HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_205 W. Main_Affordable Housing Development
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
Kevin Rayes, Planner
RE: 205 W. Main Street | Historic Preservation Conceptual Major Development |
Relocation | Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits | Growth Management
Quota System | Special Review | Transportation and Parking Management
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2022- PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER
26, 2022
Applicant/Owner:
Conservation Housing Partners LLC, c/o
Michael Brown
605 W. Main Street, Suite 2, Aspen, CO
81611
Representatives:
Clauson Rawley Associates, Inc. (FKA
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.)
Location:
Street Address:
205 W. Main Street
Legal Description:
Lots H and I and the East fifteen (15’)
feet of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-124-54-003
Current Zoning & Use:
Mixed Use (MU), Single Family Home
Proposed Zoning & Use:
Mixed Use (MU), Multi-family Affordable
Housing
Summary:
The applicant requests Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Growth
Management Quota system, Special Review, and
Transportation and Parking Management to develop nine
affordable housing units on the subject property. The existing
historic resource is to be moved towards the northeast corner
of the site, with new development to be placed along the alley
and the west side of the property. Two of the units will be
located within the landmark structure, four of the units will be
located within the west building, and three units are proposed
in an alley structure. Staff recommends approval of the project,
subject to the conditions listed in the proposed resolution.
Figure 1: Subject Property | 205 W. Main Street
205
Figure 2: Subject Property | View from Main Street
Page | 2
UPDATE FROM OCTOBER 26
On October 26th, HPC reviewed the application to develop affordable housing on the subject
property and voted to continue the project for restudy. HPC’s feedback was related to the massing
of the new building proposed at the front of the property, adjacent to the historic resource. The
applicant studied reducing a portion of the third floor of the north-facing façade by pulling the
massing away from Main Street by 14 ½ feet to the benchmark gridline for which HPC provided
as a reference point. The applicant also studied an alternative design for which the front façade
of the building is pulled back 9 feet from the originally presented location. Staff finds that both
options are successful and responsive to the feedback provided by HPC as both options meet the
provisions of the Land Use Code. The details related to each option are broken down below:
Option B: Pull Back Front Façade by 14 ft. 6 inches (Per HPCs Feedback)
Unit Size:
A two-bedroom unit with 866 sq. ft. of Net Livable Area was previously proposed on the third floor
of the new building. The revised design would reduce that unit to one-bedroom with a Net Livable
Area of 561 sq. ft.
Floor Area Ratio:
The previous design proposed a Floor Area Ratio of 1:1.:1 or 8,250 sq. ft. The revised design
reduces the Floor Area Ratio to 1.01:1 or 7,586 sq. ft.
14.5 ft.
Page | 3
Option A: Pull Back Front Façade by 9 ft. (Alternative Approach for Consideration)
Unit Size:
A two-bedroom unit with 866 sq. ft. of Net Livable Area was previously proposed on the third floor
of the new building. The revised design would reduce that unit to one-bedroom with a Net Livable
Area of 641 sq. ft.
Floor Area Ratio:
The previous design proposed a Floor Area Ratio of 1:1.:1 or 8,250 sq. ft. The revised design
reduces the Floor Area Ratio to 1.02:1 or 7,667 sq. ft.
REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
The Applicant is requesting the following approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to demolish a small non-historic addition to the
Victorian, as well as three non-historic sheds, and to construct two new detached buildings
which form an “L” shape along the rear and west sides of the historic resource.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) to move the historic resource onto a new basement.
• Growth Management (Section 26.470.050.B) & (Section 26.470.070.4) to develop nine
affordable housing units on the property.
• Special Review (Section 26.430.040.A) to allow an increase in maximum Floor Area.
• Special Review (Section 26.430.040.I) to vary subgrade living area from the dimensional
standards prescribed in the Land Use Code and APCHA development Guidelines.
• Transportation & Parking Management (Section 26.515.010) to meet onsite parking and
Transportation Mitigation standards and Special Review to waive cash-in-lieu for remaining
parking requirements.
• Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit (Section 26.540) to issue the Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit.
9 ft.
Page | 4
BACKGROUND:
205 W. Main Street is a landmarked property located within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and
the Main Street Historic District. The property contains a Victorian-era single-family dwelling and
non-historic shed structures on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. The dwelling was constructed circa 1890 and
moved to its current location in 1949, where the Chisholm family made it their long-time home.
