HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C_Public Comment submitted for November 16From:Nathaniel B. Bates
To:Amy Simon; Kate Johnson
Subject:205 West Main Street
Date:Sunday, November 6, 2022 7:44:16 PM
By moving an historic Aspen vintage house on Main Street to accommodate an 8,000 sq. Ft. Structure for employee
housing will change forever the character of the entrance to Aspen. There are plenty of side streets parallel to Main
Street that would be more appropriate for employee housing structure where children would be able to play more
safely and parking is more available. Please try to keep Main Street looking the same as it has been for over 140
years!
Remember that Aspen is not Vail.
N. Buddy Bates
Aspen, CO
From:David Dowler
To:Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon
Cc:Marsha Dowler (marshadowler@icloud.com)
Subject:205 West Main redevelopment
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:13:26 AM
To: Members, HPC
From: David Dowler, 229 W. Smuggler Street, Aspen 81611
Re: proposed redevelopment, 205 W. Main Street
The redevelopment plan for 205 W. Main totally baffles me. When my wife and I bought a historic
Victorian in the West End and restored it, HPC would not allow us to move it one inch from its
original siting on our (large) 9000 square foot lot. Moreover, our architects took seriously the
provision the our new-build guest house should be deferential to the historic home and respectful in
scale and designed it accordingly. Relocating the 205 W. Main Victorian and constructing large
buildings by it should not be approved, even with the admirable intent of creating more affordable
housing units. The redevelopment plan as delineated, collectively, is fatally flawed in my opinion.
Perhaps a significant downsizing could be attempted to address these concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
PS Our project received the 25th Anniversary Best Renovation Project from HPC.
Instant messages and email sent to or from this contact will be recorded by the Luther King
Capital Management Compliance system and are subject to archival, monitoring, and/or
disclosure to someone other than the recipient. This message and any attached documents
contain information which may be confidential. These materials are solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, you are hereby
notified that any distribution, disclosure, printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking
of any action in reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited. Delivery of this message
to any person other than the intended recipient shall not compromise or waive such
confidentiality. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message from your system.
From:David Scruggs
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Cc:Kate Johnson
Subject:205 West Main/ Milias: Housing at any cost, even history? | AspenTimes.com
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:19:06 AM
Amy and/or Kevin
I am submitting and please include this column by Elizabeth Milias, Aspen Times 11/5/2022 ,
including the photo ,in the record and packet and distribute to the Members of the HPC.
Thank you
David Scruggs
212 West Hopkins
9014934820
Elizabeth Milias
As our community barrels recklessly head first toward building subsidized housing of any size, on
any lot, and shoe-horned into any crevice, a proposed project stands to overwhelm its
neighborhood and destroy a prominent, historically-designated property.
The 1890-era Victorian at 205 W. Main St., long the home of the Chisholm family, is currently in
jeopardy. The grey house with white trim and a yellow door on the corner lot at Main and 1st is a
notable historic gem on the way into town. Plans are to build an 8,000-square-foot subsidized
housing complex, comprised of nine 2- and 3-bedroom units (22 bedrooms), on this 7,500-square-
foot lot by moving the Victorian to the side and erecting two huge buildings in an L-shape to its
south and west.
Pushing on the boundaries of what is allowed by code in the underlying mixed use (MU) zoning
and within the Main Street Historic District, the developers boldly request “special review” of
several deficiencies to the make the proposed behemoth even bigger. Eight of the nine units are
beneath APCHA’s “livable size” threshold. And, while below-grade units are allowed, they’re
discouraged and limited to 50% per unit, but four units exceed this.
With nine units, code requires one on-site parking spot per, but, in the MU zone, this can
inexplicably be reduced by 40%. The project offers seven. Twenty-two bedrooms and parking for
seven cars in a narrow alley that is heavily-utilized to service the nearby Innsbruck Inn — what
could possibly go wrong? That block already has 43 dwelling units with just 29 on-site parking
spaces, a 14 one-space-per-unit deficit in an already over-parked neighborhood. Even APCHA
says, “Add more”
The plan for this housing project is rental units for workers of the under-construction Molly
Gibson Lodge. But, with up to two people per bedroom, there could possibly be as many as 44
souls squeezed in. Who thinks all but seven will forego cars?
