Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.GMQS Exemptions for Historic Landmarks.67A-88 ~ t"""\ , CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen - DATE RECEIVED: 12/30/88 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 67A-88 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: GMOS Exemption for Historic LandmarksCode Amendment Project Address: Legal Address: APPLICANT: Jack Kinq Applicant Address: 15 Wellinqton. Gross Pointe. MI 48230 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Doremus & Wells Representative Address/Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2 Aspen. CO 81611 5-8080 ================================================================ PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: Charge to Case 51A-88 309 E. Hopkins Avenue Commercial GMQS NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: x P&Z Meeting Date 2/7/89 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Paid: Date: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: X City Attorney city Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water city Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consolo S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cros!3 Fire Marshall Building' Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJf Other 'if '-: ,b.'-\ DATE REFERRED: 1/3/fl9 INITIALS: H ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty Housing city Engineer ___ Zoning Other: Env. Health FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r"""", ,-, Case Disposition On May 9, 1989, the Aspen city council adopted Ordinance 16, series of 1989, amending several provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations with respect to historic preservation. On June 12, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance 27, series of 1989, repealing and re-enacting section 1 of Ordinance 16, to correct some errors made therein. Copies of both Ordinances are available through the City Clerk or at the Planning Office front desk. .-., ,-. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~' Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ Clarification of Ordinance 16 THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: June 7, 1989 ================================================================ SUMMARY: Staff recommends final reading approval of Ordinance 27, which corrects a section of recently adopted Ordinance 16. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance 16, series of 1989 on second reading. During the pUblic hearing, I recommended a minor addition be made to the ordinance, to bring the GMQS exemption for historic landmarks in line with the GMQS exemption for commercial and office buildings. Attachment 1 shows the adopted version of this portion of Ordinance 16. After further review of this language, it became obvious that while the idea was a good one, the language I suggested does not work. For example, this language would require a change in use from residential to commercial to not increase the building's net leasable square footage. This is obviously an impossibility and not what Council intended. This is but one of several problems caused by trying to compress many ideas into a single sentence, rather than separate each concept into a complete thought. To rectify this problem, I have drafted the language shown in section 1 of the proposed Ordinance, intended simply to implement Council's original direction, not to make any policy alterations. This language recognizes that only when a historic landmark is to be enlarged by an increase to its existing floor area and its net leasable square footage (ie., an above grade expansion of the "impact" space) does it require P&Z review. All other enlargements and all changes in use which do not involve expansion require staff signoff only. I believe the revisions will be much simpler for both the public and the staff to understand. I regret that it is necessary for Council to duplicate its prior action, but the City Attorney and I concur that adoption of a new Ordinance is the correct approach to resolving this matter. We recommend its approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 27, Series of 1989." landmarksordcorrect ("'"'\ -, 'pCtft\./' !.'" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ THRU: RE: Clarification of Ordinance 16 DATE: May 16, 1989 ================================================================ SUMMARY: Staff recommends first reading approval of Ordinance ___, which corrects a section of recently adopted Ordinance 16. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance 16, Series of 1989 on second reading. During the public hearing, I recommended a minor addition be made to the ordinance, to bring the GMQS exemption for historic landmarks in line with the GMQS exemption for commercial and office buildings. Attachment 1 shows the adopted version of this portion of Ordinance 16. After further review of this language, it became obvious that while the idea was a good one, the language I suggested does not work. For example, this language would require a change in use from residential to commercial to not increase the building's net leasable square footage. This is obviously an impossibility and not what Council intended. This is but one of several problems caused by trying to compress many ideas into a single sentence, rather than separate each concept into a complete thought. To rectify this problem, I have drafted the language shown in Section 1 of the proposed Ordinance, intended simply to implement Council's original direction, not to make any policy alterations. This language recognizes that only when a historic landmark is to be enlarged by an increase to its existing floor area and its net leasable square footage (ie., an above grade expansion of the "impact" space) does it require P&Z review. All other enlargements and all changes in use which do not involve expansion require staff signoff only. I believe Attachment 2 will be a much easier document for both the public and the staff to use. I regret that it is necessary for Council to duplicate its prior action, but the City Attorney and I concur that adoption of a new Ordinance is the correct approach to resolving this matter. We recommend its approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance ---' Series of 1989." "Move to approve on first reading Ordinance ---' Series of 1989." , ,-. ~, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~~ Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ THRU: FROM: RE: Historic Landmarks GMQS Exemption Code Amendment DATE: May 3, 1989 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends final approval of Ordinance BGL, as written. The Planning Office also recommends final approval, but suggests adoption of a scale for FAR reduction which is more restrictive for applicants to reduce their affordable housing requirement. REQUEST: To amend the Aspen Land Use Regulations to reduce or waive the parking and affordable housing exactions applied to historic landmarks in the GMQS Exemption process. APPLICANT: Jack King, owner of the Berko Building. Represented by Joe Wells and Gideon Kaufman. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council unanimously granted first reading approval to this Ordinance on April 10. Limited discussion of the issues occurred, but final determinations were postponed until the public hearing could be held. BACKGROUND: During 1988, the applicant received conceptual approval from HPC to relocate the structure at 309 E. Hopkins, A/K/A, the Berko Building, and to construct a new building in its place. Following conceptual approval, considerable public opinion was voiced that this was an incorrect decision and an appeal was filed to Council to overturn the HPC action. Rather than trying to fight the appeal, the applicant asked that Council table action indefinitely, to provide time to process a Code Amendment intended to permit the structure to remain in place and to provide economic relief to the owner. Council and the appellant concurred and this application was submitted. Because this amendment has particular benefit to the applicant, staff suggested and the owner agreed that it was best to process this application as a privately initiated Code Amendment. However, due to the general applicability of the proposal, staff has also spent considerable time trying to formulate an approach which works both for the Berko case and the larger