HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Floor Area Ratios.1979
'"
'~
"
"..
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.
,-,
,.-.,.
MEMOMNDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Planning Office, JW
FAR/VR for Residential Districts
RE:
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:
(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)
R-15 (SF)
R-15(duplex)
R-30
(These were proposed by
End Association)
.5: 1
.233:1
.33:1
.13:1 _ '
the Boardot Realtors and the West
/ksk
^
^
---__________, _ ( __?~ @tv.l2!fLk~_Ckt~~---------------~-----------------
----------- . ~~~----.,-;;J-p)~PI;;?;;~--~..----"---."-.----.-:----~--~;-.--/:It~---
--------------- --------I!:!t----ML----------.---- ~, ~
3. ~-k cur-'
- --~ --=======~=-=~=:c~Z;;~~=---
=-===-:.;:t:::J;,;;;/Jl~/!::.~~~~..
,.."-."'~-t;l1;;z:;~---~km. .--.'. ..,. '1;"-- ,., .,.~.-/~~-----.
. o-&:h:;-'- (~---: ~-"14:l;c-7T---
.,__m____~--- _. ,
',-'. __.~~_~l~iiljl~,~~~~~~-,.,.,,-------------
~~~~~~-_...
--==*, .5y;,.?,;;;~tJliJ=?t]g.:Qi>~-:~~A;n
I .~ ~-
..."_!!~~~~Ao~~~~~=-
I .
-----];.-- --.
--- -l;~::~:L ..-........ ...
.-- .f' ._--ff-if./Z.,io*:;~tij,-.i)
-.--. ~_.- .--.-..-,-....-- , ""'0" ------l' ._._....__...,_,._,_..._..._._.~._...______..._..__'m'____..,- ..' -- ....---..-...." "...-.- - '-"_"0"- .. ".." '. _.-,- ,,- ,..... - -.,..."...,....,...... ..'.' ~ ,'"
-",--,- --- ",--11---..
. il
". -.----..-.--....-.---.M.t't-,,---...--.......,--~ .____n_'_.'.,__.,.__._____.,.._, '.n...._...,.....".,_
il
"
..""--",..-..-..". '-1:- ,..,.,- ,-,(;IV
II
--_..-----11-
.w.
II
~
l~'\
I""
'IH
I
I'
I
, II
Ii
I:
II
.Tr.-~.""
if
II
I'
Ii
,-"
/""'-.
~.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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
{';...~'..-.,
~
."-'
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office
RE: Proposed FAR/VI' for R-6, R-15 and R-30 Zone Di s tri cts
DATE: September 8, 1978
Construction in the residential zones is presently limited only by setback
requirements, (which 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 Pl^OPOS i ng an amendment to the code whi ch woul d estab 1 i sh a maxi mum
volume to lot ratio to deal with the impact of the mass of the building on
the site. The volume 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 avera~ building height in
zone districts which limit height to a maxi~~ 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 = All owab 1 e x Allowable ht. = Allowable Volume to
.2.9.:... ft. Volume Lot Rati 0
R-6 (SF) 6,000 .3 = 1800 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 = '43;;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:
,~ .' J}<
,'-'"
,.-,
Volume
Volume To
Lot Ratio
[
,
Unit
Lot Size
Bldq.
Sq. Fta(Je
FI\R
~:
,
!
,
~;'
r
E
f
~
r
f
----_._._---_._-~._-,---,-_..._...~."-,-_._--_._-_.._----,--..-"-_._-_....---....__._--_._------~._-
Erdman 10,234 sq ft 5474 sq ft .53: 1 59,1.10.31 cu ft 5.75:1
Re 6,000 sq ft 2744.89 sq ft 046:1 29,392 cu ft 4.9:1
Semple 11 ,053. 25 5q ft 4213 sq ft .38: ] 51,573.83 cu ft '1.35:1
Combined 27,337.25 sq H 12,431 sq ft .45:1 140,106.611, cu ft 5.12:1
McCausland 4,500 sq ft 3196 sq ft .71: 1 37,323 cu ft 3.29:1
1'1/0 basement
4631 5q ft 1. 03: 1
1'1/ basement
Schuhmacher 9,000 sq ft 4311 sq ft .48: 1 49,813 cu ft 5.53:1
These examples reveal that the Erdman Semp 1 e tri pl ex 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 established 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 buildin9 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
.30
R-15
.16 Single Family
.20 Duplex
R-30
.13
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% 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 appropri ate way to proceed if there is a des i re to 1 imit overall
square footage.
sr
,-"
,-."
~ September 26, 1978
Nr ,. Arthur reo;-.rnscnd
State Historic Preservation Officer
1300 BroauvJay,
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear lirJchur f
Thank you for your offer to help us in resolving this issue!
Briefly, its history is this: about bJO years ago, a new architect
in Aspen, Don Erdman, built thr:'ee houses in a row, covering one half
of a town site block measuring 270' long by laO' deep. One house
was for him: one was spec and one was for Lorenzo Semple, Jr. The
sty~e of the houses has been called 'tPost-Modernist Eclectic!t, and
personally I fcel they arc quite well designed. In the enclosed
memcs you '",ill see them referred to as "Erdman-Re-Semple". Unfort.u-
nately I' (p!:'ime.rily because Jchey are all designed to be in part solar
heated) the three houses give the effect of a 250' long rOvJhouse with
a continuous E-\^I rid'Je and very little offset or modulation in the
SOUU'l or "orth facades. The massing and volume (and to a degree, the
somewhat radical design) caused several adjacent property owners to
contact City Council to prevent anything like this from happening
again. In revievling the Planning Office ~ s reconunendation dated
Se[H'.ember B,. enclosed, you will note they generally fall within the
floor area. and vol.l:me rat.ios p~coposed to prevent .this type of abuse
of residential scale and character from happening again.
Short.ly thexeafter/ -the house referred to in the memos as "NcCauslandlf
\\~as built "dhich is truely out. of scale and character with its nei.gh-
bors. It has been followed by a few others of equally massive scale.
