HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940802
""""'~""""""'~'C?'_"<+''''''''''....._",,,,..,,"_,,-.,~,..' .'.
F
SITB VISIT
4:00 P.K.
(meet behind City Hall)
KRAIIACHBR
=================================================================
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 2, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Affordable Housing Text Amendment, Leslie Lamont
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 204 E. Durant Text Amendment, Mary Lackner (tabled
July 5)
B. Creektree SUbdivision/PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner
(tabled July 19)
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Krabacher GMQS Exemptions and Special Review, Kim
Johnson (tabled June 21)
VI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 2, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting - August 16
Text Amendments (KJ/ML)
Zoline Rezoning (LL)
Regular Meeting - September 6
Special Work Session with City Attorney
Regular Meeting - September 20
Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
Aspen Youth Center SPA Amendment (LL)
Mountain Chalet Change in Use & GMQS Exemption (KJ)
a. nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: August 2, 1994
RE: Text Amendment - Architectural Projections - Public
Hearing
SUMMARY: The Planning Department is proposing to amend the text of
the Land Use Code for the definitions of Yard and Architectural
Projection.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
BACKGROUND: During the design and review of the Kraut affordable
housing proposal, the architects proposed "building eaves" that
projected 18" into the required yards which is allowed by the Code.
However, the Zoning Department defines the proposed projections as
"architectural projections" because they do not serve as a
protective function against rain and snow as building eaves are
intended to do. Architectural projections are only allowed to
extend 12" into required yards.
The Kraut development team considered moving the building 6" but
because of the below grade parking structure and "key" dimensions
of the building that solution became unrealistic. Next, the Kraut
development team conferred with the HPC (as recommended by the
Planning Director) whether architectural projections could extend
up to 18" without creating site design or code problems. HPC
agreed with the Kraut developers, and staff, that an additional 6"
would not only enhance a building's pedestrian scale and help break
up the massing of a building but is also not a significant change
to the Code. HPC did caution that the projections should not
extend to the ground which would increase a structures site
coverage.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review
for an amendment to Chapter 24 are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: Currently building eaves are allowed to extend 18" into
required yards. The proposed amendment is not only consistent with
that language but would end the definitional debate between
building eaves and architectural projections.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the Design
Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan both encourage
buildings that are pedestrian friendly in scale. Architectural
projections are intended to help achieve a better appearance of the
scale of the building.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment would affect all zone districts.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment. on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: N/A
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: N/A
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the allowed
projection of building eaves whose primary function is to protect
buildings from rain and snow. The amendment would not affect the
natural environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: As stated above, the Neighborhood Character Guidelines
and the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan
encourage elements of design that create pedestrian friendly
buildings.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: N/A
2
V
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy to attempt to clarify the Land Use Code and eliminate
discrepancies.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Section 24-3-101 defines:
Architectural projections (as) a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building.
Section 24-3-101 defines:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - Twelve (12) inches;
The proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 24-3-101 defined as:
Architectural projections mean a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building that does not extend to the ground.
Section 24-3-101 defined as:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - ,
Eighteen (18) inches;
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the text amendment
to increase architectural projections from 12" to 18" and to amend
the definition of the architectural projection to prevent their
extension down to the ground.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council the text
amendments to the definition of architectural projections and to
increase the allowed projection of those features from 12" to
18".
3
Jb
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: 204 E Durant GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, and Text
Amendment
DATE: August 2, 1994
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission approved the applicant's request
for Multi -Family Housing Replacement and Subdivision on July 5,
1994. The Commission tabled the applicant's request for the text
amendment for clearer proposed language.
Staff and the applicant have discussed various approaches to
clarify the code amendment that would permit garage aprons to be
used as legal parking spaces in multi -family projects that do not
share common parking. A copy of the applicant's revised text
amendment request is included as Exhibit "A".
Text Amendment (Section 24-7-1101)
The applicant is seeking approval of a text amendment that would
consider automobile parking spaces on garage aprons to be legal
spaces. The City of Aspen permits single family and duplex units
to utilize these garage aprons as legal parking spaces ( See Section
24-5-302 C. below). Aprons are a logical place to park a car
because they are usually paved and provide easy access to the
entrance of a residence. The Code does not permit the use of
garage aprons for legal parking spaces for multi -family projects
(See Section 24-5-302 A. below). The primary reason this is not
permitted for multi -family projects is the potential that residents
of different units would block each other. In other words,
vehicles belonging to different units would be stacked together.
The layout of the 204 E. Durant project would allow this stacking
for automobiles from the same unit. This proposed text amendment
will only affect multi -family developments.