The original design and materials of the resource are substantially intact, including wood siding
and shingles in the gables, a porch with original decorative features, and a dormer as originally
constructed. Much of the outdoor vegetation appears consistent with the historic landscape from
the time the cottage was relocated.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to develop nine affordable housing units on the property. These units are
not required for mitigation purposes and are intended to generate Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credits, which can be used to meet mitigation requirements for other projects.
The dwelling units will be housed in three different structures. Two of the units will be located
within the historic resource, four of the units will be located within a proposed building located
adjacent to the historic structure, and three of the units will be in a new structure located at the
rear of the property. A mix of one, two and three-bedroom dwelling units are proposed.
Both new buildings are detached from the landmark structure. All improvements will comply with
the setback and height standards prescribed within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. A total of
seven off-street parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the property.
Pending approval of this application, a total of 23.8 Affordable Housing Certificates will be
generated, which is consistent with the Land Use Code (Table I).
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff comments are broken down below, based on code section. Each topic is addressed in
further detail in an associated exhibit to this memo.
Conceptual Major Development and Relocation:
To develop this property as multi-family housing, the applicant proposes to site the historic
resource prominently at a street intersection, free-standing and exposed to view/public enjoyment
on all sides, and in a traditional landscaped setting abutted with grass, planting beds and outdoor
living space. Staff supports the plan to re-position the Victorian. It is not original to this site and
there is not a strong historic context on this block-face. The building will have high public visibility
and will be among a small group of Victorian homes preserved in Aspen with no addition. Staff
has amended the attached resolution to incorporate the applicant’s request that the financial
guarantee for relocation be provided at permit issuance, not permit submittal.
New construction is to be placed to the rear and side of the historic home. No site plan related
variations are needed for this project. Staff finds the amount of unbuilt area in the form of front
and side setbacks, and the common space between the structures, to create the site porosity
called for in the design guidelines. In addition, the public right-of-way on the east side of the lot
is to be converted from head in parking to a lawn with grass and street trees, which will restore a
historic landscape condition that has been lost for many years.
Page | 5
Staff does recommend some restudy, clarified in the exhibit and resolution, to ensure that the
walkway approaching the resource is appropriately scaled, and that the landscape is simple and
designed for functional use by residents.
Placement of parking and other infrastructure needs at the rear of the lot is appropriate. The
applicant proposes demolition of some clearly not historic sheds that are currently in this area.
Further information on the plan for stormwater management is being discussed between the
applicant and Engineering Department and will be presented at Final.
Specifics of building restoration, building materials, landscape and lighting will also be addressed
at Final, however staff has identified one massing related restoration opportunity to be guaranteed
now, which is the removal of a section of over-framed roof at the rear of the structure, to restore
the original roofline.
Regarding the proposed new structures, staff finds that compatibility is achieved along the Main
Street and First Street frontages, particularly where gable roofs of a similar height and proportion
to the Victorian’s are placed adjacent to the resource. Additionally, the strong front porch
relationship on Main and the uniform first floor plate height carried through the development
achieves an appropriate scale relationship. Although there is third floor living space in the new
structure, where it is closest to the historic resource it is entirely encompassed in a pitched roof
with no sidewalls. Clearly the new development is larger than the resource. This is permitted by
the zone district. The key is to mitigate impacts, which has been pursued by both the site plan
choices and the architectural design. Staff supports the proposed new structures as the
appropriate gestures towards the historic resource have been made. Compatibility is being
achieved by the new structure referencing the historic building, but not copying it, through form,
materials, and fenestration. Staff appreciates HPC’s guidance from the October meeting, aimed
at improving the historic preservation outcome by eliminating an area of third level mass next to
the resource. While a bedroom is lost from the affordable housing program, the affected unit
gains a deck not previously featured. Below are comparisons of the options before the board.
Renderings are provided in the packet and a computer generated model will be presented at the
meeting.
Page | 6
Page | 7
Page | 8
Bldg. A
(Landmark)
Beds Lower
Level (sf)
1st Level
(sf)
2nd Level
(sf)
Total
(sf)
Min.