What’s proposed is outrageous. The enormous density, mass, and scale in no way appear “similar
in scale and proportion to the historic home” as clearly required by the historic-preservation
guidelines. They are overwhelming and should be automatically disqualifying. That the plans
comply with the land-use code ignores how the proposed buildings will completely dwarf the
historic Victorian.
The guidelines additionally require that no project be approved “without meaningful and useful
open space visible from the street that also supports or complements the historic building.” The
proposed “open space” for common areas is effectively dark landscaped walkways with window
wells between the two- and three-story buildings. This requirement is clearly not met and should
also be disqualifying.
Furthermore, the relocation of a historic Victorian can only occur when the structure “is not a
contributing element to and does not affect the character of a historical district.” 205 W. Main is a
notable contribution to Aspen’s historic Main Street and, therefore, distinctly part of its character.
This proposal should go no further.
But, who decides?
Meet HPC, Aspen’s historic preservation commission, a seven-member appointed volunteer board
charged with reviewing and approving development applications that impact historic properties.
They are governed by explicit guidelines and operate within the context of the AACP, our
community guiding document, which, since the early 1970s, has prioritized the preservation of our
historic resources because this truly differentiates us as a community.
Yet, horse trading is underway. The developers are offering “amenities” to entice HPC into
making exceptions in their “special review” of floor area ratio, below-grade living, smaller than
standard units, and inadequate parking despite the allowances. Every bedroom will have its own
closet! Washers and driers in every unit! And, storage units (If you consider nine cupboards
ranging from 11-21 square feet appropriate for bikes, strollers, and sports equipment for at least
22 people)! The project’s in-town location is even characterized as “an amenity.”
The recent trend toward relocating historic assets and building grotesque, multi-family,
subsidized-housing complexes on historical lots is antithetical to our community’s preservation
values. Our historic buildings should forever be the focal points. Here, the Victorian gets
obliterated. And, parking in this downtown neighborhood will become even more of a nightmare.
Besides, it’s unconscionable to desecrate historic properties in the name of “more housing” when
we haven’t even bothered to qualify that.
City staff is advocating for project approval, of course. Their charge is to approve subsidized
housing anywhere, at any cost. Last week, Planning Director Amy Simon was gushingly
“sympathetic” to the applicants’ “appropriate gestures” and undeniably sees this is “an appropriate
preservation outcome.” She’s nuts. This isn’t a preservation outcome; it’s the bastardization of a
historically-designated home for a subsidized-housing outcome.
HPC, appointed as stewards of our history, will decide on the proposal for 205 W. Main on Nov.
16. Clear guidelines exist that prioritize the preservation of our cultural legacy. HPC’s only
responsibility to the community is to properly preserve Aspen’s historic assets — not to help
developers design projects nor kowtow to what staff recommends or what council desires. Why
have guidelines if they’re not followed? This proposal is a straightforward “No.” The cost is
simply too high.
The AACP states, “A respectfully restored historic structure or site honors the history and culture
of our town, whereas a demolished one erases a piece of the Aspen story forever.”
Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net.
David Scruggs
Attorney at Law
Evans | Petree PC
6060 Poplar Avenue, STE 400
Memphis, Tennessee 38119
Phone: 901.525.6781 | Direct: 901.525.6781
Fax: 901.374.7502
dscruggs@evanspetree.com • evanspetree.com
NOTE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL
and/or PRIVILEGED material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
sender and promptly delete the material from your computer system. The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by
the transmission of this message.
IRS Circular 230 requires that we inform you that the advice contained herein is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used, for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service
From:David Scruggs
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Cc:Kate Johnson
Subject:205 West Main—Letter to the Editor David Dowler
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:29:08 AM
Amy and/or Kevin
I am submitting and please include this letter to the editor of the Aspen Daily News of 11/9/2022 ,in the record and packet and distribute to the Members of
the HPC.