The last house ment~ioned in the September 8 memo, referred to as
nSchurnachcrll I is ;;1 beautifully done expanded Victorian house for one
of the members of Aspen v s Planning and ZarLing Cornrnission with a very
large family -- ironically, bordering on the "Erdman-Re--Semple" houses.
Although the F'..A.R. and volume ratios generally exceed those of the
adjoining houses, its scale and character fit the neighborhood very
vlell ~
Ily feelings about this ordinance; that is, about placing a strictly
numerica.l ratio on the square footage and/or volmne of a house com-
pared to its lot; is that it i.s an altoget,her t:oo simple solution
'to a vel7 complex problem. The "\^lest End" of Aspen dates back ,to her
beginnings as a unique and special mining town. Hallam Street was
known as "Eullion Row''', where the grand (by Aspen I s standards) houses
we.re built._
Thf:::r:e are rows of identical ilpackage" houses on 30 foot ~'Jide lots
t.ha:t were once occ1Jpied by the miners t.hemselves.. The brick lrRO\Alla.nd If
b,ot.\se (lS89) r on F.l..t"sta!1d Francis, has .the only original electric
\1.Lcing r S\li..tches 1 and electi.rc lighting fixtures remaini.ng i.ntact
4~ t~e~ ~1'~~~ ~~~y ~7,,~t OF ~h~ M~~~ir~~pp]' La 'n~ o~~l'raly ~lecLr]'c'
...I."" _t~ .:.'.::-:':':.::,"_::.:.: c....,." ~.~~.::> .J... '- ;:-~ .J:l....<;;)~)_..;;>i:,)._'- . 1.- J...,~". ...:~J;l.l.- ....... ":;:, L. ". .
.~spe:n. .
I
(
t
~
. i
f
f
r
I
,
!
1
~
,
\'..
~,
,
~:
~
~,
€
1"""\
^
. We have a remarkable historical asset in Aspcnfs West End~ Both
the St.ate Iii:-:.torical Soci.c~ty and the National rrrust for Historic
Preservation should view this particular area of Aspen, as well
k as tho entire corr~crcial part of town, as a unique remnant of the
West's growth and history. It should be on the National Register.
As far as the floor area/volume ratio ordinance is concerned, I
feel that any new construction on the G or so vacant lots remain-
ing in this area should conform to both ratios and an historic
review process. vie' ve had a' successful review process in effect
for the cowmercial core with the Historic Preservation Co~~ittee
for the past several years. The chairman and vice chairman
(Lary Groen 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 ovex'lay distric'c in the West 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' xIOO' Lots. Most are not s'truc-
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 s'cructural work before -they
can even be insulated.
i l
i I
II
I
I
: I
II
! I
! f
I
l
I
,
i
i
i I
! !
i [
,
,
I
I
!
I
1
.j i
! I
f
t
!
i
!
I
I
!
~
I
~
I,
,
l'
t.
~;
r.
,
f
"
r
"
The flaw in this ordinance as it ,relates to exis.ting older struc~
tures, is this: to bring the vast majority of these houses up
to the minimwn level of structural sta.bilitYr 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 la,~, 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 Historic 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.
Sincer,;l1r iJ i! .
{!. [JJW'/\J}0(~
C. Welton Anderson
Architect
enc
cc: Aspen City Council, Aspen P&Z, Planning Office
[,
t',
r
.
,~
,~,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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 p~riod of time, that
Boa~d 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 wtth proposals that are out of scale wtth theili
surrounding in other residential areas; thirdly, it would also be an admin-
istrative nightmare once adopted, since every sing,le-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 p>>~view of the
P&Z.
The history of this proposal is that considerationiof 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 t:rnex 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 desireable. 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
eas i ly drafted.
We would like the Council's guidance as to how to proceed.
I"""""
~
P&Z FIELD TRIP
11 /22/77
REVIEW OF FLOOR AREA RATIOS
IN THE I~EST END
ADDRESS LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE FAR
131 N. Ha Ham 7500 3800 1
229 W. Ha 11 am 3000 2000 :1
NE Corner 3rd & Hallam 9000 4000 .44:1
201 W. Francis 12000 2600 .21: 1
423 N. Second 9000 3500-4000 .44:1
411W. North 5500 2500 .45:1
513 W. Smuggler 9000 4000 .44:1
,704 W. Ha 11 am 6000 2500 .42:1
-,_.~~. , ~ -
',,,=,~'''''
W. North 6000 2600 .43:1
,.;;.
. ,~
,,,,....,,
,-."
tOMPARISON OF EXISTING WEST END RESIDENCES
FAR TO VOLUME
iHdg. Volume
Unit Lot Size Sq. Ftage. FAR Volume Rati 0
Erdman 10,284 sq ft 5474sq ft .53:1 59,140.81 cu ft 5.75:1
Re 6,000 sq ft 2744,.89sq ft ..46:1 29,392 cu ft 4.9:1
Semple 11,053.25 sq ft 4213 sq'ft .,38:1 51,573.83 cu ft 4.35:1
Combined 27,337.25 sq ft 12,,431 sq ft .45:1 140,106.64 cu ft 5.12:1
McCausland 4,500 sq ft 3196s q ft .71:1 37,323 cu ft 8.29:1
~lbasement
4631 sq ft 1. 03: 1
,ow/basement
Schuhmacher 9.000sq ft 431Lsqft .48:1 49,813 cu ft 5.53:1
sr
il
II ("' %'r~ ;;(~
fil~
-7t =&=2 --:' -- ',.. " , -~~=~-==-=-~_-==-~=-~~-=~~==--_~~=_:=:~_---~__~:-__--=~ -_-:~_~~--~
==:--==--11~-~~~==~~====~
-----.-.-'.----'----.-----..1'1-------------.---.-.-.---.- ----,-----.-- -- -- - ---- - m' u,__
_ ____ _ _ _ ___ __ _ l' Ie::, .. __'m'_"_ --
I - - m__~__________n___ --.---------- ----.-----
- II -- - ..--- - ---- ---.- . -
=~ --j . . ~____-;~3LE'};.-~t'.);___--=- ~- _= ..-~~
__'.',.__.__..,__c._, .__j ___, ."',,, "','" 1-,' ."',,, " J ',',' ,,'., ,,"', ,,'" ','" """..,, .. .". -"
.______:__m_(~--- ___ _ _ ________________
_____ . __ __c_E____ _=________=_ .
~==-__m _ J _ _____ _____ __
--- -- -- --~ -- - ---~ ~---- -----------__._____...._____.________"___.._.____..._______"________m
.-.__.._----_.__.._.~ -.'".-------.--'-------'-------------------- -~ ----- -- -------- - -
,i
II
i
!) )17("
.-,
..