community. - , , .,-" PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant feels that during the time between his purchase of the property and the review by HPC, changes in the City's Land Use RegUlations have made it very difficult to preserve a small structure such as this. In fact, when the new Regulations were adopted in May, 1988, two major new costs were imposed on this type of property. First, a parking requirement of 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. was adopted for the CC zone district, which could be met by an in-lieu fee of $15,000 per space. Second, the affordable housing threshold for commercial development was increased from 35 to 60%. As you recall, fOllowing the Elli's expansion, where no parking, affordable housing or other mitigation was required by the Code for expansion of a landmark, the Code was amended, to read as shown in Attachment 1, to impose exactions for expansions to landmarks beyond certain limits. This meant that the newly increased parking and housing standards would apply to properties like the Berko building. The applicant seeks the following changes to the existing Code, in order to provide the economic ability to adaptively reuse and preserve historic structures: 1. Reduce the requirement for provision of affordable housing associated with the historic landmarks GMQS exemption. Further, tie the amount of the reduction to the degree to which the applicant's proposal falls below the site's allowable FAR. 2. Reduce or waive the cash-in-lieu payment for parking required for expansion of an historic landmark. 3. Eliminate the requirement that open space in-lieu fees be paid for relocation of an historic landmark on-site into required open space. The applicant's original proposal was reviewed by HPC and P&Z. While the basic concept was supported, the specific language proposed by the applicant required significant revision. Therefore, rather than confuse the Council, we instead present to you the current language in the Code (Attachment 1) and P&Z Resolution 89-4, identical to the subject Ordinance. The P&Z recommendation accomplishes the following: 1. Provides that change in use of an historic landmark (that is, internal alteration without expansion) is exempt from all impact mitigation requirements and is reviewed by HPC and staff only. This should be a strong encouragement to adaptive reuse of landmarks. In fact, staff has already received several inquiries regarding conversion of residences along Main Street to offices. 2 I"", - 2. Provides that for expansion of historic landmarks, the maximum affordable housing impact mitigation shall be 50% of the threshold level in the GMQS (for commercial structures, 50% of the 60% threshold = providing housing for 30% of the employees generated). This 50% maximum occurs when the structure is built out to 100% of maximum allowable FAR, excluding any bonuses which can be obtained by special review. This 50% maximum is reduced by 1% for each 1% reduction in FAR on the site, such that at 50% of buildout, the affordable housing impact mitigation is waived. 3. Permits any housing which must be provided to meet the moderate, rather than low income guideline. 4 . Exempts any space which does not count as FAR (ie., all subgrade space) from the affordable housing requirement. 5. Provides that for expansion of historic landmarks, parking shall be provided to the extent HPC finds it can fit on the surface of the site, but that any parking required to be paid as cash-in-lieu be waived. 6. Provides that for relocation of an historic landmark on- site into required open space, the cash-in-lieu requirements be waived. One additional change needs to be made to the Ordinance. There is an inconsistency between the way we treat typical commercial structures, which are eligible for an exemption when there is no increase in net leasable square footage, and historic structures, which are eligible for a staff-level exemption when there is no increase in FAR. While the latter approach is purposefully more liberal, we need to add to it the ability to also gain a staff- level exemption when there is an increase in FAR but not an increase in net leasable square footage. This can be done by adding the words "or its net leasable square footage" to the first sentence in section 1 of the Ordinance on page 2 and the words "and its net leasable square footage" to the first sentence in section 2 of the Ordinance on page 2. ALTERNATIVES: In general, staff supports the recommendation made by P&Z. We conclude that when last year's Code revisions were adopted, not enough consideration was given to the tradeoffs which must be made to achieve our historic preservation and growth management goals. The only area in which we disagree with P&Z is in the manner in which they have linked FAR reduction to reduction of affordable housing requirements. When we presented this concept to HPC on January 24, the members suggested that the sliding scale be made more restrictive, to encourage only minor additions. They felt that no reduction should be given when the property is built out. 3 ~\ ,-, In order to reach consensus on this issue, staff prepared the attached figure, illustrating the applicant's original suggestion and five alternative "sliding scales" which link the percent of the threshold requirement for affordable housing provided (ie., the percent of the 60% housing requirement) to FAR reductions. These alternatives can be described as follows: The applicant's proposal was that at the maximum FAR allowed in the zone district (which in the CC and Office zone is 1/3 greater than allowed without bonus), 50% of the 60% threshold (which equals 30% of employees generated) would be paid. At 50% of the allowable FAR (which equals .67:1), affordable housing is waived. Alternative 1 is a simple variation of the applicant's original proposal. It suggests that at 100% of FAR, without the FAR bonus, the housing exaction would be 50% of the GMQS threshold, or 30%. At 50% of allowed FAR, the exaction would be waived. Alternatives 2 and 4 take this variation and modify it ("stretch it") slightly. Alternative 2 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 75% of the GMQS threshold for housing would be paid, while at 25% of allowed FAR, it would be waived. While we feel this approach more, closely approaches the sentiments expressed by HPC, we do not feel it goes far enough toward that end. Alternative 4 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 100% of the GMQS threshold for housing is paid and then drops toward 0% at a 1: 1, straight line ratio. This alternative is the simplest to draft and understand and will address the problem. Alternatives 3 and 5 represent true "sliding scales" and are therefore the most complex to draft and understand. Both alternatives require 100% payment of the exaction at 100% buildout. Alternative 3 is less restrictive than Alternative 4 or 5, dropping the exaction steeply as FAR is reduced from the 100% level, requiring a 50% payment of the exaction at 75% buildout, 25% payment of the exaction at 50% of buildout, dropping toward a 0% exaction. Alternative 5 is the most restrictive approach, dropping only slightly at the outset and then more steeply as one approaches 0% buildout. While this may provide the greatest incentive for the least buildout, it may be too restrictive to actually encourage preservation of landmarks. What it would require is that at 50% of allowed FAR, 75% of the exaction would be paid, and at 25% of allowed FAR, 50% of the exaction would be paid, dropping from there toward a 0% exaction. P&Z chose Alternative 1, which is the scale reflected in the Resolution and Ordinance. staff originally recommended either Alternative 3 or 4, since both require full payment of the 4 1"'"'. - affordable housing requirement at 100% buildout. We believe that Alternative 1 will not achieve FAR reduction at all, because it provides significant reward to the applicant at 100% buildout, leaving little economic incentive to drop rentable space in exchange for further housing cost reduction. On the other hand, P&Z members point out that Alternative 1 encourages preservation of both underbuilt and virtually built out landmarks, while the more restrictive scales do nothing for large structures like the Elks Building and Aspen Hardware. HPC felt that such structures, which are already built out and receive the benefits of rental of existing floor area, should not be the focus of this incentive program. We continue to believe that Alternative 3 or 4, or a variation of these scales which encourages FAR reduction and does not reward 100% buildout, is the best option. We feel that enough benefit is given to the developer by the waiver of affordable housing requirements for all "non-FAR" space (ie., any subgrade space) and by the waivers of parking and park development impact fees. We recommend that you amend the Ordinance by directing us to insert one of these scales. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: P&Z recommends approval of the attached Ordinance. The issue of which scale to recommend was debated at the time of adoption and the proposal shown in the Resolution was supported by a 4-3 vote. During the discussion, a consensus was reached to request that Council consider whether the cost of all exemptions from parking and housing requirements be borne out of the general fund, so that these impacts are not ignored. staff suggests this idea be seriously considered, as this was also a recommendation made to us by the Code consultant during the process of revising the Land Use Regulations. This approach is also consistent with the recently accepted idea that reimbursement should occur for the use of a portion of the Marolt property for affordable housing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance /6 (as amended)." CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS: cclandmarksord 5 ,-. .-., Attachment 1 Sec. 8-104. Exemntions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this article by the following decision-making entities. A. Exemntion bv Plannina Director. 1. General. Development which the Planning Director shall exempt shall be as follows: b. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by not more than fifty (50%) percent, whichever is less. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which occurs in phases shall not exceed these limits on a maximum cumulative basis. B. Exemntion by Commission. 1. General. Development which may be exempted by the commission shall be as follows: c. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by more than fifty (50%) percent. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development will mitigate its impacts on the community by providing employee housing at the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106 for the use: providing parking according to the standards r'\ - of this Code; meeting the proj ect' s water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, transportation, fire protection and solid waste disposal needs: and demonstrating that the project's site design is compatible with surrounding proj~cts and appropriate for the site. - ,,-,, ALTERNATIVES: % OF EXACTION AS TIED TO FAR REDUCTION 1.00 'l(, Of $ Exaction Required, 75 ..*/ ..*,' ... I .* I .... I ..+ I .... I .~ I ~~ ..+ I ~.,i" . I .' .+ ..: .......... .+. I ........ ..- I .......... .. I .......... . .' +4.... I.............. ..+ L........ .". ~........ .+ ~........ .. .3 ~.......' .+ ." ~..~.."! ..., ~........,,: ... L....~+ 2 ... ~........ ., ~.... .~...~~"!....., ... ,,,:.."!~ .. " . ...,,;" .~~" ~", ...."!~"!"!' .,' 4fII1':'....; ..."!,....' .+ . ".... ."V ..+' .f1II1>>. ......".."f ..," ...... ..,' .... ....... ., ,-- ",,:" .., ....., +" . ....,,:,,:" 5.0 ,/"/ ,/" /' ,/" /' ,/'" /0>(\\ /,~9'\\r;, /" ~ 25 25 5.0 66 75 2/3 'l(, FAR Constructed 133 1.0.0 1o'1~C6 DEC30 LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925.8166 TELEFAX 925-1090 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN MARTHA C. PICKETT December 30, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -, Re: Proposed Code Amendments for Historic Landmarks Dear Alan: We are forwarding for review by the City the attached proposal to amend the text of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. On behalf of Jack King, owner of the property at 309 East Hopkins (Lot C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite), we are proposing these amendments to offer preservation incentives to owners of Historic Landmarks. As we agreed, the fee that Mr. King has previously paid for processing of his GMQS submission can be used for processing of the Code amendment. The amendments included in the attachment are to 335-209, 5-213, 5-602 and S-104(B) of Chapter 24. We believe that a waiver of some of the fees such as water tap and building permit fees should also be included in the amendments, but we assume that such changes would not be included in amendments to Chapter 24, but would instead be incorporated into the Building Code amendments. As I mentioned in our meeting, various City exactions, many of which have been added or increased under the recently adopted land use regulations, have created a situation which makes renovation of historic structures (as opposed to new construction) in commercial areas practically infeasible. Based on our financial projections for various alternatives for the King project, we believe these exactions add somewhere between 42% and 74% to the cost of construction. Put another way, a building which would otherwise cost $100.00 per sq. ft. to build would cost between $142.00 to $174.00 per sq. ft. with these City exactions. The areas of additional cost include: 1. 2. Exaction: Employee housing Parking or payment-in-lieu (presently CC only) Open space payment-in-lieu Water tap fee Park development impact fee Building permit fee Application processing fee Percentaqe of Construction Cost 20-35% 15-30% 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 2-3% 2-3% 1% 1% 1% Total: 42-74% .-- ,-" Mr. Alan Richman December 30, 1988 Page 2 You agreed that the costs might be excessive for Landmarks, and suggested a very simple alternative of lowering the required employee housing commitment for proposals involving Historic Landmarks. Our observation about that approach was that it not only offers limited incentives to owners of Historic Landmarks, but also does not encourage an applicant to propose development which is either sympathetic to the original structure, or which is below the sqaure footage allowed in the zone district, since the "break" for Landmarks will be the same regardless of the buildout proposed. Our proposal attempts to offer applicants who preserve Landmark structures more significant relief from exactions. However, in order to take advantage of these incentives, owners must limit enlargem~nts to the area at the rear of the Landmark structure (or structures), or to a separate structure detached from the Landmark. For an applicant in the CC zone district proposing to preserve a Landmark in the prescribed manner, the open space and off-street parking requirements, as well as the Park Development Impact Fee, would be waived. The employee housing requirement would be reduced, and if the FAR square footage is reduced to fifty percent (50%) of that allowed in the zone district, the requirement would be waived. For an applicant in the 0 zone district, required employee housing would be reduced as in the CC zone, and the Park Development Impact Fee would be waived. Parking requirements would be reduced if the FAR square footage is reduced below the maximum allowed. For your convenience, current Code language is shown in upper and lower case, deleted language is repeated but marked through, and new language is in upper case. Other Code requirements for the processing of this amendment are also attached. Very truly yours, GK/bw OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., I Corporation PLANNING ,1""\ ,-. MEMORANDUM FROM: Aspen city council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager b-~ (J]r Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ TO: THRU: RE: Historic Landmarks GMQS Exemption Code Amendment DATE: April 3, 1989 ============================================================== SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends first reading approval of Ordinance &." as written. The Planning Office recommends first reading approval, but suggests adoption of a scale for FAR reduction which is more restrictive for applicants to reduce their affordable housing requirement. REQUEST: To amend the Aspen Land Use Regulations to reduce or waive the parking and affordable housing exactions applied to historic landmarks in the GMQS Exemption process. APPLICANT: Jack King, owner of the Berko Building. Represented by Joe Wells and Gideon Kaufman. BACKGROUND: During 1988, the applicant received conceptual approval from HPC to relocate the structure at 309 E. Hopkins, A/K/A, the Berko Building, and to construct a new building in its place. Following conceptual approval, considerable public opinion was voiced that this was an incorrect decision and an appeal was filed to Council to overturn the HPC action. Rather than trying to fight the appeal, the applicant asked that Council table action indefinitely, to provide time to process a Code Amendment intended to permit the structure to remain in place and to provide economic relief to the owner. Council and the appellant concurred and this application was submitted. Because this amendment has particular benefit to the applicant, staff suggested and the owner agreed that it was best to process this application as a privately initiated Code Amendment. However, due to the general applicability of the proposal, staff has also spent considerable time trying to formulate an approach which works both for the Berko case and the larger community. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant feels that during the time between his purchase of the property and the review by HPC, changes in the city I s Land Use Regulations have made it very difficult to preserve a small structure such as this. In fact, when the new Regulations were adopted in May, 1988, two major new costs were imposed on this type of property. First, a parking I"'-, ,-. requirement of 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. was adopted for the CC zone district, which could be met by an in-lieu fee of $15,000 per space. Second, the affordable housing threshold for commercial development was increased from 35 to 60%. As you recall, following the Elli's expansion, where no parking, affordable housing or other mitigation was required by the Code for expansion of a landmark, the Code was amended, to read as shown in Attachment 1, to impose exactions for expansions to landmarks beyond certain limits. This meant that the newly increased parking and housing standards would apply to properties like the Berko building. The applicant seeks the following changes to the existing Code, in order to provide the economic ability to adaptively reuse and preserve historic structures: 1. Reduce the requirement for provision of affordable housing associated with the historic landmarks GMQS exemption. Further, tie the amount of the reduction to the degree to which the applicant's proposal falls below the site's allowable FAR. 2. Reduce or waive the cash-in-lieu payment for parking required for expansion of an historic landmark. 3. EI.iminate the requirement that open space in-lieu fees be paid for relocation of an historic landmark on-site into required open space. The applicant's original proposal was reviewed by HPC and P&Z. While the basic concept was supported, the specific language proposed by the applicant required significant revision. Therefore, rather than confuse the Council, we instead present to you the current language in the Code (Attachment 1) and P&Z Resolution 89-4, identical to the subject Ordinance. The P&Z recommendation accomplishes the following: 1. Provides that change in use of an historic landmark (that is, internal alteration without expansion) is exempt from all impact mitigation requirements and is reviewed by HPC and staff only. This should be a strong encouragement to adaptive reuse of landmarks. 2. Provides that for expansion of historic landmarks, the maximum affordable housing impact mitigation shall be 50% of the threshold level in the GMQS (for commercial structures, 50% of the 60% threshold = providing housing for 30% of the employees generated). This 50% maximum occurs when the structure is built out to 100% of maximum allowable FAR, excluding any bonuses which can be obtained by special 2 - .-., review. This 50% maximum is reduced by 1% for each 1% reduction in FAR on the site, such that at 50% of buildout, the affordable housing impact mitigation is waived. 3. Permits any housing which must be provided to meet the moderate, rather than low income guideline. 4. Exempts any space which does not count as FAR (ie., all subgrade space) from the affordable housing requirement. 5. Provides that for expansion of historic landmarks, parking shall be provided to the extent HPC finds it can fit on the surface of the site, but that any parking required to be paid as cash-in-lieu be waived. 6. Provides that for relocation of an historic landmark on- site into required open space, the cash-in-lieu requirements be waived. ALTERNATIVES: In general, staff supports the recommendation made by P&Z. We conclude that when last year's Code revisions were adopted, not enough consideration was given to the tradeoffs which must be made to achieve our historic preservation and growth management goals. The only area in which we disagree with P&Z is in the manner in which they have linked FAR reduction to reduction of affordable housing requirements. When we presented this concept to HPC on January 24, the members suggested that the sliding scale be made more restrictive, to encourage only minor additions. They felt that no reduction should be given when the property is fully built out. In order to reach consensus on this issue, staff prepared the attached figure, illustrating the applicant's original suggestion and five alternative "sliding scales" which link the percent of the threshold requirement for affordable housing provided (ie., the percent of the 60% housing requirement) to FAR reductions. These alternatives can be described as follows: The applicant's proposal was that at the maximum FAR allowed in the zone district (which in the CC and Office zone is 1/3 greater than allowed without bonus), 50% of the 60% threshold (which equals 30% of employees generated) would be paid. At 50% of the allowable FAR (which equals 0.67:1), the affordable housing exaction would be waived. Alternative 1 is a simple variation of the applicant's original proposal. It suggests that at 100% of FAR, without the FAR bonus, the housing exaction would be 50% of the GMQS threshold, or 30%. At 50% of allowed FAR, the exaction would be waived. 3 ,-. -. Alternatives 2 and 4 take this variation and modify it ("stretch it") slightly. Alternative 2 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 75% of the GMQS threshold for housing would be paid, while at 25% of allowed FAR, it would be waived. While we feel this approach more closely approaches the sentiments expressed by HPC, we do not feel it goes far enough toward that end. Alternative 4 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 100% of the GMQS threshold for housing is paid and then drops toward 0% at a 1:1, straight line ratio. This alternative is the simplest to draft and understand and will address the problem. Alternatives 3 and 5 represent true "sliding scales" and are therefore the most complex to draft and understand. Both alternatives require 100% payment of the exaction at 100% buildout. Alternative 3 is less restrictive than Alternative 4 or 5, dropping the exaction steeply as FAR is reduced from the 100% level, requiring a 50% payment of the exaction at 75% buildout, 25% payment of the exaction at 50% of buildout, dropping toward a 0% exaction. Alternative 5 is the most restrictive approach, dropping only slightly at the outset and then more steeply as one approaches 0% buildout. While this may provide the greatest incentive for the least buildout, it may be too restrictive to actually encourage preservation of landmarks. What it would require is that at 50% of allowed FAR, 75% of the exaction would be paid, and at 25% of allowed FAR, 50% of the exaction would be paid, dropping from there toward a 0% exaction. P&Z chose Alternative 1, which is the scale reflected in the Resolution and Ordinance. staff originally recommended either Alternative 3 or 4, since both require full payment of the affordable housing requirement at 100% buildout. We believe that Alternative 1 will not achieve FAR reduction at all, because it provides significant reward to the applicant at 100% buildout, leaving little economic incentive to drop rentable space in exchange for further housing cost reduction. On the other hand, P&Z members point out that Alternative 1 encourages preservation of both underbuilt and virtually built out landmarks, while the more restrictive scales do nothing for large structures like the Elks Building and Aspen Hardware. HPC felt that built out structures should not be the focus of this incentive program. We continue to believe that Alternative 3 or 4, or a variation of these scales which encourages FAR reduction and does not reward 100% buildout, is the best option. We feel that enough benefit is given to the developer by the waiver of affordable housing requirements for all "non~FAR" space (ie., any subgrade space) and by the waivers of parking and park development impact fees. We recommend that you amend the Ordinance by directing us to insert one of these scales. 