Thank you
David Scruggs
212 West Hopkins
9014934820
David Scruggs
Attorney at Law
Evans | Petree PC
6060 Poplar Avenue, STE 400Memphis, Tennessee 38119Phone: 901.525.6781 | Direct: 901.525.6781 Fax: 901.374.7502
dscruggs@evanspetree.com • evanspetree.com
NOTE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or PRIVILEGED material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and promptly delete the material
from your computer system. The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by the transmission of this message.
IRS Circular 230 requires that we inform you that the advice contained herein is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service
HPC plan shouldn’t be approved
Nov 9, 2022
Editor:
The redevelopment plan for 205 W. Main St. in Aspen totally baffles me. When my wife and I bought a historic Victorian
home and restored it, the Historic Preservation Commission would not allow us to move it one inch on our 9,000-square-foot
lot.
Moreover, our architects took seriously the provision that our new-build guesthouse should be deferential to the historic
home and respectful in scale and designed it accordingly. Relocating the Victorian and constructing large buildings by it
should not be approved, even with the admirable intent of creating more affordable housing units.
David Dowler
Aspen
November 10, 2022
Dear Historic Preservation Commission,
Thank you for your thoughtful review last month and for taking the time to read my public comment. I
think the changes to the building facing Main Street are appropriate and contextual to the block. The
setback on the third floor reduces the mass as viewed from the historic corridor. I am in favor of Option
B, the larger setback, but I am worried about the small size of the 1-bedroom unit. The alley building
continues to read as a large billboard behind the landmark, permanently altering any sense of historic
context or open space.
Design Changes
I remain concerned about the mass of the alley building and the three story ridge that runs east west
across the length of the property. There is very limited open space and no porosity incorporated into
the project. The large alley building creates a huge backdrop behind the landmark that is overbearing
and imposing. Guideline 1.1 specifically states “do not design a project which leaves no useful open
space visible from the street.”
Reducing the height of the alley building to two stories would solve this and other issues such as
reduced density, parking, and exceeding allowable floor area. Other affordable housing projects in the
neighborhood have addressed this issue through significant setbacks similar to 508 West Main Street or
reorienting the gable roof to avoid a long ridgeline similar to 611 West Main Street. Three dimensional
renderings showing the project in the context of the block and adjacent landmarks would be helpful to
fully evaluate the design changes and the impacts of the massing and height on the alley, First Street,
and Main Street. I also request story poles be erected to show proposed height in relationship to the
landmark and greater neighborhood.
I remain concerned that a three story building along the alley is too tall compared to the landmark. I do
not see how your guidelines 1.1, 11.3 and 11.4 are met.
Site plan
I am concerned that the application has not been fully vetted with referral agencies. The draft
resolution presented at the last hearing includes a list of conditions to be addressed after HPC grants
conceptual approval. This seems a little backwards considering the issues raised by other departments
could greatly impact the site plan. For example:
1. Does this project require an onsite transformer with significant setbacks? This would essentially
remove a parking space from the project. Transformers are required to be open to the sky
which could impact the building locations. Has the applicant analyzed whether a transformer is
required for the project?
2. Engineering requires a conceptual drainage plan and notes that “there is limited space for
drainage and stormwater and those aspects should be considered in the design early in the
project planning.” Dry wells are proposed in the front yard of the property and in the city right
of way where a sidewalk is required on First Street. The stormwater proposal runs counter to
the design guidelines and the city’s policy on private infrastructure in the right of way. Is this
issue resolved?
The end of the alley at First Street does not adequately drain – it is a swamp in the summer and an ice
rink in the winter due to the grade sloping south from Main Street and north from West Hopkins, and
pooling at the end of this alley. This condition should be addressed in any civil and grading work to
avoid water damage in the lower level of the rear housing unit, and to ensure housing residents can
safely enter and exit the property in their vehicles, on foot, or on bicycles.
These are significant items that need to be addressed before the site plan and massing are approved by
HPC. I understand the desire to expedite an affordable housing project – however, addressing these
issues during your initial design review avoids approving a project that jeopardizes city infrastructure
and conflicts with other city goals.
