Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Floor Area Ratios.1979Floor Area Ration 19" Li r It lei ���/ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Action in regard to Floor Area Ratios and Volume Ratios in Residential Zone Districts DATE: April 27, 1979 It has been brought to my attention that P and Z did not take action on a resolution in regard to your recommendation to City Council. The meeting in which you discussed the matter and formed the motion was actually a special meeting (or possibly even a work session) for which there is no record other than my own notes of the motion (enclosed) and therefore you have actually not taken an official action. That motion is included in the "Resolved" section of the Resolution which I am including for your consideration. You may recall that you decided to make a qualified recommendation of the Floor Area Ratios supported by the Board of Realtors, which were more liberal than the ones we recommended and also our office's recommended Volume Ratios. We are also including for your review our memo of October 1st which was prepared for the October 3rd meeting. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office, JW RE: FAR/VR for Residential Districts DATE: October 6, 1978 We are providing you with the recommendation made by motion of the Planning and Zoning Commission this week in regards to FARs and VRs. This is for your information, and will not be discussed at Monday's meeting. P & Z is still anxious to find a mechanism by which the preservation and repair of Victorian homes can remain a viable option financially. FINAL REPORT TO COUNCIL ON FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND VOLUME RATIOS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The Planning and Zoning Commission still feels the subject is too complex to be solved by a simple numerical formula, but under the presuure of possible objectionable buildings, we recommend as a present stopgap the adoption of the following volume to lot ratios: R-6 (SF and duplex) 5.4:1 R-15 (SF) 2.9:1 R-15 (Duplex) 3.6:1 R-30 2.34:1 y (These were the planning office recommendations) In addition, we recommend that existing buildings in the R-6 zone be exempt for the present from this ordinance and, for the purpose of more effectively coping with this problem, that Historic designation of the Original Townsite of Aspen be actively pursued for design review. Although we feel that volume ratios are sufficient to address the problem of the bulk of new buildings, if Council feels FARs are necessary, the following are recommended: R-6 (SF and duplex) .5:1 R-15 (SF) .233:1 R-15(duplex) .33.1 R-30 .13:1 (These were proposed by the Board of Realtors and the West End Association) /ksk �1/LUZv+1V� oT hGlf�Gi��,� � 5� L 50 ��eicsf�,�:�•. wt 47 lam -ram.; �.lGuJste� ,�,,;,.� i ST) UV 447-'- �� i� 60W � �p �?•�.P-!,v C-0Yt S ��/�aw �i ,,GcI7'�� /1L GlJdi'> C� �� MoMmi ! • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Joe Wells RE: Proposed FAR/VR for R-6, R-15, R-30 Zone Districts DATE: October 1, 1978 City Council has expressed interest in adopting both an FAR and a volume ratio for residential zone districts. Since your recommendation was to adopt a special review procedure instead of an FAR or VR Council does not know if you have specific concerns which should be considered as a part of the adoption of FARs/VRs, and consequently have asked that it be re -referred for your comment. We are enclosing a copy of our latest memo to City Council, as well as a letter Welton Anderson wrote on the subject for you consideration. sr t%iEH0RA1;11U1-1 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office RE: Proposed FAR/VR for R-6, R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts DATE: September 8, 1978 Construction in the residential zones is presently limited only by setback requirements, (r•,hich vary) and height limitations, (25 feet in all three zones). There are no open space requirements or floor area ratios in these zones. We are proposing an amendment to the cede which would establish a maximum volume to lot ratio to deal with the impact of the mass of the building on the site. The volunre ratio would deal only with above grade construction, and therefore if Council wishes to deal with the total square footage of construction including below -grade space, it will be necessary to have a floor area ratio in addition to the volume ratio. An FAR proposal is also included for your consideration. In order to arrive at a recommended formula for calculation of a volume ratio, we have used the floor area ratio which we have been recommending for some time for application to construction in these zones and have multiplied that factor by 18 feet as a measure of an appropriate average building height in zone districts which limit height to a maximum of 25 feet. Floor area ratio x 18 = volume ratio x lot size = allowable volume. Stated another way, normally one would use the floor area ratio in the zone district and multiply that by the lot size to arrive at allowable square footage. To develop a volume ratio, simply add the appropriate average height to the calculation. Floor area ratio x lot size = allowable square footage x height = allowable volume. Obviously the effect of limiting the volume rather than the square footage is that if a builder wishes to maximize the square footage allowed, he may do so, but he must sacrifice the luxury of vertical space. This seems to be a much more equitable approach. Our recommendation for volume ratio, then, is as follows: Zone District Lot Size x FAR = Allowable x Allowable ht. = Allowable Volume to sq. ft. Volume , Lot Ratio R-6 (SF) 6,000 .3 = 1300 x 18 = 32,400 5.4:1 R-6 (Duplex) 9,000 .3 = 2700 x 18 = 48,600 5.4:1 R-15(SF) 15,000 .16 = 2400 x 18 = V 200 2.9:1 R-15(Duplex) 20,000 .2 = 4000 x 18 = 72,000 