4 ,-. - ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: P&Z recommends approval of the attached Ordinance. The issue of which scale to recommend was debated at the time of adoption and the proposal shown in the Resolution was supported by a 4-3 vote. During the discussion, a consensus was reached to request that Council consider whether the cost of all exemptions from parking and housing requirements be borne out of the general fund, so that these impacts are not ignored. Staff suggests this idea be seriously considered, as this was also a recommendation made to us by the Code consultant during the process of revising the Land Use Regulations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance &." "Move to adopt Ordinance & (as amended) on first reading." CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS: :! rrhc-htl-t CO~/I;;eL..-""IU- Pt-t;V;JlrJC( <;;f~f; /0 MitllY'1lz) -rk. -re,tJMA1 TI !2.e.r/Ofvlfl1t;1/> 1kit- f1lei-/,> 10 COUr/Cf[. 1.;1..124-' 1'kf flfJr1/.t;V1 r ffi{C)fAfff).ej) f i. -:z. I ~. ~{J;...Ie;;d>. I I' '.I f I1r.W. ftJ fA >711ffrr --r[/t'r ~L.re.K./Jt-rrl/f.. S-v,tLff J {f.( NfrJ4<. /'1"S1 ItffP~1 fP~lk-re , vi f cclandmarksord ~ 5 ,-. ,-. , c RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Resolution No. 89-~ WHEREAS, Jack King, owner of the structure at 309 East Hopkins, A/K/A, the Berko Building, has submitted to the city of Aspen a privately initiated application for Code amendments: and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed Code amendments is to reduce the cost of affordable housing, parking and open space fees which are applied to the renovation of designated historic landmarks when additions or changes in use are proposed: and ( WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee held a work session on January 24, 1989 to provide input on the Code Amendments and made recommendations thereupon: and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission (hereivafter, "The Commission") reviewed the applicant's proposal at a !egular meeting on February 7, 1989 and at a public hearing held on March 7, 1989. ~ "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that the Aspen ci ty Council adopt the following amendments to the Aspen Land Use Regulations: 1. That section 8-104 A.l.B~ Exemptions, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations be repealed andre-enacted to read as follows: "1. General. Development which the Planning Director shall exempt shall be as follows: l b. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as ,-. ,-. ( Resolution No. 89-___ Page 2 a commercial or office development which does not increase the building's existing floor area ratio. The enlargement of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Enlargement which occurs exceed these limits on basis." in phases a maximum shall not cumulative 2. That section 8-104 B.l.C, Exemptions, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: "1. General. Development which may be exempted by the Commission shall be as follows: c. Historic Landmark. The enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio. The enlargement of an Historic Landmark which develops more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, motel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. ( \\ The applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed as follows: (1) For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at fifty percent (50%) of the level which would meet the threshold required in Sec. 8-106 for the applicable Use. ... ,< , l For each ,one percent (1%) reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any, bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by one percent (1%). The effect of this provision is that for development at fifty percent (50%) of allowable floor area, there shall be no affordable housing obligation. .~ .~ ( Resolution No. 89-___ Page 3 The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's moderate income price and occupancy guidelines. (2) Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Art. 5, Div. 2 and Div. 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Art. 7, Di v. 6. Any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash- in-lieu payment shall be waived. ( (3) The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation, and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission. I: (4) The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, , including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area." .'".. :" 3. ,. That section 7-404 A.3, "Review Standards for Review" be amended by the addition of the following at the end of said section: Special language "When the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived." APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March l 21, 1989. ( ( l " ,-, , Resolution No. 89-___ Page 4 ATTEST: ity Clerk landmarksreso ,. . ,-, ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By CoJ~ C. Welton t rson, Chairman "......, ,~ ALTERNATIVES: % OF EXACTION AS TIED TO FAR REDUCTION . '\0 /d 10'0'0 . . . . .' . ..' .' .' ... . . . .' . , ..+ ...... .. ..' . .' ~ Of $ Ex~ctiO~ '\, Housing ~g~t for A11~~fher P oj~ts 1 Year Ago ReqUired . ~ . rft\~...... ......... ............. ;..:. ............ .:.,.~.... .......... ..... .................... \:\" +4 .. ..... +. ." ... ...... .,. ........ ... .f.: .' +3 /,.' ... ~.... .+ . ~., .. ~...+.. .. /...... .+ ~...., .' /../ .. ~~. .. .""....... .+ fill'" .... ... ",.fIII'" ...... .. "." ." ,. ..... ." _, ..l' ." "",,"'" .~ .. , ..' .;;:~~sing ..R~~t. 75 "' I" 50 /'/ /' /'../ +1 ../ /' /,',/>('0\ / ~Q'i.\C /. ~ Landmarks 1 Year Ago 25 25 50 66 2/3 % FAR Constructed 75 100 133 1""'\ 1""'\ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Alan Richman, Planning Director Code Amendment-Historic Landmarks GMQS Exemption FROM: RE: DATE: March 3, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- At your meeting on February 7, an application was presented to you requesting amendments to the Historic Landmarks GMQS Exemption Requirements. The intention of the application was to reduce the exactions which are applied to landmarks so as to permit their preservation and adaptive reuse. At the meeting, staff and the commission agreed on certain parameters which would comprise the Code Amendment and you directed us to return with draft language for your consideration. Following is a listing of the items on which there was consensus: 1. There should be an amendment to the Code intended to reduce the effect of our housing, parking and open space exactions on historic landmarks. The reduced cost should be tied to floor area ratio (FAR) reductions through a sliding scale which encourages only minimal or modest expansions. 2. The sliding scale should calculate allowable floor area based on the maximum allowed prior to any floor area bonus which may be obtained by special review. In a discussion with the applicant's representatives on March 2, it was suggested that if we are going to take this more restrictive approach, we not base the exaction on net leasable square footage, but instead stick with floor area ratio as the basis for computation. While this approach is directly opposite to that used for all other commercial developments, it may make sense in that it permits the owner of a historic landmark to expand subgrade without exactions. 3. The applicant should be required to provide surface parking for the project on-site, but any cash-in-lieu of parking which would also be required should be waived. This waiver would not be based on the FAR reduction sliding scale, but would require approval of the design by HPC. P&Z should let us know if the parking waiver should also be subject to P&Z special review. Obviously, from the applicant's perspective, the "discretionary reviews" should be kept to a minimun, but you may not want to grant HPC final authority over a land use issue like parking. ,-. ,~ 4. The open space cash-in-lieu provision for the CC zone district should be amended to state that when HPC approves the on-site relocation of an historic landmark into required open space, cash-in-lieu fees will be waived. 