HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.01.13 Staff Memo to HPC
Page 1 of 13
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2021
RE: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation,
Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits, Transportation and Parking Management, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
1020 Cooper LLC
James DeFrancia, Manager
REPRESENTATIVE:
BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
1020 E. Cooper Avenue
Legal Description:
The East 13.79’ of Lot O
and all of Lot P, Block 34,
East Aspen Addition to the
City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado
Parcel Identification
Number:
PID# 2737-182-32-006
CURRENT ZONING & USE
RMF (Residential Multi-
Family), Single-family home
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
RMF, Multi-family dwelling
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking
Management approvals for five multi-family units on a landmarked
property, to be condominiumized and deed restricted. Two of the
units will be located in the existing historic structure with a new
basement, and three are in a detached new structure located at
the rear of the property. Staff recommends approval of the project,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution.
Figure 1: 1020 E. Cooper Site Location
1020
Page 2 of 13
BACKGROUND:
1020 E. Cooper Avenue is a designated 4,379 square foot lot in the Residential Multi-Family
(RMF) zone district. The site contains a Victorian era home and two sheds of an unknown
construction date. This area of town was not included in the historic Sanborn maps that are
typically referenced by HPC in its decision-making, and no historic photos of this house have
been located. The only record of the building, other than what can be discovered on-site, is the
1896 Willit’s Map, which shows the footprint (Figure 2). Investigation of the framing of the house
has demonstrated that the form of the 19th century home remains intact.
The exterior of the house has been altered over time through replacement of materials and
windows (Figure 3).
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is seeking the following land use approvals. Please note that there are no
variations requested for the project:
• Conceptual Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to modify the site and the historic
resource, and to construct a new detached building along the alley.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) to relocate the historic resource to minimum front-yard
setback required by zoning (five feet) and to excavate a new basement and foundation
below the structure.
• Demolition (Section 26.415.080.A) to remove two non-historic outbuildings from the
property.
• Growth Management (Section 26.470.050.B) & (Section 26.470.070.4) to develop five
affordable housing units on the property.
• Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits (Section 26.540) to generate Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit.
Figure 3: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, 2019 Figure 2: Willit’s Map, 1896
Page 3 of 13
• Transportation & Parking Management (26.5151.010) to meet the minimum parking and
Transportation Mitigation standards.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the review authority on this application, however
Conceptual approval is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. Final approval will be needed
before the project proceeds to building permit.
Per Land Use Code section 26.304.035 the applicant was required to provide enhanced public
notice and neighborhood outreach, as is typical for projects of community interest. A website
and information meetings provided detailed information to those interested prior to this HPC
review.
STAFF COMMENTS: Exhibits A.1 through A.6 to this memo provide the review criteria for each
requested approval, and recommended findings. The following is a summary of those review
criteria and recommendations.
Conceptual Major Development
Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.2 of the Municipal Code states that Conceptual review approval shall
be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s)
and/or addition(s) including its height, scale, massing and proportions, therefore design
guidelines related to those topics are the focus of this review step. The details of the
preservation plan, landscape plan and fencing, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new
materials will be addressed at Final.
Staff finds the proposal to preserve the historic resource as free-standing, with a detached and
adequately distanced new structure at the rear of the lot to be a successful preservation
outcome. There are only a few examples of miner’s cottages in Aspen that have been preserved
with no significant addition, as this one will be.
Regarding the site plan, no variations are needed, and the applicant plans a traditional
landscaped setting adjacent to the historic resource with grass and planting beds. A tree that
straddles the property line with the neighbor to the east is being preserved in coordination with
the requirements of the Parks Department. Parking and infrastructure are all designed to meet
City requirements and located at the rear of the site as required. A preliminary stormwater
mitigation plan is provided, indicating a drywell will be located within the parking area. This
strategy is appropriate and has no effect on the historic resource.
