HomeMy WebLinkAboutA068-01
A068-01/Application Revised.doc
May 28, 2002
Department of Community Development
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Application for Rezoning and Related Approvals
Paul and Elaine Sandler
311 South First Street
The owners of the 311 South First Street, Paul and Elaine Sandler are submitting the following application for approval to rezone the existing property, historic land marking of a miner's
cottage, partial demolition, variances, growth management exemption and condominiumization.
Summary of Application
The improvements on the property consist of one older structure, constructed in approximately 1887, and designated as a Victorian Miner's Cottage, and a newer structure or addition was
constructed in 1980. The two structures are joined by a causeway on the ground and basement levels, which was built at the time of the addition. The physically attachment of this two
buildings with completely two different architectural styles is unattractive and detracts from the historic qualities of the cottage. One of the key components of this application is
the removal of this causeway.
The separation would also make condominiumization of the structures desirable, with each structure then becoming a condominiumized unit with the possibility of separate ownership.
Re-zoning from the present R-15 zoning to RMF zoning will be necessary to bring the property into a zoning category which allows multi-family dwellings.
Property History
Mr. and Mrs. Sandler purchased the property in 1997. At that time, they were provided information indicating that there were at least two, and possible three, legally created separate
dwelling units on the property: the Cottage comprising one unit; the Addition comprising a second unit; and with the third unit being comprises of the lower floor of the Addition.
As noted, the Cottage was constructed circa 1887. The Addition was added in approximately 1980-81 by C.M. Clarke, who was then the owner. A building permit was obtained for the construction
APPROVALS REQUESTED
Rezoning
The proposal to re-zone the property is a result of numerous meetings between the City's Staff and the Applicant's representatives. Currently, the property is zoned R-15, which does
not allow for multiple family dwellings. Rezoning to RMF would thus bring the use into compliance with the City's Land Use Regulations.
The proposed re-zoning meets the criteria set forth in the Code. The use is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan in that only residential use is proposed, consistent with the
uses deemed most appropriate for the neighborhood. The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zones districts, which includes contiguous areas already zoned RMF. No significant
increase in traffic would be generated, nor would there be any increase in capacity requirements for public facilities. The footprint of the buildings on the site would be reduced,
thus causing no impacts on the natural environment. There has been a gradual infill of residential uses, including other multi-family dwellings in the neighborhood, thus representing
changed conditions justifying the amendment. Overall, the proposal is consistent and compatible with the community character, the public interest, and the purpose and intent of the
City's Land Use Regulations
As detailed below, the significant benefits to the City include historic designation of the Cottage, preserving same. Most important, the separation of the two structures will improve
the overall quality of the site while eliminating the incongruity and architectural juxtaposition of newer and older styles in one structure. Condominiumizaton of the structures will
allow for separate ownership of the Cottage by individuals committed to the preservation and enhancement of the Cottage, uncomplicated by economic factors attendant to ownership of
both structures. Simply put, each owner could focus their attention and resources on their separate structure.
Partial Demolition and Minor Development
A benefit of this application is the elimination of the causeway joining the two structures. The Applicant is sacrificing approximately 210 square feet of usable space, comprised of
portions of one bedroom and a hallway, for this purpose. The portion being eliminated was not part of the original Cottage structure, but was part of the Addition done in the early
1980's.
The new exterior wall of the Cottage will be rebuilt to match, as closely as possible the architectural features and finish materials of the existing structure.
Condominiumization
Approval is also requested for condominiumization of the property. This aspect of the proposal essentially represents a trade-off between the interest of the Applicant and that of the
City. The Benefits to the City are found in the elimination of architectural oddity, i.e. the incongruous merger of a modern and an older structure as well as a secure land marking
of the Cottage to preserve it indefinitely. The advantage to the owner is the approval of condominiumization allowing two separate parcels.
Beyond that, however, the interest of the Applicant and the ity may be said to merge based upon a classic advantage of separate ownership. The owner of each now separate property, would
be in a better economic and motivational situation, being able to devote their time and resources to the preservation and enhancement of their own separate properties.