(sf)
Difference
(sf)
% Below
Grade
Unit 1 3 482 415 276 1,173 1,200 27 below 41%
Unit 2 2 428 394 X 822 900 78 below 52%
Table I: Unit Size/Configuration within Landmark Building “A”
Growth Management, Special Review and
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits:
As previously mentioned, a total of nine units
are proposed for development. Two of the
units will be located within the landmark
structure (“Bldg. A”), four of the units will be
located within a new building adjacent to the
historic landmark (“Bldg. B”), and three units
will be located within a new building located at
the rear of the property (“Bldg. C”). A mix of
one, two and three-bedroom dwelling units are
proposed.
As represented in Tables I-III, eight of the nine
units fall slightly below the minimum unit size
standards required by APCHA.
Additionally, the Code discourages more than
fifty percent of Net Livable Area to be located
below grade. Four of the nine units exceed this
threshold by a slight margin.
Bldg. A
(Landmark) Bldg. B
(New Addition)
Bldg. C
(New Addition)
Parking Area
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan
Unit 6 2 X X X 866 866 900 34 below X 1 561 561 139 below 700 Unit 6
(Option 1)
Unit 6 2 X X X 866 866 900 34 below X 1 641 641 59 below 700 Unit 6
(Option 2)
Table II: Unit Size/Configuration within New Building “B”
Page | 9
When minimum unit size is not met, or when more than half the livable area of a unit is located
below grade, alternative amenities that contribute towards livability may be considered. Unit size
may be reduced by up to twenty percent and subgrade area may exceed fifty percent if a mix of
the following amenities are provided:
1. Significant storage space located outside the unit:
As represented in Table IV, a total of nine external storage units are proposed. The units vary in
size between approximately 11 sq. ft. to 21 sq. ft. Staff has included a condition of approval that
prioritizes the larger storage areas for use by the three-bedroom dwelling units and the smaller
storage areas for use by the one and two-bedroom dwelling units.
2. Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space:
While the floorplan of each unit is unique, staff finds that the general layout of the units provide
an efficient use of space. Each bedroom has its own closet, each unit will include a washer and
dryer, and the kitchen and general living area of each unit is large enough to accommodate
multiple tenants.
Number of
Storage Units
Approximate
Unit Size (per unit)
3 ~11 sq. ft.
2 ~13 sq. ft.
2 ~18 sq. ft.
2 ~21 sq. ft.
Bldg. C
(Addition)
Beds Lower
Level (sf)
1st Level
(sf)
2nd Level
(sf)
3rd Level
(sf)
Total
(sf)
Min.
(sf)
Difference
(sf)
% Below
Grade
Unit 7 2 442 422 X X 864 900 36 below 51%
Unit 8 3 X X 1,176 X 1,176 1,200 24 below X
Unit 9 3 X X X 1,048 1,048 1,200 152 below X
Table III: Unit Size/Configuration within New Building “C”
Table IV: External Storage Units
Page | 10
3. Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space:
The property includes
several shared open
areas as well as private
open space. As depicted
in Figure 4, some of the
units contain outdoor
decks and patios. The
front yard also provides
valuable common outdoor
area.
The application makes representations that the space between buildings may function as
an area for tenants to congregate, grill and socialize, which is something that staff supports
as an on-site amenity. With that said, staff does encourage the applicant to consider the
practicality of how the space between buildings might be used. For example, the area
between the historic resource and the rear building will likely be shaded for much of the
day. Ice buildup may cause hazardous walking conditions or render the space unusable
during winter months. Ice-melt might be an appropriate option for this area. Additionally,
this space is located adjacent to the windows and window-wells of several dwelling units.
The noise from social gatherings may adversely impact the well-being of tenants located
in adjacent units. Noise-reducing glass or other noise mitigation features within this area
might be worthy of consideration.
Figure 5: First Floor Outdoor Common Area
Key
Common area
between buildings
Window well
Window
Figure 4: Outdoor Open Space, Patios, and Decks
Page | 11
Lastly, the prime location of this property cannot be overstated. As depicted in Figure 6,
205 W. Main is located 0.2 miles (or four minutes walking) from the Commercial Core
(CC). The property is
located one block from
Paepcke park and is
adjacent to the RFTA bus
line. The proximity to jobs,
public transportation,
recreation, and other
services is perhaps the
most notable contributor
towards the livability of
these units.