Density
I remain concerned about the number of units and the number of bedrooms proposed. The applicant’s
design changes only decreased the livability of unit 301 by making it smaller rather than looking at a way
to combine units to reduce density and increase livability - for example, Units 201 and 301 could be
combined into a 4-bedroom unit. All of the units, with the exception of Unit 104, are smaller than the
minimum requirement. The need for variances from the City’s standards demonstrates that there are
just too many units and bedrooms jammed onto this property.
Parking
I remain concerned about the parking situation. Reducing density by combining units could assuage the
parking situation. A parking space should be available for each unit considering the lack of on-street
parking and limited ability to apply for residential parking passes.
Thank you for reading my concerns. I support affordable housing and agree that this is a great location
for an affordable housing project. My biggest concerns are the size and scale of the alley building, the
general livability for the future residents, and the infrastructure impacts that do not appear to have
been addressed but could greatly impact massing and site plan.
The applicant is generating small, cramped, unlivable units which should not be acceptable to the HPC.
Affordable housing projects should be about creating great living spaces for our local workforce, not
about maximizing density and minimizing unit sizes to generate the most housing credits possible. This
project is getting much better with HPC’s input. I urge the board to continue to balance historic
preservation with affordable housing and recommend a restudy of the alley building third floor. I
encourage HPC to request additional information like 3-D renderings and story poles to fully understand
the impacts of the proposal before granting approval. This project will be a part of the historic district
for the rest of our lifetimes, so let’s make sure that we take the time to get it right.
Sincerely,
David Scruggs
212 West Hopkins Avenue
From:Denice Reich
To:Amy Simon
Subject:205 West Main
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 8:56:19 AM
Amy,
In reference to 205 West Main St:
Please do not destroy this home to allow another “ocean liner” to be built next to this beautiful,
historic property, dwarfing it. Main Street is a gateway, and the city council of Aspen is allowing the
destruction of any remaining fiber of historic Aspen.
Denice Volk
Sent from Mail for Windows
From:Denice Reich
To:Amy Simon; Kate Johnson
Subject:205 W. Main
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 9:03:13 AM
Amy and Kate,
I am sick of the City of Aspen violating their own rules and regulations. I just read the Aspen Times
story about 205 W. Main St. :
· The proposed project's density and scale are in no way proportional
to the Victorian, as required by the historic preservation guidelines
· The proposed project does not meet the required open space
standards on the site, as required by the historic preservation
guidelines
· The Victorian makes a notable contribution to Aspen's historic
character, which prevents it from being moved, as stipulated in the
historic preservation guidelines
· The project is all wrong and antithetical to Aspen's historic
preservation values
· The recent trend of marginalizing historic properties by
building/adding enormous subsidized housing complexes must
stop
The City of Aspen is very hypocritical to not enforce their own rules/regulations that you force on
the private citizens of Aspen.
Denice Volk
Sent from Mail for Windows
From:Matt Levy
To:Amy Simon; Kate Johnson
Subject:205 W. Main Street project
Date:Sunday, November 6, 2022 4:32:15 PM
Amy and Kate - I live just below Clarks. Thank you for reviewing our concerns
below re 205 W. Main.
The proposed project's density and scale are in no way proportional to the
Victorian, as required by the historic preservation guidelines
The proposed project does not meet the required open space standards
on the site, as required by the historic preservation guidelines
The Victorian makes a notable contribution to Aspen's historic character,
which prevents it from being moved, as stipulated in the historic
preservation guidelines
The project is all wrong and antithetical to Aspen's historic preservation
values
The recent trend of marginalizing historic properties by building/adding
enormous subsidized housing complexes must stop
Any other thoughts about the inappropriateness of this proposal and
others like it
It is not HPC's role to assist developers in diminishing our historic buildings;
respectfully, they are the appointed stewards of Aspen's history. Please show
HPC your support for prioritizing our history over anything else.
