Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.706 w main - Krabacher.A23-94 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 04/01/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 92 2735- 124 -45 -005 A23 -94 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Krabacher GMOS Exempt. for office and Emp. Hsq Project Address: 706 West Main Aspen, CO Legal Address: Lot 0 and west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18 APPLICANT: Joseph Krabacher Applicant Address: 201 N. Mill, #201 925 -6300 REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Pftrico, Baker Fallin Representative Address /Phone: 1280 Ute Avenue 925 -4252 Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 2119 # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $ 60 ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 2275 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X P &Z Meeting Date 6/2/ PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES 0 / � � CC Meeting Date ii1 PUBLIC HEARING: YES B ZN� VESTED RIGHTS: S pNO NO DRC Meeting Date At .t REFERRALS: .I, City Attorney Parks Dept. School District -0 City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas v 1- Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT / r Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board f! \ City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board 1! "- 0 Envir.Hlth. >C ACSD Other 'r O' Zoning Energy Center Other c C) I Cn A TE REFERRED: 573 INITIALS: � DUE: 5/2J / 6 \ INAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: O ' 9/ INITIALt 6t2 \i City Atty K City Engineer '<\ / Zoning Env. �He41th Housing Open Space ' 0ther:w.IX3 FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: , t f /'0 / i I /, MEMORANDUM i p , y 4 T0: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauso y Community Development Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: October 24, 1994 RE: Krabacher Office Building GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Housing Unit - Second Reading of Ordinance 55, Series of 1994 sot - ' -s recommends approval of a three 6room or 2 deed restricte.► affordable housing unit nstructed within an expansion of the historic landmark qt.-lid-till-0 located at 706 W. Main Street. The Planning Commission has 2 reviewed and approved GMQS Exemption for the building's new FAR and net leasable square footage. PROCESS: Affordable housing units must be approved by the City 3$ 7j Council by ordinance adoption after review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Historic Preservation 41G.p( Co HPC reviewed the project's 'deNigh and gFanted - -. - approval in April 1994. After approval of the /"1 (4)it4 = .aEle housing unit, the applicant must receive final HPC approval. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for P &Z Resolution 94 -17. STAFF COMMENTS: This structure received Historic Landmark designation in 1989. It is because of its historic designation that the building's expansion is exempt from growth management competition by the P &Z. The site is in the 0 (Office) zone district. The proposed t ement level unit is being proposed as gat 1 666 s.f. f net le ercial �xoansiorL__o -k3e_, din oyee housing mitigation requirement is calculated three persons. three bedroom unit n houses 3..A.�persons per Section 24 -8 -106 F.3TT'ZSL thy co�xe. 1 Please see Exhibit "B" for application drawings of the unit and site. Affordable housing units are exempt from growth management b Council approval pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C.1.c. which requires a determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed (number of bedrooms, size, and rental /sale mix), and the proposed price categories of the deed restrictions. 1 The Housing Office has reviewed the proposal in June of 1994 and found that it meets the Housing Board's top preference of on -site affordable housing for new development. The Category 2 restriction limits the household income to $35,900. The unit itself is 1,174 s.f. and cannot exceed rents of $855. Based on the type of unit, its Category 2 restrictions, and the on -going need for affordable housing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approval of the GMQS Exemption. Two approval conditions are recommended and contained in the approval ordinance. These read: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the Category 2 deed restriction for the three bedroom apartment. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, 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 mitigation at the then current standards. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "I move to approve Ordinance 55, Series 1994 for the approval of growth management exemption for a Category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit in the Krabacher Office Building." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Ordinance 55, Series of 1994 Exhibits: "A" Planning and Zoning Resolution 94 -17 "B" Application Information and Drawings 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO FOR THE APPROVAL OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR A DEED RESTRICTED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED AT 706 WEST MAIN STREET WITHIN THE KRABACHER OFFICE BUILDING (LOT Q AND 20' OF LOT R, BLOCK 18, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO) C ORDINANCE __ Series 1994 WHEREAS, Section 8 -104 C.1.(c) of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code allows for growth management exemption by the City Council for deed restricted affordable housing units upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher submitted to the Planning Office an application for the expansion of a commercial building which also included the development of a three bedroom Category 2 deed restricted housing unit to mitigate the employee housing demand created by the commercial expansion; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Housing Office, Engineering Department, and the Zoning officer and referral comments were submitted; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the commercial expansion as an exemption from growth management pursuant to Section 8 -104 B.1.(c) and voted 7 -0 to recommend to City Council approval of the Category 2 deed restricted housing unit with conditions at a public meeting on August 2, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposal and in consideration of the recommendations from the Housing Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, found the proposed unit to be qualified for growth management exemption, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project meets or 1 exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the project with conditions is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it hereby approves growth management exemption for the three bedroom 1,174 square foot Category 2 deed restricted unit to be located in the basement of the Krabacher Office Building. Section 1. Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer's request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for one Category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit. Section 2: The following conditions shall apply to the growth management exemption: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the Category 2 deed restriction for the three bedroom apartment. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, 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 mitigation at the then current standards. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific 2 conditions. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: 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 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1994 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1994. John Bennett, Mayor Attest: 3 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1994. John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 4 A y Council Exhibit pproved , 19 By Ordinance ( A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE'S FLOOR AREA AND NET LEASABLE AREA, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR A DEED RESTRICTED DWELLING UNIT FOR THE REDEVELOPED KRABACHER OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 706 WEST MAIN STREET (LOT Q AND 20' OF LOT R, BLOCK 18, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) Resolution 94 -/7 WHEREAS, an expansion of floor area and net leasable area may be exempt from Growth Management competition for an historic structure by the Planning Commission pursuant to the review criteria set forth in Section 24 -8 -104 B.1.(c) and affordable housing units may be exempted from Growth Management by City Council per Section 24- 8 -104 C.1.(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher submitted an application to the Planning Office for the GMQS Exemptions for the proposed redevelopment of their historic building which is located in the Office zone district and the Main Street Historic Overlay area; and WHEREAS, in 1989 the structure received Historic Landmark designation and in 1990 the 1,699 square foot structure had been approved for a conditional use and change in use from a residence to an antique store; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment and expansion consisted of one free market dwelling, one deed restricted dwelling, and 1,420 square feet of new office lease space, for a total floor area of over 4,200 square feet; and WHEREAS, the project received Conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Committee on April 27, 1994, which included approval of a floor area bonus of 500 square feet and waiver of four parking spaces for the new commercial footage; and WHEREAS, the proposal was reviewed for referral comment by the Engineering Department, Zoning Officer, the Housing Office, and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, at its June 21, 1994 meeting, in consideration of the referral comments, the details of the proposal, and the Planning Office's recommendation against the project, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the project was too large for the site, had too many uses for the site and available parking, did not provide enough landscaping and site amenities, and failed to adequately address transportation mitigation for the new commercial area, and continued the item so the Applicant could address the issues; and WHEREAS, the Applicant returned a revised proposal and discussed ( the changes with Planning and Historic Preservation staff, and 1 based on staff's satisfaction that the revisions addressed previous concerns and complied with the review criteria contained in Section 24 -8 -104 B.1.(c), returned to the Planning Commission on August 2, 1994; and WHEREAS, after an inspection of the property and reconsideration of the project including its reduced floor area, elimination of the free market dwelling unit, transportation mitigation elements, and revisions to the site and amenities, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -0 to approve the revised Krabacher Office Building with the eleven conditions recommended by staff. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it: 1) grants approval for the Krabacher Office Building GMQS Exemptions for expansion of 2,229 s.f. of floor area (total 3,928 s.f.) including an expansion of 1,666 s.f. of net leasable area (total 3,365 s.f.) for an historic structure, and 2) recommends to City Council the approval of GMQS Exemption for the three bedroom Category 2 deed restricted affordable housing unit subject to the following conditions: C ' 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f. 2. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement dis- tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 3. The sidewalk along Main Street shall be widened to 5 feet. 4. If the fences in the rear encroach into the public alley, they must be reinstalled onto private property during redevelopment. 5. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 6. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. 2 ( 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the Category 2 deed restriction for the three bedroom apartment. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, 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 mitigation at the then current standards. 9. The 4 on -site parking spaces required during the 1989 conditional use approval which have not been developed must be installed within 30 days of approval of this current proposal. 10. The following transportation mitigation elements must be continually provided and may be periodically checked for implementation by Planning or Zoning staff: 1. Bus passes to all employees. 2. A van pool program for downvalley employees. 3. 