HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain 622 S Galena.A3-97,/DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID #
CAS>0'AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY CIOSPEN
1/9/97
2737 - 182 -90-
CASE # A3 -97
STAFF: Stan.Clauson
PROJECT NAME: 622 S. Galena Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mtn. P.U.D.
Project Address: 622 S. Galena St. Aspen
APPLICANT: Charlene Gondekk
Address/Phone: 628 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place 925 -8080
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name /Address:
FEES DUE
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$450
PLANNING
$450.
# APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER
$0
ENGINEER
$
# PLATS RECEIVED 1
HOUSING
$0
HOUSING
$
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL
$450.
TOTAL RCVD $450.
Staff Approval
REFERRALS:
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
..
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board .
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Date:
Date:
Book -,Page
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD to allow for
enclosure of the entryway in Unit 44 of the Galena Place Townhomes,
located at 622 S. Galena Street.
DATE: January 21, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The owner of Galena Place Unit #4 wishes to amend the Aspen Mountain
PUD so that the entryway into their unit can be enclosed for safety and privacy purposes.
The existing covered entryway is a T- shaped subgrade space that is enclosed on three
sides. The applicant proposes to move the existing entry door out to the line of the west
facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location.
FINDINGS: The Galena Place Townhomes were approved as part 'of the First Amended
Aspen Mountain PUD in October, 1988. The amended PUD states that Galena Place is
to be comprised of 4 three- bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more
than 12,000 square feet of floor area.
Staff has reviewed the building permit file for this project and finds that the entryway
areas for the buildings were included in the original floor area calculations. Therefore,
staff concludes that enclosing the entryway area will not increase the existing floor area
of the structures.
Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that:
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The
following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on
the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand' for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off - street parking and loading space.
6..A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements.
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the entryway enclosure of Galena Place
Townhome Unit #4 and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director
approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of
the entryway of Galena Place Townhomes Unit # 4, finding that the criteria in Section
26.84.070 (A) have been met.
I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Mountain PUD for
the enclosure of the entryway for Unit # 4 of the Galena Place Townhomes as
represented in the attached application documents.
Stan 'Cl'auson,'eify 6ommunity Development Dgi(%f r199 ,,,Date
QJQ%W o
r. 3 196
Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc.
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Stan:
Some time ago, I had an initial discussion with Dave Michaelson regarding a
client who owns one of the four townhouses at Galena Place, a project within
the Aspen Mountain PUD. The client's unit has an awkward entry situation
and I was discussing with Dave, as the staff person in charge of the continuing
reviews of projects within the PUD, about the possibility of dealing with the
situation through an Insubstantial Amendment procedure. Shortly thereafter,
Dave announced that he was resigning, so I did not pursue the subject for a
while.
Circumstances changed several weeks ago when this unit was broken into by
someone (subsequently arrested) who took advantage of the virtually
undetectable location of the deeply recessed lower -level entry area to break
into the unit by breaking out a window in the recessed entry wall. The
location where the break -in occurred, with walls on three sides and only the
small opening in question on the west side, is totally screened from view from
both surrounding properties as well as the street. My client realized after the
break -in occurred that when the unit is unoccupied (the owner was out of
town at the time), an intruder could only be discovered by someone
approaching the entryway along the entry walk (a remote possibility when the
owner is away). Perhaps if someone walked from the edge of the sidewalk. to
the retaining wall and then stooped down to look underneath the
overhanging deck into the lower -level entry area, they might also be able to
see an intruder, but that seems equally unlikely to occur.
Once I was notified of the break -in, I contacted Dave at his new office to see if
he would be available to review an Insubstantial Amendment request if you
would authorize him to do so. My thought was that he would still be a good
choice, since he is probably the person most familiar with the approvals in the
PUD. He said that he wouldn't mind handling the review, but suggested that
he should discuss it with you first. I haven't heard back from Dave, so I
thought that I should discuss the situation with you directly to see how you
think we should proceed.
e
+t
r�
y
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page two
The enclosure of the opening in the west facade clearly is in compliance with
the first eight of nine standards for an Insubstantial Amendment. It is
somewhat less clear, given the current Code definitions, whether the proposal
is a "change which ... requires granting a further variation from the project's
approved ... dimensional requirements" which, if so, would make it not
eligible. I am forwarding a draft of information required for an Insubstantial
Amendment request. I have also included my arguments as to why the entry
area should already be counted in FAR under present rules so that you can
look the information over to see what you think. Let me know if you think
that the circumstances would permit this request to be considered under the
Insubstantial Amendment procedures.
oseph Wells, AICP
JW /su
Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc.