., N~/I1b~:
eo, ,.J f7ft L .
/44. 2.~~~>UO.u~4-M<~~~~
tdh. 3.S~J~vl~~~;j ~, ~ ~~Ii~~tM~H
~tf. 1: If - b~~/~ Je4~~~. ~)
e,c;, ~~ MK~ ~.~ V~~d~;;~J4~V~
~ .3 ~ e.6 f .I6~d.2..~#. e.jr/~./.i'u. /2.-30
-/t?'~.' . .' . ~~~
,~s~~~~rof-~~rh~ l2-~?}
dt)M~&f.pul-~7~'
_. . ~rE~J-.
~ ..('~f< Qyeln~ (.M!?<tW, ~4..'f-1o /f (J() Sf- /I- u-- hA-5iJ..
Jttmt- ~ ' ~ 1./ M(JT#rA!J~/ ~ /~~W)
7Z;~~ ,r~/ ~/6"Y.6;;;dv~~.'
7h;, ~dfrenu~ Jt/ZJtJj;~ tn-v 6C1Jof) ~
.
/JJe4~~n ft~~~ ~~ s~~.
, Wa?f
;i'0 r e.K..dv.~' ~
~e.l( if .163. ',J'S _ ' _
I!.~ ,/301:- ~~ UrJor1f~ Pi)
f)n.f ~f 3 ~d ~!duv-Jr
. ,~ uf#=-~;::~ If- .iF (f}v GoQo ~II- !.f- L -
4~ sr/f-a,ru(~1( j~ ~ 9dO0'1l1-kJ-
~~
.
a.p<>;f ~..
'H. '
Jk :;;/Z::-
./J
311Isp ~ 1S;01r0 51 #- (,,1-
66~ ~~~_~+tr&t-
11
I
~-3o
-
-S9~ :sF C/}z/ 'X;(6lJo!11r1- /.61-
. J7b-o ~tfu-7P1 ~ ()btJ.kf-.
it
t""'\
J~;; /,,-tt
,-."
'11. .v WI- r~
'6 JI" ~oJ/7/t;f@.3~/lootjr -<24'= IS,~() - 7.& Ypjg~n Iorl7J.:lic
. . ... .
.IS" ~ lS}aCOtP!d(!.I6 =2~ot/1 X2c;t~ S?~~ ., ;3,14- Vl?funw-ft> /t;f~fU,
-IS R/3d;!ftJo I!- ~/~2. :4cmal; xZ4'=- 1v,hD -4J voluhf,e. mtDf-r01ftO
.13 .,.. _ 2ln, Yo V!::: ? 3; 600 ;:: 3. /z. I/Qfuh<k ~ Id ra-nA
2f
~ .'-'--
.5" '" ~ ~ If "2.4 - 72.; (J"Oo. - I.e voluh<L: ~ ~J:- nk
-
-IS' I(/Joe Jj~f @.U] =3.49("1) ><24= ~ fto::: tr:JJ yofgJl/<b It. Id r~~
. .
is" ~ ~ 1/141 . ~J' = ~_)/'Z4 = /~ 4tn1 ~ 7. 1'2 y(?!u~ to W ~ .._
--
:?o,tn"J)M g. /3 =.JftJ'1) x2.4 - tJ3,~o;. 3./2, vtWllte- h kf~
r. . ,
3> (7ZXJ if M @./7 = S7<>o -.r U '" 126, ~ = 4.n J/t)/v"tk ~ tAJ;-;dt;;.
,
- .~?
fJ/tM ' .
~~,(
akvl ~ ?7
~
~
.s
_'Cif1> A
/.)v""""'"........
I
,I
- ,:-rr ______
--~-__n_
~
,'~
-
are.- ~e:Mbt~
3 - E.e:,
. i<r.
/6 ~. 2 ti. t./{"'
/3 k p'So
r'\'1
' ~/;.11K
Uo/r~~ ~
.G{ru~~)u:.R'C _
.233 ~. $g ;.,g.!j
./3 ~./7 ~~'.?o
,-.,
-
--
"---
--
~ / ~ r~ Tf..M.r - 'l./ ..J" ./~~ J.~ur 9.~,
~ &f @ ,3 I!CbIj; ><2:J~ !0(7O-();f~ _~.(} I/~~~ lc/kl4
o itJlt ./6 =U~ x 20' ~//'@oll :.:5.2- p,ph~lo~f ~
t) tof-@ .Z ~~.pf x ~ / '" e~;tm If .... 4tJ V'ou,~_ ~ 'I- ~
3qno 9 ~f-@ . /1 = if tm I} x:h - 7(, trOo .j; 2. 6 ~tu-.- ~ ~/ ~
II
'C OtJtJ /qt@. ,/3= Bfl1J >< 10 ~ 7!, ~ eu/,t... 2. , J/(7!u~ ;;, ~f ~
GD 0 0'1) tJ~;-' . /;- ~ $JIJ?} )C ~ -=' ItJ~ ~ C<I~ = 3. f t-r;~ ~ M- %
.
~
-----~
--
--
,.-,
(""....'.,\,
Carol 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,
12~.J ~t ~
Rick Head
RH/pp
enclosure
Post Office 80x 1602 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Telephone 303/825-2811
I j
-J.-., )
i
I
~,
<;:"
i....... ,/
i "'7~')p"
I I
~\ I
~,
""':
I
I
1~
!'-i
,
I
-",I
"
"
. . ~'I
..,/./ I
/~/' :
./ I
,/'././ I
/'
./
l-
I
,-.,
,.-,
~I/'~
Wdtm
~
/fluAftll!-;~
(~
ft~?
CtuIr~ ~ I
I
,..