4 bicycles for use by building tenants. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan C (Reif) ey, Deput Clerk • 3 / :. d � 1 • 1 \-; ...�". .. Zw City Counc__ Lxiibit ia Approved , 19 4 /--h u ` - By Ordinance • 4. I P 1, [Ill,' I I 5� ,ems '0 43 9' M.. . - -_ ===== — mo t a ELZ. S L i- • i °1 z L ,1, s - W 3 ;33 5 Q .,, i r o - • i...:. I = I. et t 1. it z . . it t 1 / . ! L.. . • . � . o • k *Ili La .-„„iii1/4 A . a 4 : : . \q,? . -a 1,.0. _ i I 1 • 1 c 1 ____30 • I- 3 - 3 ` 1 S \. N IX W . i 1 .I a I' Z ! T�_ I I I it 1 Y i 1 -r. -- : l Z 1 `_ 0 '! H_ 1 of + _ I ; I k . ;� s.._ �_ t C — — o z 1 1 -- 1 I i 1 _ 1 !' I I1 1j Q C1 t . iI , I . I Z Ill • 0 i V . w , - - - 1 -I- . S II R d - - tW . r _ _.: f t 1, i—r J , i • ( i - 1 u II t a i , III j I . , 1 r • 1 1 i . -11, _ 1 --. ! 3 �' - _ &E 1- IN 44 F. ; - g su 1 if i 4 • . w I _ ; .. 1 I I I i 5 • w • a 1 W : ui! K ?I ! / - -- I li ; � 0 • • ........___ . - , .. ..... ... „, I . . i I El I i I ' • / Ht. InEllailli , I I: . INULTIMMEI ! I , 2 \ . : • \ 1. 'Llwiritii • , • iHiiiI,1111 • I I 5 ih. Lal. llit t _ ail , • • •S • = I, on • • .,e. ,. _____. ti .. 1 1 0 i ir.r.41 . . i i —, _ .—, • . rr - ' i n7.1/2 11 Va.= le. d • i`---r-7,7 ./(1 • i , 1111-1. '.---;--1 • 0 . . •-•-•---7■11, ' : : gi • F. S 2 - ,or .,// ,I ' , ./y. • ' i . Pit-•-i. 1 . ---- 0 I i :I": D J., ,,,,,. . . .!, , ; .4 7-7 . t, L. ' f 1 11 1 II; • : 1: 1 I -4 in '7111 i . ! , ' I i 1 1_11 / I , i l' 7 l ■ lit' 1111 1---t al , 4ii i ; !pu iiii— k- -• \• i I; l i,,, I , ,__,• la 1 , 1 I $11. i, : ....1 .........., . i 1 i . IL . II , i ... ; 7 1 ! ' ' 1 4•444.*Ariz•t- ---,- - I ail: ! i '--• . 1 IL - i 4,= u .; l.__.. .i; _ , , • 1 ---.4.!: 1111H11 HE 0 1 i ;, ' .:. tri . - . ..;Eni.: YIII ' ! . . ,.. , ,,..: • , : •---.... 1 : ■ I....1 ill -.-- :i i !1:=-?,1 1) " . ICI I .1 _.1 4 - , LLL.: i.-1 , III. a l „ — I Ild tti CI ! .._, 1• I- 1 74. - • i I :1! :1; TillinT.L1 1% .. ii, I. li'Ii ;;I d ., lit.ii : ' --- .1 a , 114 Ti - • • • 1 I- + ' 6- , , =1--1. 1 InIllliill 1I I , , I, T s I Ir;..,II__ � I, I,jd I • Ili III = ;. II : _' i 1 : i. Ii ,�, ! -Pi II I I' lii I I III ii 1 n — 1 1 I ,i! Iiii; I: I I - � 'I 11I; 1 !i :i l I ,--1 it I' Iii i 11 t �I Alf ! ill I If ii I�I' �l I. I n, y' i; 14" 1 � \. 11', H Alit i li ,Il_ 1 it ZI t\ . 1 . 1 I i 1W1:11 1 i i • I. ;ill � d , �� • � II ; • - -k . yen um I w . .z • a ili !, ab - 4 i ,1 I Q • I I •� .0 11 1 -- .mil, • d akt "OWN ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and S. 1 �1a BACIiER (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for KC 7 A 6/tott2. G GrCC "ea/ ,4 c (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office 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. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ ?,) 119, 0 which is for (3 hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT 13 Diane Moore Mailing Addr di City Planning Director B. Joseph Krebecher 201 N. Mill 9t. #201 Aapcn, Colo.aJo 0 C1t r` Date: 7/- 2 MEMORANDUM r /D TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Revised Proposal for the Krabacher Office Building - GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing and Increase of FAR and Net Leasable Area in an Historic Landmark DATE: August 2, 1994 REMINDER: THERE I8 A SITE VISIT TO THIS PROJECT AT 4:00 AUGUST 2, PRIOR TO THE REGULAR P &Z MEETING. FOR A VAN POOL, MEET IN THE ALLEY BEHIND CITY HALL PROMPTLY AT 3:55 PM. SUMMARY: This project was tabled on June 21, 1994 because there were many issues which the staff and Commission felt needed to be addressed by the applicant. The project has been revised and is being presented for approval of the GMQS Exemptions. Joe Krabacher and David Panico met with staff on July 17 to review the changes to the office building and site based on the P &Z and staff comments expressed on June 21. Based on the changes, staff now recommends approval of the development with conditions. STAFF DISCUSSION: At the June 21 meeting, the issue of the original amount of net leasable area was resolved by staff's agreement with Mr. Krabacher that the entire building (1,699 s.f.) was approved for the antique store conditional use in 1989. Please refer to the revised application letter and drawings, Exhibit "A ". For your reference, staff's June 21 memo is attached as Exhibit "B ". The revised building design now provides 3,365 s.f. of net leasable, an increase of 1,666 s.f. The required employee mitigation of this new space is calculated as follows: 1,666 sf (new net leasable) divided by 1,000 sf increments = 1.67 multiplied by 3 (employees per thousand sf) = 5.01 gross employee generation, mult. by 60% (min. threshold) for a net employee mitigation of 3.0 persons NN .T project still proposes a three bedroom unit which will house 3 persons, per the Housing Guidelines for occupancy. Therefore the applicant has successfully addressed the mitigation requirement. 1) The perceived excess bulk and mass of the structure: The project FAR has been reduced from 4,202 s.f. to 3,928 s.f.IP 1 s.f. loss). This figure includes the FAR which is created by the excavated courtyard area. Actual above grade floor area is 3,750, which is conforming to the .75:1 permitted in the Office zone district. As a result of the floor area reduction, the rear wall (both ground level and second floor) of the building has been moved three feet further from the alley, to 22'. There is now a 3.5' walkway between the parking spaces and the structure. The walkway is overhung by the second story which acts as a protection from rain and snow. Site coverage is reduced from 51% to 45 %. The length of the structure is reduced from 79' to 76', so the east and west elevations are changed subtly. THe north and south elevations remain the same. 2) The overal level of intensity at the site with two residences And the increased office area. The applicant has removed the one bedroom free market unit from the plans. In its place in the basement is approximately 400 s.f.. of office area, the building's handicapped accessible bathroom and the elevator shaft. This change is beneficial in that staff believes that the loss of the residential unit will lessen the burden of parking, trash and general activity on the parcel. 3) The lack of site detail: amenities, landscape elements, and adequate access ways. In order to improve site circulation, the projects' parking spaces have been all moved to the eastern property line. This frees up approximately 2 more feet next to the bike rack and trash enclosure. Wheel stops are provided to stop vehicles from pulling up too close to the walkway against the rear of the building. The walkway has been ramped up to the doorway for delivery convenience and to provide a secondary handicap access. The legal ADA access is still around the front of the building at the main doors. Since the one bedroom dwelling has been deleted from the basement, the emergency egress window well has been substantially reduced from roughly 35 linear feet to approximately 12 linear feet. This provides more space for landscaping and access along the east side of the building. 4. Lack of attention to transportation mitigation: The applicant has submitted three mitigation elements which staff believes will have an impact on the numbers of employee generated vehicle trips. These elements have been added as conditions of approval and are subject to periodic review by the Planning and Zoning staff. 2 1. Provide bus passes to all employees. 2. Organize a van pool program for downvalley employees. 3. Provide 4 bicycles for use by building tenants. The application also states that the nearest downvalley bus stop is located one block from the site, and the nearest upvalley stop is across the street. BTABB RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above changes and additions to the proposal, Planning staff is far more comfortable with the project. We now forward a recommendation to approve the GMQS exemption for affordable housing and expansion of the historic landmark with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f. 2. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement dis- tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 3. The sidewalk along Main Street shall be widened to 5 feet. 4. If the fences in the rear encroach into the public alley, they must be reinstalled onto private property during redevelopment. 5. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 6. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the Category 2 deed restriction for the three bedroom apartment. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, 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 mitigation at the then current standards. 3 9. The 4 on -site parking spaces required during the 1989 conditional use approval which have not been developed must be installed within 30 days of approval of this current proposal. 10. The following transportation mitigation elements must be continually provided and may be periodically checked for implementation by Planning or Zoning staff: 1. Bus passes to all employees. 2. A van pool program for downvalley employees. 3. 4 bicycles for use by building tenants. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECONI[BNDED MOTIONS: "I move to approve the Krabacher Office Building GMQS Exemptions for expansion of FAR and net leasable in an historic landmark and I also move to recommend to City Council approval of the GMQS exemption for the three bedroom Category 2 affordable housing unit. These approvals are conditioned by items 1 -11 in the Planning Office memo dated August 2, 1994." Exhibits: A - Revised Application dated July 21, 1994 B- Planning Office Memo dated June 21, 1994 4 x str • H l3AKI I: FALL[N • ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED _RA. ARCHITECN U RE AND PLANNING July 21, 1994 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Regional Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Krabacher GMQS Exemption Case # A23-94 Dear Kim, Enclosed you will find revised drawings for the Krabacher Building at 706 W. Main Street. Please note the following changes from the previous submittal: 1. A reduction of F.A.R. from 4202 sq. ft. to 3928 sq. ft. 2. A reduction of above grade F.A.R. to 3750 sq. ft. matching the overlaying zoning formula of .75:1 (F.A.R. to lot area). 3. Eliminated the one bedroom, free market apartment. 4. Reduced, by two thirds, the light wells at the east side of the building. We have also reconfirmed that the remaining light well meets all codes. 5. Increased from 19' -0" to 22' -0" the rear set back of the building. This now makes it possible to have a 3' -6" wide concrete walkway access along the back of the building, in front of the parking spaces. On one side, this access would be in the form of a "handicapped ramp (*with minor relief from A.D.A. requirements). 6. The parking spaces have been reorganized to allow better access to the rear and side entrances. • JOHN R. BAKER, AIA, President • RICHARD A. FALLIN Vice President • DAVID E.K. PANICO Associate 1280 UTE AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/9254252 • FAx 303/925 -2639 715 GRAND AVENUE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • 303/928 -9704 • FAX 303/928 -9628 • 7. Removed fence at east side of building to allow for easier emergency access and a more coordinated landscaping plan with the property to the east (Stapleton). 8. Reduced site coverage form 51 % to 45 %. 9. Reduced overall length of building from 79' to 76'. In addition, please note the inclusion of an existing conditions map addressing some of the Engineering Department's concerns. A site drainage plan will be submitted with construction drawings at a future date. It is understood by the Applicant that no above grade utilities or fences shall encroach on public rights of way. The Applicant has studied various ways of addressing staffs transportation concerns and has identified the following means of mitigation: 1. Provide bus passes to all employees. 2. Organize a van pool program for downvalley employees. 3. Provide 4 bicycles for use by building tennants. The proposed building fronts on Main Street, the main RFTA route for Aspen. The nearest stop (Downvalley) is one block away. The nearest stop (Upvalley) is across the street. We hope that these changes to our application, in addition to specific responses by Mr. Krabacher to staff concems regarding transportation and engineering, will convince the staff that this is a project that they can support. Sincere , ' -avid Panico DEKP:ms Enclosure • _ SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3 1 ig DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS i bill IMPORTANT Z ZL -- Three sets of Hear. fully Iahaled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 115:17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11'x17" format. APPLICANT: l'. JOSE -F d Si.N. e. I_' P ^ R4G;-;ErL ADDRESS: 201 14. 