designation of the three
lots that the theatre sits on which are K,L and M.
Amy: I see Jake's point and we should be land marking the entire
parcel which includes N.
Sunny Vann: N is the corner lot which we do not own.
Amy: Does K, L and M include the open lot?
Sunny Vann: Yes. N is not our property and it is not part of this
application.
Amy: Jake is looking at this and K, L and M take up the entire
property.
Sven: Fox photo is on Lot J.
Sunny Vann: The west side is lot K which is 3, 000 sgft . L is 3, 000
sqft. and M is 3,000 sqft. The theatre sits on K and L. M is
vacant. There was a small structure sitting on the vacant lot at
one time.
Jan Darrington: Something is off on the survey as it states L, M
and N.
Amy: K should be the corner lot. I see the problem this map is
labeling the bays of the buildings as lots which isn't right.
Jake: I am still having trouble with an 8,000 sqft. landmark on
to which we are adding 9,000 sqft. additional FAR. How do you do
that and still have an historical resource. If they are taking
advantage of all the parking and mitigation then the restoration
effort should be very loyal.
John Wheeler: It is on the exterior.
Jake: Yes, you have done a great job on that. When I think about
filling up 950 of the lot coverage and only So left. All the
parking is waived and I think of the impact on that corner.
Sven: I think that is why I wanted the roof simplified.
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
Donnelley: I have a greater problem and it is with everything
except the historical restoration. I find the roof footprint of
the housing compliment to be building and not architecture. This
is what really distresses me as we are gAy.ing an,_ .1 ortantz piece .:
of .:architecture and overlaying it with` a very insignificant
building ' pr' of ect . Even by looking at the plan it is a very
confusing and there is no way to grasp what is going on up there.
The flat roof is added like a hat in a very pedestrian manner.
What happens up there should be elegant and understated. If the
brick you use in the addition is indeed going to be brick then
there should be something really inspired about it, maybe a
specialty brick that is very smooth and hard fired almost like the
with curved corners. If the windows are going to retain the same
expression as the historic then the way the windows are dealt with
has to do with the way the entire exterior is dealt with. It is
a wonderful opportunity not to come up with the usual Aspen
solution which is string courses of Colo. red sandstone and face
brick. Right now I find it very pedestrian. At the turn of
century Sullivan used some wonderful brick that had curved special
profiles for corners and was very hard fired and smooth. Maybe use
even a different size as you abut to the historic resource. I feel
it needs a lot of study. The location of windows and fenestration
etc. in the addition to the east, the first two stories are fine.
The development of that could be magnificent.
John Wheeler: What happens on the upper level is the project and
I hope we can do that with materials and possibly consolidate the
space.
Sven: It is the roof cohesion of all the roofs and not using a
quasi historic fascia.
Donnelley: I agree with Jake that the historic facade will be
superb. Development standard ##3 is something that I am concerned
with now.
Sven: The theatre operation design if fine.
Amy: I agree that the Commission has good comments.
Donnelley: Is it clear John?
John Wheeler: Absolutely, we have the historic down but we need
to turn our sites on the addition and go back and do a design
charette.
Amy: I have a question about the affordable housing on the roof
and my impression is that you are providing more than you really
need to and I wonder if any of the commission feels like you would
like to see some of that mass not there.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
Sunny Vann: Let me clarify that as we have to go through P&Z and
get an exemption from the growth management ordinance and as part
of that we must mitigate a percentage of our affordable housing.
They use an absolute standard for how many employee's are generated
based on the square footage. If we use the standard generation
factor then we have enough housing up there to meet the
requirements under the code. We know however that we have more
housing because it is a theatre and we intend to try and make an
argument that we have more than enough housing but we do not know
whether the P&Z or Housing will go along with the argument. So at
this point if we were to take the housing off and they do not go
along with the generation factors that we are going to use and they
hold us to some general standard of the community then we will be
deficient. If the P&Z and Housing authority state that we do not
need all this housing then it is something we can address
subsequent to that review.
Amy: It is possible that we could get a referral comment from
housing to get a general view. We can also recommend to P&Z that
we are uncomfortable with the housing addition.
Sven: The housing looks too much like flats.
Les: I would hate to see this particular project go away and
} retaining a community use is wonderful.
Sunny: I do not think your request to restudy the upper level is
unreasonable. If you look at the story polls the visibility of the
rooftop is primarily from the east elevation.
Jake: I am a real proponent of eliminating employee housing from
landmarks. I feel that requirement here and on Main Street
destroys the landmark because it puts so much impact of volume of
new space on the landmark. I would support waiving employee
housing or paying cash in lieu.
Amy: I feel we will have to pull the Housing Authority into this
and see what their opinion is.
Jake: As far as I know demolition is measured by FAR.
Amy: You may have an issue with that. Demolition is when you get
rid of the roof and you might want to check with Bill Drueding and
if you are taking the roof away he might call the building
demolished.
Sven: You have two choices a compatible back drop to the historic
building which is the case of the Googenheim addition or what I was
searching for is the expression of a nice roof solution that would
,� 14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9 1995
woos us into approving this.
John Wheeler: Am I hearing that you are directing us to look at
the massing on top of the roof.
Donnelley: As well as how architecturally the surface treatment
is done. We all would like to see the reduction of the amount of
bulk form.
Donnelley: We can take a straw vote as to whether HPC would like
to see the bulk form_ one the. roof. reduced. Straw poll taken and all
voted for reduction of bulk.
Donnelley: Basically you have a set floor plan John and will the
foot print stay the same or are you going to be able to explore.
John Wheeler: This is an independent entity above the theatres and
we can design this area in a number of different scenarios. We
are still going to put 6,000 sgft. up there and that is where it
has to go. 4,000 sqft. is employee and 2,000 replaces the existing
residential and the rest goes below grade.
