HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Kraut AH.A44-94
iI"''''"
,.-;
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 06/07/94
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-182-27-002 A44-94
STAFF MEMBER: LL
Housina Code Amendments
PROJECT NAME: Kraut Affordable
project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim curtis
Representative Address/Phone:
117 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
920-1395
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:--K-
P&Z Meeting Date ~\J""" J a PUBLIC HEARINGQ NO
~VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE:
;~~~Z=;~~;~~;7================~~;;=;~~;;~7~~~1~~~~;~~Z~~),
___ City Atty City Engineer ~Zoning Env Health
___ Housing ___ Open Space ~~ Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
i,r;,.j .':!J ~_~
~~, ~O ~"", I
~Ct, /J U2,,' .-1) Cti))"'~' , tJ ()
~ '-1 '-^--" ,d/ I U
i~..... C~ '-"0''-_1. C~'-
((Z ~f~.' ~ ~" h'-tLJtt
\I.
,.".....,.,
~"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director
DATE:
September 12, 1994
RE:
Text Amendment - Architectural proj ections
Reading, Ordinance 43, Series of 1994
Second
==============================================================~==
SUMMARY: The Planning Department is proposing to amend the text of
the Land Use Code for the definitions of Yard and, Ars~itectural
Projection. ~
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed text
amendments and recommends to Council approval of the amendments.
Council approved Ordinance 43, Series of 1994, on first reading at
the August 22, 1994 meeting.
BACKGROUND: During the design and review of the Kraut affordable
hOUSing~al' the architects proposed "building eaves" that
proj ecte 8'" nto the required yards which is allowed by the Code.
However, th oning Department defines the proposed projections as
"architectural projections" because they do not serve as a
protective function against rain and snow as building eaves are
intended to do. Architectural projections are only allowed to
extend 12" into required yards.
The Kraut development team considered moving the building 6" but
because of the below grade parking structure and "key" dimensions
of the building that solution became unrealistic. Next, the Kraut
development team conferred with the HPC (as recommended by the
Planning Director) whether architectural projections could extend
up to 18" without creating site design or code problems. HPC
agreed with the Kraut developers, and staff, that an additional 6"
would not only enhance a building's pedestrian scale and help break
up the massing ofa building but is also not a significant change
to the Code. HPC did caution that the projections should not
extend to the ground which would increase a structures site
coverage.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to section 7-1102 the standards of review
for an amendment to Chapter 24 are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: Currently building eaves are allowed to extend 18" into
required yards. The proposed amendment is not only consistent with
".,-.
r-\
that language but would end the definitional debate between
building eaves and architectural projections.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the Design
Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan both encourage
buildings that are pedestrian friendly in scale. Architectural
projections are intended to help achieve a better appearance of the
scale of the building.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment would affect all zone districts.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: N/A
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: N/A
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the allowed
projection of building eaves whose primary function is to protect
buildings from rain and snow. The amendment would not affect the
natural environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: As stated above, the Neighborhood Character Guidelines
and the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan
encourage elements of design that create pedestrian friendly
buildings.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
2
("".
r-\
Response: N/A
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy to attempt to clarify the Land Use Code and eliminate
discrepancies.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Section 24-3-101 defines:
Architectural projections (as) a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building.
section 24-3-101 defines:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - Twelve (12) inches;
The proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 24-3-101 defined as:
?
Architectural projections mean a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building that does not extend to the ground.
section 24-3-101 defined as:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
- ~ 2. Archi tectural proj ections - 'F,,,e.l VC (12) il'lel1.cB i
~ Eighteen (18) inches;
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends approval of the text
amendment to increase architectural projections from 12" to 18" and
to amend the definition of the architectural projection to prevent
their extension down to the ground.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance 43, Series of 1994
amending Chapter 24, section 3-101; definition of architectural
projections, and increasing the allowed projection of those
features from 12" to 18"."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 43, Series of 1994
3
I"""
,,-.,
@)
THE ASrEN TIMES
...
BoxE
Aspen, Colorado
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO)
) 55.