'MILL - ,t' Su 20 I A ZONE DISTRICT: 1- I — 4.4 1= 4rcatt= LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): t4 EXISTING FAR: !VI I I ' ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,1 t1(•'16 . I O. ;CC4r1 : 1" kl /s c. Pfv 1fL 1 PROPOSED FAR: 29) 4 9 i EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): V96k5,...:a°` i g .2 5 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 0, 0175 h HP 9 1 EXISTING %OF SITE COVERAGE: 94: 1 (0 (0 b PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4 fJ rip EXISTING %OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): 4 7 PROPOSED %OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): gtir.o DUSTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prindnal Bldg.: Vi I- O f Arrnssnry Rich: NA PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prinaoal Bldg.: 2 5 1' O l l f Ar essnry Bkig: 1 PROPOSED %OF DEMOLITION: 4F, ; EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 0 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 21 3 F C. Front: of Rear. 25.ni Rear. I .c3' Rear: = -2, 0 i Side: 1r.( Y3.1' Side: , .0 /C 3' Side: 5:7i5•o Combined Front/Rear: -?-O.5 Combined Frt/Rr: 25. c' Combined Front/Rear: =?• 9' EXISTING NONCONFORMITIESI • NONE. ENCROACHMENTS: • sneTmCTZAN c1£IZ.aDfcgisClnr`n'\IT LCT it; kit EST VARIATIONS REQUESTFII (eligible for Landmarks Only: character compatibility findiinn must he made by HPC): FAR: 110 Minimum Distance Between Buildngs: — SETBACKS: Front: 's Dto Parking Spaces: Flzovi vrNGi Rear: — Open Space (Commerdai): Side: — Height (Cottage Infill Only): — Combined FrtJRr: -- Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): — �' . d 1 1 `y .. ' . . z .. il4 _, __ 11 �I N ___ _ _� nisi. I I''. •.'. ). 1. 1. -)' p J I ' ' 1 II y i s i.: 1?.. z I o v L. w - ; s 1 a O e F.. . I go I o- J G 3 o 11 Z • a Q 7 . - - . a \ J ti \ � Di ¢ z a j l Y.. I S Q . • �� —• -- n 0 c • � . v Z .. -� \ =_ s �. __-_- - z � i 1 - 9 ��1 S \ 1`Nliv W 1 _ 7* ‘s.....,____ - - - _ 2 d a G Z - i I ❑ . 7 e ; LL r L ❑ ❑.I Irn d I yiT1 • i _t! i -;� fi t 1 g z 1 .EMOL1 1■ G I I T i i II _ I it L z , W1y I'. - f-I Q t { ,� A -- 1 . , . . _.....itr,_ ulv - ® — 2 N 8 — i o I 1 __� I • I ' I ! -1 -- �..— a _. -- < a n rt • • _ H t _ _1_1 .1 - -a - - ---1 -11 - r P ti o I • r.... m x _ Al • F • C3 iz i.„ 1 - 1 1 I r 1 ,; A . , 1 - RI < 1, '!III PI ■ f L T 11-i 1 1 III 1 1 } � 1 i I v , . '• F - --� a s p cr= t � j u ; : , r l ' PHI :'' ,.)° r n o 1 li � way , I , �1. �, , I 1 ,I! , f ., j 1 II l; l , r I ,I•, I � �; T' y AF. � iLi i !! " ff ' I '�r � - � t i I � � ' II I; . � ' 'MUM ' vi � ,,; " i ', • 1 HI l I f I! III � � ^ - il �I �II }, NIA e1 � I --C r mon 1,i. ' I I, ...in. I C� ;I _ 1 u mnao i 1111111111 i tam — L ri 1 I _ ili _ 1 w I f III re 1 N � rn Il n .. ni I = P !Ili, , G 'i: ii I 1 z i� �I I I, I� ,`r ! i—,—i usu i -1 H I I I ,I�, - I I.{ (� - -- If ly, l . I , rn � �7R + !i � II I � I � i� I — I _i ' I it .. V ,. ...w 1 L, , ; 1 r Z (ter . II / Ill _ _. ,��/ �: I - - -- I _y -- 11 1. ,I1, • r ' ' ` ` 4 �j _, ekli MEMORANDUM `` D„ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Krabacher Office Building - Growth Management Exemptions for Affordable Housing and Increased FAR of an Historic Landmark DATE: Jun 21, 1994 SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the Krabacher Office Building expansion because it is not in compliance with review criteria specific to site plan and transportation issues. Also, staff determined that there was an error in calculating the proposed additional net leasable area which makes the application deficient in employee mitigation and parking. APPLICANT: B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher, represented by Dave Penico LOCATION: 706 W. Main St. (Lot Q and 20' of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen) The parcel is 5,000 s.f. ZONING: 0 (Office) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicants seek to add approximately 1,400 s.f. of net leasable commercial area on the first and second levels, as well as one free market dwelling and one deed restricted dwelling in the basement. The proposed increase in FAR is 2,476 s.f. (please refer to staff comments for discussion of an apparent error in calculations of net leasable area). REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: 1. The sidewalk should be widened to 5 feet. 2. A site drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 3. If the fences in the rear encroach into the public alley, they must be reinstalled onto private property during redevelopment. 4. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 4 5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on UUUU utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. ,l2 3 _ f� �� 1Z _ � �`f i • 6. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen verbally amended her written comments on 6/15/94. According to Cindy, the amendments dated 3/22/94 are correct concerning employee generation rates and housing mitigation provided. The proposed Category 2 deed restriction is acceptable. (However, as noted above, the application apparently wrongly calculated the existing net leasable area, so Housing's comments are not accurate). Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: A shared service line agreement is required. Total connection charges can be estimated once the plan details are available and a tap permit is completed. Historic Preservation: Conceptual HPC was granted on April 27, 1994. The HPC granted a 500 s.f. FAR bonus (even though the applicant only requested 452 s.f. bonus) to the property because they thought is was more desirable than the potential of a P &Z Special Review increase of FAR up to 1,250 s.f. The HPC also waived four parking spaces for the new development. (Planning believes that this number was in error on the low side due to differing calculations of proposed net leasable - see discussion further in this memo.) Zoning: Although this case was not officially referred to Zoning, Bill Drueding informed staff that the 5 on -site parking spaces required during the 1989 conditional use approval have not been developed. Therefore, these must be added prior to the issuance of any building permits for this current proposal. STAFF COMMENTS: The Krabacher's property received historic landmark designation in 1989, then conditional use approval and change in use (from residential to commercial) for an antique store. According to these past records, the antique store was approximately 1,300 s.f. and the Krabacher's residence was approximately 400 s.f. In 1992, the applicants requested, and saw to adoption of, a code amendment to allow mixed use structures in the 0 Office zone. It is under this code language that the Krabacher's submitted an application for an enlarged free market dwelling unit, the new affordable dwelling unit and additional net leasable office area of 1,420 s.f. However, staff believes that the proposed additional net leasable figure is in error (it should be 1,820 s.f.) because the figure for existing net leasable area presented in the application (1,726 s.f.) appeared to count space within the structure that was previously indicated as the 400 s.f. residential area. If the 400 s.f. in question had been converted to commercial 2 1 172 661)1 r^ area between 1992 and the present, it was done so without approval from the City. Therefore, based on staff's belief that 1,820 s.f. of new net leasable is being added to the site rather than 1,420 s.f., the following summarizes the increased community impacts: employee mitigation: 3.28 rather than the 2.52 proposed parking: 5.46 spaces rather than 4.26 (4 spaces waived by HPC) GMOS Exemption by Commission for an Historic Landmark: Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 B.1(c) the Commission may exempt development from GMQS competition "the enlargement of an historic landmark to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage or the enlargement of an historic landmark which develops more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, motel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boarding house, rooming house or dormitory units or the enlargement of an historical landmark for mixed use as a commercial, office or lodge development and which adds a residential dwelling unit, which increases the building's or parcel's existing FAR and its net leasable square footage." Even though the HPC may grant design approval and even FAR bonuses, the P &Z is entrusted with the ability to exempt a project which adds new square footage and /or free market dwelling units from the rigorous growth management competition. A project may be exempted if it complies with the following review criteria. Mitigation for community impacts must be addressed as follows: 1. Housing: For the enlargement at the maximum FAR permitted, the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which meets threshold according to the growth management requirements. For each 1% reduction of floor area below the maximum allowed, the housing requirement is lessened by 1 %. 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 mitigation at the then current standards. Affordable housing provided shall be at the Category 3 level. Response: The applicant is proposing to provide 100% of the affordable housing to meet the thresholds established for growth management office space net leasable area. Based on the revised net leasable figure calculated by staff of 1,820 s.f., this total figure is employees housed, per the following formula: 1,820 sf (new net leasable) divided by 1,000 sf increments = 1.82 multiplied by 3 (employees per thousand sf) = 5.46 gross employee generation, mult. by 60% (min. threshold) for a net employee mitigation of 3.276 persons 3 9� c The proposed three bedroom unit will house 3 persons, per the Housing Guidelines for occupancy. Therefore, the applicant has not addressed the mitigation method for the .28 fractional full -time equivalent employee. 2. Parking: The applicant was required to provide 5 parking spaces at the rear of the parcel in 1989, but according to Zoning Enforcement Office Bill Drueding, the spaces have not been provided. Per section 24- 8- 104.C.1.c.2., "any parking spaces which cannot be accommodated on site and which would therefore be required to be provided via cash -in -lieu shall be waived." At their April 27, 1992 Conceptual review (public hearing), the HPC waived four parking spaces under the assumption that the net L 3 3 g leasable increase was 1,420 s.f. The actual parking requirement :J for 1,820 s.f. in the Office zone district is 5.46 spaces (3 spaces Pe per 1,000 s.f.) So the HPC waiver was not adequate for the proposed increase of commercial area. 6cU-CJi Regardless of k.tre outcome of this issue, staff requires the applicant to comply with the 1989 condition of approval that the 5 parking spaces be immediately provided or be red - tagged by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 3. Utilities: The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the commission. Response: The Sanitation district replied that they have capacity for the project. The location of the site is such that all other utilities are currently serving the surrounding commercial and residential uses. However, due to the amount of the proposed net leasable area (3,146 s.f.), two dwelling units, and the limited parking of 5 existing spaces, staff has a difficult time reconciling the transportation impacts of the proposal. Four bedrooms are proposed in the two dwelling units. Residential parking is calculated at 1 space per bedroom (unless reduced by Special Review). It is conceivable that 4 of the 5 on -site spaces will be used by the residents, leaving 1 space for over 3,000 s.f. of commercial activity. Nowhere in the application does the applicant address transportation mitigation in any other form other than to say that the site is located on the Main Street RFTA routes. The nearest RFTA stop is not indicated in the application. Staff believes that this criteria has not been met due to the extent of the proposed development and the lack of attention to detailed transportation mitigation. 