3.6:1 R-30 30,000 .13 = 3900 x 18 = 70,000 2.34:1 When the volume ratios are compared to two of the more commonly cited examples of abuse, as well as another to which we have heard no objection, it is apparent at least in the R-6 zone, which happens to be the location of these examples, that the proposal is not onerous, but does prevent what is in at least one case blatent abuse: ., • Unit Lot Size Erdman 10,284 sq ft Re 6,000 sq ft Semple 11,053.25 sq ft Combined 27,337.25 sq ft McCausland 4,500 sq ft Schuhmacher 9,000 sq ft 10dq. Sq. 1 tago i AR 5474 sq ft .53:1 2744.89 sq ft .46:1 4213 sq ft .38:1 12,431 sq ft .45:1 3196 sq ft .71:1 vj/o basement 4631 sq ft 1.03:1 w/ basement 4311 sq ft .48:1 • Volume To Volmne Lot Ratio 59,140.81 cu ft 5.75:1 29,392 cu ft 4.9:1 51,573.83 cu ft 4.35:1 140,106.64 cu ft 5.12:1 37,323 cu ft 8.29:1 49,813 cu ft 5.53:1 These examples reveal that the Erdman Semple triplex is not really out of proportion to its site when compared to the Schuhmacher house adjacent. There is actually a relatively very large amount of open space remaining on the site. It is simply that the height of the buildings and the extent of the uninter- rupted wall planes is out of scale relative to the other buildings in the area. This cannot be resolved as long as the establi-shed height limit is out of pro- portion to the neighborhood and as long as PUD-styled development is permitted in an area characterized by detached homes. The regulation does, however, prevent the construction of a building such as the McCausland. If it is Council's desire to also use an FAR limit, we would still prefer to use an approach which would encourage construction of garages and basements intended primarily for storage, laundry and mechanical kinds of uses. That being the case we would still support our past FAR proposal: R-6 R-15 R-30 .30 .16 Single Family .13 .20 Duplex Beyond that we would support a bonus of 300 sq. ft. for a one car garage and 500 sq. ft. for a two car garage per dwelling unit and would favor exclusion of basement space no more than 25'/o above grade. One of the major difficulities establishing residential FARs may have been the widely varying size of the ownership involved. In the R-6 zone for instance, ownerships may vary from 3000 sq. ft. to 27,000 sq. ft. At Snowmass Village FARs which change relative to the size of the ownership within such residential zone districts were adopted to deal with that problem. Council may feel this is a more appropriate way to proceed if there is a desire to limit overall square footage. sr • • Ser:t.crrLl:!r 2G, 1�73 D1r. Arthur State 1tist,or-c Cffi.ecr 1300 Broadway Denver, Coloralo 30203 Deer Arthur, Thank you for your offer to help us in resolving this issue! Erief3y, its M.stor_r• is this: about two years ago, a new architect in Aspen, ilon 7 r,dman, bull t three houses in a row, covering one half of a town site- block measuring 270' long by 3.00' deep. One house was for him, one was spec and one was for Lorenzo Semple, Jr. The style of the houses has been called "Po:_t-Modernist Eclectic", and personally I .feel they are quite well designed. In the enclosed memos you will see them referred to as "Erdman -Re -Semple". Unfortu- nately, (primarily because they are all designed to be in part solar heated.) the three houses give the effect of a 250' long rowhouse with a continuous E-W ridge and very little offset or modulation in the South or ;orth facades. The massing and volume (and to a degree, the soi'iiewilat radical design) caused several adjacent property owners to contact Cite Council to prevent anything like this from happening again. In reviewing the Planning Office's recommendation dated Septeml)c:r 8enclosed, ycir will note they generally fall within the floor .area.: i:,nd volur,-ie ratios proposed to prevent this type of abuse of resident -:)al scale and character from happening again. Shortly thereafter, the house referred to in the memos as "McCausland" was built 11-7hich is truel.y out of scale and character with its nei.c3h- bors. It 1-,as been followed by a few others of equally massive scale. The last house mentioned in the Septeml er 8 memo, referred to as "Schumacl-,er" , is �r bec.utifully done expanded Victorian house for one of the mc:rlbers of As:�eri's Planning and Zoning CUmmiSSi_on with a very large family - ironically, bordering on the ''Erdman -Re -Semple" houses. Although t1he F.A.R. and volume ratios generally exceed those of the adjoin ng houses, its scale and character fit the neighborhood very we1.1. Any fceli.ngs about this ordinance; that is, about placing a strictly numerical ratio on the sgiiare footage and/or volume of a house com- pared to its lot; is that. 4 t is an altogether too simple solution to a very complex problem. The "West End" of Aspen dates back to her beginnings as a unique and special mining town. Hallam Street was known. as "mullion Row", where the grand (by Aspen's standards) houses were built.. There are ;rows of idc.nt:ical "package" houses on 30 foot o7:ide lots that were once occupied by the miners themselves. The brick "Rowland" house (1::'39) , on FiYst and Francis, has the only original electric toi �-j_rig, Swi.tchc� ,, an electrrc lighting fixtures remaining in tact in the -Ci r:;t city of the Mi.ssi.ss-',ppi to be: entirely electric: Aspect. k We have a remar_kablc: historical asset in Ae-.Pen's West End. Both the State Ilistor.ic.al Society and tlic! N;i.tional Trust for historic Preservation should t_Yiis ,p.:,r_tic:ulrar area of Aspt2n, as well • as the entire commercial pert olt toran, as a unique remnant of the West's growth an•_1 history. It should be on the National Register. As far as the floor area/vo'uine ratio ordinance is concerned, I feel that any construction on the G or so vacant lots remain- ing in this area should conform to both ratios and an