Amy: I will get a meeting as soon as possible.
John Wheeler: If we can get some reliance that is the way we can
go. The employee housing is not a sale factor here.
Amy: We can table with positive thoughts.
Sven: It is the conceptual development of the roof top housing
that the Commission is having trouble with.
MOTION: Roger moved that HPC recommend landmark designation for
406 E. Hopkins Lots L,M and N Block 87 City and Townsite of Aspen
finding that standards A, B, D, and E are met; second by Linda.
All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Roger moved to table conceptual review and continue the
public hearing for 406 E. Hopkins to August 23rd. for the following
reasons: Study with the housing department to address concerns of
over building on a parcel with an historic building; second by
Melanie.
Les: They need to know before they leave today that we are in
agreement on the parking waiver and in agreement on the open space
reduction.
AMENDED SECOND MOTION: Roger amended his motion that HPC approves
the parking waiver and the open space reduction; second by Melanie.
Question was called by Chairman Donnelley Erdman on the second
�i 15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1995
motion and amended motion, passed 5 - 2. Opposed were Sven and
Jake.
MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant partial demolition to 406 E.
Hopkins and that partial demolition is to be part of the east wall '
and the entire alley wall. During the demolition the tin should
be saved for reuse; second by Les.
DISCUSSION
Amy: We will need to discuss the roof with Bill Drueding and it
is important that we discuss how the demolition is handled from a
public relations standpoint. I do not want to have a shell or
rather a couple of walls that the public will look at.
Donnelley: I think it is premature to grant partial demolition
until we have a conceptual plan.
Amy: I agree.
Jake: We need demolition drawings that indicate what is to be
demolished. The demolition percentage needs to be verified by Bill
Drueding and a demolition strategy.
John Wheeler: The only place to access the site is off the open
lot.
Roger withdrew his motion.
John Wheeler: I hope we can reduce the employee housing
requirement.
MOTION: Les moved to adjourn; second by Melanie. All in favor,
motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
J z6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
Susan: I would think he would want a traditional awning.
MOTION: Sven moved that HPC approve the giwning for the Rocky
Mountain Chocolate Factory; one foot skirt awning with materials
and paint to match; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Melanie: That means he will have lettering on the street side and
the courtyard side. I feel this is too much lettering.
Sven: I also agree with Melanie that it is an impact.
Amy: We usually say one style per building.
AMENDED MOTION: Sven amended the motion to approve the submission
with the requirement that the signage only be on one projected face
of the skirt awning and that the color and lettering style needs
to be the same as the other awnings; second by Roger. Passes 4 to
3. Martha,' Susan and Linda voted no. Sven, Melanie, Don and Roger
voted yes.
406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH
Amy: I have listed on the board the conditions that I propose for
approval. We have eliminated two units on the roof and there are
story polls up. I feel we still need discussion about architecture
on the roof top elements.
Charles Cunniffe, architect: The main concerns seem to be the
second story addition, the ground floor and facade were OK and
everyone as comfortable with that. The second story architecture
in terms of massing we were directed to look at something more
contemporary in contract with. the existing building. Something
that would complement the existing building. The S elevation has
a less profile than it had before. The two critical places of
public view are in front of the Gap and in front of Eddie Bauers
The renderings show the impact. We feel it is subtle yet it is
obvious it is not part of the original building and it is a little
cleaner. The curved roofs were generated by. -,the view,.plane issue
We were able to hold that back by the
from the Hotel Jerome
closet and ,lowering .:the' pate hegit We also raised the front
o
,..
lathhe'i'g�it =of .the iriits and�rered 'one Mack :prate heights so the
units would get the view toward the"mountain.`Regarding materials
we are probably using a manufactured stone that would be a
sandstone product in panels as a way to carry on the stone and the
panels would be slightly darker in coloration. Different but
subtle. We are retaining the Isis sign and we are saving the metal
material in the rear.
4
ASPENHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23. 1995
Sunny Vann: We met with the planner and the housing off ice and it
was clear from Dave Tollin, housing head that this could be handled
from a staff level because the number of employees generatted falls
within the purview of the staff. We',,were able to ascent
two ,three . bedroom units on. _top, of thsae d`more" =than meet
=the requirement 'imposed under us on the `growth management. We feel
the P&Z will recommend the same. This is all still subject to
review and approval by the P&Z and from a formal referral from the
Housing office. With respect to the theatres we are continuing to
evaluate the layout of the theatres with a theatre consultant and
it is possible that the seating will change. We heard what you
said about wanting a large theatre. This one is less because we
do not carry the seats right up to the foot of the stage and we do
not have three or four rows of seats that are questionable from a
movie point of view but are functional from an auditorium point of
view. We will continue to look at those issues. At the last
meeting I heard the roof was just too busy. Too muck walkways and
too much roof going on. This allows us to pull the two affordable
housings units back to the rear of the building. We -have cleaned
up the court yards and the space between them. We have pulled back
part of the free market unit so that it is all uniform 18 to 20
feet from the front of the facade which will make the east side of
the free market unit disappear to the same extent that the west
side does.
Amy: At the last meeting we supported landmark designation, and
HPC approved the parking waivers and the open space reduction.
CLARIFICATIONS:
Roger: What is the recommended material for the third story south,
east and west sides.
Charles: Manufactured stone in panels and we can make them any
size we want.
Donnelley: The storage is down below and that makes for the two
theatres up above. Previously the free market had a fire place and
is there a fire place now?
John Wheeler: If there would be a fireplace it would be a gas
appliance but currently we are not showing one at all.