Affordable Housing Credits:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.540.050.6, a multiplier of 1.2 FTEs is applied
to affordable housing units located within a
historic resource. This multiplier recognizes the
additional costs related to preservation efforts of
designated structures. Tables V and VI
breakdown the number of credits generated
within the historic resource and the credits
generated from the two additions.
205
4 min
0.2 miles
Figure 6: Subject Property Distance from Commercial Core
Table VI: Proposed FTEs Housed Within Additions
Table V: Number of FTEs Housed Per
Bedroom
Table V: Proposed FTEs Housed Within Historic Resource
Proposed Certificates (Within Resource) Multiplier for units within Historic
Resource
Total
Two Bedroom 1 unit x 2.25 FTEs X 1.2 2.7 FTEs
Three Bedroom 1 unit x 3.00 FTEs 3.6 FTEs
Total Proposed 6.3 FTEs
APCHA Standards
Unit Type Mitigation Standard
One Bedroom 1.75 FTEs
Two-Bedroom 2.25 FTEs
Three-Bedroom 3.00 FTEs
Proposed Certificates (within new buildings) Total
One Bedroom 1 unit x 1.75 FTEs 1.75 FTEs
Two Bedroom 3 Units X 2.25 FTEs 6.75 FTEs
Three Bedroom 3 Units x 3.00 FTEs 9 FTEs
Total Proposed 17.5 FTEs
Page | 12
Transportation and Parking Management – The City’s parking regulations are the result of
professional parking studies, Council consideration, and public input, and they are applied
objectively to all development types. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.060.C,
Transportation & Parking Management, one parking unit is required for each AH dwelling unit; in
this case, nine parking units for nine dwelling units.
The Mixed-Use zone district
requires sixty percent of parking
mitigation to be met with off-street
parking, resulting in a minimum of
5.4 on-site spaces. The remaining
forty percent of parking mitigation
may be met via cash-in-lieu or
through a combination of cash-in-
lieu and off-street parking.
The applicant proposes to provide
seven onsite parking spaces, which
exceeds the minimum required.1 As
represented in Figure 7, the spaces
are accessed from the rear alley.
Additionally, each dwelling unit may
receive one on-street parking pass
from the Parking Department.
As previously mentioned, because this property is located within the Aspen Infill Area, basic
services, jobs, and outdoor activities can be accessed by walking, biking, or using public
transportation. The central location of this property offers a high level of mobility and accessibility
to destinations throughout Aspen and Down Valley without relying on a car. Staff finds that seven
on-site spaces meet code requirements and will provide sufficient parking for the tenants who
choose to own a car.
The remaining two parking units are required to be met via cash-in-lieu. The applicant has
requested a parking waiver from the Historic Preservation Commission instead of meeting the
cash-in-lieu provision. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.080, Special Review, the
Historic Preservation Commission may vary or waive off-street parking requirements based on
the following:
1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses
of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking
opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-
street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown
area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and
employees.
2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically
difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
1 2 4 3 5 6 7
Figure 7: Proposed Off-Street Parking Spaces
Page | 13
Special Review to Waive Parking Fee-in-Lieu. On-site parking reductions are permitted for
designated historic properties unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning due to the existence of a historic resource. In these circumstances, alternative
mitigation in the form of cash-in-lieu, pursuant to Chapter 26.515, may be accepted by HPC for
commercial development. HPC may waive cash-in-lieu for residential development.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of
payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate
an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
Parking waivers are generally considered when an off-street parking space blocks the view or
negatively impacts the integrity of a historic resource. While adequate on-site parking mitigation
has been provided, staff does not support waiving the remaining cash-in-lieu that is required.
The revenue derived from this funding source helps to fund RFTA, parking enforcement, and
other transportation needs. The tenants of this development will likely use and benefit from the
various transportation services provided in Aspen. Full mitigation should be provided to help
fund these essential services.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Residential Design Standards found at Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code apply only to
the new structures proposed for this site. RDS review is an administrative process which does
not require public notice or evaluation by HPC. The standards applicable to multi-family
development are limited and staff has verified compliance.