historic review process. We've had a successful review process in effect for the connnercial core with the Iistoric Preservation Committee for the past several years. The chairman and vice chairman (Lary Gr_oen and Norman Burns, who you met at the Trust meetings in Aspen last month) have both expressed a great deal of interest in such an overlay district in tho 1,7est End. My most critical concern, though, is not the small amount of new construction that can take place in the West End. I am terribly worried about the effect this ordinance will have on many of the oldest, and generally the smallest, original houses in Aspen's West End. Many are sited on now substandard 30'x100' Lots. Most are not struc- turally sound. most are insulated with old newspapers or sawdust. Most have such substandard wiring and bathroom facilities that they pose genuine fire and health hazards. Very few ever had any foundations and are in need of major structural work before they can even be insulated. The flaw in this ordinance as it ,relates to existing older struc- tures, is this: to bring the vast majority of these houses up to the minimum level of structural stability, fire safety, sanita- tion and energy efficiency, requires a substantial investment. Who could consider spending $40,000 to $100,000 to do this (these are 'verifiable figures) if the end result, by law, limited them to a house no larger than they started with (generally 900 s.f. or less)? Rather than a blanket limit on the square footage of every struc- ture in, what many consider, a very historically significant por- tion of Aspen and Colorado as well; a case by case review which acknowledges the scale and massing of neighboring structures as they relate to proposed changes seems more appropriate. Many people I've talked to are interested in learning more about the programs offered by the National Trust for Historc Preserva- tion and the State historical Society, and the effects and bene- fits of placing Aspen on the National Register. Aspen needs a carefully conceived set of design criteria for this very sensitive area - not a blanket set of numbers that apply equally to both new construction and rehabilitation of older structures alike. Sincerely, &#, , C. Welton Anderson Architect enc k cc: Aspen City Council, Aspen P&Z, Planning Office !` 1 f a M M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office, Joe Wells RE: Residential FAR Proposals DATE: July 20, 1978 After much debate before the City P&Z over a protracted period of time, that Board has recommended that a floor area or volume ratio for the residential zone districts not be adopted, favoring instead creation of a historic over- lay district with perhaps streamlined methods for administration. Our office feels that there are significant disadvantages with the use of historic overlay to deal with area and bulk problems. First, there is an enormous amount of work and expense associated with establishing the district initially; secondly at best it is only appropriate for the townsite area and therefore would not deal with proposals that are out of scale with their surrounding in other residential areas; thirdly, it would also be an admin- istrative nightmare once adopted, since every single-family and duplex pro- posal would have to be processed through the regulation; finally, it suggests that HPC would be reviewing matters traditionally within the pl.rrview of the P&Z. The history of this proposal is that consideration of it began at the in- sistance of residents of the West End reacting to construction of large homes in the area, notably the Erdman/Semple detached trileex on Meadows Road and the McCausland duplex on Francis. This led to several recommen- dations by our office of several different FAR schemes which were all met with opposition by the Board of Realtors and led to a counterproposal by that group which was liberal enough to allow construction of most of the buildings originally cited as problems. Ironically the West End Association supported the proposal of the Board of Realtors. Our office also examined a volume restriction which on the surface at least seems a reasonable approach to deal with the worst offenders, if nothing else and we certainly can support a proposal of that sort. There are several reasons the problem is such a difficult one. The scale of any proposal and therefore its compatibility with the neighborhood cannot be judged out of the context of the immediate surroundings of the proposal itself, particularly when the scale of buildings within the various neigh- borhoods vary as much as those in the Aspen area. This suggests, of course, that perhaps some sort of special review would be desireab:le. Again, this is difficult and time-consuming to administer. In effect, a regulation to deal with the problem which would not create an additional administrative burden would be one which allows construction up to a certain density in relation to its neighbors and does not permit a buildout to a maximum FAR until construction in the area does the same; this concept would not be easily drafted. We would like the Council's guidance as to how to proceed. Unit Erdman Re Semple Combined McCausland Schuhmacher sr ICOMPARISON OF EXISTING WEST END RESIDENCES FAR TO VOLUME Bldg. Volume Lot Size Sq. Ftage, FAR Volume Ratio 10,284 sq ft 5474 sq ft .53:1 59,140.81 cu ft 5.75:1 6,000 sq ft 2744.89 sq ft .46:1 29,392 cu ft 4.9:1 11,053.25 sq ft 4213 sq ft .38:1 51,573.83 cu ft 4.35:1 27,337.25 sq ft 12,431 sq ft .45:1 140,106.64 cu ft 5.12:1 4,500 sq ft 3196 sq ft .71:1 37,323 cu ft 8.29:1 wo/basement 4631 sq ft 1.03:1 w/basement 9,000 sq ft 4311 sq ft .48:1 49,813 cu ft 5.53:1 P&Z FIELD TRIP 11/22/77 REVIEW OF FLOOR AREA RATIOS IN THE WEST END ADDRESS LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE FAR 131 N. Hallam 7500 3800 .5:1 229 W. Hallam 3000 2000 .66:1 NE Corner 3rd & Hallam 9000 4000 .44:1 201 W. Francis 12000 2600 .21:1 423 N. Second 9000 3500-4000 .44:1 411 W. North 5500 2500 .45:1 _ 513 W. Smuggler 9000 4000 .44:1 704 W. Hallam 6000 2500 .42:1 -- 915 W. North 6000 2600 .43:1 a �c/�tuc2oow, ezc 0- 1 L &f fop- kiq 4C-6 16 a-,. d.2. Lr4K) ;k z5o a < - '4�,66A r� ,a.,;A � y �woY av . G cev 74L 6 - �� 0L �(,zw 3�74 u�uf 3P.euee �/�Qiu�S r) 9r ox, 6000 CY 4JW .FI4-j�o k � K S4& &� 9to cy d 34ff s)r, a,,- 1S, av-o 19 4- 4�_ 66oa pc`��c mom. � 6*0 (5,/ P 6e't 3?" 