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Stan:
I have a client who owns one of the four townhouses at Galena Place, one of
the completed projects within the Aspen Mountain PUD. These residences
are three -level units in a duplex configuration, with the pedestrian entrance
for each unit on the lower level. My client owns the southernmost unit and, as
a result of topography, the entry level for his unit is approximately 74 percent
below natural grade on the street side.
These four units were designed as detached blocks of two units each with few
penetrations in the facades as they extend down to finished grade. In fact, the
only opening in any of the surrounding walls at the entry level of my client's
unit is the T- shaped opening of less than 90 sq. ft. in the west facade. To enter
the unit, one passes through this opening into a covered but unenclosed space
to approach the recessed entry wall. Because this exterior entry court has a
low ceiling and because of the proximity of the existing retaining wall along
the entry walk (a 7 ft. - 6 in. high wall separated from the facade by only 16 ft.),
the experience of entering the unit is not as pleasant as it could be. Debris
from the street also has a tendency to collect in this exterior area, because of
the enclosing walls at the south end of the walkway.
When the architects originally designed the project, I don't believe that they
were fully aware of the impact that the combination of the surrounding
retaining walls and the limited extent of openings in the facade itself would
have on the entry to this particular unit. My client has asked me to look into
the possibility of moving the entry door out to the line of the facade and
enclosing the remaining openings on either side of the new door location.
This would have very little effect on the appearance of the unit, particularly
when viewed from the street.
With the possible exception of the final standard, which does not permit the
Planning Director to sign off on a change which is "inconsistent with a
condition or representation of the project's original approval or which
requires a further variation from the project's approved dimensional
requirements ", the enclosure of the opening in the west facade clearly
complies with the standards for an insubstantial amendment under the
provisions of Section 26.84.080 (A) of the Land Use Code, as discussed below.
• .
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page two
An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development
Director with the exception of the following changes:
"1. A change in the use or character of the development." (No change is
proposed).
"2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of
structures on the land." (No change is proposed).
"3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the
proposed development, or the demand for public facilities." (No change
is proposed).
"4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open
space." (No change is proposed).
"5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off - street parking
and loading space." (No change is proposed).
"6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets
and easements." (No change is proposed).
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross
leasable floor area of commercial buildings." (Not applicable to the
proposal).
"8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential
density of the development." (No change is proposed).
"9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of
the project's original approval or which requires granting a further
variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements."
The proposed enclosure is not inconsistent with a condition or
representation of the project's original approval and does not require
granting a further variation from the uses approved for the project. The
only issue is whether it requires granting a further variation from the
project's approved dimensional requirements. This discussion is further
limited only to the issue of external FAR floor area.
The entry level of the unit is considered a "basement" under the Code
definition ( "Basement means that portion of a structure fifty (50) percent or
more of which is below natural grade. "). I believe that it is also the intent
• •
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page three
under the current Code language to define the entry level as a floor which
is partially subgrade. To determine the square footage of the entry level
which should be counted in FAR calculations, it is therefore necessary to
first perform "a calculation of the total volume of the story which is above
and which is below grade ", to establish the percentage of the area of the
story which shall be included in floor area calculations. This calculation
"shall be made by determining the total percentage of the perimeter wall
area of the story which is above natural or finished grade, whichever is
lower, which shall be multiplied by the total floor area of the subject story,
and the resulting total shall be that area which is included in the floor area
calculation."