County of Pitkin )
I, Loren Jenkins do solemnly swear that I am the
Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES: that the same is a week-
ly newspaper printed, in, whole or in part, and published
in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a gen-
eral circulation therein; that said newspaper has been
published continuously and uninterruptedly in said
County otPitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two con-
secutive weeks next prior to the .first publicatio!1 of the
annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspa-
per has been admitted to the Uqiled States mails as sec-
ond class matter under the provisions of the Act of March
3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news-
paper is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publish-
ing legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of
the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub-
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said weekly newspaper for the period of .J...:....- consecu-
tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice
waR in the issue of said 'newspaper dated
lt~ :J...c" A.D., 19 "\ ~ and that the last pub-
lication 'b~ said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated tp.:C :l.b A.D., 19 ~~ .
e~ ,.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota.ry
public in and for the County, of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
on this ~Io day of &b "' A. ., 9 .
,,/ '
"-
No ary Public
My commission expires
Copy of Notice
ORDINANCE No,.f,3
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
'nfE crrv OF ASPEN. AMENDING CHAPTER' 24
OF ntE MUNICIPAL CODE. lJ\ND USE REGULA-
...nONS. BY AMENDING SECTION 24-3-101 TO
ALLOW ARCHITEctuRAL PROJECTIONS TO
EXTEND E16HTEEN INCHES INTO REQUIRED
. YARDS AND TO AMEND THE OEFINmON OF
. ARCHlTECnJRAL PROJECTIONS
. :~WHEREAS. Section 24-1-1103 of the Munidpal
Code proVides that amendments to Chapter 24
of the Code. to wit, ~Land Use Regulations",
shall be reviewed and recommended fOt'
approval by the Planning DirectOr and then by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at public
hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions, or dISapproved by the City Coundl
at public hearing: and
WHEREAS. the Planning Director did receive
u:,appUcation requesting a text amendment
and has reviewed and recommended lor
,.-approval the amendment to Chapter 24 associ-
:,ated with architectural projections Into
roqul'" yonIs; "'"
WHEREAS., the Planning and Zoning Commfs..
sian reviewed the proposal and did conduct a
.:pubIk hearing thereon on August 2. 1994; and
WHEREAS. upon review and consideration of
the text amendment, agency and public corn-
ment thereon. and those appUcable standards
u contained In Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code. to wit, Division 11 01 Article 7 (Text
,.,Amendments). the Planning and Zoning Com-
_.lJlISs1on has recommended approval of the text
.amendment recommended by the Planning
.~,OIrector pursuant to procedure as authorized
by Section 24-6-205 (A)(5) oj the Municipal
CocIe;and .
.c WHEREAS. the Aspen City Council has
reviewed and considered the text amendments
"'; ~ theappHcable provisions 01 the. .
~ 'Municipal Code as identified herein. 'bas
'. reviewed and considered those recommenda-
:'"tklns and approvals as granted by the Planning
~. and Zoning CommiSsion. and has taken and
4,. considered publlcc:omment at pubUc hearing;
.ond
; WHEREAS. the City Council finds that the text
:~'amendments meet or exceed all applicable
.._~opment standards and are consistent with
.o;;tbe goals and. elements of the Aspen Area Com-
. Jllunlty Plan; and
_r WHEREAS. the City CouncIl finds that this
Ordinance furthers and Is necessary lor public
health. safety. and wel.fare: and
,:' WHEREAS. the City Council finds that the pro-
. posed text amendments will allow and promote
compatibility of zone districts and land uses with
edsttng land uses and neighborhood c:haracteJ1s..
, tICS and will be consistent with the purposes' and
Intent of Chapter 24 of the Munldpal Code.
. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY TIlE
. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COL~
ORAoo:
, SectIon 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the
, MuniCipal Code. the CJty Council finds as (01-
'tows In regard to the text amendment:
I'. The proposed text amendment as set forth
':In the'P1an Is not In conDlct with the provisions
01 Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the
Aspen Area.Commurilty Plan. .
2., The proposed text amendment Is c:ompaU.
ble with the surrounding ZOf)e districts and
land uses. .
.3. The proposed text amendment will pro--
.mote the public Interest and character of the
'.City oj Aspen. ..
Section 2: Sect10n 3-101 of Chapter 24 oj the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
IS hereby amended, which new text shaJl read
II lollows:
." .. .... .. .n. ~" ~
,.".....,.,
r'\,
Vie
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Amy Margerum, city Manager
Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Director
THRU:
DATE:
August 22, 1994
RE:
Text Amendment Architectural Projections
Reading, ordinanc~, Series of 1994 (Consent
First
Agenda)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Department is proposing to amend the text of
the Land Use Code for the definitions of Yard and Architectural
Projection.