51r o,v 36,60tn� Ale � k- J76a , : O*e iW �G -eeww .3 40-4 12-(,g /G 44/ . z � Q- . 233 xict . 33 � ./3, �'30 ./3 aut./7a'4 01104 �O )/o/Umx"l �pf ZO u/%by` `ZGO7�tJ'Z.eYt! 12-T90" 216 so Om zvftt, 4";� 5,F) 7,rl0-0o st) 6z6=A0 o I/O&«, 4 x ew _ 66 vole loft is �� j✓U� 2.�O�o C� ��� . 3� - �60� � x Zv =/32, 4�-o c��- - G. � vo�,r,� � �ofl�v h 000 7f "0 cv* `of Goa �a o 00 [off I �- ; S10'd x Zo 0 = 3. ¢ t-V rA6 • alk o lof�. 3 -1bo X 24 �_ �31 Zoo 7. 2 �?/S � /5loo� �./�i E2�o� "2¢� S�Gafl A 6t� %Z7S Iv VI000 2 =*00 xo"a b Lof `ato 30 -?!: 3g ono 'lot@ • 45 3, 3 /2 voG.oxe, Av �t 3 o ao 2¢ ,q 72/ as d •/J' /S;'ocb ,F� Cef � • 233 = �4=9,C'� X ?� _ �3 ��'0 = 5.',� ✓olv� �e loi ra/ie "2¢ - 93� �o o = 3 A&2ro �� ,� ou /jf lof �p . /7 = Doo Z4 • of Ann Jacobson Realty May 17, 1978 Mr. Joe Wells Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Joe: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Karen Smith, dated 4/13/78 requesting that I or Gideon Kaufman be informed as to the present status of the F.A.R. issue. I was a little concerned last evening when suddenly this issue appeared on the P & Z agenda. Further, I understand that you are preparing a memo that proposes volume or cubic footage F.A.R. I would appreciate being sent a copy of that memo or proposal so that I may prepare a response at the next meeting in which this topic will be discussed. Sincerely, Rick Head RH/pp enclosure Post Office Box 1602 • Aspen, Colorado B1611 • Telephone 303/925-2B11 April 13, 1978 Ms. Karen Smith Planning, Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen: This letter is in reference to the proposed F.A.R. in the resident R-6 district. I, as a homeowner in the west end and a member of the real estate community, would greatly appreciate you notifying me or Gideon Kaufman as to the status of the aforementioned issue. Of particular interest to me is any planning office recom- mendations and most important, when it might come up for P & Z consideration. Sincerely, Rick Head RH/pp e t y�[..UMr- _�g,C-g�OU.lT. �OHE� pL6 ► o 8,1 -10 1 Voc WA5 a �" C�9 Ant Y, Lott aA- qN,-e- 4U.L�, T//'p • m; I • tkza&l��el) �Iak aleo� �rec�urot- �va�+n key cCOwu- �'�da�4ina�ir-s 447Ce� Y66 "t Wce4k& i� &il da 2wt��hus,�v/�tn� iAk� 641"�d- i..... UZR : 'F-A-K 0-- � ���Sfi r� r-� v�� • • 4w 6�7 ,e - /VC • M E M O R A N D U M • TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith RE: Floor Area Ratios - Reconsideration DATE: March 16, 1978 After the public hearing on proposed floor area ratios for R-6, R-15, and R-30, held on February 21st, you tabled action on the matter until March 21st to give Gideon Kaufman, representing the Board of Realtors, a chance to respond with an alternative proposal. I met with Gideon yesterday, who reported on a proposal that is jointly supported by the Aspen Board of Realtors and the West End Association Board of Directors. As you will recall, the FAR proposal was drafted primarily because of complaints from the West End Association about certain abuses. Their alternative proposal is summarized as follows: 1. Raise floor area ratios to R-6 R-15 R-30 SF .5 .233 .13 (same as Planning proposal) DUP .5 .33 .17 (not specifically recommended, but meets objective of of allowing duplex with 2500 sq. ft. per side) 2. Exclude garages and basements in the calculation of floor area ratios, except include basements when it is three or more feet above grade and has windows (i.e. is usable living area). 3. Retain special review process to allow for variation to accomodate special circumstances. Gideon noted that the alternative is an effort to get at the abuses only and to avoid what they feel will be a substantial number of special review appli- cations. He further stated that these ratios were the minimum that the two Boards (Realtors and West End Association) could accept. He also said that there was not yet consensus in support of the concept of FAR among the re- spective Boards of Directors; in fact opposition remains, but a compromise had been reached in supporting the above mentioned details. In order to compare the examples of resultant FAR in the Planning Office pro- posal (see chart included in February 21st packet) with this latest proposal, we list below some sample maximum floor areas which would result from develop- ment on a lot which equals the minimum lot size for that district. We remind you that floor areas will be lower or higher if the lot is smaller or larger than the minimum. R-6 SF 3000 sq. ft. house on 6000 sq. ft. lot DUP 2250 sq. ft. per unit or 4500 sq. ft. duplex on a 9000 sq. ft. lot R-15 SF 3495 sq. ft. house on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot DUP 3300 sq. ft. per unit or 6600 sq. ft. duplex on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot R- 30 SF 3900 sq. ft. house on a 30,000 sq. ft. lot DUP 2500 sq. ft. per unit or 5100 sq. ft. per duplex on a 30,000 sq. ft. lot. 0 0 Aspen Planning & Zonning Commission Page 2 March 16, 1978 To further compare you may wish to review your November 22nd field survey notes where houses in the R-6 district had FAR's ranging from .21 to .66 and corresponding floor areas ranging from 2000 square feet to 4000 square feet. Most of the FAR's seen that day were in the .4 range. Other examples which have been pointed out to you previously are: 1. Erdman House (8th & North Street, Aspen Meadows area). 