Jake: One of my big issues is demolition.
John Wheeler: We talked with Bill Drueding on how the city views
demolition and if it is over 50 o they consider it total demolition,
only as a code issue. If you demolish half or more of the
structure then you have to go through full mitigation. He has
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
acknowledged that it isn't total demolition but it is more than 50 0
and that is where it was left at.
Amy: It doesn't have further ramifications for them and that was
what was my concern.
Jake: When I looked at the numbers I saw that what you were adding
was more than what the existing building was. How is demolition
measured?
Amy: FAR is the unit of measure but the only time it matters is
a residential demolition. With ord. #1 they are worried about 500
demolition.
Jake: How much of the existing FAR are you demolishing?
John Wheeler: The exterior wall is what is being retained.
Jake: As I look at it I see the retainage of the west wall, north
wall and a portion of the east wall. The building itself is being
demolished.
Charles Cunniffe: It is done all over the country. In order to
get theatres downstairs we have to get access to the whole body
with machinery to get down and dig it out. In order to do that we
have to get rid of the building that is there. We also have to
underpin the building.
Sunny Vann: Maybe I can clarify the regulatory side of it. When
the Gap was reconstructed a full basement and roof was constructed
and it was a substantial demolition on the building. The current
code as far as the growth management is concerned is if we retain
a portion of the building and it is not complete demolition and we
raised the site we only have to mitigate the additional stuff for
net leasable square footage that is added to the building. From
a commercial point of view the only issues in terms of impact are
the net leasable square footage, FAR has nothing to do with what
we are going to be required to provide in the way of mitigation for
our growth management application. In terms of the regulatory side
of this we are in compliance. In terms of whether you think there
is more demolition that is a separate issue that is not governed
by specific regulations in the code. That is a call on your part
Jake.
Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing.
Harley Baldwin: I own the building across the street and if any
of you remember in restoring the Collins Block there were very
strict rules and that was that if there were any additions to the
top it could not be seen anywhere through town, not from across the
I
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
street not from La Cocina not from the Hotel Jerome and that was
the rule and I feel we should abide by that rule here. I had to
set my addition back 15 feet and push it down ten feet from where
I wanted it to be. This building is extremely apparent from the
Collins Block, Eddie Bauer and from in front of the Brand Building
and half of historic Aspen. It looks like the new building is
eating the historic building.- I feel it is much too high and in
fact I found I could create a wonderful space on top keeping it out
of site. I feel the idea of restoring the theatre is a terrific
one. I do not feel there is any reason to have a setback on the
side. I f eel.... setbabks on ` Aspen.. are.-. terrible and -,-they are not.
historic -arc` =c helpful . If he needs FAR let him put it there .`""
I have noticed that the number of bathrooms here is ridiculous.
It is way too high. The code requires way too many bathrooms. It
looks like the new building has teeth on it and it is consuming the
historic building, munching its way halfway through the building.
You cannot see what we put on the roof from anywhere in town and
that should be the standard, Thank you.
Donnelley: We are in conceptual and we can take Harley's
consideration. The Collins Block did have certain advantages with
the parapet.
Charles Cunniffe: I do not think we can make the addition go away
but we have reduced it and that is due to the fact that each side
has lower buildings to it and it will always be visible just by the
nature of what goes around it. I would like to see this building
taken on its own merit.
Sven: I feel this is` a much improved design particularly in
materials and summation of massing. The building sections on A.4.1
would seem to indicate that perhaps another structure look, the
structure that holds up the housing unit floor, it looks like there
is plenty of ceiling height in the lobby that could be handled
differently. I am wondering if he could compress the roof
structure of the theatres and possibly reconsider the ceiling
heights of the theatres to further depress the housing units. This
is in response to Harley's comments which were valid.
Charles: The space there is indicated for mechanical duct work.
We are trying to preserve a view.
Harley: The standard that it cannot be seen should stay.
Les: You building was historically designated and that is the
difference here.
Harley: It should be designated.
Les: We are getting designated with a design control.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23. 1995
f
Amy: HarleyyIs property is on the national register and we do have
complete design review over this because it is in the commercial
core. In terms of the historic landmark they are getting GMQS
exemptions out of it. There should not be a big difference here
in the review.
Donnelley: We need to take into consideration that the ultimate
building is going to change the perception of the block.
Charles: There were numerous comments but not a consensus so what
we did was take those comments that would work and tried to work
with all the comments in some way such as moving it in a little.
Susan: There is a lot of tenant storage and could not some of that
space be used to reduce the height.
Charles: We need air exchange and the air exchange has to occur
up high.
Susan: You couldn't use the basement?
Charles: The owners wanted storage as well. We are trying to keep
the housing impact off the building as much as we can.
Roger: Could the duct work be exposed for theatres A and B?
Charles: There would be sound problems and vibration transfers.
The exposed duct work would have to have insulation worked around
it to such an extent that it might not be attractive. We can look
at that.
Jake: You have created an area in the middle of the roof that is
a depressed area and by doing that you pushed the housing to the
outside. It seems to me that you would want to concentrate your
square footage in the corner and leave areas for setbacks for a
more visible size of the structure. I am still concerned about
demolition and it seems that you are retaining only 200 sgft. of
the historic structure. We aren't saving much of the building.
John Wheeler: We are keeping 700 of the exterior fabric of the
building and yes the interior of the fabric is being renegotiated.
We cannot dispute the interior fabric. I feel you have to look at
the exterior of the fabric and what is being preserved to the
outside.
Charles: We feel the exterior fabric and the theatre use are the
most important.