"
"
"
L--.---~-_._-- --:;t'-
/,,,,,,,, ,/'//
./ ./
/ // /?' //.//
/ / / ,//,
~' . 6Q'/'<' ,
../
..,/// _ ?C<vAet. f""TA':;;;e.:; )~~
/
// FAi2, .::-. '?? 7" )
\ - -/'T"-- . ' VOLUHE. ~48,0)QC\l,tl
f- V?>'.A.lI1E. )VmD '" 8- r -!D 1
"
./
A - I fLPOlZ - CA[\JE:~ CE:.IL.Il~
--.
I
-,f-
,
,
I
I
, I,
~'
/
/
..-
/'
./
./
/'
./
.,
.1- _."
" '\
I
-'~7- - ----
//"
../-" 'A./Jr:. =..-.."" / ,"" - I.>:>.~/\ ~ F \
--"..A.><V I~ I ~!,t..~~:':"'1'-- ....... 'l~ -....I.
1"".6..\2. --- ,?ie> I
VO[..UNEE. =- Ib/2.CJDCtl FI.
VOUJMf.'. J2A1'!O'" 2,1./0 i
)--
-,-.~------_. -+
/ ,/'
,/ I ;-,.-/..-'
,0/
/,/
//
./
----;;!-'-
/
-r-- ./
i I ?~, i
-t-------"-----"-'f
t?~ /'
t:..,.../ -- .;;...
-
f:.P..?i20 -
rI....,A7'f' 12.~<~ \:::
, ,
,
/-., ., ',A c::
~"'-\:"fj.......>
~A eil' .".,.r"" , ! .ro" / .-: C-
i t I r--, - i~-'Y : ~ i~::.....-~>:::::'t:,...;/
V' U, --t'
~..... ' j
I
~DUSE:: 'A t~A6:2 l1Hr::."-" -r~e c:.USk::.
rOa-r.L~c, Op f'+Ou~e. 'e!
1. r:;:.. - ~t--j~ ~l.l.h.V.:y;:: ~A6{e::./ t.:7lJ'-r
I/:::> 12 -r,;'4~ pl~~ 8'~2..
, I
HoU-:"t'A
. .
j:~-
~'tIIIl..."
.
"
"i"
it'
:.-.,
r-.
,
.
,
,
,
~I
"
..
,.,.
'~ '
\,
.
,
'1!
/, 'II
,.
'(,..
Aprll13.
,
l!i1S'"
,
"
,
.
,/
-j
',.,'(,.,
i'
"i'
'Ii<
".~'"''
,
.
,~.
~
.
....'" '" '.-~
'Ma7'Ianll,'Satth 1Ot""
Plannin, Director I
City of ~pen '
130S.Gal..". ,
Atlpell,Coloradoll1611
.,,:
,
'.,
-
.,..0..
,
i,
--.+.)'
,- ,4,.
{,
"
J.
d,!
'De.rlare:
,'ti~
,
-
'...,
<n
;JO..
,
.
,1.
"
.\.,
"
,
- ~"
,I
."
,~,'~.
--
,
..
, ,
Thi. lattar 1. 1Q ..afarence ta the propo.ad P.A.I. 111, the
...a1den.. 1-6 dlatr1et. I, &8 . hoaeownRr 111, the va.t and
lltId. _1Ib.t of_tha nlal Uta... CQ1IIDIm.1ty, vollld .rutl,.
.ppr.ctata you ~tlf,.111' .. Dr Gideon Xauf..n a. to tbe
atat...of th..fornoeDtionadiNue. -,I -J.
,
.
,
Of p.rticular 1ntanlt to .. 1& &"y
1Ile1ld&t1o...a:pd_rl~oft...t.vh.n
p & Z e~ld....tlon.
.'
planning
It1l:l.ght
"
,
:.1,
.
.
,
-. " '" ""- """~ ,.~., ~, ~,'
... - , - - - -- " - """" ~,
RB/pp "
..
-j'.,
" , I,.
h" .
~. ;g'"
" ,t..,' ~:< '
~,f.
.
,
" :.1
~.J'
, . " :-,
, 'j
~.'. ;'Ii' "
. ,
.~
nttic. r.eo_
eomeupfor
Sine.rely,
---"'Rieklf...:d.
,
,
',11
,
.
Iil '"
:;
'i;
,
,
,',
,
',',
",,,"
.
,r',
I
,
..
'." I'.
,
"
'I_
.',
~ii:i~i4'7"
-'t, '
'"
,
\:-. 1',
J,,1
"
.\",
,
'"~
:(
,
~
.'
"\'
,
,
..
I
,
[,
,
:,:"
"
'f:
'I.'
w
f
'1.
,i.;{
..
..
:,
I
..
I
,
I
I
I
,\
I
I
I
,;,
I
i ,.-,
i P!+:r- ~ .
r--"
i,!
",
"" .Ut
,
,
!:I
-....-.'......-.-....--:...;...r..------..--.
,
~~~+='=--_Jt' ....
i!ll~ ~~.lJW
:il:~L~:~.,..'"
- . -;nT:. ~ - Ute .' +- ~ YLJ--
LllIJ,{ll)'v ;, ~ IS .. huJj:.... I
L~ _ _' .__- __ ~V2~k- - ~~ ~
!I:
....... ..~~1j~~~~~: ....m ... ......
~:~ ~ ~~
-. ::. - bft ~ ~ Cf Itb~ e.fJS-(C2~.
I: /
,
-- I' - - - -- -- -- ~ - - - --
,
~.--~
- w-- ~.. fl:b,__u_
,.~",I.~
:+i~--- ____no
iii
ii'
'..__m__'!_'jj"__
,
- _._------Ij,I~-- -'-
:'1
i!
/
, I:
,j !.l
, ,
"
'I;
ii'
1-1.1.,
:11
:;1
1'1
_..___,__~JI___ ..-
Ii
i,
"
_ ----------- ---..-.i-f-'!--'
:ii
i]i
""-',"T
~ ' ;
;i
- __On _____... ". ---.--.-..--H'"7-..... --.-'.,---.--..0'.. ,_______,.___..___ ___",___.___,.'__ ...0._.'..___._...._._
i i
, !