5474 sq. ft. on a 10,626 sq. ft. lot = .52 FAR in the R-6 Zone. 2. Next to Erdman. 2744 sq. ft. on a 6000 sq. ft. lot = .46 FAR in R-6 3. Semple Residence. (Next to the above and two west of Erdman) 4213 sq. ft. residnece on an 11051 sq. ft. lot = .38 FAR The second two are well within the recommended alternative FAR, and the Erdman residence would be just over. 4. C.M. Clark Duplex (between 4th and 5th on Hallam Street) If you include the balcony, it is 5371 sq. ft, of floor area on a 6000 sq. ft. lot = .90 FAR. Without balcony, it is .80 in the R-6 zone. 5. McCausland residence (609 West Francis) Including basement it is 4631 sq. ft. on a 4500 sq. ft. lot or 1.03 FAR. Without basement it is a .71 FAR. Both these residence would far exceed the .5 recommendation. Since the first three examples were among the cases which precipitated the request for some action and since the proposed alternative FAR would do little to control that kind of buildout, we question whether this FAR is effective enough. We also question the need for .33 FAR for duplexes in R-15 when that can result in 3300 sq. ft./unit or 6600 sq. ft. duplex. This seems expecially excessive if basements and garages are excluded. However we are reminded that it was the West End Association who requested action and that it is now supporting the alternative proposal. The issue of basement, garage, and balcony exclusion should be further discussed on Tuesday. West Side Improvement Assn. 0 701 North Third St. Aspen, Colorado Mr. Bill Kane City -County Planner 130 S . Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Bill: On March 3, 1978, Jim Martin, the president of the Aspen Realtors Assn., called me, and requested that he and Geri Vagneur of the Realtors Assn. and their attorney, Gideon Kaufman meet with the West Side Improvement Assn. Board to discuss the Floor Area Ratio Proposal. This meeting was held on March loth. The result of the meeting was the attached letter which was presented to all Board Members of the West Side Improvement Association. All members of the Board of the West Side Improvement Association are in agreement with Mr. Kaufmants letter although some expressed concern with regard to the basement, and felt a review of this area is in order in an effort to establish the criteria for this square footage. Yours vU'tz Chairman, West Side Improvement Assn. cc: P & Z Commission Members • GIDEON I. KAUFMAN vA at %w Box 10001 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 (303) 925-8166 March 10, 1978 Board of Directors West End Association Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Board Member, I am writing this letter at the request of Anne Schwind in an effort to apprise all of you of a resolution which was reached at a Board Meeting of the West End Association March 8, 1978, concerning the City's proposed floor area ratio. The City's proposal for floor area ratio would have restricted the size of a new home built in the west end to 1,800 square feet without going through a special review process. It would also have prevented any existing home from expanding to greater than 1,800 square feet without a special review process. The four (4) board members present at the meeting determined that this proposed floor area ratio for the west end was unreasonable and unrealistic. The Board's concensus was to recommend FAR adoption only if the floor area ratio was changed to either a .5 excluding the garage or a .6 including the garage. This would allow the building of 3,000 square foot homes on 6,000 square foot lots. It was pointed out at the meeting that ever the adoption of a floor area of .5 or .6 would result in a substantial reduction in the size of homes that could be built. For example, under the current setbacks on a 6,000 square foot lot, one could build an 8,300 square foot home. Under a .5, however, one could only build a 3,000 square foot house or 36% of the present allowable buildout. Under a .6, one could build 3,600 square feet or 43% of the present allow- able buildout. 'A 0 Board of Directors West End Association March 10, 1978 Page Two One additional concern which was raised at the meeting was how to treat basements. It was decided that the building of basements should be encouraged and excluded from FAR because basements are environmentally sound. However, in the event the basement was being used as a living facility and had windows three (3) feet above grade, it was determined that this type of basement should be included in the floor area ratio. It was felt that this would address the type of abuses that floor area ratio was intended to prevent and would prevent the construction of a massive three- (3) level home. Sincerely yours, Gideon Kaufman GK ch h I O 1 `*. , \11 I h E 1. 0 MR I I I iv I 1, h I I I I I I, I� 1, 9 I • 0 2,1114 vvi-e, tak W- �& k4-1 h fi Wllc- I�— AA FA Qk,4, f-c<J-Y-, &4— AIU-- Ir 4\L 10 0 0 _CAL be. w,� .. • • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Housing Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Residential Floor Area Ratios, Code Amendment, Public Hearing DATE: February 16, 1978 At the January 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission again considered several proposals relating to residential floor area ratio. The proposals were offered as alternatives to the straight residential floor ratio proposals first recommended to the Commission in November, 1976 (see chart dated 11/24/76). The Planning and Zoning Commission selected one alternative to be set for public hearing on February 21, 1978. That proposal would ammend the code as follows: Amend Section 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Requirements under Sub -section (10) External Floor Area Ratio by the addition of the following FAR's by residential district: R-6 .30 R-15 R-30 .16 Single