Jake: If maintaining the theatre use destroys the building then
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST23, 1995
1 I am perfectly willing to get rid of the theatre. I would rather
have the building then the theatre use. What good is it to put in
a use that destroys an historical building from an historical
preservation point. I feel all possible options for renovation of
the structure in its basic form should be explored before we leave
that area. Would it be possible to invert the floor plans and in
that way you would utilize more of the existing structure than in
your present proposal.
Charles: This building has an immense egress and to put more
people down stairs would require more impact on the building. We
feel the main theatre is more historic where it is. There is no
way to renovate this structure without demolishing the floor
structures. The use that is there now was not the original use.
We made the entrance to the building back to where it was
historically. It is a ground floor entrance like all the other
buildings in town.
Sunny Vann: We need to see if more of the fabric of this building
needs to be preserved.
Amy: I understand what you are saying Jake but every commercial
building in town is gutted just like this one is being gutted. We
do not deal with interiors. I am not sure this is a significant
interior.
Sven: I feel this is close to compatibility requirements. This
doesn't have the character of Harley's block but I also feel this
should go through a stringent view committee. Having the housing
a low impact is better.
Harley Baldwin: This is one of the top ten buildings in down town
and the theatre use is fabulous.. I feel the theatres will add life
to the downtown. Their parapets are just as tall as mine are.
Peter Kuntz, I have worked for the New York City Landmarks
Preservation Committee for several years in setting up guidelines
for Greenwich Village and one of the things that maintains historic
character at a point when it wouldn't last any longer is that when
you do a structure on the roof like this the shape, fenestration
those elements announce that it was not part of the original
structure. Maintaining the original material, brick or whatever
the volume was of the actual building stone, maintained and did not
swallow the building. The other thing that we found of vital
importance was not breaking up the city scape itself. In this case
it wouldn't matter if the addition were a glass and steel structure
again in proportions that were compatible tq-,tbe._building next door
itself but it is bx n� q .fit out to the ,street or only having a
minor setback that maintained both the historic character of the
building because it is part of the urban environment. You do not
% 9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
want to create dark gloomy spaces on the street. I do not know if
pulling the addition building forward would allow more space on
the roof.
Charles: We wanted to take a little bit of the corner and have
just enough gesture to make the addition read as a separate entity.
We did not want the entrance precieved as an entrance to a
commercial business as it is the entrance to the housing. There
is a little planting/plaza there to set it back from the facade and
it becomes a stage set for the theatre.
Peter Kuntz: That was what we found was wrong. By making it a
stage set you destroy the point of the stage set to begin with
because you have lost the urban experience. It wasn't the corner
of the building it was the overall feel. The city itself is an
historic preservation feeling and is maintained by the character
and quality of the street itself.
Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Les: I wish we had different zoning requirements when we did the
Collins Block Bldg. I feel we have learned a lot since we have
done your building. We are not loosing any of the original
building and we are getting the facade back to as close to the
original as we can get. I feel there is community support for some
compromise here and retaining the theatre is great. I would like
to see a further restudy of the ducting if possible. The Fire
Dept. will be gone and probably another huge building will be put
in. Conceptual works for me. If you bring the parapets up then you
loose the historical facade on the original building.
Susan: Is it possible to put the- stairway vestibule between the
two units on either side?
Charles: We wouldn't have the square footage.
Susan: Possibly if they were narrower stairs.
Charles: I believe this is the best solution.
Roger: The demolition plan has been submitted and if it is an
acceptable plan to staff then it is acceptable to me. The concept
of demolition that you are proposing on the building since we do
not deal with interiors and use of interiors is certainly
acceptable. The contemporary history of the building is a theatre
and if we were strict preservationists and we dealt with the
interior that would be tossed out in the community. We would say
that you have to restore the building to what it was originally and
j 10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION __ _ AUGUST 23, 1995
1 if you can squeeze a theatre in fine. That is not what I want to
see happen. I probably can not vote for conceptual as I feel we
need a continued study of the roof top placement but I feel we are
close. If we view this from the street the south west corner is
the most dominant. The portion on the other corner due to the
addition is not as conflicting to me; however, I feel the mass on
the roof can be moved around. I would like more study of materials
and I am not sure stone is an appropriate material on the third
floor. I myself would prefer brick, a new brick and a different
color and sheen. Even a rusted metal could have been used because
that was what was on the back of the building. Continuing on with
materials the new addition to the right which is inset has some
sandstone lines on it which are trying to pick up those of the
original building, I prefer th4t those be removed and that the new
addition be simplified more and that if in fact those lines are
necessary that they be done in brick not another element to pull
out the historic structure. Retain the Isis sign is a great idea.
Metal on the rear needs to be studied and keeping the back simple
is appropriate. Submit specks for masonry repair is very important
particularly on the corner where the piece is going back. Waive
Ord. #30 and we have dealt with the issues of housing. In
relations to Harley's comments the building to the west could be
built out and raised higher and that might happen and the fire
station could be sold and maxed out and that might happen.' If that
were to happen I would demand that an entrance be in the little
patio which would then create a sense of messy vitality and would
be terrific.
Donnelley: As Roger said the new addition rather the tower portion
has not been restudied since the last time and there were
recommendations made and they were not taken into consideration.
I have a great deal of trouble with the roof configuration. The
south east corner of the free market unit virtually will never be
hidden and will always encroach visually. I would recommend even
if we give conceptual approval that the free market unit be turned
90 degrees and somehow pulled back a significant amount in the
neighborhood of eight to ten feet in both east and west corners.
The AH component is as far enough back so that it will never be
effected by the site lines but the free market unit will effect the
site lines tremendously for a long period of time and I do not find
it acceptable in that southeast corner. That is the main issue for
me. I am recommending a restudy in plan of the southeast corner.