,-,I
1--j.f-.-......
,I
'i
.+L!
Iii
Iii
,-,u--liT ____ - ,_____u_
",
___ ._._ .. _~__ j.J.L.
:,1
"
.w.Li-!
..",
';;
I ' ~
;,1
;!I
"I
2'~zi!~-fi<<' .. ...a)'/~_
ii' vtP~'~I/""
,~. ~,. " --,---. ... --- ~H I. -.. - ,--~ .----- --. ." ,_~~_~___m~_u.__~, --"",- "'~---~--._..._---.~---~--- --- ,','" , .~----
j~L~]I..~~J=~__~._~...==~.
!I
iil
iil
~ .l!1dttfFMk,J~\.. --=.2~&~rt
Ii! ",--~~,~,-,,-ta.1!?u1P5.
,;1
li1~ ..........?<~_-... ...,..'.,....,.'...._..._'....,..._~.............' ..."...,..'....'..,.............~.,'..,.. ,.~,.'" ",_t:, (~
.IJ,llf'.oc.a.--c .._0_ (~_6/=_ __ .____
--,- '~I ii~f'.-~---~()ll:r-)_~SE_J,Z~:~--
.-.,
~,
-. '- -f+' ',' ~H
/'0' "
vi .'v .
If':
,'i
,
I
--
f'.
-;;n-
/--",
PAl?..
-
~
.-u(~--Mf~~
-. _t'~ '-~ ~1~
~~~~ ~-
-_._--~------==--~-&- '- -- ' . -~~--'--
~-~~< --~-----_.-
~ ~.. ~ ~~ '" ---.. :+-~-,--
o.A....O.,..diOO~ ~~ /'
,-"
,.-,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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 prim,rily 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
,-
SF .5 .233
DUP .5 .33
R-30
.13 (same as Planning
proposal)
.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 usaMe 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 BO/ipds, of Di rectors; in fact oppositi on rema i ns, but a compromi se
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.
~,
,.-,
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. H'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 i, 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 issues
of basement, garage, and balcony exclusion should be further discussed on
Tuesday.
,-,
,-,
West Side Improvement Assn.
701 North Third St.
Aspen, Colorado
..
.
Mr. Bill Kane
City-County Planner
13 0 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 10th.
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
vZ2~
~
Chairman, West Side Improvement Assn.
cc: P & Z Commission Members
,
_t,.....' ~L
,.-,
,"-'
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
~at~
,~. \... .?'J
B'OX t 000 1
'280 UTE AVeNUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 1
(303) 825.8166
March 10, 1978
Board of Directors
West End Association
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Board Member,
I am writing this letter at the request of AnneSchwin,d 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 inclu4~ng 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 even
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.
-
0;::. ->__
04
,.-,
~
. .
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,
/~I~
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
I~~
~~
CJS'
.~~~
~ .
~.~
\P~
~g
~~
r"\
-~~
if'
-I]
~~
-:'\' fJI
~,
--
~~
'}
:) "ft
dG'
,-
'T
,,,-I
"
.,,~
lrr
..iJIi..
,......
,,-.,,
~'" ::K~.,."",
.~
~
~
~:!,
CJS
'~ ~~
~'
~
~~
~~
~9
'~~
,-."
--
-
.. ,-;'''''-..,,'.''.:,
,
~
.~ "ft
'3.j
"~\)
',\
tt
I
r
I
~~.
~
~3
CJS
-~1i1
~
!~
\fJ2]
~
~q
'~ii
,.-,
..8!.,...~<
I~~
~
~3:
,~
!~
V'~
~g
~.
-~
;~
c;.0"".
--,
:j'
,
57S
',;i ~
-\)
')
G-
j,;
UI
'"
Iii
I"
.'Zi",~,f~\;:;; --r .Ln_._ 'II 'H
. .,..._ _ _' dJ _~~),f)Jib - ~ ,~ 1\:\4C',"4., 2 1- . ... , ..,.... ,- . i It
I
I j
I:
,
II
II
III
-_.._--J+t _""_'___""'_"'__"'_'_,_,_.o"._.m_
II
'_11
.... .. # '--"'IT'"
.l-, ---
-~III,
Ii
II
Ilii
I'
ili
II'
i I
ill
I'
!II
1.1+---
Iii
II
. . .,.. -[It .- .-
i 11, -, -. . - .'.m.
Ii
+:1
____.,_..,. ,_, .It,
Iii
"1
'I
hi-- .
'I'
I1L ..-- - ,-- ,
,- - "IJ ,_u.."
._.".__,_ __..._.w'',_,____ _ '__'__', m_'..__._.__._...,__,_. ._,.., III
.- -,- -" . --...- [I" ".. . ..,...
--: ','-~.::_=-::~~~ ~:-_~-~.-.---~~ -.- .~--~-__',-~=.-~:.-=~:=_'- -:.:-:~=_:'-::--" . "'I" .,- -.- - .-----::[1:.,,,..'." .--:':~ ::__ -
I
I
I'
II
III
I,
ili
!il
,~
~,
,. .'....:(Aili~~...'..'~-,~:'hUt~~::.
,.~n,_ ",,_, L"!tt,A~10:12~'::!''2';"",,\i,.. ".,"
y:.t . ~ ' " ' i
,i ',.'\ -_.\
,,\ \\
__"'" ""___""_'__"_"_'" __,_.~.__._,_..___.____._ __ __"~_,,__,,,_,_, .___. .,_,' __ __0"__ .", ___n....._.'i;-. ,'M __,,__
lC-~~~7iJ[il7
",tb1hJ ~.-
~
,-."
.(Ie. (<\'")
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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
.16 Single Family
.20 Duplex
R-30
.13
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 As~erisk (*) after each Floor
Area Ratio in R-6, R-15 and R-30 (i.e.0RY~6) .30*; (R-15) .16 Single
Family, .20 Duplex*; (R-30) ~13*). And oy 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 ratia.ifor residential district$
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 ana Zoning Commission
Aspen Planning and Housing Commission
Page Two
February 16, 1978
,-"
(;[,.("1'<)
b. By revi ewi ng each reques t on a case by case basi,s, it is
possible to consider factors that mitigate against the
strict application of b~lk ratios. In other words, the
size and scale of buildjngs and design relationships
with surrounding buildimgs 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 rev)ew 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 areinot new to Planning & Zoning. The
criteria proposed for review! guidelines are similar to those
which now are incorporated iD the section.