The historic resource is to be placed on a new basement. The basement includes the required
egress lightwells, which have been located discretely on the sides of the building. The visual
impacts of the lightwells, including curb heights and protective grates, needs to be minimized for
Final review.
The applicant plans to retain the existing form of the historic resource including a modestly sized
1960s era non-historic addition, as is allowable within the preservation guidelines. As the project
evolves towards final design, details of an appropriate rehabilitation that reflects common
characteristics of Aspen’s mining era homes, such as a front porch, will be evaluated. Staff does
recommend one amendment to the project regarding the treatment of the historic home, which
is removal of the two storage closets proposed directly to the west side of the Victorian as
changes in the form reduce the architectural integrity of the building.
Page 4 of 13
Regarding the new building proposed along the alley, a detached structure is preferred by the
HPC guidelines and is allowed greater design flexibility than an addition to a historic resource
because demolition to historic fabric does not occur and the scale and integrity of the resource
are more authentically preserved.
The applicable guidelines for new construction as expressed in Chapter 11 are primarily written
to anticipate a new structure being proposed directly next to a historic resource, for instance in
a historic landmark lot split where the new and old structures would be side by side. The impact
of the height of the rear building on the historic resource will be reduced because of its placement
some distance behind it.
Staff supports the proposed new structure as the appropriate gestures towards the historic
resource have been made. The context of the property, and the fact that it is a mid-block lot,
allow for the addition to appear as a backdrop. It is unnecessary for the new building to have a
front porch, as suggested by guideline 11.2, because there would be no visibility from the street.
The architect has creating a relationship to the historic structure by using roof forms and material
references as required by guideline 11.6. The plate height on the upper floor is low at building
corners, with dormers used to balance massing and livability considerations.
Relocation
The existing home, except for a non-historic porch at the rear, is to be moved approximately 12’
forward and 2’ eastward. It will be placed on a new basement and will be elevated slightly above
the current relationship to grade to allow for positive drainage to be created. One step will be
constructed leading to the porch deck. Staff finds that the relocation criteria are met as the re-
positioning of the building on the site does not diminish its integrity or disrupt its relationship with
nearby historic resources and it allows new construction on the site to be adequately distanced
from the miner’s cottage while complying with all setback requirements.
Demolition
Two sheds at the rear of the property and partially sitting in the alley are proposed to be
demolished. These structures were not built concurrent with the primary home based on the
1896 Willit’s map, and they are not seen in 1920s era photos of the rear of the site available
from the Aspen Historical Society. The earliest documentation of them in place that staff has
located is a 1974 aerial photo. The property was designated as a representation of the 19th
century development of Aspen, therefore staff finds the sheds to be non-contributing to the
history of the property and appropriate for removal.
Growth Management and Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit:
A total of five deed-restricted affordable housing units are proposed for the site- two in the
historic resource and three in the rear building. This application was referred to APCHA for
review and recommendation. Community Development & APCHA staff are highly supportive of
this project and acknowledge the community benefit that five affordable housing units will bring.
The applicant seeks to establish 12.75 Certificates of Affordable Housing credits, which is
commensurate to the mitigation standards prescribed by APCHA. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.540.070, Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit, to determine
the number of certificates of affordable housing credits awarded to a project, the review
Page 5 of 13
standards outlined in Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.d.7.g, General Review, Affordable
Housing Mitigation, guide.
Standards for minimum net livable area are also provided. The project complies as shown in
the charts below.
Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Rear Structure
Units Bed
s
Basemen
t
(sf)
1st
Lev
el
(sf)
2nd
Level
(sf)
3rd
Leve
l
(sf)
Total
(sf)
Min.
FA
(sf)
Difference
(Expressed as
Percent)
3 2 436.5 471.
5
X X 908.1 900 1% above min.
4 3 X X 1,011.8 X 1,011.
8
1,20
0
16% below
min.
5 3 X X X 1,013 1,013.
0
1,20
0
16% below
min.