4. Design: The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its 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 4 t..r amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for the users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery area. Response: As mentioned above, the HPC granted conceptual approval for this project's architecture. Included in their approval was a FAR bonus of 500 s.f (the applicant requested 452 s.f. bonus). They voted favorably to this request as a reaction to the applicant's presentation that the P &Z could potentially grant up to a 1,250 s.f. expansion via the Special Review process (1:1 or 5,000 s.f. total). Because the site is so small and constrained for parking, access, and green space, Planning staff would never have recommended such a FAR increase. Planning is dismayed that a building with such limited parking and limited yard areas for landscaping was granted any increased FAR. The application packet was also lacking in sufficient detail to examine landscaping (no plan at all), dimensions for parking, setbacks, and structures, trash storage and access, delivery access, and accurate site coverage (staff calculates coverage at 60% even without the porch addition which isn't shown on the site plan.) There appears to be no amenities for commercial users or residents of this parcel. As designed, the building is so long that it juts out over the parking spaces. There is no provision for a walkway across the back of the building or an entry area for the rear door /service area. Planning is also concerned that the window wells along the eastern wall are in the setback and exceed the maximum allowable intrusion into the setback as established by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Official. Because of the deficiencies in the design and /or application package specific to this review criteria, Planning recommends denial of this project. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Per Section 24 -8 -104 C.1.c., the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the proposed affordable housing. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental /sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Response: As mentioned above, the application does not fully address the housing mitigation impacts of the proposed increase of net leasable area of 1,820 s.f. The referral memo from Housing 5 dated June 1, 1994 indicates in the last paragraph that a fractional share of employee be mitigated in cash at the Category 2 level, consistent with the deed restriction of the new unit. This represents a payment of $14,280.00 (.28 employee x $51,000). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Krabacher Office Building GMQS Exemption for the commercial expansion, one bedroom free market unit, and the three bedroom Category 2 deed restricted unit for the following reasons: 1) The project does not satisfactorily comply with Sections 24- 8-104.B.1.c.3 and 4. specific to transportation impacts and site design /compatibility. 2) The application app - -rs to be 'naccurate regarding the amount of commercial square oot..e requested and the amount of commercial square foo :;;e historically present in the structure. This affect ca ulations for parking requirements and affordable housi.. mitiga 'on. EXHIBITS A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information B - Referral Memos . ;11 \t'N 2C r` -7 _l V ,, fL __ - - _ ,,,,...h.b.-- lin L..._. _ I E , _ O 5•B �d , ',' • it i 9'9 ? �.'� F I' •• I W m z 1 I...' U i _ I• 11 w ( - Z i ■ .' 1 i; z , I i o e r� I. :z. .1 ) i0 o = 1 i v , z o II . 1' ij 11! i, \ e\ ` I ge 'II ki 3 \ r1 _ ;\ \\\ \ s t .>�� ® . _ Mg -ec . . ', 1 x _. . _ - \ \Z / v I - ` 4 , ` i j • ® - 1 i_ \ / .T a Ii_ i„....., _ �x� R se yv �.1p r x I wa-r8 3 w L _i_t — 4 1 > L_ L. E Y a G a 5s e . n —',- -F —55 :TRIG AI DINE -- -� .- - WV 11.1 1 .R 7 - - w :f �.. ; ::5t :'y ExISTING ` :: `: ^ ITRULU TRE w 1U 5-T{aJGTURe. X %.. •: ::: I >::: Fitl.lta r URE ES ICA. TELEPHa.iE GAS LIB $ C- -E T.V. LINES S T R E E T i F EX1 3Tl G CONDITIONS --- MP:P - I" = 3d— d"c' —t) \ MA -- - ,...." . . . 1, Ti t" `...1. II ll :41 11 1 1 \ :11 1 i , .... f i =.='' ( ,.--t N Th. 1 - '" i I ' -- 1 t3 L Z iniiiiiumili ( t-- ', - - ' \1 ,1\, L L_ 1LJ 1 1L j i i j ;, r _-:-_-2 Lo. - 1 i '_ t ------- \ IL' LIR i ------- - : ;--- - _7 - _ - \ \ oi\' _ --, 1 _ r _ Il LI_ 1 , 1 uritia . I , --_- - -- - 1 I f - A - ' rt \'\11 ' i IffifinAk (---\1 i ! I 1 . 1 I 1 , 1/41111 I IIII I k I\ )J111111[111 1/4 1 .._ 1 , \\ ) n MI Ilk I L ) \\ i 1 ,nn J ill , -- t h \---\ 1 lll 7 1 L I 11/4 1 I iii r i ----mnr lill ilicil -_--:_ i ul -))- ) • I li d ' ilBlall P‘ 0 , fl i , ,,, r : \i' 1 .1 1 LNIA_hil II - t '' . i -: , l - i 1 I I 1 iffililiii ' t 0 \ 414 u k 1 ii , ul - ' Ll7I " ? .) -- --------N ,11. -1/41/41/41/4-.1/4 / 1/4 ) -•., 1/4 / k I / 1 / 4 C. r-Th i -) • 1 i i / 1 3 S ZI 1 S N 1 `4 W I * n c r - - - -- _ -4---_I I— , r I 1 1 T] r11 EI - -4 a 11- M— _ r i ILI i I _ i 8 i i ii i N >u UJ _ - I- g CO H _ m zto N _ 10 W 't 0 431 • L ©'a b11. /^ . b 0I z , A a — i f -i 1:711 i I; 1. 1 L nr-_-1.1 ,,,- i ..,., . I li c> ' 1 .= ci n, ;' i .1, i ! CIA. I - a 1 ( ' I � : / jI ,, .; ' i . i 1 3 . k i t S 4 j I / z 11 11 E it XI/ 1411 42k si. j 292-17 52}7 x ol, ze9 5 �6 rwwd 1 'oa �daro� Q71N'C7d C / mead `2.11 r"�$' 71 -aria • ; ± _ 1 41!'I e 'y •eo 1L9L ZON XBj _Si -sod ' 1 t I a .n. - ,.. • ^MCY \IfTLJJ 1PJVNQ I.IR]1J CD•OT MCCT -77 -M H1.1 , .„. ,-.... ,.../ 1- F t r - -- --i Di • I 4 I . I / i . \ '. \ 1 :t o - „ - Ef I ,, _........... 1 1 1 1 1 I . J 11 1 1 kil 1 1 I 1 If I 1 '11 1 1 1 1 11 7 u L . _ _ ..=, ...=.....=_... a : t: o2 1 z tu 1 ...,„, = , , 9 \ S 4' ; lil / -' 5 I 7 „si 1 I II !�I 1 1 411 11.11 : : I .P_ I I pr G- Ph l I 1I� [__ _ I[ -I - ' , 1 E I a _l N I , I J t � 1 C? .J. ai: N Ji � ' II- If I 'Il�; li!!IIIJ 11 7 J Ell qI I- n I -Hall I it I. I I ,I I� 01111RR j j Q J t WUil RI [ ;,, : lIIll11 u s II 11 - HI �_I„ ill 2 I i ll>l a , m I i . .. I) ' I ' 1 I .Ili p =_I_1 I' ,ril . /' F_ A 11 i �I.. II - -- t 1 , IV jf(� I fib ' 1 ' r �I,illlllli I l, " i' , �[ 1[ : ; I 6' I ; Sri , ,� 11111 i II I ', ` 7S i H 1 I — . ul 4 o N11[1111111 II iiii_ i A I i i LL I t 't L: 1 ! i lit _1 1 .. µ IIJ ! I;lini An I I i 11 I _ Y I�� - lilt ILJ ' l 11 11 1 ,, 1 1Il � °I I I hH l!iI � u , IIlI t�gimi I I ; ., u thin( 1 =- CJ 1 1 0 ■ fr 1111111)11r i a I I IIIillll 3(0 iws 1 ; , I ICI _- 1 '11111II.) -7 ! - c =lit 1 jI J i ! AI rt pI n• . i � — I i it C, less ., 1 :_' I 11111 1 I : 1 d �I 1 . 1 -- 9� +i,\ u r-I , , 1 • lF1I -II 1 111 I . I, J Illif I ;1; 0111 11111 F it ? it Hai 11111 I,I I. III W ,. : III\ p . t_:.,I it l a iv( 4 i t1 17. t1 r —in 11T(` 111 yyyy u� � � yia l � r : "IIIIIIRI xi. :'' n r W . .n i pJ �1 1111 JI I II * "'U' a El it • i� r ' 1111 11 _ d ' II I ' OM F t" d Y s'.,Gr1 .I I 8 .1 Ur ;1I I E J ' 'I I � 1[111111 111111 - 1 rll r 131 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS • IMPORTANT Three sets of Haar fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11Sc1T, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted In lieu of the 11 format APPLICANT: D. JDSe-94 l Gl»tw l 5. k J-4 ADDRESS: 201 4 • m I LL — 41./ 1TE. 20 1 • l~(4 ZONE DISTRICT: H " 4-I 147 ro(±1L. • LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): COO 0 EXISTING FAR: 1 120 • ALLOWABLE FAR: 31 .4 Or_ A tt...." 1: I W yi_ . EEYI _ . PROPOSED FAR: 4202 !r EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): l'12(i PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): 1 21 4-6 CP EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 415& PROPOSED% OF SITE COVERAGE: 51 /n • EXISTING %OFOPEN SPACE ( Comaerdal): 5cfe7o PROPOSED% OF OPEN SPACE (Cower.): q"3 "to • USING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: RYlcioal Bkh.: ) q Il i - O / Amussory Bldg! WA PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Phtriml Bldg.: '2'. o I Mowery Wig: t t L. . PROPOSE %OF DEMOLITION: 1012 14`!0 • E LISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 0 . PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 Q ONSITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: t E �S E '� TING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: front 21.3 l t Front f0•o' Front !Q�_ E Rear. Rear.. IFj•o Rear: 11 4 Side: 10n &.T Side: 5 .0' o Side _ ' Combined FronthTear. 4Ko. ' Comtimed FNRr. o' Combined FrontlRear . al •t7 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ' Wrl' ENCROACHMENT& • Paton TEANtf 401E4z. ' -.• - q • . VARIATIONS RFO( IFSTFD Ielable for 1 andmarks Only: Character ramoaffbiliN Won must be made by HPCI: FAR: 4 larimu m Distance Between Buldrgs: — SETBACKS: Front -- Parking Spaces: Moe, psster 5 Rear Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Intip On(y): — Combined FrtJRr: -- Site Coverage (Cottage Infdl CIA: — AMENDMENT TO LAND USE APPLICATION FOR 706 WEST MAIN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO The Applicants, B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher ( "Applicants "), are hereby submitting this amendment to their Land Use Application. This Amendment relates only to the issues involving the employee housing mitigation for the proposed increase in net leasable commercial square footage for the proposed office building. 1. Increase in Net Leasable. The existing net leasable is 1,726 square feet and is proposed to be increased to 3,146 square feet. This results in an increase of 1,420 square feet. The development is required to mitigate at three employees per 1,000 square feet. The Applicants are then required to mitigate for 60% of the employees needed to be generated. Accordingly, the Applicants are required to mitigate for 2.556 employees. 2. Amendment to Employee Housing. The original application proposed two two - bedroom units. The revised application proposes one three - bedroom unit of approximately 1,000 square feet of net livable square footage, as defined by the Aspen /Pitkin Housing Office guidelines. The employee housing unit is proposed to be deed restricted as a rental unit to the Category II income, asset and rental guidelines. The remainder of the sub - grade space will be a free - market, one - bedroom, one -bath unit. 3. Revised Floor Plan. A revised floor plan for the sub -grade portion of the office building is enclosed with this Amendment. Dated: March , 1994. \B. JOSEP'i KRABACHER SUSAN S. KRABACHER krabacher \docs \amend.01 3� MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department CR Date: May 28, 1994 Re: Krabacher GMQS Exemption, Special Review and Condominiumization Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Sidewalk - The existing sidewalk is sub - standard in width, measuring 4 feet wide. The sidewalk should be widened to 5 feet. Regarding handicap access, there is a step in the walkway down to the curb. Since there is no curb cut for handicap access through the curb, it may not be appropriate to require elimination of the step in the walkway. Note that the adjacent Stapleton property will be providing 2 feet of easement along the front for their sidewalk in order to meet site conditions. Also note that the Main Street Sidewalk Project will be constructing sidewalk improvements in the vicinity of this property in order to complete pedestrian sidewalk connections from the Forest Service and Aspen Villas to downtown. Construction of those improvements is scheduled to commence the day after Labor Day. 2. Parking - The proposed five parking spaces appear to be adequate for the proposed development. 3. Site drainage - Site drainage is briefly discussed in the application on page 5. It is recommended that the redevelopment be required to meet the standards of Section 24- 7-1004.C.4.f which limits drainage off the site and onto public rights -of -ways to no more than historic flows. Historic flows are interpreted to mean runoff before any impervious services are constructed on site, including buildings, driveways, and paved parking areas. Any increase to historic storm run -off should be maintained on site. This is typically accomplished by draining roofs and other impervious surfaces to drywells that are sized by a civil engineer. 4. Encroachments - There was no site improvement survey with the application so that we cannot determine if the fences in the front or rear encroach into public rights -of -way. If either of the fences encroach, they should be reinstalled on private property during as redevelopment. 5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed outside of the alley public right - of -way, on an easement provided by the property owner. 6. Condominium Plat - Prior to the sale of either unit, a final plat meeting the requirements of Section 24-7- 1004.D shall be submitted for City approval and for recording. 7. 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 -5080) 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). 8. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. cc: Bob Gish, Cris Caruso M94,269 N` \` .Aspen Consolidated Sanitation (Distr 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 FAX 1(303) 925 -2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman Albert Bishop John J. Snyder - Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. May 5, 1994 Kim Johnson .1Y 9 Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Krabacher GMQS Exemption Dear Kim: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's Rules and Regulations which are on file at the District office. If a free market dwelling unit is approved as part of the project, then a shared service line agreement will be required. We will be able to estimate the total connection charges once detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 0— 1976 - 1986 - 1990 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Any Amidon Postmark: May 03,94 8:59 AM Subject: Reply to: Krabacher app. Reply text: From Amy Amidon: after one worksession and two regular meetings they finally got hpc conceptual on april 27. they revised their design pretty significantly. Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: have you brought this monstrosity to HPC for conceptual yet? I've penciled this in on P &Z for 6/21, but they have to have HPC conceptual before P &Z, so please let me know where they are. Thanks. X r , ..., MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: June 1, 1994 RE: Krabacher GMQS Exemption Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -45 -005 -2/ X . (� = Z. S6 The applicant has come up with t'e correct figures for housing 0 1 mitigati which is as follows: 3.0 employees /1,000 square feet; for the ,5 square feet requ- ed, the employee generation would AP be . . ixty percent of the employees must be mitigated, or A A .5 employees. The applicant s amended his application and is LlA. (( requesting to provide one three - bedroom unit, which according to 1SL Section 8- 106.E(3)(ii), provides housing for 3.00 residents. - - -, e a.• _ • - - - - - DK bj Coeiti Verbal J Re -cLecK- The Housing Board has established policies in the Affordable b !' Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. /IS 5 Their preference is as follows: 1. On -site housing; 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. Cash -in- lieu /land -in -lieu. Therefore, the Housing Office would prefer the applicant provide another unit on site, which would mean at least another one bedroom, or revert back to the original configuration of two two - bedroom units which provide for 2.25 employees each, equally to 4.5 employees which is what the applicant has to mit' a e. ,s The applicant is also requesting to catego ze the unit to a Category 2. This means that an employee wor ng for the applicant would be making at least $22,601 per year. The Housing Office would recommend approval of Category 2 as long as this is the case. Therefore, should the applicant stay with his request of one three - bedroom unit, the applicant must mitigate for 1.5 employees, which calculates to a cash -in -lieu amount due of $51,000 X 1.5 employees = $76,500. Should this be classified as a Category 1 unit, where the applicant's employees make $22,600 or less, the cash -in -lieu amount due would calculate to be $69,000 X 1.5 employees = $103,500. /cic:word \referral \krabache.em M j � 5 T R_ t- T � _ 3 x X v x 2 ..', 1_ v . --=t _ � . 1 al r‘. ,,K± li 1 g Q • i1 I 1 . O Pi 1 t g. T r J r O < cli — G z IV CI •• 1 J i sp JUL -15 -1994 1358 FROM BAKER FALL IN ASSOC. TO 9205197 P.01 4 . A k V M `r/ e BAILIE k et V er FA.LIN 50[ U T URE AN R MAIN SA- 1 VIA fti q ffE,'R:RE AND PuN,.TAYi FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: kAM- 01- kcatk NIN4 FROM: DOW It, RstkI l C.O 1 FAX #: i2t, • 5'147 FAX NUMBER: 1 - 303 - 925 - 2639 PROJECT: % ____C . PROJECT NO: '1 q--I _ DATE: « 1114 NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVERS 9 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED FOR: _ Your Approval _ Distribution to Parties _ Information X Review a Comment _ Your Records _ Use _ Acknowledgement _ Review & call me • COMMENTS: k.I 4 1 '1U'F 22a 1.. ftfriZPLANN, Oar fog_ - TIE tae M{.irP.. reC33rir., 1 N 2V4ro4.6 Mir_ twi . W. -4V6 *AWE, IN ' heroN1 st Tn Yocl 1 * P. 7- L - 2@t5" 4-0h %g_ s ' . a I . _1_2 °' y u 1. _ JP-0=r . . kee “fi :..:. I.& / i Vi ._ , .2:raav s .'w Ar ir• ...eiba. _ , .. I L Zr 1 " s - t I0 PLIOCa kra • " ICE. 1 7, F: A .ia. oN TUFF - ' fv ,r M'1�IANTL % . ,_ Lt e. s ► M, " "1_ .,O k_ - [mar. t o - r 4 rr Tt 70 KLALt. W ►Th QuE4non4- ' . .I JOHN R. BAKER, MA, Pniijent • RICHARD A. FALLIN Viet P.nJJ nt • DAVID E.K. PANiOO Aseci.t. 1280 UTE AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925.4252 • Pis , 715 GRAND AVENUE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, air 81601 • 303/928.9704 • FAX 303/928.9628 JUL -15 -1994 13:58 FROM BAKER FALLIN ASSOC. TO 9205197 P.02 0 f _ cn = Es 1 z - - ' i DH❑ u ' .1-• •-•• :� - I 1 Kand . { v rn i : A , l _ J ---71 t i 1 . i I 1 _i ,homiltiv ,i:L- :I: ;,..„ . ..-,-- $ I! it CI I i ___.,11,1_31:C I 7 I i i 1 izF I I i i ,1 r 1111 1. C JUL-15-1994 13 : 59 FROM BAKER FALL I N ASSOC. TO 9205197 P . 03 "es —,S-- .71 . . M . . i . . .. . ... . -- 1 . 1 . . 1 . tir - - . . • . R . . . . A • • . . . , _. . r. 1 . • --, • • I.j__!, • 11111 •1 • - . 11 ____........ ... l 11 . .. .fr , - - 1 . .4— . I i i 1 1 11 1 I • e , 2 ,i, , , . .1.1 1- 13- .._ 7 _ _ 7.11 . ; , • fra • . rt rt 14 . : • . . .... • •-• . 1 • . . . . .... • _,L-- 1 • '.... • 6=.t 1---1 - - - -4 - . _ ' 2 . 4 ...1, . . . 1 . . . JUL -15 -1994 13:59 FROM BAKER FALLIN ASSOC. TO 9205197 P.04 •% fn Q Z fi • C1 • • �1 " fl V • ill- i : P. 1111111111 11 '1 1 • L . _._ ____ _ it JUL-15-1994 13:59 FROM BAKER FALL I N ASSOC. TO 9205197 P . 05 *. .••••••. . . . . • . 5 T —... LL • - N. i --- -... f . • 1 . . ,...., , . .-...it: • 0 ro S, .) k , tlt l• r • . x v ; f I % _..• x . • ; '. . , .. .. -A-..• ss...-------„ • - 11 .. ,z. l 1 .. . .... , 5 . • \ I! : ,. • _ i. . . • _. . i. - Ilir . \ ... , . 1 1 ' na 9 , I rsirliri ,..,. . i r • • —..". 1 1 —.1 0 I NI' i I 4 111 lei liftil \ .. G. 4. o • I . 1 ra , 1, \ ■ NN,k -. ' . : 1 . g \ s .. vbizs.,■• - • ■•. . , 1,, h. v7 4 \ E \ \isszm. . 1 Z : . r . . . I, '' — i ...: : i ril. N :1 ;, • • 1 • N .: ! ! ' • ; il . : . I • . 7g (... Vitd .. , • ,, 1%,%:' N . ., \ .‘ • %. 1 --" • ' I ___,_./' Vil 4,b41' 4\ K iii I: ,t .1 ! c Nikir:. !•Lih• .::„: : :,:••, , ., I . , . r i 1 1 a .. • - , • .....•: • .. • . ; . „ill , i •—•. • • .' l' ] I - I i I h D . • 1/4: • i• 1 I i . , • , ... , - I: . : i .. . , •• .. . 1 I 4 i . 1 I . 1 ■ ill , ■ 1 . 1 3,..„.:.... ....., i , iss i 1 : • •• . .0 ....... .: 1 , . iia .. i 1 1 R g I d 0 .J 1 1 ii • -• I 1 • 1 Z ill il •11 i il.C1 .: q .. < ; 1. ' 6 6.1 I L. _ _. _ . ...... ... . Z 1 • : • . , 2 .4. 1 ' . , . . ! , • • ..„. : . 1 • ;: . . , • ) 1 . . ; , ! . . ! i I 1 - ; I - i P . , I i li ,!• • . . ... , : . , . • i .. i 1 i : . . . • : ; E . , , ! , • • • ! ! . . . , ; 1 .,.. , .. ......._. .. ..... .. ... . . _ . . i : ` e • ., • • ... a te . • Z -- - M � • 8 s., o.d.. ' . B.6'•...... 64. \ • $,5I . III 'J ? • ; .... e . z • . ri n . A L. v • E.. y " ; .. T TOTAL P.05 BAKER FALLIN Ute to Avenue nue ELL INC. • U U L JLL OIF 4uuLRga y � 1280 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FAX 03) 925-4252 239 OATS , _ ,. ZI �¢ JOB NO..* T t ATTENTION K t M S014n1,50t4 p FE: TO I I�tLI /�7 N peeiIot-A _- RAt■tkil(�LL� k ���- 15t)t1_l%I�1G 2 1 - Yid WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via t JGSNP C&ce the fo i tems: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION �i ZO-4f - LyNfn eta - e-r-k SLiC6 - THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution > ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS IL NA , PCEACIe-- N\ICVE — 1- F,A. -T t I Ek% 1 IZ L�7I ( e- cux -ArR ce I l ux...6T1 -D 1 4ND 1 -tt I-+ -LVF, J3{ Gt t AEN E- Aft I�ir.�., p L nJ t c lu es- (l�` t\1 ct~ 2t QAy 7IF. k\ttNDinw Nazi, t 6,(r- 1 \/o G 146. CPUE`2' - 1 BLS l 00NT CALF , 1 r a. lcI4e — IC r. ��- � L E .► , BY nit , t-VtV �F is EL1 s 7 r N , I �o COPY TO #s 40% Pre-Consumer Content •10% Post-Consumer Content SIGNED: kit y l`I � NOW 7240 (ces /im, Gomm, roe 01471 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly not j nce. m / 11 7 ?A N a i , , .c oi A_ R ..._______, ., ... 1 i - Ti / 1‘ tt'\. °cc __ i ( __- _ - -- 9C K @ ' r • 'el 111 0 '., - z n 71;,\, \7 �� ,11 • q ri ..-, d I R r t C ✓,- l' ! ,ti. ; r j \ w 3 - -- Q I I 1 z 1 I\ ., I 1 Q tl -a L N �C •..J z II � L� 1 - _ o �_ . iL, r b - -- il� 0 0 f- ATDAC$eIr 1 ',AMU= APPLMM TIa* E[ ( + • Krabacher Office Building 1) Project Name - 2) Project Location 706 W. Main Street Lot Q and West 20 feet Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address,' lot & blodc number,. legal desorption where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 0 4) Lot Size 5,000 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # B. Joseph Krabacher, Susan S. Krabacher . 201 North Mili, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6300 Dave Penico, Baker Fallin, 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 - 4252 7) type of Application (please check all that apply): X Historic Deis Conditional Use _ Oonoeptual SPA Oonoaptual X Special Review _ Final SPA Final Historic Der. _ 8040 GYeenline — Conceptual POD _ Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin _ Final ID. X A Historic Demolition Mbun ain View Plane Subdivision _ Historic Designation • . X Dondominiv _ Text/Map Amendmeit X Q' Allotment Lot Spl1 tit Line GiM2S Exemption . Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (amber and type of existing- st rusbroes; approximate sq. ft.; m rber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted tfo the property). • 1699 Square feet - building approved by speria, reveiw fnr rnmmarrial business. in Office Zone District; See Application for information on previous approvals. 9) Description of Development Application See Application for detailed desrriprinn 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Su lion Ortents _ Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents x Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP The undersigned, constituting an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, hereby files this Disclosure of Ownership of the following described property: 706 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, also known as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 1. The names of all owners of the property are: B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher. 2. The property is subject to a mortgage or deed of trust in favor of Norwest Bank Aspen, 119 S. Mill Street, Aspen CO 81611 in the approximate amount of $371,250. 3. All other easements, contracts, and agreements affecting the property are as disclosed on the Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation Policy No. 85 -01- 097598 attached hereto and incorporated herei n by this reference. Dated: February 7 1994 KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. By: f B. Josep Krabacher 201 North Mill, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (303) 925 -6300 krebecher \docs \disclosure.1 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER SUSAN S. KRABACHER 706 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 February 15, 1994 Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Authorization for Representation Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter will constitute the authorization for B. Joseph Krabacher of Krabacher, Hill & Edwards, P.C., 201 North Mill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and Dave Penico, Baker Fallin Inc., 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen CO 81611 to represent B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan Scott Krabacher, with respect to a Land Use Application for 706 W. Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 and all matters related thereto. Very my Yours, B. Josep ra. -cher Susan Scott Krabacher krabacher \lirs \planning.1 r / - i c '" / lorn" .........::"..- I 1© • woo v 1 La I N — _ IM ! 1 —17 n - WS' l I - sal - _ Err IS o . VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 4 till - / ��� _ -N SIXTH —STF i� O.