HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.hpc.011-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND PRESERVATION
INCENTIVES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1102 WATERS AVENUE, LOT 14,
CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 2010
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -66 -001
WHEREAS, 1102 Waters Avenue, which is Lot 14, Calderwood Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, is included on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, as a
potential historic resource. Said Ordinance is codified at Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal
Code and provides for a ninety day period during which Council may negotiate with the property
owner for a mutually acceptable agreement that preserves the resource; and
WHEREAS, the property owners, Susan Geary Griffin, Bonnie Geary Grenney, and William
Scott Geary, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, have voluntarily applied for Historic
Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and preservation incentives; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the
following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section
26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.), which are as follows:
26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single - family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as
a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of
subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section
26.100.040(A)(1)(c).
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject
of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and
1102 Waters Avenue
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2010
Page 1 of 4
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management
allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded
in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
f) In the case where an existing single - family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application
for a lot split.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall
not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single -
family home; and
26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
for the development of one new single - family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it
meets the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size and be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF, or MU (formerly 0) zone district.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of
the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot
shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
In the Mixed Use (formerly Office) zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation
of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that
the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area
will be affected by the use established on the property:
If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the
maximum floor area will be as stated in the R -6 zone district.
If any portion of a building 011 a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in
commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area
allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel
created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel
shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to
the R -6 standards.
1102 Waters Avenue
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2010
Page 2 of 4
If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all
uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c)
are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and
26.470.070(C), GMQS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split
The construction of each new single - family dwelling on a lot created through review and
approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition
procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is
not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development
ceilings; and
26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split
A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and
before City Council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the
negotiation process. Those incentives include the establishment of building envelopes, within
which all construction activity would be confined. The building envelopes would replace and
supersede the otherwise required setbacks and replace the need for further Stream Margin review.
The applicant requests that allowable floor area be calculated as if the newly created parcels were
pre- existing lots of record. The applicant requests waiver of on -site parking requirements,
waiver of Park Dedication Fees and Affordable Housing Mitigation/Cash -In -Lieu ADU Fees, and
a vested rights period of 10 years; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated September 22, 2010, performed an
analysis of the application, found that the review standards for the areas within HPC's purview,
namely Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Setback variances and On-
Site Parking variances had been met, and recommended approval. The staff report also
addressed the proposed preservation incentives which are to be determined by Council; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 22, 2010, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application for Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark
Lot Split, Setback variances and On -Site Parking variances, found the application was consistent
with the review standards and unanimously recommended approval by a vote of seven to zero (7
to 0). The HPC also discussed and clarified their recommendations to Council regarding
incentives being negotiated through Ordinance #48, Series of 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation, Historic
Landmark Lot Split, Setback variances and On -Site Parking variances for 1102 Waters Avenue,
Lot 14, Calderwood Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions:
1102 Waters Avenue
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2010
Page 3 of 4
1. No FAR above and beyond what is necessary to encompass the existing construction
should to be allocated to Lot 1, which contains the historic resource. The house is to be
preserved without any future additions.
2. The allowable FAR for Lot 2 is to be established at 2,975 square feet, as proposed by the
applicant. The applicant is eligible to apply for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from HPC
in the future.
3. According to the methodology for calculating FAR on a historic landmark lot splits,
stated at Section 26.480.030(A)(4) of the Municipal Code, the property is permitted 3,763
square feet of FAR. To the extent that the combination of the FAR that HPC has
recommended be allotted to Lot 2 (2,975 square feet) and the existing construction on Lot
1 (exact FAR unknown at this time) exceeds 3,763 square feet, HPC recommends that
Council waive the slope reduction calculation that affects the subject property, as a
preservation incentive.
4. HPC supports the proposed building envelopes and the associated setback waivers and
Stream Margin Review exemptions that run with the envelopes, with the condition that
the east boundary of the envelope on Lot 2 be amended so that there is a 10' setback from
the property line that divides Lots 1 and 2.
5. HPC grants waiver of all on -site parking requirements for the future development of Lot
2.
6. HPC recommends Council determine the appropriateness of fee waivers, but the HPC
does recommend that Council consider reductions to the otherwise required fees.
7. HPC recommends Council determine the appropriateness of extending vested rights.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22 " day of September,
2010.
c iktit 62.47401— __
Sarah Broughton, Chair
Approved as to Form:
. v
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTES
Kathy Stri a nd, Chief Deputy Clerk
1102 Waters Avenue
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2010
Page 4 of 4