The "worst- case" interpretation would be to define those areas outside the
"interior" entry wall which are not presently enclosed, but inside the
exterior walls of the unit, as currently being exempt from FAR calculations
and to also define these areas once enclosed as counting completely in
FAR calculations, subject to the language above regarding partially
subgrade space. Therefore,, I have performed the required calculations in
two different ways- first, by treating the "interior" entry wall as the exterior
wall of the level (Alternative One) and secondly, by treating the perimeter
wall of the building as the exterior wall (Alternative Two).
It is difficult to know how the calculation should be performed under
Alternative One, since the "interior" entry wall is being treated as the
exterior wall of the level and there is an enclosed element outside of that
wall. For the sake of discussion, I have calculated the volume of the level
at the entry wall and have added the additional square footage of the
exterior mechanical room to the total square footage of the level to
determine the FAR square footage under that alternative. The conclusion
of these calculations is that, under the worst -case interpretation, the
enclosure of the entry area would increase the FAR square footage of the
unit by 201 sq. ft., as indicated on the attached Table One. This is because
more of the perimeter wall is partially subgrade when the perimeter walls
are used for the calculation, so the percentage of the total square footage
counting in FAR is less.
An argument can certainly be made, however, that the space proposed to
be enclosed should already be counted in FAR calculations under present
rules and that therefore the enclosure has no effect on the FAR square
footage of the unit. The current Code language strongly implies that when
an area is covered and almost completely enclosed, it should be counted
to some degree in FAR calculations. For instance, covered porches are
exempt from FAR calculations, but the area proposed to be enclosed does
not comply with the definition of a "porch" because it is not "open on at
least two sides to the outdoors" ( "Porches are defined as uninsulated,
•
December 30, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page four
unheated areas under a roof, bounded on at least one side by the exterior
wall of a living space and open on at least two sides to the outdoors with
or without screens. "). The entry area is therefore not exempt from
inclusion in FAR calculations.
Further, the opening in the west facade of the entry area is only
approximately one third of the area of that wall and does not comply with
the definition of a "loggia" because it is not "at least 50% open to the
outdoors on one side" ( "Loggias are defined as an unheated area under a
roof, over a living space, and at least 50% open to the outdoors on one side
with or without screens. "). Therefore the entry area is not eligible to be
calculated in FAR calculations at the reduced percentage of 0.5 FAR.
It would be difficult to conclude, it seems to me, that an area which is even
more enclosed than a "loggia" should not be counted in FAR at all.
I think it is fair to say that the intent of limiting square footage through FAR
restrictions is primarily two -fold. The first is to limit the mass of the structure
as viewed by the public and the second is to limit the intensity of the use of
the structure. I would suggest that, in this case, the enclosure of the covered
entry area will have no effect on either of these two considerations. First, the
existing opening provides no meaningful relief in the existing perimeter
facade to passersby. Secondly, the unit will remain a three - bedroom unit, as
originally approved. I am attaching photos and drawings of the unit to
illustrate existing conditions. Let me know if you think the proposed
enclosure of the single opening in the west facade of the lower level of the
unit could be reviewed under the Insubstantial Amendment procedure.
Sincerely,
f
/ � Joseph Wells, AICP
C/
0 •
TABLE ONE
EXTERNAL FAR CALCULATIONS,
GALENA PLACE UNIT NO. FOUR
Second Floor Elevation: 104.63 Ft.
Basement Elevation: 95.33 Ft.
Floor to Floor Height: 9.30 Ft.
Alternative One:
Alternative Two:
% of Area
% Above
Length
Mr.
Area of
Above
Fin. Grade
of Wall
to Mr.
Wall Fin. Grade
1.
Entry Facade
100.00%
50.25
9.30
467.33
467.33
2.
South Facade
21.50%
16.17
9.30
150.38
32.33
3.
East Facade
74.09%
33.00
9.30
306.90
227.38
4.
North Facade
75.81%
38.75
9.30
360.38
273.20
1284.99
1000.24 (77.84 %)
Existing Floor Area
X % of Floor Above
Fin Grade
= FAR floor Area
X
843.48 SF
X
77.84%
857.17 SF
=
656.56 SF
Alternative Two:
% of Area
% Above
Length
Flr.