•■!M r 1 lr arras 0 A I � am 0 � ! = x _ G I • 1 s '' j r- 4 FIFTH Ste{ I N FII' H 3i. _ 1 1 I _ a a I � , ply o =+ 4 P �� I 1 • ea I - V IrMII M M I 1 - ---- -- I- la FORTH p— sT - - - - N FOURTH St. 0 I c " AM 11-11MIC b I a I I r''': E r MEW z L � -� +� z 1 * ., m 1 rI &I - - 1 1; I I < 1 y M , .1 c MIL ST 1 P4 THIR' I. Description of Application. This is a land use application for 706 West Main Street, also known as Lot Q and the West 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property "). This land use application requests approval for significant development of an historic resource, partial demolition or relocation, GMQS exemption for a historic landmark, special review or FAR bonus, and condominiumization. II. Background of Property. The Property has received several prior approvals that are relevant to this Application. The Property was originally built in 1894 and appears on the Sanborn and Sons Insurance maps of 1898. The Property was originally rated a "1" on the prior historic rating scale (which was a scale from 0 to 4 plus two additional categories for excellent and exceptional historic resources). The Property has had significant additions to the north (rear) and east. These additions have added a new rear wing and new east wing. The original historic structure was substantially demolished to the north when these additions were added. Based upon the information from the Pitkin County Tax Assessor's records, the additions appear to have been added in 1967. In 1989, the Property received landmark designation by the City of Aspen and received a conditional use (special review) for *. s an antique store. The special review approval for conditional use permitted a change in use from a residential structure to a commercial structure. Accordingly, the existing 1,726 square foot house was approved for an antique store. The Property has been used as a commercial property since 1989. In 1992, the Krabachers submitted an application for amendments to the Municipal Code that would allow a mixed use project in the Office Zone District. The application was approved, and text amendments were made to the Municipal Code in 1992. However, the Krabachers did not proceed with the redevelopment of the Property as a mixed use at that time. The Krabachers now wish to develop the Property for a commercial office building. They are proposing to add ) � y1 approximately 20 square feet of net leasable commercial square t\ � /o y� 3 fa footage and to provide l` bedroom affordable housing units, 4 1145 liot subgrade on the Property. The original cross gable form of the jf historic house is proposed to be relocated to the south (front) and 4 41 west setbacks, with the new development occurring to the north (rear) and east of the historic house. The Krabachers propose to restore the historic house to its original condition. 2 III. Minimum Submission Contents. The Applicants' names, address and telephone number are B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher, 706 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925 -7818. A letter authorizing Krabacher, Hill & Edwards, P.C. and Baker Fallin, Inc. to represent the Applicants, together with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives, are attached as Exhibit 3. The street address and legal description of the parcel upon which the development is proposed to occur are 706 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 also known as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Disclosure of Ownership and Title Insurance Policy are attached as Exhibit 2, which discloses ownership of the parcel. An 8.5 x 11 vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen is attached as Exhibit 4. IV. GMOS Exemption. A sketch plan showing the proposed development of the Property which illustrates those features which are relevant to this Application, together with drawings of the elevations of the proposed development are enclosed herewith as Exhibit 8. The 3 sketch plan and elevations satisfy the specific submission contents for GMQS exemption. Section 8.104.B.1(c) provides a GMQS exemption that may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the enlargement of an historic landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. Mitigation of the community impacts of the project is addressed below. FOR AN 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 -106 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. RESPONSE: The Applicant proposes to provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8 -106. Under Section 8- 106.F.3, the Applicant is obligated to provide housing for 60% of the additional employees deemed generated by the proposed development. The standard for calculating the number of full time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development is three employees per 1000 square feet of net leasable square footage. Since the proposed development 4 I� - ICY' will add 2,500 square feet of net leasable area to the Property, it is deemed to generate 7.5 employees of which 60% must be housed on site, or 4.5 employees. The Application proposes two 2- bedroom units of approximately 995 and 998 square feet each. Accordingly, Applicants will provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold requirement of Section 8 -106. The Applicants are willing to 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. Finally, the Applicant is willing to restrict the employee housing units to the Housing Authority's moderate income price and occupancy guidelines. 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 BE 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 � W1 A CASH -IN -LIEU PAYMENT SHALL BE WAIVED. RESPONSE: Parking will be provided by surface parking on the site. Based on Section 8- 104.B.1.c(2), any parking which cannot be located on -site and which would therefore be required to be provided via cash -in - lieu payment haiYbe waived by the HPC. The site will provide surface spaces for five parking spots, and each of the parking spots will meet the dimensional requirements of a parking space under the City of Aspen Land Use Code Regulations. 4 /19 fi t , (L 0, 5 , )j„A( THE DEVELOPMENT'S WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT, SOLID DISPOSAL, WASTE PROTECTION IMPACTS N SHALL BE MITIGAT TRANSPORTATION SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSION. RESPONSE: The Property is located in the City of Aspen and will be provided with water from the City of Aspen municipal water system. Sewage treatment will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Drainage control has been addressed in the site plan for the proposed development. Since the Property is located on Main Street, transportation will be available by the local RFTA service. The Property is also located within the City of Aspen Fire District which will provide fire protection. Accordingly, all of the development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts will be satisfactorily handled by the existing utility services and systems available at the site. THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT'S SITE DESIGN WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS SHALL BE DEMON TRATED, INCLUDING BUT APPROPRIATENESS F NOT LIMITED SITE 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: The Property is subject to review by the HPC, which will review the compatibility of the site design with surrounding projects. The mature trees on the Property will remain and will not be affected. There is no open space requirement in the Office Zone District. Likewise, there is no maximum site coverage in the 6 Office Zone District. The service delivery area will be located to the rear of the proposed structure to provide efficient and effective delivery service. Since the proposed development will provide two affordable housing units, the project must also receive a GMQS exemption by the City Council pursuant to 8- 104.C.1.c. ALL HOUSING DEED RESTRICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING GUIDELINES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS HOUSING DESIGNEE. THE REVIEW OF ANY REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF HOUSING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF THE CITY'S NEED FOR SUCH HOUSING, CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED HOUSING PLAN, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED AND THEIR LOCATION, THE TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS IN EACH UNIT, SPECIFICALLY THE THE DWELLING UNITS, THE RENTAL/SALE MIX OF THE PROPOSED PROPOSED PRICECATEGORIES TO WHICH THE DWE LLING � LLINGUNITS ARE TO BE DEED RESTRICTED. 1 RESPONSE: The proposed employee housing will be deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines. The City of Aspen has shown a need for such housing and the proposed two 2- bedroom units satisfy the need for housing. The floor plans for the affordable housing units are attached as Exhibit 8. They are centrally located on Aspen's Main Street and are proposed to be approximately 995 and 998 square feet each. The units will be held for rental and are proposed to be deed restricted to the Category 4, income and occupancy guidelines of the Housing Authority. 7 V. Significant Historic Development - Partial Demolition or Relocation. The Property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is a local landmark. Accordingly, the proposed development must receive significant HPC development approval. In addition, since some of the internal structural elements remain from the original historic house (after the substantial additions were added to the north (rear) and east of the structure), this Application requests partial demolition and relocation approval. 1. Specific Submission Contents - Conceptual Development Plan For Significant Development. A sketch plan of the proposed development is enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8. The conceptual selection of major building material includes the use of wood siding on both of the historic structure and the new addition. The historic structure will be entirely restored. It presently has aluminum siding which has been installed over asphalt siding. It appears that the asphalt siding was installed over the original clapboard wood siding. The Applicants will remove all of the aluminum and asphalt siding and restore, to the extent possible, the existing clapboard siding. There will not be sufficient original siding to re -side the entire historic structure since the addition to the north 8 (rear) and east previously removed all of the siding from the north side and a portion of the east side of the historic structure. The proposed development will enhance the original design of the historic structure by moving the historic structure to the south (front) setback and to the west setback. This will showcase the historic structure. The proposed addition to the east and rear of the historic structure has been designed to minimize its impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood. The significant development application falls into the following categories: (i) expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than 250 square feet; and (ii) the development of the site of an Historic Landmark which has received approval for demolition, partial demolition or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7- 602(B). A development plan is being submitted with this Application as Exhibit 8. 2. Review Standards. The following are the review standards and responses of the Applicants: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER WITH DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL AND WITH DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT PARCELS WHEN THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR IS ADJACENT TO AN HISTORIC LANDMARK. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS WHERE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXTEND INTO FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND REAR YEAR SETBACKS, EXTEND INTO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON THE LOT OR EXCEED THE 9 • ALLOWED FLOOR AREA, HPC SHALL FIND THAT SUCH VARIATION IS MORE COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER WITH THE HISTORIC LANDMARK, THAN WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORD WITH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. RESPONSE: The proposed addition is compatible in character with the historic structure as illustrated by the sketch plan and elevations submitted as Exhibit 8 with this Application. The historic structure will be relocated and moved to the front setback, and also moved to the west setback. This will showcase the Property on the site. The proposed addition is designed to be compatible with the historic structure so as not to overpower it. The historic structure is a very simple structure. Unlike most historic structures on Main Street, the gable end does not face Main Street, but the rectangular shape of the historic structure does face Main Street. The proposed addition has been designed with a flat roof in order not to overpower the historic structure. The Applicants have worked with a number of different designs, including pitched roofs and gable ends, but none of the designs would satisfactorily preserve the character of the historic structure. It is intended that the detailing of the addition to the historic structure will be slightly different than the historic resource in order not to duplicate the historic resource. The proposed addition has been pulled back from the historic structure with a one story addition and is stepped back to give respect to the historic structure. 