Partial Demolition Review Standards ( Section 26.415.010 (E)(6))
5. Review standards. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission
finds that all of the following standards are met:
a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent
parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front
yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed
the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in
character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed
those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program, Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and
This proposal will eliminate the causeway, which presently connects the two structures. There will be no modifications or additions to the existing Cottage.The changes to the main structure
are minor, consisting of the addition of a garage, and extension of the living room over the garage area. After all of the removals and additions are considered, the combined FAR of
the structures will be reduced by 241 square feet. The existing encroachment into the setbacks are not increased by the proposal. This proposal will improve the overall site design
and is compatible in design, scale, massing and volume with the designated historic structure, or Cottage located on this property.
b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and
This proposed development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because the separation of the two buildings will enhance the appearance of the Cottage thus reducing the
overall mass. Site coverage will also be reduced.
c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels;
and
The physical separation of the two buildings, which are not compatible in architectural style, will significantly enhance the appearance of the site and improve the overall neighborhood
d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof.
The separation of the two buildings can only enhance the architectural character of the Cottage and the integrity of the historic structure.
e. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel,
and
The requested demolition is not required for any restoration. This demolition will however make the Cottage more like it's original condition
f. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible:
Impacts on the historic significance of the structures or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features additions, and
No original elements or additions to the Cottage are being demolished.
Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatable in mass and scale with the historic
structure
No new additions are being proposed to the Cottage as part of this application.
Rezoning from R-15 to RMF (Section B26.92.02026.310.040)
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Rezoning of this site does not conflict with any other provisions of the City's Land Use Code
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The goal of a balanced transportation system is met because this proposal does not increase the demands on any of the transportation systems.
The goal of providing affordable housing is met because this proposal fully supports affordable housing and would allow for better housing opportunities.
The goal of managing growth is met because this proposal does not increase the usable space of FAR of the structures involved.
The goal of maintaining a diversified and sustainable economic community is met because this proposal has no impact on the economics of the community because it does not increase the
net usable area of the structures.
The goal of maintaining open space and the environment is met because the separation of the two buildings will create open space.
The goal of design quality is met because this proposal improves the appearance of the overall property.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The areas surrounding the site include numerous single family and multi-family residences.The proposed use for the site will result in two condominiumized structures which, in terms
of both function and appearance, will be two single family homes.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Because no additional net living space is proposed, this proposal should have no effect on traffic generation.
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.
There will be no increased demand on public facilities. The FAR of the overall project will be reduced.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
No existing uses will change or increase thus there will be no increased impacts.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Because the property is adjacent to existing multi-family zone districts, this amendment should be considered consistent and compatible with the community's character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
There has been the addition of multi-family developments in the surrounding area, together with projects such as the renovation of the Ice Garden next door. Such changed conditions
support the proposed rezoning.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
For all of the above reasons, this proposal is in the public interest. The removal of the causeway which will result in a " stand alone" historic structure, would be a benefit to the
public interest in enhancing the integrity of the miners Cottage.
Code Amendment to R/MF Zone District
Request to allow "Cash-in-Lieu" to meet Affordable Housing Requirements
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Rezoning of this site does not conflict with any other provisions of the City's Land Use Code
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The goal of a balanced transportation system is met because housing can be built in areas with better access to transportation.
The goal of providing affordable housing is met because this proposal fully supports affordable housing and would allow for better housing opportunities.
The goal of managing growth is met because this proposal will allow for requirements for affordable housing to be met, but be built in areas more suitable.
The goal of maintaining a diversified and sustainable economic community is met because this proposal would allow for quality affordable housing verse another basement unit.
The goal of maintaining open space and the environment is met because it would allow for existing properties to maintain open areas instead of providing additional requirements such
as on site parking to meet Land Use Regulations.
The goal of design quality is met because this proposal would allow for monies to be allocated for new housing projects and better quality for their residents.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and should benefit all zone districts through out the City of Aspen.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
This proposal should enhance road safety and control traffic generation by supplying funds to construct housing in locations compatible with our existing roads and transportation system.
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.
This proposal would help control demands by allowing funds to be directed to construction of housing that would be located to be compatible with the existing infrastructure and community
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
This proposal should help the environment by allowing supplying funds so housing can be built in the proper locations within the community.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Contributing funds to be used, and decided upon, by the City of Aspen should be within the desired community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
This proposal addresses an existing condition that by incorporating affordable housing on the existing parcel would not be beneficial to the existing owners or the possible owners of
the affordable housing program. Funds contributed by this proposal can be directed to providing a better product for housing employees.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
This is a proposal which has public interest as one of the main concerns and has no conflict.
1
A068-01/System Volume Information/IndexerVolumeGuid