HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOONYAPPI. INTRODUCTION
This is an application for an Historic Landmark Lot Split for 308 Park Avenue in Aspen. The property is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, Riverside Addition, and all that part of Regent Street lying Southerly of and adjacent to said Lot 1 projected Southerly to the Southerly line of Regent Street. Also
the Northerly 15 feet of Lots 9, 10, 11, and the Northerly 15 feet of the Westerly 1/2 (one-half) of Lot 12, Block 2 of Riverside Addition.
The property consists of approximately 7,813 sq. ft. of land and is zoned R-6.
This application is being submitted by Mr. Timothy Mooney, (hereinafter, "the applicant"), the owner of the property. Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1,
the commitment for title insurance. Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services and Al Beyer Design to represent the owner for this application is provided by Exhibit #2.
The applicant proposes that the property be split into two lots. The North Lot would be approximately 4,803 sq. ft. in size, while the South Lot would be approximately 3,010 sq. ft.
in size. A subdivision plat illustrating the proposed location of the new lot lines accompanies this application.
The location of this property in relation to neighboring properties is depicted on the vicinity map. It shows that the site is located on Park Avenue, just north of Hopkins Avenue.
The property is surrounded primarily by other single-family residential uses and some multi-family buildings. This area is relatively densely developed with a mix of older houses
and re-developing properties.
An improvement survey depicting existing conditions on the property has also been provided. It shows that the property is improved with a log house that is located approximately in
the center of the property. The survey also shows the locations of the significant trees that are found on the property.
The survey also indicates that Regent Street runs through the center of the property. This situation was addressed in a letter from John Kelly, representing the applicant, to John Worcester,
City Attorney (see Exhibit #3). In that letter, Mr. Kelly demonstrates that this portion of Regent Street was never expressly dedicated to the public, has never existed on the ground,
and is part of this property because it was obtained by a prior owner through a quiet title action. Mr. Worcester wrote a memo to Amy guthrie responding to this letter (see Exhibit
#4) in which he concludes that the property is properly titled in Mr. Mooney and the City has no legal interest in this portion of Regent Street. Therefore, the entire area of the
property is eligible to be included in this application for development purposes.
The existing house on the property is listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. A copy of the Architectural Inventory Form describing the historic resources
on this property is attached as Exhibit #5. The inventory form originally stated that the cabin was a late Victorian-era structure, built in the 1880's or 1890's. However, further
analysis demonstrated that the cabin was actually constructed in 1949, and is therefore an example of rustic architecture that is associated with the period when skiing emerged as an
important recreational activity in Aspen.
A pre-application conference was held with a representative of the Community Development Department on April 13, 2004 to discuss this project (see Exhibit #6, Pre-Application Conference
Summary). A follow-up work session was held with the HPC on April 28. Based on these meetings, it was confirmed that the following review procedures are required to accomplish this
project:
Major Development Review by HPC, for an addition to the existing cabin;
Relocation of the cabin to the new 3,010 sq. ft. lot;
Variances to the front, rear, and side yard setbacks of the lot on which the historic cabin is proposed to be located;
Floor Area Bonus of 500 sq. ft. for an exceptional historic project;
Residential Design Standards Review, for an addition to an existing residence;
Subdivision Exemption to split the property into two lots;
GMQS Exemption to obtain the right to build a residence on the newly created lot; and
Vested Rights status for the project.
Following below are the applicant's responses to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code for each of these review procedures.
II. HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING RELOCATION
The applicant proposes a small addition to the cabin and the relocation of the cabin toward the front of the property. The addition will provide a new garage and master bedroom behind
the historic cabin. A site plan and elevations portraying these proposals are included in this application.
Section 26.415.070 D.3 establishes the procedures and standards for conceptual development plan review. It states that HPC's review of the application shall require a determination
of whether the project conforms with Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
The applicant has reviewed the City's adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The sections of this document that pertain to this application are Chapters 2-10 and 14. The
applicant would note the following statement from the introduction to the guidelines:
"Note that not every guideline will apply to each project, and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a sufficient number
of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met to approve a project proposal. We emphasize that these are only guidelines, are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed
with the practicality of the measure."
Given this statement, the applicant has identified those guidelines that appear to be the most relevant to this project. Chapter 10, which addresses building additions, and Chapter
9, which addresses building relocation, are of greatest importance. Therefore, these guidelines are addressed in the following sections. The very minor changes that are planned for
the cabin (primarily new windows in the northern and western facades) are not addressed herein, and will instead be addressed as part of the final development application.