Family .13 .20 Duplex In order to provide some flexibility, variation in these requirements would be permitted after review and approval through the special review procedure of the municipal code. In order to effect such a review the following code ammendments would be required: Amend Section 24-3.4 (10) by adding an asterisk (*) after each Floor Area Ratio in R-6, R-15 and R-30 (i.e. (R-6) .30*; (R-15) .16 Single Family, .20 Duplex*; (R-30) ..13*). And by adding Footnote: *SR - Special review procedure maybe followed for requests for a higher FAR. Amend Section 24-3.5, Special Review by the addition of the following language after sub -section (f): For applications involving special review of external floor area requirements, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider: (g) compatibility with adjacent residential structures including neighboring floor area ratios, bulk and scale relationships, availability of light and air and protection of solar easements and amount of open space. The Planning Office recommends this approach for several reasons: 1. It establishes standard floor area ratios:for residential districts involving single family and duplex type residential units and thus sets a standarized bulk control for all new residential con- struction. It will prevent structures out -of -scale with surrou- ding development and the FAR is based on similar requirements adopted by Eagle and Pitkin Counties in the equivalent home districts. 2. By opening up the opportunity to apply for special review for var- iation from these requirements, the code recognizes that there may be unique circumstances where a higher than allowed FAR would still be appropriate. Several of these were brought up by mem- bers of the public during the work sessions held over the last several months: a. Under the proposed FAR's, certain older houses on sub- standard size lots may find it uneconomical to upgrade unless they are allowed to expand significantly. Aspen Planning anooZoning Commission Aspen Planning and Housing Commission Page Two February 16, 1978 b. By reviewing each request on a case by case basis, it is possible to consider factors that mitigate against the strict application of bulk ratios. In other words, the size and scale of buildings and design relationships with surrounding buildings may be sufficient to ensure compatibility without strict compliance with ratios of floor area to lot area. 3. There is precendent for such reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The special review procedure has existed for some time in the Code (Section 24-3.5) for waiver from certain area and bulk requirements. Floor Area Ratios are a bulk require- ment, thus these reviews are not new to Planning & Zoning. The criteria proposed for review guidelines are similar to those which now are incorporated in the section. 4. The Planning and Zoning review is a simple appearance before the Planning and Zoneing Commission. While it does require drawings from the applicant, the review is not as comprehensive or complicated as that which is normally required before the Historic Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission asked this office to clarify that the calculation of floor area for floor area ratios was to exclude basement areas but include all enclosed airspace above ground, inclu- ding garages. With very little or no modification, we believe that Section 24-3.7 (e) (1) and (2) Measuring Floor Area for Floor Area Ratio accomplishes your wish. 'Chat section excludes basement ar as and describes the measurement of above ground floor area. The only question we have is whether the exclusion of "parking areas" also included enclosed garages. We think it does not but will clarify with Building and the City Attorney. • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Code Amendment PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing held at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on February 21, 1978, to consider the enactment of a Zoning Code amendment to create Floor Area Ratio controls within the R-6, R-15 and R-30 district .16 Single Family and .20 Duplex in R-15; and .� in0R-30in Rwould be added to Section 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Requirements, under Sub- section (10), External Floor Area). The Planning Office is also recommending to add a special sub -section which would deal with criteria for special review of requests for greater than the allowed FAR. A copy of the proposed Code Amendment may be examined by interested persons in the Office of the City/County Planner, City Hall, (925-2020, ext. 224), during normal business hours. /s/ Kathryn S. Hauter City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, Janaury 26, 1978. • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Floor Area Ratio - Alternatives DATE: December 30, 1977 At your December 20th meeting, Welton Anderson suggested several alternatives to the straight FAR proposal submitted by the Planning Office. His reasons were that the FAR was a rigid tool that: 1. Made it difficult for certain older houses on substandard lots to upgrade. Because of economic factors, he stated these houses couldn't be brought up to Building Code standards unless they're allowed to expand. 2. Did not recognize that the real impact is not so much FAR but size and scale relative to surrounding areas. 