!
4. The Planning and Zoning review is a simple appearance before
the Planning and Zoneing Co~ission. 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 ~sked this office to clarify that
the calculation of floor area for floor area ratios was to exclude
basement areas but include all enclo~ed airspace above ground, inclu-
ding garages. With very little or np modification, we believe that
Section 24-3.7 (e) (1) and (2) Measuririq Floor Area,fC\r Floorl\rea
Ilatio.accomplishes your wish. That section excludes'Elasement areas
and describes the measurement of above ground floor area. The only
question we have is whether the excl~sion 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~i(.30 in R-6;
.16 Single Family and .20 Duplex in R-15; and .~in R-30 would
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 Cl erk
Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, Janaury 26, 1978.
.
.
.'
,.-,
/~,
~'
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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. He 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 sma 11 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.
Imk
,.-,
/,,-..,\
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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 ~hou1d 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.,
~Je have been asked to bri ng it back to you. In vi ew of your 1 ight
agenda, we thought it might be an appropriate time to conduct a sort
of study session, with no actionto 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.
1mk
encs.
.
,-"
,
i""".
t
~.
"'"
~
1
\\
~~
w ~
(j--~
,,~ ....
........ ~
~~
>< x.
~ ~
II II
~~
tl-b..
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
II
~
~ ~
~~~
'-J _
. .
"-
uJ ~ \))
~
4~o-
""
~
J
'--...-/
12 if', ,
~1!~~I1c:c~ Ill(/'
~;!1ti~1!4~>~
~ -''CJ c '~~_ I
/-..~" '.'..," ',~, -, ',";--=, ::=="',,~/
~. ,bf/Mo-"".}i.J,,/i> T ,~ .
/ . "" ( ,>,.' , / '/ (-. " ~'"
, pLlea/At (i'J<#ct ~lh /?ru -'#k"$Jt'([4/
r'1A {i~ .
~bdJ
qllr~
'i.~11 ~f~ ~rl:@)~
d1~'v,- Cil -f101 'I+t,~
t~J i~dU1AJl A~~
~h(PJ1XJb k
'if / -r
"..:l(~& \~~
d ~ {f<f- :;
p\ .
:;
\\
'!
Ii
i:
l'
I:
"
.
,d,F,i',r- "', ',?~)
/1,/'-:' ,._.u.,
J
"d, 05-1 ,Z
j' / 0::::/
,I" ',...,,<- "'",,.,1
!
dt
rt&
, 4"
;70
?;j(l' :
,/ ?:fi'
.". i",
~"'),\',~', '-:':~,,',',,;,;
:,xl-A I "
/VJ~\ '(J j i
\ ' ".
:1
,!rS",,, L_ ,
j-4vu:.,..,;..::;~..)rl/fJl'\,u-!
il .
6t=:-
) A-~
b /
'~"LL!A .
, ... (' !r\A,;!,
_~.. .. .,' ....,~.0.4/\-
1-0-+
I~ t?;l(., EJ
.- ,..~ /'
\k\~ ~[ 13(;) -J C u-t-, C) I . /{~:[l i b.~
t~;7> ~..A_/",,_ "I VI,;,- \)..J \oL>\ 11'--- "\ f
.~~~~ vt..v~. to \:>.c. C6/;V';iJ.!2H1
<"')<7
<:7d.,;;;;;.
-,71"'-
'/
_c~2biJ:".'C~C:) LJ+
>"~;:t-"--) .. ~~'''--
(;/ '" ~I3, 7 . ;.
f ' ,.0, .,1
~ "
',.. - .. ....:.. .. ..,,,-,""'.,'.:....:... ..
-~---~"~'~~
4') r3.7 s:-
io~;~~ _3fc
/ 7lt2f' zS-
, O:':~LJ;;c?~,
_.~~._'''''-. """
-,I' ,0,,1 /' IS
1 .,' m"
I.
~:'I qfQ, 5:?)
C; 0,1{', 7 ~
't, l<i,,_
l~~~ .."1fl
.,.'jm"'''-''"?7'."
/ ,o,{t:f7
<' (J'~ .
d(7tLl \tL <rlc:')q-({{Um
"7"6'1-
~
/,:~;~-"""';.",
(, 01..0'>/:;0::-:"
I"~ . (k/ '-.-._--~""..,,--_._--~,
, " ".t-.t2t^o . ,/') tlr? -,,,\
I 11 L /
\ r'. . p/"/'
_,_-\_n.. .n...... ,_ ,.. ...~._
'''~ -'~"-""~~::-,.~,
;J~ S', q9l1' ,;tq/~
o U
37~
,
I
"
,~,
,-."
.
:~ !!
ii
j'l
d
[I
· ~,JjN(dt~L
~ .,
i)
"
~.. c4{tcc / CO? j...
d.~
~
I/r' ..-' C;~" ) ~ ,
J" ,,'~ ' t:Z- f::::Jrj,;1
, mZ? "., "",." ,." ,'.' "" ,kVt""U^ D "".
" , J ~~
,!
"
h
Ii
:i"
..
I
'I 3&f} ..--
'~.r:t!f" ,--
:1 {zf-f,);l~ '
..
~._=-
,;;<}
Ii
,i
q
_~:~" :' f#.~ ~
e;~tJiJu."
~~vt~)6J 71() ''?-'
~ i!
;-'uJ;'
L_ fI_' ': (>.~
l) " , /tGr v rSr'i..dL1A..../
~Ia}~'.
:!
"
q
f{'5))..] ,,-b>h(4)J~'----
J, 1\
Ie, f,~ l' ,I ~ J iJ"[)'
i\-",.::>.,,,,~^J...,{/\...-- '\1"-
. /} If -, - . d"
I J ti', ' ,',,1 , \
vv \,,_\...,CiG,,\.J:''''''''' t '.:",)(_ ,"'-,"'\.,j......