APCHA Standards
Unit Type Occupancy Standard
One bedroom 1.75 FTEs/Unit
Two-bedroom 2.25 FTEs/Unit
Three-bedroom 3.00 FTEs/Unit
PROPOSED CERTIFICATES
Two-bedroom 3 Units x 2.25 FTEs =6.75 FTEs
Three-bedroom 2 Units X 3.00 FTEs =6 FTEs
Total Proposed 12.75FTEs
Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Historic Resource
Units Bed
s
Basement
(sf)
Groun
d
Level
(sf)
Second
Level
(sf)*
Total
(sf)
Min.
(sf)
Difference
(sf)
1 2 462.5 450.4 103.9 1,016.
8
900 116.8 above
2 2 482.8 477.6 101.6 1,061.
6
900 162.0 above
Page 6 of 13
Three of the units exceed the minimum dimensional standards prescribed by APCHA, and two
of the units are roughly 16 percent below the minimum size requirements1. Four parking spaces
are provided on site (including an ADA-compliant space), which is well above the minimum
required2. The site will also contain plenty of outdoor area, including access to private patios
and porches. Each unit will contain a washer and dryer as well as extra storage space. Lastly,
as required in the Land Use Code, more than half the net livable area of each unit will be above
natural grade. Despite the slight reduction in size, staff considers these as high-quality units
that incorporate several valuable amenities.
Figure 5: Open Front Porch & Deck- as viewed from the front
of the property
Figure 4: Open Space between the Rear of the Historic
Resource and the Front of the Addition
Page 7 of 13
1. Unit dimensions may be reduced by up to 20 percent below the minimum if additional amenities
are provided to improve livability.
2. No on-site parking mitigation is required in the R/MF zone district. Mitigation can be 100% cash-
in-lieu or a mix of onsite and cash-in-lieu.
Figure 6: Parking Area- As Viewed from the Back of the Rear Addition
Page 8 of 13
Affordable housing and in-fill development are important City policy objectives, as stated in the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and reiterated in the 2012 AACP:
Our housing policy should bolster our economic and social diversity, reinforce variety, and
enhance our sense of community by integrating affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A
healthy social balance includes all income ranges and types of people. Each project should
endeavor to further that mix and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes…”
Within the area surrounding 1020 E.
Cooper, there is a limited number of deed-
restricted affordable units. As depicted in
Figure 7, only four deed-restricted units
are located within the immediate vicinity of
the property.
As proposed, this project will serve an
important role in achieving community
policy goals with respect to the location,
quantity, and quality of affordable housing
in Aspen.
Figure 7: Other Deed-Restricted Units in the
Area Immediately Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper
Existing deed-
restricted units
Page 9 of 13
1. On-street parking in this area requires a permit. The Parking Department caps the
number of permits per residence, minimizing on-street parking congestion in the area.
Transportation and Parking Management:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.060.C, Transportation & Parking Management, one
parking unit is required per residential unit within a multi-family development, in this case five.
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.
The Residential Multi-Family
(RMF) zone district allows 100
percent of parking mitigation
to be met via cash-in-lieu or
via a combination of cash-in-
lieu and on-site parking. This
is due to the location of the
zone district in the community,
proximal to mass transit,
walkable to all community services and amenities, and zoned to provide moderately dense
housing development. The site is located less than one minute from a bus stop and 0.2 miles
from the commercial center of town.
In addition to the transit and multi-modal services accessible to the site, four on-site parking
spaces are proposed, including one ADA-accessible space. These spaces are on the alley and
located beneath a covered area of the rear addition. Remaining parking mitigation will be met
via cash-in-lieu.