5. The applicant's proposed "design guidelines" for eligibility for the exaction reduction are unnecessary. 6. A "revokable conservation easement" or similar mechanism should be used to guarantee that the FAR reduction granted in exchange for reduced exactions is enforceable. 7 . When an applicant for a historic landmark is required to provide affordable housing and decides to do so as cash-in- lieu, it shall be assessed at the middle income guideline. We believe that these 7 items will be relatively easy to draft, for your review in Resolution form, once you give us final direction on items 2 and 3. However, before we complete this process, there remains one item requiring your guidance. As noted above, P&Z agreed with HPC and staff that the FAR reduction sliding scale should encourage conservation of historic buildings and not reward significant expansions. However, time did not permit us to come to agreement on the exact form of the scale. In order to reach consensus on this final point, we have prepared the attached figure, illustrating the applicant's original suggestion and five alternative "sliding scales" which link the percent of the threshold requirement for affordable housing provided (ie., the percent of the 60% housing requirement) to FAR reductions. These alternatives can be described as follows: The applicant's proposal was that at the maximum FAR allowed in the zone district (which in the CC and Office zone is 1/3 greater than allowed without bonus), 50% of the 60% threshold (which equals 30% of employees generated) would be paid. At 1/2 of the allowable FAR (which equals 0.67:1), the affordable housing exaction would be waived. Alternative 1 is a simple variation of the applicant's original proposal. It suggests that at 100% of FAR, without the FAR bonus, the hou~ing exaction would be 50% of the GMQS threshold, or 30%. At 50% of allowed FAR, the exaction would be waived. Alternatives 2 and 4 take this variation and modify it ("stretch it") slightly. Alternative 2 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 75% of the GMQS threshold for housing would be paid, while at 25% of allowed FAR, it would be waived. While we feel this approach more closely approaches the sentiments expressed by HPC and P&Z, we do not feel it goes far enough toward that end. 2 ~ - Alternative 4 requires that at 100% of allowed FAR, 100% of the GMQS threshold for housing is paid and then drops toward 0% at a 1:1, straight line ratio. This alternative is the simplest to draft and understand and will address the problem. Alternatives 3 and 5 represent true "sliding scales" and are therefore the most complex to draft and understand. Both alternatives require 100% payment of the exaction at 100% buildout. Alternative 3 is less restrictive than Alternative 4 or 5, dropping the exaction steeply as FAR is reduced from the 100% level, requiring a 50% payment of the exaction at 75% buildout, 25% payment of the exaction at 50% of buildout, dropping toward a 0% exaction. Alternative 5 is the most restrictive approach, dropping only slightly at the outset and then more steeply as one approaches 0% buildout. While this may provide the greatest incentive for the least buildout, it may be too restrictive to actually encourage preservation of landmarks. What it would require is that at 50% of allowed FAR, 75% of the e~action would be paid, and at 25% of allowed FAR, 50% of the exaction would be paid, dropping from there toward a 0% exaction. We recommend that you choose between Alternatives 3 and 4, since they both require 100% payment of the exaction at 100% buildout. While Alternative 4 offers the advantage of simplicity, Alternative 3 does a better job of inducing FAR reduction by rewarding it more generously. The applicant's representatives have expressed to me that if we are going to recommend an alternative giving no waiver of the housing exaction at 100% of buildout, (ie., Alternatives 3, 4 or 5) then Alternative 3 is the preferred approach. pzlandmarks.l 3 ~ ,-, MEMORANDUM ,-. ~ shown in Attachment 1, to impose exactions for expansions to landmarks beyond certain limits. This meant that the newly increased parking and housing standards now apply to properties like the Berko building. As the attached letter more fully explains, the applicant seeks to waive the parking and affordable housing requirements imposed on additions to or change in use of an historic landmark. It is proposed that when development of the lot is limited to no more than 50% of the site's allowed FAR, the requirements be waived. As FAR increases from 50 to 100% of that allowed, the affordable housing exaction rises accordingly from 0 to 50% of the current Code requirement and parking must be provided to meet the Code standards for the use. Also included in this proposal is a suggestion to waive the park development impact fee, which P&Z has already addressed in the Code corrections. Finally, the applicant has suggested verbally that change in use which adds no additional space should also be eligible for a fee waiver, though this is not clear to us from reading the attached materials. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the applicant ',s proposal and has also held a work session with HPC on January 24 to develop comments for your consideration. Following are our thoughts. 1. The Planning Office and HPC concur with the applicant that the cost of the exactions needs to be reduced to permit the renovation and adaptive reuse of historic landmarks. We conclude that when last year's Code revisions were adopted, not enough consideration was given to the tradeoffs which must be made between our conflicting goals of historic preservation and growth management. 2. Staff and HPC also support the applicant's approach which ties FAR reduction to the lessened affordable housing exaction. HPC feels that their mission is to encourage conservation of existing buildings, not to promote significant expansions. They therefore suggest that the applicant's proposed sliding scale be made more restrictive, such that when the property is 100% built out, the exactions are not waived at all. If this proposal is accepted, staff would agree with the applicant that change of use of a landmark which involves no expansion at all should be eligible for a full waiver of the housing exaction only. 3. Staff suggests that parking be approached in a different manner. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide the maximum number of spaces on-site as surface parking which can reasonably be developed in this manner. The requirement for any additional spaces which might typically provided through a cash payment could then be waived as an incentive for historic preservation. 4. Staff and HPC disagree with the applicant's proposed "design guidelines" for eligibility for the exaction waiver or ~ ~ reduction (see bottom of p. 2 to top of p. 3 of applicant's proposed language). We feel that HPC should have the flexibility to approve the "right" design for the property, which might include an addition to the rear, side or upper portions of a landmark, but which are best dictated by HPC guidelines, not GMQS restrictions. We feel these sections should be removed from the proposal. 5. Staff and HPC suggest that to be eligible for the exaction waiver or reduction, a "revokable conservation easement" be granted by the owner, preferably to the historic trust which is being formed. If the applicant subsequently obtained approval to further develop the property, the easement could be revoked in exchange for payment of that portion of the exaction which had been waived. 6. Staff and HPC suggest that the basis for calculation of the amount of FAR reduction be the allowable FAR prior to any allowed FAR bonus. This item was not defined in the applicant's proposal, but the applicant verbally suggested it should be the FAR including the allowed bonus. 7. Another way of limiting the cost of the affordable housing exaction for landmarks would be to permit it to be calculated/provided at the moderate or middle income, rather than the low income guideline, as is currently expected of new developments. This suggestion could be combined with the sliding scale proposed by the applicant or could be a substitute for the scale if you do not wish to tie the exaction waiver or reduction to FAR. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that you review the applicant's proposal and the staff/HPC comments and provide us with specific direction on each of the points we have made. We will then return on February 21 for a noticed pUblic hearing, at which time amended language developed jointly by the applicant and staff will be presented in resolution form for your approval. pzlandmarks 1"'"\ .-., PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE ~5-209. Commeroial Core (CC) D.(9) Percent of open space required for building site: 25%: may be reduced by Special Review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF ~8-104(B) (1) (c) (2) ARE MET, THERE SHALL BE NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. E. Off-Street Parkinq Requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. Residential Uses: ~~fi~/tfi/~t~~~tt~/l~fi~~~t~~j 1 space/bedroom tfi/~ll/~~~~t/~~tl~tfig~ which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 2. Lodge Uses: 0.7 space/bedroom which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 3. leasable pursuant All Other Uses: 2 spaces/l,OOO area which may be provided via a to Article 7, Division 4. sq. ft. of net payment-in-lieu 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS: THERE IS NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. FOR ALL OTHER USES, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING AS REQUIRED BY ~5-209 E.l, E.2 AND E.3, ABOVE: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF ~8-104(B) (1) (c) (2) ARE MET, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE WAIVED FOR ALL USES. ~5-213. Offioe (0). E. Off-Street Parkinq Requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Office (0) Zone District, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3 . 1. ~JJ Residential Uses: 1 space/bedroom, t~~~t/~~~~~~ ~~t/~~/~t~1t~~~/~t/~~~~t~l/t~1t~~/~~t~~~fi~/~~/~t~t~l~/71 ~t1t~t~fi/~I/t~t/~t~~~tt~/l~fi~~~t~~/~filtJ 2. Lodge Uses: N/A 3. All Other Uses: 3 spaces/l,OOO sq. ft. of net leasable area: fewer spaces may be provided by Special Review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, but no fewer than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS: WHEN DEVELOPMENT AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR RATIO (INCLUDING ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL - 1 - ~ - REVIEW) IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING AS REQUIRED BY s5-213 E.l, E.2 AND E.3, ABOVE. HOWEVER, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF SS-104(B(1) (c) ARE MET, FOR EACH ONE PERCENT (1%) REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO, THE APPLICANT MAY REDUCE THE PARKING COMMITMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BY TWO PERCENT (2%) (PROVIDED THAT FEWER SPACES MAY BE REQUIRED BY SPECIAL REVIEW AS PERMITTED UNDER s5-213 E.3, ABOVE). THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE NO PARKING OBLIGATION. ~5-602, . . . Park Development Impact Fees shall not be assessed upon the following: E. THE ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGE OF USE OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF sS-104 (B) (1) (c) (2) . ~8-104B. Exemption bv Commission. l.c. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which RESULTS IN THE develop~MENT OF more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by more than fifty percent (50%). The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which RESULTS IN, THE develop~MENT OF more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. (1) The applicant shall demonstrate that AS A RESULT OF the development, ~t~~ mitigat~ION OF tt~ impacts on the community WILL BE ADDRESSED by providing ~~p~~1~~ AFFORDABLE housing at the level which would meet the threshold required in sS-106 for the use: providing parking according to the standards of this Code: meeting the project's water supply, sewage treatment and waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection needs: and demonstrating that the project's site design is compatible with surrounding projects and appropriate for the site. (2) IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE FAITHFUL RESTORATION AND COMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, HISTORIC LANDMARKS, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, WHEN AN APPLICATION IS APPROVED FOR A CHANGE OF USE, OR FOR AN ENLARGEMENT WHICH PRESERVES AN HISTORIC LANDMARK ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE THROUGH ANY ONE OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: ANY EXPANSION WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE, OR STRUCTURES, IS LIMITED TO THE AREA - 2 - - r-.. . ' . BETWEEN THE REAR WALL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE REAR LOT LINE: OR ANY EXPANSION IS DETACHED FROM THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE, OR STRUCTURES: THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES MAY BE RELOCATED WITHIN THE SITE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH RELOCATION IS TOWARD A PUBLIC STREET BORDERING THE PROPERTY, AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE YARD PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT: THEN THE APPLICANTS' OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY SHALL BE LIMITED, AS FOLLOWS: (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGE OF USE AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT (INCLUDING ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL REVIEW), THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE LEVEL WHICH WOULD MEET THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED IN ~8-106 FOR THE USE. FOR EACH ONE PERCENT (1%) REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT MAY REDUCE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BY ONE PERCENT (1%). THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, EXCEPT THAT REQUIRED FOR ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW: AND (b) PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF THIS CODE: AND (c) THE PROJECT'S WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL, DRAINAGE CONTROL, TRANSPORTATION AND FIRE PROTECTION NEEDS SHALL BE ADDRESSED: AND (d) THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT'S SITE DESIGN WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS, AND ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SITE SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED. \king\alternat.3 - 3 - - - i I I't<f''- ""'''^''L. SU4,o~ ,h."\ \y,-" I I I ,I (911\>0 'to,," A""-"Sy ""'-""X ~-AA. ,-,' U\. ..,.. i1 Ii \t I ~ il i~f ~<-~ 0"'-<- ~~o.-\' ~e,;- ~~t..,~ ih~\ ~\j Q~ \\9<- k'-~l'''~ ii~ ~ ..\.., ~Ol<- ~-\ ...\v~ 4-., ~ tt~ o-.."'~ ,J [W~ vJ' I\,.. """,-~~,' ll-"4-"~--5 ...;\..,-" l. W ''''~ IIRch 4.~""U~ S""",~ ~ ~(}o,-:\u. ~~ ltl. ,<o_,f>!..,<;.,\ l~ 'M. ,~\, t. ~ ~ ~ ~~~\ ~ i~\\"~ ~~ ,,' +., t,4: "'~, ~ ::~ \4"'1 ~ ~J ~ I~\ ,~ " S ,-" ~ ~ k~~ .... ~ ..~. s: ,J........ 0"-,4- ,~ Ii H ~\ i~.....,~-~ ~_\"- ~ ~"...-<... M<-<l.... ,,""......... ,t ~,I!-s.<-<.,Q. -k,we ~f Ij ,u.' Ii i~o"'(" - OvJ~ pf- ,1 ' H iI Ii ~ I~ '. (..o~L ~....,3. , 1".1(., , <3~ L^"'. ~~ .\- \1' ~. Il~ ~ ~u, ir" \ II I. I, lf~\',:<~ llk\~ II U-o---*' \1A-h~" ~\.,-'- Ik (;),.~ : \..,-\ ~\-\'^ q lj~ ~.~ II II L,(u.\ t ~ H ~ H il !o~- I' Ikoc>.l>f ,,-.l.9-J;- ::- ~~\ .......vI.-:.. if 0 II'$".9 "'0 ~:. "'1-'\'"" (0 iI .. - I' - _ ..-~ c;> /.0 itv...- (" ~ r . Y " " :, ~ ~ "'\ P< ~ ^""'-'<~ ';tr~C'^-..'-I<-- ') ~,~~ ;.,,, ~~,~ ~ ~ .._\~'lt .....::&. '* (l,~ <,~ ....-.,\& ,~ ~..~ ~ .......\'"-- ~ ~\<-O Cot. A~~~...j ,-,,6\.u. d: ~ ~~ ".j~l lA-~~":~~ 4~ A (~p+ {......l...O~ "jo",b ~l..\ + fv'-'-' V r .l.;':') .- ~~,,-",--,L., c-:* ~..(..,~., I"""'l~, ~~"',...€.. 6l.+ ~ f-,I.... "fk... Co---.l7 f'-o-#lJ ~ u~-,....... "~ t-l.......'h ~. ~ ~S~'l,iLo--f.O~S V:J~\- <<:" .,,0 -\ .,.,~~ >. c,\...~-'-; W \~-,1,-6\..o. ~\''t"- s~ """~ <; ....l<.. '. ....")1)( ,^","*,~ o~ f~",,\ "'o~ it - Q~~: t;\.;..'""'t- cc.- v....... ,.) \ 0 ,~ .L~ ~ vc:~ -;.. vvr> .a.~~ h. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ,-, ~0DR'CSESS I OrJ MEMORANDUM Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ Historic Landmarks GMQS Exactions Code Amendment January 19, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- We have received an application submitted on behalf of Jack King, owner of the Berko Building, requesting amendments be made to the exactions required to obtain a GMQS exemption for an Historic Landmark. Attached is a copy of the language currently in effect and the applicant's proposal. We seek your input on this proposal prior to the initial review by P&Z on February 7. In essence, the applicant seeks to waive the parking and affordable housing requirements imposed on additions to or change in use of an historic landmark. It is proposed that when development of the lot is limited to no more than 50% of the site's allowed FAR, the requirements be waived. As FAR increases from 50 to 100% of that allowed, the exaction rises accordingly from 0 to 100%~of the Code requirement. Jt S'o (" --- While I am not yet prepared to make a formal recommendation on this item until the P&Z hearing, I offer the following comments: The Planning Office staff agrees that the cost exactions needs to be reduced to insure that landmarks can be renovated and adaptively reused. 2. There are several aspects to the applicant's proposal which appear unnecessarily complex or could be rethought. First, on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, the applicant suggests certain historic design guidelines to be met to be eligible for the exaction waiver. These guidelines should be evaluated by HPC for inclusion with your other design guidelines, but do not belong in the GMQS. Also, while we like the concept of the sliding scale, to encourage applicants not to make excessive additions, we are unsure about how it is proposed to be applied~ Possibly, a scale which is exponential, rather than linear may provide more incentives for keeping additions to a minimum. Moreover, a tool such as a "permanent conservation easement" will need to be part of the solution if we are to waive exactions in exchange for reduction in allowed FAR on-site. 1. of these historic 3 . An al ternati ve to the appl icant ' s proposal would be to assess historic landmarks for affordable housing at the price level which is least expensive to the applicant, the ,-. - so-called "middle-income guideline". This option less relief than requested by the applicant, but combined with a sliding scale as an incentive additions small. provides could be to keep 4. There is a built in bias in the proposal toward our smaller landmarks which are underbuilt. Will this kind of exemption approach make it more attractive for developers to buy these structures and make modest additions, for which they pay few or no exactions? What kind of incentives can we provide to our larger structures, such as the Elks Building or Aspen Hardware, which are virtually built out but also need protection when adaptive reuse proposals are made? Should the scale be oriented toward both percent of total buildout and percent of the addition to the building, whichever is less, in order to address all historic landmarks? We look forward to a productive discussion with you. Your suggestions will be presented to P&Z on February 7 when they begin their review of this application. hpcmemo '" ,..... - MEMORANDUM To: Alan Bill Poss From: Roxanne Date: Lilly Reid(Berko) project: letter from Gideon October 27, 1988 Re: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have attached a copy of Gideon's letter to Fred Gannett regarding Council's action in approving the request to table the appeal hearing on the project. The letter also states "there will be a Code amendment application which will seek relief from some of the exactions required for the expansion of an historic structure". . . ~ - LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 TELEFAX 925-1090 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN MARTHA C. PICKETT October 25, 1988 Mr. Fred Gannett City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Street 81611 " it Re: King Building Dear Fred: This letter shall serve to confirm my understanding of the action reached by City Council last night concerning the appeal of the King HPC approval, as well as GMP action. Based on the city council meeting last night, the appeal which has been filed challenging the HPC's action on conceptual approval for the relocation of the King Building has been postponed. In addition, the Commercial GMP hearing for the King Building has been postponed. The other GMP applicant will be permitted to proceed, but since there is sufficient quota for both projects, our GMP application will not be heard at this particular point in time. There will be a Code amendment application processed which will seek relief from some of the exactions required for the expansion of an historic structure. By requesting that the appeal be postponed, Mr. King is in nQwa~ acknowledging the validity of the appeaL Furthermore, neither the ci t}' nQr Mr. King waive any rights in this matter, and either may initiate a hearing on the appeal at any time. Given the concerns expressed about this project, it is our hope that the, HPC, P&Z, and City Council, as well as staff, will work with us as expeditiously as possible to see if the Code amendment can be secured which will encourage prospective purchasers to buy the property, and enable them to maintain the building on site. Thank you for your help and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Pr fes "~mal Corporation ide on Kaufman By GK/bw cc: Jack King cc: Roxanne Eflin ~ .~ J~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 21, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider an application submitted by Joseph Wells on behalf of his client, Jack King requesting an amendment to section 8-104 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce or waive the affordable housing and parking exactions applied to Historic Landmarks which are expanded or changed in use. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO (303) 925-5090. sIC. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in The Aspen Times on January 26, 1989. city of Aspen Account. """ ~ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 January 3, 1989 Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place, F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks Code Amendment Dear Joe, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, February 7, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any other questions, please call, Alan Richman the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, IJ~~ Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ,- ,-., MEMORANDUM TO: city Attorney FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks Code Amendment DATE: January 3, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application from Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Jack King requesting an amendment to the text of the Land Use Regulations regarding GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks. Please review this material and return your comments no later than January 25, 1989 so that I may have time to prepare a memo for the P&Z. Thank you. ,- ~I BERRY, MOORMAN, KING & HUDSON PROFESSIONAL COPPOI'lATION ....OHN L. KING. THOMAS L. LOTT DONALD D. COOK ROBERT A. HUDSON F"RANCIS oJ. NEWTON, .JR. THOMAS M. SULL.IVAN ROBERT E. MILLER .JOHN P. REILLyt WILLIAM c. SCHAEFERt GEORGE R. SOKOLY GARY O. BRUHN SHERYl.. A. LAUGHREN DENNIS M. MITZEL ..JAMES P. MURPHY SCOTT..... RYNEARSON EILEEN K. HUSBAND BARBARA A. OaOENHOF'F .JOHN T. PETERS. .JR. CAROLYNE.BALSTER HUDSON A. MEAD ....OHN.J. WILSON 600 WOODBRIDGE PLACE DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 (313) 567-1000 RAYMOND H. BERRY (1891-)959) A. H. MOORMAN 0914.1979l TELE:COPIER, (313J 567.1001 CABLE: BERRYMOOR . ALSO "'O"',T"o:o 'N 00<'0 t A"SD AOM'TTII;O H! NEW VOl'lK . A..SQ .""M'TTItO ,.. FI.O"IO", December 27, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen, Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Richman: This letter is to confirm that I am the record owner of the property at 309 East Hopkins Street, Aspen, Colorado, and that I have requested that Gideon Kaufman and Joseph Wells file the attached code amendment request on my behalf. Please contact me if you need further clarification regarding this matter. JLK/dls 29 ~ ,-, ~7-1104 APPLICATION CONTENTS A. 96-102 General Application Reauirements. 1. The applicant's letter is attached. 2. The street East Hopkins Avenue. Aspen Townsite. address of the applicant's property is 309 The legal description is Lot C, Block 81, 3. A disclosure of ownership for the applicant's property was submitted with the applicant's September 15, 1988 GMQS Submission (See Appendix A.) 4. A vicinity map for the applicant's property was included in the GMQS Submission (See Appendix c.) 5. This requirement is not applicable to the proposed Code amendment. B. The precise wording of the proposed amendment is attached.