1~~1'-LtA71 <~,~(>VL~~r:~-~L,'-
rJ;.p Vt&7!, 0V'-/~~ vL~ ,W-;
0t-
ji
L
Ii
f?'\
..b.
f-
ij
,:116
~~l:0 ~~3
I, #0-; '77
Ii
',1-
.'.' rift! DC
VA "("DL \.
~,
,~~~;-" \f
;S;;;. t,;b'1
:/6b\l!
-=.
~,."
-'n 11
, I' $;. v.,-".~
( V
f Vj;ltt!L~, ,4':'\J:h,,~_
~t(,".LJ.dL<\JvV~v'_3 '1\{J9\:J,?'J~~
g,374b ~ v
.".JEtfl=7"'..'.
~'" I
',-"
,
~ ,I
,i
,!
,-"
,-."
"~Il~~~ ~CD/~,:Ct~""
/""'- iJ
---.11 ~
,
d
~17V4J
, It.' "
~ r ,;,.- Ii
I),,, '(' .,
'. ilh'l'" ,jl
-,C(l,,,,,,,I,\lll,' r
.V~
, J"'>>f~,! ,; I, (,'!I\, ',.
\ 'It \
dJ
u~QbJ~~{
J
,[
Ii
ii
Ii
"
G~.
I
1
"
I
ii
"ji
,I
,h
\ I,.,,: I
"
:,1
;[
I'
:!
Ti
ii
:;
"
, W( iAl~~~}'~t-~'t-I&~
~', '. 1"':'rr,';~:)~."
.,' , . G ""
"-....." . .
-,....... -.' ...............--,.-.... ........-.. ."....".. ,..".... ....... ........ .,.,... ...,.-
tL" A/? ') ~ ./'.f1 a>- /,
.. . .. ? <.~~IJ)!../ L '(/"1
! /'
{i
, 1?~~1..//
~, C)~~
Irc/3
_ r14
Ib:;7
,l6)3
, ;;.;;;.....;.,;." tl!1.
j/
. 0.7 &:7
l~j3,
d(6 d],-=, q)\
~.- ;:::- .0U
"
( -:-'~)
l./i/ J,'''':,'': ...'
\t./ '-0. '-~.~ ___
, 4~~1
I
!::. ' /0
:}J.<I( {,')e'l (; ft,,>:!! , I
i (, '<&'~'h'~c"
~~-~---,- I ,J
,/':::?-t J ' ,
':)<;1'1 ' V
;-1'
0/"
----
&:poD
'i ,?o
1t=~[= .. ....... .... ...- ~------. ....: ....~....=_n______
..... ...___"._._._..'_m.....'....."......,.~._._ _._._____.__..___.___........_...._...........__.___.._
II
- ",,__ "'n""__'__"'_""'_,,,_
----------. liltuu ---{(~---JUJf--~--.-~--~. _..,.,_~;>
- - ill -. - ----. _.hI:.. ~ -~.LL
I,
-.-..----..--------11.,1,."-."--'."'.- .'......-~t~~~-:i.,..-',~~.....i._il1~~~~
,I
"".,,_.,_,.._:.'JJt .":.',_::.l&::~1~_:~..:~.~",
.. ... .--il-- .n. .._____H;t-{):~~-~ -~:~ j r-
III L~ ~rE. "'~,.,""~.,
-nl!"...,"'-d,:.'l~-.., ,u ,-J~----L~.
. ... -Il!ntn ~~,J;<jC;;::s.,.
.. 11. ...~.w~r-~~S.
. lif-;t,~ -'~r.-_n-n Ith-~H~_-
.,.-",,111-- ..,---" - ""." ".-jJi~_ ,."'_~_n_Ov..__"_n_m,.."..'~'n'..
,/"'\
f"",
<
,._l~f!_~..
.,'~,..,',.,
..,., .-. '~-"-'~>'-,"'....--_.'- "---....-.--.'.-. -"'- -,._--- -"---~-'-"'-'- -. ..--.
-~~.~-,......
"._~_._-- '
...,"'~".,',.,.
.
.---+, -_...--,-..--,- - -----+,._------.__._-~~-:-..-:--- ~+-:~~_..~.-~: ~::.~
:'.. -.. . . #:.... :' ..
~~.~. ~ -.
-.,.-' '-"'-~-'-"\_~.."'"
,.-,
,.-,
(WIt ,~~,p~~/FItC.-
;?dtfl (t;L~)
sr.
tt-
',~ ~'+Ozr'
;)7rJ ELI
1oco ?' r7~ ~
b ' i~ 13 , I 2f1 tAlA?
:0 ,~ i/~- '-I\f'..--
I LD 5'"/
(~)
L . 5'114;-
.....- --
----,... ..--..
J{) to 1(;
I 5'2 pA-e
(Gl~
Jk
[:Iv I = ,j6Uxduh' ~;/~:
- ~'" . ,gD ~ to/; ~
~
~l?~'
._.1 '2..0~,
,12~.?!2, _,
l!/ I tl ^-. 001"'7
--c-- -;:::;-
15131'~'
b ~
Lr5lJf2-.
, I 11 f/,tr:f,
d~,P~
(4JI~
It;"Z-b--<'/ I
'/l~,~,', '
]1,1WL- ')
(~)-
LIZ~kL~
ts-rl S-- ~
n.nott'f57-? IDb f~
..If:... iF~ .?D1Mi..~~~
n;1{ ,^' p
....-----J~Li;r"'.~~.z~..-.-..--.
.-----" .,.".,-.-liJ1",.hkCdt"FL .",-,.
Ii
cr. .
I'
'1\1 .__ ,'..___.._.
-'fir" ".,..-....-.
Ii!
......, ,." ,.- TIT
.Iu
ill
III
..-,---:-q.-.
III a;l.li
i Ii,.. _,_.._,
.-.....-.....---..rT" -,......-..-. ..-.. . ,.-.........-....
._I,l!m__
\1
11)-
III
III
Iii
,."". ."".,.'" .,...,.. ...,.,""'111'...'."'-
."'..- .. '.'..""TT
__ LIL
- . "I
II'
1,[
.-... TIT c '-"-7: .... - --
, _'.__. __IJL_.~Q~i1t2Z):I=
ill
Iii
'-.".'-'''- fTl" .....--......" - "" -.-..--,..
