Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDavid Scruggs_Public CommentsFrom: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