A. Building Addition
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
Response: These guidelines are not applicable to this property.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary addition is maintained.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
Response: The new addition has been designed to be a modern structure that is secondary to the cabin. Its architectural style and building materials clearly distinguish it from the
historic cabin, while remaining visually compatible with the rustic features of the cabin.
Based on input received from HPC at the work session, the connector between the cabin and the addition has been re-designed, so it no longer covers any of the significant historic features
on the cabin. This has been accomplished by moving the place on the cabin where the connection will be made, so the corner will remain untouched, and by designing the connector to
be transparent, so it is possible to see through it to view the back wall of the cabin.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street.
Response: This property is not located in a historic district.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
Response: The addition will be similar in height to the cabin. Nevertheless, a 1 story connector has been used to link the addition to the cabin. The connector is a narrow glazed
corridor attached to a one story element with a deck on top. The two story addition will be set back 10' to 14' from the cabin.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
Response: The addition has been placed at the rear of the cabin.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Response: The roof will have a sloping shed form that is similar, but not identical to, the secondary roof of the cabin.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features.
Response: At the work session, HPC raised a concern that the connector was designed to wrap around one of the rear corners of the cabin and would obscure this important feature. In
response to this comment, the connector has been re-designed, so it no longer touches this corner. It has also been made transparent, so it will be possible to see through the connector
to the rear wall of the cabin.
10.11 On a new building, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building.
Response: The primary materials on the addition will be wood siding and stained cement board panels. The wood siding will be applied in a horizontal manner and will be gapped so the
chinking behind it is visible, making it highly compatible with the historic cabin. The roof materials will be rusty corrugated metal. The existing stone base around the cabin will
be complimented by the stained cement board base on the addition.
B. Building Relocation
Section 26.415.090 C of the Land Use Code establishes the standards for the relocation of a designated structure. It states that a relocation request may be approved if it meets any
one of the four listed standards. The applicant believes that relocation of this structure complies with standard C.4, which reads as follows:
"The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties."
In support of this statement, the applicant offers the following responses to the guidelines for building relocation, found in Chapter 9 of the Design Guidelines.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Response: The reason for the proposed relocation is that the cabin sits in the middle of the property and it is not possible to split this property into two lots without moving it.
The applicant has chosen not only to move the building to the new southern lot, but also to move the building forward on the property, so it becomes a more prominent landmark building.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided.
Response: This property is not located within a historic district.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel.
Response: The structure is proposed to remain on the same parcel.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
Response: The structure is proposed to have the same orientation on the lot as it does today. Although its setback would be changed, the structure would be moved forward, not back
on the lot, increasing its prominence to the public.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
Response: The new foundation will be nearly identical in design and materials to the original foundation. The applicant will attempt to reuse all of the existing rock materials around
the base of the cabin. If there are any gaps created following the move, these will be filled in using matching stone materials.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade.
Response: The new foundation will be located at the same approximate elevation above grade as is the foundation today.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
Response: The applicant proposes to have a lightwell with a grate cover along the front facade. Since the lightwell will not be on the front-most wall of the cabin but instead will
be recessed, it will be consistent with Section 26.410.040 D.4 of the Residential Design Standards, "Lightwells". The size of the lightwell has been kept to a minimum, and it is not
proposed to be used as a walkout space.
As a final point with respect to relocation, the applicant hereby agrees that as part of the final submission a written report will be provided by the project architect, based on a consultation
with the house mover, regarding the soundness of the cabin and its ability to withstand the move.
III. HPC INCENTIVES
Section 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code authorizes the HPC to award certain benefits to landowners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve, and enhance their historic properties.
As part of this application for a historic landmark lot split, the applicant is requesting that HPC grant two other benefits to this property. The benefits which are addressed in
this section are: (A) setback variances for the new lot on which the cabin will be located; and (B) floor area bonus for the property. The lot split itself is addressed in Sections
IV and V of this application.
A. Setback Variances
The main level floor plan illustrates the proposed site plan for the south lot, on which the cabin would be located. It shows the following proposed setbacks for this structure:
Proposed Required Variance
Front 8' 10' 2'
Side (N) 2.5' 5' 2.5'
Side (S) 12' 5' 0'
Rear 4' 10' 6'
The applicant believes that these variances are appropriate and should be granted by the HPC for the following reasons:
( The lot on which the cabin will be located is only 3,010 sq. ft. in size. The setbacks in the R-6 zone district were established based on the typical lot size in this zone district,
which is 6,000 sq. ft., not considering the development requirements of a 3,000 sq. ft. lot. We believe the preferred development pattern for this property is to create two small lots,
on which two small houses can be developed, rather than to make a large addition to the existing cabin using all of the remaining floor area to which this property is entitled. Therefore,
we believe it is appropriate for HPC to apply this benefit as an incentive to keeping the lot on which the cabin will be located as small as possible.
