Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 26_ScruggsFrom:David Scruggs To:Kate Johnson; Amy Simon Cc:Rich Corbett; Bart Holtzman Subject:RE: Development of Affordable Housing at 205 West Main—Hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission 10/26/2022 Date:Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:43:19 AM Attachments:643ca0eb-2efc-4ecf-989e-b824111b71f2.png Kate and Amy —please distribute these comments to The Historic Preservation Commission Members as soon as possible for their consideration and include this email in the record. Thank you.  Historic Preservation Commission Members  We are not surprised that staff recommends support for the project. Unfortunately it would appear the policy is to support Affordable Housing in any form regardless of its impact on a landmark or the Main Street  historic district. It would appear Affordable Housing no matter the consequences is staff’s top priority. We hope the Historic Preservation Commission will take a broader view and require this project to be compatible with the neighborhood and the on site landmark, and not grant the  Five (5) variances requested. Each variance request may appear small but in the aggregate they become material and excessive. Please DENY the variances requested for: FLOOR AREA 50% ABOVE GRADE SQUARE FOOTAGE SUBSTANDARD SIZE UNITS ON SITE PARKING REQUIREMENT DERTH OF OUTDOOR COMMON AREA AND OPEN SPACE We want to make it clear that we support workforce affordable housing , but question the density, mass, height, compatibility with the neighborhood and the on site Victorian, and failure to provide adequate parking and open space for this project.  We do not agree with Amy’s assertion that Chapter 3, Main Street guidelines, do not apply. There needs to be some relationship of the development to the historic district. It is illogical to disregard the Main Street Historic District Guidelines for a Historic property on Main Street,   The character statements about the Main Street Historic District remain relevant to the project. The Special Review criteria for both the floor area increase and the below grade housing units require a finding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood. The staff memo does not analyze the surrounding historic context or relate the project to the character defining features of the Main Street Historic District.  205 West Main is surrounded by 8 landmarks shown in the orange outline. The proposed mass and scale of the VERY LARGE three story buildings will permanently change the context of this corner and degrade these 9 historic landmarks. If this project is constructed as recommended by staff we will not be able to reverse this deviation and destruction of the historic nature of Main Street and that historic quality will be FOREVER lost.  The staff memo says “clearly the new development is larger than the resource.  This is permitted by the zone district. The key is to mitigate the impacts, which has been pursued by both the site plan choices and the architectural design.”  The Mixed Use Zone District establishes a maximum floor area with the ability to increase the floor area through Special Review.  In fact, the Mixed Use Zone District states the following about maximum floor area specifically citing historic resources as a reason to NOT ACHIEVE  maximum build out .“The dimensional standards and allotments provided in this Section for commercial and mixed-use developments are the maximum allowable for the zone and may not be achieved for all developments. Site constraints, historic resources, on-site mitigation and replacement requirements, and other factors may prevent development from achieving some or all of the maximum allowable dimensional standards.” The Staff claims that the extra 750 sq ft of floor area requested though Special Review facilitates large lightwells only, but this is a misleading. Lightwells are required egress from the below grade units, and large lightwells are part of the applicant’s argument for more than 50% of the unit location below grade. Not allowing the extra floor area will reduce the above grade massing if the applicant wants to get a variation for the below grade housing units, OR will push the applicant to meet housing standards and redesign the units to be more than 50% above grade.  This is a product of the applicant asking for too many variations through Special Review for a historic project.   The substandard size of the units needs attention as more than half of the proposed units need a variation through Special Review. We agree the property is located close to transportation and the Aspen core. However , it is a stretch of credulity to contend that 9 units with 21 bedrooms will result in only 7 cars and parking places. Realistically , we can assume there will be at least 18 cars and/or trucks and only 7 onsite parking places. As we previously pointed out ,in the block bounded by West Main and West Hopkins between 1st and 2nd Streets, there  are 43 dwelling units with only 29 parking places provided on site, including this proposal at 205 West Main. That one block will have a deficit of 14 parking places on site. This parking deficit will severely impact the quality of life for the affordable housing occupants as well as the neighbors and neighborhood. Combined with smaller subgrade units and barely any storage, the lack of parking brings into question the actual livability of this project for future residents. We ask that the HPC provide on site parking at a minimum ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT plus ONE. It is ridiculous that staff finds there is “plenty of outdoor common area and open space” considering the space between buildings is so limited they cannot even plant any trees.  The common area is vey small to accommodate a potential 21 occupants (one per bedroom). The Common space will be shaded most if not all of the day becaus of its location and the three story surrounding buildings and will receive little Sunshine. The staff memo fails to address all of the review criteria – mainly how the proposed units are compatible with the overall neighborhood, and how the proposed amount of housing units is an appropriate response to site constraints. The landmark is a roughly 900 sf footprint on a 7,500 sf lot. This means that the landmark takes up 12% of the site coverage on the lot. That is NOT a site constraint.    There is too much MASS proposed on this corner property.  We understand staff’s mandate to recommend approval of any and all affordable housing projects and to maximize the number employees housed; but we respectfully ask HPC to follow the adopted purpose and intent in the Land Use Code and request a restudy of the project to reduce mass and scale, protect the landmark, relate to the historic district, and to provide more space around the landmark. Adopted HP purpose and intent are below.   a. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; b. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; c. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; d. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and e. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. f. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors.   In summary we request the following: Size and Scale- REMOVE the THIRD FLOOR and REMOVE SUBSTANDARD SIZE Site Plan- PROVIDE MORE OPEN SPACE Density- REDUCE the NUMBER of UNITS to SIX. Parking - PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT plus ONE Thank you for reading our concerns. AGAIN, we support affordable housing and agree that this is a good location for an affordable housing project. Our biggest concerns are the size and scale of the new construction relative to the one and half story landmark, and the general livability for the future residents considering the units are smaller than required, subgrade, with very limited storage and open space and inadequate parking space. This project as presented is detrimental to the occupants, neighbors and neighborhood and should be revised to address the inherent problems and NO variances should be granted. I regret I have not been allowed to participate by Webex or telephone and apologize that I am not able to attend in person as I am out of town during this part of the off season. Having said that, please feel free to call me at 9014934820 during your meeting to answer any questions you wish to propound. I will be sure to be available. Respectfully submitted David Scruggs 212 West Hopkins Avenue 9014934820 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