I also find the tower watered down historism and it has crept into
the city very heavily and I would like to discourage that.
Charles: We did look at leaving the bands off but it left
something to be desired.
Sunny: If we go forward with conceptual that is to our benefit
even if it is with conditions.
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
Donnelley: I would suggest that a motion be made with a number of
stringent condition and then the applicant can proceed and also
deal with these conditions.
John Wheeler: The story polls* are placed at three points and you
cannot see them from across the street.
Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion.
MOTION: Les moved that HPC approve conceptual for 406 E. Hopkins
with the following conditions:
1) A study session to address roof top materials, setback on the
free market unit and the attempt the additionally lower the
roof top units through interior ducting.
Motion dies for lack of second.
MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual 406 E. Hopkins with
the following conditions:
1) A complete restudy of the roof elements as to mass, scale and
height and materials.
2) A complete restudy of the tower and new addition as to
materials, detailing and being more simplified.
3) A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition
will be carried out.
4) A complete plan of materials to the north alley; second by
Melanie.
Discussion:
Roger: Rooftop means mass scale and height.
Jake: I am against the motion because this is a significant
building and there is no reason to rush through_ this. The
conditions that are proposed as part of the conceptual are huge and
they are the kinds of conditions that need to be dealt with at
conceptual prior to moving forward to final.
Les: I feel we are very close to being there.
Amy: We need the waiver of Ordinance #30.
Donnelley: I find asking a restudy of the roof is vague._,d We need
to. be explicit. My suggestion was that the T!F'ee market unit be
relocated and reconf figure so that'it of f ers a `gnzf cant Petback�
z
uton three..49
ns a�r a
e employe
12
an per1'iaps in -detail
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995
possibly a stronger break in plane between new and old.
AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to scratch complete
restudy artd add restudy the free market units particularly dealing
with the south, east and west elevation and the placement and
orientation of the freemarket units. Also to add the waiver of
Ordinance #30; second by Melanie.
Sven: What about story polls.
AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended that the story polls be retained or
replaced until the board has an opportunity to see them; second by
Melanie.
Sunny: What about materials.
Donnelley: I was talking about using brick and I was talking about
using brick specifically on the tower which comes to the ground.
Sunny: We are looking for more clarity of whether the materials
should be emulation of the original materials or a contemporary
material for the solution.
Donnelley: That needs to be clarified how the applicant responds
to the request to physically move the walls of the free market
units back. If they are moved back there is a definite break in
plane and it would be less visible then it may be appropriate to
continue with a brick expression.
Sven: The side theatre and tower at a conceptual level I am
approving it in volume and stuff but I am still wavering how
appropriate that style is. It is not just a question of materials
for me. Depending on how the roof is solved I feel that should
integrate into how the stair and housing unit is solved and those
two should be visually linked and I would include that in
conceptual review.
Donnelley: The suggestion is -that a revision to the massing and
location of roof elements may indicate the need to tie the fabric
of the roof more closely with the fabric of the tower. .
Sven: We can't evaluate that until we see the roof solution.
Donnelley: Now we have three different things, the old brick of
the historic resource, the new of the tower that comes to the
ground and a third dealing with the roof. It maybe appropriate to
reduce that to two expressions.
Roger: I think that is clear to the applicant and does not have
to be included in the motion. You might use a brick that is
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 19.95
different than the historic brick but close.
Donnelley: I agree with Sven that in addition to just a material
study of the tower fthat it may be wise to incorporate the.material
of the tower or,'all r=neW' additions into one kind of fabric for all
of the additions to the -building.
Sven: I want this as part of the checkoff list.
Les and Sven didn't vote.
VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor of motion and amended motion. Passes
6 to 1. Jake opposed.
525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL
Amy: I am recommending final approval with the recommendations
that they get a letter from the structural engineer stating that
the shed can be moved. This appears to be feasible. We need to
know how and where the shed will be temporarily stored. The
applicant needs to post a bond and I am recommending $3,000. or
whatever the cost is to move the shed. They want to make this work
and get moving. They also do not have their landmark approval yet
and the condition would be that if they do not get landmark that
the city would use that money to put the shed back. Work with
staff and monitor on restoration of historic materials, remove the
cresting on the porch of the new addition and finally assign an HPC
member to be a monitor.
Glenn Rappaport, architect: We lowered the garage into the ground
a foot to deal with the height problem. We took Jake's comment
about dropping the roof at the point of the new addition on the
north L so it would be a better differentiation. The little metal
detail on the roof we don't have a problem with that. The reason
we put that there is that we believe there will be a snow problem
with the way the snow comes off the main roof. We thought that it
would end up breaking the snow and go over the side instead of over
the front. The intent would be to make something a little more
abstract and we would like to work that out with the monitor as we
do think there might be a problem. We have the letter from Mr.
Cole the engineer regarding the shed. Regarding the shed there is
an overlap of about 1 1/2 feet from the old position and the new
position. We would like to dig under there and form the foundation
and slide the building over onto the new foundation. That assures
us that if we don't get landmark designation we haven't moved the
building. Julie would like to discuss the bond amount.
CLARIFICATIONS:
i
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
have to make it an ADU and as a conditional use P&Z will probably
require one parking space for that which means we will be required
to have three parking spaces and we can only get two in the garage
so we would also request a parkifag space for the ADU.
Amy: If they choose to resolve their volume issue with an FAR
bonus then you should probably say now if HPC is willing to grant
the 500 sgft. bonus.
AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add a parking space
variance for the possible placement of an ADU unit in the basement;
second by Les.
Les: I don't consider these little mining shacks boring or ugly
and I personally love them. They are the essence of what the east
end of Aspen used to be. They are re -landscaping next door and
what has happened with this extensive landscaping we have lost a
building. By requiring a landscape plan I am afraid the building
will disappear.