( The only variance that is proposed to occur along an "external" lot line is that for the front yard. The northern side yard and the rear yard are both internal to this project. HPC
will have the opportunity to review the proposed development on the new lot and can ensure appropriate setbacks are established between the structures on the two lots at that time.
Moreover, any future purchaser of the north lot will be aware of these setback variances and can plan his or her new building accordingly.
( The reduced setback for the front yard is consistent with the goal of making this structure a more prominent historic building.
( As shown on the aerial photo included with the application, setbacks of less than standard dimensions are a typical pattern found in the Park Avenue neighborhood.
( One comment received during the HPC work session was the need to "stretch out" the connection between the cabin and the addition. To make this modification to the design, there needs
to be some flexibility in both the front and rear setbacks.
( The width of the new lot is intended to ensure that a 24' wide new house can be developed, while retaining room for a driveway to serve the new house on this lot.
Based on the above statements, we believe that HPC can make the finding that is required by Section 26.415.110 B.2 for HPC to grant a setback variance, as follows:
"Such a variance enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, and adjoining designated property, or historic
district".
B. Floor Area Bonus
Section 26.415.110 E. authorizes the HPC to grant up to 500 sq. ft. of additional floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The applicant requests such a floor
area bonus and would ask that the HPC make the following findings as the basis for awarding this benefit:
1. As has been demonstrated in Section II, above, the design of this project will meet all applicable design guidelines.
2. The historic cabin is being relocated to the front of the lot so it will be the key element of the property. The addition to the historic cabin will maintain its visual integrity.
3. The new construction will be reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic cabin's form and materials.
4. The construction materials that will be used throughout the project will be of the highest quality.
5. The connector between the cabin and the addition is an appropriate transition between the old and new portions of the building.
6. The applicant has made significant revisions to the original design based on input received from HPC during the work session. These changes represent an extra effort on the applicant's
part to make this project exemplary.
IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW
Following are the applicant's responses to the City's residential design standards, as found in Section 26.410.040 of the Land Use Code:
A. Site Design
1. Building Orientation. The front facade of the cabin will be parallel to Park Avenue.
2. Build-to Lines. The minimum front yard setback in the R-6 zone district is 10'. The front facade is proposed to be located only 8' from the front lot line, therefore, it will be
located within 5' of the minimum setback line.
3. Fences. Fences will not be more than 42" high.
B. Building Mass
1. Secondary Mass. The proposed addition to the cabin meets the intent and provisions of the secondary mass standard, in that the entire mass of the addition will be linked to the cabin
by a subordinate connecting element.
C. Parking, Garages and Carports
1. Access. Since there is not an alley serving this property, the applicant proposes to access the garage from a private driveway. This will ensure that the presence of the garage
from the street is minimized.
D. Building Elements
1. Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window. This historic structure does not currently have a porch or street-facing door. During the pre-application conference and work session,
staff and HPC both indicated that the addition of a porch or front door to this house would not be appropriate. However, it was also suggested that the door which is located on the
eastern facade of the structure should be retained. The conceptual elevations show that this door will be retained as an entrance to the cabin. The existing windows in the cabin that
face the street will be retained and no new windows are proposed on this facade.
2. One Story Element. The front elevation of the existing cabin is comprised of a 1 story and a 1.5 story element. The 1 story element makes up more than 20% of the width of this elevation.
No changes to this elevation are planned.
3. Windows. No changes to the street facing windows are planned.
4. Lightwells. The applicant proposes to have a lightwell with a grate cover along the front facade. It will not be on the front-most wall of the cabin, but instead will be recessed.
E. Context
1. Materials. The primary materials on the addition will be wood siding and stained cement board panels. The wood siding will be applied in a horizontal manner and will be gapped so
the chinking behind it is visible, making it highly compatible with the historic cabin. The roof materials will be rusty corrugated metal. The existing stone base around the cabin
will be complimented by the stained cement board base on the addition.
2. Inflection. This standard does not apply since both lots created by the lot split will be less than 6,000 sq. ft. in size.
V. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT
Section 26.480.030 A.2 of the Aspen Land Use Code provides the opportunity for an applicant to split a parcel of land into two separate lots via an exemption from subdivision. To obtain
the subdivision exemption, the applicant must comply with the following standards:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of 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.
Response: The subject property is not located in a subdivision approved by the City or the County and has not previously been subdivided. The Riverside Addition was platted long before
1969.
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 26.470.070 (B).