The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the proposed text
amendments and recommends to Council approval of the amendments.
BACKGROUND: During the design and review of the Kraut affordable
housing proposal, the architects proposed "building eaves" that
projected 18" into the required yards which is allowed by the Code.
However, the Zoning Department defines the proposed projections as
"architectural projections" because they do not serve as a
protective function against rain and snow as building eaves are
intended to do. Architectural projections are only allowed to
extend 12" into required yards.
The Kraut development team considered moving the building 6" but
because of the below grade parking structure and "key" dimensions
of the building that solution became unrealistic. Next, the Kraut
development team conferred with the HPC (as recommended by the
Planning Director) whether architectural projections could extend
up to 18" without creating site design or code problems. HPC
agreed with the Kraut developers, and staff, that an additional 6"
would not only enhance a building's pedestrian scale and help break
up the massing of a building but is also not a significant change
to the Code. HPC did caution that the projections should not
extend to the ground which would increase a structures si te
coverage.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to section 7-1102 the standards of review
for an amendment to Chapter 24 are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: Currently building eaves are allowed to
required yards. The proposed amendment is not only
that language but would end the definitional
building eaves and architectural projections.
extend 18" into
consistent with
debate between
(I
(I
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the Design
Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan both encourage
buildings that are pedestrian friendly in scale. Architectural
projections are intended to help achieve a better appearance of the
scale of the building.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment would affect all zone districts.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: N/A
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on pUblic facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: N/A
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the allowed
projection of building eaves whose primary function is to protect
buildings from rain and snow. The amendment would not affect the
natural environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: As stated above, the Neighborhood Character Guidelines
and the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan
encourage elements of design that create pedestrian friendly
buildings.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: N/A
2
,-.
,~
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in,conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy to attempt to clarify the Land Use Code and eliminate
discrepancies.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
section 24-3-101 defines:
Architectural projections (as) a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building.
section 24-3-101 defines:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural projections - Twelve (12) inches;
The proposed amendment is as follows:
section 24-3-101 defined as:
Architectural projections mean a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building that does not extend to the ground.
Section 24-3-101 defined as:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - Twelve (12) iasfissj
Eighteen (18) inches;
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends approval of the text
amendment to increase architectural projections from 12" to 18" and
to amend the definition of the architectural projection to prevent
their extension down to the ground.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move read Ordinance 1(3' Series of 1994
recommending the text amendments to the definit10n of architectural
projections and to increase the allowed projection of those
features from 12" to 18"."
"I move to approve ordinance{3, Series of 1994 on first reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ordinance~, Series of 1994
3
,.".....,.,
"
/'""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE:
August 2, 1994
Text Amendment - Architectural Projections
Hearing
Public
RE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOKMARY: The Planning Department is proposing to amend the text of
the Land Use Code for the definitions of Yard and Architectural
Projection.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
BACKGROUND: During the design and review of the Kraut affordable
housing proposal, the architects proposed "building eaves" that
projected 18" into the required yards which is allowed by the Code.
However, the Zoning Department defines the proposed projections as
"architectural projections" because they do not serve as a
protective function against rain and snow as building eaves are
intended to do. Architectural projections are only allowed to
extend 12" into required yards.
The Kraut d,evelopment team considered moving the building 6" but
because of the below grade parking structure and "key" dimensions
of the building that solution became unrealistic. Next, the Kraut
d,evelopment team conferred with the HPC (as recommended by the
Planning Director) whether architectural projections could extend
up to 18" without creating site design or code problems. HPC
agreed with the Kraut developers, and staff, that an additional 6"
would not only enhance a building's pedestrian scale and help break
up the massing of a building but is also not a significant change
to the Code. HPC did caution that the projections should not
extend to the ground which would increase a structures site
coverage.
STAFF COMKENTS: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review
for an amendment to Chapter 24 are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: Currently building eaves are allowed to
required, yards. The proposed amendment is not only
that language but would end the definitional
building eaves and architectural projections.
extend 18" into
consistent with
debate between
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
\
r"..
r"""""
Response: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the Design
Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan both encourage
buildings that are pedestrian friendly in scale. Architectural
projections are intended to help achieve a better appearance of the
scale of the building.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment would affect all zone districts.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment, on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: N/A
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: N/A
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the allowed
projection of building eaves whose primary function is to protect
buildings from rain and snow. The amendment would not affect the
natural environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: As stated above, the Neighborhood Character Guidelines
and the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan
encourage elements of design that create pedestrian friendly
buildings.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surroundin9 neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: N/A
2
1)/
r'\
,~
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy to attempt to clarify the Land Use Code and eliminate
discrepancies.