Roger: If you require it then you can control it. You can see
what the plantings are.
VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries.
ISIS - WORKSESSION
h
Donnelley: We did a site visit and observed all the story polls.
Sunny Vann: We would like to make sure we are on the same track
before going to P&Z and that is why we are back so soon.
John Wheeler: We have extended the existing wall back. We have
stayed away from the back units. The four points left from
conceptual one was the restudy of the free market unit and we feel
we have done that and hope we have met your concerns. Another was
the aspects of the tower and we changed the soldier bands and
another aspect was the demolition plan. The fourth mater was the
material on the alley side and the material on the upper level,
brick or stone and the existing metal that is on the back.
Regarding demolition the existing wall will stay in place and the
walkway in front of the street along the sidewalk will be at six
to eight feet high. As the facade is renovated and restored we
will put panels in there such as was done with the city hall
building.
John Wheeler: We also supplied a streetscape elevation from the
Caribou alley side which demonstrates how low it is and it will be
difficult to see the eave line- from across the street.
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
Roger: Where will all the mechanical equipment be placed on the
roof.
John Wheeler: We have discussed this briefly( and it will be to the
back and vented to the back alley.
Roger: It will be through the roof and out the wall on the alley
side. Is there additional space for future use such as a
restaurant which needs venting?
John Wheeler: We have not anticipated that degree of change.
Linda: What is the vent that is there now going to be used for?
John Wheeler: It is for the projection rooms which are currently
located up front.
Donnelley: I feel we are dealing with details rather than the
overall conceptual and I am afraid I am going to drop a bomb. The
applicant has attempted in every way possible to accommodate our
desires and if I were a lay person coming upon this building for
the first time my first impression would be that all that has been
saved of the block are the perimeter walls. By dropping the roof
top construction and the roof top construction built form is a new
event that has been proposed for an historic building in Aspen
which we should all be cognizant of. By dropping that the first
' impression is that you have a shell, The Weber Block and inside
that eggshell you have new construction which is poking up above
and behind the parapet walls. When you drop and drop you only see
part of a f acade, part of the volume poking up and by inference_ we
assume that volume could drop all the way down to ground level and
that is what I see when II look at this building. There is an
inferred continuation of these volumes that go right down through
and we just have a thin paper wall. That is a horrible precedence.
Jake: That is what is happening.
Les: If you had to solve that what would you do?
Donnelley: You would do something that we don't want and bring all
of the development to the outside and have a break in materials.
Once you pull it all back in which is what we asked for you have
a definite change in expression. We do not want it part of the
historic resource. You have the cubic volume rising out of the
center of the shell.
Jake: You will only read that from up above.
Donnelley: You see it from several places.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION_ COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
Sven: I approved conceptual because of the importance of the Isis
and the revitalization. This does not look like a renovation
project to me. I approved conceptual largely because of the
housing program and the theatre expansion. I feel the applicant
is responding to'HPC's fires and trying to put out single issues
but a couple of meeting ago Donnelley pointed out that we were
grasping for a coherent overall solution now just a problematic
solution. t St -I coo not have a su�cessfurcharacte to th '
entire ve}psis h tc � c o—Usd"A ri
r _.:
not- common,-,-, ; ead.,.: that,.ties ..--them `all together into a succesiiu
soution.-`"It is very important that we resolve the architectural
s� ution before we go to final.
Donnelley: The new construction could be more integrated to the
wall. New fabric can be integrated.
John Wheeler: That is fair input and we struggled with that.
Donnelley: We are talking about the expression of new and old.
Possibly the top of the tower could tie into the housing etc. by
materials.
Sven: If you did a clay model of the masses of all of the
additions you would see the three different animals and possibly
you should only have two. I want to see one visual image of the
Isis with these additions.
Sunny Vann: At the last meeting we were to make the roof top
addition different and to explore contemporary and use color. We
need consensus to the character of the addition. We can refine
elements and play with materials. We may never get all of your
unanimous approval on this.
Donnelley: John has already recognized the certain schizophrenia
that exists as to the way the new is differentiated from the old.
John was opening up the issue so that it could be dealt with.
John Wheeler: Exactly,
Sven: I do not see the tower and the overall housing on the roof
top in a combined theme.
Donnelley: Lets go back to the basics you have face brick on the
south wrapping around the corner then it is a softer nonfaced brick
that is on the east side and some on the west and now another brick
needs introduced that works on the new.
Roger: Why couldn't the new be cortin or something else.
Donnelley: That is the architects decision and we are talking
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
about brick A,B and material or brick C. Also the articulation.
Can the commission agree that a material should be chosen that
unifies all of the new work between old and new and not several
materials.
John Wheeler: We would not have a problem with that and we are
leaning toward masonry for function and longevity and keeping with
the street facade.
Melanie: No matter what you say it still looks like a shell.
Susan: Regarding building structures on historic.roofs I assume
that hasn't been done except for Harley's place.
Amy: There are a few like the Cantina that have a roof top
addition but it is not this much construction and is dealt with in
a different manner.
Roger: In any other parts of the country are there projects
similar to this that you know of that could be used as an example.
John Wheeler: We feel that we have come up with an adaptive reuse
of the Isis.
Les: Conceptual we have agreed that they can build something on
the roof.
Linda: When I look at this from my own gut feeling somehow the
curve on the -roof of the three elements and. trying to be compatible
with thetower are not compatible due to the shape of the roof.
Charles Cunniffe: The idea is to have a contrast. It might be too
modern. It could be dealt with by a radical change of material.
Linda: No, I feel it needs to be the change of the roof line.