DRC REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will
significantly affect the permit review. The applicant responded to initial feedback from these
departments by revising their application to what is being presented to HPC. Following is a
summary of topics that may require further study before HPC Final review or as part of the building
permit process. All are expected to be resolvable.
Engineering:
1. A conceptual utilities plan is required to show where a transformer to support the
development will be placed. A single-phase transformer with a 5x5 vault may be needed.
An easement to accommodate the transformer with 3’ clear zones surrounding the sides
and back of the transformer and 10’ clear in the front shall be required. Alternatively, the
applicant may work with the COA Electric Department to determine available capacity in
the transformer in the alley to the west.
2. A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to determine appropriate site mass and
scale and demonstrate the site can still accommodate stormwater requirements onsite. A
full conceptual drainage plan and report as outlines in the URMP will be required at HPC
detailed review.
3. The site is not in a sidewalk deferred zone and a sidewalk will be required on First Street.
The sidewalk shall be 5 ft. wide with a 5 ft. landscape buffer.
4. Existing head-in parking shall be removed and replaced with the COA standard street cross
section with parallel parking.
Zoning:
1. The BBQ as depicted in plan sheet A1.02 shall not be located between a street and a structure
if built in with a hard gas line. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.e.5.m, there
shall be a structure between the street and the BBQ.
Page | 14
2. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.e.5.t, Wildlife Resistant Trash and Recycling
Enclosures Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling enclosure located in Mixed-Use zone districts
are not exempt from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements
for utility/trash/recycle areas. The minimum side yard setback is five feet. If the trash enclosure
area has a roof, it shall count as Floor Area and shall meet setback standards. If it is a fenced
area (max 6 ft. tall fence), it will not count as Floor Area and may be located within setback.
3. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.d.2, Vertical Circulation, elevators count as
Floor Area on every level except the topmost level that the elevator serves.
Parks:
1. Several healthy mature trees have a mitigation value of $38,000 (subject to change at the
time of building permit). A Tree Removal Permit shall be required at the time of Building
Permit.
2. The proposed development shall not impact the roots of the trees to remain on-site. The
City Forester may require air-spading to expose roots.
3. The applicant shall remove crab apple trees and plant back species as directed by City
Forester.
4. Additional trees shall be planted as determined by the City Forester at the time of building
permit.
5. If sidewalk, curb, and gutter are to be replaced, a root barrier at edges of the curb and north
side of walk may be required.
6. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the trees located along S. First Street.
APCHA
1. All bedrooms shall contain a closet.
2. All units shall contain kitchen appliances.
3. All units shall include a washer and dryer.
4. If the units are to remain as rental units, all units must be sold to a qualified Pitkin County
employer approved by APCHA prior to purchase.
5. An approved deed restriction provided by APCHA will need to be signed by each owner at
the time of purchase and recorded. The deed restriction will require minimum occupancy (at
least one person per bedroom). If the tenants are all adults, all must be working full time within
Pitkin County as stipulated in the APCHA Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the project, and the achievement of community goals through the preservation of
a historic resource and development of affordable housing units, a by-right use within the Mixed-
Used (MU) zone district, in the infill area, supported by adopted City regulations and policies. The
project is within the development rights available to the site. Staff recommends the following
motion:
“HPC finds this application to comply with the requirements and limitations of the
Land Use Code related to Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Growth
Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Special Review and
Transportation and Parking Management as well as the dimensional requirements
of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and hereby approves the application subject to
the conditions listed in Resolution X, Series of 2022.”
Page | 15
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #___, Series of 2022
Exhibit A.1 – HP Guidelines Criteria
Exhibit A.2 – Relocation Criteria
Exhibit A.3 – Growth Management Review Criteria | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.4 – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.5 – Special Review | Subgrade Living Area | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.6 – Special Review | Floor Area | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.7 – Transportation & Parking Management | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.8 – Special Review | Fee-in-lieu for Parking | Staff Findings
Exhibit B – DRC Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Public Comment submitted for November 16
Exhibit D.1 – November 16 Amendment to Application
Exhibit D.2 – Renderings of Option 1 (Per HPCs Feedback)
Exhibit D.3 – Renderings of Option 2 (Alternative Design)
Exhibit D.4 – October 26 Major Development Application