Staff supports the parking mitigation as proposed, and it complies with the regulations in the
Land Use Code. Providing on-site parking is generally preferred to cash-in-lieu as it reduces
adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, 80 percent of the
required parking mitigation will be met on-site, which contributes to the livability and quality of
this project. Furthermore, given the residential use of the surrounding neighborhood, on-street
parking exists throughout the area.1
In addition to the on-site parking,
the applicant has completed the
Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) for this project and plans to
provide a range of Mobility
Measures that satisfy the
requirements of the Engineering
and Parking Departments. At this
point, the applicant has indicated
that car-sharing and bike-sharing
memberships will be made
available to tenants for a minimum
of one year. Bicycle parking will
also be provided on-site, and other
infrastructure improvements will be
made to encourage alternative
1 Min.
180 ft.
1020 East
Cooper
Bus
Stop
Commercial
Area
4 Min.
0.2 Miles
Page 10 of 13
transportation choices. The TIA is subject to change and will be assessed at building permit.
Staff included a condition in the Resolution prohibiting Mobility Measures from occupying any of
the off-street parking spaces on the property.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Residential Design Standards found at Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code apply only to
the new structure 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. The applicant has provided a compliance form which has been verified
through a staff level approval.
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. Fire flow calculations will be required if a 4-inch service line is needed. Calculations that
show a 2-inch service line fails will also need to be provided.
2. The conceptual drainage report calls out that the alley will be re-designed to accommodate
flows to the curb and gutter, this design will need to be included with capacity calculations.
3. The transformer to the east has an existing easement that, according to the conceptual
drainage report, is adequately sized for a future relocation. Show the dimensions of the
easement (on 1020 E. Cooper and the neighboring property) on the utility plan to confirm
the easement meets COA Electric standards for transformer easements. If the dimensions
do not comply with COA standards, the easement will need to be adjusted during building
permit review.
Building:
1. Fire sprinklers are required with five units on the site regardless of the fire area measurement.
2. There cannot be an emergency escape and egress window well in a walkway.
3. Amendments to the IBC require 3% of the parking to be electric vehicle charging stations
capable of supporting future EVCS. A 208/240 volt branch circuit or listed raceway to
accommodate future installation shall be installed. Service panel or sub panel circuit shall
provide capacity for a dedicated 40 amp circuit.
4. Demonstrate compliance with IBC 1107.7.1.1 at least one story containing dwelling units
shall be provided with an accessible entrance on an accessible route and shall comply as a
Type B unit.
5. Ensure the steel beam between the van accessible spot and the aisle won’t block access
from an accessible van’s passenger rear side door as that would normally be how the aisle
is utilized from the van.
6. Trash enclosure is required to be on an accessible route. Demonstrate required door
maneuvering clearances inside the enclosure.
7. Demonstrate compliant common path of egress travel distances from each unit, measured
from the most remote point within each unit to the exit discharge.
8. All new roofs or re-roofed areas are required to be a class A rated roof assembly.
Page 11 of 13
9. Eaves and exterior walls within 5’ of the property line require 1 hour fire rated construction.
10. Snow guards are also required on the historic home, not just the new construction.
11. All guards are required to be 42-inches tall in an IBC building unless you are inside the
dwelling unit.
12. Storage closed under the common stair to the upper units requires a compliant dwelling
separation for the closet ceiling.
13. Provide compliant approach to the washer dryer.
14. Closet doors need to provide 32” clear opening.
Parks:
1. Maintain 10-foot dripline protection for shared tree – Any activity or excavation in this area
will require City Forester approval.
2. Planting trees back on this property should be explored and supported.
Environmental Health
1. This space is subject to the requirements of a multi-family complex and is required to provide
120 square feet of space to the storage of trash and recycling. The current application
exceeds these standards by providing 124 SF.
2. Applicant indicates alley access will be facilitated by the ADA parking access to provide an
unobstructed path to the trash area.
3. Applicant has indicated this space will be equipped with bear-proof technology to prevent
wildlife access.
APCHA
1. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a deed restriction must be recorded and must comply with
the APCHA Regulations in effect at the time that said deed restriction is approved and
recorded.