Charles Cunniffe: One you will never see it.
Susan: What if they were more curved.
Charles: At one time we did think of connecting the curve between
the elements and that would be be a successful solution.
Sven: The tower has always been a problem as it stands alone.
Donnelley: You could have surface filigree linking the front to
the back to pull it all together for privacy.
Les: Are you suggesting that the middle units have one roof line
that goes from the front to the back or just on the side.
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
Donnelley: You need to pull all of the new built forms together.
Sven: I do not see these elements integrated yet and at a clay
model scale level you could work with the issue, a thing growing
over the Isis and blending in and integrating.
Charles Cunniffe: We are beyond the gestation period. We need to
tie the treatments together programmatically.
Jake: 'I am more concerned with the street view. What if you
pulled the tower forward._ am.concerzed about the intersection
�.: w
of the new piece and old r pi"ice A anc °`howhey j�ciY: Tfiey need a a
cleave dranac articulation.
Roger: On the tower what if the entire plane were glass.
Charles Cunniffee: We could draw that up if the Board desires us
to go with something that modern.
Donnelley: In your housing you have shown that you are pulling the
glazing back from the surface of the masonry. There is another
area that you want to tie together.
Charles Cunniffe: We have a building that we have grown something
softly over and in a way the new building is poking out of the
softness and I think it would be nice if we can tie that together.
Melanie: What kind of material would be softer?
Donnelley: Have you looked at a panelized expression.
Charles Cunniffe: You get a grid work of panelized manmade stone
mix and it is a stone panel and that could contrast with the
original brick.
Donnelley: We need a consensus of what the issues are and give
precise direction.
Charles Cunniffe: We do need something left that we can design
architecturally. I do agree that what we have talked about will
work.
Donnelley: The east and west elevation have the same expression
but two different situations. The west is an historic elevation
and you are bringing new construction up to it and the east
elevation is new. There is no reason for them to be the same.
Charles Cunniffe: We thought the manufactured stone had a nice
feel to it.
'' 16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
Roger: I feel it is too massive. You are applying a heavy
material on top of an historic building.
Linda: I agree it is too massive and you need something lighter.
Roger: And with a different expression.
Donnelley: Roger has something there that a masonry expression
gives us the feeling that this form has to carry all the way down
through because it has so much weight. A lighter expression
material is needed.
Sunny Vann: The character of the addition can be resolved. Are
you comfortable with the setback on the free market.
Donnelley: I am sure all of the commission would like to see a
greater setback for the free market.
Sunny Vann: The free market unit is carrying this project.
Jake: The old building is pounding the south axis and the top
stuff is just pounding it. There is no three dimensional character
to it on the top.
Charles Cunniffe: Are we OK with what we have for the free market
units and the modification of materials for the stair tower.
Donnelley: We are talking about dealing with the expression of the
building.
MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor,
motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland Cnier uepury clerk
17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995
Donnelley: We don't want it to look historic.
Roger: What are you thought on the unit to the left which is the
new one regarding materials.
John Davis: We were trying to use similar materials brick and lap
siding.
Jake: Separate the second story mass from the historic resource.
You need to be careful that you do not have windows looking into
windows on these narrow sites. It will hurt you in terms of
selling also.
Mark Ward: We can look at turning the garage.
Susan: Someone already said this but I feel it is overwhelming to
the historic house.
ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION
Any: We have a new rendering in the packet and they are scheduled
to go to P&Z.
Donnelley: The changes made will be presented.
Charles Cunniffe: The main items of consideration were to pull in
the free market unit in front which is in the middle to hold the
line with the entry tower and change the curve so that it implies
a tie together of the overall shape. Also to press it into the top
of the building.
John Wheeler: On the east side we had to step in the facade.
Charles Cunniffe: On materials we were going to keep the original
brick and do a more contemporary brick treatment whether it be a
glazed brick or something else. We are showing a jumbo brick but
having a different brick treatment that would wrap all of the
addition and on the upper level carry it up as a wall then
everything inside reads as an internal fabric to that exterior part
of the wall. You have basically three materials, original, new and
a lighter material that look like it belongs on top of a roof
structure.
Donnelley: We had talked about a fabricated stone material in a
larger scale and what happened to that idea.
Charles Cunniffe: That is still open. We haven't actually picked
the actual material. We wanted to get your idea.
Linda: Have you spoken to Darryl Grob, new fire chief and they are
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995.
definiately considering going into a development on the site of the
f irestation with housing on top for employees. It might be a good
idea to review the project with him since you are next door. They
do not know what is being proposed.
Amy: I just have a question is there a great financial advantage
to you in building the affordable units on the site as opposed to
buying down other units in town.
Charles Cunniffe: I can't speak to that but there is no advantage
either way and I thought there wasn't an option. We went to a lot
of work with the housing office to let us build less.
Amy: Originally you proposed more and from the GMQS application
there is the feeling that this is more than enough. The reason for
bring this up is across the street the HPC said no third story and
they bought housing.
Charles Cunniffe: I doubt if you could build or buy offsite
cheaper than on top of this building.
Donnelley: One area that everyone is concerned about is the free
market unit and we are all trying to push it back. The restricted
employee units back there are not a real problem to me but the free
market unit seems to be a problem to everyone. That is the thing
that makes economic benefit.
Charles Cunniffe: The owners are squeeking about how little free
market they got. This will be occupied by the manager and
employees from the theatre and that is the reason for putting it
on the building. I came in here thinking we have done everything
we had to do. There is no way they can keep this project alive
without coming back with some resolution. I would have to
renegotiate the contract and ask them to find housing offsite.
Frankly I wouldn't want to be in anyones shoes trying to find
housing offsite.