10 The Applicants have attempted to comply with the proposed Main Street Historic Guidelines by creating the proposed addition in modules that step back from the historic structure. The massing of the proposed addition is reduced by using what is intended to be perceived to be three separate buildings. The Applicants are not requesting any side yard or rear yard variations. The Applicants are, however, requesting a 500 square foot FAR variance as described under Part VI below. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REFLECTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. RESPONSE: The neighborhood is comprised of a number of historic structures, typically utilizing gable ends and pitched roofs, together with a number of flat roof structures, consisting primarily of lodges and apartment buildings. By utilizing the proposed design, the development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because it utilizes a flat roof structure that relates to the lodges and apartment buildings on Main Street, while preserving the historic structure in its original gable form. The proposed Stapleton Office Building to be located immediately to the east of the Property is quite large and massive. The Stapleton Building is larger in the front and steps back to the rear of the lot. The proposed addition to the Property preserves the scale along the street while allowing redevelopment of the remainder of the Property as an office building which is the primary permitted use in the Office Zone District. 11 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES OR DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CULTURAL VALUE OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR ADJACENT PARCELS. RESPONSE: The proposed development enhances the cultural value of the historic structure by showcasing it on the southwest corner of the building envelope. The project is intended to showcase the historic property similar to the Lily Reid project. In contrast to the Lily Reid project, however, the proposed addition will be minimized by the use of a flat roof, which will still provide the necessary ceiling heights for the proposed addition while making the proposed addition disappear behind the historic structure. From the street, a pedestrian will perceive very little of the proposed addition since it is stepped back and the roof of the existing historic structure will substantially shield the proposed addition. The lot is a substandard 5000 square foot lot which provides limited opportunities for utilizing the site, due to its size constraints. The Applicants have viewed the proposed development as an "infill" type of development and have, to the extent possible, moved the mass and bulk of the building to the north (rear) of the site. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES OR DOES NOT DIMINISH OR DETRACT FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF A DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE OR PART THEREOF. RESPONSE: As described above, the proposed development enhances the architectural integrity of the historic structure by showcasing 12 • it on the site. The addition has been stepped back to allow the historic structure to stand on its own. In addition, the proposed development creates a patio area to the north (rear) of the historic structure which will provide a lower level entry into the employee housing units. The patio area will create a very large separation from the historic resource in the proposed addition as viewed from the southwest elevation. 3. Historic Landmark Guidelines. The Applicants have attempted to comply with the Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. This portion of the Application will discuss the guidelines for commercial buildings including renovation and restoration, and new construction. The proposed development maintains the pedestrian environment of the streetscape by stepping back the proposed addition and utilizing the historic structure to block the pedestrian's view of the proposed addition. The proposed development maintains the existing edge created by the building facades at the sidewalk by moving the historic structure up to the front setback. The vertical plane of the building facade at the street edge has been maintained by the relocation and renovation of the historic structure. The proposed addition is setback from the facade so the perception of the original building mass is 13 preserved. The box -like quality of the existing historic structure has been preserved. There will be no addition of balconies, cantilevers, or pitched roofs or any other rooftop additions that would alter this quality. The building elements of the original historic structure which contribute to the horizontal alignment of the streetscape have been retained. With respect to the new addition, the Applicants will use a very simplified version of cornice lines to maintain the established horizontal lines of the streetscape. The historic renovation of the original structure will preserve the historic windows and door located on the south (front) and east sides. The original window on the west side has been replaced with a door, and the renovation will return this facade to its original condition. To the extent possible, the original windows will be restored. There are no proposals for any new openings in the west, south or east sides of the historic structure, which are the primary facades from Main Street. Since there has been a substantial addition to the north (rear) of the structure, it will be restored, to the extent possible, to its original condition. The Applicant has proposed window openings for the north (rear) of the original historic structure which cannot be seen from any of the primary facades or from Main Street. 14 The architectural details of the original structure will be preserved. Based upon research regarding the original historic structure, the front porch is not original and is not proposed to be retained. Trim materials will be subordinate to the major facade materials which will be wood. Any external light fixtures will be simple in design. A lighting plan will be submitted with the final development application. To the extent possible, the existing historical materials will be preserved. If replacement is necessary, new materials will duplicate the scale of the historic materials. The historic structure will be repainted in substantially the same color pattern as exists. The use of bright colors will be reserved for accents. As to the new addition, there will not be any plaza or court that will break the continuity of the facade alignment along Main Street. A patio is proposed to the rear of the historic structure but will not be visible from the main facade. The front facade will not be altered by the proposed addition which will be stepped back to the rear. The massing of the proposed addition has been broken up in order to reduce its perceived bulk. The design is not intended to imitate historic designs found in the Main Street Historic District, but is intended to be a very quiet addition that will not detract from the simplicity of the original historic structure. 15 4. Partial Demolition. In addition to the specific submission contents described above, this Application includes a report from Collins Engineering regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for relocation, which report is attached as Exhibit 6. The substantial additions that have been made in the past to the north (rear) and east of the historic resource have resulted in prior demolition of substantially all of the historic structure in those areas. While very little of the historic structure remains (other than the gable and structure facing Main Street), there may be structural members that will need to be removed in order to complete the redevelopment of the Property. Further, the Applicants propose to relocate the historic structure to the southwest corner of the building envelope, as described above. THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED FOR THE RENOVATION, RESTORATION OR REHABILITATION OF THE STRUCTURE. RESPONSE: The partial demolition already occurred when the substantial additions to the north (rear) and east were accomplished. In order to renovate the structure it will be necessary to rebuild the north (rear) portion of the original historic structure. This reconstruction will be accomplished in a fashion that will attempt to duplicate the original detailing of the rear of the structure. It may be necessary to remove 16 insubstantial portions of the original historic structure that may remain to the north (rear) of the historic resource. It is difficult to ascertain what, if any, of the original historic elements remain, but there may be interior wall joists or other structural elements. However, the substantial addition to the north (rear) and east previously removed any visible historic elements. The only thing that might remain would be internal structural members that cannot be seen by a visual inspection of the Property. THE APPLICANT HAS MITIGATED, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE: a: STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL. b: STRUCTURE NOR THE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL. RESPONSE: The Applicants have mitigated the impacts on the historic structure by restoring the original historic structure and moving it to the front setback. Likewise, the impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible based upon the redevelopment plan, the sketches and elevations of which are enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8. 17 5. Relocation. This Application requests relocation of the historic landmark. As described above, it will be moved to the south (front) setback and the west setback. THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE REHABILITATED OR REUSED ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE TO PROVIDE FOR ANY REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. RESPONSE: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site without impairing the historic integrity of the structure. If it were to remain on its original site, the remaining portion of the site would bear a disproporatinate amount of the mass and bulk of any addition. As a result, the historic structure should be relocated on -site so as to allow full utilization of the site. It is questionable whether review standard applies to a relocation on -site or a relocation off -site. THE RELOCATION ACTIVITY IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE BEST PRESERVATION METHOD FOR THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT STRUCTURES WILL NOT BE DIMINISHED DUE TO THE RELOCATION. RESPONSE: As noted above, the historic house is being relocated on site. It will be moved approximately 10 feet to the south (front) of the site and less than 5 feet to the west. A basement will be provided for the structure, and Applicants will restore the original historic cottage. 18 THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF THE RELOCATION AND RE- SITING. A STRUCTURAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER DEMONSTRATING THE SOUNDNESS OF THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED FOR RELOCATION. RESPONSE: The structural report of Baker Fallin is submitted as Exhibit 6 hereto demonstrating the soundness of the structure for the proposed relocation. A RELOCATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, INCLUDING POSTING A BOND WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TO INSURE THE SAFE RELOCATION, PRESERVATION AND REPAIR (IF REQUIRED) OF THE STRUCTURE, SITE PREPARATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTIONS. THE RECEIVING SITE SHALL BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE OF THE PHYSICAL RELOCATION. RESPONSE: The interior of the historic structure will be secured and the property will be lifted from its existing concrete /rubble foundation. A new basement will be excavated under the historic house which will then be relocated on the new foundation. The historic structure will move approximately ten feet to the south (front) of the site and less than five feet to the west. The Applicant is prepared to post a bond in the amount established by the HPC to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. As noted above, the receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. THE RECEIVING SITE IS COMPATIBLE IN NATURE TO THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE MOVED, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE RELOCATION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WOULD NOT DIMINISH 19 THE INTEGRITY OR CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE RECEIVING SITE. AN ACCEPTANCE LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE RECEIVING SITE SHALL BE SUBMITTED. RESPONSE: This standard does not appear to be applicable since there is no receiving site since the Property is to be relocated on -site. However, to the extent that this standard may apply to the proposed development, the relocation is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure and the character of the neighborhood because it allows a design solution that does not overpower the historic resource. If the structure were not relocated, any addition to the rear of the structure would create greater bulk and mass due to the limited area available on the site. VI. Special Review or FAR Bonus. The Office Zone District allows the floor area of the Property to be increased from .75:1 up to 1:1 by special review. As applied to the Property, which consists of a 5,000 square foot site, the special review increase in floor area would permit an additional 1,250 square feet, provided at least 60% (or 750 square feet) are dedicated to affordable housing. This Application requests a special review increase of square footage, of which 60% will be incorporated into the two affordable housing units. The exact square footages are detailed in the Historic Supplement to the Land Use Application Form, Exhibit 5. 