3. Doesn't treat each on a case by case basis. He recommended the following alternatives which we discuss below: 1. Designate the West End historic so you can review each remodel or new construction and consider elevations and scale with respect to surrounding areas. fie suggested a West End Committee be designated for review. We have some problem with this approach. First, it is not just the West End that is of concern. The liklihood of designating the entire city is remote and, at best, well off in the future. Second, if we just treated the West End, we could not support designating a new committee to assume functions which have traditionally and appro- priately been handled by the P&Z or HPC. 2. Institute a sliding scale for small or non -conforming lots. We think this is a poor alternative since, as we saw with the McCausland house, these lots are as big or bigger problem than conforming ones. 3. Sliding scale for additions to houses built before a certain date. This was intended to let the older Victorians remodel and get a larger FAR to facilitate the economics. In some cases, this might be appropriate, but may not be in all. For example, a Victorian might be remodeled to the point where it little resembled the original structure and design. Some Victorians do not possess those qualities of design that do appear to integrate well with surrounding areas. The selection of a cut-off date would not recognize unique features of design or remodeling possibilites and would be arbitrary. The one proposal we do feel has merit is the variation of the above suggested by Chic Collins. That is, that there be an FAR adopted and that any proposal for varying from that FAR be reviewed through a kind of variance by special review procedure. This would accommodate the problems that Welton mentioned, that is, the substandard size lot or the Victorian remodel situation, and would do so only after review on a case by case basis to determine the appropriateness of size and Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Page Two December 30, 1977 and scale with respect to adjacent scale and design. A Victorian remodel might, for example, show that a higher than allowed FAR can be well integrated with surrounding residences because of the variety of the facade and/or roof line. The same could be true for new construction on small lots. We would suggest an amendment to the zoning code that enacted FAR's along the lines that are contained in our proposal. The proposed FAR's (.30 in R-6; .16 SF and .20 Duplex in R-15; and .13 in R-30) would be added to Section 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Requirements, under Sub -section (10), External Floor Area Ratio. In order to indicate the availability of special review, we would asterisk each external FAR requirement and note in a footnote: * SR -special review procedure may be followed for requests for a higher FAR. A section in the Code alerady exists for special review criteria and procedure. Section 24-3.5 directs the Building Inspector to forward special review applications to the P&Z. Special review is already designated for certain area and bulk requirements in some districts. We recommend adding a special sub -section dealing with criteria for special review of requests for greater than the allowed FAR. We propose adding a new paragraph below sub -section (f) to read as follows: For applications involving special review of external floor area requirements, the planning and zoning commission shall also consider: (g) Compatibility with adjacent residential structures including the neighboring floor area ratios, bulk and scale relationships, availability of light and air and the protection of solar easements, and amount of open space The P&Z is the appropriate agency to review floor area ratio exceptions since the issue is one of bulk and scale and not scale as well as color, texture, and design which is the range of issues the HPC deals with. Location of the matter in Section 24-3.5 under the purview of the P&Z is consistent with the city-wide view of the P&Z and with its similar area and bulk review authorities in this section. lmk M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Floor Area Ratios in Residential Zone Districts DATE: November 11, 1977 Nearly a year ago, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a proposed amendment to the bulk requirements of residential districts, requiring new construction to comply with certain floor area ratios. The purpose of FAR's in residential districts is to require some uni- formity district -wide in the massing of structures. While such pro- visions have existed in the County Code for years, their imitation in the city was precipitated by the construction of certain excessively massive residences in areas more generally characterized by smaller structures. The floor area ratio works as a ratio of floor area to lot area. Since everyone in one district is controlled by the same ratic, permitted floor area will be proportional to the lot you own. In other words, the bigger the lot, the bigger the house that could be built. Excessively large homes would not, therefore, be allowed on the smaller lots. The matter was sent back to the Planning Office for the presentation of additional examples and alternatives. Several issues were discussed but not resolved including, whether basement space should be included in the calculation of the floor area and whether the same standard should be applied for substandard -sized lots. The matter became some- what low priority in this office, but it seems the problem continues. We have been asked to bring it back to you. In view of your light agenda, we thought it might be an appropriate time to conduct a sort of study session, with no action to be taken. For the new members and for convenience of the old, we include our old memos on the subject. Further illustrations and alternatives will be presented at the meeting. lmk encs. • P-j k-Ir !N((J, f� - I �r� 993 3�97 ml ulzpvr �� • ors g&r Ent LJ 4vi :r a�a�t�GLt. X4- 4GOL U 0 'f 4 � �41 t ;- 110 0 1 0 (,ot &a/"f a/n-w� J 0 0 i�l�vh6 Fsz nu, 0 • il�//f //�� J��) r � ✓ V ,� n /bv � �s;6-,31 A P414"'I �--- 11 iuu),A.cr�c) `.J kuk,/�," 4A.,C s MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (KS) RE: FAR Proposals - R-6, R-15, R-30 Zone Districts