2. Each bedroom must contain a closet.
3. Each unit shall contain a washer and dryer, along with all other appliances.
4. The units that do not meet the minimum size requirements are acceptable as they are within
the 20% reduction limitation and fit the criteria for said reduction acceptance.
5. Upon certificate of occupancy, affordable housing credits can be provided for up to a total of
12.75 FTE’s based on the generation rate established in the Regulations and calculated as
follows:
3 2-bedrooms X 2.25/bedroom = 6.75
2 3-bedrooms X 3.00/bedroom = 6.00
TOTAL 12.75 FTE’s
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public comment received prior to packet deadline is attached as Exhibit C. Staff will be prepared
to respond to questions in more detail at the HPC hearing. To briefly address some topics
requiring clarification, a letter submitted on behalf of the HOAs for the condominiums on the east
and west sides of the subject lot suggests that the application is proposing unlawful selling of
the individual units prior to subdivision. At the conclusion of construction, prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy, the standard practice is for the City to process a condominium
application separating ownership, and to work with the applicant and APCHA to record deed
Page 12 of 13
restrictions that will ensure the proper occupancy of the units in perpetuity. The sale of the
legally condominiumized units does not violate the requirements of affordable housing deed
restrictions for rental properties, so long as the occupant of the rental units meets applicable
APCHA requirements.
The same letter expresses concern that the project is not complying with ADA requirements and
that the ADA parking space on the property is exclusively for the use of a person with a disability.
The Building Department has, through a detailed preliminary evaluation, worked with the
architect to ensure ADA compliance. The ADA parking space will be associated with the
accessible unit, which may or may not be occupied by individuals requiring such accessibility.
The presence of the unit and appropriate design features to permit ADA occupancy is sufficient
to meet the law. The Building Department and Fire Department have also preliminarily
confirmed that the project meets required Fire Codes as proposed. The project must meet
required distances and precautions related to its own property lines, not related to the distance
of adjacent structures. The units will have fire sprinklers.
A question has been raised as to the options for development on this property given that it is
smaller than the standard minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Certain dimensional
requirements, as described in Code section 26.710.090(d), apply to the zone district (RMF),
including a minimum lot width of 60 ft., . Here, the subject parcel is less than 60 ft. wide, and
therefore does not meet the applicable zone district’s minimum dimensions. Because there is
a historic structure on the lot, the lot itself is considered a historic lot of record, as provided for
in section 26.312.050(c):
“A lot of record containing a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures need not meet the minimum lot area requirements of its zone district
to allow the uses that are permitted and conditional uses in the zone district subject to
the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26-415.”
This code section assumes that, because a lot of record does not meet the minimum lot area for
the underlying zone, it will by definition fail to meet one or more other dimensional requirements
(i.e. width or length). It explicitly permits development on such lots in recognition of their historic
condition. Whether it is due to shortages in lot length or width, failure to meet the dimensional
lot area requirements of the underlying zone district is not grounds to prohibit use of the site for
multi-family development as historic lot exemptions apply. The proposed use of a multi-family
residence is allowed in the zone district (RMF). See section 26.710.90(b).
One other important note is that, while it is true that section 26.312.030 states that
nonconforming structures may not be extended or enlarged, the section expressly provides that
Historic Structures are again cause for exception with regard to dimensional criteria. Historical
structures may be extended into the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, and may also
be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the project, and the achievement of community goals through the preservation of
a historic resource and development of affordable housing units within an established multi-
family neighborhood in the infill area are supported by adopted City regulations and policies.
Staff recommends the following motion:
Page 13 of 13
“HPC finds this application to comply with the requirements and limitations of the
Land Use Code related to Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition,
Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, and
Transportation and Parking Management approval as well as the dimensional
requirements of the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district and hereby
approves the application subject to the conditions listed in Resolution X, Series of
2021.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2021
Exhibit A.1 – Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Relocation/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 – Demolition/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.4 – Growth Management/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.5 – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.6 – Transportation & Parking Management/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
Exhibit C – Public Comments