PROPOSBD AMENDMENT:
section 24-3-101 defines:
Architectural projections (as) a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building.
Section 24-3-101 defines:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - Twelve (12) inches;
The proposed amendment is as follows:
section 24-3-101 defined as:
Architectural projections mean a non-functional or ornamental
feature on a building that does not extend to the ground.
section 24-3-101 defined as:
A. Projections into required yards.
1. Building eaves - Eighteen (18) inches;
2. Architectural Projections - ~wclvc (12) iHehc3;
Eighteen (18) inches;
RBCOMHEHDATION: Staff recommends approval of the text amendment
to increase architectural projections from 12" to 18" and to amend
the definition of the architectural projection to prevent their
extension down to the ground.
RBCOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council the text
amendments to the definition of architectural projections and to
increase the allowed projection of those features from 12" to
18".
3
11
~
~
~0
PUBLIC, NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 2, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, amending City of ASJ;len
Municipal Code S~ction 24-3-~01 to permit architectural projections
to extend 18 inches into the required yard setback. For further
information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, Colorado 920-5101
s/Bruce Kerr. Chairman
Planninq and Zoninq Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 15, 1994
========================================================~========
City of Aspen Account
.......... '-C",
,.".....,.,
,--',
CURTIS
'&?ASSOCIATES
May 23, 1994
Ms. Amy Amidon
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Requested Code Amendments For Architectural Projections
Kraut Affordable Housing Project
Dear Amy and Leslie,
To facilitate a better architectural design for the Kraut Affordable Housing Project,
I would like to request the following Code Amendments to permit the architectural
projections (eaves) proposed for the project to extend 18" into the yard setback vs. the 12"
currently permitted by the Code. The Code Amendments would be under Section 3-101,
"Definitions" as follows:
1. Under definition for "Yard", page 1593.
A. Current Code Language: Projections into required yards. Yards shall be
unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following allowed
projections:
1) Architectural Projections - Twelve (12) inches
Amended To - Eighteen (18) inches
2. Under definition for "Architectural Projection", page 1577.
A. Current Code Language: Architectural projection means a non- functional or
ornamental feature on a building.
B. Proposed Code Amendment: Architectural projection means anon-functional
or ornamental feature of a building that does not extend to the ground.
The proposed Code Amendments were reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Committee on February 9, 1994 and the HPC voted in favor of the Code Amendments.
117 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-1395
.. .~
1"""\
,-,
Ms. Amy Amidon
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen Planning Office
Requested Code Amendments Kraut Affordable Housing Project
Page 2
I feel these amendments are basically a clean-up and clarification of the Code and
do no change any policies of the Code. I feel these amendments would benefit all
projects for the following reasons:
1. Allowing slightly more flexibility (6") in architectural projections is felt to be
consistent with the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" of the HPC and the
"Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan" of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. Both plans encourage buildings with a pedestrian friendly scale.
With the Kraut example, the architectural projection is intended to break the scale
of the building and make it more pedestrian friendly to the street:
2. In the Code, there is no clear definitional distinction between an architectural
projection and a building eave. A building eave can already extend 18" into the
setback by Code. At least in the Kraut example, we feel they are one and the
same, but the Zoning/Building Department feels a building eave must be associated
with a building roofline even though the Kraut architectural projections (eaves)
provides snow and drip line protection to the windows. Having both architectural
projections and building eaves extend 18" into the setback would eliminate any
definitional debates.
3. The 18" projection into the setback is significantly less than other setback
projections currently permitted by the Code. Balconies may project into the
setback 4 feet by Code.
Regarding Kraut, the obvious question is why not simply move the buildings back
6". We've looked at doing this, but because of some of the key building dimensions, and
the dimensions between the buildings and the parking structure, simply moving the
buildings back 6" is not an easy task. More importantly, I feel the Code Amendments are
beneficial to all projects, for the reasons stated. I will illustrate the proposed Code
Amendments with the Kraut model at the appropriate public meetings.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to call on any
questions.
Sincerely,
JIIM Cv~
im Curtis
aut Property Manager
cc: Joede Schoeberlin,
Harry Teague Architects