DATE: December 9, 1976 Having had the benefit of an extra few days to re-examine our recommenda- tion concerning floor area ratios in the R-6, R-15 and R-30 zone districts, we would like to suggest a couple of modifications in the proposal in- cluded in your packet for December 7. First, in reconsidering the R-15 FAR's for single family (.13) and duplex units (.20), it became apparent that the single family allowance may not be adequate. The .13 FAR would allow a 1950 square foot house on a 15,000 square foot lot in an R-15 district, whereas, an 1,800 square foot house would be permitted on an R-6 - 6,000 square foot lot. It does seem more logical to permit a greater amount of floor area on a larger lot. Therefore, we recommend increasing the single family FAR to .16, making it the same as that permitted in the County. A 2,400 square foot house would then be permitted on a 15,000 square foot lot. We recommend no change in the .20 FAR for duplexes. The second revision results from an inexperienced review of the Aspen Zoning Code. Upon further review, it appears that Section 24-3.7e, Measuring Floor Area, adequately clarifies what is to be counted as floor area in computing FAR. The recommended amendment to Section 24-3.1, Definitions, is, therefore, not necessary. An illustration of permitted floor area on minimum sized lots is attached for your consideration. • MEMORANDUM TO: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING OFFICE (KS) DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1976 RE: FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSALS FOR R-6, R-15, and R-30 ZONE DISTRICTS Floor area ratio requirements are among the traditional lot -by -lot zoning restrictions, including minimum yard setbacks and maximum height restric- tions, which arre intended in general to promote the "livability" of a neighborhood or area. The purposes of such dimensional restrictions include insuring adequate light, air, and privacy with respect to adjacent properties; affording adequate open area on the lot; reducing fire hazards; and controlling population densities. The latter is becoming an increasing concern in both Aspen and Pitkin County with numerous recent instances of persons either building homes with an exorbitant number of bedrooms or with questionable amount of square footage. The result of such over- building is an abnormally high population impact from single structures, an attractiveness and incentive for short term rentals and, especially in the City of Aspen, residential structures which are out-of=scale with, dominate, obstruct, and shade adjacent residences. The external floor area ratio is defined in the City zoning code as the "total floor area of building(s) or structure(s) as it compares with the total area of the building site. External floor area ratios were added to the zoning ordinance for commercial and office districts in 1975, but have not been applied to the residential zones. Their absence in the R-6 through R-30 residential zone categories is a critical missing link in meeting the FAR's in R-6, R-15, and R-30 would ensure that permissable square footage on any one lot would be proportionate to that on other lots in the district of the same or different sizes. Other areas were examined for similar provisions,and atable of Eagle, Pitkin and Aspen comparable zone districts is attached for your review. Pitkin County's districts are the most similar to those of Aspen with the exception that Pitkin does not allow duplexes in its R-6 and R-15 zones. The recom- mended action for Aspen adopts the FAR's of Pitkin in the R-6 and R-30 districts. The one variation in the R-15 district allows asingle family house only slightly larger (1,950 sq.ft.) than one which would be allowed on a R-6 lot (1,800 sq.ft.). It also recognizes the existence of duplexes with an FAR of .20, allowing a 3,000 square foot duplex in a 15,000 square foot lot. The attached table gives comparative figures for the size of building that would be allowed on a minimum -sized lot in each district. Illustrations of same will be brought to your meeting Tuesday. Also attached is a proposed definition of "floor area" for addition to Section 24.31 of the zoning code. The definition is intended to clarify what should and what should not be counted as floor area in computing the ratio. Habitable basement and attic space is counted as floor area under this definition, so, as an example, the basement area in the Aspen Villas would be computed when figuring the ratio of floor to lot area. CC: City Council • • MEMO ASPEN P & Z FAR PROPOSALS (R-6,R-15, R-30) December 2, 1976 Amend Section 24.31, Definitions, by the addition of a new sub -section to read as follows: ( ) Floor area: The area included within the outside walls of a building or portion thereof including habitable penthouses, attic space (whether or not a floor has been laid) and basements; interior balconies or mezzanines; elevator shafts and stairwells at each floor; and any other floor space used for dwelling purposes. For purposes of this definition, habitable shall mean providing struc- tural headroom of eight feet or more. -2- A, • i C_� StSutE M � t � / 9, \ % vNOlb ,v 0 I% $4A�LAA LAKE, �N W. NORT14 sTiAeElr To ti ju rpT, 7,, tie LIL rl--T--r— rr--Q T-rT Ll I 2-;v W FfVl%t4C I& ST F- i z r 4-- r W UA r Tv 9 111 .110 rM -11 mi 5 Aw "ALs, A EF- 1 1. t: a ITT L T, ?TI ILI L; 1. . t,\ \ \ A 9 7 A Id i W T cc T %N. OLVIEtAER iF LU r Z' E 5LEEXr-K ST T FT T TM 'T I TTT, imi I Li lm.-, L.11 I 1T-Tl 71 I rl la It ��_LPP& L I MAIN SIREFT COVAT HOUSE T Kri _ 11� �� F�iTT ► l 11-T -T w w fl v:, I ml - fl I wl� 0 , , 1 1, W, I I �, 7 w L.fY T" 117 TTT-TT" 1. cc �6 -r-' '-T J� --TT-r, r Vi WWMAN AVENUE CiTY RA,i- w z C) z D IF 6c 0. POST Owca Fri f T w w Ir t 4 I. a too ac LLJ 11 1 EF 1� IE WAGNER E. COOPER AVENUE Ll a83 06 40) PARK