Amy: You buy down an existing unit and that is what I have been
suggesting.
Charles Cunniffe: It would be unfair to ask us now to reconsider
this entire project.
Roger: The issue is to preserve the integrity of the historic
building and with that thing on the middle of the historic building
is not preseving the integrity. This needs to be looked at and we
are asking that it be looked at.
Amy: It was a suggestion and it might be to your benefit.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995
Charles Cunniffe: They have tried to look at this with no rooftop
development from day one. They couldn't find anything that made
economic sense. If you can tell me where there is something that
can be built for less than $90. sgft. and bring a manager in.
Roger: I am not saying we would deny the entire thing I am asking
that it be looked at.
Charles Cunniffe: I am saying it was looked at getting the roof
top off.
Amy: We have all struggled with what is on the roof.
Linda: We need people living downtown. S
Roger: We are not trying to put Charles back into the loop.
Charles Cunniffe: The drawing shows how much of the addition you
can see from an empty street corner. With the suggestion of
stepping the unit back some and going to a darker color and softer
material that that addition looks subservient to the overall
building.
Donnelley: We are familiar with how the massing is going now and
the last discussion we had was that the interior materials which
are all new work would reflect a likeness which would be a metal
panel aesthetic though the specific material has not been chosen.
Charles Cunniffe: We looked at vertical copper sheathing, non
reflective. I would like to come in with samples and meet with
individuals and go over to the building and look at how the new
brick could look next to the old.
Roger: Copper seem to be used frequently and it might be
interesting to look at one of the Folensby products with a soft
patina similar to the mining buildings.
Charles Cunniffe: In looking at the roof form in a way with this
being a darker material it is almost like an assemblage of
buildings and this building looks like a building beyond.
Les: I can live with this and my only concern is the materials and
we will have to look at those and it will take some time.
Donnelley: We don't want it to be a heavy material.
Amy: They are going to P&Z and asking for a FAR bonus for
affordable housing and it is really P&Z's final decision. We
possibly need something in writing that shows how you have
considered it.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995
Linda: How soon can you get materials together?
Charles Cunniffe: In a week or two.
Jake: I do feel this has progressed significantly from earlier but
I did vote against it in the beginning. I still feel the free
market is problematic.
Linda: If I were an employee I would enjoy a view just as the free
market unit has.
Roger: What if P&Z says take the housing off what will you do
then.
Jake: Can they go to P&Z saying that HPC feels this massing is
compatible.
Roger: I have never been comfortable with it but that is the best
they could do. The design is great. The concept of not having it
there is very interesting.
Charles Cunniffe: I understand it that we have an OK except we
were to push down and pull back the center unit where it was and
come back with the new scheme and that is what we have done and it
has made it a better building. In an ideal world no addition would
happen on the building but given the direction we got we followed
that and I feel it is a successful solution. We like the results
of this.
Donnelley: The question was asked has you thoroughly explored the
employee housing off site and have the free market occupy that.
space.
Charles Cunniffe: I will be happy to explore it further and that
is a valid question.
Donnelley: We are not denying that the preliminary approval has
been granted for the massing so your next step is materials but
still if you could explore that -option it would be great.
Charles Cunniffe: I can see the advantages also. I can turn it
over to Sunny Vann and have them give HPC a letter giving their
feedback on that.
Amy: All I am saying it isn't done until it is built and if any
ideas come in lets address them.
Charles Cunniffe: If it pencils out cheaper I am sure they would
go with it. They might not have thought that they could get that
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8
reading.
Amy: P&Z may say they want that unit off site.
Sven: You got conceptual because a lot of us like the program.
Melanie: We were talking about what could be done to cover up th
building while you were working and when I was in Charleston I too
some pictures that might be incorporated.
Charles Cunniffe: Another plan could be wrap something up that
relates to the movies.
Linda: That would make it inviting and interesting so that people
would have a positive feeling about the project.
Charles Cunniffe: Where do we stand?
Donnelley: You are going to - find out why or is their any
compelling reason why your program is locked into providing all of
the housing onsite and then materials.
Donnelley: You might preface to P&Z that although we gave
preliminary approval we would be much happier if there were housing
on the roof that the one forwasrd element were removed.
John Wheeler: Conceptual was given and the conditions have been
met.
Donnelley: If the aspect of less housing i.e. only free market
were on the roof we would really be delighted to see the free
market replace the present location of the housing.
Charles Cunniffe: You all have sanctioned this with final choice
of materials; however, your druthers would be not to have the
housing on top.
Donnelley: We have always had reservations about that mass that
is forward and directly over.
Charles Cunniffe: Can I have a straw poll -to refer to P&Z that
there was concensus. Aside from P&Z being able to remove housing
the only condition that I feel we are down is that the final choice
of materials will be done at a worksession on site.
Amy: That is the only issue left but you have conditions like
keeping the Isis sign.
Les:- The only other issue left is materials.
16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995
Donnelley: There are other issues but the main one is materials.
Linda: I agree.
Jake: I cannot agree.
801 E. HYMAN
Amy: Some of us did a site visit today. This project was approved
in 1989 and John Elmore owner and Stan Mathis, architect came to
HPC and there was a house 'on this property, a little green building
that was rated one on the HPC inventory and there was also an
historic garage on the alley. At first HPC wanted to keep the
entire thing and then the house could go away and keep the shed and
then the shed went away. Basically it was a completely empty
parcel but as a condition of the demolition they got to review the
new project. I reviewed all the minutes today and there was
definately a discussion about wanting to retain the form of the
original one story house on the side and have that one story
element at the corner. There was also the discussion of wanting
this building to differenciate itself from the next door building
which I.believe John Elmore also built.
17