20 As described above, and as illustrated in the sketches and elevations enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8, the mass, height, density, configuration, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with and enhances the character of the neighborhood. The proposed increase in floor area will not have any adverse impacts, or those impacts will be mitigated based on the proposed design. If the HPC determines that the additional square footage that would result from special review approval creates bulk and massing that are undesirable for the site, the Applicants request that the HPC grant an FAR bonus increase in floor area. The HPC would be required to make a finding of historic compatibility in order to grant the floor area bonus. In this situation, the finding can be made. If the Property is developed with the special review bonus, it would result in an additional 750 square feet added to the Property. On the other hand, if the floor area bonus were granted by the HPC based on historical compatibility, there will be 750 square feet less that will need to be accommodated on the site. This will allow the proposed addition to the rear to be lowered by approximately two feet since the affordable housing units located partially subgrade could be reduced in size. The Applicants would prefer the FAR bonus because it will reduce the overall height of the addition substantially. Since concerns have been expressed by the HPC regarding the maximum floor area allowable in the Office 21 Zone District, by granting the FAR bonus, the Property will be developed at 15% below the maximum FAR, at a minimum. VII. Condominiumization. This Application requests approval for condominiumization of the net leasable square footage and the affordable housing units. The Land Use Code does not set forth any specific procedure for condominiumization of commercial space, but addresses only residential and lodge condominiumization. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1993, has been adopted by the City of Aspen to incorporate the provisions of the recently enacted Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. The Applicants will submit a proposed condominium subdivision exemption plat map as soon as possible. The approval for commercial condominiumization is an approval that may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1993. krabacher \dots \appl i cati on.1 22 Historic Preservation Committee ■ Minutes of June 27, 1990 the glass is. We would have to move the whole room out to swing them in. Glenn: Is there a system that the window could behalf in and half out, swinging so that it never goes in the entire four feet. Applicant: It would then come out onto the patio. Jake: What about a pocket window that would hinge and go up behind the transom window. Roxanne: This need to be kept as original as possible, one pane of glass. Georgeann: The direction we are giving you is to keep it two panes of glass and talk with Dave Gibson and come back to the board. MOTION: Don made the motion that the proposal for minor development for 420 E. Cooper be denied with the recommendation that the application resubmit a revised plan and submit a scaled elevation of the entire facade and exact size of the window with details; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Joe stepped down Bill seated Georgeann chaired. Public Hearing Opened Roxanne: The removal of the chain link fence is highly applauded and it will be replaced with a picket fence. The picket fence is very compatible. The concern that is raised by the zoning officer and the engineering department were the gates along the back and the diagonal parking. I am not opposed but the other departments are, thus the Planning Department cannot make a recommendation. Welton Anderson, architect: A parking variation can been granted by this Board if it is in the best interest of the structure. The lot is only 50 feet wide. Ideally a parking lot should be 60 feet wide. The turning movements of the cars will make the parking area work. There is no off the street foot traffic. The fence is designed that when the parking area is need to be used for potential customers that it be closed off to protect the l merchandise sitting at the back door and keeping dogs etc. out. 1 5 Historic Preservation Committee 1 Minutes of June 27, 1990 Don: The plan for the diagonal parking all depends on what size car you are putting in there. The standard size is 18 feet. Glenn: Could you address Bob Gish's comment about the gate swinging out and the snow removal problems. Welton: We will oppose any five foot setback of the fence from the alley because nobody else in town is required to have a setback in the alley. We will design the gate so that it is high enough off the ground that a foot or six inches of snow will be workable and it will be entirely on the property. If this is an encroachment it does not fit the definition of an encroachment because it would be a temporary encroachment when you open the gate. Georgeann: It could swing inside or slide like a barn door type. Welton: The gate that I designed is in four panels two are in the center at three feet wide each. Joe Krabacher, applicant: The gate will open completely and be flush with the other part of the fence. It will not stick out in the alley. It will be two fences wide then the property line when it is open. The Board is entitled to vary standards if it is more compatible with the historic structures. I am not doing a picket fence just in the front. We have mixed uses on Main Street. Georgeann: Is this for cars or storage. Welton: This will give the residence privacy at night and protection from the activities going on in the alley. But in the daytime you open it up for potential customers. It is the same picket design but a little taller in back. Georgeann: I have a hard time finding that the fence out to the alley is more compatible historically. Les: I think mixed use is historical. Anytime that we can get rid of a chain linked fence it is a benefit to the entire west end. The trade off is well worth in a mixed use zone. Don: The Eng. Dept. says this is an encroachment and if the plow runs over the fence then it is Joe's problem as any encroachment is. Most of the fences in the west end encroach. Glenn: Do we want to encourage mixed use on Main Street and if so I support this. \ Georgeann: Parking was not used in the back of a building in the 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 27, 1990 older days and fences went to the alley. Georgeann: I would make a strong recommendation that this be treated as residential parking and allow the five parking spaces to stack and solve it that way. Joe: I am concerned that the Building Department will say no you can't do what Georgeann recommended because the property is mixed use. Roxanne: The code is not specific. Georgeann: With the ambiguity in the code I would support the variation due to hardship. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant minor development for the parking variation at 706 W. Main; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. 610 N. 1ST, A /K /A 329 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING FINAL DEVELOPMENT IF POSSIBLE Public hearing opened Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an approval or an addition, partial demolition of a car port and the .addition of a two car garage with a master suite above. A 156 sq. ft. FAR variation and a 10 3/4 inch side yard setback variation. The applicant is also asking for a final approval. There is nothing in the code that prohibits this. I have reviewed the development review standards and standard #1 deals with the compatibility and character of the designated structure and also states that the language in the finding of the FAR variation. We do not find that the addition is more compatible as it states in the code. Possibly a smaller scale addition would be more compatible. We are not opposed to the addition since it primarily has received substantial character change alternations in the past. It is not the addition that we are opposed to it is making the finding that it is more compatible and therefore a FAR variation could be granted. Standard #2 deals with the general character of the community and it meets this standard. Standard #3 deals with the cultural value and it does not detract from the cultural value. Standard #4 deals with the architectural integrity of the structure; is more better or less. Does this addition enhance the original architecture. Welton Anderson, architect: Concerning the FAR bonus it was developed ten years ago at Mary Martin's request. Victorians designed historic have a disadvantage over non - historic. You can 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 historic or not. If this is Ute #4 where are two and three. There are a lot of rocks marked on and cut on to use as survey monuments. That would influence my decision on the historic significance. It is a difficult argument to make to come to the HPC and argue that the HPC has no authority to do what it is trying to do. In the pre - application summary they noted that the applicant was told that there was an HPC issue. I am not so convinced about Frank Loushin being treated unfairly; what about the city being treated unfairly. I need to see the hardship issues, is it possible to incorporate the rock or not. I would support it if we are saying we want to have a public hearing to decide whether or not the rock is historic. I do not have enough information today to make that decision. I would be in favor of doing a resolution so that nothing happens in the mean time. Roger: I would support a resolution and more information is required regarding the number #4; what does that mean. Possibly have a letter from all parties that were at the interview with Loushin as to what their statements were. Alice Horn: Loushin truly believes that an historic designation was not mentioned. The two marks from BLM were put there in the 60's and he said the spike he put there when the kids were playing on the rock. I do feel the rock can be very well incorporated in some plan. We don't intend to demolish the rock. Roger: We also need to check with our local Historical Society. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adopt the resolution with changes on the fourth whereas: wishes to declare its support for investigating at a public hearing Landmark Designation of U.S. Monument Ute NO. #4 and to forward its recommendation from that public hearing. Also amending the last paragraph : The board recommends holding a public hearing regarding possible landmark designation of U.S. Location Monument Ute #4; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - FENCE Joe: There was an existing chain link fence with a cottonwood tree on the corner and the hole where they took out the old fence encroaches into the city right -of -way. He put the new posts in the old holes which creates a problem because it encroaches into the right -of -way and I will have to get an encroachment license. I wanted to ask the HPC if they would support that. If we dug a hole where the property line was it would have gone through the root of the tree and I felt that was a bigger problem than getting an encroachment license. The tree is two to three feet across and is I over 100 years old. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC supports the new fence to be placed exactly where the previous fence was and noted that this is not a permanent structure; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10