!II
. -"t.
Iii
_.1.1,
Iii
...._...__,.._ ..,..-,1.\+...
III
III
--..-.- 111--- '" .., ,,-,., ..
1,1,_,.., .,"". "'.","__.,'..,".."'.,""__
..."--- -.--~..~-.."..,...--.T'-r.-.'--.---~_.--.- ,k........ '
____.__.._lll!cn:6:~~I~~~_
[I
___.._~._....._~.,._.__."m.___..- _.. "_. ..... __~.j_.."
.. 'I
. ,;111 J ,\ . ,\~
- . ~"v ~J~l' ~::t~~ rr:7 \
...~+~\J'\~yo~lrf-(\\}j\: '\).J , -,
..t-- \n' '- \'~~ . t\,,-~Y ~ V
",v --;': ~" ,i,... )
- -!;iV.- ~ '[II .. \r"'.. . - ~,,,"., .
Vif '\'-' "I [\:-' \ w'
-.- - --x~.' -111-'\ -- "__y~J -. -
, ~~II Mh "
le "\ '-. 'fe-
I" irk- '."
<---,,- '''-'.-,' --_J-::--'I"rr-"'/)ij \~- :--"'\~Y""
II I l!.. .
",.,.,J._,..__
--'-111--
'II
LJ ".,
'II
II
Jjl
__...__..[JL ..,...,.._....._.__.
II!
~....lH...,.-"'--..--
,,-..,
r-.
~tf1.-0d---'..,~C3:0~~~:~.,
_,..."Jl~It:,(0It.-t~: .
1I'1~_Ix.t~'., ,::;::'
.""jL/:k~,
...."",.".,.".
~u .'
1//1-..
31. {I
.'l'f ,'_
..3'.
,-., ,,- ':1'. .,..'.' '.",.. .,.,
?Cj p\
. "V..L-L..-::,..___..
?
<3.
I = Sc.; t6
K ...J..___.._....
dl!,,#
1/'(
I
I
-'
..
~_._,._---_._.-.-..,.....- - - --_.._..__...~-_._,- ,,,_...-
,...,,/rk_~_~r~____.___,..,
s-u U..J2
,_..__..".nu__"_,,, "__.,,
"" i/' L IfJf---
..-"!:";u~~r~.-~'-'-'-_.--,.
.,"___,,__ m._'u..._._ '0_" _u_.___.,_,____._,..____..__.___...____,_,~..,. ___
..,f,;;tdJ.tftk~ __. ..,..._.,
[80m ,.',.
!h~0
...-1%
... _....'_0.. "'_,._,'m_ '_""___~~'_ ... ., _,"'''_
.. NrQ;~",.
'-I; 11
'S"}I? '.'.. u.____.._ -,.. ,,--------,-..
. 35._/_.=-.J_It~.};,__,.,...,.,_...,.___.
,
,/ ":: t
.t.r-~'. ", l
'~,.."'...".,.,-~
. ',.,"',,'t5ltD-l11t.
.. h03"-P~'"
hJ;4Y.-~Ah~~1'
'w (52-l71/)
317 G /
... n....'_.__.w.__....,.___.._.__..____....._.
~ --
, " ".', ,... .... , t{82(')
d"~
j : j
.,{iYAi- {/,; ",..l..~
'.. --un l V ^ '~.-
,.Y. 7LE~r'
--
, , , , ~ -
. . . . ~
u... .' ,
..If'<''''
I~
/ HZ tw.hiy . ~
12ftl 70 ./',. i filA,,..&:>f'.. '~,' r, 1: ''''' ~ l S .
"=t:r;t;%i'" 46<.- . ,;:'
~~~~.... ~.
~ fll
j~-'~
~.fy~
~,..,' ,.
'~
'^)>.,
~
,"-'
f~
1!2/tf "~!
<'
/t~
j/&
'~
'/rr<r e
~
(1f;G
-~~~
I /
" &/5
,
. ~3
'~~/~
&tI-1!A
IUIit ~
1~
.5~ r!J
/t)Q -&
,~~JoZJd;1 I
,.~
+
" (/<,o,.,.~,
(~()
(~)
bJJur~
'J76X5 -:?'~~flHfn'l, g ".
~
{~
'~ !
uf. lok
,4 ,., ,."."",..,
,
ruw ..dd....~....b.Abd.,c/hL..~4Y".,. '
~()~:~~~~.;; ~ (/V~
~~--?- ~ If
Ii
t,
/.7tt.'/" ~(:;z , A"//J' jJ d "
'1/(j'lz.?!v ( f1L. '(;f7''-1U--t/0-
"
,
"
.:j- .-
)~_It~ku~ld~thJ~7if}L (~lf1'.'~1 ~
il jp I Ij -L U:2/ J, I :2 L -~~ I ,'/' A. , &-"..,L.
Ii -D/4Irc'7~V: UO~v~ ,/y 6J
I.,
:i
.il.._
"
,
,
if"--
a~,,' '.', ",..'IA.-., , ',,;;.a,' "",~6,.., /)",()~,','~,"'" ,C?i,k"/.f:jf!/VL~,','-V,, ~".' . ~
fk~, h ~$/... Ii' I%QD/~r "
(l~* ~,.," '.',.
,I
I!
,
L
I,
i:
i'
I
-'~' ..--
!jtYW'~ p~ ~~~" ~L/ ~tmJ2. '~~U./J~ -- .
df~IlI,~IYfVM~ i~ CL/~V~^CtJJ< .."~"," "'--'~
; ,ISI( ,',', ,tt.JltAlw ~m m&l. ,."", "
:j r.f {U/,J'UJJW' .
i )
:l ~~fuJ,~j~~,
""
),'
x
"-->'-' ',_., ';,"',-
~
..:.....~'~
,-"
..-,
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 .~~1~ 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 Asp~n
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.
1""'\
,.-,
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 i!l1'e 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 anyone 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,a,r;J(Li<\table 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
~.
,~
~EMO
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-