Response: As shown on the attached subdivision exemption plat, the applicant proposes to create two (2) lots with this lot split. Both lots will be conforming-sized lots in the R-6
zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq. ft. per unit for two detached residences when the property contains an Historic Landmark.
Section 26.470.070 B. of the Land Use Code provides a GMQS exemption to develop one or two detached residences or a duplex on a pre-existing lot of record. It requires the applicant
to provide an accessory dwelling unit, or pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee, or record a resident-occupancy deed restriction for the single-family dwelling. However,
according to Section 26.420.B.6.e., "Accessory dwelling units or cash in lieu fees shall not be required on properties where a "Historic Landmark Lot Split" is approved after March
31, 2002". Therefore, these lots are exempt from this requirement.
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 26.470.040(C)(1)(a).
Response: The lot has not previously been subject to a subdivision exemption or a lot split.
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 26.470.
Response: A proposed subdivision plat, conforming to the requirements of the Land Use Code, has been submitted with this application. The applicant will work with the City staff during
the review of this application to perfect this plat before it is recorded. The plat contains the required note regarding further subdivision and growth allocations.
e. 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 of Aspen will be required for a showing
of good cause.
Response: The applicant will record the plat and any necessary agreement within the specified time frame.
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.
Response: The applicant acknowledges this standard. Demolition of the existing historic landmark is NOT planned to occur.
g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home.
Response: The applicant proposes to have two units on the property, consisting of a single-family home on each lot.
VI. HISTORIC LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION.
Section 26.480.030 A.4 of the Land Use Code establishes the specific requirements for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. The standards of this section are as follows:
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 O zone district.
Response: The subject parcel is located in the R-6 zone district and contains approximately 7,813 square feet of land.
b. The total FAR for both residences is 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.
Response: The note in the floor area table for the R-6 district zone states that the total allowable floor area for two detached residences on a lot of 6,000 to 9,000 sq. ft. is that
of one detached residence. The floor area for a detached residence on a 7,813 sq. ft. lot is 3,493 square feet. If the 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus is granted, then the total floor
area for the lot would be 3,993 sq. ft..
The subdivision plat allocates this maximum allowable floor area to the two lots. The plat states that the north lot is receiving 2,493 sq. ft. of floor area, while the south lot is
receiving 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area. These allocations reflect the floor area per lot that counts as floor area, calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020 of the Land Use Code.
Any areas that the Code exempts from floor area calculations would be available to these lots as additional floor area above and beyond these specified allocations.
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 parcel that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Response: The proposed lot split will create two conforming sized parcels. As is discussed in detail in Section III, above, the applicant is requesting setback variances for the parcel
on which the historic structure will be located.
VII. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
Section 26.470.070 C. of the Land Use Code provides a GMQS exemption for the development of a single-family dwelling on a lot created through the Historic Landmark Lot Split process.
The applicant agrees to comply with the requirements for this GMQS exemption. However, as is further described above, the development of the house on the new lot is exempt from the
standard requirement to either build an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay the applicable Affordable Housing Fee.
VIII. VESTED RIGHTS
Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests that this development be granted vested rights status.
IX. CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted all of the requested materials and responded to all applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code pursuant to direction given during pre-application meetings
with staff and during the HPC work session. Sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the project's compliance with said standards. The applicant will respond in a timely
manner to requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the statements made herein.
EXHIBIT #2
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 308 PARK AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
Dear Amy,
I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services and Al Beyer Design to act as my designated representatives with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office
for my property located at 308 Park Avenue. Alan Richman and Al Beyer are authorized to submit an application for an historic landmark lot split on my behalf. They are also authorized
to represent me in meetings with City staff and the City's review bodies.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are
included in the application.
Sincerely,
Tim Mooney
308 Park Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-8172
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
BUILDING RELOCATION 3
A. Building Addition 3
B. Building Relocation 5
III. HPC INCENTIVES 7
A. Setback Variances 7
B. Floor Area Bonus 8
IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW 9
V. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT 11
VI. HISTORIC LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 13
VII GMQS EXEMPTION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT 14
VIII VESTED RIGHTS 14
IX. CONCLUSION 14
EXHIBITS
#1. Commitment for Title Insurance
#2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application
#3. Letter from John Kelly
#4. Memo from John Worcester
#5. Architectural Inventory Form
#6. Pre-Application Conference Summary
#7. Land Use Application Form
#8. Dimensional Requirements Form
MAPS/DRAWINGS
Vicinity Map
Subdivision Plat
Improvement Survey
Floor Plans and Elevations (A-1 through A-5)
308 PARK AVENUE
HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
SUBMITTED BY
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
920-1125
JUNE, 2004
Application for Historic Landmark Lot Split for 308 Park Avenue Page 14