The Commission reviewed a similar request for the Oblock townhomes .
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission tabled the
review. The applicant then discontinued the request in order to
continue the review process.
Adopted Section.5-302 Characteristics of off-street parking spaces
and access to street or alley
A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of
an open area measuring eight and one-half feet (8-1/21)
wide by eighteen feet (18' ) long and seven feet ( 7' ) high
with a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent in any one
direction. Each parking space, except those provided
for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings,
shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley.
No driveway shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12)
percent within twenty feet of a property line bordering
a public or private right-of-way. Off-street parking must
be paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with
gravel and maintained in a usable condition at all times.
C. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-
street parking provided for detached residential
dwellings and duplex dwellings are not required to have
unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist
of garage area, or parking strip or apron.
The text language proposed by the applicant follows:
A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of
an open area measuring eight and one-half feet (8-1/21)
wide by eighteen f eet (18' ) long and seven f eet (7 ' ) high
with a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent in any one
direction. Each parking space, except for those provided
for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings,
shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley.
Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwellings
which do not share a common parking area may be exempted
from the unobstructed access requirement subject to
Special Review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. No driveway
shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent
within twenty feet of a property line bordering a public
or private right-of-way. Off-street parking must be paved
with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and
maintained in a usable condition at all times.
Since this code amendment requires that Special Review be granted,
the following paragraph will be added to the Special Review
provisions of the Regulations.
Sec. 7-404 Review standards for Special Review
B. Off-street parking requirements.
3. Off-street parking provided for multi-
family dwelling units which do not share
a common parking area is not required to
have unobstructed access to a street or
alley, but may consist of garage area,
parking strip or apron provided that the
applicant demonstrates that adequate
landscaping will be installed to reduce
the parking's visual impact. Developments
consisting of three or more dwelling units
shall install one (1) planter buffer per
three parking spaces. Planter buffers
shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet long
NYA
projects. In addition, the Residential Parking Permit program will
require residents to park off the street.
Should the text amendment not be approved, the applicant would need
to provide the required eight parking spaces proposed for the
garage aprons elsewhere on -site. Denial of this code amendment
would result in a de facto density control. An applicant needs to
provide a percentage of open space on a parcel in addition to on -
site parking. Should the area under garage aprons not be approved
as legal parking space, some projects may be required to scale back
the number of bedrooms or units in order to meet the on -site open
space and parking requirements of the Code.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: Staff has identified the potential negative impacts and
advantages from the approval of the proposed amendment. Staff
believes that the proposed amendment can be approved (with
recommended changes) and be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the applicant's proposed text amendment as follows:
Section 5-302 Characteristics of off-street parking spaces and
access to street or alley
A. General. Each off-street.parking space shall consist of
an open area measuring eight and one-half feet (8-1/21)
wide by eighteen feet (18' ) long and seven feet (7 1 ) high
with a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent in any one -
direction. Each parking space, except for those provided
for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings,
shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley.
Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwellings
which do not share a common parking area may be exempted
from the unobstructed access requirement subject to
Special Review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. No driveway
shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent
within twenty feet of a property line bordering a public
or private right-of-way. Off-street parking must be paved
with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and
maintained in a usable condition at all times.
Since this code amendment requires that Special Review be granted,
the following paragraph will be added to the Special Review
provisions of the Regulations.
Sec. 7-404 Review standards for special Review
B. Off-street parking requirements.
3. Off-street parking provided for multi -family
dwelling units which do not share a common
parking area is not required to have
unobstructed access to a street or alley, but
may consist of garage area, parking strip or
apron provided that the applicant demonstrates
that adequate landscaping will be installed to
reduce the parking's visual impact.
Developments consisting of three or more
dwelling units shall install one (1) planter
buffer per three parking spaces. Planter
buffers shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet
long by two and one-half (2-1/2) feet wide by
two (2) feet high unless otherwise varied by
the Commission. The location of the planters
may also be varied by the Commission based on
site specific circumstances provided that no
fewer than three (3) planter buffers are
provided per three (3) off-street parking
spaces.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval for the text
amendment to permit parking on garage aprons for multi -family
projects with special review approval, to City Council. The
Commission also approves the applicant's request for Special Review
for apron parking, should City Council approve the proposed text
amendment."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
apz.textamend.204Edur
MEMORANDUM
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 IS 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, staffs 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
The 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. ( 2 7 4
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 221. 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 761, so the east and west
elevations are changed subtly. THe north and south elevations
remain the same.
2 ) The overall 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.
k
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.
STAFF 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
l 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
t
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.
RECOMMENDED 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