All the best,
Matt Levy
183 Red Mountain Road
From:Stephen Slade
To:Amy Simon; Kate Johnson
Subject:205 West Main Street
Date:Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:21:37 PM
Dear Commission,
I urge you not to allow the proposed destruction of 205 West Main Street.
The density and scale are way out of proportion of the historical house.
There is supposed to be open space and this would eliminate it all.
This project takes Aspen even further away from the historical character that makes it Aspen.
The rendering of the proposed plan truly says it all, why not just bulldoze the historical
structure and put it out of its' misery?
We will all be reminded of this every time we go down Main Street, how painful!
We need for you all to be our historical commission, please, we are counting on you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Slade
25 years in Aspen
HPC Members,
While some may find her style to be contrary, or even combative, in the instance of the 205 W.
Main project, Elizabeth Milias' analysis is spot-on.
Historic Preservation aside for a moment, I believe small-scale Workforce housing development in
neighborhoods makes for community. Ordinance No. 13 Series of 2022 may have gone a bit far in allowing
multifamily AH in R-15 and R-30. But reasonably applied, a geographically distributed approach to increasing
Workforce Housing on a small scale (e.g. duplex, 3-4 plex) is a strategy that is actionable right away in
contrast to the "someday" endless and very expensive Lumberyard effort. Such an application in this instance
is appropropriate. But please keep in mind the charge of the HPC does not concern Workforce Housing. The
proposed development project (the truth about what the proposed project is!) is far off the mark of
the responsibility, intent and spirit of Historic Preservation.
Let's look back now to the focus of HPC's review in this matter. As is so often the case "a picture is worth a
1,000 words" - so true here. The photos Milias replicates in her RED ANT
���� column absolutely says it all. So
pardon me for trying to capture both the lovely scene (Existing Condition) VS. proposed new construction in
words:
EXISTING:
A beautiful Victorian framed by...NOTHING. As it was; historic in form, place, and context.
********************************************************************************
***********************
PROPOSED:
Hummm? "Historic"? Not even close folks; the new building dwarfs the historic
resource!
Note - HPC standards require the addition must be:
“...similar in scale and proportion to the historic home”
Clearly the application does not meet this important standard. The Code has standards - please apply
those carefully curated design principles.
I am struck how virtually every historic preservation application includes numerous variances. I would hope
that this trend can be recognized and understood in the context of the true definition of the need for a
variance in connection with a land use application. In the 205 W. Main application, the "need" for variances
are created by the development's proposed design. There is no need - but rather a desire; with the only
objective being the ability to create more units. Substandard living space dimensions? Why have minimum size
rules if a request for variance can be requested with no proven need? How is such a notion even allowed in
the application process? Extra 750 sq. ft building floor area - why? How can these requests be considered
under the guise of enhancing Historic Preservation? This project is a classic (bad) example of overcrowding;
hopelessly urban density. A single family home on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot morphs into 9 units? 22 bedrooms will
likely result in at least 30 occupants. Such density is really more akin to a small hotel than a residential
building- but worse as it will carry 100% occupancy year-round. And then the project provides only 7 parking
spaces. Whether within the rules of MU Zone district or not - no one can say this parking plan makes sense
with a straight face. There is much more to frown upon in this application - but nothing more needed to earn
denial than my foregoing observations and what the ANT has succinctly articulated.
Lastly, HPC - Historic Preservation Commission - as an unelected appointed body should not be empowered to
make material decisions on what in this case is clearly a new land use project application. The current policy of
allowing an unelected body to be the final authority on a new land use development application is an
abdication of the responsibility of City Council (See COA Home Rule Charter). I believe the current "Call-up"
process should be modified to result in City Council being the final authority in all land use applications. My
comment here is in no way a judgement of the individual HPC members' ability to evaluate an application and
apply the rules of the COA Land use Code provisions concerning Historic Preservation. In the instant matter,
however, the application conflates appropriate process. That is to say combining review (and even approval)
of a Historic Preservation effort together with a straight-forward high density new development project
cannot be rightly processed by HPC alone.
Please deny this application.
Thank you,
David Harris
117 Neale Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
davidharris24@gmail.com
(970) 379-1513