HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Michael Smith's floor area questionsFrom:Sara Adams
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Cc:Reilly Thimons
Subject:response to Michael Smith"s floor area questions
Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:22:54 AM
Dear Michael, HPC, and City Staff.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have looked into it and found that your comments in
part 1 are partially correct and your comments in part 2 are not correct. We appreciate the heads up
on the floor area calculations and make every effort to be as accurate as possible in our application.
Please see our response below.
1. The letter from Bendon Adams (p.49) states that “Floor area has been reduced from 4,277 sf
(December application) to 4,241 sf (January application) to 3,899.5 sf (February “current”
application).” This implies there has been a 378 sf reduction in floor area (8.8%), which is
absolutely untrue. Bendon Adams certainly knows this. Floor area was corrected in the
“current” application to 3,899.5 from a stated 3,678.4 sf in the most recent application that
contained numerous errors and yet was still accepted by the city and posted on its website.
However, some of the errors that were fixed in this latest submittal were errors that existed in
each of the prior (December and January) submittal. One error corrected was the counting of
stairway area on the topmost level in two of the units (units #101 and #103). This error
existed in the prior submittals, and therefore the applicant is making a false statement about
the reduction in floor area. Based on my calculation from the public data, actual floor area for
the December application was 4,146 sf and 4,110 from the January application (the difference
being the two exterior storage areas the HPC would not allow being constructed on the
exterior of the historic resource). The reduction from 4,110 sf in January, when the
applicant was told to reduce the mass and scale, to the most recent submittal is 210.5 sf
(5.1%).
The December submittal was reviewed by the City’s Zoning Officer and deemed accurate. The City’s
calculations and measurements are complex and the floor plans are finalized or “stamped” by Zoning
during building permit review. We do our best to provide accurate calculations but sometimes things
are accidentally overlooked. The City counts stairs on all levels except the topmost level. This
methodology applies to calculations of both floor area and net livable area. It appears that DJA
counted the stairs on the ground level of Units 101,102 and 103 when calculating floor area, and the
stairs were correctly exempted when calculating net livable area. The December application did not
have a second floor stairway in Unit 102, therefore the stairway should have been exempted on the
ground level and counted in the basement. The February application for consideration by HPC on
2/10 proposes the addition of a dormer, second floor bedroom, and extension of the stacked stairway
to the second level. This means that the stairway is counted on the basement and ground levels, and
exempted on the second level.
Upon a closer look, this mistake was carried forward to all iterations and has recently been
corrected. We appreciate Michael’s consultants looking at our drawings and identifying potential
issues – we strive to have as accurate a drawing set as possible for Conceptual HPC Review. The total
floor area in the December and January applications (which are no longer proposed) that was
counted when it should have been exempted is: Unit 101=76sf; Unit 102=60sf; and Unit 103=56sf.
The assumption that this miscalculation was intentional is unfounded. The applicant and Zoning
Officer both missed it on the “floor area” pages of the drawing set. The key takeaway is that the
project was and is well under the maximum floor area and the project has been reduced in mass and
scale. For context, the square footage that was missed in the stair calculation is a total of ~192sf.
The error in the floor area calculation was an honest mistake and has been corrected.
2. I question the appropriateness of including the 114 sf attic storage space as floor area and
living area (104 sf) for unit #101. The City of Aspen floor area guidelines state that “Attic
space that is conveniently accessible and is either habitable or can be made habitable shall be
counted in the calculation of Floor Area.” It was never quite clear how this area was to be
accessed but a reexamination of the drawings seems to show that this storage space may be
accessed from a pull-down ladder (see applicants main level NLA plan drawings for this unit).
According to the City of Aspen in their Floor Area guidance: “An attic area accessible only
through an interior pull-down access ladder is exempt.” Removing this as living space would
make this unit only 3 sf above the APCHA minimum, and this is currently the only unit that
exceeds that minimum. I can see the motivation of the applicant to include the footage, but
who at the City of Aspen has reviewed this and ruled on whether this should be considered
Floor Area and living space?
The storage space in Unit 101 was reviewed by the Zoning Officer and the Building Department prior
to the HPC meeting on January 13th. Zoning confirmed that the proposed loft storage accessed by a
ship ladder meets the Land Use Code criteria to be counted as both net livable space and floor area,
and the Building Department confirmed that Building Codes are met with the proposed space.
Sincerely, Sara
Sara Adams, AICP
www.bendonadams.com
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
(o) 970.925.2855 x2
(m) 610.246.3236