Area of
Above
Fin. Grade
of Wall
to Mr.
Wall Fin. Grade
1.
West Facade
85.38%
29.00
9.30
269.70
230.27
2.
South Facade
21.50%
55.08
9.30
512.24
110.13
3.
East Facade
74.09%
33.00
9.30
306.90
227.38
4.
North Facade
80.26%
47.50
9.30
441.75
354.55
1530.59
922.33 (60.26 %)
Proposed Floor Area X % of Floor Above Fin Grade =
FAR floor Area
1422.45 SF
X
60.26%
=
857.17 SF
i
WEST FACADE,
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
(UNIT TO THE RIGHT)
WEST AND SOUTH FACADE,
LOOKING NORTHEAST
OPENING IN LOWER LEVEL
OF WEST FACADE
VIEWED FROM RETAINING WALL
EAST FACADE RETAINING WALL
LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT EAST AND SOUTH FACADE
(UNIT TO THE LEFT) (LOOKING SOUTH)
A
Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc.
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: (970) 925 -8080
Facsimile: (970) 925 -8275
TRANSMITTAL
Please deliver to:� "'
From:
Date:
Number of pages: / (including transmitwl cover sheet)
1 —1111'71
Comments:oyGy
`u?- r /iIJG�Le ovs �c J
6�z�& � hd
� 1
Z'ozI(f aea A�'�
�'6AL - jv'OL� d-z",
-�' �� 5�4 Pr1�ACV`�•L.r
PQ�K
acceptance thereof in writing by the City. In addition to this
warranty, the Owner shall, if they are available, obtain from its
contractors .customary. warranties of good workmanship with the
City as beneficiary, with respect to all improvements required by
Paragraphs C(1),and C(2).
It is the express understanding of the parties that the
procedure set forth in Section M of this Agreement regarding
non - compliance shall not be required with respect to the
enforcement and implementation of the financial assurances set
forth herein and required by Section 20 -16(c) of the Municipal
Code.
4. Employee Housing - Summit Place. Owner has no employee
housing obligations in connection with the Summit Place component
of the Project.
5. On -Site Parking - Summit Place. Owner has no new on-
site parking obligations in connection with the Summit Place
component of the project. Owner shall, however, preserve or
reconstruct six (6) sub - surface parking spaces beneath Lot 2.
D. GALENA PLACE
1. Site Improvements - Galena Place. GGalena P1- ace- =sha -1 -1,
': -be0 compris.edrof 4 three= b6drdbm residential _ units -containing an ,
aggregate-of- not -more than-12;000 square feet of floor area, i
included -in -- external FAR calculations as - shown on-the First
Amended -1-Plat- .r_ ecorded - inn -Book - - at ' .Page :.:_'. et sea., of the
records, each of the drawings and sheets pertaining to which is
incorporated by reference as though fully annexed as an exhibit
31
574 ?AG E82'3 .
to this First Amended PUD Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for Galena Place, and as a condition
precedent thereto, Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish
the following Section 20 -16 improvements in the Galena Place
area:
(a) Owner shall construct a new sidewalk, curb and
gutter along the easterly side of South Galena Street (as
realigned) as it abuts Lot 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and a
new curb and gutter along the westerly side of South Galena
Street (as realigned) as it abuts Lot 5, Aspen Mountain Sub-
division, in accordance with the Landscape Plan as amended and
pursuant to other normal City specifications. In addition, Owner
shall repair or replace any other existing (or newly installed)
sidewalks, curbs or gutters that may be damaged during construc-
tion.
(b) In the event it has not already done so, Owner
shall relocate underground the aboveground utility line which
presently exists along the Easterly boundary of Lot 4, Aspen
Mountain Subdivision, in accordance with the Utility Plan as
amended and "pursuant to other normal City specifications.
2. Landscaping Improvements - Galena Place. In accordance
with Section 24 -8.16 of the Municipal Code, all required
landscaping for Galena Place shall substantially conform to the
Landscape Plan. Said Landscape Plan depicts and describes the
nature, extent and location of all plant materials at mature
sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of
existing plant material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant
32